Evening star., 1926-05-20
Cites Federal Statute.

Cites Federal Statute.
The committees attention then was
called to section 549S of the revised
statutes of the United States. which
fOrbids n officer of the United States
from prosecuting claims for compen.
sation against the government.
rs 1t your contention that Mr.. Fen
ming is an officer of the United States?"
asked Chairman Graham.
Il do, and l will produce a brief at
the next meeting to prove it," replied
Mr.. Blanton.
Doesn't the act relating to the
District of Columbia provide a muni-
Cipal COrporation"'
Mr. Blanton disagreed.
Mr. Blanton then read section 500
of the World War Veterans act pro-
hibiting a charge Of more than $40
to be made by any person prosecuting
a claim for veteran and this law he
declared, had been violated by Mr..
f'enning.
Representative Kitchener, Republi.
can, Michigan. asked Mr.. Blanton if
he had called these alleged viola
tons to the attention of the dis
trict attorney and the answer was
given that the facts had been set
forth in the Congressional Record.
Referred to Veterans Bureau.
"I did call the attention Of the
Veterans Bureau to this matter, but
that's as far as l have gone" he
added.
Representative Summers, Democrat,
Texas, asked if the prosecutor"
sought to receive from Mr.. Blanton
the evidence he possessed and the
lo4 in1. lR1,t 7 e,fo = H.,
and willing to present it."
Representative Perlman. New York
said it was important to know If the
district attorney had started proceed
ings, but Mr.. Blanton assured him
this had not been done.
Mr.. Blanton also submitted to the
committee section 841 Of the District
code of laws, making provisions
against "embezzlement" OF estates by
executors or fiduciarieS. He then read
the common law definition Of barratry
and added: Il charge that Mr.. Fen
ming, being an attorney, has solicited
business in such a way as to make 1t
common barratry." This was followed
with a definition of champerty
Mr. Blanton then introduced a table
certified to by Gen. Frank T. Hines,
director of the Veterans Bureau,
showing the amounts OF money paid
to Mr.. Fenning as committee for vet
Grams. Mr.. Hogan objected on the
grounds he had no knowledge as to its
accuracy. but this was accepted by
Chairman Graham. subject to future
challenge and attack.
Conspiracy Is Charged.
Asked by Chairman Graham to
show the purpose Of the table Mr.
Blanton replied: II am going to show
that a conspiracy of action has existed
between DR.. White of St. Elizabeth g
and Mr.. Fenning, whereby White rec
commended Fenning in every single
petition in % years"
The chairman then wanted to know
what the conspiracy" was for and
Mr.. Blanton replied that in return for
being recommended as guardian and
having access to the official records
DR.. White received profits in the Joint
private business the two maintained
ut is illegal favoritism," he added.
After receiving from Mr.. Blanton
the assurance that all the petitions in
lunacy went through the regular court
channels, Chairman Graham asked:
What right has this committee to
review the courts action-if the court
approved this, the court would be
guilty, not Mr.. Fenning."
Mr.. Blanton maintained, however,
that the court had been "deceived''
by Mr.. Fenning, who had not made
known the fact he received 25 per
cent commissions on bond premiums.
He cited the recent report of Auditor
Herbert l.. Davis of the District
Supreme Court on this subject.
Il maintain that all of this guard.
ianship business disqualifies Fenning
to hold the office of Commissioner,
he declared.
Another certified report on the num-
ber of wards Mr.. Fenning had was
offered by Mr.. Blanton, but was ac-
cepted over Mr.. Hogan's objection on
the same condition as the previous
Documents