The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-06-04

that too much was paid by the syndi-
cate for, the Carnegie Company stock.
Finally the petition alleged that the
absorption of the Tennessee Coal and
Iron Company was in violation of the
Sherman, law. 1t charged that Presi-
dent Roosevelt, who had given his
permission during the panic of 1907
to Judge Gary for the Steel Corpora
ton to buy stock of the Tennessee
Coal and Iron Company, had been de-
ceived; that the taking over of the
company further increased the mono
poly of the Steel Corporation IN the
steel and iron business of the country.
Prayed For Dissolution.
The petition prayed for a dissolu-
ton of the United States Steel Cor
poration and asked for a decree that
the Combination and conspiracies
and monopolizations of trade and
commerce, and all the acts done. or
TO be done. TO carry them out are In
violation OF the Sherman law
The suit was filed on October 20,
1911. A joint answer was filed in
February, 1912, by the Steel Corpora
ton and its subsidiaries. The answer
denied that they had ever violated
or attempted to violate the Sherman
antitrust act. or any of its provisions.
Hearings before a referee were be-
gun in New York on May 8. 1912. and
were continued for the greater part
of two ye1rs. Hundreds OF. thousands
of pages OF testimony were taken in
the effort of the Federal government
to prove it's contention and in the
! statements of witnesses for the de-
! Tense,
! Defense OF Trust.
| The defendant corporation called
witnesses to go into every phase OF
the steel and iron industry of the COM
: pany. Witnesses were called and were
quiZzed on points covering the de-
velopment of the industry in the last
/ fifty years. 1t was shown that because
/ OF the tremendous amount of capital
! needed to build the tremendous plants
| required for the turning out of steel
kproducts that the course pursued by
Judge Gary in promoting the corpora.
ton was the only economic way to
| insure permanent success in the bust
ness.
Among the witnesses called was
Colonel Roosevelt. who was quizze6
by the government early in 1919
Among the witnesses for the defense
| were Judge Gary. III. G. Frick, Rober'
Bacon. James r. Garfield, former
commissioner of corporations: Lewis
Case Ledyard, James A. Farrell. presi
dent of the corporation itself,
Final arguments in the case wer'
made in Philadelphia in October, 1914
Since that time the court has had tn,
case under advisement
salient Points OF Decision.
Here are some of the salient point
In the decision:
The decision is unanimous
1t holds the steel company shouit
not be dissolved.
II refuses to issue any injunction.
1t holds the foreign trade of tn
company Is not a violation OF tn,
Sherman law.
1t holds certain price fixing agree
ments which followed the Gary din
ners. but which stopped before tn
bill was filed, to have been unlawfu
II allows the government to NOV,
to retain jurisdiction Of the bill /
such price fixing practices are re
newed. but suggests matters may nov
be controlled by the new trade com
mission.
The opinions are largely a discus
sion of facts on the question o
whether the Steel Corporation
monopolized the steel trade, or deal
unfairly with competitors or pur
chasers.
The keynote of the opinion-th,
opening statement-'"rhisc case, a pro
ceeding under the Sherman anti-trus
law. is largely one Of business facts.
It says all the trust cases thus ia
determined settle down to this. tina
only such combinations are within tn
Sherman act as by reason of the in
tent OF those forming them or tn,
inherent nature Of their contemplated
act wrong the public by undu'y re
stricting competition or unduly oh
structing the course of trade.
Did II Set Out TO BE a Trust?
Holds the questions of fact for tn,
court to determine were whether
when the bill was filed. the steel com
pany was unduly restricting competi
ton or unduly obstructing trade ii
the home market. whether 1t was re
stricting competition or unduiy oh
structing trade In the foreign market
and. lastly, had the Steel Corporation
those objects in view when 1t wa
formed in 1901?
Holds the proofs show when tn
bills was filed the competitors of tn
steel company were during So per cen
OF the country's steel and iron bust
4 ness.
The test Of monopoly Is not tn
size of that which is acquired, blu
trade power of that which is not &C
Quired.
In the ten years since the Steel Cor
poration was formed IT. has increase,
its business about 40 per cent. MIN
great competing steel companies hav
, increased theirs more. the lowest on
J So per cent, the highest 3,70s pc
} cent.
J With the competition of the Fri
Canal, Lake Superior ores can b.
brought cheaper TO New York harbo
n than to Pittsburg. This means bias
furnaces on New York harhor waters
On the basis OF the actual iron unit
In ore. Cuban ores can be delivered
In Philadelphia at half the cost o
Lake Superior.
Facts and figure. shs.w tina. there |.
no possibility OF Lake Superior or,
j monopoly.
!. Can't Buy Cambria Steel
Il Cambria steel here shows the United
!. States Steel could NOT buy II out Of
i business.
4 James r, Garfield. former ,secretar,
i OF commerce. shows the Steel Cor,
8 poratien got no freight rebates
The Held OF business enterprise Ir
J the steel business liz open to. and beinf
~, fully Oiled by. the competitions ri
the Steel Corporation az II IL by thai
company.
WicksFsizann's View.
So Albany. N. ". Jdhe 5,Former AT,