“The situation is indeed singular, and we may wonder at it, wonder that the despotism of the Corporation, so baneful to the world in the representation of the Government, did not produce protesting victims.”
So obviously beneficial to American industry had been the Corporation’s activities in the export trade that even the Government’s attorneys did not attack it on this score, in fact, they suggested that the export organization should be preserved. On this point the Supreme Court majority opinion said:
We do not see how the Steel Corporation can be such a beneficial instrumentality in the trade of the world and its beneficence preserved, and yet be such an evil instrumentality in the trade of the United States that it must be destroyed.
And in concluding the opinion:
We are unable to see that the public interest will be served by yielding to the contention of the Government respecting the dissolution of the company or the separation from it of some of its subsidiaries; and we do see in a contrary conclusion a risk of injury to the public interest, including a material disturbance of, and, it may be serious detriment to, the foreign trade. And in submission to the policy of the law and its fortifying prohibitions the public interest is of paramount importance.
In the final paragraph we have the nub of the whole matter. The dissolution of the Corporation would have been contrary to the public interest. Its preservation distinctly was in the public interest not only from a foreign trade or other economic standpoint but on purely sociological grounds.
Not satisfied with the decision the Government’s attorneys shortly afterward moved for the reopening and rehearing of the case, but this appeal was promptly and unequivocally denied by the Court, thus definitely and finally settling the matter.
To the management of the Corporation, and particularly to Judge Gary, who was responsible for, and had accepted the responsibility for, its actions good or bad, the decision was more than gratifying. Its effect was not merely sentimental, however. The decision, freeing the Corporation from the stigma of illegality and, by inference, endorsing its policies, left the big company at liberty to develop and expand within the legitimate lines it had always followed.
For nine years the Corporation had been hampered by the shadow that was hanging over it. It was prevented from engaging in new enterprises that might have been favorably considered by its directors as any plans for future development might at any time have been brought to nothing by an adverse decision. It is yet too early to see any direct result of the new freedom, but it is a safe presumption that, now enjoying it, the Corporation will not fail to make use of it for the financial gain of its stockholders and for the economic good of the United States.
