Evening star., 1926-05-08

, ming admitted there Is S12,820.26 OF
| the funds of the ward invested or In
bank. but could not recall without
comparison with former reports what
| amount had been invested during the
| past year.
Correspondence Questioned.
/ Maj. Arnold, taking the position
that the Veterans Bureau had a right
to inquire into all the services rem
| dered by a committee, dwelt upon the
correspondence Mr.. Fenning had with
| Adler'S relatives and the hospital in
New York since his last report was
filed in July, 1925. Mr.. Fenning sum
married. about 25 letters he had writ
ten and about the same number of re
plies relative to the wards condition
| and to proposals by various members
of the family that a change In com
mittee be made.
The witness empha sized there was a
| lack OF unanimity among the relatives
as to who should he appointed. but the
father finally was selected. He also
declared the father collected the bonus
given by New York State after Mr..
Fenning had endeavored to perform
| the service.
Maj. Arnold asked the witness to
divide the services rendered to the
| estate and to the person and set forth
the amounts he charged for this work
IhlS question was propounded many
times to Mr.. Fenning while a witness
DerOre the veterans committee of the
House. and, taking the same stand to-
day that he took before the congress.
sional bodies, he refused to answer
He explained, however, that his serv-
ices rendered were set forth in the
sworn statement as composite pic.
ture."
When Maj Arnold asked If Adler
had been at st. EliZabeth's Hospital
instead of in New York would he have
beer more or less trouble to the COM
mittee, Mr.. Fenning declared:
Holds Query Unanswerable.
That cannot be answered by any
living person. How could any person
| say II man had remained at any
certain place what his condition would
be during a certain period If he had
not been there"
Maj. Arnold explained his purpose
was not to contend that Mr. Fennine
had been guilty of omission of duty.
MAJ. Arnold, reading from the final
report submitted by Mr.. Fenning In
the Adler case, said the total income
VI IlC ltlCOILipCICHL iIiS IIlC ptSSt
year was $l.114.39. You are Sug-
gesting that the court allow you $101
for services as committee from July
8, 1925. until the time the court al
lows it?''
approximately 500" said the
Commissioner. nodding assent.
Mr.. Fenning described to Mr.. MILAN
the methods adopted by the bonding
| company in paying him commissions
ION bonds. all of which testimony the
! witness had previously given before
committees of the House.
Mr.. MILAN then put w. A. Edgar
Of Baltimore, vice president of the
bonding company. on the stand, and
he testified that premiums as a rule
are fixed at fiat rate, and there is very
little f1exibility. All of the company S
business is conducted through licensed
agents, he declared, and his organiZa
ton would not permit for one mo,
ment" rebates or bonuses to persons
other than licensed agents. He testi
| fed Mr.. Fenning held a franchise as
agent and had access to all lines OF
bonds maintained by the company.
Code Provision Cited.
Maj. Arnold presented section 654
| of the District code. which prohibits
| rebates ana Whlch Mr. Fennlng main
| tains prevents him from crediting his
| wards estates with the commissions
he received to the witness and asked
him TO construe the provision on this
subject. The provision, in brief, pro
hibited any bonding company from
! paying commissions. rebates or hon.
orariums to any one who does not
hold a license of such company.
The witness, on objection OF Mr..
MILAN, was not permitted to answer.
Auditor Davis directed counsel for