New Britain herald., 1916-02-10
SCORES
 THORNE'S ATTACK
 ON l. ). BRANDEIS
Continued From First Page.)
views on preparation of the argument of the case.

VIEWS OIl pISpdEdLlOI OL Iflo aTS of the case.
 Brandcis Announced Position. Under cross examination by Senator gCumminS, Carmalt testified Brandeis Sdid not merely state his view that but he announced that such sWould be his position in the argument gof the case.
 Did MT. Brandeis discuss the pro- 8priety of his making this concessi on (which was the vital point of the case
 Anade up by MT. Thorne?" asked Sen NJ No, it did not occur to me as be- @ing improper
 M Argue Conduct of Hearing.
 N Carmalt's testimony then ended and #he ub-committee had an argument
 Ever the conduct of the hearing. N "This investigation" said Senator AANalsh, lis for the purpose of develop
 Eng facts to advise the committee with Respect to the fitness of this nominee. MVitnesses havo been allowe dto ex
 ress in a general way opinions S#ormed concerning the nominee" I
 Elm led to believe that some of the 1@NFitnesses have been allowed to ex-
 Substantial facts but have only learned @ hings through the press or from com-
 #s,on rumor. I shall insist that wit # #2esScs be confined hereafter to telling Specific facts affecting the propriety @bf confirmation of this nominee. Sen. Clark Protests. Senator Clark protested. ''This is
 sln investigation and not trial" said Senator Cunmins took tho same at 8ituds
 Attorney Lyon Tcstifles. trarl: Lyon, attorney for tho com Mn nission in the 1910 rate case and at Agorney for the Pittsburg Coal Co.,, at @he 1913 case testified that in the lat @er case ile considered MT. Brandeis' #hIties the same as those he byon) Siad performed in 1910, and he had Regarded himself as bound to bring to $ he attention of the commission any $acts favorable to the railroads as well las t4 the shippers.
 Did you express any view as to the of the case in 1910?' in EGuired MT. Thorne.
 "I did not" responded by Lyon. "I thought my duty was to present facts and leave the disposition to the com- mission"
 5 Recognized Mir. Brandeis. # "You recognized MT. Brandeis did #Eat?" asked Senator Cumnins. HR "3yes sir @ MT. Lyon said he thought Mir. l AAsrandeis' brief in the 1913 case was 1 AHn impeac chment of the contention of 1 #he railroads in that he pointed oct How they could get increased revenues Nn manner vastly different from their
 $wn proposals. Unimportant EmpIoyc. Responding to further questions by | Senator Cummins, MT. Lyon said: T Ahink it is only fair to MT. Brandeis to | ssay that I was an unimportant em-
 DIoye of the commission in 1910, as- |signed to the rate case. MT. Brandeis pwas brought in as an important in Idividual from the outside and must have different point of view from hnine," said Mr. Lyon. Senator Cummins characterized that
 6tatement as an argument. Spelling Attacks Brandeis. Thomas C. Spelling of New York kor the Freight Payers League com- A3lained that Mr.. Brandeis as attor- hey for other eastern shippers during the 1910 advance rate case failed to bppose the advance with the 'im- RJregnable defense offered by the so- RalIed burden of proof amendment to Ahe commerce acts of 1910.' q Furthermore, he said, MT. Brandeis
 Ret on foot a compromise of the case Awhen the interest of the public was gainst any compromise, and that MT. %2ra n deis showed bad faith by taking Snis %Spening's) brief on the burden
 bf proof amendment, keeping it two
 #1onths and returning it with such
 Remarks, such as absurd" written on #he margin Officers of the assOcia- Aion which employed Brandeis, he said, look the brief on condition that the &ubstance would be incorporated in MIr. Brandeis' brief.