Evening Star Newspaper, July 2, 1926, Page 6

¥ 6 THE EVEfiING STAR, WASHINGTON, D. C, FRIDAY, JULY 2 1926. FENNING HELD LEGALLY NOT GUILTY, BUT PRACTICE IS CONDEMNED DYER SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT FINDS 20 CHARGES UNPROVEN District Commissioner Is Declared to Be Non-Im- peachable—Activities, However, Come in for Bitter Attack by Judiciary Committee. of the judiciary by The full report commictee, adopted yesterday vote of 14 to 4, follows “This committes is acting under a resolution the 3 Representatives on first section of which ix as follows: ** ‘Resolved, That the committee on the judiciary be, and it is hereby. directed to inquire and report whether the action of this House is necessary concerning the alleged official misconduct of Frederick A. Fenning, Commissioner of the District of Columbia, and said com ‘mittee on the judiciary all nd cts things hereby fully author! empowered to investigate of mi and report to the House er in their opinion the said derick A been guilty of any a the contemplation of the Constitu: tion, the statute laws, and the prec- edents of Congre: high crimes and misde; requir ing the interpreta stitutional powers of he I “We will consider first, the power and the right House to im peach. Article 2 m 4, of the Con itution provid ‘the President, e President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.’ “Two things are necessary before the House will authorize impeach ment, (first) there must be an officer who, by reason of holding such office, is impeachable under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and (second) the establishment by credita ble evidence of such misc uct on the part of such officer, defined as ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ as will Lring the office into disrepute and which will quire his removal, to maintain i purity and the respect of the people for the office. Is Commissioner Tmpeachable? first question that confronts us, is a Commissioner of the District of Columbia, appointed by the Presi dent and confirmed by the Senate, a ivil officer of the United States, st ject to the foregoing provision of the Fede! itution? In order to ar- rect solution of this ques. necessary to review the acts s relating to the District of “The tion it of Coni Columbi: was ceded by epted by, the Governme: nce with clause 17 of article 1 which granted to lumbia and ac accord of the Constitution, Congress exclusive legislative jurisdic- tion over such District. This in ef fect makes Congress the legislative body for the District, with the same power as legislative bodies of the varl States, and it has full authority in tive matters pertaining to the subject to the prohibitions contained in the Constitution. “That act of July 16, 1790, provided for the establishment of a seat of Gov- ernment in the District of Columbia. On Februa , 1871 (16 Stat. L., 419), Congress ited of the District a ration by the name strict of Columbia,” with power sue, be sued, contract, have a seal, and exerc all other powers of a municipal tion not _inconsist ent with the Constitution, the laws of the United States and the provisions of this act. Organic Act Cited. ubsequently, on June 11, 1578 (20 Stat. L., 102), the organic act of the District of Columbia was enacted by Congress, which provides that the District of Columbia shall remain and continue a municipal corporation as provided in section 2 of the Revised Statutes relating to said District and that the Commissioners provided for should be deemed and taken as officers of such corporation. his seems to be as clear as lan- ze can express it that thereafter District of Columbia should en- joy a municipal corporate status and that its officers should be deemed and taken as offices of = . The fact that Congr s lative authority and that the method of appointing Federal officials was followed in the appointment of the Commissioners is not material and certainly not controlling, for the se- lection of the Commissioners could have been delegated to the President alone or to the people of the District. Had it been the intent of Congre: that the Commissioners. should enjoy the status of Federal officials, thes no expression thereon wa but the fact that Congr words gave them the status of muni ipal clearly that Cong distine while, at the same time, he Federal method of ap- these office retaining This was a very reasonable pro- for, while these officials are ted by the President and con- irmed by the Senate, they are not paid in the sume manner as Federal 3 are pald out of the t funds, to which, it is true, overnment contributes a cer. tain sum. but they are not paid out of the Federal Treasury, as are of ficials of the Federal Government. Cases Do Not Apply. “While there are cases cited b Blanton and Rankin in their fs upholding thefr contention that Fenning is a Federal official, the cited generully involve other fons and the decisions are not expressly upon the point at issue, and we feel that the question is settled in the following cases: Barnes vs. Dis. trict of Columbia, 91 CUnited States, 540, render re the act of ( gr of F 21, 1878, an to provide a Government for the Dis- trict of Columbia yolitan Railroad Co. vs. Dis- olumbia, 132 U 1. t of Columbia vs. Woodbury, 450 “Donovan vs. United States, Court of Claims Reports, 120. Grifith vs. Rudolph et al ssioners of the District . 8 Federal Report, in 1924). e also opinions of the Attorney al.” (Report here cites pages in which applicable opinions are found.) Not Impeachable Officer. “For the reasons stated it is our eonclusion that Frederick Fen- ning is an officer of a municipal cor- portation, to-wit, the District of Columbia, and as such is not a civil officer of the United States and as such is not subject to impeachment. Notwithstanding our decision that we have no authority to proceed by impeachment in this matter, as above set forth, we believe it our duty, in view of the interest manifested in this case, to state our views touching the facts as they have come to the atten- tion of the committee, which are as follows: 21 Charge No. 1. “I charge that the sald Frederick A. Penning, after being appointed to such office by the President of the United States, and after he had taken ' the prescribed oath and assumed the duties of the office of Commissioner the District of Columbia, violated »ath and the law by violating the provisions of Section 5498 of the Re- vised Statutes of the United States, fn that he acted as attorney and re- s and commissions in viola- of such law, the penalty pre- bed for such violation being a fine of not more than $5,000 and imprison- ment for not more than one year.’ “Section 5498 of the Revised Stat- of the United States: ““Every officer of the United States son holding any place of trust ofit, or discharging any offictal function under or in connection with any executive department of the Gov- ernment of the United States, or un- der the Senate or House of Represent atives of the United States, who aets n agent or attorney for prosecut- iy claim against the United ites, or in any manner or by an: ceived fe tion means, otherwise than in the dis o of his proper ofticial duties, atd assists in the proecution or support of any such claims, or re ceives any gratuity or any share of {or interest any claim from any claimant against the United States with intent to aid or assist, or in con tion of having aided or a in the prosecution of such elaim, pay a tine of not more than or suffer imprisonment of not than one year, or both.' ‘'There is no evid¥nce of a viola tidn of the above section “A Commissioner of the District of Columbia is not forbidden to practice ilaw. There is no evidence that Mr. Fenning acted as attorney in prosecut- ing a claim against the United 1, more ee Rogers’ testimony, page 310. See Fenning’s testimony, page 735. Charge No. at the said Frederick 9 ““I charge t A. Fenning has violated the provisions of section 500 of title V of the World War veterans’ act of 1 amended by the act of March 4, 1925, which provides that respecting compensation |and insurance claims filed in said United States Veterans' Bureau for judication and not prosecuted in “ourts no_ attorney shall receive a fee of more than $10 in any one case, the penalty prescribed for its violation being 2 fine of not more than $500 and imprisonment at hard. labor for not more than two year “Section 500 of title V of the World ¢ Veterans' act of 1924, as amend ed by the act of March 4, 192 *‘Sec. 500. Fxcept in the event of lezal proceedings under section 19, of title T of this act, no claim agent or attorney except the recognized repre- | sentatives of the American Red Cross, {the American Legion. the Disabled | American Veterans and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and such other or- | sanizations as shall Le approved by the director shall be recognized in the presentation or adjudication of claims under tities II, IIT and IV of this act, and payment to any attorney or agent for such assistance as may be required in the preparation and execution of the necessary papers in any applica- tion to the bureau shall not exceed $10 in any one case: Provided, however, That whenever a judgment or decree shall be rendered in an action brought pursuant to section 19 of title I of this act, the court, as part of its judg- ment or decree, shull determine and allow reasonable. fees for the attor- neys of the successful party or parties and apportion same, if proper, said fees not to exceed 10 per centum of the amount recovered and to be paid by the bureau out of the payments to be made under the judgment or decree at a rate not exceeding one-tenth of each of such payments until paid. Any person who shall, directly or indirect- Iy, solicit, contract for, charge or re- ceive, or who shall attempt to solicit, contract for, charge or receive, any fee or compensation, except as herein provided, shall be gullty of a misde- meanor, and for each and every of fense shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $500 or by ‘imprison- ment at hard labor for not more than two years, or by both such fine and Imprisonment.’ “There s no evidence of a violation of this section. Charge No. 3. “'I charge that the said Frederick A. Fenning has violated the law and the rules of practice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which prohibit . any committee or guardian for a lunatic receiving as compensation more than 10 per cent of his ward’s estate or annual income, 1 that the said Frederick A. Fen- | ning in several cases wherein he is committee or guardian has received exorbitant remuneration, ranging from 12 per cent to as high as 94 per cent, which facts are certified to by the uditor of the Supreme Court of the strict of Columbia.’ “Article 1135, Code of Laws of the District of Columbia, chapter 31: ‘It shall be the duty of the guardian to manage the estate for the best interests of the ward, and once in each year, or oftener if re- quired, he shall settle an_account of his trust under oath. He shall ac- count for all profit and increase of his ward’s estate and the annual value thereof and shall be allowed credit for taxes repairs, improvements, ex- pen and commissions not exceed- ing 10 per cent of the principal of the personal estate and on the annual income of the estate, and shall not be answerable for any loss or decrease sustained without his fault; and the court shall determine the amount to be annually expended in the main- tenance and education of the infant, regard being had to his future condi- tion and prospects in life; and the court, if it shall deem it advantageous to the ward, may allow the guardian to exceed the income of the estate and to make use of the principal and :\(‘ll the same or part thereof, under its order, as hereinbefore proyided in subchapter 3 of chapter 1; and no guardian shall sell any property of his ward without an order of the court previously had therefor.’ “The above article 1135, chapter 31, does not_apply to the case of a com- mittee. The authority of the court to appoint a committee of a lunatle is set forth in sections 115-A to 115-C, inclusive, of the code of the District of Columbia. We do not find in this, however, or any law, that which lim! its the compensation of the committee of a lunatic as to the commission that the court may allow. “See exhibit 15, report of auditor of Supreme Court, page 406. “In his explicative the auditor says, ‘Commissions in excess of 10 per cent appear to be nominal allowances or compensation for extraordinary serv- ices.” “In many cases, the commissions rated in high numerals in percentage when_translated into dollars amount to only $5, $6 or $7 for a year's service, in the respective cases. Charge No. 4. “‘I charge that the said Frederick A. Fenning is guiltw of what in every State of the Union {8 commonly known and denominated as the crim- inal offense of barratry, and what the common law applicable to the Dis- trict of Columbia constitutes as bay v ratry, in that he has excited, stirred up and fomented claims against the Government and many ex parte lunacy suits in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, and in that he has specially solicited individuals to employ him as their attorney to prosecute for them certain claims against various departments of the Government of the United States, and before the Congress of the United States, and before the courts of the United States, and in that he has solicited individuals to employ attor- neys with whom he was assoclated or affillated to prosecute claims and suits for them wherein he received a division of the fee, and that the said Frederick A. Fenning is and has been a common barrator.’ “The evidence does not sustain this charge. Charge No. 5. ““I charge that the sald Frederick A. Fenning has committed the offense of champerty nnd through direct solicitation has induced others to em- ploy him as their attorney in many champertous _agreements, wherein they were to be out no expense and not to pay any fee unless he recov- ered, in which event he was to be paid a part of the amount he recov- ered, and that the said Frederick A. Fenning is and been a common champertor!" ““The evidegee does not sustain this charge. Charge No. 6. ‘I charge that continuously during the past 23 years the said Frederick A. Fenning hus wrongfully conspired and confederated with Dr."William A. White, superintendent of St. Il beth's Hospita), an institution of the United States (Government, in an im- proper agreement and practice whe by the said Frederick A. Fenning given an improper, selfish, monopoli tic inside concession not allowed to other attornevs, wherein he was per- mitted to personally examine all records, correspondence and papers re- lating to inmates of such institution, and thereby ascertain which of said wards of this Government had money, property, or compensation or pen- sion claims against the Government of the United States, a privilege d nied to other attorneys; and whereby the said Frederick A. Fenning would act torney for the said Dr. White, | or would have his law partner act as such attorney for s filing in the Supreme Court District of Columbia said Dr. White's petition praying that a certain inmate, found to p money or property or to have aim ugainst the Gov ernment, be adjudged of unsound mind, and praying that a committee be appointed b; the court to take charge of such estate and prosecute such claim against the Government, and in which petition said Fenning would have the said Dr. White recom- mend the said Frederick A. Fenning as the committee to be appointed, and I charge that in pursuance of said wrongful conspiracy and improper practice the sald Frederick A. Fen ning induced the said Dr. White to execute over 200 such petitions, which <aid Fenning filed in the said Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, wherein said Fenning was recommend- ed for committee, and in which cases the court appointed said Fenning as committee or guardian, and as such said Fenning came into possession of the money and property and income of his said ward and prosecuted said ward's claims & st the Govern ment of the United States, and out of which estate and annual income the said Frederick A. Fenning has re. ceived annually a large per cent.’ “The evidence does not show a con spiracy between Frederick A. Fenning and Dr. William A. White. see testimony of Frank M. Finotti, pages 177-179. “See testimony of Dr. White, pages 598-602-615-616-617-618-619 “See Fenning's testimony, page 868. “The above testimony shows Mr. Fenning was given access to corre: spondence showing next of kin of wards. “Testimony of William H. Hayden, | pages 198-201, shows Mr. Finotti ad- vised Mr. Fenning of arrival of pa- tients. “There is no evidence tending to show that the privilege contained in tor- “See testimony of Dr. White, pages 614 to 618 Inclusive, as to number of petitions executed by him, number of wards, etc. Charge No. 7. “'I charge that the said Frederick A. Fenning, about 23 years ago, Wrong- fully and improperly solicited the Jus- tice of the Supreme Court of the Dis: trict of Columbia, then having charge of lunacy cases, to appoint him g jan or committee in all lunacy and that said Fenning was then told by said justice that he would not ap- {point as committee or guardian any person except the one recommended in the petition, and that then and continuously since then, the sald Frederick A. Fenning has wrongfully and improperly solicited all persons who might file such petitions to name him there as committee or guardian, and he had written hany persons whom he had never seen or known urging that they grant him permis sion to file such petitions for them, with himself named therein as the one recommended for appointment as guardian or committee.’ “There is mo evidence to support this charge. Charge No. 8. “ I charge that the sald Frederick A. Fenning has admitted under oath that about 23 vears ago he caused to be originated the unlawful and im- proper practice of paying out of the estate of the person adjudged to be of unsound mind a fee of $10 to each doctor employed in St. Elizabeth's Hospital who signed one of the two required afidavits certifying that he deemed such person of unsound mind, notwithstanding the fact that the law requires all of said doctors employed in St. Elizabeth's Hospital to give all of their time to St. Elizabeth's Hos- pital, and said Fenning testified under oath that when about 23 vears ago he ked the presiding justice to allow such fees to sald doctors the said justice of the court asked him to look up whether there was any law allowing it, and that after tv weeks search he could find none, whereupon, although there was no authority for same, the court entered an order allowing it, and that such a fee has been unlawfully and wrong- fully paid to said doctors ever since, and T charge that sald Frederick A. Fenning thus caused a wrongful and unlawful system to be inaugurated and followed continuously for 23 vears, which squanders in unwar- ranted costs the estates of his wards, and I charge that said Frederick A. Fenning thus used his ward's money to buy favors from and to ingratiate himself into the good graces of all the doctors in St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, whom he expected to use in his busi- ness, and I charge that continuously for the past 23 years the said Fred. erick A. Fenning has thus paid a fee of $10 wrongfully to a doctor in St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, and has also paid a second fee of §10, wrongfully, either to his brother-in-law, Dr. J. Ramsay Nevitt, who during all such time has been coroner of said District, or_to some other friendly doctor in the Dis- trict of Columbia, and this, too, when the sald Fenning knew that under the law and practice in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbla he was entitled to have doctors give their testimony in insanity cases for $1.25 per day.’ - Mr. Blanton's own statement, page 60y, shows that pructice of paying LEADING FIGURES IN FENNING IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS doctors for testifying in insane cases was discontinued in_ 1907 “Dr. White's testimony, page 598, shows that practice was discontinued shortly after he became superintend- ent. ;Also Dr. White's testimony, page 619 “‘See Fenning's testimony, 71, *There is no law requiring the doc- tors to give all their time to the hos. pital. “Section 4829 of the Revised Sta utes. mended by act of Februar: 2, 1909 (35 Stat., 592), is the only law upon the subject and relates exclu- sively to the supertntendent of the Government Hospital for the Tnsane. There is no evidence to show Dr. page 870- J. Ramsay Nevitt received any fee during the past 15 years. “See Fenning's testimony, page 373, rhere is no evidence that doctors giving testimony in insanity cases are entitled only to $1.25 per day or any other fixed amount. Charge No. 9. “‘I charge that the sa d Frederick A. Fenning. by inaugurating the wrongful and unlawful practice of ng $10 in_each case to some doc- abeth's Hospital ing in a lunacy case, has inc id Dr. White to wrongfully and awfully sell his testimony to crimi- nals, as he did when he testified for Clarence Darrow in the Leopold and Loeb case in Chicagh and received therefor $250 per day for 14 days.’ “There is no evidence to support this_charge. ‘‘See Dr. 620. for d White's testimony, page Charge No. 10. rge that the said Frederick A. Fenning, since the United States entered the World War, April 6, 1917, has been allowed by the auditor of the Supreme Court of the District of Co- lumbia and has received as fees and commissions from the estates of his said wards, the enormous sum of $98,544.46, and that, too, wheh his services to such wards was of practi- cally no value whatever, and when some of said wards had never seen him, and that the said auditor of the Supreme Court of the District of Co- lumbla has certified officially that said Frederick A. Fenning has been al- lowed and has received the said sum of $98,544.46 as his fees and commis- sions since April 6, 1917." “Summary of cases, amount of fees, etc., where Fenning acted as commit- tee of veterans, on pages 23, 24, 25 26, 27, also pages 33, 34 and 35. “The character of the service ren- dered to such wards is set forth in each _report filed with the auditor of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia and approved by the court. Charge No. 11. “‘T charge that the auditor of the Supreme Court of the District of Co- lumbia has_certified officially to the following: That in the case of Daniel Campbell, lunacy No. 4073, the rate commission received by’ Frederick A. Fenning amounted to 15 per cent in 1920, 24 per cent in 1921, 23 per cent in 1922, 23 per cent in 1923, 31 per cent in 1924 and 36 per cent in_1925; that in the case of Dantel Paul Fenn, lunacy No. 4405, the rat® of commission received by Frederick A. Fenning was 15 per cent in 1920, 18 per eent in 1921, 24 per cent in 1922, 25 per cent in 1928, 25 per cent in 1924 and 21 per cent in 1925; that in the 'case of Pafrick iffin, lunacy No. 4252, the rate of commission received by Frederick A. Fenning was 16 per cent in 1920, 18 per cent in 1921, 15 per cent in 1922, 25 per cent in 1923, 50 per cent in 1924, 31 per cent in 1925 and 32 per cent in 1926; that in the case of James A. Higginson, lunacy No. 3887, the rate of commission received by Fred- erick A. Fenning was 32 per cenf, in 1920, 16 per cent in 1921, 35 per cent in 1922, 19 per cent in 1923, 46 per cent in 1924 and 22 per cent in 1925; that in the case of William John Ken- nedy, lunacy No. 3694, the rate of commission received by Frederick A. Fenning was 30 per cent in 1920, 28 per cent in 1921, 256 per cent in 1922, 26 per cent in 1923, 25 per cent in 1924 and 37 per cent in 1925; that in the case of Patrick J. Byrne, lunacy No. 3682, the rate of commission re- ceived by Frederick A. Fenning was 24 per cent in 1920, 24 per cent in 1921, 87 per cent in 1922, 49 per cent in 1928, 87 per cent in 1924 and 64 per cent in 1925; and that in the case of John “I cha First row, top to bottom: Frank J. Hogan, Thomas P. Littlepage and Levi Cooke, counsel for Mr. Fenning. Center, top to botton sioner Frederick A. Fo resentative 1. Dyer, chairman of the subcommittee which held hearings on the charges. ht, top to bottom: Repre- sentative Thomas L. Blanton, Representative John E. Rankin, who acted as proponent of the charges after Mr. Blanton's with- drawal, and Representative FEr- nest L. Gibson, chairman of the subcommittee of the House Dis- trict committee. Commis- ning, Rep- rate of commission recefved by Fred erick A. Fenning on January for the preceding year, was cent.’ “Auditor's report, pages 406420 in clusive, shows amount of commission recefved each vear in the several cases mentioned in this charge, set forth both in percentage and amounts. “Sec Fenning's testimony on each of these cases. beginning on page “The annual reports in these cases show that out of a total of 39 reports G of them were signed and approved by Justice McCoy and the other 3 were signed and approved by the oth 5 judges of the court. Charge No. 12. ‘T charge that said Frederick A. Fenning made a deliberate attempt to deceive Congress when, in the pre- pared typewritten stutement he sent to Representative Martin B. Madden and requ ed its insertion in the rec ord on Friday, April 16, 1926, he inti- mated that Gen. Frank T. Hines, ¢ rector of the United States Veterans' Rurean, erred when he certified tha sald Fenning received 10 per cent the estate and annual income of 94 Veter Bureau wards, said [ ning intimating that his commission was only 5 per cemt in most in stances.’ “There is no evidence to support this charg; Charge No. 13. “‘I charge that said Frederick A. Fenning made a deliberate attempt to leceive Congress when, in his prepared statement, he falsely stated that the $109,070.25 fees and commissions which the auditor of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia had certified had heen allowed to said Fenning, “in- cludes the full amount of commission and counsel fees in cases going back to the year 1903, because, as a matter of fact, many fees and commissions re- ceived by the said Fenning de not ap. pear in said auditor’s certificate, and said auditor certifies officially ~that since we entered the World War in 1917 the foes and commissions allowed by the auditor to said Frederick Fenning amounted to $98,544.46, showing affirmatively that of the s $109.070.25 allowed said Fenning fees and commissions only $10 allowed prior to April 6, 1917, and said Fenning is vet to receive his comm slons on all cases for the last 12 months that will end on the court year expiring May 1, 1926." “There is no evidence to support this charge. “Auditor’s exhibits heretofore refer- red to, set forth the fees and commis- slons, both in percentages and amounts. in 525 was Charge No. 14. charge that since our brave ex- service men have returned from France wounded and shell shocked in the World War said Frederick A. Fen- ning, as guardian and committee for vards of our Veterans' Bureau, has received from said United States Vet- erans’ Bureau the enormous sum of $733,855.87 compensation and insur- ance due them, and that he has de- posited same inhis own bank, the Na- tional Savings and Trust Co., of which he is a director and in which he owns stock, and that he receives substantial benefits from such deposits by receiv- ing increased dividends on his stock in s=aid institution.” “The evidence does not show any violation of law. Charge No. 15. ‘T charge that the said Frederick A. Fenning in making loans of his wards’ money, as the law requires him to do, he has received discounts, or commis- sions, or brokerage fees, additional to the interest carried in the notes or obligations, and that when making for said Fenning a loan of $15,000, said National Savings & Trust Co. received a commission, which benefited said Fenning either directly or indirectly.” “There is no evidence to support this charge. “See testimony of William L. Brown- page 689. ioe page 7569, $250 Browning note, credited to estate of Daniel G. Camp- bell. Charge No. 16. “ T charge that the said Frederick A. Fenning has deceived the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia by having different justices thereof to al- low him to deduct from the annual in- come of his wards the annual pre- mium paid to the bonding compan: his | ‘ ~ ~ 9 SEVEN COMMITTEE MEMBERS y \ 1, DEMAND FENNING’S REMOVAL Reports Show That Four Hold He Is Not Federal Of- ficer, While Three Say He Can Be Impeached. Two Score Guardianship Practice. Views of nine members of the House | fore impeachable. - Concluding, they Judiciary committee, which considered | say § impeachment. charges against Com We ara not in agreemen’, with the missioner i'rederick A. Fenning, on|finding o fthe majority of the judi- the committee’'s report of the inves- | clary committee that none of the tigation were filed with the House|counts which have been under in last night. vestigation, have been established by The nine members are not umani- | testimony. In cur view, as-a central mous on the impeachability of Mr.|fact ft has been clearly catablished Fenning. Four, either by direct state | that Mr. Fenning, having determined ment or inference. hold he is not a|that he would b a professiona Federal officer, while three insist that | committee or for insane per he can be impeached. Seven demand | sons as u matter of revenue to him that Mr. Fenning be removed from |self, set ahout procuring himself to * loftice, declaring his usefulness for |he designated ns such committee | such ‘a posttion is at an end. That he established such contact with The guardianship practice of Mr.|St. Elizabeth's Hospital for the Insane Fenning also comes in for scorn by |that he received preferential two members, one of whom dgelares | tunitice for appointment s e that, although the court had approved | tee. That he was instrumental in the guardian fees, they were exces- | pioo iy £ of commitment sive, and Congress should determine |in e the rate. ke Hlb il The nine members are Represent- | Poqit e o tives Major, Democrat t e tha Tucker, Democrat, Virginia | bbbl o) Democrat, Texas: Dominic hinaetets Ana ',_ crat, South Carolina; Weaver, Demo Ll L crat, North Carolina: Michener, Re ar "of conducs publican, Michican: Montague, Dem- |toward } acdti sitic cHiE, VIFgInin] Eolling. Democrat, | o e o erly at variancs Alabama. and Wheeler, Den rdian of th ot unfor New York. Lo AREOR Goes Tnio Facts. the seler o of this “I fina,” said Mr. Major, “the| el h weight of authority to hold that|ords o «rings before the judi a Commissioner of the District of | efary com: of the House, show Columbia .is not 1 officer, | that ) » persor 1o but a municipal officer of the Dis- | hold the missioner of the trict, and, therefore, not subject to} District ¢ i impeachment proceedings. Logically this should end and dispose of the Seek Action by Congress. matter so far as the judiclary com-| e Dominick mittee is concerned. ~Both parties, Cmbhad e however, having requested that we | o iy, { g0 into the fact and make Andings | ines of fact thereon, the majority of the com- |report, nor in 1 mittee saw fit to comply with this | theretn,” the request. TWe feel o ¢ “While the evidence presented | inetead does not show technieal violation of the law, it does disclose & state of facts not to be commended by an right-thinking 1 speeially ne by a committee of ho, by their experienc are better qualified t ween the | lines than any oth idence. | « while not disclosing . violation of | w, in my opinion d while the acts of the Commissioner complai | of might be said to be within th law, nevertheless the record fn this casé discloses a practice to be con demned rather than co : “Wherever and whenever one secures the number of lunac ended over that the recol discloses that v into a 1 erick A. Fenning has secured in this find from community and from which he ne arrangen ceives the remunerations that he I nd the offh there is undoubtedly and indisputab HSE some system in V¢ that does meet with the approval of legal eth telephone closing to such court that he is the|OF common practice. He could n arrival. paze 198 solicitor for such bonding company, [0 this wit assistance and_co-| nd as such received from said bond- | operation, and whiie the "’”‘"! e ing company a commission of from 15| no e o 20 per cent on such a al pre- . ertheless s st e e S et ot 2 Dre | ctent to warrant the condemnation of | Pointe i erick A. Fenning now holds a solici- | 2nY 1awyer in this country )‘jyh: b A il tor's license fssued by the Department |41 regard for professionel ¢t TE (W | jumint for atout « of Insurance for the District of Co. |dealing and commenda Tho lumbia in the following companies, to Usefulness at End. wit husetts Bonding & In- | of nm-;..r: 'fl\;m_“(’,fi, “In conclusion T wish to say th r tates Fidelity & Guaranty Co, | I feel convinced that the usefulness | Wiilte Noted s 66 Casa of Baltimore, Md., and the cat | of this Commissioner in the District American Insurance Co. of New York, | i3 at an end and that the interests of | n 60 cases of World War veter | Rifet expires Mu Td ige | this Government and of the District | ans al WWhite filed petitfons renewed annual and such solici- | can be best subserved by his imm: | ar tor he is authorized to receive com.|diate removal by the only authority eHidaa e missions, rebates and compensation | that can remove him-—the power that L GRS on busi he causes to be given to|created him—the President of the such companies. And 1 charge that | United & 5 B he is guilty of moral turpitude in he. F!:}-uux]\n.\‘: t d Mr. !-ml'\‘ 1 x; LIHA\.I 1 : ing solicitor for said companies, as, Federal officer, cantobylies S SORH. Titerost cOnMIT e b T duties | peached, Mr. Tucker “‘,":,’:‘l"”"'i" e as Commissioner of the District of |comments on the evidence addiice co ! Columbix, and has influenced his | Part as follows: T action in adver: passing on an im| "On a review of the whole evidence | = -Or portant insuranc o aBout 100} In trilaicane we feel (nac e ERCEER ] S G (o e et $ 03 a M. Baidwin, | cured practically a monopoly : jr.. superintendent of Insurance, Dis. | business involving the guatdiar < paid to him n triet of Columbia, commenc pagel|0f UIOE e e Tate W mounted to $13,379.03. 229, particularly set forth on page 235, VErY many veterans of the ‘ate Diguntaic showing insurance companies and|iS_to be strongly condemne which he has in his thelr character, of which Fenning|Missioner = Fenmibes = CTE¢ 1 to these was agent. seem o lack e L " 3 “Judge Siddons of the Supreme|Pleteness. When he determined insane 1ore than Court of the District of Columbia re. | eNter upon !P‘;‘fi\}\"“glfli x‘;_"flm{‘: ‘3"‘_ F 00 e mhi T cently ruled in the Adler case that|notified the judges of the o Strifn PR from each Fenning wus not entitled to keep the | fellow mempers of (e b one of these ¢ N he allowed commissions which he received from | intention. But where were WS ©/C the ward for clothes and spending the honding companies, for: bonding | t0 come from? e ny s G0, & | money. e is shown to he a stock- himself, as committee of his wards. [ lONSINE e¥e tOWATS I dings | holder and director in an undertaker's “The’ court stated, however, that | Hospital, with its spacious ISR | ecablishment throush which these “The evidence In this case does not | And hundreds of mnates Tt oS o | boys were buried when they died.” justify the view that Mr. Fenning in- | MPLY salisty’ bI% GO0 (003 Cfween | Mr. Michener's comment on the re tended to perpetrate a fraud or to |& friendship apecdis OIS e and | port is: profit at the expense of the estate | the SUPerintendent, Coete @ ecame | _ ~T concur in the majority report of committed to his hands. The evidence | himself, during WO HEE (EEHQ | the committee holding that Frederick shows, at most, a mistake of Judgment | PArtRERs 0 4 TER ECCAE Cain torth | A. Fenning is an officer of a munic onception of what his duty as | bo Vleeana veterans to his door, | ial corporat wit, the District Charge No. care, were to rest securely in the oflicer of the 1 nited States ?:rfli J ‘I charge that the said Fi hands of Mr. Fenning. The coming peachn under eRAnE Ina tor ey for tHONR L] GE 1 grounsict ansNlzehocked vetéranin | Constitution. ¥ doinot Joim e SHCUEE Society of the District of Columbia, | t0 the hospital was fitting! ¢ celebrated | mainder "‘.1“"' ‘w--rrv A “.'.m;““ ‘1” R0 1 pai sh aniinel 108 By (L | NWaES by Mr. Fonings presenics, | o the cunclusion that 1 e SrES0E and that such employment has inter. |and his entree to the papers of these bl g | fered with his duties as Commissioner | Unfortunates was recognized prac- < that the commitiee might | and has adversely influenced his offi. | tically as his exclusive privilege. 3 reference to -“\vrv!_m_-u .,_q‘(:. | cial action, in that he has opposed and o b Commissioner of the District of € refused to favorably report a bill Veterans' Bureau Helped. :umln.l would h:\ }( 7 d'lwuf‘r:\ nn;_: sought to be passed by the chiroprac-| “Feeling that the tide of business | Pevand the seope 0F H8 auliioriy Gee . and which bill his clients are op- [ that was flowing from St. Elizabett & i gL an o posing. - IR Bot be sufiiclent to Bl The fun| itvecdent {n Bassachuent cases e “It is admitted that Fenning was at- | measure of his ambition, the Veterans'| fore the committee. torney for the Medical Suciety of the | Bureau arose on the horizon as a fit- Disagrees With Majority. District «zr Columbia, at a compensa- | ting adjunct to St. Elizabeth’s in sup. 3 2 B ton.of $200 & vear: piving his needs, and from this source f T believed that 2 Commissioner ‘There is no evidence that Mr. Fen- [soon flowed a stream of World War|of the District of Columbla was sub ning's employment. as said attorney, | veterans to complete his success. ject to impeachment, then, of course has interfered with his duties as Com. | *But should these two sources of [it would be necessary to consider the ; clientage be exhausted, as they might | testimony and. so believing, it would no proof that his position [be, he was not unmindful of the|necessarily follow that if Mr. Fenning as attorney s adversely influenced | Laurel Sanitaritm, nearby, in thejws guilty of the char made his official action in opposition to the | State of Maryland, which offered am- | against him he should be im Clcnis ey LI Dle fields to add to those who might | peached and removed from office. It ‘See testimony Dr. Hubert Roberts, [be under his tutelage and care, and [ matters not how miror the office, if EEECBURE Gl RELC Sl so he became a director in that insti- | the office comes within the purview of Charge No. 18. tution, e the Consti.ution and the charges are “But even these did not seem to sat-| made in the legal way and establisbed A e e bt TeaChick | sty his ambition, for finding that the | by convincing Proof,”then the logleal ¢ Medical Society of the District of Co. | Undertakers who bury the dead sol It must follow.” . e o avesard of his Sutiss o |diers often had to go into court for the | Concurring in the majority report said Commissioner, has inclted, aideq | APPointment of an administrator that|as to the non-impeachabllity of Mr ond aberted e Goctors employed 1 |they might secure from the estate of | Fenninx, Mr. Montague, however, A e Haamital, whey oy e an | the deceased their burial fees, it was | eriticized the evidence as it was as- are required to devote ail of their time | 500N found that he had become a |sembled in the findings of facts. He to such institution, to engage in pri- ;wx;‘kh;’:geralnn “t'fl; ;',‘.’;:,’;{’?‘ & ‘{,'fif: then discussed the following four vate practices here in the Distri Sons, Inc., ertaker’s establish-| points: Colun‘;’hla; that as ;,:mrney f:):.c;;?; ment, ‘":1‘1 > director "l' lhod'é"‘mhe el P e evidence discloses that the ol - cern ‘and also counsel, and the evi-|respondent hecame the committee of e b dence " discloses that ‘a mumber of i watonnding number of insane pa- —— e bodies of these unfortunates were sent | tients in the St. Elizabcth Hospital. LOCAL HACKERS MAY to this establishment for burial at a|and that he in the n ured these GET | cost largely in excess of that provided | fiduciary positions through improper by, the Government. and reprehensible methods which he LICENSES WITHOUT BOND| “The result of ‘tnis compact and|has employed wi nd in orderly organization for the practice |genuity worthy of a Letter cause. 2 of the law could have but one result,|” =2 That respondent was energetic Utilities Commission Has Not De-|and tha{ ls,hthat as Ms‘r incoms":n- and ,»um.rc.,,..{ in securing ;,,.,.,i,.... % creased by the number of cases that|commissions, premiums and co n cided Whether to Appeal From |Ctneel, i %y Just that much was| cations out of his wards: e Flas Adverse Court Ruling. his care of these unfortunates under|by reason of his relations and asso. his charge diminished, for as the num-| ciations growing out of or connecte. Licenses will be issued to District |ber increased his capacity for atten-|directly or indirectly with these fldu hackers without a bond, pending fur-| o7 10 them S LI L R 5 ther action in the courts, it was an-|and through their estates, the greater “Sordid Sense of Duty. nounced today by the Public Utilities | necessarily was their neglect. His rise| “3. That his monopoly of these i was thelr downfall.” trusts and his methods of charging Commission. them with all the law allowed, and in i a}?mglnca’msnt followed the rul- Impeachment Is Urged. some instances with more than the ing of the District Supreme Court yes- - |law aliowed—for example, his unlaw- terday that the requirement of an in. | biner their views in oné report, Djs.|{ul collections of premiuins on fidu. demnity bond is illegal. The commis- | ggreeing with the conclusion of the |ciary bonds issued by a corporation sion has not definitely decided whether | majority that Mr. Fenning is not|of Which he was agent—evince a sor- to appeal from the decision, but pend- | subject to impeachment, the Repre-|did sense of duty, resulting in unjusti. ing this possible action it will continue | sentatives submit voluminous cita- | flable practices. to license hackers as though there! tions in support of their contention | - '4. That in consideration of the fore. , that he is @ Federal officer and theres — (Continued on Puge 7, Column 4 ’, lavehan, lunacy Ne. 1320, thg | for his fiduciary, bend, and not dis- had never been a hond requirement,