Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-07-26

independent competing plants: the Inter
national Harvester Company concealed its
ownership. Why? Was IT not because
they were conscious that its disclosure
would ggive added testimony OF their
trust character and trust methods:
Again. the huffman Miller x Co.
and the Minneapolis company We're both
abandoned Immediately after purchase
and the plants dismantlcd. The purchase
of these plants could have been for no
other purpose than to destroy coiipe'i-
ton. One million four hundred thousand
dollars was expended to acquire plants
which it did not intend to use but simply
to destroy.
Bear in mind that in all of these in
stances all patent rights were acquired
and are still retained by the International
Harvester Company.
Explains Coal Deposits.
John W. Bolleau was the first witness
produced at today's session of the COM
mittee. He is the author of a work on
the coal fields OF southwestern Pennsyi-
vana. With the aid OF a large map he
gave the committee u lecture on the coal
deposits of that region The committee
gathered informally around the lecturer
and listened interestedly as he talked.
The United States Steel Corporation, he
said owns about ~ per cent. OF the
coking coal in the old region in Penn
sylvania, acquired through Prick.
The steel corporation owns about 5i,Uoo
acres of Connellsville coal; Jones q
Loughlin own about 10000 acres: the
I.ackawanna company owns about l4.oo
acres: the Pittsburg and Buffalo COM
pany about $40 acres, while other com
panies own varying acreaSes, all in the
new region.
About $500 acres are being exhausted
each year, and if the rate of the past
ten wears shall continue for the next
twenty years about 1T2O0 acres will be
exhausted.
The trend of his testimony was to show
that The United States Steel Corporation
does not control a monopoly OF coking
coal lands in southwestern Pennsylvania.
Mr.. Smith on the Stand.
Commissioner Smith followed Senator
Kenyon on the stand and was closely
questioned by Chairman Stanley.
Were you not called upon by the Presi-
dent in 1909 to investigate the Harvester
Company" asked the chairman.
Again Counsel Lindabury objected, but
was over1ued. and Mr.. Smith replied that
a resolution OF Congress had called for an
Counsel Lindabury objected most Wig
orously to the connection Of the harvester
trust with the steel corporation, and
claimed that 1t was all irrelevant, but
Chairman Stanley overruled him.
did not Senator Hansbrough appeal to
you to make report?
Il don't recollect any such appeal,
"How long has the Harvester inquiry
been going on in your Department.
About three years.
Didn't you report to the President in
1909 that You had completed the in
quiry?"
Not that we completed the report. We
are still doing field work.
rs not the financial committee Of the
Harvester Company the controlling power
in that corporation?"
Mr.. Smith pleaded immunity of his
official position as bar to his answer
ing
Brings in Gary's Name.
Chairman Stanley tried to establish that
Judge Gary is a member Of the finance
committee Of the steel trust and the har-
vester trust, but the commission was not
informed upon that point.
Thereupon Chairman Stanley put in ev-
idence the directory of directors to show
the membership Of men upon the direc-
torates of both corporations; there were
five OF such dual positions.
Chairman Stanley demanded that Com
missioner Smith request President Taft
to authorize him to supply all data in his
possession showing relations between the
United States Steel Corporation and the
Harvester Company, and all
agreements and memoranda.
He also requested data showing the ar
by which the harvester COM
pany was to cooperate with the steel
company: their utilization with the Nor
gan banks for loans at lower rates OF
interest, etc.
Counsel I4indabury said that all those
matters have been thrown open to the
commissioner by the United States Steel
in exposing It's minutes, and
are readyily obtainable.
Tells Of Association.
C. 3. Shoemaker. president of the Glas-
cow Iron Company Of Pottsville. Pa.
was then sworn, to be asked about the
now famous steel plate association. He
was in the association until 1t was dis
solved in 1905. His company was one OF
the smaller concerns, and he told OF the
method Of procedure as related by pre-
viouS witnesses.
He said, in response to sharp question.
ing by Mr.. Beall, that stable prices are
now maintained by the manufacturers
meeting and talking over conditions He
said that the existence Of the old agree
and that the result Is now obtained by
refraining from violent
cuts and fluctuations.
Isn't there just as much an agreement
now as them"
Not at all At that time We were
prevented from cutting rates by the
agreement Now we do not cut because
we do not find it advisable"