The Washington times., 1916-02-10

them in the rate hearings" said Mr..
Thorne. interests of consumers have
usually been matters of jest"
Mr.. Thorne dramatically pointed to
the large bulk OF exhibits OF railroads
and OF shippers to show how well they
had been represented in the rate cases.
Prolonged COIlOquy.
Senator Walsh and Mr.. Thorne in
dulged in q prolonge dcolloquy over
the statement of Mr. Brandeis that he
considered the surplus allotment OF Mr..
Thorne "niggardly." Senator Walsh
sought an admission that Mr. Brandeis
had referred only to the or per cent
over-dividends as the surplus" while
Mr.. Thorne contended that he must
have taken the dividends into consider
alton. The witness said mo one with
common sense would discuss surplus for
improvements without taking dividends
into consideration"
When Lieutenant Governor EshIe
went on he upheld Senator Walsh's
contention.
II can't for the life Of me, and had
intimate knowledge of the cases, see
why Mr.. Thorne has taken this atti-
tude." said the lieutenant governor. "I
believe he is the only man in the United
states who accused Mr.. BrandeiS of bad
faith in this matter"
The Californian then turned to Mr..
Thorne's statements about the dangers
of having q man on the Supreme Court
revenues were not adequate for their
maintenance.
''Mr. Thorne's statements about the
tremendous amounts involved and Mr.
BrandelS attitude toward the 'niggard-
ty surplus are not so startling when
you recall that Brandeis never favored
the rate increase asked for, and there
did"
Rates Chief Issue.
Much of last evenings hearing bore
more directly upon railroad rates than
upon the fitness OF Mr.. Brandeis to
serve on the Supreme Court bench.
The California lieutenant governor
talked at length about the lack of any
real basis, in advance of a valuation.
for determining proper freight rates.
Never has there been a case de-
cided in any of these rate hearings on
any scientific principle whatever. Never
has there been a decision that was not
made in the dark.
OF comparison. In the 1910 and 1919
cases the comparisons were based upon
revenues for succeeding years. This
comparison showed nothing about the
justice of the rates in the first place,
and no one could be accused of dis
honesty for deducting anything from
them"
The hearings, Mr.. Eshlc stated, werc
in view OF this he said he saw no
grounds for imputing to Mr.. Brandeis
any motives but honest ones.
Mr. Eshle took issue with Mr.. Thorne
duties d. @ in S'S, the ISIS case. In the iSio
case Rrandels represented shippers. ne
said. but In the 1919 case he had been
engaged by the commission to act in
la
ing railroads. and that he only did
what he was engaged to do in reaching
the conclusions he did.
Thinks Services Consistent.
e 1T would have been surprised had Mr.
BrendeIs taken any other position
said the witness. TT has become too
customary for attorneys engaged by
commissions to conceive that they rep-
resent the interests of the public as
against the railroads. I am familiar,
too. with the letter asking Mr.. Brandeis
to take the case for the Interstate
Commerce Commission, and I always
have thought his services consistent
with the requirements laid down in the
letter."
Mr.. Eshle paid a high tribute to Mr..
Thorne for his work In the case, and
said he regretted that he must differ
from him in regard to Brandeis' atti-
tude.
Tho sympathies of the members Of
the committee were clearly indicated
last evening by their questioning OF the
witnesses. Senators Chiffon, Walsh,
and Fletcher sought to shake Mr..
Thornes testimony by cross-question-
ing, and Senators Cummins and Clarke
pitched with equal enthusiasm into
Lieutenant Governor Eshle and Mr..
Teal.
Before Mr.. Thorne left the stand he
was asked about his politics. He said
he was a Republican.
Did you vote for TaftT' he was
asked.
"I did not" he replied.