The daily morning journal and courier., 1902-10-11
ANSWER OF COAL COMPANY
THE ALLEGATIONS OF ". R.
 HEARST DENIED.

Philadelphia and Reading Coal and
 Iron Company Declares It Has Not
 Authorized or Sanctioned Any COmbi-
 nation With Another Corporation
 Contrary to the Laws of New York.
 Philadelphia, Oct 1O.-Counsel for the Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron company have prepared an answer to the application of w. R. Hearst to the attorney general of New York for the institution of an action against the company and others under the anti trust laws of the state. The answer will be filed in New York. The most important points set forth in the answer are:
 A fundamental denial that the com pany is in any manner connected or identified with any combination
 As to the rights of railroads to own mining stocks.
 As to circulars fixing the prices of coal.
 The answer ayers sthat the respond ent is corporation of Pennsylvania created primarily to purchase, sell, transport and mine coal and incident ally to acquire such lands as it may deem expedient and to purchase the stocks of any railroad or other corpor- ation. It is denied that the corporation has authorized or sanctioned any com- bination with another corporation con- trary to the laws of New York state
 It is further averred that all railroad and all canal companies created by or organized under the laws of Pennsyl- vania are expressly authorized by the statute law of the said state to pur- chase and hold the capital stock Of corporations authorized by law to de- velop the coal, iron, lumber or other material interests of the said common wealth and especially is any railroad or mining company of Pennsylvania au- thorized by positive statement to pur- chase and hold the capital stock of the the Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron company.
 The answer further denies that the prices for the coal sold and shipped by the respondent were ever determined by agreement, contract combination or arrangement with the other corpora tions mentioned in the application or with any person whomsoever. It is admitted that officers of the company have occasion meetings with others in a like business with the view of eX- changing and considering statistical information and data as to the state of available supply and the probable de- mands of future markets, in order that the measures may be taken to supply their requirements.
 The respondent also denies that the prices fixed by it in March, 1901, or at any other time, were determined at an alleged meeting of the board of direc- tors of the Temple Iron company or that a uniform price for coal was agreed upon with other companies. If other parties in the trade announc- ed the same prices it was because they could not reasonably expect to obtain or demand greater prices from their customers than the respondent an- nounced its willingness to sell for, and, in the absence of special facts and cir | cumstances, were doubtless unwilling to accept less. Moreover, the circulars have never been regarded as binding upon anybody, not even upon the par ties who may have issued them. Having shown, the answer concludes, that it has not done nor participated is any act contrary to the provisions of the New York laws it submits that no further inquiry should be made into the allegations cited in the applica- tion.
 The Reading company and the Tenn pie Iron company will make answers denying any connection or complicity with any organization or combination as set forth in the allegations of the Hearst bill.