Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-03-30
brief IN HARVESTER SUIT
IS FILED BY GOVERNMENT
Combats Arguments Advanced by
Company in Support OF
Its Appeal.
CONTROVERSY FUNDAMENTAL
Question Declared to BE, "ShaIl Com
petitive System Continue? Shall
Competition, Not Combination, BE
Law OF Trade"

WASHINGTON, March 2o-The gov
ernments brief in the antitrust suit to
dissolve the International Harvester
Company was filed to-day in the STU
preme Court. 1t is directed largely
toward combating arguments adj
vanced in the company's brief in sup
port Of Its appeal after the district
court for Minnesota had declared il a
combination in restraint Of trade, and
ordered its dissolution
III defendants argument prevails"
says the government brief. III corpor-
ate combinations. however comprehen-
sivc. do not come within the purview
OF the act only so far as they demon
strably abuse their power, the in
evitable result will be the renewal of
that great rush toward concentration
which proceeded with ever accelcrating
rapidity until checked by tho decision
of this court in the Northern Securi-
ties case
III makers OF harvesting machinery
may unite as here, why may not
makers of every other species of ma :
chincry do likewise? And why may
not all these lesser combinations be
integrated into one super combina ton
Of all the metal working industries?
What would prevent, indeed. the
creation of combinations with power
to control the market for every neces-
sary OF lifc-food, coal, oil, metal, tex
tile fabrics. etc.-or alliance between
all those combinations under the con-
troll of a few great masters of in
dustry?
EFFORT TO PLACE
SOME REASONABLE CHECK
The antitrust act, the work of per-
haps the ablest Judiciary Committee
that ever sat in either branch of Con-
gress. is the deliberate effort OF con
servative. clear thinking men to place
some reasonable check upon that lih-
erty OF combination. which. if per-
mitted to the logical extreme would
In the end imperil liberty itself
The controversy in this case, there
fore. is fundamental. The question Is.
shall tho competitive system continue
shall competition, not combination,
be the law OF trade'?"
The brief says the defendants claim
that, while one-time competitors con-
trolling from so to SIS per cent OF the
trade in the United States in harvest
ing machines We're combined in sub
StantiallE the manner which the gov
eminent contends. the object was not
restraint of trade. but to promote for
eign trade. and to establish domestic
trade on a more economical basis.
Upon these statements, the govern
ment says. and upon its good conduc,,
the whole defense rests"
The last contention. that the case
must fail because the combination has
not increased prices. or limited produc-
ton, or degraded the quality of prod
uct. decreased wages. or the price OF
raw material, or oppressed competitors.
the government declares. is based on n
construction of the antitrust act which
loses sight Of its broader purpose. and
which would be utterly impructicable
in execution"
ut already has been shown. how
ever" continues the brief. that where.
as here, the necessary effect of the
combination is unduly to restrict com
petitive conditions. the purpose or in
tention of the parties is immnterial.
Therefore. were the good intentions
claimed in this case conceded, 1t would
make no difference"