Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1916-03-01
CHARGES
IN BRANDE|S CASE
E. F. McCIennen Testifies in
Behalf of Nominee for Su-
preme Court Bench.
FORMER LAW PARTNER
REVIEWS CASES CITED
Continuation of Inquiry Before the
Senate Committee Which Is Con-
sidering the Nomination.

SlQerlng the nomination.
Edward F. McClennen of Boston.
member of Louis d. Brandeis law firm,
testified again today before the Senate
committee investigating the fitness OF
Mr.. Brandeis to be a member of the SUI
preme Court.
stephen S. Gregory of Chicago. for
mer president of the American Bar As
ISOLATION, testified that Mr. Brandeis'
reputation. as far as he knew, was
excellent" both as ito ability and
character. He said he was speaking
as he had only talked with one or two
Boston lawyers about him.
Mr.. McClennen Explains Charges.
Mr.. McClennen then resumed the
stand to explain the various charges
brought against Mr.. Brandeis.
Conferences at Mr.. Brandeis' susges-
tion between shoe manufacturers and
United Shoe Machinery Company. in
1906. over notifications of leases de-
sired by the manufacturers. came to
nothing. McClennen said and Brandeis
resigned from the shoe company's di.
rectorate.
"Brandeis became convinced that
nothing could be accomplished by con-
ferences. and as Brandeis was on the
board and thus had responsibility
for the leases. he decided to resign"
said McClennen. He wrote a letter of
resignation December 6, 1906, saving
nothing about the leases. winslow has
the resignation except those stated in
the letter"
Reference to Phone Conversation,
McClennen referred to a subsequent
telephone conversation between Wins
low and Brandeis, in which Winslow
explained why he had not acknowl-
edged the letter
"Winslow said if Brandeis felt that
what was coming up this winter might
be embarrassing to him If he remained
director he had nothing to saw" the
witness said.
What was coming up" he added,
was another attempt at shoe machin-
cry legislation by the Massachusetts,
legislature. He referred to a confer
ence between shoe manufacturers and
W1nslow January Z, 1907, at which
Brandeis. present as representative
OF the shoe machinery company, criti.
cised the lessee.
Attitude Toward Shoe Company.
He was urging what he believed to
be the best interests of the shoe ma
chinery company" McClennen said At
no time in 1906, he added, was Brandeis
retained or appearing for his shoe man.
ufacturing clients.
I'VE had no general retainer from
shoe manufacturers" he testified. Be-
cause they had been clients of Bran
deis he had an avenue by which he
got them to assist in defeating legisla-
ton which his client, the Shoe Ma.
chinery Company. wanted defeated
Defends Nomination.
Edward F. McLennon of Boston. .
member of Mr.. Brandeis' firm, took the
stand yesterday afternoon to defend the
nomination of Mr.. Brandeis to the SUI
preme Court
Austen G. Fox, counsel for the oppo-
sition earlier, had put in evidence a
photogra phic copy of a check for SO
from +. F. insolvency of Boston 10 Mr..
Brandeis, to support charge that
Brandeis was paid by policy holders OF
the Equitable Life Assurance Company
for representing them in their protective
The first thing Mr.. McClennen was
asked to tell about was the life insurance
in cident. He said the Brandeis firm was
first employed by the Equitable in 1901.
and had handled thirty or forty cases
for it since that time.
so you were counsel for the Equita-
BILE at the time in 1905 when Mr.. Bran
deis attacked it in a public speech"
inquired Senator Works.
We were not general counsel at any
time; we only acted in specific suits"
responded Mr. McClennen.
Did the company ever complain Of
Not that 1 ever heard about"
Acted Without Pay, Claim.
The witness stated that Brandeis
who had their organiza-
ton headquarters in his office. and that
many of the reforms urged by them
were adopted by the company.
How about this McSweeney check
inquired Federal Attorney Anderson.
the committee.
"Oh, that had nothing to do with
the protective association" was the re-
Spouse. Mr.. McSweeney consulted Mr..
Brandeis about taking the surrender
cash value of his policy. and Mr..
Brandeis charged him $40 for his ad-
vice"
Mr.. Fox told the committee that he
accepted the word of Mr.. McClennen
that Mr.. Brandeis received nothing for
the protective association. and
said he had presented the copy OF the
check merely because he did not know
Mr.. Brandeis was paid by the
policy holders or not.
AS to the charge that Mr.. Brandeis
was employed by the New Haven or
others to wreck the New England rail-
road. Mr.. McClennen said the Office
diary showed that Mr.. Brandeis ceased
to have any connection with the litiga-