The Washington times., 1916-02-11
Writes Letter to Senator Chill
ton Pointing Out Features
Of Their Statements.
NOT IN ADVANCE RATE CASES
Railway Commissioner Answers
carmal, Teal, EshIeman,
and Lyon.

state Railroad Commissioner Clifford
Thorne, Of Iowa, who appeared before
the Senate subcommittee in the Bran
deis case, has sent a letter TO Chair
man Chiffon, of the committee. in
the testimony of Examiner carmalt. Of
the Interstate Commerce Commission.
that Of Frank Lyon. OF Joseph n. Teal.
OF Portland. and of Lieutenant Gov
ernor Eshleman. OF California. All
these have appeared in behalf of Mr..
Brandeis.
Mr.. 'Thorne points out that Teal and
Eshienian had nothing to do with the
Eastern advance rate case. and that
Mr.. Brandeis opposed the advance ''af-
fecting the clients Of Mr.. Lyon. the
Pittsburgh Coal Company"
'Of course Mr.. Lyon had no COM
plant says Mr.. Thorne.
Mr.. Thorne. In an analysis of Car
malt's testimony. indicates he did not
get the impression from the statement
Carmalt made to him that Mr.. Bran
deis would take the position the reve-
nues of the Eastern roads as q whole
were Inadequate.
The Thorne Letter.
Mr.. Thorne in his letter says:
There are q few matters OF minor
Importance On connection with the
Brandeis investigation which desire
shown of record. II this letter IL not
sufficient for the purpose. am willing
to reappear before the committee. II II
be desired. though / prefer not to do
30.
"Mr. Carmait. Of the Interstate Com
merce Commission. did not question the
N( VnNT NDN nj
any fact or circumstance with one
exception, only; and that related to
conversation after the oral argument In
the per cent case had commenced. call
your attention specifically to the slight
variation between his recollection OF
the incident and mine. j stated that
the second day of the argument, after
learning the contents OF Mr.. Brandeis
brief. which contained no allegation as
TO the adequack or inadeduacy Of rev.
enues in official classification territory
as a whole. / asked him. Mr.. Carmalt.
what position Mr.. Brandets took In the
case: and his reply TO me was that he
understood Mr.. Brandeis behaved the
net income ofrfhe railroads was made
auate I'm central freight association ter
ritory, and on some other lines. Mr.
Carmait states he said that Mr.. Bran
deis believed the net income OF the
railroads was Inadequate. especially on
the lines in central freight association
territory. A few slight changes I'm these
words carry a large difference I'm the
meaning. In support OF his reconectlon
Mr. Carmalt says that he believes thnt
was the reason why J reques,ad the
privilege of'following- the other shippers,
and preceding Mr.. Brandeis. II that he
true why should 7 still have requested
the privilege OF preceding Mr.. BrandeisF
Under these circumstances ] would nave
demanded the right to follow him ~
order to answer his argument mstean
of preceding him.
Was Brandeis' Assistant.
Further. as to Mr.. carmalts copnec-
ton with the case. II should be borne
In mind that he did not examine or
cross-examine witnesses. or take part
IN oral argument. and his name appears
IN no brief filed in the case. He served
as assistant TO Mr. Brandeis.
"As 10 the nature of the data COM
piled. and the brief nled by Mr.. Bran
deIs. II has been ALLEGED that he covered
all phases OF the case. do not care
to criticise. but simply to call attention
To the fact that his brief and argument
viii show you that he made no enort
10 anaiyze the credit Of American rail-
wavs: he made no effort TO compare
their ability to secure capitel win thes
OF companies ENGAGED In other lines OF
industry: he presented no compilation
~ bis own anaivzing the cost of railway
supniles: he made no analysis whatever
OF what constitutes reasonable rate
of return: and he made no discussion
q, either the cases or the essential eie-
ments TO be considered In trying to de-
termine what constitutes q reasonable
| surplus.
has been given. inadvertently. relative
10 the Western freight advance case
OF 1915. In that case Mr.. Brandeis did
| not appear for the commission. SINNERS
or railroads. In that case the commis-
sion did not hold the revenues or the
railroads as n whole 20 be Inadequate.
| In that case tho commission denied the
advance on * per cent OF the trafrc IN
voIved : and later the commission denied
the petition for rehearing hied by tho
railroads.
Mr.. Lyons Position.
"RelatIve TO Mr.. Lyons testimony.
call your attention to nv original state
mcnt that Mr.. Brandeis did not take
position against the interests OF some OF
the shippers. I stated specifically that
he opposed the advance affecting the
clients OF Mr.. Lyon. the Pittsburgh Coal
| Company., or course. Mr.. Lyon had no
COMPLAINT. Mr.. Lvon did not represent
| the consumer. did. When Mr.. Lyon
was employed by the commission as
special counsel In the advanced rate
| case OF lSlU. LYNN hOe U'NS
| the hands of the railroads on the great
issue OF the case. the inadeduacy or
| their revenues as whole: He took no
position whatever as to the disposiuoh
/ OF the case.
"As to Mr.. Teal he was not in the
| case at any stage Of the proceedings.
"AS to Mr. Eshleman and the can.
fornia commission. the records VIII
| show that neither were parties to the
cuse at any stage OF the proceedings"
| -------------------
CI,okcLAe ~ nA