The Washington herald., 1911-07-25
STEEL COMPANIES
WERE IN A TRUST
Agreement Produced Before
House Committee.
POOL EXISTED TWO YEARS
The Amount of Production and Shin
ment Were Carefully Allotted and
Heavy Fines Were Imposed When
Agreement Was Violated by Any
Corporation-Admitt as Evidence.

A trust agreement" bearing the date
of November 9. 1900. to which eleven steel
and iron companies were parties, was
placed in evidence YESTERDAY before the
House committee that is inquirfng into
the operations OF the United States Steel
Corporation. This agreement, which Rep
resentative Stanley, of Kentucky, chair
man of the committee, declares to have
been in operation for a period of two
years, or until 1902, a year after the Steel
Corporation was formed, is regarded by
Mr.. Stanley as the big find" Of the
pending investigation.
Terms of the Agreement.
According to the copy Of the agreement
submitted by Chairman Stanley yester-
day, the parties to the agreement were
the Carnegie Steel Company and ten
other corporations. including the Ameri-
can Steel and Wire Company. 1t allotted
the amount OF production and shipments
to each party in the pool the Carnegie
company getting IS per cent and the
other companies their proportion. It COM
PEELED each party to make written re-
ports, and violations OF the agreement
were punishable by heavy fines. 1t was
further provided that all sales should be
"at pool prices" There was a guarantee
fund Of $4,000. to which all contributed
and out of which the fines were taken
Admitted n Evidence.
The testimony yesterday showed that
F. B. Kaufman, of Coatssville. Pa,
printed the agreement for the firm of
Lubens & Co.. and told Eugene C.
Bonniwen, of Wayne. Pa, of the job.
D W Iah n 10
corporation, obejected to the Incorporation
of the agreement into the record, on the
ground that 1t was unproven. He pointed
out that the agreement was entered into
a year in advance of the organization of
the steel corporation. The committee
members showed lively interest in the
agreement and overruled his objection.
The agreement was then read
At the conclusion of the reading, Rep
resentative Young. Of Michigan. a Re
publican. asked whether any person or
persons had been subpoenaed to give evi-
dence relative to the original OF the
agreement. Chairman Stanley replied in
the affirmative. He said that officers OF
the association had been summoned and
would appear IN due season. Mr.. Kauff-
mann was asked by Representative Gard
ner II he knew the agreement was crtrnt-
nal The witness replied IN the affirna-
tive. Asked why he had not brought II
to the attention of the prosecuting au-
thorities, Mr.. Kaufman said, What
good would it have done?''
Confidential Schedule of Prices
r. c. Richmond. OF New York. man
ager of the Waterbury Company, was
the next witness. Handing Mr.. Rich
rnond a pamphlet. Chairman Stanley
asked. DO you recognize that docu-
ment?'
It do" answered the witness. N Is
my private desk record"
DO you know where got that docu-
ment?' asked Mr.. Stanley.
IT do not" replied the witness.
TT came to me through the mails,
returned Mr.. Stanley. This is a conf
Dental schedule of prices" remarked
Chairman Stanley, with grin.
Heavy Fines Were Imposed.
]. B. Van Ormer, Of Coatesville. Pa,
secretary of the firm Of Lurkens & Co.
denied that he had told Kaufman that
II the trust agreement became known Il
would land him In jail. He said that the
copies Of the agreement were burned, but
that the penalties It inflicted had been
imposed IN many instances.
Mr. Van Ormer's admissions that the
Lurkens for some years had operated
under conditions that practically amount
ed to full compliance with the agree
ment sprung by Chairman Stanley stirred
up a hornets nest. The COMMITTEES went
after the witness hammer and tongs-
Every member OF the committee Ques-
toned him about the burning OF the
copies of the agreement which were In
the possession of the Lurkenses. that firm
having initiated the proceedings that re-
suited in the contract being drawn up.
Mr.. Van Ormer said there were good
reasons for burning the copies, but the
committee found it impossible to induce
him to yield any details. He replied,
"Oh, we did not think they were good
things to have around" or Don't ask
me that question again" The witness
said he knew nothing about Agreement
B." relating to prices. which was re-
ferred to in the agreement under dis
cussion-
do you think that agreement also
found its way into one OF your mill
furnaces?' Representative Littleton
asked. The witness grinned
ARed Lochfnvar In Dead.