AGAINST THE HARVESTER COMPANY 125 



business, and that since that time there has been no such elimina- 

 tion of competitors. The cost of raw materials and labor increased 

 fully 25 per cent since 1902, yet the prices of harvesting machines 

 were not raised until 1908, and then only 7 per cent, and for 1912 

 there was a reduction of about 5 per cent. The net earnings of 

 the company for this time averaged 5.91 per cent. 



In short, the Company says, "The Government ought not to 

 be permitted to urge in a court of equity that such a corporation 

 is in itself, and without regard to its practices and effects, illegal 

 and should be destroyed." 



In other words, a "good" trust is better than competition, and 

 hence should not be dissolved. 



Against the Harvester Company. There is no such thing as a 

 good or benevolent trust, the government contends. All combina- 

 tions which break down the competitive system are in restraint 

 of trade. It is apparent, says the government, that the objections 

 to substituting a despotic organization of industry for the competi- 

 tive system were quite as much social and political as economic, 

 and therefore it would not have satisfied Congress to be told, as 

 the Company now is saying, that the power which they feared 

 was thus far being exercised benevolently, that prices had not 

 been raised, nor wages lowered nor the quality of the products 

 degraded, nor competitors oppressed. In their minds the mere 

 existence of such powerful combinations was an evil a continuing 

 danger from which in the long run, if not immediately, would 

 come disaster. For, as in the organization of government, benevo- 

 lence can never justify absolutism, neither can it do so in the organ- 

 ization of industry. The fundamental contentions of the company 

 (that the anti-trust law prohibits only combinations injurious to 

 the public by raising prices, limiting production, deteriorating 

 quality, decreasing wages, or oppressing competitors) loses sight, 

 says the government, of the broader purpose and basis of the act. 

 It fails to take into account that the view of public policy upon 

 which Congress legislated was not to wait until the evils of undue 

 concentration of economic power have occurred or become imminent 

 and then attempt to restrain them, but to prevent their occur- 

 rence by striking at undue concentration of economic power itself. 



Here the reader has both sides. He will make his own choice, 

 for or against competition. 1 



1 Since the above statements were written, the International Harvester 

 Company has voluntarily formulated a plan for dissolution satisfactory to 

 the federal courts. 



