El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1912-02-01
CARNEGIE. ROCKEFELLER AND THE
STEEL TRUST DENY all CHARGES

Corobs1itors in the United States has
largely increased since 1871. ana 90
its stock has been sold seYefal IlIIlSs
over and is now held by muiutuue
of small investors in this and Foreign
countries.
That after scquiesctnE IN the Or
ganizauon OF the steel corporation lor
so long a time and after rights OF 50
sacred & character have grown ~
Hereunder. and II is now too late 1Or
the government TO insist IN a court or
equity that such organization was IN
itself and without regard 10 us alIeI
practices an Illegal thing.
The answer denies that Messrs- cary
and Prick failed to disclose to the
president all the facts bearing upon
the proposed purchase Of the tennessee
Coal and Iron or that they mace any
mfsstateneut or misleading statement
Of any sort or character to the presl-
dent regarding the financial sltua lloh
IN New York or regarding the wishes
or attitude Of themselves or the steel
corporation with respect TO the pro
Encourages Free Commerce.
The answer says that continuously
since the organization or the steer cor
DoratiOn IL has been the declared anu
consistently followed policy or salu
corpora tiOu to encourage rather Inal
TO estrain the utmost freedom or
trade and commerce 70 re l. II t IN
acts OF oppression or injustice 70 the
competitors of said corporations 70 az
stain from efforts to harrass such com
petitors or to exclude them from t1 i
fair share OF interstate or foreign
commerce. and to take no steps intend
ed or calculated to prevent the growth
OF other and further competition
Referring to the meetings or the steer
manufacturers, 1amiliarly known as the
Gary dinners" the answer says lhat
at none OF these dinners was there
any attempt to reach any agreement
or understanding with respect either 10
said OF done which was calculated OF
intended to suppress competition or
restrain trade. and there never was
nor is there now any such agreement
No Law violated.
The concluding portion Of the an
'Tbey denv that they have ever VIC
lated or attempted or intended TO VIC
late the antitrust act or provisions
thereof And they particularly DENY
that they are now engaged IN vlolarlns
said acr or are threatening or intend
ing to violate the same and they re-
sDectfuly submit that IN the aDsence
Of such present OF threatened or IN
tended violation this honorable court
is without jurisdiction TO grant the re-
lief for in the petition or any part
thereof OF any other relief In the prem
ises. and they pray TO be hence as
CarneEie's Answer.
The answer OF Mr. Carnegie is in
part as fOllOWs-
answering the first paragraph OF
the petition this defendant says that
the statements Of the first paragraph
are not denied except the allegauon
that trade between certain unnamed
persons partnerships and corporations
at various times and IN various local
tiles were restrained by unlawful pools
and combinations. as to which uncer-
tain allegations this defendant has no
knowledge and does not admit the
same.
This defendant has no such knOwl-
edge a viii enable him to answer the
I allegations Of the second paragraph re
Z iating 70 companies other than the
J Carnegie company, but he does not ad-
nit the same. Answering the allega-
. lions relating to the Carnegie company
this defendant says that the state
ment Of properties and interests IN
companies owned by the Carnegie com
pany IS correct Defendant denies the
allegation in this paragraph that the
purpose and effect Of the consolidation
and absorption OF the Duquesne Steel
works was a combination in restraint
I OF trade and commerce among the sew
era1 states and with foreign nations.
Defendant further denies the allega-
ton that the effect OF such consolida-
I ton was q combination in restraint Of
trade and commerce.
The allegations OF third para era oh.
so far as they relate to the business
/ Of the Carnegie company and its plans
for further development Of its business,
Q aAH COAIEEL 10 THIS extent Lna- 1T was
! the intention OF the Carnegie company
I to continue its consistent policy OF en-
Z larging Its capacity as the develop
Q ment Of its business required but so
! far as the allegations relate TO the
I business and plans and intentions of
! other companies and persons, this de-
/ fendsnt has no knowledge
Defendant says that It Is true that
he owned the majority Of the shares
! Of the Carnegie company; that he was
/ aware OF the formation Of the United
3 States Steel corporation and the bust
ness ness which si i proposed sl,ut TO- con on.
! any OF the proposed plans further
! than 10 agree TO sell his shares Of stock
/ Of the Carnegie company outright TAX
Ing in pay therefor bonds Of said cor
pOration. Having agreed to make this
sale, he took no part in the plans for
/ the organization Of the corporation nor
has he taken any part either direct or
ADVISORY In Its business, his position
being solely that OF q creditor holding
/ obligations OF the corporation The
averments OF the fourth paragraph ~
reference to the value Of the properties
OF the carnegie company are vague
and indefinite and their materially IN
I this case is doubtful, but this defend =
ant denies the allegation that the value
l negie company did not exceed $780,
100000 at the time Of the sale TO the
! corporation.
Defendant further answering this
]
4 no knowledge and therefore cannot ad-
nit or deny the averment to-Wit. that
n 9. Fr1ck proposed to sell the Car
negie property to J. P Morgan for
$3.50 o00. OO0.. and that the latter de-
eilned 1t upon the ground that the
price was too high
Further answering this paragraph
TINS defendant says that his sole mo
i've In agreeing 70 the sale OF the
properties OF the Carnegie company
70 the United States Steel corpora ton
was his desire to retire from the
/ business
Inls defendant has no knowledge
ana cannot affirm or deny the allega-
tons as 70 the actions of the corpora
non or It's constituent companies since
It's organization. nor has he any knowl-
cage as TO the business OF the cOnstitu-
emf companies (Other than the Carnegie
company prior TO such orgaDiza ton.
MS recollections Of details Of the busi-
ness operations Of the Carnegie com
pany and its constituent companies is
not sufficient at this time to enable
nm 70 affirm OF deny the aTerments