New-York tribune., 1912-02-15
THE BAR.AND THE BRANDT CASE

!
The conduct of Mr.. Howard 5. Cans
counsel for Mr.. Schiff in the braHu'
case. is a proper subject for nqulr! u!
the Bar Association. At the solicitation
of Mr.. Cans, the police supplied a cIllhl-
nal record for Brandt which Is now au-
mitted by the detective who procured 1t
to have been false. Mr. Cans III MS ieI-
ter to the police inspector Speclfled tiie
kind Of record he wanted namely, SUCH
"a report Of his character as VIII ihahe
necessary the imposition of long sen
"tence," and lie got precisely Wllat ne
asked for, 1t Is to he observed that ne
did not apply to the police for the Ilu'n
about the former servant of his client
but for such report as would furhiSh
grounds for the thirty-year sentence
that the servant finally got Now, lie Is
not accused of using any improper
means. other than this letter. to induce
the police to supply the false report tlaI
they did. Nevertheless. was II Ill ac-
cordance with professional ethlcS lor
Mr.. Cans to make such an application TO
the police as he did in the terms Whlch
he used?
Aside from the language of this ap-
plication to the police. if the conduct OF
the lawyers in this case was proper the
state of legal ethics is deplorably ioW'
Mr.. Cans merely represented the COM
plaining witness. The prosecution OF
Brandt. once he was indicted. should
have been in the hands of the District
Attorney. Yet Mr.. Schiff's lawyers ap'
near to have acted as if they were puO-
lie prosecutors. An application to the
police for the character of Brandt should
have come from the Judge or from the
District Attorney. The police are puhllc
officers. They should be strictly forbid
den to honor the reQuisition of private
persons for records of prisoners OF
others. The abuse Of furnishing lh1or-
nation to private persons reached us
height when. under the administration
of the same inspector to whom Mr.. Cans
applied for such a character as would
lead to a long sentence against Brandt
police detectives were employed to help
work ub a divorce case for a wealthy
citizen. Severe punishment ought to fol
low the use of the police as private IN
veStigating bureau.
Nor was the failure Of the District At
torneys Office to protect Brandt any more
TO its credit than was the part or the
police in furnishing false report. Ap-
parently Mr.. Cans was permitted TO eX-
ercise the office of public prosecutor just
as if he had not resigned from Mr.. Je-
romes staff. not merely in furnishing the
prisoners police record, but in other
wavs. If the District Attorneys Office
had done its duty. instead of practically
ignoring the case as one arranged by
counsel of the complaining witness, the
fact that Brandt was pleading guilty to
faulty Indictment would have been dis.
covered II is virtually certain that
whatever crime Brandt did commit 1t
was not burglary in the first degree 1t
was the business Of the District Attor-
ney's Office to have known this and to
have protected the prisoner. Whatever
injustice may have been done to Brandt
sprang from the loose system by which
counsel with pull in the District Attor-
ney's office was able to ARRANGE" for the
punishment Of a prisoner without inter
ference from the public prosecutor and
secure from the police Il report that
would make a long sentence necessary.
Upon the propriety Of all this the public
awaits an expression Of opinion by the
Iqr