Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1915-06-10
RULES us. STEEL
NEED NOT DISSOLVE
Federal Court al Trenton. p. J.,
Denies u. S. Plea.
FOREIGN TRADE is UPHELD
Unlawful Price-Fixing Agreements
Stopped and New Trade Commits
sion Must Control Situation
Injunction Refused.

Trenton, y. J, June 5.-The deci-
sion in the United States Steel cor
poration suit fled in the United States
district court here or Thursday holds
that the corporation should not be dis
solved. The principal points in the
decision are:
It refuses to issue any Injunction.
It holds the foreign trade Of the
Steel corporation is not a violation OF
the Sherman law.
It holds certain price-fXing agree
ments which followed the Gary din
uers, but which stopped before the
bill was fled. to have been unlawful.
1t allows the government to move
to retain jurisdiction of the bill II
such price-fxing practices are re-
newed, but suggests matters may now
be controlled by the new trade com
mission
The suit against the United States
Steel corporation was fled October 26,
1911, during the Taft administration
and was started by George w. Wicker
sham, who was attorney general.
The opinions, two in number, are
largely a discussion Of whether the
steel corporation monopolized the
steel trade or dealt unfairly with COM
petitors or purchasers.
This case, a proceeding under the
Sherman antitrust law, is one largely
of business facts" says the opinion.
It declares all the trust cases so
far determined settled down to this,
that only such combinations are with
in the Sherman act as by reason Of
the intent of those forming them or
the inherent nature Of their contem-
plated act wrong the public by unduly
restricting competition or unduly OBJ
structing the course Of trade.
The test of monopoly, the opinion
says, is not the size of that which
is acquired, but the trade power OF
that which is not acquired.
With the completion Of the Erie
canal, Lake Superior ores can be
brought cheaper to New York harbor
than to Pittsburgh. This means, the
opinion says, blast furnaces on New
York harbor waters. On the basis of
the actual iron units in ore, Cuban
ores can be delivered in Philadelphia
at one-haIf the cost of Lake Superior.
Facts and figures show that there
is no possibility Of Lake Superior
ore monopoly.
The Cambria Steel company pTesi-
dent, the opinion said, showed that the
United States Steel could put it out of
business
James R. Garfield, former secretary
of commerce, according to the opinion,
showed the Steel corporation got no
freight rebates.
There were two opinions filed in
this case. Judge Burlington wrote the
opinion which was concurred in by
the other three judges. Judge Wool
ley also wrote an opinion coinciding
with the views of Judge Burlington,
and this latter opinion was conCurred
in by Judge Hunt, now sitting in the
United States court in New York city.
Other points in the decision are:
The field of business enterprise in
the steel business is as open to and
being as fully filled by the competitors
of the Steel corporation as it is by
that company.
No testimony has been produced in
this record that a return to the old
trade war system of ruinous competi-
ton would, as a matter of fact, bene-
fit the public interests.
In taking up this question we dis
miss once and for all the question of
mere volume or bigness of business.
The question before US is not how
much business was done or how large
the company that did it; the vital
question is, how was the business
whether big or little, done; was it
in the test of the supreme court, done
by preiudicing the public interests, by
unduly restricting or unduly obstruct
ing trade? The question is one of un
due restriction or obstruction and not
of undue volume of trade.
III mere size were the test OF
monopoly and trade restraint, we have
not one, but half a dozen unlawful
monopolies in the large department
stores of a single city.
"A study of these proofs satisfies
us that the United States Steel cor
poration could not have been formed
unless the minds of two men haG
united in common purpose. These
two men were ]. Pierpont Morgan anC
Andrew Carnegie"
Undoubtedly it viii be appealed tt
the Supreme court Of the United
States.