Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1915-06-04

Of foreign steel markets for American
iron and steel, there first must be eN-
cluded from that market Germany.
France, Austria. Italy and Russia,
The proof is that the tariff Of each Of
these, countries, prevents the sale
there of American iron and steel
Foreign markets are pre-empted
and tenaeiously held By foreign manu-
faeturers, foreign merchants and for
elgn bankers who refuse to finance lm-
porting enterprises there unless there
Is q stipulation that all materials should
be bought IN such hanks own coun-
try
Thirty thousand dollars OF the steel
corporations Sal 100000 foreign
trade is done Jointly with aS other
American manufacturers.
If the two-fold purpose Of the
sherman act il to foster and protect
trade huth foreign and Interstate, and
If forciEn trade cannot be increased
without some such mechanically va-
ried and financially strong agency asl
this steel corporation, when manic
festly such agency Is not a violation
OF a statute whose purpose was to
pefmit-~not 20 prevent-the normal
natural and To be desired develop-l
ment of unrestralned, unmonopolized
trade, both foreign aud domestic"
tlov Was the business Done?
In taking up this question we miss
once and for all the question OF mere
volume or higness OF business. The
question before as is not how much
business WIS done or how large the
company that did Il, the vital aues-
ton ls how was the business done.
whether big or little. was Il. IN the
test OF the supreme court done by
preiuiicing the public interests, by
unduly restricting or unduly obstruct-
ing trade The question Is one Of
undue restriction or obstruction and
not Of undue volume OF trade.
"lf mere size were the test Of mon-
opoly and trade restraint, we have
not one but nalf dozen unlawful
monopolies in the large department
stores of a single city
Two Men Formed II.
"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 had unit
ed In a common purpose. These two
men were ]. Pierpont Morgan and
Andrew Carnegie.
Mr.. Carnegie accepted any other re-
latlon than that OF a seller of his
stocks and bonds IN his own company
ana the statement Ia his answer that
hts sole motive in agreeing to a sale
Of property OF the Carnegie Steel
company to the United States Steel
company was his desire 60 retire from
the hazards and responsibility Of ac-
tive business and since such sale he
has had no connection with the busl-
ness IL true
Tennessee Conl aud Iron.
With regard Ia the acquisition of
the Tennessee Coal n Iron. the opin-
lon Of the court said that the pur-
hase was made In fair business
course and was the honest exertiop
of one's right to contract for ones
own benefit, unaeenmpahied by
wrongful notice 10 injure others the
court said.
The opinion takes ~ the Gary din
ners. in the panic Of 1907 AM the for
matAen uf committees IN different
branches Of the whole steel trade OF
the country that followed 1t finds Ia
some of such meetings evidence that
eonytnces the court that the result
of these meetings and their purpose
was 10 maintain prices 1t comedies
the participants thought they were
acting within their legal rights and
acquits them of any unlawful intent,
but holds the result was unlawful. ltl
SAYS such practices were stopped he
fore the bill was filed. the recent con-
gressi0nal legislation covers this mat
ter that the court has no fear of its
repetition. but that If the government
desires the court will retain iufisdic-
ton to prevent a repetition.
Not Monopoly.
The concurrng opinion Of Judge
WoOley. which is adopted bp Judge
Hunt draws the distinction between
the actual power Of the steel corpora
tion to monopoliae aud the intent Of
toontinued on Page Sikh