Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1925-03-29
lob AGENCY. HEAD
READY FOR ARREST
TO TEST FEE LAW
J. D. Kendall Notifies Police
He Will Receive Service
of Warrant.
TWO FORMER PATRONS
SWEAR TO COMPLAINTS
Issue Depends Largely on Intent
to Protect Clerks and Pro-
fessional Workers.

lCoo1Oudl WUIhCIe.
John D. Kendall, president OF the
Washing ton business Bureau, with
offices in the Union Savings Bank Build
ing, 10 Fourteenth street notified police
a the first precinct last night that
he would present himself at II o'clock
this morning to receive service Of 4
warrant charging him with three
violations of the law under which
employment agencies are licensed 20
operate here.
The warrant had been in the hands
of police of the first precinct since
yesterday morning. officers sought
twice to serve Mr.. Kendall at his Of
fees and once at his home. but failed
to reach him When Mr.. Kendall
learned of the warrant, however. he
notified the police that he would pre-
sent himself at the precinct station
this morning. Mr.. Kendalrs case has
been chosen by the corporation coun-
sells office to test the law regulating
licensing of employment bureaus
here. Through its outcome officials
will determine their future conduct
toward the agencies.
Three Charges Made.
The warrant, sworn to by an assist
ant in the office of the corporation
counsel. in Police Court. alleges that
Mr.. Kendall violated the law, first. by
accepting a fee in excess OF 81 for
obtaining employment for an appli-
cant; second, by sending another ap-
plicant to a place that had been filled
some time previously, and. third, by
falling to print on the back Of a re-
ceipt the section regulating the fees
an employment agent may charge.
The question at issue is whether or
| not that section fixing the fee TO be
! charged an applicant for work at a total
Of 81 applies to persons engaged in men
tai la or, or only to domestics and those
persons who are employed for physical
labor. Mr.. Thomas and employment
agents disagree on the Interpretation
| of that section.
| The assistant corporation counsel
! believes that the law offers the same
| protection to office help that 1t affords
seamstresses, domestics and other
| laborers." 1t is his contention that
| II the statute places seamstresses in
| the category of other laborers" it
ers and bookkeepers in the same class,
especially when the law defines an
| applicant as a person seeking en-
! ployment of any legal nature.
Breadth of Term.
On the other hand, employment
! agents assert the law was passed TO
protect only domestics and common
! laborers. They pointed cut that the
section regulating fees specifically
| names a number OF domestic en-
! ployes and other laborers" who are
to be assessed only 50 by an employ
| ment agent. The term common
| laborers," however, is not used in
| the text of the statute, and it is
! commended that other laborers"
| covers all classes Of workers except
| several specific exceptions.
1t was agreed by assistants in the
| office of the corporation counsel that
| the only adequate way to settle the
| controversy would be to find a case
/ where a violation was believed to
have been made, arrest the agent
| who charged the fee and bring him
| into court for trial. On this basis
/ Mr.. Thomas set out to find a case
and was furnished with the informa-
| ton or which the charges against
! Mr.. Kendall are based by two per-
! sons, man and woman. Both
| voluntarily went 20 Mr.. Thomas office
and laid their experiences before him.
Receipts for Payment.
! The count charging him with &C
| cepting fee in excess of the law
resulted from evidence furnished by
a young woman who applied to the
| Washington Business Bureau for en-
! ployment. According to the assistant
| corporation counsel, she was given a
place as filing clerk and showed
receipts aggregating SIS for money
she declared she had paid the bureau
| for obtaining the position for her
| Two dollars of that amount was a
registration fee.
/ Upon examining the receipts given
the young woman by the employment
bureau, Mr.. Thoma. discovered that
| the law regulating fees had not been
| printed on their reverse side, he be-
| lieves is demanded by the law. AS re-
suit the other count was charged against
Mr.. Kendall in addition to that of as
sessing the applicant too much for
the services she had received.
The third count was based on in
formation furnished by a man. He
told Mr.. Thomas that he went to the
Washington Bureau some time ago
and asked them If they had an open
ing for a Waterman. After paying 81
Registration fee, the man said he was
sent to the Pennsylvania railroad,
where he was told there was an open
ing. Upon arriving there, however,
Mr.. Thomas said the informant told
him, the prospective Waterman dis
covered that the position in question
had been filled previously.
The warrant was rushed through
the office of the warrant clerk at
Police Court yesterday morning. The in
formation papers had been officially
sworn to Friday.