The People's Tycoon: Henry Ford and the American Century (Vintage) (31 page)

But for Street, the shape of Ford's character was even more striking. A man of common tastes and ordinary habits, Ford conveyed a powerful sense of honesty and trustworthiness. He confessed to having little use for money and noted that he avoided high society while still socializing with friends he had known for twenty years. Plain culinary tastes completed the picture. Ford related that over the previous few months he had hired a series of cooks but remained dissatisfied because “they try to give me fancy food, but I won't stand for it. They can't cook as well as Mrs. Ford either—none of them can.”

One of Ford's comments particularly revealed his utter lack of pretense. When asked his opinion about art, “he replied, ‘I wouldn't give five cents for all the art in the world.’ ” This unwillingness to posture struck Street as refreshingly honest, even admirable. True, with such an admission “Ford declares himself a barbarian of sorts. But a good, honest, open-hearted barbarian is a fine creature.” In Street's assessment:

Such images of Henry Ford had begun to permeate American public life. As his Model T spread throughout the United States, a similarly simple, utilitarian, and dependable image of the Detroit automaker followed in its wake. He appeared as an unassuming man of the people, a “just folks” producer, guileless and honest, a heroic defender of the little guy, and a provincial whose native wit and shrewdness elevated him above more sophisticated classes. Ford molded a public image of himself as a self-educated, native genius with a homespun manner and unsounded depths of wisdom. In the process, he demolished an older, ruthless image of the American big businessman and remolded it for a new century. Unlike robber barons such as John D. Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, and Cornelius Vanderbilt, Ford emerged as a folk hero in the eyes of ordinary citizens. He became a symbol not only of responsible business, but of the most cherished American values. Henry Ford, it is fair to say, emerged as a beloved figure in the popular imagination.

How did this happen? Ford's status as folk hero was partly accidental,
partly purposeful; it was partly the product of events beyond his control and partly the product of his self-conscious manipulation of them. As Model T's began to blanket the country, Ford's “just folks” image seemed a genuine reflection of his personality. But Ford publicized this persona at every opportunity to gain fame for himself and sales for his automobile. He took full advantage of the commercial drawing power of his rough-hewn, man-of-the-people image.

One of the most important factors launching Ford's persona into its elevated public orbit was a bitter lawsuit that entangled him for years in legal maneuvers and courtroom litigation. From 1903 through its final settlement in 1911, this lawsuit threatened the very existence of the Ford Motor Company. Battling for his life as an automaker, Ford assumed a stance that earned much admiration from his fellow citizens.

On October 22, 1903, George B. Selden and the Electric Vehicle Company filed suit against the Ford Motor Company in the United States Circuit Court in New York. Henry Ford's production of automobiles, the lawsuit argued, was infringing upon the patent granted to Selden for his invention of a motor carriage with an engine running on gasoline or kerosene. The ensuing legal battle would rage for seven and a half years, gathering attention not only within the automobile industry but among a national audience increasingly addicted to buying cars. The stakes were high. If Ford lost, he could be forced out of business. But he fought back in a fashion that appealed to the deepest, most revered American values. He gained much of his folk-hero status during the contentious proceedings of the Selden suit.

An attorney from Rochester, New York, Selden had first filed a patent application in 1879 for a road vehicle of his own design. Over the next decade and a half, he amended his application with minor improvements that delayed the granting of the actual patent until the infant automobile industry had struggled to its feet and began to walk. In November 1895, Selden finally secured his patent for “a road-locomotive featuring a liquid hydro-carbon engine of the compression type.” The patent extended backward to cover all such vehicles designed since 1879, and forward to cover those manufactured or sold until 1912. In 1899, Selden assigned the patent to the Electric Vehicle Company for cash and a percentage of whatever royalties it could collect. This company proceeded systematically to file suit against the largest automakers in the United States, such as the Winton Motor Carriage Company of Cleveland and the Buffalo Gasoline Motor Company.

Car manufacturers and automobile experts uniformly saw Selden's patent claim as preposterous, because it described a motor carriage in only the most general terms. Avoiding any exact mechanical descriptions, Selden noted vaguely that his vehicle was to have a compression engine, a steering mechanism, a tank for liquid fuel, a power shaft, some kind of clutch mechanism, and a carriage body for carrying passengers. In addition, rather than pretending that any of these elements were new, he claimed that combining them constituted an invention. Most galling of all, Selden never actually built his vehicle. Thus critics scoffed at the patent, observing that mechanics and engineers all over the United States had been developing motorized carriages in many forms throughout the 1890s. Selden's claims, they believed, were so broad as to be meaningless.

By 1903, however, twenty-six automobile companies had caved in to legal pressure and decided that settlement would be cheaper than litigation. After negotiation with the Electric Vehicle Company, these companies recognized the validity of the Selden patent and formed the Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers (ALAM). ALAM members agreed to pay a royalty of 1.25percent of each car's price to the Electric Vehicle Company, which then sent a portion of the money to George B. Selden, kept part for itself, and gave the rest to ALAM. In turn, ALAM granted licenses to manufacturers who recognized the Selden patent, and sued those who refused to cooperate. In other words, the Selden patent became the basis for a monopoly that controlled the manufacture of automobiles through the issuing (or nonissuing) of licenses to companies.

Henry Ford responded initially in the summer of 1903by approaching ALAM and inquiring about a license. The organization refused, noting its skepticism about Ford's ability to meet its manufacturing standards and to become a respected part of the industry. A short time later, ALAM began running advertisements in Detroit newspapers proclaiming its leadership of American car manufacturing and warning that all unlicensed manufacturers would be prosecuted for patent infringement. At this point, Ford, distrustful of ALAM from the outset, reacted defiantly. His company ran a series of ads blasting the validity of the Selden patent, denouncing the claims of ALAM, and refusing to purchase a license. The company promised protection to all consumers and dealers who might handle or purchase Ford cars.
²

As the Ford resistance took shape, two themes came to the fore. First, the campaign portrayed ALAM as a monopolistic, greedy “trust” seeking to dominate the market and drive out legitimate competitors. Second, it made Henry Ford the centerpiece of its effort, portraying him as a heroic individualist who was not afraid to stand up to the forces of corrupt power. This
strategy depended on cultural values as much as technical legalisms, and sought to try the case in the forum of public opinion as much as in the courtroom.

The issue of monopoly emerged quickly in Ford's assault on ALAM. In a public letter to the editor of the
Cycle and Automobile Trade Journal
that was essentially a declaration of war, James Couzens sarcastically noted that ALAM was “not a philanthropic institution…. Its members have joined together because of some expected pecuniary benefit in monopolizing the market under cover of the Selden patent, and not because they believe the patent to be impregnable.” A barrage of Ford advertisements over the next year repeated this characterization over and over. In response to ALAM's attempts to scare consumers away from purchasing unlicensed cars, a 1904 Ford ad claimed, “The Ford Motor Car cannot be beaten by the Trust in competition; so they have erected a scarecrow, to frighten the buying public.” Subsequent ads proclaimed “The Ford, Boosted into Popular Favor by the Trust,” and insisted that “The Ford has sounded the death knell of the Trust with its attempt to make a monopoly of the motor car industry and to charge exorbitant prices for inferior cars.”
³

The antitrust flavor of the Ford campaign against ALAM shrewdly capitalized on one of the most heated issues in American public life in the early 1900s. By the turn of the century, concern about the unchecked power of large American corporations was influencing debate and policy-making throughout the country. The emergence of the Progressive movement in politics had helped secure Theodore Roosevelt in the White House with his famous reputation as a trustbuster. Muckraking journalists such as Ida Tar-bell, whose series in
McClure's
on “The History of Standard Oil” had brought to light the ruthless tactics and monopolistic bent of John D. Rockefeller, had helped raise a cry for government regulation of unfair corporate practices. The spirit of political reform was in the air, and Ford's denunciation of ALAM as the automobile trust found a responsive audience.
⁴

Another motif emerged alongside Ford's trustbusting theme during the Selden controversy. Henry Ford himself, appearing as an individual entrepreneur and straightforward competitor, took center stage as a compelling symbol. In an image shaped by advertisements and interviews, he appeared before the public as an industrial David standing alone against a powerful, monopolistic Goliath.

Company advertisements shaped this image of lonely heroism by presenting its leader as a man of ability and principle. Henry Ford, they noted, had put his “extraordinary mechanical ability into building the best motor cars yet produced for popular use…. [This car] costs only $900. The Trust
car that compares with it costs $1500.” References to “the mechanical genius of Mr. Henry Ford” and to the fact that “Henry Ford alone has done more to develop the automobile industry than the combined members of the Licensed Association” became mainstays of Ford advertising during the Selden suit. Ads insisted that his real quarrel with the automobile trust concerned its attempt to restrain his individual initiative. ALAM must allow him “to pursue his own course and work out his own inventions unhampered and without interference.”
⁵

Ford's own words reinforced his growing image as a heroic individualist. He entered the fray directly, with articles and newspaper statements, lashing out at his legal foes in forceful, indignant language. George Selden's patent, he claimed, “has never been considered seriously except as a foundation to keep the field of motor car manufacture in the hands of a limited few.” Ford exuded optimism, insisting that his company's crusade was inspiring resistance among other independent manufacturers. “The ingeniously built structure that proposed to have a monopoly of motor car manufacture and [to] boost prices accordingly,” he wrote confidently, “is nearing its end…. Trust methods have failed to produce results.”
⁶

Ford defined his opposition to the Selden patent in terms of deep-rooted American traditions. In his words:

He contended that his ALAM opponents were not actually automobile makers who had contributed to the industry's development, but manipulators “whose talents take the peculiar slant of smart practice and bluff.” Here was the old contest for control in American commerce between honest producers and confidence men, hardworking entrepreneurs and unscrupulous schemers.
⁷

After years of litigation and evidence gathering, the Selden suit finally reached its conclusion dramatically. In the initial stage, on September 15, 1909, Judge Charles Hough of the Circuit Court of the Southern District of
New York rendered a favorable decision to ALAM by affirming the validity of the Selden patent. Though elation swept through the ALAM ranks, more experienced observers counseled patience. They knew that Judge Hough had little expertise in patent law, and that an appeal would likely bring a different judgment. Such prudence proved well founded. In stage two, ALAM and Ford attorneys presented their cases to a three-judge panel in the New York Court of Appeals on November 22–25, 1910, and then turned over their briefs, exhibits, and transcribed testimony. The trio of judges rendered their unanimous opinion on January 9, 1911, ruling in Ford's favor and overturning the lower court's decision. The Selden patent, they wrote, did not cover the great variety of engine types, transmissions, body carriages, and ignition systems that had been developed independently by many engineers and mechanics since 1879. The idea of the automobile, they noted, was not the property of any one person.
⁸