The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-02-01
INDIVIDUAL REPLY DF ROCKEFELLER ID | GOVERNMENT SUIT
AsIes to Be Dismissed by the Coui and Makes a
 Sweeping Denial
CONVERSE MAKES
 GENERAL DENIAL
ompetition Was Not SmOthered by Organization of Steel Corpora
 ton, He Says-Treats of the Tennessee Merger

Ift pay
 the Tennessee Merger
 Trenton, \. J., January Sl.-John D. ockefellar. until recently president of the sandard Oil company. will file tomorrow
 individual reply to the petition of the ,deral government against the United
 ates Steel corporation and others.
 MT Rockefeller denies any and all of he unlawful acts with which the peti- on of the government charges him, and
 ks to be dismissed from court. He re- tes that he never lad any active part
 the formation or The management of le business of the Steel corporation; he priests that the court has no jurisdic- on as against him in that he is not a roper party to the suit in question, and
 ieges that the petitioner dhe govern
 enD has no standing in any court oi 'auity.
 Reviews History of Case
 MT. Rockefeller in his answer reviews le early history of the Lake Superior onsolidated Iron Mines, and it's acquisi- on of oro properties ill different parts
 the country. He touched upon the ale of his interests in this company and be Besserner Steamship company to the teel corporation, and the acquisition by
 0 Steel corporation of the Duluth, Mes
 be and Northern Railroad company.
 declares that the principal facts of
 } organiza ton of the Steel corporation
 re well known to the officials of the
 ted States, and that he does not be-
 the acquisition by the Steel corpor-
 nsof the Lake Superior company. oi
 Fessenle- Steamship company cOna,t
 te an offence against the antitrust act. Mr. Rockefeller recites further that he as q director of the Steel corporation ,r d limited period only; that since the lie by him in 1901 of his interests in le Lake Superior company and the yessemer Steamship company to the Iteel corporation he has had no imme- | hate relation to the iron and steel bus hess. and that he is not particularly in- 1rmed concerning the same. His sole sIation to the Steel corporation was to ell to it certain property, save as he as an elected but not active director foi
 limited period.
 MT Rockefeller concludes his answer $ follows.
 "This defendant denies knowledge ot Information as to the truth of each and very allegation contained in the peti-
 on, except as in this answer expressly dmitted or expressly denied, and there ore denies the same and leaves the pe- ttioner 10 make such proof thereof as il eav be able or advised to make.
 
 Is Not Proper Party
 This defendant protests that this hon. rable court has no jurisdiction as against i'm of the suit or proceeding instituted the filing of the said petition, in that . his defendant is not a proper party to he said suit or proceeding and not a arty necessary to the complete deter iination thereof; and this defendant de- ies that the petitioner is entitled to any Ielief whatsoever, or to any part of he relief in said petition demanded. I nd alleges that the petitioner has nc tanding in this court or in any court z equity.
 And this defendant prays in all this he same benefit and advantage of this | is answer as if he had pleaded or de- blurred to the said petition This defendant denies all and all man. | e rof unlawful acts whatsoever wherein Q is in anywise by the said petition Iharged; all of which matters and things This defendant is ready and willing to Iiove as this honorable court shall di- Iect. and prays to be hence dismissed | Fifth his reasonable costs and charges in This behalf most wrongfully sustained " The answer of John D. Rockefeller IT,. follows substantially that of his |atker.
 Converse's Answer Edmund C. Converse. director of the I'nited States Steel corporation and form | r presidels of the National Tube com Iany, will file tomorrow through his at- |orneys an answer to the petition of the Government against the corporation and x officials Mir Converse enters a gen. | ral denial 10 the charges of the gov [rnment and ayers that the formation CT xistenee of any of the companies or their Hcquisitiol of various properties was not |l restraint of trade.
 ! His answer sdenies that competition in {he steel industry has been suppressed Free the formation of the Steel corpora Eon, but, cp the other hand, asserts that has increased .so that the proportion of |hc business of the country done by the |ltcel corporation is now less than 50 OCT ent He denies that there has been or | any system of so~called interlocking |lirectorates or financial alliances to con |rol the steel industry or to extend tlio Influence Jr power of the Steel corpora ion over trade or commerce. or that the iteel corporation ever has sought. held h exercised control over consumers 5f Competitors
 Il The meetings al New York of represent Hives of the steel industry were not held e asserts. for the purpose of nor resulted h fixing prices, restraining trade or linn ling competition.
 Treats of Tennessee Merger + SIr Converse denies further that the |iurchase Of the Tennessee Coal and Iron ompany stock was made for the purpose |lf eliminating a competitor or of strength ming the control by the Steel corporation if the ore supply of the country: or that here was any deceit. suppression of fact or unfair dealings in connec- Ion with the acquisition of that stoci; II The Steel corporsitions ore purchases |l'ere for it's own present or future needs |.nly, lie states and the sources of orc |hppies, of good quality and enormous |luantity, are open to all in this cour- tx The Steel corporation, he points Nut, has actually diminished it's ore hold (CcNTINUED ON PAGE 9