we have but two cars and only one is available at night as the police department has assigned only one driver to night duty at the house of detention and on this particular night one of our officers and a member of the Board of Children's Guardians had it searching for a missing ward of the board. Judge Sellers stated that soon the juvenile court would take over the children as soon as they were placed in custody. She demanded of Officer Kew why he had not brought in his car. He replied that it was his personal property and that he was off duty at 10 p. m. On Friday, November 13, Mr. Sanford telephoned the woman's bureau for me to appear in court at 10 a. m. as this case was before the court. None of the other Government witnesses were present nor was Officer Kew, the officer in the case. Miss Bayles, the investigator of the court, did not confirm the Government's testimony in that she brought out that a person would have to make an effort to look into the windows of the apartment. Her observations were made during the day. Judge Sellers made some remarks about a confession that had been gotten from (This confession or statement had not been admitted as testimony in the hearing on October 30. A copy had been forwarded, with a copy of our investigation, to be filed in the case to assist the juvenile court in their investigation. This is done as a matter of routine.) -'s attorney stated it had been extorted and in questioning, that fact was brought out that the statement was secured while and I were in the juvenile court building-namely, in Mr. Sanford's office. Judge Sellers said that I had no right to extort a confession from a child, and, further, how dared I do such a thing in the juvenile court, within the range of her vision had she happened to look. It was a shining example of the bungling methods employed by the woman's bureau and a sample of what we could expect from police government-worse than in Russia, where the rights of private citizens were constantly invaded. Not only had I done this thing, but it had been countenanced by the sergeant of the woman's bureau. She asked Mr. Sanford to make a report of the matter to Major Hesse. She asked me if I wanted to say anything, to which I replied in the affirmative. When on the stand, I started to say that the court's investigating seemed to be laboring under a misapprehension as to which room the girls were in when their persons were exposed. The judge cut me off and told me she remembered my testimony. I then stated that -'s statement was not an extortion-that she had made the same statement to me in No. 10 precinct as she had in Mr. Sanford's office, which statement was made prior to the time she was turned over to the court. The judge repeated that it was an extortion, that under no circumstances had I a right to secure a confession from a child; that if I were being taught so, it was wrong, and that she had never heard of such impudence as to get a statement in juvenile court; that I had bungled the case from start to finish. All this was said in the presence of the defendants, their attorneys, and their parents. The decision of October 30 was set aside and the charges of indecent exposure dismissed. The Government, by order of the court, was not represented by counsel either on October 30 or November 13. Mr. Sanford, as chief probation officer, presented the case. FRANCES M. C. BIRD, Mr. BLANTON. Is there any other matter you want to put in evidence, Mrs. Van Winkle? Mrs. VAN WINKLE. And this, which is the reply to Judge Sellers's letter. Mr. BLANTON. That you filed with the commissioners? Mrs. VAN WINKLE. Yes, sir. This is a long letter, but she has inserted hers. Mr. BLANTON. This is the reply that you sent to the commissioners in answer to her letter? Mrs. VAN WINKLE. Yes, sir. Mr. BLANTON. Were you reprimanded in any way by the commissioners? Mrs. VAN WINKLE. Not at all, sir. (The letter referred to is as follows:) EXHIBIT No. 2 JANUARY 5, 1926. For the attention of the Major and Superintendent, Metropolitan Police Department: In reply to the quotation in a copy of a letter written by Judge Kathryn Sellers, bearing date January 2, 1926, and addressed to the commissioners, "section 8 of the act creating the juvenile court of the District of Columbia, passed March 19, 1906," we must remind the major and superintendent that the only persons placed in the house of detention-as the term "placed" implies in Judge Sellers's letter-are those committed by the judge of the juvenile court for further hearing by that court and those committed as witnesses by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. With respect to paragraph 4-policewomen do not form part of the personnel of the house of detention. Judge Sellers fully understands this fact. She spoke in behalf of the house of detention appropriation bill and in behalf of the police department in securing the present building when these questions were an issue before special committees of Congress. Paragraph 5: Children held in the house of detention without juvenile court order who could come within the meaning of this paragraph are fugitive or lost children. An order exists in the Metropolitan police department to the effect that children against whom no charge is to be placed must be immediately turned over to parents or guardians provided such persons are properly identified. There are other individual emergency cases of children who come to our attention through parents or relatives seeking advice and help and who never reach juvenile court because there exists no charges which could be placed against them-the children are difficult and relatives seek our aid in the belief that the children will be helped. Paragraph 6: Money expended for the house of detention each year includes maintenance for personnel, equipment of every description, and all repairs to an old building. (The personnel is taxed at the rate of $300 per person each year.) Appropriation increases are readily warranted when it is taken into account that instead of functioning with officers detailed from the police department and maintained on police department salaries-the house of detention now has its own civilian staff of workers, and that it has developed into a modernly equipped shelter with all facilities for occupation, education, and recreation. Instead of two meals, three meals are now prepared in our own kitchen and served to the children. The tax on the Board of Children's Guardians for sheltering its wards in the house of detention is at the rate of 70 cents per diem for food-lodging and care are not charged. The cases referred to are as follows: Case No. 1214. white: Reported by a woman living in the same apartment house. Complaint, two young girls living under questionable circumstances in apartment 45, 1428 R Street NW., with an old man. June 11, 1924, a policewoman visited the apartment and interviewed the child, who was alone. An investigation revealed that the child was placed in this home as a result of a Baltimore newspaper advertisement which the girl's father answered; the advertiser called to interview the father and as a result her father permitted Catherine to go to live with the man. June 11: Letters were sent to the Family Welfare Association in Balitmore. It was found that Catherine was a Catholic charity case. Meanwhile the man involved became frightened at the investigation and returned the child to her father's home. An investigator of the Catholic charities had the girl brought before the Baltimore juvenile court where she stated she had been sexually abused by the man with whom she had been living in Washington. She was then formally committed to the custody of the court. Physical examination corroborated the child's statement. She was placed in the House of the Good Shepherd in Baltimore until she was wanted by the Washington authorities. The district attorney advised that the man be charged with carnal knowledge. June 18: The girl was returned to Washington by Baltimore juvenile court probation officer. A warrant was issued and the man in the case arrested and released on $2,000 bond. June 19: Physical examination of the girl was made at the house of detention. June 25: Case tried in police court. Preliminary hearing waived. June 27: Letters sent to the Baltimore juvenile court requesting that Catherine be permitted to remain here until the trial. June 30: The probation officer answered that Catherine be detained. Quote from her letter as follows: "I know Catherine will be well cared for in detention. I expect to leave for my vacation on August 15 to be gone until the middle of September. If the case does not come up before I leave, I will appreciate your holding Catherine until my return." July 28: Grand jury hearing. The doctor's statement had no value. He confused the facts with those of another case. The district attorney advised that the girl remain in Washington and to call the physician again in order to examine her. No report after many solicitations as to action by the grand jury. September 24: The girl returned to Baltimore. Grand jury indictment remained unsigned and all of the work involved counted for nothing. December 4, 1925: The girl was brought from the District of Columbia House of the Good Shepherd where she had been placed by the Baltimore court to testify before another grand jury. The indictment was signed December 14, 1925. The girl was immediately returned to the House of the Good Shepherd. Case No. 2, 14, white: was arested by Pvt. P. Chipman May 17, 1925. Witness in carnal knowledge case against who was held in jail in default of bond. She was ordered held and committed by the United States Commissioner Hitz in default of $1,000 bond on September 22. Her aunt reported the girl and investigation disclosed home conditions were bad. Girl's mother dead. This office on May 19 got in touch with the authorities in Virginia and brought these facts to their attention. September 11, 1925, Judge W. C. Tayloe, Westmoreland County, advised that immediately upon her release by the district court he would commit to the State board of public welfare. held as United States witness until 14th day of October. October 15, 1925, Judge Tayloe was notified the girl was ready to be turned over to his court. The letter was unanswered. On October 26 another letter was sent. November 3 a representative arrived from Judge Tayloe's court and the girl was taken into his custody. Case No. 3, 16, white: August 13, 1925, was arrested on complaint ôf her grandmother, who is also her guardian. The girl at that time was living with a married man, who had deserted his wife and child in Lynchburg, Va. He was charged with violation of the Mann Act, and the girl, upon order of the district attorney, was held as the complaining witness. The case was tried October 19, the jury disagreeing as to the verdict. The girl was sent back to the house of detention pending a second trial, which was scheduled for November 18. During her detention correspondence was carried on with the Virginia State Welfare Board to the end that the girl might be properly dealt with and cared for after her release. Arrangements were made by telephone with Judge William C. Williams, of Orange County, Va., for the delivery of to him on December 16, 1925. She was made a ward of Judge Williams's court. Case No. 4, 16, white: This girl was held as complaining witness in a carnal knowledge case to be tried in Virginia. The social worker for Arlington County, Mrs. Jacobs, requested that be allowed to stay in the house of detention until the trial. As Arlington County has no proper detention facilities for juveniles, we felt that it was for the best interest of the girl that she be cared for in Washington. Virginia has always rendered any service requested of them by the woman's bureau, and as a matter of courtesy we extended this privilege. December 12, 1925, girl released to Department of Justice agent and Mrs. Jacobs, welfare worker, Arlington County. See letter to Commissioner Fenning from the Department of Justice with relation to this case. Case No. 5, white, 12: Miss Davies, county social worker for Montgomery County, called the sergeant of the woman's bureau to request shelter for this boy, who had been ordered held by the judge of the court at Rockville pending arrangements for placement by Miss Davies. This child was of low-grade mentality and had been a serious problem in the county due to his mania for setting fire to buildings, but neither Miss Davies nor the judge felt that they should hold him in jail-the only place of detention the county had. While arrangements for the child were in progress Miss Davies resigned her position as county social worker, the plans for the boy were changed, and the judge consented to the new plan made by the persons who took over her work. It was through those persons that the boy was placed in the Central Union Mission of this city, and at their expense. The woman's bureau had no part in the handling of this child's case except that the sergeant acting in the absence of the lieutenant accepted the boy for the Rockville court, and on the order of that court released him to the agent of the Central Union Mission. The sergeant unofficially expressed to Miss Knight, the social worker who temporarily filled in for Miss Davies, the opinion that this arrangement for the boy was certainly most unadvisable, and Miss Knight did delay the transfer of the boy several days, but was unable to get the other persons interested and the judge to commit the child to the Maryland institution, which usually cared for this type of case. Case No. 6, colored, 15: On June 17 at 9.55 a. m. Mrs. Catlett, of the schoolattendance office, telephoned the sergeant of the woman's bureau, stating that the mother of this girl was in her office and wanted the woman's bureau to come for and take her to the house of detention and hold her until arrangements were completed to place her in the House of Good Shepherd in Baltimore. Further questioning brought out the fact that's sister was on probation to the juvenile court and that the mother was acting on the advice of Mrs. Whitfield, probation officer. The sergeant explained to Mrs. Catlett that she would have to take the matter up with the court and to tell the mother to return home to await word from us. The sergeant then communicated with Miss Ezekiel, assistant chief probation officer, regarding the case. Miss Ezekiel stated that -'s older sister was on probation to the court but had only had an unofficial hearing and had been referred to the Juvenile Protective Association for supervision, and advised the sergeant to call the Juvenile Protective Association and find out their wishes in the matter. Communication was then had with Miss Coulson, field worker of the Juvenile Protective Association. Miss Coulson was extremely glad that — 's mother had finally come to this decision, and advised that the woman's bureau lose no time in taking the girl into custody, as the situation in the girl's home was most unsatisfactory. The sergeant, therefore, directed Mrs. Burwell, colored officer in the women's bureau, to go home and if she still wished held pending transfer to the House of Good Shepherd to bring her to the house of detention. Miss Ezekiel was again communicated with and asked whether she would have her probation officer make the arrangements for the physical and mental examinations of the girl required before she could be admitted to the House of Good Shepherd. Miss Ezekiel felt that this should be done by the women's bureau and agreed to see Mr. Sanford about furnishing the woman's bureau with certain family history which was necessary for the mental examination and which the court already had in its files. The girl was brought to the house of detention by Mrs. Burwell. The court failed either to furnish or to notify the bureau that it could not furnish the facts needed, which caused considerable delay in getting appointments for the girl's examinations. The relatives who had promised to furnish the monthly payments for the girl's care at the House of the Good Shepherd had some difficulty in agreeing on the amount, which caused additional delay. Finally, however, arrangements were completed to take to Baltimore on the morning of Saturday, August 15, an officer of the woman's bureau to accompany her. The mother arrived at the bureau promptly, but was worried because on her arrival the preceding afternoon shehad found a forthwith summons to appear in juvenile court. It had been too late then and she did not know what to do about it. The sergeant then called the juvenile court and talked with Miss Boyland, then case supervisor, who stated that Mr. Sanford wanted the mother and girl in court for a hearing. The sergeant asked why such action had been taken without notifying the bureau, since the court had requested the bureau to handle the case, and further informed Miss Boyland that the arrangements had been completed to take the girl to Baltimore, the mother having even secured an automobile in which to make the trip and which she now had waiting. Miss Boyland then agreed to take the matter up with Mr. Sanford immediately and notify the bureau of the court's wishes. She telephoned the sergeant that it was satisfactory to the court for the mother to proceed with her plan and that she need not appear in answer to the summons. The girl was then taken to the House of the Good Shepherd. Case No. 7, white, 15: Sister, complainant. July 18, 1925, girl was brought to the house of detention by her sister, when her brother-in-law refused to keep her in his home because of her bad conduct. Her sister sought shelter for through the woman's bureau hoping that her husband would change his mind and give another chance. July 25, Mrs. decided to send ing to pay $25 per month. to St. Joseph's or St. Rose's. Will July 27, St. Rose's refused to take the girl. St. Joseph's would take her through Catholic Charities only. Catholic Charities would not recommend because of conduct. July 29, mental examination by Doctor Lynn. August 3, girl to Doctor Lynn's clinic. August 20, because no school would take the girl, guardianship by the board was advised by the woman's bureau. Papers were filed but Mrs. August 25, Mrs. family may file such Juvenile court ordered papers). filed incorrigibility papers in juvenile court (only to go to the Board of Children's Guardians for a while. She withdrew the incorrigibility charge. September 5, Mr. relented; agreed to allow Ruth to make home with them. Since the girl was destitute and Mrs. had withdrawn the incorrigibility charge, the only possible action was to release the girl to her sister, Mrs. This was the correct adjustment, because the family is able to support her and the only reason for bringing the girl to the house of detention was that Mr. would reconsider and permit Ruth to remain with her family. Case No. 8, white, 16: August 11, 1925, referred by the Associated Charities as fugitive from parents. Held at the request of the Associated Charities until they could, by correspondence, determine the best thing for the girl. Parents separated, making much correspondence by the Associated Charities necessary before a plan could be made for sending Mildred to her mother. Correspondence indicated that the girl was a serious problem. The case was handled entirely by the Associated Charities. The cases as outlined hereinbefore are in reply to paragraphs 7 and 8 of Judge Sellers's letter. It is to be noted that in choosing cases of children alleged to have been held illegally in the house of detention Judge Sellers has avoided any mention of the various children held in the house of detention by request of the Bureau of Catholic Charities, the Traveler's Aid, the Juvenile Protective Association, and others, although the court has had the same opportunity to know of the activities of those organizations as of the work of the woman's bureau. It would seem that Judge Sellers is following the usual course in Washington of building up one organization at the expense of another without true regard to the best interests of the community. A house of detention is not a lockup in the social meaning of the term. Just as the juvenile court was contemplated for the protection of those who need its guidance, so houses of detention were established for the protection and safety of those who are detained. Detention homes are not considered by social workers as institutions, but are generally a unit belonging to some social agency-to the county-court system, to a juvenile court, or to the police department. In the District of Columbia drunken women are taken to Gallinger Hospital. Shoplifters, almost without exception, never reach the girls' department. Most of the shoplifters are of better moral character than the girls who are detained. Strict supervision is maintained in the cases of prostitution; usually juveniles are the most flagrant offenders. Adult prostitutes are kept apart from the children. Occupation, education, and recreation so completely fill the lives of the juvenile inmates that there is little time for mischief. Lodgers are a special class for which the police make special provision. A record is kept in a special book, separate and distinct from the house of detention record and the woman's bureau blotter. The lodgers are provided for in quarters separate from the delinquents. The Washington house of detention was established August, 1900, by the police department, six years before the creation of the juvenile court. It has remained under the jurisdiction of the police since that time. In September, 1920, it moved into the present quarters at 1445 Ohio Avenue and a new staff of civilian workers was appointed. General supervision was transferred from the sergeant who had been in charge for many years to the lieutenant in charge of the woman's bureau because it was felt best to have an officer with special training and experience in the care of children responsible for the conduct of this shelter. The woman's bureau and the house of detention are two |