Evening star., 1926-05-22

Dr,rv case. and never was placed in
a position where his duties 10 him
self and his ward were in conflict.
The lawyer declared it is absolutely
essential to the proper decision or tue
question at har to keep In mind the
distinction between cases where the
fiduciarv places himself in position
where duty and interest conflict and
those where he used his trust funds
to make a profit.
.trnOld'S Answer.
Mai Arnold explains that he aP-
uears as friend Of the court. and
submits his answer to the exceptions
not cd by Mr.. FenninG. The answer
reads in part. as follows:
Il To that part of the exception
which charges that the auditor has
nnisa Dplied the law, in that his report.
In effect. requires that p rebate on
bond premium, shall he made in direct
violation Of section S54 Of the Code OF
the District Of Columbia. the attention
of the court Is invited to the fact that
Mr.. Frederick A. F'enning is not, nor
ever was. regular agent Tor the
Fidelity and Guaranty CO. He is. in
fact, what in the surety business is
characterized as soliciting attor-
ney" which is nothing more nor less
than a solicitor of bonds on a commits
sion basis of IS per cent. with no al
lowance whatsoever for overhead or
other incidental expense.
Section 654 of the Code of the Dis
trict 6f Columbia relates to two class
es Of insurance operatives. TO writ.
brokers and general agents, who must
procure general insurance license.
and for such license the sum of fifty
($50 dollars must he paid annually
to the District of Columbia.
Licensed as Solicitor.
Reference is made to Section 655 of
the Code Of the District of Columbia.
which provides that any insurance
company or agent licensed to do husi-
ness in the District of Columbia may
employ solicitors and the license fec
to he paid for each solicitor 50 em-
p1oved shall he five t$5l dollars per
wear Mr. Frederick 4. Fenning was
not a regular agent Of The t1Qted
states Fidelity and Guaranty Coz as
defined in section 65t Of the Coda of
the District Of Columbia. but WIS
solicitor employed to do business for
said company in the District of Co.
lun1bia. and licensed in the amount
of FIVE fS5l dollars as required by law.
l
relates to the application of section
s54 of the code Of the District Of
Columbia with respect TO the rebate
of commissions en- hond premiums. the
attention of the court is respectfully
invited to the fact that while said
section prohibits an allowance. or pay
ment of any commission. rebate or
compensation. by any person firm.
corpora ton or association. to. for. or
in behalf of any person. firm or cor
pora ton doing business in the District
Of Columbia not licensed as provided
therein the committee in this case
Mr.. Frederick A. Fenninc. is not
estopped ny the provision of such
statute. or any statute from dSposinS
of the commissions on bond premiums
pa id to him as solicitor of the United
States Fidelity and Guaranty Co in
such manner and to such persons as
he MAY deem fit. unless such person
is likewise doinc business "f similar
nature in the District nf Columbia
and is not licensed az required by
law.
THE general rule that a trustee
cannot place himself in a position
wherein his personal interests might
he anita sonistic to his trust" stands
upon our great moral ohliCa tion to re
frain from placing ourselves in rela,
tions which ordinarily excite a con
f1ict between self-interest and intec.
ritY. 1t acts upon the possibility that
in some cases the sense of that duty
may prevail over the motives of self
Interest. but 1t provides against the
probability in many cases and the
danger in all cases that the dictates
of self.interest will exercise a predom-
inant influence ard superAede that
duty. 1t therefore prohibits party
from purchasing on his own account
that which his duty or trust requires
him to sell on account of another. and
from purchasing on account of an
other that which he sells on his own
account.
With reference to that part Of the
exception which charges that the
auditor ignored the evidence which
showed that the commissions on
bond premiums received by the com
mittee were taken As a regular agent
of the surety company and did not
deplete the estate. the attention OF
the court is invited to the fact that
(the auditor has not ignored the evi-
dence that the commissions on bond