Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-03-13

legged. WAS largely empicyed IN atten-
ton to his duties in connection with
other enterprises and various specu-
lative schemes for placing property
of the association in the hands OF
promoters to be- foated in marketable
securities on the public. However, the
defendants do not question his ability
| to say that they would be glad to have
him continue in the business of the
association, had he not himself
! forced the trouble and rendered such
| impossible. 1t is charged that Mr..
Frick is man of imperious temper
and attempted to make personal
matter of business differences, giving
| way to violent outbursts of passion.
The defendants state that he demand
ed absolute power, and without it was
not satisfied. After January IL, 1895,
the answer recites, when he ceased to
be chairman of the association and
was merely chairman of its board of
managers with no power except to
preside at board meetings, the COM
plainant was and continued to be dis
satisfied.
He sought and was refused an en-
largment of his powers for the reason
that such action it was thought would
indicate lack of confidence in the
president of the association. The
plaintiff, it is alleged, chaffed under
the limitations of his powers and the
discordant situation which developed
was largely due to Mr.. Tricks dissat-
isfaction with the transfer Of the chief
executive powers of the association to
the president.
1t is denied that Carnegie was act
uated by malevolent motives in de-
handing the resignation of Mr.. Frick
nation was demanded in order to pre-
serve harmony in the interest of the
association. The plaintiff was inform
ed by Carnegie that he had better for
his own sake, and to avoid the neces-
sity of refusal to re-elect him at the
approaching annual meeting. This,
however, 1t is claimed, was done in
the kindliest spirit and after all the
acting members of the board Of man
ayers had signed a paper requesting
Mr.. Prick to resign.
The answer sets forth that Andrew
Carnegie has been a member of the as
ISOLATION since it's original organiza-
ton and at the present time his inter
est is 5S1a per cent. 1t is acknowledge
ed that some of the members whose
names are affixed to the amended GER
tificate Of 1892 have disposed of their
interest in the association and from
time to time new members have been
admitted who have acquired such up
on the basis of the book value as pre-
scribed in the ironclad agreement, a
copy Of which was annexed to the con-
tract under which Mr.. Prick became a
member of the association, and which
is printed as part of the answer.
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
views on matters pertaining to the
business at all times, but Carnegie ex-
pected them all to and they did exer-
else their own judgment.
Mr. Carnegie, it is asserted, has held
an interest in excess of so per cent,
rather from the necessity of taking
the shares of timid, deceased or re-
firing members than from any desire
or intention on his part to hold con-
trolling interest, and during all the
years of the associations existence
Carnegie was the sole man who never
lost faith or faltered in his belief that
the city of Pittsburg was the best place
in the world to make steel cheapest.
Touching upon the profits of the
company and the attempt to organize
a stock company, the answer states
that Mr.. Carnegie while at luncheon
with the plaintiff and others connect
ed with the company, by way of jest
undertook to make estimates of the
profits of the company for the year
1900, and that the defendant, Andrew
Carnegie. under the conditions then
existing did make an estimate sub
stantially as averred in the ninth
paragraph of plaintiffs bill, such estf-
mate, however, being mere guess at
results to be ascertained fourteen
months in the future which were then
and still involved in great uncertainty.
1t is admitted that the profits OF the
company for 1899 were substantially
as averred by the plaintiff, the amount
so stated, however, refers only to the
difference between the amount of the
sales and the actual expense OF manu-
facture and do not. by any means, in