The Birmingham age-herald., 1914-10-21

festly it cannot in reason be said that the combination of manufacturing con cerns, whose competition did not exceed that above shown, whose percentage of the production did not exceed b0.1 per cent and whose acquisition of a raw ma terial supply did not exceed its reason able requirements and did not approach to monopoly, necessarily operated to restrain trade, or in and of itself amount ca to a monopoly or an attempt at lnonopolization.
 This brings the argument to the second question essential to a decision of the case, namely, whether the circumstances which led up to and surrounded the or ganization of the Steel corporation and the after conduct of it's managers show an intent to unduly suppress competition or to effect a monopoly This question must be considered in the light of the history and development of the steel busi- ness in this country. The testimony shows that in 1852 5000 was considered sufficient capital to start a works for producing wrought iron. This was pro- ducea in pudding furnaces which. had a
 y of about four tons in 24 hours,
 a as operated by four men. There fHs continuity of operation, and after .a iron had been made it was all
 to become cold and shipped to the mill, where 1t was put through .4aa processes not continuous in their
 tions, the material being permitted
 come cold at each of the different fts ,s Even after certain amount of
 emer steel began to be made, wrought Hea, manufactured as described, was
 for nearly all rolled products. It
 not until about 1890 that the dis
 iries of new processes of steel mak- ] iss brought about practical revolu-
 in the iron industry. By that time
 had practically supplanted wrought
 aa. By inventions, the use of electricity
 other changes in steel making, the
 luction of steel began to be carried
 as one continuous operation from the
 to the finished product. never per-
 ting the material to become cold un-
 reached the final marketable shape
 increased the economic unit of man.
 cture from a group of pudding fur paces having a capacity of 70 tons in l A hours, to steel works having a ca- pacity of 1000 tons in the same time Through these changes the cost of pro- ducing steel became much less than the cost of producing wrought iron, but the cost of steel plant was vastly greater than the cost of an iron plant. Con- sequently those concerns which had suf- nctent output and capital to convert their works from iron to steel did so but there was a vast number who had neith- 1 CT the capital nor the output to permit their making the change The testimony shows that steel production in 1890 had increased 306 per cent over 1880; in 1900. l 155 per cent over 1890; that the majority of concerns which could not change from 1 iron to steel and integrate sufficiently | to control their supply of raw material 1 failed in business or were abandoned l by their owners, and that this revolu- tion in the industry, due to the intro duction of steel in the place of wrought iron, was the fundamental reason for the earlier aagregations of works which l took place during the years from 1898 1 to 1900.
 Companies Not in Competition l One of the units formed as the out growth of these conditions was the Fed eral Steel company, which acquired ore. coal and coke properties, steel works and transportation facilities located prin- cirally in the region of Chicago. None