Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1915-08-25
Chronology of Case.

Chronology of Case.
The bill against the Eastman com
/ pahles was filed in the United state
Dlstrlct court in Buffalo on Jun
>, l9l3. month later, July II
1913, the company filed its answe
ana Tor year various attempts wer
p made to bring about a settlement tn
company agreeing to make change
III its selling policy and other alter
atlons in its business methods aske,
ny the government, except its prac
uce or fiXlng retail prices on II
goods which 1t cOntended was neces
sary Tor the protection of it's Gus
toners against price-cutting by re
tailers.
These offers apparently were un
S9IlsLactory and on Monday Apri
- I9l4' the trial was opened il
Buftalo, before District Judge Johr
r. Hazel The trial continued infer
mittently until May Is, 1915, wher
II was finally submitted to Judg,
Hazel for decision.
In the course Of the trial repre.
sehtatlVes of most of the cOmpetitor,
OF the Eastman company in all
branches of its trade, officers and
| employees of the company and George
| Eastman, president, treasurer and
| founder of the business, were nut
! on the stand by the government and
! by the company
The Defendants.
| Defendants named in the govern
meht bill were Eastman Kodak com
paHy OF New Jersey, capital S35. 900 70
900, 100000 issued; Eastman
Kodak company of New York, cant
tai S5,O0O,000; George Eastman
Henry A, Strong, Walter s. HubbelI
and Frank S. Noble, all of Rochester
officers of the company.
II lts SUIT the government asked for
the dissolution OT the COMPANY nv
receivership if Necessary, alleging thai
IL was monopolizing the trade I'm
Photographic supplies in violation of
the sherman law to the extent of con
trolling ~ per cent Of tbe trado
restraints. the government declared
had been imposed on the business of
competing manufacturers and dealers
by the company's terms Of sale. which
PIohlDlted dealers selling Eastman
goods from selling the goods of onv
otner manutacturer and fixed retail
prices Of the goods; by the operation
or retail or stock houses at ostensi-
ple competing establishments, and bv
marketing, through the Defender
company Rochester corporation.
certain MIN as If 1t were an indepen-
ueht product lnjunctions were sought
against those practices
Dissolution Impossible
investigation Of the company's
inelh9ds by the department Of lust
ICE began under Attorney General
NlckerSham, but the filing of a suit
was delayed, pending negotiations f"r
a settlement of the issues Involved
When Attorney-Genera McRevnolds |
came INTO office the kodak suit was
inc first to be instituted in annI,,- |
ing the principle denying patentoee |
the right to fix resale price OF orti- |
cles, which had been declared bv the |
supreme court
no the allegations Of the govern
meht the company replied. in its an
sWer ana IN court that dissolution Of |
the company was impOssible ond
would work great harm inasmucb nc
the company had not been formed bv
the Joining together of several indie
pendent corporations into one great /
h"Iding corporatiOn, but that n had |,
grown by the gradual purchase of J.
patents and other corporations and
.heir amalgamation as an organic mart
lt a unified business. In all cases
ne company Contended the mann
acturc Of articles that were pur-
,hased was continued as a part of the
-"S man manufacturing process and T,
zach purchase 1t is commended yr,s
made not for the purpose of driving
!. competitor out Of business-in fact
nr. Eastman on the witness stand do
Jared that the company had never !
n ltS history purchased the business
u a compeutor-but for the purposa I
+ adding to the Eastman business n
lew product for the sake Of Improvs
ng 1t and for the sake ultimately Of ,
oInpIeung n line OF goods manufac- ,
urea by the Eastman company. q
Mcritcd Big Business.
improvements made on these pur- I
hasos and inyentions made i'm the 7
astern laboratories IL was contendcd +
al so improved the products that !
was 10y their merit alone and not \
any methods Of marketing that
ne Kodak corporation and business
ad assumed its present size and in
uencc
The company denied in its bin that
controlled " per cent Of the bust .
ess in Photographic supplies. fix
lg a proportion at about 64 nor
'nt. brought competitors Of its
arlous branches TO testify TO tho
mount Of business they did to show
lat its competitors were doing good
islness and that it was possible for
callers TO secure goods from other
'urces than from the Eastman com
any 1t denied that its terms Of sale
ld imposed restraints on retail deal
s or that they had been prevented
ON buying competitors goods. and
nally contcnded that whenever il
the manufac.lre Of goods |
irchascd from others. under the
ime which they had borne before
ey were purchased this was well /
lown to the trade
The government in its testimony
ught TO bring out that Thomas
AIR Of Northboro, Mass. and not
gorge Eastman invented the first sz
nateur camera and that amateur
biography, in fact. had existed be "A
re the Eastman company existed w
ress was laid in the governments
on intent rather than re-
tual accomplishment OF monopoly nj
was contended. for instance. that 81
e Kodak company cornered the for ~
sn markets for raw paper, SO that ia,