New-York tribune., 1916-02-11
Two Witnesses Tell Sena-
tors Thorne's Charges
Are UnfOunded.
BARRON'S STORIES
BUILT ON fiEARSAY
Committee Rejects His Testi-
mony Against Nominee for
the Supreme Bench.

Washington, Feb. 10 Three mon
who were associa.cd with Louis d.
Hrandeis In rate cases before the IN
tcrstate Commerce Commission were
examined to-day by the Senate sub
committee investigating Mr. Brandeis's
nomination TO the Supreme bench. Two
James W. Carmalt, chief examiner OF
the Interstate Commerce Commission,
and Frank Lyon. counsel for the Pitts
burgh Coal Company and formerly em-
ployed By the commission--challenged
statements made 10 the subcommittee
Yesterday by Clifford Thone, Of the
Iowa Railroad Commission, rejecting
on Mr.. Brandeis's conduct as counsel in
the so-called per cent case.
A third witness Thomas e. Spelling,
% New York, who was attorney for tho
Freight Payers League thought Nr.
Brandeis had not offered the "impreg-
rable defence ogainst advances expect
"a Of him whom he was counsel fol
Eastern shippers in the 1910 advance
case.
Another witness to-day was c. ".
Barron. connected with The van
Street Journal" and the Boston News
Bureau. who suggested tnat Mr.
Brandeis's connection Witn the EqQil-
able Life Assurance case. the Ne"
Haven case and the LenoX bankruptcy
case be investigated. and that Charles
s. Mellen, Moorhcld Storey ana
others be called e. testify. Com
mitecmca said they would consider
the sugge tons.
nr Thorne, who vas associated with
Mr. Brandcis IN the trial OF the rate
case for shippers and the commission,
declared yesterday mat he was. DUN
founded" when Mr. Brandeis az the OUT
set Of his closing argument conceded
the contention Of the rairoads tnat
existing rate returns were inadequate
for the prosperity OF the roads and the
best interests Of the public.
Told Thorne Brandeiss Views.
There is one incident firmly hXed
iu my mud' said llr. Carmal-. re
garding "A conversation Mr.. Thorne had
with me 0u the second day OF the at-
cumenr in the rate case. Mr.. Inolne'
understand, stated that when TIE
commission fixed the allotment OF time
for attorneys TO argue the case ne had
Fl asked for the privilege of being per-
mittod 10 follow counsel Tor -ne shlp-
pers instead Of opening tne arSImS9-
"lr ThOme asked me what d.
Brandeis's position would be ~ the
argument. There was 10 doubt m my
mind what Nr. Bvaudeis's position
would be-. had discussed 1t with MN
and he had told me- There certainly
was no disposition 10 conceal 1t from
Mr. Thorne. | am confident that tod
Mr. Thorne that Mr. Brandeis woulo
take the position that net operating
income of the carriers was not ade-
Guate. with special stress on the Cen
trail Freight Association territory
Further. | said, he would take tne
position that methods pursued by the
carriers 90 obtain greater revenues
through horizontal . per cent ln.
crease were not the proper methods OF
increasing their revenues.
"I am quite clear that IL was as tne
result OF this conversation that MI
Thorne wrote Mr.. Brandcis note ash.
inc about change In the allotment OF
time. It is very strongly my impress
sion that because Mr. Thornc recog-
nized the attitude Mr.. Brandeis would
take Mr. Brardeis got the concep-
ton that Nr Ihorue wanted an oppof-
tuuity TO answer him in :ddition to MS
main argument I'm the case"