Mrs. BYLER. I think the women police should arrest women and take care of women.

Mr. BLANTON. Don't you think that the members of the Parents and Teachers Association would help us to get better conditions in Washington if they would refrain from acrimonious criticisms of individuals who may be making mistakes but who are trying to do their duty?

Mrs. BYLER. It is a question of the bill. We have not wanted to make this personal at all.

Mr. BLANTON. But if you would just take any woman that you want in Washington and put her in charge of this police bureau and house of detention, you would have just as much criticism about her from certain quarters as you have now.

Mrs. BYLER. All right.

Mr. BLANTON. There are always people who criticize other people for doing their duty. I have been criticized all my life for doing my duty.

Mrs. BYLER. We are here to criticize nobody primarily. We are objecting to the principle underlying this bill.

Mr. BLANTON. Abraham Lincoln was the most criticized man in the world.

Mr. RATHBONE. Pretty close to it.

Mrs. BYLER. I am not criticizing anybody. I am objecting to the powers given in this bill to the policewomen wherever they apply to children.

Mr. GIBSON. Do I understand you to say that you represent the Parents and Teachers Association?

Mrs. BYLER. Yes.

Mr. GIBSON. Have they had a meeting recently on this matter? Mrs. BYLER. Yes. We have sent you a communication with the resolution passed by our association.

Mr. GIBSON. They have actually taken affirmative action on this bill?

Mrs. BYLER. Yes. We approve of the bill, leaving out the children. We disapprove of the sections in regard to children.

Mr. RATHBONE. Mr. Blanton is anxious to leave. Are there any other witnesses? May I ask that if it is possible to conclude the statement of the opposition at this time, we should like to do it. Are there any other people in opposition to this bill who wish to be heard?

Mrs. KALMBACH. I think that there are several.

Mr. GIBSON. Are they cumulative? That is, have they the same objections as those who have testified or have they something new, something in addition?

Mrs. KALMBACH. Of course, a great deal of time is taken up on the same lines, but it seems to me that every witness brings out a little different thing. Now, for instance, I think Mrs. Byler introduced something new about that pretty women idea.

Mr. GIBSON. That has nothing to do with the bill.

Mrs. KALMACH. Well, it has something to do with it.

Mr. BLANTON. I have in mind rewriting section 4 so that it will suit both you and Mrs. Van Winkle.

13971-26-11

Mrs. BYLER. We would be glad to have you do that. We could rest our case right here with that understanding, but I understand that there are other organizations interested.

Mr. BLANTON. I am going to try to cooperate with you, to get you and Mrs. Van Winkle together on section 4.

Mr. RATHBONE. Are there those who feel that they should be permitted an opportunity to say something as opponents of this bill? By opponents of the bill I mean those who wish to amend it in some way, even though they may not be opposed to the bill in its principles. If anyone here has something to say about this bill which is not merely what we have already heard, we would be glad to arrange to give them a hearing.

Mr. HAMMER. I have been advised by some persons that they would like to be heard about Mrs. Van Winkle and her pretty girls.

Mr. RATHBONE. It will be necessary to have another hearing anyway, because the proponents are entitled to their rebuttal.

Mr. BLANTON. I move that if it is convenient we meet to-morrow night at 8 o'clock.

Mr. HAMMER. Permit me to make one other suggestion. I have Mrs. Van Winkle's statement that she wanted to get into the record yesterday. I would like to get permission to put it in.

Mr. BLANTON. Yes.

Mr. RATHBONE. I understand that that was the general understanding.

Mr. HAMMER. There has been no formal motion made to put it in. Mr. RATHBONE. We are assuming a liberal policy in putting in such statements.

(The paper referred to is as follows:)

IN ANSWER TO JUDGE SELLERS'S STATEMENT MADE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE MARCH 13, 1926

This bill (H. R. 7848) was drafted by a member of the Senate legislative counsel and reviewed by men well known in the legal profession of the District of Columbia and other cities. The duties and functions indicated in section 4 of this bill do not give power not already inherent in the police power. This being the case, the policewomen can not function independently and in contravention of the Constitution and all of the laws governing the department, the community, and the Nation. The duties and functions as outlined in this bill are those prescribed in the pol ce manual or are those required of all police officers by law and are fixed in this bill in order to avoid controversy within the department and the difficulties to which departments are frequently subjected by uninformed, unsympathetic administrations.

The merits of sect on 4 of the bill can not be too strongly emphasized from the standpoint of internal administration. No matter which commissioners or chiefs of police may come and go-the standards achieved by the women's bureau through the sympathetic support of former commissioners and chiefs can not be canceled. It provides that women and children coming into the custody of the police shall be dealt with by policewomen, and the bill further provides that these women shall be trained social workers.

The functions of the police have grown up as a part of and a need of the life of the people. If, therefore, anything is written by amendment into the bill limiting the duties of policewomen, it will have the effect of saying that policemen shall perform functions which are rightly those of the woman's bureau. In the long run it is cheaper to prevent delinquency than to deal with the delinquent in courts and in institutions. We have of necessity a police department giving service day and night all year round. If this department either in whole or in part is trained to recognize social problems and to know what action to take or where to secure action, it does away with the need later on of handling the person or situation under the criminal law. It is better to

have police trained to use properly the discretionary power which they are obliged to exercise continually than to jam the probation officer of the juvenile court with so-called unofficial hearings in which there is no investigation either before or after hearing and in which complaints are dismissed by a probation officer without any knowledge of the situation.

Thomas D. Elliot, professor of sociology of Northwestern University, makes the following statement:

But

"Juvenile courts used to be the last word in the prevention of crime. crime is not prevented by calling it delinquency, nor is delinquency prevented by calling it behavior. We still have an egregious crime situation in the original home town of the juvenile court.

"Does this prove that the courts are coddling crime and that what is needed is more police?

"If by 'police' is meant reign of terror, no. Repression alone has proved itself inadequate. It merely makes criminals careful.

"On the assumption that the police stand for terror it is often advocated that they have nothing to do with the juvenile court, and this is probably a wise yielding to the present state of public opinion when it comes to the uniformed officer.

"But if in the police function we include the protective and preventive; and if among the police personnel can be included trained social workers of either sex, detailed to such work, the police will be carrying out the spirit of the juvenile court but will be going through and beyond it, back to the normal noncourt agencies of the community. The more of that sort of police the better.

"The juvenile court has failed to stop crime because the community has overrated its possibilities and has failed to recognize its limitations, and because the court has in most places failed to secure from the community the necessary reforms which would really prevent delinquency.

"At the same time the juvenile court is a step in the right direction, and must be thanked for pointing the way to the proper handling of behavior problems before they reach court.

"The courts should have ample jurisdiction, but should not use it except where persuasion fails. Nor should probation officers clutter their work and confuse the public's attitude toward court functions by accepting and treating 'unofficial' cases. Those cases which can be handled out of court should never come to court at all, or, if they do, they should be referred straight back to the appropriate educational and protective officers.

"Among these protective officers policewomen are outstanding.

66

'Policewomen can and should achieve a deserved reputation as advisers in behavior problems. Visiting teachers can care for those in school, but working children and minors need equivalent protection. Policemen, trained as juvenile police, should share this task for boys.

"Children who present the sort of situation that leads so often to delinquency should be brought first, not to the station house or court, but to an adjustment bureau in the schools, or (in a nonschool child) to the protective officer, for social work. The technique of such work should be as careful and as socialized as that of family welfare or hospital social work. The court is available in case persuasion fails to reconcile and adjust the situation.

66

'In addition to such work, the policewoman has a unique opportunity to secure the abatement of conditions and resorts conducive to delinquency. Some day our laws may give to juvenile courts the right to enjoin and close such places on the ground of imminent irreparable damage to children's charactera protection now granted chiefly to property. Policewomen, in touch with the causes of delinquency, could then apply for summary proceedings against persons contributing to delinquency without demonstrating actual ruin of character; they could close the stable door before the horse is stolen."

This statement gives an expert's opinion on the social value of the policewoman and the proper relationship between the court, the police, and the community.

From a legal standpoint, every rule, regulation, and law governing the actions of the police must be observed by members of the woman's bureau. Daily reports are made to the major and superintendent indicating all steps taken by the woman's bureau in each individual case, and should the actions of the policewomen constitute such violations of citizens' rights as alleged by Judge Sellers in her statement before the committee on March 13 the woman's bureau would be held strictly accountable by the major and superintendent who-in accepting the daily reports--assumes responsibility for the procedure reported therein.

Furthermore, complaints may be lodged with the commissioner or the major and superintendent of police by any judge or private citizen, and in the event that satisfaction is not received, redress can be secured through writ of habeas corpus or civil suit. Such steps have been taken against the woman's bureau, and in each case woman's bureau action was upheld by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia; to wit, civil suit for alleged illegal detention; habeas corpous proceedings and trial-board action which was carried to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

As to Judge Sellers's statement regarding arrest by the policewomen without warrant, this is the case. The juvenile court daily sends letters requesting the apprehension and detention of absconding probationers. Such letters do not even bear the judge's signature, nor have we the assurance that any court order exists for their return to custody. The boy sleeping on a park bench, in a coal yard, or parked automobile will not wait there until 11 o'clock the next morning when a police officer may go to court to secure a warrant. The young girl wanted by her parents and found in some questionable hotel or rooming house by the policewoman will not wait until juvenile court issues a warrant supported by affiidavit for her apprehension. Furthermore, such a girl was ordered delivered to Justice Stafford's court on a writ of habeas corpus. The judge held that the girl remain under the care of the woman's bureau until authority for holding her could be secured from her father in Illinois. The Department of Justice, through its Springfield agent, secured for us this authority through the Springfield court.

Judge Sellers read into the record of Saturday, March 13, 1926, a letter addressed by her to the commissioners and dated January 2, 1926. She stated that, subsequent to a conversation she had with Commissioner Rudolph relative to the contents, she sent the letter by a bailiff to the commissioners and that she had not given this letter to the press until after she had sent it to the commissioners. Almost three months previous all the facts contained in her letter and in addition the names and addresses of the persons involved in the eight cases cited in the letter were in the possession of certain Washington newspapers. On October 5, 1925, at 5.25 p. m. newspaper men called on the director of the woman's bureau with reference thereto. Later one reporter threatened as follows: "If you refuse to give us the information we are seeking, the newspapers will break you. They break Presidents; what do you suppose they will do to you?" This was witnessed by Pvt. Ruby Brandt, a member of the woman's bureau.

As has been pointed out, the bill was drawn up by the Senate legislative counsel and its constitutionality was given careful consideration. Further, the bill was reviewed by well-informed members of the District bar and other jurisdictions. It is not the intention of the bill and the lawyers who reviewed it found nothing in the bill that could be construed as infringing on the functions of the juvenile court and the board of children's guardians. Judge Sellers in the record of March 13 states, "In my opinion lost children, fugitives from parents or guardians, fugitives from institutions and such children are entitled to the care and protection of the juvenile court and should be sent by the court to the board of children's guardians, the agency created by law to care for such children." There is no conceivable reason why lost children should be referred to the juvenile court. These children are not even fugitives but babies too young to know what they are doing. They do not deliberately run away but get lost and the only action that is called for is the return of the child to its home. Furthermore, unless other conditions warrant, there would be no justification in placing a court record against a child whose only offense is running away from home. There is probably no child who at some time or another has not run away from home or planned to do so. Only a very small percentage of runaways ever find the experience interesting enough for repetition. All missing persons are reported to the women's bureau and search for these children invariably discloses if home or other conditions are such that there should be court action. It would be unwise to subject all these children to court hearing and in addition it would be a needless expense. Fugitives from institutions presumably have been committed by some court and any procedure other than return to the institution would involve a waste of effort and of money.

Judge Sellers makes further statement to the effect that "at best, kindliest sort of questioning of a child by a policewoman in the house of detention in the absence of its parents, is in my opinion what is popularly known as third degree work." We take it for granted that it is apparent to the members of

this committee that without questioning the child there would be no way to establish identity or the whereabouts of the parents. Interviews are sometimes more important to the police than investigations in ascertaining the cause of the difficulty and the remedy. It is not the custom of this bureau nor of the juvenile court or other agencies to require the presence of parents when interviewing children.

To add to our statement made in the letter to the commissioner under date of January 5, 1926 on case No. 1: The juvenile court considered not that the child in this case was held illegally but that she was in an unsuitable home in the house of detention and therefore the juvenile court instigated an investigation by the board of children's guardians which the court believes was the cause of the child's removal. This as a matter of fact is not true. The child was returned to the juvenile court of Baltimore on September 24 as a result of previous arrangement by the women's bureau with the Baltimore juvenile court and the delay was caused by difficulties with the indictment process. Efforts were made by the women's bureau to have the child placed by the Baltimore Catholic charities of which she was a ward in a good school rather than in the House of the Good Shepherd, but the child was placed in the House of the Good Shepherd in Baltimore and later transferred to the House of the Good Shepherd in Washington where delinquent girls of various ages and types are kept. No investigation was then or since instigated by the court or the board of children's guardians regarding placement. Adjustment was made by the Baltimore Catholic charities assisted by the woman's bureau. Since placement of the child, the man involved has been convicted and sentenced to serve 20 years.

With reference to case No. 7-the facts of which are set forth in the letter of January 5th to the commissioners from the director of the woman's bureau, we wish to add that on February 7, 1924, Pvt. M. C. Gainey of the woman's bureau filed a petition to have the child committed to the board of children's guardians and after second hearing case was continued subject to call. Private M. C. Gainey was with Private Brandt on August 24, 1925, when the latter filed a second destitute petition; both officers and the corporation counsel were aware of the existence of the first petition, but the corporation counsel advised that a new petition be filed, which was done. This case was also continued subject to call and was called back by Private Brandt on February 13, 1926. The case was again continued subject to call but this time the relatives agreed to accept the services of the probation officer.

With reference to the case set forth by Judge Sellers in which she stated she found the girl not guilty of indecent exposure and charged two policewoman with extorting a confession. In this case the facts were given in full to the corporation counsel at the juvenile court by the policewoman, Pvt. F. M. C. Bird, of the woman's bureau, in the absence of the arresting officer, Pvt. V. P. Kew, of No. 10 precinct. The corporation counsel advised that the charge of indecent exposure be lodged against the girl, and this was reported to Mr. Joseph Sanford, who is both clerk of the court and director of probation, and the question taken up with him regarding the release of this girl in her mother's care until the other young girl involved with her and the arresting officer could come into court. The girl in question was not a resident of the District but was being boarded with a relative for the purpose of attending the District schools. The statement which it has been alleged she was terrorized into signing was written, discussed, signed, and witnessed not only in full sight of the judge of the juvenile court but in sight of the girl's attorney and the girl knew her mother was present in the courthouse. This statement was not taken either for the use of the District police or District juvenile court, as it involved a citizen of another jurisdiction and an act alleged to have occurred in another jurisdiction and was to be forwarded to the authorities of the other jurisdiction provided the girl's parents wished to take the action they were entitled to take under the law. The statement was never offered in juvenile court as evidence because it was not material evidence in the case before the court. At the first hearing the girls were found guilty and the case continued for investigation. It is customary to give to the probation officer making such investigations all information and sources of information which the police have and therefore the probation office was furnished with a copy of the statement in question. The original was not forwarded to the authorities out of town because the girl's mother refused to believe the statement and declared that the person accused was a good friend of her family and she would not take any