Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1912-02-27
BRANDEIS ANSWERS CRITIC
Attorney Replies to President Of
Shoe Machinery Trust.
HIS SERVICE WITH MosoPoL,
Was Direetsr aad Counsel for cs..
pear uatiI ce.viacea u was
v.eiaties ~ Law. whs. >.
he withdrew.

WASHINGTON. feb. sl-yrha aIlesas
tons OF Prrsiden, s. w. WINSTON ot tns
United Shoe Machinery company that
Louis D. Brandsis Of Boston In his re-
cent testimony before the senate inter-
state commerce committee criticised acts
OF the company which occurred while he
was director and counsel IN II were
answcred today In a letter from Mr..
Brandeis to Senator ciapp OF Minnesota.
chairman OF the committee. Mr.. Bran
dsis asked that his letter be embodied In
the hearings Of the committee a. supple
nsntary Of the testimony he gave on
December H. IS and Is last
Referring 10 Mr.. winslow's letter 10
the committee as presenting ''half-truths
and statements. some faise and others
grossly misleading" Mr. Brandsis ex.
plans In detail how and why he became
convinced that the policy and methods
Of the United shoe Machinery company
were inconsistent with the general well
fare and that additional legislation was
necessary to protect the public against
the practices OF that trust"
1 Mr.. Brandeis declares that while II was
true that in April. 1905 he believed In
the policies and methods Of the company
as legally and morally anob5ectionable'
he withdrew as director q few months
later when he alleges a different set Of
circumstances developed.
Mr.. Brandeis says he was OF the opin-
ion at flrst that there were good and bad
trusts. and tina, the shoe monopoly was
being operated benefieialiy ana was pro-
noting competition. As a consequence,
he adds. he appeared before the Mss.a-
chusetts legislature TO oppose a bill seek
Ing to compel change in the methods
Of the company.
Meanwhile. relates Mr.. Brandex. his
attention was called by President W. II.
McEwsin OF the company bearing that
name and President Charles II. Jones OF
the Commonwealth shos and Leather
company 10 the so-calied tying clauses
Of their leases which seemed to them OBJ
jectionable. At q conference between
these men and Mr.. winslow, an under
standing was reached to secure the de-
@N@e - Nhf kthAltlS VII aAia duJutI Qll-
ferences In amicabls conferences. After
these objections had been presented. Mr.
Brandeis asserts. he pursued the subject
and asoertained facts to some Extent in
consistent with those furnished him By
Mr.. wlnsiow and other officials OF the
company.
Discovers Its Evil.
For three and half years. Mr.. Bran
deis says, he took no part In questions
relating to the policy Of the company.
but that IN the summer of Dl0 the situa-
tion had entirely changed" from what
II was In 1906 through the attitude Of the
federal government in connection with
the Standard OIL and Tobacco cases, and
the alleged intention of the shoe machin-
cry company to ignore or evsde the act
Of the Massachusetts, Legislature prohibit
ing tying clauses in leases" He was i'm
pelled to no longer remain passive in the
shoe controversy az q consequence Of the
purchase by the machinery company Of
the Plant system OF shoe machinery-an
act OF monopoly which Mr.. Brsndeis prior
thereto had believed would be looking
jail in the face because he construed
II as "flagrant violation. OF the sher-
man antitrust Law.