Perth Amboy evening news., 1912-01-12
KNOCKS NAME
IN STEEL CASE
Was Attorney for Carnegie
in Pooling Days.

49, aaZ
Washington, Jan. 12.-In questions
put to Andrew Carnegie while a wit
ness before the Stanley steel investi-
eating committee the name OF Secre-
tsry OF State Knox was brought for
ward az an attorney for the Carnegie
Steel company in the days when pool
Ing agreements were In vogue.
Mr.. Carnegie insisted, however, that
neither business men nor lawyers were
certain at that time that pooling agree
ments fell within the condemnation OF
the Sherman antitrust law. This wal
only one Of several interesting phases
Of the Carnegie testimony. Mr.. Car
negia acknowledged that he had made
political contributions, but ives not re-
quired to go into details. He declared
ave the objection OF counsel for the
United States Steel corporation that
the present day prices In the iron and
steel industry are fixed and main
tanned by agreement. He also ex-
pressed the opinion that the duty on
steel products could be removed with
cu. .1;uT.ns aAaslisan manufacturers
Representative McGillicuddy. a Dem
ocrat. OF Maine. was the member OF
the committee who lugged Secretary
Knox's name into the hearing.
Il understand" said Mr.. McGilli-
cuddy. that In the period from 1890 to
1900 you knew very little about the
scope and purpose OF the Sherman
law
''That Is true" said Mr.. Carnegie.
"Was Philander G. Knox one or the
attorneys Of the Carnegie Steel com
pany7" asked the representative from
Maines
MIR. Carnegie replied in the afirma
tive. Mr.. Knox. he added. was asso-
ciated with Judge j. Fl. Reed. who ap
peared as Mr.. Carnegie's personal
counsel. as attorneys for the Carnegie
company.
Now. during all the years that that
firm, Knox Il Reed. acted as counsel
for your company, did either OF them
advise you as to the effect Of the Sher-
man lawf' asked Mr., McGillicuddy.
II never heardsa word on the sub
ject from either OF Them said MFR.
Carnegie.
Representative McGiIlicuddy then
switched to the tariff. He remarked
that the profits of the Carnegie oom-
pany jumped from 100000 In 1897.
the year the Dingley tariff law was
passed. to S40.O00,0o0 In 1900.
"How much did the tariff have to do
with the increase In profits after the
passage OF the Dingley faw?" asked
the Democratic member.
Much TO the establishment OF the COM
mitteemen. Mr.. Carnegie declared be
had never heard OF the Dingley law
1.-THE steel business has It's ups and
downs said Carnegie.
.But these figures show mostly ups
suggested Mr.. McGillicuddy. The
Maine representative wanted 10 know
then n Mir. Carnegie had made any
campaign contributions prior to 1897.
Haven't the slightest idea. said
Carnegie. sRea!ly. do not remember
"has lAy contributions were.
Were your contributions made for
sentimental eason only or were theH
made for business reasons with d view
to keeping a political party In powerY'
asked Chairman Stanley.
II nsWer strongly that the business
part Of the matter had no bearing with
me" answered Mr.. Carnegie.
At this point objection was made BY
ws- $ counsel TO Iurtner ques.
tsona In regard 10 the campaign contri-
buttons. The committee. having al
ready established a precedent in this
matter when II decided not to press d
demand upon George W. Perkins for
n~foreaation En+Fegaga 10 campaign com
ributionas refralned from pressing Mr.
S~arneess any further.