New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-06-04

"A study Of the testimony Of these
men, who are close 10 and vitality IN
terested observers Of the prices or
these products, shows that single
Ia . concern. " lowering the price OF
an substantial steel product II sells.
can depress the obtainable price. 1t
further shows that the converse IS not
the case that no single large concern
by raising or even maintaining the
price Of any substantial steel product
can raise the obtainable price"
Created Own Foreign Trade.
Foreign trade Of the Steel Corpora
ton is then taken up by the court. and
it is shown that this business was built
up not by restraining or taking away
the trade Of others, but by the com
pany's own creation. II is shown, in
the opinion, that when the Steel Cor
pOration was formed the American steel
companies had no dependable fore gn
trade. Such foreign steel sales as were
then made consisted in what was
known as dumping" that is, in un-
loading or dumping steel AZ low prices
IN foreign markets when the American
market was oversupplied.
OF the corporations S9l 100000 Of
trade, the opinion says, $4,000, 900 IS
done in injunction with 1853 other
American concerns, which companies
made articles the Steel company did
not make, but got their basic supplies
for making them from the Steel Cor
poration. The difficulties of establish
ing such foreign trade are discussed
at length. II is shown that the tariffs
Of Germany, Italy, Austria and Rus
STA prevented the sale Of steel in those
countries, and the trade acquired had
to be built up in other parts of the
world. The foreign trade branch Of
the case is summed up by the court as
follows:
with these facts, figures and results
proved in this record, we are warrant
ed in holding that the foreign trade Of
the Steel Corporation, its mode of build
ing it up and its retention when built
up, are not contrary TO the Sherman
law"
In discussing the question of domes-
tic and foreign trade generally, the
court declares: in taking up this ques-
ton we dismiss once and for all the
question Of the mere volume or big
ness Of business. The question before
us is not how much business was done
or how large the company that did II;
the vital question is, How was the
business, whether big or little, done
Was il, in the test of the Supreme
Court, done by prejudicing the public
interests. by unduly restricting or I'M
duly obstructing trade? The question
is one Of undue restriction or obstruc-
+ ton. 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 necesstate its dissolution. After
discussing the evidence on this ques-
ton. the court sets forth:
Recurring therefore 20 the particu-
lar question with which this particular
part Of this opinion deals, namely,
whether We should now enter a decree
dissolving the Steel Corporation on the
ground Of its original inherent. illegal
character in 1901. and whether we
should also dissolve the several con-
stituent companies which II acquired
on the like ground OF their original in
herent illegal character when they were
formed. We think there is ground for
our holding IN view Of the facts, proofs
and views set forth that we are not
as court OF equity warranted in TAX
ing such p drastic course "a TO now
decree the dissolution Of the Steel Cor
poration or its constituent companies"
RooSevclt's Words Cited.
The subsequent acquisition by the
Steel Corporation Of several properties.
including the Tennessee Coal and Iron
Company and the James J. Hill ore
leases, are discussed in the opinion.