Some Abuses of Antitrust Prosecution: The Investment Bankers Case

Authors

Ralph M. Carson, Member, New York BarFollow

Abstract

The epochal decision of Judge Medina on October 14, 1953, in United States v. Morgan has already been the subject of adverse criticism by the losing Government counsel and defense by an opposing lawyer. Professor Steffen's grief at the ruin of his handiwork has led him into the impropriety of attacking with unwarranted epithet a thoroughly considered decision by one of the most eminent judges now sitting in our federal courts and into the more symptomatic fault of attributing to the new chief of the Antitrust Division political motivation in his decision not to appeal. He has the assurance to assert that the appeal which was not taken must necessarily have resulted in victory for the Government. While not able in his articles to devote much time to the merits, he felt it "seems to be true" that the Government actually made out a prima facie case; but on more satisfactory technical points he is sure that "the case must necessarily have been reversed on appeal."

Recommended Citation

Ralph M. Carson, Some Abuses of Antitrust Prosecution: The Investment Bankers Case, 54 Mich. L. Rev. 363 (1956).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol54/iss3/3