Evening star., 1920-03-02
VERDICT FOR STEEL
CORPORATION ENDS
SUIT BEGUN IN 1871


Holding It Menace-Further
U. S. Action Unlikely.
Chief Justice White. Associate Jus
ticcs McKenna. Holmes and Van De-
vanter concurred in the opinion that
the United States Steel Corporation
was not a combination. under the
Sherman act. iuimical 20 the public
welfare. and therefore was not to be
disrupted merely because of its size
or preponderance in the steel industry.
This majority opinion also gave
new judicial Interpretation TO the
Sherman act. in declaring that the
public interest must be considered in
applying the law. just as the court in
the Standard Oil case. contended for
tYe rule of reason
Clarke dissented from the majority
opinion and declared that the corpora
ton had been guilty of open, notorI-
Gus and repeated violation of the
Sherman act. They also protested
against the new judicial interpreta-
ton as being practical notification
of the act.
Victory Is Complete.
The decision was a complete victory
end of the prosecution begun IN 1911.
1t also dismissed prceedings against
a score of individual defendants ana
1870. subsidiaries of the corporation
While the decision left the government
free to undertake a new suit, Depart
ment of Justice officials declared that
no thought has been given further ac-
ton. and it is not believed that the
government VIII take up the prosecu-
tion again. the case having been twice
argued before the Supreme Court and
the decision conforming to the decree
of the lower court
The principal point accentuated IN
the decision was that the government
had relied practically upon the size OF
the corporation as indication OF It's
the proof had shown that the corpora
ton had not monopolized industry.
Mr.. Justice McKenna pointed out that
two hundred practical steel men had
testified to this fact. while the gov
ernment had relied upon the witness
a theorist and economist who had con-
tended that regular prices maintalned
over a series of years would lead To-
the deduction that artificial means
had been employed to maintain prices
Interprets Sherman Law.
In it's enunciation Of the new appli-
cation to be given the Sherman law
regarding the public interest in each
case, tne court SdlU.
at is clear in it's denunciation of
monopolies and equally clear in it's di-
rection that the courts shall prevent
and restrain them, but the command
is necessarily submissive to the condl.
ttonS which may exist and the usual
powers of court of equity to adapt its
remedies to those conditions. We do
not mean to say that the law is not its
own measure and that 1t can be disre-
garded, but only that appropriate relief
in each instance is remitted to court
of equity to determine, not, and let US
be explicit in this, to advance a policy
contrary to that Of the law. but In sub
mission to the law and Its policy and
in execution of BOTH
The majority Of the court took occa-
sion to refer to President Roosevelts
approval of the Steel Corporations
acquisition Of the Tennessee Coal and
Iron Company, declaring that action of
President Roosevelt. while not making
tie merger legal. gave assurance Of
its legality as we know from his earn
estness in the public welfare he would
have approved Of nothing that had even
a tendency to its detriment."
Competitors. dealers and customers
of the corporation testify in multi
tude that no adventitious interfer-
ence WIS employed to either fix or
maintain prices, and that they were
constant or varied according to nat
ural conditions. Can this testimony
be 'minimised or dismissed by infer
ring that, as intimated, it is an evil
dence Of power, not of weakness, and
power exerted not only to suppress
but to compel testimony?
Tho situation is indeed singular and
we may wonder at it, wonder that
tho despotism Of the corporation. SO
baneful to the world in the repre-
tati ~ hn
produce protesting victims.
"But there are other paradoxes. The
does not hesitate to present
In one. competitors (the
are represented as OPP
pressed by the superior power Of the
as ascending to opulence by
initiating that powers prices.
THE suggestion that turks in the gov
ernment's contention that the ac-
the submission Of impotence to irresis-
tible power is. in view of the testimony
of the competitors. untenable. They, as
we have seen, deny restraint in any
measure or illegal influence Of any kind.
The government, therefore, is reduced
the power it may have. not
the exertion Of the power. is an abb
horrence to the law. To assent to that,
to what extremes would we be led?
Corporation Formed In 1891.
1.-The corporation was formed in 1901.
No act Of aggression upon its COM
petitors is charged against it. it con-
federated with them at times in offense
against the law, but abandoned that
before this suit was brought. and since
1911 no act in violation Of law can be
established against it except its ex-
istence be such an act. This is urged,
as we have seen, and that the interest
of the public is involved, and that such
interest is paramount to corporation or
competitors. Granted-though it is diff
ficult to see how there can be restraint
of trade when there is no restraint Of
competitors in the trade nor complaints
by customers-how can 1t be worked
out of the situation and through what
proposition of law?
THE Steel Corporation by its forma-
tion united under one control compet-
ing companies and thus, it is urged,
a condition was brought about in vio-
lation Of the statute. and therefor IL
ating force with the possession Of
power unlawfully obtained. y
But there are countervailing con-
siderations. We have seen whatever
there was Of wrong intent could not
be executed. whatever there was of
evil effect was discontinued before
this suit was brought, and this, we
think. determines the decree. We
say this in full realization of the re-
quirements of the law
In conclusion the majority said they
were unable to see that the public
interest will be served by yielding to
specting dissolution and we
do 500 risk or nuhiic injury