Evening Star Newspaper, May 1, 1935, Page 4

D. C. CRIME REPORT 0.K. 1S WITHHELD House Committee Members Seek Time to Read All Transcript. ‘(Continued From First Page.) and supervisory staff, which has seriously affected efficiency and morale. Outsider Is Favored. In the replacement of Maj. Brown, the report recommended that his successor be selected from outside the ranks. “The appointment of a person, who is not now connected with the department,” the report said, “might bring to the administration of the force an impartial viewpoint, modern and scientific methods, and a re-estab- lishment of discipline and morale.” Some of the report’s recommen- dations can be carried out by the Commissioners, but others would re- quire special legislation. The only police official singled out in the report for criticism is In- pector Headley, who was drastically censured for the part he played in the so-called ‘gentlemen’s agree- ment,” designed to bring about his promotion to the rank of an as- sistant superintendent; for his atti- tude toward his subordinates; his neglect of duty in connection with “deplorable conditions” in the fifth precinct, and his “evasiveness and Jack of .candor” when appearing as & witness before the committee. All of these factors, the committee ex- plained, . contributed to the conclu- sion that “his services have been un- satisfactory and conducive to a lack of efficiency and harmony.” Garnett also was severely criticised in the report. Fhe committee branded him as heing incompetent as well as indifferent to the responsibilities of his office. In addition, it declared there are many faults in the various departments of his office which should be *“speedily corrected,” and men- tioned among them, the removal of Kindleberger, who was held to be “totally unfit” for the position he now holds, Two Months’ Inquiry, The Crime Committee’s report was based on the results of its compre- hensive two-month investigation of vice and the law enforcement and prosecution machinery in the District, and covered 55 pages of a printed pamphlet. Aside from the changes in the poice department and the office of the United States attorney, the com- mittee’s principal recommendations were: 1. Consolidation of the Park Police assigned to duty in the District with the Metropolitan Police Department. 2. Expeditious disposition of crimi- nal cases with trials within 30 days of indictment. 3. Establishment of a permanent commission to keep a constant check and complete record on law enforce- ment and the various agencies con- cerned. 4. Complete removal of political in- fluence from the Police Department. 5. Modern building for police head- quarters. 8. Abolition of the indeterminate sentence and parole law. 4 7. Legislation to make jury service in the District Supreme Court and Police Court coincide. 8. Revision of the type of examina- tion given police officers for promo- tion, and the institution of a new ef- ficiency rating system. 9, Early hearings on & bill which has passed the Senate and is now in the House District Committee to tighten the District gambling laws. 10. Revision and enactment of the Norton bill to provide increased penal- ties for prostitution, the amendments to make all persons connected with the offense equally guilty. 11. Adoption of the so-called “non- transferable” or lock type automobile identification tags as a means of pre- venting auto thefts. 12. Repeal of a section of the Dis- trict code providing for the issuance of a warrant of commitment or a detainer to hold persons arrested longer than six hours. 13. Abolition of the $500 increase in compensation for police officials designated as assistant superin- tendent. 14, Mandatory dismissal of all police officers found guilty of intoxi- cation while on duty. 15. Rejection of all moves for re- instatement of police officers dis- missed from force. 16. Give a precinct status to the Woman's Bureau of the Police De- partment, 17. Continuation of the present get-up of the Police Trial Board, but a change in procedure to limit ap- peals from its decisions to the super- intendent of police instead of the Com- missioners. Fitzpatrick Is Praised. In the very outset of its report the committee paid tribute to Dr. John R. Fitzpatrick, dean of the Law School of Columbus University and former assistant United States attorney, who served as its counsel during the in- vestigation. “His work,” the report declared, “has been highly gratifying and completely supports the subcom- committee’s judgment in appointing him as its counsel.” The report then gave a resume of its history and preparation for the intensive investigation which followed. It then called attention to the need of a permanent commission such as exists in other cities to keep a constant check on the work of law- enforcement agencies as well as a complete record of crime and law- lessness. Later, in a special section of -the report, the committee again referred to the proposed crime commission and pointed out that this organization should be incorporated by an act of Congress and vested with powers to enable it to take testimony and pro- cure necessary records. “The pri- mary purpose of the organization, of course,” said the committee, “would be to keep the people of Washington constantly informed as to the true condition of crime and law enforce- ment.” Section 2 of the report calls at- tention to crime conditions in Wash- ington and declares there was a wide- spread impression among officials as well as citizens that the crime record was low and that law enforcement ‘was high, due to two primary causes— that the Commissioners, the superin- tendent of police and the United States attorney “and others, have repeatedly made public statements tending to discount the seriousness of crime con- ditions” and “the absence of co- ordinated records, has made it im- possible for the public accurately to gauge the extent of crime or the ef- ficiency of law enforcement.” On the contrary, the committee said, its investigation had established that ‘Washington “has a disgracefully high crime rate and that law enforcement « ere is neither aggressive nor efficient.” Subsequently the committee com- plains of the lax enforcement of laws. It declares that an analysis of felon- des during the 1934 fiscal year, to- gether with, the action _of the polics,. the grand jury, the United States at~ torney’s office, the courts and the Parole Board, shows that those who commit felonious crimes have approx- imately a two-to-one chance to escape arrest. It also explains that the chances are six to one that those ar- rested will not be indicted, that ten to one there will be no conviction and that fifteen to one there will be no jail sentence. Complaint of Law. In a section devoted to gambling, vice and minor offenses, the re- port explains that the authorities have complained that present laws are in- adequate to cope with the problem. However true this may be, the com- mittee declared, it is & fact that the so-called “big-shot” gamblers have to a large extent either left Washington or curtailed their activities since an irate public demand caused the offi- clals to take aggressive action. As a result of its investigation of the police, the report said its analysis of crime conditions in the District conclusively indicates the de- partment is not being satisfactorily administered. “There are weaknesses in the administration and supervision of the department, there is a lack of morale and esprit de corps, lack of energy and drive” and “the rank and file of the force has become perfunc- tory and supine.” Later, in its discussion of the im- provements needed in the Police De- partment, the committee pointed out that when Washington has organized and built up an aggressive police force it will be one of the most crime-free cities in the United States, “instead of as it is today, one of the most crime ridden.” A portion of the section devoted to criticism of the Police Department, which censures Inspector Headley, expresses the hope that such criticism will be construed by all .nembers of the force, “now and in time to come,” as a condemnation of so-called “gen- tlemen’s agreements.” Retirement of Ranking Officers. ‘The report does not mention by name either Maj. Brown or Inspector Bean, but points out that all officers reached the age 60 should be re- tired, in accordance with existing law, which gives the Commissioners discre- tionary power to order retirements. These men, because of advancing age, it said, are no longer able to provide the character of energetic leadership that must be had if the Police De- partment is to be operated at its maximum efficiency. “It is not only fair and just to these officers that they be retired,” the re- port declared, “but from the stand- point of good common sense and self-protection the District of Colum- bia should place them on the retired list and replace them with younger | and more vigorous men.” Suggesting the immediate removal |of Garnett and Kindleberger the com- mittee gxplained that in order to check the growth of crime in the Dis-~ trict it is vitally important “that all and speedily prosecuted.” It cited the qualifications of an ideal presenting officer and declared that neither Gar- nett nor Kindleberger measured up to those standards. ‘To support its contention, the com- mittee furthermore referred to the testimony of a number of witnesses who appeared before it and quoted ex- cerpts from the testimony of Garnett as & means of showing his unfamiliar- ity with the District prosecution set- up. Jurisdiction of Office. “There is no reason why Mr. Gar- nett should not know the fundamental distinction which exists between the Jjurisdiction of his office and that of the corporation counsel in Juvenile Court,” the report declared. “There is every reason why he should be familiar with the existing practice as vital to deserted wives and chil- dren as this matter is.” This state- ment followed an extract from Gar- nett’s testimony relating to non-sup- port cases, After criticising “undue and inex- cusable delays” in the trial of crim- inal cases, the report recommends that the present rules in both the District Supreme Court and the Police Court be amended to require that cases be disposed of within 30 .days after the return of the indictments. “If continuances beyond such 30-day period were necessary to safeguard either the interest of the gov- ernment or the defendant,” the report declared, “upon application the court may be relied upon to exercise its sound judicial discretion. If there be no good reason for delay, the sound discretion of the court may be equally relied upon to see that the case is set down for early trial.” Conditions in the Police Court and police headquarters are described as deplorable in the report and the recommendation made that modern and adequate .facilities be provided. It also urged that the Woman's Bureau of the Police Department be provided ample facilties in the new police headquarters building. Wrging repeal of the indeterminate sentence and parole law, the com- mittee called attention to the testi- mony of Chief Justice Alfred A. ‘Wheat of District Supreme Court, advocating this change. The report pointed out that Chief Justice Wheat in his testimony emphatically con- demned the existing law and urged a return to the former system, where- ll:y parole was based on the Federal W, Incidentally, the committee paid a glowing tribute to Wilbur LaRoe, jr., chairman of the District Parole Board, and explained that its recom- mendation for repeal of the existing law in no way casts a reflection on him or his associates. On the con- trary, the report said it is desired to relieve the present members of the board of an unfair burden now im- posed upon them. The section of the report dealing with Mr. Garnett follows, in part: 1. Vigorous prosecution needed.—In order to check the growth of crime in the District of Columbia, it is vitally important that all criminal cases be fearlessly, vigorously, and speedily prosecuted. So long as it is possible for criminals of financial means or influence to evade prosecu- tion and delay judgment, crime will continue to increase. 2, Ideal qualifications cited. — The person charged with the grave dutiss n THE EVENING above the rank of captain who have | criminal cases be fearlessly, vigorously | and procedure on a matter which is | STAR, WASHINGTON Upper, left to right: Ma). Brown, Assistant District Attorney Karl mittee of the House: reached 60 years of age. ropolitan Police. satisfactorily. inal cases to early trial. and responsibilities of the United States attorney for the District of Columbia should be (1) an attorney who possesses a creditable record as a trial lawyer; (2) he should have a broad knowledge and thorough un- derstanding of Federal and District of Columbia laws and procedure; (3) he should possess the vigor and energy to personally prosecute dangerous criminals; (4) he should command the confidence and respect of the bench, the bar, his subordinates, and the citizens of the community; (5) he should, by his official conduct and his personal behavior, personify the dignity and the majesty of the law; | (6) he should, by persistent and | adamant prosecution of criminals, symbolize the power of the Govern- ment to condemn and punish enemies of society; (7) he should possess the executive and administrative ability and the qualifications of leadership to organize a capable, hard-working, and efficient staff that would emulate his own courageous and competent conduct. Garnett Removal Urged. 3. Garnett should -be removed.— The immediate replacement of Leslie C. Garnett by a prosecutor possessing the attributes described above, would do as much to reduce the frequency of crime in Washington as would the adoption at this time of any single remedy. Mr. Garnett's testimony before the subcommittee, and the testimony of Mr. Karl W. Kindleberger, clearly in- dicate that the affairs of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbta are being con- ducted without adequate knowledge of the law, without proper or efficient supervision, and minus an attitude conducive to public confidence and re- spect. 4. Condemned by citizens.—Citizens and representatives of organized groups, who testifiled before the sub- committee, either openly criticized Mr. Garnett in his official capacity or con- spicuously failed to indorse his admin- istration of the office. (The repert quotes testimony by James G. Yaden, Mrs. Harvey W. Wiley and Arthur Clarendon Smith.) 5. Bar_association noncommittal.— Mr. H. Winship Wheatley, testifying before the subcommittee in the repre- sentative capacity of president of the District of Columbia Bar Association, was asked for his opinion as to the manner in which Mr. Garnett was conducting the office of the United States attorney. Mr. Wheatley de- clined to commit himself in replying to the question, as indicated by the testimony below. It is regarded as particularly significant that Mr. Wheatley, in his representative ca- pacity, did not wish to make any observations with regard to the prose- cution of criminal cases in this Jurisdiction. Testimony of Mr. Wheatley. Mr. Wheatley’s testimony on this point follows: Q. And T believe you are an officer of the Bar Association of the Dis- trict of Columbia. Mr. - Wheatley—President. e s & . 9 -8 . ‘Mr. Wheatley—I regarded the in- vitation of the committee more or less as a subpena to come. 1t is not quite apparent that any- thing I may know will assist the com- mittee. I am perfectly willing, how- ever, to give you any assistance I can, but it has impressed me the in- quiry was more particularly directed to sociology, criminology, and to the operations of the police than to a lawyer. I am perfectly willing, and I know I speak for every member of our as- sociation (District of Columbia Bar Association), to give you any possible information and assistance we can. Q. Would you care to make any observation with respect to the pros- ecution of criminals here—any ob- servations with respect to the con- duct of the district attorney’s office? Mr. Wheatley—No; because I do not feel that I have the necessary in- formation to give to you one way or the other. All I spy is from the stand- point of a citizen. I have no - ments to make about the district at- tornay's office, beceuss I have ot had' ) High lights of the report of the special Crime Investigating Com- Immediate replacement of United States Attorney Leslie C. Garnett and his Police Court assistant, Karl Kindleberger. Retirement of all police officers above the rank of captain who have Elimination of the Police Departmene from political influence, Abolition of the indeterminate sentence and parole law. Creation of a permanent commission to keep & close check on law enforcement, and prosecution agencies. Construction of a new police headquarters building which will con- tain ample quarters for the Woman's Bureau. Consolidation of the park police force in the District with the Met- Tightening of District gambling laws. Increased penalties for prostitution. Changes in methods of determining promotions in Police Department. Criticizes crime conditions in District and failure of Police Depart- ment to cope with situation, and declares the force is not administered Criticizes ‘United States attorney's office and failure to bring crime Kindleberger, Inspector Bean, Inspector Headley and United States. At- torney Garnett—all recommended for removal. Lower: Representative Jennings Randolph, chairman of the sub- committee, and John R. Fitzpatrick, Chief Recommendations Of Crime Committee committee counsel. the contact with the district attorney's office that probably practitioners have. (8. T, p. 1646.) 6. Women's Bar Association urged Garnett's removal.—The Women's Bar Association of the District of Colum- bia, pursuant to a resolution adopted by that organization, petitioned the President of the United States to re- lieve Mr. Garnett of the duties of the office of the United States attorney for the District of Columbia. (A copy of that resolution may be found in the appendix, exhibit J.) 7. Evidence of incompetence.—Fur- ther substance for the conclusion that Mr. Garnett should be removed from | office because of incompetence is to| be found in the following excerpts | from his testimony before the sub- | committee: 8. Does not know jurisdiction in non-support cases.— Q. What is the distinction between the jurisdiction of your office and, consequently, the jurisdiction of the| Supreme Court of the District and the Jjurisdiction of the Juvenile Court in * * * non-support cases? Mr. Garnett—I do not know. I have never examined the jurisdiction of those courts in cases of non-support on the part of the husband at all. I {mve never had occasion to investigate t. Q. Your office does not handle all non-support, cases in this jurisdiction, does it? Mr. Garnett—Judging by the quan- tities, they do handle a lot, yes (8. T., p. 279). ‘There is no reason why Mr. Garnett should not know the fundamental dis- tinction which exists between the jur- isdiction of his office and that of the corporation counsel in the Juvenile Court. There is every reason why he should be familiar with the existing practice and procedure on a matter which is as vital to deserted wives and children as this matter is. From the resolution adopted by the Women's Bar Association of the Dis- trict of Columbia (see appendix, ex- hibit J), it appears that this type of work was previously handled in the R SPECIAL Beauty Bargains Ringlets Ringlets TONIC OIL PERMANENT WAVE S 8] -50 Look what you get: o Shampoo Before ® Shampoo After © Tonic Oil Wave o Hair Trim ® Finger Wave This brilliant wave conforms to your individuality. This is a very exclusive wave at the price. No rush work . . . Our time is your time. Beaury Box 2! Phone Met. 7. Over Velati's Candy Store NOT a School S | A ] D. ¢, WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1935. district attorney’s office by a woman assistant, but that, at the present time, according to Mr. Garnett’s own admission, he regards the work so lightly that he has turned it over to a police officer, who is performing clerical duties in his office, and who is not a member of the bar (8. T. p. 279). The subcommittee does not con- sider this to be a proper method of enforcing the non-support statute. 9. Wrong on procedure in bad- check casgs.—It is the established practice in the District of Columbia to conduct prosecutions under the bad-check law by way of information in the Police Court, and the fol- | lowing is & further indication of Mr. Garnett’s lack of familiarity with local practice and procedure: Q. You do not indict for bad checks, do you, sir? Mr. Garnett—Oh, yes; we do indict for bad checks. Q. You do indict for bad checks? Mr. Garnett—Yes. Q. Under the bad-check law? Mr. Garnett—Yes; if the amount involved is enough to be a felony. Q. What is the statutory amount? & e e . Mr. Garnett—$35 (8. T. p. 280). Mr. Garnett—I have never prose- cuted a bad-check case in my life. Q. You are familiar with the bad- check statute, are you not? Mr. Garnett—Oh, not particularly ! familiar; I am not familiar with all the criminal laws in effect in the Dis- trict of Columbia (8. T. p. 281). Bad-Check Law. The so-called “bad-check law” is contained in the act of July 1, 1922 (42 Stat. 820, c. 273), and is found in the Code of the District of Colum- bia, complete to March 4, 1929, on page 57, section 264: “Any person within the District of Columbia who, with intent to de- fraud, shall make, draw, utter, or de- | liver any check, draft, or order for| the payment of money upon any bank or other depository, knowing at the time of such making, drawing, utter- ‘ing, or delivering that the maker or drawer has not sufficient funds in or credit with such bank or other de- pository for the payment of such check, draft, or order in full upon its presentation, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punishable by im- prisonment for not more than one | year, or be fined not more than $1,000, or both.” 10. Not familiar with criminal law, Q. * * * What crimes are not sub- ject to probation in the District of Columbia—what felonies? Mr, Garnett—I think murder and treason. If there are any others, I do not know. Committee counsel is | more familiar with the criminal laws in the District than I am * ¢ *. (8. T. p. 300.) 11. Does mnot know what house- breaking statute covers. | Q. When you speak of housebreak- | ing, sir, perhaps the committee would | be interested in knowing just what | our housebreaking statute covers. i Mr. Garnett—Now, you would have | to give me the statute. You are more familiar with that than I am, I am sure. (S. T. p. 301.) | 12. Only three gambling convictions | out of 74 cases. | Q. Well, now, you say there were | 51 indictments and 23 ignoramuses | in gambling cases? Mr. Garnett—Yes, sir. | Q. That makes a total of 74 cases presented to the grand jury? Mr. Garnett—That is right. Q. And out of that group there have been three convictions after trial? Mr. Garnett—Yes, sir. Q. Five * * * pleas of guilty? Mr, Garnett—That is right, two verdicts of not guilty. Q. So that there have been three actual cases won out of 74? Mr. Garnett—By trial by jury; yes. ing trial in these 33 indictments, are they under bond? Mr. Garnett—Yes. Q. What is their activity at the present time? Mr. Garnett—Well, some of them may be gambling at the present time. 1 expect they are; we have not caught them. Q. Then what is it—if they may be gambling, what is the strategic value of not trying to convict them? Mr, Garneft—Well, we may catch them again, and we may catch them again where we have better evidence, (8. T. p. 327.) . 14. Untried gambling cases as much as one year old.—In a memorandum submitted to the subcommittee by Mr. Garnett, under date of February 19, 1935, indictments in some of the gambling cases then still pending were dated as follows: = March 1, 1934; April 18, 1934; May 9, 1934; July 2, 1934; August 1, 1934; August 15, 1934; August 21, 1934; October 1, 1934; November 14, 1934; December 7, 1934; December 14, 1934; December 28, 1934. Such unreasonable delay between indictment and trial will not break up commercialized gambling. * ok k x 18. Has prosecuted only two cases; lost both.— Mr. Garnett—* ® * The number of cases commenced during the fiscal year was 1,244, the number terminated was 1,166, verdicts of guilty, 106; pleas of guilty, 755; acquittals, 49; dismissed on motion, 4; nolled, 192. ‘That is the fiscal year * & Q. In these criminal cases which | we have just listed, in what percent- | age or what number, Mr. Garnett, did | you take an active part yourself? CESi -l S Sl R Mr. Garnett—Only two criminal cases since I have been in the office— Q. What was the disposition of those two cases? Mr. Garnett—They were both ac- quitted —. (S. T. p. 342, 343). 19. Entirely ignorant of Police Court activities ef his own office.— Mr. Garnett—Frankly, I do not go into Police Court at all. I am not fa- miliar with the method of doing busi- ness especially ——. Q. Do your assistants keep a record of all warrant applications? Mr. Garnett—I assume they do—I have never been in my assistant’s of- fice (in the Police Court) but once since I have been district attorney —— (8. T. p. 351, 352). Police Court Situation. Mr. Garnett does not go into Police Court at all, although, according to & written memorandum submitted by Judge Schuldt, presiding judge of the Police Court, during the calendar year of 1934, there were 9374 United | States cases docketed in the Police Court, and all of these cases were | handled by Mr. Garnett's office (8. T. p. 812). 20. Bank cases unduly delayed.— From a memorandum dated Febru- ary 18, 1935, submitted at page 363 | of the stenographic transcript, b | Mr. Garnett, it appears that the fol- | lowing cases arising out of bank trans- actions were still pending as of that | date: | Robert H. Speich and Frank R. Clayton—Charge: Embezzlement and grand larceny; indicted June 28, 1933. | Case has been at issue since Sep- tember 26, 1933. John Cooke Grayson—Charge: Vio- lation of section 37 of the penal code; | indicted June 28, 1933. A demurrer was overruled on Nu-i vember 26, 1934¢. The defendant has not been arraigned. David P. Smith—Charge: Violation | of section 37 of the penal code; in- | dicted June 28, 1933. Case was at issue July 12, 1933. Alexander M. McNeil and Benedict M. McNeil—Charge: Violation of sec- tion 37 of the penal code; indicted June 28, 1933, The first-named defendant has died. A demurrer filed by the second de- | fendant was overruled May 11, 1934. | Edward A. Baker and Clarence S. Baker—Charge: Embezzlement, grand larceny and violation of section 844 of the District of Columbia Code; in= | dicted March 29, 1934, | Edward A. Baker—Charge: Grand larceny; indicted December 14, 1934. | Edward A. Baker—Charge: Embez- | zlement; indicted December 14, 1934. Charles S. Baker—Charge: Embez- zlement; indicted December 13, 1934. | ‘Wade H. Cooper—Charge: Violation | of section 592, title 12, United States“ Code; indicted March 29, 1934. | 21. Does not know how long jurors | Q. At the present time, Mr. Garnett, how long do the petit jurors serve? Mr. Garnett—Three months. Q. I mean the trial jurors. Mr. Garnett—Thirty days and thv’ grand jurors three months. | Q. How long do the petit jurors serve in the Police Court? Mr. Garnett—I think it is the same | time, but I am not sure. Q. Isn't it two weeks? Mr. Garnett—Possibly two, I do not | (S. T. p. 322, 323) 13. Gamblers under bond gamble while awaiting trial, Q. These gamblers that are await- Tal&e Car (] know. (8. T. p. 395.) | The situation as regards jury serv- | ice in Police Court is explained in the | following excerpt from the testimony | of the “Little Tlu'nss" Probably the BIG THINGS themselves if YOU take care It is surprising how an infini produce a gigentic EFFECT, It is said that the malaria germ (so small that it cannot be seen with the naked eye) destoyed the Roman Empire. Are you looking after the Have you outstanding a number of little bills which are wonying you? Might not them into one debt which may be paid off by means of monthly deposits and then keep out of debt? The Monis Plan Bank makes loans for any constructive purpose. One of our officers will gladly discuss your problem with you If you will call by this bank, in your life will take care of of the “LITTLE THINGS.” tesimally small CAUSE will “LITTLE THINGS" in life? it be better to consolidate Morris Plan Bank Under Supervision U. S. Treasury 1408 H Street Northwest of Hon. Judge Gus A. Schudt, presid- ing judge of the Police Court: “We aré the only court in the Dis- trict of Columbia having jury service of only two weeks, while all the other courts have a ‘month, and that causes 8 great deal of trouble and incon- venience to impanel these juries on the firs and fifteenth @t each month. It requires several hours 6 impanel these juries and eliminate those excused, et cetera. I think by all means we ought to have at Teast a menth, like the other courts. (S, T. p. 1809-10.)" 22. Does not know whether or mot defendant has the right to testify at hearings. I — Q. But, Mr. Garnett, the defendant does not- testify in the Police Court, does he? (In preliminary hearings.) Mr. Garnett—He does if he wants Q. He does not have the right. Mr. Garnett—I thopght the; those cases. In my practice Virginia, where we prosecuted i they had & right to testify if"they wanted to. - Q. Isn't it & fact that the defendant in the Police Court does not have a right to testify? Mr. Garnett—That may be true. I do not know what the practice is. (8. T, p. 402.) < Preliminary hearings of those brought into Police Court on felony charges are conducted by a judgey sit- ting as a committing magistrate, If a prima facie case is made out, the judge holds the prisoner for the action of the grand jury; otherwise he is ‘dis- missed. At these preliminary hear- ings, the defendant does not have the right to be heard, but very infrequent- ly may, in the discretion of the court, | be accorded this privilege. The rea- | son for this is quite obviously that | the hearing is not to determine guilt | or innocence and that, consequently | the defendant has .no right to offer | evidence as to his innocence. Testimony on Incompetency. 23. Garnett and Kindleberger found incompetent.—The foregoing dezmledl testimony of Mr. Garnett, contrasted with the inserted facts, proves beyond peradventure that the United States attorney for the District of Columbia is not only incompetent, but that he is indifferent to the responsibilities of his office. ‘With such a person in charge of the prosecution of criminal cases in ‘Washington, it is not possible to af- ford the people of this city the pro- tection against crime for which they pay and to which they are by right in in CRIME PROBE DATA 1S DISCOUNTED Investigation Bureau Says’ Statistics Do Not Hold * Up in Comparison. The House Crime Committee's re- port that Washington's crime rate is “disgracefully high” is based on statistics which the Justice Depart- ment’s Federal Bureau of Investiga~- tion has asserted should not be used in comparing municipal crime rates. - In declaring that figures taken from the department’s “Uniform Crime " Reports” show that Washington “is - second among eight cities of like size™ in number of murders per 100,000 * inhabitants, the committee apparently overlooked & warning by the Federal bureau against such analyses. L& “The Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion,” the last statistical bulletin states, “desires to recommend caution in the use of these figures for the purpose of comparing the amount of crime in one city with the amount in other communities. It is felt that the proper function of the information appearing in the table is to serve as a source of information to the general public in each community regarding the number of major offenses reported by its police de- partment. * * * Generally speaking, however, it is more important to con- sider whether the amount of unknown crime in a given city is increasing or decreasing, in comparison with prior periods, than to attempt comparisons, with the figures for other cities.” Vary in Localities. The bureau points out that crimes reported vary according to local fac- tors affecting law enforcement in va- rious communities. For example, a large number of arrests in one city may mean only that the police in that | city are more efficient in rounding up criminals—not that there is more crime. “It should definitely be remembered entitled. | The subcommittee wishes at this point to emphatically reiterate its opinion that Mr. Garnett should be | removed without delay, and that a | competent official should be ap- pointed to succeed him. There are undoubtedly many faults | | which should be speedily corrected in | | the administration of the various de- partments of the United States at- torney's office. It is the opinion of the subcommittee that the assistant | United States attorney in charge of olice Court, Mr. Karl W. Kindle- berger, is totally unfit for the office he now holds, and that he should be immediately removed. It is not Idcemed necessary to go into the de- | tailed testimony of Mr. Kindleberger. | It was established to the entire satis- | faction of the subcommittee, through ' his testimony and that of other wit- | nesses, that Mr. Kindleberger is | hampered in the proper discharge of | his duties and that he does not com- mand the confidence and respect of the community. 1t is believed that a successor to the | present United States attorney. would, | upon assuming office, reorganize the staff and rid the office of any who may be unfit to continue. 24. Report should be transmitted to the Attorney General.—In behalf of the people of the District of Colum- bia, this report should be officially transmitted to the Attorney General of the United States. that on the whole crime is a com- munity problem,” the bureau an- vounced, “chargeable to the entire community rather than to law en- forcement officials only. For this rea- son the Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion strongly recommends against the use of figures in the following table - as the sole measure of efficiency of a iaw-enforcement organization.” The bureau added that “in examin-: ing a compilation of crime figures for individual communities, it should be borne in mind that in view of the fact: | that the data are compiled by differ- ent record departments, operating un- | der separate and distinct administra-- ive systems, it is entirely possible there may be variations in the prac-- tices employed in classifying com- plaints of offenses.” Report on Robbery. The committee’s report, citing the bureau's bulletins for the first nine* months of 1934, said that Washington also stood first in robbery and grand jarceny and second in burglary and automobile theft, “In proportion to population,” the committee said, “Washington has 2! times as many murders as New York, |and 40 per cent more murders than Chicago.” « | Cities whose crime rate was com- | pared with that of Washington are | Pittsburgh, San Prancisco, Milwaukee, | Buffalo, Minneapolis, New Otleans, Cincinnati and Newark. Last 3 days of Meyers Sale of SCHLOSS Hot- Weather Made to Sell for $15 to $29.50! When a clothing sale brings the response this one has—you know it’s offering values far from usual! Suits are unusual at $12.75 And these Schloss Hot-Weather 1 Tropicals, Kil- larney Homspuns, Featherlites, Linens, Ciltex —single and double breasted, Sizes are not complete now—but values are as great as ever] Every one bears the Schloss Brothers label! 30-Day Charge Service Budget Plan Charge Service Lay-Away Charge Service MENS SHOP 1331 F STREET 2 Hours’ Free Parking, Capital Garage