The Birmingham age-herald., 1922-06-07
ite of the United. States Steel cor

expected them to tell honestly what they could do.
 c. But hope springs eternal in the human heart. Now. about this struc- tural steel in which we are primarily interested. these mergers that you have been hearing about, they will have the effect of curtailing compe- tition in structural steel just to the extent to which competition is elimi- hated between the constituent mem bers of the company. won't they7 A. don't know, That would only be a.
 Q. They will restrict competition A. They might do that. c. But don't you see that if three competitors get together, who are now competing for structural steel. that eliminates competition to that extent, doesn't it? A. do not think I can answer that decidedly. yet.
 c. Why not? A. Because there may be just as much competition between the different plants. It may not be the same kind of competition. e. You don't mean to say. Judge Gary, that If three competitors mak . ing structural steel combine into one company they are still going to com pete with one another for orders for structural steel? No. I don't think so.
 c. How many of your concerns were making structural steel before your combination? A. Two of them, anyway.
 Q. Oh, there were more than that. A. And another one to a small extent. .. Don't you know that before the combination, for instance, the Ameri- Ixt4 ...Ht. .f.. made structural steel? A. Yes. the Carnegies.
 Q. Don't you know also that the American Bridge company had at least six structural steel manufactur- CTS who combined? A. You probably know. I don't remember 1t.
 Q. Now, the CarnegieE made struc- tural steel, didn't they? A. Yes.
 Q. Whom else A. The Illinois Steel had very small plant. It was hardly worth considering. It was on the north side in Chicago.
 .. Now. since the United States Steel corporation, the making of structural steel has been allotted to the American Bridge company. hasn't | 1t? It makes the structural steel?
 Illinois Plant Kept Up A. Well, the Illinois Steel has kept up its plant, always kept up it's plant and enlarged it.
 c. But the Carnegies went out of 1t. They are not making structural steel any more? A. No. I do not think they are. They make steel. You mean the fabricating.
 .. Now, the organization of the United States Steel company there fore eliminated a large amount of competition In structural steel
 
 and the combination of the American Bridge company preceded it--there is no doubt of that? A. I think so. Q. Wouldn't the same follow in 8 relative degree from these mergers that are now under consideration Here is the Midvale, the Inland. the Republic-if they are all making structural steel. and they combine in the ordinary course of, things, the making of structural steel as mat ter of economy would be allotted to one mill It would be one of the ad- vantages of consolidation? A. In the sense of two different plants covering the same job, of course you are right. but I should think they would give the work to the plant that could do it to the best advan- tage according to the location.
 o. But the competition in bidding for the work would be at an end, wouldn't 1t? A. I think 1t would.
 1921 a "Leans Year, Says Gary
 MT Untermyer began Judge Gary's examination by getting into the rec ord the organization figures of the Steel corporation and statement of profits for 1921, which Judge Gary described a 'lean year." This showed net profits of $92.726,057, including a charge of sz7,so5,045 for depreciation and sinking funds on bonds of sub sidiary companies. The testimony ran:
 c. As chairman of the board of di- rectors you are the official head of the United States Steel corporation, are you not? A. I am. c. Do you happen to have the last the report here.
 Q. Suppose we put that in? c. The total volume of business appears to be 655,4o7,56s? A. That Is right.
 Q. And that was a - A. A lean year.
 Q. It was decrease of what per cent from the. A. Previous year. Q. Previous year? A. 46.s. Q. After paying interest on under lying bonds the net profit for 1921 in
 
 do not consider sinking funds d proper charge against net earnings, do you? That Is payment on ac- count of the capital, isn't it? A. We'll you see how the books are kept.
 c. Yes, but, Judge Gary, won't you answer me? You do not regard a sinking fund payment on the retire. ment of bonds as charge against net earnings, do you? A. Well. T. 0. Won't you answer me? A. From the standpoint of the account ant I should say yes. Title of Sinking Fund Payment Q. Would you say that the money | that is paid out of net earnings to- ward reducing the debt of the com- I pany on its bonds Is a charge against its net earnings: or is it a payment out of net earnings toward | the reduction of indebtedness? A. l That is probably what 1t is. | c. You notice the other item there. | S27. 5.045.44 against net earnings of
 s2.72s,o57.s2, includes also sinking l funds on bonds of subsidiary com 1 panies. doesn't it? A. Yes. Q. How much of that was pay | ment for sinking fund? A. l can't l distinguish from recollection. | O. What? A. I can't tell you. Q. Then for all purposes of this in- l vestigation this exceedingly lean year showed profit. did 1t not. of | over ss2.0oo.00o on about $655.oo0.- ! 900 of business? A. I do not think | so A large part of this is for de- | preciation, and think certainly that l Is properly chargeable. o. Yes; there is no doubt depre- | citation is properly chargeable against net earnings. A. The larger part of | this $27.000, 900 is for depreciation. Q. You don't know how much of