The Washington herald., 1916-02-24
MORE BRANDEIS
CHARGES FILED
.Unprofessional Conduct AL
legged by Attorney Appear
ing for Bostonians.
THREE CASES REVIEWED
Consul Says Appointee Was Employed
by Hartman in Fight with Stuy-
vesant Fish Over Road.

| More charges against the professional
conduct of Louis d. Brandeis were filed
before the Senate investigating commit
tee yesterday by Austen G. Fox, New
York attorney, in behalf of committee
representing a score or more of residents
of Boston who oppose his appointment to
the Supreme bench.
Brandeis' connection with three legal
proceedings.
One OF the charges relates to the fight
between the late E. II. Hartman and
Stuyvesant Fish for control of the ILL.,
nois Central Railroad. Mr.. Fox alleges
that Mr.. Brandeis was employed by Mr..
Hartman.
in November, 1907" says Mr.. Fox.
Mr. Hartman exerted hts strength in
the Illinois Central In order to dominate
the approaching annual stockholders
meeting and to turn out Stuyvesant Fish
from the presidency. Sullivan and Crow
ley, lawyers at 80 Wall street, acted for
Mr.. Hartman and were in charge Of the
canvass for stockholders proxies. Mr..
Waddill Catchings was sent to Boston by
Sullivan and Crowley to employ Bren-
deis, Dunbar and Nutter to canvass iIlli-
nois Central stockholders in Boston and
to obtain the proxies for Mr.. Hartman
against Stuyvesant Fish.
Conferred with braudcts.
Mr.. Catchings spent practically the
whole day with Mr.. Brandeis, comforting
with him in regard to Mr.. Brandeis' act
ing for Mr.. Hartman. Thereafter Mr..
Brandeis' firm acted for Mr.. Hartman
and widely sought to obtain proxies In
Mr.. Harriman's behalf. number of
letters were sent out by Brandeis, Dun
bar and Nutter soliciting proxies in Mr..
Harriman's behalf. Subsequently Mr..
Hartman succeeded in turning out Mr..
Fish as president of the Illinois Central
IN 1908 Mr.. Brandeis in answer to
"a charge made by Joseph B. Warner
before the legislative committee on
railroads of Massachusetts,, that Mr..
Brandeis had acted in behalf Of Mr..
Hartman in connection with the fight
between Nj Hartman and Mr.. Fish
for the control of the Illinois Central
Railroad wrote to Joseph Walker,
chairman OF the above mentioned COM
mittee, a letter in which he said con-
corning this charge:
81 have never acted directly or in
directly for Mr.. Hartman or commu-
nicated directly or indirectly with him
or with any one who represented him
directly or indirectly; nor have 1 acted
so far as I know directly or indirectly
for any company with which Mr.. Hsr-
riman was ever connected No one con-
nected with my Arm has ever acted d.
rectly or indirectly for Mr.. Hartman
or for any company with which Mr..
Hartman was connected. except as fol-
lows:
ION November %, 1907, a represent
alive of the Arm of Sullivan and Crom-
well (sic). Of New York, for whom we
have acted from time to time for nearly
fifteen years, requested my partner,
Mr.. Nutter, to aid him in connection
with obtaining proxies for the annual
meeting Of the Illinois Central
Nothing to Prevent Him.
Mr.. Nutter in the presence Of Sui
Ivan and CromwelPs (sic) representa-
tive asked me on that day whether
there was anything in my merger fight
which should prevent his acting in that
matter and told him none whatever
that so far as I knew Mr.. Hartman
had no interest Of any kind in the mer-
ger question.
Mr.. Nutter did act for Messrs. sulli-
van and Cromwell (sic) and either he or
persons employed by him solicited in the
most open manner during the course OF
several months proxies-applying among
others to many gentlemen who were
known to be known most actively In
favor Of the merger"
Mr.. Fox adds that later, in 1914, Mr..
Brandeis, in a book published by him,
severely attacked Mr.. Hartmann and the
so-cslled Hartman merger.
Mr. Fox plans to produce evidence that
in 1906 a Mr.. Stewart, a stockholder OF
the Gillette Safety Razor Company,
brought suit against its officers and d.
rectors alleging mismanagement I'M
proper salaries and general misconduct
of the business. At about the same time
the plaintiff and fourteen others brought
a bill In equity alleging that they had
been induced to sell their former hold
inss Of stock on Misrepresentation from