Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1916-05-17

THE FITNESS or Mr.. BRANDEIS
ABuNDENTLY PROVEN.

fRNiat~AhN NfN~.l
II was Senator Sutherland 81 Utah who
asked the Judiciary committee " .
r. inquiry that i might hear the evidence
If Mr.. Brand~.' relation 10 thc con-obda-
ilon OF two drug store companies IN Bo--
ton. Senator Sutherland ~ opposed W
the Brandci- nomination., aud one must in-
FER that ~ saw something i'm this matter
seriously injurious TO the reputation Of
Ar. Brandei~. -omcthing that evidenced MI.
HHiitnC~~ 10 ~ y member ~ the supreme
court. Maybe there i~. be- we believe II
viii puzzle most minds loss acute than
senator Sutherland presumably tu see
gust what lt i-. III appears that the Unit
cd States district attorney began ~ H.
NcStlsaie the merger. and ne attorney 81
the merged company tried to convince him
that the merger was NOT in violation 0f the
sherman act a- it has been construed ~
ihe supreme court. lle did not succeed :
one might suspect. on the contrary. that
ms faith had been somewhat shaken. for
hc sought the opinion Of Mr.. Brandei~. who
had had much 40 do with ca~e- coming
within the purYicw WI the sherman act.
Mr. BraHdci-' opinion WAS that tie merger
was not yiolafiVc ut thc law. and hc SAB
tired to convince thc di-tn-, ATTORNEY.
Tins. according to 900 ti. testimony intro
durFd. constituted thr whole IVY Nr. Bran
dci- connection with thc matter. Wherein
the oiicn~e H.. a- we have said. NOT quite
apparent. e. say thc least. HI il AZ that
the opinion hr. Braudel~ EXPRESSED bc-
iraycd "a bias favorable w corporations.
on" wlll ~ ~ loss ~ account for the OBJ
position III corporation interests Ia his
nomination. And yct. unless that iS the
idea tins evidence i- meant ~ support. II
seems "a h. ID ~ wholly sterile. proving
nothing. unlc~- e i~ thr desperation of The
men who are trying to prevent the con-
hrfnation of tins appointment.
All the evidence offered during thi, Sit
ting of the committee was distinctly favor
able to Mr.. Braudci-. The United States
district attorney who Investigated the drug
company merger. and whose opinion AZ NJ
W legality coutiictcd with that W Mr..
ErandciS. expressed 'the highest rernrd
for Mr.. Brandri~' view ~ ethical matters
and would rather have IN. illumination
R'NN it-alhih= amy subject than those ~
amy man hc knew. Mr.. Braudci~ being I'M
personal. Impartial. Judicial and power
full Mr.. Harlan ~ The interstate com
ncrcc commission u@tterly auuihilated the
objection uf Senator Cunmin~ when ~ IA,
ciar"d that IN the Eastern rate ease Mr..
Brandei~ bad been employed ~ represent.
not The shippers. INT the public Interest.
Mr.. Harlan sand Mr. Rrandei~ had dis
charged hi duty to the satisfaction NJ
The commission. and he added that. N. for
himself. he would nave thuught Mr. Bran
dcI~ would have been recrcaui II he had
not expressed any conclusion hi- study of
that case had hroughi him mp a.. In a,
date. senator CUumin~ ny the. unlr mau
who has expressed tho belief that " wa,
the duty of Mr. Brandci~ ~ suppress an,
fact or opinion that might D. favorable nj
the railroads.
The fitness of Mr.. Braudei~ tor service
on the supreme court bench ha, been
proved ahuHdantly; and TX has been proved
sufficiently hy the testimony Of his OPP
pouenf~