Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1915-04-02
HARVESTER BRIEF FILED.

HARVESTER BRIEF FILED.
Warning that combinations with power
to control the necessities of life, such as
food. coal, oil. metal and textile fabrics,
cannot be prevented, unless the decree
ordering the dissolution of the International
Harvester Company is allowed to stand, is
contained in a brief filed Tuesday in the
Supreme Court of the United States by the
Department Of Justice.
This document is regarded as an outline
of the Governments working policy with
regard to combinations of this character.
The brief is in response to an appeal taken
by the International Harvester Company
under the expediting act from the decree
of the United States district court for the
district Of Minnesota, which ordered the
dissolution Of the company as being
combination in restraint of trade among
the States and monopoly in harvesting
machines and other agricultural imple-
ments.
One of the chief points made is that
there is no limit under the Sherman anti
trust law to which single business may
attain by internal expansion. 1t is the
combination of competitors. sufficiently
comprehensive to threaten the existence of
effective competition. which is prohibited.
Congress was moved to pass the anti
trust act by two main considerations, ac-
cording to the brief, which carries the
signatures of Thomas W. Gregory, Attor-
ney General; G. Carroll Todd. assistant to
the Attorney General, and Thurlow M. Cor
don. special assistant to the Attorney Cen
eral. These. 1t is said. we're:
First, the desire to preserve the competi-
tive system of industry.
Second, the conviction that that system
was threatened by the undue concentra-
ton of economic power resulting chiefly
from the unrestricted right Of combination.
This appears from the text of the act.
from the history Of the times. especially
as disclosed in the debates attending the
passage Of the act. and from the decision,
of this court. the Supreme Court of the
United States" the brief says.
After long discussion of the debates
in Congress on the evils Of combinations
at the time Of the consideration Of the
antitrust act, and the citation of numerous
cases decided. the argument continues:
Apparently Congress saw no sub
stantial danger through the growth of a
single business from within, no matter
how large it might become in that way !;
even though. for example, through greater
efficiency, energy and resources, and con-
sequent ability to offer a better grade Of
product at a lower price, corporation
might come to possess the trade to the
very point of controlling the market for
the time being. MonopOlistic power so
attained would be so rare. and its fields so
limited that it might safely be ignored
The assertion also is made that Congress
had no fear of combinations of non-com-
petitive trade units which merely supple
ment each other-"the indignation Of in
dustry."
The government then applies these prin-
ciples to the harvester case. asserting that
the corporation violated the law.
First. because it is not the result of the
normal growth Of single business. but a
combination of able competitors.
Second, because these competitors, com
bined, occupy an overwhelming preponder-
ant position in the country.
In reply to the defense set forth by the
harvester company, that the consolidation
of the various companies was formed with
the object of promoting foreign trade, the
government contends that the purpose is
immateria. since the necessary effect Of
the combination is to monopolize the bust
ness.
The government asserts that the har
vester company propably has retarded, in
stead Of accelerated. the growth Of foreign
business. II is asserted that the growth of it;
exports of harvesting machinery has beer
much less rapid than was the growth o.
the exports of the principal constituent
companies prior to the combination, and
that the exports of harvesting machinery
have grown much less rapidly than the
exports of manufactured articles generally
of machinery Of other Sorts
In conclusion, the government assert:
that II the makers of 80 per cent of the
harvesting machinery sold in the United
States may unite through corporation
there would he nothing to prevent thu
creation Of other similar combinations witt
power to control the market for every
necessity of life. Food, coal, oil, meta
and textile fabrics are mentioned. If sucl
were permitted, the Department of Justice
says. the purpose Of the antitrust ACT
would be wholly thwarted.
Figures Deficit Less.