The Birmingham age-herald., 1920-03-02
HISTORY OF CASE

Washington, March 1--Not only the permaHsnce or dfsintegratton of ths United states Steel Corporation and it's principal subsidiaries, but also. the gov erDn7ent contended. the future courss of American industrial development de- pended upon the supreme courts de- cisfon-whether efficient. normal com petition or dominating. artificial com bination shall obtain
 Like In the federal dissolution suit against the so-calIed Harvester trust, the government attacked the steel com
 bfnations principally because of their
 enormous size and power. potential or
 actually exercised in suppressing com petition Control of approximately one-hs1f Of the general iron and steel
 industry. both raw and finished prod ucts-and in some cases up to g per cent-x2s charged The defendants admitted control Of 40.9 per cent of do-
 nestle and about 60 per cent of Amer ican export trade.
 As an ampIifieation of the rule of reason" engrafted upon the Sherman the Standard Oil and Tobacco trust
 cases, the government asked the court
 to enunciate new basic principle; that no combination so large or powerful that IL dominates. or occupies pre- ponderant position" in an industry or main branch thereof shall be permitted under the Sherman antitrust law.
 GOOD" COMBINATION In defense. the steel companies con- tended that the Sherman zct does not prohibit combinations for mere size and 1 power alone, and that the Steel Cor poration is good" combination. When.
 to attain efficiency and promote foreign i trade. combinations do pot control an i industry and cannot alone fix and main | tain prices, and have not throttied com / petition by unfair methods. the defense ! intended. they are not prohibited { Dissolution of the United States Steel 1 Corporation. the New Jersey holding company organized in 1901. and mar ! shaling centralized control of l80 units ' or former competing factors in the iron and steel industry. was asked by the ! government. Also, dissolution of the ! inner com binations in the principal in dustrial branches was sought, so that no one should dominate any main divi- ! sion.
 ! Injunctions restraining the corporate and individual defendants from re- straining interstate and foreign trade 1 and commerce also were asked To eE- 1 feet actual dissolution into separate di- visions of the trade. on one to be large enough to dominate any prime portion 1 the government proposed re-distribu- | ton of stool. control.
 | The supreme court was asked to give 1 a general dissolution decree. to have the New Jersey district court work out a l dissolution plan upon it's own initiative { or by submission from the defendants or, as a compulsory alternative, by fed ! eral court receivership and exclusion ] of the corporations products from in 1 terstate commerce.
 SUIT FILED IN 1911
 l The federal suit was filed In 1911 1T the New Jersey federali district court It was dismissed in 1915 by Judges Buff fington. McPherson, Wooliey and Hunt Direct appeal to the supreme court Wal taken by the government. The case was expedited and argued in March ! 1917, before seven justices. Justice McReynolds was disqualified by hay ing been Attorney General during earlier proceedings. and Justice Bran
 deis retired because of public expres
 sions of opinions. regarding the so
 called trust" before his appointment
 The district court decided that al
 though formed to illegally monopoliz
 and restrain trade and to secure grea
 profits. the combination was not abl alone to fix and maintain prices and