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

ton or uHduly obstructing the course
Of trade
The court then holds that the public
interests thus prejudiccd consist, first,
OF competitors in trade; second, the
purchasing public, and. third, the gen
erai public. Then the statement is
made that the facts TO be determined
IN the present case are;
First Was the steel Corporation
when this bin was fled. IN 1911, pref I-
dicing the public interests by unduiy
restricting competition or unduly OBJ
structing the course of the steel and
IRON trade between the states or within
foreign nations? If this question be
answered yes the law was then being
violated and an injunction should issue
TO restrain present and future viola
tions.
Second Did the steel Corporation
when il was formed, in 1901, either by
the intent of those forming IL or by
the inherent nature Of that cOmpany's
contemplated acts. prejudice the pubic
interest," by unduly restricting compe-
tit.on or unduly obstructing the course
of the steel and IRON trade. interstate
or foreign? y this question be an
swered YES then the law was violated,
and the Steel Corporation must be ad-
Judged originally illegal. If Illegal, 1t
must be dissolved.
"On the other hand, IL these ques-
tions are negatived, then the Steel
Corporation should not be dissolved,
but permitted to pursue that usual
course Of trade which il was the pur-
pose, as we have seen, OF this statute
10 protect. Il will thus be seen that
this case Is practically one Of business
] facts
/ Judge Burlington then discusses the
/ American trade of the corporation and
/ shows that 90 per cent of the steel OF
this country is produced by the Steel
/ Company's competitors, and that IN
the ten years since II was formed,
while its business has increased 40 odd
per cent. that of eight other great
steel companies has increased much
faster They are the Lackawanna
Steel. which increased 63 per CEN; Re
public, 90; Colorado Fuel. l52: Cam
bria, 15j: Jones & LauChln. 206; La
Belle, 1913; Indiana Steel, i'5. and
Bethlehem, 3.779 per cent. In that re-
gard the opi.Ion says; Taking up
these companies one Dy one. il will be
seen that i'm location, facilities, capital
and basic supplies they show such fast
present and prospective competition as
affords just ground for concluding that
the steel and iron business Of this
country is not being and. indeed, can
not be mOnopohIed. For the real test
of monopoly is not the size of that
which is acquired, but the trade power
Of that which is not acquired
Trade Branches Well Sifted.
After quoting the testimony both OF
the steel company's competitors and
of consumers using II product, the
court holds
1--WE have carefully and patiently
studied the Touminous testimony
bearing on the general course Of all
b.i inches of the steel trade, covering
the whole time the Steel Corporation
has been engaged in such trade. The
testimony covers proofs by its manu-
featuring competitors in all branches,
and also the different classes OF Gus
toners whose trade il and its fellow
/ competitors seek. II is apparent that
among this latter class that is the
consumers Of its product We would
naturally find evidence Of any throt-
Ting Of competition or any undue re-
straint OF the steel trade
"No one can read the testimony and
fail to be satisfied that this great body
o. business men. scattered oven all
parts Of the country, IN keen competi-
tion with each other in their several
lines, is alert in seeing that competi-
tive conditions exist between the
manufacturers Of basic steel products
from whom they luy. And the sworn
testimony Of these men, who are vital
4 ~ interested IN the maintenance Of
real competition between the steel Cor
poration and its manufacturing com
pctitors. that such real comp ition
does exist and has existed during the
last ten years, cannot but carry a con-
victiou that such 10 the case.