Jasper County Democrat, Volume 18, Number 18, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 June 1915 — RULES U. S. STEEL NEED NOT DISSOLVE [ARTICLE]

RULES U. S. STEEL NEED NOT DISSOLVE

Federal Court at Trenton, N. J., Denies U. S. Plea. FOREIGN TRADE IS UPHELD Unlawful Price-Fixing Agreement* Stopped and New Trade Commission Must Control Situation— Injunction Refused. Trenton, N. J., June 4.—The decision in the United States Steel corporation suit filed in the United States district court here holds that the corporation should not be dissolved. The principal points in the decision are: It refuses to issue any injunction. It holds the foreign trade of the Steel corporation is not a violation of the Sherman law. Gary Dinners Recalled. It holds certain price fixing agreements which followed the Gary dinners, but which stopped before the, bill was filed, to have been unlawful. It allows the government to move to retain jurisdiction of the bill if such price fixing practices are renewed, but suggests matters may now be controlled by the new trade commission. The uit against the United States Steel corporation was filed October 26, 1911, during the Taft administration and was started by George W. Wickersham, who was attorney-general at the time. What the Opinions Discuss. The opinions, two in number, are largely a discussion of whether the steel corporation monopolized the steel trade or dealt unfairly with competitors or purchasers. “This case, a proceeding under the Sherman antitrust law, is one largely of business facts,” says the opinion.

It declares all the trust cases so far determined settled down to this, that .only such combinations are within the Sherman act as by reason of the intent of those formfng them or the inherent nature of their contemplated act wrong the public by unduly restricting competition or unduly obstructing the course of trade. The test of monopoly, the opinion says, is not the size of that which Is acquired but the trade power of that which is not acquired. With the completion of the Erie canal, Lake Superior ores can be brought cheaper io New York harbor than to Pittsburgh. This means, the opinion says, blast furnaces on New York harbor waters. On the basis of the actual iron units in ore, Cuban ores can be delivered in Philadelphia at one-half the cost of Lake Superior. Facts and figures show that there is no possibility of Lake Superior ore monopoly. The Cambria Steel company president, the opinion said, showed that the United States Steel could put it out of business. James It. Garfield, former secretary of commerce, according to the opinion, showed the Steel corporation got no freight rebates. Two Opinions Are Filed. There were two opinions filed in the case. Judge Uuffington wrote the opinion which was concurred in by the other three judges. Judge Woolley also wrote an opinion coinciding with the views of Judge Uuffington, and this latter opinion was concurred in by Judge Hunt, now sitting in the United States court in New York city.

Other points in the decision are: “The field of business enterprise in the .steel business *s as open to and being as fully filled by he competitors of the Steel corporation as it is by that company. “No testimony has been produced in this record that a return to the old trade war system of ruinous competition would, as a matter of fact, benefit the public interests.

Mere Volume Not Question. "In taking up this question we dismiss once and for all the question of mere volume or bigness of business. The question before us is not how much business was done or how large the company that did it; the vital question is, how was the whether big or little, done* was it, in the test of the supreme court, done by prejudicing the public interests, by unduly restricting or unduly obstructing trade? The question is one of undue restriction or obstruction and not of undue volume of trade. “If mere size were the test of monopoly and trade restraint, we have not one, but half a dozen unlawful monopolies in the large department stores of a single city. ' “A study of these proofs satisfies us that the United States Steel corporation could not have been formed 1 unless the minds of two men had united in a common purpose. These two men

were J. Pierpont Morgan and” Andrew Carnegie.” Case to Go to Supreme Court. Washington, June 4. —News that the government had lost its dissolution suit against the United States Steel corporation, for the moment, almost matched the international situation In interest. Undoubtedly it will be appealed to the Supreme court of the United States, because the government would be unwilling to leave such questions as were raised unsettled except by the highest court in the land. Without knowing details of the decision of the court at Trenton, officials preferred not to comment.