The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1915-06-04

Bell 81. Sstl SEA
tanning the price OF any substantial
steel product. can raise the obtainabie
Discussed Foreign Trade.
The court then discusses the foreign
trade OF the Steel corporation and
shows that IL had been built up not nv
restraining or taking away the trade
OF others. but by creating Its own. n
rs SHOWN IN the opinion that when thu
corporation was formed the
american steel companies had no de-
pendable foreign trade. such foreign
steer sales as were then made consist,
90 IN what was known as dumping. .
q that Is. IN unloading or dumping stesl
az low prices IN foreign markets when
piled. sup
The foreign trade branch OF the case
Is summed mp by the court as follows
With these facts. figures and re.
suits proved in this record. we are
warranted in holding that the foreign
trade OF the Steel Corporation. lis
mode of building II up and its Teten.
ION when built up. are not contrary
TO the Sherman law"
In discussing the question of domes.
tlc and foreign trade generally. the
/ court says:
ALlh question:. We dis
miss once and for all the question OF
the mere volume or bigness of bust.
ness. The question before us Is not
now much business was done, or how
large the company that did IL: the vi.
tai question is. how was the business.
whether big or little. done-vas II. in
the test OF the supreme court-done
by ,prejudicipg the public interests. by
uhouly restricting or unduly obstruct.
ing trade? The question is one OF
undue restriction or obstruction. and
not one OF undue volume OF trade"
Having shown that when the bill
was filed in 1911 the Steel Corpora.
ton was not monopolizing or restrain.
ing home or foreign trade. and that
no Injunction should issue. the opinion
then takes up the question whether.
when the Steel Corporation was
formed in 1901. its inherent nature
{ was such as to necessitate its dissoIu-
ton. After discussing the evidence
on this question. the court said:
Dissolution Not Warranted.
Recurring, therefore, TO the mar
ticular question With which this par
tlcular part OF the opinion deals,
namely, whether We should now en-
ter decree dissolving the Steel cor
poratlon on the ground OF its inner
ent, Illegal character in 1901, and
whether we should also dissolve the
several constituent companies when
IL acquired on the like ground of their
oTlslnal Inherent illegal character
when they were formed. we thing
there is ground for our holding in
view OF the facts. proofs and views
SET fortn. that we are not as a rourr
OF equity. warranted in taking sucn
uIastlc course as to now decree the
ulssoIution OF the Steel corporation or
us constituent companies"
The subsequent acquisition by the
Steel corporation OF several proper-
ues, including the Tennessee Coal
ana iron company and the James 4
mn ore leases. are discussed in the
opinion. The testimony OF Colonel
hoS0seNet that he had not interfered
Win the purchase OF the Tennessee
plant as a means OF averting the
panic OF 1907. was cited and the court
lurther stated that the Hill ore leas-
IS were surrendered before the bili
The Gary Dinners.
As TO the Gary dinners and the
meeting OF manufacturers Subsequent
thereto. the court says:
reedom OF speech and freedom OF
INDIVIDUAL action are Justly prized in
american society and no legislation
IOIDids men 10 come together and
speak freely TO each other about everv
detail OF their common business A1d
II each individual should choose 10 an.
nouhce az such meeting the price he
intends TO charge for HIS wares No
are aware Of no law that forbids him
so TO do. But at this point We an
proach debatable ground. for an In
ulsluual u permitted TO do some
things that are denied 10 an associs-
ton OF individuals
To our minds the testimony taken AZ
Nhole makes the conclusion in
evitable that the result OF these meet
lngs was an understanding about
prices thst was equivalent 10 an agree
Hent. We have no doubt that amonq
nose present some silently dlssentcd
ana went away intending TO do what
they pleased, but may. probably most.
or the participants understood and ae
fcnted 20 the view. that thew vere
under some kind Of an Obligation 10
adhere 20 the prices that had been an
I nouner ~ , or declared ,I ~ he general
We cannot doubt that such an ar
engagement or understanding. or moral
obligation whatever name NAV 10
tho most appropriato-amoun 90
com 9in3tion or common action forbid
Not nisgai intent.
npiNl"n thc participants iu this move
lnent did not intend 90 act illegally 80
full legal rights. but ~ course aurb =.
erff'1H could not BE- wrong and they be-
I'd INfH ma succeeded W. EnTUIur
within the proper limits For the rea-
sons Eivrn. We think hoy were tnis-
taken. but We acquif them 81 trlckinca.
ur attempted evasion.
fuf The period o. cooperation uararf
away before the bin waa ni.I and ~
Ter 90 We can see 30 ia not likely o. b.
repeated. We DO not think the Gary
~. rurut would Justify uu in Innr0aIrr
~ drastic penalty a. the dissolution
~ The rnrpurafion but We will lf trn
Hut Nrnfulut moves Tor such action. re-.
lAlm ihr biN Tor o." purpose OF restrain. I
jus any similar movement BY the d.
PENDANTS that might b. confsmuiafed
hercHfffT We may perhaps suggest
tnHf under recent legislation congress
NAV haFc provided aufflrlrutlV inrIu-
sisc remedy Tor any future action that
ulrhf have for ia object a. sflrff.... I