PAGENO="0001"
~2
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETIETH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 14430 and H.R. 14448
TO ESTABLISH A COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JULY 24, JULY 29, AND OCT. 1, 1968
Printed for the use of the
Committee on the District of Co1umbi~,~
C
DOG,.
z4
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
-945 WASHINGTON 1968
D
PAGENO="0002"
THOMAS G. ABERNETHY, Mississippi
WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Illinois
JOHN DOWDY, Texas
BASIL L. WHITENER, North Carolina
B. F. SISK, California
CHARLES C. DIGGS, JR., Michigan
G. ELLIOTT HAGAN, Georgia
DON FUQUA, Florida
DONALD M. FRASER, Minnesota
BROCK ADAMS, Washington
ANDREW JACOBS, Je.. Indiana
E. S. JOHNNY WALKER, New Mexico
PETER N. KYROS, Maine
ANCHER NELSEN, Minnesota
WILLIAM L. SPRINGER, Illinois
ALVIN E. O'KONSKI, Wisconsin
WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio
CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland
FRANK J. HORTON, New York
JOEL T. BROYHILL, Virginia
LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas
GILBERT GUDE, Maryland
JOHN M. ZWACH, Minnesota
SAM STEIGER, Arizona
COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JOHN L. McMILLAN, South Carolina, Chairman
JAMES P. CLARK, Clerk
CLAYTON S. GASQUE, Staff Directsr
HAYDEN S. GAnDER, Counsel
(II)
PAGENO="0003"
CONTENTS
HR. 14430 (McMillan, Abernethy, Dowdy, Hagan, Fuqua, O'Konski,
Winn, Steiger, and Broyhill), a bill to establish a Commissioner of Police Page
for the District of Columbia 1
HR. 14448 (Whitener), identical bill 1
STATEMENTS
American Federation of Government Employees:
Jordan, Norman E., president, Lodge 185 116
Koczark, Stephen, assistant research director 116
Moore, Howard J., vice president, Lodge 185 116
Sadler, Carl, legislative representative 116
Van Tassel, Charles H., Secretary/Treasurer, Lodge 185 116
Broyhill, Hon. Joel T., a Representative in Congress from the State of
Virginia 3
District of Columbia government:
Fletcher, Thomas W., assistant to the Commissioner of the District of
Columbia 23
Layton, John B., Chief, Metropolitan Police Department 44
District of Columbia Police Wives' Association, Inc., Mrs. Barbara New-
man, Vice President 75
DuPont Circle Citizens Association, John R. Immer, Vice President,
statement 128
Federation of Citizens Associations, George W. Brady, President 125
National Park Service:
Castro, Nash, Regional Director, National Capital Region 82
Wright, Grant, Chief, Park Police 82
National Zoological Park Police 116
North Washington Council of Citizens Association, Mrs. Ernest Howard,
President 120
Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia:
Givens, Royce L., executive director, International Conference of
Police Associations 49
Margolius, Bernard, counsel 12
Sullivan, John L., chairman, Legislation Committee 49
Treasury Department:
Humpstone, Charles, Acting Special Asst. to Treasury Secretary for
Enforcement 121
Lanier, Maj. Glennard, Chief, White House Police 121
Rowley, James J., Director, Secret Service 121
Whitener, Hon. Basil, a Representative in Congress from the State of North
Carolina, remarks in House on May 23, 1968 on the denial by the National
Park Service of use of Park land site for Boy Scouts ill
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Anacostia Citizens Association, Inc., Charles J. Piper, president, letter to
Congressman Joel T. Broyhill, dated July 29, 1968 65
Capitol Hill Southeast Citizens Association, Elizabeth Draper, secretary,
letter to Chairman McMillan, dated July 27, 1968 64
Citizens Advisory Council, Nicholas B. Addarns, Chairman and others,
including 93 petitioners, letter dated Aug. 2, 1968, to Chief John B.
Layton, `Pledge of Support to Chief Layton" 70
Department of the Interior:
Deputy Assistant Secretary Clarence F. Pantzki, letter to Chairman
McMillan dated May 27, 1968 83
National Park Service:
Agreement dated May 10, 1968 with Southern Christian Leader-~
ship Conference for permit for Resurrection City camping 86
Letter to Chairman McMillan dated Oct. 8, 1968, supplying
iter~ization of expenditures incurred in Poor People's Cam-
paign, and National Park Service regulations 90
(III)
PAGENO="0004"
Iv
4
District of Columbia Government:
Grant, Dr. Murray, Director, Department of Public Health, letter
dated May 22, 1968 to James T. Clark, clerk, re Poor People's
Campaign, other special events, and estimate of costs of April, Page
1968 civil disturbances 96
Layton, Chief John B., Metropolitan Police Department:
Letter dated July 10, 1968 to James T. Clark, clerk 29
Letter dated Sept. 9, 1968 to Chairman McMillan 42
Washington, Hon. Walter, Commissioner, letter to Chairman
McMillan dated Jan. 22, 1968, reporting on the proposed legislation~ 72
District of Columbia Police Wives' Association, Inc.:
Letter dated July 30, 1968 to Chief of Police 69
Letter dated Sept. 5, 1968 to Hon. John W. Hechinger, Chairman,
D.C. City Council 77
Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia, resolution
of February 8, 1968, in support of Chief of Police John B. Layton 48
Monahan, Mrs. Agnes, letter to Chairman McMillan dated May 21, 1968_ 72
Police Wives United:
Letter dated August 1, 1968 to Cong. Broyhill and petition supporting
legislation 81
Statement supporting legislation 81
Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia:
Letter to Chairman McMillan, dated August 1, 1968 respecting
criticism of Chief Layton by the Democratic Central Committee,
and statement of the Executive Committee of the Association
thereon 65
Press release of July 9, 1968 63
Poor People's Campaign (Resurrection City):
Agreement of May 10, 1968 with National Park Service 86
Costs to the District of Columbia Government 91
Costs to the National Park Service and other departments 90
Opinion of D.C. Corporation Counsel re Participation in 93
Regulations of National Capital Park Service (Appendix) 149
Smithsonian Institution, James Bradley, Acting Secretary, letter to
Chairman McMilan dated July 24, 1968 119
Treasury Department, Fred B. Smith, General Counsel, letter to Chair-
man McMillan dated Apr. 4, 1968 124
WASHINGTON EVENING STAR:
Article dated Apr. 14, 1967, entitled "Hobson Declares ACT Will
Harass Policemen" 53
Article dated July 30, 1968, entitled "Terry Urges Layton Ouster-
Democrat Wants Black Police Head" 66
WASHINGTON POST:
Article dated July 6, 1968, entitled "Slaying of Police Defended-
Black United Front Calls it `Justifiable' " 70
Article dated July 30, 1968, entitled "Oust Layton for Negro, Demo-
cratic Chief Says" 68
WASHINGTONIAN, article dated June 1966, entitled "Too Many Chiefs-
Nine Independent Police Forces Do Not Necessarily Give Us More Pro-
tection"
APPENDIX
Code of Federal Regulations: Title 36, Chapter 1, National Park Service;
Part 50, National Capital Parks Regulations 149
Staff Memorandum, May 15, 1968: The April 1968 Civil Disturbances in
Washington 131
Arrests by Metropolitan Police Department, March 30-April 14, 1968_ 137
Estimates of real property losses and other losses 132
Estimates of costs and revenue losses to the District of Columbia
government 132
Estimates of costs of Federalizing the National Guard and bringing
in Army troops 136
Estimates of hotel and business losses 138
Fires and false alarms, March 30-April 14, 1968 137
Troops called out in Civil Disturbances:
Authority for Use of Troops in the Suppression of Riots 136
Executive communications dealing with same 139
PAGENO="0005"
TO ESTABLISH A COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 1968
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMFrrEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Washingtou, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :30 o'clock a.m., in
Room 1310 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John L. McMil-
lan, chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Representatives McMillan (chairman), Dowdy, Whitener,
Sisk, Jacobs, Walker, Nelsen, Harsha, Broyhill, Winn, Gude, and
Zwach.
Also present: James T. Clark, Clerk; Hayden S. Garber, Counsel;
Sara Watson, Assistant Counsel; Donald Tubridy, Minority Clerk;
and LeonardO. Hilder, Investigator.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.
The hearing this morning is on H.R. 14430 and H.R. 14448, to estab-
lish a Commissioner of Police for the District of Columbia.
(H.R. 14430 and H.R. 14448 follow:)
H.R. 14430, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., by Messrs. McMillan, Abernethy,
Dowdy, Hagan, Fuqua, O'Konski, Winn, Steiger and Broyhill;
and H.R. 14448, by Mr. Whitener, on Dec. 13, 1967.
A BILL To establish a Commissioner of Police for the District of Columbia
Be it enacted~by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That there is established in the
government of the District of Columbia an independent office with the title
of "Commissioner of Police in the District of Columbia". The officer who holds
that office shall be known as the `Police Commissioner". The Police Commis-
sioner shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and
the President pro tempore of the Senate, acting jointly, for a term of four
years. Any appointment made to fill a vacancy in such office shall be made in
the same manner as the original appointment. Any Police Commissioner ap-
pointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which
his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the remainder of
such term. A Police Commissioner may continue in office after the expiration
of his term of office until his successor is appointed and qualifies. The Police
Commissioner is subject to removal by the Speaker of the House of Representa-
tives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, acting jointly, for inefficiency,
neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. The Police Commissioner shall receive
compensation at the rate of $28,730 per annum.
SEC. 2. (a) There are transferred to the Police Commissioner the functions,
powers, and duties of-
(1) the Commissioner of the District of Columbia and the District of
Columbia Council with respect to the Metropolitan Police force;
(1)
PAGENO="0006"
2
(2) the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the United States
Park Police in the District of Columbia;
(3) the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to the White House
Police;
(4) the Sergeants at Arms of the House of Representatives and the
Senate and the Capitol Police Board with respect to the Capitol police; and
(5) the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution with respect to the
National Zoological Park police force.
(b) The Police Commissioner may establish such review boards as he deems
advisable. The Police Commissioner may appoint and fix the compensation of
such personnel as he deems advisable to carry out his functions, powers, and
duties under this Act, subject to the provisions of title 5, United States Code,
relating to appointments in the competitive service, classification, and General
Schedule pay rates.
(c) As soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Police Commissioner shall make recommendations to Congress for the enactment
of such legislation as may be necessary to make the police forces under his juris-
diction subject to the same provisions for appointments, promotions, dismissals,
compensation, retirement, and similar matters.
(d) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to-
(1) authorize the Police Commissioner to combine any of the police
forces under his jurisdiction or transfer any officer or member of a police
force under his jurisdiction to a position in another police force under
his jurisdiction without the prior consent of such officer or member; or
(2) affect the rights and privileges under personnel laws and regulations
in effect before the date of the enactment of this Act of any officer or member
of a police force under the jurisdiction of the Police Commissioner.
SEC. 3. (a) There is established the Police Commissioner's Advisory Commis-
sion (hereafter in this section referred to as the "Commission"). The Commission
shall at the request of the Police Commissioner advise him with respect to the
performance of his functions, powers, and duties.
(b) The Commission shall be composed of nine members appointed by the
chairman of the Committees on the District of Columbia of the House of Repre-
sentatives and the Senate, acting jointly. At any time at least five members of
the Commission must be individuals who were residents of the District of
Columbia for a period of three years prior to the date of their appointment to
the Commission. A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in the same manner
as the original appointment was made.
(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), members shall be
appointed for terms of three years.
(2) Of the members first appointed-
(A) three shall be appointed for terms of one year,
(B) three shall be appointed for terms of two years, and
(C) three shall be appointed for terms of three years,
as designated at the time of appointment.
(3) Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration
of the term for which his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for
the remainder of such term. A member may serve after the expiration of his
term until his successor has taken office.
(d) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), members of the Commission shall
each be entitled to receive $75 for each day (including traveltime) during which
they are engaged in the actual performance of duties vested in the Commission.
(2) Members of the Commission who are full-time officers or employees of
the United States or the District of Columbia shall receive no additional compen-
sation on account of their service on the Commission.
(3) While away from their homes or regular places of business in the per-
formance of services for the Commission, members of the Commission shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same
manner as the expenses authorized by section 5703(b) of title 5, United States
Code, for persons in the Government service employed intermittently.
The CHAIRMAN. The first witness we shall hear is our colleague, the
Honorable Joel T. Broyhill, of Virginia, one of the sponsors of the
legislation.
PAGENO="0007"
3
STATEMENT OP HON. JOEL T. BROYHILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OP VIRGINIA
Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman:
This legislation creates a Commissioner of Police for the Nation's
Capital under direct control of the Congress. The Commissioner would
assume complete jurisdiction over the Metropolitan Police, the Park
Police, the White House Police, the Capitol Police, and the National
Zoological Park Police-now under jurisdiction of the Commissioner
and City Council, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Sergeants at Arms of the House and Senate, and the
Secretary of the Smithsonian, in that order.
The bill would also create a nine-man advisory commission, five of
whose members would be citizens of the District of Columbia.
The Commissioner would be appointed by the Speaker of the House
of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, and
would be directly responsible to the Congress. He would be charged
with the creation of the necessary agency to discharge the duties of his
office, and would be similar in character to the Comptroller General
or the Public Printer in his role as a servant of the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, this organizational structure is patterned in part on
nearly a century and a half of success experienced by a distinguished
police force in another world capital. Since Sir Robert Peel created
the Metropolitan Police District of London in 1829, the police force
known to millions throughout the world as "Scotland Yard" has func-
tioned under a Commissioner of Police directly responsible to Parlia-
ment's office of the Home Secretary, and not to the municipal govern-
ment of London. Today it is a respected, highly effective organization
of 19,000 men.
Great Britain has 148 regular police forces, all of which are con-
trolled by local authority, with the sole exception of Scotland Yard.
It also should be noted that, contrary to popular notion, Scotland Yard
has no official jurisdiction outside of Greater London. To be sure, its
Central Investigative Division cooperates with and assists other police
forces throughout the United Kingdom and throtighout the world.
I think it's fair to say that Scotland Yard has functioned with a rec-
ord of efficiency which is the envy of police departments the world over,
and those of us who have been in London in recent years can attest to
the safety of that city and to the good relations that exist between
Londoners and their police.
It is my desire to see created a force such as the Metropolitan Police
of London here in the city of Washington, D.C. It is not my desire to
create a national police force, or a secret police establishment to grind
under foot the legitimate complaints of the citizens of the District of
Columbia and its visitors.
I strongly urge that we reflect a moment on the success of the British
and the advantages that are possible to achieve under such a system.
There are obvious financial gains to be had. The Metropolitan Police
Force will cost the city of Washington $48,033,000 during the next
fiscal year. This figure will be higher as time goes on. This is an ex-
pense that could constitutionally be borne by the Congress, and a sub-
stantial savings to the city could accrue if this legislation is enacted.
PAGENO="0008"
4
I believe the Congress could afford and would approve the necessary
funds to staff and equip a department equal to the police needs of the
city. It could also afford and I believe would approve funds necessary
to bridge the gap between the people of the District of Columbia and
the police officer. Such an effort would call for educated, highly tal-
ented personnel, and coordinated efforts to project the police officer in
the role of guardian as well as enforcer of the law, and would have
to be prosecuted vigorously. None of these things can be done as effec-
tively under the present system as they could `be done under this
proposal.
FAILURE or LOCAL GOVERNMENT
I `submit, Mr. Chairman, that the present District of Columbia Gov~
ernment, as created by the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1967, has demonstrated `that it is utterly incapable of administering an
effective police force, and of maintaining law and order in the nation's
Capital. The D.C. Commissioner, the members of the City Council,
and the Commissioner of Public Safety, are harassed and obviously
intimidated by the rising chorus of voices from the city's lunatic
fringe, voices that bay continuously at the rights of decent citizens and
at constitutional authority.
During the past year, under this government, the signs of this intim-
idation have been numerous. The riots of last April brought destruc-
tion, looting, and death to innocent citizens of this city. And despite
the denials of government officials, there is much evidence that the
policemen on the streets during this holocaust were given to under-
`stand, from some source, that they were to "go easy" on the rioters.
And just recently, the D.C. police officers have been instructed to
ignore `obscene and abusive language directed at them, and thus to use
even more "restraint" in their efforts to avoid arresting lawbreakers.
I point `also to the rising success of the Black United Front, an or-
ganization of radicals whose membership includes the Vice Chairman
of `the D.C. `City Council, `and whose goal apparently is to bring about
a complete state of anarchy in the District of Columbia. This is the
organization whose members scream "police brutality" whenever a
white police officer dares to `apprehend a Negro lawbreaker, `and who
unanimously declare the slaying of a white policeman trying to make
such an arrest to be "justifiable homicide." And as these words are
spoken, a crackpot proposal by this same Black United Front-that
neighborhood control over the city's police precincts be established-
is actually being dignified by a public hearing before the D.C. City
Council.
The fact that `an irresponsible and dangerous pressure group like
this can so influence those who are supposed to rule this city is uncoil-
trovertible evidence that no longer is the District of Columbia Gov-
ernment capable of providing `adequate police protection for the lives
and property of its decent, law-abiding citizens and of the millions of
visitOrs to the city each year.
This is the reason, Mr. Chairman, why `the morale of the D.C. police
officer and his family is at an all-time low. Crime in the nation's
Capital is rising at a rate of 35 percent per year, arid it is my conten-
tion that the situation will continue to grow worse ii n less `and until `the
PAGENO="0009"
5
Congress recognizes its responsibility to this Federal city `and enacts
this legislation `to assure law and order in `the nation's Capital.
It is evident `that by co'ordinating and combining the five local police
forces under a single administrative head, a superior service c'an be
created. `The forces would remain autonomous in their operations, `and
their personnel would be protected against transfer without their con-
sent. However, many advantages would certainly result from such
an administrative consolidation.
Finally, this legislation offers an opportunity to bring a maximum
degree of self-determination for the citizens of the District of Colum-
bia a step nearer. It offers an opportunity `to clarify the Federal in-
terest and responsibility in the District. Also, it offers an opportunity
to heal one of this city's greatest and most destructive ill's. I urge
favorable action on this bill.
FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Mr. Chairman, briefly, we know that many problems with which the
Metropolitan Police Department is confronted are almost exclusively
a Federal responsibility. For example, `the recent demonstration of
the so-called Poor People's March and Resurrection City was an at-
tack or demonstration against the Federal Government, not `against
the people of the District of Columbia. Of course, it became a Federal
responsibility `that we protect the citizens and pro'vide whatever police
protection was necessary. It was no't necessarily an expense of the Dis-
`trict Government.
There are many other national functions which occur here no't that
Resurrection City should be dignified as a national function but there
are ceremonies for which police protection is needed and which could
be considered Federal functions rather than local.
We most certainly should consolidate the recruitment and training
program of the police departments, and this would result in much
more efficiency `and less expense.
We hear charges about police brutality, and concern about our Met-
ropolitan Police Force being handcuffed and having to operat'e under
restraint. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that the Capit'ol Police
Force is not requested to act within restraints. They know they will
have the `backing of the Members `of Congress in enforcing the law. I
have yet to hear any charge of police brutality leveled against any
member of the Capitol Police Force, and they are not even a trained
professional group such as the Metropolitan Police Force.
Frankly, I do not think we have `any choice here, Mr. Chairman.
This is the Federal city, and it is our responsibility to protect the
Federal interests and the millions of tourists who come here to Wash-
ington.
To have a vociferous minority group in the District of Columbia
trying to run this Police Department is somewhat similar to having
the tail wagging the dog. I have nothing against any complaint that a
citizen `of the District of Columbia may want to bring against its
government or the Police Department. They should have that right.
But they are not `the only people who are invo'ved in this s'ituation,
nor the only ones who need and require police protection.
PAGENO="0010"
6
I say it is the responsibility of the Congress, and that we should
provide this prote.ction. The only way we can be sure of maintaining
a good Police Department, as we have now, and to make sure it does
not decay through lowering of morale and the appointment of police
officers on the basis of race rather than ability-and thus assure the
high level and standards we have now, is to bring the D.C. police
forces under the complete control and jurisdiction of the Congress of
the United States.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SCOPE OF THE BILL
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. The
proposed legislation would not destroy any of the present police
forces, would it? As I understand it, they would not lose the autonomy
they already have.
Mr. BROYHILL. I am glad the Chairman asked me that, because I
think it should be emphasized that it would not disturb the autonomy
of the five departments. No member of any department could be trans-
ferred without his consent.
Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, the Metropolitan Police Department
is used as a source of recruitment for the White House Police. It is my
understanding that no member of the Metropolitan Police Depart-
ment is transferred to the White House Police Force without his con-
sent and without the approval of the Metropolitan Police Department.
The advantage of consolidation is that in the event of emergency,
which we have, unfortunately, on many occasions, it is a more stream-
lined way of coordinating the effectiveness of the five police depart-
ments for the protection of the general community.
Secondly, as I said before, we would have a more efficient and eco-
nomical means of general recruitment. Police departments all need the
same type of high-level training. All five departments certainly have
the same general problem with recruitment. So, why should we not
consolidate that activity where the general responsibility is somewhat
the same.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it not also a fact that the original reason for
creating the District of Columbia was to protect the Congress and
Government officials from outside interference while attending to their
official duties? it is my understanding, after reading the history of the
Nation's Capital, that Washington was never intended to be a large
industrial city. I do not believe that anyone can conscientiously state
that the streets of Washington are safe at the present time.
Are there any questions that anyone cares to ask Mr. Broyhill?
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Broyhill, I wonder why you feel that the District
of Columbia should not bear some of the expense of this coordinated
police force. Surely the residents of the District of Columbia are pro-
vided police protection by this force. Why is it solely a Federal
responsibility under your legislation?
Mr. BROYIIILL. As the gentleman knows, under existing law we au-
thorize a $70 million annual payment to the District of Columbia to
supplement the local revenue. We just recently raised that in the House
to $80 million. We have also appropriated $175 million in other pro.-
grams to supplement the operating costs of the District of Columbia.
I feel that if we could take over the duties and responsibilities of some
PAGENO="0011"
7
of these functions, such as perhaps the Fire Department, and the De-
partment of Highways and Traffic, and provide those services and
know that they are being provided, then we can be relieved of the re-
sponsibility of Federal financing of other general operations of the
District of Columbia.
I suspect this would ultimately cut back on the Federal payment
and eventually might even eliminate the necessity of a Federal
payment for the operation of the District of Columbia.
The CHAIRMAN. I would suggest to the gentleman that the annual
Federal payment to the District of Columbia was $70 million.
Mr. HARsHA. Would you object to making this Commission that the
bill provides for, a bipartisan Commission?
Mr. BR0YTTILL. No. The fact of the matter is, as the gentleman
knows-I think the gentleman is a co-sponsor of the bill-
Mr. HARSHA. No.
Mr. BROYHILL. I did not expect it to be perfect in its original draft.
I knew, as the result of our hearings, that we would certainly need to
make improvements to the bill. I see no objection to that, as far as I
am concerned.
Mr. HARSHA. Does the gentleman know of any other problem in the
present set-up, other than what he has alluded to in his statement? Are
we having other problems or have there been other criticisms that you
are aware of, indicating the necessity of a change such as this legisla-
tion proposes?
Mr. BROYHILL. We shall hear from the D.C. Police Association, and
also from the White House Police. There are numerous instances of
lowering morale in the Police Department, making it difficult to get
new recruits, if this problem continues, it can destroy the efficiency and
effectiveness of the Police Department. I think we will hear testimony
to that effect.
Mr. HARSHA. That is all I have.
Mr. BROYHILL. I request that a splendid article pointing up the
problems resulting from nine separate police forces in Washington be
printed in the record.
The ChAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be included.
(The article referred to follows:)
TOO MANY CHIEFS-NINE INDEPENDENT POLICE FORCES DO NOT
NECESSARILY GIVE US MORE PROTECTION
(By R. D. Heiiil Jr., Reprint from The Washingtonian, June 1966, Vol. 1, No. 9)
Need a policeman? Whom should you call? Most likely you'd think of the
Metropolitan Police ® (444-1111). But perhaps you're in Rock Creek Park-
that would be Park Police ® (DU 1-7411). However, if you're at the Zoo, even
though deep in Rock Creek, you'd phone the Zoo Police ® (CO 5-0743). If a
soldier were involved, your best best might be the Arnied Forces Police ® (OX
8-3277) ; if on the Capitol grounds, the Capitol Police ® (CA 5-5151)-but watch
out: you could need the Supreme Court Police ® (EX 3-1640) ; their jurisdic-
tion starts just across 1st Street, N.E., where the Capitol Police's stops. A White
House matter would involve the White House Police ® (GL 6-1414). At National
Airport you'd ring the Airport Police ® (RE 7-6131) and should you be at
McMillan Reservoir or Dalecarlia or Georgetown Reservoir, you'd call the En-
gineer Corps Aqueduct Police ®.
If variety is any standard, Washington may well be the world's best-policed
city. Those badge-wearing men in blue all over town actually are members of
at least a dozen separate forces.
PAGENO="0012"
8
Sorne-162 members of the White House Police, 196 U.S. Park Police and the
Metropolitan Police force of 2850-are authorized to carry guns on and off duty
and have full powers of arrest throughout the District. Others, in almost identi-
cal uniforms, must check their weapons on leaving their posts and have no more
arresting authority outside their own bailiwicks than any citizen who has
witnessed a felony.
These forces include:
The 216-member Capitol Police, headed by a Metropolitan Police deputy
chief, Charles J. Sullivan. Their beat is Capitol Hill; the men almost all
Congressional patronage appointees, include many working their way
through law school.
The 33-member Supreme Court Police, many of them trained in the
Metropolitan Police rookie school.
The 37-man Zoo Police, who use Metropolitan Police ticket books for
traffic violations on the Zoo grounds.
The 20-man Aqueduct Police, an agency of the Army Corps of Engineers
charged with protecting the District's water supply. MacArthur blvd., from
the District line to Great Falls, Md. is in their exclusive jurisdiction.
The U.S. Special Police, 1580 strong, guard those Federal buildings which
lack their own forces. Their chief is John J. Agnew, a former deputy chief
of Metropolitan Police.
The D.C. Government Special Police, 59 men, guard the District's offices
and property, including courtrooms and condemned buildings.
Special Police, mostly guards in nongovernment buildings, include em-
ployes of uniformed detective agencies. Special Police badges, issued by
Metropolitan Police, number 959.
The D.C. Police Reserve is an unarmed, unpaid, blue-uniformed volunteer
force of 1032 citizens attached to Metropolitan Police precincts. Organized
in World War II, they serve at parades, guard fireboxes on Halloween.
That adds up to 7144 policemen-not counting about 140 Armed Forces Police,
plus Federal Bureau of Investigation and Treasury agents and postal inspectors,
and many others with arms and police powers. But take a close look at the badge
next time you see a man in blue.
When Representative James C. Cleveland was assaulted by a robber in his
House Office Building suite one night last March, the resulting outcry prompted
outraged legislators to demand "professional" police protection. This crime also
helped remind Washingtonians that Capitol Hill is the exclusive preserve of
the Capitol Police, one of the eight police forces other than the Metropolitan
Police operating in the District of Columbia. However, when the man now charged
with attacking the New Hampshire congressman was arrested in less than 24
hours, it came as no surprise that the arrest was made by the Metropolitan Police.
~Tben serious crime fighting or crime detection is required, it is usually the
Metropolitan Police, rather than one of the other eight departments, who are
called on to do the job.
To some, the thought of so many separate police forces standing by to help
our citizens might convey the idea that Washington has plenty of police pro-
*tection. But this is not necessarily so. It is more accurate to say that what police
protection we do have is split various ways. What these police forces do, have,
and are-and bow they fit into the city's jigsaw puzzle of jurisdictions-this
article will try to explain. However, why Washington, which President Johnson
would like to see become the best-policed city in the United States, should have
so many police forces is another matter. There seems to be little, except the
theory of Topsy's growth, to justify our proliferation of police protection.
The District of Columbia (and certain contiguous Federal territory beyond the
District line) is policed not by one but by nine uniformed forces. Six of them
have exclusive jurisdiction over some bit or piece of Washington or its Federal
environs, while the other three overlap in covering the rest. These nine depart-
ments do not include those of Montgomery County, Prince Georges, Arlington,
Fairfax, or Alexandria, which of course do not reach into Washington, However,
even some areas within these locations come under `the jurisdiction of the Park
Police, the Aqueduct Police, or the Airport Police.
Obviously the most important though possibly the most misnamed force in
town is the Metropolitan Police. How can a force be called "metropolitan" when
it stops at the District line and has half `a dozen other departments in its own
territory?
PAGENO="0013"
9
The Metropolitan Police, however, are Washington's front-line troops in the
grinding, deadly war against crime and disorder. Numbering 3,150 police and
civilian employees (with 22 percent Negro patrolmen), rarely up to authorized
strength because of recruiting difficulties and discouraging pay scales, it is the
Metropolitan Police who catch and arrest the felons, take the casualties, and
backstop the other police whenever real trouble comes.
The MPDC's resources, divided among fifteen precincts and four specialized
divisions (Traffic, Detective, Morals, and Youth Aid), include 181 cruisers and
scout cars, 14 patrol wagons, 92 motorcycles, and six police boats. The depart-
ment's communications reach every vehicle, 90 of some 150 foot patrol beats, and
937 call boxes. By means of the area police teletype net and common-aid radio
circuit which joins the important police agencies of the District and adjoining
Maryland and Virginia, police headquarters keep in close touch with all the
area's emergencies and misdoings. And the MPDC will, when it is installed,
operate the recently announced million-dollar-a-year police computer system
which, serving all forces in metropolitan Washington, is a long step toward a
truly unified regional police effort.
To employ these resources in coping with Washington's more than 25,000 seri-
ous crimes per year (according to the FBI, our 1965 score was 25,462), Chief
John B. Layton has a budget of about $38 million. It is little enough. Sixty-six
men of the MPDC have given their lives in the line of duty in this century alone-
five (and one police dog loyal unto death) during the past two fiscal years. Last
year 20 policemen won medals for feats of valor or merit ranging from gunpoint
confrontation with armed madmen to rescuing fifteen persons from a blazing
building. For $6,010 a year-base pay of an MPDC private-the taxpayer takes
such heroism for granted.
Top among our professional, hard-working police officers, and recent successor
to the capable, deeply respected Chief Robert V. Murray, the present chief,
Layton, has much to live up to. The extent to which he will succeed remains to
be seen. If Chief Layton proves unable to stem Washington's rising crime rate
be will certainly hear from one prominent Washingtonian, President Johnson,
who in March said, "We must bring the latest and most effective methods of law
enforcement to the District of Columbia."
One controversial local police problem, which was watched closely by at least
one former President, stems from the very existence of the District's second
largest police force, the 290-man U.S. Park Police. An anomalous body, in theory
part ranger, mainly in fact a snugly funded mix of highway patrol and city
traffic police, the Park Police-or "Sparrow Cops," as they were once known-
have primary jurisdiction over the twenty per cent of Washington which falls
under National Park Service jurisdiction, including Constitution and Independ-
ence avenues, the 776 circles, triangles, squares, the Civil War forts, and other
greenswards of Washington. They also have secondary jurisdiction everywhere
else in the District, just as the Metropolitan Police, when they get a respite
from crime in the streets, can work the parks. Park Police patrol one-fifth of
the District; for this Washington taxpayers contribute one-third of the Park
Police budget.
Outside Washington, the Park Police have a constellation of responsibilities-
mainly 74.6 miles of Federal highway patrol-ranging from near Baltimore to
Seneca (federally owned Park Police territory.) The empire of the Park Police
today is so extensive that patrolmen carry summons books for three different
U.S. District Court jurisdictions-Richmond, Alexandria, and Baltimore-into
which their clients may be haled.
Larger by itself than a police force for a city of 75,000, the Park Police, with
their 40 scout cars, 32 motorcycles, two horse vans, and 23 horses (Washington's
only mounted police), and their new $700,000 Potomac Park headquarters, their
separate Police Academy, laboratory and photo lab, are per capita Washington's
most costly police. Even the Park Police uniforms-gaudy or distinctive, accord-
lag to your taste-are, at $500 per set, the most expensive in town. Acknowledg-
ing the cost-differential between Park and Metropolitan police, the Interior
Department's T. Sutton Jett, who for 27 years has ably presided over our parks,
says the return is worthwhile: With 15 million yearly visitors, Washington needs,
he says, a kind of "visitors police" to aid tourists, range the parks, and police
the Cherry Blossom Festival and other special events. On the other hand, crime
statisticians will note that the Park Police, with about ten per cent of the Metro-
politan Police uniformed manpower, in 1964 (according to the FBI) logged only
PAGENO="0014"
10
208 serious crimes, compared to the 22,392 bandied that same year by the MPDC.
Last year, however, the Park Police did hand out 34,900 traffic tickets.
Nelson Murdock, who heads the Park Police, is the outstanding police chief of
the region. Because of long national park experience, he, unlike Chief Layton,
whose public relations are often inept, is public-oriented to a degree unusual in
his calling. He is canny and statesmanlike in his approach to problems, and
popular with his colleagues. In four years here he has raised the Park Police from
a squabbling camarilla to what he now describes as "a strong, proud, capable
unit." He also fiercely defends their autonomy as a separate force and rejects
the suggestion, sometimes heard around town, that the Park Police (more than
doubled since 1945) represent one of the most successful feats of empire-building
in the region.
Besides the two big departments just described, each branch of our government
has its own police in Washington: the White House Police, the Capitol Police,
and the Supreme Court Police. Although all three cooperate closely with the
Metropolitan Police, each has its own exclusive jurisdiction. The common primary
function of these three departments is, according to White House Police Chief
Ralph C. Stover, preventive. They protect the President and first family, our
lawmakers, and Supreme Court justices from intruders, criminals, and plain nuts.
There is his friend, Chief J. M. Powell of the Capitol Police. The Supreme Court's
Captain T. V. Slominski (like Stover and Powell, a veteran alumnus of the
Metropolitan Police) has to deal with so many eccentric ladies that-on Chief
Justice Warren's personal suggestion-he has taken on a policewoman, making
the Court's 33-man police the smallest D. C. force to have a policewoman.
The 213 men of Major Stover's White House Police are the elite of the town,
and for good reason. In providing security for the White House and Executive
Offices, no mistakes are allowed. Until 1922 this function was performed by
special detail from the MPDC, but in that year the White House Police were
established in their own right, which gives the Harding Administration at least
one worthwhile achievement. By law their men come from the ranks of the Metro-
politan and, occassionally. the Park Police; and Major Stover-quiet-spoken,
intelligent, and keen on his job-sees that he gets the best. Mon who fail to
stand up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue go back onto the beat. Of all Washington's
lesser departments, except of course the Armed Forces Police, the White House
Police have the most solid case for autonomy. They also have-as Puerto Rican
assassins learned when they tried to shoot their way into Blair House in 1950-
some of the best pistol shots in the country. In 1940 their team won the world
championship and, as a bulging trophy cabinet shows, they have been near the
top ever since. They are the only Washington police, besides the Metropolitan, to
have had a patrolman shot and killed in line of duty in the past fifteen years.
Chief Powell's Capitol Police-270 patronage appointees (mostly night-school
law students, it is said) and a hard core of 35 regulars seconded from the
MPDC-hold sway over the grounds of the Capitol, an irregular territory ex-
tending from Union Station to A Street, S.W./S.E.-155 acres in all. This area,
outside the reach of the Executive Branch, is under exclusive control of the
sergeants at arms of the House and Senate. Chief Powell, his 22 detectives, and
the ten men a night who pound beats on the Hill, are detailed from the Metro-
politan Police. Like the White House people, they make few arrests. But they
do dispense tickets freely to D.C. residents and tourists who mistakenly park
in the extensive spaces reserved for members of Congress and their staff. And
with the Hill surrounded by a high-crime area, they keep their eyes open, and
felony arrests by the Capitol Police are not unknown.
The Supreme Court Police have an even smaller patch of jurisdiction (one
scuare block) than the White House force's 25 acres. Together with the White
House Police they are one of the special groups who have no prowl cars. But
Captain Slominski, a gnarled, kindly professional with a long memory of Wash-
ington police annals, keeps his men-100 percent qualified pistol shots-up to
a tight standard. Besides crackpots, they cope with as many as 17,000 visitors a
day, answering questions such as "How much does the building weigh ?" or
"Where does the jury sit?" They also tactfully maintain decorum in court by
nudging counsel to keep their coats buttoned and prompting lady lawyers not
to wear hats-one of the long standing rules of the Court.
The Armed Forces Police, 159 officers and men from the Army, Marines, Navy,
and Air Force, are the region's only literally metropolitan force: Their juris-
diction-limited, of course, to service people--covers the District of Columbia
PAGENO="0015"
11
plus five counties in Maryland and seven in Virginia. Their commander, Colonel
R. F. Wheeler, USA, a square-cut combat veteran of the Army's Corps of Military
Police, has his headquarters in the Navy Yard, his own brig, radio network, 22
cruisers, and ten capacious paddy wagons. Like other departments in Wash-
ington, the Armed Forces Police have long been integrated. "We have 153 men,
four uniforms, two colors, and one job," he remarked. The Armed Forces case
load is impressive: In 1965, besides 221 major felonies, they handled 5,541 other
criminal offenses and 3,121 military offenses, investigated 874 accidents, and
apprehended 674 deserters. This is no indication that the Armed Forces are
crime-ridden, but simply that Washington has a large military population, both
transient and garrison, and also that the Services do their share to protect
Washington.
Of our last three police forces, that of Washington National Airport, headed
by Chief James P. Dillon (who spent 25 years with the Port of New York Au-
thority), is the only one not actually within the District. But since Chief Dillon's
45 men and two cruisers perform a vital function for the city, and because his
jurisdiction-all Federal property-abuts Washington, the Airport Police can
be considered one of our forces. Although he breasts a tide of seven million pas-
sengers a year. Chief Dillon takes an essentially optimistic view: He encounters
very little crime ("People here are intent on traveling"), few dips, and no num-
bers operators or con men to speak of. "There is a very good atmosphere around
an airport," he says, and he aims to keep it that way.
The smallest and lowest-paid force in Washington-twenty men and three
cruisers-is the Engineers Corps's Acqueduct Police, headed by Captain B. J.
Kerns, a brisk, twinkly-eyed officer who somewhat resembles the late Bobby
Clarke. Captain Kerns's jurisdiction is by no means small, however. It includes
all of Washington's reservoirs and MacArthur Boulevard but as far as Great
Falls, where, aside from the physical security of the water systems, the force's
main job is to keep speeders and overweight trucks from pounding in the con-
duits which underlie the road. If you are nabbed by the Acqueduct men on the
Maryland side of the line, you may ultimately find yourself in court in Baltimore,
where Federal jurisdiction over Montgomery County heads up.
Like a pearl inside an oyster, the 176-acre exclusive jurisdiction of the Smith-
sonian Institution's Zoo Police, under Captain Joseph J. McGarry, is wholly
surrounded by another jurisdiction (Park Police), which in turn is girt about
by the Metropolitan Police. With 29 men, his own radio net, one cruiser, and two
radio-equipped scooters, Captain McGarry protects the animals against four
million people a year. Aside from traditional Easter Monday riots (which the
Metropolitan Police have helped damp down), the Zoo Police are mainly troubled
by traffic violations and truants. "This place," one officer says, "is a marshalling
area for truants." As they straggle in, they find Captain McGarry, a trim,
leathery old-timer from the Corps of Military Police, waiting with open arms.
Although one of Harry Truman's earliest vetoes, in June 1945, kept Congress
from sliding the Park Police-at least in the District-under MPDC command, he
evidently regretted it later. A subsequent promise, destined to go unfulfilled, was
that, if he ever got the chance, he would put all police in Washington into one
truly metropolitan department.
Like other uncompromising ideas of President Truman, his view that police in
the District of Columbia should be unified is, even today, intensely controversial,
with many separate empires, much prestige, and rich bureaucratic prizes at stake.
How touchy the issue is among our police chiefs is indicated by their reactions
to my question: "What are the arguments against a Presidential Reorganization
Plan or Congressional action to legislate all police and all jurisdictions within
the District-White House and Armed Forces Police excepted-into one really
metropolitan department ?"
Gun-shy at the very thought, Chief Layton refused to discuss the question.
Park Police Chief Murdock, predictably, was vehemently opposed. "What do I
think?" he asked. "It would be like martial law * * * dictatorship * * * the
first step toward a national police."
Of the five remaining chiefs queried, two-significantly, with small depart-
ments-said that unification was the only solution. All were emphatic that the
political difficulties in persuading the departments of Interior and Defense, the
Smithsonian Institution, the House and Senate sergeants at arms, the Supreme
Court, and the Federal Aviation Agency, to yield their slices of the local police
pie would be great. This obviously is true.
PAGENO="0016"
12
Yet it is also obvious that in addition to our hard-pressed. Metropolitan Police
holding the line against heavy odds, Washington in effect has a duplicate police
force which, whatever else it may attend to, catches few felons, takes no casu-
alties, costs considerable money, and demands substantial resources. This dupli-
cate, or phantom force-composed of Park Police, Capitol Police, Supreme Court
Police, Airport Police, Acqueduct Police, and Zoo Police-includes 667 uniformed
patrolmen, 50 cruisers, 34 motorcycles, 23 horses, one duplicate police academy,
a crime and a photo lab, and numerous headquarters. On a gravely congested
frequency spectrum, they tie up six extra radio frequencies.
The 1965 budget for this phantom police force totaled about $5,838,633-
roughly a million dollars of this (for the Park Police) contributed by local tax-
payers. An extra $6 million could buy Washingtonians a lot more hardcore police
protection where it counts.
Naturally, Rock Creek Park, Capitol Hill, Rains Point, the Supreme Court, the
Airport, the acqueduct, even the Zoo, would still have to be policed. But how
much more efficient it would be to have the sum total of the District of Columbia's
police resources unified in a truly metropolitan force, rather than depending, as
Washington must today, on cooperative jury-rigs. Chief Murdock holds that
"unification of effort," coupled with wide-open autonomy for all nine departments,.
is the answer; surely it is-from a Zoo or Park Police standpoint. But from the
standpoint of the people who live in Washington and pay for police protection,.
just plain unification would be even better.
The CHAIRMAN. At this time I would like to call on Mr. Margolius,
representing the Policemen's Association.
STATEMENT OP BERNARD MARGOLIUS, COUNSEL, POLICEMEN'S.
ASSOCIATION OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA
The CHAIRMAN. I understand the majority of the officials of your
organization are attending a convention at this time. Hence, that is.
the reason for their absence.
Mr. MARGOLIUS. Mr. Chairman:
My name is Bernard Margolius, Mr. Chairman. I am Counsel for
the Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia. At this par-
ticular moment the President and Chairman of the Legislative Com-
mittee of the Association are at the national convention of the Na-
tional Association of Police Associations. I have been asked .to come
here and say a few words.
I have not had time to prepare a written statement because of the
short notice, and I happen to be involved in a police case ~t this par-.
ticular moment. I have no written statement, but I will give you, if I
may, a few comments concerning how the Police Association feels.
about this.
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE
When the so-called Broyhill bill was introduced, the officers of the
Association obtained copies of it and circulated it among the members
of the Association, comprised of 4600 persons, including 91 percent of
the men on the Metropolitan Force, including also White House Police-
men, Park Policemen, and retired policemen. A copy of the bill was.
printed by the Association and circulated among the members of the
Association. They were asked by a questionnaire to answer either:
"I favor this proposal," or
"I oppose this proposal." And they were asked to make comments,
if they had any.
This was done before the serious situation which has arisen in.
the last few months.
PAGENO="0017"
13
As of March of 1968, which was before the riots, of course, the results
showed: Of those answering this questionnaire, 1642 favored the bill,
334 opposed it.
I might say that we have the cards. Many of them have comments
on them. A great many of them do not.
Mr. WHITENER. May I ask how many you sei~t out?
Mr. MARGOLIUS. We sent out 4600 to the entire membership. I do
not know what the membership was at that time. It may have been
4500, but in the neighborhood of 4500.
I do not want to be personal about this to any member of this com-
mittee, but some of the cards stated that opposition to the bill was
based upon the fact that it was introduced by Congressman Broyhill.
This was the substance of such opposition.
I have picked out at random, in the short time I have had, to read
to you, if I have your permission-
Mr. BROYHILL. If you had mentioned the other sponsors, you might
have had more opposition.
Mr. MARG0LrUs. That might be.
I would like to read, if I may, some of the comments made by these
men on cards that I picked out at random. These are all votes "Yes."
Incidentally, some of the opposition to this proposal was an objection
to bringing the Zoo Police into the same category as the Metropolitan
Police. There was some opposition, also, from some of the Park Police
officers, who felt that they may be losing some of their individuality.
There was some fear, because of a misunderstanding of the bill, that
men could be transferred from one department to another, but of
course the bill is very clear that a man cannot be moved from one
section to another.
I would like to read this, if I may. I think these speak beautifully of
what is going through the minds of some of our policemen. I would
like to say personally, not on behalf of the Association, if this vote
were taken today, it would be overwhelmingly more in favor than it
was in March.
One comment: "I am with the District of Columbia Metropolitan
Police Department, and I know that the morale of many of our men is
adversely affected by the almost continuous harassment of our men
by the civil rights organizations and militants. I believe that if our top
officials were responsible primarily to Capitol Hill, they would be more
resistant to those who harass us and would have a tendency to back
their men more. I have several reasons for favoring this change, but
this is the major one.
"There also seems to be a concerted effort to demoralize our men and
dominate our Department. WTe have become the local whipping boy."
Another comment: "I feel that this will do much toward attaining
the state of professionalism so long sought after by police officers."
Another comment: "A Police Commissioner would tend to establish
responsibility, prevent foot-dragging, develop efficiency, coordination
and professional attitudes and improved morale."
Another comment: "I feel it is about time the police efforts in D.C.
were coordinated."
Another one: "I feel this would help professionalize police work in
the District of Columbia."
97-945-65---2
PAGENO="0018"
14
Here is one: "The morale of the Department being at an all~time low,
I believe it is urgent to get this bill into law soon, before many good
men leave the Department."
Another one: "I am in favor of the continuing viable interest by the
Congress in the affairs of the District of Columbia."
Comment: "Sincere compliments and thanks to Mr. Broyhill, et al.,
for a rapid and `brilliant attempt to save an otherwise hopeless prospect
for police in the Nation's Capital."
"Very pleased with the proposal. This would certainly `boost the
morale of the Metropolitan Police Department and greatly improve
police enforcement in the Nation's Capital."
Mr. JACOBS. Are these statements anonymous or signed?
Mr. MARGOLIUS. These are unsigned, sent in by members of the As-
sociation. They are not signed.
Another one: "I believe this would boost the morale of all police-
men, and I believe the citizens would look on us differently and with
pride, as this would put a stop to the Police Department being used
as a whipping boy for all."
Another comment: "There are too many people running the Police
Department above the rank of Chief-Mayor, Council, Members of
Congress, and others."
Another comment: "I am sure this could be a saving in operating
costs and overhead."
Another comment: "Would eliminate the pressure groups from the
Police Department and the Commission."
I could go on. There are numerous ones like this. They all seem to
indicate that there is in this bill some saving grace with respect to
professionalism in the Department, increase of morale, and also the
elimination of what might be termed, called by several of these officers,
making the Metropolitan Police the whipping boys of the District.
I have also been asked by one of the members of the D.C. Police
Wives Association, who could not be here today, to say that they are
in favor of the bill, and they will submit to the committee at a later
time a written `statement.
I have nothing else to say on behalf of the Association unless the
committee would like to `ask me some questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Would any member care to question Mr. Mar-
golius?
NEED FOR Coor~mNATIoN
Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Margo'lius, you mentioned some `of the objections
to the Zoo Police being brought up to the same standard as the other
forces. I know there is a feeling `among some of `the members of the
Police Department that the members of the Zoo Police Force does not
have the same training and responsibility.
This is not merging the `operation of the different police depart-
ments. I want to make that `abundantly clear. The proposal is for `an
administrative consolidation `only.
The other `objection `is the fear `of personnel being transferred from
one force to `another without their consent. There will be an abundance
of protection `against that.
One of the objectives of the bill is to elevate the status of the Zoo
Police, a@ well as of the Capitol Police. The Capitol Police i5 a pa-
PAGENO="0019"
15
tronage force now, and they do not ~et the same professional training
as the Metropolitan Police Force. ~o, it is the hope of some of the
sponsors of this legislation that in the future we will provide the
same training and skills in the Capitol Police Force as in the Metro-
politan Police Force. No longer will we have the feeling that the Zoo
Police are not of the same stature as `the Metropolitan Police Depart-
ment. I think that can be very quickly overcome.
Certainly, as far as transfer is concerned, all the present positions
would be `abundantly protected as `they are at the present time.
The gentleman also pointed out that if the 1)011 were taken now, it
would be much more overwhelmingly in favor of `this proposal th'an it
was back in March.
Mr. MARG0Lrns. I can only prophesy that. I am positive that it
would be.
I also would like to comment, for what it may be worth, that Resur-
rection City, being on Federal property, and the Metropolitan and
Park Police having been coordin'ated during that experience, `and also
the demonstrations on the Hill which have existed in the past, which
of course require coordination between the Capitol and the Metropoli-
tan Police, further establish some bases for a common head.
Mr. BR0YrnLL. Some of the members of the Park Police commented
to some members of this committee th'at they could not go in and ar-
rest people after they jumped over the fence and snatched a pocket-
book and other things from tourists passing by. Have you any com-
ment on that?
Mr. MARGOLIUS. I do not have those comments. I would like to make
some personal observations, but `since I am in a hearing involving two
policemen, perhaps three policemen, involved in a shooting, I think I
must refrain from doing that. I think this bill is merited.
Mr. SI5K. Do I understand the `bills you are basically endorsing are
H.R. 14430 and H.R. 14448? Are those the two bills you are `talking
about?
Mr. MARGOLIUS. `Titey are identical bills, are they not? Yes. We call
it the so-called Broyhill bill.
Mr. SI5K. I do not want to detract from anything said by my good
friend from Virginia, but I just noted that Mr. McMill'an, Chairman
of the Committee, joined with him `and `several dthers, including, the
gentleman from Virginia, in introducing H.R. 14430; and of course
H.R. 14448 is sponsored by our colleague, Mr. Whitener.
Mr. BROYHILL. I made that abundantly clear at the beginning of the
hearings. There is no pride of authorship on my part.
Mr. SI5K. I am not discounting your interest in this at all. I just
wanted to be `sure that the witness was not talking about `another bill,
separate `and apart from these two.
That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. JACOBS. Sir, has your `organization done any research into the
constitutionality of this legislation in reference to the separation of
powers?
Mr. MARGOLIUS. No. Now that you ask the question, I eliminated
those comments because I thought it might not be material to read
something th'at a policeman says. Several of the responses were to the
effect that Congress has control over the District, and they should
therefore retain it-this is the comment of several policemen, not by
PAGENO="0020"
16
the officers or counsel-and that this was bringing the Police Depart-
ment back into the Constitution. That is a comment by policemen. We
have not researched it.
Mr. JACOBS. Let us take up page 2 of this bill, H.R. 14448, which
states the contemplated new police organization would assume the
duties with respect to the White House Police. Do you see any prob-
lem there in separation of powers?
Mr. MARGOLIrS. You are asking my opinion now?
Mr. JACOBS. Yes, sir.
Mr. MARGOLITTS. No, I do not. I think that is an administrative
function just like parks and grounds. Just because it happens to be
at the White House does not take it out of the jurisdiction of Con-
gress.
Mr. JACOBS. As I understand, the classic constitutional law concept
on the theory of separation of powers, is that except for policing its
own institution, the Congress is legislative, whereas the Executive
is constituted to execute the laws that the Congress passes.
I should think perhaps some research would be warranted into
that question before this legislation is seriously considered.
Beyond that, as a practical matter, I just wonder how it would
work out. Every once in a while the Congress and the Executive have
differences of opinion, and here the Congress would have charge of
the "Palace Guard" at the White House. Do you think that would
present any practical problem?
Mr. MARGOLIUS. I never thought about it. It may be. As a practical
matter, I would not think so. Perhaps it would.
Mr. JACOBS. It is something we ought to think about.
I am somehow reminded of a bill introduced a few years ago-it
was before my time here, so it is a matter of hearsay. Somebody told
me a bill was introduced to create a special flag for Congress. Maybe
some of the older Members may recall that. Somehow or other, I
find this rather reminiscent. It seems to me it is proposed that Con-
gress create its own police force. The proposal for that flag bill did
not pass, as I understand.
You stated in your testimOny that it was the opinion of many
police officers-and I assume the opinion of yourself, sir-that by
being controlled by the Congress, the police force would attain greater
professionalism.
Mr. MARGOLIUS. That is not my opinion. I have no opinion on that.
I am not a professional policeman. I do not know.
Mr. JACOBS. I just wonder, if you took into account the Rayburn
Building and the way it was built, if you could come to the conclu-
sion that greater professionalism can result from the committee kind
of executive that is contemplated in this bill; that is, the chairman
of this committee and the chairman of the counterpart in the other
body and the Speaker of the House and the President pro tom of the
Senate. That is approximately the arrangement by which the Ray-
burn Building was built.
Would you see any contradiction there in reality with what is as-
sumed by these police officers?
PAGENO="0021"
17
Mr. MARGOLIUS. Being a native-born Washingtonian, I would have
to agree with you about the Rayburn Building, but how it came to
pass, I do not know.
Mr. JACOBS. They say a camel is an example of something done by
a committee.
Mr. MARGOLIUS. I would say I have not analyzed the details of the
bill per se, section by section, but there is a phase of this bill that is
significant to a policeman. If I may expound just a moment-
Mr. JACOBS. I wish you would.
Mr. SI5K. Would the gentleman yield for a clarifying question
here? I lost the connection here about the IRayburn Building.
Mr. JACOBS. I will be glad to respond to my colleague.
A statement made in response to a question here indicated it was
the thought of many police officers that the professionalism-I pre-
sume that means the efficiency and reliability of operations, the carry-
ing out of plans-generally the professionalism of the Police Depart-
ment would be upgraded if we in Congress controlled the police forces
of the District of Columbia.
I am saying we built the Rayburn Building as a group.
Mr. WHITENER. The gentleman has brought it up, and you have
agreed with him. What is wrong with the Rayburn Building?
Mr. JACOBS. First, the ceiling is three times higher than it needs
to be.
In the second place, it is too big.
In the third place, it is too ornate.
In the fourth place, which brings up the next point of whether it
would lower the overhead of the Police Department, it cost at least
two, maybe three times as much as was planned.
The fact of the matter is that the Congress does a fairly good job
in legislating, but our past record of being executives by implementa-
tion through committee action has not been too good, and that is a
conspicuous example.
That balustrade across the street on the Cannon Building is another
conspicuous example.
I am trying to respond to the question of the gentleman.
Mr. SISK. I have great respect and admiration for my good friend
from Indiana, and he knows this. I am one who happens to support
the Rayburn Building and I believe we did a good job and built a
good building, and as a resident in that building, I think it is an ex-
cellent facility and was much needed. I just want to say I disagree
with my friend that that is an example of poor Congressional
management.
With that, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.
Mr. JACOBS. I will not respond further. There is an honest differ-
ence, and my colleague from California has an entirely honest mind.
Mr. MARGOLIUS. When I said something about the Rayburn Build-
ing, I meant I do not happen to agree with the architecture. That is
my personal opinion.
Mr. WHITENER. If I may comment, in law school, we did not have
any courses in architecture. I do not know where you went to law
school.
PAGENO="0022"
18
Mr. MARGOLIUS. You are right.
Mr. JAcoBs. You do not need a course in architecture. You can
see it.
FEDERAL REsPoNsIBILITIEs
The CHAIRMAN. This is `all extraneous. We wish to obtain a real
Police Department here and one that everybody cannot disturb and
tear apart. At the present time I do not think the police know who is
their boss. We would like to place the Police Department in the hands
of some person who has backbone enough really to protect the Police
Department and enforce the laws in the statute books.
Mr. MARGOLrnS. I started to say a moment ago that the one feature of
this bill that I looked at and noticed is that here is the appointment
of a number of advisory commissioners, `a board of commissioners, to
oversee the police. I think this is one of the most relevant features of
the bill, which will deal with disciplinary problems and financial prob-
lems and salary increases and retirement benefits.
I believe CongTess at this particular `time, `as always in the past and
as I am sure it will continue in the future, is so cognizant of the prob-
lems of crime in the District, because `most Congressmen live in `the
District, that `this will not resolve itself into `anything but a good thing..
I would like to add very quickly that we members of the Association
are very proud of Chief Layton and think that he has done `a magnifi-
cent job as Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department. Anything
said here with respect to `any possible change is not to be. `taken in `any
shape or form as `any reflection upon the Chief of the Metropolitan
Police Depar.tment.
POLICE PROBLEMS
I see the men on the force every day because I help `them with their
problems. I do not see `the good side. They come to me when `they h'ave
their problems, when they are being sued for a million dollars for'
violation of civil rights or they are being charged at the Morgue with
a sh.ooting, `or they `are down before `the Trial Board because they hap-
pened `to call `a citizen by the wrong name. Today the word "boy" can
take them before the Trial Board, `although the policeman must `sta.nd
out on the streets and take all `kinds of `abuse and hea'r all kinds of
language directed at hi'm, `and must stand still and cannot make an
arrest. These are the men I see. Therefore, `they voice their problems.
to me.
One of their big problems is the fear of what will happen to them
in the near future in the District. T'here are two sides to `this story,.
`and there `are `two sides to every story. There is the citizen's `side. and
there is the police enforcement side.
I know `a good enforcer in `the wrong neighborhood is not going to
stay in that neighborhood `too long, because he will have a gang of
citizens testifying `against him as to some violation of regulations that
he committed. This is what happens.
As I say, I cannot get into some existing problems which `are going
on right now, but this is a good demonstration `of what can h'appen to
an enforcer.
A particular policeman was an enforcer in a certa.in neighborhood,.
and now 6 or 7 or 8 witnesses have come `and stated under oath that
this particular policeman fired his gun point blank at a citizen. Well,.
PAGENO="0023"
19
the hearing today will prove through the FBI that that policeman
never shot his gun. Yet, there are 6 or 7 eye-witnesses who swear to God
under oath that that policeman shot this man point blank.
This is what the police in the city of Washington are worried about.
I have said in the past, because I represent a great many policemen in
retirement cases and other cases-I have said and will continue to say
what the man who wants to be a policeman in the District of Columbia
ought to be given a medal. Any man who will walk up the back streets
of Washington at 2 :00 o'clock in the morning should be given a pat on
the back and some encouragement, and not be shot at every time lie
goes on the street. This is the toughest job in the world. You could not
give a normal citizen this job for $50,000 a year, and yet you expect
these men, young kids, 21 years of age, still wet behind the ears, to
come out there and walk the streets of Washington and, on the spur
of the moment, as we have heard many times, be a law enforcement of-
ficer, be a judge, be a prosecutor, make decisions which we as lawyers
cannot make unless we go to the books, and these men are called upon
on the spot to make decisions. The consequence of making a wrong
decision is a complaint and possible action before a civilian complaint
review board and trial board, with the disgrace that comes to the
family that accompanies those actions.
This is what these men are up against.
Gentlemen, I would like to tell you I have a young man-maybe I
am talking too long-
Mr. JACOBS. Go right ahead. I have another question.
Mr. MARGOLIUS. I have a young man in my office who is up for retire-
ment. He has been on the force a short time, maybe a year and a half.
He was struck by an automobile. He has not worked for 20 months. As
a result, his left leg is more than an inch shorter than his right leg.
He has a plate in his hip. The clinic wanted to retire him with full ben-
efits, giving him 66 percent of his salary for the rest of his life, tax free.
I said to this young fellow, "Why didn't you take it?"
He said, "I want to be a policeman." He said, "I thought if I waited
long enough, I would be all right and I could go back on the street."
Here is a boy 22 or 23 years old now, who has not worked in 20
months, and he has given up the ship. He now realizes he cannot be a
policeman.
These are the fellows who are on the street enforcing the law. These
are good men. I do not make a distinction between white and colored;
99 percent of them are excellent men, regardless of their color. I do
not think it would make any difference whether they were white or
black or yellow. These men work hard. They are underpaid. They
ought to be given a medal for what they are doing. That is all.
Mr. JACOBS. I recognize the problems you have described perhaps
as well as any member of this committee. I am a former police officer
myself. My question is: How do those problems change when you trans-
fer the administrative authority to a legislative body, namely. the
Congress? How does that improve the problems?
Mr. MARGOLIUS. Not having gone into this in the detail I perhaps
should, I can see one thing. You keep saying, Coi~gressman, turn these
over to Congress. I do not look on this as turning it over to Congress.
I look on it as turning it over to a Commissioner.
Mr. JACOBS. The bill `says it turns it over to Congress.
Mr. MARGOLIUS. The President oro tern and the Speaker of the
PAGENO="0024"
20
House appoint this Commissioner. I assume, unlike the Rayburn
Building, this Congress will be sufficiently cognizant of the problem
to pick out the best man in the United States they can find to be the
Commissioner.
Mr. JACOBS. Are you saying a kind word about Mr. Stewart, by
implication?
Mr. MARGOLIUS. No. The design of a building is a matter of opinion.
Mr. JACOBS. He is one individual.
Mr. MARGOLIUS. This involves law enforcement. Once that Commis-
sioner is picked out and appointed-
Mr. JACOBS. He can be removed at will.
Mr. MARGOLIUS. No. His is a 4-year appointment.
Mr. JACOBS. As I read this bill, he could be removed at any time.
Mr. MARGOLIUS. That I would object to.
Mr. BROYHILL. Will the gentleman yield? I think the gentleman
from Indiana has brought up a very good point. As I stated earlier,
the bill was drafted to accomplish the main thrust of consolidating the
departments and bringing them under the jurisdiction of Congress.
There are several co-sponsors, and I am sure they all feel some reserva-
tions on some details. They are not endorsing every bit of the language
in the bill. It is all subject t.o change and improvement, which is the
purpose of the hearings.
The gentleman brought up the point about the White House Police.
Actually, as I stated before the gentleman arrived, there is recruit-
ment from the Metropolitan Police Department. They are dependent
upon the Metropolitan Police Department for training and recruit-
ment.
There is no intention in the bill that we take over the White House
Police, but merely to coordina~te their training and recruitment. We
have some coordinated supervision in the event of an emergency, to
provide additional police for the White House in the event of emer-
gency as well as to assign additional off-duty White House Policemen
for emergency service.
If there is objection to that, I, as one of the sponsors of the bill, am
certainly willing to consider any alternative proposal.
There is precedent for bringing these things under the control of
Congress. I mentioned the Scotland Yard situation before the gentle-
man arrived. The Chairman of the House District Committee and the
Senate District Committee now appoint the D.C. Armory Board, and
there might be a question as to whether that is within the constitu-
tional prerogative of Congress.
I mentioned the Capitol Police, who are under our complete juris-
diction, and they certainly have a feeling of much more support be-
hind them than the Metropolitan Police have. Yet, we do not have the
harassment that you hear so much about, or the low morale, and we
haven't had any charges of police brutality against these members.
Mr. JACOBS. I might point out to my colleague, whose sincerity I
do not question in the least, that the Capitol Police do not deal with
the same problems that the Metropolitan Police do. It is a little like
the difference between the highway police and city police.
Mr. BROYHILL. That is one of the main reasons for the bill. There is
presently a great deal of overlapping and duplication of jurisdiction.
We have members of the Metropolitan Police Department in the
House Gallery right now, in plain clothes, because it is felt we do not
PAGENO="0025"
21
have enough trained personnel in the Capitol Police Force. We always
have members of the Metropolitan Police Department up here alter-
nating or working with the Capitol Police because we need more help.
We need the Metropolitan Police up here.
If we had problems downtown, we would use additional Capitol
Police, wouldn't we? This bill would provide better coordination and
administration of the problem. We can take all the police forces and
put them under the District of Columbia Commissioner, if the gentle-
man desires. I would oppose that, however, and I think the Metro-
politan Police Association would also.
The main purpose is coordination. That is the No. 1 goal.
The No. 2 issue is who is to be in charge of and responsible for it?
I think, as the Chairman said earlier, the Congress created a Federal
area because we wanted the Congress and the Federal Government to
be protected. I think that is the primary concern.
I say they all have to be fitted together, not separately.
Mr. JAcoBs. I think that is a very important point, and I think it is
something this committee should be enlightened about. My own judg-
ment is that among police departments, cooperation is probably
higher than any other kind of organization in this Nation. By that I
mean when a policeman from one end of the country passes through a
jurisdiction where you are a policeman, the courtesy and camaraderie
that exist are probably greater than in the case of any other kind of
organization in the country.
Let me illustrate what I mean. We are in a metropolitan area here.
Just a few short steps across the river we are in Arlington, and there
must be cooperation between the Arlington Police Department and
the police authority on this side of the river. I am sure the gentleman
would not suggest they be controlled by the same metropolitan organi-
zation. Maybe he would. I do not know. In any case, I think there
would be a great deal of problem.
I want to conclude, Mr. Chairman, with this comment, if I may.
I think one of the great dangers to city government any place in this
country-Washington, after all, is a city-is the fragmentation of
authority of the city government, what I used to call the dangling
participle agency. The gentleman from Virginia himself, I think, has
observed the misfortune of the National Capital Planning Commis-
sion being autonomous and outside of coordination with the city gov-
ernment. Ours is a city police department, and if there is something
wrong with `the Office of District Commissioner-of course, I think
there is, for I think there should be home rule-if there is something
wrong with `the Commissioner's Office, perhaps that should be studied.
But this separating away, taking a police department away from
the left arm, whatever it might be, does not make for efficiency of
government.
I might say one of the grave ills of our cities toda..y is that there is
not the authority in the Mayor and city governments to coordinate
and to act.
`The CHAIRMAN. I may say to the gentleman, we have to hold our
question for each member down to 5 minutes.
Mr. JACOBS. Speaking as one who has been left out because people
did not hold it down `to 5 minutes in past hearings, I yield back the
balance `of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. We have a roll call on the floor of the House. Does
anyone wish to a'sk questions `at this time?
PAGENO="0026"
22
Mr. WHITENER. Will the gentleman yield for just one observation.
I do not understand this removing `at will section. As I read `the
bill, it says the Speaker and the President pro tern may remove the
Police Commissioner "for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance
in office." If those are not proper grounds for removal-and they are
the only ones mentioned in the bill-I do not know what would be
proper grounds.
Mr. MARGOLIUS. I might say I just saw this. I did not know what
the provision was. it does list those causes.
I think the chief of any department is subject to removal for those
reasons.
Mr. JACOBS. Obviously, there is no trial procedure, no appellate
procedure. It would be in `the judgment of the man who occupied the
Speaker's chair as `to whether he was inefficient.
Mr. WHITENER. It would be the judgment of both the President
pro tem of the Senate and of the Speaker of the House.
Mr. GUDE. in your response to a question posed by Mr. Jacobs, you
mentioned hearings presently under way concerning some shootings
by the police, and I gathered that this was a reason for your support
for this legislation. You referred to the fact that evidently, according
to everything that you knew, certain witnesses were coming up and
making false statements.
Mr. MARGOLIUS. I did not say false.
Mr. GUDE. I mean there was contradictory `testimony.
I was wondering how would this change or help that situation?
Very often you have trials and court proceedings where people come
in and make statements which are challenged `and questioned. How
would this legislation help that situation where citizens come before
`a review board or a trial board or a court and make false statements?
I think it i's very deplorable when people make false statements, par-
ticularly against a policeman who does his duty, but I was wondering
how this legislation would help in that aspect.
Mr. MARGOLIUS. I can only ref'er to some of the comments made by
these policemen. They use the w'ord "harassment." In the community
today, speaking personally, not speaking for the Association because
they have not gone into this, there is tendency by th'e people who need
to have the law enforced against them more than anybody else to down-
grade and destroy the law enforcer.
Mr. GUDE. That is very deplorable.
Mr. MARGOLIUS. There is in the community today `an organization
known as the Black United Front whi'ch has a group of militants in it,
and also has within it certain respectable people who are giving the
Black United Front some degree of respectability. The Bla'ck United
Front h'as come out with ~a proposal that the police precincts should be
controlled `by `the communities `of those precincts, by boards who will
select or pass upon the competency `of the policemen `and also disci-
pline those police; and who will elect those `boards? It will be the peo-
ple who `choose to vote in those particular areas, `and those elected
boards `will then `control who is going to he the police, even to the point
of being able to select their own captain.
`The CHAIRMAN. We will be compelled to adjourn at this time. We
will meet again at 10 o'clock next Monday morning.
(Whereupon, `at 11 :30 o'clock `a.m., the committee adjourned, to re-
convene at 10 o'clock a.m., Monday, July 29, 1968.)
PAGENO="0027"
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
MONDAY, JULY 29, 1968
HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :00 a.m., in Room 1310,
Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable John L. McMillan,
chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Representatives McMillan (presiding), Dowdy, Whitener,
Sisk, Fuqua, Adams, Jacobs, Walker, Broyhill (Virginia), Winn,
Gude, and Zwach.
Also present: James T. Clark, Clerk; Hayden S. G-arber, Counsel;
Sara Watson, Assistant Counsel; Donald Tubridy, Minority Clerk;
Leonard 0. Hilder, Investigator.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. The Commis-
sioner is not here this morning, I don't believe.
Mr. Fletcher, would you care to make a statement on this bill?
STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. FLETCHER, ASSISTANT, FOR THE
COMMISSIONER OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be happy to hear any statement you would
care to make.
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the following
statement on behalf of Commissioner Walter E. Washington.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I appreciate this opportunity to present the views of the District
of Columbia Government on the legislation before you, which deals
with the crucial problem of crime in the Nation's Capital.
The purpose of this legislation (H.R. 14430 and H.R. 14448), as ex-
plained by one of its sponsors, Congressman Broyhill, is to consolidate
the five separate police forces now operating in the District of Colum-
bia; the Metropolitan Police, United States Park Police, Capitol
Police, White House Police, and National Zoological Park Police.
These forces would all be placed under the jurisdiction of a Com-
mission of Police. This Police Commissioner would be appointed for a
four-year term by the Speaker of the House and the President pro
tempore of the Senate. A nine-member advisory commission would also
be appointed by the Speaker and President pro tempore.
The District of Columbia Government is strongly opposed to the
removal of the Metropolitan Police Department from the municipal
government.
(23)
PAGENO="0028"
24
Our opposition to this legislation stems from these reasons:
1. If enacted, the legislation would cause conflict and confusion
between Police operations and closely related services in crime control,,
including the functions of education, corrections, welfare, and traffic
control.
2. It would result in a major reversal in the trend toward citizen
participation `and involvement in District Government affairs pro-
vided under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967.
3. The bills would create waste and inefficiency through requiring
duplication of supporting services, such as personnel, purchasing, and
computer equipment by setting up a costly overhead organization
duplicating many existing support services in the D.C. Government.
4. Considerable coordination of the police operations (involving all
five forces covered by the pending bills) with other related functions
such as civil defense, fire protection corrections, the courts, and ac-
tivities of the Attorney General is being developed through the recent
establishment of a post of Director of Public Safety for the District.
In addition, one of the key elements in the efforts of our new District
Government to roll back the city's appalling crime rate is improvement
in police-community relations. An essential factor in strengthening
this partnership against crime is a police force that is truly a part of
the community it serves. To develop maximum mutual respect and
cooperation in this area, the citizens must be able to think of the neigh-
borhood policeman as their officer and the Department as their police
force.
Gentlemen, a police department is an integral part of any municipal
government. The operations and services of the police force are
interwoven with those of the other city agencies.
This coordinated effort is essential to the well-being of our capital
city-to the residents, the workers from the neighboring suburbs, the
business community, and the visitors.
The pending bills, however, would divide responsibility, and thus
weaken the city government's ability to provide comprehensive pro-
tection and services for the citizens.
Enactment of the legislation before this committee would, in our
opinion, hamper-not help-the joint efforts by Congress, the Presi-
dent, and the new District Government to make this the best city in
the world.
Therefore, for these reasons, I strongly recommend that this com-
mittee disapprove the pending bills.
May I again thank this committee for the opportunity to give our
views on this vital question.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make two other com-
ments. One is that I firmly believe, as does the Commissioner, that
your new Government in the District of Columbia has adequately
demonstrated to the citizens and to you in the last few months its
ability to operate its Police Department, to coordinate its efforts and
the very trying times we have had in the District of Columbia in the
months of May and June.
I think the fact that we were able to take care of it as well as we did
adequately demonstrates we have the total capability to operate these
departments and coordinate with the other agencies.
PAGENO="0029"
25
The second comment I would like to make is in relation to the
force itself. I think certain factors should be brought to the commit-
tee's attention as far as the morale of the Department and the effec-
tiveness of that Department is concerned. Chief Layton is here and
can substantiate to you the fact that we have substantially reduced the
resignation rate in the Department, and the rate of our policemen
going to other agencies. We have substantially reduced the vacancy
factor and within the nest two or three weeks we will be at total
strength. As of last week we were down to 82 vacancies compared to
385 back in November. We are recruiting at the rate of almost 75 net
per month. We have over 200 in the pipeline, processed for appoint-
ment.
I think these factors indicate that we are able to recruit. We have
a strong Department, and that Department has the full support and
cooperation of the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner and
we feel that we can adequately operate that Department.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fletcher, on that subject, I notice that you have
been able to get some encouragement as to new recruitments. Have you
let the standards down, or do you require the same examination?
Mr. FLETCHER. The same standards, sir. We have not reduced the
standards one bit.
The CHAIRMAN. The same physical and mental standards?
Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir.
PtTRPOSE OP BILL
The CHAIRMAN. I believe a number of people must have the wrong
impression, or at least I have the wrong impression. I do not think
there is anyone on this committee who wants to tear up the White
House Police Department or the city Police Department.
I have not been in favor of the `actions which have already been
taken in moving valuable policemen from one `agency to another and
consolidating precincts at a time when police should be better ac-
quainted with the people where he is patrolling.
Your statement sounds as though we were `advocating tearing up
the Police Department. I thought the bill we introduced here was to
have a man at the top to coordinate all the Departments together in
their present status, and in case of emergency or a real riot we would
have somebody at the top who could be held responsible and handle
all police orders and not let the criminals burn up the city before all
the police could get together. That was the idea I had in mind, not to
tear down any Department.
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe my statement in-
di~ated or used the term "tear down." My statement indicated that we
would be `opposed on the basis that there would be inefficiency and
waste involved.
The District of Columbia Government must coordinate many ac-
tivities in terms of civil disturbances and fighting of crime.
There `are other factors which must be coordinated simultaneously
in the Department.
The CHAIRMAN. Would this new legislation prevent you from doing
that?
PAGENO="0030"
26
Mr. FLETCHER. In my opinion, yes, because the Commissioner would
not have control of `the Police Department necessary to provide ade-
quate and proper cooperation of all of the efforts of the District
Government to fight these problems.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the Police Chief have this authority now, or
does the Council?
Mr. FLETCHER. I beg your pardon?
The CHAIRMAN. Does the Council have the power now, or the Com-
missioner, or the Chief of Police?
Mr. FLETCHER. The Commissioner has the authority to control the
Police Department, yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. What is all this I read about that certain people
want to handle the Police Department, fire and hire and harass the
police more than they are at the present time?
Mr. FLETCHER. Sir, that is not our proposal. That is a proposal from
a group of citizen's within the District, but it is not the proposal of
the District Government.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Whitener.
EFFECT OF BILL
Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Fletcher, taking your statement for the Com-
missioner, I think the statement fails to do any more than generalize.
Your first point on page 2 is that it would cause conflict and confusion.
How would that happen if you bring all the law enforcement organi-
zations under one umbrella? How do you contemplate that would bring
confusion and conflict, for instance, in traffic control?
Mr. FLETCHER. It would be on the basis that we have other `agencies
of the District of Columbia that are directly related to traffic control.
The Police Department and the Department of Highways and Traffic
working together very closely under the Commissioner for coordi-
nated efforts in terms of traffic control.
Mr. WHITENER. And you take the view that if this bill were enacted
into law immediately the Highway Department would start looking
at the police as if they were a foreign government.
Mr. FLETCHER. No, sir, but it would require additional coordination
and additional activity.
Mr. WHITENER. What additional coordination?
Mr.. FLETCHER. On the basis you would have two different agencies
to work together whereas now you have one now, the Commissioner,
who is responsible for the coordinated activity under the one control,
which is the purpose of the Reorganization Act. The Commissioner
makes the joint decisions relative to it.
Mr. WHITENER. You think that unless you had someone like the
Commissioner that there could not be any coordination or cooperation?
Mr. FLETCHER. Obviously if it were put together we would have to
work with it. What I am saying is that it would add to conflict and
confusion by having to go through two separate agencies to provide
that work.
Mr. WHITENER. I cannot follow you on that because you have two
separate agencie~ now. You have the President of the United States,
who is supposed to be the top dog in the running of all governmental
PAGENO="0031"
27
affairs, and it seems to me if there is any failure to operate, there is
some Executive authority already in the Government which couTd
bring somebody to task if they did not cooperate.
Mr. FLETCHER. That is very true, sir. I do not understand what you
would gain by providing or what you would be solving.
Mr. WHITENER. Your statement is that it would create confusion
and conflict, which I take it you are saving would cause insoluble
conflict and confusion unless the Commissioner of the District could
bring them together.
Mr. FLETCHER. I did not say insoluble, sir. I `said it would `add to
or cause conflict or confusion. I think it would.
Mr. WHITENER. I `still do not understand how you can make that
statement unless you are implying that there is no greater authority
in Government than the `Commissioner of `the District of Columbia.
Mr. FLETCHER. Sir, I am not implying that at all. I am implying
when you have two separate agencies reporting to two separate au-
thorities, handling the work in the same area where you have to have
coordination, it is obviously in my opinion better to have it under one
control rather than under separate control. I am not convinced that
you would have better traffic control `or better welfare and all these
other things if you combined the metropolitan police with the park
police, for example, and so on.
Mr. WHITENER. How d'o you contemplate it would cause conflict
and confusion in the function of education?
Mr. FLETCHER. On the basis that we have a strong relationship
with the `school system, involving training, involving in-service train-
ing, working with children, and so `on, where the `agencies work
together under the budget that is presented to `Congress, which c'omes
from the Commissioner, involving education as well `as police. We look
to `the solution of these problems on a joint basis at the time we put
the budget together. There are many joint relationships.
Mr. WHITENER. The budget also goes through the Congress.
Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. WHITENER. It `does not seem `to me that the Congre'ss would
tolerate conflict and confusion `any more than a Commissioner would.
I `do i~ot follow your statement that it would create such conflict and
`confusion in the education program.
Mr. FLETCHER. I think it would, sir.
Mr. WHITENER. You say it would cause conflict and confusion in
corrections?
Mr. FLETCHER. There is a very close relationship between the func-
~ion `of `correction `and the functi'on of law enforcement. The prime
purpose `of correction should be to reduce, for example, recidivism, to
return people who have been incarcerated back to a useful life. It
requires good `and substantial coordination and cooperation between
the function of correction and the function of law enforcement. We
want to be able to quickly resolve any differences. `We want to be able
to control the decision-making proc'ess that relates to the Department
of Corrections and `the Police Department.
Mr. `WHITENER. We have h'ad extensive hearings here about crime,
and recidivism. As I remember the testimony from Mr. Murphy,
PAGENO="0032"
28
your Commissioner of Public Safety, an.d `others, they have not found
any suitable way to'get with the courts on the question of punishment
and the separation of powers.
It might well be that a `Commissioner who has a closer affiliation
with the Congress may be `able to get a little closer to some of these
judges whose salaries are fixed by the Congress. 1 do not follow your
argument there.
Mr. FLETCHER. I would think, sir, that Congress' actions on that
would be the same whether you had the Police Department under the
Commissioner or you had it under a separate Commissioner. The Con-
gress' actions relative to courts would be the same.
Mr. WHITENER. I think if you stay around here a while you might
change your mind about that. H'ow' would it cause `confusion `and con-
flict in the Welfare Program?
Mr. FLETCHER. Here again, sir, we feel th'at the fighting o'f crime
is a product of many `activities in m'any agencies. Some `of the base
causes of crime are in fact unemployment, deprivation, and so on.
We feel ~ coordinated effort to give people a decent income and a
decent home and so on is one of the best ways to fight crime. We feel
this is again a coordinative effort that should be under one control
rather than separate controls.
Mr. WHITENER. Your second objection, that it would result in `a
major reversal in the trend `of citizens' participation and involvement
in District Government and `affairs: You mean it might cause a re-
versal of `an organization which had among its membership the Vice
Chairman of the Council, passing resolutions that it is justifiable
homicide to shoot a police officer in cold,blood; is that what it will
reverse?
Mr. FLETCHER. No, sir. I think whether either action is taken, it
would have an effect on that. I do believe, `however, that the Commis-
sioner of the District of Columbia is directly involved with citizen
participation. it is one of the reasons, I think, for the reorganization,
to provide a more direct channel of `communication with the citizens
of the District and the Government of the District of Columbia. We
are `constantly working on citizen participation. Many of those con-
tacts deal with police problems, as well as housing, welfare `and other
problems. It would seem to us it would be better to have a citizen par-
ticipation under one control rather than a split control.
Mr. WHITENER. You think it might reverse the trend of certain
elements in certain secti'ons of the city demanding that they make the
decision as to which police officers will be assigned to their precincts.
is that,the sort of thing you apprehend `it might reverse?
Mr. FLETCHER. I `think it would provide, which is what the `Com-
missioner is striving for, better police-community relations. It is `also
something that Chief Layton is striving for. We need good community
relations `as well as community relations in `all other facets of the
District Government. We much work closely with the people of the
District. The manner in which it is d'one is one we have to resolve with
the district `and the people of the District.
Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take too much time.
Maybe later I can ask other questions.
The CHA~MAN. On that `subject, d'on't you think these people ought
to be taught to work with the Congress a little and not just with the
PAGENO="0033"
citizens of the District of Columbia? As I have stated on numerous
occasions, I do not think there is any reason to have this ten square
miles here set out unless it is to protect the Government.
Mr. FLETCHER. I would agree, sir, that the District Government is
directly related to Congress. Obviously I think we should be available
for whatever you wish as far as the District Government is concerned.
That is what we strive to do. I think you should look to just us for
the services.
The CHAIRMAN. I, as Chairman of this committee, have written
several letters down there three months ago and have not received an
answer.
Mr. FLETCHER. I am not familiar with what it is, sir, but I will be
glad to check that out. If we are not providing to the Congress the
services you need, we will correct it and provide the service you asked
for.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Zwach.
CIVIL DISTI3T~BANCES AND THE POLICE
Mr. ZWACH. Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to not agree with this bill
because I came to this committee hoping to do more toward self-
determination in the city itself. But something you say rather in-
trigues me, Mr. Fletcher. You say that you have demonstrated your
ability to do a good job with the police. Do you think you can
document this?
Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir, I think so. I think the `actions `as far as the
District Government is concerned with the Poor People's Campaign
in the month of May and June I think we handled `a difficult, dan-
gerous and tense situation very well. I think the fact that was handled
by the District of Columbia Government primarily in coordination
with other Federal agencies in my opinion demonstrate's it can be
done effectively.
Mr. ZWACH. This is post-April you are speaking now?
Mr. FLETCHER. Yes.
Mr. ZWACH. You think post-April you have been improving?
Mr. FLETCHER. We learned lessons in the April disturbance. We
`never h'ad such a thing happen in `the District of Columbia before. It
is important, I think, that we learn from our `experience the first time
and not the second `time. I think we le'arned those lessons `adequately,
and I think we pu't into effect control's `and procedures and systems
`necessary `to take care of dangerous situations. I think we `adequately
displayed th'at to the people `of the District and to Congress.
Mr. ZWACH. There are `two `other things that cannot help but disturb
me. First of `all, a member `of the Council making statements as he
does; then y'our School Board hiring a superintendent and wanting
to fire him six months later; these things are most disturbing. I would
like to ask you this: You say you are stabilizing `the police force. This
would be m'ost encouraging. Could you elaborate on this?
Mr. FLETCHER. I am not sure I used the term "stabilizing."
Mr. ZWACH. Your resignations are fewer.
Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. ZWACH. Are you in a position to document this `for us this
morning?
97-945-65----3
PAGENO="0034"
30
Mr. FLETCHER. Chief Layton, I believe, has the figures or can recall
them quite well.
(Subsequently, the following information was submitted for the
record:)
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Jvly 10, 1968.
Mr. JAMES P. CLARK,
Clerk House District Committee,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CLARK: Pursuant to your request by telephone, made to Lieutenant
William F. Sturgeon, Jr., Personnel Division, on July 9, 1968, the attached infor-
mation relative to the number of separations and the number of appointments
insofar as the Metropolitan Police Force is concerned for the Fiscal Year 1968, is
forwarded.
You also requested information regarding our Police Cadet Program. The
Police Cadet Program was initiated in March of 1965. This Program is for young
men from seventeen and a half to twenty-one years of age. Upon reaching twenty-
one years of age, they are sworn in as Police Officers. In March of 1965, the De-
partment was authorized twenty-five Police Cadets. In November of 1966, the
Department was authorized thirty-five; and in November of 1967, an additional
twenty-five. This brings our present authorized strength to one hundred and
six. At the present time, we have one hundred Police Cadets in operation; six on
Military Leave; and nineteen have been appointed as Metropolitan Police Officers.
Trusting this information will be helpful to you, I am,
Sincerely yours,
JOHN B. LAYTON,
Chief of Police.
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
(FISCAL YEAR 1968)
Resigna- Retire- Transfer Dismis-
Month tines meets to White sals Deceased
House
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
Appoint- Actual
meets strength
(F) (G)
1967
July 12 19 4 1
August 9 12 1 1 1
September 9 6
October 7 12
November 5 11 2
December 6 10
25 `2,739
10 2, 725
15 2,725
13 2,719
24 2, 725
26 2, 735
1968
January 9 10 2
February 4 11 7 2
March 7 8 1
April 11 17 2 1 1
May 16 17 2 1
June 18 12 3 1
Subtotal 111 145 21 4 8
Less total separations, coin. (A) through
(F)
Total netgain forthe year
81 2,795
59 2,830
65 2,379
73 2, 920
50 2,934
66 ~2,968
507
.
289
218
`Actual strength, July 1967.
2 Actual strength, June 1968.
Note: The total authorized strength during the above perind (fiscal year 1968) was 3,100.
Mr. FLETCHER. As I remember the figures that were used on Satur-
day morning, I believe there has been a substantial reduction in the
number of resignations compared to a year ago in the Department.
There has been almost a 50 percent reduction in the number of police-
men going to other sister agencies, again comparing one year to the
latest year.
PAGENO="0035"
31
The fact that we are rapidly eliminating the vacancies which for
years in the District have been well over two and three hundred-we
are down to 82 vacancies as of last week. We have, I believe, almost 40
ready for appointment and over 200 in the pipeline being processed for
appointment. This indicates that we are up to full strength.
Our predecessors were not able to do that. I think these are all indi-
cations of a strong Department, and a good Department, and a
Department with good morale.
Mr. ZWACH. Are your police applicants being processed in propor-
tion to the White and black population? Are you bringing on more
black policemen so that you are strengthening this area?
Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir. I believe the latest recruitment figures in-
dicate that the appointments made in the last several months have been
approximately fifty-fifty, white and Negro, compared to a present
average of 20 percent Negro and 80 percent white.
The CHAIR~iAN. I would like to ask why does it make any difference
what color the applicant is, if he is a good man and can pass all the
examinations?
Mr. FLETCHER. Sir. I was not asked that question. If I were asked
that question, I would say I would recruit good policemen.
Mr. ZWACH. Mr. Chairman, I asked that question because I think it
is important in the District that there be some proportion with regard
to the population. I would like to have a little more elaboration on it.
The CIIAIriuAN. Remember, this is an agency that does not just rep-
resent the District of Columbia, it represents the whole United States.
If we would want to go by rules and regulations and use quotas, we
would have ten percent colored police and employees here in this
Federal city.
Mr. ZwACH. These are policemen for the District. We know the
reality of the city itself. So my question dealt in this area.
The CIiAIR~1AN. The taxpayers of the whole United States are
helping to pay for this police force.
Mr. ZWACH. That is right. I am fully aware of that.
Mr. FLETCHER. The Chief advised me he does not have the latest fig-
ure for the last several months but over the last period of time in re-
cruitment we were recruiting a third Negro to two-thirds white. I do
believe in the last several months it has been running close to fifty-
fifty.
I believe our job is to recruit good policemen.
Mr. ZWACH. I think at all times we have to face the reality of the
District. I would like to say that I live in the heart of D.C., and I have
been observing the police. I think they have been good. Wherever they
went, they went fast, efficiently. I have been impressed in the main
with the operations of the Police Department.
I was very, very depressed in April but since then, I have noticed
an improvement. Do you think this bill will destroy your direct line
of authority to have someone over the head of them?
Mr. FLETCHER. Yes.
Mr. ZWACH. Who would be responsible with regard to a riot break-
ing out, would it be this new Commissioner or would it be the Safety
Director, or would it he Chief Layton?
This concerns me when we need a quick and rapid determination.
PAGENO="0036"
32
Mr. FLETCHER. In terms of the riot it seems to me there should be
one point of command and control. One of the lessons we learned in
the April disturbance was the need for centralized authority and
decision-making involving all of the forces available to us. That was
done since the April riot. We have set up the mechanism necessary to
provide that centralized control. One of the essential ingredients ob-
viously is the Police Department. I believe Chief Layton can indicate
to you that we provided good centralized control and decision-making
involving all of the forces of the District of Columbia during times
of stress.
Mr. ZWACH. Do you say that in April you were caught unprepared
and were surprised?
Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir, we were. It had been our intention to pro-
vide a system of centralized administration authority. The plan was
being developed. None of us anticipated that there would be a problem
in the first part of April. We were anticipating the problem would
develop in the later part of the year or the summer. It caught us un-
prepared in many respects. I think we did, in my opinion, a fairly
good job during that period with the limitations that we had around
us. Again I point out that we learned lessons at that time and I think
we have corrected the problems a.nd now can provide the kind of cen-
tralized administration this District and the people of this District
need.
Mr. ZWACH. That is all.
Mr. DOWDY. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to know
what limitations, and who put them on the police?
Mr. FLETCHER. Not legal limitations, Mr. Congressman, administra-
tive limitations, lack of experience, in having a similar circumstailce
within the District. We did not have good communciation setups, we
did not have good lines of communication open. That has been cor-
rected. So the limitation is administrative and not a legal limitation
at all. We just simply were not yet ready for that situation to do the
best job. I think we did a reasonably good job under the circnmstancas.
We can do a far better job now, and I think we have demonstrated
the fact we can.
Mr. DOWDY. Thank you.
Mr. ZWACH. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sisk.
Mr. SIsK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OBJECTIVES OF POLICE IN THIS FEDERAL CiTY
I appreciate very much the Deputy Mayor being with us this morn-
ing, and I appreciate your comments. I would like `to talk to you for
just a few minutes about this whole business of priorities. Let me
say I am not taking a position for or against this particular piece of
legislation, but generally want to discuss the business of police pro-
tection and what the basic objectives are of police power as it is exer-
cised in the District. I think there is increasing concern on the part
of Members of Congress as well as people all across the country about
the degree of protection for our Nation's Ca;pital as well as the people
in the Nation's Capital.
PAGENO="0037"
33
I certainly recognize that there is importance in community-police
relationships in any city. I think this is probably more important here
than anywhere in view of recent experience. However, getting back
to what I wanted to talk to you about, the matter of priority. That
goes to the point that has been raised either directly or indirectly here
this morning. Since this is the seat of central Government in America,
and referring to some of the early experiences of our Government
where the Congress and the Government were almost literally driven
out of certain major cities which we had attempted to use as the seat
of Government, that is why this so-called 12 square miles of the Dis-
trict of Columbia was created for the purpose solely of being the cen-
tral seat of Government.
It seems to me that some of the things that are being done and some
of the concerns `are losing sight of the priorities or the central or basic
objective of the protection of the Nation's Capital per Se. i am not
necessarily advocating just the protection of Members of Congress
per se. I might say I am somewhat disturbed by some almost advocacy
by some of our local press. I note one of the morning newspapers
editorially almost advocating the assassination of a member of Con-
gress or two in some of their editorials. I am sure they would not
agree they were actually advocating that. They simply indicated by
reference that maybe it would have some influence or effect. I do not
know exactly what they had in mind. But bringing this out and adding
it to what I have already said, I think you can understand some of
the concern of the members of the Congress, as well as of the American
people generally across the country as to whether or not we `are getting
to the point where we are going `to have to move the Government some-
w-here else in order to be able to function satisfactorily and safely, and
at the same time be a safe area in which the constituents from my
state and your state of California, because you are from California,
can come here and visit. Where in this priority do you place the re-
sponsibility for the Metropolitan Police force, because that is basically
your concern. We have the other police forces here that we are talking
about uniting, and I do not know whether that is good or bad and I
do not take any position on it.
Would you comment briefly what you consider to be the priorities in
one-two-three order of the Metropolitan Police force in Washington,
D.C.?
Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir.
I think the highest possible priority that can be given is crime
prevention, which is really what we are striving to do. Protection is
a part of that. To prevent crime from being committed in `the first
place should he the very highest priority, which again points out the
need for coordinated action as far as crime prevention is concerned.
One of the deep concerns to not only the District but every major
urban area of this country is youth. Unfortunately a very high per-
centage of crime is being committed by the young, a disproportionate
share. I think we have to bring every authority we have and every law
and effort we can think of to prevent juvenile delinquency and solve
the problem of crime not only in the District of Columbia but all the
major urban cities. It has the highest priority we can think of. There
was a statement made by the Commissioner in November when he took
PAGENO="0038"
34
over indicating that was the highest priority he had and it is still the
highest priority, to eliminate the crime in this District and reduce the
crime rate rn the District. 1 believe some of the figures that are coming
`out inthoate we are beginning `to move in that direction even though
the crime rate is higher this year than last year.
I think the Chief can indicate there is beginning to be some reduc-
tion month to month in that escalation of crime. It will be requiring
~nassive effort on our part.
We have asked Congress for additional policemen which we hope
we can bet to work directly toward crime prevention and increased
protection for the citizens as well as the visitors of the District.
Mr. SIsK. I appreciate your comments. After all, law enforcement
at any level and at any place in the world is primarily for the pre-
vention of crime. I well recognize that. As I said, though, I still think
we are not quite talking about the same subject matter. I would hope
we do not get in a position where we have to have a law enforcement
or a police force or military force, if necessary, just to protect the
Government in its proper function to the American people.
I still do not think you commented directly on the responsibility of
the Metropolitan Police force as far as the seat of Government is con-
cerned, and its relationship to it. They are separate and apart from
protecting the citizens from crime. We all recognize, just as in my
hom~town, the police force is there to fight and reduce crime and
protect the people. But its function is somewhat different, it seems
to me, than the function of a law-enforcement agency within this Fed-
eral city, the District of Columbia. Maybe it is not. Maybe I am wrong
about that.
Mr. FLETCHER. No, I believe you are right. Let me speak to that
specifically. One of the reasons we now have in the District of Colum-
bia one of the highest rates of policemen per population and with the
additional thousand police we are asking for we will have the highest
rate, is specifically in relation to the fact that this is the home of the
Federal Government, recognizing the additional requirement to pro-
vide safety to the Federal Government, which requires a substantial
increase in the protection that we would normally have to give in a
normal city. We recognize that in the number of police we now have
and the number of requests for additional policemen, specifically be-
cause of the fact this is the seat of the Federal Government.
PRIORITIES-FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY
Mr. SI5K. I for one certainly support a stronger police force and
strongly support the things that the police force needs, such as higher
salaries. I think the figures indicate that you are being much more
successful now in recruiting new policement than you have been in
the past. .
I `do not know to what extent the recent increase in starting pay
was effective and I am not saying that the policemen only do their
job just for money. I doubt seriously that unless they were dedicated
to `the idea of law enforcement they would take it even at the figure
we now have for the starting policemen, although that has been helpful
along with other things.
PAGENO="0039"
35
I am not altogether sure that we are in total `agreement yet as to
pri'ori'ties. Let me discuss one other thing and then I will yield back
because I d'o no't want to take too much time. I happen to be one of
those who advocated and did support the reorganization of the D.C.
Government. I hoped that we could bring about more participation
by local people in their Government, `and to move in th'at direction.
However, I `still believe very frankly th'at the `Congres's h'as a responsi-
bility and that responsibility must continue in perpetuity; its is some-
thing that we cannot relinquish.
So I think we should shoulder our responsibility and do that which
is necessary to make this the ideal capital that we w'ould all like to
have.
Let me ask you `about the morale, because you mentioned in your
`statement `about `the `~mpro'ving morale in th'e Police Department.
I d'o not believe it was in your written statement but in your
extemporaneous remarks.
I am not questioning or challenging your `statement, other than to
say that there are still continuing statements made, and I know from
my personal conversations from time to time wi'th people, officers and
others in the Police Department, and I am not altogether sure how
much confidence our police officers have in the backing they will have
`as they enforce the law. This does cause me real concern. You were
here the other d'ay and heard the statement of the' gentleman who
preceded you, Mr. M'argolius. I think there is real concern on the part
of the policeman today when he goes out and `does his job to the best
of his `ability as a dedicated policeman in the enforcement of law who
catches `a criminal, and then he is immediately charged `with police
brutality or is immediately brought before a court of some kind and
prosecuted, or he `is in the newspapers for what he has done. Do y'ou
feel this situation is really improving `or not at the present time., that
is, over what it was three or six months ago. I `am not sure that it is.
I would `appreciate your comments on that.
Mr. FLETCHER. There are two elements `to `that. One, there can be
no question that policemen in this city and in the `cities throughout
the `country `obviously must have continuing concern and deeper con-
cern about wha't is going `on in this `country `as far `as the attitudes of
`the pe'ople `are concerned on the Police Department. I think the police
service today is one `of the most difficult services the Government
provides in terms of what is happening.
As far as the District Government is concerned, we have evidenced
continuously and will always evidence complete support of our De-
partment in the enforcement of law and order. We will support our
men, and where there is need for disciplinary action, which will hap-
pen in any Department from time to time, it should be done expedi-
tiously and fairly to all concerned. I think that is what we are display-
ing. We are all concerned about what is happening in the attitude to
the police. It is a difficult service. It is one that we all ought to be
cognizant of and correct. There should be no doubt in my mind or any-
body's mind of the District Government's attitude on the support of
our men. We have one of the finest police departments in the country
`and we will support them and do whatever we can to improve-
Mr. SIsK. I agree with you one hundred percent, and have great re-
PAGENO="0040"
36
spect for Chief Layton. I ani a resident of the District, and I live on
the Hill and I see every day the job the police are doing. I have great
respect for them. I am a little concerned sometimes when time after
time I find a police officer out doing a job in a miserable situation where
he is risking his life, and in attempting to apprehend a potential crimi-
nal, or one who is caught in the act and has to shoot the man, he imme-
diately winds up being prosecuted for it. I am real concerned about
that. I question how much the City Council is actually giving in the
way of backing the police department in doing its job, even if it gets
nasty at times.
I think this is terribly important. If they do not have that feeling
in my opinion they will not do a good job. It is that simple.
Mr. FLETCHER. I agree with you. I think they have support. At the
same time, we have to be concerned with the citizens of the District
and we have to be concerned with that and provide the services to them.
Mr. SIsK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Broyhill.
POLICE PERFORMANCE
Mr. BROYHILL. To pick up along the lines of the colloquy between
you and Mr. Sisk, a lot has been said about the good work and the effi-
ciency of the D.C. Police Department. I do not think we can say too
much about that. All of us agree we have a very fine, outstanding,
and `efficient Police Department. So nothing that I say in support
of this legislation, or of any other proposal, is intended to indicate
any lack of confidence in, or reflection whatsoever on, our present
Police Chief or personnel of the Metropolitan Police Department.
However, is the praise of the Police Department for doing a good job
following the assassination of Martin Luther King and during the ten-
sions following the death of Senator Kennedy, intended as applause
for `something that this new City Government has done in improving
the Police Department since they took over, or did it result really
from the fact that the District of Columbia had an excellent Police
Department before that time? In other words, is the new City Gov-
ernment trying to take credit for the fact that we do have a fine Police
Department, do they acknowledge that they inherited a fine Police
Department?
Mr. FLETCHER. I think the answer to that is that we inherited a fine
Police Department. I think we have taken `some `steps in terms of
implementation of the Crime Commission Report to make it even a
better Department than it was; for one thing, to eliminate the vacan-
ci'es that we inherited `in that Department. I think we have made major
steps to eliminate those vacancies. For the next two or three weeks for
the first time in years we will have no vacancies.
The real `answer is that we have provided the coordination of all
the Departments to meet crisis situations. We take `advantage of the
Police Department `and bring t'o bear all of the other forces we have
available to us to meet the crisis situations. That is what has been pro-
vided by centralized administration that you now have under the new
form of the Government of the District. There is the answer. We made
the job better by bringing support to the Police Department and the
PAGENO="0041"
37
citizens, all the various forces and factors needed to handle dangerous
situations, and critical situations and continuing problems of the
District.
Mr. BROYHILL. 1-low do you account for the fact `that the morale
on the force is a great deal lower, and that there are a great many more
complaints coming from the families and friends, as well as the n'mm-
bers of the police force themselves as well as from their families and
friends?
Mr. FLETCHER. There may be two statements on that. I know Ser-
,geant Beatty in my office in May made a statement to the press that
morale had never been higher than the Department was concerned.
The same was published. Whether `there has been a serious change in
the situation from that time I do not know. One of the factors ob-
viously that would relate to morale and the complaints of families is
the fact that we have had by necessity to work the men very long
hours, substantial amounts of overtime and the millions of dollars we
have had to spend. Many of these men work 12 hours, and work on
their days off, and work six days a week. This would `obviously `tend `to
reduce morale and the effectiveness of `the Department.
Facing the situation locally we had to do this to protect the people
and provide the type of service that is required. This is one of the
reasons we have asked for more men. I know this has a direct effect `as
far as the Department is concerned. I also know the continued attacks
by elements `of the population will also tend to hurt the morale and
disturb the men.
It disturbs us just as much, `and are just as disturbed. Our morale
may not be better either because of this.
SCOPE OF BILL
Mr. BROYHILL. I read your statement. I cannot say I agree with all
of your reasons for your disagreeing with the bill. In your point 3,
you state that the bill would create waste and infflciency through dup-
lication of supporting services. One of the purposes of the bill is to
create more efficiency and less cost and waste. I do not know what new
skill the Government of the District has shown, to indicate that it can
do anything more effectively and efficiently, because the cost of operat-
ing the District Government has gone up substantially since the new
Government took over. Be that `as it may, however, I think this is a
point that the committee should investigate and research out before
we take final action, so as to make certain that we will not do some-
thing that will cause waste and inefficiency. As a co-sponsor of the bill,
I would not want to support any measure that would cause that type
of problem. But recognizing the principal objection, that the District
Government would be losing control of this particular part of their
organization and thus a certain amount of power, don't we have a
constant daily conflict as to what should be the responsibility of the
District Government and what should be under the jurisdiction of
the Federal Government?
We mentioned the Resurrection City situation a moment ago. I
believe I said something about that last week. That was a demonstra-
tion against the Federal Government, not the District Government.
PAGENO="0042"
38
There have been certain demonstrations in front of the White House,
again not against the people of the District of Columbia but against
the head of our Government and its policies.
Let us take the recent incident of the bombing of the Soviet Em-
bassy. Here is a very tense situation involving a foreign power with
which we are constantly walking on egg shells. Is this something tha.t
our Government should rely upon a local controlled and managed
police department to take care of, or do we in the Congress have a lot
at stake ourselves and should we be concerned with what type of police
protection is given there was well as police diplomacy? This applies
also to such things as the inaugural parade, which is a national event
and not a city festival. It seems to me we are constantly faced with
responsibilities for police activity here that are separate and apart
from what should be your responsibilities as the local governing body.
That is one of the principal reasons for my sponsorship of this legis-
lation, to try to bring that Federal responsibility into proper focus.
I have not ignored the fact that it would take away from the local
government and the people living here some authority insofar as their
own protection is concerned.
I think the fact that we have all these other interests involved calls
for some overall coordinated approach to the problem.
Mr. FLETCHER. I believe, sir, we are providing that type of coordi-
nated activity now. I believe what was done in the last few months
indicates that coordination is there, it works effectively and efficientJy.
Mr. BROYHILL. You believe that the type of protection I am talking
about is primarily a local responsibility of the District Government?
Mr. FLETCHER. Back-up for police services, park police, capital
police and that is what we do, the backup protection. We provide the
coordinated activities required of our Department. I think we have
done it in every single case that has come up in the last several months.
We provided the type of coordination you talk about. It is an essential
service thai~ the Di~trict Government ghould provide.
Mr. BROYHILL. I am not talking about the service you provide. I
am talking about whose responsibility it should be, and whether the
Federal Government and the Congress do not have even a greater
interest in those areas than does the City Government.
Mr. FLETCHER. I think we have equal interests, sir. I think our
interest is just as strong as yours is in the protection of the Federal
Government, and we provide that type of protection. We are required
to, in my opinion.
Mr. BROYHILL. But insofar as our international problems are con-
cerned. Do you think you have the same interests and responsibility
there that the Federal Government would have?
Mr. FLETCHER. To provide for the protection of the people that are
here either in residence or people doing business within the District,
and visitors, yes, sir.
Mr. BROYHILL. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fuqua.
Mr. FUQHA. Mr. Fletcher, I certainly appreciate your answering
the questions. Referring to your colloquy with Mr. Broyhill and talk-
ing about the waste and inefficiency this bill might create, don't we
have this existing now with the separate branches or jurisdictions of
the police within the District?
PAGENO="0043"
39
Mr. FLETCHER. I don't believe so, sir. The waste and inefficiency
I am talking' about here-of course, `the Metropolitan Police is by far
`the largest, 3,100 authorized strength plus nil the civilian `employees,
and so on-the type of waste and inefficiency I am talking about is
we have systems `of centralized purchasing, personnel, budget, various
other services which the department should expect from a centralized
government, rather than creating their own. You would have to create
a separate `system of services if you create an independent agency
which would have to have its own personnel services, procurement
services, budget system, and so `on. \i\Te can provide that now through
the `central services now provided by the District Government.
Mr. FETQUA. Couldn't `that be coordinated through the office `of Police
Commissioner that would be established under this legislation.
Mr. FLETCHER. They would have to provide some services; yes, sir.
It is our `opinion that we can provide it better under the existing
systems and `the improved systems which we are developing.
Mr. FUQUA. It may be he would want to' adopt the system `that the
Metropolitan Police Department is using and have it available for
all the `others.
Mr. FLETCHER. The only way I know that `that could be would be
on a contract service. That is something that could be done, sir.
SUPPORT OF THE POLICE
Mr. FUQUA. I am concerned, as ha's been expressed here, about the
support of the Police Department in the District of Columbia. I think
certainly this is a matter that is of very great concern to all of US and
to the man who is out on the firing line, so to `speak, doing lii's job. It
is important for him to feel that he does have the support of the resi-
dents of the District of Columbia and, for that matter, of the District
Government. I have been appall cci lately at some of the statements
made by certain people in high places in our City Government regard-
ing their feelings about. the Police Department.
I would hope `that we could have here the support for the Police
Department and `the man on the beat so that. he would be aware that
he did have this support. I think it has been generally supported in
Congress through anti-crime legislation and pay raises, which I think
are very, very good and adequate, and they must have otir continued
support and interest, in the Police. Department. I certainly hope that
the police do feel that Congress ha~s been supporting them and I hope
that we can in the coming months rely on this. I want `to say that I
think the `action that wa's taken recently, the affirmative action in cbs-
ing Resurrection City, proved what could be done when you meet
these situations with dispatch and firmness. I want to commend those
in authority.
Is there any coordination now between all the `services that are
mentioned, the White House Police, Secret Service, Park Police, and
Metropolitan Police? Who is the overall chief?
Mr. FLETCHER. There is no overall chief as far as the various law
enforcement agencies are concerned. However, there i's effective coor-
dinat.ion any time it is required.
Mr. FUQUA. Only through coordination?
PAGENO="0044"
40
Mr. FLETCHER. The working relationships of the various Chiefs is
very good, very close. I think there are representatives here on the
various agencies who can attest to that fact. I think the coordination
required during the Poor People's Campaign points to the fact that,
in fact, we can coordinate effectively and very well, and that it is pro-
vided when needed.
Mr. FUQUA. Should there be disagreements among the various chiefs
as to the methods or procedures to be used, how is this resolved?
Mr. FLETCHER. It is based on the jurisdiction in which the problem
occurs. If it is on Capitol I-Till it would be resolved by the Chief of
the Capitol Police; if it is on park property, it would be resolved by
the Chief of the Park Service. It is based on back-up, and the decision
is based on the geograph and jurisdiction of the problem.
Mr. FuQUA. That is all.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Winn2
Mr. WINN. I have no questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gude?
Mr. GUDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FUNCTIONS OF POLICE
Mr. Fletcher, has there ever been a study made of the amount of
duty time which the Metropolitan Police put into servicing such func-
tions as Embassy receptions, visiting dignitaries from foreign coun-
tries, inaugural parades, other festivities?
Mr. FLETCHER. I don't believe there has. Has there, Chief?
Chief LAYTON. I don't have the figures with me, Mr. Fletcher, but
we do keep a record of assignments to those various functions. (See p.
43.)
The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. GUDE. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. I might add I would like to know how much time
they spend when the Prcsident is contemplating making a `trip? I
understand sometimes these policemen stand on duty two or three
hours, hundreds of them. waiting for the President to leave town.
You might add `that statistic in also.
Mr. GUDE. Yes, this i's the kind of thing I was thinking of, exactly.
I wouldn't suggest that the committee get a report, because I think
it would mean `a lot of paper work for half a dozen men to probably
find `out what time is `spent in a ye'ar, but I think `anyone c'an realize
that the size of our police force is proportionately much larger because
of this amount `of duty. I am, of course, `a native of this `area. I have
never heard `any serious criticism of the manner in which the Metro-
politan Police have `backed up the respective forces `as far as inaugural
parades or events or function's involving visiting dignitaries or of the
manner in which they handled `such `incidents `as the bombing of an e~n-
bassy or a threatened bombing, or this type of thing. Of course, it is
always a question about procedure, and `somebody can always second-
guess, but I have never heard criticism of the manner in wh'ich the
Metropolitan Police `have hacked up or performed their functions as
F1ederal police serving the Federal establishment.
I think the Police Department has a great record in this area. It
seems to me that it is going to continue. You all `are a little bit in `the
position, `after `the disorders in April, of being criticized for the fact
PAGENO="0045"
41
that there was a tremendous problem; and this can be brought down
on your head because you all did not function properly; and then
after the disorders following Senator Kennedy's death the thing was
handled very well and, well, you all are not responsible, it was because
of the Police Force that was established a number of years ago. So,
you know, you can play `this thing on both sides of the street.
Thank you. I certainly appreciate your c;orning here and appearing
before us.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Adams?
SCOPE OF BILL
Mr. ADAMS. I have some questions involving how this might work.
Mr. Fletcher, I know you have been in other governments in urban
areas. This bill indicates that an independent office within the District
of Columbia would be established. In your opinion, would that mean,
then, for example, that the appropriation would come under the Legis-
lative budget, or would it come under the District of Columbia budget
as an independent office within that government?
Mr. FLETCHER. My understanding, sir, is that it would be a separate
budget. I don't think the legislation speaks as to the way in which that
would be handled.
Mr. ADAMS. In other words, we would have another Appropriation
Bill to present and be brought up and passed on by both sides, and so
on, that wotild deal with salaries, retirement, everything else, just as
with the Post Office Department?
Mr. FLETCHER. I assume so. The testimony was made on Friday
before this committee by one of the Congressmen, indicating there
would be a saving by eliminating this from the budget of the District
of Columbia, which assumes then it would be an independent budget.
Mr. ADAMS. I see. Now, who would prepare this budget and present
it and go through the hearings, and so on? The Police Commissioner?
Mr. FLETCHER. I assume so, sir. Again, tile bill is silent as to that
fact, but I `assume it would be tile new Commissioner.
Mr. ADAMS. I-lie would need a Budget Director and staff?
Mr. FLETCHER. I don't know.
Mr. ADAMS. All right. I have indicated that you have been with
other urban jurisdictions, and I would now draw on your experience
from around the country. Do you know of any place in the country
where the relationship of the State governments to the local govern-
ments is such that you have the States now coming in and taking over
on local law enforcement from the State level?
Mr. FLETCHER. Not in terms of the administration of the depart-
ment. Of course, many States do preempt police fields in the way in
which the law can be enforced~ in the way in which laws may be
adopted. Many States do, in fact, pass legislation which controls the
law, but the enforcement of it would still remain the responsibility
of the local jurisdiction.
Mr. ADAMS. Now, the next thing: As I understand it, if this bill
were to pass, the Park Police, the Zoological Police, the White House
Police, the Capitol Police, would all then be under a unit that would
be within the District Government; is that correct?
Mr. FLETCHER. No. It would be under Congress, sir, in my under-
standing.
PAGENO="0046"
42
Mr. ADAMS. It says an independent office, with the title of Commis-
sioner of Police of the District of Columbia, established in the gov-
ernment of the District of Columbia. So I am trying to determine if
you are going to put this in the District of Columbia. The only thing
that I see is that an appointment would be made from Capitol Hill
of this Commissioner and this group. Do you have any comment on
that?
Mr. FLETCHER. I believe it would be under the control of Congress,
as it is written. The appointing authority would be the Speaker of the
House, the President Pro Tem, and the advisory board created by this
bill would be advisory to Congress.
Mr. ADAMS. Therefore, within the Police Department the office
would come directly' under the Congress, in your opinion?
Mr. FLETCHER. That is my understanding, or directly to the Police
Commissioner who would be appointed by Congress.
Mr. ADAMS. There was some comment made on what is happening
to police officers in their relationships with people in the District of
Columbia. I would like to get some idea percentagewise, because I
know the sensation is nearly always reported and the day-to-day ac-
tivity is not. Can you give me or can there be supplied by the District
Government the number of arrests that occur within a month and a
breakdown within that of those in which some degree of altercation
occurs? As I read, there may be one of these a month, sometimes maybe
two, and I would like to get some idea statistically whether this is a
very small thing. I suspect it is, with a 3,100-man police force and an
800,000 population city. My guess is your arrests are running several
hundreds per month and one or two incidents out of several hundred
would not bother me as much as if there was an incident almost every
time. Could you supply that or could it be supplied through the De-
partment? I will ask the other witnesses later, but I would like to get
some perspective on this.
Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, we can provide that for the record.
Mr. ADAMS. Next, refers to what it has been asked by Mr. Fuqua and
Mr. Broyhill. I would like to get, as part of the statistics, the per-
centage of time spent by the Metropolitan Police Department on what
we refer to as local crimes, or day-to-day law enforcement business.
This is the burglary, robbery, traffic citation, and so on, in comparison
to their Federal operation and, in particular, I would like a comparison
in terms of arrests.
Mr. FLETCHER. All right, sir.
(The information subsequently submitted follows:)
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Washington, September 9, 1968.
Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN,
Chairman, House District Committee,
U.g. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN: This is the information requested for you by
Mr. James T. Clark in his letter of August 7, 1968 and August 9, 1968.
Mr. Adams requested the following information: how many arrests within a
month involved seine degree of altercation; how much time did the Metropolitan
Police Department spend on "local crimes"; and how much time was spent on
PAGENO="0047"
43
its Federal operation? The Metropolitan Police Department has oniy one statisti-
cal indicator of the number of altercations involved in making and maintaining
arrests: the number of persons charged with assault on a police officer. Our
record of arrests made in the fourteen precincts for the month of June 1968
indicates that there was a total of 4,173 arrests during this month and there were
twelve incidents of assault on police officers during June. Mr. Adams' second
question cannot be answered at this time since this Department does not statisti-
cally distinguish between violations of the D.C. Code and the U.S. Code. For
example, certain arrests for drug law offenses can be prosecuted either under the
U.S. Code or under the D.C. Code. This distinction is not drawn in recording
numbers of drug law offenses.
Mr. Gude and the Committee requested information on the amount of time
spent by the Metropolitan Police Department on various special functions. The
statistical data relative to special functions for fiscal year 1968 is in the process
of being compiled at this time. Since the overall number of hours does not vary
appreciably from year to year, I am enclosing a statistical breakdown of man-
hours spent on details for fiscal year 1967.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hestitate to write.
Sincerely yours,
JOHN B. LAYTON, Chief of Police.
Man-hours lost to details resulting from the status of the District of Columbia
as the Nation's Capital:
Fiscal year 1967
Total
Class of detail man-hours
Civil Disturbance Unit 1 4, 007
Parades 8, 109
Motorcycle escorts 1 2, 858
President's Cup Regatta 534
Presidential 9, 991
Foreign visitors and diplomats 2, 142
State Department security 893
Blair House security 760
White House 1,093
Cherry Blossom Festival 2, 353
Embassy security 6, 825
Pickets 7, 875
Constitution Hall 1, 128
Demonstrations 1,220
Security 15, 412
Civic Meetings 103
Mrs. Johnson 34
Total man-hours 65, 337
Total man-days 8, 167
Police man-years 2 3~
1 These classes include some details not directly resulting from the status of the D.C. as Capital.
2 Based on an average actual work years of 227 days per man.
NoTE-Details to the United States Capitol for which the District of Columbia is reimbursed are not
included.
Major non-
Federal
details
Armory 14, 988
D.C. Stadium 19, 774
Washington Coliseum 2,369
Man-hours 37, 131
Man-days 4, 641
Man-years 20
Mr. ADAMS. The last question I had was: Can you tell me approxi-
mately the number of vacancies that are still left on the Metropolitan
Police Department?
Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir. As of last week, 82.
PAGENO="0048"
44
Mr. ADAMS. I want to at this point extend my compliments to you
and the Chief and to the Commissioner.
Mi'. BROYHILL. If you will yield, will you repeat that?
Mr. FLETCHER. 82 vacancies as of last week.
Mr. BROYHILL. 82?
Mr. FLETCHER. 82. We had approximately 40 in the process of being
appointed and over 200 in the pipeline for appointment, as I said,
within the next several weeks we will have no vacancies left. We are
recruiting at the average rate, in the last six months, of 63 net gain
per month.
Mr. ADAMS. I want to extend my compliments to you, because I sat
for some time on this committee when this vacancy rate was high and
going up. I am very pleased to know that now, through `the changes
that have occurred and the efforts you have made, this trend has been
reversed and men are now coming into the Department. Thank you.
Mr. BR0YIIILL. .Will the gentleman yield? I think the gentleman
from Washington should also be complimented for his leadership and
support of a salary increase bill that helped fill those vacancies.
Mr. ADAMS. I think `all Members of the committee shoul'd share in
that. I think it is one of the solutions. I am extremely pleased. I hope
we continue to have that interest in the Department.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GUDE. There is one project that I have been particularly inter-
ested in, the establishment of `a Narcotics Rehabilitation Center in the
District which is i~ow in the process of being geared in. This requires
very `close coordination with the Police Department, doesn't it?
Mr. FLETCHER. Yes.
Mr. GUDE. What type of coordination is required if you are going
to have a Center?
Mr. FLETCHER. I believe the Chief could provide a better `answer
than I on that, Congressman.
Mr. GrmE. I know that the concept `of police `handling of people
who are narcotic `addicts has changed quite a bit in l'aw enforcement
work. Now, rather than just confining them, imprisoning them, the
idea is to enter them into a rehabilitation center and see what can be
done. How is `this carried on?
STATEMENT OF CHIEF JOHN B. LAYTON, METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Chief LAYTON. We could go back some years, Mr. Gude, when the
Congress, at the recommendation of the District Government, did en-
act legislation which provided for treatment of addicts and was not
solely geared to penalties. We do in the enforcement of the narcotics
laws cooperate very closely with the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. We
work jointly, we make joint raids, we put undercover men out in the
area where there is narcotics peddling. We do move very properly and
appropriately, I think, i.n the enforcement of the present laws.
There is this other side of it, where persons who have become ad-
dicted to narcotics; there is provision in law for them to be hospital-
ized. Originally they were sent to the Federal institution. More
recently they have been cared for at the local hospital, P. C. General.
PAGENO="0049"
45
There is in the works now in cooperation with the Health Depart-
ment a broader experimental use of the rehabilitation of narcotics
addicts.
Mr. GUDE. Do the precincts where this problem is the greatest work
with the Health Department in this effort?
Chief LAYTON. Our narcotics law enforcement is supervised and co-
ordinated largely by the headquarters squad. We do make use of
members of the various precincts, but it is all coordinated with the
headquarters squad. This is a specialized enforcement. We need, I
think, to have this centralized coordination.
Mr. GUDE. Then whoever is head of this squad in your central head-
quarters works with the Health Department in coordinating this new
program?
Chief LAYTON. Yes.
Mr. Gurn~. If we had this legislation, then, there could be no one
person who could compel if police authorities felt they did not want
to cooperate or work with the Health Department, then they could go
their own way, as I see it. Now, as the Police Commissioner established
by this bill would not be under the control of the same authorities as
the Health Department, would that be true?
Chief LAYTON. Well, I would expect that whoever was the head of
a law enforcement agency or group of agencies would still be amenable
to the law. If the law provided for certain kinds of treatment then that
individual, whoever he would be, would be amenable to the dictates
of the law.
Mr. GUDE. If the law so stated or if you put the administration of
this aspect of the Health Department under Congress, then it would
be easy to coordinate. Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Walker?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, there is one good thing about being a
junior Member of this committee, as well as of any other; by the time
it reaches this Member, why, it has been thoroughly aired and most
issues have already been adequately taken care of. So I don't have
any questions, but I do have an observation or two.
CIvIL DISTuRBANCES
If memory serves me correctly, I have heard testimony before this
committee that the Department was, and was not, both sides as a
matter of fact, surprised and not surprised about the so-called riots
that we had back there in April. I can't understand how anyone in
Washington reading the news media and the many remarks and
speeches having been made prior to the April riots, that anyone could
have been surprised, because I have heard testimony before this com-
mittee that they were not surprised and, as a matter of fact, they had
the troops alerted and trained. There was some confusion, as a matter
of fact, as to when and how soon they called on them. Then I have
heard and read many statements and remarks about how happy and
pleased everyone was because they had showed so much restraint.
So I won't belabor the subject. I have just been sitting here listening
to all these remarks with some interest. I was also interested in the re-
marks made by Attorney Margolius, I believe was his name, last week.
97-945-68-----4
PAGENO="0050"
46
I was intrigued by his statements, especially by the survey that had
been made by the policemen themselves, and the percentage that were
in favor of this legislation.
As of now, if we were called upon to vote, I don't know how I would
vote. I think morale is very important, not only of our policemen in
the District but all over this country, I think most of the Members
on this committee would agree with me that no individual on this com-
mittee would want to serve as a policeman any place in the United
States under conditions which policemen in this country have to work.
So I would like to join with the rest of my colleagues in commending
the police force, whether they be here or some place else in this great
country of ours.
Also, the point was made this morning about whether or not there
is any other city in the United States where the Federal Government
is trying to intrude on their prerogatives. I don't know of any other
city in the United States that has exactly the same situation as
Washington. This is a Federal city.
I certainly don't want to see Congress take over the prerogatives,
the law enforcement duties of the Capital or any place else, but I will
tell you one thing: I think you will agree with me when you go back
home and receive your correspondence from the people back home,
they are not blaming the Police Department, they are not blaming the
City Council in Washington, they are blaming Congress for every-
thing that they see and read about the actions of this country.
That is the longest speech I have made since I have been up here.
The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions of Mr. Fletcher?
Thank you very much.
Chief Layton, do you care to make a statement?
Chief LAYTON. I have no prepared statement, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Do any of you care to ask tlae Chief any questions?
POLICY AS TO RESURRECTION CITY
Mr. WHITENER. Chief, I would like to ask you a question. We have
all heard this talk from the Deputy Commissioner about how this bill
would destroy the present high level of coordination. We have here
several separate police organizations and all of them are fine ones. But
Mr. Fletcher said something about "a good job clone during the Poor
People's March". From what I read in the paper and from what
Members of the House have told me, who went down to this so-called
Resurrection City, apparently there was no policing at all within
Resurrection City, at least none to amount to anything. I understand
again that that was a park area under the primary jurisdiction of the
Department of Interior and not the District Government.
Yet, I understand that your men were called down to the vicinity to
back up the Federal police, the Park police. Now, who made the
PAGENO="0051"
47
decision there? I don't want to point the finger at any particular
individual. how was the decision made to leave these men down there
in the hands of some so-called marshals who, according to the press,
were recruited from gangs all over the United States in the major
cities?
I-low could it happen that anybody would decide that a newspaper-
man would have his camera taken away from him and be knocked
down, or another newspaperman who reported in one of the papers
said "You give me your money or else you are not going to get out of
here alive". We had evidence reported in the press of other abuses of
that after taking his camera, as I remember it, somebody came up and
people who should have had every right to be on this Federal prop-
erty, the television people who were assaulted, I understand.
Now, we talk about coordination. How did this type of coordination,
if it is coordination, come about? I am not trying to embarrass you
or your Department.
Chief LAYTON. First of all, as you have indicated, this was on Fed-
eral parkland which is supervised by the Department of Interior and
the police agency that has the primary function there is the United
States Park Police. Our Department, on occasion, is called-
Mr. WHITENER. Chief, let me make it right short: Isn't the truth
of the matter that neither the Park Service, nor the Metropolitan
Police, nor Deputy Commissioner Fletcher, nor Commissioner Wash-
ing~on had any voice at all in that decision, to stay out of there?
Chief LAYTON. I can't answer completely on that, Mr. Whitener.
As to whether to go in or out, it is my understanding that on occasion
members of the United States Park Police did go in. But it is my
understanding also that `they did not regularly patrol inside Resur-
rection City.
Mr. BROYHILL. They had to clear with the marshals in the Resur-
:rection City, didn't they? In order for the Park Police to enter Resur-
rection City, they had to clear with the marshals' tent? They couldn't
go in and try to arrest one of these people who had taken a camera.
They had to clear access with the head of `the "Nation"?
Chief LAYTON. My understanding, Mr. Broyhihl, is-
Mr. BROYHILL. I am being facetious, of course.
Chief LAYTON. First of all, the Park Police did not regularly patrol
inside the area. It is also my understanding that they depended mainly
on the marshals who were appointed, as you have indicated, to patrol
inside Resurrection City. It was the arrangement, according to my
understanding also, that if any incident occurred they talked with the
marshals.
Mr. BROYIIILL. They could not go into the city even if an incident
occurred, could they?
Chief LAYTON. I don't believe they were completely restricted to
that extent. It is my understanding that `they did on occasion-Inspec-
tor Beye, particularly, went in when he saw need to go in. But they did
:not regularly patrol the area.
Mr. WHITENER. If that is the kind of coordination they are trying
~to preserve, then this bill, it seems to me, is very desirable because
PAGENO="0052"
48
that is not the kind of coordination that the people I represent want
here in `the nation's capital.
Chief LAYTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. WHITENER. Actually, the coordination, as they call it, resulted.
in creating a situation where the average American wasn't even safe
to go int'o this acreage of federally-owned property within the con-
fines of the District of Columbia; now, isn't that so?
Chief LAYTON. Well, they arranged at times for people to go in.~
There were, without any question, assaults that occurred in thi's area
and it was not regularly patrolled by duly constituted police forces.
Mr. WHITENER. Actually-and this `is aside from police work-but'
the Health Department people weren't too safe fooling around inside'
there, were they?
Chief LAYTON. I am not able to answer to just what extent they'
went in'to the camp site, Mr. Whitener. There was a facility in a
trailer that was immediately adjacent to the `City, but I am not famil-
i'ar with the extent to which they entered the camp site.
Mr. WHITENER. Again I `am going afield, but `do you know if `any'
arrests were ever made in the several cases where duly `accredited
press photographers and television cameramen were `assaulted, and'
in some cases had their cameras taken away from them?
Chief LAYTON. I am not aware of `an arrest that was made `in those~
cases `that you refer to.
Mr. WHITENER. `That isn't much coordination, is it? That is not
much coordination of law enforcement, is it?
Chief LAYTON. It is not an exercise of go'od law enforcement, of'
course.
Mr. WHITENER. Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chief Layton.
Chief LAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. At this `point, we will include a Resolution of the
Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia in,
supi~ort of Chief Layton.
(The resolu'tion referred to follows:)
FEDERATION OF CITIZENS AssocIATIoNs OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
[RESOLUTION OF FEBRUARY 8, 1968J
Whereas: Chief of Metropolitan Police, John B. Layton, has served his corn-
munity faithfully and well during his term of office; and
Whereas: Chief Layton has dealt with his men and the community fairly, and'
has gained the respect of the law abiding Citizenry for his ability, honesty and'
straight-foiwardness; and
Whereas: Chief Layton has maintained law and order in our Nation's Capital'
during a period noted for racial tensions and has prevented the riots and dc-
struction suffered by many of the Nation's urban centers during this same period';'
and
Whereas: This has been accomplished in spite of the harrassment by groups'
and individuals having the avowed objective of destroying our way of life: now,.
therefore, be it
Resolved: By `the Federation of Citizens Associations in meeting assembled'
this eighth day of February 1968, that it reiterates its whole hearted confidence,
support and appreciation of John B. Layton, Chief of the Metropolitan Police~
Department, and his accomplishments for our community; and be it further
PAGENO="0053"
49
Resolved: That copies of this resolution be sent Police Chief John B. Layton,
the Chairmen of House and Senate District Committees, the President of the
Fnited States, the Commissioner of the District, the Attorney General of the
United States, and the Washington Daily Newspapers.
Mrs. ERNEST W. HOWARD,
Chairman, Police and Fire Committee.
JOHN R. IMMER, President.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee last week had to adjourn because
`of an early meeting of the Congress, `and Members did not have an
opportunity at that time to question Mr. Margolius. So we requested
Inspector Sullivan, who is taking his place, to attend this meeting
~for the purpose `of answering questions.
Are there any questions that Members want to ask?
STATEMENT OP INSPECTOR JDHN L. SULLIVAN, RETIRED, CHAIR-
MAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, POLICEMEN'S ASSOCIATION OP
~THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA; ACCOMPANIED BY ROYCE L.
GIVENS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL ~ON~ERENCE
OP POLICE ASSOCIATIONS
Mr. SULLIVAN. For the record, Mr. Chairman, my name is John L.
`Sullivan. I am a retired Inspector of the Metropolitan Police Depart-
ment and Chairman of the Legislative Committee `of the Policemen's
Association. On my right is Mr. Royce Givens retired, from the
Metropolitan Police Department, Executive Director of the Inter-
national Conference of Police Associations, representing over a quar-
ter of a million policemen throughout the United States `and Canada,
and `also the Executive Secretary of our local A'ssociation.
I would like to state for the record that our Association supports
~H.R. 14448 `and `also H.R. 14430.
We believe this is the type `of co'ordinati'on that our `city deserves.
We believe, to `the contrary `of some of the statements that have been
made, that it would lessen the cost of the `operation. It takes nothing
away from the individuality of any Police Department or the function
of any Police Department. We feel also that under this system there
could be more direct action.
I would like to tak'e you back to April for a moment, if I may.
CIVIL DISTURBANCES
Prior to April we were told time and time again that this city was
`prepared for any emergency that occurred. When I say this, I am not
reflecting anything on my good friend, the Chief of Police, because
I have the greatest confidence in our Chief of Police and think he
would be a splendid man for this job which you are proposing here.
But when the riot broke out in April, I am at a oss to know why-
and many more people are, too-that at 12th and U Streets, North-
west, and having been a policeman for some 26 years-plus, they said to
`this community that "We pulled the policemen out there for their
safety." Now, I have never had that pleasure as a policeman, to be
iulled out for my safety. There was much confusion as to whether we
PAGENO="0054"
50
should use the tools at hand. I am not talking about guns, unless they
are necessary, but the gas, the Mace, and the other tools available. Then
it was said that we went up on 14th Street and it was said that we
formed a cordon around a certain area and that in so doing we arresteft
the perpetrators of the crimes as they left the area.
Now, certainly by experience, as our good Deputy Mayor has said,,
we learn lessons. In the last incident in May when the authority Was:,
turned over to our Chief of Police, he did a job which is commendable
to all men because he used the force that was necessary, and was very
right, and the difficulty was over within hours.
I am saying simply that if we had had the same coordination of all
the forces-and this force had been applied in the April incident-it
would have gotten no further than 12th and U Streets, Northwest.
Yet millions of dollars of property was destroyed, people's lives
were taken, and there was useless waste of the taxpayers' money and
property in the District of Columbia.
Now, to get back to the legality-and I am not a lawyer-but it is
the duty of Congress to govern the District of Columbia, and I think
it was around about 1802 when they took upon themselves to set up a
government for the District of Columbia because the District of Co~
lumbia does not only belong to the residents of the District of Colum-~
bia but this entire Nation, and this Nation has a right to visit the
capital seat, it has a right to do so in safety.
I think the merchants, the hotel people and everybody else would
say clearly that this was not the case this summer. So I can only say
that after reading what our attorney said and what Congressman
Broyhill said in his opening statement, that this is not only a necessity
but a must. When we read in the newspapers where members sitting on
the City Council condone and will not refute a statement made that the
"two honky cops" that were shot and one of them executed while laying:
on the sidewalk, is justifiable homicide; we find ourselves in a dilemma..
The only one who can straighten out the dilemma is you gentlemen
in the Congress of the United States of America.
When we pick up such things as these little goodies (indicating the
exhibit attached) and we read them, we find the names of individuaTh
on the bottom of it, and I shall submit this for the record, if I may,.
people in high places making decisions as to whether policemen can
walk in a certain area or whether policemen have a right to go into
a certain area, even speaking of holding elections to decide who is
going to patrol or who is going to be the commanding officer; I fully
realize that we must have the confidence of the people, and I think
we can best gain that confidence by keeping our precincts intact, keep-
ing our community relations at a point where they were years ago
when you knew Mr. So-and-So who lived on your beat.
We say much about recruitment and we say that we are only 80-
some short now. But the question is: Where are they? Are they patrol-
ling their beats at night? Are they on the street? You gentlemen and
I both know, and I am sure the good Chief will agree with me, the'
best prevention of a crime, and also the detection of crime, is the uni-~
formed man walking on the beat.
PAGENO="0055"
51
~ ~
k~fl ~L ~
~
~ ~ 7
C~,~1~rwiq :~k&9~g iV~V/
¶~ BOARD OP CO ISSIO~E~ E~VE SE~ THAT ThEY DCI ~OT CONTROL
1~ ~LICE DIP TYCYr. ~ML C iS~IONERS HAVE R~~U~3ED TO
* SUSPEND THt~ ~ V~IITP~ COPO ~i~T BZ~.?~T t1M1IO~ BAR!~Y, JR., WESLEY
ESYANT hND LL~T~.R ~:K~IE. THE CC~P'~IS3IC~RS HAVE Si~0~B~ THAT
~PS CM BEJ~V N!CROES `c~B~ THIY WM~T TO.
SAVL ~U ~ BEEN O~AR(3ED ~ B~I~3 DISORDERLY BECAUSE
* YOU DII~1' T HOVE FAST ENOU(T~ CR REC~'JSE YOU TALKED HACK
TO A COP
2. *UW'C YOU EVER BEEN ARR~TED FO~ PAILI~G TO ?E)VE OW'
BECAUSE YOU WERE ~RELY STA.HDIHG O~ THE CORNER ?
3. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CALLED NICC~ER~ OR "DOD' BY A ~HIITE COP ?.
4. *EAVE YOU EVER BEEN BEATEN DY COPS I
5. HAVE YOU CALLED THE POLICE AIX)UT A PRODL~4 MD IT TOOK
THEN AN HOUR OR MORE TO CC~E OR THEY NEVER CA~ 7
6. NAVE POLICEZ~N BEEN DISCOURTEOUS TO YOU I
THIS IS POLICE BRUTALITY AUD POLICE HEZ~LECT.
THERE ARE TOO MANY ~ITE COPS IN NEGRO I~4DORHOODS:
&4ft~cr~crI4'!
* / ~ 8tNw
~ / EX-.CONVXCT GASTON WEAL, ~. HILLEE HARDY,
~IMJC~' *zV. DAVID EATON, ~ix~ ~ r~v. ~z~'r~ y~-rr~y, DI~
A~SOM, MARION BARRY, JR., LESTER }~cEIHNLE, JULIUS HOESON
A~ ~ERO.
£~tiz~ns ~mmitftc fbr EQ,uaf Justice phone 68~5387
PAGENO="0056"
52
With reference to morale-I don't think that our morale is like
all the descriptions of morale, because morale itself has many mean-
ings. Take the description for morale: It has been described as moral
or mental condition with respect to courage-and we have no ques-
tion there-with respect to discipline-and we have no question there-
with respect to willingness to endure hardship-and we have no ques-
tion; but confidence and enthusiasm is also included in the meaning
t~f morale, and this is where we find our difficulties.
I could not urge this committee any stronger than I have to adopt
this bill into law, to have this control and give to this Federal City
and the visitors that come to this Federal City and the citizen of this
*city the type of cooperation that is desirable and needed to enforce
the law.
Thank you, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Whitener?
SCOPE OF BILL
Mr. WI-IITENER. Inspector Sullivan, I express to you my appreciation
for your continuing efforts to improve the lot of the police officer.
I know that you are aware of the attitude of the majority of this com-
mittee in the past who are trying to uphold the man on the beat, the
man in the cruiser car.
I am just wondering if you feel that this legislation would be de-
structive of coordination in the areas of education, corrections,
welfare, and traffic control.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Certainly not. I must disagree with that because, in
the first place, while I agree with our Deputy Mayor that there are
urgent problems, such as better housing, better jobs, and so forth, I
cannot see where this bill affects any of those things, that our police
departments are already doing. It would only coordinate the efforts
of all the police to do these things that would make a better neighbor-
hood, a better city. I have just returned from St. Paul, Minnesota
where I listened to the representative's `of a large `number of police
departments. Their problems are greatly the same as ours, and they
are looking for some way to coordinate law enforcement throughout
`the nation. I am not speaking now of a national police force because
I believe it is vital that every community have its own police force.
There have been some remarks, to answer your question, with refer-
ence to welfare, education, and so forth. I think the coordination of all
`these efforts with all these police would do a much better job than is
now being done along this line.
Therefore, I can see no conflict in it.
Mr. WHITENER. What about the suggestion that it would result
in a major reversal of the trend toward citizen participation and in-
volvement? My personal view is that there has been at least some
so-called citizen participation and involvement that ought to be put
in a bucket and sealed UI) hermetically rather than to be promoted.
Mr. SULLIVAN. I couldn't agree with you more. I just stated a mo-
ment a°~o that I was alarmed that we had some of our citizens-and
they are small in number, because I agree with what Mr. Sisk said
PAGENO="0057"
53
some time back, that 99 percent of our people want good law enforce-
ment, and I believe this will give them law and order, and I think the
citizens can participate in it. But if we are talking about the United
Black Front, if we are talking about these pressure groups that are
seeking some type of recognition, then those are the type that should
be put in that bucket and sealed. Let's listen to the leaders of the city.
They would have lust as much opportunity to come to this Congress or
come to the Chiefs of Police or the Commissioner or anywhere else.
So we are not in any form in this bill preventing participation of citi-
zens. But we could eliminate some of this harassment that is contin-
ually going around.
I have other little documents of note that disturb me no end. When
I read a piece in the paper where one of the leaders of a so-called
organization, called a militant civil rights organization, will take over
the sound truck campaign against the Metropolitan Police Depart-
ment, specifically against the officer accused-we went through that the
last time. This was about Office Tague, but this is one of the leaders.
I would like to put this in the record, if I may.
[From the Evening Star, Washington, D.C., Apr. 14, 1967]
HoBsoN DECLARES ACT WILL HARASS POLICEMAN
(By Paul Delaney, Star Staff Writer)
The militant civil rights organization ACT will take over the sound truck
campaign against the Metropolitan Police Department and specifically against an
officer accused of brutality, ACT chairman Julius Hobson said today.
He said the sound truck campaign would be launched sometime after May 1.
Hobson resigned from the Citizens Commitee for Equal Justice yesterday when
that group retreated in its method of protest against Pvt. Thomas Tague, in-
volved in a dispute after he arrested rights leader Marion Barry last month.
The citizens committee announced yesterday that it would not use a sound
truck to follow Tague on his beat and blast out that the patrolman is a "dan-
gerous character." The group originally decided upon the tactic at a mass meeting
Monday.
PLANS DENUNCIATION
But Hobson said today members of ACT, instead will man a sound truck and
go through the streets of Tague's beat and announce to citizens that he is "armed
and should be considered dangerous."
The Police Department had issued a permit for the Citizens Committee to use
a sound truck for one week beginning next Monday. Hobson would have to apply
for another permit to legally carry out the threat.
Hobson said leaders of the group were "boys trying to do a man's job." He
accused them of lacking courage to carry out their plans after facing severe
criticism.
"They were frightened by some racist members of Congress," Hobson asserted.
"I think they did a disservice to the community to plan a course of action and
then not have the courage to act. But I'm not going to be frightened.
"As soon as the school boycott (scheduled for May 1) is over, whether success-
ful or not ACT will take up where CCEJ left off."
Hobson said the committee's leaders, Lonnie King and the Rev. David Eaton,
are not used to rough criticism, and "if they can't stand the excitement they
should stay out of the arena."
The committee was formed after the March 30 jaywalking arrest of Barry. A
scuffle ensued during the arrest and Barry claimed he was struck by Tague.
However, the officer was cleared of any wrongdoing by the District commis-
sioners' after an almost immediate investigation. Barry still faces charges of
jaywalking, disorderly conduct and destruction of property.
PAGENO="0058"
54
APPEAL TO JOHNSON
Meanwhile, John R. Immer, president of the D.C. Federation of Citizens
Associations, wrote President Johnson to tell him the committee is trying to "fear
down law enforcement."
Immer said: "It is important that you disassociate the White House completely
from the consistent backing and support your office has given the Rev. Walter
E. Fauntroy, and to make clear that it is not backing him in this effort to harass
Police Officer Thomas J. Tague."
Mr. SULLIVAN. During the riots we had another such situation as
this. It says "Black Brothers, we got Whitey on the run." It is called
the "Black Hand." It would be quite interesting, I would suggest, and
I submit that for the record.
(The information follows:)
J3LACK RRcYrHE,R~s 1!
\`~/~ COCST vd~TEY ~N T~ RU~~J°?
t(HITET HAS GOT TO BE TAUGHT A LESSON. THE ND~E UHITEY ESTICS ThAT ARE ro~rao baTh
.TESIR THIO/.TS CUT THE ~PRE THEY WILL.K1tOW TufT Wz urnAN NJOHrES&. `stz COT THE UNITE,
POUNR STRUCTURE IN Opru StACK IWUYS. RIOTS AR~. NOT rsuououu, ~ri: IrAVE TO LNOV' THE
WRETH DEVILS WHAT POHER REALLY ID~ CURSE ThO WLtITH DEVILS. RAPE THEIR soumr.
SPIT on srizx. TAKE ovm THE SCFtOOLS. EVER cirjsicz iou orr. ims~ror TImE
~o~c~s AND OREDE OBASI.. Co INTO TREIP~ REIGHEORIOOLS AT. NIGHT A1TD TO /NTTIIITO YOU.
c~n TO i-oPtrs~ p.zi.R rur THEN. `~sor ARE YDE ESIDES UNITH. NE `IRE LAN ON OUR
LIRE. THEY HAVE TO SE III APED.
\i~fE H A b A D RL AM Th 0,1
i'~CIuT TEE TIHE CONES TO INVADE, WItITLY YOU WILL GET ORDEFE TO `TO YOUR `AR?. OUR
SYNBOL IS ABIACIC ~IiNI~ ~TD THE ISUORI) .IS..TEE..MAN fRY BLACK BRUSTIER.WILL'iTT
?OUX2IOH THE PAD or ouru StING, YoU WILL RE BOUND TO SECRECY. AND' YOU IiILt~ BE
TO.~RING IN THE REM~ OP /. WhITE rTVILIr YOT,APE.000LED.IuT.TNE GELD.. THIS IS,.IT.
ELOPE WILL LOOT L~IRE PICNICS WERE ARE ThIlOUGII. DESPIFOY DESTROY ~s5TEoY .D741PCY'
~ ?ONER IS. BABY TAL~( NAN. THIS I~ BIACI: HAND PottER TIlDE' MILL PEEL ~SHE
THIS IS./~ CjLV TO ,~T5D, BlACK ARtS. BLACK: BODES. EDICT BEAIILT,. RE?CK ~
~J~Z BABY BUFE IS StILITE ~ZStI rnnt NOW ON. NO I~IGHTS, NO GAS NO %IATER SO TLiI~
`PO~t WHITEY, HO CALL POIt BElt'. IV. IFILL BE TQO L~VE P~R TIlE WHITE DEVILS, DESTROY~
PkcJ~' TI4.~ Rcii~ A~ .St..,~
11.TOU WANT TO IçINCLE kEN YOUR BLACK ETOTItCH ~ J~ 911B OP,~rHE::TASES TEAK
PAGENO="0059"
55
Mr. STJLLIVAN. These are the type citizens that I am talking about,
Mr. Whitener, who should be sealed and put in some can and not voiced
as a representative of the people, which they are not. We find that there
is in our community prope.r representation for all of our people by
dignified and competent people, but there are a few that are preaching
anarchy, insurrection, and I think this should be stopped.
Mr. WHITENER. Do you get the impression that some of the men in
the Police Department have the feeling that these so-called militant
groups and trouble-making groups are listened to by some of the people
in authority here more than are the more sober and sound organizations
and people?
Mr. SULLIVAN. One gets that impression, and rightly so, because
the people that seem to be more interested in good law enforcement
go to a meeting at their civic organizations and through their local
organizations, express themselves there.. The more militant type are
the ones that run around with banners, whooping and hollering and
trying to stop free speech wherever it may be, so they do get some rec-
ognition and do get some acknowledgement of their behavior. How
can it be any different when there sits right on the Council one who
belongs to the Steering Committee of the United Black Front and
will not repudiate the execution of the policeman when they declared
it to be justifiable homicide? `When the officer's gun was taken by one
of the culprits and the man lying on the sidewalk was shot in the head
and executed, this is a problem. I read just recently where they are
going to take another suggestion from the same organization before
the Council so that they can work more closely with the people. I think
that the true representation of the people is not being heard. I don't
think that they are making the effort that they should make to be
heard. I think the greatest noise we are getting is from these self-
indoctrinated leaders or would-be leaders of groups that are certainly
* detrimental to this government. When a man visits every Communist
nation in the world and he can come here and set up an organization
such as the United Black Front and draw into it the people he drew
into it, one must question with great concern how this can happen, yet
it did. I think they quote their number as 150 strong.
Mr. WHITENER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Broyhill ?
Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Sullivan, you stated that you have been with
the Police Department for 26 years?
Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes.
Mr. BROYHILL. In what capacity did you serve immediately prior
to your retirement, and for how long?
Mr. SULLIVAN. I was in the Robbery Squad for the last three years
of my service, as Commanding Officer.
Mr. BROYHILL. What was your rank?
Mr. SULLIVAN. Inspector.
Mr. BROYHILL. You served as a Captain for some time, too?
Mr. SULLIVAN. I served as a Captain both in what is called the
Criminal Intelligence Division now-it was the Missing Persons
Bureau and Special Investigations before-and also the Sex Squad
:and Narcotics.
PAGENO="0060"
56
Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. G-wen's served with `the Metropolitan Police
Department for some time also, did he not?
Mr. GIvENS. Just short of 25 years.
Mr. BROYHILL. 25 years?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes.
Mr. BROYHILL. So both of you gentlemen have had a lot of experi-
ence with police work and are quite familiar with the attitude of the
members of the Police Department?
Mr. SULLIVAN. I would think we have a pretty good idea.
Mr. BROYHILL. Your attorney, the counsel for the Association, sub-
initted some figures here last week showing the results of a poll, a
questionnaire that you sent out asking members whether they were
for `or against this particular bill. He reported that you had approxi-
mately 2,000 replies that came in prior to the April incident.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes.
Mr. BR0YrnLL. The result of this poll showed 1,642 in favor of the
bill and 334 opposed. He stated that it was his opinion that if the poll
had been taken any time since the April riots, the vote would be even
more strongly in favor of the legislation. Do you share that opinion?
Mr. SULLIVAN. I don't think there is any question about it.
Mr. BROYHILL. The overwhelming majority of the members of the
Police Department are for this legislation?
Mr. SULLIVAN. No question about it.
PoLIcE MORALE
Mr. BROYHILL. You said something a moment ago about morale.
Now, the respresentative of the city government here indicated that
the morale has not changed, or has even improved. I don't think I mis-
quoted him. He indicated that morale is presently of no significance,.
anyway.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. I was present when the Deputy Commis-
sioner made the statement referred to, and Mr. Beatty did say that
the morale was higher than it had been at any time since the new
Commissioner had taken over, but he had reference more to what you
gentlemen had done in the way of pay than other aspects of morale..
I think you must have morale. The majority of our policemen have it
as I defined it a while ago. I am of the opinion that the morale of the
Police Department in the two phases that I mentioned, however, is
low and is remaining low because they don't feel that our Chief of
Police has free reign and a free hand in the operation of the Police
Department. Even in the backing of the men on the streets we find
various and different types of commanders and this i's something that
I guess will always exist, but the morale of the Police Department,.
when you read statements such as I have quoted, certainly cannot be'
too high. It has to be low in some facets of it. Policemen do not take
a job for money only, as was mentioned here by Mr. Sisk I think. I
took the job back when it was $1,900 a year because I was a depression'
boy and needed a job and I liked being a policeman. It was pretty'
good money in those days. But as time went `along I am sure I, as many
others, could have gone out into other fields. So those that do `stay on
and those that do the job must have some morale `and dedication.
But the morale we are speaking about is, where do we `stand when
PAGENO="0061"
57
an officer goes out and does his job as he should do it under the law,
and then the next thing we hear is that the City Council, let's say, is
going to have a hearing on whether we should use gas or Mace to stop
a riot or to stop a disorder? It is far more merciful to use this type of
weapon than it would be to have to shoot someone. This is the type of
thing that is affecting the morale of the men with the Police Depart-
ment.
This is what we hear. I have answers here from them just as the
attorney has. I wouldn't embarrass this committee by reading them.
But the men just do not feel that under the present system, the present
setup, they are going to get a fair shake. That is why we are so much
in favor of these two bills.
Mr. BROYHILL. You submitted some publications or leaflets for the
record. Of course, these are being printed and distributed all the time.
I have in my hand one that was distributed just last weekend out in
Prince Georges County, Md., in support of a so-called Black United
~Front, pointing out that they advocate neighborhood elections or re-
view boards, and also neighborhood authority to require transfers
of personnel, and authority over the overtime hours of police officers.
Another one here is concerned with city-wide democratic decisions,
whether officers should carry guns, and so forth. Then there is a
mimeographed leaflet attached to it urging that the people write to
their Congressmen, in this case to Congressman Machen, to oppose
this legislation and to support the efforts of the Black United Front.
So the propaganda is out and is being distributed, and the pressure is
~on to do everything they can to defeat this legislation.
SCOPE OF BILL
I might say this for the purpose of the record, Mr. Chairman: I
stated earlier that as one of the sponsors of the legislation-and I am
sure most of the co-sponsors feel the same way-that this is a real
problem with which we are confronted. We are trying to come up with
-the best possible solution. I don't know of any legislation which has
ever been introduced in the Congress that was the perfect answer, or
that did not result in some give and take and compromise before it
ever became law. In fact, I received a call from the Under Secretary
of the Treasury, Mr. Joseph Barr, last Thursday. He was concerned
about the fact that this bill might take the White House Police away
from the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department or do harm to the
coordination with the Secret Service which is under the Treasury
Department, and thus endanger the life of the President. Certainly,
none of us would want to do anything that would place his life in
greater jeopardy than it already is. It may well be-and I said this to
Secretary Barr-that the White House Police Force should be taken
out from under the provisions of the bill, if this situation causes any
anxiety whatsoever as far as the protection of the life of the President
is concerned. We know that even under the present situation, White
House Police Force relies for its recruitment `service upon the Metro-
`polit.an Police Department. They do the training and recruitment.
So that is part of the coordination that is already in existence. We
just want to help to simplify it somewhat. I am not proposing this as
a compromise or an alternative but a suggestion also has been made,
PAGENO="0062"
58
that we could provide that this Police Commissioner be appointed by
the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and have the
Advisory Commission appointed by Congress as is provided in the
bill. The organization would still be a part of the Legislative Branch
of the Congress, the same as the General Acounting Office, the Govern-
ment Printing Office, the Library of Congress, the Botanical Garden ~
even the Architect of the Capitol is appointed by the President, but
yet he serves with the Congress and for the Congress and actually has
no other official relationship with the Executive whatsoever.
So there are many things we can do to help give everyone a part of
the action, so to speak, and to protect the interests of all concerned.
But the main thrust of the bill is to coordinate the separate and pres-
ently uncoordinated activities of the separate police departments and.
to bring them under the general guidance and supervision of the'
Congress of the United States.
So I make that statement for the record at this time, Mr. Sullivan,
because I feel that `there are `a lot of things we can do in perfecting or
improving this bill so as to overcome some valid objections and yet
not destroy the main intent of the legislation, which is to improve the'
effectiveness `of law enforcement here in the nation's capital.
Mr. SuLLIvAN. Mr. Broyhill, I think the White House would be the"
safest place in the country under this bill. Certainly, if there are some~
amendments to be. made, I am not the one to judge. It is this committee.
I see nothing changing anything except that we are coordinating the'
efforts of law enforcement. I see this causing no hardship on budgets
or anything else. In fact, it may be that it would come to a lesser cost,.
taking everything for granted, with the economy being what it is;
there might be additional costs in payrolls in the future, or retirement
benefits, or whatever it might be. Certainly, you are right, nothing is
perfect when it is first drawn. There might be some things that need'
changes but I, for one, could not see where this would be detrimental
to the protection of the President of the United States. Let us say
now that the-the bill does not say that you are going to take anything'
out of the White I-louse Police Force but is could very easily be that
we move quite a few more up there if we needed them. This is the type'
of coordination that I am speaking about. I am thinking that this bifi
keeps the individuality of each department and just puts a man at the
head of it, and the Commissioner to guide him, so that he can best,.
through the knowledge and learning, apply the police forces to the
welfare `of the people of our nation's capital.
Now, certainly if it does cause some slight changes, this, of course,.
is within the wisdom of this committee. I, for one, cannot see `it.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sisk.
Mr. SI5K. `I will try to be very brief.
EFFECT OF D.C. REORGANIZATION
Inspector Sullivan, I think just in order to kind of lay this thing
out, as I understand it, actually what we are doing or what I would.
interpret your position to be-and I am not being critical of your posi-
tion because I think you know my strong feelings about the need for a
well-supported police department here-but what in essence this bilL
PAGENO="0063"
59
would do, and your position and those supporting that position, is
actually a lack of faith in the existing City Council as composed under
the Reorganization Act; isn't this basically the fact?
Mr. SULLIVAN. It is part of the fact.
Mr. Sisic. I want to hasten on. I know the Chairman is anxious,
and the House is now going into Session. As I stated, I as one who
supported the President's reorganization proposal-I know some of
my colleagues around here who did not, and maybe this proves they
were nearer right than I was at that time-I say I am not entirely
ready to reverse my position. I have been very disappointed, let me
say, in the lack of strength shown by this Council, and particularly
by what I consider to be very weak-kneed action by some members of
this Council. I think it is unfortunate. Maybe we can check into these
Councilmen and make some changes. There is a complete lack of faith
in what we have created as part of the Reorganization Act. I would
personally like to see it strengthen.
As to the concern I have with this bill-and as I say, I have not
taken a position for or against the legislation, I think I basically
agree with the objectives you seek to achieve-I am hesitant to f rag-
ment a situation. If we made a mistake in the reorganization, I think
we should take the bull by the horns and rescind the reorganization
and maybe make a whole new approach to this situation. The only
question I had was this: Generally, there is a strong feeling, Inspector
Sullivan, that the Council has not asserted the firm support for law
and order in the District that you feel they should have. Is that
basically correct or not?
Inspector SULLIVAN. That is correct. Let me say this: We have the
greatest faith in our Mayor. I think he is trying to do and has done
on outstanding job with all the complications that go along with it.~
The same goes for our Deputy Mayor. We cannot say the same about
the Council and we will not say the same about the Council. The
Council has not given us any encouragement. It has not shown us
any encouragement. Maybe the approach should be to reorganize
once again. But I believe in the meantime, and I believe even in the
future, that these particular two bills will come nearer to doing the
job than any single action that can be taken. It is my humble opinion
that once it is put into practice and it is left up to the Chiefs of the
various Departments to run their Departments with the guidance of
the Commissioner and his Council that the bill calls for, then and then
only is crime going down.
It appalls me to read in the papers each and every day of my life
where some person I have known over the years was murdered.
POLICING OF RESURRECTION CITY
If we had time to get into the crimes that were committed in Resur-
rection City, it would be appalling.
Certainly they did not let the policemen in. `When they did go in
they got whipped and beat up and their guns taken away from them..
Yet one of these so-called leaders of these Rangers was arrested the
other day for armed robbery. So I cannot see why we can say that
you can designate an area belonging to this great Nation of ours, and
PAGENO="0064"
60
say that these people can come in and be squatters and nobody else
has access to it, as happened the other day in the park under this
same front when we had a meeting at the Meridlian Park. They did
not even allow the ploicemen in, much less the news media.
Then on second thought they did allow news media to come in. This
is the situation that exists. It does not mean we cannot go in. We can
if the proper orders are given. But we must have the coordination of
all our law enforcement agencies, and I do not think we have it under
the present system. I can only end by saying that I think this is the
right approach. I agree with Mr. Broyhill, or anyone else-maybe it
calls for some changes-but it is the right approach to make the po-
liceman feel that he is being supported, that he is going to be supported
in the job. I cannot see where it takes anything away from any in-
dividual police department.
Mr. `SIsK. Thank you, Inspector. I appreciate very much your `state-
ment because I know your own personal dedication. I join you in my
concern about making the policeman feel confident that when he is
doing his job he has the complete backing and support of the powers
that be in the District. I just close, `Mr. Chairman, by quickly saying
`that I hope, before the hearings are concluded on this particular leg-
islation, that a representative of the City `Council will be brought be-
`fore this committee. I personally, `and I am sure others, too, would
like to discuss with them what I think has been a pretty serious failure
on `their part. I, too, join in my tribute to `the `Mayor. I think Walter
Washington has `done `a tremendous job. In fact, I have literally felt
sorry for him on many occasions, the `tremendous hours, `the struggle I
know he has gone through, particularly `in the `days of the riots. I
admire his courage `and the work and the effort that has been made by
the Deputy Mayor who was here with us this morning.
Unfortunately, I too, am somewhat critical `of the Council and some
actions of some of the members are to be totally deplored. It is a shame-
`ful thing to me that they have not found themselves at least honest
enough to resign `and step out `if they `cannot support law enforcement
in this District.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gude ?
Mr. Gum~. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment you and
your organization for the work you are doing in trying to better police
morale because if a policeman is to do any kin'd of a good job, he must
feel he has the `support `of the governing body behind him. I think
`the Police Department has the backing of the Mayor and the Con-
gress. We try to do that `and show `it by the pay raise and other legis-
lati'on. I would like to ask one question very quickly.
ADVISORY `CoUNoILs
In regard to `the operation `of the police force and its morale, `as I
understand it under the present system in each precinct the Captain
can have `an `advisory council composed `of citizens of the area; isn't
this correct?
Inspector SULLIVAN. Yes.
PAGENO="0065"
61
Mr. GUDE. Does your organization have any observation about the
effectiveness of these `Councils-good or bad-or would you have any
suggestions about the improvement `of `them? Would you like `to re-
fleet `on that and submit a statement?
Inspector SULLIVAN. Not at this time, Mr. Gude.
Mr. GUDE. Pardon me for interrupting, but I gather that you feel
even with Mr. Broyhill's bill that such an organization could continue
to `operate?
Inspector SULLIVAN. I do not think there `is any question about it
continuing to operate any type of community rel'ati'ons that `are proper
and appropri'ate under the bill. There is nothing interfering with the
operation of the Police Department rather than the coordination of
the efforts. it could be in even a~ broader `scope. I do not think we
have h'ad a chance `to fairly evaluate this new approach and therefore
I would not like to comment on it. Maybe Chief Layton would have
a better opportunity to do so than I.
Mr. GUDE. The operation `of these councils would have `a direct
bearing on the police morale.
Inspector SULLIVAN. It does. The council representing the citizens
of our District, and are not radical ex'cept looking for some self-grati-
ficati'on or some observation by some news media, such `as some of these
units we know about, `that is fine. If it is an involvement `of the people
who are sincerely interested in understanding their policemen, and
sincerely interested in creating a better Police Department, we would
have no objection to it. But this is something that would have tQ be
determined by the Chief of Police, and then we would be willing to
work `along that line.
I do not see where this bill would interfere with `such operations
as that.
Mr. GUDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ad'am's.
Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would first like to say, Mr. Sullivan, that I support increased pay
for the Police Department. I think we have to do this throughou't the
nation. I `also tend to continue to press for `additional pay in the
educational area, because I think professionalism in the Police Depart-
ment is our `only hope in America. You indicate y'ou have been 26 years
as `an Inspector. I want to ask you this question: In your opinion,
hasn't the downtown area both ethnically and economically changed
radically in `that 25 years?
inspector SULLIVAN. Very much so.
Mr. ADAMS. Aren't we therefore confronted with a different set of
problems, and therefore need different solutions to approach them,
than we had 25 years ago?
Inspector SULLIVAN. No, I think the law is the same.
Mr. ADAMS. I agree the law is the same.
Inspector SULLIVAN. It has not been `amend'ed as it should `have been
amended. Even though we have `this change, Mr. Adams, the law is
applicable and the law should be enforced. As to our `change in public
relations in this sort of thing, and to get to know them and understand.
them, I agree with you that this i's an `effort `that we are doing now
and have been doing for some time.
97-945--68--5
PAGENO="0066"
62
CIVIL DISTURBANCES
Mr. ADAMS. I agree. I have just a minute. I am not going into the
community relations area with you. I think we are having a real
awakening in America of what is necessary. I `am talking about the
fundamental law enforcement problem. You mentioned specifically
the situation `at 12th and U and the one at 14th and U. I remember
questioning Mr. Murphy specifically on this, and he reported that he
had two cars with two men in each car in that area, four men, and they
reported between five and six hundred people on the streets around
them, many of whom were `apparently `armed. Some at least were
brandishing weapons. Later on there were many thousands along 14th
Street. I am `asking you if this type of confrontation or situation in
the central portion of the community is not a new type law enforce-
ment situation from what we have had in the general day-to-day
`activities of the Police Department in the past.
Inspector SULLIVAN. `The answer, of course, is yes. Let me give you `a
further example. I am now employed by a food chain, I will not men-
tion the name, and there were other good chains in this same area. One
chain lost 18 stores. We lost `only the windows out of three stores,
partly due maybe to our public relations. But in fact when 300 of
them came `in front of one of those stores, `across the street from us,
and 12 men stepped out with shotguns, no windows were broken.
Mr. ADAMS. In other words, you `are saying in that situation at 12th
`and U-I think we are `all trying to get to the essentials of `the prob-
lems `of the central city-it w'ould have been your position that the
officers at 12th and U could have confronted with force the crowd that
was there and that would have improved the overall situation of what
happened `in the city in April.
Inspector SULLIVAN. I do no't think `there is any question about it. I
think if `they had used the weapons-and I am not talking about death
weapons, Mr. Adams, I am talking `about the gas and mace `and so
forth-it `is my understanding th'at it was `there, it is my understand-
ing that `it w'as not used. I said if they `had used it. Let us go b'ack to
May when they di'd use force; it stopped very quickly and when we did
not do it in April, just as the good Deputy Mayor said, we learned our
lesson. We came back in May when we had the trouble and we did a
better job because it was left up to proper persons to deal with it.
Mr. ADAMS. I think you have to state that in April and May the
same people dealt with `the same situation in the sense that the Chief
of Police and the Commissioner here were running the Police Depart-
ment at both times. Also, the May situation in terms of a confronta-
`tion was much different. What I `am trying to get from you is your
position `and statement as `to what changes should be made in the
central city in terms `of `handling massive confrontations with sub-
stantial portions of the population in an area in a hostile attitude.
This is not the one to one relationship `ordinarily in law enforcement
or one to two or three.
Inspector SULLIVAN. Passing of this legislation so that all law
enforcement efforts could be coordinated-
Mr. ADAMS. This legislation won't change that situation at all in the
city, Mr. Sullivan, will it?
PAGENO="0067"
03
Tomorrow it is going to be just like it was yesterday in terms of the
basic central city crisis.
Inspector SULLIVAN. I think it will change it somewhat. You will
have one person coordinating all the law enforcement. I have stayed
away from one part of the bill because I do not think it is within my
wisdom to pass upon it, but somebody has to say when you are going
to bring additional help in like the National Guard. Somebody will
have to say when you bring in other additional help, like the armed
forces. Of course this lies with the Mayor. When the Mayor in May
declared a curfew and he used proper tools, it was quelled and he was
dealing with the inner city. I realize in the inner city we have many
problems, social welfare and so forth, and these are problems that
must be dealt with. But when we are having burnings and lootings and
insurrection, and anarchy, or whatever you want to call it, we cannot
stand idly by just because this situation exists.
Mr. ADAMS. Nobody mentioned that, and I have not suggested that,
and that is why I said we can reach substantial agreement on major
areas. I am talking about the fact that people are blaming problems of
an entirely different new exploding crisis in a city on `a system. I just
think when you start trying to say if we put over Chief Layton a man
with a different name, the problems he is going to face today and he
faced yesterday in the city `are not going to change. Therefore it is very
questionable as to whether or not, whatever type of name you call it,
a change at the top is going to solve the problem. I do not think it
should be presented to the people of the city as a solution.
The CnAIm~rAN. I dislike to disturb the gentleman, but we are now
having a roll call on the floor of the House. We will continue these hear-
ings at a `later date. At this time I ask the reporter to insert certain
communications in the record.
(The materials referred to follow:)
[Press Release, July 9, 1968]
POLICEMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WASHINGTON, D.C.
The members of the Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia have
demanded that we issue a statement of our position in answer to the outrageous
and ill-tempered resolution adopted by the Black United Front calling the execu-
tion of Officer Stephen Williams justifiable homicide. Our members are particu-
larly incensed by the fact that the Vice Chairman of the City Council of the Dis-
trict of Columbia, Walter B. Fauntroy, a member of the Black United Front, has
not repudiated the resolution.
The resolution was adopted by 150 militants and reached the front page of every
newspaper in the City of Washington. It was not only a condemnation of the
policeman who lost his life and of the other man who lies critically wounded and
paralyzed in the hospital, but it was an effort to condemn the police department
and all of its members. No decent law abiding citizen of any ethnic background
can condone the execution of a policeman in cold blood while performing his duty
as justifiable homicide. Therefore, the least that we can expect is to have a full
and forthright repudiation, not only of the resolution but of its intentiment. This
Reverend Fauntroy has refused to do.
As a matter of fact, Reverend Fauntroy in his statement from the pulpit and
to the press in condemning all killings has been critical of the police when they
have found it necessary to use their guns in protection of their lives and the
lives of others. For the death of Private Stephen Williams, three persons face
criminal charges. A resolution such as adopted by tile Black United Front and
PAGENO="0068"
64
concurred by Reverend Channing Phillips constitutes undue interference with
the administration ~.f justice in the same manner as Mayor Yorty of Los Angeles
when he made public statements shortly after the assassination of Senator Robert
Kennedy concerning an arrested suspect. This alone was sufficient for Reverend
Fauntroy, as a member of the governing body of the District of Columbia, sworn
to uphold and enforce the laws, to repudiate not only the resolution but the
action of the Black United Front just as Mayor Washington and Public Safety
Director Patrick Murphy did. This is the least that can be expected from a
responsible official of the District of Columbia.
Moreover, Reverend Fauntroy in his statements has morally condemned the
actions of members of our police department who have been compelled to take
a life while carrying out their sworn duties. He has stated that such killings
is not justifiable. How can a responsible official of the District Government over-
ride the decisions of the coronor's jury and the grand jury which in each case
heard evidence and under the law made a decision. Or would Reverend Fauntroy,
like his militant comrades, have our policemen walk the streets as targets for
every discontented rabel rousing militant to shoot at. If this is what he wants,
where are we to get recruits?
Therefore, we believe that his serving as Vice Chairman of the District of
Columbia City Council and his continued affiliation with some other organiza-
tions represents a definite conflict of interest to the overall good and welfare
of the city and we request that the President of the United States, the Mayor
and oher responsible persons to join with us in immediately calling for the resig-
nation of Reverend Fauntroy from the City Council. We further request that
the National Democratic Committee take appropriate action to the remarks
made by Reverend Channing Phillips.
Our association has nothing but praise and admiration for our Mayor, the
Chief of Police, and our Public Safety Director, in the statements they have
made and support they have given us in this ordeal. We are hopeful that prompt
action will be taken by the President of the United States with reference to the
Vice Chairman, Reverend Fauntroy. We are convinced that the President in
his recent message meant what he said: "We must have law and order and make
our Nation's Capital a model city."
CAPITOL HILL SOUTHEAST CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Washington, D.C., July 27, 1968.
Hon. Joux L. MCMILLAN,
Chairman, House District Committee,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mn. MCMILLAN: The Capitol Hill Southeast Citizens Association notes
that HR 14430 has recently been before you for hearings. Is it the same as the
Broyhill bill? That proposal was to bring the local police under Police Commis-
sioner who will have control of all United States police in the various government
buildings as well as those under jurisdiction of the District Building or Govern-
ment.
Last spring, the organization discussed the Broybill bill interested in similar
legislation, and the Executive Board voted in favor of strengthening the police
protection in the Nation's Capital, by placing all five police forces within the Dis-
trict of Columbia under someone connected with Congress such as a Police
Commissioner.
At present, the police of the District Government do not have authority or in-
structions to protect Washington, D.C. Militants are demanding more and more
control of the police which definitely endangers the welfare of the residents, tax-
payers, and the distinguished foreigners who reside here, while representing
foreign countries. Each day, the problems become more serious; the District Gov-
ernment has no authority to protect anyone.
This is the Nation's Capital with the United States Government owning over
fifty percent of the land and extremely valuable government buildings. Law and
order must prevail, and such a unified police force should consolidate and
strengthen enforcement of the Law as well as protect government interests and
the citizens of Washington, D.C.
Capitol Hill Southeast Citizens Association members are terrified at the present
lack of law enforcement given by the District Police Department.
Sincerely yours,
ELIZABETH DRAPER, Secretary.
PAGENO="0069"
65
ANACOSTIA CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, TNC.,
District of Columbia, July 29, 1968.
Hon. U.S. Congressman JOEL T. BROYHILL,
Congress of the United States,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN BROYHILL: I am fully in accord with your comments in
reference to the Metropolitart Police Department of the District of Columbia. I
do believe that the Police Department should be controlled by the Federal Govern-
ment as Washington is the Nation's Capital. I have pra.ise and respect for our
Chief of Police John B. Layton for his achievements, be should have full control
of the police without interference of a Safety Director.
When a policeman makes an arrest, he is on trial instead of the criminal, a
criminal is immune from any acts of violence `by militant groups. Legislation
should `be in progress to protect `our policemen from being sued by militant gro'ups
for justifiable homicide.
Sincerely yours,
CHARLES J. PIPER, President.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee stands adjourned until `the call of
the Chair.
(Whereupon, `a~ 12:16 o'clock p.m., the committee `adjourned.)
(Subsequently the following letters were received for the record:)
POLICEMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Washington, D.C., August 1, 1968.
Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN: Enclosed herewith is a copy of a statement
released to the press by `the Policemen's Association of `the District of Columbia
wi'th reference to the attack by Mr. Bruce Terris of the District of Columbia
Democratic Central Committee on Chief John B. Layton and the Metropolitan
Police Department.
We respectfully request that this statement be made a part of the hearings on
HR. 14430 and H.R. 14448, `bills `to establish a Commissioner of Police for the
District of Columbia.
Also, I am attaching herewith a copy of the press coverage by Mr. Terris. We
believe this attack is further reason for favorable action on HR. 14430 and
HR. 14448.
Respectfully yours,
JOHN L. SULLWAN,
Chairman, Legislative Committee.
STATEMENT OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE POLICEMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE STATEMENT OF JULY 29, 1968, OF BRUCE TERRIS,
CHAIRMAN OF THE DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL
The Executive Committee announces, after consideration of the statement of
Mr. Bruce Terris, that Mr. Terris is incorrect in many of his charges `and accu-
sations. Mr. Terris' statement appears to be politically inspired and motivated,
and many, if not all, of the accusations in regard to the police and in particular
to the Chief of Police, John B. Layton, are inaccurate and not founded upon all
of the facts.
Without attempting at this time to answer all of the allegations in Mr. Terris'
testimony, this Association does feel compelled to take issue with the attack on
Chief Layton. Furthermore, this Association deems it necessary to point out that
Chief Layton has been responsible for many improvements within and outside
of the Department, such as integration of scout cars, promotions of Negro officers
to ranking officials, establishment of the Community Relations Unit, and other
acts deliberately ignored by Terris and his committee.
Many of the advances made by the Department within the past several months
have been advances which have been in the planning and preparation stage for
PAGENO="0070"
66
several years, and are directly attributed to the Police Department under Chief
Layton. Chief Layton and Safety Director Patrick V. Murphy have stepped up
these new procedures and they, together with the force, are responsible for the
adequate handling of the April riots, a fact Mr. Terris is reluctant to admit.
Mr. Terris, by innuendo, charges police misconduct, but nowhere is he specific
in his allegations. This Association decries the notion that neighborhood control
of the police is a proper course of action. Indeed, it is a license for confusion and
inefficiency. The examples cited by Mr. Terris are not valid, since none of the
examples involved a quasimilitary organization which a police department is.
To advocate a similar type of control over a military establishment would be
unheard of, even by Mr. Terris.
[From the Evening Star, Washington, D.C., July 30, 1968]
TERRIS URGES LAYTON OUSTER-DEMOCRAT WANTS BLACK POLICE HEAD
(By Paul Delaney, Star Staff Writer)
The chairman of the District's Democratic Central Committee called yesterday
for the ouster of Police Chief John B. Layton and criticized the City Council for
failing to try experiments with neighborhood control over police.
The chairman, Bruce Terris, told the public safety committee of the City
Council that he was speaking for the entire Central Committee.
Terris said that Chief Layton does not understand the Negro community in
Washington. "Every effort should be made to find a black police officer in this
or another city who is capable of assuming this important position," he told the
committee.
He said that the Black United Front's proposal for community control over
police should be tried in two of the city's fourteen police precincts.
Terris said that the Rev. Channing E. Phillips, recently elected Democratic
National Committeeman for the District who is a leader of the Front, had ap-
proved the Central Committee Statements.
The public safety committee currently is seeking recommendations from the
community to be made to the full council on Aug. 6 on police-community rela-
tions. Terris spent two hours with the committee.
After yesterday's meeting. councilmen refused to comment on the Democratic
proposal. At one point, committee chairman William S. Thompson even refused
to acknowledge that Terris had appear before his group.
Thompson promised to make a ruling by tomorrow on whether the press would
be admitted to future committee meetings. Everything that has been presented
to the committee so far has later been made available to the press.
COUNCIL CRITICIZED
Terris criticized the City Council for failing to institute changes in the police
department, which the council is empowered to do.
"First. we must immediately start experiments with neighborhood control over
the police," Terris told the committee.
"This is an untried and new idea. It might not work. It might produce far
more citizen cooperation with the police and far better control of crimes or it
might result in confusion and inefficiency."
"If law enforcement in this city were effective, it could be argued let's not
try such bold new ideas, let's not take a chance. But we all know the present
methods have been failing miserably for decades, here and all over the country.
It is imperative that promising new ideas be tried."
Terris said after the meeting that black control of police in their community
might prevent another Cleveland situation, where white policemen were am-
bushed last week. Three officers died.
"People regard the police as the enemy," he commented.
WANTS A BLACK CHIEF
Regarding Layton, Terris said not only has the chief failed to understand the
Negro community, "he has failed in other areas, like how to get a better and more
efficient police department and in modern police practices." Terris recommended
that a black chief be named to replace Layton, but added that "there are many
white officers, even within the department, who would be better than Layton."
PAGENO="0071"
67
Terris accused Layton of resisting reform recommended by crime studies. He
went on:
"He has seriously interfered with imposing strict discipline to prevent police
misconduct . . . This city needs a police chief who understands the community,
including the black citizens who constitute a majority of its population. It needs
a chief who is fully committed to citizen involvement in decisions relating to
law enforcement and to maintaining discipline over police officers mistreating
the public.
"For these reasons it is essential that Chief Layton be replaced. Every effort
should be made to find a black police officer in this or another city who is capable
of assuming this important position."
ATTACKS COUNCIL RESTRAINT
Terris said the council's role does not end with the holding of public hearings.
He said bold steps are needed in the area of the police.
"For too long the council has failed to exercise leadership in this vital field.
Police misconduct goes on and the council has done nothing. Reforms are inter-
fered with and the council has done nothing."
Terris said community control over police would be similar to community con-
trol in other areas. He cited community control over the Morgan Elementary
School as one example.
The Democrats accepted several other BUF proposals, including a plan to
have a citizen-elected board exercise control over police. Terris said such citizen
boards would choose the precinct captain from a list submitted by the Civil
Service Commission.
The board would also choose patrolmen from those in the department or from
civilians meeting department standards; order from the precinct officers guilty of
misconduct (the front's plan calls for firing of such officers), and would establish
all policies for law enforcement in the neighborhoods, subject only to a vote b'v
the mayor or City Council.
PARTY HAS GREATER DETAIL
The Democratic proposal went into far greater detail than the front's proposaL.
thus representing an expansion of the militants' idea.
The Democrats urged replacing the present system of police trial boards, where
police judge their own, with an independent civilian hearing examiner named
by the mayor; using the iaternal investigations unit aggressively to discover po-
lice misconduct against private citizens just as it now works to find other kinds
of police misconduct; revitalizing the Police Complaint Review Board; publi-
cizing activities of the board, and changing the coroner's inquest to provide a fair
procedure for all parties, such as allowing an attorney for the victim's family to
present and cross-examine witnesses.
Further, the Democrats recommended that black officers be promoted as soon as
possible to deputy chief; black civilians should be brought into the department at
high levels; the police-community relations unit should be given real responsibili-
ties instead of being "window-dressing in an effort to pacify the black com-
munity", all future police recruits should be required to live within the District;
gun regulations should be written to clearly forbid the use of weapons by police
except when his life or that of another citizen is immediately threatened or when
a suspect has committed a felony and is armed and there is a substantial risk he
will cause bodily harm if apprehension is delayed, and use of tear gas should be
forbidden during disturbances, except when absolutely necessary.
BLACKS OPPOSE POLICE
Terris cited several statistics to show that police-community relations are de-
teriorating. He said the District Crime Commission survey two years ago showed
that over 80 percent of the Negroes in the city believed over half the police depart-
ment would have to be replaced to get a good department.
Also, over half thought that District police enjoyed giving people a hard time;
flO percent of the black men believed that police discriminated and half of those
believed this included rudeness and brutality; and the National Crime Commis-
sion found that 46 percent of the white officers were prejudiced against Negroes.
PAGENO="0072"
68
While calling for the ouster of Layton, Terris praised Safety Director Patrick
V. Murphy as "one of the very few outstanding police leaders in the country."
"He has promoted black officers for the first time to the rank of inspector and
appointed a black officer as director of police-community relations," Terris stated.
"Recruiting of black citizens for the department has been emphasized so that in
June over 50 percent of the recruits were black."
{From the Washington Post, July 30, 1968]
OUST LAYTON FOR NEGRO, DEMOCRATIC CHIEF SAYS
(By Robert F. Levey, Washington Post Staff Writer)
The chairman of the District's Democratic Central Committee yesterday called
for the dismissal of Police Chief John B. Layton and urged that citizens in two
police precincts be given a chance to appoint and control their own police.
Testifying before the City Council's subcommittee investigating police-com-
munity relations, Democratic Chairman Bruce Terris urged that Layton's replace-
ment be a Negro, and chided the Council for doing "nothing . . - for too long"
on what he called abuses of police power.
Neither Chief Layton nor subcommittee chairman, William S. Thompson would
comment on Terris' remarks.
Terris, who said he was speaking for the whole Central Committee, specifically
asked the subcommittee for elected boards that would:
* Choose the captain of each precinct from Civil Service Commission rolls.
* Choose officers who are already policemen other duties or members of the
community who could meet entrance standards.
Have the power to fire policemen who are found guilty of misconduct.
* Establish policies for the neighborhood that could be overridden only by the
Mayor or the City Council.
These proposals have already been advanced by the Black United Front. The
Front has been holding community meetings on the proposals. The Rev. Chan-
ning E. Phillips, an official of the Front and the District's Democratic National
Committeeman, approved Terris's statement, Terris said.
CRITICIZES PRESENT SETUP
Terris did not specify in his testimony which two precincts be thought should
first be controlled by citizens. He rejected the idea of immediate citywide citizen
control "since (it) .. . it being tried for the first time."
He stressed that his plan "might produce far more citizen cooperation with
the police and far better control of crime."
"We all know that present methods have been failing miserably for decades,"
Terris said. "Black citizens are not going to be persuaded to support the police by
Madison Avenue advertisements or bumper stickers. They must have a real say
in law enforcement activities in their neighborhood."
Terris asked that police trial boards be abandoned and that the Civilian Re-
view Board he revitalized. The police Internal Investigations Division should
also investigate complaints of police brutality, he said.
Terris also called for future police recruits to be required to live in the Dis-
trict, and asked that present officers with the rank of captain or above move
into the city within two years.
Gun regulations, Terris testified, should "clearly forbid" police shooting at
citizens "when the suspect if merely suspected of stealing an automobile or cigar-
ettes." He said that the policemen involved in the recent shooting of Theodore
Robert Lawson "have grossly misused their power" and should be fired "whether
or not they are indicted."
Chief Layton, Terris said, have given only "lip service to improved commu-
nity relations." He has "failed almost completely to carry out the recommenda-
tions of the D.C. Crime Commission concerning community relations" and has
"never understood the black community," Terris said.
The City Council, too, "has failed to exercise leadership in this vital field,"
Terris said. He called on tbe Council to hold public hearings on the issue as soon
as possible.
PAGENO="0073"
69
The subcommittee's hearings have been closed to the public and the press.
Chairman Thompson said yesterday his subcommittee would consider on Wecines-
day whether to make the hearings open.
OPEN LETTER
DISTRICT or COLUMBIA POLICE WIVES AsSoCIATIoN, INC.,
Clinton, hid., daly 30, 1968.
Chief of Police JOHN B. LAYTON,
Metropolitan Police Department,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CHIEF LAYTON: On behalf of every member of the District of Columbia
Police Wives Association we want you to know you have our unanimous and
whole hearted support in your difficult post as the head of one of the most out-
standing police departments in the nation. We know that this is the feeling of the
4300 members of the Policeman's Association of the District of Columbia.
As recently as July 3, 1968, President Johnson said "Washington's Police-
men are among the Nation's finest. In the critical hours of unrest and violence
which gripped the city they performed most difficult missions. . . the backbone
of law enforcement in each of our communities is the policeman on the beat.
In no city of America is this more true than in the District of Columbia." Mayor
Walter E. Washington and Public Safety Director Patrick V. Murphy, have been
unstinting in the praise of the Metropolitan Police Department and your leader-
ship of it.
The Metropolitan Police Department is one of the finest in the nation. It has
been unmarked by the scandals which have racked the police departments in
other cities. This is to your credit.
You have broken new ground in race relations. 10 years ago 10 percent of the
police force were Negroes. Today the figure is 23 percent. Police Captains Owen
Davis, Robert N. Hough have been made Inspectors, the first time that Negroes
have been given this high rank. Acting Captain Herbert S. Taylor, a Negro has
been appointed head of the community relations division and will shortly be
given the permanent rank of captain in the police force. Police Captain Tilmon
B. O'Bryant was raised from the rank of Detective and made head of the 13th
police precinct.
In the face of the brilliant leadership you have given the Metropolitan Police
Department, the attacks upon you by the members of the Democratic Central
Committee of the District of Columbia, elected May 7, 1968, have reached in-
cdedible heights, culminating in (one) the resolution written by the Reverend
Channing E. Phillips, that the killing of white policemen is "justifiable homi-
cide" and (two) the call by Bruce Terris, the chairman of the District of Colum-
bia Democratic Central Committee yesterday for your dismissal.
We are astounded that at no time has Bruce Terris and the Reverend Chan-
ning Phillips praised you or mentioned one word about your leadership of the
finest police force in the nation.
The Negro Community as well as the White community did not vote the
members of the Democratic Central Committee into office on May 7, 1968 to
wage a campaign of harassment, intimidation and hysteria against the Metro-
politan Police Department of which our husbands are members.
The D.C. Police Wives Association hereby publicly announces that we will
raise with the credential and platform committees at the Democratic National
Convention, basic questions regarding the qualifications of the members of the
Democratic Central Committee and their campaign of harassment, intimidation,
and hysteria against the Metropolitan Police Department and you personally.
President Johnson, Vice President Humphrey, Senator Eugene McCarthy, and
the Democratic party have always stood for law and order, and for support of
the police.
On October 22, 1967, the Communist Party, lISA., issued a position paper
which laid down the line that Negroes should "police their own communities."
As reported in the New York Times from the Daily Worker, the position of
the Communist Party was "we support the demand that black people police
their own community . . . there can be no question of the right of black people
in the United States to use violence to achieve change." (see Letters column,
Sunday Star, July 28, 1968).
PAGENO="0074"
70
There is a startling similarity between the position of the Communist Party
and the positions which have been adopted by the Democratic Central Com-
mittee under the Reverend Channing E. Phillips, D.C. Democratic National Com-
mitteeman and Bruce Terris chairman of the D.C. Democratic Central Committee.
We believe the Democratic convention must answer this question, "Is it `justi-
fiable homicide' to kill white policemen?"
Respectfully,
Mrs. JOAN ABBOTT, President.
CC: President Johnson, Vice President Humphrey, Senator Eugene McCarthy,~
Members of the Congress, Senate District Committee, House District Committee,.
Mayor Walter E. Washington, Public Safety Director Patrick V. Murphy, Hon-
orable John W. Hechinger, D.C. City Council, Honorable William S. Thompson~
Chairman subcommitte-on police community relations, Honorable John M.
Bailey, Chairman Democratic National Committee, Press, radio, T.V.
PLEDGE OF SUPPORT TO CHIEF LAYTON
AUGUST 2, 1968.
Hon. JOHN B. LAYTON,
Chief, Metropolitan Police,
Municipal Center, Washington, D.C.
DEAR Sm: We, the undersigned, protest the intemperate demand of Bruce
Terris, Chairman, Democratic Central Committee, that you resign. We hereby
pledge you our wholehearted and enthusiastic support for your continued leader-
Ship as head of the finest police department in the nation.
On July 3, 1968, President Johnson said, "Washington's policemen are among
the Nation's finest. In the critical hours of unrest and violence which gripped
the city, they performed most difficult missions. The backbone of law enforcement
in each of our communities is the policeman on the beat. In no city in America
is this more true than in the District of Columbia."
You are nationally and internationally recognized as the head of one of the
finest police forces in `the world-unstained by scandal and special privileges.
During your years as our Police Chief, negro police `officers have been given new
opportunities. They have been raised to rank of Inspector for the first time and
have been made Captains of police precincts. The number of negro police has
increased from 10% to 23%.
Bruce Terris and the Rev. Channing E. Phillips have `said, "It is justifiable
homicide to kill white policemen." Under their leadership the District of
Columbia Democratic Central Committee has `taken the same position of
the Communist Party, U.S.A., which, as reported in the Letters Column of the
Sunday Star Newspaper of July 28, 1968, declared on October 22, 1967, "We
support the demand tha't black people police their own community. There can
be no question of the right of black people in the U.S. to use violence to achieve'
change."
We will make every `attempt to bring these issues to the attention of the
American people and the delegates to the Democratic National Convention in
Chicago who must answer the question, "Is it justifiable homicide to kill white'
policemen?"
Sincerely yours,
(Signed `by) Nicholas B. Addams (by permission), Chairman of Citizens,.
Advisory Council, Precinct No. 3; Ethel W. Loveless, (Past Chairman of Citizens
Advisory Council), Chairman of Executive Board, Citizens Advisory Councilr
Precinct No. 3; Catherine H. McCarron, President (by permission), Dupont Cir-
cle Citizens Association; and 93 individual petitioners.
[Article in the Washington Post, July 6, 1968]
SLAYING OF POLICE DEFENDED-BLACK UNITED FRONT CALLS IT `JUSTIFIABLE~
(By Leon Dash)
The Black United Front issued a statement yesterday describing the slaying
of a District policeman Tuesday night as a "justifiable homicide."
The statement said, in part:
"The methods of self defense used by the family charged with the alleged slay-
ing of the honky cop is justifiable homicide in the same sense that police are'
allowed to kill black people and call it justifiable homicide."
PAGENO="0075"
71
Several hours later, Mayor Walter E. Washington asserted that "the BUF
resolution with respect to the slaying of Officer (Stephen A.) Williams . . . is
inflammatory, irresponsible and unfortunate."
"If this community is to thrive and prosper, it must do so within the frame-
work of law," the Mayor said in a brief statement. "As citizens, we must con-
tinue to work together-black and white, policeman and civilian-so that law and
order, with justice, will be the code for all."
The Mayor declined to elaborate on the statement, which was issued after a
two-hour meeting with his principal aides.
Director of Public Safety Patrick V. Murphy called the Black United Front's
resolution "very dangerous" and "not well-founded" in a statement recorded by
WTOP-TV last night.
He said the resolution could not "help but be inflammatory," and he said he
did not think that it spoke for "any significant number" of citizens.
Murphy asserted that Police Department evidence suggests nothing like jus-
tifiable homicide and that anybody with different evidence has a responsibility to
come forward.
"I think it's tragic that such a statement should be made concerning a police-
man who has given his life protecting other citizens," Murphy added~
The BUF statement was adopted unanimously Wednesday night by "about
450" persons at a meeting at Douglas Memorial Church, 11th and E Streets ne.,
according to Charles Jones, a co-chairman of the Front.
The BUF was formed last January as a civil rights coalition of moderates and
militants by Stokely Carmichael, now its other co-chairman.
Williams, 22, and his partner, Pvt. Frederick L. Matteson, 38, who was criticaTly
wounded, were shot in a struggle with a robbery suspect, the latter's son and the
suspect's wife.
Both officers were shot with their own revolvers in the 1300 block of Columbia
Road nw. about 8 p.m. after attempting to arrest Johnnie White, 38. White, his
son Dwayne, 19, and his wife, Ethel R. White, have all been charged with
homicide.
The Rev. Channing Phillips, the Democratic National Committeeman from
Washington and a member of the board of the BUF, was asked whether he ap-
proved of the Front's statement.
"Well, I was there and the vote was unanimous," Mr. Phillips said. "Both the
officer and the citizen deserve protection from the system that provides for the
deaths of both."
Mr. Phillips said that some people were getting "hung up" on the language of
the statement. But when dealing with the problems of extreme deprivation, he
said, extreme language is used to express hostility.
"The attempt to police the community from the outside," Mr. Phillips said,
"produces hostility from the person policed."
"The officers, historically, have not seen the black citizen as a human being,"
he added.
The Rev. Walter B. Fauntroy, vice chairman of the City Council and a member
of the board of the BUF, said he had not read the statement and had no com-
ment. Mr. Fauntroy said he would issue a statement today.
C. Sumner Stone, a BUF board member, former assistant to Adam Clayton
Powell and once editor of the Washington Afro-American newspaper. said he
was not present when the BUF statement was drawn up and would not comment.
Asked if there was any division between Negro moderates and black militants
within the group, co-chairman Jones said the resolution was passed at a duly
notified and called meeting.
"When we have a unanimous vote," Jones said, "the Front takes a position
itself."
"When there is a majority vote," he said, "the Front requires those in the
minority" not to oppose the decision publicly.
Criticizing the role of the press Jones said "the problem with the white com-
munity in understanding what goes on in the black community is its apparent
need to identify and play up divisiveness."
TEXT OF RESOLUTION ON SLAYING OF POLICE
This is the resolution the Black United Front passed Wednesday night:
Resolution in support of the black family accused of the alleged slaying of a
lionky cop by the Black United Front.
PAGENO="0076"
72
Whereas the black community knows from history that police are controlled by
whites and come into the black community to suppress rather than protect black
people; whereas the black community knows and recognizes from its history
that police do not regard the lives of black people and have killed black people
under the guise of justifiable homicide and have been allowed to do so because
black people have no meaningful say so in their being hired or fired and these
cops have no interest in the black community; whereas the black community
needs systems of control and protection from oppressive elements; be it resolved
that-
1) The methods of self-defense by the family charged with the alleged slaying
of the honky cop is justifiable homicide in the same sense that police are allowed
to kill black people and call it justifiable homicide.
2) The police assigned to the black community be placed under the control
of the black community.
3) The society face up to its responsibility to remove a colonial, racist system
which make such events possible.
Black people have resolved that this change will occur by any means necessary
to preserve both freedom and comfort.
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 21, 1968.
lion. JOHN L. MCMILLAN,
Chairman, House District Committee,
2208 House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN MOMILLAN: I am writing as a law abiding citizen of Wash-
ington, D.C., on the matter of police protection. Last month it was the riots
and just Thursday, May 16th, one capital transit bus driver was killed and a
half dozen others were robbed while working the same evening; and now another
demonstration about to take place, the Poor Peoples March.
I understand you have introduced a bill to combine all of the five Police Forces
in the city and give them all the same arresting power so that citizens could be
better protected. Wouldn't this be better than closing some o.f the Police Precincts
in the city which we need. What has happened to your bill? Has the District
Committee considered your bill sO it could be passed at this session of Congress?
Your bill should be passed, at least I hope it will be, the sooner the better.
Thanking you again for having the interest of this city and especially the
protection of all its good citizens.
Very truly yours,
Mrs. AGNES MONAHAN.
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE,
Washington, January 22, 1068.
Hon. JOHN L. MOMILLAN,
Chairman, Committee on the District of Colum7ia,
United States House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mn. MCMILLAN: The Government of the District of Columbia has for
report HR. 14430 and H.R. 14448, identical bills, "To establish a Commissioner
of Police for the District of Columbia."
The purpose of this legislation, stated by one of its sponsors, Congressman
Broyhill (113 Cong. Rec. H16901, daily ed. December 13, 1967), is to consolidate
the five separate police forces now operating in the District of Columbia; i.e.,
the Metropolitan Police, United States Park Police, Capitol Police, White House
Police, and National Zoological Park Police. These forces would all be under the
complete jurisdiction of a Commissioner of Police appointed for a four-year
term by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro
tempore of the Senate, acting jointly. A nine-member advisory commission would
also be appointed by the Speaker and President pro tempore.
The District of Columbia Government is strongly opposed to the removal of
the iVietropolitan Police Department from the municipal government. A police
department is an integral part of any municipal government, with its services
subject to coordination with those of all municipal agencies. This coordination,
in the District of Columbia as elsewhere, is essential to the well-being of all the
PAGENO="0077"
73
citizens. Therefore, reasons for the District's opposition to this legislation
include the following:
1. The bills in effect divide responsibility and weaken the ability of the
Government of the District of Columbia to provide comprehensive protection
and services for people living in the District.
2. If enacted the legislation would cause conflict and confusion between
Police operations and closely related services in crime control, including the
functions of education, corrections, welfare, and traffic control.
3. It would result in a major reversal in the trend toward citizen participa-
tion and involvement in District Government affairs provided under Reor-
ganization Plan No. 3 of 1967.
4. The bills would create waste and inefficiency through requiring duplica-
tion of supporting services, such as personnel, purchasing, and computer
equipment by setting up a costly overhead organization duplicating many ex-
isting support services in the D.C. Government.
5. Considerable coordination of the Police functions (involving all entities
covered by the subject bills) with other related functions such as Civil De-
fense, Fire Protection, Corrections, the Courts, and the Attorney General is
accruing through the District of Columbia Director of Public Safety.
The foregoing reasons are sufficient for the Government of the District of
Columbia to strongly recommend against the enactment of HR. 14430 and HR.
14448. Additional information is being developed and will be sent to you later.
I have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from the standpoint of
the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this re-
port to the Congress.
Sincerely yours,
(S) Walter B. Washington,
WALTER B. WAsHINGTON,
Commissioner.
PAGENO="0078"
PAGENO="0079"
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1968
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Washington, D.C.
`The `Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :00 a.m. in Room 1310,
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Dowdy (Acting Chair-
man), presiding.
iliem~bers Present: Representatives Dowdy (Acting Chairman),
Adams, Nelsen, Broyhill and Gude.
AZso present: James T. Clark, Clerk; Hayden S. Garber, Counsel;
Sara Watson, Assistant Counsel; Donald Tubridy, Minority Clerk;
and Leonard 0. Hilder, Investigator.
Mr. DOWDY. The Committee will come to order.
We have had some hearings previously on the bills H.R. 14430 and
H.R. 14448 to establish a Commissioner of Police for the District of
`Columbia. These hearings will be continued this morning.
I notice the District of Columbia Police Wives' Association is rep-
resented here this morning by Mrs. Barbara Newman. She was also
present hut was not reached at the other hearings. Mrs. Newman, if you
will come around we will be glad to hear from you now.
STATEMENT OP MRS. BARBARA NEWMAN, VICE PRESIDENT,
DTSTRIGT OP COLUMBIA POLICE WIVES' ASSOCIATION, INC.
Mrs. NEWMAN. First of all I would like to say that our Association
is in favor of the House of Representative bills H.R. 14430 and H.R.
14448.
it is a privilege to be here this morning as the representative of our
District of Columbia Police Wives' Association in support of H.R.
14430 and H.R 14448.
PoLICE MORALE
The men of the Metropolitan Police Department are in a sta'te of un-
certainty and confusion with regard to policies. I wish to quote from
the President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia,
IReport on the Metropolitan Police Department, dated July 16, 1966:
"The state of the police officer's morale bears heavily on the
nature of his contacts with citizens, the vigor of his efforts to
`apprehend criminals~ and the integrity with which he approaches
his job.
"The Commission concludes that morale in `the Metropolitan
Police Department is poor, as reflected in the repeated, f ar-rang-
lug grievances Expressed by the rank and file. Some members of
(75)
PAGENO="0080"
76
the force blame the courts and the community; dissatisfaction is
registered with citizen apathy, community toleration of vice ac-
tivities, failure to raise children J~roperly, and judicial decisions
freeing known and dangerous criminals. Greater dissatisfaction,
however, is expressed with the Department itself. Complaints
about the poor caliber of leadership, the quality of equipment and
facilities, and unrealistic training and promotion practices are
heard over and over again. The men of the Metropolitan Police
Department enter into police service with a desire to serve the
community as efficiently and fairly as they can. However~ their
quality and potential are gradually eroded as their period of
service lengthens. The impact of low police nmrale, poor super-
vision, poor equipment, lack of leadership and inadequate train-
ing will affect police-community interaction and lead to a general
estrangement of the community from the police. Such a state of
affairs can produce nothing other than mutual distrust and lack
of confidence."
This was the state of affairs in July of 1966 and, as the Commission
predicted, it has led to general estrangement of the community from
the police and produced distrust and lack of confidence. The situation
has not bettered itself since 1966, but has grown more acute.
Our interpretation of morale as Police Wives is the mental and emo-
tional state of the individual with regard to confidence and enthusiasm.
One of the greatest weapons that can be used against man is utter
discouragement. Its use can cause despondency, lack of interest, and
bring about a feeling of total disrespect and lack of pride. This weapon
of discouragement is being used effectively against the Policemen of
the Metropolitan Police Department. In the months since April, the
discouragement of the men of the Department has become increasingly
more apparent. They are used by the press in the choice of articles
that appear in print, they are reviled and belittled by militant pres-
sure groups, and are sacrificed by the District Government to appease
these pressure groups.
There is a general feeling among the men that the City Council is
not giving them their full support. In a letter dated August 3, 1968,
addressed to our Association. Chairman John MT. Hechinger of the
City ~ounci1 told us, "We have sought the considered opinions of
experts m many fields to help the community to understand the need
for good police-community relations." Members of this subcommittee,
as an example of the experts whose opinions were sought by the City
Council, I wish to read a copy of a letter our Association sent to Chair-
man Hechinger, September 5, 1968.
Mr. DOWDY. That letter will be made a part of the record.
Mrs. NEwr~rAN. Shall I read it?
Mr. DOWDY. That will not be necessary; we will incorporate it in
the record at this point.
(The letter follows:)
PAGENO="0081"
77
AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL D.C. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
SEPTEMBER 5, 1966.
The Honorable JOHN W. HEOHINGER,
Chairman,
D. C. City Council,
14th c~ E. streets,
Washington, D. C. 20004.
DEAR MR. HECHINGER: We charge that the D.C. City Council has made a major
contribution to the deterioration of police-community relations. This is proved
by a little-noticed report in the Washington Post of September 2, 1968, (page B 4)
in a 2-column article titled "Columbia U. Rebel Is D.C. Researcher." The Post
reported, in part, as follows: "Jonathan D. Schiller, 21, connects the Columbia
University riots of last spring with Washington's police-community relations
crisis of this summer. A 6-foot, 5-inch exponent of the New Left, Schiller threw
his considerable bulk between the police and the Columbia demonstrators, an
experience he brought to bear recently when, as a research assistant for the
D.C. City Council, he helped prepare its report on police-community relations
Now a $100-a-week summer intern for the City Council, Schiller has tucked
his knees under a low desk and helped turn out the 43-page report on police-
community relations that is still being considered by the Council. For two weeks,
with his Columbia experience still fresh in mind, Schiller plowed through reports
of various crime commissions, called police and law enforcement officials and
conferred with specialists from the Justice Department. "The Columbia riots
taught me a lot about power,' he said. `And working here has enabled me to get a
perspective on the art of power and that a real citizen influence is necessary. It
gives me an awareness of when and under what conditions it will be feasible.'
The image of a `Columbia rebel' may clash with that of the municipal Bureaucrat
hunched over a desk shuffling papers into oblivion, but Schiller, articulate as usual,
has an answer. `A radical or extremist probably considers summertime work in
city government an exercise in futility,' be conceded. `But my job with the
Council has been educational and productive. I've learned something.'"
We thought, and certainly we, as well as the rest of the community were led
to believe from earlier newspaper and radio-TV reports, that the City Council's
study on police-community relations has been prepared by the members of the
Council's Public Safety Committee. These members are William S. Thompson
Chairman, Margaret A. Haywood, Polly Shackleton, Rev. Walter B. Fauntroy,
John A. Nevius, and yourself as an ew officio member. Whatever Mr. Schiller
may consider he has learned about the "art of power," we think this Washington
Post article, shocking and revealing as it is, clearly calls for decisive action by
the City Council.
We are demanding that you (1) publicly identify the sections of the City
Council's 43-page report on police-community relations on which Mr. Schiller
worked, and those he contributed to; and (2) issue a completely frank and open
report on the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the hiring of this "Co-
lumbia U. Rebel.' `Please bear in mind that this 43-page report is not a mere
student's thesis on "the art of power" and citizen control of the police.
Mr. Schiller, an avowed "radical or extremist", has successfully included
some novel proposals clearly acceptable to the Black United Front, but not to
Public Safety Director, Patrick V. Murphy who has totally rejected a number of
recommendations in the report. The City Council should have consulted experts
personally in preparing its report. Its use of a self-admitted "radical or extremist"
such as Mr. Sehiller to do its work seems to vitiate this 43-page report.
In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton called for a "check upon a spirit
of favoritism" which would "prevent the appointment of unfit characters from
state prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachments, or from
a view to popularity." Clearly, such a check is desperately needed in the City
Council. May we hear from you?
Sincerely yours,
D. C. POLICE WIVES' ASSOCIATION, INC.
Mrs. NEWMAN. We feel that the appointment of a Commissioner
could eliminate appointment of such unqualified persons to a position
of such importance where the Police Department is concerned. This
was one of the points I wished to bring out by the letter.
97-945---68------G
PAGENO="0082"
78
RESTRICTIONS ON POLICE
In some recent rulings the police have found their hands tied. It
is no longer permissible for an officer to remove from the streets of
the District on a disorderly conduct charge a mafi using the obscenest
of language to a woman and her children. What responsible man would
not feel revulsion for the use in front of a woman and small children
of language too vile to be repeated? There are certain types of per-
verts who get their kicks from such an oration of filth and obscenity.
It is no longer permissible to remove from the streets of the District
alcoholics who constantly clutter the city's beautiful parks. Alcohol-
ism is, of course, considered a disease, and these persons are usually
in a state of noncomprehension, spending every penny they can beg,
borrow, or steal on alcohol. They are increasingly becoming more of
a nuisance to the public. An officer must ask such a person to go to
the Alcoholic Rehabilitation Center, but if he refuses he must be left
on the street, a danger to himself and to society. Something needs to
be done to increase the facilities for rehabilitation and to make it
necessary for such persons to be sent to these centers with or without
their consent.
We have in this city at this time approximately 3,000 Metropolitan
Policemen, and every day there are enough arrests to fill a book, but
the press chooses to print front page stories about the wrong actions
of policemen, while buried somewhere on the back pages in usually
small articles appear the seldom printed stories of a policeman's appre-
hension of suspects. In many instances where officers apprehend sus-
pected criminals and there are witnesses to the crime, they will not
come forward to testify for fear of their lives, or because the number
of court appearances involved in a single case is much too time-
consuming.
Former Vice President Nixon stated a few days ago, "At last count
there were some 2,000 cases backed up in the court of General Sessions.
Men walking free on probation are responsible for many of the crimes
taking place in the city. An identical situation obtains in Juvenile
Court." Obviously witnesses fear for their lives from criminals who
are immediately released on personal bond and later probation, and
this is a major reason for their reluctance to come forward. However,
let policemen become involved and there are plenty of witnesses to
tell the most conflicting stories in regard to the officer's actions.
Back many months ago the amount of equipment and uniforms was
insufficient, and although the Department has acquired some equip-
ment, the number of recruits has caused the shortage to remain.
Personnel files of the Department are open to the public by order of
the D.C. Code, Section 4-135. Anyone so desiring may glean from these
files such information on a policeman and his family as contained
therein. This leaves the policeman's family target for harassment by
phone or visit. Since it is a matter of changing the D.C. Code only
Congress can change this fact. It would be a relief to an officer not to
have to worry about his family being harassed in his absence.
SuPPORT OF LEGISLATION
All the points we have touched on here are sources of discouragement
to the men and bring the morale down. The men feel that a strong
PAGENO="0083"
79
Congressionally appointed Commissioner will bring the Department
above the influence of the pressure groups and the criminal element
that is asserting itself in our Nation's Capital. They feel that a Com-
missioner will help to alleviate many of the previously stated condi-
tions that are causing discouragement. and poor morale.
We know of no other city where there is a similar division of the
Police Forces into major segments such as exists in the District of
Columbia. No other city would tolerate such a fragmented Police
Force. The experience with Resurrection City is illuminating in this
regard. The Park Police and the Metropolitan Police could not enter
Resurrection City to enforce the law. The result was a reign of lawless-
ness unparalleled in our history. Among the. reasons was jurisdictional
conflict. It was not until the Congress demanded that the reign of law-
lessness at Resurrection City be ended that steps were taken to brush
:aside any jurisdictional line and the Park and Metropolitan Police
worked smoothly and efficiently together to end the. terror. A Police
Commissioner, head of all the forces in the city, could act decisively
and immediately in crises.
Unification of the Police Forces in Washington is just as essential as
unification of the military forces of the Nation was, which led Congress
to establish the De~partment of Defense.
A strong Conurnssioner would bring about uniform policy, uniform
training, and a closer working relationship among all the District
forces. Washington is a Federal city and should have uniform policies
for all its police forces. It is saddening and disheartening to Americans
for their Nation's Capital to rank 19th in serious crime among cities in
our country. Not a very good example to be sure.
Uniformity would bring about greater professionalization of all
Metropolitan forces of the District, better morale and greater respect
for the men.
We feel that under a Commissioner, Congress would see that suffi-
cient funds would be appropriated to fill the Department's needs for
uniforms, equipment, and men and insure that the Department is one
`of the most up-to-date and efficient in the country. It would also make
the Police budget separate and distinct from that of the city and insure
pay raises for the men in line with the current cost index.
Because it seems to reflect the thoughts and feelings of many officers
I would like to read a letter of resignation to the Department. from a
veteran officer of 111/2 years. It was printed in the August issue of the
Policemen's Association News.
Shall I read this letter, sir?
Mr. DOWDY. We will include it in the record at this point.
Mrs. NEWMAN. All right.
(The letter follows:)
Jinx 15, 1968.
To: Commanding Officer, Special Operations Division.
Subject: Resignation.
After much serious soul searching I have reached a decision to tender my
resignation at the earliest date convenient to the Department. I have made this
decision due to the recent turn of events in this city. I feel that the so-called
"Leadership" of this city with the inflammatory statements made recently by
several pressure groups directed individually and collectively at members of
this Department, with the tacit approval of the Vice Chairman of the City
Council, and the defense of Mr. Fauntroy by Mr. Hechinger.
PAGENO="0084"
80
I have no intention to remain in an atmosphere permissive of unlawful acts~
justified by supposedly responsible people who claim to be civic leaders, who in
effect are followers of the crowd, mouthing statements popular to the rabble in
order to maintain their own personal popularity or give vent to their prejudices.
I have vainly waited for some rebuttal of the Black United Front from this
Department other than the Policemen's Association, but apparently we also are
without leadership.
I am not impressed by the derogatory statements or the inaction of leadership.
This will all pass with time. What will not pass is the ineffectual leadership so
dominant throughout this city, that not even one responsible party has the
courage to rebut the statements. All that is put forth are excuses and idiotic
justifications for the wording. This is supposed to be for the good of the com-
munity. Good for the Black resident of the ghetto? These are the people who
suffer most from lawlessness. Good for the Middle class citizen? Black and
white, he is fleeing to the suburbs, or living behind locked doors in constant fear.
I am unable to see any change for the better in the near future and in plain
talk "I'm getting out while I'm still in one piece".
It is with deep regret that I have reached this decision but I must follow my
own convictions no matter what the cost. My only thought in rebuttal to the
Justifiable Homicide statement is, if the killing of a Human Being in the course
of carrying out an unpopular or unfaVorable task is termed justifiable then all
people in authority had best beware, and when Government agrees, even tacitly,
Civilization as we know it has signed it's Death Warrant.
PATRICK J. SULLIVAN,
Private, Special Operations Di'vision.
Mrs. NEw~rAN. We thank you for the consideration you have shown
us this morning and we want you to know that we deeply appreciate
the sympathetic understanding and support which the members of
this committee and of the Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike,
have always given the Metropolitan Police Department of Washing-
ington, D.C. Thank you.
Mr. DOWDY. Thank you, Mrs. Newman, for your statement.
Of course the reason for these bills being introduced, it appears
that police powers vested in separate organizations under separate
control are not working out as they should and we feel a unified
police would do a better job.
You mention the press and so forth. Part of it seems to have a vested
interest in riots and so on because it gives them something to put on
the front page. In the Chicago disorders it was stated that television
cameramen got a young woman to come before their cameras and run
up to the police and scream "police brutality" so they could have
something to show on their television programs. This is imfortunate.
As a result of this they encourage and actually promote, in effect,
troubles that otherwise would not occur.
Reports continually come to us from people whose stores were
looted in the April riots here that the police told them they were under
orders not to make arrests of these looters and arsonists. Do you
know anything about that?
Mrs. NEWMAN. I know they were allowed to arrest the men and as
a result thousands were arrested.
Mr. DOWDY. This was when the riots first started?
Mrs. NEWMAN. Yes.
Mr. DOWDY. At least one person told me he stood in front of his store
and requested the police to make arrests and they refused to do so.
Mrs. NEWMAN. Was this when the trouble began on 14th Street?
At that time they thought it could be contained in a small area and
they cordoned off the area at that time.
PAGENO="0085"
81
Mr. DOWDY. And they were told riot to make arrests?
Mrs. NEWMAN. I could riot say definitely, sir.
Mr. DOWDY. You touched in your statement on Resurrection City. I
understand the police were ordered not to enter Resurrection City and
make arrests.
Mrs. NEWMAN. I understood Resurrection City had a sort of vigi-
lant.e force of their own that was supposed to take care of lawlessness
or whatever you have, but as a result there was an extreme amount of
lawlessness.
Mr. DOWDY. Thank you.
At this point in the record, we will insert the statement and petition
of the Police Wives United, in support of the pending legislation.
(The documents referred to follow:)
GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE: We, the members of Police Wives United sup-
port the bill of Rep. Joel T. Broyhull for the following reasons:
1. This Capitol City of all citizens of the United States needs and deserves
the finest police force in the world.
:2. Recently we have witnessed in the newspapers and on radio and television
attacks on the police department from various political organizations in which
they have proposed various controls that should be exercised over the Police
Department. Their slanted proposals take none of the views of the average law-
abiding citizens-Black or White. The average citizen is not interested or quali-
fied in policing the police.
.3. The D.C. Police because of their unique situation of enforcing federal law
along with local ordinances (D.C. Code) have long deserved the recognition and
status of federal officers.
4. In summation we believe that since Washington, D.C., is a federal city
that the men who are called on to protect the city should also be under federal
rule. Local politics (welfare, social problems, schools, etc.) are not problems
created by the police. If we the law abiding citizens do not make every effort in
support of this proposal we feel that our Nation's Capitol might well be prepared
to face a time of mob rule.
We the members of Police Wives United are circulating a petition gaining pub-
lie support for the passage of this proposal.
POLICE WIVES UNITED.
POLICE WIVES UNITED,
P.O. Boiv 122, Lan/tam, Md., August 1, 1968.
Representative JOEL T. BROYHILL,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE BROYHILL: We enclose herewith the petitions in support
of HR 14430 in the hope that the members of the House District Committee can
understand the difficult situations under which these petition signatures were
gathered.
We met with the problem of lack of cooperation by the news media to publicize
the locations where the petitions were available for signature. In many instanc~s
we were told that "the issue was too controversial for public service announce-
ments. but it could be handled as a news item." After releasing the information
as a news item we found, as usual, that the item wasn't "newsworthy" enough.
Also. understandably, many men were reluctant to let their wives collect peti-
tion signatures in the Washington, D.C., area for fear of their safety. We feel lit
is essential to inform you that the response from the people contacted netted
almost a one-hundred percent response. Many of these people came forth with
their own story of having lived in the District of Columbia and of having to move
because of their own personal fear for life and property.
There are still petitions due to be mailed directly to your office from various
other states. Since the Nations' Capitol belongs to all of us in the United States.
we should all be concerned with its problems. Thus, we have mailed to friends and
relatives copies of this petition and have asked their support.
The Nations' Capitol should be a model for each and every state. It is very
important that the Police Departments in Washington, D.C., be maintained by a
governing body that would allow the Police Departments to function at their
greatest capacity in enforcing the law and protecting the public. We do not feel
PAGENO="0086"
82
that this can be accomplished with the "citizen control and pressured influence"~
under which the departments are now being operated.
We sincerely urge the members of the House District Committee to lend their"
support to the passage of this bilL It is of extreme importance to us and to every
law-abiding citizen, not only in the District of Columbia, but all over the United I
States.
Sincerely,
POLICE WIVES UNITED.
POLICE WIVEs UNITED, Box 122, IJANHAM, MARYLAND
The undersigned petitioners hereby request the passage of HR 14430, a pro-
posal sponsored by Representative Joel P. Broyhill, regarding the establishment
of a Commissioner of Police for the District of Columbia and the consolidation
of all District of Columbia Police Departments under this Commissioner.
NAME ADDREE~S
Mrs. Evelyn Brennan P.O. Box 122, Lanham, Md.
And others.
Mr. DOWDY. The next witness is Mr. Nash Castro, Regional Director
of the National Capital Region, National Park Service.
STATEMENT OF NASH CASTRO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
CAPITAL REGION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY"
CHIEF GRANT WRIGHT, PARK POLICE
Mr. CASTRO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the corn-
~viittee. Before I proceed I would like to present my associate, Chief
Grant Wright of the Park Police.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I am Nash Castro,
Regional Director of the National Capital Region, National Park
Service. I am appearing today on behalf of the Secretary of the In-
tenor, in opposition to H.R. 14430 and H.R. 14448. As Regional Direc-
tor, I am charged with the responsibility for administration of the
park system of the District of Columbia, and outside the District of
Columbia, areas such as the George Washington Memorial Parkway,
Suitland Parkway, Baltimore-Washington Parkway, the C & 0 Canal,
Prince William Forest Park, Fort Washington, Piscataway. Park,
Greenbelt and others. There are 1,590 permanent personnel in my
Region, including the Park Police, which has an authorizedforce of
363. Fifty-five of the 363 police positions represent new positions an-
thorized in the current fiscal year. However, because of current em-
ployment restrictions we are not able to fill them.
The management duty vested in the National Park Service would be
difficult, if not impossible, of attainment with Park Police responsive"
to a Commissioner who may inevitably address himself substantially
to problems of crime and law enforcement, who may have objectives
different from park management. For this reason, the Department
opposes enactment of H.R. 14430 and H.R. 14448.
From its inception in 1791, at the time when "watchmen" were au-
thorized for the purpose of protecting public grounds in the District
of Columbia, the Park Police have become a force having responsibil-
ities both within and outside of the District of Columbia, and under
certain conditions, to the enforcement of regulations for areas ad-
ministered by other Federal agencies. No other unit mentioned in the
two bills before you had similar duties or authority.
PAGENO="0087"
83
The function of Park Police is primarily connected with the ad-
ministrative needs of parks, of interpreting the parks and upholding
the law. Within the District of Columbia this concern involves nation-
ally significant areas such as the Mall, Washington Mounment, Lincoln
Memorial and Jefferson Memorial-functions such as the Independence
Day celebration, Watergate concerts, the Torchlight Tattoo, Presi-
dent's Cup Regatta, special events on the Mall and numerous other
occasions requiring a particular responsivesness to varying park uses.
It should also be noted that, within the District, Park Police have the
same arrest authority as the Metropolitan Police.
The function of the Park Police often goes beyond that of law
enforcement officers. Visitors and residents alike rely on these men
and women to have particular knowledge of our Nation's Capital and
events in the Federal area that forms a focus of national interests and
visitation.
As stated in the Departmental Report, the District Police assist the
National Park Service in meeting its obligations to the people of the
United States.
This, too, is true both within and outside of the District. It must be
apparent that the extent, both geographical and functional, of Park
Service involvement requires a force instantly responsive to admini-
strative needs, in the National and local interest. Motorized policing
of the various parkways for the safety of visitors and commuters, to
horseback interpreter in the Central Mall area are two examples of
this scope of activity.
Park Police, then are an effective arm and management tool of the
National Park Service, and there should not be any insulation per-
mitted which in any manner affects the efficient execution of their
mission in this capacity.
The United States Park Police is a unique organization. It is the
only Federal Park Police Force in the United States and has behind
it a great and proud tradition of public service.
I am deeply concerned that the legislation under consideration
would make it awkward for park management to assign operational
responsibilities to the Park Police, if, in fact, its administrative align-
ment were changed.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I shall be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. DOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Castro.
Chief Wright, do you have a statement?
Chief WRIGHT. No, sir.
Mr. DOWDY. We will insert into the record at this point a letter to
Chairman McMillan from the Interior Department on his legislation.
(The letter referred to follows:)
TJNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Os~'IcE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., May 27, 1Q68.
lion. JOHN L. MCMILLAN,
Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: There is pending before your Committee li.R~ 14430
and HR. 14448, identical bills, "To establish a Commissioner of Police for the
District of Columbia."
PAGENO="0088"
84
We recommend that the bill not be enacted.
The bill establishes the office of "Commissioner of Police in the District of
Columbia" as an independent office in the District of Columbia Government.
The Police Commissioner would be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate. The bill also
establishes a 9-member Police Commissioner Advisory Commission which would
be appointed by the Chairmen of the House and Senate Committees on the Dis-
trict of Columbia.
The bill transfers to the Police Commissioner certain functions, powers, and
duties, including those of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the
United States Park Police in the District of Columbia. Notwithstanding dis-
claimers regarding continuation of police dutes, as presently defined, contained
in section 2(5) (d), the bill would transfer to the Police Commissioner certain
functions, powers, and duties, including those of the Secretary of the Interior
with respect to the United States Park Police in the District of Columbia. In
this respect, we believe that the provisions of the bill are not adequate since there
is no clear recognition that the function of the Park Police is an extension of
the function of the National Park Service.
The jurisdiction of the United States Park Police in the District of Columbia
includes the enforcement of Federal regulations applicable to Federal park areas
and the monuments and memorials of transcendent national significance that
are administered by the Federal Government as part of the National Park Sys-
temP In addition, the jurisdiction of the United States Park Police with respect
to law enforcement extends beyond the boundaries of the District of Columbia
to Federal park areas and, under certain conditions, to areas administered by
other Federal agencies.
The United States Park Police must be primarily available for and respon-
sive to the demands imposed upon the National Park Service by virtue of ad-
ministration and interpretation of areas for the visitor to the Nation's Capital.
Those responsibilities stem from specfic duties given the Secretary by the
Congress.
Park Police responsibility in this regard, therefore, transcends law enforcement.
Park Police are expected to have knowledge of the National Capital Park System
which will permit them to convey interpretive information, as well as such
knowledge of the mission of the National Park Service that their actions assist
the National Park Service in meeting its obligations to visitors and residents
alike. Thus, the added dimension of the Park Police, as part of, and responsive
to, the agency administering this important focal point of visitation in the Na-
tional Park System should be patent.
For these reasons we believe it would be inappropriate to place the United
States Park Police under the District of Columbia Government.
We also note that section 2(c) of the bill requires the Police Commissioner to
make recommendations directly to the Congress for legislation to make the
police forces under his jurisdiction subject to the same provisions for appoint-
ments, promotions, dismissals, compensation, retirement, and similar matters.
Inasmuch as the compensation and promotion, of United States Park Police are
governed by the District of Columbia Police and Firqmen's Salary Act of 1958
(72 Stat. 480), as amended, (D.C. Code, sec. 4-823 et seq.), we believe no great
disparity exists between the police forces in such matters.
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the pre-
sentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely yours,
CLARENCE F. PANTZKI,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
Mr. DOWDY. I have often wondered who made the decision to turn
the park over to this Resurrection City crowd that came in here,
when was it?
Mr. CASTRO. In May and June.
POLICING RESURrECTION CITY
Mr. DOWDY. In May, but that is past now. I am curious about one
thing, though, who in the world was it that agreed that the police
PAGENO="0089"
85
would not go in that Resurrection City and would let them do as they
pleased? Who issued that order?
Mr. CASTRO. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe such an order was
issued. I don't recall issuing such an order and I am sure the Chief
didn't issue such an order. Under the permit issued to the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference they were to provide marshals to
do their own policing, but this did not preclude the National Park
Police or the Metropolitan Police from coming on the scene. I don't
know how the story got abroad that the Park Police or the Metro-
politan Police could not come on the scene. This is not so and certainly
no `order was issued to that effect.
Mr. DOWDY. This was what happened, was it not?
Mr. CASTRO. I don't think so, Mr. Chairman. There. were many occa-
sions when the Park Police went in and made arrests where necessary.
The impression is also current that the Park Police were instructed
not to make arrests in Resurrection City. This is not true, sir. We cer-
tainly did not instruct our Park Policemen not to make arrests in
Resurrection City. We asked them to use judgment and restraint, but
they were not told not to make arrests.
Mr. DOWDY. One of the judges, I forget who it was, made the
comment he was amazed that such an instruction was given. Actually,
they set up an independent country which governed itself within the'
United States. Of course if there was not an order or a tacit under-
standing, it was amazing to me that such a rumor got out, if it was a
rumor.
Mr. CASTRO. The closest thing we came to was an understanding-
not an instruction-to the Park Police, because of the explosive nature
of this exercise, that they must use the best judgment they had ever
used in their lives and also must be somewhat restrained, and we think
that decision was correct.
Mr. DOWDY. You said you knew it would be an explosive situation?'
Mr. CASTRO. It could have been, sir.
Mr. DOWDY. Now, knowing that why was a permit issued in the first
place?
Mr. CASTRO. Because this was a determination that was made by
officials in addition to or higher then myself. It was a determination
made jointly by a number of the interested agencies in the District,
including the Interior Department, the National Park Service~ the
Justice Department, and the District of `Columbia Government. This
was not a unilateral decision. It was a joint decision made by a number
of agencies that have responsibilities within the city.
Mr. DOWDY. And knowing the explosive nature of the situation,.
that decision was made anyway?
Mr. CASTRO. I made the allusion to explosiveness unwisely. It was
potentially explosive but the decision was made to grant the permit and
again I say this was not a unilateral decision.
PERMIT FOR REsURREcTIoN CITY
Mr. DOWDY. Could you give us for the record a copy of the agree-
ment you had with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference?
Mr. CAsmo. Yes, indeed.
Mr. DOWDY. Thank you. It will be made a part of the record at this
point.
PAGENO="0090"
86
(The agreement follows:)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION,
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20242, May 10, 1968.
Rev. BERNARD LAFAYETTE, Jr.,
National Coordinator,
Was hinçqton Poor People's Campaign,
1401 U St., 27.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20009.
DEAR REV. LAFAYETTE: Pursuant to the provisions of 36 CFR 50.19, permission
is granted the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (".Permittee"), 334
Auburn Avenue, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia:
(a) for the purpose of setting up and maintaining tents and appurtenant tem-
porary structures designated by Permittee as "Resurrection City, U.S.A.", for the
use of not more than 3,000 persons, to use that portion of park land in the Dis-
trict of Columbia which is an area west of 17th Street, N.W. and north of west-
bound Independence Avenue to be agreed upon by the staffs of Permittee and the
National Park Service and marked by stakes placed in advance by the National
Park Service, said area being referred to herein as "Area A";
(b) for the purpose of holding meetings, to use the paved platform on the west
terminus of the Reflecting Pool and the steps leading down to said platform daily
from 7:00 p.m. until 12:00 Midnight, said area being referred to herein as
"Area B";
(c) for the purpose of installing a display, consisting of n~ot to exceed six (6)
facilities such as a rural type dwelling and appurtenances and used trailers or
buses, which facilities shall be maintained solely for display and shall not be
occupied as living quarters, to use an area adjacent to the Smithsonian Institu-
tion to be agreed upon by the staffs of Permittee, the Smithsonian Institution
and the National Park Service, said area being referred to herein as "Area C."
This permit is granted in response to Permittee's application of May 10, 1968,
for certain purposes of the demonstration designated by Permittee as the "Poor
People's Campaign." This permit covers the areas designated and the activities
described herein and is issued subject to all of the conditions enumerated herein.
1. This permit shall take effect as of 8:00 am., on Saturday, May 11, 1968,
and shall remain in effect until 8:00 p.m. on Sunday, June 16, 1968.
2. Permittee shall provide in advance a general layout and construction plan
for Area A for review by the National Park Service for adequate compliance
with health a:nd safety standards and shall proceed in accordance with said
plan as approved by the National Pai~k Service. Permittee shall install the struc-
tures in Area A in a neat and orderly plan beginning at the westernmost edge
of Area A and moving eastward in a reasonably compact pattern. Permittee
shall maintain the premises in accordance with applicable health and safety
standards and shall facilitate periodic inspection of structures and facilities by
appropriate health, safety and fire authorities of the National Park Service
and of the District of Columbia to insure maintenance of such standards.
3. Permittee shall provide toilet, bathing and washing facilities and shall
provide for the disposal of sewage from such facilities by making connection
with available sewage lines. Permittee may connect into available water, com-
munication and electric facilities. All utility connections shall be at the expense
of Permittee. Permittee shall comply with the recluirements of the National
Park Service and of the District of Columbia regarding the construction and
maintenance of such connections. Permittee shall arrange for the installation
of necessary utility meters at its expense. Payment to suppliers for utility
services shall be the responsibility of Permittee.
4. Perinittee shall hold the United States and the District of Columbia harm-
less in the event of the death of or injury to any person or the destruction of
or damage to any property, not arising out of acts of the Indemnitees' employees
or agents.
5. Ingress to and egress from Area A by vehicles necessary to serve said
area and the parking of such vehicles shall be at locations designated by the
National Park Service.
6. Permittee may install fences within and around Areas A and C. The design
of exterior fencing shall be subject to the approval of the National Park
Service.
PAGENO="0091"
87
7. No firearms, weapons, explosives, or incendiary materials, and no fossil-
fueled lanterns or open fires shall be permitted in the designated areas.
8. Upon cessation of the use of the designated areas under this permit, Per-
mittee shall remove all facilities installed by or for it and shall restore the
areas to their prior condition, reasonable wear and tear of the turf excepted.
To guarantee compliance with this requirement, Permi'ttee shall deposit $5,000
in cash with the National Park Service or shall execute an undertaking in the
amount of $5,000 with two sufficient sureties satisfactory to the National Park
Service or to furnish a contractual cominitnient therefor satisfactory to the
National Park Service.
9. Permittee shall provide sufficient medical personnel and facilities to insure
first aid and the maintenance of adequate medical care.
10. Permittee shall provide marshals, appropriately identified in sufficient
numbers to maintain good order, hut this shall not limit, impair, or otherwise
interfere with the authority of law enforcement agencies in the exercise of
their responsibilities.
11. Permittee shall cause garbage and refuse of all kinds to be stored in
covered, fly- and vermin-proof receptacles to be provided by Permittee, and
Perinittee shall be responsible for daily removal thereof, at its expense.
12. In the event Permittee desires to use other park areas during the term
-of this permit or to request an extension thereof, the issuance of permits will
be considered in good faith upon the recipt. of specific requests therefor. How-
-ever, Permittee may make use of areas for appropriate forms of recreation in
sites designated by the National Park Service for that purpose.
13. Any loud-speaking equipment used will be so adjusted as to be audible
only to those people in the immediate area.
14. Permittee shall keep the designated areas in a reasonably neat and clean
condition, taking int-o account the purposes for which they are assigned. Per-
mittee may plant flowers and shrubs in Area A for the enjoyment of the par-
.ticipants. No existing trees and shrubs may be disturbed.
15. No livestock may be stabled or kept in -the designated areas.
16. This permit does not authorize any activity or conduct by Permittee
-or participants in violation of applicable laws or regulations. The National Park
Service reserves the right to revoke this perniit at any time in the interest of
public safety and the general welfare.
17. The rules and regulations set out in 36 CFR Part 50, a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" -shall be applicable to Permittee and par-
ticipants to -the extent not inconsistent w-i-th the express provisions of this
permit.
Upon the acceptance of the conditions contained in this letter, indicated by
the signature of Permittee in the space provided and the return of the carbon
copy properly executed to this office, this letter becomes a permit for the
jiurposes described.
Sincerely yours,
NASH CASTRO, Regional Director.
Accepted And Agreed To This 10th day of May, 1968.
SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN LEADER5I-IIP CONFERENCE,
BERNARD LAFAYETTE, Jr.,
National Coordinator of Washington Poor People's Campaign.
Director, Washington Burean, Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.,
LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE POOR PEOPLES CAMPAIGN,
711 14th Street, N.TV., Snite 601, Washington, D.C., May 1-0, 1968.
Be Application for Permit.
Mr. NASH CASTRO,
Regional Director, National Capital Region. National Park Service, Department
of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mn. CASTRO: The undersigned of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educa-
tional Fund, Inc., as counsel for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference,
hereby applies for a permit fo-r use i-n connection with the Poor Peoples Cam-
paign an-d -the establishment of and maintenance of "Resurrection City, U. S. A."
pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 50.19 of Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
Name of applicant: Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
Time: 8 am. on Saturday May 11, 1968, until 8 p.m. on Sunday, June 16.
PAGENO="0092"
88
Place of proposed event: An area wes't of 17th Street, N.W. and north of west-
bound Independence Avenue to be agreed upon by the staffs of the applicant and
the National Park Service.
Estiniate of number of persons expected to attend: 2,000-3,000.
Statement of equipment and facilities to he installed by applicant for use in
connection therewith: Pre-fabricated shelters; sanitary facilities; water; elec-
tricity; telephone, connection to existing sewers for waste disposal; etc.
We shall be available to furnish such additional information as you may require
in the processing of this application.
Very truly yours,
FRANK D. REEVES,
Chairman, Legal Services Committee.
LEROY D. CLARK
Of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., as Chief Coun-
sel for the Poor People's Campaign of the Southern Christian Leader-
ship Conference.
OTHER PERMITS GRANTED
Mr. Do~vDY. Mr. Castro, there is another thing that came up re-
cently about other permits and the committee has had complaints
about the Park Service issuing permits for these demonstrators,
whether hippies or whatever they are, to set up a tent on "P" Street.
Mr. OAsTEo. Yes, sir.
Mr. DOWDY. It was indicated that the group wanted to set up a
tent along the Mall like Resurrection City, but this was refused and a
permit was granted for them to set up a tent on "P" Street. Is this
correct?
Mr. CASTRO. A permit was granted to an organization for a demon-
stration last Saturday afternoon on "P" Street. This is an area open
for demonstrations in the Park System. This permit was issued in
accordance with our policy and regulations.
Mr. DOWDY. Can you tell me when a policy was established to open
up areas for purposes of demonstrations?
Mr. CASTE0. I don't know how far back this goes but we have cer-
tain areas in the Park System that are closed to demonstrators and
certain areas that are open. The "P" Street area happens to be one that
is open.
Mr. DOWDY. Is there something in the Federal regulations to that
effect that has been published in the Federa~I Register?
Mr. CASTRO. It is a part of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part
50, Section 36.
Mr. DOWDY. Part 50?
Mr. CASTRO. Part 50, Section 36. I am sorry, it is CFR 36, Part 50.
Mr. DOWDY. You gave them a permit to set up a tent, is that right?
Mr. OASTRO. Our Superintendent of the Central National Parks did.
that but I take the responsibility for it.
Mr. DOWDY. I understand they plan to hold other meetings at Dupont
Circle.
Mr. CASTRO. Permits are not required there. Dupont Circle is an
open area. If they wanted to have a demonstration in Lafayette Park
they would need a permit, and many times we have refused to issue
permits for Lafayette Park and for other closed areas as well.
Mr. DOWDY. Are there any rules and regulations at all as to what
kind of demonstrations they can hold in these open places you.
referred to?
PAGENO="0093"
89
Mr. CASTRO. All the regulations prescribed for the administration of
~the parks obtain in regard to any demonstration permit that is
issued. The regulations are pretty extensive. They cover practically
every situation. For example, they cannot under permit or otherwise
do things tha.t could be irregular or immoral or otherwise out of
character, but demonstrations within the Park System have been
authorized long before I appeared on the scene, sir.
Mr. DOWDY. Information has come to me that at Dupont Circle they
have marijuana~ parties on occasion.
Mr. CASTRO. I don't know about that. I know on occasion our police
have made a number of arrests for drug traffic at Dupont Circle, as
they h'ave in other places.
Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Nelsen.
Mr. NELSEN. I notice that the site of Resurrection City has not
iieen restored. It looks like a part of my farm. When will you start
restoring that area?
Mr. CASTRO. The work was started on restoring the area the afternoon
~the people of Resurrection City were evicted. Within two hours after
their eviction the work on restoration was begun. We have resodded
12 acres of that area and we have quite good looking turf there now.
I believe the part you are referring to is the part close to Independence
Avenue, and there we are taking advantage of the availability of
top soil to fill in the area. We have had a problem there for years.
During heavy rains, bogs develop there and we are taking advantage
~of the availability of top soil to fill that in.
CoSTS OF RESTORING CAMP SITE
Mr. NELSEN. Is there any estimate of the cost of restoring the area
which was occupied by Resurrection City?
Mr. CASTRO. We spent $35,000 restoring the turf. We spent $71,795
dismantling the structures and hauling them out and storing them.
We recovered $5,500 from the sale of lumber. We have the $5,000 they
deposited in lieu of bond. We have asked `the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference to reimburse us for our $71,795. They have not
responded and as of September 25 I turned `the matter over to the De-
partment Solicitor for action.
Mr. NELSEN. Did the government buy that lumber?
Mr. CASTRO. No, they furnished that lumber themselves. We merely
dismantled the structures built with it and stored it at Fort Belvoir
until it was sold. We recovered $5,500 from the sale of the lumber and
are holding that amount in a trust fund.
Mr. NELSEN. How did you happen to sell the lumber, if it wasn't
yours?
Mr. CASTRO. It was sold with the concurrence of the Southern
`Christian Leadership Conference, and it is on deposit in a trust fund
pending the settlement of the whole issue.
Mr. NELSEN. Where was the lumber purchased?
Mr. CASTRO. Mr. Nelsen, I would judge some of it was purchased
locally. I honestly dont know. They hauled it in themselves and con-
structed the structures with it.
Mr. NELSEN. That is all.
Mr. DOWDY. I read something in the newspapers-of course I don't
know the facts of the matter-that `the Southern Christian Leadership
PAGENO="0094"
90
Conference is planning to sue the government for `the recovery of the
money the lumber was sold for and also for their $5,000 deposit. Is that
correct?
Mr. CAsTRo. Mr. Chairman, I have no way of knowing what they
plan because we have had no communication with them in respect to
that. We have asked them to reimburse us for the cost of dismantling'
the structures and hauling away and storing the lumber.
Mr. Dowry. Have you asked them for reimbursement for restoring
the turf?
Mr. CAsTRo. We have not. Our lawyers felt that came within the pro-
vision of the permit covering normal wear and tear.
Mr. Doivry. $35,000 worth of normal wear and tear?
Mr. CASTRO. Yes, sir.
Mr. Do~vrY. There is a statue in the area that was damaged, was
there not?
Mr. CAsTRo. The D.C. War Memorial was defaced by some of the
participants in the exercise and it cost $200 to restore it.
Mr. DOWDY. Have you asked them to reimburse you for that?
Mr. CASTRO. Yes. That represents part of the $71,795 claim we have
against them.
Mr. DOWDY. Could you furnish us a statement of the expenses in-
curred in connection with this Resurrection City exercise?
Mr. CASTRO. I will be delighted to, sir.
Mr. DOWDY. And the amount of reimbursement, if any, so far. That
would be at most $10,500.
Mr. CASTRO. We will be glad to, Mr. Chairman.
(The information follows:)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
Washington~, DXI., October 8, 1968.
Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN,
Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During the continuation of hearings by your Committee
on H.R. 14430 and 14448, "To establish a Commissioner of Police for the District
of Columbia," National Park Service Regional Director Nash Castro, the witness
for the Department of the Interior, was asked to supply certain information to
the Committee for the record.
Mr. Castro was first asked to provide a copy of the permit which was granted
by the Interior Department to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference for
`the Poor Peoples' Campaign. We understand that Mr. Castro supplied a copy
of this' document on October 1. Mr. Castro was also requested to provide a state-
ment of expenses incurred by the Government as a result of the demonstration,
including costs incurred by the District of Columbia Department of Traffic and
Highways and by the General Services Administration. That statement is enclosed
herewith.
During the hearing, Mr. Castro referred to authority for the granting of such
a permit by the Department, and for the regulation of the activities of the
permittee. A copy of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations was requested
by Mr. Dowdy. Section 50 of that title is enclosed and, as you have noted, reflects
a revision of the regulations since the Committee copy of CFR was issued.'
We hope this information will assist the Committee, and we appreciate the
opportunity to supplement our testimony. Please inform us if any further infor-
mation is required.
Sincerely yours,
(Sgd) FRANK E. HARRISON,
Assistant to the Director.
Enclosures
1 These regulations are reprinted in the Appendix, pp. -.
PAGENO="0095"
91
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
TOTAL EXPENDITURES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH POOR PEOPLE'S CAMPAIGN
5/11-7/31/68 (FINAL)
RESURRECTION CITY
Additional
expenses, Regular time
overtime, expenses
holiday pay,
etc.
Total
Police nests $121,903 $23,086
Engineering costs to lay out site 178
$144989
178
Subtotal 122,081 23,086
145,167
JUNE 19, SOLIDARITY DAY MARCH
Police costs $7,700 $1,327
Cleanup of area after march 2,930 2,650
$9,027
5,580
Subtotal 10,630 3,977
14,607
DISMANTLING OF STRUCTURES AND RESTORATION OF AREA
National Park Service costs $60, 335
GSA costs (includes storage and transfer of property) 29, 482
DC Highway Department costs (dismantling, hauling, storing, grading) 26,009
Subtotal 115, 826
Grand total +275, 600
Mr. DOWDY. We also have some figures from the District of Colum-
bia Government, of their costs, and other pertinent information, which
we will insert into the record at this point.
(The material referred to follows:)
COSTS TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OF THE POOR PEOPLE'S
CAMPAIGN
[As summarized by the Government of the District of Columbia, Finance Office,
July 8, 1968]
Total cost,
Agency or department week ending
June 29
Prior
reported
casts
Total cost
through
June 29, 1968
General Administration
Death investigations $157
Metropolitan Council of Governments 916
Buildings and Grounds 752
Corporation Counsel 640
Metrnpolitan Police 193, 414
Fire Department 856
Civil Defense 954
$100
1286
1,692
270
5,376
338, 870
15, 810
$100
1443
2,608
1,022
6, 016
532, 284
16, 666
954
Juvenile court 881
9
890
Court of general sessions 4,937
District of Columbia Bail Agency 44
1,214
274
6,151
318
Department of Corrections 50, 509
Licenses and Inspections 337
3,561
523
54, 070
860
National Park Service, National Capital region 7, 176
Public Health 4,813
2 46, 082
63,789
2 53, 258
68,602
Public Welfare 10, 151
Highways and Traffic 31, 130
Motor Vehicles 66
2,233
6, 523
134
12, 384
37, 653
200
Sanitary Engineering 32
Washington aqueduct 40
10, 145
986
10, 177
1, 026
Total 307, 805
497, 877
805, 682
1 Cost related to the death of 1 of the Poor People at the Department of Agriculture.
2 In addition it is estimated that $106,516 in Federal funds have been upent to date.
PAGENO="0096"
92
This does represent the major cost to the District of Columbia for the Poor
People's Campaign. However, we have estimated that there will be some addi-
tional cost as follows:
Department of Corrections 83, 600
National Park Service 1 20, 333
1 It is estimated that they will need additional Federal funds amounting to $40,667.
The following indicates the types of expenses incurred through June 29, 1968:
Amount Percent of
total cost
Regular staff time spent $376,734 46. 8
Overtime costs 371, 473 46.2
Equipment 15,912 2.0
Patient treatment 1.2
Meals for jail inmates and working staff 9, 394 1. 1
Child care 5,644 .7
Transportation 1 4, 685 .6
Meals for policemen 4,468 . 5
Supplies, including gas and oil 4,283 . 5
Miscellaneous 3,132 .4
Total 805,682 100. 0
I Represents payment to Travelers' Aid for transportation of indigent nonresidents to their homes. The Department will
be reimbursed for this expense from private sources.
The following Agencies and Departments did not report any cost either direct
or indirect for the Poor People's Campaign:
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
Administration of Parole Laws
Administration of Insurance Laws
Administration of Wage, Safety and Hour Laws
Filing and Recording of Property and Corporation Papers
Public Service Commission
Planning and Zoning
Metropolitan Area Transit Commission
Board of Appeals and Review
Commissioner's Youth Council
Office of Community Renewal
Commissioner's Council on Human Relations
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Board of Elections
Occupations and Professions
Public Library
Veteran's Affairs
Office of the Surveyor
D.C. Court of Appeals
D.C. Tax Court
13.8. Courts
Legal Aid Agency
National Guard
Public Schools
Washington Technical Institute
Federal City College
Recreation
National Zoological Park
Vocational Rehabilitation
No attempt has been made to pro-rate the cost to the Executive Office or the
City Council for the Poor People's Campaign.
This is the sixth report. Since the Poor People's Campaign has ended we will
consider this to be the final report relative to the cost of the Campaign.
PAGENO="0097"
93
AN EDITORIAL BROADCAST BY WMAL/AM/FM/TV, BROADCAST DURING THE WEEK
OF MAY 5, 1968
BONDS FOR DEMONSTRATIONS
We again urge that Congress pass legislation requiring that bonds be posted to
cover possible damage caused by demonstrators within the District of Columbia.
Such legislation was opposed this week before a House subcommittee by As-
sistant Attorney General Stephen Pollak. Pollak argued that such legislation
might violate the First Amendment guarantee of peaceable assembly and the right
to petition Congress for redress ~f grievances. Pollak contended that poor people
might be deprived of these rights simply because they could not afford to post
bond.
Constitutionality is, of course, a matter for courts to decide. We note, however,
that no large demonstration can be organized without substantial money. The
estimated cost of the so-called Poor People's Campaign is $2 million. The amount
of bond to be posted should certainly be scaled to the size of a demonstration.
Furthermore, Congress has the `Constitutional responsibility to ensure the
general welfare. Destruction of property-public or private-is certainly not In
the general welfare.
OPINION OF `CORPORATION COUNSEL RE PARTICIPATION IN POOR
PEOPLE'S CAMPAIGN
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
`OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL,
Washington, May 10, 1968.
To: WINIFRED G. THOMPSON, Director, Department of Public Welfare.
From: CHARLES T. DUNCAN, Corporation Counsel, D.C.
Subject: Request for Corporation `Counsel's Opinion: Participants in the "Poor
People's March."
By memorandum, dated April 30, 1968, you inquired concerning the granting of
public assistance, of various types, to the participants in the "Poor People's
March". Due to the pressures of time and the desirability of responding to your
inquiry as quickly as possible, we have not given the questions posed a detailed
legal analysis and are, therefore, providing you at this time primarily with our
conclusions in order that you may prepare to meet `the demands upon the Depart-
ment of Public Welfare posed by the forthcoming March. Since most requests for
assistance during this period will be made by those applying for regular public
assistance, about which you inquired in Question 1-~c of your memorandum, we
shall deal first with that issue.
Question 1-c: Regular Public Assistance Programs.
In Question 1-c you inquired whether the Department of Publië Welfare may
authorize assistance and services for persons who ]nake application for one of
97-945 0 - 68 - 7
PAGENO="0098"
94
the regular public assistance programs because they are in need, are not receiv-
ing public assistance from any other state, and would appear to continue to be
in need for an indefinite period, or for as long as they may continue to reside in
the District of Columbia. A primary consideration in evaluating the responsi-
bility of the Department of Public Welfare to applicants for regular public
assistance is the recent decision by the United States. District Court for the
District of Columbia in the case of Minnie Harrell, et al v. Walter E. Washing-
ton, et al, in which the District Court enjoined the Department of Public Welfare,
among other things, "From refusing to process any application for Aid to Fami-
lies with Dependent Children, Aid to the Blind, Aid to the Permanently and
Totally Disabled, or General Public Assistance iiiade to the District of Columbia
Department of Public Welfare or in any way denying public assistance in any
of the forementioned categories of aid to any resident of the District of Columbia
solely for the reason that such person has not resided in the District of Columbia
for a period of one year."
It is important to note that although the District Court by its decree elimi-
nated the durational requirement of one year's residence as a prerequisite to
the granting of public assistance, it did not eliminate the residence requirement
itself. In fact, in referring to the question of whether a state could constitu-
tionally confine the benefits of its public assistance program to its own domi-
ciliaries, the Court said:
"We. also are not called upon to decide this question, for it is not disputed
that the plaintiffs are bona fide domiciliaries of the District who came for reasons
disassociated from the desire to obtain relief not elsewhere available."
Thus, it is clear that the residence requirement applies to all applications for
regular public assistance albeit that the duration of such residence may, based
upon the District Court's decision, no longer be a blanket one year.
This interpretation of Section 3-203 of the District of Columbia Code in the
light of the recent District Court opinion is reinforced by several considera-
tions. First, there is no indication that Congress, in enacting the public assist-
ance provisions of the District of Columbia Code, intended that the District
assume the burden of rendering public assistance to anyone who was present
in the District regardless of whether or not such person resided therein. Secondly,
applying a practical approach to the question, it would make no sense to permit
a resident of another state to come to the District, have himself placed on the
welfare rolls and subsequently returned to his honie state, which would be a
consequence of eliminating the residence requirement in its entirety. Lastly, it
must be acknowledged that the primary obligation of the Department. of Public
Welfare is to the bona tide residents of the District of Columbia which is neces-
sitated by the limited resources available to meet the needs of all persons
requesting public assistance.
It is thus c1~ar that the Department of Public Welfare, in evaluating applica-
tions for regular public assistance, must apply the requirement that the applicant
be a resident of the District of Columbia. The term "residence" has been defined
by the courts of this jurisdiction to be "the place of abode, a dwelling, a habita-
tion, the act of abiding or dwelling in a place for some continuance of time. To
reside in a place is to abide, to sojourn, to dwell there permanently or for a
length of time. It is to have a permanent abode for the time being, as contra-
distinguished. from a mere temporary locality of existence." Residence has been
cousidere.d not only to be the personal presence of one in a place but an attach-
ment to the place by those activities or habits which express the closest conner-
tion between a person and a place. It is a place where an individual, actively
dwells and ordinarily `has his home; the place where his wife and children reside,
a fixed and permanent abode or dwelling place and more than a place of mere
sojourning or transient visiting. The establishment of a home of some per-
manence with all its attendant characteristics such as the presence of family
and household effects is evidence of the establishment of residence. In evaluating
the location of the residence of an individual, the expression of intent to make a
particular abode `his home, as well as the duration of time during which he has
resided there, are factors to be considered.
In applying this guideline of residence to potential applications for public
assistance by those participating in the "Poor Peoples March", it may be. con-
cluded that one who moves into an apartment of a friend or relative, bringing
with him his family and household possessions, and manifests an intention to
remain, may, upon meeting other requirements, be considered a resident for
welfare purposes. However, if an applicant is encamped in so-called "Tent City",
PAGENO="0099"
95
cecupying Federal property under a permit with an expiration date, such an
applicant would be considered a visitor and as such not a resident and, therefore,
not entitled to assistance. Each applicant, of course, will have to be evaluated in
terms of the definition of resident in the light of his particular factual cir-
cumstances.
Question 1-b: Emergency Assistance Programs.
In Question 1-b you inquired whether the Department of Public Welfare is
authorized to provide assistance to those participantS in the "Poor Peoples
March" who make application for one of the Department's emergency assistance
programs because they are faced with such crises as: lack of food, clothing,
shelter, or medical services. It is to be noted at the outset that the Department
of Public Welfare Handbook Release No. 149, dated April 25, 1968, Supplement 6,
Family Emergency Services Program, Part II, sets forth the eligibility require-
ments which, among others, includes the requirement that the family must be
domiciled in the District of Columbia. The foregoing analysis of the residence
requirement may also be applied in the instance of applications for family
emergency services since the requirement of domicile is even more stringent than
of residence, requiring the showing of an intent to make his residence in a par-
ticular place permanent.
A second factor which will narrow the demands upon the Department for
emergency assistance is that the applicant must show that he has exhausted the
other facilities available to meet his emergency needs. Since a number of other
agencies and groups in the community are being established to provide food,
housing, medical and other vital services, the Department should ask each appli-
cant for emergency assistance whether and to which other groups he has applied
for aid. If all other resources have, in fact, been exhausted, and if an individual
were :noretheless in genuine need of crisis assistance for food or other vital
services, it is my understanding that the Department would, out of humanitarian
considerations, render emergency services to the extent of its resources.
Question 1-d: Temporary Assistance for Families with Unemployed Parenits.
In Question 1-4 you inquired whether the Department of Public Welfare may
authorize services and `assistance for persons who apply for Temporary Assist-
ance for Families with Unemployed Parents by virtue of the fact that they are
employable, but unemployed, and in need. The existing eligibility requirements
of the Department of Public Welfare in Handbook Release No. 66, of Decem-
ber 10, 1965, Supplement 3, Temporary Assistance for Families of Unemployed
Parents, Part IV, includes certain requirements which might serve to disqualify
applications for such assistance by participants in the "Poor Peoples March".
Among such requirements are the following:
1. That the applicant be registered with the U.S.E.S. and have evidence of
application at the DistriCt of Columbia Work Training and Opportunity Center,
established under Title V of the Economic Opportunity Act.
2. That the applicant apply for unemployment compensation Qenefits.
3. That the applicant be the `head of the household in which there is at least one
child under 18 years of age, or under 21, if attending a school or university.
There tare other requirements for such assistance, however, the ones listed are
especially applicable to participants in the March.
Question 2: Child Welfare services Program.
In Question 2 you inquired whether `the Department of Public Welfare should
be required through its Child Welfare Services Program to provide care and
custody to children in families from other jurisdictions who are participating in
the March and who may be referred to the Department for various needs. There
is clearly no residence requirement applicable to those otherwise qualified for
child welfare service.s and the full resources of the Department should be made
available to meet the needs of any children of families participating in the March.
Question 3: Food stamp Program.
In Question 3 you inquired whether the maintenance of a temporary domicile
In the District of Columbia meets the Food Stamp Program requirement that
applicants be living in the Distrkt of Columbia. The term "living" should be
equated with the term "residence" for `such purpose and the definition of residence
given above applied in the case of those otherwise qualified for the Food Stamp
Program.
We trust that the above analysis will `enable the Department of Public Welfare
to adequately plan to meet the needs and requests for public assistance by par-
ticipants in the "Poor Peoples March". Any such applications will have to be
evaluated, however, on a case-by-case basis and we will, of course, be available
PAGENO="0100"
96
to assist the Department in resolving any additional legal problems posed in
regard to such applications as may be forthcoming.
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH,
Washington, D.C., Ma'i 22, 1968.
Mr. JAMES T. CLARK,
Clerk, House District Committee,
Suite 1810, Longworth Bui'ding,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mn. CLARK: Enclosed herewith is thematerlal requested by Congressman
Whitener concerning the activities of this Department in relation to previous
special events and the current Poor Peoples Campaign.
Very sincerely,
MURRAY GRANT, M.D., D.P.H.,
Director of Public Health.
[Enclosure]
EMERGENCY PROGRAMS FOR SPECIAL EVENTS, PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURATIONS, AMER-
ICAN LEGION AND SHRINE CONVENTIONS, OTHER DEMONSTRATIONS AND CIvIL
DISTURBANCES
in all special events, the D.C. Department of Public Health directs and coor-
dinates all activities related to medical care and public health services. A Central
Medical Command Post with multiple telephone lines and a Civil Defense Emer-
gency Radio Network Is located in the Deputy Director's Office. Emergency
communications with the Medical Aid Stations Is provided by mobile units of the
Civil Defense Emergency Radio Network. This Command Post remains in con-
tinuous operation from the onset of the activity or situation until termination or
control has been. achieved.
I. PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURATIONS, AMERICAN LEGION AND SHRINE CONVENTIONS
A. Funding
Congress had approved special funds in the budget to offset the cost of such
activities to the District of Columbia. The language of the appropriation for these
special funds authorized the Departments of Defense and Interior to participate
in terms of personnel, equipment, supplies, and use of federal buildings.
B. Medical Activities
1. First Aid Medical Clinics were housed in Army tents, Army ambulances,
buses, Federal and District government buildings and Red Cross First Aid
vehicles, which were set up at the staging area, along the parade route, and
along dispersal areas. Medical evacuation was to the nearest hospital.
2. Pre-positioned Ambulances at the Medical Stations were secured from the
Armed Forces, District Government, and the Red Cross.
3. Medical Care for Indigents. Commissioners' Orders were issued in the public
interest to make nonresident, medically indigent cases eligible for emergency
hospital care at District of Columbia expense.
4. Warming Tents for parade personnçl at the staging area, depending upon
the temperature, were supplied by the Army.
C. Sanitation Facilities
1. Toilet Facilities were provided in Federal and District government build-
ings. National Park Service toilet trailers, rental toilet trailers, and chemical
toilets were used.
2. Drinking Water facilities were supplied by temporary bübblers on fire
hydrants when required by the season of the year.
D. Food Surveillance
1. Food establishment personnel, temporary caterers and catered functions re-
ceived intensive supervision and monitoring by the D.C. Department of Public
Health personnel and additional food sanitarians on a temporary or contractual
basis to insure safety and wholesomeness of food.
2. Canteen tents, supplied by the Army, were operated by the Red Cross for
Disabled Veterans.
PAGENO="0101"
97
E. Other Services
1. Holding Areas were set up for lost or stranded persons.
2. Horse Ambn lances, manned by veterinarians and animal trainers, were pro-
vided on a rental basis.
3. Emergency Communications were provided by temporary telephones and the
Civil Defense Radio Network.
F. Additional Support to D.C. Government
Department of Defense.
National Park Service.
General Services Administration.
U.S. Public Health Service.
Contract and Freedmen's Hospitals.
D.C. Chapter, American Red Cross.
D.C. Medical Society.
Temporary contractual arrangements.
H. CIVIL RIGHTS DEMONSTRATION, AUGUST 1968
A. Funding
No additional appropriations were provided by Congress; the D.C. Govern-
ment had to absorb the increase in costs.
B. Medical Activities
First Aid Medical Clinics were housed in Army hospital tents, Army ambulance
buses and Red Cross vehicles set up on The Mall extending from the Washing-
ton Monument to the Lincoln Memorial. Pre-positioned ambulances were pro-
vided by the Army arid the Red Cross. Medical evacuation was to the nearest
hospital.
C. Sanitation Facilities
1. Toilct Facilities were provided by fixed buildings on The Mall, including
National Park Service toilet trailers and rental chemical toilets at this site and
outside Union Station.
2. Drinking Water facilities were provided by attaching temporary bubbler
units on the fire hydrants.
D. Food Surveillance
The D.C. Department of Public Health supervised catered food provided the
marchers; and General Services, Incorporated set up food stands along The
Mall.
E. Other Services
Emergency communications were provided by the Civil Defense Network.
F. Additional Support to D.C. Government
Department of Defense.
National Park Service.
D.C. Chapter American Red Cross.
D.C. Medical Society.
Contract and Freedmen's Hospitals.
III. TENT-IN, LAFAY~rTE PARK
A. Funding
Costs absorbed by D.C. Government.
B. Medical Activities
One Medical Aid Station was provided and manned by the D.C. Department
of Public Health personnel. One pre-positioned ambulance was also provided by
the DO. Department of Public Health. Medical evacuation was to the nearest
hospital.
C. San'ttatian. Facilities
One rented mobile toilet trailer and the toilet facilities In the park were
available.
Xo'rE: This Tent-In was terminated by an outbreak of dysentery. Additional
support to the D.C. Government was by contractual arrangements.
PAGENO="0102"
98
IV. ANTI-WAR DEMONSTRATION-PENTAGON BUILDING
A. Funding
No additional funds appropriated by Congress. D.C. Government absorbed
costs.
B. Medica.i Activities
1. Medical Air Stations were housed in D.C. Department of Public Health
trailer and a Red Cross trailer, as well as Army hospital tents manned by D.C.
Department of Public Health personnel and Red Cross volunteers; these trailers
and tents were on The Mall. The Department of Defense provided medical care
and facilities at the Pentagon Building.
2. Pre-Positioned Ambulances were provided by the Red Cross, with volun-
teers, and medical evacuation was principally to D.C. General HospitaL
CI. Sanitation, Facilities
1 Toilet Faoilstws were provided by National Park Service mobile trailer
and rented chemical toilets.
2. Drinking Water bubblers provided water from fire hydrants.
NOTE: A holding station was set up for stranded persons and additional sup-
port to the D.C. Government was provided by the following:
Department of Defnese.
National Park Service.
D.C. Chapter, American Red Cross.
D.C. Medical Society.
Temporary contractual arrangements.
Emergency communications were provided by Civil Defense Network.
V. CIVIL DISTURBANCE, APRIL 1908
A. Funding
No additional appropriation by Congress; the District Government absorbed
costs.
B. Medical Activities
1. Three Medical Aid and Social Relief Stations were set up in churches and
were operated by volunteers from Medical Committee for Human Rights. Public
Health Nurses from the D.C. Department of Public Health were assigned as co-
ordinators and consultants.
2. Medical Evacuation was primarily to D.C. General Hospital; contract and
Freethnen's Hospitals werealso utilized.
3. Additional Ambulances assigned to the Fire Department Emergency Ambu-
lance Service were provided by the D.C. Department of Public Health and the
Army.
4. Medical Screening of Detainees at police precinct stations and the court
house was provided by volunteer physicians from the Medical Committee for
Human Rights.
There were 1,202 patients treated in the emergency rooms of D.C. General
Hospital, contract and Freedmen's Hospitals; and 107 patients admitted to
hospitals, and 9 deaths.
C. Following is a summary of environmental health activities related to the civil
disturbances of April 1968.
The problems were related to protection of the drug, food, milk, and water
supplies, sanitary disposal of waste, and rodent control. The fires interrupted
electricity supplied to refrigerators, produced damage to food and drugs, de-
stroyed buildings, broke water and sewer lines, and opened the `buildings to
looting of food and `drugs, the safety of which had become questionable so a result
of the interruption of refrigeration, damage from heat or contamination `by tear
gas.
Visits began on the morning of April 7 to thirty-four emergency food distribu-
tion operations which were evaluated as to potential food protection problems
and provided with `advisory service. Insufficient refrigeration capacity whs the
* principal problem encountered.
None of the milk plants suffered any physical damage in the disturbance even
though two are located within the affected areas. Close liaison was maintained
with the plants during the critical period. There was some interruption in the
PAGENO="0103"
99
normal milk distribution arrangements only during the period April 4 through
April 9.
A survey of the disturbance areas on the afternoon of April 7 indicated the
extensive nature of the damage to food and drug establishments. More than
1,200 visits were made over the next two weeks to 935 premises where food and
drug businesses had been interrupted by the disturbance. Of these, 210 had been
in buildings which were demolished and which will have to be entirely rebuilt
before any business can be resumed. For all practical purposes, at least 120 of
these es1~ahlishments are out of business. Another 407 interrupted businesses
could not resume without some time consuming repairs to the buildings or the
equipment, seine of which are still under way. Another group of 252 businiesses
had reopened by April 21, having repaired the minor damage and completed
necessary decontamination operations.
The disposal of damaged food and drugs was monitored to make sure that
none reentered the normal trade channels. In many cases, the damaged food was
mixed with debris from the demolished building. The Food and Drug Admin-
istration of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, provided
personnel who worked closely with the Bureau of Food and Drugs. These per-
sonnel assumed responsibility for disposal of damaged drugs and for the decon-
tamination of salvable drugs damaged by tear gas.
A number of the destroyed buildings which had housed food businesses and
which had become sources of food for rats, were baited and some were sprayed
for fly control. In a few cases, deodorizing agents were applied to reduce odors.
Reports of broken water lines were relayed to the Department of Sanitary
Engineering in order that the water supplies to the damaged buildings could be
cut off. Soon after the disturbance, samples were collected from the water supply
in the areas of disturbances and checked for adequacy of residual chlorine and
bacteriological indications of contamination. Residual chlorine concentrations
were found to be adequate and no indications of contamination were found.
There remained the problem of the demolished buildings in which the rubble
mixed with food is serving to feed rats, is the breeding place of flies, and a source
of noisome odors. In most cases, neither the former business operators nor the
property owner has assumed responsibility for cleaning up the debris. This situa-
tion was called to the attention of the appropriate offices of the District Govern-
ment immediately after the disturbance and on several occasions since then and
suggestions have been made for possible ways in which the District Government
could assure the early clean-up, possibly by actively participating. Although a
few contracts have been let by the District Government, demolition and disposal
of debris is proceeding slowly in a handful of the 200 buildings, many of which
can be expected to become increasingly more serious problems with the passage
of time.
D. ESTIMATED COST OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIADEPARTMENTOF PUBLIC HEALTH ATTRIBUTABLE TO ACTIVITIES
RELATED TO CIVIL DISTURBANCE, APRIL 1968
Number of Estimated
units cost
1. Medical care estimated cost:
Emergency room treatments:
Contract hospitals 980
Distrlctof Columbia General Hospital 222
Total costs emergency room treatments 1,202
2. Inpatient care:
Contract hospitals admissions 88
District of Columbia General Hospital admissions 19
Total cost for inpatient care 107
Total contract hospitals cost ~-----
Total District of Columbia General Hospital cost
Total medical care estimated cost
$5, 979
2,387
8,366
34, 204
20,691
54,895
40, 183
1 23, 078
63,261
1 Absorbed by District of Columbia Department of Public Health.
PAGENO="0104"
100
E. Non~-Hospita~l Estimated Costs
1. Personnel Compensation: Estimated
Administration: c08t
Office, Director of Public Health $851
Administrative `Services Division 6,219
Procurement and Supply Division 184
Total Administration 7,254
2. Planning and Research: Program Review and Development Division._ 174
3. Preventive Services:
Office of the Associate Director 326
Bureau of Nursing 2,048
Bureau of Chronic Disease Control 279
Health Mobilization Division 1,747
Total Preventive Services 4, 400
4. Environmental Health:
Public Health Inspection 347
Environmental Engineering Division 220
Bit rean of Food and Drugs:
Office of the Chief 682
Food Technology Division 237
Field Services Division 7, 210
Total Environmental Health 8,696
5. 3Iedical Care: Office of the Associate Director 204
F. Fvpplies
Supplies 1, 321
Total non-hospital estimated costs 122, 049
Total medical care and non-hospital estimated cost 85, 310
I Absorbed by D.C. Dept. Public Health.
C. Additional support to D.C. government
Department of Defense.
Contract and Freedmen's Hospitals.
Medical Committee for Human Rights Volunteers.
VI. POOR PEOPLE'S CAMPAIGN
A. Funding
To date, no additional appropriations have been provided.
The Department of Public Health has informed the contract and Freedmen's
Hospitals that the District Government cannot assume financial responsibility
for treatment of patients connected with the Poor Peoples' Campaign at their
hospitals.
B. Medical Activities-Current and Proposed
The Medical Committee for Human Rights (volunteers composed of physicians,
dentists, psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, nursing assistants and clerical staff)
has the primary responsibility for medical care, food sanitation and general
environmental sanitation.
The responsibility of the D.C. Department of Public Health will be limited to
assistance to the Medical Committee for Human Rights in those areas where
they do not have adequate resources.
C. D.C. Department of Public Health Assistance
1. We are loaning two medical trailers and one public health nurse at Res-
urrection City; and one public health nurse for consultation and referral of health
problems at St. Stephen's Church.
PAGENO="0105"
101
2. The Southwest Health Center will be available for medical examination of
campers of Resurrection City.
3. Patients needing inpatient or outpatient treatment or diagnostic work-up
are being referred to D.C. General Hospital. Diagnostic laboratory services are
available at the Departments Central Laboratory.
4. The Department of Public Health cannot neglect its public health respon-
sibility to protect the health of all persons, regardless of whether they are resi-
dents or visitors. We are participating in an immunization program against
measles, liphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, poliomyelitis and small pox.
5. We are engaged in tuberculin skin testing, chest xray and serology surveying.
D. Environmental Health
1. Sanitation.-To protect the health environment, the Department is super-
vising and monitoring the water supply, sewage disposal, trash and garbage col-
lection, and insec.t and rodent control.
2. Food.-To protect the food supply, prevent contamination and spoilage, the
D.C. Department of Public Health is supervising and monitoring the sources,
preparation and transportation serving the people.
E. To carry out the above responsibilities in Section VI, C and D
We have assigned medical and paramedical personnel, nurses, sanitary engi-
neers, food technologists and a nutritionist to the respective areas.
We are coordinating our public health activities with the National Park
Service.
F. Additional Support to D.C. Government
National Park Service.
The Department of Defense is loaning ambulances and an ambulance bus with
supporting personnel, if needed.
The D.C. Medical Society.
The Medical Chirurgical Society of D.C.
The Walter T. Freeman Dental Society.
The D.C. Chapter, Amerhrnn Red Cross.
The Medical Committee for Human Rights.
PAGENO="0106"
102
Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Nelsen was asking about where the lumber came
from that went into this Resurrection City. As I recall, some of the
newspaper accounts stated that Mr. Hechinger provided the lumber
at quite a discount.
Mr. CASTRO. My recollection is that the Hechinger Company pro-
v~ded some of the lumbei at cost I le'uned tins from news reports
Mr. DOWDY. Is that the same Hechinger that is on the Council?
Mr. CAsTRO. Yes, sir.
Mr. DOWDY. I believe he is the chairman or vice chairman of the
Council?
Mr. CASTRO. He is the president of the City Council.
Mr. DOWDY. The president of the City Council?
Mr. CASTRO. Yes, sir.
Mr. DOWDY. The statement of expenses that you will furnish us will
just be the expenses of the Park Service?
Mr. CASTRO. No, sir. It will include the costs incurred by. the General
Services Administration and by the District Department of Highways
and Traffic. When we decided to dismantle Resurrection City we called
on the General Services Administration and the District Government
to help us because we did not have the staff :tO do it within the time
limit we had in mind. So we asked them to help us and they kindly
did and they incurred costs which are a part of this $71,000 we are
talking about.
Mr. DOWDY. This $71,000, and the $35,000 you are not asking reim-
bursement for, does not include the extra cost of police personnel?
Mr. . CASTRO. No, sir. We consider that a normal expense though it
was expensive. I think we spent about $114,000 in overtime alone.
Mr. DOWDY. $114,000?
Mr. CASTRO. Yes, in overtime.
Mr. DOWDY. That was overtime for the Park Service Police?
Mr. CASTRO. That was just for the U.S. Park Police, yes, sir.
Mr. DOWDY. You have no figures for the Metropolitan Police De-
partment?
Mr. CASTRO. I do not.
Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Adams.
Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Castro, you indicated groups have been holding
demonstrations in Washington, D.C., for as long as you have been here
and before.
Mr. CASTRO. Yes, long before I came here.
Mr. ADAMS. How long have you been with the Department?
OTHER PERMITS GRANTED
Mr. CASTRO. I have been here seven years.
Mr. ADAMS. Can you give us examples of other groups who come
in and use the park areas?
Mr. CASTRO. We have a great. variety of them.
Mr. ADAMS. Do the Boy Scouts ever use them?
Mr. CASTRO. Not inthe city itself-not for camping.
Mr. ADAMS. Tell us about the groups who come in and use the areas
in the city.
Mr. CASTRO. We have requests from such groups as the Women's
Strike for Peace, the group for a Sane Nuclear Policy, a number of
them.
PAGENO="0107"
103
Mr. ADAMS. When the veterans came here in 1932, did they stay on
pai'k property?
Mr. CASTRO. They squatted on park property, I understand.
Mr. ADAMS. They did not get a permit, did they?
Mr. CASTRO. No, sir.
Mr. ADAMS. When other groups such as the American Legion come
to town, is that handled by the Metropolitan Police Department or do
you put personnel in to handle them?
Mr. CASTRO. We have a working arrangement with the Metropolitan
Police whi~h in my mind has been very workable and very satisfactory,
and we cooperate back and forth on all special events.
Mr. ADAMS. In other words, you put men in the field ~sihen you are
going to have an American Legion parade and you pay them overtime
and so on?
Mr. cASTRO. If necessary, yes. An American Legion convention in
Washington would probably involve a huge parade, and our jurisdic-
tion begin's at 15th Street and Constitution Avenue, which tradition-
ally is where parades begin, and the Metropolitan Police help us out
just as we help them out.
Mr. ADAMS. You have to police that group when that occurs?
Mr. CASTRO. Yes, sir, we often provide police service.
Mr. ADAMS. How often does that happen?
Mr. CASTRO. For example, the Christmas Pageant of Peace is held
annually on the Ellipse. The Park Police usually handles all of that
because the event is pretty well contained within the Ellipse.
Mr. ADAMS. And you have to construct and dismantle structures for
those events?
Mr. CASTRO. Yes. That is done within our policy and regulations.
Mr. ADAMS. As I remember, for the Christmas Pageant you have a
fire and yule log and this tears up the turf there?
Mr. CASTRO. Yes, we do.
Mr. ADAMS. And you restore that turf after it is over?
Mr. CASTRO. We reseed it.
Mr. ADAMS. I notice at the Washington Monument you have done
some reseeding there. You had a large gathering on July 4th and after
that you had to reseed that area?
Mr. `CASTRO. Yes. We are continually reseeding and keeping up the
turf there.
Mr. ADAMS. You indicated there was a general policy on the use of
parks and I am trying to fit that in the context of Resurrection City
and Dupont Circle, with the inquiry you have a continuing contact
with groups representing a variety of people and you clean up after
all of them, don't you?
Mr. `CASTRO. Yes, sir.
Mr. ADAMS. And this amounts to a considerable amount of money?
Mr. CASTRO. It does, indeed. We spend a considerable part of our
budget on that. But we have major events such as the Watergate Con-
certs all `summer long that involve comparatively little expense. The
Fourth of July celebration attracts about 100,000 people each year.
The Ohristmas Page'ant attracts a large group, as does the President's
Cup Regatta and others. .
Mr. ADAMS. You mentioned the expenses of `sodding the site of Res-
urrection `City and several other things which your Solicitor has ad-
PAGENO="0108"
104
vised are part of the general clean up you do after a ]ot of the other
events here. I want to refer to these other expenses.. I understand those
expenses are in litigation?
Mr. CASTRO. They are not in litigation yet.
Mr. ADAMS. But they are in legal negotiation?
Mr. CASTRO. They are in the hands of our lawyers.
Mr. ADAMS. You turned them over to your lawyers. You said to
them, "These are our expenses." The SCLC has it lawyers, and
either they will settle or you will have to have a judicial determina-
tion?
Mr. CASTRO. That is right. I started ~early in August my efforts to
collect from the SCLC. By September 25, because I had nothing con-
elusive from the SCLC, I thought it was time for our lawyers to look
at it and I turned it over to them.
Mr. ADAMS. Do you ever do that with other groups that come in the
city on these large meetings and celebrations?
Mr. CASTRO. There is a Christmas pageant and a Fourth of July
celebration, and other events. On those occasions we work with the
Board of Trade and civic leaders. But I don't recall of a case other
than Resurrection City where we have had to go back to a sponsor of
an event to collect damages, because we haven't had any.
Mr. ADAMS. That is what I was getting at. This policy of working
with groups on park use has been developed over a number of years
in dealing with these people?
Mr. CASTRO. That is correct.
Mr. ADAMS. So the event of Resurrection City or perhaps other
demonstrations which occur here take you into a new field for which
you are having to evolve policies just as policies have been evolved
with respect to other groups in the past?
Mr. CASTRO. Yes, sir.
Mr. ADAMS. I have no further questions.
Mr. DOWDY. The Boy Scouts, American Legion, and the Watergate
`concerts don't do any damage, do they?
Mr. CASTRO. In the main, the demonstrations you are addressing
yourself to are demonstrations that seek to promote or protest legisla-
tion or influence policy.
Mr. Downy. They are peaceful demonstrations?
Mr. CASTRO. We may have a flare-up and may have to make an ar-
rest or two. Somebody might get vocal or out' of order. But whenever
you accumulate several thousand people, there will be some who may
not agree on policy and they use this means to call attention to it.
Mr. Downy. We have been trying to check the Code of Federal
Regulations to find part 36, section 50, and we don't find it. Could you
furnish that to us?
Mr. CASTRO. Yes, sir. It is CFR title 36, part 50, National Capitol
Park Regulation.
(The regulations referred to appear in the appendix, pp. 149-167.)
Mr. Downy. Mr. Broyhill.
PURPOSE OP BILL
Mr. BR0yrnLL. Mr. Castro, I will call your attention to page 3, line
17 of the bill under consideration wherein it states:
PAGENO="0109"
1.05
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to-
"(1) authorize the Police Commissioner to combine any of
the police forces under his jurisdiction or transfer any officer or
member of a police force under his jurisdiction to a position in
another police force under his jurisdiction without the prior con-.
sent of such officer or member; or
"(2) affect the rights and privileges under personnel laws and
regulations in effect before the date of the enactment of this Act
of any officer or member of a police force under the jurisdiction
of the Police Commissioner."
The reason for that was to protect the integrity of each separate
Police Department, as well as to protect the personnel of these de-
part.ments from being arbitrarily transferred from one department to
another without their consent. Also it is to protect the seniority and
so forth of the personnel within the departments.
Mr. Castro, there was no intent by the sponsors or authors of this
legislation that the several polices forces would be completely merged
into one unit, and the primary functions of the separate police de-
partments abandoned, so I fail to see how this bill will injure in any
way the principal purposes and objectives of the Park Police. On the
contrary it should be most helpful in the coordination of training
and equipment, as well as the coordination of the separate forces ob-
jectives at times when there are problems such as occurred in Resur-
rection City and elsewhere.
It seems to me this will create a much better administrative set-up
so far as effectiveness of the Police Department is concerned.
I cannot understand, then, why you would object to this.
Mr. CASTRO. Mr. Broyhill, in my judgment I think we are just add-
ing one more layer of management.
Mr. BROYHILL. We are eliminating layers. We are taking out the
five present separate layers, and substituting only one.
Mr. CASTRO. Perhaps so in your mind, sir. In my mind it adds a
layer. I think that the Park Police would lose their autonomy under
such an arrangement as this.
For example, I would find it awkward, Mr. Broyhill, to do business
with the Chief of the Park Police if I had to go through a Police Com-
missioner. In fact I would find it very awkward. I think it would be
very cumbersome.
Mr. BROYHILL. Let us go back to your statement, at the bottom of
page 1. You refer to the Park Police having other things to do in
addition to dealing exclusively with the problems of crime and law
enforcement, and that this legislation would prevent you from per-
forming these other functions.
Do you know of any police department among the five we are talk-
ing about who deal exclusively with the problem of crime and law
enforcement ~
Mr. CASTRO. I think for the record I said "partially or substantially."
I didn't use the word "exclusively." I agree with you. I don't think that
word is correct in that context.
I think the point I should make with you, sir, is this:
Our Park Police spend a good deal of their time on interpretive
work by virtue of the fact that they are at the Lincoln and Jefferson
Memorials and the Washington Monument and other places. They have
PAGENO="0110"
106
to know a great deal about these great monuments as well as the city
itself, events going on, recreational opportunities that are present. In
a way of speaking they serve substantially as interpreters as well as
policemen. That is the point we were trying to make there.
Mr. BROYHILL. It is a point well taken. I maintain, however, that
the Metropolitan Police Department also has those other functions.
It would be impossible for the layman to determine where the juris-
diction of one police department starts :and the other ends. They both
handle traffic and crowds and both have powers of arrest. How about
a function such as an Inaugural, the various activities of the American
Legion, and other international functions? There is constant overlap-
ping of jurisdiction and duplication of duties of the Park Police and of
the Metropolitan Police.
I cannot see how you can look at the Metropolitan Police Force and
say they do not have the training or the knowledge to function prop-
erly in handling the public.
Mr. CASTRO. Forgive me. I don't mean to imply that at all. I make the
point that inthe training of our Park Police, we stress the business of
interpretation, of interpreting the parks. This is a major part of our
duties and responsibilities.
As to the matter of overlapping jurisdiction, that is no problem
because we have concurrent jurisdiction as they have.
Mr. BROYHILL. I think I am sharing a point with you, but again I
cannot see how you separate that from the similar duties of the Metro-
politan Police Force, other than what is provided for in this legis-
lation.
There is some other language in your statement with which I concur,
such as that on page 3. You speak of the Metropolitan Police assisting
the Park Police in discharging its obligation to the citizens of the
United States.
I and many of my colleagues in Congress are concerned about the
imtional interest and the national welfare, and we feel it is a Federal
responsibility to provide the protection required in the Nation's Capi-
tal. We are not ignoring the interests of and the need to protect citi-
zens of the District of Columbia, either, but the local citizens are only
one portion of this nation.
We feel that since the national interests are paramount here, it is
imperative that we bring the control and supervision of all these
police departments under the Congress. Or to be more accurate, under a
Commissioner appointed by the Congress.
I am most concerned about a coordinated police department under
one supervision where the national interest is paramount. It makes
no difference who makes that appointment.
Mr. CASTRO. I see.
Mr. BROYHILL. I think we have the tail wagging the dog here, when
local misfits start to dictate the activities of the Police Department.
I like a lot of the language you have in your statement, and I think
it supports the generalobjective of the legislation.
Of course, you oppose the legislation because you think it may take
a certain area of responsibility out from under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of the Interior.
Mr. CASTRO. Not that so much as the fact that I think it would be
terribly cumbersome to have a police chief responsive to a police corn-
PAGENO="0111"
107
missioner and also to me and in turn to the Park Service and the
Secretary. I have strong misgivings about that and I am sorry that I
do. I wish I could concur with you wholeheartedly.
You alluded to the business of police coordination. Police coordina-
tion between the Park Police and the Metropolitan Police and the
Capitol Police and the White House Police and the Zoo Police is no
problem. We have good coordination. I don't know of a better. example
of this than during the Poor People's C~tmpaign here in Washington.
We have much truck with a lot of them with the possible exception
of the Zoo Police. We had no problem. Everything worked well.
Though we have divided responsibility, we met daily with the Metro-
politan Police. We made our plans for the day and week on the assign-
ment of men. They assigned men to Resurrection City, too, to bolster
our limited force there and things worked well.
Mr. BROYHILL. That statement sounds pretty good, but you cannot
convince me that five separate police departments under five separate
jurisdictions and management can be coordinated effectively and
efficiently and economically-et least not to the degree that it can be
done under a single administrative head. It does not work that way in
any other operation.
Mr CASTRO. I cannot think of any other type of operation- that
works as you suggest, sir. I am sorry to he in the position of having
to disagree with you. It would be much easier if I could agree with you,
believe me, and I would like nothing better, but I honest.ly do not
see the wisdom of this legislation, and I have to be candid and truth-
ful with you.
Again I say coordination of police activities is a prime considera-
tion here and I think that is working well, at least between us and the
other police forces. -
Mr. BROYHILL. I can understand how the Secretary of the Interior,
or anyone in his position, would want to have supervision and control
over maintenance of the parks, the national shrines, and the Rangers
and things of t.hat nature; but I cannot see why it is necessary that the
Secretary of the Interior have complete and sole juri-sdiction over
policing of the parks.
Mr. CASTRO. I do, for this reason-Congress charged him with
managing and operating that parkway. If he does not exercise police
authority over it in the context of the present -method I think it makes
it awkward for him to discharge his responsbility.
Mr. BROYHILL. I can see his responsibility so far as maintenance is
concerned but in the matter of police protection I do not see what ad-
vantage the present situation presents over the authority of a trained
police commissioner. I don't see how this protection would be lessened
by having it under a commissioner rather than under the Secretary of
the Interior.
Mr. CASTRO. My judgment i~ that under this kind of arrangement
the Park Police will lose their autonomy and their flexibility.
Mr. BROYHILL. The bill says they will not. However, we can put
other language in the bill to clarify t.hat point.
Mr. CASTRO. That may be something -for us to considcr.
Mr. BRoYJIn~L. We can do whatever is necessary to further assure
the operational autonomy of the Park Police.
Mr. CASTRO. Thank you.
PAGENO="0112"
108
POLICY AS TO RESURRECTION CITY
Mr. BROYHILL. In the c1olloquy YOU had with Mr. Adams, did I Un-
derstand ~OU correctly to state that there was no difference in what
was permitted in the Resurrection City area and what is normally al-
lowed by the Park Service? I didn't hear all that colloquy because
I had someone else speaking to me.
Mr. CASTRO. We issued a permit for Resurrection City, substantial-
ly the same kind of permit we would issue for demonstration in an-
other park. Emphasis on this particular demonstration was totally
different from any for which we had ever given a permit in the past.
I might say to you that we ha.d violations of the law in Resurrection
City, violations of the permit, and we did our best to enforce the con-
ditions of the permit.
This is one of the things that led us to revoke the permit on June
23, the fact there were many violations of its condition. I am the first
to admit that.
* However, I do not know that it is correct to compare Resurrection
City with any other event we authorize in the way of a demonstration.
This was something extraordinary and unusual.
Mr. BROYHILL. What was extraordinary and unusual?
Mr. CASTRO. The fact that it was a camping form of demonstration.
Mr. BROYHILL. You have not had similar requests for camping?
Mr. CASTRO. Only one other camping demonstration in the Park
System in the? years I have been here.
Mr. BROYHILL. How about requests?
Mr. CASTRO. We have had some and declined them.
Mr. BROYHILL. What was the difference between those declined and
those not declined?
Mr. CASTRO. We were told they were bringing 3,000 people here for
this demonstration, and the options we had were, one, grant a permit
and recognize it or arrest 3,000 people. As a matter of policy, we decid-
ed to issue a permit.
Mr. BROYHILL. In other words, an organization which wants to get
a permit to camp would only have to threaten to come here and camp
anyway, and force you to arrest them, and then they will get a permit?
Mr. CASTRO. Not quite.
Mr. BROYHILL. I am not trying to make you comfortable, you know.
Mr. CASTRO. I know you're not.
Mr. BROYIIILL. The gentleman from Washington was. I was not.
Mr. CASTRO. I appreciate your candor, sir.
Mr. DOWDY. Maybe he learned a lesson.
Mr. CASTRO. I might say in defense of what we did, if I have to de-
fend it, that permits for this sort of demonstration have been issued
in the past. The Boy Scouts were here some 30 years ago, 10,000 of
them. They camped on the Mall, on Columbia Island, on the Ellipse,
and in practically every part of the Park System. That was another
form of demonstration and I will not draw parallels. They had differ-
ent objectives.
Mr. BROYHILL. I do not want to belabor this point, but I wanted
it understood clearly that there is no comparison between the Resur-
rection City permit and the other permits granted during the seven
years you have been in your present position.
PAGENO="0113"
109
Mr. CASTRO. Not a precise comparison; no, sir.
Mr. BROYHILL. Precise? Is there comparison in any area?
Mr. CASTRO. It cannot be precise.
COSTS OF RESTORING SITE
Mr. BROYHILL. Do you have cost figures?
Mr. CASTRO. $71,795.
Mr. BRIOYHILL. Is this for dismantling?
Mr. CASTRO. Dismantling, removing and storing, and including $200
for rehabilitating the D. C. War Memorial, and about $5000 for re-
pairing damage to trees and shrubs.
Mr. BROYHILL. Then you got $5500 for the lumber?
Mr. CASTRO. Yes, sir.
Mr. BROYHILL. So your figure is a little off, is it not?
Mr. CASTRO. We have a $5000 deposit from them which we are still
holding in a trust account.
Mr. BROYHILL. You are facing litigation now about that?
Mr. CASTRO. We have no litigation now. I think the report which
was made to you is inaccurate. I would know about it if there were
litigation about this.
The situation is this: We determined that our costs of restoring the
site were $71,795, of which we have $10,500 on our books.
I wrote early in August and I asked that we be reimbursed for
these costs. They responded and said they would take it up with the
leadership at a meeting in Atlanta in mid-August. We did not hear
from them and on September 5 I reminded them we still had this
obligation outstanding on our books and we wondered if they would
favor us with a reply.
Their counsel called me and said he was awaiting instructions from
their chief counsel in Chicago and he expected to hear momentarily.
He followed this up with a letter confirming this conversation.
Mr. BROYHILL. What do you think this asset of the taxpayers is
worth? You say $60,000 is still on the books. That is an asset. What
is it worth?
Mr. CASTRO. I will not make a judgment about that.
Mr. BROYHILL. Well, I don't think it is worth a quarter.
Mr. CASTRO. That is a problem for the lawyers and the courts.
Mr. BROYHILL. Is the cost of the top soil included in the $70,000?
Mr. CASTRO. No, sir, that is being done outside of Resurrection City
considerations.
Mr. BROYHILL. You consider you would have done that anyway?
Mr. CASTRO. Yes.
Mr. BROYHILL. What will that cost?
Mr. Castro. I don't know what it will cost. We are still working
on that part of it.
Mr. BROYHILL. So a lot of this cost would have occurred, anyway.
I think the taxpayers would have been interested in that, because they
understand that escapade cost several hundred thousand dollars of
their money in providing police protection as well as repairs to the
property itself. To learn that you would have done all of this improve-
ment anyway, I think perhaps would relieve their minds. In fact, I
might be inclined to exploit this situation a little. I think this is pretty
much of a joke, and I think-
97-945 0-68----8
PAGENO="0114"
110
Mr. CASTRO. Mr. Broyhill, I don't work in devious ways. We are
doing this because there is a need forit.
We found this out last spring when we had the Resurrection City
exercise and the heavy rains. The area south of the sodded area be-
came a bog because of the rains. We have had problems there before-
before Resurrection City was even thought about.
We are not justifying this for any reason other than that there is
need for it. We have no hidden agendas.
Mr. BROYHILL. This is very interesting information.
Mr. NELSON. I was interested in the witness from the Interior De-
partment saying you dismantled the buildings and took the lumber.
Has the. supplier been paid? Does he not have a prior lien against
the lumber, which has not been paid? How can the government seize
it unless they are sure it has been paid for?
Mr. CASTRO. I have no way of knowing what, if any, amount the
Southern Christian Leadership Conference owes its suppliers.
Mr. DOWDY. I would like you to tell me what channels the Park
Police uses in the matter of prosecution where an arrest is made by a
park policeman?
Chief WRIGHT. We use exactly the same procedure as the Metropoli-
tan Police. We do not have lock-up facilities. We use lock-up facilities
of the nearest precinct of the particular park where the arrest is
made.
The procedure through court is exactly the same as that of the
Metropolitan Police, through the Corporation Counsel's Office or the
U.S. Attorney's Office.
Mr. BROYHILL. If an arrest is made on the Boulevard?
Chief WRIGHT. Yes.
OTHER PERMITS DENIED
Mr. DOWDY. It is difficult for me to make a parallel with regard to
Resurrection City. In this present year, Mr. Whitener said the Boy
Scouts made a request to use the Monument Grounds for three days in
July. Was that turned down?
Mr. CASTRO. Not. to my knowledge. Forgive me if I made a com-
parison between the two uses of parkiands.
Mr..DOWDY. Were the Boy Scouts turned down because of their belief
in a "God and country," which seems to be a controversial subject?
They do not advocate turning the country upside-down and burning
it up.
Mr. CASTRO. During the time that Resurrection City was i11 oper-
ation we had a number of requests for the same privilege from other
groups and we declined them. We had a reason for declining them,
and it is simple-we had no way of extending police protection to any
other groups that might be using parkiands under those auspices.
I think the request for permit you might be referrillg to is one we
:`eceived from a church group.
Mr. DOWDY. That is another one.
Mr. CASTRO. We did not decline that req~iest. It came at the height
of the April riots. We asked for a deferral of a decision on it, and
the people who got our letter took that to mean we had declined to
issue a permit, which was not the case at all. It was the timing of it
which caused us to defer a decision, and nothing else.
PAGENO="0115"
111
Mr. DOWDY. At this point in the record, the reporter will insert the
remarks of Mr. Whitener in the House, including exchange of corres-
pondence he had with the National Park Service respecting his request
on behalf of the Boy Scouts.
(The material referred to follows:)
[Excerpt from Congressional Record of May 23, 1968, pp. H4221-H4222}
BOY SCOUTS DENIED USE OF NATIONAL PARK AREA LAND
Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Chairman, on April 25, I addressed a telegram to the
Secretary of the Interior requesting permission for several troops of the Boy
Scouts of America from North Carolina to have an encampment on National Park
area land within sight of the Washington Monument for the period July 18-20,
1968.
Today I have received the final reply of the Director of the National Park
Service in which he states:
"I regret very much that I cannot accede to the request for a Boy Scout
encampment in this area at that particular time."
In order that my colleagues may have full information as to the request and
subsequent correspondence, I insert at this point my entire file on the matter:
APRIL 25, 1968.
Hon. STEWART UDALL,
Secretary, Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.:
Would appreciate your advising whether it will be possible for several troops
of Boy Scouts from North Carolina to have an encampment on National Park
area lands within sight of the Washington Monument on July 18, 19, and 20,
1968. Housing in regulation type Boy Scout tents would be anticipated.
Will appreciate prompt reply.
Sincerely yours,
BASIL L. WHITENER,
Member of Congress.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
Washington, D.C., April 26, 1968.
Hon. BASIL L. WHITENER,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. WHITENER: We are pleased to acknowledge your inquiry in behalf of
several Boy Scout troops concerning their plans for an encampment in the Wash-
~ington, D.C. area on July 18-20. We appreciate your interest in this matter
and will provide you a reply at our earliest opportunity.
Sincerely yours,
GEORGE B. HAETZOG,
Director.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., April 29, 1968;
Mr. GEORGE B. HARTZOG,
Director, National Park Service, Department of the Interior,
Wa~shington, D.C.
DEAR Mn. HARTZOG: I appreciate having your letter of April 26, 1968, with
reference to my telegram to the Secretary of the Interior regarding an encamp-
ment for Boy Scout troops in the vicinity of the Washington Monument during
the period July 18-20, 1968.
My constituents are pressing me for a reply, and I assure you that any action
you might take to expedite an answer to my request to Secretary Udall will be
deeply appreciated.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
BASIL L. WHITENER,
Member of Congress.
PAGENO="0116"
112
May 20, 1968.
Mr. GEORGE B. HARTZOG,
Director, National Park Service, Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.:
Reference is made to my telegram of April 25, 1068, requesting permission for
a group of Boy Scouts to camp near Washington Monument during the period
July 18-20, 1968. Urgent that I have final decision as quickly as possible. Visit
of Scouts contingent upon determination made by your office.
Sincerely,
BASIL L. WHITENER,
Member of Congress.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
Washington, D.C., May 21, 1968.
Hon. BASIL L. WHITENER,
House of Representatives,
Was hington, D.C.
DEAR BASIL: We regret not having replied sooner to your recent telegram and
letter in behalf of several Boy Scout troops concerning their plans for an encamp-
ment in sight of the Washington Monument during the period July 18-20. How-
ever, as you may know, I have made several attempts to contact you by telephone
to discuss this subject, personally.
July is one of our heaviest visitor periods in Washington. The Washington
Monument, the Capitol, and the other great monuments and public buildings in
and along the Mall are, of course, prime attractions for these visitors. In these
circumstances, I regret very much that I cannot accede to the request for a Boy
Scout encampment in this area at that particular time.
We would, however, welcome the Boy Scout encampment at other park areas
in the immediate vicinity of Washington, D.C. For example, a very fine site can
be provided them at Prince William Forest Park, Triangle, Virginia. Moreover,
we would be pleased to make a site available at Greenbelt Park, if they prefer.
Enclosed for your convenience are pamphlets relating to the above-named areas.
Please let me know if I may be of further service in arranging suitable accom-
modations for these young people from your District.
Thank you very much for your continuing cooperation and assistance in the
programs of the National Park Service.
With warmest personal regards and every good wish, I am
Sincerely yours,
GEORGE B. HARTZOG, Jr. Director.
Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that the National Park Service and the Depart-
inent of the Interior would deny to the Boy Scouts of my congressional district
the same privileges which are at this time being accorded to another group.
I am particularly shocked that the Park Service would base the denial upon
the fact that the area in which the Scouts w-ould have been located is a
"prime attraction" for the heavy numbers of visitors in Washington at the time
covered by my request. The same argument is applicable to those who are now
encamped upon the same area requested by me for the Boy Scouts.
It has also been brought to my attention by Members of Congress and by
the public press that Baptist Church leaders have been denied a permit to
stage a public march and rally on the park lands along the Mall and near the
Washington Monument, for the period October 10-13, 1968. These outstanding
churchmen have planned their rally in connection with their Continental Con-
gress of the Crusade of Americas~ According to these church leaders, 10,000
marchers representing an estimated 24 million Baptists in the United States,
Canada, and Latin America were planning to hold their event as the high-
light of their religious crusade to Washington.
Mr. Speaker, it is beyond my comprehension that a nation which has as
one of its fundamental policies the equal treatment of all citizens would cBs-
criminate against a splendid youth organization such as the Boy Scouts of
PAGENO="0117"
113
America and the great Baptist Church in such an unbelievable manner. I de-
plore the decisions of the National Park Service and the Department of the
Interior which deny to them the same privileges accorded to another group
which has descended upon Washington and been given an official permit to set
up an encampment on park lands.
The people of this Nation will not long tolerate such abuses by their Gov-
ernment.
PARK POLICE
Mr. GTJDE. Mr. Castro, you spoke about the arrest procedure. You
have 308 patrolmen in the police force?
Mr. CASTRO. Mr. Gude, we have 363 authorized police positions in
the organization. Fifty-five of these were authorized in the current
fiscal year, meaning 1969. However, because of the very rigid personnel
restrictions we have now, we cannot fill them.
As a matter of fact, out of 363 authorized positions we have 277
filled as of today.
Mr. GUDE. Your park policemen receive the same pay increase as
the District police?
Mr. CASTRO. Yes, sir.
Mr. GUDE. Has this made any difference?
Mr. CASThO. I am sure it has. Chief Wright can address himself to
that better than I can.
Chief WRIGHT. We have many more applicants appearing. We can
give more encouragement toward employment.
Mr. GUDE. You say you cannot fill the positions? Why?
Mr. CASTRO. Because of the restrictions imposed on us by the Con-
gress and the Bureau of the Budget.
Mr. G1JDE. In the course of their duties, your officers have to make
arrests in the same manner as the Metropolitan Police, in such areas
as DuPont Circle?
Mr. CASTRO.. We exercise concurrent jurisdiction, but because it is
a park the presence of the U.S. Park Police is more evident than `that
of the Metropolitan Police, although the Metropolitan Police make
arrests there, also.
Mr. GtTDE. As far as the workload is concerned, to a certain extent
your officers are handicapped in `the same way the Metropolitan Police
are?
Mr. CASTRO. More so. The District Government does not have to
observe personnel ceiling restrictions as we have to observe them. In
other words, if they are authorized to fill 3,000 positions they can fill
them as long as they are able to get men.
In our case because of our ceiling problems we cannot fill perhaps
over 300 of them. This is my problem.
Because of personnel ceiling limitation, we can fill only 1,269 of
our authorized 1,590 positions.
Mr. GUDE. It was not the intent of Congress in cutting funds that
i't~ should apply to police of t.he National Capital Parks or anywhere
else in the government sphere.
To get back to the job of the policemen who worked under you, I
wondered about this backlog in the Court of General Sessions and
PAGENO="0118"
114
in the Juvenile Court which the previous witness mentioned. Does this
handicap you to the extent that your officers are performing police
functions to the same extent it handicaps Metropolitan Police?
Chief WRIGHT. That is right.
Mr. GUDE. The solution here is to do something about additional
judges in both those courts.
Mr. CASTRO. I would think so.
Mr. GUDE. Also I imagine you have trouble with alcoholics in the*
parks?
Mr. CASTRO. That is right.
Mr. GUDE. If we did something for t.heir treatment and care, this
would relieve some of the load on your men.
Mr. CASTRO. Indeed.
Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to indicate that we have found
Title 36, Section 3.20, 3.21, 3.22 with the various designations of park
policy.
In referring to part 50 I wanted to ask the gentleman whether or not
they have now begun to break down Title 36 into parts as has been
done in the other sections of the Code which are not up to date?
Mr. CASTRO. The regulations have been recodified.
Mr. ADAi~rs. There have been some remarks by the gentleman from
Virginia about my questions and what I was trying to establish. I
happen to have been on Boy Scout Jamborees. Leaving aside politics
and the age, as I remember it, we all dug camp fires, we all had a
tent and all lived in the area a.nd when we left I am certain that a
certain number of things had to be done physically to restore the
area.
We will not get into political discussions for the moment, about the
age of these people, but instead discuss what they do with the property.
Mr. DOWDY. I worked with the Boy Scouts for many years before
I came to Congress. I was District Chairman, and had many jamborees.
One of the requirements I put on the boys was always to restore the
area. They always did a fine job in doing this and we never had a com-
plaint from anyone who granted the use of his premises.
Mr. GUDE. I, too, worked with the Boy Scouts. I remember many
Jamborees on Monument Grounds.
You spoke of these five groups being consolidated. I wondered to
what extent you have daily contact or need for coordination with the
police at the Zoological Park and the White House.
Mr. CASTRO. I can speak with respect to the White House Police
because the White House is part of `the National Park System. Al-
though we do not have jurisdiction within the confines of the 18 acre
area-the White House Police exert jurisdiction there-we have juris-
diction on the outside along South Executive, East Executive, West
Executive, and the south side of Pennsylvania Avenue. We post men
there every day to `assist tourists and traffic.
Mr. BROYHILL. I was amazed to hear the gentleman from Washing-
ton imply that someone else was politically motivated here this morn-
ing, and apparently implying that he never gets political in the col-
loquy or statements he makes around here.
PAGENO="0119"
115
I will confess that knowingly or unknowingly, I sometimes bring
politics into some of my approaches to questions. I might go so far
as to say, Mr. Castro-and I want to commend you on the manner you
have conducted yourself this morning; your statements and answers
to questions have been very effective-but if you were at liberty to give
a factual and complete appraisal as to what happened here, an inter-
pretation of these happenings, and what factors led to the decision to
grant this permit, you would have to admit there were politics involved
in the Department of the Interior's decision in this matter.
Mr. CASTRO. I am perfectly at liberty to answer any questions you
wish to ask about Resurrection City.
Mr. BROYHILL. Was politics involved in that decision?
Mr. CASTRO. Mr. Broyhill, I don't work in the area of politics. I am
a Park Administrator.
Mr. BROYHILL. You said you could answer the questions. I did not
expect you to answer, but you said you could.
Mr. CASTRO. I can.
Mr. BROYHILL. Then I ask you whether politics wasinvolved.
Mr. CASTRO. No, sir, politics was not involved; within my knowledge
it was not involved.
Mr. BROYHILL. Not within your knowledge.
Let the record show that I am laughing, and also disagreeing.
Mr. CASTRO. I should make this statement to you: This was a difficult
problem for us. Needless to say, it was the most strenuous job I have
ever handled in my quarter century in the Park Service.
I said before that we have no hidden agendas on this. It was a busi-
ness proposition for us, such as a request to demonstrate in Lafayette
Park is. Because of special circumstances it was much more difficult
than usual, but literally speaking, whether there was politics involved,
certainly not on my part or on the part of any of the people with whom
I work.
Mr. BROYHILL. I accept the fact that you are a professional career
man who does his job as best he can, without regard to politics. I hope I
didn't imply anything else in my remarks. However, you work for a
political organization, and there are politicians in the Department of
the Interior. I happen to know some of them.
Mr. CASTRO. To my mind-
Mr. ADAMS. If I may finish my reply. If I indicated to the gentleman
from Virginia in any way that I am not a political animal and one
willing to fight political issues with him, I certainly want to correct
that impression. I have disputed his politics in the past and will in the
future, and I expect that will continue indefinitely.
My remarks were that the gentleman testifying is not involved in the
political business and I didn't want him to be involved in a discussion
of the political philosophy of the group involved.
My comments as to political connotations or complexions of the
group referred to Resurrection City itself, and I said that setting aside
for a moment the politics of what people there believed or what they
wanted to say or why they were here, if they were here to lobby or not,
there are pyhsical things that the Park Service has to do whenever
anybody comes to town, whether it is a Boy Scout Jamboree or some-
PAGENO="0120"
116
thing else. The Boy Scouts were not here politically. Perhaps Resur-
rection City people were. I think, however, the American Legion
comes for political purposes. They make that clear. There are groups,
other than the Resurrection City people who come here politically.
I do not think we should lean on the servants of the Park Service
with regard to the political coloration of the group that uses one of
the parks. They have to treat them all the same.
I agree with the witness' comments that this was a difficult situation.
The next one may be a difficult situation, too. I am glad he is there be-
cause I believe he has done his duty well.
Mr. NELSEN. You referred to yourself as an animal. I don't think
that is a good. term.
We have other witnesses. I wonder if we could get on with the other
witnesses.
I want to confess I never belonged to t.he Boy Scouts. I am sorry.
Mr. ADAMS. That is the loss of the Boy Scouts.
Mr. CASTRO. In my mind, and I say this in complete honesty, the
decision we made was not a political decision. It was a management
decision-right or wrong. That is my conviction.
Mr. BROYHLL. I would like to associate my remarks with those
made by Mr. Adams. I did not want to imply that you were in anyway
politically motivated in this matter.
Mr. GUDE. I think it is worthy of note in the consideration of this
bill that this hiring which has been levied by the Bureau of the Budget
is hampering your operation.
Mr. CASTRO. Very much so. We have asked the Interior Department
to try and exempt us from this requirement as it applies to the Park
Police.
Mr. GTJDE. Very good.
Mr. DOWDY. Thank you, gentlemen.
The next witness will be on behalf of the National Zoological Park
Police, Carl Sadler, Legislative Representative, Norman Jordan and,
Charles Van Tassel and Stephen Koczak.
STATEMENTS OP CARL SADLER, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE,
AND STEPHEN KOCZAK, ASSISTANT RESEARCH DIE~ECTOR, AMER-
ICAN EF4DERATION OP GOVERNI~IIENT EMPLOYEES; AND NORMAN
E. JORDAN, HOWARD J. MOORE, AND CHARLES VAN TASSEL,
NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK POLICE
Mr. SADLER. I am Carl K. Sadler, the Legislative Director for the
American Federation of Government Employees.
The gentleman on my immediate right is Mr. Stephen Koczak, our
Assistant Research Director.
The gentleman on my left is Mr. Norman E. Jordan, President of
the Zoological Police Lodge.
On my far right is Mr. Charles Van Tassel, Secretary-Treasurer,
and Howard J. Moore, Vice President, of this Lodge.
We appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the introduction by Mr. McMillan of
H.R. 14430, which was co-sponsored by: Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Dowdy,
Mr. Hagan, Mr. Fuqua, Mr. O'Koriski, Mr. Wiun, Mr. Steiger of An-
PAGENO="0121"
117
zona, and Mr. Broyhill of Virginia; and the introduction of H.IR.
14448 by Subcommittee Chairman Basil L. Whitener.
STJPPORT OF BILL
For many years the American Federation of Government Employees
has felt `that the law enforcement in the District of Columbia should
be under one head. We believe that this approach of having a Com-
missioner of Police appointed is a good one. As provided in Sec. 2 of
the Bill:
"(a) There are transferred to the Police Commissioner the func-
tions, powers, and duties of- (1) the Commissioner of the District
of Columbia and the District of Columbia Council with respect to the
Metropolitan Police force; (2) the Secretary of the Interior with
respect to the United States Park Police in the District of Columbia;
(3) the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to the White House
Police; (4) the Sergeants at Arms of the House of Representatives
and the Senate and the Capitol Police Board with respect to the Capi-
tol police; and (5) the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution with
respect to `the National Zoological Park police force.
"(b) The Police Commissioner may establish such review boards as
he deems `advisable. The Police Commissioner may appoint and fix
the compensation of such personnel as he deems advisable to carry
out his functions, powers, and duties under this Act, subject to the
provisions of Title 5, United States Code, relating to appointments in
the competitive service, classification, and General Schedule pay rates.
"(c) As soon as practicable `after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Police Commissioner shall make recommendations to Congress
for the enactment of such legislation as may be necessary to make the
police forces under his jurisdiction subject to the same provisions for
appointments, promotions, dismissals, compensation, retirement, and
similar matters.
"(d) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to- (1) authorize the
Police Commissioner to combine any of the police forces under his
jurisdiction or transfer any officer or member of a police force under
his jurisdiction to a position in another police force under his juris-
diction without the prior consent of such officer or member; or (2)
affect the rights and privileges under personnel laws and regulations
in effect before the date of the enactment of this Act of any officer or
member of a police force under the jurisdiction of the Police Commis-
sioner."
BENEFITS FROM THIS BILL
We are confident that the enactment of this legislation would elim-
inate the many barriers and pitfalls we have read about in the news-
papers concerning our law enforcement department `and that it will
permit uniformity throughout the District of Columbia. Likewise
there would be one set of rules and regulations, which would in our
opinion improve the morale of the personnel of all these groups and
would tend to make law enforcement much more efficient. We trust
that this Committee will approve legislation along these lines and let
it be tried for a few years. We predict that there will be no desire to
PAGENO="0122"
118
go back to the several departments we now have, each one having ju-
risdiction of their own law enforcement. officers.
We appreciate the privilege of filing this statement. On behalf of
the American Federation of Government Employees we assure this
Committee `that we would be delighted to work with the members
of this Committee or the Committee staff in an effort to bring a'bout ~
solution to the hodgepodge system for law enforcement officers that
now exists in our Nation's Capital.
I think Mr. Jordan also has a statement he would like to file.
Mr. Downy. Mr. Jordan.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, for the record, I am Norman E. Jor-
dan, President of Lodge 185, American Federation of Government
Employees and a Private with the National Zoological Park Police.
With me today are the Vice President of Lodge 185, Mr. Howard J.
Moore and the Secretary-Treasurer, Mr. Charles H. Van Tassel, who
are also members of the National Zoological Park Police.
We appear here today in support of Chairman McMillan's bill, H.R.
14430, and your bill, H.R. 14448, which would establish a Commis-
sioner of Police for the District of Columbia. We urge the enact-
ment of such legislation which would provide uniformity among the
five recognized police forces in the District of Columbia with respect
to appointments, promotions, dismissals, compensation, retirement
and similar matters. These provisions would eliminate `the present
fragmentary jurisdictions and inconsistent rules and regulations gov-
erning policemen in the performance of their duties. In turn, these
provisions would establish greater efficiency, solidarity or union of
purpose and promote esprit de corps among the law enforcement of-
ficers in the District of Columbia. These improvements would ulti-
mately result in more economic operation of the total complement of
law enforcement offices in the nation's capital and a savings to each
taxpayer.
The quality of police protection in the District of Columbia would
increase proportionately with the morale of the individual policeman
as he becomes aware that his rights would also be protected by stand-
ardized rules and regulations governing the performance of his duties
and one central authority to which he would be answerable, namely,
the Congress of the United States represented by a Police Commis-
sioner.
This statement has the approval of our parent organization, the
American Federation of Government Employees.
We wish to thank the committee for granting us this opportunity
to express our views.
Mr. BROYHILL. I think one of the witnesses should state briefly for
the record `the matter of training, hazards in the making of arrests,
and so on, and something with regard to comparable pay and allow-
ances.
Mr. JORDAN. We had `a bill introduced June 16, H.R. 7195. I under-
stand it is now in the Rules Committee. It is to bring our pay up
comparable to U.S. Park Police.
At that time the Secretary of the Smithsonian testified with regard
to that. There is a complete record of that hearing where they felt
the jobs are comparable and the duties are comparable.
PAGENO="0123"
119
* The only difference is the area involved. We cover 176 acres, but
the arrest procedures are the same. The duties are comparable.
Over the years we feel, if you will check our arrests and the size
of our force, the arrests per man are comparable to those of the U.S.
Park Police.
Mr. BROYHILL. If you would like to elaborate on that for the record,
it would be helpful to us. It would help in this legislation in the event
something happens to the legislation pending before the Rules Com-
mittee.
From what committee did that come?
Mr. SADLER. House Administration.
If we may, we would like to submit for the Committee's perusal the
information that we have concerning the arrests and the comparative
analyses we have.
Mr. BROYHILL. I ask unanimous consent that that material be in-
cluded.
Mr. DOWDY. That may be done.
Mr. ADAMS. Having received these statements, who is the head of
the National Zoological Park Police? In reading these I gather you
gentlemen are represented by the American Federation of Govern-
ment Employees and not whatever hierarchy there is.
Mr. SADLER.~ These are all members of the American Federation of
Government Employees.
Mr. ADAMS. Do you have a director?
Mr. SADLER. The Smithsonian.
Mr. JORDAN. We come under the Secretary of the Smithsonian.
Mr. ADAMS. And is there an Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian
in charge of the police?
Mr. JORDAN. The Director of the Zoo and the National Zoological
Park.
Mr. ADAMS. Your immediate superior is the head of the Zoo, or the
director of the Zoo?
Mr. JORDAN. That is right.
Mr. ADAMS. Has he taken a position on this at all? What is his name?
Mr. JORDAN. Dr. Theodore Reed.
Mr. SADLER. As a matter of record the American Federation of
Government Employees has exclusive representative rights for the
Zoological Police. This is the reason we are here together.
Mr. ADAMS. That is fine, but I was trying to check this out. Do you
represent either the `White House Police or the Park Police or the
Capitol Police or the Metropolitan Police?
Mr. SADLER. Not exclusive representation.
Mr. DOWDY. Thank you, gentlemen.
At this point we shall insert the letter of the acting secretary of
the Smithsonian Institute to Chairman McMillan.
The letter referred to follows:)
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION,
Washingto'n, D.C., July 24, 1968.
Hon. JOHN L. MOMILLAN,
Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia,
U.Fi. House of Representatives ,Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: Please refer to HR. 14430 and H.R. 14448, identical bills
"To establish a Commissioner of Police for the District of Columbia."
PAGENO="0124"
120
Section 2(5) of these `bills would transfer to the proposed Police Commissioner
the functions, powers, and duties of "the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institu-
tion with respect to the National Zoological Park `Police Force."
The duties and responsibilities of the Zoological Park Police differ from those
normally expected of a police officer and thus require special training and experi-
ence. The Smithsonian Institution therefore considers that direct control over
the police enforcement responsibilities attendant with the National Zoological
Park is in the public interest.
It is incumbent upon *the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to assure
public safety for the millions of visitors. This responsibility encompasses measures
of enforcement including a 24-hour vigilance over a large park area w-ith some
3,000 wild animals.
The National Zoological Park Police `also serve as information guides and coil-
tinuously assist the visitors to this wildlife habitat.
The Smithsonian Institution accordingly does not favor this legislation.
The~ Bureau of the Budget has advised that from the standpoint of the Ad-
ministration's program there is no objection to the presentation of this report to
the Congress.
Sincerely yours,
JAMES BRADLEY,
Acting $ccrctary.
Mr. DOWDY. The North Washington Council of Citizens Associa-
tions, Mrs. Ernest Howard.
STATEMENT OF MRS. ERNEST HOWARD, PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH
WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS
Mrs. HOWARD. I have a short statement, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, since the vilification
of the policemen has become the order of the day and since policemen
are the protectors of our lives and property, we are glad to endorse
H.R. 14430 a.nd H.R. 14448.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that there is an organized conspiracy at
work in the nation to discredit the law enforcement officers of this
land, and especially in our city. This is a technique that is directed
toward the discrediting of the police in the eyes of the public.
Groups are trained in crushing police opposition, to discredit police
officials among the rank and file, and to check and rifle administrative
and security units. Even on routine calls, their lives are now
endangered.
The police officer is now always on the defensive, both from City
Hall and the criminals.
We can hold meetings, approve commissions, create new positions,
create more committees, and we can make speeches in other cities and
quote statistics ad infinitum but this will not solve the problem of crime
and disorder in the Capital of the United States, which is Washing-
ton, D.C.
These attacks are dangerous for two reasons: One, they are fana-
tical, disciplined, and skilled in the underground method.
Two, their strategy and technique is to centralization, a campaign
against the police in one state being a campaign in another, and so on
throughout the other countries of the world.
We believe the police officer in our Nation's Capital should not put
himself in a defensive position every time he responds to a call. We
can no longer afford to allow the police officers to be dealt with or
relegated to the same level as the criminal. There is only one way to
PAGENO="0125"
121
remedy this deplorable and disgraceful situation, and that is for the
Congress of the United States to retrieve and exercise the preroga-
tives given them in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the
United States, and which each member has sworn to defend. That is
to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases in the District of Columbia.
We believe that you have the tools, Mr. Chairman, and we implore
you to use them.
Thank you.
Mr. DOWDY. Thank you, Mrs. Howard.
We have the White House Police here now. We l1ave Mr. Charles
Humpstone, Acting Special Assistant to Treasury Secretary for En-
forcement, Mr. James J. Rowley, Director, Secret Service, and Major
Glennard Lanier, Chief, White House Police.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES HUMPSTONE, ACTING SPECIAL ASSIST-
ANT TO TREASURY SECRETARY FOR ENFORCEMENT, ACCOM-
PANIED BY 3.AMES 3.. ROWLEY, DIRECTOR, SECRET SERVICE AND
MAI. `GLENNARD LANIER, CHIEF, WHITE HOUSE POLICE
Mr. HUMPSTONE. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I
want to thank you for allowing me to express the views of the Treasury
Department with regard to pending bill H.R.. 14430 and its identical
companion H.R. 14448.
As to the essential purpose of the bill, which is to establish a Coin-
missioner of Police for the District of Columbia, we make no comment,
on the ground that this relates to a subject which is outside Treasury's
professional jurisdiction. We do want to comment, however, as to one
item in the bill which reads as follows:
SEC. 2. (a). There are transferred to the Police Commissioner the
functions, powers, and duties of-
* * * * * * *
(3) the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to the Wl1ite House
Police;
Our position is that subsection (3) should be deleted from the bill.
OPPOSE INCLUDING WHITE HOUSE POLICE
The Treasury Department is strongly opposed to the transfer of the
functions, powers, and duties of the Secretary of the Treasury, with
respect to the White House Police, to the Police Commissioner.
The White House Police force protects the White House, Executive
Offices and grounds, and the President and his immediate family. The
Secretary of the Treasury is charged with the supervision of the force
and he has delegated his functions to the Director of the Secret Service
as it has the statutory responsibility for protection of the Chief Ex-
ecutive and his immediate family.
The responsibilities of the White House Police are interwoven with
those of the Treasury Department and particularly the Secret Service
in every aspect of its operation and administration. To fragment the
direction and supervision of the existing protective system could com-
promise the effective coordination of the efforts of the Secret Service
PAGENO="0126"
122
and the White House Police to guarantee the physical security of the
President of the United States.
The White House Police force is a highly specialized unit whose
duties are related to the physical security of the Chief Executive, his
family, and certain property as defined by statute. Their responsibilities
are not as broad as those of the municipal police force. The officers
receive special training from the Secret Service in addition to basic
police training. Once on board they work under experienced senior
personnel carrying out their functions as a security force under the
most trying circumstances.
Hundreds of thousands of people, each capable of committing some
grievous act, must be scrutinized in a continuous effort to secure the
home and offices of the President. The White House Police force's
responsibilities do not permit a single failure in communication or
coordination with the efforts of the Secret Service. I believe it would be
an egregious error to divide protective responsibility between separate
commands instead of continuing control in one organization.
The Treasury Department position is that the consolidation of the
White House Police under the Commissioner of the District of
Columbia Police would segment existing efficient line authority.
Mr. Chairman, Director Rowley, Major Lanier or I will be pleased
to answer any questions you or members of the Committee may have
pertaining to the White House Police force and the Treasury position
regarding the legislation.
Mr. DOWDY. This is the one area of the bill where I have no ques-
tions because of the peculiar responsibilities of your group.
Mr. Adams?
Mr. ADAMS. To what degree do you coordinate the operations in
and out of the White House with the rest of your network? I think
your key point here is the fact that in this particular area you need
to have control of the White House where the President starts his
trips.
Mr. HtTMPSTONE. One is the control of the physical admission of the
people to these specific 18 acres. It is a clearly defined area with a
fence around it. Our jurisdiction is inside the fence.
There are two aspects-one is the control of people who either as
part of the tourists are moving through the museum tour, if you
might call it that, and people who might try and jump the fence,
people who might try and break in through the gate, and controlling
those people, those who have permission and those who do not. The
other is working through the intelligence network of the Secret Serv-
ice, as you all receive mail from time to time from mentally disturbed
and deranged persons who have some desire to express indignation
with various circumstances surrounding them, so too the President
receives such mail. We get information daily from various parts of
the country, people who have announced a declared intent to come
and kill one or another person either now in the White House, for-
merly in the White House, or perhaps will be in the White House.
That information has to be relayed immediately to the Secret Serv-
ice and White House Police.
Mr. ADAMS. Chief Lanier, the men who are physically at the gates
of the White House, are those part of your force?
Chief LANIER. Yes.
PAGENO="0127"
123
Mr. ADAMS. At what point do you meet the people from the Depart-
ment of the Interior? Where do you have the split? Do they watch
over the sidewalks, and you take from the fence inside?
Chief LANIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. ADAMS. I take it it is your position, as expressed here, that you
feel your operation should continue as it is?
Chief LANIER. It should, yes, sir.
Mr. ADAMS. How many men do you have?
Chief LANIER. On board at the moment we have 213 officers. Appro-
priated strength is 250.
Mr. ADAMS. Are you having a problem recruiting or is that a normal
turnover gap that you simply always have because people move in
and out?
Chief LANIER. Limitation by Congress under this recent Act.
Mr. ADAMS. The question I am asking is this: We have had recruit-
ment problems in the District. I want to know whether recruitment
problems exist for the White House Police or whether this is because
of the statutory limitation or turnover.
Chief LANTER. At one time we did have because basically most of
our men come from the Metropolitan Police. They had a problem and
in turn we had one.
We have the availability of men, but we are restricted by Execu-
tive and Congressional Acts.
Mr. ADAMS. You have not had a recruitment problem?
Chief LANIER. No.
Mr. BROYHILL. I cannot speak for all the co-sponsors of the legisla-
tion, but I would offer the observation that their feeling about this
legislation is much the same as most of us have. We draft legislation and
introduce it with a certain objective, in order to solve different prob-
lems. None of us feels we have all the answers.
Originally, the basic idea was to consolidate the separate police
departments.
Some of the supporters of the legislation suggested bringing into the
bill the jurisdiction of the Airport Police, which overlaps to some
extent with the Park Police. Some suggested that the police guards
up here at the Supreme Court be brought under the legislation. That
would draw objections from other members, but my point is that there
is a lot of give and take when we try to bring about solutions to
problems.
I say that because as a sponsor, I am willing to work out some
adjustment or correction or change so far as the White House Police
are concerned.
I have talked with the Under Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Barr,
about this and also with some members of the White House Police
force. I recognize that there is a close coordination with the Secret
Service in the protection of the life of the President.
I also bear in mind that until recently, Major, all of your recruits
had to come from the Metropolitan Police Deaprtment. Is that correct?
Chief LANIER. Metropolitan or the U.S. Park Police.
Mr. HUMPSTONE. That is by statute.
Mr. BROYHILL. Do you have that same I imitation now?
Chief LANIER. Yes, by statute.
PAGENO="0128"
124
Mr. BROYHILL. You still have the restriction that you must get your
recruits from the Park Police or from the Metropolitan Police force?
I know of certain instances in which you wanted to obtain certain per-
sonnel from the Metropolitan Police Department, these people wanted
to be transferred, but you could not get the cooperation of the Metro-
politan Police Department in obtaining those particular people.
I believe that from the standpoint of recruitment and training, this
legislation would be of assistance to you in helping to streamline this
procedure.
So far as the protection of the President and the responsibility of the
Secret Service is concerned, and in relation to the Secretary of the
Treasury, I think all of this can be handled satisfactorily.
Mr. HUMPSTONE. I am happy to hear that, Mr. Broyhill.
Are there other questions we can answer?
Mr. DOWDY. Thank you very much.
At this point, we will insert into the record the letter of the General
Counsel of the Treasury to Chairman McMillan on this proposed
legislation.
(The letter referred to follows:)
THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, D.C., April 4, 1.968.
Hon. JOHN L. MOMILLAN,
Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: The Department would like to take this opportunity
to comment on H.R. 14430 and H.R. 14448, identical bills, "To establish a Com-
missioner of Police for the District of Columbia," which are pending before
your Committee.
The proposed legislation would consolidate the five separate police forces now
operating in the District of Columbia; i.e., the Metropolitan Police, United States
Park Police, Capitol Police, White House Police, and National Zoological Park
Police. These forces would all be under the complete jurisdiction of a Commis-
sioner of Police appointed for a four-year term by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, acting jointly. A
nine-member Advisory Commission would also be appointed by the Speaker and
the President pro tempore.
The Department would be strongly opposed to the provision in the proposed
legislation which would transfer to the Police Commissioner the functions,
powers, and duties of the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to the White
House Police. As you are aware, section 202, title 3, United States Code pro-
vides that the White House Police shall be under the control and supervision
of the Secretary of the Treasury and shall perform such duties as the Secretary
may prescribe in connection with the protection of the Executive Mansion and
grounds, White House offices and the President and members of his immediate
family. The Secretary has delegated his functions under the aforementioned
statute to the Director of the Secret Service. Pursuant to the provisions of sec-
tion 305fi, of title 18, United States Code, the protection of the President and
members of his immediate family is also a statutory responsibility of the Secret
Service. It is the Department's position that the protection of the President
and his family is best accomplished by placing the responsibility for such protec-
tion under the direction and control of one organization. The agency responsible
for Presidential protection is the Secret Service. To remove the White House
Police from under the direction and supervision of the Secret Service could
compromise and weaken the existing protection system, and result in a frag-
mentation of the authority and responsibility for the protection of the President
of the United States.
The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is
no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the sub-
mission of this report to your Committee.
Sincerely yours,
FRED B. SMITH,
General Counsel.
PAGENO="0129"
125
Mr. DOWDY. Mr. George W. Brady, President, Federation of Citi-
zens Associations.
STATEMENT OP GEORGE W. BRADY, PRESIDENT, FEDERATION OP
CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement which will
take ten to twelve minutes. Otherwise I will give you our recommenda-
tion and submit the rest of it.
Mr. DOWDY. If you will do that because the bells will be ringing
in a moment.
Your statement can be made part of the record and you can brief it.
Mr. BRADY. I would like to say that the Federation is very concerned
with the situation of law enforcement and crime in the District of
Columbia. We consider that the situation, if you want to define it in
one word, is deplorable. TJnfortunately we do not detect any favorable
trends in spite of the best efforts of the new District Government. We
want to support any action by the Congress or in the local government
which will improve law enforcement and increase respect for the law.
We submitted a statement to the District Council's Public Safety
Committee in August. I would like to make that part of the statement
which we submit.
Mr. DOWDY. That may be done.
(The statement referred to follows:)
STATEMENT TO D.C. CouNcIL's PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE ON ITS REPORT ON
Pouci~-CoMMuNITY RELATIONS
The Federation welcomes this opportunity to present its views on the current
law enforcement situation in the District of Columbia. Our comments are
directed primarily toward the August 5, 1968 Report of the D.C. Council's Public
Safety Oommittee on Police-Community Relations.
Before making our comments, however, we would like to observe that we were
not invited to appear before the Public Safety Committee, nor, so far as I am
aware, were our written comments sought. Hence, we do not believe the state-
ment in the report that "written comments were sought i~rom the Community"
is entirely accurate. We hope that in the future this and other committees of
the Council will desire to have the viewpoint of this Federation and we hereby
request that you will let us know when we can be of service.
As I think you are aware this Federation is in its 59th year of service to
the city. We currently represent 34 local citizens associations within the District.
Our interests cover nearly all facets of city activities from city planning, budget,
taxation, and education to public safety, public utilities, and transportation. The
comments which I will now make were endorsed by our Executive Board on
August 15, 1968.
1. We were very pleased to note the constructive tone of the report of the
Council's Committee on Public Safety and in particular its rejection of the radi-
cal proposals recently advanced by certain activist groups. This Federation, like
the Council, wants the Washington Metropolitan Police Force to be maintained
and directed to meet the needs and objectives of our National Capital. We want
to see crime reduced and mutual respect between police and the community
restored in areas where it is now lacking.
2. We were disappointed that we did not find any words in the report regard-
ing the responsibilities of the individual citizen in maintenance of law and order.
Of course we need much better relations between the police and the community
ut community relations is a two-way street. One might almost say that, the
emphasis in the report on the demand for changes in police actions and attitudes
~ would lead one to think that lawlessness is the fault of the police. We believe
the greatest problems in our present situation is the breakdown of
97-945 O-68----9
PAGENO="0130"
126
* respect for the law. We are not sure just how this can be corrected but it cer-
tainly will not be done without giving great and continuing emphasis to the funda-
mental principle of respect for the law. The problem is compounded by recent
statements by certain otherwise responsible civil rights leaders that "law and
order" are racist words. How can this possibly be accepted? Much is written
that the policeman is considered the "enemy" by a segment of the population.
How can we overcome this attitude? Perhaps the police are not perfect but their
efforts are for the good of the community. Please note that the U.S. Post Office
Department has recently joined the fight against crime by issuing a commemora-
tive stamp entitled "Law and Order."
In summary on this point we believe that the City Government should (1)
emphasize that the majority of its citizens are law abiding and think that the
police are doing a good job; (2) give full support to the police from the top of
the Government down; (3) give short shrift to those who attempt to downgrade
the police to satisfy their own political aims; (4) give high priority to devising
and initiating educational programs to promote respect for the law in those
segments of our citizenry who do not now have it; and (5) encourage coopera-
tion with the police. If these actions are successful we will not need one thou-
sand more policemen and elaborate police community relations programs.
Further, we recommend strongly that the Council not accept the Committee's
view that "at this point in time the city Government must act on the principle
that changes in police attitudes will result in reciprocal attitudes on the part of
the public." Rather we believe that active educational programs as just sug-
gested are of at least equal importance and should be conducted in parallel.
3. Because of the extensive publicity given to the proposals of the Black
United Front and the Chairman of the Democratic Central Committee we have
the responsibility to comment directly on them:
(a) We believe that these proposals spring from a false premise, namely that
"the people regard the police as their enemy~" This kind of preachment renders
a disservice to the cause of better police-community relations.
(b) We believe that policies and actions of the police must be uniform through-
out the city. If such vital functions as hiring, firing, promoting, and transferring
are placed in the hands of the people in each precinct we can foresee only chaos.
(c) We denounce as extreme racism the suggestion that the Chief of Police
be replaced by a Negro. We consider this a grandstand play to gain political capital
when in fact it is an act of political irresponsibility. Those who make this sug-
gestion would be the first to uphold the civil service job rights of their political
constituents while stripping Chief Layton of his.
(d) The proposals that in certain areas of the city only police of the same color
as the majority of the citizens be on patrol are unsound for many reasons, two
of which are: first, this would require that boundaries of such areas be defined
which would be almost impossible to do and would be unfair to minority groups
and; second, such a pattern would promote a new type of segregation which runs
counter to all that this country has been trying to accomplish in recent years.
4. We believe that the police recruiting program should proceed on the basis
of candidates without regard to race. We do not believe a black-white quota should
be set as has been suggested. Equally logical arguments can be made that since
this is the Nation's Capital, the black-white ratio should be based on that of the
country as a whole rather than on that in the District of Columbia. We would
further point out an important reason for hewing to the line in maintaining the
highest possible quality of recruits: if the standards are lowered, many of a
group which enters with lowered standards will be unable to advance as rapidly
as those that do meet the standards. Then, after a few years charges will un-
doubtedly be heard that this group has been discriminated against in promotions
to top jobs. Therefore, we consider it vital that all recruits meet the same estab-
lished standards.
5. We support the Police Cadet Program and are pleased to see that it is
currently targeted to a level of 350 cadets.
6. We endorse the proposal for a study of the citizen advisory mechanism
and the development of specific guidelines for citizen involvement. We recommend
that these clearly limit the role of the advisory group and not interfere with the
authority of the Police Department. We are pleased that the Committee recom-
mends a public hearing on the proposals coming out of this study and we request
that the Council give adequate notice of the hearing in order that interested
groups will have time to prepare responsive comments.
7. We are aware of pending legislation in the Congress (H.R. 14430 and 14448)
which propose to establish "an independent office in the Government of the Dis-
PAGENO="0131"
127
trict of Columbia with the title of Commissioner of Police in the District of Colum-
bia" with responsibility for the Metropolitan Police Force, the Park Police, the
White House Police, the Capitol Police, and the National Zoological Park Police.
Although the Federation has not as yet taken a position on this proposal we are
impressed by Deputy Mayor Fletcher's four reasons for opposing this legisla-
tion, namely, a difilusion of authority, reversal of the trend for citizen partici-
pation, waste and duplication of administrative functions, and creation of more
problems in coordinating the police functions with other associated functions of
the City Government. Hence, we will probably oppose this legislation at this time
and recommend that it be tabled for approximately one year. If after that
time the District Government has not made enough progress in providing ade-
quate law enforcement, then this legislation to shift control of the Police Forces
to Congressional control should be reconsidered.
8. Before summarizing our comments I would like to say this with regard to
the Chief of Police. We beliieve that Chief Layton has done and is doing an ex-
cellent jOb for the community. We are aghast at the attacks against him and can
only ascribe it to groups bent on destroying our Police Department to create
anarchy in the District. Our reaction to the appointment last fall of a Director of
Public Safety was that it was a move to downgrade the Police Department and
the initial actions of Mr. Murphy when appointed to that position tended to con-
firm this opinion. We do not say that this is the reason but it is a fact that the
worst outbreak of lawlessness in the history of Washington occurred under the
new City Government and the Director of Public Safety. We recommend that all
members of the District of Columbia Government and of the D.C. Council support
our Chief of Police whoever he may be. He is currently Mr. Layton who we
believe is doing a good job under difficult conditions and who we are proud
to support.
Now, to summarize our comments:
1. We commend the Committee for its report on Community Relations with
most of whose recommendations we heartily agree.
2. We urge that the Committee and the Council consider in their policies and
actions the importance of finding ways to develop respect for the law in those
segments of our citizenry where it is now lacking, while taking, in parallel, ac-
tions to improve police procedures.
3. We urge the Council to continue to reject radical proposals which would
result in undue influence of local citizen groups over the police.
4. We recommend that standards for police recruiting not be relaxed.
5. We support the Police Cadet Program and its currently planned enlargement.
6. We endorse the review of the Police Advisory mechanism and its considera-
tion by the Council after a public hearing.
7. We oppose at this time proposals to transfer the Metropolitan Police from
D.C. Government to Congressional control.
8. We support Chief Layton and call upon the Council to do the same without
equivocation.
Mr. BRADY. We covered this question of this particular legislation
regarding the establishment of a Commissioner appointed by Con-
gress, and 1 would like to read in a part from our report.
I might say that the District Council has not as yet adopted the
report of their Public Safety Committee. They are holding hearings
on it and I think probably they will take some action, but not accept
it in toto.
Mr. BRADY (reading). "With regard to the pending legislation in
the Congress (H.R. 14430 and 14448) which propose to establish `an
independent office in the Government of the District of Columbia with
the title of Commissioner of Police in the District of Columbia' with
responsibility for the Metropolitan Police Force, the Park Police,
the White House Police, the Capitol Police, and the National Zoologi-
cal Park Police, although the Federation has not as yet taken a posi-
tion on this proposal we are impressed by Deputy Mayor Fletcher's
four reasons for opposing this legislation, namely, a diffusion of au-
thority, reversal of the trend for citizen participation, waste and dupli-
cation of administrative functions, and creation of more problems in
PAGENO="0132"
128
coordinating the police functions with other associated functions of
the City government. Hence, we oppose this legislation at this time
and recommend that it be tabled for approximately one year. If after
that time the District Government has not made enough progress in
providing adequate law enforcement, then this legislation to shift con-
trol of the Police Forces to Congressional control should be recon-
sidered."
That is our brief conclusion, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DowDY. Thank you.
Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Brady, you represent the Federation of Citizens
Associations of the District of Columbia. There are two Federations.
What is the other one?
Mr. BRADY. The District of Columbia Civic Federation.
Mr. BROYHILL. What is the difference between the two?
Mr. BRADY. Our membership is largely white and the membership
of the Civic Federation is largely colored. We are not exclusively
either, however. Our membership is composed of approximately 34
local area citizen associations throughout the District of Columbia.
Mr. BROYHILL. Thank you very much.
Mr. DOWDY. Without objection, the statement of John R.. Immer,
Vice President of the Dupont Circle Citizens Association, will be made
a part of the record at this point.
(The statement follows:)
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. IMMER, Vien PRESIDENT, DUPONT CIRCLE CITIzENs
ASSOCIATION
I am Vice President of the Dupont Circle Citizens Association, and immediate
past president of the city-wide Federation of Citizens Associations. On behalf
of the Dupont Circle Citizens Association I want to say that we strongly sup-
port H.R. 14430 and H.R. 14448, and consider their adoption to be absolutely
essential to peace, order, and stability in the inner city areas of Washington,
for the following reasons:
1. Orime has risen 175 percent since 1960. There are, or were last year, 2,500
major crimes with guns committed in the District of Columbia last year. This
was pointed out by President Johnson in a message to Congress on March 13,
1968. President Johnson said:
"The long shadow of crime falls over the streets of the Nation's Capital,
mocking its proud institutions. . . . Crime today is the first problem in the
nation's first city. It is on the rise. The rate of increase in January was
the lowest in 19 months-but that fact would provide little comfort for the
victims of these crimes :-24 murders and rapes-758 automobile thefts-786
robberies and aggravated assaults-1864 burglaries and major larcenies.
Last year, almost 2,500 major crimes were committed in the Nation's ~apital at
gunpoint-murders, assaults *and robberies. . . . The proposal I have recom-
mended-the D.C. Gun Control Act-would help bring safety to the District's
streets, homes and stores. It would . . . Add ten years imprisonment to the
regular penalty when a firearm is used in a robbery or an attempted robbery."
The House adopted the Poff Amendment by a vote of 412 to 11 on July 24,
but the Senate adopted a far weaker amendment. Both the Star, the Washington
Daily News, the Washington Board of Trade, the D.C. Police Wives Association,
and the D.C. Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia support the
Poff Amendment, and it 15 our hope that the House will insist on this amendment,
in conference with the Senate.
We do not think that the Poff Amendment, or the bipartisan bills to establish
a Police Commissioner in charge of a unified police force will stop crime coin-
pletely and forever, `but they will help greatly, and they must be adopted by this
Congress.
But it is absolutely clear that the National Crime Bill which Senator McClellan
and others got through the Congress `and the President signed into law in June
has not stopped crime.
PAGENO="0133"
129
2. The Omnibus Crime Bill for the District of Columbia signed into law some
9 months ago by the President has not stopped crime in the District of Columbia.
3. The D.C. City Council's gun registration measures, which are now being
challenged in the Courts will not stop crime in the District.
4. I might add that I was shocked to read a report in the Washington Post of
Sept. 2, which declared that, and I quote:
"Jonathan D. Schiller 21, connects the Columbia University riots of last spring
with Washington's police-community relations crisis of this summer.
"A six-foot, five-inch exponent of the New Left Schiller . . . . Now a
$100-a-week summer intern for the City Council . . . . helped turn out the 43-page
report on police-community relations that is still being considered by the Council.
"For two weeks, with his Columbia experience still fresh in his mind, Schiller
plowed through reports of various crime commissions, called police and law
enforcement officials and conferred with specialists from the Justice Department."
I am told on good authority, by a highly respected reporter, that Mr. Hechinger
and the City Council admits that the Washington Post story is accurate, and
that Mr. Schiller was hired for this sensitive position in an attempt to rehabilitate
him.
This incredible situation cannot be corrected by any legislation short of return-
ing the District Government to the control of the former Board of Commissioners,
and completely rescinding the reorganization as suggested by Congressman Sisk
earlier this year.
I am delighted that Congressman Broyhill brought this matter to the attention
of the Nation by including information on the Schiller case in the Congressional
Record of September 17, 1968, and roundly condemned the City Council for its
position-a position which borders on the frivolous, and makes a mockery of its
position on police-community relations.
5. The fifth reason the adoption of H.R. 14430 and H.R. 14448 to establish a
Commissioner is essential, is that no other city in the country has a fragmented
police force such as we have here in the Nation's Capital.
A unified police force is just as essential to wage a successful war on crime at
home as a unified Department of Defense is essential to wage a war against our
enemies from abroad.
Let us look at the experience with Resurrection City earlier this year, on the
park grounds near the Lincoln Memorial. The City Police had reports, and the
newspapers reported the daily incidence of crime, rape, burglary, beatings which
took place there. Yet, the Park Police considered and maintained they couldn't
enter there to establish law and order. The Metropolitan Police were kept off
limits by the Park Service under Secretary of the Interior Udall. The situation
rapidly deteriorated.
Finally, the Congress insisted that there was no justification for an enclave
on park land which the police could not enter.
As you know, it was the Metropolitan Police which established law and order
there. If there had been a unified police force, the situation would not have gotten
out of hand.
At Dupont Circle, the park police have stood around with their hands in their
pockets while all kinds of unlawful goings-on are permitted. Some months ago,
a young white couple were assaulted. Finally, some middle-aged Negroes went
to their defense, and called the Metropolitan Police.
The opposition to a unified police force is centered in the very same forces
who have maintained that it is "justifiable homicide" to kill white policemen,
and who have encouraged this type of lawlessness, who have been responsible
for the burning and looting of Washington which has not taken place since the
War of 1812 and the British invasion of Washington and their setting fire to
the White House. -
We love our Nation's Capital. We think the police must be unified so that
they can establish "domestic tranquility" guaranteed by the Constitution-but
which is so lacking today.
Mr. DOWDY. The Committee will now stand adjourned.
(Thereupon at 12:05 p.m. the Committee adjourned.)
PAGENO="0134"
PAGENO="0135"
APPENDIX
STAFF MEMORANDUM, MAY 15, 1968-THE APRIL 1968 CIVIL
DISTURBANCES IN WASHINGTON
Beginning on the evening of April 4 of this year, the District of
Columbia experienced a widespread outbreak of rioting, looting, arson,
and destruction of property. When the last Federal troops were with-
drawn from the city on April 16, many blocks of the city were a burned-
out shambles, with a total of 645 buildings and 283 housing units badly
damaged or destroyed. Also, some 909 commercial establishments and
their contents were destroyed or damaged.
The commercial areas of 14th Street and 7th Street, N.W., and of
H Street, N.E., were particularly hard hit by this wave of vandalism
and arson. As a result, many small business establishments in these
sections were badly damaged or totally destroyed by fire. Many of the
men and women who owned these businesses have lost not only their
property, but their sole means of earning a living and their entire life
savings as well. While some have recouped a portion of their loss
through insurance, few if any of these people will ever be completely
reimbursed.
The District estimates that the cost of demolishing and removing
these unsafe damaged buildings or parts thereof will be approximately
$300,000.
Total losses of property in the riot-torn areas may never be com-
pletely calculated. The latest estimate of losses or damages to "insured"
properties alone in the concentrated areas of looting and destruction
has been fixed by insured underwriters at $25 million.
Job losses, business losses, and hotel, restaurant and sightseeing
losses, during this the busiest season in Washington likewise have been
appalling and presently not determined.
Widespread reports have been received by the Committee of innu-
merable instances attested to by witnesses, seen personally or on the
various TV channels, of looting and plundering in the presence of the
police, and subsequently in the presence of troops, with no apparent
attempt being made by the police or troops to prevent or control same.
What actual orders were issued to the police or troops is not clear from
preliminary inquiry.
Estimates of losses from the April 1968 civil disturbances in Washington
ESTIMATED REAL PROPERTY DAMAGE
No. of Buildings Damaged or Destroyed 645
No. of Housing Units Damaged or Destroyed 283
No. of Commercial Establishments Damaged or Destroyed 909
No. of Public and Institutional Establishments Damaged or Destroyed____ 8
These are estimates of losses in the concentrated areas of destruc-
tion; scattered damages outside thereof would run 15% of those
figures, accordIng to D.C. Government estimates.
(131)
PAGENO="0136"
132
OTHER LOSSES ~
Estimated cost of insured property losses or damages, including inven-
tories, as revised by insured underwriters (making Washington's losses,
under these preliminary estimates, higher than those in any other U.S.
city) (million) $24
Job losses in riot-torn areas ?
(This is an elusive figure. There was testimony before the Com-
mittee that on 7th Street alone-one of the several areas of widespread
destruction-1,034 people were put out of work.)
4Jost of Federalizing the National Guard and Bringing in 14,000 Army
Troops (million) $5.3
ESTIMATES OF COSTS TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT OF THE RECENT DISTURBANCES
Additional costs
Estimated
Estimated
Functions costs, Apr.
4 to 9
additional Total
costs, Apr. 10
to June 30
General Operating Expenses $10, 400 52, 000 512, 400
Public Safety 1, 154,900 888,800 2, 043, 700
Education 101,000 101,000
Parks and Recreation 52, 600 52,600
Health and Welfare 220,000 791,000 1,011,000
Highways and Traffic 36,400 57, 500 93,900
Sanitary Engineering 66,200 75, 000 141, 200
Grand Total 1,641,500 1,814,300 3,455,800
Average perday 328,300
Estimated losses of revenue
Sources Fiscal year
1968
Fiscal year
1969
Total
Sales and Excise Tax -51, 300, 000 -5500, 000 -$1, 800, 000
Income Taxes -200,000 -250,000 -450,000
Property Taxes -100, 000 -350, 000 -450, 000
Fines and Forfeitures +50, 000 +50, 000 +100, 000
Gasoline Tax -100,000 -100,000
Parking Meters -50, 000 -50, 000
Totals -1, 700, 000 -1, 050, 000 -2,750, 000
Average per day 340, 000
Source: District of Columbia Government Executive Office, Apr. 30, 1968.
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE,
Washington, D.C., May 3, 1968.
Mr. JAMES P. CLARK,
Clerk, Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives.
DEAR Mit. CLARK: Attached is a breakdown of the costs incurred during the
civil disturbances by the District agencies from the period April 4 through
April 9, 1968, and the projected additional costs.
You will note that the footnotes on pages 3, 4 and 5 indicate the purpose for
which the money was used.
D. P. HERMAN, Budget Officer, D.C.
PAGENO="0137"
133
SUMMARY OF INDICATIONS OF AGENCY COSTS OF DISTRiCT Of COI~UMBIACIVIL DISTURBANCE-
APRIL 4 THROUGH 9, 1968
Total Costs incurred Additional Amount that Additional
Areas incurred and to date costs estimated, can be funds
additional (April 4-9) April 10- absorbed by required
costs June 30, 1968 agencies
~General Operating Expenses_ $12, 364 $10,364 $2, 000 $12, 364
Public Safety 1 2, 043,658 11, 154, 872 888, 786 32, 528 `$2, 011, 130
Education `101,000 `101,000 86,000 `15,000
Parks and Recreation 52, 570 52, 570 52, 570
Health and Welfare 1,011,000 220,000 791,000 210,000 801,000
Highways and Traffic 93, 940 36, 440 57, 500 9, 000 84,940
Sanitary Engineering 141, 156 66, 156 75, 000 141, 156
Grand Total - 3,445, 688 1,641, 402 1, 814,286 402,462 3, 053,226
Operating Total - 3, 430,688 1, 616,402 1, 814, 286 402,462 1 3, 028,226
Capital Outlay 25, 000 25, 000 25, 000
1 Indicates figure includes Capital outlay costs." See explanations for details.
2 Indicates total includes anticipated $200,000 grant from Federal Government to Licenses and Inspections Agency to
help finance the estimated $300,000 costs of razing dangerous buildings and removing debris.
PAGENO="0138"
INITIAL INDI
CATION OF AGENC
Y COSTS OF DISTRI
CT OF COLUM
BIA CIVIL DIS
TURBANCE-AP
RIL 4-9, 1968
Agency
Refer.
Total Incurred
and Additional
Costs incurred
Adthtional
Estimated-
Amount that
can be absorb.
Additional
ence
Number
Agency
Costs to
Agency
to date (April
9, 1968)
April 10 to
June 30, 1968
ed by agency
from current
Appropriations
Funds
required
1A
2
3
3-3
3-11
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13-1
13-2
13-7
13-6
13-5
14
15
16
17
hA
17B
General Operating Expenses:
Executive Office 500 500 500
City Council
General Administration
Regulatory Agencies
Death Investigations 532 532 532
Human Relations 400 400 400
Occupations and Pro-
fessions
Public Library
Veterans Affairs
Buildings and Grounds.... 10,932 8,923 2,000 10,932
Surveyor
Total, General
OperatingExpenses. - 12,364 10,364 2, 000 12,364
Public Safety:
Corporation Counsel 11, 000 2, 500 8, 500 11, 000
Metropolitan Police 1,228, 564 823, 564 405,000 1,228,564
Fire Department 290,375 190,376 100, 000 290,376
Civil Defense 2, 000 1, 130 870 595 1,405
Juvenile Court
Court of General Sessions. 18,381 14,465 3,916 18,381
Bail Agency 2,552 2,552 .2,552
Legal Aid
U.S. Courts
Corrections 1 161,704 1 101,704 60,000 . 1 161,704
Licenses and Inspections.... 329,081 18,581 1 310, 500 1 329, 081
National Guard
Total Public Safety 1 2,043,658 . 11,154,872 1 888,786 32, 528 1 2,011, 130
Education:
Public schools 1101, 000 1 101,000 86,000 1 15,000
Federal City College
Washington Technical
Institute
Total Education 1 101,000 1 101,000 86,000 1 15,000
Parks and Recreation:
Recreation 1,920 1,920 . 1,920
National Capital Parks.... 50,000 50,000 50, 000
National Zoological Park.. 650 650 650
Total Parks and
Recreation 52,570 52, 570
Health and Welfare:
21 Vocational Rehabilitation
22 Public Health
23 Public Welfare 1,011,000 220,000 791,000 210,000 801,000
Total Health and
Welfare 1,011,000 220,000 791,000 210,000 801,000
Highways and Traffic:
24 Highways and Traffic 93,940 36,440 57, 500 . 9,000 84,940
25 Motor Vehicles
26 Motor Vehicle Parking --
Total Highways and
Traffic 93,940 36,440 57, 500 9,000 84,940
Sanitary Engineering:
27 Sanitary Engineering
28 Washington Aqueduct
Total Sanitary Engi-
neering
141,156 66,156 75,000 141,156
Grand Total-All
Agencies 3,455, 688 1,641, 402 1,814,286 402,462 - .--. 3,053,226
Operating TotaL... - 3,430,688 1,616,402 1,814,286 402,462 3,028, 226
Capital Outlay 25, 000 25, 000 25,000
134
18
19
20
52,570
137,511 62,511 75,000
3,645 3,645
137, 511
3,645
I Indicates figure includes Capital Outlay Funds.
2 Indicates figure includes estimated $200,000 Grant from Federal Government to Licenses and Inspections agency to
help finance the estimated $300,000 costs of razing dangerous buildings and removing debris.
PAGENO="0139"
135
Agency Cost Explanation-For Costs Related to Civil Disturbance-April 4-9, 1968
1. ExecutIve Office ($500) This was for overtime costs for clerical help.
3-3 Death Investigations ($532) This was for overtime costs for clerical help and junior professional
staff.
3.-il Human Relations ($400)_ This was for overtime costs for clerical help and junior professional
7 Buildings and Grounds ($10,932) The to-date costs of $8,932 was for overtime costs incurred in
providing additional guards around the clock for the District
buildings and the Municipal Center. An additional $2,000 is
needed for overtime costs incurred after April 9. The full costs of
$10,932 will be met from within available funds.
9 CorporatIon Counsel ($11,000) Of this sum, $2,500 was for overtime costs to date. An additional
$8,500 overtime costs are expected in connection with further
legal actions.
10 MetropolItan Police ($1,228,564) The costs to date total $823,564 which are divided as follows: (a)
Personnel overtime: $645,000; (b) Materials: $98,473; (c) Ad-
ditional equipment and damage to equipment: $63,174;(d) Other
miscellaneous: $16,917. Future estimated costs total $405,000,
of which overtime accounts $265,000; pay for additional days
associated with a temporary six-day work week: $90,000; and
Court time pay: $50,000.
11 Fire ($290,376) The costs to date of $190,370 include overtime pay: $137,500, com-
pensatory time: $30,000; sick leave costs of $2,500; supplies and
service costs of $10,191; damaged equipment: $10,185. The
additional $100,000 estimated need is to meet overtime costs for
the days of April 10-13, 1968.
12 CivIl Defense ($2,000) The primary expense was for operatingthe Emergency Communica-
tions System Headquarters around the clock. This agency can
absorb $595 but requires $1,405 of additional funds to meet the
incurred costs which it can not absorb.
13-1 JuvenIle Court No significant coqts have been incurred nor are expected that can
not be absorbed as part of the regular program. There were few
referrals from the Juvenile Division of the Metropolitan Police.
13-2 Court of General Sessions ($18,381) A total of $17,181 was for personnel compensation and benefits
and $1 200 was for miscellaneous expenses. The Court expects
to be aIle to absorb these additional costs in full.
13-7 D.C. Bail ($2,552) A total of $2,408 was for overtime and $144 was for materials,
These costs can be absorbed in full.
13-6 Legal Aid Although the attorneys of this agency worked over the week end
in providing representation in the Courts for indigent defendents
apprehended during the disturbance the agency will incur no
additional expense because the attorneys are paid on a yearly
basis rather than by the hour.
14 Corrections ($161,704) The costs to date of $101,740 were to provide $44,000 for overtime
and compensatory time; $35,000 for equipment and supplies
lost to fire; $12,740 for additional equipment and supplies
purchased; and $10,000 building damage due to fire. It is esti-
mated that an additional $60,000 will be needed for overtime
costs. CAPITAL OUTLAY of $10,000 will be needed for repairs
of building damaged by fire. Most of these costs were incurred
due to a "sympathy demonstration" by inmates.
15 Licenses and Inspections ($329,081) Costs to date of $18,581 were mainly for equipment ($16,223) asso-
ciated with Licenses and Inspections work on the spot. Personnel
overtime payments costs $2,358. It is estimated that an additional
$310,500 will be needed; $10,500 for expected overtime payments
and $300,000 for removing unsafe buildings and removing debris
from razed buildings if owners are unable to do so and refuse to
do so. The Federal Government is making grant funds available
to finance 3~ of this cost.
17 Public Schools ($101,000) A sum of $80,000 was needed for custodial overtime to keep the
schools open and lighted. The other costs include $1,000 for fire
damage to the stage at Evans Junior High School; $2,000 for glass
breakage; at Wheatley, Coummel and Cardozo schools; $3,000
for small pilferage; and $15,000 for fire damage at Harris schooL
CAPITAL OUTLAY of $15,000 is needed to repair Harris School
area damaged by fire. This agency will absorb the $86,000
operating costs.
19 National Parks ($53,000) Of this total $50,000 was for overtime for the Park Police and $3,000
was for restoring areas used by Military Forces.
20 National Zoological Park ($650) This was for overtime costs.
23 Public Welfare ($1,011,000) The estimated costs are detailed below:
To date
To date through
June30
Food and related services $206, 734 $326, 000
Overtime - 9, 347 38, 000
Public assistance 56,000
Crisis assistance 30,000
Family Emergency Services 120,000
Temporary assistance for unemployed
parents 203,000
Emergency help 18, 000
Trucking services, gas and oil 3, 919
Total 220, 000 791,000
PAGENO="0140"
136
24 Highways and Traffic ($93,940) Of the $36,440 costs to date, $25,385 was for labor and $11 555 was
for materials and operating expenses.Future costs of $5i,500 are
expected to repair damage to streets, sidewalks and trees.
27 Sanitary Engineering ($137,511) Of the $62,511 costs to date, $60,503 was for overtime; $1,600 was
for contract costs at Kenilworth Land fill, and $408 was for eqUip-
ment costs. It is estimated that an add5ional $75,000 will be
needed to meet labor costs, including overtime payments,
through June 30.
28 Washington Aqueduct ($3,145) These costs were for small repairs and labor. This agency canndt
absorb these additional costs.
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISVEICT OF COLUMBIA,
EXECUTIVE OrrIcE,
Washington, May 8, 1968.
Mr. JAMES T. CLARK,
(Jierk, House District Committee,
Longworth House Office B~uiiding,
Washington, D.C.
DE&.u ME. OI~.uK: Following up on my letter of April 29, 1968 concerning the
costs of the recent disturbances, i now have some figures for the cost of federaliz-
ing the National Guard and bringing in Army troops. They are as follows:
Gross Cost $5 394,072
Less:
Normal Costs (2,966,255)
Offset Costs (246,440)
Net Cost 2,181,377
The normal costs are those which would have been expended for paying Army
troops and their other costs wherever they would have been located. The offset
costs are for items which were issued and subsequently returned after the dis-
turbances. It is of interest that one of the largest costs was that of transportation,
which was $1,050,960.
These costs included the cost of federalizing the National Guard, although the
costs thereof other than salaries has not been computed. The pay for the National
Guardsmen was $232,983.
1 trust this information will be of assistance to you and the Committee.
Sincerely yours,
THOMAS W. FLETCHER.
AUTHORITY FOR USE OF TROOPS IN THE SUPPRESSION OF Rio'rs
(D.C. Code, Title 39, Sec. 603)
When there is in the District of Columbia a tumult, riot, mob, or a body of men
acting together by force with attempt to commit a felony or to offer violence to
persons or property, or by force or violence to break and resist the laws, or when
such tumult, riot, or mob is threatened, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners
of the District of Columbia, or for the United States marshal for the District of
Columbia, to call on the eommander~in~chief to aid them in suppressing such
violence and enforcing the laws; the commander-in-chief shall thereupon order
out so much and such portion of the militia as be may deem necessary to suppress
the same, and no member thereof who shall be thus ordered out by proper author-
ity for any such duty shall be liable to civil or criminal prosecution for any act
done in the discharge of his military duty. (Mar. 1, 1889,25 Stat. 778, ch. 328 §45;
Feb.18, 1909,35 Stat. 634, ch. 146, § 48.) (See also U.S. Code, Title 32)
PAGENO="0141"
137
AR'R~S~tS BY THE MEtRO~OLlTAN P0'Ll~E DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF THEDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'
By Day, March 30 through April 14, 1968
March ` April
30 31 12 3 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Criminal ho~nicide 1 1 1 1 1 2
Rape 1 1 1 1 6 1 1
Robbery 9 186 86 5 8 2 6 52 422
Aggravated assault 5 4 11 11. 3 3 3 6 3 5 3 2 3 2 4 3
Housebreaking 4 13 12 5 16 13 460 276 86 24 14 25 30 31 13 22
Larceny 14 3 21 14 22 6 15 6 1 2 2 7 9 3
Autotheft 3 5 1 2 1 6 6 3 4 3 3 8 `7 1 1
Arson 3 1 1 1
Curfew violation 253 1,116 1,024 781 470 165 164 76
Other felonies and
misdemeanors 143 133 133 106 98 429 340 302 131 105 186 174 142 181 141
Total 250 187 185 175 154 131 1,172 1,753 1,421 953 603 391 396 262 202 174
I The riots and looting started during the evening of Thursday, April 4, 1968.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA F~na DEPARTMENT
BUILDING FIRES-MARCH 30 TO APRIL 14, 1968
March: April-Continued
30 18 4
31 12 10 19
April: 11 23
1 10 12 16
2 15 13 13
3 8 14 20
4 13 -
5,6,7 488 Total . 668
8
Total number of fires between March 30, 1968 and April 14, 1968, both
dates inclusive 1,180
Number of BUILDING fires between March 30, 1968 and April 14, 1968,
both dates inclusive 668
BUILDING FIRES
1967
1968
January
February
March
289
311
320
294
329
339
880
April
Total
1,215
1,842
FALSE ALARMS
March: April-Continued
30 37 8 27
31 29 9 20
April: 10 29
1 23 11 28
2 17 12
3 18 13 31
4 31 14 27
5 13 -
6 12 Total 391
7 16
PAGENO="0142"
138
Hotel losses since April 1968, due to civil disorders and poor people's enoompment
Loss of Business:
~ $2, 000,000
May 1,500 ooo
Ju.ne - - 1,750, ooo
Personnel loss: 875 less employees (in 31 hotels) today than normal for this
time of year; $311,000 per month payroll loss to employees; and $8,000 per month
loss in taxes to District of Columbia Government.
Type of Continuing Reservation Cancellation: Elks Convention scheduled for
July, 1969, wInch had reserved 5,000 hotel rooms-canceled
JUNE 11, 1968.
PAGENO="0143"
139
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS DEALING WITH THE
DISTURBANCES, CALLING OUT THE TROOPS, ETC.
ExEcUTIVE ORDER PRovIDING FOB THE RESTORATION OF LAW AND ORDER IN THE
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA
Whereas I have today issued Proclamation No. 3840, calling upon persons
engaged in acts of violence and disorder In the Washington metropolitan area
to cease and desist therefrom and to disperse and retire peaceably forthwith;
and
Whereas the conditions of domestic violence and disorder described therein
continue, and the persons engaging in such acts of violence have not dispersed:
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the
United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces under the Con-
stitution and laws of the United States, including Chapter 15 of Title 10 of
the United States Code and Section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, and
by virtue of the authority vested in me as commander-in-chief of the militia
of the District of Columbia by the Act of March 1, 1889, as amended (D.C.
Code, Title 39), it is hereby ordered as follows:
SECTION 1. The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to take all
appropriate steps to disperse all persons engaged in the acts of violence described
in the proclamation, to restore law and order, and to see that the property,
personnel and functions of the Federal Government, of embassies of foreign
governments, and of international organizations in the Washington metropolitan
area are protected against violence or other interference.
SECTION 2. In carrying out the provisions of Section 1, the Secretary of
Defense is authorized to use such of the Armed Forces of the United States as
he may deem necessary.
SECTION 3. (a) The Secretary of Defense is hereby authorized and directed
to call into the active military service of the United States, as be may deem
appropriate to carry out the purposes of this order, units or members of the
Army National Guard and of the Air National Guard to serve in the active
military service of the United States for an indefinite period and until relieved
by appropriate orders. Units or members may be relieved subject to recall at
the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. In carrying out the provisions of
Section 1, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use units and members called
or recalled into active military service of the United States pursuant to this
section.
(b) In addition, in carrying out the provisions of Section 1, the Secretary of
Defense is authorized to exercise any of the powers vested in me by law as
commander-in-chief of the militia of the District of Columbia, during such
time as any units or members of the Army National Guard or Air National
Guard of the District shall not have been called into the active military service
of the United States.
SECTION 4. The Secretary of Defense is authorized to delegate to one or more
of the Secretaries of the military Departments any of the authority conferred
upon him by this order.
LYNDON B. JOHNSON.
THE WHITE HousE, April 5, 1968.
LAW AND ORDER IN THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA
A PROCLAMATION BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Whereas I have been informed that conditions of domestic violence and dis-
order exist in the District of Columbia and threaten the Washington metropolitan
ar~, endangering life and property and obstructing execution of the laws, and
(95)
PAGENO="0144"
140
that local police forces are unable to bring about the prompt cessation of suth
acts of violence and restoration of law and order; and
`Whereas `I have been requested to use such units of the National Guard and of
the Armed Forces of the United `States as may be necessary for those purposes;
and
Whereas in such circumstances it is also my duty as Chief Executive to take
care that the property, personnel and functions of the Federal Government, of
embassies of foreign governments, and of international organizations in the
Washington metropolitan area are protected against violence or other
interference:
Now, therefore, I, Lyndon B. Johnson, President of the United States ofAmer~
tea, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the
United States, do command all persons engaged in such acts of violence to cease
and desist therefrom and to disperse and retire peaceably forthwith.
In witness whereof, I have `hereunto set my hand this fifth day of April, in the
year of our Lord nineteen hundred and `sixty-eight, and of the Independence of
*the United States of America the one hundred and uinety.~second.
THE WHITE HOUSE.
LYNDON B. JOHNSON.
PAGENO="0145"
-
.JOIHT MESSAGEFO~M
- ~E5j~g
*
`~c*' ~ n~ rii~ AR;4Y
rt ~ on
) ii -
1.~ -- - -
*~ ~
...-..-_..--
Dye
cArlO.? cc.
~
`I7Lc
~
.
.
3)flATI3PI *
LLz~~~T~ ~k1~
-
7YPE ~ F ~
~
ac,se~ INIIEDIATE
t~~'o ItIIEDIATE
~g G~'RALPHE(~INES, JR.
VICE CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED STATES ARNT
METROPOLITAN POLICE HQ
WASH, 0. C~- COURIER
-IHFO:' CHO COURIER
CSAF - COURIER
CGUSCONARC
CINCAFSTRIKE
CCUSAONE FT MEADE, ~1D
CGUSATHREE FT MCPHERSON
CGUSAFIVE IT SHERIDAN
CGUSASIX SFRAM CALIF
CC XVIII AEN CORPS FT BRAGG, N.C.
CC III CORPS Ft HOOD, TEX.
CC MDWWASH D * C. - COURIER
CINCSTRIKE
CGUSAMC
CGUSACDC
CGUSASA
CGUSAINTC FT HOLABIRD MD.
CGUSASTRATCOH FT HUACHUCA ARIZ.
CC DC HG DC ARNOIUC WASH D. C. - COURIER
CONFID~IIAt. bA~S8~6'~ from GEN Harold K.*.iohnson, Chief
of Staff, United States Army
1~ (C) E'or immediate action by IF WASHINGTON Commander.
2. (C) Ihis letter of instruction is effective at once.
3. (C) You are designated Commander of IF WASHINGTON. Your
mission is to restore and maintain law and order in Washington, D.C.
metropolitan area. Initial Army units for IF WASHINGTON are 1/3 ThE,
I
141
FJ1OM1 DA
SPCCIAt. INSTRUCT10X~
DISTR:
ARSTAF
Plus:.
SECDEF
OSA
CLL
hG
çINFO
USCONARC LNO
USAINTC LNO
MMCC
Apr 68
~ ;:-~~ ~
0 TYPEa NAM5 `ao TITLE
R
A ROBERT C. WOOLEYHAN
~ L.C, CS
OiS, 00 )~CC -
a
sccueiiyc~.;~z:c *..,)
~ j f~~*
r~r~ ~ ~;*7~:9 -
3IG~ATUR~
[~1x252 ~J.~j(
JOHN J. HENNESSEY, Brigadier General, CS
~R Deputy Director of Operations, ODCSOE'S
.jJ~EGRAOIP1O INSTRUCTIONS
97-945 0 - 68 - 10
PAGENO="0146"
142
MBR!VIATED JOINT MESSAGEFORM ~ SS F~0 1 ~
*~J/.~ CONTIHUATIO'4 ~9EET
~RECE0EUCC ~ aY - D~A1?CO ST -
INFO ThNEDIATE -~ S
1/6th ACt, 91st !ngr, VSMC Bn (SDT) (PROV), 546th Sup ;nd Sv Brt
(PROV) ~`c Lee), 714th lrans Bn (PlOY) (Pt Zustis). Assume coesnand of
DistFict of Columbia ~atianal Guard which has been federalized under Presi~
dent.tal authority. Be prepared to assume command of additional active Army
~ntts which may hm ordered to the llashington, D.C. area. V
a. Zn carrying out your dUties, you will be directly- responsible
to the Chief of Staff, ~US Army. ~ou will, establish your command post V
initia~Ily at Washington, D. C. Xetropolitan Police Station and report
subseçuent locations. ~O~V$P~ aUthorized direct communication with Army
Air yorce and navy installations comman4crs fri the vicinity of your operation.
b. )Unimum force, consistent with mission accomplishment, will be
used by both military and civilian personnel. }!o~reover, commanders
and their personnel will avoid appearing as an invading, alien force rather
than a force whose purpose is to restore order with a minimum loss of
life and property arid due respect for the great number of citizens whose
£nvolvsment is purely accidental. V V
-J
sz~o~. ,~ - roWToo C ESSACE IDE T TIC 7 ON TS
V V V V V V V 12 7 V V V
RCORM.;N~.InSTR"C ~745 V
~ ~
fl 1~ EQ;V-~ ~ ~ ~ .1 ~cpe ~ Ffl,i~OM OF I MAY30 POllEN y$l,l. SE UITO. S
PAGENO="0147"
ABBREVIATED JOIHT MESSAGEFOR)t ~ S
a J/or COHT$HUATIO~4 SHEET I ~~i~i~'i t~ ~ ~
-~ PRECEDENCE JRE~I~EONY ORAFTEDOY {PNONE S
I t~j~JATE ~-j
IMHEDThTE__J
Personnel must be civil; the use of epithets and degrading "1
language viii r~ot be tolerated.
`a. The following options are provided as guidance for determining S
how your troops may be armed to accomplish your mission using the .mihimum
forc~e principle enumeratcd in the preceding para?raph.
OPTION Rfl~LE BATONET BAYONET ANMUNITION CUAMBER
SCABBARD )IACAZINEI S
CLIP
1. At Sling On Belt In Scabbard In Pouch Empty
S onBelt.. S
2. At Port On Belt In Scabbard 1n Pouch Empty ~S
on Belt
In Pouch Empty
on Belt
143
3.
4.
At Port On Bayonet Fixed
At Port On Belt Fixed In Pouch Empty
on Belt
S. At Port On Belt Fixed In the Empty
S S S Weapon - - 5.
6. At Port On Belt Fixed In the Round*
Weapon' Chambered
d. Military pors mmcl will not load or fI,re their weapons except,vhen
authorized by an officer in person; whtn authorized in advance b'y art officer
under certain specific conditions; or when required to save `their lives.
e, Authority to o'rder ise of the riot control agents is delegated to you.
You arc authorized to delegate this authority to coernissioned office~p
1'~NTRaL.NO, - 170a/TOa ]Aj~O.E~ [MEssAe~IDEuTu~IcATsos - -
RADI ID C ~Ma $E~C Y I. ~ ~
DI) ~A 73~1 REP~ ICER EDIIa. c.'S ~A,1, ~
PAGENO="0148"
144
1s~ ru~ I
ABnr2VIATED JOINT ?tEssAGEFor;t
U r Co ITI ~UA1IO'~ 5He[r "3 ~
- PRECEDtPJC( ~RELEASEDDY DRAFTEOBY PHONC
INNEDIATE
I~CIEDIATE
at your discretion. ~iot control agents should be used tO açcorrtpli3~
your missi~n before live ammunition.
f. You are authorized, to use force to prevent looting and to detain
persons caught in the act of looting. The amount of force which ma~ b~ used is that
whiéh is reasonably necessary under the circumstances. Warning shots will not
be fired however when shooting is necessary shots will be aimect to wound
rather than to i~ili. l.ooters present a particular problem since women and children
may be involved and the articles looted may `be of little: value.. :The looter
is not necessarily sympathetic toward the views of those who otherwise
participate in the disturbarce. There is no satisfactory predetermination as
when firearms should be employed to stop looting beyond con~.~ued emphasis
on the absolute necessity of using minimum force and avoiding the use of
firearms except as a last resort and under the rules established here and in
paragraphs d and c above. ,
g. Snipers may also present a particular problem since the mormal reflex
actions of the well-trained combat soldier are to respcnd with an overwhelming
mass of firepower. `Experience indicates that in general this tactic endangers
innocent people nore'than snipers and that the preferred,, tactic is to enter th~
building from which snipOr fire originates. It also indicates `that darkening
the streets in order to gain protection from sni~er.iire is.counterp~oduetiv~.
The following general approach should be emphasized in ~ealin~ .withjrtipers
f'ITROL NO. `roR/TOD ~J [SSAGE oT$rlC~tIO14 ` 1IPIITIALS
~ ~ ~L=
~c. LCL~ COITIDI D~ i ~ur u~ ~m~c~.vis.*. ~
PAGENO="0149"
145
ABI~REVIATED JO~T MESSAGEFORM ç~ .1
o F COHTII U TION S IEET ~
U~I~4 L:.~,j *j
- *PRtCCDEUCC RELEASEO6Y DRAFTED ~y PRONE F
*ow 1~EIEDIATE
IHPO ~ -
(1) Surround the building where sniper is concealed and 1
gain access, tising APC if necessary and available.
(2) lmploy CS initially rather than small arms fire. If CS is
not~ successfully employed, then use `well-aimed fire by expert marksman.
(3) Illuminate the area during darkness.
h, Be prepared to recei\re assistance from certain active Army forces
specifically designated to provide tactical, administrative, and
logistical support.
i, Department of Justice (DOJ) representative will be contacted as
required for advice on matt~ers of legal policy. DOJ point of contact, Mr.
,xnas McTiernan, Will be located at or near your C? (exact loca tion to be
announced).
j. Presidential representative on the scene is Mr. Cyrus Vance. You
will be responsive to his inst~uctions and inform the Chief of Staff, US
Army, promptly of instructions received and actions taken in accordance
therewith.
Ic. Should a situatfort arise necessitating the detention of civilian
personnel,~1DOJ personnel, possibly in collaboration with civilian police,
will operate.and maintain or provide for detention facilities. Whenever
possible, US ~arshals (or civilian police) should take civilian personnel
(ring leacters5 violators) into custody. When. it becomes necessary f~
lTRO~ 110. tQJVTOD ~ N~S~A5~ IDENTIfICATION 1INITIALS
RECF1~O OI'~STr OTIONS T .-`~
DD~.17~i-1
$IPLACC~ CollIeR OF I MAY 51 V9~IC$ PILl.
PAGENO="0150"
146
ABBREVIATED JOINT MESSACEFORM
sad/sr CONTIHUATION SHEET
PaCCtDENCC _____I15~d*1(*55 DNA~TEO5V PKONI
ICTION IEDIATLj
Army p$xsonnel to take this action they will. fnrncdiately seek a 1
US )farslial (or civil. policeman) to take over such custody on tli~ spot or
at a detention center. Its the event the number of civilian personnel
taken into cusfody exceeds the c~pabiIity of DOS (or civil police)~ to detain
them, your forces wil_l. provide temporary detention facilities until DOS
(or civil, police) can continue to receive them,
l~ Searches of individuals or private property (including automobiles) may
be conducted only after you have determined that suck searches are re~asonably
necessary' to the accomplishment of your mission. That determination must
be based opon either a revLe~w o~ the evidcnce.forming the basis of the request
for the icarek or your own prelSnip~ry investigation. Searches should be conducted
`by the following personnel, in the order indicated, if availablep
(1) )LmnicipaL law ~nforcerant officials.
(2) keprescntativbs of the Department of Justice.
(3) `Sash Torce personnel.
u~. Sbtx will. cooperate with and assist municipal law enforcement officers
to assume their normal roles. Irs this regard, you will, tot take orders from
state or municipal. civil, authorities.
n. The Assistant Chief of Staff fox~ Communications-Electronics will be
responsible for comrnunication~ facilities between your CE location and the
Arm~r OpcratiortS Center, ¶ashi~nto;, D.C., Direct coummainication vtthJA
~m4O.Or
1uts~Ac,aorNTmFIcATIoM
sccu!~Y.cs,F?T~2~t. i:..i
t ` r I'm cd
Ayv~'~~
*C~tQ.~q'~O tthucT"3,,$
fl~i~
T
I''~e11trnt
I
I
PAGENO="0151"
147
[.."
I
A~DREVIATEDiOIHT MESSAGEFORM
.i/.~ co:Lm~uAliOu SflEET
I ~
~
PRSCCOENCS 5tL~ASEO SY' , ,~
~ssow T1C'II~DIATE
U4Y) IP~FDIATE -
~s author,tzc& an~ directed. `1
`p. ~ou ~d1l ensure that D~t is fully .informed'oE operations
through the submission of:
(1) Interiat telephonic reports on major changes o~ signifi'cant
vent~ ~hich warrant the immecliatc attention of Readquarters, DA.
(2) Written ef,tuation reports covering a 12 hour period, commencing
060001. hours Apr, local, time.
4. (C) suture telotype correspondence ott this operation will. be prefaced by
the words "Zash yorce ASM1~TGTO~".
5. (1.~ Acknowledge receipt of this letter to Team Chief, Army Operations
Center, ~cntagon, Washington, ~. C. (OX 5044hc215).
CP-4
I
~MTROL 1(0. rOsITOO 1~AGC - NO. O~
11(0. PAGF.I.
L
REGRA0IUGIP~.:R0 TtO~40
L
I .IrS~AG~ IOENT~fICATIOM
~
I
1I~IALr
*
.~
~
r~r~ iu.-n ~i';.~j .....--.. ........
PAGENO="0152"
PAGENO="0153"
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
TITLE 36-CHAPTER 1, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Part 50-National Capital Park Regulations
Sec.
50.1 Applicability of regulations.
50.2 Applicability of Federal laws.
50.3 Applicability of District of Columbia and State laws.
50.4 Definitions.
50.5 Penalties.
50.6 Place of trial.
50.7 Federal property; miscellaneous provisions.
50.8 Lamps and lamp posts in park areas.
50.9 Comfort stations and other structures.
50.10 Trees, shrubs, plants, grass and other vegetation.
50.11 Dogs, cats, and livestock.
50.12 Horses.
50.13 Grazing; permitting animals to run loose.
50.14 PIcnics in park areas.
50.15 Athletics.
50.16 Model planes.
50.17 Gambling.
50.18 Hunting and fishing.
50.19 Parades and Public Gatherings.
50.24 Soliciting, advertising, sales.
50.25 Nuisances; disorderly conduct.
50.26 Indecency, immorality profanity.
50.27 Camping.
50.28 Use of liquors; Intoxication.
50.29 Laws and regulations applicable to traffic control; enforcement.
50.30 Obstructing entrances, exits, sidewalks.
50.31 Speed restrictions.
50.32 Reckless driving; prohibited operations.
50.33 Parking restrictions: impounding of vehicles.
50.34 Traffic signs.
50.35 Washing of cars prohibited.
50.36 Commercial vehicles and common carriers.
50.37 Vehicles; weight and tread restrictions.
50.38 Tampering with vehicles prohibited.
50.39. Prevention of smoke.
50.40 Bicycling, roller skating, and coasting restrictions.
50.41 Boating.
50.42 Swimming, water skiing, etc.
50.43 Collection of scientific specimens.
50.44 Lost and found articles.
50.45 Photographing; restrictions.
50.46 Discrimination in furnishing public accommodations and transportation services.
50.46a Discrimination in employment practices.
50.47 Installation permits.
50.48 Making false reports to the United States Park Police.
50.49 Dangerous weapons.
50.50 Fires.
50.51 Sanitation.
50.101 Schedule of minimum collateral (General Order No. 68).
AUTHORITY: The provisions of this Part 50 issued under sec. 6, 30 Stat. 571, secs. 1-3,
39 Stat. 535, as amended, sec. 16, 43 Stat. 1126, as amended, 62 Stat. 81, secs. 1, 2, 67 Stat.
495, 496; 8 D.C. Code 143, 16 U.S.C. 1, lb ic, 2, 3, 40 D.C. Code 613.
SouRcE: The provisions of this Part 50 appear at 24 FR. 11014, Dec. 30, 1959, unless
otherwise noted. Redesignated at 31 F.R. 16655, Dec. 29, 1966.
§ 50.1 Applicability of regulations.
This part applies to all park areas administered by National Capital Parks,
National Park Service, in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia, and
to other Federal reservations in the environs of the District of Columbia, policed
with the approval or concurrence of the head of the agency having jurisdiction or
control over such reservations, pursuant to the provisions of the act of March 17,
1948 (62 Stat. 81).
§ 50.2 Applicability of Federal laws.
In all areas to which this part is applicable all Acts shall be enforced insofar as
applicable.
(149)
PAGENO="0154"
150
§ 50.3 Applicability of District of Columbia and State laws.
(a) The laws and regulations promulgated for the District of Columbia shall
be enforced, insofar as applicable, in all park areas within the District of
Columbia.
(b) In areas to which this part is applicable, located outside the geograph-
ical limits of the District of Columbia, the laws of the State within which the
area is located shall be invoked and enforced in accordance with the act of
June 25, 1948 (62 Stat. 686; 18 U.S.C. see. 13).
§ 50.4 Definitions.
As used in this part, unless otherwise indicated:
(a) Under the regulations, the term "park'area" means any and all developed
and undeveloped grounds, playgrounds, plazas, squares, circles, triangles,
islands, ways, streets, sidewalks, roads, boulevards, parkways, canals, waters,
buildings, monuments, structures and other properties administered by National
Capital Parks, National Park Service, including such park areas as herein defined
as are used by the District of Columbia Recreation Board pursuant to agreement
with the National Capital Parks, National Park Service.
(b) The term "other Federal reservations" means Federal areas, which are not
under the administrative jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, located
in Arlington and Fairfax Counties and the City of Alexandria in Virginia, and
Prince Georges, Anne Arundel, and Montgomery Counties in Maryland, exclu-
sive of military reservations, unless the policing of such areas by the United
States Park Police is specifically requested by the Secretary of Defense or his
designee.
(c) The term "environs of the District of Columbia" embraces Arlington and
Fairfax Counties and the Oity of Alexandria, in Virginia, and Prince Georges,
Anne Arundel, and Montgomery Counties, in Maryland.
(d) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior.
(e) The term "Director" means the Director of the National Park Service or
his authorized representative.
(f) The term "Superintendent" means the Superintendent of National Capital
Parks or his authorized representative.
(g) The term "official permit" means permits issued by authorized officials of
the agency. having control or jurisdiction of the Federal area involved.
(h) The term "official sign" means any sign or signs posted by order of author-
ized officials of the agency having control or jurisdiction of the Federal area
involved.
(i) The term "person" includes individuals, partnerships, firms, corpora-
tions, and voluntary associations.
(j) The term "driver" means the rider, driver, or leader of any horse or
other riding or draft animal, a person who pushes, draws or propels a vehicle,
and the operator of a motor-propelled vehicle.
(k) The term "horse" means by riding or draft animal or beast of burden.
(1) The term "park road" means any street, road, highway or public thor-
oughfare in any Federal area covered by this part.
(m) The term "vehicle" means any conveyance or animal customarily used
for the purpose of riding or driving.
(n) The term "commercial vehicle" means any vehicle designed or used for
carrying freight or merchandise for or without hire.
(o) The term "parking" means any vehicle left standing, whether or not at-
tended, except when standing in obedience to traffic regulations, signs or sig-
nals, or to a police officer.
§ 50.5 Penalties.
(a) Regniations in this part. Any person violating any of the provisions of
this part, except violations of traffic and motor vehicle regulations in park
areas in the District of Columbia, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished
by a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not exceeding six months
or both.
(b) Traffic violations in District of Columbia. Any person violating any of
the provisions of the traffic and motor vehicle regulations contained in this part
in park areas in the District of Columbia, except where a penalty is otherwise
provided, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than
$300 or imprisonment of not more than 10 days or both.
(c) statutes; other applicable regulations. Any person violating any *act of
Congress or State law adopted pursuant to an act of Congress or rule or regula-
PAGENO="0155"
151
tion promulgated by other Federal officials, the Commissioners of the District
of Columbia, or other municipal officials, which is in force and applicable to any
area covered by this part shall, upon conviction, be punished in accordance
with the penalty provisions of such act, rule or regulation.
(d) Violation of ternis of permits. Any person violating any of the terms of
the official permit referred to in § 50.19 shall be deemed to be in violation of
that section and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not
more than $500 or imprisonment for not exceeding 6 months, or both.
[24 F.R. 11014, Dec. 30, 1959, as amended at 31 F.R. 6264, April 23, 1966]
§ 50.6 Place of trial.
Any person violating any of the regulations contained in this part in park
areas within the District of Columbia is subject to prosecution and trial in the
Municipal Court for the District of Columbia. Any person violating any of the
regulations contained in this part in areas covered by this part within the States
of Maryland or Virginia may be tried by a United States Commissioner authorized
to try petty offenses in the judicial district in which the offense was committed
or, if the person charged with the offense so elects, he shall be tried in the dis-
trict court of the United States which has jurisdiction over the offense.
§ 50.7 Federal property; miscellaneous provisions.
(a) Statues and other structures. No person shall climb upon or in any way
injure any statue, fountain, wall, banister, ledge, fence, balustrade, railing or
other structure.
(b) Water system. No person shall tamper with drinking fountains, hydrants,
or other water system facilities.
(c) Life buoys. No person shall tamper with or remove life buoys from their
fastenings except for the purpose of aiding a person who is in danger of drown-
ing.
(d) Injury to lawns. No person shall make any use of lawn areas which tends
to injure the lawns in any manner. This section shall not be construed to pro-
hibit casual strolling over lawn areas.
(e) Short cuts. No person shall make short cuts across lawn areas which tend
to make paths. Hikers and horseback riders shall not make short cuts, but must
confine themselves to the established trail.
(f) Signs. No person shall tamper with, mar, remove or destroy any official
or public sign.
(g) Dumping. No person shall dump any material or refuse of any description
in any area covered by this part, except pursuant to the provisions of an official
permit.
(h) Storage. No person shall store material of any description, or displace,
leave, house, or permit to be placed or left in any area covered by this part any
vehicle or parts of vehicles, or rubbish of any description, except pursuant to
the provisions of an official permit.
(i) Fences and other structures. No person shall enclose any area covered by
this part or erect any fence, wall, or build any trail, road, bridge or other struc-
ture in any area covered by this part, except pursuant to the provisions of an
official permit.
(j) Spilling of deleterious substance. No person shall pour or cause to spill or
permit to escape in any area covered by this part any oil, gas, salt, acid, or other
deleterious substance whether liquid, solid or gaseous, except pursuant to the
provisions of an official permit.
(k) Other injury or removal. Any other injury to or removal of any Federal
property, except under authority of law, is prohibited.
(1) Historic structures and remains. The destruction, injury, defacement, re-
moval, or disturbance in any manner of any historic structure, ruins, relics, arti-
facts or remains is prohibited. Any such object removed in violation of this sec-
tion shall be delivered to the Superintendent or his representative on demand.
(m) Soils, rocks, and minerals. The destruction, injury, defacement, removal,
or disturbance in any manner of any soil, rock, mineral formation, or phenomenon
of crystallization is prohibited. The provisions of this section do not pertain to
construction projects authorized by the Superintendent.
§ 50.8 Lamps and lamp posts in park areas.
(a) No person shall break, damage, or carry away any lantern, glass,
frame, street designation fixture, or other part or appurtenance of any
public lamp; or hitch, tie or fasten any animal to any lamp post or appur-
tenance thereof.
PAGENO="0156"
152
(b) No person shall take up or carry away any public lamp post, or
extinguish or obstruct the light in any public lamps, or cap or plug the
service pipe of any public lamp.
(c) No person shall climb, damage or destroy any public lamp post, or
attach any guy line or sign thereto, or deface any public lamp post or ap-
purtenance thereof by means of lime, mortar, paint, or other material;
or pile material of any kind against any public lamp post.
§ 50.9 Comfort stations and other structures.
(a) No person shall enter, remain, or loiter in any comfort station or
other public structure in a park area except to use such facility for the
purpose for which it is intended.
(b) No person shall deposit any bodily waste in or on any portion of
any comfort station or other public structure in a park area excepting di-
rectly into such particular fixtures as may be provided for that purpose,
nor place any bottle, can, cloth, rag, or metal, wood, or stone substance
in any of the plumbing fixtures in such station or structure.
(c) In a comfort station or other public structure in a park area, no
person shall interfere with any attendant in the performance of his or her
duty.
(d) No person shall cut, deface, mar, destroy or break, or write on or
scratch any wall, floor, ceiling, partition, fixture, or furniture, or use
towels in any improper manner, or waste soap, toilet paper~ or any of the
facilities provided in any comfort station or qther public structure in a
park area.
§ 50.10 Trees, shrubs, plants, grass and other vegetation.
(a) General injury. No person shall prune, cut, carry away, pull up,
dig, fell, bore, chop, saw, chip, pick, move, sever, climb, molest, take, break,
deface, destroy, set fire to, burn, scorch, carve, paint, mark, or in any man-
ner interfere with, tamper, mutilate, misuse, disturb or damage any tree,
shrub, plant, grass, flower, or part thereof, nor shall any person permit
any chemical, whether solid, fluid, or gaseous, `to seep, drip, drain or be
emptied, sprayed, dusted or injected upon, about or into any tree, shrub,
plant, grass, flower, or part thereof, except when specifically authorized
by competent authority; nor shall any person build fires, or station, or use
any tar kettle, heater, road roller or other engine within an area covered
by this part in such a manner that the vapor, fumes or heat therefrom
may injure any tree or other vegetation.
Caoss REFERENCE: For parking which may impair vegetation and trees, see § 50.33(a)
(1) and (8).
(b) Animals. No person shall hitch, tie or fasten any horse or other ani-
mal to, or within reach of, any tree, shrub, plant, `tree box or tree guard.
Caoss REFERENCE: For regulations with respect to domestic animals, see also § 50.11
and 50.13.
(e) Attachments. No person shall hitch, tie, fasten, nail, anchor, screw
or otherwise attach any wire, cable, chain, rope, card, sign, poster adver-
tisement, notice, announcement, handbill, board or other article or device
to any tree, shrub or plant, without first obtaining an official permit.
(d) Ewcavations. No person shall excavate any ditches, timnels, holes or
trenches, or lay any sewer or pipe line, drain, conduit or cable, w-alk, path,
drive or highway within or affecting any park area, without first obtaining
an official permit. In making permitted excavations proper care shall be
taken to prevent injury to the roots of trees, shrubs, or plants. Upon com-
pletion of the work, the ground surface shall he restored by the permittee
and the correction of any future settling of the back fill shall likewise be
the responsibility of the permittee.
(e) Guards. All trees, ghrubs, or other plants growing within any park area
near any excavation or construction of any kind, shall be protected with a sub-
stantial and adequate guard constructed by the permittee.
(f) Gas. Any person owning or operating beneath the ground, in oradjacent to
park areas, any pipes or other conduits for the transmission or delivery of illumi-
nating gas, oil, steam, or other substance in liquid or gaseous form, shall locate
and maintain such pipes or conduits free from leaks and in such condition as to
PAGENO="0157"
153
prevent injury to any tree, shrub, plant, lawn, or other vegetation growing within
park areas.
(g) Wires. No person shall string any wire or wires through or above any
park areas; nor prune or remove branches or trees which may now or hereafter
interfere, rub or grow near existing wires; nor attach any wire, insulator or devise
to trees or within any area covered by the root system of trees, without first ob-
taining an official permit. Any person having jurisdiction or control over any
wire or conduit for the transmission of an electric current shall guard all trees
through which such wires or conduits pass, against any injury from the wires or
th electric current carried thereby. The device or means used shall, in each case,
be of a type approved by the Superintendent.
(h) Planting. No person shall plant or cause to be planted any tree, shrub or
plant within a park area without first obtaining an official permit.
(i) Adja~eent trees. Any tree, shrub or plant growing upon private property and
which overhangs any park area in such a way as to present a hazard or impede,
obstruct or interfere with traffic, travel or park use shall be trimmed, removed,
braced, or otherwise treated by the owner of the premises on which such tree,
shrub or plant is located, in a manner prescribed by the Superintendent. In an
emergency, the Superintendent is empowered to enter such premises and to trim,
remove, brace or otherwise treat any tree which is deemed hazardous to park
travel or use, in such a manner that the hazard shall be eliminated.
§ 50.11 Dogs, cats and livestock.
(a) The laws and regulations of the District of Columbia, Maryland and Vir-
ginia, relating to licenses and muzzles shall apply to dogs in the park areas located
within the geographical limits of the respective jurisdiction.
(b) No dog or cat, unless caged or on a leash not more than six feet long and
entirely under control, shall be taken into or exercised in park areas: Provided,
That in special cases the Director may authorize the keeping of dogs, cats and
livestock by park residents under such conditions as he may prescribe.
(c) No dog or cat shall he permitted by the person exercising or walking the
animal to commit any nuisance on playgrounds, trees, shrubs, plants, lawns,
sidew-alks, footpaths, or in flower beds, buildings, or in any other park area, ex-
cept in park roadways.
(d) Livestock and dogs trespassing on any land of the United States in the Na-
tional Capital Park System may be impounded and shall be disposed of in ac-
cordance with State or District of Columbia statutes insofar as the same may be
applicable.
§ 50.12 Horses.
(a) A horse shall not be left unbridled or unattended in any park area without
being securely fastened, unless harnessed to~ a vehicle with wheels so secured as
to prevent its being dragged faster than a walk.
(b) A driver shall continuously hold the reins in his hand while riding, driv-
ing or leading a horse within a park area.
(c) No more than two horses abreast shall be permitted on the bridle paths
in any park area.
(d) Horses shall not be allowed to move over any park area other than those
specifically designated for horse exercise.
(e) Fast or reckless riding or driving of horses in any park area is prohibited.
Equestrians shall be careful to come down to a walk or slow trot before passing
pedestrians.
(f) Horseback riding on the towpath of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal be-
tween Rock Creek and Swain's Lock (Lock 21) is prohibited without special
permit.
Caoss REFERENCE: For regulations prohibiting the tying of horses or other animals
to lamp posts or trees, see §~ 50.8(a) and 50.10(b), respectively.
§ 50i3 Grazing; permitting animals to run loose.
Using park areas for grazing, allowing to graze, or permitting to run loose
thereon any animal, is prohibited, unless authorized by an official permit. Any
owner or custodian of an animal or animals shall prevent such animal or ani-
mals from doing any of the acts enumerated in this section.
§ 50.14 Picnics in park areas.
(a) Pieknieking. Picknicking is permitted only in areas designated for such
use.
PAGENO="0158"
154
(b) Permits. Persons holding official permits for the use of established picnic
groves in certain park areas shall be entitled to the exclusive use of such groves
on the dates and between the hours specified in the permits. All persons not
holding permits shall be required to vacate the groves upon the arrival of permit
holders.
(c) Garbage. Picnic groves in park areas shall be left in a clean condition by
persons using the groves. Garbage and refuse of all kinds shall be placed in recep-
tacles provided for the purpose.
§ 50.15 Athletics.
(a) Permits for set games. Playing baseball, football, croquet, tennis, and
other set games or sports in park areas except under official permit and upon
the grounds provided for such purpose, is prohibited.
(b) Wet grounds. Persons holding official permits to engage in games and
sports at certain times and at places authorized for this use in park areas are
prohibited from exercising the privilege of play accorded by the permit if the
grounds are wet or otherwise unsuitable for play without damage to the turf.
(c) Golf and tennis; fees. No person shall use golf and tennis facilities in
park areas except by payment of the prescribed fee, if one is required, and in
compliance with regulations approved by the Director. Use of public golf and ten-
nis facilities is restricted to authorized players and persons accompanying them;
trespassing, intimidating, harassing or otherwise interfering with authorized
golf players, or interfering with the play of tennis players is prohibited.
(d) Archery. No bows and arrows shall be permitted in park areas, with the
exception stated in § 50.49, except in places designated by order of the Super-
intendent.
(c) Ice skating. When ice is forming on the Tidal Basin, the Reflecting Pool,
and other bodies of water within park areas, all persons shall abide by the direc-
tions of the Park Police as to when and where the ice shall be available for
skating. When skating is allowed, all persons shall be under obligation to refrain
from fast and reckless skating when such skating might endanger the life or
limb of other persons.
§ 50.16 Model planes.
No model powered plane shall be flown from any park area unless authorized
by an official permit.
§ 50.17 Gambling.
Gambling in any form, or the operation of gambling devices, whether fol
merchandise or otherwise in park areas, is prohibited.
§ 50.18 Hunting and fishing.
(a) Hnnting in park areas prohibited. The parks are sanctuaries for wildlife
of every sort and no person shall at any time or at any place within a park area,
trap, catch, kill, injure, or pursue any wild birds or wild animals, except danger-
ous animals when it is necessary to prevent them from destroying human lives
or inflicting personal injury, or destroy, remove or disturb the nest or eggs of
any wild bird. The Superintendent is authorized to take necessary action to
capture or destroy wildlife which is damaging Government property.
(b) TJnautlwrized possession of wildlife. Unauthorized possession within a
park area of any live wild bird or animal, or the dead body or any part thereof, of
any wild bird or animal shall be prima fade evidence that the person or persons
having the same, are guilty of violating this section.
(c) Fishing in ~irk areas in Maryland and Virginia. Persons fishing in areas
under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, lying within the geographical
limits of Maryland or Virginia, must be licensed by and comply with the applicable
State laws.
(d) Fishing in park area~s in the District of Columbia. Persons fishing in waters
in the District of Columbia controlled by the Secretary of the Interior shall
comply with the fishing regulations for the District of Columbia approved by
the Secretary of the Interior and adopted by the Commissioners of the District
of Columbia.
(e) Closing of waters. During a period of emergency, just prior to and during
special ceremonial events or competitive aquatic events, adjacent to docks and
floats, or to prevent over-use by fishermen of waters open to fishing in areas
administered by National Capital Parks, the Superintendent, in his discretion,
may close to fishing all or any part of such open waters for such periods of time
PAGENO="0159"
155
as may be necessary. Provided, the notice thereof shall be given by the posting of
appropriate signs, notices, and markers. Fishing in Prince William Forest Park
shall be prohibited in areas designated for swimming, boating, or other public
use, such areas to be designated by posting of signs.
§ 50.19 Parades and public gatherings.
(a) As used in this section the term "public gatherings" shall mean parades,
ceremonies, entertainments, meetings, assemblies, and demonstrations. It does not
include events for commercial purposes.
(b) Public gatherings may be held and speeches may be made in the following
areas under the jurisdiction of the National Capital Region without official
permit. The conduct of any such gathering shall be reasonably consistent with
protection and use of the area for the purposes for which it is maintained:
(1) Judiciary Park. Between Fourth and Sixth Streets NW., on the north-
south axis of the park between F. Street and the Statue of Jose de San Martin,
for no more than 500 persons.
(2) McPherson Square. Fifteenth Street, between I and K Streets NW., for
no more than 500 persons.
(3) U.S. Reservation No. 31. West of 18th Street and south of H Street NW.,
for no more than 100 persons.
(4) Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway. West of 23d Street, south of P Street
NW., for no more than 1,000 persons.
(5) Garfield Park. Each side of Second Street SE., between Virginia Avenue
and South Carolina Avenue, for no more than 1,000 persons.
(6) U.S. Reservation No. 48. North side of Pennsylvania Avenue, west of
Eighth Street and south of D Street SE., for no more than 25 persons.
(c) Public gatherings may be held and speeches may be made in any park
area under the jurisdiction of the National Capital Region subject to the condi-
tion, except as to areas other than those designated in paragraph (b) of this
section, that an official permit therefor be first issued by the park Superintendent.
(1) Application for permit. Any application for such an official permit shall
set forth the name of the applicant, the date, time, duration, nature, and place
of the proposed event, an estimate of the number of persons expected to attend
and a statement of equipment and facilities to be installed for use in connection
therewith~
(2) Issuance of permit. The park Superintendent shall issue an official permit
upon proper application unless:
(1) A prior application for the same time and place has been made which
has been or will be granted.
(ii) The event will present a clear and present danger to the public health or
safety.
(iii) The event is of such nature or duration that it cannot reasonably be
accommodated in the particular area applied for.
(3) Conditions. The permit may contain such conditions as are reasonably
consistent with protection and use of the area for the purposes for which it is
maintained and as are otherwise consistent with the regulations in this part.
It may also contain reasonable limitations on the time and area within which
the event is permitted.
(1) Violation of any terms of the permit may result in its cancellation.
(d) Policy governing assistance by the National Park Service: (1) For politi-
cal meetings, the National Park Service will furnish no services or facilities
beyond those existing on the site except that the sponsors of the meeting may
provide additional services and facilities at their own expense, subject to ap-
proval by the Superintendent. The same policy will apply with respect to enter-
tainment programs and to patriotic and civic meetings for which an admission
fee is charged or at which funds will be solicited or collected.
(2) In the case of civic and patriotic assemblages, and athletic and entertain-
ment programs which are presented as a public service, where no admission is
charged and no funds will be solicited or collected, the National Park Service
may, within the limits of appropriations, furnish necessary platforms, chairs,
music stands, lighting, and other equipment as are available and the services
of operational employees. At such ceremonial gatherings or events of commu-
nity interest as the annual Independence Day Celebration at the Monument
Grounds, the President's Cup Regatta, and the Cherry Blossom Festival, the
National Park Service may, despite the fact that charges are made by participat-
ing organizations for seats or admission, furnish services and such available
equipment as will not in turn be rented to those who attend the affair.
PAGENO="0160"
156
(e) Special traffic controls during parades and other ceremonies in park areas:
On the days of parades, ceremonies, celebrations, and entertainments in park
areas, the Chief, U.S. Park Police, may vary, or authorize the varying of out-
standing regulations as to the parking of vehicles and the position and move-
ments of spectators, either by the promulgation of special regulations, the posting
of appropriate signs, or the giving of directions by a police officer. All persons
within the area in which a parade, ceremony, celebration, or entertainment is
conducted shall obey or comply with lawful orders of the U.S. Park Police or
other authorized persons engaged in maintaining order.
(f) Limitations: No public gatherings and no distribution of handbills and
circulars shall be permitted on East Executive Avenue, South Executive Avenue,
West Executive Avenue, State Place, and Alexander Hamilton Place.
[31 F.R. 6263, April 23, 19661
§ 50.24 Soliciting, advertising, sales.
(a) Soliciting. (1) Soliciting of alms and contributions for private gain and
of patronage by guides or other persons in park areas is prohibited.
(2) Commercial soliciting of any kind in park areas without an official permit
is prohibited.
(b) Advertising and taking of photographs. (1) The display or distribution
of any form of commercial advertising is prohibited in park areas, except when
authorized by official permit in connection with park activities.
(2) No photograph which may include a public monument or memorial shall
be taken or used of any commercial vehicle or bus in a park area without an
official permit.
(3) The photographing in park areas of models demonstrating wearing apparel
or other commercial articles, for reproduction in commercial advertising, without
an official permit, is prohibited.
(4) No photographs shall be taken within any military reservation except by
holders of official permits and those persons having special permission of the
officer in charge.
(5) No photograph of construction in the National Park system shall be taken
or used in commercial advertising unless written permission of the Superintendent
is obtained.
(c) Sales. No sales shall be made nor admission fee charged, and no article
shall be exposed for sale in a park area without an official permit.
§ 50.25 Nuisances; disorderly conduct.
Committing a nuisance of any kind or engaging in disorderly conduct within
an area covered by this part is prohibited. The following shall include, but shall
not be construed to limit acts commi.ted in areas covered by this part which con-
stitute disorderly and unlawful conduct:
(a) Wrestling. Scuffling and wrestling in the vicinity of other persons.
(b) Throwing of breakable articles. Intentional throwing, dropping or caus-
ing to be thrown or dropped, any breakable article such as glass, pottery, or any
sharp article which may cause injury to the person or property of others, upon
any road, path, walk, parking lot or lawn area in any area covered by this part.
1(c) Throwing of stones. Throwing stones or other missiles.
(d) Throwing or dropping objects from Washington Monument. Throwing or
dropping any object from the windows at the top of the Washington Monument,
or from the staircase or landings of the Monument, unless authorized by the
Superintendent.
(e) Rubbish. Placing refuse brought from private property in park receptacles.
(f) Spitting. Spitting upon walks or paths.
(g) Fireworks. Discharging or setting off fireworks, firearms or other explo-
sives in areas covered by this part: Provided, That upon holidays or on special
occasions the Superintendent may permit at his discretion, use of such grounds
in park areas as he may deem best suited for the purpose of fireworks display
and the firing of salutes.
(h) Unauthorized bathing. Bathing, swimming or wading in any fountain or
pool except where officially authorized. Bathing, swimming, or wading in the
Tidal Basin, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, or Rock Creek, or entering from
areas covered by this part the Potomac River, Anacostia River, Washington
Channel or Georgetown Channel, except for the purpose of saving a drowning
person.
(i) Audio devices. Audio devices including radios, television sets, public ad-
dress systems and musical instruments, when audible beyond the immediate
PAGENO="0161"
157
vicinity of the set or instrument, or when disturbing the quiet of camps, picnic
areas, or other public places or gatherings.
(j) Park benches. Lying on park benches is prohibited.
(k) Loitering with intent to remain more than Tour hours. Sleeping, lotering
or camping, with intent to remain for a period of more than four hours in any
park area, is prohibited, except upon proper authorization of the Superintendent.
(1) Vagrancy. Habitually using any park area as a place of abode, sleeping
therein, loafing therein by day and night by persons having no lawful employ-
ment and no lawful means of support realized from a lawful occupation or source
and unable to establish the fact of residence elsewhere, is prohibited.
§ 50.26 Indecency, immorality, profanity.
(a) Indecent exposure. Obscene or indecent exposure by any male or female
of his or per person or their persons, in a street, road, park, or other space or
enclosure, or automobile, dwelling or other building within any area covered by
this part wherefrom the same may be seen in any street, avenue, alley, road, or
highway, open space, public square, or private building or enclosure is prohibited.
(b) Urinating or defecating. Urinating or defecating in any area covered by
this part other than the places officially provided therefor is prohibited.
(c) Adultery and fornication. Adultery and sexual intercourse with or between
unmarried persons in any area covered by this part is prohibited.
(d) Nuisances; soliciting for immoral purposes. Addressing, soliciting or at-
tempting to make the acquaintance of another person for immoral or indecent
purposes is prohibited in any area covered by this part.
(e) Profanity. The use of profane and indecent language within hearing of
another person or persons in any area covered by this part is prohibited.
(f) Other obscene and indecent acts. The committing of any other obscene or
indecent act in any area covered by this part is prohibited.
§ 50.27 Camping.
(a) Camping is permitted only in areas designated by the Superintendent
who may establish limitations of time allowed for camping in any public camp-
ing ground. Upon the posting of such limitation in the campground, no person
shall camp for a period longer than that specified for the particular campground.
(b) Overnight camping is prohibited in picnic grounds unless authorized by
the Superintendent in writing.
(c) Campers shall keep their campgrounds clean. Combustible rubbish shall be
burned on camp fires, and all other garbage and refuse of all kinds shall be placed
in receptacles provided for the purpose.
(d) Campers and picnickers may use dead or fallen timber for fuel when
authorized by the Superintendent.
(e) The installation of permanent camping facilities by visitors, or the digging
or leveling of the ground in any campsite without the Superintendent's permis-
sion is prohibited. Camps must be completely razed and the sites cleaned before
the departure of campers.
(f) No camp may be established in an area and used as a base for hunting
outside such area.
(g) The Superintendent may establish hours during which quiet must be main-
tained at any camp, and prohibit the running of motors at or near a camp
during such hours.
§ 50.28 Use of liquors; intoxication.
(a) Drinking in areas covered by this part. The drinking of beer, w-ine, or
spirituous liquors within areas covered by this part in the District of Columbia,
Maryland, and Virginia is prohibited, except with the written permission of the
Superintendent.
(b) Intoxication. Entering or remaining in an area covered by this part in a
visibly intoxicated condition is prohibited.
* (c) Driving motor vehicle while intoxicated. No person who is under the in-
fluence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs shall operate or drive a motor
vehicle of any kind in any area covered by this part.
~ 50.29 Laws and regulations applicable to traffic control; enforcement.
(a) District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia laws and regulations. The
laws and regulations relating to traffic control promulgated for the District of
Columbia and the laws of Maryland and Virginia, respectively, as adopted by the
97-945--68-----ii
PAGENO="0162"
158
act of June 25 1948 (62 Stat 686 Title 18 U S C sec 13) shall constitute the
traffic and motor vehicle regulations enforceable under the act of `March 17,' 1948
(62 Stat. 81), in all areas covered by this part within their respective geographical
limits unless otherwise provided for `by act of Congress or the regulations con-
tained in this part: Provided, T'hat the traffic regulations adopted by the, local
governing bodies pursuant to the provisions of the laws of Maryland and Virginia
delegating authority to the local governing bodies to adopt such traffic regula-
tions shall not apply; And provided, further, That the bead of the agency having
jurisdiction over the area may fix the speed limits which shall be indicated `by
signs, markers and other devices to be erected and maintained by said agency
and may fix the weight limits and control the parking of vehicles in such area.
(`b) Enforcement of traffic regulations. All traffic regulations applicable in areas
covered by this part `shall be observed by the operators of vehicles, equestrians,
and by pedestrians who shall also comply with official traffic signs and signals, and
traffic direction by voice, hand or whistle, from any member of the United States
Park Police, Metropolitan Police, Park Rangers or special policemen, properly
equipped by police `badge on duty in an area covered `by this part. T'hese directions
may include signals for slowing down, stopping, backing, approaching or departing
from any place, t'he :manner of taking up or setting down passengers, and the
loading or unloading of any material.
(c) Checking on speed by use of electronic device. The speed of any motor
vehicle may be checked on any park road in a park area in the States of Maryland
and Virginia by the use of radiomierowaves or other electrical device when such
park road on which such device is used is clearly marked within four miles
of such device and at State lines and at primary streets and highways by the
posting of signs indicating radar control, when marked "Speed checked by radar."
[24 FR. 11014, Dec. 30, 1959, as amended at 31 P.R. 6264, April 23, 1966]
§ 50.30 Obstructing entrances, exits, sidewalks.
(a) Assembling, loitering and congregating singly or in groups, in or about the
entrances and exits to the various areas covered by this part, or `within areas
covered `by this part, in such a way as to hinder or obstruct the sidewalks, roads,
bridges, or brkllepaths, is prohibited.
(`b) Congregating or loitering in or `about any `comfort station or other pub-
lie structure in any area covered by this part in such a manner as to obstruct the
proper use thereof, or to the annoyance of the people using or visiting such `struc-
tures, is prohibited.
(c) Occupying, parking, stopping or leaving a bicycle, coaster wagon, peram'
bulator, or other similar vehicle in any area covered `by this part, on any side~
walk, bridge, road, footpath, or bridle path, in such position as to hinder or
obstruct the proper use of the same is prohibited.
§ 50.31 Speed restrictions.
(a) District of Columbia. No specific speed limits shall apply to the park roads
in park areas in the District of Columbia, unless a speed limit is prescribed for
a particular road, or sections of roadway, by the posting of official signs.
(b) Maryland and Virginia. The speed limits prescribed by the States of
Maryland and Virginia shall constitute the speed restrictions on park roads in
areas covered by this part within their respective geographical limits, unless a
lesser speed limit is prescribed for a particular road, or section of road, by
the posting of official signs.
§ 50.32 Reckless driving; prohibited operations.
Persons operating motor vehicles within areas covered by this part shall drive
in a safe manner. The following are prohibited:
(a) Driving carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard of the
rights or `safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection and at a
speed or in a' manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or
property.
(b) Failing to keep any vehicle under proper control.
(c) Operating any vehicle in such a manner as to cause same to collide with
another vehicle, person, fixed or moving object.
(d) Driving on wrong side of street or road.
(e) Following another vehicle too closely to permit clear vision of road
ahead or sufficient distance in which to stop within the assured clear distance
ahead.
PAGENO="0163"
159
(f) Operating a motor vehicle in grossly unsafe mechanical condition.
(g) Operating a closed passenger-carrying vehicle with side shades or cur-
tains drawn more than half way, except when going to or returning from a
funeral or when necessary as protection from the elements.
(h) Operating a motor vehicle when the rear windows are cracked, scarred,
clouded or otherwise obscured or defective so as substantially to obstruct vision.
(i) Operating a motor vehicle when either or both identification tags thereon
are obscured by snow, mud or other matter.
(j) Changing from one lane of traffic to another without proper aild timely
signal and due regard to the traffic on the roadway. Every person operating a
motor vehicle shall stay within one lane of traffic as much as possible, that lane
to be the one nearest the right edge of the road; and he shall determine in advance,
before changing from the lane in which he is driving, that the condition of traffic
is such as to make it safe to change. He shall furthermore have the duty of giving
a timely signal before changing from one lane to the other.
(k) Making or executing a left turn with any motor vehicle from any one-way
road in an area covered by this part from any lane other than that nearest the
left curb or edge of the roadway.
(1) Operating or driving or stopping a motor vehicle on any footpath, bridl&
path, towpath, walk, sidewalk, footbridge, horsebridge, or lawn area within an
area covered by this part.
CROSS REFEBENCE: For driving vehicle while intoxicated, see § 50.28(c).
§ 50.33 Parking restrictions; impounding of vehicles.
(a) General provisions- (1) Undesignated spaces. Driving over or parking
on an area covered by this part other than a road, street or a designated park-
ing space, whether such is grassed or not, is prohibited.
(2) OjJlcial signs. Stopping, standing or parking in any area covered by this
part contrary to the direction of official signs, is prohibited.
(3) Night parking. Parking of vehicles between dark and daylight in an area
covered by this part where no lighting equipment is installed, is prohibited.
* (4) Screened windows. Stopping or parking motor vehicles upon any road in
any area covered by this part, by day or by night, with windows screened or
curtains drawn so as to obscure or conceal the interior of the vehicle, is prohibited.
(5) Constitution Avenue and Nineteenth Street. Between the hours of 4 p.m.
and 6 p.m. on any day, except Sundays and legal holidays, no driver of a vehicle
shall stop, stand, or park to take on or discharge a passenger or passengers, on
the south side of Constitution Avenue Northwest, between the east curb line of
Nineteenth Street and a point 100 feet in an easterly direction.
(6) Parades. Parking on roads in a park area through which a parade will
pass two hours prior to the moving of such parade is prohibited. The placing of
an official sign by the park police on a park road or in a parking zone by 7 am.
on the day a parade is to take place, informing the public of the time to vacate
the park road or parking zone shall be sufficient notice; and if the owner or
person in charge of any vehicle shall fail and neglect to remove such vehicle
before or by the time specified on the sign, he shall be subject to prosecution.
(7) Gutters. Driving or parking in gutters in areas covered by this part
where no curb exists, is prohibited.
(8) Trees and shrubs. Parking in any area covered by this part which involves
contact with any tree, shrub or plant, or with its exposed roots, is prohibited.
(b) Parking on public ground within Distriet of Columbia; penalty. No vehi-
cle of any kind shall be parked, stored, or left, whether attended or not, on any
park area in the District of Columbia, other than park roads and designated
public parking spaces, except when authorized by official permit. Any person
violating the provisions of this paragraph, shall, upon conviction thereof, be
punished by a fine of not more than $25.
(c) Impounding of illegally parked vehicles. Any unattended vehicle parked
in any area covered by this part in violation of any traffic law- or regulation;
except short-term overtime parking, may, in the discretion of the park police,
be removed and impounded until the owner thereof, or other duly authorized
person, shall deposit collateral for his appearance in court. A storage fee of one
dollar per day may be charged for impounded vehicles left iii police custody
longer than 7 days. Vehicles left longer than 90 days shall be disposed of as
abandoned to the United States.
CROSS REFERENCE For place of trial, see § 50.6.
PAGENO="0164"
160
§ 50.34 Traffic signs.
Drivers of all vehicles shall comply with the directions of all official traffic
signs posted in areas covered by this part.
§ 50.35 Washing of cars prohibited.
Washing, cleaning, lubricating, repairing or performing any mechanical work
upon vehicles within park areas is prohibited, except in case of emergency.
§ 50.36 Commercial vehicles and common carriers.
(a) Operation in park areas prohibited; ecoceptions. Commercial vehicles and
common carriers, loaded or unloaded, are prohibited on park roads and bridges
except on roads designated by order of the Superintendent, or when authorized
by official permit in an emergency, or when operated in compliance with para-
graphs (b), (c) or (d) of this section.
(b) George Washington Memorial Parkway; passenger-carrying vehicles; per-
-mits; fees. (1) Taxicabs licensed in the District of Columbia, Maryland, or
Virginia, shall be permited on any portion of the George Washington Memorial
Parkway without being required to obtain a permit or make payment of fees.
(2) Passenger-carrying vehicles for hire or compensation, other than taxi-
cabs, hating a seating capacity of not more than fourteen (14) passengers,
excluding the driver, when engaged in services authorized by concession agree-
ment to be operated from the Washington National Airport and/or Dulles
International Airport, shall be permitted on any portion of the George Wash-
ington Memorial Parkway in Virginia without being required to obtain a per-
mit or make payment of fees. Such vehicles when operating on a sightseeing
basis shall comply with subparagraph (4) of this paragraph.
(3) Passenger-carrying vehicles for hire or compensation, other than those to
which subparagraphs (1) and (2) of this paragraph apply, may be permitted
on the George Washington Memorial Parkway upon application for, and the
granting of a permit by the Regional Director, National Capital Region, Na-
tional Park Service under the following conditions:
(i) When operating on a regular schedule (a) to provide passenger service
on any portion between Mount Vernon and the Arlington Memorial Bridge, (b)
to provide limited direct nonstop passenger service from Key Bridge to a ter-
minus at the Central Intelligence Agency Building at Langley, Virginia, and
direct return, aiid (c) to provide limited direct nonstop passenger service from
the interchange at Route 123 to a terminus at the Central Intelligence Agency
Building at Langley, Virginia, and direct return. Permittees shall file a sched-
ule of operation and all schedule changes with the office of National Capital
Region showing the number of such vehicles and total miles to be operated
on the parkway.
(ii) When operating nonscheduled direct, nonstop service primarily for the
accommodation of air travellers arriving at or leaving from Dulles International
Airport or Washington National Airport (a) between Dulles International Air-
port and a terminal in Washington, D.C., over the George Washington Memorial
Parkway between Virginia Route 123 and Key Bridge; (b) between Washington
National Airport and a terminal in `~Vashington, D.C., over the George Wash-
ington Memorial Parkway between Washington National Airport and 14th
Street Bridge; and (e) between Dulles International Airport and Washington
National Airport over the George Washington Memorial Parkway between
Virginia Route 123 and Washington National Airport. Permittees shall file a
report of all operations and total miles operated on the George Washington
Memorial Parkway.
(iii) Permits shall be issued, normally for a period of one year effective
from July 1 until the following June 30, at the rate of one cent (10) per mile
for each mile each such vehicle operates upon the parkway. Payment shall
be made quarterly within twenty (20) days after the end of the quarter based
upon a certification by the operator of the total mileage operated upon the
parkway.
(4) Sightseeing passenger-carrying vehicles for hire or compensation other
than taxicabs may be permitted on the George Washington Memorial Parkway.
upon application for, and the granting of a permit by the Regional Director,
National Capital Region, to provide sightseeing service on any portion of the
parkway. Permits may be issued either on an annual basis for a fee of three
dollars ($3.00) for each passenger-carrying seat in such vehicle; on a quarterly
basis for a fee of seventy-five cents (750) per seat; or on a daily basis at the
rate of one dollar ($1.00) per vehicle per day.
PAGENO="0165"
161
(c) Commercial trucks. The use of any park road by commercial trucks when
such trucking is in no way connected with the operation of the park system is
prohibited, except (1) on the section of Constitution Avenue east of 19th Street,
(2) that in special cases, trucking permits may be issued at the discretion of
the Superintendent
(d) Taccicabs- (1) Operations around memorials. Parking, except in officially
designated taxicab stands, or cruising on the access roads to the Washington
Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, and the circular roads
around the same, of any taxicab or hack without passengers is prohibited. `How-
ever, this section shall not `be construed to prohibit the operation of empty cabs
responding to definite calls for hack service by passengers waiting at such
Memorials, or of empty cabs which have just discharged passengers at `the
entrances of the Memorials, when such operation is incidental to the empty cabs
leaving the area by the shortest route.
(2) S1tands. Taxicab stands to serve the public convenience may be established
by order of the `Superintendent in suitable `and convenient places.
(e )~ The provisions of this section prohibiting commercial trucks and common
carriers shall not apply within "other Federal reservations", in the environs
of `the District of Columbia, as defined in § 50.4(b), and shall not apply on that
portion of Suitland Parkway between the `intersection with Maryland Route
337 and the end of the Parkway at Maryland Route 4, a length of 0.6 mile.
[24 FR. 11014, Dec. 30, 1959, as amended at 27 F.R. 11346, Nov. 17, 1962, 31 F.R.
9107, July 2, 1966]
§ 50.37 Vehicles; weight and tread restrictions.
(a) Macsimum weight. No vehicle, the weight of which including load, exceeds
the officially posted weight limit appearing at or on the bridge, shall cross any
bridge in any area covered by this part unless authorized by an official permit.
(`b) Permissible solid tires. (1) No vehicle equi'pped with solid nibber tires
shall be driven or moved over any road in any area covered by this part unless
the entire traction surface of the tire is at least 1 inch thick above the edge of
the flange for the entire periphery of the tire.
(2) No vehicle equipped with steel tires, loaded `or unloaded, shall be driven
or moved over any road in any area covered by this part if the total gross weight
is in excess of 6,000 pounds.
(c) Prohibited treads. There shall not be operated or moved upon any road
in any area covered by this part, except by hauling `on an approved type of con-
veyance, any vehicle of any kind the face of the wheels, or tracks of which `are
fitted with flanges, ribs, clamps, cleats, lugs, spikes or `any device which may
tend to injure the roadway. This prohibition applies to all rings or flanges upon
guiding or steering wheels on any such vehicle but it shall not be construed as
preventing the use of ordinary detachable tire or skid chains.
§ 50.38 Tampering with vehicles prohibited.
Tampering with or attempting to enter or start `any motor vehicle parked
in any area covered by this part, without authority from the owner of such
vehicle, is prohibited.
§ 50.39 Prevention of smoke.
The engine and power mechanism of every motor vehicle shall be so equi'pped
and adjusted as to prevent the escape of excessive fumes or smoke.
§ 50.40 Bicycling, roller skating and coasting restrictions.
(a) Bicycling. Bicycle riding, except upon the roads or other areas designated
by order of the Superintendent to be used for that purpose, is prohi'bited. Walking,
driving, or riding bicycles or motorcycles on bridlepaths, is prohibited.
(b) Roller skating. Roller skating except upon areas designated by order
of the Superintendent to be used for that purpose, `is prohibited.
(c) Coasting. The operation of sleds, sleighs, scooters, coaster wagons, or
similar vehicles by children or adults on any road, walk, `bridle path, bridge, or
lawn area, other th'an those places designated by order of the Superintendent to
be used for such purposes, is prohibited.
(d) The provisions of this section shall not apply within "other Federal
reservations", as defined in § 50.4(b).
CRoss REFERENCE: For regulations with respect to parking, stopping, or leaving of any
vehicle, such as a bicycle or coaster wagon, on any sidewalk or other public thoroughfare,
see § 50.30(c).
PAGENO="0166"
162
§50.41 Boating.
(a) No privately owned boat, canoe, raft, or other floating craft shall be
placed or operated upon the waters of any area covered by this part without an
official permit. Such permit will be revoked upon the failure of the permittee
to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit and the permittee will be
required to immediately remove his craft from the area. The provisions of this
section shall not apply to the operation of canoes and other hand-propelled boats
in the waters of the `Chesapeake and Ohio Canal.
(`b) Garbage, litter, or `other waste shall not be dropped or thrown from ves-
sels, or from shore, into park waters, but shall be disposed of on shore at desig-
nated locations in a manner prescribed by the Superintendent.
(c) Wastes from toilets or galleys shall not be discharged within one `half mile
of low water line along the sh'ore, or one half mile from any water supply intake,
and the Superintendent may restrict any water area if a public health hazard de-
velops or the deterioration of esthetic values becomes apparent.
(d) Every vessel or craft operating in `Park waters which is propelled by in-
ternal combustion engines shall be equipped with a muffler so constructed as to
prevent any unnecessary or prolonged, intense noise in the operation or man-
agement of such vessel and the said muffler shall not be removed, cut out, or put
out of operation for any purpose whatsoever, except during authorized Regattas.
Nothing contained in this paragraph shall apply to vessels equipped with un-
derwater exhausts or to vessels discharging water through open exhaust pipes so
long as these methods of silencing the exhaust are effective.
§ 50.42 Swimming, water skiing etc.
Swimming from unanch'ored boats is prohibited. Children under the age of
12 years, when in the `water shall wear approved life preservers; water skiers,
when being towed, shall wear life belts or life preservers.
§ 50.43 Collection of scientific specimens.
Collection of natural objects for scientific or educational purposes shall be
permitted only in accordance with an official permit. No permits will be issued
to individuals or associations to collect specimens for personal use, but only to
persons officially representing reputable scientific or educational institutions in
procuring specimens for research, group study, or museum display. Permits will
be issued only on condition that the specimens taken will become part of a perma-
nent `public museum or herbarium collection, or will in some suitable way be made
permanently available to the public. No permits may be granted for the collection
of specimens the removal of which would disturb the remainng natural features
or `mar their appearance. `Permits to secure rare natural objects will be granted
by the Director only upon proof of special need for scientific use and of the fact
that such objects cannot be secured elsewhere: Provided, however, That the pro-
visions of this section shall not apply within "other Federal reservations", as
defined in ~ 50.4(b).
§ 50.44 Lost and found articles.
(a) Lost articles or money which are found in areas covered by this part shall
be immediately referred to the police official in charge of the area where the
article was discovered. Proper records shall be kept at Police Headquarters of
the receipt and disposition of such articles. If an article or money found on
park areas and referred to Park Police Headquarters is not claimed by the
owner within a period of 60 days, it shall be returned to the finder and appropri-
ate receipt obtained; except, that in the case of Force and National Capital Parks
employees, items turned in which are not claimed by the owner within 60 days
shall be considered as abandoned to the United States and reported to the nearest
representative of the General Services Administration `for disposition. In no
case will found articles be returned to the employees who found them.
(b) The abandonment of any personal property in any of the park areas is
prohibited.
§ 50.45 Photographing; restrictions.
(a) Frivolons and `undignified posing. Photographing of persons posing in a
frivolous or undignified manner within, upon, or by, any National Memorial, is
prohibited.
(b) Use of tripod or other devices. The use of a tripod or. other device for
the support of the camera or other instrument on the floors or steps of any
memorial, or other park structure, is prohibited, unless the tripod or device is
equipped in such a manner as will prevent scratching or other damage.
PAGENO="0167"
163
(c) Motion or sound pictures. Before any motion or sound pictures may be
filmed in any park area except by amateurs and bona fide newsreel photog-
raphers, authority must first be obtained in writing from the Superintendent,
which authority will be granted in the discretion of the Superintendent in
accordance with the provisions of 43 OFR Part 5.
CROSS REFERENCE: For use of pictures taken in park areas for commercial advertising,
see § 50.24(b) (2) and (3).
§ 50.46 Discrimination in furnishing public accommodations and transportation
services.
(a) The proprietor, owner, or operator of any hotel, inn, lodge or other
facility or accommodation offered to or enjoyed by the general public in a park
area and its eiñployees, including, but not limited to, the District of Columbia
Recreation Board and its personnel, the District of Columbia Armory Board and
its personnel, and any subcontractor or sublessee, and, while using such an area,
any commercial passenger-carrying motor vehicle transportation service and its
employees, are prohibited from (1) publicizing the facilities, accommodations or
any activity conducted therein in any manner that would directly or inferen-
tially reflect upon or question the acceptability of any person or persons because
of race, creed, color, ancestry, or national origin; or (2) discriminating by seg-
regation or otherwise against any person or persons because of race, creed, color,
ancestry, or national origin in furnishing or refusing to furnish such person or
persons any accommodation, facility, service, or privilege offered to or enjoyed
by the general public.
(b) Each such proprietor, owner or operator must post the following notice
at such locations as will insure that the notice and its contents will be conspicu-
ous to any person seeking accommodations, facilities, services or privileges:
NOTICE
This is a facility operated in an area under the jurisdiction of the United States Depart-
ment of the Interior.
No discrimination by segregation of other means In the furnishing of accommodations,
facilities, services, or privileges on the basis of race, creed, color, ancestry or national origin
is permitted in the use of this facility. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by fine,
imprisonment, or both.
Complaints of violations of this prohibition should be addresed to the Director, National
Park Service, Washington 25, D.C.
[27 FR. 3658, Apr. 18, 1962]
§ 50.46a Discrimination in employment practices.
(a) The proprietor, owner, or operator of any hotel, inn, lodge or other
facility or accommodation offered to or enjoyed by the general public in a park
area and its employees, as described in § 50.46 and any subcontractor or sub-
lessee, in connection with the use of such an area, is prohibited from discrimina-
tion against any employee or applicant for employment or maintaining any em-
ployment practice which discriminates because of race, creed, color, ancestry,
or national origin in connection with any activity provided for or permitted
by contract with or permit from the Government or by subcontract or sublease.
As used in this section the term "employment" shall include, but not be limited
to, employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment
advertising; layoffs or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensa-
tion; and selection for training including apprenticeship.
(b) Each such proprietor, owner or operator must post either the following
notice:
NOTICE
This is a facility operated In an area under the jurisdiction of the United States Depart-
ment of the Interior.
No discrimination in employment practices on the basis of race, creed, color, ancestry,
or national origin is permitted in this facility. Violation of this prohibition are punishable
by fine, imprisonment, or both.
Complaints of violations of this prohibition should be addressed to the Director, National
Park Service, Washington 25, D.C. or notices supplied him in accordance with SectIon 301
of Executive Order 10925, dated March 6, 1961, at such locations as will insure that the
notice and its contents will be conspicuous to any person seeking employment.
[27 FR. 3658, Apr. 18, 1962]
§ 50.47 Installation permits.
(a) Permit required. No facility, utility, works, building, or other installation
may be installed or maintained in a park area without an official permit desig-
nated as an "installation permit."
PAGENO="0168"
164
(b) Application and permit. (1) Application for "installation permit" shall
be made in the form prescribed by the Superintendent of National Capital Parks
(2) Installation permits may be issued by the Superintendent of National
Capital Parks and shall be subject to the payment of such fees and such con
ditions of location, relocation, removal, maintenance, restoration, design, mate-
rials, method of construction time, expiration, termination, and other require-
ments as may be prescribed in the permit or by regulations of the Secretary of
the Interior and instructions issued thereunder. The Superintendent may re-
quire a cash or surety bond acceptable to him in such amount as he deems ade-
quate to insure full compliance with the conditions of the installation permit.
(3) All permittees must comply with all Federal and applicable local laws
and all regulations of the Secretary of the Interior relating to park areas.
(4) An "installation permit" may be revoked and the removal of the installa-
tion required by the Superintendent of National Capital Parks, with the ap-
proval of the Director of the National Park Service or the Secretary of the
Interior, by mailing to the permittee written notice to that effect at least 30 days
prior to the effective date of the revocation of the permit.
(c) Appeals from administrative action. Appeals from action relating to "in-
stallation permits" issued pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section may be taken
from any administrative action by filing with the Superintendent a written re-
quest for reconsideration thereof or notice of appeal. Administrative action of
the Superintendent shall be final unless an appeal is taken therefrom within 30
days by filing with the Superintendent a written notice of appeal and a statement
setting forth in detail the reasons why the administrative action taken by the
Superintendent is contrary to or in conflict with the facts, the law, or the regula-
tions of the Secretary. Upon receipt of such a statement the Superintendent shall
submit a statement reviewing the case and presenting the facts and considerations
upon which his action is based. The two statements together with all papers com-
prising the record in the case shall then be transmitted to the Director who shall
review the case and will thereupon refer the case with his recommendations to the
Secretary for a final decision. The Secretary will thereupon consider the case and
recommendations from the Director and advise both the appellant and the Super-
intendent of his decision.
§ 50.48 Making false reports to the United States Park Police.
Any person who shall make or cause to be made to the United States Park Po-
lice or to any officer or member thereof, a false or fictitious report of the commis-
sion of any criminal offense within any area administered by the Office of National
Capital Parks, or a false or fictitious report of any other matter or occurrence of
which said United States Park Police is required to receive reports or in con-
nection with which said United States Park Police is required to conduct an in-
vestigation, knowing such report to be false or fictitious, or shall communicate
or cause to be communicated to the said United States Park Police or any officer
or member thereof any false information concerning the commission of any
criminal offense within any area administered by the Office of National Capital
Parks, or concerning any other matter or occurrence of which said United States
Park Police is required to receive reports, or in connection with which said
United States Park Police is required to conduct an investigation, knowing such
information to be false, shall be punished as provided in ~ 50.5.
§ 50.49 Dangerous weapons.
(a) Carrying or possessing, while in any area covered by this part, a gun, air-
gun, bow and arrow, sling, dart, projectile thrower, knife with blade exceeding
three (3") inches in length, or other dangerous instrument or weapon is pro-
hibited; except that the prohibition with regard to the possession and carrying of
bows, arrows. and firearms shall not apply to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
lands above Swain's Lock in the State of Maryland, when such bows are un-
strung, the arrows in quivers, and such firearms are unloaded or broken or en-
cased and the party or parties in possession thereof are crossing canal property
to gain access to legal shooting areas on private properties by the most direct
and shortest route: Provided, That nothing in this paragraph shall be construed
as to prevent the drill or activities of any organized military or semi-military
body under an official permit, and the use of bows and arrows by park visitors on
official established archery ranges.
(b) The Superintendent may, in his discretion, permit the carrying of fire-
arms by employees under his administrative jurisdiction when such possession
is deemed necessary in the performance of their official duties.
PAGENO="0169"
165
(c) Authorized law enforcement officers may carry unsealed firearms while
engaged in the enforcement of Federal or State laws and regulations, or when
otherwise necessary in the performance of their duties.
§ 50.50 Fires,
(a) On public campgrounds and picnic areas wood fires shall be lighted only
in the established fireplaces constructed for the convenience of visitors except
when otherwise authorized by official permit.
(b) For cooking purposes charcoal grilles, gasoline or gas stoves may be
used in public campgrounds and picnic areas.
(c) Due diligence shall be exercised in building and putting out fires and the
disposal of charcoal to prevent damage to trees and vegetation and to prevent
forest and grass fires.
(d) Smoking, or the building of fires, may be prohibited or limited by the
Superintendent when, in his judgment, the fire hazard makes such action neces-
sary.
§ 50.51 Sanitation.
(a) Campers and others shall not wash clothing or cooking or eating uten-
sils in, or otherwise pollute or contaminate the waters of the areas.
(b) The washing of cooking or eating utensils and the cleaning of fish at water
hydrants or drinking fountains is prohibited.
(c) Garbage, papers, or refuse of any kind shall not be thrown or left any-
where except in receptacles officially provided for such purpose.
(d) All comfort stations shall be used in a clean and sanitary manner.
§ 50.101 Schedule of minimum collateral (General Order No. 68).
(a) Hereafter persons arrested and taken to the Headquarters of the United
States Park Police or to the Metropolitan Police precinct stations for violation of
certain regulations promulgated for the protection of the Park System of the
District of Columbia, as set forth on the Schedule of Minimum Collateral at-
tached hereto, will be handled as follows:
(1) The decision as to whether an individual arrested shall be permitted to
deposit collateral will rest with the official then in charge of the Force, who
shall be guided in his decision by consideration of existing rules and laws
governing incarceration of prisoners, and the customs of the community. Deter-
mination as to whether collateral shall be required in an amount greater than
the minimum provided in the Schedule of Minimum Collateral, will rest with
the decision of the official then in charge of the Force.
(2) Experience since 1938 has clearly demonstrated that permitting the for-
feiture of collateral for minor offenses has eliminated the necessity for the po-
lice force to appear in court, if the person arrested elects to forfeit. As in the
past, forfeiture of collateral for violation of National Capital Parks Regulations
will be handled in a manner similar to forfeiture of collateral for violation of
certain Metropolitan Police regulations.
(b) This section, together with the attached Schedule of Minimum Collateral,
shall become effective upon date of publication in the Federal Register (April
26, 1966).
SCHEDULE OF MINIMUM COLLATERAL
A schedule of minimum collateral to be accepted for violations of certain regulations promulgated for the protection
of the park system of the District of Columbia, in accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress, approved July
1, 1898 (30 Stat. 570), as amended:
Violations N.C.R.
Col-
regulations
lateral
Animals, domestic or wild:
Unlicensed or unmuzzled dogs 50. 11(a) $5.00
Unleashed dogs or cats 50. 11(b) 5.00
Permitting dogs or cats to commit a oaisance on playgrounds, trees, shrubs, ptants, 50. 11(c) 2. 00
lawns, sidewalks, footpaths, or in flower beds, buildings, or in any other park areas, ex-
cept in park roadways.
Horses: Leaving unbridled and unattended 50. 12(a) 2.00
Horses: Riding, driving, or loading withoat reins in hand 50. 12(b) 2.00
Horses: Riding of more than two abreast 50. 12(c) 2.00
Horses: Allowing to move over lawn areas 50. 12(d) 2.00
Horses: Fast or reckless riding or driving and failure to bring to a walk or slow trot before 50. 12(e) 10.00
passing pedestrians.
PAGENO="0170"
166
SCH EDULE OF MINIMUM COLLATERAL-Continued
N.C.R.
Violations
Col-
regulations
latera'
Animals, domestic or wild-Continued
H!tch, tie, or fasten any horse or animal to any public lamp post or appurtenance thereof.. - 50. 8(a) $2. 00
Hitch, tie, or fasten any horse or animal to, or within reach of, any tree, shrub, plant, 50. 10(b) 2. 00
treebox or tree guard.
Grazing or permitting the running loose of animals except with official permission 50. 13 5. 00
Hunting, trapping, catching, killing, pursuing, or needlessly disturbing any birds, water- 50. 18(a) 5. 00
fowl or wild animal except upon proper authorization.
Athletics:
Playing of baseball, football, tennis, golf, or other set games, except upon grounds pro- 50.15(a) 5. 00
vided under official permit.
Playing on grounds wet or otherwise unsuitable for play without damage to turf 50.15(b) 5. 00
Unauthorized use of golf or tennis facilities where fee has been prescribed 50.15(c) 5. 00
Archery: Use of bows and arrows except in park areas designated by order of the super- 50.15(d) 2.00
intendent.
Ice Skating: Fast and reckless skating, failing to abide by directions of the Park Police~__ 50.15(e) 2.00
Bicycles: Riding except upon the roads or designated areas 50.40(a) 2. 00
Boating: Permitting privately owned boat, canoe, raft, or floating craft to be operated upon 50.41 2. 00
waters in park area without official permission.
Camping: Camping, loitering, or sleeping with intent to remain more than 4 hours except 50.25(k) 5.00
upon proper authorization of the Superintendent.
Comfort Stations (revised Aug. 19, 1946):
Loiter in 50.9(a) *5 00
Improper use of 50.9(b) 5. 00
Interfere with attendant 50.9(c) 5. 00
Destruction of property therein 50.9(d) 10. 00
Commercial activities:
Soliciting of alms and contributions for private gain 50.24(a) 10. 00
Soliciting of patronage by guides or other persons 50.24(a) 5. 00
Display of distribution of any form of commercial advertising without permission 50.24(b)(1) 2. 00
Photographing a public monument or memorial that includes any commercial vehicle or 50.24(b)(2) 2. 00
bus, without permission.
Photographing models demonstrating wearing apparel or other commercial articles, 50.24(b)(3) 2. 00
without permission.
Selling, exposing article for sale, or charging admission fee, without permission 50.24(c) 10. 00
Fishing:
Fishing in fountain basins and ornamental pools 50.18(d) 2. 00
Fishing from the banks of the Potomac River, Anacostia River, Rock Creek, Washing- 50.18(e) 2. 00
ton Channel, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal or other waters within perk areas where
such banks have been posted with official signs prohibiting fishing.
Unlicensed fishing where license is required by State laws 50.18(c) 2.00
Fishing in the Tidal Basin between March31 and May30 50.18(d) 2.00
Gambling: Participating in games for money or property, or the operating of gambling devices 50.17 *10. 00
for merchandise or otherwise.
Indecency, immorality, profanity: Committing obscene or indecent acts 50.26(a),(f) *25. 00
Urinating or defecating in any place other than the places officially provided therefor.... - - 50.26(b) 10. 00
Committing adultery or fornication in park areas 50.26(c) *25. 00
Addressing, soliciting, or attempting to make the acquaintance of another person for im- 50.26(d) *25. 00
moral or indecent purposes.
Using profane or indecent language 50.26(e) 10. 00
Lamps and Lampposts:
Breaking any lantern, glass, frame, street designation, or fixture on public land 50.8(a) 10. 00
Remove, extinguish, or obstruct the light in any public lamp 50.8(b) 10.00
Climbing upon, damaging, attaching guy line or sign, defacing, or piling material against 50.8(c) 5. 00
a public lamppost.
Liquors, use of: Drinking beer, wine, or spirituous liquors except at places licensed for the 50.28(a) 10. 00
sale thereof.
Lying upon park benches 50.25(j) 2. 00
Nuisances:
Committing a nuisance of any kind or engaging in disorderly conduct in park areas pro- 50.25 10. 00
hibited.
Scuffling and wrestling in the vicinity of other persons 50.25(a) 10. 00
Intentional throwing or dropping of breakable articles 50.25(b) 10.00
Throwing stones or other missiles 50.25(c) 10.00
Throwing or dropping any object from windows at the top of Washington Monument or 50.25(d) 10. 00
from staircase landings.
Throwing or leaving paper, fruit skins, or other rubbish except in receptables officially 50.51(c) 2. 00
provided for same.
Placing refuse from private property in officially provided receptacles for park refuse 50.25(e) 5. 00
Spitting upon sidewalks or paths 50.25(f) 5.00
Discharging fireworks, firearms or other explosives without official permission 50.25(g) 10. 00
Bathing, swimming or wading in any fountain or pool except where officiolly authorizeth - - - 50.25(h) 2. 00
Carrying or possessing, while in any park area, a gun, air gun, sling, dart, projectile 50.49(a) *25. 00
thrower, knife with blade exceeding 3 inches, or other dangerous weapon.
Obstructing entrances, exits, sidewalks:
Occupying roads, highways, bridges, walks, footpaths, or bridle puths in such a manner 50.30(a-c) 10. 00
as to hinder or obstruct their proper use.
Photographing other than commercial; restrictions:
Photographing of persons posing in a frivoulous or undignified manner within, upon, or 50.45(a) 5. 00
by any National Memorial.
Using tripod or other device for the support of Camera or other instrument on the floors 50.45(b) 5. 00
or steps of any memorial unless equipped to prevent scratching or other damage.
Making motion or sound pictures without permission, excepting amateurs and bone tide 50.45(c) 5. 00
newsreel photographers.
PAGENO="0171"
167
SCHEDULE OF MINIMUM COLLATERAL-Continued
Violations N.C.R. Col-
regulations lateral
Picnics:
Preventing holders of official permits from occupying groves on dates and between hours 50.14(a) $2. 00
specified.
Building fires in areas other than established fireplaces, without permission 50.50(a) 2.00
Leaving garbage and refuse in park areas otherthan receptacles provided for same 50.14(c) 2.00
Public property:
Climbing upon or injuring any monument or structure 50.7(a) *5 QO
Interfering with water system 50.7(b) *5 00
Removing of lifebunys except for the purpose of aiding persons in the water 50.7(c) *5 00
Injury to lawns, short cuts 50.7 (d), (e) 2.00
Removing, tampering with or damaging any official or public sign 50.7(f) *2.00
Dumping without authority 50.7(g) 5.00
Storing material without authority 50.7(h) 10.00
Enclose any park area or erect any fence, wall, or build any road, trail, bridge or other 50.7(i) 10. 00
structure, without authority.
Pour or cause to spill on park area, any gas, salt, acid or other deleterious substance, 50.7(j) *10. 00
without authority.
Remove or damaging Government property 50.7(k) *5 00
Roller skating and coasting:
Roller skating except in designated areas 50.40(b) 2.00
Operating sleds, sleighs, scooters, coaster wagans or siwilar vehicles except in designated 50.40(c) 2. 00
areas.
Scientific specimens, collection of: Callecting of natural objects without permission 50.43 3. 00
Traffic and motor vehicles:
Cleaning or repairing except in cases of emergency 50.35 2.00
Driving or parking in gutters where no curb exists 50.33(a-7) 2.00
Driving or parking on any footpath, bridlepath, tewpath, walk, sidewalk, footbridge, 50.32(1) 5. 00
horsebridge or lawn area.
Driving over or parking on park area other than road, street, or designated parking space, 50.33(a-1) 5. 00
whether such is grasses or not.
Left turn from one-way road, from any lane other than lane nearest left curb or edge of 50.32(k) 5. 00
roadway.
Operation of passenger-carrying vehicles with curtains drawn more than halfway down, 50.31(g) 2. 00
except for funerals or protectiun frum the elements.
Operating a motor vehicle when either or both identification tags thereon are obscured by 50.32(i) 5. 00
snow, mud or other matter.
Operating commercial vehicles in park area without official permit 50.36(a-c) 5.00
Operating vehicle withnut adjustment to prevent excessive fumes er smuke 50.39 5.00
Cruising taxicabs in restricted areas 50.36(d) 5.00
Parking at night in unlightud park areas 50.33(a-3) 2.00
Parking with windows screened or curtains drawn, in park areas 50.33(a-4) 2.00
Parking which involves contact with any tree, shrub, plant, or with its exposed reots~ - - 50.33(a-8) 2. 00
Unauthorized parking in park area 50.33(b) 10.00
Tampering with or attempting to enter or start any motor vehicle without authority from 50.38 *25. 00
the owner.
Operating vehicles without permission across bridges when the weight, which includes 50.37(a) 100. 00
load, is in excess of officially posted weight limit sign.
Note: Traffic violators charged with violations of the traffic regulations promulgated for the
District of Columbia, and applicable to all park areas within the confines of the District of
Columbia, will be required to post collateral in accordance with the official list of minimum
collateral requirements for such violations.
Trees, shrubs, plants:
Removing or injuring trees, shrubs, plants, grass and other vegetation 50.10(a) *500
Hitch, tie, fasten, nail, anchor, screw, or otherwise attach any wire, cable, chain, rope, card, 50.10(c) 5.00
sign, poster advertisement, notice, handbill, board or other article to any tree, shrub,
or plant, without permission.
Vagrancy: Sleeping, loafing, in park areas by day and night by persons having no lawful 50.25(1) 300. 00
employment and no lawful means of support realized from a lawful occupation and
unable to establish residence.
Note 1: Where the specified cash collateral is $25 or more, the amount of bond in lieu of said cash collateral shall be
$100.00.
Note 2: Attention is directed to the fact that the foregoing amnunts represent only "minimum" collateral. This amount
may be increased depending on the seriousness of the violation, this is particularly true in cases of violations preceded by
the (*) asterisk.
[24 F.R. 11014, Dec. 30, 1959, as amended at 31 F.R. 6316, April 26, 19661
0
PAGENO="0172"