tainted dollar. But, of course, it would be impossible for Chief Murray to know everything that is going on in the department, although I think he handles some things badly, like this mass arrest of these 80 or 90 people. And there again it points out, Mr. Chairman. It happens to the poor. They would not do that to the son of the Senator, they won't do it to any of you others. But it happens to the poor. And mostly to the Negroes. And that is why I say that it is a disgrace that you don't see a single colored lawyer here, coming here to speak in defense of this situation. And it is strange. But it points out what I have always said. Outside of about 5 or 6 lawyers here, colored lawyers, most of them are a careless lot. Mr. SLAYMAN. If I may interrupt, Mr. Chairman. We do have statements filed for the record by some other attorneys, and those will be received. And if the witnesses want to be heard, there is going to be no opposition. I want that to be clear-that there has been no attempt to select only certain lawyers. We were trying to get representative points of view. Mr. LAUGHLIN. I am sure had they come forward and said, "I want to be heard," you would have found a place for them. Mr. SLAYMAN. Yes, sir. Senator HENNINGS. We would have. Mr. LAUGHLIN. And you can't get around that. And I think it is a disgrace, because why don't they stand up and be counted? Of course, anybody can send anything in here. But come in here and give your testimony and face questioning, if necessary, they are not doing that. They complain about the bar association barring them by a secret vote, which is wrong. I mean the bar association should not practice segregation. But, however, that is neither here nor there in this hearing. The point in this is a situation, a matter that is vital to every one of us. And I would suggest if there is any disposition to make any change in Mallory, any disposition, that it be held in abeyance because time heals a lot of things. We know how difficult it is to get a free and open mind in the midst of feeling. You know, during the war the feeling against the Germans was so bitter that some people didn't want German taught in the schools. The same as to the Japanese. We know what happened after the Civil War, or the War Between the States, whichever section of the country you come from. People wanted to hang Jefferson Davis and wanted to hang General Lee. And you saw an illustration in the very District of Columbia, when they hanged Mrs. Surratt. They had no right to hang Mrs. Surratt. So there is danger of doing anything in the midst of feeling and passion. Now, I admit most papers, not getting the full picture, say that, "Here, criminals are being freed, and the Supreme Court in the Mallory is doing this." But when you analyze it-and I am sure this committee will do that under the direction of the chairmanit is true that it does work an injustice here and there. But far better that it work an injustice here and there than to have the overall picture. Now, I would like to make some reference. I was impressed with Professor Sutherland. He knows his subject. I only hope that my own school, Georgetown, will send someone here of equal stature who will be able to discuss it intelligently, and can answer the questions. There is no doubt——— Mr. SLAYMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt once more for the record, we have a professor of criminal law and a professor of constitutional law from Georgetown appearing on Tuesday. Mr. LAUGHLIN. Are they of equal stature? Of course, that is a fact question. Anyway, I will say this: I was impressed-I talked to Professor Sutherland beforehand, and before that I had probably an idea that maybe these people from Harvard were high hat. Maybe it is because I felt they had such bad football teams. But, nevertheless, he did know his subject, and I am sure he has been of help to this committee. Now, much has been made, Mr. Chairman, about if the man is improperly arrested you could have redress. What redress would you have? You can sue a policeman. Most of them don't have a dime. The fact is, I just sued five of them the day before yesterday. And I know that I won't get a dime. But I made up my mind they were not going to get by. They broke in this place with no reason and started throwing plates, and cups, and saucers around. It happened right here in the District. So at least I am going to have a lot of fun in that case. It is going to come up in good time. And I know ultimately I won't get a dime. Now, as far as a remedy by writ of habeas corpus, that sounds well, but you must remember you don't have everyone like Judge Stevens. When Judge Stevens was on the court of appeals, he said many times a lawyer should not hesitate to get a judge out of bed at 2 o'clock in the morning. I would like to see someone get Judge McGuire out of bed at 2 o'clock in the morning. He would sick the dog on you. So as a matter of fact, it just doesn't work out. Now, the sheriff who came here from Chicago, Sheriff Lohman. Well, of course, he has so much crime out there, I don't know how he could come 800 miles-even in his own staff-and he has been busy. Of course I get the Chicago Tribune every day-and also the Washington Star. But he has been busy for the last 2 weeks putting the assessor-the assessor wouldn't move, and the sheriff had to go in and move him out. But I still don't understand, because he does not deal with Federal questions out there. His are entirely State matters. But nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, there should be no change in Mallory. If there is any thought that there should be any change, I make this suggestion, that it be held in abeyance, because in a thing like this, a thing of this kind, the poor always der. And if you are going to give police-of course, police would to function without regard to the fourth amendment, or the fifth endment, or the sixth amendment. They would like to just proas they see fit on the theory, as Barrett always taught them, that he end justifices the means, and might makes right. And it has repeated here that Justice Jackson said that police acting on o own cannot be trusted. In my opinion, I think it was Justice Douglas who said that. But anyway, it was said, whichever one of them said it. And I think that speaks well. So I think the Mallory decision is sound. It was unanimous. And I think it should not be departed from. Now, are there any questions? Senator HENNINGS. Mr. Slayman? Mr. SLAYMAN. Just the protective observation that Mr. Laughlin's penetrating opinions are his own, and do not represent those of the committee which invited him. Mr. LAUGHLIN. I understand that. And if any member of the committee is sued, I will represent you for nothing. Senator HENNINGS. I would like to thank you very much, Mr. Laughlin, for taking your time to come here and give us a very interesting series of sidelights and observations. Mr. LAUGHLIN. I am delighted, Senator. And I am delighted with the opportunity to have met you. I have read a lot about you. And I am going to follow you very closely now. And maybe one of these days I will move to Missouri. Senator HENNINGS. I am very complimented. We will welcome you there. We are a very hospitable State. And we want to thank you for coming here in response to our invitation. We are indeed grateful on behalf of the committee and the Senate. Now, at this time I am asking that certain staff memorandums, certain court decisions, laws, bibliographies, law review articles, and so forth, be included as a part of today's record of these proceedings. If there is no objection, they will be made a part of the proceedings, and I will not take the time to read each item. (The material referred to may be found in the appendix beginning on p. 183.) Senator HENNINGS. The committee will recess and reconvene on Tuesday next, March 11, at 10:30 a. m. (Whereupon, at 11:25 a. m., the committee recessed to reconvene on Tuesday, March 11, 1958, at 10:30 a. m.) CONFESSIONS AND POLICE DETENTION TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 1958 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:30 a. m., in room 457, Senate Office Building, Senator William Langer presiding. Present: Senator Langer. Also present: Charles H. Slayman, Jr., chief counsel and staff director; J. Delmas Escoe and Walter H. Maloney, Jr., assistant counsel. Senator LANGER. The committee will come to order. Mr. Gasch is our first witness. Will you come forward, Mr. Gasch? Do you have a prepared statement, sir? Mr. GASCH. Yes, sir. I gave it to Mr. Maloney. Senator LANGER. You may read it or you may summarize it. Go right ahead, sir. Mr. SLAYMAN. Excuse me, Mr. Gasch. Mr. Chairman, I want the record to show that Senator Hennings, who is the chairman of the subcommittee, was unable to be here this morning because he developed a bad cold last night. However, we are very happy to have you serving as chairman today, Senator Langer. I would also like to have the record to point out that you have been one of the members of the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee since its formation and carrying forward of a previous subcommittee 3 years ago. Senator LANGER. It will be good to have a Republican preside for 1 day. Go ahead, Mr. Gasch. STATEMENT OF OLIVER GASCH, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. GASCH. Mr. Chairman, if you have no objection, I would simply prefer to give you the gist of my prepared statement because I think it is very dull and deadly to attempt to read what one has written. At the outset I would like to say that my experience with this rule, the Mallory rule, has been confined to cases in the District of Columbia and I speak as the United States attorney for the District of Columbia. I do not have knowledge of the situation that existed in other Federal jurisdictions. I believe a report is being prepared on that subject by the Department of Justice for submission to the subcommittee. It was suggested by Mr. Slayman that I bring with me two copies of our experience with the cases both at the district-court level and 107 28412-58 -8 |