Evening Star Newspaper, June 14, 1926, Page 3

Y. JUNE 14, 1926 Adolph_Adler case last week by Jut tice Siddons, in the District Supreme | Court, to show that Mr. Fenning was not gullty of any criminal actions or | fraud. THE EVENING STAR. WASHINGTON, D. C., MON By WEBSTER. gress has made it, and permits it to remain, a mere municipal corporation, #hich such functions as pertain to IT'S A WONDERFUL ROAD 15N'Y 1T, DEAR this case may go to the Court of Ap-|pany one that insures against lo peals. I am going on record as sa; resulting from a breach of trust is ing that it would not lie in my mouth [ not an insurance company. The ar to question any order that the Su-|gument, if it were at all matérial preme Court of the District of Co-|here, would be destroyed by its own lumbia may make in this case. If the |absurdity i court gives me an order along the| The hrief of {line you have indicated with respect |ning’s counsel discussing the to any feature of this estate I shall charges of embezzlement surround- comply with it without question and | ing Mr. Fenning's retention of immediately.’ " ¢ ¢ ¢ | bonds, declares that “an argument is “We confidently assume that the | built up in support of that entirely only question connected with the ad- [ unjustifiable charge which we dignify mitted fact that Mr. Fenning recelved | with restrained response only be- commisslons on his bond premiums | cause of our high regard for this THE MOTORISTS. ASKS INJUNCTION OF NEW TAXI LAW Owner of 7 Cabs Declares municipal corporations proper. * ¢ ¢ If the rule announced in the Barnes case is not satisfactory to Congress, it can be abrogated by statute.” Attorneys General Quoted The brief then quot a number of decisions by attorneys general to show that officers of the District of Columbia are not officers of the United States. One by Attorney Gen- eral Griggs, rendered to the President SieLy- WONOERAUL. LOOK AT HAT GORGEOUS B16 TREE OVER THERE ! 1SN'T IT JUST Toc 8eauniFoL-? 1SNT T PERFECT, v ; ‘enning's Record Cited. “Mr. Fenning,” says the brief, “for nearly a quarter of a century prior to his appointment as Commissioner of the District of Columbla devoted himself to the business of acting as committee of persons who had been in due course of law adjudged to be in- competent to manage their property. The law requires that a bond be & Commissioner Fan- |Z 2 Indemnity Insurance Rule Discriminates. in the United States Supreme Court and declares 1898, cites previous decisions according to the brief: “These citations and decisions make by | given in every such case. The court in each case fixed the amount of the bond. Mr. Fenning was a duly li- censed agent of a bonding company. at all material to this committee is whether or not his action in that re spect was criminal or fraudulent. On this point we are entirely content to committee and our appreciation of the judicial character of the duty which It is now engaged in perform- ing. We shall show that the argu- Commissioners rest upon the District Supreme | ment that District Court’s decision rendered within the | are civil officers of the United States. and are liable to impeachent under the terms of the Federal Constitu- tion, was preseated by ignoring tke directly applicable decisions: so here the arzument that an evil and fraud ulent intent is not necessary to the crime of emhezzlement under the law of this District is attempted by which in tarn was certified to the court, pursuant to provisions of the law in that regard, as equally accept- | able with every other bonding com- pany so certified. Mr. Fenning's li- | cense was a matter of public record (see testimony of the witness Bald- win). The license issued to such an agent or solicitor of a surety or bond- ing company is precisely the same as that issued to agents or solicitors of all kinds of Insurance companies and is termed ‘an insurance solicitor’s li- cense.’ (See the license itself in the record.) “The surety company issued powers of attorney for the execution of bonds running to Mr. Fenning and his sec- retary, Helen A. Losano, and these powers of attorney were filed in the office of the clerk of the court and in the office of the court's register of wills, and in_addition to being filed were recorded in the record books kept in those offices for that purpose (see it very clear that the officers, and amployes of the” District of Columbia are not officers and employes of the general Government of the United States, but of the municipal corpora- tion known as the District of Colum- bia. They receive their compensation from the moneys of the District. half of which are contributed through ap- propriation by Congress and half by taxation upon the property of the in habitants of the District. They are as distinct from the civil service of the United States as would be the offi- cers of any city government in one of the States of the Union from the civil service of the State itself. “I-therefors advise you that the provisions of the civil service act can- not lawfully be applied to the officers and employes of the District of Co- lumbia. The brief then brings in the argu- ment that the Court of Claims has The District asked tod: Supreme Court wasn ¢ to declare null and void three orders of the Public Utilities Commission relating to liability and | indemnity insurance required to be carried by persons and corporatio operating _automobiles as common carriers. The new requirement goes Into effect July 1 and Robert Harlan, who savs he operates seven machines | for hire by the hour:fuestions the | valldity of the orders and files a suit | for an injunction against J. F. Bell, | Cuno H. Rudolph and F. A. Fenning, | comprising the commission Through Attorney Leon Robbin the plaintiff tells the court that he has been running his business under a license from the District of Columbia and has applied for a renewal after Tuly 1. He has been informed, he says, that by direction of the Public | Utilities Commission no_license can | Charge of Fraud. After quoting from this decision and discussing it, the brief emphasizes | that part of it which states: “The evidence in this case does not justify the view that Mr. Fenning in- | tended to perpetrate a fraud or to| entirely ignoring the controlling and profit at the expense of the estate | clear-cut decisions of our Court of committed to his hands. The evidence | Appeals on that very point.” shows, at most, a mistake of judg-| In the brief submitted by the ment or misconception of what his duty | proponent of the charges an opinien required of him * * ¢ | was cited in the “Masters vs. United “The evidence in this case does not, | States” case, designed to support its in the opinion of the court, reveal|charges. any fraud on Mr. Fenning's part, nor does it reveal any gross negli gence. Indeed, as to the latter, no such contention is made. There is no evidence in the case that there was a dollar of loss to the estate of OH . LOOK AT THAT CUNMING LITTLE R MESTLIMG 1M THE TREES \SNT _ J 1€ JST To0 DCAR | for WOROS 7 tre's A PARLING DETOUR- ~ A LITTLE WAY €€ yori D! 2 T Teo SWEET 516 516 TENTT T ALL TUS Contention of Counsel. today by coun- contends that The brief presented | sel for Mr. Fenning | the opinion cited by the proponent | of the charges was the dissenting Pe fssued to him until he conforms | with orders . 580 and 581 of the | commission relating to lability insur- | ruled recently in a Daniel the District. Donovan, present auditor case involving Mr. Donovan, the brief testimony of the witnesses Buhrman and Cogswell). There is no competi tion in the District of Columbia be. of his ward, no evidence that he did not keep the accounts in a clear and proper manner, and, indeed, nothing is revealed in the evidence in the opinion, and not the prevailing opin- ion of the court. which was delivered by Justice Van Orsdel. Commenting on this action. the declares, performed certain work as « referee in cases arising out of an act of Congress, and presented his bill. The controller refused to war- rant payment of his bill on the ground that a statute forbids any one holding an office the salary of which amounted to $2.500 from receiving compensation for discharging the ; dutles of any other office. He sued ; 5 . in the Court of Claims, and the brief | recites part of Judge Davis' opinion, as follows: Two Questions Presented. wo questions are in effect pre sented First, is the claimant an officer of the United States within the meaning of the statutes in ques tion? Second, If so, do these statutes prohibit fim from receiving this pay- ment as referee? “Prior to 1871 the District of Co- Jumbit was governed by officers elect ed by the people * * * . No officer of the District at that time could he held to be an officer of the U nited States. “Then came the which a government to that of a tervitory for the whole District ernor * * * and hoard works. Yet to this Supreme Court decided (Barnes v the District of Columbia. 91 U. &, 340) that its members, although ap | pointed by the President after con: SEVERAL YEARS LATER . Copr. 1928 (N. Y. World) Press Pub. Ca. firmation by the Sen and paid ! from the Federal ' were of tween surety companies in the matter of rates; all rates are known as con- ference rates, and the same rates are charged by all of the companies whos bonds are acceptable under the I The court has no discretion or power to approve a bond of one certified com pany and disapprove the bond of an- other certified company. Under the terms of his contract with the surety company Mr. Fenning was entitled to a commission of 25 per cent on the premium of each bond written by his office. He pald in each case to the company which he represented the premium which that company and every other company charged in such case. He received monthly the agreed commission. He did not until recently bring to the attention of the auditor or justices off the court the fact that he ‘received this commission, as it never occurred to him that his right thereto was subject to question (see | Mr. Fenning’s testimony in response [to questions propounded by Repre | sentative Tucker). Whenever there | arose in his mind any question regard {ing his right to commissions, etc., he did bring the question to the attention of the court and abided its decision. “Mr. Fenning construed the pro | visions of section 65 Code 4. D. C., pro- hibiting rebates, direct or indirect, by way of commission and otherwise, to unlicensed persons, as applicable so < to prohibit his commissions as a surety company being rebated to the unlicensed wards. His counsel con ance and meters. Harlan says the regulations are null wnd voud because no power is- dele- gated by Congress to the Public Utili- | ties Commission to make such regu- | lation which could only be made by Congress | The regulations are claimed to be discriminatory by Harlan, who points out that paragraph 1 of section 4 of order 581 provides that no bond or in- surance will be required of persons and corporations having clear assets | of $5.000 for one automobile. $7,000 for two vehicles and $1,000 for each additional vehicle. This provision is favorable to wealthy owners and large corporations, the plaintiff claims, and | operates to the disadvantage of the small owner and prohibits him from continuing a lawful business hereto- fore operated by him because he is ot possessed of a certaln amount of weaith. while it allows other persons no more capable or efficient to carry on the business hecause better situ- | ated financially 16 HORSEMEN COMPETE IN ROCK CREEK JUMPS Perfect Score Made b; Capt. Wil- liamson Unequaled by Any Other Competitors. brief filed to. quotes the opinion of the court, and makes the following ase that could be saig to reflect upon the committee's performance of his duties as such, except that which is involved in the question dealt with under the first exception.” ‘The brief declares further “It s respectfully submitted that the foregoing decision by a United | States Court having juriediction of the matter disposes of the only phase | of the ond commission question | which it is necessary or appropriate for this committee to consider. As stated we have transmitted to the ! ‘hairman of the committee a certified opy vf the full text of Mr. Justice siddons’ opinion. In addition to the above quotations reference to that opinion will show the court’s descrip. tion of Mr. Fenning's testimony ‘unqualified and candid. Refers to Quoted Case. 1 Court distinguished the O'Brien and Patterson cases and held that they were not authority.<or the contention that an evil and delibe~ rate intent to defraud was not neces- sary to make a conversion of mones.? or property the crime of embezzle ment The foregning makes it plais . beyond peradventure that in a brief, submitted to this commitiee the d: cision of the Court of Appeals was deliberately ignored. for in view of the fact that the dissenting epinion is quoted, it is obvious that the au- tor of the brief had knowledge of the holding of the prevailing opiniom We deem il unnecessary to chaus acterize this conduct.” The brief then cites opinions to up- Discussing one of the points, made | Tom 1° 1“;"":"'!‘:"6:::;[\1 K continually throughout the hea‘rlr‘lfi!‘;e:: B e ot T v e »y proponents of the charges to the | = e effect that Mr. Fenning quoted the de- | besalement, of 'whidih: " : Ei"%“—‘ of the Court of Appeals in the| (Continued on Page 4. Column 1. ted “Magruder vs. Drury’ case. despite the fact that the Su preme Court had overruled this de- | cision, the brief declares: | . . 1 Prlet Gecleres. o pere ||| Business Opportunity to review Magruder vs. Drury, (255 U. S. | Builders or speflllllbl'l 106). to cail attention to the reiterated | > oM. grorig o error in the statement that this de- | PRty owsing St 0 R cision was called to Mr. Fenning's at- ington’s most magnificent build- tention by the auditor of the court in ||| in&s on a triangular corner in the Hoff case in 1915, despite the fact |||l the downtown section would | | | | 1 WIS 1D NEVER FOR HEAVEN'S SAIK F come ont Tl s TR Look wue‘& You'RE ' GO\ G Gor S8 = PRETTY /SOUR- SCEMERY Too IF You A5k ME THIS ROAD's ROTTEN ) KNEW WE SHOULDN'T HAVE COME THIS \Way! THAT'S WHAT L GET FOR LI STENING o YOUu! Loow ouT ! 1871, by similar in form was instituted with a gov of public | hoard the act ar te. ury. Sixteen horsemen competed at the Rock Creek Park jumps vesterday in the sedond of a series of Sunday con teste fur cash prizes and the Rock Creek Challenge Cup. which is now held by Capt. Rovden Williamson. | U. S. A. The title of “cup defender’ | was won by Capt. Williamson on his | ON MERITS AS FENNING’S EXONERATION ASKED | concluded hy the decision in District of Columbl; The argument in support sgumes that th the Government | and the public have changed by legis- not Rarnes vs, U. S.. 540 of this proposition e ions hetween of the Distriet | ficers {of the District of Coll o a7 [ the present by that emain | corporation of the municipal mb In govern which expressly District continue a law the and corporation 1878 was created provides of Columbia shall municipal and the Commlis- i sioners herein provided for shall be tended for the correctness of this in | terpretation of section 634 before the auditor and the presiding justice of the District Court. At a hearing be- fore the auditor of the court May 8§ in the Adler case Mr. Fenning testi- fled in substance as he testified be- fore this committee on this subject, that the auditor’'s opinion, put in the record of this committee’s hearings. | shows that that officer only cited and quoted Magruder vs. Drury (37 App. | D. C. 519), plainly showing that the auditor was as uninformed as was | Mr. Fenning on the point that the Supreme Court had reviewed and re- | like to make an arrangement with a builder for remodeling inte apartments. ‘There has been a first trust loan of $30.000 secured at 6127, with the un- derstanding that certain, im- provements he made to produce an unusually large income on been so materially }‘hm',:n :na”pd since the Barnes case, | deemed and, taken as officers of such [that the principles therein —an-|CCTRUTEGL, o cierk nolding his po nounced have no application to the | ion under such municipal officers. i ok ox ¥ | Appointed by them, and subject to | removal by them at their pleasure, I'he regarded as other than a subordi “Has there bheen any such change '"Ate municipal l\fixxvr"P;I o h:’]n ;:ih‘oyn = % 3 o ve he conclusio that a Commissioner is not subject to | in the government established for | |\ l"‘r\r\l::"esi“:-:\lld AR impeachment? | this District as will take the present (o " 1l0icina) afficer power to ap case out of the rule announced in : s Origin of D. C. Government. | (na'Barmes case” = 5 + But the act | POIML AN ofcer af the At o Tan: Taking up its argument to show |of June 11, 1878, 20 Stat.. 102 & power w ¢ that Mr. Fenning is not impeachable | c. 180, | G Vition to the President, the courts a permanent form of government for |~ ({0 T N 2 G 0 departments.” by the House, the brief sets forth|the District was established. It pro that Congress long ago elected to|vided that ‘the District of Columbla | create, for certain purposes within|shall remain and continue a munlci- | A 4 g the District, “a municipal corpora-| palcorporation * * *’'andthatthe | ., inany Donovan against the rjfr"";";:":l 2;‘;:‘}, 1 ?(;fl\!*’ m“ai\Su tion. endowed with all the power and | Commissloners therein provided for ! {rnited States in fhe sum claimed by | (0F T4 YEATS, OREVel and wnstruceon subject to all the liabilities of the|should ‘be deemed and taken as offi- | i O el TR s B ordinary body corporate” and argues of such corporation.’ Those | nally the ot aaskits: that. the | Rel o Sl R ot M“d‘“ o that Congress could have governed | Commissioners, consisting of two | pistriet commitiees of Congress only | A< AR A of the court, under am the District by a joint committee of | persons. to he appointed by the!a few days ago recognized the Dis Bl b flrd _'Pr“lg m&’rfl‘ the two houses or in any other man- | President, with the consent of the|trict's status as separate from that |7 O h“nmmwfi“%fl?m?“‘l“ etw“”_- ner which by legislation it chose.| Senate. and an officer of the En-lof the Federal Government by re-} S HIRECELIY BO6 Holtaut d e It points out that certain Federal | zineer Corps, detailed for that pur-| porting out two bills to allow the ;muJumn ;nl B 'na‘ Pr:eam ehak property has never been delegated to | pose, were vested with all the|ing of leave to exservice man and this corporation. that there are two |powers, rights. duties privileges, | woman employes of the District to separate and distinet police forces.|and all the property, estate and ef- |attend the Paris convention of the /" yapge small ) | one under officers of the United States | fects then lawfully exercised by and | American Legion in 1927. These bills tofs Books Bon(hl Lits and the other under officers of the| vested fn the Commissioners of the|were reported out within the last two “Bring Them In" or Phone Fr. 5416 corporation. ‘That the District 1= a | District, including the power, among | weeks, the brief reminds the commit PEARLMAN'S, 933 G St. N.W. hunter, Beckv Sharp. in the first con- | test of the serles, Sunday before last, | and the perfect score he made then ! was not matched by any of the jump- | ere yesterday. | The closest approach vesterday to Capt. Williamson’s score was _the three fault performance by the Hein- cich Rob Roy, ridden by Mrs. Robert E. L. Smith. Melvin C. Hazen's Nan- oy Lee was second, and Miss Anna C. | Hedrick's Clair de Lune was third. Judges of the contest were Ray Nor- ton, Quinton L. Comer and William R. Stone. —_— SPECIAL NOTICES. WANTED _PASSENGERS TOLOS ANGELES or pointa en_route: private Darty leavin: Thureday_or Frida ac 35129, ¢ [_¥ILL XOT BE RESPONSTBLE FOR ANY labts contracted by ans ona other than my 511’ GEOGE E. WATERS. Seat Plapsant, { WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE ebts contracted other than by myself. JOI STECKLEIN. 8501 Bennng rd. n.e. ILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE acted by any one other than my- R B seir® HERATAN 8. BARGHAUSE £ ac ave the investment. This bullding can be obtained by a builder or speculator who would do this work and accept the above trust at a ridiculously small sum. and the property should show a versed the Court of Appeals’ decision in that much-discussed case; nor nee | we argue the interpretation of section 1654 of the District of Columbia Code | or meet the untenable contention that, | while a company that insures against loss by fire is an insurance company. | |l profit of £100.000 or more upon cne that insures against loss by life completion of work. Replies is an insurance company, ona that in. ||l . feanteq strietly confidential. mitted to o eo? sures against loss s a result of acel | | “2Fa Talk It over. b awfully can do so. dent is an insurance company, one 3 ‘Q If you lawfully can. You are|that insures against loss resulting ||| Box 101-B, Star Office villing to do it? | tfrom casualties is an insurance com- == ‘A. My answer is that this entire Lhavzul is in the custody of the Su Ponovan's Clail Upheld. i preme Court of the District of Colum. Judsnt as emtered for the | Pin 1. as committee, am acting as an and he stated there, as he stated here in answer to a question pro- pounded by Mr. Gorman, as follows Position Is Stated. “'Q. 1 want to go back to the previous question, whether you are | willing to give the estate the benefit of that commission if You are per- | Counsel Denies Commissioner Is Civil Officer of U. S. Subject to Impeachment—Sees Abuse of High Privileges of House. [ Refers to Organic Act. (Continued from First Page.) house of the Congress would restrain |or punish violations of the immunity | thus given its members. It was never contemplated that behind the cloak of constitutional Immunity reckless | and wanton character assassination should be either permitted or tol- erated. This committee has now listened to evidence which not only falled to disclose the commission of any crime, any misdemeanor, or to warrant any charge of officlal mis- { conduet, but which affirmatively dem- onstrated that many of the charges, deliberately and solemnly presented, were not only unwarranted, but were so entirely baseless as to make it IR SN | impossible to even imagine an excuse STEEPLEJACK MCARTHY — PAINTING | for their making. fagpoles. EIlding W eR e Tan®na Die | “We earnestly submit (1) that ordi spires, and emokestack repairing and paint Pie* A darees Box 485 A. & 18" nary fairness and common justice WHEN THE THERMOMETER BURSTS —and it's more than 90° in the shade--simply pull down Shade Shop Shades and i antly there's a feeling of coolness and contentment in the home You'll be pleased with the wearing qualities and good looks of our shades. May we send you estimtes? ssed re. tar o L—HAVE CHMNEY AND FUR- R ek, AR S % PAPERHANGING. €. A MAID- 8 . lein). Tojomas 1816 WANTED—A RETURN LOAD OF FI i from New York. Philad-iphia or Balyi- rore ;05'\« TH'S TRANSFER AND SIOR. . and Wasl also local movini ztfl'l for_estimate. THE O.K. ERESS, 2484 180, = 2 WAN ET RID OF WASH- PR Bhopeihyt Cl By Fuit s st us explain our 7¢ a pound rift Wash THAT 1 WI Y ¥EREBY GIVE 3 neible for dsbta contract not be rtesponsi o 7’% e than misell “ALO APELAVDER. 15 Schoo! 5t Annapol D_RETURN LOAD FROM WASH- ington to Balto. or Philadelvhia. June 15th Tel. West 1918-W - AN AFFORD_TO HAVE A g lofwrv 4 A\ %rlneull a very llmn\ et oks for you and te; you how to keep e Ji ES T. JOYCE, Clevelan snia“”mn} Garinon st now. 14% OTICE TO STOCKHOLDERS. The annual election of nine () truates of The American Fire Insurence Co. of D. € All be held at the office of the compans. glls 7th et. n.w. on Thursday, June 7,182 n from 11 am. to 1 p.m Polle open from L1 4m. o AN ANNOUNCEMENT. Dr. 1. F. BRAUER, PHYSIO THERAPIST. is, Bov, lovated, ¢ 612 . ma 1 st Floo REMOVAL NOTICE! COLUMBIA OPTICAL CO. Now Located At . 1410 G ST. N.W., _EDWIN K MLVER CALL US FOR ROOF REPAIRING We'll_repair your roof like new. Call North 26 or 27. Roofine _9th & Evarts IRONCLAD &5, s N'T_WAIT UNTIL THE MOTHS HAVE ished eating the mohair on sour furniture, 1 call ‘on s as €000 as ou suspect it. We Can Kill Them —without taking the furniture apart. 1he cost 15 small. It's part of our service Phone Main 3621 dell Mifg. Co. 1 NEVER DISAPPOINT PRINTING IN A HURRY BYRON S. ADAMS Bigh Grade but_not aigh_ priced. b S5 Tuh sirest ¥, When You Need Printing—CONSULT This Million Dollar Printing Plant The National Capital Press 1210.1212 D ST. N.W iF YOUR ROOF NEEDS —repairing and painting. follow the Tomenl course 1aia down by hundreds of ‘Washington house owners. Send for us. Tt ' our business. Est:mates iree. KOONS RogeNg, 119 3rd St. S.W. COMPANY _ Phons Main 933 A BETTER SCREEN FOR LESS MONEY. Becausa we make all our scresns on ., e can save you money. 1ith & H ELWEEQTRTT s.. yE be anrcl‘nd l'n this uu..-: - | States subject and | unita to require that this committee shall not now content {tself with re- porting only that he who is a Com- missioner of the District of Columbia 18 not a civil officer of the United to impeachment; (2)| that the conditions presented by the | record of the hearings demand that | this committeeshall inform the House | of Representatives that it finds no, justification for the charges presented | to it by one of its members, and (3)| that this committee may well con- sider it within its province to call {to the attention of the House the | crass violation of its high privileges | which these hearings have disclosed.” | Reiterating their argument that Com- | missioner Fenning cannot be im- peached because there are no_facts which call for such action, his coun- | sel contend that there are no consti- tutional powers which can be inter- | posed in the casefof an officer charged with misconduct save the power of mpeachment. The activities of Repre- sentative Blanton in connection with the Fenning case are considered by counsel as a hreach of the constitu | tional functions of a member of Con- | 0 him and to those who | ve supported him,” the brief argues. however, “constitutional limi- | tations have appeared unimportant, if indeed. understood’ To them the great constitutional distinction between the | functions of the legislative and the | axecutive are of no consequence.” Reminded of Denby Case. Counsel then reminded the commit- tee of the Denby case, when the Sen- | ate requested his resignation as Sec- retary of the Navy. and of the Presi- ! dent’s reply that “the dismissal of an |officer of the Government, such as is involved in this case, other than by Impeachment, is exclusively an execu- | tive function. 1 regard this as a vital | principle of our Government. . ““The President is responsible to the people for his conduct relative to the | retention or dismissal of public offi- | cials. T assume that responsibility.” The brief is divided Into exhaustive discussion involving the following questions of law: | " 1. Whether or not a Commissioner ; | of the District is a civil officer of the | United States subject to impeachment under the terms of the Constitution. 2. Whether or not Commissioner | Fenning was guilty of any crime, mis- demeanor, fraud. or even of gross negligence in accepting commission on honds in cases in which he was an agent of the company. Status of D. C. Official. 2 Whether or not the statute for- hidding officers of the United States, etc., from prosecuting claims against the Government Is applicable to a Commissioner of the District. 4. Whether or not there has been any violation of the act which limits payments to an attorney or agent for preparing papers for necessary appli- | cation to the Veterans’ Bureau to $10. 5. Whether or not the Commission- ers of the District come within the ! section of the criminal code which for- | bids officers of corporations; etc.. who |are serving as officers of the United | States to make contracts with such | corporations. - | 6. Whether or not an officer of the United States may be removed from office on impeachment for transactions antedating his induction into office. 7. Has the House of resentatives any constjtutional powers which can ould facts municipal corporation. and not a de. partment of the Government, Is settled, the brief states, first, by e press legislation of Congress; second, by decisions of the United S‘ates Su- preme Court in cases directly present- ing the question: third. by opinions of the attorneysgeneral, including Garland, Griggs, Wickersham and Bonaparte; fourth, by the Court of Claims of the United States, and finally, by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. The brief then presents Its legal authority in each of the above cases. Quoting the language of the or. ganic act of the District, the brief disposes of the question that Con- gress deliberately created the District of Columbia a municipal corporation. This language follows: The District of Columbia shall re- main and capatinue a municipal cor- poration, as provided in section 2 of the Revised Statutes relating to sald District, and the Commissioners herein provided for shall be deemed and taken as officers of such cor- | poration.” Quotes Supreme Court. The brief then proceeds to quote a number of decisions by the United States Supreme Court, which uphold its contention that the District is a municipal corporation. In the first de- cision, that of ‘“Barnes vs. District of Columbia, 91 U. 8., 540,” In which the plaintiff brought suit to recover for personal Injuries received in conse- quence of defective streets, the court held that the District is a municipal corporation and nothing else; that the Board of Public Works was a board of officers of the municipal corporation, and that the fact that the board was appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, was not, “in principle, of the slightest con- sequence to the determination of the question.” After quoting other decisions at length, the brief goes into the case of the District of Columbia vs. Wood- bury, 136 U. S., 460. In this case the plaintiff fell down a hole in the side- walk, sued and recovered damages for his injury. The judgment was brought into the Supreme Court of the United States for re-examination. which. in an opinion delivered by Justice Har- lan, according to the brief,” re. viewed and reaffirmed the Barnes case, applied its principles to the subse- quently enacted legislation, analyzed the provisions of the act of 1878, which, as we have seen, expressly enacts that the District of Columbia shall remain and continue a municipal corporation * ¢ ¢ and the Commlis- sioners * * * shall be deemed and taken as officers of such corporation, and held that the District of Columbia was in every respect a mere municipal corporation, the Comimissioners there- of officers of that corporation and the municipal body liable for negligence in connection with the maintenance of the streets of Washington." The brief then quotes from Justice Harlan's opinion as follows: “The question to be first considered is whether the District of Columbia is, under any circumstances, liable in damages for personal injuries re- sulting from the unsafe condition of the avenues. streets and sidewalks in the city of Washington. The charge of the court below proceeded upon the ground -that such lability existed. The District contends here, as it did at the trial, for the opposite view. And (it that-the--( others, to apply the taxes or othe revenues of the District to the pay ment of its current expenses, the support of the public schools. the Fire Department and the police. but making no contract nor incurring amy obligation other than such as were provided in that act, and should be approved by Congress; to collect taxes theretofore lawfully assessed | and due, or to become due. but without anticipating taxes by selling or hypdthecating them; to abolish offices, consolidate two or more ofti ces, reduce the number of employes, remove from office and make ap- pointments to any office under them authorized by law ¢ ¢ ¢ “We have made this extended analysis of the provisions of the act of 1878 because of the earnest con-! tention of the counsel for the defend- ant that while the District of Co- lumbia is still a municipal corpora- tion, under its present form of gov- ernment it has not, ‘as a municipal | corporation, the features involving it | in the lability under consideration.’ The reasons assigned by counsel for this contention have been carefully considered, with the result that, in our judgment, the municipal corpora- tion created by the act of 1878 is sub. ject to precisely the same liability for injuries to individuals, arising from negligence of the Commission- ers or of the officers under them in maintaining in safe condition, for the use of the public, the streets, avenues, alleys and sidewalks of the city of ‘Washington, as was the District un- der the laws in force when the cause of action in the Barnes’ case arose. e « * the Commil ners, having full control of the streets, are under a duty to keep the public ways of the city in such condition that they can be used with reasonable safety. Their neglect in that matter is the neglect of the municipal corporation of which they are the resopnsible representatives, although subject to the paramount authority of Congress. + s * RBecause it was a municipal corporation proper, as distinguished from a corporation established as an agency of the Government creating it, this court held in the Barnes case that it was responsible for such neg- ligence of its officers having the care of streets, avenues and sidewalks as resulted in personal injuries to indi- viduals. The source from which the District. obtains the means for main- taining public highways in the city is_of no_consequence, 8o long as Con: t The Care of the House —1s usually the woman's work. How many of them have thought to make it-pay extra dividends by renting a room? If this has not occurred to you, think it over. When you have decided in the afirmative send an advertisement to The Star For Rent Room classifica- tion. Do not forget to have the advertisement contain full description of the room;p3 cents per wgrd, 45 cents minimum charge per insertion. i tee, because A fers only and bill already pi ‘executive departme establishments to independent the Government." arguments of the proponent concern ing his a District The brief then answers in de ertion that officers of are officers of the Government ning ulent action. fogether with embezzle- ment, retained comm ! dlong recefved by him from bonding brief. $ of Mr. Fenning's guardianship busi- nes any t court concerning his actions, and re- cites the opinion deli The charge that Ci guilty of eriminal and fra because he up in is next taken n the hist The brief recites inform the co his care to zation of to receive autho vered in In Virginia “Fifteen Minutes From F Street” A Good Child Deserves a Good Home bbbl bl b, /‘ZW Apartments f “Cresthill” 1430 Belmont St. Lowest Rentals .50 to $90. Elevator_Service 42 rented; 6 left Moore & Hill (Inc.) 730 17th St. $52. Federal mmissioner Fen HILLS Large porches nte of 'FLAT TIRE? MAIN 500 LEETH BROTHERS T e e tall the ud. ¥ APARTMENTS 1661 Crescent Pl1. [} 7 Adioining 2300 Sicteentn | Brecmy ’ VISIT THEM! | WITH Burner, the ory urt the the Oil . AVE. < MAIN 6380 | I T? Charming In Every Detail Open Daily and Sun- T Every 30 Minutes on the hour ond half hour TO BALTIMORE day Until 9 P.M. For Further Information See Your Broker The bright spot of my vacation last summer was the flash- light which George Nelson advised me to take along. ULDENS Mustard Made from the world's finest mustard seeds: Bright spot? I hope to tell you it was. Why, up there in the woods and around the camp, I'd have %een sunk without it. It cut a path of safety through the darkest nights; it was my constant com- panion on canoe trips; it saved me a broken leg on more than one occasion. I'd never take a trip without it. W reedn’s tell you that it #'a genuine Eveready] 1 b 830 13th St. N.W. I OPEN 9 AM Chevy Ch: Ouwner and Builde: Lz Z, \ Prices,*16 ,500 There is no venture in bu 22227227 2 W. STORES SAMMONS, Homes—that constitutes this del Handsome in design—Center Hall and Cottage—with one and two baths—large lots—separate garages. 812,950 to 15,950 With Special Terms New homes of seven rooms, two baths and built-in garage in this exclusive neighborhood. $2,500 Cash—$125 Monthly Proprietor ry Home in Chevy Chase Terrace With a Frigidaire Electric Refrigerator That’s only one of the many exceptional features that you'll find in these ightful community. .TO 8 PM Out Wis. Ave. to one block South of Bradley Lane, opposits Goll Conrss of the ase Club <« CAFRITZ r of Communi Park and *17,500 ying here; and no finer resi- dential section of moderate priced homes in Washington. Visit Exhibit House, 2907 Cathedral Ave. N.W. Open Daily and Sundays Until 9 P.M. Larger Homes, $28,500 and $32,500 in Woodley Park—on reasonable terms '~ WARDMAN 1430 K St N.W.