Evening star., 1926-06-18


WILLIAM G. DAVIDSON.
Alias William Caine, Of Los Angeles.
who testified before the House alchoIic
traffic committee i'm the role Of re
formed bOOtlegger." The San Francis
co police have asked the local detec-
tive bureau to find him and question
him In connection with charges III
bad check transactions.
er to limit the fees Of Mr.. Fenning 10
S per cent by a general rule adopted
by the court in general term, and TO
limit the number of his wards 10 nVe
as to any one guardian.
"If Fenning Is not guilty OF embeZ-
Element in appropriating Tor 10 years
the commissions secretly taken by hlm
as commissions on loans of his wards
money. and II he is not guilty OF en-
bezzlement in appropriating to MS
own use for more than 20 years one
fourth OF all premiums on bonds PAID
out of the estates Of his wards, then
the case OF the United States VS.. Mas
ters and Kinnear (42 Appeals ID. c..
u. $500 should be overruled and the
to them and their characters as ein-
beZZlers reinstated. because they did
no more than Fenning has done IN
retaining commissions paid them on
loan. The only difference Is that they
committed this act al one tline ana
were each indicted and convicted OF
the felony of embezzlenent. while
Fenning committed this act hundreds
of times In cases Of unlawful coinfnis
sions and thousands OF times in cases
of unlawful premiums.
Says He Took Premiums.
1t can be conservatively estimated
that since fenning on an average ap'
propriated to his own use not less
than five premiums on the bond of
each ward during his period Of guar
dianship. he has appropriated to his
own use about 1 600 premiums. every
one of which, under the decision OF
Justice Sddons. he is morally ana
legally bound to return To his wards
either under penalty OF disl,arnient or
Of criminal prosecution. "r both.
1T is stated that Fennins showed
Ills good faith when, on filing his re-
port in the case of Edward +. floff in
1915, he asked to be allowed To retain
the commission he had received ON II
~
this commission amounted. according
to his own report. to but $ 80, II was
evidently put ont az Il feeler, because
he had been collecting Illegal commits
sions for l5 years, and the loss of
$3.50 would not be great one-to
Fenning. However, ii cannot be said
that he was actuated by any high mo-
tive in making that disclosure, be-
cause the disclosure appears In a re-
port filed by him on July 3, 1915, and
in 1914 both Masters and kinnear had
been convicted of embeZzlement for
doing just what Fenning did.
1T is reasonable to say that it was
the fear of being convicted of embcZ-
element that caused him To bring this
matter to the attention Of the court
in 1915. ="
Agents Of L. :.
Getting down to the participation
by MIR. Fennlnk as a member of the
Board of Commissioners In the award
Ing of contracts to firms In which
members OF the board might be inter-
ested. and involving section IL of the
criminal code. the brief says that the
admission by Commissioner Rudolph
of his pecuniary interest In the firm of
Rudolph, West & co. establishes the
fact that both Fenning and Rudolph
are officers OF the United States and
are. in the language Of said section,
agents of the United States for the
transaction Of business with such cor
porations.
Moreover, under the decision of
krichman VS.. the United States (253
T.. s., 363) which Mr. Hogan appar-
emily never heard of, the Commission
ers OF the District of Columbia, per-
forming service for the Government
of the United States through the Fed
eral esta blishment known as the Dis
trict Of Columbia, have violated the
said statute.
1.-The opinion Of the Attorney Gen.
eral GA Ops. $50 has no application
to cases like the purchase by the
Board Of Commissioners of the Dis
trict of Columbia of supplies from
Rudolph. West & Co. Masters in that
case was a subordinate in the Post
Office Department and was connected
with a firm that was the lowest bidder
in furnishing coal to the department.
A contract was not made by Masters.
but by the Postmaster General. and
under those circumstances the Attor-
ney General gave an opinion that the
Postmaster General could enter into
that contract without making Masters
punishable.
I'm the case of the Commissioners
they are the principals and sit as
board in the execution Of contracts.
All who participate in the violation of
section Al of the Criminal Code are
equally guilty. Could it be said that
If the contract for coal had been made
by the Postmaster General with firm
Of which he was member that he
tn1 "a ~
Al of the Criminal Code? The case
cited by Mr. Hogan was one which
held only that the Postmaster General
was not prohibited from making a
purchase OF coal under contract. with
a firm in which a subordinate had an
interest. because this section Of the
Criminal Code does not apply to cases
Of this kind.
Others Only Corporations Agents.
"As heretofore stated. the case
cited by Mr.. Iiogan-t'nited States VS..
Strang (254 l.. s. 49D-was that Of
an inspector Of the Emergency Fleet
Corporation, all of the inspectors
being appointed by the corporation,
which was incorporated under the
laws of the District of Columbia and
none of the officers of the corporation
being appointed by the President Of
the United States or any head OF de-
partment. or course, such an ap-
pointee would not he an agent OF the
United States, but merely an agent OF
the corporation.
Counsel for Fenning says that not
one Judge and not one brother lawyer
has been found to come forward with
any word Of criticism of Jennings
professional conduct. 1t Is safe to say
that he is under the condemnation Of
practically every member OF the bar.
The judges have already testified that
they knew nothing of his illegal prac-
tina. ,.a,otivo to commissions on loans