Evening Star Newspaper, April 25, 1926, Page 4

FENNIN LENGTHY STATEMENT EXPLAINS HIS ACTION Commissioner Also Refu S AS COMMITTEE tes Blanton’s Allegations Concerning Headley's Demotion, Retirement of Sergt. Lee and Relations With Dr. White. Commissioner Fenning vesterd: make a statement before the commiil Representative Blanton's impeachmen The hour's time was a compromise he by Commissioner Fenning and the 1 i{ When the matter was settled. Lo: his prepared statement anev ering Mr The statemwent follows, full Takes Up Formal Defense. | M. prepared ‘Charge No. 1- vised Statutes. Fenning read his defense fvom | statement as _follows: | First section 3498, Re No single case has | been presented or can he presented in which I have acted as attorney in prosecutir against the United States in vi of said section I am not an offcer o Btates or a person hold of trust for profit or disc any affcial function under o in conne tion with any executive departme of the Government of ihe Unil States or under the Senate or House of Representatives. The organic act of the District of Coliinbia June 11, 1878), 20 & L e vides. ‘The Disu of ¢ in ahall remain and continne a munici pal corporation as provided in section | 3 of the Revised tes re said District, and the Commissior herein provided for shall be de aken as officers of said corporu (Section 1) Charge No. 2- Section 300, World War veterans act, 1924 Section hu vefers to ‘such assistance as may e required in the preparation and ex jon of the necessary application and papers to the bureai In presenting the wards 10 the Veterans' Bureau | have. in each case. stood in ihe shoes of my ward and have acted substantially as tha ward himself would have acted 1f mentally competent. This was my committee cases in which 1 am not com and in which I have communi with the burea behalf of committes | h never ie ceived one cent for any serv any nature before the Veterans' Bureau No Law Setting tion ihe United s anv place 102 sl ims of my Fee. “Charge 3. - Alleged viniation of law and rules as to amount of commission. There is no law in the District of Columbia nor is there any rule of the Supreme Court of the District of Co lumbia which limits the allowance b way of commission. compensation, ex penses or otherwise that can be made by the court in lunacy causes. Sec tlon 1135 of the Code of Law = relates exclusively to the accounts of zuardians in the Probate Court. p ing limitaglon on commissions al lowed such guardians as ‘not exceed ing 10 per cent of the principal of the personal estate and on the an nual income of the esiate. As to o table inserted by Mr. Blanton in the Congressional Record on April 19, 1926. this contains a number of those small ltems which are described by tha auditors of the court as ‘nominal allowances ol compensation of extraordinary service' For example, on page 7619, Congressional Record. April 19, 19 appears that in the case of Patrick J. Byrne allowances have been made which If computed on a commission basis would exceed 0 per cent of the income. but the total amount of these allowances for 14 years is $78.50. Durlng the said period of 14 vears I visited my ward many times each year, corresponded with the hogpital and with one of my ward's intimate triends. kept him supplied with clothing and furnished ¢he hospital ofice with funds for his spending money, prepared annual ac- counts and the annual required re ports of assets, conserved his estate. and was his responsible fiduciary, and for all that for a period of 14 yvears T received total allowance from the court of $78.60. ‘Again in the case of Daniel G Campbell, set out in the same schedule and on the same page, It appears that 1 received a total of $86 as compensa- tion or allewance for services ren dered over @ total period of 14 vears. During this period of 14 vears 1 visit ed my ward many times eech year. I conducted an active correspondence with respect to my said ward. 1 managed and conserved his estate. 1 fled an annnual account aud the ve quired annual report of assets. 1 sup plied him with necessary clothing. in the purchase of which he received the benefit of a 10 par cent discount and I kept him supplied through the hospital office with & reasonable amount of spending money. During all this time, in addition to the fore- coing. 1 was his responsible fiduciary ncting as the arm of the court, and for all of this service, covering a period of 14 vears, the said schedule shows that 1 received $86. In the case of Danlel Paul Fenn sel out on page 7820, it appenrs that 1 was given total allowances of | 27350, covering a peviod of 12 vears. and the sald allowances being my 1otal compensation in this case for all necessary services and atteniion to the ward covering a period of 12 years. D. Discusses Commissions. “agaln. on page 7621 I the said achedule, it appears that in the case mes A. Higginson 1 received allowances amounting to $84.50 and covering a period 14 years. duw- ing all of which time, in addition to rervices as outlined in the immediate preceding cases, | was in constant rommunication with the members of my ward's family. For all of these warvices 1 recelved a iotal remunera tion of $834.70 for work extending »ver a period of 14 vears. “On the same page, in the case of Willlam Johu Kennedy. the fres rendered by me were rally identical with those just out lined, and for which services 1 ve reived a total of $82. covering a period of 14 vears The sald schedule contains numer wus other cases fn which. if the com pensation Is considersd on & commis mion bakts, {1 would he in excess of 36 per cent on the annual income. but an analysis of the schedule and an examination of the original paners on file at the courthouse will indicate that the amounts aliow=d Ly the court eany vear were exceedingiy nominal $or services rendered. In a number f cases set out in the eald schedule, it would appear that on the xame daie 1 had received a commussion of 10 per cent and a furtier commission of K per cent. In this respsct tha sched nie s misleading. as an examination ©of the court records will indicate; for eiample, in the case of Henry J. Ahlemeier. on page 7618, it appears that under date of July 19, s received a commission of 10 per eent and on the same date a commission of h per cent. but an examination of my accounts and of the accounts as stated by the auditor of the court will reveal 1at the commission of 5 per cent was aflowed by the court on & sum which rame into my hands at one time and 2 commiesion of 10 per cent was al- iowed on other funds which came into my hands throughout the year. This xplanation is applieable to the other casem Jn the same acheduls from whieh it appears that on the same date commigsions were allowed at dif- sery practi | ing Jance of | Interior {others which to : contained in nday. 2sted was granted one hot ce refuting the charg ¢ of him 1 the Hous tween the hour and a hour suggested by M amiesione ng set about Blanion's charges [ mission were never allow Tells of Denmark 1he cuse o birth, the thnt 1 poason said ward on the said trip. that his condition was sich s 1o re quire constant surveillance and that with one attendant he wus ven such constant surveillanc was Cully deliverad 1o« unent hospital in Denmark. close the hor the memb o his fanily I ol aof fanin ore de ppreclative of ihe services that | rendered in having sard where they could frequently visit him and where he could be pormitted from time to time 1o 2o ou short periods of parole 1o the home of his mother hat the ward's relatives, in express thair appreciation. approved an allowance to me of $500 for all the at tention given to the ward's estate for & period of one vear and for the un usual attention and time (four weeks) incident to 1aking him to Denmarl d P court papers further reveal the advance approval of the was obtained to the taking of rd 1o Denmark and the allow $300 was made by appropri ate order of court. ‘The attendant who accompanied me on this 1rip was James Toner. a supervisor at St Elizabeth's Hospital. where he has been emploved for upv.ard of 40 years and where le is rvegarded as one of the hest emploves of the hospital in caring for mentally diseased persons. He recelved no compensation for this service, and made the trip, as 1 un derstood. out of his annual leave Charge 4, barratry: Representing a lupatic in obtaining that which is due him i Denmr panied my b e of the o Court Orde: yment. “The that court the w barratry. When 1 received a from the Veterans' Bureau from St Elizabeth's request from another member of the bar in behalf of an insane person. and when | made known to the judges of the court, to Government officers and (o members of the bar that I was willing (o act as a fiduciary for per- sons non compos, I facllitated the ctive and honorable protection which the equity court seeks and endeavors to extend to persons who nre or who are entitled 10 be wards of the court. Answers Champerty Charge. harge 5. champerty: More than 15 vears ago i had many cases of the kind known as ‘class cases’ before the Court of Claims, in practieally all of which cases the claimant agreed to letter Hosplta), or a pay a percentage fee contingent upon | In not one of these cases did | ever advance one cant of cost or expenses. This method was—and may still be—a usual method of handling such cases before that tri bunal and before Congress, and in deed, In the passage of a general defi- ciency bill some vears ago, this prac tice was well within the knowledge of Congress when it provided in the said bill that regardless of the rates of contingent fees agreed upon by claimants, attorneys could not law fully charge more than 20 per cent of the amount appropriated by the Congress in each ca To the beat of my recollection 1 have filed no such cases for probably 15 years. Relations With Dr. White. Charge 6—Conspiracy with Dr. White: I have never had any improp er agreement, practice or understand itg with Dr. White. It has been my understanding that other attorneys were entitled to ask information and that they did receive the same from St. Elizabeth's Hospital: the fact is that many yearn ago 1 told Dr. White that | was willing to be appointed as committee for putienis whose prop- erty interests required such appoint ment (o be made and who could not otherwise obtain their rights; that Dr. White acquiesced in the necessity for such proceeding, stating that in do- ing %o he had the approval of the Department. and that during i long perivd of more than 20 years I have rendered such service when it was necessary to assert and to pro- tect the rights of persons non compos, and that in cases in which the ad- dresses of relatives were unknown aud thére were no responsible rela tives in the District of Columbia Dr. White, as custodian of such patients, acted an next friend in executing the required petition. We are not re lated by blood or marriage. Dr. White never in uny manner, shupe or form received frum me any money or other valuable conwideration in connection with any of the said cases or in con- nection with any other matter what- soover. Of course, he received his one-half of the net earnings of joint investments made in the names of Frederick A. I'enning and William A. White, but that Was not money re ceived from me, but earnings on his own money. Soliciting Charge Answered. Charge 7 Woliciting judges and When the Veterans' Bureau Wrote leiters to me suggesting that a commitiee be appointed in specific cases in order that the rights of per sons non compos might be protected. and when the hospital did so and gave the names of relatives, of course, I wroie the persons so named, in order (hat they might be advised as to the property interests of their unfortunate velatives and in order that they might act, through me or otherwise, in ai seriing and protecting, under direc tion of the Lquity Court, the estates of such unfortunates. Paid Physicians Nothing. sharge 8. Doctors’ fees: 1 have paid no fees to physicians for vices 1endered in lunacy matters except with the authority of the court and with respect to cases at St. Eliza- beth’s Hospital. 1 am quite clear that no fees have been paid to physicians connected with that institution for more than 10 vears. The practice of the Supreme Court. D. C., in al- lowing fees to physicians for neces- sary examinations and testimony in lunacy cases has never, in my e: gee ence of more than 20 years, n based upon the theory thai doctors for such service were limited to a witness fee of §1.26 per day. “Cerge 9. Leopold and Loeb case: 1 had nothing whatever to do with the action of Dr. White in testifying in X success. vy and | him, whether his claim be aganst the United States or individuals, is not | a request | UNOERWOOD | Upper: Kepresentative Gibson, V | mont (standing), chairman of the - f the House District com- ng a warning to Con g (extreme left, sit t he must waive immunity if he nent. Repre- entative Gilbert of Kentucky, another ber of the subcommittee, Is seated at the table. Close-up view of Commis ning on the stand as the ;0 in the case against Leopold hd Loeb. To dignify with any ther reply is to insult the intelligence of the House of Representatives. Charge 10. Amount of fees: | have never been committee of a person that I have never seen. | see all of my wards at very frequent intervals. The services rendered by me have and the allowance made to me in each | cuse was based upon a sworn state | ment as to services rendered, which | stutement was duly filed in court not one penny of allowance was aver received by me except after the court had passed an appropriate order approval. Specific Small Cases. pecific small cases 1ssed under this para- re_included in the schedules of the auditor set out on page 7618 in the Congressional Record of April 19, 1926, the said schedule showing that these allowances ‘appear to be nominal allowances or compensation | for extranrdinary services. and they | were treated by me in discussing paragraph 3 of the charges “Charge 12—Rate of commission I did not state in a written com- munication to Representative M | den, nor I intimate therein, that my commission ‘wgs only b per cent i most cases. \What | dld say the said communication ‘with respect to & very considerable portion of the funds received from the Veterans’ Bureau I received commission of 5 per cent’ This is conirmed by the schedule of the auditor of the Supreme Court, Dis- triet of Columbla, set oit on page 7618, (ongressional Record, April 19, 1926. Did Not Try Deception. “Charge 13—Commission and coun- sel fee, going back to 1903: | made no attempt to deceive (Congress when | 1 siated in the said communication to Representative Madden, and I now repeat, that in the schedule iled by the auditor of the Supreme Court, District of Columbia, the sald chedule ‘Includes the full amount of ie commission and counsel fees go- | ing back to the year 1903 An ex- { amination of said schedule shows | the case of James A. Sinnott, in | which 1 was appointed In 1808, and the case of Charles Straub, in which I was appointed in 1904, and the cace of Frederik Dixon, in which [ was apopinted in 1904, I did not say that the said schedule of the | auditor covered every case in which | had ever beeri appointed commit- | tee, but I did sav. and I repoat, that { (he uggregate amount of the said schedule includes cuses going ‘back to 1903 Cash on Deposit Small. Charge 14—National Savings & Trust Co.: The fact is that for many vears practically all fiduciary funds in cases in which I am the fiduciary have been deposited with the National Savings & Trust Co. The actual cash on deposit is but a small portion of the total of the estates in which I am the fiduciary. The court expects that states will be kept productive, and this requires the constant Ivestment and reinvestment of trust funds, thus keeping the amounte of cash cn de- nosit us relatively 1. It is & fact that 1 am a divector in the National Savings & Trusi Co. Sald company has a capital stock of $1,000,000, repre- sented by 10,000 shares of stock at par value of $100 each. Of this total num- ber of 10,000 shares 1 now own 16 shares, nor have 1 ever owned in ex- cess of that number. This stock s on a present dividend basls of 12 per cent annually on the par value. 1t will readily be seen that on thls basis my dividends do not exceed $180 a vear: In other words, out of & total dividend of $120,000 payable to the stockholders of the said company, 1 am entitied to receive $180, which cannot be rack- oned as a very ‘substantial benefit’ aceruing to me by virtue of my ieing the holder of said stock. 1 may add that no other member of my family holds or has ever held a single share of the said stock Credited Commissions to Estates. “Charge 15—Investing trust funds: On {nvestments made by me with frust funds my accounts on file {In the courthouse show that 1 have in every case stated under éath whether [ have or have not received a commission. from the borrower .or from any other source. In cases in which I have received no commission, that fact Is set out. In cases in which | have recelved a commission, not only is the fact set out, but in every such case the account shows that I credited the entire amount of such commission as income of the estate. In_the purchase of Liberty Loan bonds. Federal Land Bank bonds and first deed of trust notes from the National Savings and Trust Co., 1 have never received one cent of commission. Such commission as the said National Savings and Trust Co. may have received never came to me in any part whatsoever, unless the sald commissions could be considered as part of the $120,000 ann qdivi- dends of said company, of which as a Illn.kholdlr 1 received $180. ‘Charge 16—Bonding Company: For many years the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. of Bal- timore had been surety on my bends, and an emplove of my office has, un- der a power of attorney of sald com- pany, been authorized to affix the sig- nature of said company as surety, the said employe signing as attorney in fact for said company. The said com- pany, I understand, took eut a license for me as solicitor se that it might pay for the services thus rendered by ap emplaye of my offie the u-upl,uén- fur- | been of inestimable value to my wards | and | of mission of 25 per cent on the amount of premiums. If this entire service had been rendered by the local office of the sald United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.. the said local office would natyrally have not paid out to lany other person or office any portion of prémium, but a portion of the service—namely, preparation of ap plications, affixing the signature and seal of the company and having the bonds approved and filed- -w ner formed by my office. bence the sai compeny pald me for such serviee the usual commission Rates Are Uniform “I'he rate’ on fiduclary bonds is a uniform rate and is exactly the same, I understand, by all substantia}t bond ing_companies “No company permit. rebates stances whatsoever. Jurisdiction uare expr prohib by section 634 of the Code of La District of Columbia. It will be s therefore, that under no circumstanec could my wards be credited with an portion of the commissions allowed by the company for the services which T have enumerated. Ax (o this. I was distinetly informed by the agent of the said company. The standing of the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. is #o well known that it pre cludes any thought of that company cutting rates or granting rebates “With respect to other insurance. which my office has placed for many vears for clients of my office, the Great American Insurance Co. of New York, the Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. of Boston and the Na tional Union Fire Insuranae Co of Washington, D. C.; have for many vears taken out license for me as so licitor and paid to me for insurance so placed the usual commission. of any standing. will under any cirum Rebates in this istence were taken out before i be cama Commissioner of the District of Columbia and | understand they ex pire May 1, 1926, and | have taken no steps to renew them, nor am | ad- vised that any of the said companies have in any respect whatsoever ex pressed any opposition. or, indeed. any opinion as to pending insurance legis- lation in the District of Columbia. “Charge 17—Medical soviety: | am attorney of the Medical So- clety of the District of Columbla, and occasionally in times past the said society has paid me for services. 1 am paid $200 per annum. T am an honorary member of the soclety. My honorary membership and this pro tessional connection with the Med- ical Soclety has not Influenced my action as District Commissioner, and with respect to a pending bill license chiropractors, which bill was opposed by the Medical Society, it will appear that the action taken by the Board of Commissioners was favorable to the said bill and not in accordance with the desires of the Medical Soclety Denies Aiding Doctor “Charge 18—Aiding and abeting doctor: As attorney for the Medi- cal Boclety, 1 have never in any man ner had any communication whatso- ever on the subject of their profes- sional duties or employment with doc- tors employed in St. Ellzabeth's or doctors employed in the Veterans' Bu- reau. I have never been informed, nor do 1 so understand, that the District allows Dr. D. Percy Hickling a salary for all of Bis time. “Charge 19—Joseph Gawler & Sons: 1 have been for many years, and am now, attorney for Joseph Gawler Sons, Inc., and 1 rendered necessary legal services in connection with the incorporation of said concern several vears ago. Under the laws of Vir- ginia, in which State this organiza- tion was dincorporated, it is necessary that there be three incorporators and three directors. 1 became one of the incorporators, the other incorporators being Alfred D. Gawler and Walter A. Gawler, and, in order that I might qualify as director, one share of the capital stock was issued to me, and as far as I know still stands in my name, although 1 have never received one cent of dividend thereon. My ward, Walter Garland Allan, was buried by Joseph Gawler Sons, Inc., the total amount of the bill being §110, and the said corporation agree- ing jo accept $107.81 in fdll settle- ment. T have no contract with' Under- taker Tabler or with any other under- taker, nor have I any information that he or any other undertaker byries gdrlofll for $62. The amount which I paid, with the approval of the court, was a very fair and reason- able c)mr? for the high-class service rendered a concern that has been in business for about 75 years. Knew Nothing of Drowned Man, “I knew absolutely nething about ‘the hody of one drowned in the Basin” as to which it is alleged by Mr. Blan- fon in the nineteant rge that T coflefl'rulad with Dr, Nevitt and Bill “All of the said licenses now in ex-| turned over the body Alavull. 1 do not | know Undertaker Altavuil. and 1 | never talked with Dr. Nevitt and Bill Franklin ab.ut the body of anybody. This statement, like many others, is | untrue.” Mr. Fehning. in his formal state ment, pmitted any reference to Charge No. 20, possibly fn oversight on his part harge Michael Flaherty: In the case of Michael Flaherty it is al- leged in charge Z1 that ‘in his (mine) petition had himself (myself) recom- nended for committee and had him- self (myself) appointed as such com mittee.” This is untrue. My first communication on this case was a letter from Mrs. Anna McKenna re- questing me to take the necessary steps for the appointment of a com- mittee. Thereafter she, the said Mrs. Anna McKenna, executed a petition sking for the issuance of a writ de unatic inquirendo and for my ap- pointment as commitiee. After the adjudication 1 was appointed and duly qualified and furnished the Navy Department with certification of such appoiniment, so that the monthly Navy retainer pay might be paid to me “This pay for several months had been held up by the Navy Depart ment because of the mental condition {of the Mr. Flaherty and the amount 80 held was paid to me, and 1 had been receiving the monthly retainer pay since that time. In this case 1 obtained an order of court in Decem- ber, 1925, authorizing me to pay from the fund of my ward $200 as financial assistance in time of dire emergency to his sister, Mrs. McKenna, and such peyment was made. Answers Norris C: | Franklin and | to Undertaker e Charge. Charge 2 ! Norris case: As to the ase of Richard N. Norris, in which his wife, Elizan Norrls, executed a petition for her appointment as com- | mittee of her said husband and in which Paul V. Rogers and I appeared @as attorneys in the Supreme Court, District of Columbia. the said petition recited that the person executing the same did not know the amount due her said husband, but this did not show, as alleged in charge ‘that to recover the same it would be neces sary for him to prosecute a claim be fore the Veterans' Bureau.” The said was_ executed in September, . and the said Norris had been allowed compensation by the Vet- erans’ Bureau May 4, 1925, and again August 24, 1925, and the Veterans’ Bureau had held prior to the institu- tion of the saild court proceedings that said Norris was ‘incompetent to receive and disburse moneys.' “Competisation having been award ed in May and In August, 1925, it WAS Unnecessary (o prosecute any claim before the said bureau after the appointment of the committee, and_ after vendering the necessary professional services incident to the i required court proceedings; all that was then necessary was to transmit a copy of the court certificate to the Veterans' Bureau and ask that the check be sent to Mrs. Norris as committee, and this was done. Neith- er Mr. Rogers nor I made any charge whatsoever for any service before the Veterans'. Bureau, and, as just point- ed out. no service before that bureau was necess: Qur fee for court ices was ‘Charge 23—Lieut. Allen: 1 did not solicit the case of Lieut. Francis D. Allen. One of his brothers came to my office, gave me the necessary data, asked that 1 prepare the re- quired papers for instituting lunacy proceedings, and after I had done so the petition was executed by Lieut. Allen’s father and filed in court ac- companied by the signature of numer- ous brothers and sisters of Lieut. Allen.” No Compensation Received. “After adjudication, in accovdance with the prayer of the petition, I was appointed committee and I have pro- ceeded actively in the discharge of such dutfes, all of which appears of record in the Supreme Court, District of Columbia. I have received no compensation from any source and my compensation in this matter shall be determined by the court at the’ proper time. “Charge 24—Cunnipgham case: As to the case of Charles L, Cunningham, T did appear with Paul V. Rogers as counsel of record in the Supreme Court, District of Columbia, in a pro- ceeding in lunacy filed in December 1925. There is no legal prohibition against a Commissioner of the Dis- triet of Columbia practicing law; the actual appearances in court in con- neetion with the inquisition in this case were by Mr. Rogers, but I had numerous conferences with Mr. Cunningham’s sister and with Mr. Rogers, and some fime after the sister had been appointed and had gualified as committee she filed & pelition set- EACH IN DETAIL ting forth the service which Mr. Rogers and 1 rendered and on the said petition the court authorized her to pay us a fee from the funds of her ward in the sum of $160. This fee was for service rendered in the said lunacy proceeding and not in violation of any law whatsoever. Miss Cunning- ham did collect the monthly retired pay of her brother and did deposit the same in the National Savings and Trust Co. to her credit as committee, and she is to be congratulated upon having made the deposit in so substan | tial a fiscal instiiution located in the District of (‘'olumbia and she being a resident of anothber jurisdiction. Cites Jury Verdicts as Proof. “(harge 2j—Corporation vounsel: Lunacy proceedings in indigent cases are under the law flled by the cor- poration counsel in the name of the Commissioners of the Oistriet of Co- lumbia, end as to whather in any of the cases referred to in charge 25 the said persons are sane and shoi.d not be deprived of their liberty.’ the records of the Supreme Court, D. C., will speak in the form of verdict of Juries, “Charge 2f--Corbeit case: | was committee of Mrg. Caroline F. Corbett many years ago, and under an c¢rder of court first had and obtained T sold certain hougenold goods which Mrs. Corbett and her daughter, Miss Cornelig L. Corbett, told me belonged to the said Mrs. Caroline F. Corbett. As committee of the mother, 1 render- ed full and complete account from time to time, and after the discharge of the said person from 8. Biizabeth’s Miss Cornelia L. Corbei: did bring an tion against me for several thousand dollars. which she aiieged te be the value of some of thc property which had been sold und accounied for by me s the prop-rt’ of her mother, on which suit she obtiined 8 judgment of a few hundred dellns. The court, in the lunacy cause, authorized me fo meet the amount of this judgment in so far as was possible o do so from the remaining funds belonging to the mother. which I did. No pari of the property of Miss Corbett was ever squandered, and avery cent receivedl for property which I had every reason to believe belonged te her mother, Fut which she claimed belonged to ner, was accounted for in the lunacy cause of Mrs. Caroline F. Corbett Fakes Up Alien’s Case. Charge —Lieut. Allen's estate In charge is alleged that I am ‘squand the property of my ward. Lieut. ¥. D. Allen. All of my activilies as committee in this case are being performed under mv re- sponsibility as committee and under the direction of the Supreme Court, | District_of Columbla, and there s | no just.fication for an allegation that | there has been any Improper conduct case, and | challenge any one to point to any action 1 have taken in thig case which is not in the best interest of my ward and in pursuance the law and ip con- formity Court, District of Columbia. “(*harge 28—Notary fee: A no- rial fee is a proper charge under | the law and is so recognized by the court and it has been held in the 1se of Ohlo National Bank ve. Hop- ne, 8 appeals, D. C.. 146 that an agreement by a notary agreement to divide his fees is void as against public policy. A notary public is entitled to his fee as fixed by law and it has been my policy to pay such fees to notaries in my oflice and to notarles outside my office and I have never obtained from any of such notaries | cent of the fees 8o paid. Explains Headley Demotion. “Charge 29—Headley and Gore cases: Inspector Albert J. Headlev was demoted by the Board of Com- missioners of the District of Colum- bia on the recommendation of the acting major and _superintendent, Metropolitan Police Department. and 1 have never taken any steps (o punish Officer Gore as alleged in charge 29 ; “Charge 30—Dr. Allen: Dr. Flovd MeJ. Allen was appointed by the com- missioners on my recommendation as a member of the board of police and fire surgeons and the said appoint- ment. in the opinion of the five other members of that board raised the pro- fessional standard of the said board. The appointment was made because of what 1 considered to be a necessity of having an experienced nose and throat specialist on the said board: it was made after consulting with other members of the board and after talk- ing with a number of distinquished | physicians in the city of Washington, lall of whom commended Dr. Allen's professional and personal qualifica- tions. 1t was made on the recommen- dation of Senator Reed, and Represen- tatives Kelly and Phillips. all of Pennsylvania, who wrote in com- mendation of Dr. Allen as a physician and his character as a man. Dr. Allen is not my ‘prospective son-in- law’ as alleged in charge 30 The Famous lee Case. “Charge 31—Sergt. Lee: “Sergi. Rob. lert E. lee. Metropolitan Police De- partment, was retired on the recom mendation of the retiring and relief board, composed of the corporation counsel, one officer of the Police De- partment and one officer of the Fire Department. The recommendation wae unanimous. 1 approved the said recommendation and the Board of Commisioners retired Sergt. Lee Feb- vuary 24, 1926. The next day I re cefved a letter, dated February 2 1926, from Mr. Blanton asking t the case be reopened and that he be given a chance to be heard, to which 1 replied that the actlon of the Board of Commissioners was final and that a promotion had been made to fll *he vacancy, and to which Mr. Blanton re- plied, under date of March 6, 1926, threatening me with impeachment. It is said in charge 31 that I ‘arbitrarily refused to grant a proper hearing on the matter requested by 2 Member of Congres: ken the request come from the member aforesald it was after the retiring and rellef hoard and the Commissioners had disposad of the case and filled the vacaney by pro- motion. Charge 81 also alleges that this action was taken in order to pro- mote one of my friends. This ‘s abso. lutely untrue as can be iearned trom the major and superintendent of po- lice, who recommended Serzt. Could- man, and his recommendation in this respect was adopted, and 1 never raw Officer Gouldman nor did T knew Kim by name untll the recommendation for his promotion was recsived from Maj. Hesse. “Charge 32—Dr. Wilsol On my recommendation Dr. E. C. Wilson was removed from the service as a medical inspector of the public schools and Dr. Samuel 8. Adams was appointed in_his place. This change was de- cidedly In the interest of an improve- ment of the medical inspection &erv- fee of the puble schools and the schools are to be congratulated.” Hulogizes Dr. Adams. Here Commlissioner Fenning turned aside from his formal statement-to the eommittee and gave an eulogy of Dr. Adams, stating that he was known far beyond the confines of the Distriet of Columbia for his qualifica- tion as a practitioner, and that he had been persuaded to accept this position as a. matter of public service, commenting that an honorary degree had been given to Dr. Adams by Georgetown University in appreciation of his standing as a physician. “‘Charge 38—Joint accounts: Dr. White and T abeut 15 years ago bought two houses at public auction as an investment. We tcok title in our two names and it was so recorded on the public 1and records of this Dis- trict. Some time later we sold those in this with orders of the Supreme | now that per. the not to (Continued from First and 1 thought you were understand- ing fu.” The big flareup of the day hetween the mecuser Blanton and the defendant Fenning came “That others, 18 a lie out of whole cloth.” After a moment’s hush, Mr. ton arose and said to abuse this witness because he is urt virtually. but he is not going all me any liar, and he just as much as offered that right now, be cause if house. can stale that wants to, or he can deny it “You do not mean to imply that 1 am a liar, do you” made my statement in the record.” Blanton 1 am a lar. Fenning: My Mr ment Then Mr. few seconds ané burst out unprintable epithet Chairman Gibson that be stricken from the record.” Mr. Blanton: to ifmuit me. you' here. a gentleman, but to insujt me here.” Gibson: 1 from Texas ought Mr, man that.” Mr. Blanton him know that he couldn’t do it." Gibson from Texas withdraw it?" Blanton: Mr. Mr. draws that other withdraw missioner Mr. Gibson sioner the cover what that so” Mr. Fenping: 1 to modify my statement in accordance with any suggestion that you make: After his formal statement 34 imy | apologized for his outburst of anger. | Arising he said to the committee and to this audience | for | sult any this kind except under great provoca- When I was insnited by the wit- ness I did not lose my temper. I asked that when I found that there was a delib- erate attempt, purposeful attempt to | insult me, momentarily I lost my tem- It was my only means under situation tion. ment dience and to the committee. not have done it more during this | keep composed, whatever mayv happen from now an. persecute and not to punish anybody. It 1s @ hearing only to get at the facts, that Congress may take proper actior. “As an excuse to the good ladies here for having would sey that I have been working 18 hours a day for the last 10 days, with any hope of reward one dollar will it put in my pocket. It is hard work the people see it." Mr. Gibson arose and stated very glad as chairman to see that the gentleman from his apology. that In some sectione of the count: when a person's truth is questioned it is a very serfous matter.” Blanton—It is a most serious mat- ter, Mr. Chairman. Gibson—I certain sections of the South for some time. nizant of the gravity of such a sug- ———————————— TO ACCUSER 1 FENNING COOLLY GIVES THE LIE N BITTER CLASH Emphatic Denial of Charges Evokes Unprintable Epithet From Texan—Remark tricken From Record of Sensational Hearing. Mr. Fenning like many when statement, Blan I do not expect ride him bug He it he e does I'll ufck, if he attempts it it is not true. he eaid. turning ‘enning. enning 8 answered have ““Then you jmpute that 1 stand on mw state- hesitated for a with the Blanton ‘I direct that “You are not goinz I don’t want to attack I want to treat you like you ‘are not going | the gentle to withdraw think T just wanted to let “Will the gentleman “‘Whenever he with ‘lie’ 1 will withdraw the Mr. Chairman, I will but I ask that the Com withdraw that statement was improper. I think the Commis. make the statement is not true and in mind. fsn't Yes it 1t can well allegation he has will be very glad Blanton Apologizes. Mr. Fenning had completed in reply to the achment charges, Mr. Blanton “1 want to apologize ng my temper. | would not in- witness under a situation of be properiy retracted, and of showing resent- 1 apologize humbly to the au- 1 should 1 shall not do it any hearing. [ shail This is a hearing not to lost my temper. 1 Not 1 am doing my duty of the country as I “I am tended | realizes Texas has The chairman have observed that in The chairman .is fully cog- wai tion. houses and invested the proceeds with certain other funds in notes secured by deed of trust. count in our two names and the notes s coliected by the banks were placed 0 the credit of the said account. His Partnership V In this matter more men each other) and constanily acted in | making thelr personal Dr. White and I put into thie fund from our private monevs exactly the same proportion, and we have drawn the private funds exactly the same propurtion. with the exception that a small amount has been allowed to me as overhead because of the clerical office in keeping the account “Charge 34 — Roley Lee: never s from when such transfer was requested by my wards’ relatives and it was feas. ible to care for the wards in the homes of their institutions. thorized to turn over the estate of my ward, Rolle Lee, to his mother. Mrs. Eliza Lee, under any appointment as guardlan which ceived the ward is transferred to Virginla, to which Bureau has besn at all times author- ized to transfer him, had ans’ Bureau so desired and to which transfer 1 from We had a bank ac h Dr. White. we actea had confidence as two or | (who in | investments. service performed in my 1 have the transfer of my opposed | Elizabeth's hospital 8t. elatives or in nearby 1 certainly am not au- she may have re- in Virginia, unless-and until the jurisdiction Veterans® the Veter- have offered no opposi- mestion. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his apology Testimony in Part The official transcript of the croe examination of Mr. Fenning by M Blanton in part Mr. Blanion: “Mr. Fenning came Commissioner of the of Columbia when” Mr. Fenning “You took office and prescribed by the the United States “I took an oath the ome prescribed tion.” “Well, as Commissioner of the District of Columbia and as s lawyer for 25 years you know that vou were required to take the oath by the Consti States . Yes.' “You know that the District of « lumbia is the seat of government the United you ‘Yes, sir. It is the only seat o of the United States, lsn't ‘Why, yes.' Here in the District are situated the White Capitol and the deparimenis Government, are thev ne b follows, you he Distr et “June 5. 19 0ok the eath Constify didn’t zou I presume it w tn the Constit of Columhia House, Use of 1h Not Up on Blanton Dates “You know fi v i with offairs here that for 4 long time from 1874 until 1921 and_Congress, out e United States Treasury, paid one-half of all the fiscal expenses of this District, don't you? “I have nat verified those dares but I know that for a long period «f time it i “You are not prepared to state th that is not s0”" ‘Oh no.” “You perhaps w from iha cessatiyn of payving 30 beginning with 1)21 and on and up until 1974 Congress, out of the people’s Treasur of the United States, paid 40 per cent of the fiscal vxpenses f the Distric! of Colum Don't vou know that “Yes sir. 1 haven't verified the dates, but 1 am quite willing to eccept vour dates. “And you do know and now the Congress «f the Unit States, out of the peonle’s Treasur: is paying £9,000,000 in cash toward the expenses of this District. besides giv ing to the District various fees w formerly went partly into the pesple’s Treasury, and which fees amount 1o practically $2.400,000 4 vear: isn't that so?" “I think so. Asks Aboui Center Market . “You know that in addition 1he Government of the United States fis nishes all the big market space dowr here at the Central Market, Lroperis owned by the Government, to the people of the District? You know that, don't you" “1 presume that is so _“And you knmow further that the Government of the United- States has provided for the peopie of the Dis trict. biz and little, altogether 1.200 parks? “I know that since 1924 that there are parks. don’t know how many. If vou say there are 1.200. 1 will accept vour word. | know there are a iarge num ber of them “But as an excuse. if it is such. for what yvou bave done. yvou may that this section in the Revised Sratufes mentioned in article 1 of the im peachment charges, which provides that an officer of the Government | cannot prefer claims against the Gov ernment, does not apply to vou, be: cause you claim that you are got an officer of the United States?” 1r. Blanton. vou don’t mean to sav that I offered it as an excuse “It wasn't offered as an excuse?" Denies Law Violation. ‘No, sir. T don't offer anything a< an excuse for what | have done. | made the statement a ‘few mom: ago that from the standpoirit of fac! 1 have not done one single thing tha is a violation of the statute, and the: I go further and say that from the standpoint of the law the statufe tha you are talking about ddes not toueh me. “You say it does not touch yéiu h cause—-" Because < savs United Fen the law of ‘the Sta interrupted Mr ning. “You say you are an officer of a cor poration and not an officer of the ernment of the United States?” pur sued Mr. Blanton 1 didn’t say that: the law savs it You claim that the law says “I say that the law says it. 1 leave | it to these lawyers heré on the com mittee.” “That is what we are going to de termine by our hearings, and by the court “Mr. Blanton law by me. “I'm not trying to prove it by you I don't expect to prove it by you. I don't want to prove It by # Quizzed Regarding Courts. “Now. you know," Mr. Blanton continued, “that the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the Supreme Court of the District of Co lumbia and the other courts of the District of Columbia are United States courts, don’t you? “I_understand that the courts of the District of Columbla are {nited States courts.” “They are you can't prove the United The terms of Morris Flan Loans are simple and practical and fair—it is not necessary to have had an account at this Ban to borrow. For each 350 or! fractionborrowed Loan $100 asy to Py Loans are pass- ed within-a day or two after filing :fglfcar on— th few excep- tions. Weekl: W Por 50 Weeks MORRIS PLAN notes are usually made 1 year, 1 fm el o omy. to 12 months. MORRIS PLAN BANK Under Supervision U. S. Treasury 1408 H Street N. W. ,‘-W-ummrmmmmdcw