New-York tribune., 1922-01-20
Big l0'Accused
In Rent Probe
Are Disclosed

neyy IS Myron Sulzberger.
- .1Srporstion S,',s aon OF H. A. Cohen figured
IN about 1000 cases. 1t was REPRESENTED
by Bernard S. Deutsch as attorney
+. A. Gutenberg. who used thr..
names, Appears in about 300 cases
ne had n. l. l.. Cohen as counsel
David r. Van Damn. who also ap-
= pcxIed nnn under three names. figured in
S,ooo cases. with Stoddard & Mara and
Morr's t. Crossct counsel.
Woman Landlord Included
MIS-. Nellie Roach appeared under
'wo names IN connection with approx
increased rentals.
The Fifty Per Cent Profit Sharinr
company. represented by IT, I. l..
Cohen as counsel, appeared in connec-
tion with 500 cases
Philip A. Papton Jr T. Co., with two
other names, figure in about 500 cases.
inns firm is represented by the law
firm OF Katz & Levy.
Four Hundred Manhattan Avenu.
corporation appears in connection with
about 700 cases. The attorney j,
Sidney |. Bernstein
Mr. Burns explained that the figures
were hurriedly got together at the
request OF the committee and told only
part Of the story
"Of the $4,000 cases that have
clogEed your court since the emergency
rent laws went into effect" said Mr
Cntermyer. you say these mon have
furnished thrcefourths of the litiga-
tions:"
Yes. sir Burn. replied.
When Schenck' 3 operations were be-
ing detailed Isadore Morrison. one Of
his attorneys, rose from his scat in the
audience and protested that Schcnck
had no connection with some Of the
Mr.. Untermycr said Schenck would bs
given an opportunity to take the stand
! in his own behalf.
schenck used are tho Ardmore U.s.
tatcs, Clasco Finance Corporation, Lib
eral Finance Corporation, Klamer
Realty Company, Pennantt Realty Com
pany, Ranger Realty, Joseph Schenck
Realty and Construction Company and
West Heights Realty Company.
In connection with these and the
other landlords cited, Burns said that
the cases were in the main contests Of
tenants against increases in rents.
Workman Explains Activities
The one landlord heard yesterday
vas William II. Wortham, who said his
! ~ ~ 'aiuc "dS Tlllp n. tdytON agency
Company, With Offices at 1877 West 1A1st
Street. Wortham said he and his wife
have 4 flfty-Afty share in their real
estate business, which is capitalized at
$4,000. He laid they owned some
properties and managed number Of
others. He admitted that he figured in
about 300 dispossess cases and about 200
cases Of tenants fighting increases in
rentals.
Before the examination OF Mr..
Burchard began Arthur A. Brock way, \
few details relating to the accounting
methods Of the General Electric Com
pany, saying that the upkcep cost Of
an expert mental station at Cleveland
had been written of to the account OF
the incAndcscent lamp manufacture.
Mr.. Untermycr charged on the basis
OF this testimony that Tire company
made profit Of l50 per cent from the
sale Of its bulbs. He said that lamps
that cost ]6 cents to manufacture were
sold for 40 cents.
A. S. Terry, who 5upervises tho manu-
fscturc Of bulbs for the company, told
Of the amounts licensees Of the COM
pany we're charged for the use of pat
ents controlled by the General Electric.
He admitted that the royalties we're in
some instances in excess Of the selling
value of the lamps.
AS Mr.. Untermyer took Up each
clause OF the Federal court decree Of
1911, which in comprehensive man
ner prohibited tho General Electric
from conducting its business as mo-
nopoly, and asked Mr.. Burchard if the
company had not violated these pro-
visions, the latter replied it had not.
Bought Out Another Company
Mr.. Untermyer then pointed out that
the decree forbade the company put
ting forward subsidiaries as ostensiblc
competitors. He referred to the case
Of the SibleyPitman Company, pur-
chased BY the General Electric in 1916,
which fact was not made public until
1919.
"Why was this not made public"
asked Mr.. Untermycr.
III guess it was because We did not
get around to it," explained Mr.. Bur-
chArd.
When Mr.. Untermyer asked Mr.. Bur-
chard if. in view Of the fact that the
General Electric controlled between
95 and 81 per cent OF the electric light
bulb business, that was not a monopoly
the latter replied that percentage was
not sole measure Of a monopoly.
$50 that il you have 100 per cent
OF a business" asked Mr.. Untcrmyer
land somebody else is trying to break
in, the fact that he is trying to break
in shows you haven't got the monop-
oly!"
::It shows there is competition" re
piled Mr.. Burchard.
"Although he hasn't broken in?'
YES"
Mr.. Burchard admitted his firm had
acquired many foreign patents in COW
junction with many domestic ones in
relation to lamps. Mr.. Untermycr held
that these were purchases OF compel
ing patents, throttling competition IN
violation Of the law, and said he would
ask the Attorney General to take this
view of the matter and force the Gen
e,al Electric to give them up.
Price-Fixing Charges Pressed
Mr.. Untermyer went back time and
again to the charge that the price
fixing and other practices forbidden by
the decree we're still in existence. Mr..
Burchard was equally insistent that
all these practices chad been super
seded."
Mr.. Untermyer then referred to the
taking over by the General Electric Of
contro! Of the Tri-City Company in
1920 without publication Of the fact, as
the law directs. He insisted this was a
fragrant violation Of the decree.
The counsel then took up the matter
Of price fixing. "The Westinghouse
Company and yourself both fix the
prices At which lamps shall be sold to
~ r