Evening star., 1926-06-14

Bureau in answer to the charge that
Commissioner Fenning violated the
statute prohibiting a charge of more
than $40 for the preparation Of papers
In Veterans Bureau claim.
1t next discusses the question or
whether District Commissioners come
within the meaning of the statue pro-
hibiting an agent or officer of a cor
poratiOn. etc, to hold employment as
an officer Of the United States and
make contracts with the corporation
1t Is asserted" the brief reminds
The committee, that the making by
the municipal corporation, the District
of Columbia, of contracts with a mer-
camille corporation, Rudolph, West
4 CO.. in which Mr.. Cuno II. Rudolph.
"a Commissioner of thhe District of
Columbia. Is a stockholder, and with
which he has no other connection. con-
stitutes on MIR. Rudolph's s part "A vio
lation OF section Al of the Federal
Criminal Code. and that. furthermore,
the fact that MIR. Fenning. in his ca
pacity as a Commissioner. may there
is no evidence on the question: have
signed such a contract necessarily
makes MIR. Fenning 'particeps crimi-
MIS- with Mr.. Rudolph in that viola
tion. Neither the facts nor the law
even remotely sustain the charge in
with the ability to read and draw sane
conclusions. We refer to the facts
only as a preliminary to a treatment
of the point of law.
History Of Rudolph Given.
Facts: Prior TO 1910 Cuno II. Ru-
doiph was an officer of and stockhold-
er in the mercantile corporation Ru-
dolph. West 4 Co. In that year he
District of Columbia by President
William Fl. Taft He resigned from all
official connection with the corpora.
ton named and has never since had
such connection. He continued to own
stock In the company He never nego.
tiated any contract with Rudolph.
West & Co. for the District of Column.
bia and has never acted as an officer
or agent of the District for the trans
action of any business with any such
corporation. Indeed. the evidence
shows that Mr.. Rudolph has scrupu-
lously refrained from so doing. The
corpora ton. In open competition with
others in the same line OF business.
has from time to time received. as
the lowest bidder. contracts for sup
plying articles in which 1t deals to the
District of Columbia. Mr.. Rudolph
has taken no part in any such trans
action, not even signing as q member
of the board in such contracts. With
these facts in mind, even If Mr.. Ru-
dolph were an officer of the United
States, It Is only necessary to read
section IL of the Federal Criminal
Code once to show its non-applica-
bility.
We need not here repeat the con
clusively established point that a
Nnr,, loot Of hn tytN snP
lumbia is not an officer or agent Of
the United States. but merely an Of
ficer of the municipal corporation
created by Congress and known as
the District OF Columbia.
Coupled with the contention that
there has been a violation OF section
Al of the Federal Criminal Code is a
reference to section 80 of the Revised
Statutes relating to the District of
Columbia. which reads:
AN contracts made by the Com.
missioners in which any member of
the board shall be personally interest
ed shall be void, and no payment shall
be made thereon by the District or
any officer thereof
Firms Dealings Defended.
"Of course, 1t will be Immediately
obvious to any lawyer that this last
quoted section is not a criminal stat
ute and it Is therefore difficult to fol.
low the claim now made In a brief
presented to this committee that Com
missioner Fenning is necessarily par
ticeps crininis with Commissioner
Rudolph in the violation of this sec
ton. This section tSec. 80, r. S. d. C.)
was originally part of the act of Feb
ruary 81, 1871. Is Stat. l.. 427. which
provided a government for the Dis