The Birmingham age-herald., 1915-06-04
REGARDING THE
 GARY DINNERS

bii was Hleu.
 REGARDING THE
 GARY DINNERS
 As to the Gary dinners and the meet irss of manufacturers subsequent there to. the court says: Freedom of speech and freedom of individual action are just ly prized in American society and no legislation forbids men to come together and speak freely to each other about every detail of their common business. And if each individual should choose to announce at such meeting the price be intends to charge for his wares, we are aware of no law that forbids him so to do. But at this point we approach debatable ground, for an individual is per mitted to do some things that are denied to an association of individ- rals
 "To our minds the testimony taken as whole makes the conclusion inevitable that the result of these meetings was an understanding about prices that was equivalent to an agreement. We have no doubt that among those present some silently dssented and went away intend ing to do what they pleased but many, probably most, of the participants un- derstood and assented to the view that they were under some kind of an obliga- ton to adhere to the prices that had been announced or declared as the gen. eral sense of the meeting.
 we cannot doubt that such a arrange ment or understanding or moral obliga- whatever name may be the most approprate-amounts to combination of common action forbidden by law.
 "It is only fair to add that in our opinion the participants in this move ment did not intend to act illegally. No doubt they did intend to exercise their full legal rights but of course such ex- ereise could not be wrong and they be- lieved they had succeeded in keeping within the proper limits. For the reasons given we think they were mistaken. but we acquit them of trickiness or attempt ed evasion.
 But the period of cooperation passed away before the bill was filed and as far as we can see it is not likely to be repeated. We do not think the Gary movement would justify us in imposing SD drastic penalty as the dissolution of the corporation, but we will if the gov ernn ent moves for such action, retain the bill for the purpose of restraining any similar movement by the defendants that might be contemplated hereafter. We may perhaps suggest that under recent legis- lation Congress may have provided a suf- ficiently inclusive remedy for any future action that might have for it's object the adoption or the maintenance of unrea- sonable rates"
 With regard to the government charge that the Steel corporation had monopo- listic control of ore resources the court said that all the basic plants of the Steel ct operation are inland and dependent on Lake, Superior, while the Atlantic steel companiesAB Bethlehem. Pennsylvania and Maryland-have unlimited supplies of Cuban and other ores at water freights.
 The opinion says:
 This case, a proceeding under the Sher- man antitrust law. is one largely of busi- ness facts" All the trust cases thus far determined establish. says the opinion that only such combinations are within the Sherman act which by reason of the intent of those forming them or the in herent nature of their contemplated act wrong the public by unduly restricting competition or unduly restricting or ob- structing the course of trade It further holds that the question of fact for the court to determine was whether. wher the bill was filed, the Steel corporation was unduly restricting competition or un- duly obstructing trade in the home mar ket
 The opinion holds that the proofs show that "when the bill was filed the com petitors of the Steel company were do- ing 60 per cent of the country's steel and
 iron business
 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. In the 10 years since the Stee corporation was formed it has increa sed it's business about 40 per cent. Nine great steel companies have increased theirs more, the lowest one e3 per cent the high. est 3700 per cent.
 With completion of the Erie canal, Lax, Superior ores can be brought cheaper tt New York harbor than to Plttsburg, says the opinion. On the basis of actual iror uits in ore, Cuban ores can be delivered in Philadelphia at one-half the cost oi Lake Superior These facts are cited tt show that there Is no possibility of a Lake Superior ore monopoly.
 The Cambria Steel company. the opinion says, shows that the United States Stee corporation could not drive 1t out oi business.
 James R. Garfield former Secretary 0 Commerce. according to the opinion showed that the Steel corporation go no freight rebates.
 Two opinions we're filed. Judge Buffing ton wrote the opinion which was con cured in by three other judges. Judg Wooley also wrote an opinion coihcidlns with the views of Judge Burlington am this latter opinion was concurred in b. fudge liant. Other points In the deci- sion are:
 "The field of business enterprise in tn, steel business Is as open to, and beinl as fully filled by the competitors of tn Stetl corporation as it is by that com peny.
 "No testimony has been produced ii this record that return to the old trad war system of ruinious competition would as a matter of fact benefit the public in terests.
 Both Businesses Increase The business of both competitors ant Steel company has increased very lai gely | but it is highly suggestive, indeed conclu
 sive, proof that the Steel company hat neither monopolistic control or power t,
 restrain trade since the piopor ion O | trade increase was very materially glease
 on the part of the Steel eorporatlon's com l petitors than it's own. These g1iii,an | figures prove that mere size Of Di5iess 0 | business, Is not necessarily a monopoly 0 business at the expense of all others ef. gagged in it.
 Success and magnitude of business, tn | rewards of fair and honorable endeavor | were not among the evils that thrca tene,
 the public welfare and attracted the at l tention of Congress. But when they lat
 beer attained by wrongful and tii'awfl | methods and competition had been crip pied or destroyed, the elements pf mon opoly are present.
 Foreign trade is not a mere general | theoretical abstraction of selling abroad | but is concrete, definite eoff,diercia
 business proposition in iron and steel. Tn considering the possible range o | foreign steel markets for Ainerica: irol and steel there must first be excluded from that market Germany, France, Aus tria. Italy and Russia. The proof is tha l ba t-ie of a11, .f kae 1f,st. g