Evening star., 1939-03-16
Rear Admr. Bristol
Confirmed as Mclean
Estate Representative

Former Publisher
Appears to Be Insone
Now, Court Finds
Justice Bolitha ]. Laws in Dis
trict Court today confirmed the ap-
pointment of Rear Admiral Mark L.
Bristol, U. S. NJ, retired, as repre-
sentative of the estate in the Dis
trict of Columbia of Edward B. Nc
Lean, former Washington publisher,
who is now in an institution for the
Insane at Towson, Md.
Justice Laws said his findings were
that Admiral Bristol, whose admin
istration Of the estate had been at
tackled, has performed services
which have benefited the Mclean
estate"
He said the appointment of Ad-
mlral Bristol was made in assumed
compliance with the valid statutes
in force here.
District Examination Urged.
Although refusing to disturb the
present administration Of the estate,
Justice Laws said steps should be
taken Immediately to determine the
mental condition of the former pub
lished in manner provided for resi-
dents Of the District. He ruled that
at the time Mr. Mclean was COM
mitted to an institution in Mary
land. by action of the Maryland
courts, he was, in fact, resident
OF the District.
With reference to the mental con-
dition of the former publisher, JUS
tice Laws. in his opinion, said:
II find as a result of the investiga-
ton which have caused to be made
into the question of the competency
OF Mclean that it appears he is now
insane and at all times referred to
in these proceedings has been in
sane.
Order to Ratify Acts.
under the circumstances, this
court has the right to uphold the ap-
pointment of Admiral Bristol in this
jurisdiction and to ratify his acts
pursuant to such appointment upon
the basis of a de facto committee.
Accordingly, this court will enter
an order ratifying and confirming
the appointment of Admiral Bristol
as the representative of McLean's
estate in the District of Columbia
and ratifying and confirming acts
taken by him pursuant to such ap-
pointment," the opinion said.
Justice Laws set 1t down as his
opinion that the payments hereto
fore actually made to Admiral Bris-
tol by authority of District Court
here should be upheld and that the
sums of $4,000 and $4,000 which
this court authorized to be dispersed
out Of funds in the District of Co.
1umbia should be held not to con-
stitute commissions fixed by the
District OF Columbia court" The
jurist asserted that in law they rep
resent authorized transfers of sums
from this jurisdiction to the State
OF Maryland for payments of COM
missions regularly authorized by the
Maryland court for services per-
formed by committee which it had
appointed.
Justice Laws said that there were
"other strong considerations" which
lead him to believe that Admiral
Bristol should not be compelled to
account for moneys heretofore paid
HIM. as 1t Is apparent that he acted
IN good faith in performance of his
trust. that he acted upon advice of
competent counsel and with the
authority Of the courts of the only
TWO jurisdictions which would have
any control over the estate he was
administering.
SO Limitation Held to Govern.
The jurist held that payments to
Admiral Bristol out of any funds in
the District of Columbia for services
after June 80, 1885, should be gov
erned by the per cent limitation
under the District law and not under
the 10 per cent as authorized by the
maryland stututes. Referring to dis
bursements made directly by the
American Security & Trust Co., out
Of a trust fund created by the late
John r. Mclean, father of Edward
B. Mclean, Justice Laws declared
chat "any moneys paid by the trust
company directly to Mrs. Mclean
tMrs. Evalyn Walsh McLean) by way
OF alimony fixed and determined
long prior to any appointment o1
Admiral Bristol (who was named as
Ancillary Committee by by District
Court on November 6, 1889 would
not be the basis of commission to
Admiral Bristol"
Neil Burkinshaw, attorney fol
Admiral Bristol. during his argu.
ments before Justice Laws, relating
to the amount of compensation te
be allowed the Admiral, said that he
had never asked for any specific
amount, but that the Maryland
courts awarded him 10 per cent.
Justice Laws did not refer, in hi.
opinion today, to the guardian al
law, named by District Court here
Attorney Austin F. Garfield. Tht
jurist made 1t clear in his decision
that he considers "the proceeding.
heretofore had both in Maryland
and In the District of Columbia t.
be valid" but felt that In view o1
"the magnitude of the interests in.
volved and the fact that Mclean:
4ncapacity may extend over a Ions
period of time, the proceeding!
should be put on regular basis ane
ore that is not susceptible to future
attack"