Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-06-03
HARTMAN LETTERS
"SENT" TO HOOVER
HanseI Says He Turned Over
Correspondence to Block
Reappointment.


changed nearly six years ago with
Harleigh H. Hartman, vice chairman
of the Public Utilities Commission. and
which has been published by the Wash
ington Daily News, was given to q
friend" to take to President Hoover
In an effort to block Mr.. Hartmans
declined to name the friend"
In . long distance telephone con-
versation with O representative OF The
Star, Mr.. Hansel said today he was un-
aware that the correspondence had been
published, and did not know who had
given it out for publication. He de-
clared he intended the correspondence
to be for the information only OF the
President who was TO make an appoint
ment to the Public Utilities Commission.
as Mr.. Hartmans FIRST term expires
June 80.
Were Once Friendly.
Mr.. Hansel and Mr.. Hartman were
| on friendly terms back in 1925. at the
time of the correspondence, and as far
as Mr.. Hartman knew, he said that
friendship continued to exist. He said
he did not know why Mr.. Hansel should
want to prevent his reappointment to
the commission.
Reminded of that friendship back in
1925 when he engaged Mr.. Hartman to
work up railroad track laying and sur
facing data, and asked why it was
broken. Mr.. Hansel replied:
That's my business. That was back
in 1925 when Mr.. Hartman was work.
ing for me. He gave up that Job and
got another one"
Mr. Hartman has maintained that
the disclosure of the correspondence
, was on the part of those who had
| reason to block his appointment. Up
to yesterday afternoon the White House
reported that no communication regard
ing the Hartman correspondence had
been received.
Showed Double Employment.
The correspondence related to Hart
mans employment as consultant by
HanSel, who at that time was represent
ing Eastern railroads before the Inter-
state Commerce Commission. Hartman
had resigned from the legal staff Of the
commission, but had been retained as
special counsel to argue and brief the
Great Northern Railroad valuation
casa case with which he was init
mately familiar.
Arrangements Shown.
The correspondence shows the ar
rangements Hartman made to submit in
advance to Hsnsel the argument he
was to make defending the case of the
Bureau of Valuation of the commission
| and the financial arrangements between
| himself and Hansel.
The correspondence began March 5,
| 1925. when Hartman formally notified
Hansel that ne was resigning from the
| Interstate Commerce Commission and
would open private offices. He asked
| Hansel to direct business to him. if
| occasion arose, and inclosed copy OF
his resignation. which was to become
| effective April /, 1925.
Retainer and Fee Named.
Replying under date of March 6,
! Hansel asked Hartman to name o fee
for his personal services for the period
of one year from April / in dealing
with the question of railroad track lay
ing and surfacing. Hartman replied
that he wanted a retainer OF $4,000
and a fee of $500, payable in one year
in equal quarterly amounts. On March
Hansel sent Hartman a check for
$4,000.
The Great Northern case, one Of the
important valuation cases handled by
the Interstate Commerce Commission,
then entered into the correspondence.
The commission paid Hartman $1,000
for his brief and argument in this case,
which he prepared after he had re-
signed.
Hartman Criticized.
Hartman did not argue the case until
late in the Fall Of 1928 and Hansel,
after reading copy Of his brief. wrote
to him under date of September 4,
pointing out that his conclusions were
not in line with the understanding"
he had with him before their arrange
| ment. Hansel declared that he under
stood Hartman had stated to DR..
Charles w. Needham, general solicitor
Of the Bureau of Valuation, that the
testimony in the Great Northern case
in respect to track laying and surfacing
was insufficient" on the part of both
the bureau and the carrier to warrant
conclusions by the commission. But
as I read your report" Hansel said,
you definitely find the case against
the protestant" which was the railroad.
Mr.. Hansel questioned Mr. Hartman's
statement that LAS the record now
stands the carrier has failed to prove
that there Is any necessity for change
| in the valuation figures
In his reply, Mr.. Hartman said:
II gave this point considerable
thought, to put it in full accord with
my statement to you and allay any
suspicion OF insincerity that the COM
miSSionerS have on account Of knowing
OF my employment In connection with
| account IL, and felt sure both had been
accomplished. will make my position
plain on argument and suggest that
you go over this part in advance"
II tried to work in the idea that
the bureaus case was insufficient,
but it appeared so out of place
in brief in support of the
tentative valuation, after statement
that the carrier had not proved its
case, that it would have caused distrust
at once. It seemed necessary to rely
upon the carrier, and my previous
statements to the commission itself, to
show up this point. I will use it in
argument If aked my personal views, or
II you can suggest q way to avoid the
question, why don't he keep still in
public where the bureaus case Is
weak
your understanding Of my state
ments to DR.. Needham Is correct, and
I will back them up in any way. am
not attempting to back down. hunt
cover or double cross and have put
the case in the way thought it would
produce best results"
Wrote Answer.
The following day, September 6,
Hartman wrote another letter to Han
sel saying: I'm reading over my letter
Of yesterday to you it might sound as
If were willing to slight the bureaus
case in the coming arguments. OF
course, could not honorably do this,
and am certain you would not want
me to. I must defend the bureau to
the best of my ability, just as I am
conscientiously carrying out my agree
ment with you"
After the case had been argued Mr..
| Hartman wrote to Mr.. Hansel, under
date of october 81: IN the Great
Northern argument used practically
the information sent to you, stressing
cnnferenceS and leaving out some Of the