The arguments of counsel for both sides were presented to the U. S. District Court, and for months the business world waited anxiously for its decision, one that would have a very far-reaching effect not on the Corporation or the steel trade alone, but on business generally. For it was felt that a decision adverse to the defendant would mean that mere bigness was considered illegal and that no large corporate enterprise would be allowed to exist, however free from evil its course of action might be. If the Steel Corporation was adjudged a monopoly in restraint of trade, it was thought, then all big business was doomed, for the Corporation, certainly, had sought in every way to meet fully the requirements of the law. It was not until June 3, 1915, that the Court rendered its decision, the most favorable to big business ever handed down in an anti-trust suit, denying the petition of the Government and completely absolving the Steel Corporation from the charge of monopoly. The decision was unanimous, all the judges being in entire agreement that the Corporation was not, and never had been, a monopoly in restraint of trade. All four of the judges concurred on the main point at issue--that of trade restraint. A minority opinion, signed by Justices Woolley and Hunt, expressed some divergence of thought on minor points, which we shall come to. In the meantime, let us examine some extracts from the main opinion, signed by Judge Buffington, presiding, and Judge McPherson. “As trade is a contest for it between persons and the gain of that trade by one means the loss of it to another, it follows that the person who best knows whether the man who gained it gained it fairly, is the man who lost it. If there is monopoly we can find proof of it from business competitors.”