Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1915-06-09
NEED NOT DISSOLVE.
FEDERAL COURT DENIES Y. 8.
PLEA IN SUIT AGAINST
STEEL TRUST" 9'a&
FOREIGN TRADE IS UPHELD
Unlawful Prlce.Fixino Agreements
Stopped and New Trade Commits
sion Must Control Situation, o.,
4, injunction Refused. 80

sion Must Control Situation,
i, Injunction Refused. - e
Trenton, N. J., June 5.-The deci-
sion In the United States Steel cor
poration suit filed in the United States
district court here on Thursday holds
that the corporation should not be dis
solved. The principal points in the
decision are: w. ia "a rs " $at3{&s.,S.al. =
1t refuses to issue any injunction.
1t holds the foreign trade of the
Steel corporation is not a violation Of
the Sherman law. ~ GS;,Sss,.g!s IL III, ~,
1t holds certain price fixing agree
ments which followed the Gary din
ners, but which stopped before the
bill was filed, to have been unlawful.
It. allows the, government to move
to retain jurisdiction OF the bill il
such price fixing practices are re-
newed, but suggests matters may now
be controlled by the new trade com
mission. III ..s5.j W.
The suit against the United States
Steel corporation was filed October 26,
1917 during the Taft administration
and was started by George w. Wicker
sham, who was attorney-general., as.e.
The opinions, two in number, are
largely discussion of whether the
steel corporation monopolized the
steel trade or dealt unfairly with com
petitors or purchasers. s5s, i 5ss
II This case, proceeding under the
Sherman antitrust law, is one largely
of business facts says the opinion.
1t 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. II ~ Il. ,5t -
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. IL, &s a I'm,
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-half the cost Of Lake Superior.
d Facts and figures show that: there
is no possibility of Lake Superior
ore monopoly. .z z b. d 4
The. Cambria Steel company presi-
dent, the opinion said, showed that the
United States Steel could put It out Of
business. t;.it g
James r. Garfield, former secretary
of commerce, according to the opinion,
showed the Steel corporation got no
freight rebates. g. ris E &&s
There were two opinions filed in
the case. Judge Burlington wrote the
opinion which was concurred in by
the other three judges. Judge Wool |
ley also wrote an opinion coin idins
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: "a L.
II "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. :sJE .s.5%5i Isl .&, s8 II
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 OF, 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 prejudicing the public interests, by
unduly restricting or sunduly obstruct-a
ing trade? The question is one of un-,
due restriction or obstruction and not
Of undue volume Of trade. 5 a Es@l ,55
III mere size were the test OF
monopoly and trade restraint, we have
not one, but half q dozen unlawful 1
monopolies in the large department
stores OF q single city. 81 Nj
. "A study of these proofs; satisfies
us that the United States Steel corpor-
alton could not have been formed un-
less the minds Of two men had united
IN q common purpose. These two men
we're J. Pierpont Morgan and Andrew
Carnegie u '5 5sts;. L ss,, = 53
Undoubtedly it will be appealed to 4
the Supreme court Z of the United
States, because the government would
be unwilling to leave such questions
as were raised unsettled except by the
highest court in the land. <f j:
Pay s5oo, 600 Liner Risks.