New-York tribune., 1920-03-02
Size of Company Is No
Offense, Says Majority
Opinion, Concurred in
by Four of the Justices
Nullifes Sherman
Act, Says Minority
Day, Clarke and Pitnev
Hold That Concern Was
Formed Against Law

4
WASHINGTON, March 1.-The
Supreme Court of the United States.
IN decision signed by four of the
nine justices, to-day refused to order
the dissolution of the United States
Steel Corporation. Two members of
the court took no part in the verdict.
In its decision the court made
sweeping rulings regarding 'big
business" 1t based its decision
against dissolving the Steel Corpora
tion on the grounds that bigness in
business is not in itself a violation
of the Sherman antitrust act; that
the Federal government has no right
to legalize the Steel Corporation IN
the corduct of its foreign trade un-
der the Webb act and at the same
time break it up at home, and that
the Steel Corporation has not been a.
wicked" trust, but benevolent
combination that has not used it's
gigantic organization to stifle COM
petition.
The decision was signed by JUS
tices McKenna, White, Holmes and
Van Devanter, but did not represent
the majority opinion Of the court.
Justices Day, Clarke and Pitney filed
a dissenting opinion in which they
differed radically with the decision.
Two Barred From Verdict
Justices McReynolds and Brandeis
did not participate, because they had
both been interested in prosecuting
the case against the Steel Corporation.
Justice McReynolds. as Attorney Gem
eral of the United States. had charge
of prosecuting the case during his ten-
ure Of that office. Justice Brandeis,
just before the suit was brought
against the Steel Corporation in the
Federal courts of New Jersey in 1911,
appeared in the capacity of a private
citizen before the Platt committee Of
the Senate that investigated the
trust"
Had Justices McReynolds and Bran
deis been able to participate in the
courts action. the Steel Corporation
would have been ordered dissolved.
with the Supreme Court standing five
to four in favor OF the dissolution.
In the dissenting opinion. Justices
Day, Clarke and Ptney declared that
the decision practically nullifies" the
Sherman antitrust law, and that new
legislation was necessary before the
courts could construe the Sherman &C.
differently than they did when they
ordered the dissolution OF the Standard
Oil Company and the American To-
bacco Company.
Impressive Size No Offense
"The 'corporation undoubtedly is of
impressive size and il takes an effort
of resolution not to be affected by it
or exaggerate its influence" the deci-
sion refusing to dissolve the corpora
tion declared The decision added,
however, that the corporation had COM
mitted no act of aggression Oh Its COM
pettors.
"Since 1911,' the decision recited.
mo act in violation of law can be es-
tablished against it except its exist
ence. Shall we declare that size IS
an offense even though it minds its
own business?"
1t requires an overt act on the part
of trust before there is an offense
against the Sherman act, the decision
declared THAT act does not compel
ition," it continued.
In the cases of the Standard Oil
Company and the American Tobacco
Company, the decision recitcd both
were found to have been
formed for the purpose of sitting COM
petition and securing monopolies. The
steel corporation had not been shown
to have committed any such acts, the
decision declared.
Foreign Trade 'Inconsistent''
The government showed 'some in
the decision continued,
by permitting the Steel Corporation to
engage in foreign trade under the
Webb act.
I'VE do not see how the Steel Cor
poration can be such a beneficial in
strumentality in the trade of the
world" said the decision, land it's
beneticiency preserved. and yet be such
an evil instrumentality in the trade
of the United States that it must be
destroyed" In conclusion the decision
stated;
1--WE are unable to see that the pub
lie interest will be served by yielding
to the contention of the government
the dissolution of the COM
of its subsidiaries, and we do sec in a
contrary conclusion a risk of injury to
the public interest, including mate
rial disturbance of, and it may be a
serious dertiment to, the foreign
trade"
In the dissenting opinion Justices
Day, Clarke and Pitney reviewed ths
records of the case and declared that
it had been shown that the Steel Cor
poration was formed in violation of tho
Sherman law
Violated Law in Formation
''The corporation violated the law in
its formation and by its immediate
practices" says the minority opinion.
''The power thus obrained from the
combination of resources almost uniim-.
tied in the aggregation Of competing
organizations had within its control
the domination of the trade and tae
ability to fix prices ard restrain the
free iow OF commerce upon scale
heretofore unappronehed in the history
OF corporate organization in thls coan-