The daily banner. (Cambridge, Md.) 1897-2008, 1913-01-24
ARMOR PLATE
POOL REVEALED
Steel Trust and Bethlehem Were
In Il -Four Years.
MOTIVE IN MERGER OF 1907

William e. coreys Letters Show Trust
Feared Competition of Southern
Company In Rails.
New York. Jan. "a. - The United
States Steel corporation and the Beth
lehem Steel company participated for
four years in an international pool in
armor plate which divided up the bust.
ness of neutral markets"
William E. Corey, former president
Of the steel corporation, so testified at
the hearings in the governments suit
to dissolve the corporation as trust.
It was the first direct testimony so far
obtained as to the existence of such a
pool.
Corey was unable to recall that the
armor plate pool had existed until his
memory had been refreshed by the
reading OF minutes of the Carnegie
Steel company, quoting him as advis-
ing against joining with the "armor
combination" in the erection of an
armor plate plant in Japan. This was
In 1902, shortly after the organization
Of the steel corporation.
Then he testified that a combination
Of armor plate manufacturers in Eng
land, France and Germany and the
United States had existed as late as
1904 or 1906" The Carnegie Steel
company and the Bethlehem Steel com,
pany were the American members.
What was the agreement Of those
In the pool?" asked Jacob M. Dickin-
son, attorney for the government. Il
was not familiar with the Details" said
Mr.. Corey, adding that Colonel Millard
Hunsicker, representative Of the Car
negie company abroad, conducted the
negotiations.
Corey testified that during the ex-
istence of the agreement the American
members had not, to his knowledge, at
tempted to compete for armor plate in
England, France or Germany.
did the foreign firms bid for Unit
ed States government contracts?" 81
believe that it is provided by law thai
the United States government con
tracts in armor plate shall be given
only to American manufacturers"
The most valuable testimony YET
brought out to show the motive for the
purchase Of the Tennessee Coal and
Iron company by the steel corporation
came from Corey.
Through a series Of letters written
by Corey to the manager Of the Car
negie Steel works In Pittsburgh, sub
n6ia7y OF the steer cJrpUrar1fs6n: It war ~
brought out that Corey protested bit
terly against the ability Of the Ten
nessee Coal and Iron company to man
ufacture open hearth rails and against
the general practice of important rail
roads purchasing this brand instead
of those made by the steel corpora
ton.
In one Of the letters Corey said that
because of the inability of the steel
corporation to mill this particular
brand of rail and the tendency of the
railroads to prefer them to the ones
milled by his corporation, he feared
that within a year the corporation
would "be up against it."
This letter was written in 1905, two
years before the absorption of the
Tennessee Coal and Iron company by
the steel corporation with the sanction
of the then President Roosevelt.
AnoIher letter, In 1906, complained
because the Hartman system had Civ
en- an order for open hearth rails to
the Bethlehem Steel company.
Dickinson took up the question of
the difference between the domestic
and export prices of steel rails.
WAS the mill price of domestic rails
subsequent to the formation of the
steel corporation greater or less than
the export price?" II want to be &C
curate. The mill price on foreign bust
ness netted the producer less than on
domestic business"
"Then the domestic price was high |
er?" Corey conceded that such was.
in effect, the case.
Corey said he had on one occasion
given orders to close down blast fur
naces Of the Carnegie Steel company
with the maintenance of steel prices
IN view.