Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1900-03-15
SAID HE ONLY TESTED
CARNEGIE THUS REPLIES TO
TRICKS CHARGE OF PROFITS.
MORE DISCLOSURES MADE
Interesting History of Great Steel
Concern EXposed-Enormous For
tune Built Up by Frick in Twenty
Years-Latter Charged With Being
Of Imperious Temper and Unfair

Pittsburg, March 13-The answer of
the Carnegie Steel company, Limited,
defendant in the equity SUIT Of H. C.
Prick, to determine the value of the
latter's holdings in the company was
filed II the common pleas court yester-
day. The answers filed are for the
Carnegie Steel company, Limited, and
30 individual defendants. The docu-
ment makes nearly 10000 words,
meeting every ,averment of the plain
tiff in fullest detail. 1t is denied that
Carnegie and others in 1892 executed
articles of association for the Carnegie
Steel company, Limited, but that they
did subscribe to the amendment of the
original certificate under which Car
been organized as limited partner
ship association. Said amendment
was not for the purpose of creating a
new partnership but for modifying the
terms Of the original certificate H .
@. Prick was one appointed to carry
out the plan. Prick was the principal
actor in that move The association
purchased the property Of Carnegie.
June 80, 1892 The same day Carnegie
Bros. & Company paid to it's members
a dividend of 200 per cent. or 10000
900, representing the earnings previ-
ously invested in the company's prop
erty. The answer sets forth the his
tory of Tricks membership in the
association. To begin with his inter
est was acquired in the same manner
as the other young partners. He was
not required to pay for the same, pro-
vision being made out of the future
profits Tricks interest was acquired
in 1887, under the terms of the Iron
clad agreement" 1t amounted tC
100000 of capital stock Subsequent
ly he acquired much greater holdings
and afterWard released some, at a
period of business depression. The
bill alleges Prick paid only SIPS, 900 fol
his interests in the Carnegie Steel
company and that with credits from
his stock and earnings the amount
paid was only 100000 all told for in
terest worth $5,000,00O.
AS to the value of Tricks services
which he claims largely added to the
success of the association, Carnegie
says that since 1895 Tricks functions
have been merely advisory. 1t is
| charged that Prick is a man of i'm.
perious temper and attempted to make
personal matter of business differen.
ces, giving away to violent outbursts
OF passion. The defendants state thai
he demanded absolute power, anc
without it was not satisfied. After
January II, 1895, the answe,
recites, when he ceased to be the chair.
man of the association and was merely
chairman of the board of managers
with no power except 10 preside at
board meetings, the plaintiff was and
continued to be dissatisfied. It is de-
MED that Carnegie was actuated by
fmaievolent motives in demanding the
| resignation of Frick as chairman and il
is stated the resignation was demanded
to preserve harmony. Touching upon
| the profits of the company and the at
tempt to organize a stock COMPANY
the answer states that Carnegie while
at luncheon with the plaintiff and
others connected with the company, bv
way OF jest, undertook to make est1-
mates of the profits of the COMPANY for
1900, and the defendant. Carnegie, did
make the estimate substantially rs
averred in the plaintiffs bill, such esti-
mate however being mere guess work.
1t is admitted that the profits of the
company for the year 1899 were sub
stanuaily as averred by the plaintiff,
but this does not bv any means midi
cate the amount available for distribu-
ton as dividends. 1t is denied that
the association has assets which if
could transfer worth $3.50, OOO. 900. It is
asserted that Dec. II, 1899, the books
showed the net value of the assets to
be $75,610, 104,06. Prick, it is claimed
mas upheld and enforced the so-calIed
lron-clad agreement" at all times.
1t is averred that 81, 5000 is the
amount due Prick. The proposition
made by Prick to arbitrate the value of
his interests is rejected because the de-
PENDANTS propose at all times to MAIN
tain the integrity of the contract under
which the relations of the association
and its various members have been de-
hned since 1881. They do not regard
trlck's offer as being made in good
faith but for the purpose of evading
MS agreement to obtain a price which
he is not entitled to. 1t is denied that
the association is under the exclusive
control of Carnegie, but it is averred
he is fully competent to properly man
age and carry on the business. The
defendants ask that the bill be dis
with costs placed upon the
plaintiff.