Search America's historic newspaper pages from 1789-1963 or use the U.S. Newspaper Directory to find information about American newspapers published between 1690-present. Chronicling America is sponsored jointly by the
National Endowment for the Humanities and the Library of Congress. external link Learn more
Image provided by: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL
Newspaper Page Text
PACKERS AGAIN ASK "IMMUNITY BATH" AS FIRST"
WITNESS TELLS OF POOL OF INTERESTS J '
The first witness took the stand
in the trial of the millionaire
He was Albert H. Veeder, in.
whose offices the government
claims the packers met to' "fix
prices," and who is generally be
lieved to haye been the brains be
hind the beef trust.
But Veeder was not permitted
to take the stand until the defense
had made a last attempt to stop
the trial, by dragging into at
Federal Judge Humphrey'-s fa
mous "immunity bath" decision.
Attorney John S. Miller, chief
counsel for the defense, -and the
original little securer of immun
ity "baths, did the dragging:
When court convened, Miller
rose to object to all evidence of
fered by the government concern
ing the business of the packers
prior to 1905. -
Were this objection sustained
it would exclude alL the evidence
in the hands of the government
tending toward proving the mo
tive behind the formation of the
National Packing company that
motive being the mono'poly of the
beef packing industry.
Millet- asked specific immunity
for Edward Tilson, Francis A.
Fowler and Lewis H.'JHeyman,
on the ground that they had fur
nished information concerning
their business to Commissioner of
Corporations James R. Garfield.
This was the ground on which
Judge Humphrey so kindly gave
the packers. immunity.
Judge Carpenter said he failed
to see wherein the .defense was
raising any point that he already
had not ruled upon.
(To- the ordinary layman it
would seem as if this particular
point had only been ruled uponi
about every time the case came
The defense was persistent.
The government attorneys asked v;
for more 'specific information as
to just what evidence the defense i
was objecting to. There was a
deal of wrangling, and then Judge
Carpenter announced that he
would permit the introduction of
testimony regarding acts of the
packers prior to 1905 with the un
derstanding that, the attorneys
were to submit their arguments
when the state's case is con
cluded'. ' '
That means, that after the ar- '
guments, Judge Ca'rpenter will
hear a motion to strike this testi
mony from the record.
With this stipulation agreed
upon, Veeder began his testi
mony, while the defense objected
to each question and answer con
cerning acts prior to 1905.
Veeder traced the transforma
tion of the Swift partnership into
the Swift corporation and told of
the organization 'of the National
Packing company, of which he
said he was for a time the geenral
counsel and treasurer, as well as
Veeder divided the credit of the
organization of the National
Paaking company with Louis
Krauthoff, - then personal attor-