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

NO criticism of tho Supreme Court
Oh me United States in Il decade has
bccn more drastic than tho criticisp,
OF the decision Of the Court in tho case
OF the United States Steel Corporation.
Tho dissenting opinion backed by
three members Of the august tribunal
was delivered by Mr.. Justice Day. It
reminds us Of the decisions OF that
tribunal in cases relating to the rights
ana privileges Of citizens of color I'M
Ger the Constitution of the United
States.
a most amusing feature of the sit
Tuition is the following predicamcnt
OF Government officials. 1t was tho
black mans yesterday. but it is the
white mans case today. The report
says:
Government officials We're DcrplcX-
Gu as TO the effect OF the decision on
pohdlhS and future antitrust proscca-
ions. This was caused by the fact that
the decision was not rendered by q
majority Of tho full membership OF
tho court. Judging by their past acts.
Justices McReynolds and Brandeis,
VINO took no part in the decision,
would have sided with the minority
thus reversing the decision, five to
four. The decision did not place a new
Interpretation on tho antitrust law,
but simply decided that tho Steel Cor
loration had not violated II, and 1t
WIS thought in a similar Case with
Justices McRoynolds and BranGels sit
ting nn exactly opposite opinion might
DC rendered.
This is case OF repeating n law
by judicial Interpretation. The irony
OF tho situation Is emphasized In tho
opinions rendered by tho majority
and minority Of tho Supreme Court ms
handed down by Mr.. Justice McKcnna
end Mr.. Justice Day. Tho former Ia
quoted rs follows:
eve must adhere to the law" and
/ tho. law does not make moro size an
offense or the existence of unexertcd
power aa offense. 1t requires overt
acts and trusts to Its prohibition of
them and its power to repress or
punish them. 1t docs not compel
j: competition"
His very able colleague. Mr.. Justice
Day says IN plain, unequiyocal langu.
i ago that Mr.. Justice Mckenna and his
, associates did not adhere to tho law l..
His language is as follows:
: This record seems to leave no fair
room for a dou'. that the defendants
the United States Steel Corporation
and tho several subsidiary corporation
hhich make up that organization wer
formed In violation OF tAe Sherman
act. ! am unable to accept tho conclu.
sion which directs dismissal of the
hill instead OF following tho VOL SGT
tied practice, sanctioned by previous
decisions of this court, requiring the
dissolution OF combinations made IN
direct violation OF tho law.
This. then is Il plain statement that
the United States Supreme Court In
:ondoring this decision has reversed 1t
self and set at naught DEGREES handed
down III the cases Of tho American
Tobacco Company, the Standard Oil
Company, and similar decisions. MI
Justice McKcnna says that the Court
IDust adhere to the law and then ac-
IN N hf
~ occeds and decides by this opinion
net to adhere to tho 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
Ioration violated tho law in it's forma-
ton and by its immediate practices.
The power thus obtained from tho
combination of resources almost UNI
limited in the aggregation OF compot-
ing organizations, had within It's con
troll tho domination OF the trade and
tho ability to fix prices ard restrain
tho free flow of commerce upon
scale heretofore unapproached III tho
history Of corporate organization in
this country.
And again:
As | understand the conclusions of
the court affirming the decree direct
ing dismissal &c the bill they amount
to this: That the. combination, both
tho holding company and the suhGidi-