OCR Text |
Show DRANDEIS' ACTS BEING REVIEWED Boston Attorney Tells of Supreme Su-preme Court Nominee's Connection With Warren Will Case. BREACH OF TRUST Brandeis Acts as Attorney for Lessees and Beneficiaries and Hundreds of Thousands Thou-sands of Dollars Are Involved. Washington, Feb. 15. Charles S. Mellen, former president of the New Haven railroad, today notified the senate sub-committee investigating of nomination of Louis D. Brandeis of Boston for the supreme court bench, that he had no facts to substantiate the charge by C. W. Barron 'of Boston that Mr. Brandeis "had helped wreck the New Haven." Representatives of the United Shoe Machinery company, with" which Mr. Brandeis formerly was associated, appeared ap-peared as witnesses. Telegram From Mellen. When the hearing on the nomination nomina-tion was resumed today, Senator Walsh read this telegram from Mr. Mellen: "I have no Information of any character char-acter whatever that would be of any value to the sub-committee on the Brandeis nomination. I have positively posi-tively no bearing on the case. Under these circumstances may I not be excused ex-cused from attending?" Senator Walsh said that, in the absence ab-sence of Chairman Chilton, he wired Mr. Mellen: "Mr. Barron testifying before judi-ciarv judi-ciarv committee Thursday asserted vou" would testify to facts establishing establish-ing the charge that Brandeis was employed em-ployed to wreck the New Haven road. Having In mind your telegram of to-daj, to-daj, please wire whether you can give committee any information that will shed light on truth or falsity of the charge?" To that Senator Walsh received another an-other message from Mr. Mellen relt-r.rntinrr relt-r.rntinrr that, ho had no information whatever on tho subject. After some discussion today, the committee decided to leave open the question of whether Mr. Mellen should be subpoenaed. Boston Attorney Testifies. S. W. Winslow. president of the United Shoe Machinery company, was called as the first witness, but yielded to Hollls R Bailey. Boston attorney, who gave testimony relative to Mr Brandeis' connection with the so-call-eu Warren will case. Mr. Bailey first made a general statement that he had been opposed to Mr Brandeis in several law cases, but considered their relations friendly friend-ly Mr. Brandeis assisted his partner, Samuel D. Warren. In framing a plan which, Bailey said, placed his partner part-ner in a position Individually antagonistic antag-onistic to Warren's position as trustee trus-tee "This," said Bailey, "as I shall call attention to later, resulted In a. breach of trust. Mr. Brandeis and his firm acted for 15 or 20 years as counsel for Mr. Warren and asso-dates asso-dates as trustees under an annual ictalner of $2000 and for Mr Warren and other individuals as lessors ot property under a reUlner. These interests in-terests were antagonistic in some important im-portant particulars and the result was that tho beneficiaries, one of hom yras my client, suffered fl"ancJalHclcam: age in the sum of some hundreds or thousands of dollars " Bailey Explains Warren Case. Bailey explained that S. D. Warren, Jr, and Mr. Brandeis were in college col-lege together and later formed a law partnership. Warren was the son of Samuel D. Warren, Sr., a paper manufacturer, man-ufacturer, who left an estate of $21,-000,000 $21,-000,000 to his widow and five children, chil-dren, one of whom, Edward Warren, Bailey's client, never was connected with the paper business. A financial arrangement was made for carrying on the business "First," said Mr. Bailey, "the widow and all tho children convoyed all thnir interests in the property, through Mr. Brandeis as a third party, to three trustees, S D Warren, Jr., a Mr. Mason who had been associated in a small way with the paper business, busi-ness, and Mrs. Warren, tho widow. These trustees operated the paper mills, the deed of trust directing that they were to carry on the business for the benefit of all the heirs. Property Is Leased. "What was done was that these three lessees, by authority given In the deed, made a lease of the property to Mr. Brandeis and through him to S. D. Warren, Fiske Warren, another son, and Mason, who proceeded to operate oper-ate tho mill. The rental terms were 6 per cent interest on the property and half the net profits. That arrangement ar-rangement resulted ln S. D. Warren receiving compensation for his services serv-ices In the first two or three years, amounting to $75,000 to $100,000; Fiske Warren from $30,000 to $40,000 nnd they, with Ma-oon, within 19 or 20 years received for their services approximately ap-proximately $2,000,000. A bill of equity was filed in the Massachusetts courts alleging that this wag twice as much aB could fairly be charged. It appeared on the hearing that Mr. Brandeis had acted as counsel for ihe leseos and also for the lessors and for many years had tho trust and confidence of all tho beneficaries." A suit growing out of dissatisfaction dissatisfac-tion of some trustees was settled out of court. "It appeared," he continued, "that as a provision in the lease by which Warren personally with his associates was bound to make repairs and that Warren as trustee wasbound to make additions or improvements, consider- able sums had been charged to the additions ad-ditions or improvements account that should have been charged to the repair re-pair account. Our charge was that Mr. Brandeis, as a lawyer for Mr. Warren, who had ibout this time retired re-tired from the if... firm, was instrumental instru-mental ln making the plan for conducting con-ducting the business; that he wrote an opinion for the beneficiaries holding hold-ing that the plan was legal, protected them from the individual liability as partners and was a proper arrangements. arrange-ments. Beneficiaries Employ Other Counsel. "None of the beneficiaries had other oth-er counsel until 1903 when Edward Warren employed William S. Young-man Young-man with whom I became associated about 1910. Mr. Brandeis, I think, drew a will for Mrs. Warren and one for Edward Warren. "We contended that the lease to Samuel D. Warren was not fair to the beneficiaries and was one which was regarded as being for his personal interests, in-terests, rather than as to his duties as trustee." . Senator Fletcher brought out that tho money derived by the lessors was not salary but their share of the earnings and was dependent upon thPir successful operation ot the business. busi-ness. . t Bailev testified that the heirs knew the Brandeis firm was acting for lessors les-sors and lessees, but did not know how they were acting or advising. His point was that when differences as to the management arose about fifteen fif-teen years after the lease was made regarding repairs, that the Brandeis firm should have advised Edward Warren to get independent counsel "because tho firm represented both sides." , . , , "I think if Mr Brandeis had prop-erlv prop-erlv considered the rights and interests inter-ests ot Edward Warren." Mr. Bailey said, "that he would have said to him: rYour brother Samuel, while trustee of this property, is getting very large sums under this lease.' " Clark Stirs Up Tempest. Senator Clark stirred up a tempest in the committee by asking Bailey if he were able to tell from his association associa-tion with lawyers In Boston what was the general professional reputation of Mr Brandeis. Senator Walsh and Senator Fletcher both objected to the form of question, but Senator Cummins Cum-mins insisted it was highly proper The committee finally consented to let Mr. Bailey answer and ho gave the answer that tho opinion of the Boston bar was that Mr. Brandeis was "a very able lawyer, a man of keen Intellect, an able advocate, but lhat he is not entirely trustworthy. I think that Is about Its It. "What aro vour politics? asked Senator Clark, "A Wilson Democrat.' |