Newark evening star and Newark advertiser., 1915-06-04
DECISION IS IN
ACCORD WITH
MANY OTHERS
So Says Edward @. Keasbey of
the U. S. Steel Corpora
} tion Case.
WELL-KNOWN LAWYER
REVIEWS THE SITUATION
Declares That Points Raised by
Counsel Necessarily Led to
the Conclusion Reached.

Edward @. Keasbey, the we'll
known Newark lawyer, in discussing
the decision of the United States
Federal Court against the contentious
of the United States government and
IN favor OF the United States Steel
Corporation, today said
In the statement of the principles
OF law governing the application of
the Sherman act the decision of the
United States Steel Corporation case
by the United States District Court
of New Jersey is entirely in accord
with the trend of decisions in the Su-
preme Court of the United States
and the United States Circuit Courts
OF Appeal.
1T had already been decided by
the Supreme Court that the Sherman
act was not to be taken literally,
when it declared that every contract,
combination or conspiracy in re-
straint of trade or commerce between
the States or with foreign nations
was Illegal.
hCsbdihi III bNtFH AoutTdci.
There are few trade contracts
that men make with each other that
do not TO some extent restrain some
body else's trade. The Supreme Court
in the American Tobacco Company's
case held that it was only unreason-
able restraint that was intended,
Such contracts in restraint of trade
as had always been unlawful were
now made criminal
"In a recent decision of the Su-
preme Court it was declared that the
prior decisions may be taken to have
established that only such combina-
tons are within the act as by reason
of intent or the inherent nature of
the contemplated act prejudice the
public interest by unduly restricting
competition, or undulS1 ohstructing
the course of trade. 1t was this dec
laration that was taken by the judges
in the Steel Corporation case as es-
tablishing the law Of the case.
"The United States Steel Corpora
ton was attacked by the government
as a gigantic combination which had
absorbed many other companies for
the purpose of suppressing competi-
tion, and which was engaged in un-
1dlT COHlptLlllOis anu diu III ioNb nv
nopolize the steel trade of the coun-
try.
No Unfair Practices.
"The corporation insisted that there
was no intent in the original organi-
zation to suppress competition and
no unfair practices by which it was
sisted that the competitors were
sisted that the competitors were
powerful and held more than half
the trade or the country, and that
upon the facts and under the law the
corporation could not be condemned
unless the mere size of the corpora
ton was ground for holding 1t
criminal under the Sherman act. .
''The court has decided that, assum-
ing the established principles of law
as stated by the Supreme Court the
basic question in the case was ques-
ton of practical business fact, and
they found that as matter of fact
the corporation was not when the
bill was filed in 1911, prejudicial to
the public interest and that the for
nation of the company in 1901 was
not, either by the intent of those who
formed it, or by the inherent nature
of the combination, prejudicial to
the DlDl1C interest DN unuuly TeSlTlCl-
ing competition, or obstructing the
course of trade.
Effect Very Encouraging.
"This decision will have a very en-
couraging effect in letting business
men know that they may safely eXer-
else all their business capacity in
coordination with others, in the es-
tablishing of large business and for
fair and effectual competition among
themselves and with foreigners, so
long as they do not create monopoly
or engage in unfair practices with
view to obtaining undue advantages
and acquiring a virtual monopoly.
"It is perfectly true that on the
face of ii the Steel Corporation was
an enormous combination and had
absorbed many competitors, and the
winning of the case depended upon
full presentation and careful marshal
ing of voluminous facts as well as a
clear analysis and statement of the
results of the legal decisions, and the
counsel for the corporation, led by
Richard " Lindabury, of our own
bar. who directed the taking of the
testimony and led in the argument,
are to be congratulated on the sue
cess which has crowned their efforts"