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

man, requested that IN the event no
Is called, the hearings would be open
| to the public. The second hearing, as
with those that followed. were open.
A vote Of confidence, lacking about
| 20 Of being unanimous, was given
| Mr.. Blanton the next day by the
| House, which pledged full and fair
| investigation Of the guardianship
| charges against Mr.. Fenning. This
| unusual expression Of approval was
| followed the next day by request
from Mr.. Fenning to taxa the stand
before the Gibson subcommittee.
The request was granted, and on
| Saturday, April 26, Mr.. Fenning de-
| livered a lengthy statement in an
! discussing each specification sep
arately. He then submitted himself
to vigorous cross-eXamination by
Mr.. Blanton. This appearance was
marked by a clash between the Com
missioner and Mr.. Blanton, during
| which the latter called him an un-
printable name, for which he apol-
oGIzed.
The following Monday morning and
night he was on the stand and his
testimony was not completed until
the next day. On the 28th he APP
peared before the veterans commit
tee, undergoing a direct examination
by Chairman Johnson and Mr.. Luce.
A break in the hearings occurred at
this point and when Mr.. Fenning
was to resume tho stand on May 3
the committee had before it instead
a letter stating that he had given all
| the information necessary on the bills
before it. This statement was chal-
| lenged by certain members, who en-
phasized his original request to tes-
tfyy 1h
ton receiving consideration. Steps
then were taken to force his appear
ance, but We're lost in the succeeding
events.
The judiciary committee reported
the Blanton resolution with amend
ments on May 4. The principal
change was in the last line of the
first paragraph, reading land for
which he should be impeached." This
was stricken out.
Drops Fenning Angle.
With the report of the judiciary
committee before the House for
action, the veterans committee, over
the protest of several members. agreed
to discontinue the Fenning angle of
its investigation and attack the
guardianship problem from a national
standpoint. The next day the House
unanimously adopted the judiciary re
port and the case was switched to the
District Supreme Court.
On May s Auditor Herbert l.. Davis
held Il hearing on the final account
of Mr.. Fenning in the case of Adolph
Adler. a mentally incompetent war
veteran now in a hospital in New
York. The purpose of the hearing
was to consider the matter Of Mr..
Jennings accepting commissions on
bond premiums from the company for
which he was a solicitor in cases
where the estate had paid for his
bond. The commissions, amounting
to 25 per cent on each premium, We're
kept by Mr.. Fenning. 1t had been
contended by Mr.. Davis that the
money should be turned over to the
estate. and in failing to do this Mr..
fleming violated the decision of the
United States Supreme Court in the
case of Magruder VS.. Drury. Mr.. Fen
ming as a witness maintained the com
missions were for services rendered
by him to the bonding company, and
that in crediting them to the estates
he would violate section 634 of the
District code, prohibiting rebates.
With the veterans committee hear
ings closed and the Gibson subcom-
mittee delving into other matters,
save now and then a reference to Mr..
Fenning, the controversy had a rest
until May 13, when Mr.. Davis. in re-
porting to the court, disallowed Mr..
Fenning any commission whatever
for his services and also held he
should pay the bond premium from
his own pocket and not from the
estate of the ward
w. w. MILAN, counsel for Mr.. Fen
ming before the auditor, then filed ex-
ceptions TO the report, and arguments
were scheduled for a later date.
The bill reported out by the vet