Weekly journal-miner., 1917-03-07
JUDGE BY RULE OF REASON, NOT SIZE, IS IFS
 DEMAND
BRIEF IN REPLY TO GOV ERNMENT FILED IN THE UNITED STATES SU- PREME COURT BY THE INTERNATIONAL H A R. VESTER COMPANY.

WASHINGTON, March l.-In a brief filed in the Supreme court of the United States today replying to the governments recent brief, the Inter national Harvester Company asks that it be judged according to the rule of reason rather than the rule of size" and according to the language of the Sherman law rather than any supposed purpose of the lawmakers.
 It is charged, in effect, that the government, having failed to make the facts in the case fit the law, IS now trying to make the law fit the facts.
 Arguing in conclusion for the ap- plication of the rule of reason, the brief asks:
 "Is it logical, is 1t reasonable or just. to urge the court to dismember a corporation that possesses no un- fair or exclusive advantage whose record, by the undisputed testimony of a thousand witnesses has been helpful and not injurious to the pub lie, whose treatment of competitors by the finding of the lower court has been honorable, clean and fair-for fear that some other combination.that has actually restrained trade or is at tempting to do so, may escape punish mcnt:"
 The brief contends that since the evidence showed that the harvester company had not committed any act forbidden by the language of the law, that the case against it must rest en- tircly 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 1t enacted the law.
 This course, 1t Is declared upsets the rule expressly followed by the Supreme court itself in the Standard Oil and Tobacco cases, that the pur- pose and prohibitions of statute must be ascertaincd from its language. The brief points out that the Federal trade commissions recent report, urging amendments of the Sherman law to lcgalizc combinations in the export trade. recognizes the very nc ccSSity which prompted the organiZa- tiOn of the International for the rapid development of foreign trade. Re viewing the harvester company de- vclopmcnt of its foreign business, which had reached S50,000OOO in 1912, # IS argued that the resources of the Mccormick company the largest and strongest of the companies in 1902, were wholly inadequate to the great opportunity for the sale of American harvcStcrS abroad.
 It Is explicitly denied that the rn- ternational has the power to drive out competition or raise prices. It IS argued that the lntcrnational's share oi the harvester trade, steadily de- creased during the ten years covered by the record, while that of its com petitions largely increased: also that new and powerful competitors with over SS4,00O,000 capital, have entered the hcld since the International was formed. This does not include the big MasScyIIarris Company of Can ada with resources of S30,0O0.OO0 which now controls an American plant, and. under the tariff act of 1913. can compete freely in the United States. In ten years the Intcrnation- aTS competitors. the brief adds, in- creased their capital stock more than Si33,OOO,OO0 against the Intcrnation- al'S $20O00,000 increase.
 The brief suggests that in any view, dismissal of the suit without would protect the interests oi the public by enabling the govern wcnt at all times promptly and cf- Actively to prevent any attempt to or restrain trade on the part of the defendant.