The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1920-03-04
STEEL DECISION
JARS WASHINGTON
Officials of Department of
Justice Stunned by
it's Effect
VITIATES SHERMAN
ANTITRUST STATUTE
Two Supreme Court Justices, Both OPP
posed to Steel Trust, Were Disquali-
fed from Considering Case-Its Eff
feet ON Presidential Campaign.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.
Convright by The Reformer.

Copyright by The Reformer.
WASHINGTON, March 4-Few deci-
sions of the supreme. court of the United
States have had such demoralizing
effect on the prosecuting branch of the
government as the verdict which gave
the United States Steel Corporation a
clean bill of health as good trust.
Official Washington is just beginning
to realize the stunning blow which has
been delivered to the department of JUS
tice and incidentally to congress, which
had thought the Sherman antitrust law
was the weapon with which monopoly
and unfair competition might be success
fully fought.
"What good is the Sherman low now ?
What is the use of trying to go any fur
Their? What can be accomplished by
prosecution of illegality if the supreme
court can use its discretion in saying
whether or not law shall be enforced y
These and similar questions were be-
ing asked by the lawyers in government
circles in view of the supreme courts ac-
ton in the steel cases.
| 1t must not be forgotten that another
factor enters into the disappointment
naturally felt in department of justice
circles. The decision of the court was
four to three. Justices Day, Clarke and
Pitney dissented and would have been
able to change the entire decision if jus
tees Brandeis and McReynolds had not
been technically disqualified from voting
because they had participated in the steel
case before it was tried Mr. Mercy
nolds was attorney general and prose.
cuted the steel cases. Mr. Brandeis APP
peared before congressional committees
and wrote extensively against the steel
corporation. SO it is an open secret that
| five justices are in fact in favor of pun.
ishing the steel corporation as against
the four who would exonerate the com
pany from penalty.
| This accident, however, is not what is
causing so much concern as the effect OF
other eases and the prosecutions OF
monopoly.
Officials at the department of justice
say, for instance, their position has beer
misrepresented as one of opposition tC
the mere bigness of business They de
clare emphatically that there is no oh
lection to the size of corporations but tC
their monopolistic practices which pre-
vent Others from enjoying freedom OF
opportunity in America
But it is the famous rule of reason.
which fundamentally comes in for attach
by the critics of the decision. 1t is con
tended that the business of the supreme
court should be merely to say whether
the law has been violated. 1t is up tt
congress to define what is a good or {
bad trust. If the Sherman anti-trus
law Is inadequate, the probabilities ar,
that one of the political parties will in
sist on more drastic statute to reacI
monopolies For this year the anomall,
is presented of the government of tn,
United States using the power of injunc
ton to make coal miners go back to worl
and decision of the supreme cour
which exonerates the steel corporation
from punishment for offenses committed
before the case was prosecuted but which
are condoned because the steel corpora
ton did not continue to give offense
The difficulty of making laboring foil
understand why the courts exonerate tn
steel corporation while the custodians o
law go after the coal miners is a trouble
some paradox, especially this presidential