Evening star., 1926-06-14
Continued from First Page.)


house Of the Congress would restrain
or punish violations of the immunity
thus given its members. 1t was never
contemplated that behind the cloak
of constitutional immunity reckless
and wanton character assassination
should be either permitted or toll
Grated. This committee has now
listened to evidence which not only
failed to disclose the commission of
any crime. any misdemeanor. or to
warrant any charge of official mis-
conduct, but which affirmatively DEM
onstrated that many OF the charges.
deliberately and solemnly presented.
were not only unwarranted, but were
so entirely baseleSS as to make 1t
impossible to even imagine an excuse
for their making.
I'VE earnestly submit % that ordi
nary fairness and common justice
unite TO require that this committee
shall not now content itself with re-
porting only that he who is Com
missioner Of the District Of Columbia
is not a civil officer Of the United
States subject TO impeachment; t2)
that the conditions presented by the
record of the hearings demand that
this committee-shall inform the House
Of Representatives that it finds no
justification for the charges presented
to 1t by one of it's members. and (3)
that this committee may well con-
slider 1t within it's province to call
to the attention of the House the
Grass violation OF it's high privileges
which these hearings have disclosed.
Reiterating their argument that Com
missioner Fenning cannot be i'm
peached because there are no facts
which call for such action, his coun-
sci contend that there are no consti-
tutional powers which can be inter
posed in the casefof an officer charged
with misconduct save the power of
impea chment. The activities of Repre-
sentative Blanton in connection with
the Fenning case are considered by
counsel as a hreac ch OF the constitu-
tional functions of member of Con-
gress. "To him and to those who
have supported him. the brief
argues. however, constitutional limi-
tations have appeared unimportant, If
indeed. understood> To them the great
constitutional distinction between the
functions Of the legislative and the
executive are Of no consequence"
Reminded of DENLY Case.
tee Of the DENLY case, when the Sen.
ate requested his resignation as Sec
retary Of the Navy. and Of the Presi.
dents reply that the dismissal of an
officer OF the Government, such as is
involved In this case, other than by
Impeachment, is exclusively an execu-
tive function. l regard this as a vital
principle OF our Government.
The President is responsible to the
people for his conduct relative to the
retention or dismissal Of public off
cials. I assume that responsibility.
The brief is divided into exhaustive
questions of law:
/. Whether or not a Commissioner
of the District Is civil officer Of the
United States subject to Impeachment
under the terms OF the Constitution.
. Whether or not Commissioner
Fenning was guilty of any crime. mis-
demeanor. fraud. or even of gross
negligence in accepting commission
on bonds in cases in which he was an
agent Of the company.
Status Of ID. C. Official.
4. Whether or not the statute for.
bidding officers OF the United States,
etc, from prosecuting claims against
the IONcTIiHlcUl Is dppilCdUlc I'd Il
Commissioner Of the District.
4. Whether or not there has been
any violation Of the act which limits
payments to an attorney or agent for
preparing papers for necessary appli.
cation to the Veterans Bureau to $40.
5. Whether or not the Commission
ers Of the District come within the
section Of the criminal code which for
bids officers OF corporations. ETC.. who
are serving as officers of the United
States to make contracts with such
corporations.
s. Whether or not an officer Of the
United States may be removed from
office on impeachment for transactions
antedating his induction into office.
=. Has the House OF Representatives
any constitutional powers which can
be exercised In this case. should facts
sar> sr.a ~ tknan AvaprinAt and assuming