Evening star., 1915-06-04
Upholds T. c. and I. Purchase.

The court found nothing wrong in the
steel corporation acquiring the Tennes-
see Coal and Iron Company during the
financial panic of 1907, and thus virtu-
ally approves the attitude of the Roose-
welt administration in not interfering
with that deal.
On this point the court held that the
| output of Tennessee at the time was
only Ii per cent of the country's total
output; that up to that time it had
not been a business success; that its
principal Observation-Disclosures made at
a loss: that it's ultimate success was
doubtful and involved further outlay
of S25,OOO,00O, and that the purchaser
of the Tennessee property. as well as of
several other steel concerns earlier in
the history of the big corporation. was
made in fair business course and was
"the honest exertion of ones right to
contract for ones benefit, unaccompa-
MED by a wrongful motive to injure
others"
With regard to Andrew Carnegie,
whom the government charged was a
party to the unlawful combination"
and took the bonds of the corporation
with all the inirmities attaching to
such participation" the court found
any other relation in the formation of
the Steel Corporation than that of sell
er of his stocks and bonds, and the
court declared to be true Mr.. Car
his interests in a desire to retire from
the hazards and responsibility of active
business
Four Judges Concur.
Four judges. Burlington, Mcpherson,
Hunt and Woolley, sat in this case.
While the suit was filed in the district
court it was heard on a writ of expe-
dition by the judges of the third judi
cial circuit, who form the court of ap-
peals.
The next step in the case will be the
filing of formal decree and the gov
ernment will probably then take an
appeal to the Supreme Court.
Judge Burlington wrote the principal
opinion and Judge Woolley wrote
Hunt concurred. The court stated that
"alI the members of the court are in
agreement as to the decree that will
be entered" although they are not in
complete accord concerning every step
by which that result Is reached.
The suit was instituted by the Taft
administration and was prosecuted for
the government by Jacob M. Dickin-
son. former Secretary of War. as chief
counsel.
The opinion Of Judge Burlington is a
discussion of the business Of the steel
corporation, covering the ten years OF
it's existence up to the time the suit
was fled the acquisition of its home
and foreign trade and the proofs as to
whether 1t has restrained or suppressed
competition or been guilty Of acts as
to warrant its dissolution.
Sherman Law Construction.
In discussing the law Judge Bufing-
ton says the construction Of the Sher-
man law was settled by the Supreme
Court in the Standard OIL and tobacco
cases. The opinion shows that in de-
termining what are the unlawful re-
strafnts and monopolies against which
the Sherman act protects trade the
Supreme Court summarized all its
trust decisions by stating in a late
case that these cases may be taken to
have established that only such COM
binations are within the act as by rea-
son of intent or the inherent nature of
the contemplated acts prejudices the
public interests by unduiy restricting
competition or unduly obstructing the
course of trade.
United States Steel Growth.
Judge Burlington then shows that
6v per cent of the steel of this country
is produced by the steel companys
competitors. nd that In the ten years
since 1t was formed. while It's business
has increased forty odd per cent, that
of eight other great steel companies
| has Increased much faster They are
the Lackawanna Steel, while Increased
So per cit; Republic. ~. Colorado
Fuel, 152 per cent: Cambria, 155; Jones
and Laughlin. 20s: La Belle, 463; In
| diana Steel. 1895. and Bethlehem In
creased 1919 per cent In that regard
the opinion says: Taking up these
| companies, one by one, 1t will be seen
that in location, facilities, capital and
basic supplies. they show such fast, pres
ent and prospective competition, as af-
| fords just grounds for concluding that the
steel and iron business of this coun-
try Is not being and, indeed, cannot
| be monopolized."
! After quoting the testimony both Of
the steel companys competitors and Of
consumers using its product the court
| holds:
| Quotes Customers Testimony.
The testimony covers proofs by its
manufacturing competitors in all
branches and also the different classes
of customers whose trade 1t and its
fellow competitors seek.
And the sworn testimony Of these
men. who are vitality interested in the
maintenance OF real competition be-