Washington, D.C., February 10, 1967. THE PRESIDENT, The White House, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The District of Columbia Savings and Loan League endorses fully the forthright letter forwarded to you January 25, 1967, by the D.C. Clearing House Association concerning the ever increasing incidents of criminal activity in the Nation's Capital. As responsible members of the local business and financial community and as custodians of the savings of more than a half million citizens of the Washington Metropolitan Area, we wholeheartedly share the views of the Clearing House Association and other concerned business, civic and professional groups.

During 1966, there were 19 robberies committed against savings and loan associations and banks in this Federal City. In this new year of 1967, now less than six weeks old, there have been five holdups involving these same type financial institutions. We believe the Federal Government has both the obligation and the means to take immediate and effective action. The responsible citizens of this community are entitled to no less than the best possible law enforcement efforts from both the police and the courts. Arguments as to the pros and cons of suggested causes or reasons for the present state of affairs contribute nothing to the immediate problem, or to the urgent need for prompt, effective action.

The District of Columbia Savings and Loan League respectfully requests your immediate and thoughtful consideration of the pressing problem of crime in the Capital City of the United States of America, and the effective employment of the facilities of your Executive Offices and your own great prestige toward a timely solution. Respectfully yours,




February 10, 1967. THE PRESIDENT, The White House, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Like many others in the National Capital Area, our Association is very much concerned about the crime situation as it exists here today. Our concern is twofold. We are upset about it as citizens and also as businessmen.

No matter where we go today, at business meetings or social affairs, invariably the subject of the crime conditions is discussed. Our news media are full of

There is not a day that goes by that there is not some report of rape, robbery, assault, or vandalism, that has occurred in the Metropolitan Area within the 24-hour period.

We realize that we have a fine Police Department in the District of Columbia, as we also have in our surrounding Counties in Maryland and Virginia. Apparently, however, these Departments are completely swamped with problems of crime and are in serious need of more men and equipment to combat it.

The District of Columbia automobile dealers report practically no traffic on their showroom floors after dark. We are advised by the dealers in the Area of tremendous monetary loss through theft of cars, tires, batteries, wheels, accessories, and other equipment, from the open-air lots on which cars are both stored and offered for sale.

We are encouraged by your letter to Mr. Robert C. Baker, of the Washington, D.C. Clearing House Association, outlining an attack on crime in the Nation's Capital.

This is to advise you that our Association, organized in 1917 and composed of new-car automobile dealers and related lines, will support and cooperate to the utmost to help stamp out the crime situation as it exists today.

It is our intention also to contact the appropriate Congressional Committees to advise them also of our stand in this matter and our hope for improvement in the very near future. Sincerely yours,

MAURICE J. MURPHY, Executive Vice President.


Washington, D.C., January 25, 1967. THE PRESIDENT, The White House, Washington, D.C.

MR. PRESIDENT: We are writing this letter as one of the groups with some responsibility for leadership in the District of Columbia, some responsibility to speak out on behalf of the entire community.

The crime rate in the District is deplorable. It is unnecessary to muster statistics for purposes of demonstration, nor do we consider it relevant to compare law enforcement here with law enforcement elsewhere in the Nation. The Constitution gives the Congress jurisdiction over law enforcement in the District and that trust should be adequately discharged, should be discharged indeed in such manner as to be a model to the Nation. Armed robberies of banks and other business establishments are happening with frightening frequency. At times it seems to become almost a daily occurrence. Naturally, representing as we do the banking and business community, this is a matter of deepest concern to us. But of even greater concern to us, as having some responsibility for leadership in the community, is the growing and justified feeling of anxiety and insecurity on the part of all of our citizens. In no true sense can we say proudly today that our Government affords us those protections for our persons and property which allow men to live securely and devote themselves without distressing anxiety to the well-being of themselves, their families and their neighbors.

This is no irremediable thing. It may, it probably will, because of past neglect, for a time in the future require large investment. We are prepared to contribute our share. The Nation which has jurisdiction of this community should not be penurious in contributing its share.

Undoubtedly, the root causes need to be attacked, poverty, slum conditions, the lack of adequate education and adequate opportunity which burden so many of our citizens. But these are long-term objectives. The problem is immediate, and this immediate resource is strict and adequate law enforcement.

Our police are undermanned. The facilities available to them are inadequate. The Congress should appropriate whatever is needed to provide enough police, well equipped police and the best police leadership obtainable. Consideration should be given as to whether in the Nation's Capital, as a temporary measure, the Federal Bureau of Investigation might not lend more aid. If this were to be done it should of course be done in such a way as not to reflect adversely. or in any way undermine the responsibilities and morale of the police force of the District. We have confidence in our present police force, if properly supported, but there are areas where no local police force can hope to match the facilities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and in our view the problem is sufficiently serious to consider making all of their facilities available to correct these deplorable conditions.

Speedy and effective administration of justice also requires adequate financial support and the ablest possible manning of the United States Attorney's office and the Corporation Counsel's office. This requires large increased appropriations. We have confidence in the leadership of those two offices, but they are both overburdened and undermanned. The speedy administration of justice cannot be attained unless they are adequately staffed and unless the salaries are sufficient to attract the ablest people to those jobs.

The speedy and effective administration of justice is also the responsibility of the Courts. We applaud the developments of the last few years. There has been a thoughtful reappraisal of the distribution of burdens between the District Court and the Court of General Sessions. The Courts have been working longer hours, taking fewer vacations, but much still needs to be done. We applaud the recent undertaking by the Courts themselves of an independent survey of the handling of the business of the Courts. The speedy and efficient administration of justice will do much to curb unbridled crime. Swiftness is no substitute for justice, but swift justice will certainly lend the community greater security. Here again, however, in our view the Congress has not done its part. The Court of General Sessions is understaffed, bady housed, barly equipped. The best of men cannot function adequately in such circumstances.

We hesitate to express a judgment on the recent legislation affecting bail. There has not been an adequate time to try out the consequences of this legislation. If there are inadequacies in it, it would not appear to suggest a return to bondsmen, but it might be worthy of consideration that, if a person charged has theretofore been found guilty of a serious crime of violence, some discretion

should be allowed the District Court as to whether such a person should be released to the community. We are in no position of course to appraise the constitutional problems that might be involved, but obviously a prompt trial would need to be a corollary of any refusal of bail.

Finally, why should the Congress permit these bandits to be freely armed against the community. Few hold-ups would be attempted without hand-guns. Some restrictions should be imposed on their sale.

The District of Columbia Clearing House strongly urges that you attack this problem of crime in the District immediately and that you make available whatever may be needed in the way of appropriations to attack the problem adequately. Sincerely,

JOHN C. McCORMACK, Secretary, The Washington, D.C., Clearing House Association, Executive Vice President, The Riggs National Bank of Washington, D.C.

ROBERT C. BAKER, Chairman, The Washington, D.C., Clearing House A88ociation, President,

American Security and Trust Company. Other members :

Leo M. Bernstein, President, District of Columbia National Bank;

William J. Schuiling, President, The First National Bank of Washington; Louis C. Paladini, President, Madison National Bank; T. P. McLachlen, President, McLachlen Banking Corporation; Barnum L. Colton, President, The National Bank of Washington; George A. Didden, Jr., President, The National Capital Bank of Washington; Douglas R. Smith, President, National Savings and Trust Company; William M. O'Neill, President, Public National Bank; L. A. Jennings, Chairman, The Riggs National Bank of Washington, D.C.; Frank A. Gunther, President, Secu

rity Bank. Associate members :

L. P. Harrell, President, Union Trust Company of the District of

Columbia; B. Doyle Mitchell, President, Industrial Bank of

Washington. Mr. WHITENER. All right, now do you have other witnesses with you whom you would like to put on now?

Mr. McGEE. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITENER. May I ask, Mr. McGee, you have witnesses other than those whose statements you have just furnished the Committee?

Mr. McGEE. No, sir.

Mr. WHITENER. Do you desire to speak at this time, or would you prefer that we ask any questions we may have of you?

Mr. McGEE. I would prefer that you would ask the questions at this time, sir, and then have the witnesses come forward.

Mr. WHITENER. All right. Mr. Harsha.

Mr. HARSHA. Mr. McGee, Mr. Doggett, personally I want to thank you for your support of the Omnibus crime bill last year.

I would like to ask Mr. Doggett a question first. You said in your statement that next month about 3000 school children are going to be interviewed by some 35 major employers and employer-groups to try to place them in full-time employment. About how many jobs will be available, do you know?

Mr. DOGGETT. If I may, by way of background, the Board of Trade, under our project Job Opportunities, the 35 major employers will have a-I can't give you a figure but it will be considerably in excess of the 3,000 and this is—was a very successful program. Unfortunately there was not a great deal of publicity given to it last year. But the high school youth took advantage of it and many of the employers from the experience last year felt that this year and each and every

year thereafter there will be an ever increasing opportunity for the children graduating out of high school with no plans for further education.

The job that you inquire, as to the number, I can't give you a specific–I can just tell you that many of the major firms were satistied with the program last year.

Mr. HARSHA. But you can say the jobs will be in excess of the number of youths that may apply?

Mr. DOGGETT. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. Of course, that would be correct.

Mr. HARSHA. Can you give us any idea of the results of this program that you have inaugurated several years ago for summer employment?

Mr. Doggett. We have had, and again, not a great deal of publicity from the business community's participation in these programs. During the last year summer job project, it was extremely successful. I know that many of the major firms hired summer students and we, as I stated in my statement, we gave preferential treatment and attention to the low-income families and the children from low-income families.

It was successful. It will be successful this year. There is no way for the business community to put a figure, to base a figure as far as how many jobs this summer will be available. I can just tell you that the program was successful as far as the major employers of the Washington area were concerned last year and they anticipate the same success this year.

Mr. Harsha. Does your organization have any figures that would indicate how many of these young people became involved in infractions of the law even though they had summer employment?

Mr. DOGGETT. No, sir. We don't have figures of that nature.

Mr. HARSHA. Now, Mr. McGee, I would like to ask you some questions concerning your statement on page 3. You seek enactment of legislation which will add five additional judges on the Court of General Sessions. How do you arrive at this figure of five?

Mr. McGEE. I would prefer Mr. Flannery answer that because he was on the subcommittee investigating that particular phase for us.

Mr. Harsha. Certainly.

Mr. FLANNERY. We have conferred with Judge Green, the Chief Judge of the Court of General Sessions, and he has given us that figure of five. The fact is that 80 percent of all serious criminal cases are tried in the Court of General Sessions.

Many of the judges are now being shifted to criminal work in order to keep up with the backlog. As a result the civil calendar has developed a tremendous backlog. Four years ago, I believe, from the date of joining issue in a civil case to the date of trial—the time lagwas four months. It is now 21 months. So the civil litigants are suffering terribly.

Judge Green feels that there should be five more judges and I agree with him.

Mr. HARSHA. Can you give me any indication of what the backlog is in criminal cases?

Mr. FLANNERY. In the jury cases I believe—I'll have to approximate-It runs around 3 to 4 months. However, the Judge points

4 out, that trials should be speedier than that; that there are a number of continuances in these cases due to the unavailability of judges. That creates a bad situation because people remain out on bond and oft-times repeat their criminal offenses, and then too, complaining witnesses become disturbed due to frequent continuances and don't reappear and often these criminal cases are dropped.

Then too, because of the tremendous criminal backlog the practice of "plea bargaining” is indulged in, which means that oft-times charges are dropped in order for a plea of guilty to be made to one charge. This is not a good situation.

Mr. HARSHA. We gave the Court of General Sessions five additional judges last year. There is still one vacancy. I understand one Judge is incapacitated or unable to serve at the present time. If we should give you five additional judges, can you give us any assurance that there will be a prompt fulfillment of these appointments? So they may get along with proper dispatch in conducting their business.

Mr. FLANNERY. We feel with the appointment of the five additional judges the situation will be good.

Mr. HARSHA. You also asked the salaries be increased so that the most capable men can be attracted. Do you have any figures to suggest to the committee as to what the salary should be raised to?

Mr. FLANNERY. We feel somewhere in the area of 27,500.
Mr. HARSHA. What are they receiving now?
Mr. FLANNERY. 23.5. The District Court Judges I believe get 30.

Mr. HARSHA. You recommend also that the tenure of office be extended or lengthenedl. I believe the tenure now is 10 years.

Mr. FLANNERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. HARSHA. What length of time do you recommend ?

Mr. FLANNERY. Something analogous to the neighboring counties of Prince Georges and Montgomery where the Circuit Court Judges sit for a period of 15 years.

Mr. HARSHA. You further concluded it is essential to increase the staff of the prosecution's office, that is the District Attorney and Corporation Counsel. How much of an increase would you recommend there?

Mr. FLANNERY. We have no specific figure, but it should be increased. I served as an Assistant United States Attorney myself in this jurisdiction for some 11 years, and I used to carry a case load at times of about 25 cases. Most of my service was in the District Court. I am told by the Assistants who are there now that their case load is 40, even 50 cases. It is impossible for an Assistant Prosecutor to carry a case load like that and adequately prepare them.

Mr. Harsha. What do you mean, has a workload of 50 cases?
Mr. FLANNERY. He has the responsibility of trying 50 cases.
Mr. HARSHA. Over what period of time?

Mr. FLANNERY. He just has to try them one after another as they are reached. And you can see the evil that can flow from that. Again that's due to the backlog. An Assistant can only be at one place at one time.

Mr. HARSHA. Are there 50 separate individual cases, or 50 defendants?

Mr. FLANNERY. They are 50 separate indictments.
Mr. Harsha. Involving not quite 50 people?

Mr. FLANNERY. Maybe more than 50 people, because in some indictments there are two or three or more defendants.

Mr. HARSHA. I see.

« ForrigeFortsett »