Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1914-10-20
STEEL TRUST OPENS
WITH GREAT LAWYERS
Continued from Page One

| Continued from Page One
| kins, and Charles Schwab, who also are
| named as co-defendants, Informed the
judges that they would expedite matters
A handful of spectators, not more than
half n dozen, were in the courtroom
when Former Secretary of War Jacob
NJ. Dickinson, who Is in charge of the
prosecution, began his argument
RECoUNTs HISTORY OF CASE.
Surrounded by large volumes contain
ing evidence and testimony devoted to
the famous Tennessee Coal and Iron
case, Special Assistant Attorney General
Dickinson began to recount the history
of the company, which he characterized
as the greatest combination of COM
panes.
This is a suit" he said, brought by
the United States in the Circuit Court
for the District of New Jersey on Oc-
tober 26 1911. against the United States
Steel Corporation, the Carnegie Steel
Company of New Jersey. the Federal
Steel Company, the National Steel Com
pany, the American Steel and Wire Com
pany of New York, the National Tube
Company, the Shelby Steel Tube Com
pany, the American Tin Plate Company,
pany. the American Sheet and Steel
Company, the American Steel Hoop Com
pany. the American Bridge Company, the
Lake Superior Consolidated Iron Mines,
the Union Steel Company and other cor
porations."
Besides the companies named by Mr..
Dickinson there are about 10 other COM
panies named in the suit. Among indi-
vlduals named in the Governments suit
are: j. p. Morgan, Charles Steele,
George W. Perkins, E. II. Gary, Charles
NJ. Schwab, Andrew Carnegie Henry ].
Frick, James Gayley. William A. Moore,
]. H. Moore, Edmund c. Converse, Perci-
val Roberts, Jr., Daniel 6. Reid, Norman
B. Ream. John D. Rockefeller, John D.
Rockefeller, Jr., p. A. B. Widener and
William p. Palmer.
VAST MONOPOLY CHARGED.
The companies named in the Govern
ments suit, according to Mr. Dickinson,
were each, 'In purpose and effect COM
bination of companies or concerns which
were, when so combined by each of the
said companies severally, and continued
to be combinations in restraint of trade
and commerce among the several States
and with foreign nations within the
meaning of the section, and was an at
tempt to monopOlize, and a monopolza-
tion Of part of the trade or commerce
among the several States and with for
eign nations within the meaning of Sec
ton of the antitrust act"
That the defendants and companies
named in the suit had spent many
millions of dollars for mere promotion
and underwriting was charged by Mr..
Dickinson. Andrew Carnegie was charged
by the Government with being one of
the prime movers in the gigantic, COM
bination of trusts
Discussing Morgan & Co., the Gov
ernment Prosecutor declared that this
concern and the syndicate II repre-
sented received for $4,000. 900 in cash and
expenses. services and risks 1926, 99s, ,76S of
stock of the United States Steel Corpora
ton. In the said syndicate were several
who variously were officers or directors
OF the companies so combined.
Mr.. Dickinson gave a graphic descrip-
tion of the formation Of the defendant
companies and the methods they had
adopted to increase their business by
violating the Anti-Sherman Trust laws.
The brief filed today at some length goes
into the origin and development of the
steel industry to prove that the forming
OF the Steel Corporation was but a natural
and normal development from existing
trade and manufacturing conditions,
and that In no way was organized TO
create a monopoly.
OUTGROWTH OF FAMOUS DINNER.
At dinner in 1900 the brief recites,
Charles NJ Schwab delivered an address
on the future of the steel industry, dwell
ing on the advantages to be derived from
specialization and large-scale production
He asserted that by such means could
large export business be created. j. p.
Morgan, who was at the dinner. became
interested and had Schwab detail his
plan TO him.
AS a result of this IT is stated, Morgan
laid the matter OF effecting a merger be-
tween the Federal Steel Company and the
Carnegie Steel Company before the Fed
eral directors. After getting their ap-
proval he financed the deal, The nego-
tiations finally led 10 the purchase of all
the smaller companies that later became
a part of the Steel Corporation. These
were acquired, 1t was stated in order
TO secure the manufacture of products
not then being made by either the Fed
eral or Carnegie companies.
The brief presents much evidence 10
show that the forming of the corpora
ton resulted in huge savings and also
in the development of a great foreign
trade that otherwise would not have
been created. Evidence is also offered TO
show that the corporations methods in
competition were always fair.