Page images

in the case of the electrical industry, where there have been convictions for price fixing?

Are there grounds on which the Government would attempt to recover for overcharges to the Government!

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, and we have notified them in a number of cases already. We will institute suits within about 45 days on a number of cases.

We would hope that the savings to the Government will be quite considerable.

Mr. Sikes. This runs into a very considerable sum, does it not ?

Mr. KENNEDY. Certainly millions of dollars. The price fixing involves items in the billions of dollars over the period of the last 6 or 7 years. We are working on that at the present time and we hope in some instances to be able to collect double damages, not treble as private companies collect on this kind of matters, but on a contract basis we may be able to collect double. We are working on that now. It is difficult to find out what the whole picture is, but we are working on a number of those cases.


In addition to that, we shall have to set up a special unit to work with State and local governments. Because the investigation was conducted by the Federal Government and because these people plead guilty, the facts involved in these matters were never made public. They just came in. In broad, general outline the local governments and the communities understand what was done on an overall picture, but they do not understand the details. They do not know how it affected them. They are all now coming streaming in to Washington, coming in to our Antitrust Division and asking for information as to how they can also collect, and they should have the right to collect in many cases treble damages. I feel it is incumbent upon us to cooperate and help and assist those people as much as possible.

A number of them will want a list of witnesses. We cannot give them, of course, the grand jury testimony. They have asked for the list of witnesses, which is really up to the court. We are going to the court and say we will not oppose it and will be glad to give it to them with the court's permission. They will be able to move somewhat on their own. In addition, we shall supply them whatever information we can properly supply them. In order to cooperate with them and handle our own responsibilities for the Federal Government, the TVA suits, the Army and the Navy, the Atomic Energy, and all other departments, we shall have to set up a special unit to work on all these cases.


Mr. SIKES. Some of the publications have recently contained articles on one individual who presently is residing in Brazil who is wanted in this country for stock company manipulations, which apparently are fraudulent manipulations. Will the sort of thing for which he is accused be more difficult under the program which you have discussed with us?

Mr. ROONEY. That is a matter of extradition.


Mr. SIKES. I am not speaking of extradition. Under the operation of your department of government, will there be new legislation or a particular effort to make the sort of stock company manipulation of which this man is accused more difficult to accomplish?

Mr. KENNEDY. No, it will not make it more difficult. This is getting to be a greater problem in the United States over the last 3 or 4 years. The Criminal Division handles that. That would not be in the area of the drive on organized crime which I have discussed, but certainly we shall not ignore that area. I have had a number of conferences about that problem.





One of the other great problems in the United States, rather interestingly, is the question of bank frauds. It would appear, any- . way, that the steps being taken now to insure that the moneys in banks are protected from internal thefts are not adequate. The bank examiners have gone into a number of banks across the United States and have been examining them every year, and yet there have been thefts taking place that they have never uncovered amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and out in the Midwest amounting to more than a million dollars. There have been more of those over the period of the last 2 or 3 years, really almost to an alarming extent. I have had some conversations with the Federal Reserve Board, Mr. Martin, and brought this to his attention. We shall try to work on it together, because that is the great problem. It is not just coming

Washington with a gun and stealing, but the trusted bankowner and the respected citizen who works at the bank are the ones who are getting by with all of this money. It is a very serious thing.

Mr. Sikes. I do not see how it is possible under present bank examination policies to hide a theft of $2 million over a period of years.

Mr. KENNEDY. Congressman, over the period of just the last 30 days you have read in the newspapers about a number of bank thefts which have occurred throughout the United States.

Mr. SIKES. And it has been going on for years and years. I do not see how it could possibly be kept from the bank examiners.

Mr. KENNEDY. For the most part they add up all of the columns of figures and make sure they add up to the same amount as the column of figures over here. They do not go behind any of these things. They explained that they do not have the time to do that. If many more of these occur, people will start putting it together and will start losing confidence. In some of these communities where everybody's funds and money are in the bank, insured up to $10,000, if the bank goes under it has a tremendous effect on the whole community. I think it deserves a good deal of attention.

Mr. SIKES. I think so, too.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Marshall ?

Mr. KENNEDY. Could I inject here, for instance, this woman who stole all that money out in Iowa received a sentence which the papers reported as 15 years but actually amounts to 5 years. Then she will be out again. It seems to me that is not an adequate penalty under those circumstances.

Mr. Rooney. Five years in prison is a long time.


Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Attorney General, I listened with a great deal of interest to your fine presentation to the committee this morning. I note that you are moving into the field of doing something about juvenile delinquency by establishing guidance centers. Do you contemplate bringing parents into the picture insofar as your guidance work?

Mr. KENNEDY. The great problem, Congressman, in most of these cases, of course, is that the vast majority do not have two parents. You hear a good deal about the fact that the parents should take care of it. For the most part, these children do not have parents. They might have one parent.

For instance, in Chicago, of those who were convicted in juvenile courts in 1959, 75 or 80 percent did not have a father. That is an extremely high figure. We will try to bring them in as we can, but many of the youths will be pretty much on their own. That is, of course, a great problem.

Mr. MARSHALL. What do you do about the 20 percent who do have parents ?

Mr. KENNEDY. We shall take steps to bring parents into the picture wherever possible. That is part of the program. I just wanted to point out the majority of them do not have parents who we can deal with. Where they do have parents, we shall bring them in.

Mr. MARSHALL. I have a very good friend who has been county attorney and also probate judge for quite a number of years in a county in my district, who pointed out to me that during the time he has been in office he never had a delinquent child from a family where the family life was satisfactory.

Mr. KENNEDY. I think you can see that in the United States as a whole. The Chinese and Japanese, who have very strong family feelings, have relatively few juvenile delinquents. In many of the Jewish communities where there is strong family life, there is less juvenile delinquent crime than in others. I do not think there is any question that that is one of the great points.


Mr. MARSHALL. Have you many cases pending in the labor-management field?

Mr. KENNEDY. We have had a relatively few sent over from the Labor Department. Of course, they are just getting started. I would not say that there was a great number, no. I was trying to think how many there were. I think we have only four or five in the Department at the present time which arose out of the Landrum-Griffin bill.

Mr. MARSHALL. It is such an insignificant amount that you have not seen fit to ask for an increased amount in this budget for that purpose ?

Mr. KENNEDY. No. It has not been necessary at least to the present time.


Mr. MARSHALL. It has been called to our attention that in some of the courts-if my recollection is correct, the Court of Claims one of the problems has been the lack of cases coming up from the Department of Justice. Have you any knowledge of that situation and are you doing something to correct that?

Mr. KENNEDY. You will have somebody here from the Civil Division who can get into that. I had not heard that, but will look into it. We will have Mr. Orrick here, and I will tell him to have an answer to that question when he appears. I had not heard that.

Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Bow?


Mr. Bow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Attorney General, have you had an opportunity to go through this budget sufficiently that you feel the budget as submitted is adequate at this time?

Mr. KENNEDY. In general terms.
Mr. Bow. With the exceptions which you have pointed out?

Mr. KENNEDY. In general terms, I do. I have had each one of the President's appointees to the heads of these divisions make studies of it, and I have had some consultations and conferences with them and the first assistants. It seems to me it is adequate. I do not have the knowledge and information I would hope to have a year from

Mr. Bow. Have the heads of any of the divisions pointed out to you any areas in which reductions could be made in this budget presentation ?

Mr. KENNEDY. They have not.



Mr. Bow. I note in your opening statement, Mr. Attorney General, you make the statement you have not had a chance to familiarize yourself with the details, but you do say you are interested in having sufficient funds to carry on the present level of work and to finance expanded and more aggressive programs in the field of civil rights. Then on page 5 of your statement you state: As of now, the Civil Rights Division should be able to take care of its present volume of work in view of the increase allowed after the recent amendments to the Civil Rights Act.

Would you explain to us just what more aggressive programs you intend to have in the field of civil rights?

Mr. KENNEDY. I think a great deal more could be done in the voting field than has been done in the past for one reason or another.

Mr. Bow. Have you some plans to go forward with that?

Mr. Bow. How about the segregation cases, such as New Orleans and other areas?

Mr. KENNEDY. We have been working on that very hard over the period of the last 10 days. These things are never finally settled, but I think we have achieved a very satisfactory result, the result being that the Governor has in fact recognized and the legislature has in fact recognized the fact that these two schools will be operated on a desegregated basis. The teachers are all being paid now as of yesterday, including the teachers from these two schools. That is what the argument and fight has been over the period of the last few months. We have kept the pressure. We indicated to them down there that the Department of Justice was going to back up the Court, that the Federal Government was going to use its full power to insure that the Court decisions were carried out, and that we would follow up contempt cases where there has been contempt of court and bring those before the court and let them be adjudicated.

I think these conversations and the strong position that the Government took over the period of the last 10 days has had a very salutary effect.

I do not wish to come here, Congressman, and say that is the end of the problem in New Orleans, because we shall have more problems in September. We shall have more problems in other places in Louisiana, come next year, and we shall have more problems in all of the States wherever this is a very sensitive problem and difficulty.

Mr. Bow. You make reference to a more aggressive program. Can you cite some areas where you expect to have this more aggressive program?

Mr. KENNEDY. We have 14 or 15 counties in the United States where there are more Negroes than white people, and yet not one Negro is registered. We have in many instances complaints that Negroes have attempted to register to vote in an election where there have been problems and difficulties created for them in their attempt to vote. We intend to take whatever steps can be taken and should be taken under the law to insure that they have the right to vote.

I have had a number of conversations and conferences with the leadership of many of these States where this is a problem. When I have pointed out to them that in a certain county or a certain area it would appear that the Negroes were discriminated against, in a number of instances they have indicated they themselves would take steps to insure that the Negro is permited to register. Where they will take the steps themselves, where we can do it on an amicable basis, this will be done and kept out of the courts; but where steps will not be taken by the local authorities or by the States, we ourselves will have to move.

Mr. Bow. But, as you know, as you state on page 5 of your statement, you believe there are sufficient funds to take care of the work that you anticipate under this stepped-up program you have indicated?



Mr. Bow. I would like to say for the record that in the hearings last year, Mr. Bicks off the record as I recall it-spelled out this Electrical Antitrust case to us and it was a rather fantastic statement he made. I had some question in my mind, but the results have been magnificent, I think, in that case. I think Mr. Bicks and those on your

, . present staff who took a part in those cases should be complimented for a very excellent result in those proceedings.

Mr. KENNEDY. I agree heartily.
Mr. Bow. I hope we continue to press this.

Mr. Rooney. This was more a matter of investigative success, was it not, and gross negligence on the part of the defendants?

Mr. KENNEDY. I think always that plays a role, but also he did a fine job.

« PreviousContinue »