The Washington herald., 1918-08-09
TRUST CASES
in PARALLEL
Holland Compares Har-
vester Compromise
with Others.

Elliott. Of the New Haven Railroad
Company did not wait until the
court had passed upon the validity
OF the organization and operation
which the Telephone Company and
the New Haven Railroad Company
had perfected.
Both Mr.. VAN and Mr.. Elliott
thought 1t the wiser part to hold
conferences with the Department OF
Justice at Washington so that IL
. could be learned what the basis
of the contemplated action by the
department against these two cor
poEations was and whether by COM
promise there could be eliminated
from the organizations those fea-
lures which the Attorney General
regarded as constituting violations
Of the antitrust law.
Agreement was reached. Presi-
dent Vail accepted the proposition
made by the Department of Justice
and tore apart the organization he
had perfected. Curiously enough, at
this time. when the government has
taken over the telephone and tele-
graph lines precisely those things
which the apartment Of Justice
objected tosare now under govern
ment control. adopted. so that the
telephone and telegraph lines con-
stitute a single unit IN which moth
ing in the way OF competition Is pos
sibIe.
New Haven Case.
So also President Elliott. Of the
New Haven Railroad. accepted for
his corporation the proposition
which was made by the Department
of Justice. although in doing that
he agreed to tear the New Haven
railroad organization to pieces. so
to speak ..4s
On the other hand the Interna-
tiona1 Harvester Company defended
itself In the Federal courts. and one
OF the most remarkable decisions
ever handed down by a Federal or
high State court followed the prose-
cution OF the suit. Two of the
judges who decided that the Inter-
national Harvester Company was
organized and was operated in viola
tion of the antitrust law. went out
OF their way to state that the evil
dence in the case showed that there
had been no injustice done and no
suggestion Of an intent to make
undue use OF the power the trust
possessed. But there did lurk in
might at some time be unjustly
used One OF the three judges did
not concur in this opinion. When
the appeal was made to the Supreme
Court by the Harvester Company
il was found taht the company ask
ed for a reversal of this decision
on the ground that the government
had to show that the Harvester
Company had made unlawful use of
its power. The government contend
ed that this defense crystallized the
issue into a single point;y namely
whether II is necessary to wait un-
til a corporation has made unlaw-
ful use of its alleged monopolistic
power before taking government
action or whether the government
should interfere so as to prevent
at the outset any unlawful use of
that power. In plain English this
meant that the government claimed
that under the Sherman law II had
a right to prevent monopolistic con-
troll and so to act judiciaIly as to
secure competition
Yielding n Point.
The Harvester Company has ap-
parentIy yielded the point. The ap-
peal to the Supreme Court is to be
dismissed and some of the sub
,sidiary companies of the Harvester
Company are to be disjointed and
then put upon the market
The wonder is whether there may
not follow this yielding to the gov
ernment by the Harvester Company a
situation similar to that which arose
after the Standard OIL Company was,
by mandate of the Supreme Court,
dissolved.
Perhaps competition may follow the
disruption of the Harvester Company
but in the Standard Oil case the dis
location Of several OF the subsidiary
companies was followed by appre-
citation in the market quotation of
the securities. and II there has been
competition it has not been revealed
in any reduction OF prices of the
commodities manufactured by the oil
companies. Prices have steadily ad-
vanced, although this Is in part ex-
planned by the great demand made
by the government and by industries
for oil products.
Can They be soIdf
When President Elliott agreed with
the Department OF Justice to break
up the New Haven railroad system
and sell the properties which the
government decided should be taken
from the control of the New Haven,
the wonder was whether any market
would be found for these properties.
None has been found as yet and Il
has been necessary to secure author
ity for postponing the sale of the
properties so that customers may be
secured. Who Is to buy those sub
sidiary companies which the Har-
vester Company has now agreed to
part with VIII 1t be the officers and
managers OF these companies? They
must be sold. And the Harvester
Company will endeavors TO make good
as far as possible the loss of these
subsidiary companies by eoncentrat-
ing their manufacturing operations
upon commodities hitherto not proni-
nently associated with the products
Of the company.
One Of the first questions asked after
announcement was made that the
Harvester company and the Depart
u1ent Of Justice had reached q COM
:. Brornise whereby the litigation would
be ended, was this: Will the United
states Steel Corporation take a hint
from this action and try to reach an
agreement with the Department of
Justice which would make II neces-
sary to continue the proceedings be-
fore the Supreme Court. It has been the
belief since the government brought
its action against the United States
steel Corporation that the Depart
n1ent of Jusice would be satisfied II
the United States Steel Corporation
were to give up its control Of the
Tennessee Coal and Iron Company.
Might withdraw Case.
The opinion today Is that were this