New Britain herald., 1917-03-01
HARVESTER SEEKS
 RULE OF REASON
Files Answer to Anti Trust Brief
 of Government

LII UVICluulCAL
 Washington. March 1.-In brie1 filed in the supreme court of thd United States today, replying to. thu governments recent brief. the Inter- national Harvester company asks that it be judged according to tho rule of reason rather than the rule oA size" and according to the actuA2 language of the Sherman law.
 Arguing for the application of tho ''rule of reason" the brief asks:
 Is it logical. or just, to urge thG court to dismember a corporation that possesses no unfair advantage whose record has been helpful and not injurious to the public, whosd treatment of competitors by the find- ing of the lower court has been hone orable, clear and fair'-for fear that some other combination that has ao- tually restrained trade or is at- tempting to do 50, may escape puns ishment?'
 The brief contends that the caso against the harvester company resta entirely upon its alleged violation, not of what congress put into the law. but of what the government counsel now asserts congress had in mind when it enacted the law.
 This course. 1t is declared. upsets the rule. that the purpose and pro- hibitions of 8 statute must be ascer~ tained from it's language. The harvester brief further pointT out that the Standard Oil and tobacco companies were condemned, not bA- 4R al u3~ hvVt ssSAs of their wrongful purposes and op- pressive acts and the resultant injury to the public. The new and different claim now made by the government is that the mere uniting in the hars vester company of former competing companies is a violation of the 9herG man law. and this is declared to bSs condemnation "by the rule of size. s | instead of "by the rule of reason. x The brief points out that the Feda eral Trade commissions recent res port, urging amendment of the Shers man law to legalise combinations IT. the export trade, recognizes the ver4 necessity which prompted the organH lization of the International for tfi4 rapid development of foreign trade I Judgnent hy Acts.
 To the governmAnt's. vGrioua | charges of unlawful purpose, 1t is ans swered That the acts of men arc thu
 best evidence of their intention ana the tribute to the honesty and fairsl
 ness of the business of the Interna-
 tional, in the opinion of the 3ndged in the courts below, is the StrSngegt
 evidence that the claim of thea gov- ernment has no real or substantial foundation"
 | It is explicitly denied that the. In.
 ternational has the power to 0iiyo out competitors or raise prices. IL
 is argued that the Internati0n9l's
 share of the harvester trade. steadily
 decreased during the ten years cov~ cred by the record. while thatNof itI
 competitors largely increased, als)
 that new and powerful competitor1
 with over $s4.000. 900 capital. have entered the feld since the Interna-
 tional. was formed. This does not
 include the big Massey Harris com- pany of Canada with resources of
 $30, ,O00,0 900. In ten years the Inter-
 nationals competitors. the brief adds.
 increased their capital stock moro
 than $133, 33,000,OOO, against the Inter. nationals $2o.0o0,0o0 increase.
 The brief asserts that the Inter- national now has less than S6 per
 cent. of the harvesting machine trade and less than 26 per cent. of the trade in all lines of agricultural irn- plements that it manufacturers.
 The brief concludes that the cru- cial issue is not as to the purp0Se O9 i the company's organization in 1S0A
 but whether, when tho suit waS
 brought in 1912. it was unduly re- l straining trade or threatening to q so.
 The brief suggests that. in any view. | dismissal of the suit without prejudloe would protect tho interests of tho public by. enabling. the government at all times promptly and effectively to prevent any attempt to monopos | lize or restrain trade on the part oS ! the defendant"