Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1916-02-18
CONTINUES
BRANDEIS INVESTIGATION
Sidney w, WinSlow, Shoe
Man, viii Be Cross
Examined

WASHINGTON, Feb 16.-Investiga-
ton into the fitness Of Louis D. Bran
deis, of Boston, for confirmation as a
justice of the supreme court of the
United States, was continued today by
the senate judiciary subcommittee. with
Sidney w. Winslow, president of the
United Shoe Machinery company. still
on the witnes stand.
Mr.. Winslow appeared for cross-cxam-
ination. In his testimony before the
committee yesterday Mr.. Winslow charg-
ed Mr. Brandeis with unprofessional con-
cuct and conduct not becoming an hon.
orable gentleman" because after sever
ing his connection with the United Shoe
Machinery company, he, at the instance
of new clients, attacked as illegal and
criminal the very acts and system of
business which be assisted to create and
which he advised were legal"
The committee today engaged Austin
c.. Cox, of New York, as counsel for
those opposed to Mr.. Brandeis. and q.
w. Anderson, United States attorney at
Boston, as counsel for Mr.. Brandeis and
mis- supporters. ,g
In a protracted executive session the
committee decided that the investigation
had been broadened out to such proper
tions that counsel were required for the
interests of both sides. ..g
Mr.. Anderson's participation, it was
announced, does not conflict with his po-
sition as United States attorney at Bos-
ton. and he serves. before the comittee
without ray.
When Mr.. Winslow resumed the stand
for cross-examination by Mr.. Anderson,
the first question was whether suits
were not now pending in Boston and
st. Louis to test the validity of the
much-discussed tying clause in the
company's leases of its machines. Mr..
Winslow protested, but finally stated the
nature of the suits.
Mr.. winslow began by explaining that
the company got favorable decision in
the first; that the government now was
appealing. The second suit was Brought
under the new federal trade commission
law and is pending in ST. Louis.
Questions by Mr.. Anderson were in
tended to show that when Mr.. Brandeis
resigned it was because he did not agree
with the company's policy. He sought
to pin the witness down to an exact con
versation with a Mr.. Howe and Brandeis
early in 1907
81 only remember said Mr.. Winslow,
that the tying clause question was
again before the Massachusetts legisla-
ture and we went to see Mr.. Brandeis
about it, Mr.. Brandeis told us that we
ought to make some changes in our
leases. We asked him for some concrete
suggestion, but he did not give it, We
came away from that conference with
the feeling that Mr.. Brandeis would not
assist us, not expressing himself clear
" as to what was in his mind
Didn't that interview grow out of
his request asking you and your coun-
sci if you could not agree upon, form
of change in your leases?" asked Mr..
Anderson. p,
HINTS AT INFLUENCE.
ST wouldn't say that We had not heard
before that time some intimation that
Mr.. Brandeis thought changes in the
leases ought to be made. After this
conference. however, 1 came to the con-
clusion that Mr.. Brandeis was inf1u-
enced in the matter by other clients.
Mr.. Anderson asked If Mr.. Winslow
had not, known that Mr. Brandeis for
years prior to that had other shoe man
ufacturefs for clients. Mr.. Winslow
said he had not because he was not in
terested.
WAS Mr.. Brandeis's refusal to give
concrete suggestion about changing
your leases due to your refusal to
change? asked Senator Fletcher.
"I think not, as / remember 1T. 1 ask
ed him how we could change. He said
we did not need those tying clauses and
that we could avoid trouble by changing