Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-10-22
U. S. STEEL EARNED
. u|TTLE--L|NDABURY
Profits of Corporation Quite
Ordinary" Says Attorney
in Federal Suit.

PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 22.-Re-'
Stunning his argument for the defense
today in the Federal suit to dissolve
the United States Steel Corporation
on the ground that II violates the
anti-trust law, Richard v. Linda
bury, of Newark, n. J.. in the. United
States District Court continued to de-
scribe the conduct of the corporation
after its organization.
At the outset, he denied that the
earnings of the corporation were ex2
cessive, but asserted that on the con-
trary they were quite ordinary.
To show that the corporation has
always played fair, counsel asserted
that the record in the case does not
show a single instance Of rebates hav-
ing been asked OF received by the
concern or by any of its subsidiaries.
In 1905, he said, the finance commit
tee, fearing that some of its subor-
dinates might resort to rebates, sent
Il letter to the presidents of most of
the railroads with which the corpo-
ration did q transportation business
warning them against the giving or
rebates to any representative or the
corporation. No competitor any
where, he added. has charged the cor
poration with unfair methods or with
underselling in particular localities.
IF there ever was a record Of clean
doing and honorable business meth
DDS, we have it here" he said
Speaking of the corporations treat
ment of its employees, Mr.. Lindabury
said the steel corporation was not
.'souIless monopoly and gave figures
to show that since the formation of
the corpora ton the wages of its en-
ployes have been increased an aver
age of twenty eight and one-half per
cent. He said it's method of compen-
sation for injured employees antedates
the statutes of any State on that sub
ject and is a model for all of them.
Mr.. Lindabury then discussed the
price of steel products, declaring that
the trend of prices since the corpora
tion was formed has been downward.
Counsel went over the history of the
purchase of various companies after
the corporation was formed, and de-
MED that the acquisition of the
Shelby Tube Company and the Union
Steel Company showed monopolistic
intent, or that they were purchased
at excessive prices.
Henry G. Prick was director in
both the Union Steel and United
States Steel corporations. Judge Hunt
wanted to know whether Mr.. Frick
as a Union Steel director voted to
sell and as a United States Steel
director voted to purchase the Union
steel Company. Mr. Lindabury said
he did not know, but he felt sure that
Mr.. Frick did not vote as steel
director.
Mr.. Lindabury then took up the
much discussed purchase of the Ten
nessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Com
pany in 1907 II is the only property
the steel corporation has ever pur-
chased that the corporation did not
need, he said.
The government alleges that the
Tennessee company had become
competitor of the steel corporation of
great potentiality;" that the corpor-
alton took advantage of the panic of
1907 to acquire the property, and that
certain directors of the steel corpora
ton deceived President Roosevelt and
induced him not to interfere with the.
purchase of the Tennessee company.
These allegations are denied by the
corporation. Mr.. Lindabury said that
the steel corporation did not want the
Tennessee. company, because 1t had
never been success, DuI conSenleu
to buy the property In order to pre-
vent the failure of Moore & Schley,
New York bankers, and the spread of
the panic. Counsel said President
Roosevelt told Messrs. Gary and Frick
that he, the President. did not think
ii his duty to interfere with the pur-
chase of the Tennessee stock
Mr.. Lindabury said the Tennessee
company was not formidable COM
petitor and that it. had but one per
cent. of the country's iron and steel
business at the atime of its purchase
by the steel corporation.