The Washington times., 1915-03-29
Makes Distinction, However, in
Regard to "Growth From
Within" in Concerns.
PAPERS FILED HERE TODAY
Action Was Eagerly Awaited, as
It Marks First Definition OF
Administration Policy.

because 1t was expected to define the
Administrations A working policy In re-
gard to all combinations. was filed In
Supreme Court today.
The brief ful1lls expectations.
Probably the most striking feature OF
the document is the dictinction that IT
makes between growth from within"
and growth through combination.
In effect, Attorney General Gregory
says that practically no limitation can
be placed on the growth Of any indus
trial institution from within itself. for
that Is a proper result Of competition.
And it is reiterated that competition
must be the law of trade.
Two Considerations.
Congress. says Gregory. was moved
to pass the antitrust act by two main
considerations:
"First-The desire to preserve tho
competitive system Of industry;
"Second-The conviction that the
system was threatened by the undue
concentration of economic power result
ing chiefly from the unrestricted right
o. combination"
apparently" he says. Congress saw
no substantial danger through the
growth Of single business from
within, no matter how large 1t might
become in that way; even though. for
example. through greater efficiency,
energy or resources. and CONSEQUENT
ability to offer a better grade OF
product than that OF its com.
petitors or the same grade OF
product at a lower price, corporation
might come to possess the trade to
the very point of controlling the market
for the time being. Monopolistic power
so attained would be 30 rare and in its
field so lipited that it might safely be
ignored"
But he says, Congress intended that
every combination which interferes or
threatens to interfere with the normal
end effective operation Of the law OF
competition in trade, should be pro-
hibited.
Calls IL Combination.
The international Harvester Com
pany, says the Attorney Generals brief.
is not the result of the normal growth
of a single business. but is combina-
ton of able competitors-the McCor-
mack, Deering. Champion. Plano. and
Milwaukee companies. controlling an
overwhelming proportion of the trade,
brought together by George w. Perkins
of ]. P. Morgan & Co. "a banker and
promoter"
BY single stroke, says the brief
rivalry was extinguished and virtual
monopoly achieved Later other big
companies were taken In.
The Attorney General cites figures tc
disprove the argument of the Harvester
trust that this combination was neces'
sary to promote foreign, trade in har'
vesting machinery. On the contrary, he
says it is probable that the Harvester
trust has actually retarded the growth
of foreign business. The trusts expor
business in 1912, instead Of being $50
the brief, the difference being In bust
| ness Of the trusts plants located "
other countries--Canada. France, Rus
sia, Germany and Sweden.
Increased Faster.
During the Ave years preceding th'
| com bination, 1t Is declared. the sales o
! the Mccormack and Deering companie
were increa sing faster abroad than the!
! have since-139 per cent, as against .
per cent.
Furthermore, 1t is declared. export
by the Harvester trust increased les
rapidly than the total exports of othe
manufactured articles and machinery.
| In conclusion. the Attorney Genera
says: IF corporate combinations, how
ever comprehensive, do not come with
| in the purview of this act except onl
SO far as they demonstrably abuse
| their power the inevitable result Wi
be the continuance of that great rus
toward concentration which proceede
with ever accelerating rapidity unit
checked by the decision of this court i
the Northern Securities case.
Could Control All.
What would prevent the creation @
combinations with power to control tn
market for every necessary of life
TODD coal, oil, metal textile fabric!
etc.--or alliances between these comb
nations under the control Of a few gres
masters of industry?
The desire for promoters profits, tn
desire to escape from the pressure {
competition the natural gravitation {
power into the hands OF the powerful
and the desire for more power, Whic
great power engenders-these motive
would still be adequate to produce sue
concentration, even assuming ths
prices. etc, could be rigidly controlled.
THE controversy In this case, there
fore, is fundamental. The question i!
Shall the competitive system continue
shall competition. not combination, h
the law of trade?
Appealing From Decree.
The International Harvester Compan
is appealing from decree of the Fed
eral district court of Minnesota-th
court. under the "eXpediting act" bein
constituted of the three Federal Circu
jude Hook. and Smith. Th
court ordered: -,
THAT said combination. a rnonor
oily. forever dissolved, and to the
end that the business and assets of In
international Harvester Company h
divided in such manner and into sue
number of parts of separate and distint
ownership as may be necessary to re
store competitive conditions and brin
| about a new situation In harmony wit
law"
Defendants In Suit.
The defendants are the Internationa
Harvester Company, International Fla
Twine Company. Wisconsin Steel Com
pany, Wisconsin Lumber Compan'
Illinois Northern railway. and Chicago
PuIlman and Southern RAILWAY