The Washington times., 1916-02-10

embodied I'm his BRIEF" replied Mr..
Carfnalt.
But the brief was shown to the at
torneys only after the oral arguments
Clarke.
Senator Walsh then questioned the
witness as to what extent. Mr.. Thorne
had worked with other counsel for the
shiOpers or with Mr.. Carmalt himself.
Mr.. Carmalt said that Mr.. ThOrne had
prepared his own case. He knew OF no
assemblage of attorneys TO consider
what position should be taken.
The ''niggardly" surplus remark made
by Mr.. Brandeis in reference TO the
amount of railroad earnings again was
projected into the hearings Of Senator
walsh. Mr.. Carmat again took Issue
with Mr., Thorne. who had said that
Mr., Brandeis had referred to the divi-
dends plus surplus for Improvement.
Lyon Takes Stand.
Mr.. CarmRlt said his understanding
OF Mr.. Brandeis' remark was that it
referred to surplus after dividends
had been paid.
Frank Lyon said he had been as
signed to work In 1910 in a capacity
similar to that in which Mr.. Bran
ieis was employed in 1913
so far as Mr.. Brandeis' instructions
are concerned" Mr.. Lyon said, II
think the commissions letter to him
Is the best evidence. As for myself,
/ received Instructions to ascertain
the facts. If had found any favor
able to the railroads 1 would have
fRt1 them before the commission. l
40 not understand that /, in 1910, or
Mr. Brandeis in 1918, were engaged
to associate ourselves with the ship
pers."
The whole question of the surplus
which Mr.. Brandeis had referred to
as "niREardly." Mr.. Lyon said. was
inconseauential and that everybody
except Mr.. Thcrne had simply regard
ca IT as difference OF opinion. lie
said anyone who went over the re-
port of the Central Freight Asso-
citation territory. must have realized
that the revenues were inadequate
and he saw no improperly in Mr..
Brandeis making that admission.
Railroads have been careful to sub
NIT their cases to the Interstate Com
merce Commission when times were
hard, according to Mr.: Lyon. He said
they had lost out in 1910 when busi-
ness picked UP before they could get
their case heard. The speaker then
culogized the Hrandeis brief as q
noteworthy impeachment of railroads
and said 'Brandeis' series Of 1ues-
tions was the most exhaustive list /
have ever seem"
Pointed Out Losses.
He said Brandeis had pointed out how
losses were entailed through ineffi-
cheney, and asserted that the railroads
had taken some of the suggestions OF
Mr.. Brandeis in the 1918 hearing. when,
for example, they sought to get the
passenger traffic to bear its own ex-
penses. Another loss through cheap
service pointed out by Brandeis, Mr..
Lyon said, was that cattle cars in the
middle West were carried for 1 or
cents a mile.
''Mr. Thorne represented the shippers,
didn't he? And Mr.. Brandeis' argument
to make each class of traffic bear its
own expenses would have raised the
charges upon Mr.. Thorne's clients,
would it?" asked Senator Walsh.
Eyes, that is a fair inference" re-
piled Mr.. Lyon.
Referring to Mr.. Lyons expression of
willingness to state the railroads side
of the case he was in. Senator Cumming
asked whether Mr.. Lyon had expressed
any such opinions in the 1910 hearing.
Mr. Lyon said he had not. He had con-
fined himself to facts. But he could
see how Mr.. Brandeis. being brought
from the outside. and being much more
widely known. might not be so hesitant
about expressing an opinion.
Il thing Mr.. Lyons modesty does him
an injustice In assuming that his
competence did not entitle him to follow
the course laid down by Mr.. Brandeis."
remarked Senator Cumming.
81 did not say that replied Mr..
Lyon. ''In 1910 the railroads did not
get an increase"
Yes. and in 1910 you did not ieop-
ardlZe your case by making any damag-
ing admissions" retorted Senator Cum
ming.
do YOU represent any railroads."
asked Senator Walsh.
NO. Only incidentally. But that is
because they have not asked me. / did
not hang out my shingle to take only
one class of cases." said Lyon.
Shelling Takes Stand.
Thomas c. Spelling on taking the
stand. said he had scme facts and
opinions too, If he We're allowed to
express them. He went into a long
history of the burden of proof side
Df the rate hearings endeavoring to
show that Mr.. Braideis and Mr.. Ives,
OF the Boston chamber of commerce,
had assented to q compromise on this
point which, he believed. would hurt
the cause of the shippers.
Mr.. Spelling told how he had sent
propaganda in the form OF circular
letters which resulted in mass meet
inEs being held in Chicago, Topeka
and other Western cities to uphold
the contention that the burden or
PROOF in rate increase contention
should rest with the railroads
Mr.. Spelling said he had prepared a
brief which Mr.. Ives had promised to
ask Mr.. Brandeis to incorporate in his
brief, and that he did not hear from it
for two months. He said he finally
wrote threatening letters to Mr.. Bran
deis urging some reply in regard to
Continued on Page Fourteen.)