The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-02-26
MINORITY REPORT
SENATE INVESTIGATION OF THE
 STEEL MERGER.
Minority's View Ia That senate Doesn't Impose Upon Committee Duty to Investigate Whether
 AhaOrptiNn Was Legal.

Washington. Feb. A5.-Two reports | will be before the Senate Committee | on Judicary on Monday. when It meets to vote on the Investigation of the ab- 1 sorption of the Tennessee Coal ana Iron Company by the United states Steel Corporation
 Since the publication of the major ity report of the sub committee, ind ing that the merger was violation of the sherman law and administering a severe rebuke to the President, the minority, Messrs. Clark of wyoming, and Dillingham;, have put their disseht | in the form of report. All day there has been a variety of wire-puilinS anu manipulation on the floor of the Senate nrenaratory to the vote in the com mittee.
 The view of the minority Is that the Senate does not impose upon any com mittee any duty to investigate or con- sider whether the absorption was or | was not a legal transaction. There fore, upon that point, no opinion VIII | be expressed except that in the judg- ment of the committee the determine | ton of that question. more properly | belongs to a court of competent ju- | risdiction in an appropriate proceed ing with all of the parties before IL -. It will be asserted that the direction of the Judiciary Committee Is limited | by the reSOlutlon to dH oPihioh oS to the Presidents authority to permit the | absorption," as Is shown by his mes- | sage It will be pointed out that the | urinary inquiry relates to what the l Presidents message discloses that ne did, and under what circumstances. The minority finds that there are just three things disclosed by the Pres | ident's message that are important and | relevant. They are. that the Presi- dent told the representatives of the Steel Corporation he could not advise l tn em to take the action proposed, that he felt 1t no public duty of his to in fterpose any objection under the facts | and circumstances detailed to him | and that the President assumes all re- sponsibility for his action in thus do- ing. (
 The minority asserts that 1t is imma- terial to determine whether the un- I derstanding which the President had as to the details and conditions of the I tabsorption, as disciosedf to him by Messrs. Gary and Prick, was fully In accord with the facts. That the Pres ident acted under the facts as hex then understood them to be, Is the opinion of the majority, and, 1t Is declared that his action must be considered as having been taken under the facts and information he then had as stated in the resolution directing the injunry to to be made. It Is declared that any other construction of this resolution would be tantamount to asking the committee to judge the Presidents act not in the light of the circumstances and facts surrounding him at the time of his action, but of those subsequently, developed.i In their opinion, thts would manifestly be unfair and unjust.
 Whatever may have developed since that time as to the details either of -Iz n results thereof which were then un- known to the President should not. in the opinion of the minority, form proper matter for consideration.
 They declare that 1t cannot be known what the President might have re- garded as his duty if facts of other different nature had been presented to him.
 A strong point Is made of the fact that the law clearly charges the United States District Attorneys, under the direction of the Atorney-General, with the execution of the antitrust law The minority of the committee finds that the President has no legal right to interfere with the proposed merger It Is pointed out that he immediately notified the Attorney General of the conversation he had with Messrs Gary and Prick, but before receiving the letter from the President, the At torney General advised him that un- der all of the information possessed hy the..deparment the United States Steel Corporation had not been under the ban of the law. and that in his opin- ion the absorption of the Tennessee concern would not change the legal situation. That the duty of enforcing the law, under which the legality oi the merger might be challenged. de. volved upon the Attorney-General and not upon the President. Is pointed out by the minority. It Is declared that the fact that the President mmedi' ateIy advised with the Attorney-G Gen eral in the matter clearly demonstrates that he was acting entirely within the duties of his office.
 It is found that while the Senate resolution directs the committee to report whether the President was au- thorized to permit the absorption that the circumstances as developed. show that the President neither permitted nor forbade 1t.