Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1911-12-30
COLLAPSE Of
BEEF fMERG.ER
I0[O0NSTAN|D|' nj
Gloomy Advice Given by ia
cob H. Schif Resulted in
Abandonment Of Project; /;
To Be Cross Examined.

~SS~eS s-' l-T u
To Be Cross Examined.
Chicago, Dec. 2S.-On cross examina.
the ten Chicago meat packers today
described the collaps OF the Billion
dollar" merger OF the packing interests
planned by Armour, Swift, Morris and
! Cudahy In 1902. He said the formation
Of the giant Incorporation was abandoned
at the close of q conference held In
I New York shortly before Christmas,
1902 LetWeen the promoters and Jacob
n H. Schiff, manager for Kuhn, Loeb &
CO., at which plans for financing the
project were discussed.
A loan of 392,OOO,0O0 was discussed
and later this was reduced to $60, ,00O,-
f 900 and the capitilzation reduced from
close to the billion dollar mark to
S525, ,0OO, 900. Mr.. Veeder said Mr.
Schfh told the packers that conditions
4 were not pdopitious for launching a
large merger and advised against It..
v The witness said Mr.. Schiff's talk
was gloomy and had such q depressing
effect on the packers that the whole
plan was dropped after the adjourn
ment Of the conference.
The direct examination Of Mr..
4 'Veedcr was concluded after several
hours had been taken up by counsel
4 for. both sides arguing on the admissa-
bility OF testimony touching the opera
ton OF certain distributing corpora
tions owned by the packers, to which
thesdefensA objected.
Judge Carpenter reserved his deci-
sion.
The arguments Of counsel on the
motion to exclude all testimony in re-
gard to the business OF the Kenwood
Co, and the Aetna Trading Co., We're
interesting.
The government contends that the
information sought has q direct. bearing
on the allegation made in the indict-
aunont. that the packers comb btnatioM
8,snnide III EdsQ1xte allowance Tor by
snfoducts III figuring the test cost OF all
4 01itnals slaughtered and material IN
the production Of its case
The defense contends that the evil
denc. is not admissible for the reason
that the Indictment does not charge
!; the defendants with combining to con-
sfnol the price Of anything but fresh
meat and the purchase price OF cattle.
aeamti &d5o Pieahtso? ueHrySdo dWt
Claims 81 the Defense.
Attorneys John Barton Payne and
John s. Miller, representing defend
/ ants. urged that the evidence Of the
operations Of the subsidiary COM
nantes. used to market certain by.
products. should be excluded for the
reason that 1t tended to prove q
crime not charged In the Indictment.
They declared the prices charged by
the distributing company had no con.
nection with the uniform system OF
!, figuring the test cost OF the animals
slaughtered. 5s
n "As / understand 1t the government
charges that these selling companies
are part OF the general scheme of
I the combination" !" said Judge Carpen-
ter. "The proof Of the combination Of
another crime may be incidental to
showing that all these subsidiary
ceiling concerns are directly connect
ed with the issue in this case.
.seUnder that theory the government,
would be permitted to show the con-
nAction between these selling COM
panies and the parent organization.
All the request Of the court, counsel
for the government outlined that they
expected to prove by the testimony
regarding the operations Of the Ken
wood and the Aetna trading com.
panies, .fs
Holds Evidence Necessary.
1--WE shall offer no proof for the
sole purpose OF disgracing or casting
.discredit on these defendants under
some technical theory that Is mater
ial.s said Special Counsel Butler. I'VE
shall prove that there was plot
among these defendants to commit
the crime charged In the indictment.
I'VE shall show that the Kenwood
company was one of the links in the
chain used to violate the law.
Elm proving these big commercial
conspiracies We are obliged to piece
these links together to prove our
case. This evidence, is material to
prove the plot. We should not be
cross examined by the defense at this
time regarding the details Of our
proof. II, in pursuing this circum-
stantial chain criminal acts grow out
which are not charged In the indfct-
ment, We cannot help it. The possi-
bility Of this should not prevent US,
from proving our case" A
Special Counsel Butler said the gov
ernment expects that the Kenwood
company dissolved in 1905 and the
business Of marketing the Oleo pro-
ducts Of the combination was taken
over by the Swift Wool Co. Judge
Carpenter reserved his decision until
the testimony complained OF Is
brought up again in the trial.
The jury returned to the court room
and Albert H. Veeder again took the
witness stand. 81
He admitted that the Swift Wool
Co. succeeded the Kenwood company
in 1905 for the sale Of the oleo oil
products Of the combination.
This concluded the direct examina-
tion OF Mr.. Vee1-.