The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-06-04

Ito was not mo%nopolizing or restraining
eithe" foreign or home trade, the,.
passed to the question whsther, when
the United States Steel Corporation was
formed. it's inherent nature was such
as to necessitate its dissolution.
The court showed that during the
years preceding the formation of the
steel Corporation iron was being sup
planted by steel. and that n process OF
Indignation had been going on by which
steel companies were extending their
plants back to ore and forward to fin
ished products that the Federal Steel
Company In the Chicago district had
partially integrated back to ores and
to finishing mills. as had also the Car
negie company in the Pittsburg dis
trict that both companies had more
complete Indignation plans in contem-
plation and were compelled by the in
t~egrating trend OF steel manufacturing
to do 80. and by the fact that neither of
them "A sufficient finishing mills to
consume their output OF basic products
serious dissensions broke out between
the partners In the Carnegie compan,
and this caused the desire of Mr.. Ca,
regie. its majority shareholder. to re-
tire from business. which led to the
possibility OF the Federal Steel Company
buying the Carnegie
II wac st forth that these facts led
to the formation Of the Steel Corporation.
which was really n holding ccmpanv
end which acquired the stocks Of the
Federal steel, Carnegie Steel and the
70 versl companies which were large
users Of the basic products of the Fed
eral and Carnegie.
Monopoly Impossible.
I'm passing upon this question several
things shown by the proof are to he
noted.' says the decision.
"First-That with the con. 1ati' on left
outside Of the steel compa..,, the ex-
tent OF which has already been shown.
a monopoly OF the steel and iron busi-
ness OF the United States was simply
impossible. and that no effort was made
IL secure those companies.
"Second-That IN view OF the fact
tAat the proportioratc volume Of com
f%,c,itive business has increased since the
steel company WAS formed and that the
proofs show no attempt by 1t 10 monop-
clize IL to the exclusion OF its COM
patitors. TO now attribute to those who
formed the corporation an intended
monopoliZation would be to say thai,
having formed the corporation for the
purpose of monopoly. they Immediately
abandoned such purpose and made no
effort to accomplish II.
Third. That the publicity which The
proofs show the steel company has
from time TO time made OF its prices.
it's accounts and its policies would seer
a practice in line with legitimate bust
ness rather than with Illegal %monopoliza.
tion.
Fourth. That in carrying out the
plan the advice of Abrain S. Hewitt
was taken by Mr. Morgan. and at Ia.
latter's request Nj. Hewitt went on
the board and served until his death.
a fact which. in view OF the high char
acter OF Abram =. Hewitt. tends to
negative the contention that the purpose
In view WAS TO violate the law.
And lastly. as stated above. there Is
affirmative testimony that no such object
was in view.
Recurring therefore to the particular
question with which this particular part
OF this opirion deals. namely. whether
We should now enter a decree dlssolvIng
the Steel Corporation on the ground OF
its original inherent. illegal character
In 1901 and whether we should also DIS
solve the several constituent companies.
which II acquired on the like ground OF
their original inherent illegal character
when they were formed. we think thee
is ground for holding. IN view of the
facts. proofs and views above Sc: forth.
mat we are not. as a court OF equity,
warranted In taking such a drastic
course as to now decree the dissolution
Of the Steel Corporation or its constitu-
cnt competitors"