Evening star., 1924-10-23
HARVESTER TRUST
DISSOLUTION ASKED
Attorney General Holds Com
pany Is Monopoly in Re-
straint of Trade.
By the Associated Press.

By the Associated Press.
ST. PAUL, October 23.-"Effective
dissolution" of the International
Harvester Co.'S alleged monopoly
of the farm machinery business
is sought by Attorney General Stone
in a brief filed in his behalf in federal
court here today by the United States
attorney in proceedings supplemental
to the consent decree in dissolution
entered in the same court in 1913.
Mr.. Stone contends that greater
competitive conditions in the farm
machinery trade should be afforded.
enough, he said, demanding that
action be taken to give proper pro-
lection to the farmers and land
owners who are dependent upon agri-
cultural machinery and implements
obtainable at reasonable prices"
Outlines Two Steps.
one of two things ought to be
done" the Attorney Genera! suggests
Either the great judges who decided
this case ought to be reversed upon
the ground that their decision was
wholly erroneous, or else an effective
dissolution should be decreed.'
The consent decree failed to effect
"any substantial competition" the
ended 18 months after the declaration
of peace. On the contrary, it says,
eight of the Harvester Co.'S COM
petitors went out of business in
that time and the defendant com
panys percentage of the total bust
ness actually increased in 1922-the
last selling season under the test pc
riod, which was established to per-
nit an accurate survey of the results
npace =
time conditions.
Holds to Court Decree.
That the International Harvester
Co. is a combination in restraint of
trade and a monopoly in violation OF
the Sherman law" the brief asserts,
lis conclusively established by the
decision and decree of the court
which stands unreversed and un-
modified
Citing the Sherman, Clay, Wilson
Federal Trade Commission and Fan
ANA Canal acts. the brief continues:
1T is very clear that Congress has
never departed from the policy OF
competition first, ordained by the
Sherman act and since reiterated and
reafirmed. Not only has Con-
eress pursued an answering course
but the Supreme Court has at all
times given full effect to the policy
1
| thus established"
The original petition of the Fed
| eral Government was filed in April
1912. and in this case Federal Judges
Hook, Sanburn and Smith handed
down a far-reaching decision. The
! Harvester Co. appealed to the Su-
preme Court, but dropped that action
when arrangements for the consent
! decree were worked out with the De-
| Da rtment of Justice.
The Government began an inVesti'
CATION in May, 1928, shortly after the
end of the test period, to determine
| the results of the decree, and fol-
| lowed this with supplemental court
| proceedings at st. Paul in July OF last
year.
In these proceedings. of which to-
| day's brief is a part. the Government,
seeks dissolution of the concern ir
| accordance with detailed plar
worked out by the Federal Trade
| Commission Representatives of the
| Government and the company have
been taking testimony in this case
for more than year before specia
/ examiner in Chicago, and the record
! of the proceeding is said to have
reached unprecedented proportions.