Arizona republican., 1918-01-27

packers, was financed. according to the evidence. by fund of s15,000 raised on percentage basis among the Armour, Swift, Morris, Cudahy and Sulzberger or Wilson firms.
 Each Pay Percentage
 This percentage received the close attention of the commissioners, who were told by MT. Heney that it was a continuation and extension of the pool known as the National Packine company, ordered dissolved by the fed eral courts in 1912.
 We will show that this understand ing between the packers has continued and is now in effect" he said, and that they apportion the livestock pur- chases throughout the United States on the basis of their property Holdings
 Buying agreements, tending to elim- mate competition and to permit the packers to control the nations food supply, long have been charged by the livestock growers in their demands for governmental inquiry into the business. E. c. Lasater, of Falfurrias, Texas. a leading figure in the American Nation al Livestock association. took the stand to tell of conferences requested by the packers to promote better feel ing between the producing and pur chasing heads of the business. He said little was accomplished as the packers were insistent first of all that the proposed inquiry should be side tracked entirely, or confined only to economic questions with all initial aspects eliminated.
 T told them that if conditions con- tinued unchanged, my holdings could go to any man who would pay the re- maining indebtedness. he asserted, for did not want to leave my children a heritage from which they could only obtain what they were allowed by five outsiders controlling the market
 Representative Testifies
 Colin H. Livingston, representative at Washington for Armour and com pany, in handling questions affecting their foreign trade, and business associate of the late Senator Elkins of West Virginia, Charles w. Morse, and the Guggenheims, was the only other witnesses during the day. His testimony ended abruptly when MT. Honey produced evidence of a letter he had written Armour and con- pany, and which was not included in | the correspondence Livingston fur nished the commission. One of the | commissions agents accompanied by | Mir Livingstone went to his office | to search for the missing letter. While on the stand, Livingstone said he had not been active against the Borland resolution. A letter from A. R. Urion of Armour and com pany to J. ogden Armour, said a request for additional compensation nlaf lirles settlement for meat cargoes detained by the British blockade, surely must refer to his efforts on the Borland resolution. MT. Urion asserted that he knew nothing of influence which
 Livingstone said he had with Sir | Thomas Shaughnessy and other Ca nadian 'dignitaries."
 The name of E. Dana Durand of the University of Minnesota, former
 government official, appeared in the
 documentary evidence again in con-
 nection with the preparation of an
 economic justification of Swift and
 company.
 Also University Man
 MT. Durand was asked to under
 take the work of editing the in-
 formation compiled by the Swift
 firm. He replied he sympathizec
 with their object but could not dc
 so until he saw the information anC
 was certain it was to be a fair state
 ment of conditions. He eventually
 did undertake the work, according tC
 letters, and refused any remunera- , tion except $500 for stenographic ant
 other expenses.
 Senator Thompson of Kansas to- night issued statement in connec- tion with the memorandum found 1T the packers file, which quoted w. H ' Gates, former chairman of the Colo rado Democratic state committee a!
 saving that Thompson was a gooC
 man to stay close to end recommend
 ing that his firm be given some O ' Swift and company's legal business in Kansas City. Senator Thompson statement said:
 | Personally, I do not believe tha l MT. Gates made the statement con } tained in the memorandum. l re member he asked me how 1 stood or this resolution and I told him I wal ; unqualifiedly and vigorously favor l able to it. I remember that he diC ask me something about whether m! , law firm in Kansas. City, Kansas represented any of the packers in l ICfeStS III hdISdS 1liN. hdHSdS, tIl' . told him that we did not, as m! l partner, MT. Robertson, was United } States district attorney and I wa 3 United States senator and we bot
 felt that something might possibl 7 arise wherein the interests of tn government would conflict with tn ! packers, either in the federal court 3 or in congress. MT. Gates never con
 trihuted S1 000 or any other sum to 5 ward my campaign expenses" Representative William L. Igoe c St. Louis, listed in the packers r>l 7 ords as one of the congressman ol S whom they could rely, issued thi ,. statement:
 "The statement that I was oppose to the investigation of the packer n is untrue. I not only voted in favo Q of the resolution but it was upo B my motion that a favorable repor a | wac roada in the full committee"