Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1920-03-06
ANOTHER SUPREME COURT
DECISION.

No criticism Of tho Supreme Court
|, or the United States in decade has
oecn more drastic than tho criticism
OF the decision Of the Court the case
OIL the United States Steel Corporation.
Tho dissenting opinion backed by
lhrce members Of the august tribunal
was delivered by Mr.. Justice Day. 1t
reminds us of the decisions of that
tribunal i'll cases relating to the rights
and privileges of citizens Of color I'M
Ger the Constitution of tho United
States.
, a most amusing feature Of the sit
uation is the following predicamcnt
of Government officials. 1t was tho
black mans yesterday, but it is tho
white mans case today. The report
says:
Government officials We're perplex-
Cd us to the effect Of tho decision on
pending and future antitrust proscca-
lions. This was caused by the fact that
the decision was not rendered by n
majority of the full membership of
the court. Judging by their past acts.
justices McReynolds and Brandeis,
who took no part in the decision,
would have sided with the minority
thus reversing tho decision, five to
four. The decision did not place n new
Interpretation on tho antitrust law,
but simply decided that tho Steel Cor
Eoration had not violated Ii, and 1t
was thought in similar case with
Justices McReynolds and Brandeis sit
ting IN exactly opposite opinion might
, DC rendered.
This is case OF repeating law
by judicial Interpretation. The irony
OF the situation Is emphasized in the
opinions rendered by tho majority
and minority Of the Supreme Court as
handed down by Mr.. Justice McKenna
end Mr.. Justice Day. Tho former Is
!. quoted Us follows: .
I'VE must adhere to the law" and
tho law does not make nero size an
offense or the existence Of unexerted
power an offense. II requires overt
acts and trusts to Its prohibition of
{ them and it's power to repress or
punish them. It does not compel
!. competition.
His very able colleague. Mr.. Justice
Day says In plain, unequivocal langll-
age that Mr.. Justice McKenna and his
associates did not adhere to tho law.
His language is as follows:
' This record seems to leave no fair
room for douE, that the defendants
the United States Steel Corporation
and tho several subsidiary corporation !
Which make up that organization wer
formed In violation Of tne Sherman
act. am unable to accept the conclu-
sion which directs dismissal Of tho
bill instead Of following tho we'll set
tied practice, sanctioned by previous
decisions of this court, requiring the
dissolution OF combinations made IN
direct violation Of the law.
This, then is plain statement that
the United States Supreme Court In
rendering this decision has reversed 1t
self and set at naught DEGREES handed
down In the cases of tho American
Tobacco Company, the Standard Oil
Company. and similar decisions. Mr..
Justice McKenna says that tho Court
must adhere to the law and then &C
cording TO Mr.. Justice Day, the Court
proceeds and decides by this opinion
net to adhere to the law. Certainly
either one or the other OF these learn
cd jurists is mistaken. Both cannot
be right. The dissenting opinion among
other things says:
=. 1t inevitably follows that the cor
Noration violated tho law in it's forma-
ton and by Its immediate practices.
The power thus obtained from the
combination of resources almost I'M
limited in the aggregation OF compel
ing rganizations, had within it's con
Erol the domination OF the trade and
tho ability to fix prices and restrain
tho free flow Of commerce upon
scale heretofore unapproached in tho
history Of corporate organization in
this country.
And again:
AS / understand the conclusions Of
the court affirming the decree direct
ing dismissal Of the bill they amount
to this: That the. combination, both
tho holding company and the suhsidi-
aries which comprise it, although or
ganizcd in plain violation and bold
defiance Of the provisions Of the act.
nevertheless are immune from a dc
cree eifcctually ending the ccmbina-
ton and putting it out Of their pow
or to attain the unlawful purposes
sought because Of some reason Of pub
lie policy requiring such conclusion.
I know Of no public policy which
sanctions a violation of the law, nor
or any Inconvenience to trade, do
nestle or foreign which should, have
the effect Of placing combin ntions,
which have been able to thus organize