Evening star., 1926-06-14
JENNINGS ENUMERATION ASKED
ON MERITS AS WELL AS ON LAW
Continued from Third Pagel

Continued from Third page.l
was fully exonerated in the Distric'
Supreme Courts opinion last week
We venture the assertion" say
counsel. that no member of this
committee. who heard all, or sub
stantial part. of the testimony. and
no member who heard the testimony
of Mr.. Fenning q witness before
this committee, entertains the slightest
idea that he has ever been guilty OF
embezzlement, or of any other crimi-
nal offenSe
Several Cases Discussed.
The brief next discusses the ease
Of an officer of the United States
prosecuting a claim against the Gov
ernment. as the charges of violation
OF this statute apply TO Mr. Fenning.
The Flaherty. Norris. Allen and Cum
ningham cases are discussed in full.
Before briefly discussing the ques,
ton here says the brief. lit is well
to observe that there exists no facts
upon which to base the charge of the
violation by Mr.. Fenning of section
109. L. S. c. c.. even If a Commits.
sioner of the District of Columbia is
a person embraced within the prohi-
bitfonS of that section. The case in
which 1t Is alleged that MIR. Fenning,
after he beca ame a Commissioner of the
District Of Columbia. so acted az to
violate section l09. L. s. G. c. tsec.
ton 5498, r. s. l.. 81, are those of
Flaherty (see charge No. 2n: Norris
tsee charge No. 22): Allen tsee charge
No. 23): Cunningham (see charge No
24). and Coffey mot made the sub
1ect OF any charge. but evidence re-
!ating to which was introduced dur
ing the hearings). The undisputed
evidence relating to these cases not
only falled to support the charge
of the prosecution Of any claims
against the United States, but dis.
proved that charge to a demonstra
ton.
In F'laherty's case the evidence
showed that this mans sister EN-.
ployed Mr.. Fenning and that upon
her petition he was duly ap.
pointed committee for F'laherty bv
the Supreme Court of the Dis.
trfct of Columbia after the lat.
ter had been duly adjudged to be
a funatic and incompetent to take
care OF his property. Flaherty Is a
retired offlcer Of the United States
Navy and entitled to retired nav in
q sum provided by law for men of
MS rank. After duly qualifying as
committee for F'laherty. in June 1925,
Mr.. Fenning transmitted TO the NAVY
department certified copy of appoint
ment and requested that the pay to
Flaherty be paid to Mr.. Fenning. as
committee. as the same fell due. Any
argument that this constitutes acting
as an agent or attorney for prose.
cutting any claim against the United
States Is on its face SO absurd as to
be conclusively refuted by a mere
statement of the case.
Record of Norris Case.
The case of Norris Is this: Norris
mad been a lieutenant in the Army
during the World War. According to
the undisputed testimony and. indeed,
the ofncial record in the case (see
testimony Of Mai. Davis Arnold as a
witness before this committee). Norris
application for benefits under the Vet.
erans Compensation act. as amended,
was made to the United States Vet.
erans Bureau in 1924 and was allowed
May 8. 1925. II therefore an applica-
ton for benefits under this act may be
considered as a claim against the
United States this one had been made
and allowed before Mr.. Fenning had
any connection whatever with any Of
Norris matters. Maj. Arnold, chief
guardian officer of the Veterans
Bureau. called to the witness stand
before this committee by the pro-
ponent Of the charges, testified that
It was at his instance and under
directions which he gave that Norris
filed ana received compensation under
the Veterans Bureau .:,sL 80
when this claim was allowed in
May, 1928, Mr.. Fenning was not a
Commissioner Of the District. More
over. we repeat. altogether aside from
this important fact, Is the equally inn
portant fact that he had nothing what.
ever to do with the presentation or
prosecution OF the claim, if, we re-
tterate. a veterans application for
benefits under the United States Vet
era.ns' Bureau is a claim After
benefits had been awarded Norris.
upon his own application. he was
committed to St Elizabeth's Hospital.
He became mentally tncompetent to
receive and handle his compensation,
and in September, 1925, Mrs. Norris,
the wife Of this incompetent man, re-
tained Mr.. Fenning as attorney to
take the necessary steps to have her
appointed committee Of her husbands
property. In lunacy proceedings duly
instituted in the Supreme Court of
the District Of Columbia Norris was
adjudicated to be a person of unsound
mind. and his wife was appointed
committee. Mr.. F'enning transmitted
for his client to the Veterans Bureau
evidence of her appointment as com.
mittee Of her lunatic husband, to
the end that checks for the husbands
compensation, already. as we have
seen, allowed by the Veterans Bu-
reau, might thereafter be paid to the
guardian and not to the insane ward
For this he received no compensation
At no time did he appear or take
part in the prosecution of any claim
before the bureau. Indeed, we reit-
crate there was no claim pending
nothing to be prosecuted. All that