The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1912-01-29
Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade
Denied by Defendants
! in COURT AT TRENTON, N. J.
Government Action Against United
States Steel Corporation Is Defied in
the Brief Submitted to United
States District Court.

Trenton. N. J., Jan. 29.--Walter j.
Hill. Louis W. Hill, James N. Hill and
Edward T. Nicholas, who, as trustees
of mining interests, were named with
other defendants in the antitrust ac-
ton of the government against the Unit
ed States steel corporation and subsid-
iary concerns, filed their answer in the
United States district court here to-day.
They deny that they have engaged in
any confederacy in restraint of trade
contrary to law.
The defendants admit that on January
Q, 1907, the West Missabe Land com
pany, limited, and certain of the other
defendants entered into a certain in
denture with the Great Western Mining
company of Minnesota, which lease COW
cred certain pieces of land containing or
supposed to contain large tonnages OF
iron ore They aver that they became
parties to the lease solely as the agents
of the lessons for certain particular pur-
poses specified. They deny that the de-
fendant, j. III. Gruber. joined in the
lease as trustee or otherwise They ad-
NIT that the performance of the stipu-
1ations of the lease by the Great West
ern Mining company was guaranteed by
the United States steel corporation.
They admit that the lessee agreed to
mine the ore upon the terms of the
lease and ship it over the Great North
ern railway, paying therefore a royalty
and that it was provided that the lease
might be surrendered on January l.,
1918, on giving at least two years pre-
sious notice in writing
The defendants deny that they became
parties to the lease with the intent OF
preventing the ore from being mined and
sold to Independents or to prevent the
ore from being utilized to build up a
new and dangerous competitor to the
United States steel corporation in the
iron and steel business. They DENY
knowledge whether The United States
Steel corporation had ANY such purpose
in view. They deny that the practical
effect of the lease was to forestall com
petition or to increase to any undue or
improper extent the United States steel
corporations control of the ore resources
of the country or to destroy or forestal
competition in iron ore. They deny that
the royalty agreed to be paid was un-
precedentedly large or in any wise in
excess of the true value of the considera-
tions granted by the lease,
They admit that by the execution OF
the lease the position of the United
States steel corporation was strength
ened, but they deny that they became
parties to the lease with any intention
to strengthen the dominating or other
position of the United States steel cor
poratien or for any purpose other than
the desire to turn to account in legal
and proper manner the properties and
assets owned and controlled by the lessor
company. They deny any intent to shut
off competition by preventing the estab-
lishment of competitor to the United
States steel corporation or to secure to
that corporation an undue power over
the steel business by controlling the
sources of supply of ore by taking it
out of the market or otherwise. or to
restrain trade or commerce or to create
q monopolization within the meaning
of the antitrust act or otherwise.
The defendants aver that whatever
the effect of the lease may be. or be
considered to be, the defendant com
panies were innocent parties thereto,
were not participants in any guilty or
illegal purpose or intent If any such
purpose or intent ,Nxisted) which the
United States steel corporation or the
Great Western Mining company enter
tained or may have entertained
They deny that any system of inter
Bacing or interlocking of directorates ex-
lists or ever has existed, whereby any of
the defendant companies were parties
to the lease, are or have been officers
or of any other constituent. subsidiary
or controlled companies or whereby any
of the officers or directors of the steel
corporation or allied companies became
or are officers or directors of any of the
lessor companies.
They deny that any of the defend ants
have at any time participated at any
meetings under the auspices of the
United States steel corporation or other
wise, of representatives of any per-
centage or portion of the iron or steel
trade in the United States; and they
likewise deny that in any direct or indi-
rect way they have participated in any
such meetings or in any exchange of
information, common understanding or
expressions of opinion or concerted ac- !
zion or declaration of intention or policy |
laid out, or consensus of opinion or
agreement or combination or conspiracy
of any nature whatsoever either with |
reference to changing or controlling |
prices of commodities or of any prop |
erty whatsoever as to output or as to |
any other matter or thing whatsoever.
They deny that by means of any pools
OR agreements they have at any time
combined or conspired in restraint of
trade or commerce among the several |
states or with foreign nations within the |
meaning of section of the antitrust |
hct or TO monopolize any part of the |
trade or commerce among the several /
states or with foreign nations within
the meaning of section 2 of the anti-
trust act.
~ lUE EnEr-1rryr non