Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1920-03-02
SUPREME COURT NOT
 TO DISSOLVE THE
 STEEL CORPORATION
(Continued From Page n.

(Continued From Page D. was made to the famous "Gary din- ners." at which steel corporation of- fcials met with competitors to agree on prices. The majority declared it was re- duced to the sole contention that mere size, or bigness of the organi zation "is an abhorrence to the law" Unused capacity for monopoly or op pression, the court held, is not pun ishable. The courts duty, it was de- clared, is to punish and check any actual violations.
 In it's enunciation of ney applica- tion to be given the Sherman law re- garding the public interest in each case, the court said:
 i "lt is clear in it's denunciation of monopolies and equally clear in it's direction that the courts shall pre- vent and restrain them, but the com mand is necessarily submissive to the conditions which may exist and the usual powers of court of eau ity to adapt it's remedies to those conditions.
 "We do not mean to say that the law is not it's own measure and that it can be disregarded, but only that appropriate relief in each instance is remitted to court of equity to de- termine, and let us be explicit in this, to advance policy contrary to that of the law, but in submission to the law and it's policy, and in execu- ticn of both"
 In conclusion, the majority said they were unable to see that the nrh1.o ;,,ko ho l>,, yielding to the contention of the gov we do see risk or public injury, and it may be a serious detriment to, foreign trade."
 Dissenting Opinion.
 In reply, the three dissenting jus tices declared that the corporation violated the law in its formation and it's immediate practices" and being former illegally should be dis solved into competitive units. The lower court, the minority declared, could fix the details. It had been demonstrated, the minority held, that the corporation was over capitalized with "water stock"
 "If the Sherman law is to be given efficacy" the minority opinion de- clared, "there must be decree look ing as far as is possible that which has been achieved in open, notorious and continued violation of the law"
 q agree," Justice Day continued, "that the act offers no objection to mere size of corporation when that size. has been obtained by lawful means and developed by natural growth, although it's resources, capi- tai and strength may give to such a corporation a dominating place.
 Violation Sanctioned.
 "But I understand the reiterated decisions of this court-to hold that this power may not legally be deriv- ed from conspiracies, combinations or contracts in restraint of trade. To permit this would practically annul the Sherman law by judicial decree"
 Contesting the majority's interpre- tation of the law, the dissenters de- clafed that if changes now are to be made in it's construction or opera tion, congress and not courts, should act.
 Both the holding corporation and it's subsidiaries, the dissenting opin- ion declared, were organized in "plain violation" of the law and under the maj jority decree, are made immune, "because of some public reasons re- quiring such conclusion"
 q know of no public policy" said Justice Day, "for these dissenting, which sanctions violation of the law, nor of any inconvenience to trade, domestic or foreign, which should have the effect of placing com binations in an impregnable posi- tion above the control of the law. Such a conclusion does violence to the policy which the law is intended to enforce and necessarily results in practical nullifcation of the act it. self"