Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1912-02-02
DENIES BREAKING
ANTITRUST Law !!
Steel Corporation Makes Answer
to Government Suit.
TOO LATE TO ATTACK TRUST

Reply Says Government Has Ac-
guessed in Existence Of Concern So
Long That It Is Now Too Late, as a
Matter Of Equity, to Insist That the
Organization Is Observation-Disclosures
Combine Has cheapened Production,
Trenton, N. j., Feb. 1.-Absolute de-
NAL of alleged violations of the Sher-
man antitrust law is made by the
United States Steel corporation, it's
subsidiaries and directors in their
answers which will be filed in the
United States district court here to
the governments dissolution suit Five
separate answers will be filed among
thirty-three defendants.
The effect of it's organization, the
corporation declares, has been to
cheaper production, effect economies
and increase foreign trade from $4,000.
900 to $60,000,000 annually within ten
years. So long has the government
acquiesced in It's existence, the answer
says, that it is now too late, as mat
ter OF equity, to insist that it's organ
ization was illegal.
Nothing was withheld from Presi-
dent Roosevelt by Messrs. Gary and
Prick on Nov. 4, 1907, the answer says.
when they sought his consent to the
corporations proposed purchase of the
Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad
company, nor were the so called Gary
dinners productive of agreements to
regulate prices.
The answers made public are those
OF Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rookie
Teller, Sr., John D, Rockefeller, Jr.,
and Edmund c. Converse. The Rookie
fellers made a joint answer.
The Messrs. Rockefeller deny that
they had an active part in the forma-
ton or management of the corpora
ton, the elder Rockefeller declaring
that he has had no immediate re1a-
ton to the iron or steel business since
1901.
Mr.. Carnegie says he had no part in
the plans Of organizing the corpora
ton and no voice, direct or advisory,
in its management. He admitted sell.
ing the Carnegie Steel company to the
United States Steel corporation, but
denies that the acquisition by the Car
negie company of it's subsidiaries was
In restraint OF trade, -
The answer of Edmund C. Converse,
a director of the United States Steel
corporation, is similar to the corpora
lions answer. :,
Each of the defendants prays that
the suit be dismissed.
Next Step Up to Government.
The answers to be filed, with those
filed Monday by the Minnesota group
OF land and mining companies and five
individuals named as trustees, will
complete the answers from all fifty
six defendants named in the suit. The
next step will be the filing of replica
tons by the government, which must
be done within thirty days, unless an
extension Of time be granted. After
that commissioner will be appointed
to take testimony.
The answer made in the names of
the United States Steel corporation
and it's various subsidiary companies
is Joined in by the following individ,
uals: ]. Pierpont Morgan, Ebert H.
Gary, Charles M Schwab, Charles
Steele, Henry c. Frick, James Gayley,
William H. Moore, James H. Moore,
Percival Roberts, Jr., Daniel G. Reid,
Norman B. Ream, George w. Perkins
and Peter A. B. Widener.
The answer begins with reviewing
the events that led up to the organdza-
ton Of the present steel corporation
and describes how the Federal Steel
company acquired the Carnegie Steel
company and others through negotia.
tons conducted by J. P. Morgan.
Later, when the need for additional
ore supplies was felt, the steel corpo-
ration acquired the properties of the
Lake Superior Consolidated iron
mines.
The steel corporation was formed
and it's properties acquired, the an
swer declares, for the purpose Of ef-
fecting economies ~ migrating the
plants and the processes employed In
the manufacture Of steel and to reach
the principal markets of the United
States and Of foreign countries and
increase the trade in steel products
therein. :,
IF any of the companies acquired by
the steel corporation" the answer de.
clares, had been organized for the
purpose Or with the effect of restrain.
ing trade or commerce, or If they con-
stituted an attempt at monopoly or a
monopolization of trade or commerce,
neither the organizers of the steel cor
poration nor the said corporation had
any knowledge or information thereof
when the said companies were &C.