The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-02-01
Cannot Answer Allegations Regarding Other Com
 panies Than His Own
NO INTENTION TO
 KILL COMPETITION
Says Government Over Estimated the Value of Carnegie Steel Company. Sole Motive for Sale Was
 to Retire From Business

Trenton, N. J., January S1.--Andrew Carnegie through his attorneys will file tomorrow his answer to the peti- ton of the federal government against the United states Steel corporation and others under the antitrust act. The an swer of Mr. Carnegie is in part as fol- lows.
 1. Answering the first paragraph of the petition, this defendant says that the statements of the first paragraph are not denied except the allegation that trade between certain unnamed persons, part nerships and corporations at various times and in various localities were restrained by unlawful pools and combinations, as to which uncertain allegations this defend ant has no knowledge and does not ad- init the same
 ?. Answering the second paragraph of the petition. this defendant has not such knowledge as will enable him to answer the allegations of the second paragraph relating to companies other than the Car negle company, but he does not admit the same.
 Carnegie Company
 Answering the allegations of the second paragraph relating to the Carnegie com pany this defendant says that the state ment of properties and interests in com ranies owned by the Carnegie company Is ccrrect. Defendant denies the allegation ill said paragraph that the purpose and effect of the consolidation and absorption of the Duquesne Steel works was a com hipatibn sdtt restrsint- -oe trade and S9n- nierce among the several states and wits foreign nations, and an attempt to monop- olize and a monopolization of part of the trade and commerce among the sew eral states and with foreign nations with in the meaning of the antitrust act. De- fendant further denies the allegation of said paragraph that the effect of such con- solidation Uo-wlt, the ownership of the several properties and shares of stock by the Carnegie company as set forth in said paragraph was combination in restraint of trade and commerce among the several states and with foreign nations within the meaning of section l, and an attempt to monopolze and a monopolizattOn of part of the trade or commerce among the several states or with foreign nations within the meaning of section of the antitrust act. On the contrary, the pur- pos and intention of the Carnegie com pany in acquiring the said properties and shares of stock were solely to secure greater industrial efficiency in the conduct and legitimate enlargement of it's busi- ness and said corporations and associa- | at mi
 Some Allegations Correct
 3. Answering the third paragraph of he petition, this defendant says that the allegation of said paragraph, so far as they relate to the business of the Car regie company and it's plans for further development of it's business, are correct to this extent, that it was the intention of the Carnegie company to continue it's consistent policy of enlarging It's capacity as the development of its business re- qdired, but SO far as the allegations re- late to the business and plans and inten- tions of other companies and persons, this defendant has no knowledge and cannot af1orm or deny. Defendant denies that he or the Carnegie company had ambl- tious plans involving further elimination Of competition and restraint Of trade 9nd commerce
 1. Answering the fourth paragraph, so far as fl relates to this defendant, he says that it is true that he owned the majority of the shares of the Car aegie company; that he was aware Of the formation of the United States Steel corporation and the business which it proposed to conduct He did not combine in any of the proposed plans further than to agree 10 sell his shares of stock of the Carnegie company outright, taking in pay there for bonds of said corporation of ma turtles running over a period of years, to be secured by a pledge of stocks and other securities owned or to be owned by the corporation. the form and terms and conditions of the bonds and the agreement securing the same to be satisfactory to his counsel.
 Having agreed to make this sale. he took no part in the plans for the re- organization of the corporation nor has he taken any part either direct or advisory in its business. his position being solely that of a creditor hold ing obligations of the corporation. Fur ther answering this paragraph of the petition, this defendant says that he has only a general knowledge of the capitalization and terms of issue there of, mainly derived from publications upon the subject. It is true that cer-
 
 company were exchanged for bonds of the corporation and that other shares of the corporation and that bonds Of the Carnegie company were exchanged Tor bonds of the corporation suLstan- tially as stated in the fourth para graph of the petition. Two averments of the fourth paragraph in reference to the value or the properties of the Carnegie company are vague and in- definite and their materiality in this case K doubtfui, but this defendant de- nies the allegation that the value of the tangible property of fhe Carnegie company did not exceed sIs0,000 900 ar tho time of the sale to the corpora ton. He denies that the net value of tue assets of the Carnegie Steel com pany of December Sl,, 1899, was s75, 610.10taG.
 The allegation in the petition that a statement from the books of the Car