Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-06-04

/ Continued from First Pagc)
! years existence up to the time OF nlinr
tho suit. the acquisition of its home
and foreign trade, and tho proofs as to
whether II restrained or suppressed
| competition or was guilty of acts such
as to warrant it's dissolution.
In discussing the law. Judge Buff
/ ington says the construction of the
sherman law was settled by the SUI
7 preme Court in the Standard OIL and
tobacco cases.
The opinion shows that, in deter
! mining what are the unlawful re-
straints and monopolies asa!ns, which
! the Sherman act protects trade, the
/ supreme Court summarized all it's
! trust decisions by stating In late
case that these cases may be taken
TO have established that only such COM
! hinations are within the act rs, by rea-
son of intent or the Inherent nature OF
the contemplated acts, prejudice the
public interests by unduiy restricting
| competition or unduly obstructing the
course OF trade"
QUESTIONS DETERMINED
! ny TEST OF LEGALITY
| Taking this as the test of iliegality,
the opinion of the court handed down
to-day states:
Applying the foregoing definitions
OF the Supreme Court to the case in
hand, the question for us TO determine
is one of fact, namely, whether the
union of the several defendant COM
| panies in the United States Steel Cor
poration preiudices the public interests
by unduly restricting competition or
unduly obstructing the course of
! trade"
| The court then states that the pub
| lie interests thus prcjudiced consist,
first. OF competitors in trade second,
the purchasing public. and. third. the
general public. The court states the
facts to be determined in the present
case aSe
First. was the Steel Corporation,
when this bill was filed in 1911 preju-
dicing the public interests by unduly
restricting competition or unduly OBJ
structlng the course OF tho steel and
iron trade. between the States or with
| in foreign nations? If this question
being violated. and an injunction
should issue TO restrain present and
future violations.
Second. did the Steel Corporation
when it was formed in 1901, either by
the intent OF those forming it, or by
contemplated acts, prejudice the pub
lie interests by unduly restricting
competition or unduly obstructing the
course OF the steel and iron trade. in
terstate or foreign? If this question
he answered yes, then the law was
violated. and the Steel Corporation
must be adjudged originally illegal.
If illegal, II must be dissolved.
! ON the other hand. If these ques-
| tions are negativcd, then the Steel Cor
poration should not he dissolved. but
! permitted TO pursue that usual course
of trade. which il was the purpose as
! We have seen, of this statute to pro-
tect. II will thus be seen that this
case is practically one OF business
| facts"
MAJORITY PRODUCED
| BY COMPETITORS
| Judge Burlington then showed that
| 60 per cent of the steel Of this coun-
try is produced by the Steel Corpora
| tons competitors, and that In the ten
years since il was formed. while its
business has increased 40 per cent.
| that OF eight other great steel com
panies has increased much faster.
ranging from the I.acka wanna steel.
which increased E per cent, to Bethlc-
hem. which increased 37.19 per cent.
After quoting the testimony both of
| the Steel Corporations competitors and
4,
the cour, holds:
we have carefully and patiently
studied the voluminous testimony
bearing Oh the general course of all
branches of the steel trade covering
the whole time the Steel Corporation
| has been engaged in such trade. The
| testimony covers profits by its manu-
featuring competitors in all branches,
and also the different classes of custo-
mers whose trade il and it's fellow
competitors seek II is apparent that
among these latter class that Is. the
! consumers OF its product, we would
| naturally find evidence of any throt-
Ting of competition. or any undue
restraint OF the steel trade. No one
can read tho testimony and fail to
be satisfied that this great body OF
| business men. scattered over all parts
! OF the country in keen competition
! with each other in their several lines.
! Is alert in seeing that competitive
] conditions exist between the manu-
/ facturers OF basic steel products from
whom they buy And the sworn tes-
/ timony OF these men. who are vitality
( interested in the maintenance OF real
competition between the Steel Cor
7oration and its manufacturing com
pet!tors, that such real competition
does exist, and has existed during the
past ten years. cannot but carry n
conviction that such is the case \
study OF the testimony OF these men,
who are close to, and vitality inter
cstcd observers OF the prices Of these
products. shows that single large
concern. by lowering the price OF any
substantial steel product IL sells, can
depress the obtainable price. IL fur
ther shows that the converse Is no,
the case-tha; no single large concern
by raising Of even maintaining the
prices Of any substantial steel pro-
duct, can raise the obtainable price
DISCUSSES FOREIGN TRADE
or SrEEi. CORPORATION
, The court then discusses the foreign
? trade Of the steel Corporation, anc
, SAYS that u had been huilt up, no
, by restraining or taking away tn,
trade Of others, but By creating it.
own. The opinion says that when til.
! steel Corporation was formed. III.
American steel companies had no de
, pcndable foreign trade.
OF the corporations 9l.00G,0O0 o
trade, the opinion says. sS0o0l.O0o l.