The Oklahoma City times. [volume] (Oklahoma City, Okla.) 1908-1984, 1915-03-29
GREATEST TRUST
AS A POSSIBILITY
Government Files Brief In Suit TO
Dissolve International Harvester
Company.

T
WASHINGTON, March ~ The
governments brief I'm the anti trust
! suit 10 dissolve the international
4 Harvester company was filed today
In the supreme court II Is largely
| toward combating the arguments ad
vauced In the company.s brief filed
/ In support Of It's appeal after the dis
trict court for Minnesota had de
| clarcd II combination In restraint
Of trade and ordered ts dissolution.
IF defendants argument prevails
! says the government brief, ~ corpo-
| rate combinations, however compre-
/ hensiye, do not come within the pur
! view of the act unless and only 40
far as they demonstrably abuse their
/ power the inevitable abuse win be
| the renewal of that great rush toward
concentration which proceeded with
ever accelerating rapidity until check
ed by the decision of this court In the
/ Northern Securities case
/ II makers ~ harvesting machinery
may unite as here why may not max
crs NJ every other species Of machln.
cry do likewise And why may not
/ all these lesser combinations he inte.
grated into one suprr-COmbinatiOn Of
/ all I he metal working Industries?
+ what would prevent, indeed, the
creation OF combinations with power
TO control the market for every npces
sity Of life. food coal, oil. metal tex.
tile fabrics. etc-Or alliances between
all these combinations In the control
Of few great masters NJ Industry?
The desire for promoters profits,
the desire 10 escape from the pres.
sure " competition the natural gray.
itation Of power into the hands Of the
powerful and the desire for more
power which great power engenders
these motives still would be- adequate
to produce such concentration, even
assuming that prices, etc, could be
! rirdly rlruNcd
THE mu.trust act-thp work of
probably the ablest judiciary commit
tee that over sat In either branch Of
congress. Is the deliberate effort Of
conservative clear thinking men to
place some reasonable check upon
that liberty of combination which n
permitted Ia the logical extreme
would IN the end imperil liberty It.
self
The controversy In this case there
fore is fundamental The question Is
shall the competitive system continue
shall competition not combination
be- the Law of tradey
The brief says that the defendants
claim that while one time compett
ors controlling from IN 10 s5 per cent
" the trade In the United states In
harvesting machinery were combined
In substantially the manner which the
government contends the object was
not restraint Of trade. but to promote
foreign trade and to establish domes
tie trade ON n more economical basis
Upon these statements the govern
ment SAYS and upon It's good conduct
p the whole defense rests
The last contention that the case
must fail because the combination
has NOT increased prices limited pro
ductlon, degraded the quality Of pro.
duct, decreased wages or the price Of
raw materials or oppressed competit
ors, the government declares, is based
upon construction VI the anti trust
net which loses sight of its broader
urpose and which would be utterly
Ampractlcablc IN execution"
1T already has been shown how.
ever continues the brief. that
where as here, the necessary effect Of
the combination Is unduly' to restrict
competitive conditions the purpose OF
intention Of the parties IL immaterial
Therefore, were the good intentions
claimed In this case conceded, II
would make no difference"
} Statistics are given to demonstrate
that the harvester company has re-
tArded rather than accelerated IN,
foreign trade In harvesting machin
, cry"
The government declares that thre,
, companies named by the defendant a.
formidable competitors which hav,
. entered the field since It's organiEa
? tion" are almost negligible ~ con
Germs the sale of harvesting machines
0 In the various states.