Mrs. KALMBACH. She was only a poor, ignorant, colored woman. That is just the trouble. The other case will show how ignorance comes in. This is a dependent case. The mother was sitting there, pleading that her children be turned over to the Board of Guardians because she was destitute and had no means of support sufficient to care for these children. There was a list of the children in the petition and their names and it mentioned another child, a boy nine years old, whose name was not in this petition. The judge said to her, "What boy is that? Who is he?" She said, "Well, he is my child." The judge said, "Well, where is he?" The mother said, "In the house of detention." The judge asked, "How long has he been there?" I will have to get my notes to give you the exact facts about the time, but he had been there a week or more. He had been there long enough for us to be worried about him. Why was he there? Mr. GIBSON. Just a minute. You said you were worried about him. He was being well taken care of, wasn't he? Mrs. KALMBACH. Absolutely. Mr. HAMMER. The slaves in the South were well taken care of. Mrs. KALMBACH. Under a school teacher that the parents and teachers organization put there. I am not saying that the house of detention is not run well. That is not my contention. But he was held in jail because his mother took him there. Now, his mother took him there because she was so ignorant and because she didn't have any bed for him to sleep in and he was still there. But the court would never have known about him if he hadn't been in the petition with the other children to be turned over to the Board of Guardians. Do you realize that he was there with delinquent children, when he had done nothing wrong? Mr. GIBSON. The mother had taken him there. Mrs. KALMBACH. The mother had taken him there; yes. Would you, just because they are so ignorant, say that these things are all right? Would you say that if it was your child? Mr. HAMMER. The objection, as I understand it, is that the record was not sent over to the court so that the court would know about this child. Mrs. KALMBACH. That is it. The child was not known to the court; that boy's name was not known to the court. That is all that I need to take up. Mr. GIBSON. Have you any other cases here? Mrs. KALMBACH. I have a notebook full of them. Mr. HAMMER. Judge Gibson is one of the finest men that I have ever seen. He doesn't mean to embarrass you in the least. Mrs. KALMBACH. It only grated on me when this child was taken to the house of detention without the knowledge of the court. It is a jail; it is a lock-up. It doesn't matter whether it is clean or whether they have better meals than I have; I would not want my child there unless he had gotten into trouble and needed to be there. Mr. GIBSON. What we wish to know is how many of those cases similar to the one you have described you know of. Mrs. KALMBACH. I would not like to state that without going carefully over my records. I had a complete record of every case that I heard in those years and I still have them. I could find out the number. I don't think there are a great number. There is one thing that we want changed just for principle and that is that the court can not commit a child over 16 years of age to the Board of Guardians. I think I heard only two cases in all those four years-one a colored girl and one a white girl-who had to be committed to the National Training School for Girls because they could not be committed to the Board of Guardians. But it seems to me that even though there were only these two girls in all these four years, it seems to me that something was wrong, because it does not matter how many there are, if there were only these two cases I told you about, the injustice is done to two children; and we are interested in all the children in the District of Columbia. Mr. GIBSON. Do you know of any more than two? Mrs. KALMBACH. Yes; I do. Mr. GIBSON. How many more do you know of? Are there ten or a dozen or a hundred? Mrs. KALMBACH. Oh, I would not say that there are a hundred. I would say half a dozen in the four years that we questioned. Mr. GIBSON. How many cases did the women's bureau handle during those four years? Mrs. KALMBACH. I could not state that. They could tell you from the record. It was a large number. Mr. GIBSON. Several thousand? Mrs. KALMBACH. Yes; but I think that my point is still good, even if it were only one out of several thousand. It seems to me that even then we would object. Mr. GIBSON. Out of several thousand cases that the woman's bureau has handled, you think that there may be half a dozen cases of irregularity? Mrs. KALMBACH. I know that there are more than that, but I would not like to state except as to the ones that I have heard. I say that I would not care to state more than half a dozen, because they would illustrate all of my points. Mr. GIBSON. Don't you think that that is a record of efficiency in management when you don't find more than half a dozen out of several thousand? Mrs. KALMBACH. No. I think that if there is one child held illegally it is time some one woke up to it. If one is held, how many more can be held? I don't think it is a fair argument at all. We are interested in all of them. Mr. GIBSON. In these cases the parents did not complain, did they? Mrs. KALMBACH. It is a matter of opinion, of course. All of us make mistakes. You say that it is a small matter, but I say that it is a flagrant one when they do not report the cases. It seems to me that that is not just a mistake on somebody's part; it is an intentional thing. Mr. GIBSON. Do you think that Mrs. Van Winkle has intentionally done these things? Mrs. KALMBACH. Through a mistaken idea of what she considers to be right. She believes she is doing right in doing these things. We object to her holding girls or boys because their mother is too ignorant to know what to do with them. I consider that the court should determine what should be done. Mr. GIBSON. You would favor taking all such girls before the court and having a court record made of them? Mrs. KALMBACH. Absolutely; I would. Mr. HAMMER. If the statute required it. Mrs. KALMBACH. If the statute required it. Because a court record would not have to be made in every case, because if it was a very minor offense it would never go to the judge. The juvenile court would probably not have the child in custody very long and spend its time on it; it would have the probation officer look after the child. Mr. HAMMER. Have you any other case? Mrs. KALMBACH. No. Mr. HAMMER. You said that there was a white child that in mind. you had Mrs. KALMBACH. I mentioned the case, but it does not pertain to the policewomen's law. I mentioned it in connection with my remarks about the court not being permitted to commit a child to the board of guardians when it is over 16 years old. Mr. HAMMER. What I want to know is whether that house of detention is clean or dirty Mrs. KALMBACH. It is very clean. Mr. HAMMER. I know it is clean. That is not the question. They are detained there unlawfully. The question is, Do they get warrants for them, as they are required to do, for their detention? They are not only detained for observation but they are detained for 30 days sometimes. I don't know any State in this Union that permits any such conduct as they do. Mrs. KALMBACH. I think the case of the little colored girl illustrates that point very clearly. Mr. RATHBONE. I desire to call your attention to the fact that it is now pretty nearly 12 o'clock, and under the rules of the House we will not be allowed to sit any longer than that if a point of order is made. It is not possible. I take it, to close the hearings to-day. Are there many Mrs. KALMBACH. There are several others who want to be heard. Mr. RATHBONE. That desire to appear in opposition to the bill? Mr. HAMMER. Most of the time in the hearings that we have had has been given to the proponents of the bill. I do not believe that we can get too much information from such unprejudiced witnesses as this lady. This lady seems to be absolutely fair, and so does Mrs. Rafter. If the welfare bill which has just been enacted covers certain things which will overlap the activities and duties coming under this bill, I think it is important for us to have these people point out wherein they think the overlapping will occur. I would be glad to have another session here to-morrow. Mr. RATHBONE. What is the pleasure of the committee? Mr. HAMMER. I move that, if there is no objection, we have another hearing to-night or to-morrow morning. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. RATHBONE. We will have another meeting here to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. I want to call everybody's attention to the fact that a decision must be made on this matter one way or the other, and it ought to be done within some reasonable time. We ought to conclude this thing pretty soon. The session is drawing along and we don't want this matter just to end in air. We would like to give the opponents one hour and a half or two hours and then let the proponents have another time, if they want it. The understanding is that the hearings are to be closed to-morrow? Mr. HAMMER. No. I want full consideration. It might appear that we ought not to close them to-morrow. Mr. RATHBONE. We will adjourn until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. (Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the subcommittee adjourned until 10 o'clock a. m. Friday, March 26, 1926.) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES The subcommittee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Henry R. Rathbone (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. RATHBONE. A quorum being present, we will proceed. The opponents of this bill, to establish a woman's police bureau, still have the right of way. Does some opponent of the bill desire to be heard at the present time? STATEMENT OF MRS. WILLIAM E. CHAMBERLIN, WASHINGTON, D. C., REPRESENTING THE HOUSEKEEPERS' ALLIANCE AND THE TRAVELERS' AID Mrs. CHAMBERLIN. I am not an opponent of the bill; I am simply objecting to certain features of it. I represent the Housekeepers' Alliance and the Travelers' Aid. Mr. RATHBONE. In the District of Columbia? Mrs. CHAMBERLIN. Oh, surely. Mr. RATHBONE. All right. We will be in order, please. Mrs. Chamberlin, will you give us the benefit of your views on this measure? Mrs. CHAMBERLIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say first that I am in favor, and I think most local women are, of having a policewoman's bureau established by law. We simply object to certain provisions of the bill which are not clear to us. If anybody knows what this section 4 (a) means, I would be glad to get a definition of it, because I haven't been able to find anybody who can tell me what it means. I will read it to you: The functions of the woman's bureau shall be exclusively police functions and shall include preventive-protective work. I haven't the slightest idea what is meant to be covered here in that phrase. To me it covers in everything. To my mind it covers in the work which is now being done by all the welfare agencies, both public and private. Mr. BLANTON. Do you want me to tell you what it covers? Mrs. CHAMBERLIN. I don't understand just what preventive-protective work covers in; and I think it is extremely important, before the bill is enacted into law, that the welfare agencies should know where they stand in relation to the policewomen. Mr. BLANTON. May I tell you Mrs. CHAMBERLIN. I don't think they know at the present time where they stand. Judging from things which have happened in the past, I feel that it is exceedingly necessary that there should be a real definition of what it means. Mr. BLANTON. May I tell you what I have always understood it to mean? Mrs. CHAMBERLIN. Surely. Mr. BLANTON. It is protective work with respect to young girls that prevents them from sliding into wrong-doing before they slide. It is not so much for the young girl who is here under the jurisdiction of her mother and her family and her friends; it is for the girl who is thrown on her own resources. If a policewoman finds that she is going out on Rock Creek Road every night with some one and the policewoman thinks that she can keep that poor girl out of temptation by making a suggestion to her and so on, I understand that to be preventive-protective work. I may be wrong, but that is what I have always understood it to mean. Am I right? Mrs. MINA C. VAN WINKLE. Yes. Mrs. CHAMBERLIN. Where is the line of demarcation between the work of the public-welfare agencies and the private agencies and the policewomen? Who is going to know which case belongs to which? It will cause endless confusion. Mr. BLANTON. No policewoman is ever going to interfere with your girls, where you are living with them here; but where there is some girl who has not a family and friends for protection, the policewoman tries to afford some protection to her here. We have hundreds of poor girls here in Washington who are trying to make a living, who are here from the Pacific coast, Texas, the Rio Grande, the great Northwest, and the great Northeast, down here in Washington by themselves, thrown on their own resources. It is to throw some kind of safeguard around those poor girls that this provision is put in this bill, as I understand it. Mrs. CHAMBERLIN. What I want is further elaboration of this provision, so that we may know just what is the jurisdiction of the policewomen and what is the jurisdiction of the welfare agencies. Mr. BLANTON. Have you any suggestions to make? Mrs. CHAMBERLIN. We have just passed a public-welfare measure covering all those things. They are now being handled by the various public-welfare agencies. Just how far are the policewomen going to handle these things and how far are the welfare people going to handle them? This is a blanket provision which covers in all this work. Mr. BLANTON. Have you any suggestions to make? Mrs. CHAMBERLIN. I would like to read something from the report of the Public Welfare Commission and to call your attention to the fact that the bill rejected last year was practically the same as this bill. It is not the same in every individual word but in its general principles it is essentially the same bill. It was originally introduced last year and aroused a storm of protest. Mr. BLANTON. Before you go into that Mrs. CHAMBERLIN. Just a minute, Mr. Blanton. Mrs. Van Winkle accepted certain amendments publicly in two places-at a hearing before a joint committee of the House and Senate and also before the Public Welfare Commission last year. Those amendments, as |