New Britain herald., 1915-06-04

ests. by unduly restricting or unduly
obstructing trade? The question is
one of undue restriction or obstruc-
| ton, and not one of undue volume of
! trade.
No Ground for Dissolution.
Having shown that. when the bill
was filed in 1911, the steel cor
poration was not monopoliz-
ing or restraining home or
foreign trade and that no injunction
should issue, the opinion then takes
up the question whetAer, when the
steel corporation was formed in 1901.
its inherent nature was such as to
necessitate it's dissolution. After dis
cussipg the evidence on this ques-
ton, the court said
Recurring. therefore, to the partic-
ular question with which this partic-
ular part Of this opinion deals, name
~, whether we should now enter a
decree dissolving the Steel corpora
ton on the ground Of it's original,
inherent, illegal character in 1901,
and whether we should also dissolve
the several constituent, companies
which it acquired on the like ground
of their original, inherent, illegal
think there is ground for our hold
ing in view Of the facts, proofs; and
views set forth, that we are not as
court of equity warranted in taking
such a drastice course as now to de-
cree the dissolution of the steel cor
poration or it's constituent companies
The subsequent acquisition by the
Steel corporation of several proper
ties, including the Tennessee Coal and
Iron company and the James j. Hill
ore leases, are discussed in the opin-
ion.
The testimony of Colonel Roosevelt
that he had not interfered with the
purchase of the Tennessee plant as
a means of averting the panic of 1907
was cited and the court further stated
that the Hill ore leases were surren-
dered before the bill was filed.
Gary Dinners Illegal.
AS to the Gary dinners and the
meetings of manufacturers subsequent
thereto the court says:
Freedom of speech and freedom of
individual action are justly priced in
American society, and no legislation
forbids men to come together and
speak freely to each other about every
detail of their common business. and
If each individual should choose to
announce at such a meeting the price
he intends to charge for his wares
we are aware of no law that forbids
some so to do. But at this point
we approach debatable ground, for an
individual is permitted to do some
things that are denied to an asso-
-. s..I - Il 4
To our minds the testimony taken
as whole makes the conclusion in
evitable that the result of these meet
ings was an understanding about
prices that was equivalent to an agree
ment, We have no doubt that among
those present some silently dissented
and went away intending to do what
they pleased, but many, probably
lost of the participants understood
and assented to the view that they
were under some kind of an obliga-
ton to adhere to the announced or
declared general sense of the meet
ing. = We cannot doubt that
such an arrangement or understand
ing or moral obligation--whatever
name may be the most appropriate
amounts to combination or common
action forbidden by law. - It
is only fair to add that in our opin-
ion the participation in this move
ment did not intend to act illegally.
No doubt they did intend to exercise
their full legal rights, and, of course.
such exercise. could not be wrong, and
they believed they had succeeded in
keeping within the proper limits. For
the reasons given we think they were
mistakes, but we acquit them to trick
mess or attempted evasion.
But the period Of cooperation
passed away before the bill was filed,
and as far as we can see 1t is not
likely to be repeated We do not
think the Gary movement would JUS
tify us in imposing SO drastic a PEN
atty as the dissolution of the corpor-
alton, but we will, If the government
moves for such action, retain the bill
for the purpose of restraining any
similar movement by the defendants
that might be contemplated here
after.
We may, perhaps, suggest that un-
der recent legislation congress may
have provided sufficiently inclusive
remedy for any future action that
might have for its object the adop-
ton or the maintenance Of unreason-
able prices.
No Ore Monopoly.
With regard to the government
charge that the steel corporation had
monopolistic control Of ore resources
the court said that all the basic plants
of the steel corporation are inland and
dependent on Lake Superior ores.
while the Atlantic Steel companies
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and Mary
land-have unlimited supplies Of Gu
ban and other ores at water freights.
The court further says: