The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1915-06-09

States district court for New Jersey
today handed down a uninimous de-
cision refusing the petition Of the fed
eral government to dissolve the United
States Steel corporation.
AS against the government the court
refused to dissolve the corporation,
holding that in acquiring it's foreign
and home trade the concern did not
violate the Sherman antitrust act,
and refused all the injunctions prayed
for by the department of justice.
AS against the Steel corporation the
court held that the committee meet
ing participated in by 95 per cent. of
the steel trade Of the country, includ-
ing the Steel corporation, subsequent
to the famous Gary dinners Of eight
or nine years ago, were unlawful COM
binations to control prices; but as
these meetings had stopped before the
government filed it's complaint in Oc-
tober. 1911, the judges held that there
was no occasion for an Injunction.
The opinion Of the court suggests
that such practices lie within the
province Of the new federal trade
commission, but adds that If their
repetition Is apprehended the court
will, on motion Of the government, re-
tain Jurisdiction Of the case for that
particular purpose.
A synopsis of the decision Of the
senior Judge, Joseph w. Burlington
prepared by direction of the court
states that the keynote Of the entire
opinion Is that this case, a proceed
ing under the Sherman antitrust law,
Is largely one of the business facts"
In another part Of the opinion the
court sttaes that the real test Of mo-
nopoly is not the size Of that which
Is acquired but the trade power Of
that which is not acquired"
''If mere size were the test of mo-
nopoly and trade restraint" the court
said further on, 1--WE have not one, but
half dozen unlawful monopolies in
the large department stores of q single
city
The court found nothing wrong in
the Steel corporations acquisition OF
the Tennessee Coal & Iron company
during the financial panic Of 1907 and
thus virtually approved the attitude Of
the Roosevelt administration in not
interfering with that deal. On this
point the court held that the output
or Tennessee company at the time was
only IL per cent. Of the country's
total output; that up to that time it
had not been business success; that
its principal product, rails, was made
at loss; that it's ultimate success was
doubtful and involved a further out
lay Of $255.000,0OO and that the
purchase Of the Tennessee property,
as we'll as Of several other steel con-
Germs earlier in the history Of the big
corporation was made in fair business
course and was "the honest exertion
OF ones right to contract for ones
benefit, unaccompanied by a wrongful
motive to injure others"
With regard to Andrew Carnegie.
whom the government charged with
being a party to the unlawful com.
bination. the court found no proof
that he accepted any other relation
In the formation Of the Steel corpora
ton than that of seller Of his stocks
and bonds and the court declared to
be true Mr.. Carnegie's statement that
he disposed Of his interests in q de-
sire to retire from the hazards and
responsibility of active business.
| Four judges, Burlington, McPher-
son. Hunt and Wooley, sat in the
case.
While the suit was filed in the dis
trict court it was heard on a writ of
expedition by the judges Of the Third
judicial circuit. who form the court
of appeals The next step will be the
filing Of formal decree and the
government then probably will take
an appeal to the supreme court of
| the ITpited Stota.