The star-independent. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1904-1917, 1914-10-22
Counsel for Gigantic
Corporation Says the
Profits of Concern
Were Not Excessive
w ARMED AGAINST
GIVING REBATES
Did Not Attempt to Coerce Consumers
or Dealers Into Trading With It
Exclusively and Treated It's EN-
ployes With Greatest Consideration
By Associated Press.

By Associated Press.
Philadelphia, Oct. 22.-Resuming his
argument for tn, defense to-day in the
Federal suit to dissolve the United
States Steel Corporation on the ground
that it violates the antitrust law.
Richard V. Lindsbury 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 cor
poration were excessive, but declared
that, on the contrary, they were quite
ordinary.
To show that the corporation has al
ways played fair, counsel told the court
that the, records in the case show a sin
gle instance of rebates asked or re-
ceived by the concern or by any of its
subsidiaries. In 1905, he said, the
finance committee, fearing that some of
its subordinatts might resort to rebates
sent letter to the presidents of most
of the railroads with which the corpora
tion did transportation business,
warning them against the giving of re-
bates to any representative of the cor
poration. No competitor anywhere, he
added, has charged the corporation with
unfair methods or with underselling in
particular localities.
Honorable Business Methods
The corporation has not attempted to
coerce consumers or dealers into trad
ing with it exclusively, he asserted.
nor has it otherwise restricted their
freedom of action. ''If there ever was
a record of clean doing and honorable
business methods, we have it here, -
said counsel.
Speaking of the corporation g treat
ment of its employees, Mr.. Lindabury
said a monopoly is selfish and souhless
and that in the pursuit of gain it no
more regards the rights of its wage
earners than it does the rights of its
competitors or the public. But the
steel corporation was not monopoly.
and treated its employees with the great
est consideration. He gave figures to
show that since the formation of the
corporation the wages of its employees
have been increased an average of
2SI% per cent; that in 1912 its en-
ployes numbered 221,025; that its to-
tai yearly payrolls then amounted to
s1S9,3o 1,602, and that the. average
yearly wage of its men was $S56.70.
In February, 1913, the average yearly
wage increased to about 1920. The
ployes, Mr.. Lindabury declared, leads
the world. Its method of compensation
for injured employees antedates the
statutes of any State on that subject
and is now model for all of them.
Trend of Prices Downward
Mr.. Lindabury then discussed the
price of steel products, declaring that
the trend of prices since the corpora
ton was formed has been downward.
In answering another point in the gov
ernment charge that the steel corpora
tion monopolized trade, counsel asserted
that the big concern had not increased
its percentage of output of steel prod
ucts since 1901. but that it has suffered
a material decrease in substantially all
lines. Mr.. Lindabury made it plain
that the decrease in the percentage of
business had not brought about a reduc-
ton of the concern S output. The out
put has increased, he said, but there
has been much greater INCREASE in the
output of its competitors.
Counsel went over the history OF the
purchase of various companies after
the corporation was formed. and de-
MED that the acquisition of the Shell
by Steel Tube Company and the Union
Steel Company showed monopolistic in
terest, or that they were purchased at
excessive prices.
Interrogation AS to Frick
Henry G. Frick was a director in
both the Union Steel and the United
States Steel Corporation. Judge Hunt
wanted to know whether Mr.. Frick as
a Union Steel director voted to seel
and as United States 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 took up the much dis
cussed purchase of the Tennessee Coal,
Iron and Railroad Company in 1907.
1t is the only property the steel cor.
pOration has ever purchased that the
corporation did not need he said. The
government alleges that the Tennessee
Company had become competitor of
the steel corporation 'of great potenti-
aIty, tHat tHe corporation TOOK ad-
vantage of the panic of 1907 to ac-
quire the property and that certain di-
rectors of the steel corporation deceived
President Roosevelt and induced him
not to interfere with the purchase of
the Tennessee company.
Corporation Denies Allegations
These allegations are denied by the
corporation. Mr.. Lindabury in great
detail went over the oft-told story of
the threatened failure of Moore and
Schley, the New York bankers, who
had large amount of Tennessee stock,
of the steel corporation g willingness to
buy the Tennessee company after it
had repeatedly refused to purchase the
stock and offered to loan the firm S.
900, 1000 and of the visit of I'll. C. Frick
and E. FL. Gary, steel directors to Presi-
dent Roosevelt
Mr.. Lindabury said that the steel
corporation did not want the Tennessee
company because it had never been
success, but consented to buy the prop
erty in order to prevent the failure of
Moore and Sehley and the spread of the
panic. Counsel said that President
Roosevelt told Messrs. Cary and Frick
that he (the President) did not think
it his duty to interfere with the pur-
chase of the Tennessee stock.