Omaha daily bee., 1915-03-30
BRIEF IS FIELD IN
HARVESTER CASE
Government Contends Monopoly is
Real in Spite of Contention that
It Behaved Self.
VIOLATION OF LAW Is CLEAR

WASHINGTON. March 29.-The
governments brief in the antitrust
suit to dissolve the International
Harvester company was filed today
in the supreme court. 1t is largely
directed toward combating the argu-
ments advanced in the company s
brief filed in support of it's appeal
after the district court for Minnesota
had declared it a combination in re-
straint of trade and ordered its disso-
luton.
III the defendants arguments prevail"
says the government brief, If the cor
porate combinations, however compre-
hensive, do not come within the rurNicw
of the act unless and only so far as they
demonstrably abuse .neir power-thc in
evitable result will ne the renewal OF
that great rush toward concentration
which proceeded with ever accelerating
rapidity until checked by the decision
Of this court in the Northern securities
case,
Means Taking OFF the Lid.
"If makers OF harvesting machinery
may unite as here. why not makers Of
every other species Of machinery do like
wise? And why may not all these lesser
combinations be integrated into ono
representation of all the metal work
ing industries?
What would prevent indeed the crea
ton of combinations with power to con
troll the markets for every necessary o.
nfe-food, coal. oil, metal, textile
fabrics, etc.-or alliances between al
these combinations under the control o
few great masters of industry?
THE desire for promoters profits, tn
desire to escape from the pressure
competition, the natural gravitatlon
power into the hands Of the powerful
and the desire of more power whicI
great power engenders-these motive
would still be adequate to produce sue
concentration, even assuming ina
prices, ETC., would be rigidly controlled.
THE antitrust act-the work of per
hape the ablest Judiciary committee tina
ever sat In either bronch OF congress,
the deliberate efforts of conservative
clear-thinking men to place some reason
able check upon that liberty of combina
ZION. which, IL permitted to the logice
extreme. would in the end imperil lib
erty itself.
Controversy is Fundamental
''The controversy in this case. therS
fore, is fundamental. The question i
Shall the competitive system continue
shall competition, not combination. /
the law of trader
The brief says that the defendant
claim that while one-time competitor
controlling from 80 to IS per cent OF tn
trade in the United States in harvestir
machines were combined in substantial
the manner which the government col
tends, the object was not restraint
trade, but to promote foreign trade ar
TO establish domestic trade on moi
economical basis. Upon these statement
the government says. and upon its goo
conduct the whole defense rests
The last contention, that the case mu
fail because the continuation has not Il
creased prices or limited production,
degraded the quality of production,
the price OF raw material, or oppress'
competitors, the government declares,
based upon a construction of 1.-THE ant
trust act, which closes sight of its broad
purpose and which would be utterly ii
practicable in execution.
1T has already been shown, however
continued the brief that where, as heI
the necessary effect of the combinati,
is unduly to restrain competitive conc
tions. the purpose or intention of 4
parties is immaterial. Therefore, we
the good intentions claimed in this ca
conceded, It would make no difference