Evening star., 1926-06-11
Continued from Third PageD

, sion every year and got more out Of
the estates of these boys for pre-
tended services. that really amounted
! to nothing more than being a pail
bearer of their checks. than he al
| lowed them for clothes. tobacco and ali
| other necessities and all other spend
ing moneys.
Declares Funeral Costs High.
Nov. if the testimony brings US
, to the unacceptable conclusion that
there is a collusion between nr. White
and Mr.. Fenning, or conspiracy
between Or. White and Mr. Fenning.
10 make money out of these insane
World War veterans, then / say that
unless this Government, this Congress
and this committee take some steps to
relieve these boys they are likely to
die in 81. EliZabeth's Hospital whether
they are insane or sane. Mr.. Fen
ming would continue to draw his CH-
ceSsive commissions from their in
comes as long as they lived, and then
they would be buried through his
underta king establishment. In the
burial of veterans OF the World War
dying at St E,lizabeths, DR.. White
has always had il in his power to
have them buried at the price con
tracted for by the Veterans Bureau
with the undertaken having the con-
tract with that bureau, at maximum
price of sec, vet the bodies have been
turned over to Jennings undertaken
Gawler & Sons. in which Fenning Is
director and stockholder. in some
instances at almost five times the cost
paid by the Veterans Bureau for the
same undertaking services.
"For example, In the case of Philip
Berg unacy No 1911. 1t is shown by
the records Of the Probate Court, dd-
minlstration No. 1924, that Fennins
paid his own undertaking establish
ment, Gawler & Sons, Inc, or whicA
he is director, $245.5S plus the
charges of the funeral director at the
home Of Berg, in Groton, Conn, when
the same services could have been
obtained through the undertakers
selected by the Veterans Bureau for
a maximum Of $50.
Cites Street Car Fares.
.It might be interesting TO the com.
,,ittae 10 know, and it certainly Will
he to the public. that Mr.. Frank j..
Hogan. who is defending Mr.. Fen
ming Is the general counsel for the
Capital Traction Co., and has been Tor
the last 10 years: that Commissioners
Icernirc is q member of the Pubic
I-tilities Commission of the District OF
Columbia, having immediate jurisdlc-
tion over the Capital Traction Co.,
and that that company Is no" IN
court in A case in which the corpora
tion counsel, also serving under MT
Fenning. consented to an increase In
the valuation OF the assets OF this cor
poration OF about sll 100000 over and
a bove the valuation put on 1t by the
former Public Utilities Commission De-
fore Mr.. FcnninS became Commlss-
sioner. While Mr.. Fenning did not
participate in this valuation. his coun-
sci did. Mr.. Fenning now holds Juris-
diction over that company In the f1x-
ing Of it's rates and in the future nx-
ing of its valuation. as well as in hold
ing that company within the BOUNDS
of the law, the rate of fare now
charged by that company being cents
per passenger. although the act OF
Congress limits it to 5 cents.
I'VE come now to defense Of Fen.
ming, that he Is not a Federal off1cer
This is q question raised by him as az.
fecting the right to impeach him ana
as affecting his liability under section
549S of the Revised Statutes. making
it an offense for any officer of the
United States or person holding any
place of trust or profit or discharging
any official function under or in con-
nection with any executive depart
ment Of the Government Of the United
States to act as agent or attorney in
prosecuting any claim against the