Daily Kennebec journal., 1916-02-24

r,...,irc-on. Feb. 23.--New charges
..,a erployment of Louis D. Bran
,',. n, F. H. Hartman TO obtain
-.n,ies in the celebrated fight for con-
~, of the Illinois Central Railroad
~ Mr. Brandeis' relations to the
..,,.h,e Life Assurance Society were
a'.s ,odav with the Senate sub-com-
".,.,ee - considering Mr.. Brandeis' NOM
'Sanon for the supreme court.
,rs,en G. Fox in charge of present.
n,idence for those opposed to the
Y.srration of Mr.. Brandeis. laid the
charges before the committee and
".uma-ized what he expected to prove
hc witnesses
hartman Attorneys to Boston
r, ,aO-. he said. when +. n. Harri-
., vas tghtlng Sturtevant Fish for
,o,,rol Of the Illinois Central, sullivan
I'D Cromwell Harriman's attorneys,
~.,, Wadill Catchings to Boston to
.,,,toy Brandeis, Dunbar and Nutter
- secure proxies from Illinois central
..ockholders in New England to be
voted against t1sh-
aThareafter." said Fox. MIR. Bran
,.,s. e-m acted for Mr.. Hartman and
pidely sought to obtain proxies IN his
,Dbaf 4 number of letters soliciting
,,nvies were sent out by Brandeis.
Dunbar and Nutter.
The Joseph Walker Letter
In 14oS Mr.. Brandeis. in answer to
charge made by Joseph B. Warner
l..fore ,he legislative committee on
railroads. Of Massachusetts, that Mr
R,andois had acted il behalf of MIR.
hartman. wrote to Joseph Walker,
,t4;rnan of tho committee:
81 never acted. directly or Indirect
4, y;th him, or with any one who rep
resented him directly or indirectly. nor
r,ve acted - far as | know directly
~ indire, tly for any company with
inch MI Hartman was ever con-
fac,ed No one connected with my firm
has ever acted directly or indirectly
for Mr Hartman or for any company
s,h uhi,.h Mi Hartman was con-
f.itod except as follows:
ION November -. 1891. a representa-
'.e - the trm of sullivan * Cromweil
II >te Yorl. for whom We have acted
na,. iot, to tune for nearly 10 years,
,,.t..~trd my partner. Mr.. Nutter, to ald
r.. ..t ,-onra,,luu with obtaining proxies
Il, r4,. annual meeting OF the Illinois
tn.''+I Mr Nuuer. in the presence OF
,Nt4H 4 Cromwcll's representative,
assoc. nir "n that day whether there was
a-.huig WI rny merger igh, which should
'e.e,: his acting in that matter, and
.-i h'', unuo whatever: that so far as
,qeU. Mr. Hartman had no interes,
u luy krnd in the merger question.
Where Brandeis' Partner Comes in
Nj Natter did act for Messrs. Sulli
yr and Cromwell and either he or per
.aHs employed by him solicited in the
mast o,en manner during the course OF
.,yeral mouths, proXies-applying among
ethers :, many gentlemen who wert
3ron7 70 he most actively in favor OF the
merger
o.ter charges laid by Mr.. Fox con-
erred ln alleged connection of Mr.
RraFdc!s with two suits brought in l90i
AGAINST th. Gillette Safety Razor Co. Ii
00f according to Mr.. FoXs summary
S'o,kholIer named Stewart brought ac-
uCN against officers and directors, alleg'
lng mSmanagement. improper salaries
a1l general misconduct of the business.
Stewards Allegations
In other complaints Stewart and II as
soeiates alleged they had been induced
to sell their foreign holdings by repre-
sniatives Of the officers. who acquired
he stock al A grossly Inadequate price
Henry r Richardson and Henry +. wiz
llams of Boston appeared for the plain
IFS. and Brandeis. Dunbar and Nuttel
tor the defendants.
While The suits were III progress.
sad Fox. "BraNdeiS conferred with Rich
ardson and suggested a settlement of the
hrst suit in which there was only one
plaintiff for nominal consideration anc
requested Richardson not to inform VIII
Eams Of the proposal. Richardson de-