The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1911-12-27
HALF BILLION
MERGER Scheme
is UNF OLDED
Packers Plan of 1902 Read TO
Jury in Governments
Evidence
S9O,OO0,OO0 Needed to Complete
Deal Was Refused and 1t
Fell Through
Defense Revives Immunity Plea
in Attempt to Escape
Prosecution

CHICAGO. Dec. 2s.-Details of the
plan for $500, 100000 merger of
the Armour, Swift and Morris
interests in 1902. by which the
government contends it was sought to
control the meat industry of the coun-
try. were revealed today in the trial
of 10 Chicago packers before United
States District Judge George A. Car
penter.
The contract, which was dated May
81. 1902, was read to the jury and Of
fered in evidence by counsel for the
government
The. original agreement was produced
in court by Albert H. Veeder. attorney
for Swift & Co, who was called by
the government as it's first witness.
Giant Merger Abandoned
Attorney veeder testified that the
plans for the giant merger were aban-
doned and that in March. 1903, the
National Packing company was organ
lied to operate certain independent
packing companies purchased with a
view of including them in the big COM
pany.
Under the terms OF the agreement
the three large packing corporations
and their subsidiary companies, togeth-
ser with recently acquired Independent
companies. were to be merged into one
giant concern, Armour. Swift and Nor
ris TO receive bonds and preferred
stock or the new company for the wall
ue of their tangible property.
In addition to this, the promoters
were to receive $25,00o,ooo worth of
the new company's stock for intangi-
bic property and a large block of COM
mon stock for their good viii, this
amount to be fixed by the earnings of
the different plants during the first
year of the new merger.
TO Borrow $9O,OO0,O00
The promoters planned to borrow
$9o.ooo.0Oo to finance the giant corpora
ton. The appraised valuation of Ar
mour Swift and their subsidiary COM
panies was given at s1s0.ooo, ,00o.
Each of these promoters deposited
100000 with Chicago bank as an
evidence of good faith. but they were
compelled to drop the plan because of
the failure Of certain New York cap
italists to furnish the funds needed.
Veeder was on the witness stand
throughout the day and will continue
his testimony tomorrow.
Previous to the calling OF veeder to
the stand. the defense made an unsuc-
9 cessful attempt 70 have excluded from
the governments case all transactions
prior to 1905 on the ground that the
immunity plea which freed the pack
ers when they were indicted seven
years ago should apply to that period
Immunity Bath Doubtful
Counsel for the packers put their
motion IN writing. but Judge Carpenter.
while reservfng his decision to give
the government time to reply. indicated
that he may deny the motion.
yeeder admitted the packers had an
organization which met every Tuesday
afternoon in a room near his law
office and that his son, Henry yeeder.
acted as secretary in 1900, 1901 and
1902.
He did not know the name of the
association and did not know what
business was transacted at the meet
ings He said he never attended the
meetings.
The witness said books and records
of the meetings were kept, but he did
not know where they were now
The government contends that 1t was
at these meetings that the price of
meat was fixed and plans discussed for
tie suppression OF competition.
Veeder was questioned regarding the
Kenwood company and the Aetna Trad
ing company, but professed ignorance
OF their business.
He admitted the Kenwood company
was organized in his office, but said he
was not present at the time.
Letters Used for Names
The witness said he had heard thar
at the pool meeting the different COM
panies and the territories allotted to
tA1SHh "SAo uc1ASHdeCu ~ 1VtlcEs. lie
said territory "A was north of the
Ohio river and east OF the Missouri
river. He said Armour was known as
"A" among the companies. He did
not know the letters used to designate
the other members OF the alleged pool.
He said the association OF packers
was dissolved in 1903 and his son. who
had acted as secretary. was taken into
his law Office as partner. The witness
said he first became attorney for Gus
tavus f. Swift in 1885 and that on diff
ferent occasions had served as director
OF Swift G. Co. and several OF its sub
sidiary companies.