New Britain herald., 1918-08-05
HARVESTER co.
AGREES TO DISSOLVE
Verdict Declaring It a Trust to
Be Carried Into Effect

~ WI 1lOa LuUUL
Washington, Aug. 5.-Under an
agreement between the government
and the International Harvester COM
pany, federal court DEGREES declaring
the so-calied Harvester Trust an I'M
lawful combinations end ordering its
dissolution are to be carried into eff
feet at once. The company's appeal,
pending in the supreme court since
1918, is to be dismissed and an or
der issued providing for the sale of
certain machinery lines controlled by
the company, together with its plants
IN Springfield, Ohio, and Auburn, n.
Y. The terms of the agreement were
made public last night by the de-
partment of justice.
The Harvester suit was instituted
in Minnesota in 1912 by the govern
ment, which, for the first time in the
prosecution of alleged combinations
in restraint of trade, asked for the
dissolution of a combination on the
grounds mainly of size and inherent
power. The case is the first of the
more important antitrust proceed
ings pending in the supreme court to
be disposed of in this manner since
this country entered the war.
Because of the country's financial
condition, due to the war, the gov
eminent is inclined to be lenient
with the company and will give it
until one year after peace has been
declared to carry out the terms OF
the agreem emit Should this not be
done by that time, however, the prop
erty will be sold at auction.
The Official Statement. 3
'"The departing of justice is ad-
vised," said statement issued last
night, that at the ensuing term of
the supreme court the International
Harvester company will dismiss its
| appeal from the decree of the district
court adjudging it a combination in
! restraint of trade and ordering its dis
| solution. The effect would be to
| leave the decree of the district court
| as the final decree in the case.
THE parties will then join in ask
| ing the district court to enter an or
| der to carry the decree into effect,
| providing substantially as follows:
| t"(a). The Harvester company to
| dispose of the harvesting machinery
| lines known under the trade names
| of Osborne milwaukee, and Cham
| pion' the trade names themselves,
and all patterns, drawings blue prints,
| dies, jigs, and other machines and
| equipment used in the manufacture
| of these lines. to q responsible and
| Independent manufacturer or manu-
| facturers of agricultural implements.
"b) The Harvester company also to
! dispose of the plants and works at
| Springfield, Ohio, and Auburn, N. Y,
! where the Champion and Osborne
lines of harvesting machines are
manufactured.
Co If not otherwise disposed of
within one year after the close of the
existing war the aforementioned
lines of harvesting machinery, ETC., to
be sold at public auction to- the high
est bidder.
"(d) The Harvester company to be
prohibited after Dec. 81, 1919, from
having more than one representative
or agent in any city or town in the
United States for the sale Of har-
vesting machines or other agriculture
al implements.
"(e) If at the expiration of
eighteen months after the close of
the existing war the foregoing meas
ures have not proved adequate in the
opinion of the government to restore
commerce in harvesting machines
and other agricultural implements,
and to bring about a situation in
harmony with law, the government
to have the right to such further re-
lief in the present case as may be
necessary to that end.
This case presented the most fund
amental issue which has arisen under
the Sherman act since its conStitu-
tionality was determined. The issue
is this: The government contended
that com inations of competitive
units on a scale large enough to.
make the resulting restriction of
competition direct and substantial
are unlawful without more, the
theory that it was not the policy Of
the Sherman act to wait until the
evils of undue concentration Of COM.
mercial power have already come to
pass, but rather to strike at once at
undue concentration Of ommercial
power itself. The defendants con-
tended on the one hand that such
combinations are not unlawful, I'M
less the government goes further and
shows in each particular case that
the combination has Wrongfully used
it's power as, for example, by unduly
enhancing prices, by unduly limiting
the quantity or lowering the quality
of product, by unduly lowering wages
etc.-in other words, that monopolis-
tic combinations are not unlawful so
long as they use their power benevo-
lently.
The effect of the present action is
to sustain the contention of the gov