New-York tribune., 1912-02-28

| rV 10 the IISsFlAb proceeding, Out l HEEL '
that all statements made by Fischer Han
sen in either Of said affidavits or otherwise
| which suggest that there was any arrange
nent 10 which was a party Or Of which
Tbad knowledge by which Brandt was in
auenced TO plead guilty are absolutely
false
The Cans AFFIDAVIT ignores entirely Han
| sens charge that Cans was on the bench
beside .r,dge Rosalsky when Brandt was
arraigned for pleading. and for the rest
is devoted to a drawing OF the parallel be-
tween Hansen's second statement that he
frst appeared in court with Brandt as sort
Of volunteer Interpreter at the beh"st of
! Judge Rosalsky, and his first statement
that he was retained by BranGt and ap-
peaIed IS his attorney and counsel before
Judge Rosalsky on March ?s 1907, the date
Of Brsndts pleading
John II Iselins affidavit, also gl"en oHt
by'DeLancey Nicol yesterday, denied fatty
Fischer -Hansen's statement that Cans was
on the BENCH with Judge Rosnlsky when
Brandt was arraigned for pleading, Mr.
Isein says that he appeared fof MI. Schiff
that day because Cans was absent, AND
though he recalls that Hansen stood be
side the defendant that day he cannot
recall whether Hansen was there at Judge
Rosalsky's .behest or not The Iselin ath-
daVit also denied fatty that he. lsclr. was
sitting on the steps leading to the hench
on the day of Brandt's pleading.
IN an explanatory note given out from
Delaney NicolrS Office with the state
rnent and affidavits. the following chronol-
ogy Of the case is outlined:
| March Beans visited Brandt in the
Tombs and had his FIRST and only con
versadon with him after the date OF lbs
arrest. (See Gans's afidavitD
March "a Fischer Hansen calls Schir on
the telephone and said that he was inter,
ested IN the Brandt case, and was referred
to Cans (See Schff's statementl
March 2l-Rosenthal calls on Schif and
said Fischer-Hansen is trying 10 get the
Brandt case away from Raylis and nag
offered 10 act without pay. 'See schlH
statement)
March 22-Brandt was indicted.
March 25-Interview between Mr.. RoSen-
thai and Messrs. Cans and lseEn, IN whlCh
Rosenthal urges intercession for Brandl
| should he plead to burglary in the first de-
gree, which request is fatty refused, Win
| the statement that Mr.. Schif did not care
whether Brandt pleaded guilty or stoo1
| trial as the evidence was conclusive 'Ste
Iselin afidavit) -,
March 21-Interview between Rosenthaa a. a.
| and Iselin. in which Rosenthal repeats ms
] SUGGESTIONS ItSdIuIIE n plto t''N'
| receives same answer from lsenn aS o1
March 2s-Brandt brought before Judge
| Rosalsky and with Fischer Hansen 81 s.d..o !, a.
guilty 10, guilty 70 the indictment Of burg
| iarv IN the first degree. See affidavit or
| Mr.. Isclin0
Hansens Story Of Letter.
In his afidavit Hansen told this partic-
uIar story in these words;
! a teusdavs after sentence had been i'm
posed and after Brandt had been sent 10
| state prison at Sing Sing to begin his term,
! a client Of mine by the name or Ryan, one
OF those implicated in the case OF the Peo-
rie agt Eaton confined In the Tombs await
| ing trial, handed me a letter which he said
! had been given To him by Brandt. Inc ie'-
ter was addressed to me
ON my return to my once opened Ine
letter. II appeared that II contained an
other letter in q separate envelope al.
dressed to Mrs. Schtf. Accidentally
opened both envelopes There was note
| ing me to kindly give the within letter lnto
Mrs. Schiff's own hands. The, withln leI'
ter was addressed 10 Mrs. Schih, anc IN
pencil he had written tor ny. ny Mps scSt
! gets this herself; give Il into her own
| bands, She is very rich lady and IS
| going 70 get me out OF my trouble or
"Ti rea6 the letter addressed 70 Mrs Schift,
and = was so perplexed by the. contents
| that for the time being did not know Just
what to do, finally decicSd & 10 bsd sSN ,rs. ,lse
| SIDED in the case. ! went to court: ne was
saPgt a. 5s sIg s,t.r heaTsfn caqefuy hs ana s1sI
s,oee,t.d t.s TO him that IL seemed apparent
+bsf great injustice had been done 10
Trandt Judge Rosalsky tnen suggested
that he and Mr. Jerome and MY IA [ahs ssI3s aTa
attarroon IN dzcide what 10 do In ths prem
n 2 o'clock Judge Rosalsky told me that
Mr. Jerome could not come, ous ars {H9T 1na1Iv Hr
T,,Ses RosalsI;y. Mr.. Mott, Mr.. Cans and
myself started. 10 confer together, Ihs 5S
! letter was read BY every one PLts'nI ~, 81
finally given by Judge Hosa'sNS '' vi
Cans
-, ,bor Hans,r -svs vt for publication
/ lac, night 2 COPY Of letter addressed oy
him to Mortimer L. schih in Which ne tooh
ecb,4y severely 10 task for that part OF his
statement printed in YESTERDAY morning
parers referring 70 Hansens oonnec'oh
! with the case
Among other things, you say that ] vas
| Instrumental in having Brandt write ana
| send Mrs Schif the letter Which was
given me by prisoner in the Tomos' af'er
brandt had been sent 10 Sing sIns' and
| ur7tch letter l.. on the same morning thst
| rAcejved n. gave 70 Judge RosaIskY,
writes Hansen.
Tried 70 Get schiH Indicted
Hansen denounced that statement as ut
| terly false and his letter 20 schif ADVISES
! the barker that he viewed il as so ma
ucious that he attempted yesterday to have
/ ecb,fs indicted under Section 1857 OF the
nenal law, for having uttered and given
| Z. n the press. Failing in that, Hansen
wrote, he applied yesterday afternoon 10
Magistrate Herbert in the West Side police
! co,,r+ for 3 warrant for schiff's arrest.
| His letter continues
; uas refused the warrant on the ground
| +p,a+ sithough the statement had appeared
alike in I'll the newspapers as coming from
vo1I lacked legal evidence 10 snow that
| yoU really were the author alld lIle one
| who had given IL or caused i u pe gwen
~ Knowing from what ! have read and
! lesrned during the Brandt case that you
| are person imbued with very strong sense ,s
\ ~ ,tusiire, | hereby ask you in view OF the
| Crayjtv and the falsity OF the statements
! thai you have made 20 give me an adnnlss
/ sjcg, 10 the effect that you gave OF caused
! m bc given the above mentioned statement
| ~ The press When you know that never
! hsd been told by my client, Brandt or any.
! hodv else a single word or mint regdrdlng
| ANYTHING appertaining 70 his relationship
| aJfb Won and your family you may sppre-
| ciafe the injustice that your statement has
| yTnyin1 the few days that ] acted for
| Bfsndt. as his attorney, saw hirn 81 most
| fJres or four times in the public counsel
] yooTn downstairs, and that at no time did
I + sneak with him over FIVE or ten minutes,
! snd al no time did he even suggest 10 me
/ there was anything TO mis- case but what
! u. ,,r,oY, rhe face of the indictment.