The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-10-22
LINDADURY |NDEFENsE
Of STEEL CORPORATION
Says It Is Law-Abiding Institution,
With Beneficial Effect on
Business.
DICKINSON FOR GOVERNMENT
Makes Opening Address in Trial
OF Suit for observation-disclosures
Traces History of Industry and
Contends Development Is Natural.

PHILADELPHIA. October 21.--That
the United states Steel Corporation is
law-abiding institution, whose or
ga1ization has had beneficial effect
Oh business, was the argument of coun-
Gel for the corporation to-day in the
Omitted States governments dissolution
suit.
Richard V. Lindabury, of Newark.
N. j. spoke for five hours in defense
of the corporation, after Jacob NJ.
Dickinson, chief counsel for the gov
eminent. had concluded his opening
address. MIR. Dickinson went into the
question OF interlocking directors. He
said that directors of the steel corpora
ton at various times were directors
of railroad companies which controlled
about half of the mileage IN the United
States. and gave instances where steel
directors sitting as railroad directors
had an apparent influence in steering
business In the direction of the steel
corporation.
Mr.. Lindabury went into the history
of the iron and steel industry oyha,Is-
lively, giving Il picture of the uncertain
conditions in the business before the
coming of the steel corporation. He
contended that the formation Of the
corporation in New Jersey In 1901, was
2 natural development ana that there
was no thought of monopoly or of re-
straining trade.
NO THOUGHT THAT
MONOPOLY IS FORMING
There was no thought in tho mind
of Andrew Carnegie when he sold his
interest in the Carnegie Company to
the new corporation that monopoly
was to be created" Mr.. Lindabury
said. Mr. Carnegies offer to sell his
interest was not based upon a desire
to enter combination, but upon a
desire to retire from business and dc:
vote his life and means to philanthropic
purposes"
Mr.. Lindabury stated that the steel
corporations proportion of the coun-
try's total production of iron and
steel In 1911, when the suit was begun,
was SOL per cent.
1T cannot In reason be snid," added
Mr.. Lindabury, that the combination
of manufacturing concerns whose per-
centage of production did not exceed
5Q.1 per cent, and whose acquisition of
raw material did not approach to a
monopoly, necessarily operated to re-
strain trade or In and of Itself amount
ed to a monopoly or an attempt at
monopoliZation, unless intent is shown"
Mr.. Lindabury discussed the circum-
stances which led up to the organizn-
ton of the steel corporation, and snid
the only thought of the promoters was
to have plants that could take the raw
material and lay down the finished pro-
duct at home and abroad at prices that
could not be bcttered by other manu- :
facturers.
The attorney said the later conduct
Of the steel corporation had. effected
great economies in the manufacture
and distribution of steel products; that
the production Of the finished rolled iron
and steel In the United States surpassed
that of every other basic product eX-
cept cement. Competitors. and custo-
mers alike, he said, attributed the great
growth OF the industry chiefly to the
efforts of the steel corporation.