New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-04-03
WOULD NOT DISBAR
Referee Files Report FdUOring
Hein1cs LG5cyer.

Hamilton Odel. the referee IN the cis0af-
u7ant proceedings against Sanford Robin
son. al attorney for Augustus Heinze. who
rs fined $50 for '.unlawfully and cor
.rsptiy impeding the due administration Of
Justice 81 the federal examination OF the
hooks of Heinze's United Copper Company.
+,ea his report yesterday. recommending
+l.st Robinson be not punished
The testimony filed at the same time
shows that Robinson told Of his great ad-
r,.f-a1ion FOR r. Augustus Heinze, but de-
CARED that the surrounding circumstances
,-o-l1F have a good deal Of weight as 10
-z7etI7e~ he believed what Arthur p Heinze-
Fritz's brother. told him. Arthur p Heinze
also was witness, but he declined TO an
er.e- most Of the questions put 20 nm on
t5,e ground that be was under indictment
with Robinson for conspiring 10 remove
snd nu,ilate The books Of the United Cop
per Company. Fritz Augustus Heinze Of
se-ed 10 testify. but Joseph II. Choate, u
who conducted the case for the Bar Asso-
cation. said he could dispense with Ff'N
testimony because he would probaoiy les
.ff,- IN The same anIightening manner a.
Arthur P. Heinze.'
vrbao the disbarnent proceedings were
brought Robinson's counsel, Joseph 4 No'-
-, r. wrote Judge Lacombe asking u
q
grievance committee concerning the pre-
,-aa5,nRs before him. and stating that he
,ssar-- think Robinson's conduct before me
,,.--- however silly and pigheaded, mer-
rcd dfsbsrrnent He pointed out thai Judge
paw who fined Robinson, had stated iiaI
b. bonea disbarrlent proceedings Woaid Ho'
= -al,er. ana that he had forgiven the Jaw
yer and hoped the other judges "OUiN 20
ne same. Judge LacOnabe's letter II IeP';'
which is thought 70 have had nucH u -
with clearing Robinson in The opinion -
The referee said in part
The immersion made upon my nl1nu -
81 occurrences Of that Ca WeS - ,,ic-
p5ainscu was extremely slils g Emo
L.oo iS >, At,t did not believe az lile In, IN
- 10 no- believe now tT'at ~ - re-
attempted 10 deceive ne I-e - he IVES
re.-r5 = tremendous shock Nt-.'l -
Informed i-lel me r,- 80 as he said he
-Ffeiuze's private to---illl-- -, -5.l--fs nor be
rS Vas 10 reason why ne sii1.-l 1905
.--.,~c.rsrrd about the affairs q L1e--lI ,I u
r.rE. 81 which he was dlIeetoL- ,,,s+;or,
r-SttllctG- the blank TOOK o. C.--@cc7,T that
~ 4 -,r=.a lie received 1ii', 1900 fo~
-r.,--7.s "a S.,sr OF stand committees -
.-.-srarr1E- :. Is GlE honest t-e-le, . ~
. 80 rir.p sT-a-r. ard he E.is haTaiH IA 49,,
- ,-n-a.i7-e what ne vas cong
.--,-- +7.a c-t~esuerr transactions hll5"
r0thi-g cut 50 far as 5i2- 5 , - - a.
80 10 : concerned. I should CONSIDER 90
-, - - The ruin of his professional
.s-aer 100 harsh a punishment
.--I,-.- 2 Heinze testified before Referee
Oaafl mat Rabineon's firm. Cary & " MT
ridge composed % Guy cary and Itoei-1 IN
n 1Nllftridce Ihe latter now receiver o.
--e Third Avenue Railroad. had acted aS
attorney in the formation OF the Oh4'eo
,-rnDer Company in lSle. and that ne paiu
ar Vhitridgc SS5,eo9 in connection Win
80 formation of the COMPANY HelT1Ze had
...-s-a control of The formation Of the COM
r~aHr
a. with Mr.. Whitridge. and. incidentally.
with Robinson. who was q cieTh III MI
vr.ft-idce-s Office in 1892
f-7-cerufng the events that led up 70 MS
t-55c-r1enr Robinson testified that in NAV
nc = A Heinze complained that the
Indictment lust returned against him was
--o-a unfair and unjust than the first one
and that ne did not propose 10 give Iiie
federal attorney any further favor ana
vzs gong 70 make him fight every inch
- The wav and not give him anything 10
v-ffcf he was not entitled in law The Ieo-
4rsr attorney had continued the grand Jury
s.rre- tie Indictment was returned and Was
seeking the United Copper books 70 ma
evidence Of generalization Of checks IN
me Heinze bank. 4 subpoena duces teclTn
oarfng for the books was served ana K"D-
81 son said he agreed with Arthur z. deinze
f. had expired after the Indictment had
been returned
Ny Robinson said that Arthur P Heinzs
-.ka5 II the books would not be kept in
e--,a other Office. and he told him that
--az- cauld be kept IN any city where the
crrranv had an Office. so long as the sub
--r7a was not outstanding. Arthur then
-a-7 Mr. Baglin second viCe-presioenJ- 1
-rf-k --o1 ought TO send the company
books out 70 the Office at Butte. and Bag
lin sad. ION whose authority Helnze
said. BY advice Of counsel and Robin
son said he replied. Not by my advice
I'm counsel for the company. and don't
advise any such thing have no TlSHt 10
az--5-a =- Robinss. testified that Arthur
-ran said. I'm counsel for the company,
and T ad..se it, F}sglin replied; You're
r1- a. Officer OF The company, and I wont
d it," Then Guy Cary Nj Robinson's
partner. said. That IS right, Baglin
The mex da~. when Robinson saw T. A.
T5e5nze the former told him that the DIS
tr-et Attorney had been 10 the Office and
E9t some or the books and found pages
torn out Robinson said 10 Heinze: ''Thi.
is 4 dreadful thing: I fear il viii be most
disastrous Tor Mr.. Heinzes case request
t1s- those Pages be restored at once
Robinson said r Augustus Eeinze told
him he didn't know VINO did Il. Robinson
added that when he told his partner. Cary,
the latter declared II was a most appal-
Ing thing and he suggested that they
withdraw from the case Robinson agreed
wiki him, but did not think they ought 10
withdraw until things were cleaned up
Among the witnesses introduced as 10
Eobinson's previous good character was
Senator II. Murray Crane, Of sIassachu-
sets who said he knew OF Robinson
standing in williams College and in the
Harvard Law School; Representative
George p Lawrence, OF Massachusetts;
former Representative Charles Z. Little
field. % Maine. and Conrad Holmes. former
Solicitor Of the State Department at Wash
iuEton
Nr- OdeT reported that Justice did not
require that Robinson be submitted 70
punishment or discipline