“For of the conduct of the Steel Corporation, the views of its competitors are the best gauge. Monopoly and unreasonable restraint of trade are, after all, not questions of law, but questions of hard-headed business rivalry, and whether there is monopoly of an industry, whether trade is subjected to unreasonable restraint, whether there is unfair competition, are facts about which business competitors best know and are best qualified to speak. And it may be accepted as a fact that where no competitor complains, and much more so, where they unite in testifying that the business conduct of the Steel Corporation has been fair, we can rest assured there has been neither monopoly nor restraint. Indeed, the significant fact should be noted that no such testimony of acts of oppression is found in this record as was given by the competitors of the Tobacco or Standard Oil companies in the suits against those companies. We have carefully examined all the evidence given by competitors of the Steel Corporation. We have read the testimony of customers who purchased both from it and from its competitors. Its length precludes its recital here, but we may say its volume, the wide range of location from which such witnesses came, and their evidently substantial character in their several communities, make an inevitable conclusion that the field of business enterprise in the steel business is as open to, and is being as fully filled up by the competitors of the Steel Corporation, as it is by that company.” Next the Court turns to “that most injurious feature of monopoly’s wrong to the public, to wit, increase in the price of its product or a deterioration in quality.” It disposes of the question of quality first thus: “No dispute arises under the proofs. They are simply uniform that, both with independents and the Steel Corporation, there has been a steady bettering of quality in steel products.” The question of prices it discussed at some length and intimated that there had been no evidence presented to show that the Corporation had unduly raised prices, while a large number of steel consumers had agreed in testifying that active competition in prices for steel existed between the Corporation and the independent companies, which would alone indicate that prices had been only such as ordinary business practice warranted. The Court added: “The Steel Corporation has adopted a policy of price publicity and adherence, somewhat analogous to the freight-rate stability followed by the railroads under the directions of the Interstate Commerce Commission.”