Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-04-08

WASHINGTON. April 5-Thc night in
the supreme Court Of tho United States
over the Harvester Trust suit prom
Uses to be the most Important antitrust
contest before that tribunal since. th.
STANDARD Oil and Tobacco decisions in
1911. oral arguments VIII be heard
p% the court probably on Thursday
Briefs outlining the arguments 10 hc
made have already been filcd in court.
On the one hand the government IL
asking for reconsideration nud for n
now construction of the Sherman anti
trust law. ON the other the Intcrna-
ional Harvester Company is seeking
clean bill of health as Il good trust
IA creation often mentioned by tho
Supreme Court, but never introduced
by II To society. In the background.
stalks the mootcd question OF whether
eXrresident Roosevelt was right in
his administration against the company.
or cX-Presidcnt Taft was correct In
instituting tho suit-u question which
some say had greater political sig.
niicance in It's day than any other
antitrust suit ever brought
The brief filed by Aforementioned
Gregory and his subordinates shows
a brand new battle formation against
combinations The decisions announced
by the Supreme Court in tho standard
Oil and Tobacco cases are subordiuatrd
new campaign against bi. cor
tcntion by the government attorneys.
Review OF the Litigation.
To appreciate the change, the entire
history OF the litigation against III.
Harvester Company must be studied
This litigation was begun by the fling
in the District Court for tho United
states In Minnesota ~ Il petition AK
Ing for the dissolution OF the inter
national Harvester Company. That pc.
tition was hled by Attorney-Gencral
Wickersham. Within less than "a year,
he had won the Standard Oil and To
bucco cases in the Supreme Court. lie
patterned the suit In the Harvester
case along the lines on which the Su-
preme Court had accorded him victory
over the Standard Oil and Tobacco.
In short he charged the international
Harvester Company with being a com
bination shown by its acts to have
been organized for AN unlawful pur.
pose namely. unreasonable restraint Of
trade. lie specified the acts he would
prove as showing the illcgnl purpose.
These acts characterized his attack
Just certain acts OF the Standard
Oil and Tobacco companies character
ICED the decisions against them.
The printed argument. or brief. sub
mitted 10 the District Court by the Gov
eminent in support OF dissolution, bore
the name Of .Attorney-C;cncral McRcy-
noldS, who had succeeded Mr. Wicker
sham. Mr.. McRcynods had conducted
the tobacco suit. Naturally, he asked
for a decision against the Harvester
Company on the grounds on which lie
won in the Tobacco case, and. which
were Of course. the same grounds taken
by Attorney General Wickersham In the
petition.
what AttOrnry-GenernI Gregory Asks.
Now Acknowledgement Gregory il
asking for another complete review Of
tho Legislative history OF trust la VS. and
that the court lay down the doctrine
that combination Of competitive trad
crs occupying prcpondcrant position
in given industry ia a prescribed area
is n violation Of the sherman Antitrust
law, regardless OF its acts
Tie change is not generally regarded
AZ Il mere attempt at novelty on the
part OF ambitious representatives Of the
government. II is considered rather as
an adroitly spun web of argument cal
cnlatcd TO avoid the necessity Of meet
ing the issue OF good" and bad trusts
In other words, the phrase 'unreason-
able restraint of trade" found in the
Standard Oil and Tobacco decisions to
have been forbidden by the Sherman
law. would be construed AS having ap-
plication in certain cases, at least, to size
rather than to goodness or badness
The Supreme Court has not approved
the theory advanced by the government,
FOR the very good reason. al least, that
\
rested its argument upon il. Chief JUS
tice White seemingly had it In mind in
the standard Oil case, but the govern
ment and the attorneys for the Har-
vestcr Company differ as to the effect
| Of what he said then.
THE unifcation Of power and con-
| troll" said the Chief Justice in the
Standard Oil case, over petroleum and
! its products which was the inevitable
rccult of the combining in the New Jer-
sey corporation by the increase OF it's
! stock and the transfer TO it OF the
. stocks Of so many other corporations
| agSrcgating 80 vast capital, gives
rise. in and OF Itself. in the absence OF
/ countervailing circum stances to say the
least, to the prima facie presumption OF
| intent and purpose to maintain the
| dominancy over the oil industry"
The government contends that the
! important words in iris quotation are
| lin and OF Itself" while the Harvester
| Company can see nothing but the words
in the absence OF countcrVa ling cir
cumstanceS."
Chief Justice Whites View"
In the standard Oil case the court
! did not stop with the arcponderance
/ -! the standard Oil utilization, or COM
hnation. Chief Justice White said that
I the presumption arising thercfrom was
| made conclusive by considering first
| tho conduct of the organizers in seek
| ing to create an oil TRUST long years
| before. and, second. tho modes In which
] the power OF the combination was
| exerted and the results arising there.