The Birmingham age-herald., 1921-06-05
ANSWER FILED ID
 COMPLAINT AGAINST STEEL CORPORATION
Case Now Goes to Trial Be- fore Trade Commission, Which Will Decide If Re-
 straining Order Proper
By Associated rrsss

Washington, June 4--The United States Steel corporation and its Il sub sidiares filed today with the federal trade commission an answer to the commissions complaint of last April In which unfair competition in inter state commerce was alleged. The case will now go to trial on its merits hs- fore the commission, which will deter mine whether an order should be en- tered requiring the companies to dc- sist from the practices complained of in the complaint. The date for the trial win be fixed later.
 Answering each ofsthe IF allegations set out in the original complaint, ths steel corporation and its subsidiaries call attention to the decision of the United States supreme court on March l. 1920. dismissing the suit brought against the corporation by the govern ment under the sherman anti-trust act. They aver that the record of the court shows:
 What Record shows
 That espondentssdi did not have .. .ro-. nopoiy 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.
 That respondents did not own or control a monopoly of the coal suitable for steel making purposes in the Uni- tea States
 That respondents did not possess a monopoly of the railroad and lake transportation systems which carry ore from the mines to the misunderstanding plants of said subsidiaries or competl- tors. or, through such systems as 1t did control possess the power to mo nopolize the raw materials from which steel is manufactured.
 That respondents did not own or control sufficient amount of any branch of steel manufacturing to con- stitute monopoly thereof or so large a percentage as to constitute vio- lation of law.
 That respondents did not possess the power to fix or control, and did not in fact, fix or control. the prices of steel or the products thereof.
 That respondents did not possess the competitors.
 No Price CentroI
 That respondents did not control the prices of steel products nor fix the price charges by their competitors That respondents did not either singly or in combination constitute . monopoly or possess the power to mo- nopolize the steel trade in the United States or elsewhere.
 That competition in the, manufac- ture and sale of steel and the products thereof in the United, States was free and unrestricted by any agreement, Icombination or understanding between the manufacturers or sellers thereof.y' The respondents aver further tha. there has been no material change in the constitution. holdings. powers or practices, or in the relative capacity or output Of the respondents or any of them. since the said adjudica ton and said dismissal of the governments petition.''
 Order Unwarranted
 In conclusion, the steel companies "submit that an order of the kind or effect suggested in said complaint would be unwarranted by any law or the United States; that such an order would constitute an interference with rsspondents' liberty 6f contract ara would amount to the taking of the re- apondentf property without due pro- cess of law contrary to the fifth amendment of the constitution of tne United States"
 With regard to the Pittsburg "baxc price" which was complained of by the Western Association of Rolled Steel Consumers and others and discussed at leneth in the conrnissi5n's complaint,
 tcentanted n zPase Ten) t