South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1915-06-04

that its object Is. as it's title says. IAN
act to protect trade and commerce
against unlawful restraints and mo-
nopolies' was TO protect lawful trade
and that the supreme court in the
Standard oil case had held lone Of
the fundamental purposes OF the
statute IS 10 protect, not 10 destroy
rights OF property.
Unlawful Monopolies.
II then shows that in determining
what are the unlawful restraints and
monopolies against which the Sher-
man act protects trade, the supreme
court in a late case have summarized
their former trust decisions by stat
ing these cases may be taken 10 have
established that only such contracts
and combinations are within the act
as bv reason Of intent or the inherent
nature Of the contemplated acts.
prejudice the public interests by IN
duly restricting competition or unduly
obstruCting the course OF trade.
That the present case involves the le-
gality. not Of a contract but OF a
combination. that is the steel cOrpo-
ration. and the opinion then states:
Therefore applying the foregoing
definitions OF the supreme court 10
the case in hand. the basic question
for Us to determine is one Of fact.
viz. whether the union Of the several
defendant companies in the United
States corporation prejudices the pub
lie interests by unduly restricting
competition or unduly obstructing the
course OF trade"
1t then states the public interests
thus prejudiced consist OF. first
competitors in trade; second. the pur-
chasing public, and third, the gen.
eral public.
II then proceeds:
For example if this steel COM
pany was in any way guilty OF unfair
business competition. If it was guilty
of such conduct as 10 unfairly force a
competitor out Of the steel business,
or if il unfairly prevented those who
wanted TO go into the steel business
from doing So then the steel COM
pany was. in the judgment of the su-
preme court, prejudicing the public in
terests by unfairly driving individuals
out of business or preventing them
from entering 1t, and il was also in
juring the public by unduly restrain
ing trade.
Output Not Restricted.
so also, if this steel company was
restricting output in order to exact
unfair prices. if it was buying up COM
to needlessly restrict output, if il was
by reason of it's controlling power fur
nishing the public with inferior goods
if it was using it's power to needlessly
and unfairly reduce wages, If IL were
seeking TO deceive purchasers by a
false appearance of competition, when
in fact 1t owned or controlled such
seeming competition-it was then pre-
JUDGING not only that portion of the
il f,1, 20 fD,,f
the public interests generally by I'M
duly Obstructing the course Of trade,
and thereby preventing the steel bust
ness from moving its natural normal
channel"
It then shows that such unfair and
unlawful acts have been found TO ex-
list in the standard Oil, the tobacco,
the powder and keystone cases, and
were facts on which those decisions
were made and that in the TIN &c first
cases. the combinations were so mo-
nopOlistic in character that the sup
pressed competition that their exist
ence was itself a continuance of mo-
nopoly when the bill was filed. and
the inherent nature of the contem-
plated acts" constituted, in the words
of the supreme court, "a perennial vio-
latiOn" Of the Sherman act, so that
the original combination should be
dissolved. The opinion then summar-
ICES the law and states the questions
of fact to be determined as follows:
Question of Fact.
The tests of the violation of this
statute having then. as we have seen,
been adjudged by the supreme court,
Nash VS.. United States. supra, namely
whether the acts in question "preju-
dice the public interests by unduly re-
Stricting competition or undUly OBJ
1 - -
would appear the questions Of fact for
us to determine from the evidence are
these:
First: Was the steel corporation.
when this bill was filed in 1911. pre-
JUDGING the public interests by unduly
restricting competition or unduly OBJ
structing the course Of the steel and
iron trade between the states or with
foreign nations? If this question be
answered-yes the law was then be-
ing violated ard an injunction should
issue TO restrain present and future
violations.
Second: Did the steel corpora
ton, when il was formed in 1901. eth
er by the intent OF those forming it.
or by the inherent nature of that
cOmpanys contemplated acts. preiu-
dice the public interests by unduly re-
Stricting competition or unduly OBJ
structing the course of the steel and
iron trade, interstate or foreign? If
this question be answered-yes then
the law was violated and the steel cor
pOration must be adjudged originally
illegal. If illegal il must be dis
solved. because only thus can its in
herent nature be prevented from con-
tinuing TO work further violations of
the statute. on the other hand. If
these questions are negatived. then the
steel corporation should not be dis
solved, but be permitted TO pursue
/ that usual course of trade which il
was the purpose. as we have seen. of
/ this statute to protect. II will thus
he seen that. If stated at the outset.
this case IS practically one of business
/ facts"
These questions were answered in
! the negative.
PERKINS PLEASED
NEW YORK, June 4.-George w
L D. - 80