Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1926-07-02

1896, said Frederick A. Fennins
wrongfully and without cause, but for
the selfish purpose of giving a 81 100
position to his prospective Son-in-law
DIR. Floyd NJ. j. Allen, forced out of
office DIR. c. j. Murphy and put in his
place the said Allen, as a police and
fire surgeon of the District
There is no testimony to support
this charge.
See testimony DR.. Christopher J.
Murphy, commencing on page 43S.
See Jennings testimony, commence
ing on page 933.
Charge No. 81.
"'I charge that in February, 1925,
said Frederick a. Fenning, in order
to promote one of his friends, wrong
fully retired on pay of $500 per month
for life Sergt. Robert l.. Lee, a physi-
cal giant, 6 feet inches tall, So years
old, weighing 225 pounds, who for
four years had not missed q day for
sickness and concerning whom all of
his brother officers testified there was
no better man on the force, and that
said F'enning arbitrarily refused to
grant Il proper hearing on the matter,
requested by member of Congress
There is no testimony to support
this charge.
See testimony of Robert Z. Lee.
commencing on page 454.
See Jennings testimony, COM
mencing on page 93S.
See letters of Blanton to F'enning,
page 94S and page $50.
Charge No. 81.
"'I charge that on March s, 1926,
said Frederick a. fleming wrOngfully
removed from office DR.. Edward Com
stock Wilson. the hero of knickerbock-
er Theater, as medical inspector of
schools, for the selfish and wrongful
purpose of putting in his place an
old friend of DIR. William A. White,
who is 70 years of age, simply be-
cause when said White and Fenning
were under fire in a congressional in
vestigation in 1906 this now 73-year-
old doctor then sympathized with
them.
There is no proof to sustain this
charge.
See testimony DR.. Edward c.
Wilson. page 443.
See Jennings testimony, COM
mencing on page 955.
Charge No. 80.
81 charge that the said Frederick A.
Fenning and DR.. William "A. White
are Jointly interested in certain finan-
cial investments together, and in Feb
ruary, 1920. carried q partnership ac-
count in the Washington Loan and
Trust Co, and that their relation is
such that neither can render to the
public that quality Of service to which
the public is entitled
Testimony shows that DR.. William
A. White and Mr.. Fenning had started
joint account Is years ago for the
purpose of buying second real estate
notes.
See testimony DIR. White, pages
594, 595. 621 and 622.
See Jennings testimony, page sos.
Charge No. 81.
"'I charge that the said Frederick A
Fenning has made a deliberate at
tempt to deceive Congress when in
said prepared statement he denied the
report which the Veterans Bureau in
spector. Dr. Henry Ladd Stickney,
filed with the bureau on April 26, 1924,
wherein DR.. Stickney charged that
said fleming constantly opposes the
transfer of his wards from st. Eliza.
beths Hospital and 1 charge that
for over three years said Fenning has
refused to turn over TO Mrs. Eliza
Lee, the legal guardian of the person
and estate of her son. Roley Lee, her
said son, but withholds him from her,
and that said Fenning has already re-
ceived in his fees and commissions the
sum of Si.i3o.27 from the estate of
said Roley Lee, who was shell-shocked
in France and is a World War vet
cram
There is no proof to sustain this
charge.
See testimony Mrs. Eliza Lee, COM
mencing on page 205.
'See testimony DR.. Henry Ladd
Stickney, commencing on page $50.
See Jennings testimony, commenc-
ing on page 95S.
See testimony Herbert L. Davis,
auditor, commencing on page 403."
Committees Views Given.
Having determined that Frederick
A. Fenning is not a Federal officer
and therefore not subject to impeach-
ment, and having made specific find
ings of fact that the charges preferred
under the evidence adduced, we feel
It our duty to express our views upon
certain conditions as disclosed by the
evidence.
IL. The practice which Mr. Fenning
followed Of acting as agent for a
bonding and surety company, writing
his own bond as committee and charg
ing the estate Of his ward for the
premium, and receiving from the
bonding company a commission upon
his bond or surety, is illegal and con-
trary to law.
1T is only fair to add, however,
that Justice Siddons in the Adler case,
recently decided in the Supreme Court
of the District of Columbia, stated
that, The evidence in this case does
not justify the view that Mr.. Fenning
intended to perpetrate a fraud or to
profit at the expense of the estates
committed to his hands. The evidence