Show FOH AIS I OR u nU 1 r t l i I 1 t n i I If af He H Has Done Dohe Any W Wi O ong g He HeI 1 j ji i I Wants W l tS iLaw L IL w i Hihl I j I ItS IJ J tS SUMS M UP VA VARIOUS toUS CHARGES 11 j I Ii if 11 Basis for fol foi H Iko l ld lu I holc i t L t ti i Tangible I ir i lo 11 Form 1 I I I I I I i Oc the 69 law bawl Ill lin le J ao if lUll hat done J on fl h conC u st I Iby j iby by Ur UnIted S Foral ll 1 J I Sf hero hC l q making tills jl sug i UI ui ilip th s hide made adt and anI an discusses qi the Iho l ani ethics as to various US clients The Tue m Its I 51 as ad follows fo I KE t T I TI questions Tn Yh this hoI matter 1 1 a In lip which L tho ho ut l Is 11 concerned di are arc i VAvas 1 08 employed Which i ch concealed c pr or don und and f Thu i character oi I of o that employ n cr t had any r to toJ to ihy J t But c l r or on ai influenced mo Inc moIn fn In Ih any a y manlier I In III thereto points 10 ill U I 1 i jullin fully I 1 my former published r tl tate state statement tut ment men t I jl havo not until now no spoken of ot thc compensation l ii I received ric oll because hec use if tf thu tho m nt was vas ln improper oper It It would wo ld bo bono b bno 10 no d to sho was as a small sum but j t If it on tho tl the tho th em cm employment pl or the compensation ns tion Concerned c i d only the tho company and anil my myself m self nobody dy else If f my illY former state statements ments morits fare u r true e as I know them to be ber berthe bethe the employment was entirely proper arid and legitimate J and for the tue quos I tion Of f compensation com is I im one ono I do not feel called culled u to discuss with Mr Hearst Henr t tIn I In Imi view However l of the Important cl u of oC tim tho service rendered the tiie the company to t 1 pay und oral if IC It It may be considered although unforeseen seen s en the tho disagreeable experience to I I I think It Would ouId be biS b to show I Ivus was overpaid ho should that fould ouid boa beu matter matler if Ifo foL or the tho company toi tol complain about and und I t Sir Mr Hearst I HIS EMPLOYMENT EM LOl For the thi ben lIt pf pC those who vho may may not lOt have uvo read l ad my n former c statements 1 I Iel e t that my lily employment yn nt yas ras c li lined fined to tI the of the company In Ohio Including t cI its reorganization after the decision de of our supreme court ourt ills die dissolving solving salving g the Uie that 16 th was was end ended ed cd long before beC retho the had become In any way th jeet of pf legislation by 1 y Congress or the subject of attacks of any tho tImo courts or 01 otherwise by government g V and be before beUl fore Ul any uny such su h legislation laUon by b Congress r I lY Y th UI lt d States S company was proposed l or i 1 foreseen end and that such nuchi employment has ilas never been renewed although as ItS heretofore ro shown again a tendered 1 and amI declined in 1300 1905 If I 1 did hot not have a i right t to accept that employment should probably nl lYl 5 Criticized for fm been for fot j years cars J employed ed by Ii b thOI tho Ohio Ohl cum ClInt uni pany n oil au l the tho ground that while such employment has hils no relation n to my duties in ho Congress ss I yet el In ln some soma way wa now now unforeseen u C the tha company cOI puny may be bo subjected l hereafter to to legislation by byi y Congress C n r s or di r to hi t federal procedure l against t it If or pr perhaps condemned for tOI once representing tho General Genc ul Electric El ctrl company c although that was 1 i II iwas was elected to tOl the tho senate senat Ji or the tho Cir Telephone no company by I was w was s employed for Cor many many years before and an 1 for tot some time alter after J I was elected to t the senate because It Is a L branch b anch of oC tho nell Del company compan and these com panics tim tho General G and un the thc Boll Bel Telephone been charged according a to the thc newspapers with a al violation vl l laU n of the antitrust laws and tul are arc areto arct aretO to t be IJO civilly and criminally proceeded tho le the tho United States PH R SERVICE RULE KULE I was as s I te l oy ly by the theard lh ard Oil company compa there the l was wm iw moro more probability of oc m pany being boing legislated hite l against by Con giess or 01 l proceeded pro against in tho tIme fed federal oral eral so 10 far for as anybody was wa then awl o than wasand wits was and has hns been as HI asto HIt to t the thc companies named nand at the time when IJ respectively ly represented them u m If such possibilities ate are to tobar t tb bar bam b employment n plo th n no no member of oC Congress s can ca safely act as tt in any iuS ih case cn o rind nod every one no should imme immediately l cloO his law office I o uch ruin rulo has ever oer Oi l prevailed and t nd there th r is no nb reason why wimy hY ay an such iJ h iule should tain tam All AI lawyers h w ers at least fully under when wh il a d professional prof ir irico vico ico cc has heel been b cli r and has lus been l paid for fot nil all i c on nn both sides and no lie Jav el Is s bound by byr b reason r of a employment to sl ow tiny any lilY fa subsequent time timea a as attorney as mIs or oUmer ts to riny alty rill oho fono who Wiio ho may y have havo been his client Finally If I committed h any off t the tile law Jaw let J l sal i ally all point it out and nd proceed t me 1110 Tild C iro r alth they have hao l q yet yot I t ij in them and a and amId with If lh heme r b ap just jUtt t fo lle loleSs l JQ t fv it l on 1 o l n C ii u lt rosell can e appear and ami lie fully heard l i |