New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-02-04
A SOUND DEFENCE
Albert H. Walker So Characterizes the
Reply of United States Steel
To the Editor of The Tribune.

| TO the Editor or The IrlDune'
Sir: You lately published an account o,
the answer filed by the United States Stee
| Corporation In the sherman law case which
the Attorney General lately started against
that corporation in the United states Cour
! I'm New Jersey. In that account you M
| clude the statement: LAS principal reason
why the Steel Corporation should not De
compelled TO dissolve now, the answer SUI
nlitted that. after acquiescing in the or
g;nization Of the Steel Corporation FOR Sc
| long time, and after rights or SO sacrco
a character have grown up therein II u
now too late for the government TO insls'
| IN a court of equity that such organization
was in itself and without regard 10 us
after practices. an illegal thing
I'm YOUR editorial OF to-day, which Is en-
! titled Delay Under the Sherman Act
YOU say, when speaking OF that deience
in the United States Steel case. that the
same plea might have been urged IN pc
half Of the Standard Oil Company or the
Tobacco combination. or, in fact. OF most
~ not all. of the trusts that have been
prosecuted"
| In The Tribune of May 10. 1911, you kiiiu'
| " stated In respect OF myself: ALBERT n
Walker is regarded as an authority on 'ne
Sherman antitrust law" THIS coihpii'
mentary mention OF my relation 10 tne
Sherman law may perhaps be thought u
qualify me- at least TO some extent "
estimate the legal force OF that defehct
which you have designated as q principa
defence interposed by the United states
Steel CORPORATION to the Sherman law suit
against II. 7 may therefore properly men,
ton that ] have given much radicai anu
careful consideration to that point anu
! have been carried thereby to the conclusion
that the defence in question is perfectiy
good one. 1t is my opinion that the utter
neglect by the government during more
than ten years after the Steel Corporation
was organized to bring any action undei
the sherman law against that corporation
constituted such laches as to disentlte the
government TO a decree dissolvins that cor
poration now.
| or course, I know all about the anciai'
maxim, "Nulum tempus occurrit regi'
which VIII be thought by many lawyers u
| be fatal to the opinion I am expressing
and 7 also know all about the points II
equity Jurisprudence which will be called
| IN the minds OF educated lawyers by my
reference to that maxim. In fact sup
pose am acquainted with all sides OF th'
subject; and, anyhow, have no hesitation
whatever in expressing the opinion tha'
the defence of laches, which you say the
United States Steel Corporation has inter
posed. is a good defence. But you are
partly or perhaps wholly in error in sup
posing that the same defence might nave
been as properly urged in behalf OF th'
Standard OIL Company or the Tobacco com
biration, or, IN fact, most, II not ALL oil
the trusts that have been prosecuted undei
the Sherman law. For the facts In every
one II the cases 10 which | refer We're
materially different from the facts In the
United States Steel case.
have no doubt that this defence oil
l1aches. though now interposed for the frs'
time in any Sherman law case, will ot
found available hereafter by many cor
porations against which suits may here
after be brought under Section of the
Sherman law, II any such suits are here
after brought at all
ALBERT II. WALKER.
New York Feb 2, 1912.