The news scimitar. (Memphis, Tenn.) 1907-1926, 1920-03-04
STEEL DECISION
STUNNING BLOW
TOFEDERAL SUITS
Effect on Other Cases lnvOIV.
ing Monopoly Charges Are
Feared by Officials at Capt.
tal-ACtiOn Criticized.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.
Especial Correspondent of The News.
Scimltar.)

WASHINGTON. March Few de-
Cisiohs of the supreme court OF the
United States have had such a democrat
lzlug erect on the prosecuting branch
OF the government as the verdict which
gave the United States Steel corpora
trust
Official Washington is Just beginning
10 realize the stunning blow which has
oeen delivered TO the department OF
Justice and, incidentally, TO congress,
which mad thought the Sherman anti
trust law was the weapon with which
monopoly and unfair competition might
be successfully fought.
what good is the Sherman law now,
Mnat IS the use of trying to go any
turther, what Gan be accomplished by
prosecution of illegality, If the supreme
court can use its discretion in saying
whether or not law shall be en-
forced?' These and similar questions
were being asked by the lawyers in
government circles in view OF the SUI
preme courts action in the steel case.
How Judges Stand.
1t must not be forgotten that another
factor enters into the disappointment
naturally felt in department of justice
circles The decision of the court was
four TO three. Justices Day, Clarke
and Pltney dissented, and would have
been able to change the entire decision
If Justices Brandeis and McReynolds
had not been technically disqualified
from voting because they had partici-
pated in the steel case before 1t was
tried.
Mr.. McReynolds was attorney gem
eraL and prosecuted the steel cases.
Mr.. Brandeis appeared before congress
Sional committees and wrote extensively
against the steel corporation. So it is
an open secret that five, justices are,
in fact, In favor of furnishing the steel
corporation as against the four who
would eXonerate the company from PEN
atty.
This accident, however, is not what is
causing so much concern, as the effect
on other cases and the prosecution of
monopoly.
Officials at the department of JUS
tice say, for instance, their position has
been misrepresented as one of opposi-
ton to the mere bigness of business.
They declare emphatically that there
is no objection to the size Of corpora
tons, but to their monopolistic practices
which prevent others from enjoying
freedom of opportunity in America,
But it is the famous 'rule Of reason
which fundamentally comes in for at
tack by the critics of the decision.
1t is contended that the business OF
the supreme court should be merely to
say whether the law has been violated
up 10 congress.
II Is up to congress to define what
is a good or bad trust
If the Sherman antitrust law is made
quate, the probabilities are that one OF
the political parties will insist on a
more drastic statute to reach monop-
olies.
For, this year, the anomaly is pre-
scented of the government of the United
States using the power Of injunction to
make coal miners go back to work, and
a decision of the supreme court which
exonerates the steel corporation from
punishment for offenses committed be-
fore the case was prosecuted but which
are condoned because the steel corpora
ton did not continue to give offense.
The difficulty of making laboring folk
understand why the courts exonerate
the steel corporation while the Gus
todians of law go after the coal miners
is troublesome paradox, especially this
presidential year, when Labor is crying
out that it must use political power tC
get square deal.
The supreme court has one idea O
what constitutes "the public interests
and the lower courts successfully
evolved another
So far as the Wilson administration
Is concerned, it started out to breal
UP trusts with somewhat the same vigol
that Attorney General Wickersham, o.
the TAFT administration, eXnlDlted. Bu
the outbreak of the war knocked many
peace time laws sky high, and in thu
interest of ultimate victory combina
tons, monopolies and price-fixing was
permitted.
Now that the war is over, much o.
the feeling that bigness and huge com
binations are necessary to realize Amer
ica's commercial opportunities in thu
reconstruction period still persists.
There is no quarrel with that, how
ever as is instanced by the enactmen
Of the webb law and the railroad re-
organization bill. But the decision o
the court to forgive offenses, on thu
ground that the punishment might bt
harmful to public interest, is what il
causing perplexity.
BY the same token any law tina
causes Inconvenience in enforcement
might, it is contended, sbe nullfied. In
deed, the plight of the packers win
compromised their suit with the gov
eminent when, considering the stee
decision, they might have won out !
they had carried their fight through
the supreme court, is causing mucl
speculation, though there again doub
arises whether a full bench would sus
tain in any other case the principle
by which the Steel corporation narrow
Iy escaped the dissolution fate of tn
Tobacco and standard Oil companies
copyright, 1920, by David Lawrence.