Eddy, Arthur Jerome: The new competition: an examination of the conditions underlying the radical change that is taking place in the commercial and industrial world ; the change from a competitive to a cooperative basis (New York [u.a.], 1912)

CLASS LEGISLATION

329
reached the Supreme Court the several judges in their opin-
ion found:
“In 1902, when the negotiations which led up to the
organization of the International Harvester Company were
begun, competition between the large harvester machine
companies in the United States was such as to reduce the
market to a condition that was deplorable from the stand-
point of the competing companies and it is not certain that
its tendency was toward the ultimate advantage of the
consumer of those machines. Whilst the tendency of fair
competition is to produce a wholesome condition of the
market, yet competition may be of such a character and
so designed as to destroy, the weaker competitors, leaving
only the giant in the field, who then would have a monopoly
of the market.”
“The evidence also shows that the price of harvester
machines was not materially higher after the New Jersey
corporation entered the field than it was before, until 1908,
when it was increased eight or ten per cent., whilst in the
meantime there had been a greater increase in the price of
the material and labor used in their construction. The
evidence also shows that whilst harvesting machines were
the chief products of the companies absorbed by the Inter-
national Harvester Company, that company has greatly
enlarged its business and extended it to many other farm
implements and has thus put itself in competition with the
many concerns that theretofore were and still are engaged
in manufacturing such other farm implements, and the
farmers generally have profited thereby. The evidence also
shows that the machines manufactured by the International
Company have been greatly improved in quality, and the
item of repair material has been reduced in price and
placed within closer reach of the farmer. On the whole,
the evidence show's that the International Harvester Com-
pany has not used its power to oppress or injure the
farmers who are its customers.”
“In this case the court is required by the statute to pro-
nounce a judgment of condemnation upon a combination
corporation. The New Jersey company had no plant, and maintained
no office in Missouri, consequently was not a party to the suit.