Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-03-12
THEPACKERS' HEARING
INTRODUCTION OF REBUTTAL
EVIDENCE BY DEFENDANTS.

CHICAGO. March 12.-The packers today
commenced the Introduction of rebuttal evt-
dence Their first witness was John Al.
Chaplin. chief accountant for Swift 4 Co.
who declared that Mr.. Durand. the special
agent of the government, did not say TO
Chaplin. Mr.. Durand declared on the
stand, that Durand was not authorized to
discuss the powers Of the bureau OF cor
poratfens relative to compelling the pack
ers to furnish information.
Chaplin also contradicted the sta tement
OF Mr.. Durand to the effect that Duraad
had told the packers that the pack
ers would have less right to privacy II II
was found that the packers were in a
combination.
F. S. Hayward office manager for Swift
& Co. made statements similar to those
made by Chaplin.
General Counsel A. H. Veeder of Swift
& Co. of the men indicted by the fed
eral grand jury. took the stand to contro-
vert certain statements made by Mr.. Du-
rand. Mr.. Feeder declared that he did not
refuse to inform Mr.. Durand the amount
of stock held by Swift & Co. in stock yard
companies.
Declined to Take Oath.
did you say to him that you would not
make oath to a statement
Il DID not 1 declined to take oath to
some hearsay evidence. but that was all"
Did you say that you would not sign or
swear to any statement
II did not
The witness further declared that he did
not advise any Of hts clients not to swear to
any statements
Mr.. Veeder declared that he told Mr..
Durand the amount of stock in two Of the
swift car lines. Witness declined, however,
TO furnish information on the mileage, be-
cause of dispute then existing concerning
Jurisdiction over the private car lines. The
TACT that witness would advise his clients
to decline to furnish Information was told
by witness to Durand On cross-examina-
ton District Attorney Morrison asked
whether witness was not a trustee In the
Aetna Trading Company. This Is one OF
the concerns which 1t is alleged by the
government was utilized by the packers to
control the output of by-products.
Attorneys for the packers objected to
the question. but the court ruled that the
witness might answer, and he replied:
I am informed that 1 was. When the
company was organized the stock was
put In my name as trustee, but l never
saw the stock"
You are attorney for the National
Packing Company, are you not?"
Well. don't you know that company IS
owned in part by the Armours?'
Armours' Attorney Objected.
Attorney Miller, VINO represents the Ar
mour interests, made strong objection
to the question, but was overruled.
4 do was the answer.
Tn part by the Swifts?"
Il do"
In part by the Morrises?"
Il do"
Did not you pay dividends on the stock
of the Aetna Trading Company"
The witness replied that he understood
that the dividends were paid through his
office, but he had no personal knowledge
OF it.
We'll who did pay them?'
Judge Humphrey ruled the question out.
Are you trustee for any other COM
panies?"
The witness said that he was so IN
formed.
Didn't the board of directors of these
companies meet IN your Officer
The attorneys for the packers objected
to the question, and District Attorney
harrison insisted that he had q right to
ask the question because 1t tested the
credibility of the witness He said that
he was only Informed of these matters"
said the district attorney, and 1 want to
show that these meetings were held I'M
der his nose"
mo meetings were held In my office"
sa i'd Mr.. Veeder.
Was not your son secretary of one of
these companies?
The witness was not allowed to answer.