Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1916-02-10
PUBLIC INTEREST
HURT BY BRANDE|S,
CHARGES THORNE
Appeals Against His Confir-
nation to United States
Supreme Court.
MADE FATAL CONCESSION
TO CAUSE OF RAILROADS
Alleges Preconceived Notions as
to High Returns on Rail
road Investments.
QUESTION OF ETHICS RAISED
Railroad Commissioner or Iowa on
Stand at Two Long
Sessions.
MADE FATAL CONCESSION
TO CAUSE OF RAILROADS
QUESTION or ETHICS RAISED
Railroad Commissioner or Iowa on
Stand at Two Long
Sessions.

WASHINGTON, February o.-Chare-
ing that Louis y. Erandeis. as counsel
for the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion in the per cent advance rate case.
conceded the cause OF the railroads 10
the fatal injury OF the public interest,
Clifford Thornc. railroad commissioner
or Iowa, and an associate counsel in
the rate case. appealed to-night to the
judiciary subcommittee of tho Senate
not to recommend confirmation of AIr
3randcis's nomination to the Supreme
Court of the United States
Mr.. Thorne argued that il would he
very costly TO the American people to
put on the Supreme Court bench a man
with prcconceired notions as to high
returns on railroad Investments in
view OF tho fact that questions in
volved in the national appraiscmcnt
of railroads now going on ultimately
would have to he determined by that
tribunal. Summing up his case, he de-
clarcd:
Il have shown conclusively from the
records that Mr. Brandeis has COM
mitted himself to the proposition that
return on the capital stock Of rail-
| roads OF l-2 per cent is. to use his
own words. rather niEgardly' That
is the return which the Interstate Com
merce Commission unanimously deter
mined was adequate. Further the in
vestors of this country have decided
that stock yielding 7l-o per cent in
the market places OF the country ia
worth 100 cents on the dollar I have
repeatedly challenged any one to name
security which earns that amount
that does not command par or
above par.
RELATES TO MATTER
OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
"rhe other proposition which L have
attempted TO show is entirely indepcn.
dent of the merits Of the rate case and
whether Mr.. Brandeis was right or
wrong in his position as to the ade-
quacy OF railroad revenue The other
proposition related to a matter of pro-
fessional ethics 1 have shown YOU
that Mr.. Brandeis was employed by tn,
Interstate Commerce Commission with
specific instructions not to advocate
any particular theory as TO the disposi-
| tion OF the case. lie was asked if he
was willing to take the burden of see
ing that the other side OF the case was
developed. and told that the railroad
side would be adequately cared for.
nave tried TO show that Mr.. Brandels
had expressed the greatest contidence
in the presentation OF the rate case by
associate counsel.
Il have shown that Mr.. Rrandeis CO.
operated in a friendly manner during
the conduct of the case with associate
counsel. yet at the critical time, Mr..
Brandeis. without warning to other
counsel, after all argument had been
closed on behalf OF the public conceded
anti ra1,
that such was going to be his position.
had he advised us of his decision steps
certainly would have been taken for
our protection, and we would have de.
manded an opportunity to be heard af-
ter MIR. Rrandets had closed the argu,
mcnt for tho. public.
Coming from Mr.. Brandels, who par.
ticipated with us in ross-examtnation
during the rate case. and who was cm-
ploycd by the Interstate Commerce
Commission, I consider that his con-
cession was practically fatal to the
cause of the public. Our work was
useless"
Senator Fletcher. questioning tho
witness regarding instructions to Mr..
Brande!s in the letter from the Inter-
state Commerce Commission relating to
TINS employment as counsel in the rate
case. asked II 1t was not g. fact that
Mr. Brandcis was engaged to SEQ that
All sides were taken care Of"
ASSIGNED TO BURDEN
OF "TIIE OTHER SIDE,
Mr.. Thornc said that there was such
Il proposal IN the commissions letter.
but later on in the letter IL was sDccin-
cally stated that Mr.. Brandeis should
undertake the burden of the other
side, because the commission kreu
mat the railroads would be adequately
represented.
ON cross examination Mr. Thorne
SAID he had no information that Mr..
BTandeiS had notified the railroads as
to his conclusion that tho revenues
were inadequate. He argued that Mr..
Hrandcis having reached the conclusion
he did, lie should have retired from tho
case, or at least from that phase OF
the case. and notified associate counsel
OF his conclusions.
Senator Walsh cross-cxamined the
witness about the Surplus" which Mr..
Thornc expressed willingness at the
bearings to allow the railroads. and
which Mr.. Brandcis chara rizcd AZ
rather niEgardly" Senator Walsh
contcndcd that Mr.. Brandeis was speak
ing or IL or per cent. as the case
might be. as designed by accountants
to care for nonrcvenuc- producing. prob
lens and lean years. Mr.. Thorno in
sisted that Mr.. Brandeis had in mind
that this l1-2 or = per cent was
grouped with 6 or . I-3 per cent to care
for dividends. thus making a total re-
turn or surplus of Z l-2 per cent.
Mr.. Thorne occupied the stand at two
long sessions of the committee. closing
his testimony lato tonight To-