The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-06-04

Keystone Watch cases. 1t then analyses
tho Sherman act and shows that its OH
yecr H., as It's title says-"An ACT to
protect trade and m against I'M
lawful restraints and monopolies"-tO
protect lawful trade. and that the Su-
premc Court In the Standard OIL case
had held 'one OF the fundamental pur-
poses OF the statute is to protect. not
to destroy. rights OF property"
The summary then shows that. In de-
termining what are the Unlawful re-
straints and ~monopolies, against which
the Sherman act protects trade. the SUI
preme Court in IA late case has sum
married. It's former trust decisions ny
stating. "These Gases may be taken to
ave established that only such con-
tsncts and combinations are within the
act as. by reason of intent or the In
herent nature OF the contemplated acts
prejudice the public interest by unduly
restricting competition or unduly OBJ
structing the course OF trade"
Legality Of Combination.
The Circuit Court next says that the
present case involves the legality. not OF
a contrac CT. but OF combination, that ia,
the steel Corporation. The opinion con-
tinues!
Therefore. applying the foregoing
definitions OF the Supreme Cour to the
case In hand. the ba sic question for US
to determine Is one fact. viz. whether
the union of the several defendant COM
panies in the United States Steel Cor
poration prejudices the public interest
by unduly restricting competition or un-
duly obstructing the course of ira lie"
The court states the public interests
thus prejudiced consist of: First. COM
petitors in trade second. the purchasing
public, and third. the general public. 1t
then proceeds:
For example. II this steel company
in any way was guilty Of unfair bust
ness competition, II 1t was guilty Of
such conduct as TO unfairly force n
competitor out OF the steel business or
II II unfairly prevented those who
wanted to go into tie steel business
from doing so. then the steel company
was. In the judgment of the Supreme
Court, prejudicing the public interests
by unfairly driving individuals out OF
business or preventing them from en-
tering II, and IL also was injuring the
public by unduly restraining trade.
80. also. II this steel company was re-
stricting output In ordN' to exact un-
fair prices IL II was buS .ng up compet.
Ing plants and dismattling them to
needlessly restrict output IL 1t was. by
reason OF its controlling power. fur
nishing the public with inferior goods !:
II II was using Its power to necdlessly
and unfairly reduce wages II IL was
seeking to deceive purchasers by "a
false appearance OF competition. when In
fact It owned or controlled such SEEM
Ing competition. then 1t was prejudicing
not only that portion of the public which
desired TO buy steel. but the public In
terests generally, by unduly obs,ruct-
ing the course Of trade. and thereby
preventing the steel business from NOV
Ing in its natural and normal chan
nels."
Facts I'm Other Cnsea.
The court then shows that such unfair
and unlawful acts were found to exist In
the Standard Oil. the Tobacco, the
Powder and Keystone cases, and were
facts on which those decisions we're
made and that in the first three cases
the combinations were SO ~monopolistic
In character hat they suppressed COM
petition and that their existence itself
was a continuance of monopoly.
The inherent nature OF the conten-
plated acts" constituted. in the words
Of TIE supreme Court. "a perennial
violation of the Sherman act, so that
the original combinations were dis
solved.
In the opinion the court then sum-
marizes the law and states the ques-
lions OF fact to be determined as fol-
lows:
THE tests OF the violation OF this
statute having then. as We have seen.
been adjudged by the Supreme Court
tNash vs.. United States. SUPRA, namely.
whether the acts In question prejudice
the public interests by unduly restricting
competition or unduly obstructing the
course OF trade 1t would appear the
questions of fact for us to determine
from the evidence are these:
"First-Was the Steel Corporation.
when this bill was fled in 1911, pretu-
dicing the public interests by unduly
restricting competition or unduly OBJ
structing the course of the steel and
iron trade between the States or the
foreign nations?
IF this question be answered Yes
the law was then being violated and an
injunction should issue to restrain pres
ent and future violations.
"Second-Did the Steel Corporation.
when II was formed In 1901, either by
the intent OF those forming 4, or By
the Inherent nature OF the Company's
contemplated acts, prejudice the pubic
interests by unduly restrict!ng compe-
tition or undualy o~bstructiny the course
or the steel and iron trade, interstate O..
foreign?
IF this question can he answered
Yes then the law was violated, and
the Steel Corporation must be adjudged
originally illegal " Illegal IT must be
dissolved, because only thus can It's
inherent nature be prevented from con-
tinuing to work further violations OF
the statute.
The other side.
o the other hand. IL these questions
are negative, then the Steel Corpora
ton should not be dissolved, but err
mitted to pursue that usual course OF
trade which II was the purpose. as We
have seen, of this statute to protect.
II thus would be seen that, as stated
At the outset. this case Is practically
one Of business facts"
Under the first question the subject
of suppress!ng home trade by the Steel
BY THE BIC
$500.