Inside front cover |
Previous | 2 of 36 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
Loading content ...
The International Harvester Case
On August 12, igi4, at St. Paul, Minnesota, an adverse decision was handed down by the District Court on the Lnternational Harvester Case. The opinion was written by fudge Smith, fudge Hook concurring, and presiding Judge .Sanborn dissenting. Copies of Ihe opinions, together with the statements of Cyrus H. McCormick and Mr. Bancroft which are herewith reproduced, have been mailed to all stockholders and several thousand to ihe press. So long as the present supply lasts, copies will be gladly mailed to all on request. Statement by Cyrus H. McCormick, President of the International Harvester Company The adverse decision is a great disappointment. As I understand, it is not based upon actual wrongs done in the conduct of the business of the International Harvester Company, but upon the eHmination of competition more than ten years ago between the companies whose properties were purchased by it. The adverse opinion acquits the Company and its officers and directors of the charges of overcapitalization and unfair and oppressive policies and practices. It does not sustain the charge made in the petition of the Government, but abandoned on the argument, that the Company had charged excessive or unfair prices. Aside from its original organization and the facts connected with its purchase of competitive plants, the opinion finds nothing to be condemned in the history of the Company's growth or in the manner of developing and carrying on its business. The organization of the Company and the purchase of its plants were acts done in the belief that no law was being violated, after consultation with competent counsel of the highest standing. The organization of the Company is condemned by the majority of the Court as a violation of the Sherman Act, but the Company is not found guilty of having violated the law in the conduct of its business or having injured its customers or its competitors. The conclusion arrived at seems to be that the Harvester is a good but illegal trust. Its business has been conducted fairly and the economies secured by its organi¬ zation have inured to the benefit of its customers, the farmers, but nevertheless the majority of the judges hold its existence is illegal. The decision is by a divided court and the case will not be ended until the Supreme Court has said the last word. We still hope that the great public benefits secured by the organization of the Company and the methods adopted in carrying on its business will be made permanent by the final decision in the Court of last resort. It may well be that that Court will hold the view expressed in the dissenting opinion of Judge Sanborn.
Object Description
Title | The Harvester World: Volume 5, number 9, September 1914 |
Object Type | Periodical |
Language | English |
Source | McCormick Mss 6z |
Electronic Publisher | Wisconsin Historical Society |
Physical Description | 7 x 9.75 inches |
Electronic Publication Date | 2008 |
Year | 1914 |
Volume | 005 |
Issue | 09 |
Date | 1914-09 |
Rights | © Copyright 2008 by the Wisconsin Historical Society (Madison, Wisconsin) |
Series | The Harvester World ; v. 5, no. 9 |
Format | TIF |
Description | Harvester World magazine was first published by International Harvester Company in October of 1909. From 1909 to 1946, Harvester World functioned primarily as an employee magazine, carrying news from various factories, branch houses and dealerships around the world. The magazine included biographical sketches of employees; notices of retirements and promotions; announcements regarding new company initiatives or building projects; and a variety of other news relating to nearly every facet of the company’s world wide operations. The magazine was published by the company’s Advertising Department, and also functioned as a way for headquarters to communicate with dealerships. In 1946, the magazine was redesigned and eventually shifted from an employee magazine to a more customer-oriented focus. By the 1950s, most Harvester Articles were human interest stories centering on the people and organizations who used International Harvester products. At the same time, photography became an increasingly important element in the content and presentation of the magazine. The magazine was discontinued in 1969. |
CONTENTdm file name | 9581.cpd |
Date created | 2008-12-12 |
Date modified | 2010-02-17 |
Description
Title | Inside front cover |
Object Type | Periodical |
Source | The Harvester World, September 1914 |
Page Number | Inside front cover |
Electronic Publisher | Wisconsin Historical Society |
Physical Description | 7 x 9.75 inches |
Electronic Publication Date | 2008 |
Year | 1914 |
Volume | 005 |
Issue | 09 |
Date | 1914-09 |
Rights | © Copyright 2008 by the Wisconsin Historical Society (Madison, Wisconsin) |
Series | The Harvester World ; v. 5, no. 9 |
Full Text |
The International Harvester Case On August 12, igi4, at St. Paul, Minnesota, an adverse decision was handed down by the District Court on the Lnternational Harvester Case. The opinion was written by fudge Smith, fudge Hook concurring, and presiding Judge .Sanborn dissenting. Copies of Ihe opinions, together with the statements of Cyrus H. McCormick and Mr. Bancroft which are herewith reproduced, have been mailed to all stockholders and several thousand to ihe press. So long as the present supply lasts, copies will be gladly mailed to all on request. Statement by Cyrus H. McCormick, President of the International Harvester Company The adverse decision is a great disappointment. As I understand, it is not based upon actual wrongs done in the conduct of the business of the International Harvester Company, but upon the eHmination of competition more than ten years ago between the companies whose properties were purchased by it. The adverse opinion acquits the Company and its officers and directors of the charges of overcapitalization and unfair and oppressive policies and practices. It does not sustain the charge made in the petition of the Government, but abandoned on the argument, that the Company had charged excessive or unfair prices. Aside from its original organization and the facts connected with its purchase of competitive plants, the opinion finds nothing to be condemned in the history of the Company's growth or in the manner of developing and carrying on its business. The organization of the Company and the purchase of its plants were acts done in the belief that no law was being violated, after consultation with competent counsel of the highest standing. The organization of the Company is condemned by the majority of the Court as a violation of the Sherman Act, but the Company is not found guilty of having violated the law in the conduct of its business or having injured its customers or its competitors. The conclusion arrived at seems to be that the Harvester is a good but illegal trust. Its business has been conducted fairly and the economies secured by its organi¬ zation have inured to the benefit of its customers, the farmers, but nevertheless the majority of the judges hold its existence is illegal. The decision is by a divided court and the case will not be ended until the Supreme Court has said the last word. We still hope that the great public benefits secured by the organization of the Company and the methods adopted in carrying on its business will be made permanent by the final decision in the Court of last resort. It may well be that that Court will hold the view expressed in the dissenting opinion of Judge Sanborn. |
Format | TIF |
Full resolution | Volume588\IH200290.tif |
CONTENTdm file name | 9546.jpg |
Date created | 2008-12-12 |
Date modified | 2008-12-12 |