South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1915-03-29
Atty Gen. Gregory Files Brief
in Behalf of United States
Before Supreme Court. As
sailing Methods of "TruSt."
CITE ACTS AIMED TO
DISCOURAGE SMALL FRY
International Concern Charged
with MOnOpOIizing Dealers
and Depressing Price to
Freeze Out" Competitors.

/ NASHINGTON. March %. - The
harvester company Is combination
\ of able competitors together 3ccupg
/ ing preponderant position Ina trade
and commerce among the states in
/ harvesting mahines and other agri-
cultural implements and therefore by
its necessary effect unduly restricts
competitive conditions in violation OF
the antitrust act
/ The harvester company is also a.
/ combination unduly restricting COM
/ pettive conditions because formed
with the specific intent TO monop-
Ipolize"
! These are the grounds on which
/ Atty. Gen. Gregory. In the brief filed
today asks the United States supreme
court To affirm the decree OF the fed
era court for the district OF Mime
sofa, finding the international Har-
IVester Co. a combination i'm restraint
of trade and ordering 10 dissolved
| Other acts cited by the brief as
tending TO show purpose on the para
/ Of the harvester company to injure
competitors are.
Depressing the price OF binder
/ tWine TO discourage smaller manufac-
tUrers."
Cornering the sisal market 10 rorce
/ the price of raw material mp and
then setting the price Of finished
/ twine unduly low
MOnopolize Dealcr~.
| The mOnOpoliZation of the most de-
| sirable dealers by exclusive or sub
stantially exclusive selling arrange
mentss coupled with the police. still
| existing, of maintaining several
| brands, substantially, Identical iu
quality. and of giving each dealer iil
! a community separate brand with
! the purpose OF completely utilizing
! all available agency material
! 1T is well nigh impossible for any
outside manufacturers 90 compete
with this company for hay rake bus
! mess the brief says
/ The fundamental question iu tins
suit. according 10 the brief which. iu
addition TO the attorney general j.
signed by Solicitor Gen Davis ASST
Atty. Gen Todd and Thurlow " Cor
don. special assistant Go the attorneN
! general is shall the competitive sys-
TEN cOntinue-shall competition. not
combination be the law of trade %
It is pointed ont that the anti-trust
act is the deliberate effort Ito place
some reasOnab bile check upon that lilo
| erty OF combination which if per
mitted 10 the logical extreme would
ia the end imperil liberty itself"
Sums Up Situation.
The brief then sums up the Situa-
/ tiOn in this fashion.
IF defendants arguments prevails
IF corporate combination. howevcf
comprehensive. don't come within the
purview Of the act unless and ONLY 81
/ far ass they dernons+raI,l,- "a httsa, tbeft
| pOwer-the inevitable result viii De
! Tho contin,anc. ~ ttot e,.e.t r,,eb a.
/ y-ard concentr.trfo, which r,,,,..e,I....-
with ever acceIeratinp, roridit,. ,,ntt
checked b,, the decision of ms ,,,,r,
/ ir +ba Nortbor,, l,e,.,,ritios ,.-s
! IF makers of harvesting maChinera.
may unite as here, why may not tht
] 80 ,,,rtir.,,, a. Iil,o,,-iel.5 - -,b.
! - - an tt,.,s<. -. 49,, l,f-.-.. 60,
/ 49, tt1 49,. ~
+fl - IN - ,-i-,,- +, s,,-f
| ..yK-1,+ ,..-,,I5 ,.r.,.,.,,+ .-,,ts 49,
/ - ..
- Ie'l'loI -. 1oIli ''-,-'i li'1 "-,t