The Birmingham age-herald., 1920-03-02

LAilI A d4 1dlE tV LI- 4--eLtleA4lA@ 4L " ueceszzrY- Most of rze units were said to be suppIsazertzrv rather slran corn petitive- Tse deferdznts also said thar # the c1nztI11euts of tile trust were illegal. the corporation itself was not efIa rEaahle with knoTrIsdTe of such H. { lsEzii1y- Also the cor1oin7tiou vas c7u- tended Co have resulted in actual ecc- nnulic benssit-thzt t1 had beer a good combination, not res1rtiuS to unrair 1rze- tices against conrpetitors- employees. or ccr-s7In7srs. or inerezsirS prices Exeess VzIuztionse the corporation argued hsd been replaced with actual ezrutnZss the | CT rporsti0r's proportion Gt trade has de- creased si-ce the combination w1ils com p@trtors has increased and that cdu- | petition has generally Increased slrce tne combination $ formation
 | In answer to those contentious the scvsrn17ent corsended that the couzoinz- tiors had overstepped limits ot efficiency | that they were actually izsffIciert- zr- { preached absolute nuoncpoly- were ur Esilsfy- costly and rithout econorutc | fuxti ificztiou e necessity-a.s proved by decreasing proportion Of 0utprc-znd have potential, dangerous power. even if rotyet actually exercised Good irter- tfCus. also. the government insisted and rers restraint frou1 unfair GOT pres sive conduct, could not excuse the actual Icorhtnation in alleged violation os the Sherman law The s0verunsat zhso- { Euteiy rejected tne theory that there can be good and bad trusts, or com birations- such coastructior. it was com tended would nGIEify the Sherman 1w { lin practical effect and federal convic- ltfons- Whether lawful or unlawful the intentions and after eordact. good CT | otherwise, it was insisted Of the csn- csntrzsions could not ahsolvs them from ilEegzlity-
 NEW JERSEY COURT DECISION In dtsrnissiug the goFernneacs suit against all defendants, two of the New Jersey district judges held the conhsn- attons were formed ~upor a scale that was huge and in a manner that was
 Hhd that the properties were as sembied and combined for advzn-
 tages expected from elimination of iccmpetition between them ac- quiring competing producing systems at figures not based upon their physical or ! business values but upon their values in combination.
 Also the district judges found that ''the control acquired .-.--.. extended in some instances to e per cent of the tntire output of the country. resulting in i'm mediate increase of prices. in some cases double and treble. yielding large dfvi- blends upon greatly inflated capital sn1 that the corporation was a ~coEnbfna- lion of competing corporations which in themselves were combinations of com tpeting corporations.' and that the object
 was probably to rnonopolize and unduly
 restrain trade and thus secure great
 profits was also found by the Io~el scourt.
 Notwithstanding those findings. the lower court dismissed the federal sui
 on the theory that a combination 0
 eompetitive units although formed foi ! specific purpose of restraining or mo
 Eopolizing trade is nevertheless not un lawful if after events disclose that il.
 power is not get great enough to enabl it to alone fix and maintain prices.
 GARY DINNERS CITED
 1 In that connection the Gary dinners
 at which leaders of all steel concern iassembled in New York (discontinted il tIsli1 were cited both to prove and den
 the price fixing and maintaining power Inviting competitors to discuss prices
 the defendants contended showed lac
 of power in the combination to hold u
 prices without competitors acQuiescenct
 The government contended that the COT poration is so powerful that eompeti
 tors virtually were forced to follow tn i price scales fixed by the corporation
 Generally the government contended ths the Sherman law was designed to pre 1 serve the competitive system of indu: try, because that system was threatens = by undue concentration. IL contende . that every combination. which by nece' = sary effect threatens normal operatioS n of the law Of competition-un -unduly T s stricts competitiou-is illegal The laz : however, it was contended was not fl : tended to set limit for normal busines g enla rgement. and it is immaterii v whether undue concentration result n through the old form of trust (
 through a holding company or aetu . purchase and consolidation of plants n In appealing from dismissal of it's sl q the government contended that the low courts decision would actually Gceni l, enormous concentrations which fall ju . short of complete monopoly. and san' :. tion development Of industry by combins 2 ton rather than normal competition.
 The litigation was the most importal : las affecting industrial questions. befoi 1, !, the court since the Standard Oil case , The record comprised fifty-seven lari volumes It's cost was said to run inl 2 hundreds of thousands of dollars 4 - array of eminent counsel appeared c
 both sides. Begun by Former Attorns
 General Wickersham it engaged maj T federal attorneys. For the defendant l. lR. V. Lindabury and David A. Reed d New York and c. A. Severance of s If Paul. among others, appeared.
 Il