Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1900-03-13

OF Philadelphia, filed the answer OF tn
Carnegie Steel company, limited, to tn,
suit of y G. FIick over the stoclshold
ings of the latter in the company. The
answer does not include the replies of
Henry Phipps, Jr., Henry M. Curry or of
+. L. Il. Lovejoy. 1t is expected that
the answers of Mr.. Curry and Mr..
Phipps will follow in few days.
Mr.. Carnegie makes complete denial
of Mr.. Frick's charges and declares the
latter accepted the ''ironclad agree.
ment." of which he complains in his
suit. Mr.. Carnegie asserts that Frick
was imperious, of uncomfortable tenn
per, or else he did not try to control it;
that he was continually chatting under
his limited authority, as chairman of
the board of managers
The position is of an advisory charac.
ter and President Schwab has the en-.
tire management of the business. Mr..
Tricks time was largely employed in
attention to his duties in connection
with other enterprises i'll which he has
been interested, and in various specula-
tive schemes for placing the property Of
the association in the hands of promo
ters to be fioated in marketable securi.
ties on the public.
Mr.. Carnegie asserts that all times he
has kept himself in close touch with the
business.
1t is stated that Mr. Carnegie holds
5S1a per cent of the capital; that some
original members have disposed of their
interests and new members admitted,
and that all transfers have been made
on the basis Of the ''book value" rs pre-
scribed in the 'ironclad" agreement an
nexed to the contract under which Mr..
Frick became a member Of the CON.
pany. 1t is moreover, the same system
which enabled the plaintiff to require
and pay for interests without the expen-
diture or any investment of any Of his
own funds.
In February, 1895, Mr., Frick owned
II per cent of the capital, upon which,
it is claimed in the answer, he was in
debted to Mr.. Carnegie sI,S09, 19i .63 as
balance Of the purchase price.
In compliance with his expressed de.
sire, and to relieve plaintiff of the charge
which the plaintiff then declared to be q
burden upon him. Carnegie purchased
said 8 per cent and gave the plaintiff
credit for the book value as it then stood.
The transfer reduced Mr. Frick's in
terest to per cent and the balance due
for the purchase price was finally ad
justed by Mr.. Carnegie taking in pay
ment $129,900 Of Fl. @. Frick Coke com.
pany bonds at par and SI91 .S3 in cash.
Mr.. Carnegie says he did not ask Mr.
Frick to resign, but that he advised him
SO to do to save him the humiliation of
not being reelected by his fellow part
pers, who would not vote for him.
1t is claimed that the profits Of the
company are not such as claimed; that
Mr.. Carnegie made his estimate of this
years profits at 0,0GO,O 600 while lunch
ing with his partners in November
1899; that it was in jest and banter and
an uncertain guess IA months in ad
vance; that the profits last year amount
ed to $2l 100000, but that only one
fourth was paid out in dividends, and
pany.
1t is claimed that the profits are sim.
ply the difference between the amount
of sales and actual expenses Of manu-
facture, and that millions have to bt
spent annually to:maintain, enlarge and
modernize the plants. 1t is stated thai
large part of the profits has to be alb
sorbed for these improvements.
1t is denied that the company had as
sets on December 81, 1899, that it coult
transfer $3.50, 1000, 600 or that Mr.. Car
negie ever asserted that the assets were
in excess of that sum.