Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1921-04-30
North Dakotd's Gredtast
Classified Section

LN.-I.N tJEF.EH BtFHEEAt gaYefN gag4l EE.l9E4aIg ~ rS,ony
deposits in the Lake Superior district,
where is located the greater part Of
the iron ore deposits in the United
States. +
That it owns and controls the great
err part of the iron ore deposits in
Alabama, where production is second
only in that of the Lake Superior dis
trict.
That it owns and controls the M
jor number Of railroads and lake
transportation systems which carries
iron ore from mines to manufacturing
plants of the respondent subsidiaries
and their competitors.
That it likewise owns and controls
coal mines and limestone Quarries
necessary to. the manufacture Of steel.
That of the total production in tho
United States OF the following items
respondents manufacture and sell APP
proxinately 47Aper cent OF the crude
steel in the form Of ingots: approx
mately As per cent of billets, blooms.
sheet and tin plate bars, rails, plates
and sheets. structural fabrics. bars
and the like and approximately 60
per cent Of other steel %productA
Plants in Many States.
That the steel corporation through
its subsidiaries controls and utilizes
145 plants. Principally in Pennsylva-
mia, Ohio. New York, New Jersey, Del
aware, Maryland, Massachusetts,, Com
necticut, Alabama. Kentucky, West
Virginia. Illinois, Minnesota, wiscon-.
sin, Michigan, Kansas, California and
Washington.
Complaints also set out that the
steel corporation has capital stock
outstanding of the value of $868.s83,-.
son ,ritI . h~rl ,-~1,,~ ~-1~@AS-- -
and onc-half billion dollars, and that
1t has through it's respondent subat-
diaries gross assets ~aggregating con-
siderably more than two billion dol
lars. ~ a.
Taking up tho pittsburgh pins.
price in detail, the complaint a y
that this price is a which Pitts
spondents for steel at Pittsburgh and
that purchasers in other cities. ex-s
cept Birmingham, Ala, must pay this
price plus the freight rate to the city
Of manufacture from Pittsburgh, ir-,
respective of where the steel is manu-
featured. The price at Birmingham,
Ala. the complaint says, is IS a ton
more than h Pittsburgh price and
that his is arbitrarily arrived at, not
w~ithstanding that steel is manufactur-
ed at Birmingham at much leB cost
than at Pittsburgh.
Gets Half or Country's BuslneA
1t is alleged in the complaint that,
the use of the Pittsburgh plus price"
enables Pittsburgh steel manufactur-
ers to secure substantially so per ent
Of the steel manufacturing business
in the United States; that in order
to retain such a percentage, 1t retards
as much as necessary the natural steel
manufacturing growth of other Sec
tons of the country; that the price
enables the steel manufacturers to
maintain substantially uniform prices
which they could not do otherwise:
enables the high. cost steel manufac-i
turing plants at Pittsburgh to main
tain sufficiently high prices for their
product to operate at a profit with
out having their business jeopardized
by the lower cost of steel manufacture
ers in other sections; enables the low
er cost steel manufacturing plants
outside of Pittsburgh to secure not
only the profit which the high cost
Pittsburgh steel manufacturing plants
secure. but unduly large additional
profits because they manufacture at a
much lower cost. and that the Pitts
burEh plus price enables the steel
mapufacturers outside OF Pittsburgh
to increase their profits Lei time tic
railroad transportation charges on
steel are increased.
Subsidiaries Listed.
The subsidiaries Of the steel corpo-
ration named in the complaint are the
American Bridge company, the Amer
lean Sheet and Tin Plate company,
the Carnegie Steel company, the Ma
tional Tube company and the Ameri-
can steel and Wire company, New
Jersey corporations: the Illinois Steel
Corporation. the Minnesota Steel COM
i pany. the Tennessee Coal and Iron
company and the Clarion Steel COM
pany, the Union Steel pa.ny and
the Iorain Steel company, P%ennsylva-
nia corporations.
The complaints against the steel
corporation have been before the
commission for several years. and a
decision as to whether the commits
sion had jurisdiction was delayed
pending the hearings and discussions
by members Of the body. At a pre-
liminary hearing here on July 9,.1919,
f. II. Gary. chairman of the corpora
ton. strongly urged the commission to
go into the question. Judge Gary WAS
asked if he thought the commission
had jurisdiction.