The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1916-03-02
BRANDEIS' ACTS
ARE DEFENDED
Law Partner Offers Justihca,
ton of Professional Con-
duct of Nominee.
CHARGES ARE ANSWERED
Witness Denies Attorney Showed In
consistency in Attacking Shoe
Machinery Company.

Justification of the professional con-
duct OF Louis d. Brandeis in his rela-
tons with the United Shoe Machinery
company was submitted to the Senate
investigating committee yesterday by his
law partner. Edward F. McClennen.
Mr.. McClennen's testimony was, in eff
feet, direct reply to that of President
Winslow. of the Shoe Machinery Com
pany. He answered the charges made
by the latter in detail. although confin-
ing himself for the most part to the
statement of fact. For almost three
hours he was occupied in telling the
story OF Mr.. Brandels' attitude toward
the company. the services he rendered
1t as counsel. and his subsequent cam
paign against 1t before legislative COM
mittees in Washington.
| Only one other witness, Stephen s Greg
| DRY. of Chicago. was on the stand at
yesterday hearing. Mr.. Gregory was
SUMMONED as a character witness to tes-
utY principally concerning Mr.. BrandeIs'
| reputation outside of Boston. He said
that it was excellent" and that Mr.
Brandeis was known as a lawyer "of
ability and character" but with strong
convictions and tenacity of purpose. -
! Upon crossexamination Attorney Fox
asked the witness II the American Rar
Association had not adopted a canon of
ethics regarding professional conduct
which requires undivided fidelity on the
part of a lawyer toward his client Mr.
Gregory said there was such a canon
and was excused.
Denies IncOnsIstency.
Mr. McClennen's explanation Of Mr.
I Brandeis conduct in the shoe maChiner,
case. as embodied in his testimony was
substantially. that his partner was al.
ways OF one mind regarding the com,
i.panys leases, and there was no inCon.
| slstency in his attack upon the company
after he had once acted as counsel for il
and served on the board of directors.
He began by pointing out that Mr.
I Brandeis' connection with the COMPANY
| was due to the fact that he was the rem.
resentative of the Henderson interests In
one of the companies absorbed by il al
the time of organization and that he be.
came a member of the board in a more
or less perfunctory way to protect thos,
interests.
He had been counsel for Individual shoe
manufacturers before, continued Mr. Nc
! CIennen' and was acting more or less ir
that capacity during large part OF the
time covered by the legislative and Iega
attacks upon the United Company.
"hen bill was up before the Massa
Ichusetts legislature to limit the actiyitie,
OF the com pany the shoe manufacturer
said the witness, were as much alarmed
as the company itself although they die
not entirely approve of the machiner,
leases. Mr.. Brandeis took up the matte
J with the officials OF the company with tn,
understanding that conference wouI,
be held with the shoe manufa cturers 70
the purpose of considering the objection
} they had to the leases Mr., McCIenne,
gave the mittee TO understand tina
this was done as much in the interes
OF the manufacturers as Of the Unite,
company.
Did Not Grasp Point
/ Senator Works and Senator Cummin
appeared not to grasp the purport O
Mr.. McClennen's testimony on this point
II did not know that Mr. Brandeis wa
accused OF being untrue to his client, tn
Shoe Machinery Company, in appearing
before the, Massachusetts legislature
said Senator Cummns.
The interests of the company and q
the shoe manufacturers in opposing tn
bill were Identical" interposed Senate
Walsh.
After a long delay conferences be
tween the Shoe Machinery Company an
the manufacturers were held continue
the witness, but without results. !
number of letters written by Mr.. Bran
deis containing objections to the com
pany's leases were read by Mr.. McClen
men, also a letter from Erving WinsIoy
referring to Mr.. Brandeis' "scruples" /
being connected with a business such a
that the United Company was carryin
on.