Document 3BgdBd3R6eMxxGnvEg1342ND

Answer of Anaconda. directed solely to that question, in accordance -with Buie XX,Ul. 23 In Witness Whereof, the Federal Trade Commis sion has caused this, its complaint, to he signed by its Secretary, and its official seal to he hereto affixed, at Wash ington, D. C., this 25th day of November, A. D. 1944. By the Commission, Otis B. Johnson, Secretary. 137 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Be f o r e f h b Fe d e r al Tr a d Co mmis s io n . 8 8 {Caption--5253) 8 8 ANSWER OF ANACONDA COPPER MINING COMPANY. (Stamp: Federal Trade Commission. Received Feb. 14, 1945. Secretary.) The respondent Anaconda Copper Mining Company, by its attorneys, reserving all rights to object to lack of juris diction herein, answering the complaint herein: Paragraph One: States that it is without knowledge of the reason for the belief of the Federal Trade Commission as alleged in Paragraph One of Count I of the Complaint that the parties named in the caption hereof have violated the provisions of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commis sion Act, or that a proceeding thereunder would be in the interests of the public, and it hereby denies that it has in any way violated Section 5 or any other provision of the Federal Trade Commission Act or that this proceeding is in the public interest. 138 Paragraph Two: States, with respect to Paragraph Two of Count I of the Complaint, that it is without knowledge or information as to any facts forming the basis for the charge that the respondent National Lead Company has monopolized or attempted to monopolize the interstate sale of white lead and that it has acted unlaw fully to secure a monopolistic control over the prices of white lead in the United States. r. Answer of Anaconda Respondent denies the truth of the combined, conspired and cooperated w spondents to hinder, lessen and elimin tion in the sale of white lead in the U Respondent denies the truth of the cha or has used unfair, oppressive, discrim tive acts, methods and practices in conn of white lead in the United States. Paragraph. Three: With respect to Paragraph Three of Count I of the Com admits that it is a Montana corporatio 25 Broadway, New York, N, Y., and tha national Smelting & Refining Compan subsidiary, is a Montana corporation w Broadway, New York, N. Y. Respondent states that it is withou formation as to the truth of the al 139 in Paragraph Three of Count I of respect to respondents other than tional Smelting & Refining Company. Paragraph Four: With respect to Pa Count I of the Complaint, respondent lead is a white, exceedingly fine pow lead carbonate. It is a chemical compou processes including corrosion of metal mits that white lead principally conta and lead hydroxide, but avers that tbe may vary slightly in the products of di ers. White lead is one of several lead p is commonly referred to in its dry or paint manufacturers as white lead or d is commonly referred to by painters in lead-in-oil. It is in the form of a paste linseed oil, Either in the foxm of pow usable by paint manufacturers in pro paint, although lead paste is not comm manufacturers. Paint manufacturers lead paint of the desired consistency by lead with varying amounts of linseed other thiimers and driers. White lead p consistency may be made by the pain lead paste varying amounts of linseed other tbinners apd driers. Except as 140 by the foregoing admissions, resp }Ansmer of Anaconda. and every allegation contained in Paragraph Four A of Count I of the Complaint, Respondent admits the allegations contained in Para graph Four B of Count I of the Complaint. Respondent states that it is without knowledge or infor mation as to the truth of the averments contained in Para graph Four C of Count I of the Complaint. Paragraph Five: With respect to the allegations of Paragraph Five of Count I of the Complaint, respondent admits: That certain of respondents herein other than itself are engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of white lead in interstate commerce; that respondents National Lead Company and Eagle Pieher Lead Company are en gaged in the manufacture of white lead paint; that white lead is a,n important item of the commerce of respondent International Smelting & Refining Company between and amon^ several States; that white lead is the principal item used in the manufacture of white lead paint; that white lead paint or paint produced from white lead-in-oil is held in high esteem by painters and users for application to exteriors of buildings and other structures. Respondent is without knowledge as to whether Sherwin-Williams and G-lidden manufacture white lead paint. 141 It is without knowledge as to the period covered by the Complaint during which respondent Eagle Picber Lead Company directly sold and distributed white lead in commerce, or as to whether or when it sold such white lead in commerce indirectly through any subsidiary. . It denies that in any period covered by the Complaint, it either sold or distributed white lead, lead-in-oil, or white lead paint, or that Anaconda Lead Products Company was an operating division. It admits that Anaconda Lead Products Company was a partly owned subsidiary and until in or about 1936 was en gaged in the manufacture and sale of white lead. It admits that respondent International Smelting & Re fining Company has sold and distributed white lead, and that its subsidiary Anaconda Sales Company, Pigments Division, has sold white lead obtained from respondent In ternational Smelting & Refining Company. The total combined production of the producing respon dents constitutes a very substantial proportion of all white lead produced and sold in the United States. Answer of Ana The production and sale of whi oil by respondent International S pany constitutes a small proport and sold in the United State 142 knowledge or information as of the total produced and sold than International Smelting & R Other than as above referred t denial of knowledge and inform the allegations contained in Pa of the Complaint. Paragraph Six: Denies each tained in Paragraph Sis of Coun Paragraph Seven: Responden knowledge or information suffici the truth of the averments conta Seven A; Seven A(l), (1), (2), and (9) of Count I of the Comp Respondent denies each and e in Paragraph Seven B; Seven and (6) of Count I of the Compl (8) in so far as it is alleged that were done with the cooperation spondent; otherwise respondent information sufficient to form a b averments in said Paragraph Se Paragraph Eight: Denies each tained in Paragraph Eight 143 and F of Count I of the C respondent International S pany quotes delivered prices fo delivered prices vary as betw areas, sometimes referred to as prices are the same within cert some variations in freight rat Smelting & Refining Company' location in certain areas; that t prices quoted by International S pany correspond substantially to referred to in Paragraph Eight plaint but are not identical there That the delivered prices qu national Smelting & Refining C terms of differentials above a p ,Nt-*V Answer of Anaconda, that the delivered prices quoted by respondent Interna tional Smelting & Refining Company are not the same as those quoted by its competitors, including the other re spondents named in this proceeding, in so far as is known to it; that prices quoted by respondent International Smelt ing. & Refining Company and the pricing methods adopted by it have been quoted and adopted in good faith in order to meet the competition of other sellers of white lead who were at the same time offering and selling in the areas in which it does business competitive white lead products of similar quantities and grades; that respondent is in144 formed and... believes that dealers purchasing respon dent International Smelting & Refining Company's lead-in-oil frequently sell the same at the same price to their customers as they sell the lead-in-oil of other re spondents; that certain customers located at or near re spondent International Smelting. & Refining Company's factory are charged the same price as certain customers located at a greater distance. Paragraph Nine: Respondent denies each and every al legation contained in Paragraph Nine of Count I of the Complaint. Paragraph Ten; Respondent denies each and every al legation contained in Paragraph Ten of Count I of the Complaint. Paragraph Eleven; Respondent denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph Eleven of Count I of the Complaint. Paragraph Twelve: Respondent states that it is with out knowledge or information as to the reason for the be lief of the Federal Trade Commission that the respondents have violated the provisions of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, as alleged in Para graph One of Count II of the Complaint, and hereby 145 denies that it has violated the provisions of the Clay ton Act, as amended by the Eobinson-Patman Act or that this proceeding is in the public interest. Paragraph Thirteen: With respect to the allegations of Paragraph Two of Count II of the Complaint, respondent denies that during any period covered by the Complaint, it has either sold or distributed white lead, white lead-in oil, or white lead paint, and therefore denies it has ever unlawfully discriminated in any way as between customers in the sale of white lead, or lead-in-oil, or white lead paint. Answer of Anacon Paragraph Fourteen: With res Three to Five,- inclusive, of Count II spondent repeats and incorporates Paragraphs Three to Five of Count fully as if set forth verbatim herein tion of the term "commerce", it sta knowledge or information sufficient the truth of the averments with res in said Paragraphs Three to Five, of the Complaint. Paragraph Fifteen: Denies each contained in Paragraph Six of 146 plaint, in so far as said allegatio Paragraph,Sixteen: Denies tion contained in Paragraph Seven o plaint hut states that Internationa Company quotes delivered prices of in different geographical areas som zones. Said variations in deliver substantially to those shown on th said paragraph although they are n It avers that International Smelting prices and methods of pricing have faith in order to meet the competit white lead who are at the same tim selling competitive white lead prod ties and grades. Paragraph Seventeen: With res contained in Paragraph Eight of plaint, respondent states that deliv tain areas quoted by respondent In Refining Company are the same th withstanding that there may be va freight to deliver to one customer i as against another customer in ano and that the price quoted a cust 147 International Smelting & Re may be the same as the price cated at a distant point in said area International Smelting & Refining competition; otherwise it denies th in said Paragraph Eight. Paragraph Eighteen: Denies e tion contained in Paragraph Nine o plaint in so far as said allegations r 32 Answer of Anaconda. Paragraph Nineteen: With respect to the allegations contained m Paragraph Ten of Connt II of the Complaint, respondent states that when sales are made by .Interna tional Smelting & Refining Company to customers in differ ent areas, located at or near the boundary between said areas, delivered prices to purchasers in one area near said boundary may be higher than delivered prices to purchasers in the other area contiguous to said boundary, otherwise denies the allegations contained in said Paragraph Ten in so far as the same relate to it. Paragraph Twenty: Denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph Eleven of Count II of the Com plaint but states that International Smelting & Refining Company classifies certain non-competitive customers such as railroads, dealers and industrial users, and that it 148 makes due allowance for differences in the cost of sale and delivery resulting from different quantities in which white lead is purchased by certain purchasers in certain areas. Paragraph Twenty-One: Denies each and every allega tion contained in Paragraphs Twelve, Thirteen and Four teen of Count II of the Complaint. Wherefore respondent respectfully prays that the Com plaint herein be dismissed. Chadbourne, Wallace, Parke & Whiteside, By Horace G. Hitchcock, Office and Post Office Address: No. 25 Broadway, Borough of Manhattan, New York 4, N. Y. Attorneys for Respondent, Anaconda Copper Mining Company. Answer of Inte 149 UNITED STATES Be f o r e s h b Fe d e r a l . T * * (Caption-- ANSWER OF INTERNATIO REFINING C , (Received Feb. The respondent Internation Company, by its attorneys, rese lack of jurisdiction herein, answ Paragraph One: States that the reason for the belief of the as alleged in Paragraph One o that the parties named in the c the provisions of Section 5 of t sion Act, or that a proceeding interests of the public, and it in any way violated Sectio 150 of the Federal Trade Co proceeding is in the public Paragraph Two: States, with of Count I of the Complaint, th or information as to any facts charge that the respondent Na monopolized or attempted to mo of white lead and that it has a monopolistic control over the p United States. Respondent denies the truth o bined, conspired and cooperated to hinder, lessen and eliminate p of white lead in the United Stat Respondent denies the truth o or has used unfair, oppressive, tive acts, methods and practices of white lead in the United Sta Paragraph Three: With re Paragraph Three of Count I o admits that Anaconda Copper tana corporation with an 151 York, N, Y., and that it is a