The Harvester World: Volume 5, number 9, September 1914

              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.