New Britain herald., 1915-06-04
we're sued as trustees Of the Hin com.

In DrleI, the general charge was
that some of the companies in them
selves, were combinations in restraint
of trade and that the creation of the
Steel corporation, which took in the
steel and certain other companies
named in the suit, was IAN attempt
to monopolize and a monopolization''
in violation of the Sherman antitrust
law. .N
The Hill ore companies were in
volved in the suit by reason of the
fact that the Steel corporation leased
the ore deposits held by the ore COM
panies, the government alleging that
this lease gave the corporation a mo-
nopoly of the ore supply of the United
States. This lease was Cancelled af-
ter the suit was filed.
Charged Restraint of Trade.
The governments complaint stated
that the Federal steel company Car
negie company of New Jersey, Amer
lean Steel and Wire company of New
Jersey, National Tube company, Ma
tional Steel company, American Tin
Plate company, American Steel Hoop
company and American Sheet Steel
company were each com bination of
companies or concerns in restraint of
| trade; that competition was largely
| eliminated in their respective lines;
that at the time of the United States
! Steel corporation was formed the Car
negie, Federal, and National were in
active competition with each other;
that several of the companies were
preparing to still further increase
their capacity to compete by estab
| fishing themselves along new lines of
manufacture. and that for these rea-
sons and for the general purpose of
| suppressing competition and control
| ing trade and commerce the United
| States Steel corporation was formed
by the directors named in the suit,
all Of whom except the Rockefellers
/ had been variously connected with
one or more of the companies.
The proofs further show that, with
| the enlargement of the Erie Canal
| system, Lake Superior ore will be
| canal frieghted from Buffalo to New
York Harbor at 2S cents ton less
than the same ore Is rail freighted
from Lake Erie to points in the Pitts
burg districts. With the enlargement
of that canal, the proofs are that
blast furnaces afef now planned for
| location on seaboard waters in New
! York Harbor limits.
The concurring opinion of Judge
| Woolley, which is adopted by Judge
Hunt, draws the distinction between
! the actual power of the Steel Corpor-
| alton to monopolize and the intent of
those who formed it TO actually mon
| opolize.
AS to its power to monopolize.
Judge wool1ey finds that with respect
to its control over raw materials the
corporation is acquitted of monopoly
and the bill dismissed against the de-
PENDANTS Rockefeller, who were
charged to have combined with the
corporation in restraining trade in
in iron ores.
AS to finished products he holds
the Steel corporation does not domin-
ate, that it's size and power have
not retarted the growth of compe-
titors, and, distinguishing it's power
from the intent of its formers, it is
not in it's inherent nature a monopoly
nor is its necessary effect to unduly
restrain trade. NY.
Says Intent Was Monopoly.
On the question of intent Judge
Woolley holds the intent of those
forming it was to monopolfze and
unduly restrain trade, but that when
organized the corporation was con-
fronted by forces beyond its control.
and was affected by trade laws and
conditions which in it's organization
were either forgotten or ignored, and
in it's combat with it's competitors 1T
was unable to do what it's organizers
intended; that lacking the power in
itself of monopoly it was forced to re-
sort to pools to control prices.
AS to the intent of he corporation
shown after it's formation, Judge
woolley holds that the only conduct
of the corporation violative of the
statute was it's cooperating with Its
competitors from 1901 to 1904, when
it was stopped, in pool agreements di
yiding territory and fixing prices, in
meetings with it's competitors from
1904 to 1907 when understandings
were controlled, and from then on |
in the Gary dinners and meetings.
In the opinion of Judge Woolley |
and Hunt. the organizers of the COR |
poration intended to monopolize and |
restrain trade, but the Steel corpora |
ton itself neither attempted, nor was |
it able to monopolize, and a decree |
for its DISSOLUTION should not be award |
ed.
Good Effect, Says Perkins.
George w. Perkins, a Director of |
United States Steel, long prominently |
identified with the corporation, said
last night in response to a request for
his view of the decision in the steel
suit:
1T consider the decision very
great victory for twentieth century |
economics. 1t Is victory for moral
conduct over legal technicalities. The
effect upon business will be most
beneficial and 1t will be prompt and
very general. The whole business or