The Oskaloosa herald. (Oskaloosa, Mahaska County, Iowa) 1885-1919, 1915-04-01
j. S. FILES ANSWER
/. TOHARVESTER BRIEF
Firm UnduIy Restrictive of Com
petitive Conditions.
"lNTENT IS TO M0NoPoLIZE"
Attorney-General Gregory Cites
Grounds Why Decision of FEDERAL
Court of Minnesota Should Be
Upheld and Firm Dissolved.

Washington, March 30.-"Tho Har-
vester company is a combination OF
able competitors together occupying
preponderant position in trade and
commerce among the states in har.
vesting machines and other agricultu
raj implements, and therefore. by its
necessary effect unduly restricts com.
petitive conditions in violation Of the
antitrust act. ...a-,. .
THE Harvester company is also a
combination unduly restrictive OF COM
petitive conditions because formed
with specific intent to monopolize."
These are the grounds on which At
torney General Gregory in a brief
filed, asked the United States Su.
preme court to affirm the decree OF
the federal court for the district of
Minnesota. finding the International
Harvester company a combination in
restraint of trade and ordering II dis.
solved.
Cites Other Acts.
Other acts cited by the brief as
| tending to show purpose on the part
Of the Harvester company to injure
, competitors are:
Depressing the price OF binder Irvine
to discourage small manufacturers.
Cornering the sisal market to force
the price Of raw material up and then
setting the price Of finished Irvine un.
duly low.
The monopolization of the most de.
| slrable dealers by exclusive or sub.
stantially exclusive selling arrange,
ments, coupled with the policy still
existing, OF maintaining severa!
brands. substantially identical in quail.
| ity, and giving each dealer in a com
munity separate brand with the pur'
pose OF completely utilizing all avail
able agency material.
The campaign to make 1t well nigh
impossible for any one of the outside
manufacturers to compete with this
company for hay-rake business"
The fundamental question in this
suit, according to the brief, is "shal
the competitive system continue" oil
shall Competition. not combination
be the law of trade?"
1t is pointed out that the antitrus
act is the deliberate effort to place
some reasonable check upon that lib
erty OF combination which, if permit
ter to the logical extreme would In
the end imperil liberty itself" The
brief then sums up the situation il
this fashion:
'lf makers of harvesting machinery
may unite as here. why may not the
makers Of every other species OF ma
chinery do likewise? And why may
not all these lesser combinations be
integrated into one supercombina
ton Of all Woodworking Industries
Competitive System Threatened.
What would prevent, indeed, the
creation of combinations with power
to control the market for every neces
sity Of life-food. coal, metal, textile
fabrics, etc.--or alliances between al
these combinations under the contro
OF few great masters of Industry
The brief declares that congress;
was moved to pass the antitrust ac
by the conviction that the competitive
system of business was threatened BY
the undue concentration of economic
power resulting chiefly from the unre
stricted right Of combination"
The brief also asserts that the con
tention that the case must fail because
the combination has not increased
prices, or limited production, degraded
the quality of product, decreased
wages, decreased the price of raw ma
terials. or oppressed competitors. il
based upon construction of the anti
trust act, which loses sight of 1T
broader purpose and which would b.
utterly impracticable in execution"