The Washington times., 1916-02-10

them in the rate hearings" said Mr..
Thorne. Interests Of consumers have
usually been matters of Jest
Mr.. Thorne dramatically pointed to
the large bulk of exhibits OF railroads
and OF shippers to show how we'll they
had been represented in the rate cases.
Prolonged Colloquy.
Senator Walsh and Mr.. Thorne in
dulged in a prolonge dcolloquy over
the statement of Mr.. Brandeis that he
considered the surplus allotment Of Mr..
Thorne 'niggardly." Senator Walsh
sought an admission that Mr.. Brandeis
had referred only to the or per cent
over-dividends as the surplus" while
Mr.. Thorne contended that he must
have taken the dividends into consider
alton. The witness said mo one with
common sense would discuss surplus for
improvements without taking dividends
into consideration"
When Lieutenant Governor Eshle
went on he upheld Senator Walsh 5
contention.
II can't for the life of me, and I had
intimate knowledge Of the cases. see
why Mr.. Thorne has taken this atti-
tude." said the lieutenant governor. T
believe he is the only man In the United
states who accused Mr.. Brandeis of bad
faith in this matter"
The Californian then turned to Mr.
Thorne's statements about the dangers
Of having a man on the Supreme Court
bench who had declared that railroad
revenues were not adequate for their
maintenance.
Mr.. Thorne's statements about the
tremendous amounts involved and Mr.
Brandels' attitude toward the 'niggard-
by surplus are not so startling when
you recall that Brandeis never favored
the rate increase asked for. and there
Is nothing on the records to show he
did
Rates Chief Issue.
Much of last evenings hearing bore
more directly upon railroad rates than
upon the fitness OF Mr.. Brandeis to
serve on the Supreme Court bench.
The California lieutenant governor
talked at length about the lack OF any
real basis. in advance of a valuation
for determining proper freight rates.
Never has there been a case de-
cided in any ~ these rate hearings on
any scientific principle whatever. Never
has there been a decision that was not
made in the dark.
AT present the only criterion is that
OF comparison. In the 1910 and 1919
cases the comparisons were based upon
revenues for succeeding years. This
comparison showed nothing about the
Justice Of the rates In the first place.
and no one could be accused of dis
honesty for deducting anything from
them"
The hearings. Mr.. Eshlr stated. werr
Of the most "ncbulous character" and
in view OF this he said he cav no
anv motives but honest ones.
Mr. Eshle took issue with Mr.. Thorne
in his conception of Mr.. Brandeis'
duties in the 1918 case. In the 1910
said but in the 1919 case he had been
engaged by the commission to act in
the interests Of all concerned. includ
ing railroads. and that he only did
what he was engaged to do In reaching
the conclusions he did.
Thinks Services Consistent.
e. II would have been surprised had Mr..
Rrendeis taken any other position
said the witness. 1T has become too
customary for attorneys engaged BY
commits ssions to conceive that they rep
resent the interests of the public as
against the railroads. I am familiar.
too. with the letter asking Mr. Brandeis
to take the case for the Interstate
Commerce Commission. and I always
have thought his services consistent
with the requirements laid down in the
letter"
Mr.. Eshe paid a high tribute to Mr..
Thorne for his work In the case. and
said he regretted that he must differ
from him In regard to Brandeis' atti-
tude.
The sympathies OF the members OF
the committee were clearly indicated
last evening by their questioning Of the
witnesses. Senators Chiffon, Walsh,
and Fletcher sought to shake Mr..
Thornes testimony by cross-question-
ing, and Senators Cummins and Clarke
pitched with equal enthusiasm into
Lieutenant Governor Eshle and Mr..
Teal.
Before Mr.. Thorne left the stand he
was asked about his politics. He said
he was a Republican.
Did you vote for Taft2' he was
asked.
~ did not" he replied