The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1915-06-10
U. S. STEEL VICTOR
FEDERAL COURT AT TRENTON, N.
J., RULES CORPORATION
NEED NOT DISSOLVE.
SUIT FILED FOUR YEARS AGO
Two Opinions Are Filed by Judges
Volume Of Business Done Held by
Tribunal to Be No Test Of What
Constitutes an illegal Pool.


Constitutes an illegal Pool.
Trenton, N. j., June 5.-The deci-
sion in the United States Steel cor
poration suit filed in the United States
district court here on Thusrday holds
that the corporation should not be dis
solved. The principal points in the
decision are:
1t refuses to issue any injunction.
1t holds the foreign trade of the
Steel corporation is not violation Of
the Sherman law.
It holds certain price-fixing agree
ments which followed the Gary din
ners, but which stopped before the
bill was filed, to have been unlawful.
It allows the government to move
to retain Jurisdiction of the bill If
such price-fxing practices are re-
newed, but suggests matters may now
be controlled by the new trade com.
mission.
The suit against the United States
Steel corporation was filed October rs,
1911, during the Taft administration
and was started by George w. Wicker
sham, who was attorney-general.
The opinions, two in number, are
largely a discussion of whether the
steel corporation monopolized the
steel trade or dealt unfairly with COM
petitors or purchasers.
This case. a proceeding under the
Sherman antitrust law, is one largely
of business facts" says the opinion.
1t declares all the trust cases so
far determined settled down to this,
that only such combinations are with
in the Sherman act as by reason of
the intent of those forming them or
the inherent nature of their contem-
plated act wrong the public by unduly
restricting competition or unduly OBJ
structing the course of trade.
The test of monopoly the opinion
says, is not the size of that which
is acquired but the trade power of
that which is not acquired.
With the completion of the Erie
canal, Lake Superior ores can be
brought cheaper to New York harbor
than to Pittsburgh. This means, the
opinion says, blast furnaces on New
York harbor waters. On the basis Of
the actual iron units in ore, Cuban
ores can be delivered in Philadelphia
st one-half the cost of Lake Superior.
Facts and figures show that there
is no possibility of Lake Superior
ore monopoly.
The Cambria Steel company presi.
dent, the opinion said, showed that the
United States Steel could put it out of
business.
James II. Garfield, former secretary
of commerce, according to the opin'
ion, showed the Steel corporation got
no freight rebates.
There we're two opinions filed in
the case. Judge Burlington wrote the
opinion which was concurred in by
the other three judges. Judge Wool
ley also wrote an opinion coinciding
with the views of Judge Burlington
and this latter opinion was concurred
in by Judge Hunt, now sitting in the
United States court in New York city
Other points in the decision are:
"The field of business enterprise in
the steel business is as open to and
being as fully filled by the competitors
of the Steel corporation as it Is by
that company.
mo testimony has been produced in
this record that return to the ole
trade war system Of ruinous competi
ton would, as a matter of fact, bene
fit the public interests.
"In taking up this question we dis
miss once and for all the question o.
mere volume or bigness of business
The question before US is not how
much business was done or how large
the company that did it; the vita
question is, how was the business
whether big or little, done; was 1t
in the test of the supreme court, done
by prejudicing the public interests, BY
| uuuuly ISotllCllHS Vi uLuul9 ODoIL uSI
ing trade? The question is one of un
due restriction or obstruction and no
of undue volume of trade.
''If mere size were the test O
monopoly and trade restraint, we have
not one, but half a dozen unlawful
monopolies in the large department
stores of a single city.
"A study of these proofs satisfies
US that the United States Steel corpo
ration could not have been formed un
less the minds of two men had united
in a. common purpose, These two mel
were ]. Pierpont Morgan and Andrew
Carnegie"
Undoubtedly it will be appealed tt
the Supreme court of the UniteC
States, because the government wOulC
be unwilling to leave such question:
as were raised unsettled except by thu
highest court in the land.