When that statement was filed before the judge, a printed copy was served upon the attorney for the Æolian Company, Mr. Charles E. Hughes, one of the ablest men in the United States, who has distinguished himself in the recent insurance investigation in New York. Anything that he does not think of is not likely to be worth thinking of, and when he put in, as he did, an elaborate brief in reply to my petition, he did not controvert one solitary word of the statement of evidence set forth in the petition about the inherent character of the Æolian scheme, which he would have done if he could have done so. The CHAIRMAN. What was his reply--raising questions of law? Mr. WALKER. I do not think his reply amounted to a row of pins. The CHAIRMAN. Is that a matter of printed record? Mr. WALKER. His reply? I have a copy of his brief in my office in New York. The CHAIRMAN. Will you send that to the committee? Mr. WALKER. I will; yes. Senator CLAPP. And your petition? Mr. WALKER. Yes. Mr. SULZER. He raised the question of jurisdiction in his reply, did he not? Mr. WALKER. No; not at all. Mr. SULZER. What was his reply, if you remember? Mr. WALKER. I would rather not tell, because I do not think it is particularly creditable to Mr. Hughes. Mr. SULZER. You just complimented him very highly. Mr. WALKER. And I do not desire to deduct anything from that compliment. Mr. BONYNGE. You are going to file a copy of it, are you not? Mr. WALKER. Yes; but my time is limited, and if I gave the honorable gentleman from New York an account of that it would take me ten minutes to do so. The CHAIRMAN. You will have an opportunity to inspect his reply and that petition when we have the records here. Mr. WALKER. Now, let me tell you the rest of the story. His reply did not contain a word controverting my statements of fact in the petition. He did not take any issue with the statements of fact in the petition at all--not the slightest. But so far as his reply contained any matter at all, it was first of all an attempt to show that my client was not entitled to be admitted as a defendant anyway, and that, if I was entitled to be heard, he took the ground that my argument was not very conclusive. He did not reflect upon the petition at all; his reply applied entirely to my argument. Judge Hazel afterwards overruled the petition, and the same day that he overruled the petition he decided the case in favor of the defendant, and followed my brief in his decision. So that the intellectual origin of Judge Hazel's decision can be traced back to the brief that I filed in pursuance of the petition which he overruled.