Norwich bulletin., 1920-03-02

.eeded to their power. It is the irresist4 ble conclusion 4 that great prof-I ts to be derived from unifefid con rol were the object of these orgafl- zations. "The contention must be rejected that the combination was an inevitable evolution of industrial tendencies com polling union of endeavor. For many years, as the record dis closes this unlawful organization ex- erted it's power to control and main- tain prices by pools. associations, trade meetings and as the result of discus- sion .and agreement at the so-called Gary dinners, where the assembled trade opponents secured cooperation and joint action through the n1achin- t cry of special committees of conpet4 ing concerns, and by prudent proyi- sion took into account the possibility of defection and the means of con- trolling and perpetuating that indus trial harmony which arose from the control and maintenance of prices.
 Tn inevitably follows that the cor poration violated the law in it's form | atioh ad by, it's immediate practices. The power thus obtained from the | combination of. resources almost un- 1 limited in the aggregation of conipet- l ing organizations, had within it's con- 1 trol the domination of the trade, and | the ability to fix prices and restrain | the free flow of commerce upon a scale heretofore unappfoached in the history of corporate organization in this country.
 These facts established, as it seems to me they are, by the record, it fol- lows that if the Sherman act is to be given efficacy there must be a de- cree undoihg so far as is possible that which has been achieved in open, no- torious and continued violation of it's prOvisions.'
 T agree that the act offers no ob- lection to the mere size of a corpo- ration, nor to the continuer exertion , of it's lawful power when, that size and power have been obtained by law full means But I understand the re- iterated decision of this court con struing the Sherman act to hold that, this power may not legally be derived | from conspiracies, combinations, or ! contracts in restraint of trade To permit this would be practically to l annul the Sherman law by judicial 1 decree
 Justice Day said the Sherman act l had been law for thirty years and if changes were to be made now in it's construction or operation the exer- | ton of such authority rested with l congress and not with the courts. Citing the Standard Oil case, Jus l tice Day said that eonlhina ton was certainly not more obnoxious to the 1 Sherman Act than the court now finds the one under consideration to be- I Tn the American Tobacco Com pany case,'' Justice Day c0ntniued, it was there concluded that the only effectual remedy was to dissolve the combination and the companies com T,, A1-a atioi1s dissolved had long been in existence and the offending companies 1 were organized years before the suit was brought. Such facts were con- sidered no valid objection to the dis solution of these powerful organiza- tiohs as the only effective means of enforcing the purposes of the Sher- man antitrust act. These cases have been frequently followed in this court and in the lower federa1s courts and I see no occasion to depart from them now.
 "As I understand the conclusions of the couT-s, affirming the decree di- recting dismissal of the bill they amount to this: that the combina- tion, both the holding company and the subsidiaries which comprise it, al though in plain violation and bold defiance of the provisions of the act nevertheless are immune from a de cree efectually ending the conbina- tion and putting it out of their power to attain the unlawful purposes sought, because of some reasons o1 public policy requiring such conclu- sion.
 T know of no public policy whict 1 sanctions a violation of the law, nol of any inconvenience to trade do- mestic or foreign, which should have the effect of placing combinations which have been able to thus organize one of the greatest industries of the country in defiance of law, in an i'm pregnable position above the contro of the law forbidding such combita- tions. Such a conclusion does vio- lence to the policy which the law was intended to enforce, runs counter tc the decisions of the court, and neces- sarily results in a practical nullifca. tion of the (Shernan) act itself.
 "It (the actJ was not intended tt merely suppress unfair practices, but as it's history and terms amply show it was intended to make it crinina to form combinations or engage 1T eonSpiracies or contracts in restrain of interstate commerce.
 Fms court has held tha the proper enforcement of the act re. NOAl Co LCCI CCo- IO CllN NOIIbD1IldL1OIS Dl dissolving them and restoring as ia, as possible the competitive condi
 tions which the combinations hay. destroyed. am unable to see force il
 the suggestion that public policy, o.
 the assunied disastrous effect upoi foreign trade of dissolving unlawful
 combinations, is sufficient to entitle i
 to immunity from the enforcement 6
 the statute.
 "Nor can I yield assent to the pro
 position that this combination has no
 acquired dominant position in tn trade which enables it to contro
 prices and production when it sec
 it to exert it's power. :
 'TTfat tie exercise of power may b
 withheld, or exerted with forbearinj
 benevolence does not place such com
 binations beyond the authority of tn
 statute which was intended to pro
 Eibit their formation, and when form
 ed to deprive them of the power tn
 lawfully attained.
 Tt Is said that a complete mo
 nopolization of the steel business wa
 never attained by the offending com
 binations. To insist upon such re
 suits would be beyond the require
 D1ents of the statute and in most case
 practically impossible.
 Tt is affirmed that to grant th
 governments request for