The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-01-05
Employers and Employees Under
the Antitrust Law.

Employers and Employees Under
the ANTITRUST Law.
One Of the great points made by the
Government in its suit against the Uni
ted States steel Corporation Is that the
corporation is made up Of various sub
sidiary organizations. the American
Steel and Wire Company, the Federal
Steel Company and others. and tina,
different companies into the United
States Steel Corporation they were ali
engaged In illegally conducting pools OF
one sort or another in their different
businesses.
1t was thus particularly urged against
the American steel and Wire Company
that 1t was engaged with other steel
and wire producing organizations In Il
pool in which, for one thing. n strong
effort was made to procure 'rea sonable
prices for the different products Of the
concern. That Is to say. an agreement
was made by the different members of
the pool that they would not sell goods
below certain level OF prices. and that
If any member of the pool did make
sales below these prices he was to turn
over his profits to general fund
which was to be proportionately divided
among the pool members.
The antitrust law was passed in
1890. II was drawn. as pretty nearly
everybody knows, by Senator GEORGE r.
HoAR Of Massachusetts, and Senator
GEORGE +. EDMUNDs Of Vermont, al.
though the bin became known by the
name of JOHN SHERMAN. Senator from
Ohio. who was chairman Of the Judi
ciary Committee that reported 1t to the
Senate.
Senator HoAR was counsel for the
Washburn 4 Moen Company Of Worces-
ter. Mass. one of the leading steel and
wire manufacturing establishments of
the country. He was also counsel for
other steel and wire concerns. One
year after the passage Of the Sherman
act his steel and wire clients wrote to
Senator HoAR telling him that they
were engaged in different pools, such as
have been described, and asking him. as
one especially qualified to speak con.
corning the scope and authority of the
anti trust law. to give an opinion as to
the legality Of these conditions
Senator HoAB's opinion, given on
April %. 1891, was produced. yellow
% ko no II IN
summer in the Steel suit. The object
Of Its production was, Of course. to
throw light upon the bona fldes which
actuated these pooling arrangements in
the steel and wire trade.
Senator IIOAB answered his clients
emphatically that the agreements were
perfectly legal. lie based his opinion
on a long series of decisions In this
country and in English courts holding
that such agreements constituted no
restraint Of trade and looked forward
10 the saving Of property from destruc-
tive competition, the protection Of prop
erty rather than anything else. A man
ufacturer was entitled to have before
him the prospect Of reasonable perma-
nence In his business, and II any bust
ness had become wasted and disorsan-
lied by cutthroat competition, as the
steel and wire trade previously had
been, it was not only perfectly proper
but highly praiseworthy for the manu-
facturcrs to make the agreements In
question. Senator IiOAR pointed out
that there was no distinction In princi-
pie between a contract of workingmen
not to work for less than stipulated
sum in wages and contract Of employ
crs not 10 sell their products for less
than n stipulated sum. Roth Of these
contracts were for the legitimate protcc-
ton of those making them and they
were not contracts for any unlawful or
oppressive design.
All this seems pretty straight com
mon sense to-day, and there Is no cues
ton that 1t represented the view both
of the courts and the lawyers of the
country at the time Senator HoAR
wrote II. Indeed, long time after
the opinion was given and Just pre-
vious to the formation of the United
States Steel Corporation body known
as the industrial Commission"-ap-
pointed by the President under the M
thority of Congress. and two-thlrds
made up of members OF Congress
made rigid investigation OF the Amer
lean Steel and Wire Company and other
similar concerns. All details Of their
organization and business conduct were
turned inside out, but the legality OF
their organization was never cues
tioned, no complaint against the differ
ent mergers was addressed to the De-