Peninsula enterprise. [volume] (Accomac, Va.) 1881-1965, 1900-03-17
CARNEGIE AND Prick.
The Iron Kings Answer to His
Former Partner and Friend.
FRIOK's INTEREST A GIFT TO HIM.

''The Plaintiff Has No Reason &c
Complain of the Operation of q
Contract Which Gives Him Nearly
S6,OOO.OO without Investment"
Pittsburg, March 13.-Late yesterday
afternoon the answer of the Carnegie
Steel company, limited, defendant in
the equity suit of II. c. Prick, to de-
termine the value of his holdings in
said company, was filed in common
pleas court No. /. The answers filed
are for the Carnegie Steel company,
limited. and 80 individual defendants.
The answer meets every one of Mr..
Tricks allegations, declaring that Mr..
Prick himself led in the reorganization
of the company. The averments or
plaintiff with reference to change OF
business are denied, as in the amend
ed certificate the same language was
employed as in the original. and in
fact there has not been any change in
the character of business. The name
of the association was changed, and
for the convenience of the business the
principal Offices were removed from
Bessemer to Pittsburg. The business
was enlarged subsequent to the change
of name, but this in no wise changed
the legal status of the association.
The answer then sets forth the his
tory of Mr.. Tricks membership in the
association. To begin with his in
terests were acquired in the same man.
ner as other young partners. lie was
not required to pay for same. provis-
ion being made as in all cases of newly
admitted members, for payment out of
the future profits. Mr.. Tricks interest
was acquired about Jan. IA, 1887, under
the terms of what is known as the
"ironclad agreement" and amounted to
100000 OF the capital stock. In May
1899, an option was given to Mr.. FricP
to acquire on Jan. l. 1894. an additional
interest of per cent. This option wai
abrogated in November, 1890, with Mr..
Tricks consent, but as compensation he
was credited in his account with the as
ISOLATION with the sum of $13S, 1868,
representing the increment in the book
value of the interest covered by his
option from the time it was given until
abrogated. Subsequently he acquired
an additional l per cent and then 8
per cent. In February, 1895. Mr.. Prick
was the owner of II per cent of the
capital, upon which he owed Andrew
Carnegie 81, 500, 191 balance of purchase
price. He was not, however, under his
agreement with Mr. Carnegie person.
ally liable. the interest acquired be-
ing the only security which Mr.. Car
negie held.
The answer then tells of Mr.. Prick
going to Mr. Carnegie, at the time of
business depression, and asking to be
relieved of a portion OF his holdings.
Mr. Carnegie paid him the book value,
which was greatly in excess of the
price paid by Mr.. Prick. After this
transfer Mr. Prick held only 6 per
cent of the whole, and the balance due
on that percentage due from Mr.. Prick,
the purchase price was finally adjusted
and paid to Carnegie, the payment
consisting of $4,000 in bonds of the
H. c. Prick Coke company at par and
S191S3 in cash. This is all Mr. Frick
has paid for his interest in the Car
negie Steel company. With the credits
from his stock earnings the amount
paid was only 100000 all told for an
interest worth s5,OOO,0OO He accept
ed without question the book value
for per cent of his holdings at a time
when he was scared and feared the |
stock would depreciate, but now re-
fuses to accept book valuation for the
balance of his holdings.
1t is denied that Mr.. Carnegie con-
trolled or sought to control the action |
of his associate partners, although |
owning at all times over so per cent |
of the capital. but by reason of Mr..
Carnegie's age and business expert
ence many or all of the partners were
willing to hear with Difference his
views on matters pertaining to the
business at all times. Mr.. Carnegie,
it is asserted, has held an interest in
excess of 80 per cent rather from the
necessity of taking the shares of timid.
deceased or retiring members than
from any desire or intention on his
part to hold controlling interest.
Touching upon the profits of the
it is said that Mr. Carnegie's
of the probable profits in 1900
was made in jest. 1t is admitted that
he profits in 1899 were substantially
rs averred by Prick. II is denied that
he association has assets which it
Gould transfer worth $3.50, 900, and
t is asserted that on Dec. IL, 1892 the
books showed that the net value of the
assets of the association was S75,61O,-
-0406.
Mr.. Frick it is claimed, has upheld
md enforced the so-called "ironclad
agreement" at all times, opposing an
attempt on the part of Mr.. Henry
ohipps to make a change in the orig
nal. Under this agreement Mr. Tricks
holdings have been transferred to the
association, and full value, approx
nately $4,000 900, will be rendered him.
The defendants say that the plain
if has no reason to complain of the
'peration of a contract which gives
o him nearly 100000 for an in
crest which involved no investment
Il capital by him, and which has al
eady paid him, III cash, profits of al
most $1,000, 900. --~
The defendants ask that the bill Oe
dismissed with costs placed upon the
laintiff.
American Credulity Exemplifed.
Boston. March 10-Henry Parker, of