And here might be inserted an interesting fact. Orders were sent out to the various sales managers of the different Corporation subsidiaries that they were to go after business and get all they could, orders particularly welcome to those who had longed for the flesh pots of Egypt, the old Carnegie methods, and who believed that the big company could force its competitors to the wall by such a course. A vigorous campaign for orders followed, both on the part of the Corporation subsidiaries and the independent companies, but the result went largely to prove that the big company did not have the power which its enemies claimed it had, of crushing competition. In the words of Colonel H. P. Bope, vice-president and sales manager of the Carnegie Steel Co., and a graduate of the Carnegie steel school, the result of the 1909 sales campaign was a disappointment to him, the Corporation failed to cut into its competitors’ business, losing a little to them in some lines as a matter of fact. There was yet another dinner to come. On October 15, 1909, the steel makers of the United States and Canada joined together to honor the man who had first called them together during the stirring and dangerous panic times two years previous. The leader of the movement was Charles M. Schwab, and many of the most prominent men in the trade made speeches in honor of the guest of the evening. It was, as Mr. Schwab said, “the first time when the heads of all the big concerns in the United States and Canada had gathered to do honor to a man who has introduced a new and successful principle in our great industry.” T. J. Drummond, vice-president of the Algomah Steel Corporation, in his address defined this principle as the doctrine that “what is good for my competitors is good for me.” Referring to the Judge Gary leadership in the trying times the trade had passed through Mr. Drummond said: “Always the voice of our leader rang strong and clear, ‘Steady, boys, and play the game.’ And by the Lord, you played, and played it fair.” A beautiful cup of gold was presented to the Judge by his steel colleagues at this, the very last of the Gary dinners. The question of price restraint, or the Corporation’s influence in maintaining or depressing the price of steel, is suggested naturally by that of price fixing at the Gary dinners. This question is one seriously affecting the Corporation’s existence, being interwoven closely in that of the treatment of competitors. Getting down to basic facts the principal objection of the man in the street to trusts or monopolies is that the securing of unchallengeable power by one concern in any industry is likely to lead to higher prices or lower quality, either of which would swell the profits of the monopolistic corporation and would harm the public. It is therefore important to consider the Corporation’s general policy in the matter of prices.