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: “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.