Evening star., 1926-06-11
FENNINC is DECLARED TO BE
SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT
Rankin Insists Commissioner Is Federal Officer.
Acceptance of Bond Fees Held to Lay Official
Open to Criminal Prosecution.

the defendant knowingly committed
the act Of embezzlement.
I'm the case of United States VS..
Fields (27 Appeals, ID. c., 434D, the de-
fendant, who was q lawyer. was in
dicted under section S41 of the code
! for embeZZlement of funds coming
| into his hands as tiduciary, appoint
ed like Fenning, by the court. He
was defended by Mr.. Frank j. Hogan.
and was convicted and sentenced to
| five yearsain the penitentiary. In ar
tirming the sentence, the Court OF Ap-
peals said that under the statute the
Government did not have to prove a
guilty knowledge, and that it was
sufficient to allege in the indictment
| that the defendant at q certain time
and in the District of Columbia 'un-
| lawfully and fradulently converted
and appropriated the same to his own
use and did then and there embezzle
| the same
Never Denied Fees.
Mr. F'enning has never disputed
the fact that when, for example, he
paid $40 of his wards money as the
premium on his bond as a guardian, 4,
he knew that he was going to get
$40 of it back. He does not deny that
in every such case he put the $40 in
that he concealed this fact from all
the judges of the court, from all his
wards, and from the auditor who eX-
amined and stated all his accounts.
Mr.. Fenning in all cases where he
paid a premium on bonds with money
of his wards got one fourth of the
money back. and kept it. He always
knew when he paid the premium with
the wards money that he was going
10 get that money back. He then filed
with the court and auditor his ac-
count that he had paid $40, for eX-
ample. when he had only paid $50,
keeping the difference for himself
He did not do this in an isolated
case, but it was his secret practice
covering long period of years. =
ITO show the want Of good faith of
Mr. Fenning and his deliberate at
tempt to deceive this committee, as
well as the Gibson subcommittee Of
the committee on the District Of Co
lumbia and the committee on World
War veterans legislation, Of which |
am a member, attention is called to
the fact that he claimed that the Court
of Appeals of the District of Columbia
had decided in the case of Magruder
VS.. Drury that it was lawful for him
to put commissions on loans Of his
-
practice that he had kept up for Is
years. He did not tell either commit
tee that the decision Of the Court of
Appeals Of the District of Columbia in
the Magruder VS.. Drury case had been
reversed by the Supreme Court Of the
United States In 235 United States,
page 106. Being confronted by Repre-
sentative Gilbert's reference to this
Supreme Court decision, he stated I'M
der oath that he did not know the
Court of Appeals had been reversed in
that case and did not know that the
Supreme Court Of the United States
had decided that his retention Of COM
missions was unlawful. But reference
to the report of the auditor Of the Dis
trict of Columbia in the Adler case,
filed on May 13. 1926, will show that
in the case of Edward F.. Hoff, an in
sane ward, Fenning was notified in
July, 1915, that the Supreme Court Of
the United States had decided in Ma
gruder VS.. Drury in 1914 that Mr.
Jennings taking Of commissions on
money of his wards invested by him
was illegal, and the auditor Of the Su-
preme Court of the District Of Column
bia. on the authority Of the decision
of Magruder VS.. Drury, at that time
stopped Mr.. Fenning from collecting
all the commissions or this character
that were known to the auditor at the
time. The auditor did not learn of
these commissions Fenning was re-
ceiving from the premiums on these
bonds until May 8, 1926, as the record
will show.
Doubts Lack of Memory.
ut Is unthinkable that Mr. Fenning,
who was compelled by the auditor to
return to the estate of his ward, Ed