The reader will remember that, in an earlier chapter, it was pointed out that the over-capitalization of the Corporation did not admit of doubt, an assertion proven by its practical admission by the management of the Corporation who put $500,000,000 of earnings into new construction for no other apparent reason than to equalize capitalization and property values. Yet Mr. Smith’s figures appear somewhat too drastic. Some of the reasons for this belief have been stated before, but it is pertinent to point out that, in the 1910 valuation, Mr. Smith indicates that the main point of divergence is that of ore reserve values, and on this point it would be safe to say that the mass of opinion in the steel trade, that is the mass of competent observers, would support the Corporation’s figures. That Mr. Smith’s criticism of the Hill lease was well taken seems to be proven by the decision of the directors to abandon the lease, although another reason for this action was to be found in the gradual decline in the metallic content of the ore as operations proceeded. Yet the question as to whether the undertaking of the lease was intended, as Mr. Smith thinks, to keep out competitors, or merely to secure a safe ore reserve for the Corporation, must always remain a matter of opinion. As the Corporation’s entire history fails to indicate a desire to crush or to keep out competitors, it appears only fair to give it the benefit of the doubt in this instance. On one point, however, the lease is open to criticism; it seems to have been an error of business judgment. But the work of the Commissioner of Corporations was being done quietly, and in the meanwhile the public were being kept keenly interested in the trust question and politicians were waging active war against the trusts. The evidence brought out in the Standard Oil and Tobacco suits served to inflame public indignation against big business generally and “Hit the trusts!” became almost a shibboleth for political advancement. It was no wonder, then, that the “Steel Trust” should be criticized and it should be questioned why no action had been taken against it, the obvious answer that it had not violated the law being one which would hardly have satisfied the masses and certainly one that politicians were not going to advance under the circumstances. Public sentiment on the trust question, moreover, was being kept at fever heat by a certain class of publication, and it was small wonder that so rich an opportunity was seized upon by politicians. On May 4, 1911, a resolution, proposed by Representative Augustus O. Stanley, of Kentucky, calling for an investigation of the United States Steel Corporation, was introduced into the House and passed, and a committee of congressmen headed by Mr. Stanley was appointed to undertake the work. The other members of the committee, which became known as the Stanley Committee, were: