The University last night denied charges that it had tried to force acceptance, in conjunction with M.I.T., of its own route for the proposed Inner Belt road-way.

"Harvard has never taken a stand on the Inner Belt," Charles P. Whitlock, Assistant to the President for Civic Affairs, stated last night.

State representative John J. Toomey (D-Cambridge), charged Tuesday that Harvard and M.I.T. had pressed their proposal for the Brookline-Elm St. route at a secret conference in 1959. He quoted Julius A. Stratton, President of M.I.T., as saying that he, Stratton, would use "all my influence" to block approval of the route along the railroad tracks which Toomey supported.

According to Whitlock, the conference that Toomey was referring to was a luncheon two years ago called at Toomey's request at which Stratton, President Pusey, and other members of the Cambridge Advisory Committee were present.

The meeting considered Cambridge civic problems in general, Whitlock said. He added that the CAC attitude toward the Inner Belt is that if the road is to be built the best route is the Brookline-Elm St. route. The Cambridge Planning Board also endorsed this route because it would help the industrial base of Cambridge.

The charges about Harvard's role in the Inner Belt controversy came at the first day of hearings on a bill to repeal the veto power over Federal highway construction given to Cambridge and other Massachusetts communities last year. Toomey vigorously opposed revocation of the veto power in his speech Tuesday.

Beore the bill's passage by the House, Assistant District Attorney Gerald A. Berlin conducted an investigation to determine any financial involvement that Toomey and his co-sponsor might have in the bill.

In his speech Tuesday Toomey cited the need to expose the great political influence which Harvard and M.I.T. wield. (It was rumored last year that the University's influence in Washington had been an important factor in getting Gov. Volpe to veto the stilts sale.)