Evening star., 1926-04-27
SUPREME COURT RULING CITED
TO SHOW DOUBLE FEES ILLEGAL
Reversal of Lower Court Decision on Question Read
Into Fenning Case Record commissioner Re.
veals Earnings ON Probe Stand.

not responsible for initiating actions
in either of these cases.
After a long discussion OF Mr.. Fen
ning'S acting as agent for four bond
ing companies, Mr.. Gilbert took as q
working basis that Mr.. Fenning re-
ceived at least $500 u year on 70
per cent basis from such business.
Through q line of questions, Mr.. Gill
bert argued that in conducting ms
private affairs Mr.. Fenning could
have saved that $1,000 year paid to
the bonding companies by havlhs
friends go on his own surety. Then
when Mr. Fenning said he would ac-
cent no tiduciary position If he had to
ask friends to go on his bond, Mr..
Gilbert said that if he could not save
the entire amount to his wards IN
whose interest he was supposed 10
act Just the same as in his own. ne
at least should not have put one
quarter Of that amount. or Sooo q
year. into his own pocket
Mr.. Fenning argued that the Zee ne
received was from the bondlnS com
panieS for service rendered Dy MS
office. Mr.. Gilbert argued that the 20
per cent paid to Mr.. tennlnS came
out of the fee he charged against the
ming said that, acting as committee
for these unfortunates, he was not
suDnoSed TO act as he would for NM
self, but. to his best ability ana knoWl-
edge. for the wards interests. lie sald
the ward could not get the comnlS-
sion for any service he rendered IN
the matter of surety unless the "aIu
had a license and that the companies
never would pay the commissions 10
him to be credited to the wards eS-
tate, and that he would have run
afoul of the law.
Here he quoted the Alagruder-DrulE
case, and Mr.. Gilbert countered py
producing the Supreme Court decision
which reversed the decision or the
lower court in that case.
Gilbert Makes Accusation.
When Mr.. Fenning declared that he
was not able to save the commission
or one-fourth of the cost of the bond
for his wards. Mr.. Gilbert said the
only reason you couldn't save 1t is be-
cause YOU put it in your own pocket.
This won applause from the gathering
which packed the caucus room. MI.
Gilbert insisted. You are using your
business connections to make money
out of your wards. in addition to the
percentage allowed you by the court.
In reply to questions whether he
loaned trust funds and charged COM
mission, Mr.. Fenning replied that in
such cases where he received a COM
mission he always accounted for 1t,
and where no such allowance was
made it was so stated under oath in
his regular reports to the court.
Mr.. Gilbert said, You concede that
since YOU have been one of the Dis
trict Commissioners you have acted as
attorney in a case against the Cnlteu
States, but claim you are not a Fed
eral officer" He said also. You con
cede YOU have received and accepted
fees of more than 10 per cent III guard
ianship cases. but you take the posi-
tion that that is all right because the
court allows it In reply to "a coun-
ter question from Mr.. Fenning, wheth-
er the law was not the same in Ken
lucky for allowing larger fees in cases
where only a small amount like 81
was involved, Mr.. Gilbert replied that
in Kentucky the guardian is limited
to not over ) per cent. on the ground
that if he wants to work for poor peo-
pie he was to charge a poor wage.
GriIIed Regarding Trip.
Mr.. Gilbert also questioned Mr.. Fen
ming regarding his trip to Denmark
with an insane ward. for which the
court allowed him $500, and had Mr..
Fenning admit that the return trip
was pleasure jaunt, although he
maintained stoutly that the trip over
was anything but pleasant. Mr.. Gilbert
pressed him closely why a man of
such high priced legal ability had to
make this trip when an attendant
from st. E,liZabeths also went. Mr..
Fenning explained that the attendant
was not of the class of intelligence
needed to make arrangements for en-
try of the lunatic into Denmark and
across Denmark to the hospital where
he now is.
Mr.. Gilbert questioned Mr.. Fenning
as to why he still has himself con-
tinued as guardian, receiving 5000 a
year. when this ward is in Denmark,
where his relatives could give him
necessary attention, but where Mr..
Fenning cannot give him personal at
tention. Mr.. Fenning replied that he
was continuing to serve as guardian
because no other guardian had been
appointed, the relatives were acquies-
cent and they have some rights"
Into the hearing, Mr.. Gilbert in
jected a comment upon testimony of
DIR. White to the effect that in ST.
Eizabeth's Hospital there Is one en-
ploye to every three and a. half pa
tents. and produced correspondence
from a number of other institutions
showing that at st. EliZabeth'S they
have proportionately three times as
many employees as elsewhere. He
thought that as District Commissioner
he ought to look into this question
of surplus employees.
Cites Hospital Position.
Mr.. Fenning explained that the Dis
trict has only contractual relations
for the care of the insane at ST. Eliza
beth's and that questions Of personnel
come under the Interior Department
and that the Board Of Charities has
only IL visitorial duty at st. Eliza
beth'S.
When Mr.. Gilbert completed his
cross examination, Mr.. Fenning ex-
pressed appreciation for the character
of his inquiries.
Mr.. Gibson questioned Mr.. F'enning
as to whether he had practiced law
since he became District Commits
sioner. He also questioned him re-
s,arding letters TO the Veterans
Bureau in regard to cases in which
he acts as guardian and brought out
that the purpose of Mr.. I'enning in
going to the Veterans Bureau the
other evening to consult with Davis
Arnold, chief Of the guardianship
bureau, was to see the dates on which
allowances were made to Norris, it
having been charged that after the
wife had been appointed, Mr. Fenning
represented her in prosecuting the
cause.
Mr.. Gibson then questioned MIR.
Tanning regarding alleged eyhorhita 7, +
fees and he answered that he had
case which had not been approved
by the court. In reply to other ques-
tions by Mr.. Gibson regarding the
percentage of appointments as guard
ian made by Justice Mccoy since 1920,
Mr.. Fenning said that Justice Mccoy
had signed not more than his per-
centage. according to the court