New-York tribune., 1911-12-27
TELLS OF PACKER MERGER
Witness TeStifles How Ii Ar
ranged to Control Industry.
VAIN PLEA OF IMMUNITY
Defence Fights to Have Trans
actions Prior to 1905 Exclud-
ed from Governments Case.

/ ChicaCo, Dec 26-Details OF the plan fo'
/ S5oD.00O.OOO merger OF the Armour. swift
and Morris interests In 1902. by which the
government contends IL was sought To con-
! troll the meat industry Of the country we're
revealed to-day in the trial of the ten Chi
Icago hackers before United States District
| Judge George a. Carpenter.
The contract. which was dated May @'
1902. was read to the jury and offered in
evidence by counsel for the government.
The original agreement was produced III
court by Albert II. Needer. attorney for
Swift &, Co, who was called by the gov
ernment as its first witness.
Mr.. Veeder testified that the plans for the
merger were abandoned and that in March
1900, the National Packing Company was
organized to operate certain Independent
packing companies purchased with view
OF including them in the big company
Under the terms OF the agreement, the
three large packing corporations and their
| subsidiary companies, together with re-
Gently acquired Independent companies
were 20 be- merged into one concern. At
mour. Swift and Morris were to receive
bends and preferred stock OF the new COM
pany I'm payment for the value OF theT
tangible property. In addition TO TINS the
promoters were to receive $"5,CpD.Op worth
of the new company's stock for intangioie
property and large block OF common
stock for their good will, this amount TO be
fixed by the earnings Of tho different plants
during the first year Of the new merger.
The promoters planned to borrow SgoV".-
900 TO finance the corporation. The ap-
praised valuation OF Armour, Swift. MOTIFS
and their subsidiary companies was fixed
at SlSO.0J00OO Each Of the three promoters
deposited 81 .NO.OOO with a Chicago bank rs
evidence Of good faith. but they were com
PEELED TO drop the plan because Of the fall
ure of certain New York capitalists 10 fur
nish the funds needed.
Veeder was on the witness stand through
out the day and will continue his testimony
tomorrow.
Previous 10 the calling of Needer to the
stand the defence made an unSuccessIu' III
sttempt TO have excluded from the govern
ments case all transactions prior to l9oo
on the ground that the immunity pea
which freed the packers when they were
indicted seven years ago should apply 10
that period.
Counsel for the packers put their motion
in writing. but Judge Carpenter, while re-
serving his decision TO give the government
time to reply indicated that he would deny
the motion.
Veeder at the beginning Of his direct eN-
animation. admitted that the packers hdd
some sort of an organization which met
every Tuesday afternoon I'm the Counsel
man Building. Chicago, on the same floor
with his law office. and that his son, Henry
Veeder, acted as secretary in 1860 1901 and
1902
He did not know the name OF the associa-
ton. as IT was not on the door OF the office,
and he did not know what business was
transacted at the meetings. He said he
never attended any of the meetings. The
witness said books and records of the meet
ings were kept. but lie 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 the suppress
sion Of competition.
Veeder was closely questioned regarding
the Kenwood Company and the /ttna
Trading Company, but he professed ieno-
rance Of their business, lie adnnucd me
Kenwood Company was orgahizei IN nlS
office. but said he was not present At the
time
The witness said he had heard that at
the pool meetings the different companies
and the territories allotted 20 them were
designated bv letters. ~ said territory a
was north of the Ohio River and east Of
he Missouri River. lie said Armour was
known as A among the companies. lie dld
not know the letters used TO designate the
other members Of the alleged pool.
Needer said the association Of packers
was dissolved in 1903 and his son. who had
acted as secretary. was taken INTO his law
Office as a Dartnor. The witness said ne
| FIRST became attorney for GustaVuS +. swift
| in 1885 and that on different occasions hc
had served as director for Swift & co. and
| several OF its subsidiary companies.