Metaphorically, business drew a sigh of relief when the decision of the lower court was made public, a relief, however, chastened by the expectation that an appeal to the Supreme Court was certain. But so clear and unmistakeable were the findings of the District Court, so little question seemed there to be in the minds of the judges, that no evidence of monopoly or restraint of trade existed that the final issue was awaited with confidence.
An appeal was filed in course of time—October 28, 1915. And for long thereafter both sides girded their loins for the final effort. The case was eventually argued before the Supreme Court on March 7–14, 1917, and later the Court ordered a re-argument, the date for the re-argument being set for May of that year.
Meanwhile, the war that had been devastating Europe for three years had at last reached out to the United States and this country had become engaged in a conflict in which the industrial resources and financial strength, to say nothing of the patriotism of the Steel Corporation, were of enormous value and assistance.
Doubtless the Government’s attorneys realized this fully. Doubtless they were aware that, if the Court should grant their plea and the Corporation be dissolved, the breaking up of the great organization would so disorganize its activities that it could not continue, during the dissolution process, the tower of strength it was in carrying on the war. So, on the ground, well taken, that the conclusion of the suit might disrupt the financial situation, the Government asked for and obtained a postponement, although opposed in its plea by the Corporation which was anxious to clear itself before the world as early as might be.
And so it was not until after the return of peace, eight years after the suit was initiated, that final arguments were presented (October 7–10, 1919) and not until March 1, 1920, that a final decision was rendered, absolving the Corporation and dismissing the suit, as already stated.
The Corporation’s victory in the Court of Last Resort was a rather narrow one, four of the judges agreeing on dismissal of the Government’s appeal, while three favored the Government’s side. Two members of the Court did not sit in the case and took no part in the decision, Justice McReynolds, who had been Attorney-General of the United States during the progress of the litigation, and Justice Louis Brandeis.
The judges voting for affirmance of the judgment of the lower court dismissing the bill were Justice McKenna, who delivered the opinion, and Justices Holmes, Van Deventer, and Chief Justice White, while the minority opinion was written by Justice Day and concurred in by Justices Pitney and Clarke.
On the question of the close division of the Court it might be pointed out that, of eleven (excluding Justices McReynolds and Brandeis who took no part in the matter) judges who sat on the case, four in the District Court and seven in the Supreme Court, a total of eight were in favor of the Corporation.
Compared to the opinion of the lower court that of the Supreme Court, considered either as a literary effort or a comprehensive summing up of the issues involved, is somewhat disappointing. A few pertinent facts were emphasized by Judge McKenna, however, and these are well worth alluding to.
Referring to unanimous testimony of both competitors and customers that the Corporation’s trade methods had been not only legal but essentially fair and, if the word may be used, sportsmanlike, as contrasted with the Government’s claim that competitors were oppressed, Justice McKenna said: