New-York tribune., 1921-06-05
u. S. Steel Cites
Court Ruling to
Deny Monopoly
Answer 10 Trade Board
Charges of Unfair Prac-
iices Asserts Record of
Tribunal Es.onerated 1t
Case TO Go to Trial
Declares Company Did
Not Possess Power to
Fix or Con troll Prices

WASHINGTON, June 4.-The United
States Steel Corporation and its eleven
subsidiaries filed to-day with the Fed
eral Trade Commission an answer to
the commissions complaint of last
April, in which unfair competition in
interstate commerce was alleged. The
case will now go to trial on its merits
uefore the commission. which will de-
termine whether an order should be.
entered requiring tbe companies to de-
sist from the practices complained OF.
The date for the trial will be fixesl
later.
Answering each of the. twelve aihe-
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 /, 1920, dismissing khe
suit brought against the corporation
by the government under the Sherman
antitrust act. They aver that the
record of the court shows:
THAT respondents did not have a
monopoly of the iron ore deposits,
either in the Lake Superior district, or
in the State of Alabama, or in the
THAT respondents did not own or
control the ultimate iron ore supply of
the United States.
No Monopoly of Ore Roads
"That respondents did not possess a
monopoly of the railroad and lake
transportation systems which carry ore
from the mines to the manufacturing
plants of said subsidiaries of compet-
itors, or through such systems as it
did control possess the power to mo-
nopolize the raw materials from which
steel is manufactured
"That respondents did not own or
control a sufficient amount of any
branch of steel manufacturing to con-
stitute monopoly thereof or so large
percentage as to constitute viola
tion 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 power to either control or destroy
their competitors.
THAT respondents did not control
the prices of steel products nor fix the
PRICES charged by their competitors.
"That respondents did not either
si,,gly or in combination constitute
monopoly or possess the power to
monopoliEe the steel trade in the Unit
ed States or elsewhere.
Say Sales Are Unrestricted
"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,
combination or understanding between
the manufacturers of sellers thereof"
The respondents aver further that
ssthere 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 adjudicat and
said dismissal of the governments pc
tition."
In conclusion, the steel companies
Submit that an order of the kind or
effect suggested in said complaint
would be unwarranted by any law of
the United States; that such an order
would constitute an interference with
respondents liberty of contract and
would amount to the taking of the re-
spondents' property without due pro-
cess of law, contrary to the fifth
;.nendment to the Constitution of the
United States"
Deny Arbitrary Price-Fixing
With regard to the Pittsburgh "base
price," which was complained of by the