The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-05-13
BRANDEIS ADVISED
DRUG STORE MERGER
Declared II Legal, Contrary to
the Opinion Of Federal
Attorney.
TESTIMONY IS ALL rs

Warrington, May i2.-Eyidence was
produced to-day before a Subcommittee
OF thu Senate Committee on the judi
ciary that Louis -. Branl,is had actu-
ally counselled the combination OF the
United Drug stores Company with the
Riker-Hegeman Company. giving IN.
opinion that II would be perfectly legal.
although George W, Anderson. United
states Attorney FOR the Distric, Of Mas
~sachusctts. had warned the promoters of
the combination that he would proceed
against It as unlaw fui.
II was to admit this evidence :ha the
hearings were ordered reopsned before
the Judiciary Committee. LOUIS n.
Ligge,t Of Boston. Who vas interested In
forming the combination OF the two com.
psnies. each OF which has = Inc II
stores in various parts Of the county.
n his attorney. Frederick 6. Snow.
testified that after they had encountered
the opposition of the District Attorney
they consulted Mr.. Brandeis. who APP
proved of their plan and pronounced 1t
perfectly lawful.
Mr.. Snow told the subcommittee tina,
he advised his client To consult Nj.
Brandeis. lie said he advised Mr.. l.ig-
cett that as his osn practice had been
largely on no corporal On side he pre-
ferred to bring to bear on the ease tn.
judgment of al attorney experienced in
opposition TO trust and corporation
plans.
Two Letters On Merger.
TWO letters were written TO the Dis
trict Attorney outlining tho plans fol
the combination ~ tho two companies
each Of which had been approved hy NJ
BRA ndeis and eA 'h Of which tho plstric'
Attorney held to he "a contradiction a
the sherman Law. Th. witnesses fur
the- testified that all the corsultation
with Mr.. Brandeis took place since las
October
When MIR Anderson was called he al
miftcd that he rad reported Ia the De
parfnent of Justice that the PROPOSED
combination wa unlawful lie said n
did not see anything improper In Mr
Brsnds.s's opinion.
ut was simply an honest difference o
opinion" said Mr. Anderson. who ap
peared for Mr.. Brandeis iu tho hearing
before the judiciary Committee
III his testimony before to suh-com
mittee Mr.. l.iggett. CHIEF promoter 90
the merger. sad
~ Brsndeis advised that our PRO
posed course VAS legal and sc complete,
the merger. The combination includep
153 stores and 5000 agents. While tn
Government apparently d~lsapproVed q
II At the time, NJ sui, has ever bee
hled.'
Economy Not Monopoly.
Rhn uftnaS- axt.-xa " -.
~ monopoly was intended. but that
was believed a more economical me,ho
OF carrying on the business could b
effected by the merger.
Mr., Snow testified:
we thought Il We cou.d GO, BY hir
fBrandeisl we could get by any on.
h he finally told us that our pre-
posed business venture was lawful "
were so confident that We went ahcs
with II in spite of the hints OF the Dis
trict Attorney that he Nigh, prosecut
u.s."
James : Harlan. a member OF n
Interstate Commerce Commission and
son OF the late Justice Harlan. IN
peared before the subcommittee In SUI
port of Mr.. Brandeis. He testified thl
he had the highest respect for NJ
Brandeis and his integrity.
II was Mr.. Harlan who signed tn
te''eT sent 10 MI Brand"lS ennloyln
him as an attorney IN the advanced ra,
case To appear AS the representative {
the public. His eu!ogistic coinmenda
ton OF Mr.. Brandeis caused him TO h
very sharply cross-examined by Senate
borah and senator Works.
The giving Of testimony closed I,
day and the case will he taken ,p b
the full Committee IN the Judiciary O
Monday. A resolution was introduce
In the Senate By Senator Kenyon e.
ope sessions Of the senate. tho obje.
being to have the Brandeis care dL
cussed In public session.