The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1914-10-23
FILES BRIEF !
Steel Corporation denies Itself a
Monopoly


Presenting huge array of facts
to prove that it was not organized
to create monopoly For to stifle
competition and that It has endeav-
ored to refrain from doing either
of these things, the United States
steel corporation filed its brief
answering the governments dis
solution suit in the federal, court.
The brief alleges that the Steel
and Wire company, the National
Tube company, the American
Bridge company, the American
Tinplate company, the American
Steel Hoop company and the
American Sheet Steel company.
corporations that were absorbed in
the formation of the Steel corpora
ton, were not in competition to
one another to any appreciable ex-
tent. What competition did exist
in companies taken over by the
steel corporation, it was alleged,
was between the Carnegie Steel
company and the Federal Steel
company.
And in this case, the brief as
serts, the competitions vas restrict
ed to only part of tlIs@ products.
To prove that the corporation
now is not monopoly as alleged,
the brief states that in 1908 the
steel corporations proportion of
the total production of all finished
products of iron and steel was only
SOL per cent. Since the proper
ton has been reduced to 45.7 per
cent of the total production for all
the markets of the world and to
400 per cent of the total produc-
ton for the domestic market.
As to the extent of control of
business involved in the ore supply
acquired by the corporation it is
shown that the steel corporation S
ore constituted only 40 per cent of
the ore in the Lake Superior dis
trict, which were known in 1901
and constitutes at present only IS
per cent of the ore contained in
the Lake Superior ranges now
known. After going at some
into statistics of the iron and steel
industry to- show that the forming
of the steel corporation was but a
normal development of existing
trade conditions, it claims that it
in no way constitutes a monopoly.
At a dinner in 1900, the brief
states, c. M. Schwab delivered an
address on the future of the steel
industry, dwelling upon the bene-
fits to be derived from the large
scale production. He asserted that
by such means could a large export
business Reproduced. ]. P. Nor
gan. who was at the dinner, became
interested, and Schwab detailed
, his plan to him. As result of
this, it is stated, Morgan laid the
matter of effecting a merger before
the Federal Steel company and the
Carnegie Steel company. Before
getting their approval be financed
smaller companies that later be-
came part of the steel corpora
ton.
The brief presents much evidence
to show that the forming of the
corporation results in great changes
and in the development of a great
foreign trade that otherwise would
not have been secured. Evidence
is also given to show that the COM
pany's methods of competition
were always fair.
The argument for the dissolution
of the Steel corporation is now on
at Philadelphia. Jacob M. Dickin-
son who has had charge of the
government side of the case since
its beginning made his argument
for the dissolution before the four
judges sitting as the United States
court for New Jersey early in the
week.
In the course of his argument,
Mr.. Dickinson read letters and
minutes of corporation meetings.
One letter that caused smile to
go around, and lessened the solem-
nifty of the court room. was one
written by Andrew Carnegie at
Skibo castle, Scotland, in 1889.
1t appears that Mr.. Carnegie's
company, with the Illinois Steel
and other concerns were in steel