Show HARVESTER CASE The Internet onal Har ester ompany h s argued ts case before tl e s preme 0 rt orally n ad 1 tion to f 1 ng a o m nous br ef an 1 in due course of t me the lec fllon w II be hanlcl lown In the o rt be ow tl e company was 1 larel to be a omr nat on in rostra t of tra le an 1 orlerel d ssolved It s nt r st ng to te n th s conno t on that tl e test mony of a great n aior ty ot the I0 w tnesses exan el r ng the tr al we t to sh w that h om any wis not gr nd ng onojo y th t compet tion ba 1 ot been destroyel an 1 that in many respe ts the for n t on of the con flrn la I Icen g ly nc The fe Inrfl 1 " t t f VI o k how w t ng t n ny of the h g f 1 g 1 t u tto n h If g y f g si n a u I ol ta s c Vo y ut ally the harvester company appealed rely ng upon the supreme court to apply the n le of reason and allow t to con t nue n bus ness The Internat onal Harvester company so far as we hi e been able to d sco er does not treal upon t e toes of any compet tor great or small The sales of the const tJent con pan es in the Lnted States have decreased s nee the amalgamat on Tl e company has however b lit p an extens e fore gn trade wh ch the department of "ust ce seeks to de stroy by means of d ssolut on We do not bel eve an) good purpose would be ser ed b such act on It w 11 be time eno gh tor the Sherman ayt trust law when such o ert act of monopoly has been con m tted Mere s ze of a leg t n ate bus ness enterpr se si oul 1 cut no f gure and justice w II not be done if the le cree of the lower court is aff rmed |