OCR Text |
Show t : 1 ! DENIED H Absolutely by U. S. Steel B , Corporation and M i Subsidiaries ( 4- hM H -f TRENTON N. J., Jan. 31. -- H Absolute denial of alleged vlo- H -J- latlons of the antl-tniBt law -- H Is m ado by the United States H 4- Steel corporation, Its sub- H 4- Eidlarics and directors In tbclr H - answers, which will bo filed H a 4- tomorrow morning in tho Uni- H I, 4- ted Stilt 03 district court to tho 4 Hj 4- government's dissolution suit. 4 Hl I 4 Five separate answers will be 4 H 4- filed among thlrty-threo de. 4- H 'i 4- fend ant 6. Its organization it 4- H 'j 4- declares, has been to cheapen 4 H -4- production, effect economy and H 4- increase foreign trade, from 4 Hff Jf $8,000,000 to $60,000,000 an- 4 H 4- nually, within ten years. So 4- H 4- long as the government ac- 4 Hrv . 4- qulesced in its existence, tho 4 H 4 answer Rays, that it now is too 4 B i 4- late as a matter of equity to 4 Hj H- insist that Its organization 4 B. ' '4- was Illegal. H 4- H Nothing was withheld from Prcsl- H ' 'dent Roosevelt by Messrs. Gary and H I Friok on November 1, 1907, tho an- H . swer sayB, wbon they sought his con- ' dent to tho corporation's proposed H ' purchase of tho Tennesse Coal & Iron ' '& Railroad company, nor were the Hl j i eo-called Gary dinners productive of H I agreements to advance prices. H The answers mado public tonight H J i are those of the steel corporation, H , Andrew Carnegie, John D Rockefeller, Hl ) flr., John D. Rockefeller, Jr, and Ed- H -round C. Converse. Tho Rookofollora H j mado a joint answer. H L The Messrs. Rockefeller deny that H they had an active part in the forma- H Hon or management of tho corpora- H . lion, the eldor Rockofeller declaring H 1 that ho has had no relation to the H ' Steel business since 1901. H Mr. Carnegie says ho had no part H 1 in tho plans for organising tho cor- H , poration and no voice, direct or ad- H VlBory, In its management. He ad- H , mittod soiling the Carnegio Steel 1 1 company to tho United States Steel H corporation, but donles that tho ac- H qulsltion by the Carnegie company of H Its subsidiaries wns In restraint of H The answer of Edmund Converse, HHHHHT n Hlivuilnr rr tho ITnHpfl States Stfiftl V corporation. Is similar to the corpor- Hl atlon's answer. H j Each of the defendants prays that H j the suit be dismissed. Hj f The answers to be filed tomorrow H j-1, with thoso filed Monday by the Min- H J nesota group of land and mining com- H "j panics and five individuals named as H j trustees will complete the answers of H 1 all the fifty-six defendants named In H y the suit. The next step will be the HL M filing of replications by the govern- Hr 1 ment, which must be dono within H I thirty days unless an extonslon of H j time' is granted. After that a com- H uileslonor will be appointed to take H testimony. H CARNEGIE'S ANSWER. HHHHn H i TRENTON, N. J., Jan. 31. Andrew H J Carnegie today, through his attorneys, H filed his answer to the petition of the H federal government against the Unl- Hj ' ; ted Stales Steel corporation and oth- H r ' ers under tho anti-trust act. The an- H swer of Mr. Carnegie Is in part as 1 ' ( H r 1. Answering tho first paragraph (of the petition, this defendant says that tho statements of the first pura- . ! raph are not denied except the al- H K ( legation that trado between certain H 1 unnamed porsons, partnerships and H corporations at various times and in H. I various locnlitios was restrained by H unlawful pools and combinations, as H i ' to which uncurtain allegations this H ' defendant has no knowledge and does H j ' not admit tho same. Hl I i 2. Answorlug tho second paragraph Hl I of the petition, this defendant has H i I no such knowledge as will enable Hj , liim to answer the allegations of the il second paragraph relating to com-1 com-1 panics other than the Carnegie com- j pony, hut he docs not admit the same. H Answering tho allegations of the sec- H 1 1 ond paragraph relating to the Car- Hj ' negio company this defendant says Hj that tho statement of properties and B ' t Carnegio company is correct. Defond- H ' nut denies the allegation In said para- HI I ! ' j;raph that the purpose and effect of H j I the consolidation and absorption of Hl i tho Duqncano Steel Works was n H j combination in restraint of trade and H commorco among" tho 60vcral statee H i and with foreign nations, and an at- H I tempt to monopolize and a uaonopo- Hl lliation of a pait of the trade and H I commerco among tho several states H and with foreign nations within tho H meaning of tho anti-trust act. Do- H , ' fendant further donles tho allegation H i I of said paragraph that tho effect of H ; such consolidation (to-wlt, the own- Hj j oruhip of tho several properties and H ,. j shares of stock by tho Carnegie Steel H i company as sot forth in said para- H graph) was a combination In restraint H f 1 trldo an commerco among tho 1 I I several states and with foreign na- H v i tions within tho moaning of section 1, H j j and an attempt to monopolize and a Hl ) J monopolization of part of the trade Hj or commerce among tho several states H or with foreign nations within the H " meaning of section 2 of the antl-trust H V " I net. On tho contrary, the purposes H f and intention of tho Carnegio com- Hl I i pany in acquiring Bald properties and H i shares of stock wore solely to secure H I greater Industrial efficiency in tho H j conduct and legitimate enlargement Hj I E business, and said corporations and associations were not competing companies. 3. Answering tho third paragraph of the petition, this defendant says that the allegation of said paragraph, so far as they relate to the business or the Carnegie company and Its plans for further development of its business, aro correct to this extent, that it was tho Intention of the Car-nogie Car-nogie company to continue its con-filtent con-filtent policy of enlarging lis capacity capa-city as tho development of Its business busi-ness required, but so far as tho allc- 1 gatlons relate to tho business and H plans and Intontlons of other com- panles and porsons this defondant has no knowledge and cannot afflrm or deny. Defendant denies that be or tho Carnegie company had ambitious am-bitious plans Involving further elimination elimi-nation of competition and restraint of trade and commorce 4. Answering the fourth paragraph, so far as It relates to this defendant, ho says that It la true that he owned the majority of tho shares of the R Carnegio company, that he was aware N of the formation of tho United States n Stool corporation and the business EJ which it proposed to conduct He did not combine In any of tho proposed plans further than to agree to sell I his shares of stock In the Carnegie company outright, taking In pay H therefor bonds of said corporation of i maturities running over a period of W years, to be socured by a pledsc of 1 stocks and other securities owned or H to bo owned by tbe corporation, the H form and terras and conditions of the I bonds and the agreement securing 1 tho samo to bo satisfactory to his counsel. Having agreed to make this Balo, ho took no part In the plans of U tho organization of tho corporation. 1 nor has he taken any part, cither dl- I rect or advisor', Jn its business, his fij position being solely that of a cred- itor holding obligations of tho cor- y poration. Further answering this I paragraph of tho petition, this do- fondant says that ho has only a gen- h eral knowledge of the capitalization V and terms of iBsue thereof, mainly ! derived from publications upon the i subject. It i& true that certain shares of stock of the Carnegio com- j pany were exchangod for bonds of tho k corporation, and that other shares or g the corporation and that bonds of the H Carnegio company were exchanged C for bonds of the corporation substnn- tlally as statd in the fourth para- i graph of the petition. The averments 1 of the fourth paragraph in reference I to tho value of the properties of the jjj Carnegio company are vague and in- 3 doflnlt and their materiality In thl3 1 case Ib doubtful, but this defendant I donles the allegation that tho value j of the tangible property of tho Car- J neglo company did not exceed $100,- J 000,000 at tho time of the sale to the corporation. He denlos that tho net value of the assets of the Carnegie jJ Steel company of Dccombor 31, 1899, V was $75,G10,104 96. The allegation in M the petition that a statement from M tho books of tho Carnegie Steol com- pany to this effect was verified under I oath by this defendant and other I mombors of tho Carnegie Steel com- R nanv has ovldont reference to an an- I swer filed by tho respondents to a bill H filed in the court of common pleas ol i Allegheny county, Pennsylvania, bv I M C. Frlck, to compel an accounting I for his interest In the Carnegio Steel I company, limited, a partnership as- B sociatlon, existing prior to tho organ- I izatlon of the Carnegie company, the Q corporation referred to la the present H petition. In his bill Mr Frlck averred H that tho assets of the said partner- jjg ship association wore worth more a than $250,000,000 This estimate this fl defendant and other defendants dls- 9 puted as immaterial to tho suit in 5 question, saying that the association 9 did not at that timo have tangible assetB which the association could sell or transfer for that value, but this 1 defendant and thoso partners Joining 1 him in this answer In the said suit H averred In that connection that the partnership as a going concern and ffl with its existing organization was 1 worth a sum largely In excess of tbe N book value of Its tangible assets The B real question In the said suit as to the I value of property was based upon the I construction and effect of a certain 5 agreement which this defendant and others of tho members claimed was I binding upon all of tho members of said association, by which agreement I the assels of said organization as be- 1 twoen the members were to be estl- M mated and appraised In a certain way 1 for tbe purpose of fixing the value of I tho interests, both of incoming and B outgoing members, and that by pre- I ceding appraisement so made and M as3entod to by the members of said I association, including Bald M. C Frlck, 1 tho value of tho assets were fixed as B stated in the petition In this case. 1 Defendant further answering this 1 paragraph of the petition say6 he has 1 no knowledge and therefore cannot ad. 1 mlt or donr tho averment, to wit, that I H. C. Frlck proposed to sell the Car- 1 nogio property to J. P Morgan for 1 $160,000,000, and that the latter de- 1 roinnrt it urinn tho ground that the I price was too high. He avers, how- 1 ever, that the only option the said 1 H. C. Frlck had upon tho Carnegio I property involved the payment to this B defondant for his interest alone of E $157,050,000. 1 Furthor answering this paragraph u this defendant bays that his solo mo- fl Uve In agreolng to the sale of the I properties of the Carnegie company to H tho United States Steel corporation. H was his desire ;o retire from the haz- ards and responsibilities of active bus- Iness, and that slnco said sole was I concluded he has had no connection with tho business of the purchasing I corporation or anyono cIbo. 0 10 Answoring tho tenth paragraph I of tho petition this defendant says I that It Ib truo that prior to tho or- (I ganlzatlon of the United States Steol corporation tho Boveral constituent I companlos wore oagaged, according to tho respective purposes for which I they were organized. In business of I which a portion was interstate or for- I elgn commerce. He has no such I knowledge as will enable him to affirm I or dony the remaining allegations. J charges and conclusions In said para- I graph, except to deny that he entered I Into any agreement or combination In I restraint of trado and commorce among tho 3everal states and with foreign" natious within tho meaning of J section 1, and a combination to mo- I nopollze a part of tho trade or com- j morco among- tho several states and I with, foreign, nations within tho mean- I Ing of section 2, of tho antl-trusf act. j 11 Answering tho oleventh para- J graph of tho said petition this defen- I dant haa not knowledge and cannot affirm or deny tho allegations as to the actions of tho corporation or Its constituent companies since its or. ganlzatlon, nor has ho any knowledgo as to the business of the constituent companies (other than tho Carnegie company) prior to such organization. His recollections of details of busl- noss operations of the Carnegio com- pany and Its constituent companies is I (Continued on, J?as:o Thxe CHARGES DEND3D. (ContInicd from Page Two ) not sufficient at this time to ennble him to affirm or deny the averments ofthls paragraph so far as they relate re-late to the actions of those companies compan-ies prior to the organization of tho corporation. In fact, having romoved his residence from Pittsburgh to the City of New York in the year 18GS, has was consulted only as the general policy by the managers In active charge. lie can state, however, that he did not, so far as his individual Judgment wont, favor tho Idea of pools or associations, but preferred that the Carn'egie Steel company should conduct con-duct its business in enthe Independence, Indepen-dence, bclioving that with its organi-7atIon organi-7atIon it would prosper under this policy. pol-icy. 1-1 And ihls defendant denies all and all manner ot unlawful combination combina-tion and confedoraoj' wherewith he is by tho said potltion charged. In his answer to paragraphs 5, G, 7, S, 9, 12, and If!, the defendant says in substance that he has not tho knowl. edge regarding the statements set forth to enablo him to either affairm or deny tho same. The 13 allegations to which Mr. Carnegie Car-negie makes reply wero arranged in the government's bill of complaint under un-der the following captions: 1 Conditions befpro the consolidation consolida-tion of 1SPS-1900, 2 Consolidations 1S9S-1900. 3 Conditions leading to formation of United Stites Steel corporation. 4 Formation of United StateB Steel corporation, 5 Capacity and extent -Of properties proper-ties brought under combination in 1901. G Acquisitions subsequent to the original combination. 7 PoHition achieved by the corporation corpor-ation through the ownership or control con-trol of coal, coke, iron ore ftnd transportation. trans-portation. S Extensions and earnings. 9 Charges as to the properties of various constituent companies. 10 Consolidation. 11 Pools and agreements. 12 Interlocking directorates. 13 Combinations other than writ, ten pools or agreements. |