Evening star., 1921-06-05
D. s. STEEL GROUP
I. DENIES MONOPOLY
-
:. AND PRICE FIXING
Complaints Of Trade Com
mission Answered and
Case Will Go to Trial.

/ Case Will Go to Trial.
The United States Steel Corporation
and its eleven subsidiaries hled yes
terday with the Federal Trade Com
mission an answer to the commits
sion's complaint of last April In which
unfair competition in interstate COM
merce was alleged. The case Will now
go to trial on its merits before me
commission, which will determine
| requiring the companies to: desist
from the practices complained of In
the complaint. The date for the trial
will be fixed later.
Answering each of the twelve alle-
| cations set out in the original COM
! plant the Steel Corporation and its
subsidiaries call attention to the de-
| cision of the United States Supreme
Court March l, 1920. dismissing the
suit brought against the corpora
! Sherman antitrust act. They aver
that the record of the court shows:
That Respondents did Aot have 4
| monopoly Of the iron ore deposits
either in the Lake Superior district
or in the State of Alabama, or in the
United States at large.
That respondents did not own or
| control the ultimate, iron ore supply
Of the United States.
No Monopoly In Coal.
| That respondents did not own or
! control a MONOPOLY OF the coal SUIT
able for steelmaking purposes in the
| United States.
! monopoly of the railroad and lake
Transportation systems which carry
/ tnre from the mines to the manufac-
! turing plants Of said subsidiaries or
competitors, or. through such systems
as if did control. possess the power TO
4 the raw materials from
which steel is manufactured.
| ..aThat respondents did not own or
control a sufficient amount or any
branch of steel manufacturing TO con-
stitute a monopoly thereof or so large
! a percentage as to constitute Nio-
THAT respondents did not possess
the power to fix or control and did
not. in fact. fax or control, tne prices
of steel or the products thereof
THAT respondents did not possess
the power to either control or destroy
their competitors.
I THAT respondents did not control
the prices of steel products nor nx
the prices charged by their compeu-
tors.
Did Not Control Steel.
"That respondents did not. either
s;relv or in combination. constitute
monopoly or possess the power TO
monopoiize the steel trade in the
United States or elsewhere.
"That competition in the manufac-
ture and sale of steel ana the proo-
ncts thereof in the United States was
freo and unrestricted by any agrees
ment, combination or understanding
hetween the manufacturers or sellers
thereof"
The respondents aver further thAt
/ "there has been no material change
! in the constitution. holdings. powers,
| or practices. or in the relative ca
pacity or output OF the respondepts
or any of them. since the said az
kiudication and said dismissal OF inc
governments petition.
| In conclusion, the steel companies
submit that an order Of the kind or
i'effect suggested in said complaint
| would be unwarranted by any law
| Of the United States: that such an
order would constitute an interferenee
| with respondents' liberty of contf4ct
j and would amount to the taking OF
a the respondents property without due
4 process Of law. contrary 20 the hith
j amendment of the Constitution OF the
United States"
Quoted PittsburEh Prices.
With regard to the Pittsborgh,
base price" which was complained
Of by the Western Association OF
II and discussed at length in the COM
missions complaint. the steel COM
| panies admitted that the subsidiaries
usually quote their products on what
is commonly called the Pittsburgh
basis. which represents their prices
of such products in Pittsburgh, plu.
the freight to the point of sale and
delivery"
They assert that this is common
practice of steel manufacturers and
deny that the price is arbitrai1,
it varies from time to time. and
among the different manufacturers
and represents the judgement Of each
manufacturer as. to .the-market con.
ditions affecting or likely to affect his
particular product" 10
The respondents also declare tha
the quoted prices are re'seldom adhered
to strictly. either by said subsidiarie.
or their competitors: that steel /,
sold by all of them. subsidiaries ant
competitors in the different consum
ing localities at the market price!
prevailing there in as determined b,
the law Of supply and demand and tn,
competition among the manufacturers
which competition now is and Tor
long time past has been vigorous an,
unrestrained and extends to prices
ticle of production in every localit,
in which the same is Sold
Base Price Universal.
''The practice Of quoting bas,
price,. the answer says. "is lareel,
for the convenience of customers anf
is not confined to the steel industr,
nor to. this country. but exist!
throughout the world. and is followed
in many, If not most. Of the more i'm
portant lines of production and sale
In the steel industry it has obtained
from the beginning and became a set
tied custom long before the United
States Steel Corporation was formed
Respondents deny that steel i,
manufacturer in either Chicago O.
Birmingham more lcheaply than i,
Pittsburgh. but admit that tho pric,
charged for steel by the said subsi
diaries in each Chicago and -Birminr
ham exceed the PittsburE price 5,
more than the difference in the cos
Of production in the RESPECTIVE Iocaii
ties. They deny. however, that thu
price charged in Chicago, BfrminC
ham and the other localities men
toned in the conapiatat, isa either un
fair or unlawful"
The respondents admit that tn
United States Steel Corporation has
capital stock outstanding of the pa
value Of 1851. s.5s3. 500 and Of 4 bool
value exceeding $500, 900, 600 ant
tnat the gross sales Of the corpora
ton and it's subsidiaries agxreeat,
more than $4,000. 100000 annually.
City EMpI 0vEcs MACE