The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-02-02
 |BLi PACKER . UNDER FIRE Swift Not Confused by Sharp Questions. WORK OF MIR. GARFIELD Meat Man Says All Information
 Was Furnished. Witness swears He Does Not Know Whether He Was stoclxhoider
 Iu the Kenwood By-Product
 Company Or Not.

Chicago. Feb 1.-The cross examina- 1 tion of Edward F Swift occupied al- l most the entire day In the packers trial. District Attorney Morrison de- l iivered his questions with the speed of a rapid fire gun but did not sue ceed at any time in embarrassing the | witness who considered his replies be- fore making them. The witness declared positively that Commissioner Garfield was given all the information he asked for, but sew eral times admitted that he could not tell whether certain specific informa- l tion had been given the government agents or not. MT. Swift testified that he did not know whether or not he was a stock holder in the Kenwood company. one of the concerns which the government declares was formed by the packers to enable them to control the output of by-products. hls attorney asserted that the Kenwood company was not in business at the time mentioned by District Attorney Morrison, and the district attorney declared with much energy that he would show during the trial that the -&enwood company was in operation at the time the in- dictment against the packers was re- turned. Other witnesses were Louis F. Swift, president of Swift and Com pany, and Jesse P. Lyman, of Boston. former president of the National Pack ing Company. The testimony of both was unimportanL MT. Lyman was still on the stand when court adjourned for the day.
 Mir. swift Resumes.
 Edward F. Swift, of Swift and Com pany, resumed the witness stand in the packers case today and was examined regarding some sma4I details by his attorneys before the cross s-examination by District Attorney Morrison was commenced.
 The first question by the district at- torney was:
 "why were you opposed to this in- vestigationP
 house we did not care to be obliged to- give nDs our processesa' S~sf5s 5-
 There were no processes given out were there?"
 ''Yes, they could learn how tallow and fat are converted into oleo.oils
 They simply made an investigation of your books, did they not?'
 'Srhey did that and more"
 What more did they do?'
 Looked at papers, too"
 What papers did they examiner
 T don't Know all the papers in my office"
 Then you don't know whether they examined the papers or nots'
 Well, Garfield came here to do that thing, and he had the power"
 Was it. not in your presence that refusal was made to furnish informa- tion regarding hogs and sheep?'
 q don't know of that
 Does Garfield's report show any thing about the slaughtering of nogs or sheep?"
 T don't know what the report shows"
 Did you not refuse to give informa- tion regarding hogs and sheep because 1t was not called for in the Martin resolution?
 Doesn't Think He Did.
 T don't think did"
 Did you not refuse to disclose the names of the members of your family holding stock in your company" ,'T am not sure of that"
 Did your company ever furnish any information concerning private cars owned by the National Packing Com panyT'
 of our cars"
 Did you refer him to your counsel on questions regarding the stock you owned in other companies?"
 T believe so."
 "At q meeting on April 2s. there was O general discussion, was there not, on the papers submitted by Durand?"
 Yes"
 "As a result of that meeting 1t was practically agreed. was 1t not, what you would give outY'
 NO, sir"
 MT. Swift seemed nervous under the rapid fire of questions.
 He clasped and unclasped his hands constantly and many times rubb al his face with h1s fingers. He spoke qliete Iy, however, and his answers were evl- dently well-considered before they were given.
 Attorney Morrison then presented one nS the Garfield acquisitions and asked MT. Swift if he received it after the meeting, and If 1t was not the sub stance of an agreement between MT Durand and Swift and Company. The witness said:
 q never made an agreement with Mir Durand"
 '"That does not answer my question"
 'T have answered the question" Do yon mean to say that your com panv made no agreement?'
 '"Yes, we yielded everything he want ed"
 'pid you furnish incarnation about the National Packing Company
 q am not an officer of the National Packing Company. That can take care ns itself"
 you are a stockholder in the Ns- tionaI. are you not?'
 Attorney Hynes. for MT. Swift, ob. iected. but the court ordered the wit ness to answer.
 Hls reply was;
 Yes. was
 you are not now and was then director. were you not-'
 same objection" said Mir. Hynes
 Same ruling." said the court.
 "Yes, I am"
 The witness was then asked if he had not refused to tell MT. Durand of his holding of stocks in other companies, md replied that he could not remer- her the limitation of Mir. Durand's re- quest
 "Were you not asked at this meet Ing about arbitrary values of fat and hldesT'
 T do not remember"
 Did you ever give him any informa- tion about your holdings in the NatioR- al Packing Company"
 sT would not say did or did not"
 eAny information about holdinER In