New-York tribune., 1912-01-30
answers TO STEEL SUIT
aissabe Land Co. and Other In
serests Make General DeniaIs.
NO CONSPIRACY, THEY SAY
Deelare They Made Lease oi
Property for Benefit of
- Stockholders.

trenton \. j.. Jan. % (SpeciaD. The FIRST
,suers 10 the governments suit for the
,a.,o,,tion of the United States Steel Cor
S1ration as a monopoly in violation Of the
-,a,r,an law were filed here to-day IN the
,.anod states District Court by the Hill
,.,o,ests Three different answers were
e,,d one by the West Mssabc Land Com
nsrv Limited, and seventeen other land
ar1 iron companies; one by James n. Hill
Tvel,er J. Hill, Louis w. Hill and Edward
,r Nichols. as trustees, and the third by
II Gruber, also a trustee for the Min
,osota group of land and iron mining COM
panies. ,
All answers contained a general denial
~ the defendants of the governments al
location that they entered into con-
sn,racv TO restrain trade in steel and iron
ind 10 monopolize part of this trade.
The answers differ as to the lease of ore
land by the West Missabe Land Company
aud the other companies TO the Great
western Mining Company. which, the gov
eminent charged, was an act Of conspiracy
on the part of this group Of defendants.
The West Missabe Land Company and
tho other corporate defendants admitted
the lease, but said in their answers that
q was made i'm good faith for the benefit
Of the stockholders and without any pur-
rbse 10 restrain trade or to create a
monopoly. ]. II. Gruber admitted that he
was named a trustee, but denied that he
j6lned i'm the lease.
THE four other individual defendants ad-
mitted that on January 2. 1897, the West
Missabe Land Company, with the other
seventeen defendant companies entered
into lease with the Great Western Min
ing Company of Minnesota, and that the
performance of the stipulations Of the leasa
WAS guaranteed by the United States Steel
Corporation They also admitted that the
lessor agreed to mine the ore upon certain
terms and ship il over the Great Northern
Railway. paying therefor a royalty, and
that provision was made to surrender the
lease on 4January |, 1915, on giving notice
al leastr two years in advance.
1t was denied that the defendants became
parties to the lease with intent of prevent
Ing mining of ore and its sale to indepen-
dent concerns, which might have utilized II
for the building up of new and dangerous
competitors to the Steel Corporation. Tie
defendants denied any knowledge as to
whether the Steel Corporation had any such
purpose in view. They further denied that
the royalty agreed upon was unprecedent-
edly large or i'm excess of the true value Of
The considerations granted by the lease.
Admission was made. however, that the
execution of the lease strengthened the po-
sltion of the Steel Corporation. But what
ever the effect of the lease might be. the
aefendants averred the companies repre-
sented by them were not participants in
any guilty or Illegal purpose or intent II
any such purpose or intent existed.
The defendants denied that there had
ever existed a system of interlocking di-
rectorates, by which officers or directors oil
any of the defendant companies became Cf-
fcers or directors of the Steel Corporation
or any of it's subsidiary companies or
whereby any of the officers or directors or
the Steel Corporation or allied companies
became officers or directors Of the lessor
companies.
Denial was also made that the defendants
ever participated in any of the meetings
held under the auspices of the Steel Cor
voration. or in any agreement, combination
o- conspiracy of any nature whatever with
reference to changing or controlling prices
or output of commodities, or Of any prop
erty whatsoever.