never went to college a day in his life and never graduated, even, from a high school, and yet he was the best educated man that I ever knew. Both the Senators from my State are graduates of the institution that he was president of. Those things do not occur often, but my idea is that a person does not necessarily have to go to college

Mrs. RAFTER. That is exactly my idea.

Mr. HAMMER. Why couldn't we remedy that by saying "or its equivalent"? That is what we do in the qualifications for medical degrees and for lawyers' degrees. We require seven years before you can get a license to practice medicine, but you are not required to go through college or to be a graduate of anything. You have to complete the sophomore year or its equivalent. Take, for instance, there might be a woman trained in such a way as to be equipped for this position without having necessarily to be a graduate of college. Of course, it would be much better to have these educational qualifications.

Mrs. RAFTER. Judge Hammer, as I said to Mr. Blanton, I have had a long and varied experience with human beings, and I have not the august reverence for a college certificate that a great many people have. I think it takes a lot more than that to make a man

or a woman.

Mr. BLANTON. If the gentleman will look at line 7, on page 3, he will see that the bill covers that very point. It says,

equivalent."

or the

Mr. HAMMER. It ought to. I was going from the line of your question, not the bill.

Mr. BLANTON. But I understand that Mrs. Rafter wishes to strike out all of these qualifications. I thought that she could not have understood me.

Mrs. RAFTER. I was trying to make this bill so simple and so real

Mr. BLANTON. If this manner of qualifying one's self by taking a degree, say for instance, in social work, such as you have done, is of no importance, why did you take that?

Mrs. RAFTER. I was very young then.

Mr. BLANTON. Are you sorry that you have taken it?

Mrs. RAFTER. Well, I don't know. I have lived through it and beyond it.

Mr. GIBSON. Is that all?

Mrs. RAFTER. Yes.

Mr. HAMMER. I haven't got through with the lady.

Mr. GIBSON. I beg your pardon.

Mr. HAMMER. I haven't begun yet.

Mr. GIBSON. Judge Hammer has a question or two more.

Mrs. RAFTER. You know, the police rules define the qualifications. Mr. HAMMER. Yes.

Mrs. RAFTER. We must have some really fine policemen and we have rules and regulations for the police department. I don't know as our policewomen have to be college graduates and social workers. I can hardly think of anything that would be in their line of duty that would make them any better policewomen

Mr. BLANTON. Will you pardon a suggestion? I think we have one of the finest forces of policemen here in Washington that we have anywhere.

Mrs. RAFTER. I think so.

Mr. BLANTON. But among them, unfortunately, we have some of the lowest-class men. A few of them have gotten into the force. They have been charged with crime; they have been convicted; they have been sent to the penitentiary; they have been put out of the force. They are low-class men. We ought to raise the qualifications high enough to get good men and good women on the force. I am as good a friend as the police force has. But I realize that they can get men on the force sometimes that you would not trust in your own household.

Mrs. RAFTER. Yes.

Mr. HAMMER. If I understand Mrs. Van Winkle, she says that the merits of section 4 of the bill can not be too strongly emphasized from the standpoint of internal administration. In other words, the commissioners may come and go, the rains may fall, the summers and winters may come and return, but what is fixed here becomes as firm as the rocks; the ideas of the present administration become fixed, no matter what changes may come in the social organization of the city. We put in the law here what it shall be, instead of leaving it to the manual and to the conditions, which are changing constantly, almost. That is one of the objections that I think I have to it that no matter who comes and goes, those ideas that prevail now are to be fixed in the statute and we are not to leave it to the wisdom and the judgment of rules, as contained in the manual now, and as it may be changed from time to time in the future. Conditions are continually changing as to these methods and the same provisions of law as relate to social work and work of this kind are very different from what they were 25 years ago. Don't you think that they will differ in the next 25 years? Mrs. RAFTER. Oh, yes. I think they will.

Mr. HAMMER. I would leave it to the manual, to be determined. as the emergency of the case arose instead of fixing the ideas which now prevail in the administration of the law.

Mrs. RAFTER. I don't know just what you are trying to say.

Mr. HAMMER. I am saying this: One of the chief objections that strikes me is that I think that the bureau should be controlled by the rules and regulations for the police department and not be fixed definitely here; not fix the ideas that happen to prevail in the year

1926.

Mrs. RAFTER. Yes; I think so. None of us know what a case supervisor is. Nobody is quite certain about what a case supervisor is. Those things are vague and we feel that this is a time that we should

Mr. BLANTON. A case supervisor? That term to me is as plain as the open page of a book. I know exactly what it means. If you understood the police department down here and police work, you would understand immediately what a case supervisor is. You can go into police headquarters and ask any policeman there and he will tell you what a case supervisor is. That term is well known.

Mrs. RAFTER. Is it true that an organic act need not set forth qualifications?

Mr. BLANTON. I think it should. I know your judgment is good, but I think it should.

Mr. HAMMER. The main things about the qualifications of policemen are these: The first thing is honesty, a good, strong arm, uprightness, and common sense. Those are the qualifications for a policeman. He should also have a fair and reasonable education, in order that he may keep from being prejudiced, and have breadth and vision. Now, why is it that policewomen should not have those qualifications as their first prerequisites, unless it is for the purpose of doing social work and overlapping the activities of the welfare agencies?

Mrs. RAFTER. That is the way we felt when we made these recommendations.

Mr. BLANTON. I will ask you one question here, Mrs. Rafter. You are a social worker, aren't you?

Mrs. RAFTER. I used to be.

Mr. BLANTON. When you used to be a social worker, when night came and you had your social engagements with your friends, say, to play bridge or something of that kind or go to a reception, you would not do social work down in the city in dance halls, looking after the girls there? That is something you didn't engage yourself with? That is police work. Social-welfare workers do not work at night. They do not work until 1 o'clock in the morning, do they, as a usual thing, when they get no pay for it? Theirs is a work of mercy, a work for charity, a work for humanity. They give their services gratuitously to their country, and they don't stay out until 2 o'clock in the morning and go down to these dance halls and see that young girls are not being imposed upon or being led astray? That is work for policewomen, isn't it?

Mrs. RAFTER. Yes, sir. That is what they are hired for.

Mr. BLANTON. That is what they are hired for. They are paid for doing that. While we are playing bridge or attending receptions, going to the White House to see Mr. and Mrs. Coolidge sometimes, these women are looking after the unfortunates?

Mrs. RAFTER. That is their job.

Mr. BLANTON. So there is no overlapping. They are not taking the place of social workers.

Mrs. RAFTER. Do they just work at midnight?

Mr. BLANTON. They work all the time. That is the reason that I hope the committee will give them 98 privates in their force. They need them. That would be in three shifts, 30 policewomen on duty at a time; a little over 30 on duty at a time. If they were working in pairs, that would give them only 15 pairs of workers. I think this big city needs them. I hope that everybody will understand that I will help to get this bureau through.

Mrs. RAFTER. I was going to ask the chairman not to say that we are opponents of the bill, because we are not opponents of the bill. We want the finest and best policewomen's bureau that we can have. But we most assuredly are opposed to the duplicating of responsibility and the overlapping which is the curse of our city. We believe that last year all of us were asleep when we let the compulsory education bill go through. Now we have to go to work again and ask you gentlemen to amend it because it absolutely is impossible to work with it as it stands.

Mr. BLANTON. From my experience here and I worked hard here for 10 years in the District-my experience is that you could double these women police and put on 200 of them and then they would not overlap; and then you could double your social workers and even then there would be no overlapping. There is plenty of work for both of them.

Mr. GIBSON. Are there any other persons who desire to be heard?

Mrs. KALMBACH. Mr. Rathbone asked me this morning to give a few cities that had a detention home under the juvenile court. I realize that I left the meeting without doing that. Could they be put into the record in answer to that question?

Mr. GIBSON. Yes.

Mrs. KALMBACH. Buffalo, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and St. Louis all have special detention homes for children under the juvenile court. In Boston the children are kept in boarding homes. Alabama prohibits the detention of children in jails. In Arizona the detention homes for children are under the control of the juvenile court. In Delaware the judge of the juvenile court appoints the matron of the children's detention home. In Chicago the policy is to leave the children in their own homes without bond. Mr. BLANTON. I make a motion that our committee report this bill favorably as it stands to the main committee.

Mr. HAMMER. We desire to consider these amendments.

Mr. BLANTON. On that I want to say just a word. Mr. Chairman, this bill has been pending here now for three years. There has not been a bill in Congress during that time which I have studied more closely than this one. I want to commend the acting chairman of this subcommittee, the gentleman from Vermont, for introducing this bill. I think he has done splendid work. I am behind him. I am backing him up. He will have one man on the floor who is going to do everything he can in helping him pass it.

I think it is a good bill just as it is written. I think that after it is passed and becomes a law our friends who have appeared here offering suggestions about it will be as proud of it as anybody else in the world, after they see it in a workable form.

I am in hopes-I don't know how he stands, but I know that his help is worth a whole lot on the floor-I am in hopes that the gentleman from North Carolina, when the time comes, will help us pass it. Mr. HAMMER. Not if you take this snap judgment on it now, asking us to report it favorably without giving us a show.

Mr. BLANTON. The Congress now is drawing to a close. We practically concluded the debate on the last supply bill in the House to-day. That is the last one. Just as soon as those bills go to the Senate and come back, I know what the President is going to do. He is going to adjourn Congress and send us home. That is where we belong. I think he has the wisest judgment of any man in the United States on that question, of keeping Congress out of Washington just as much as he can.

I think we expect to put this bill into law before we leave it. This bill ought to be brought on the floor of the House next District day. It must go to the main committee Wednesday. I can not afford to keep on attending sessions of this subcommittee on this bill. We had ample hearings on this bill at the last Congress, the

Sixty-eighth Congress. We studied it carefully. We gave every person an opportunity to be heard.

There is not a provision in here, I think, that is unwise. There may be colleagues that differ with me. I give them the right to differ with me.

Mr. Chairman, I think that we ought to report this bill, and I make the motion that we vote on it.

Mr. GIBSON. Before we put it to a vote I wish to ask if there is anyone here who wishes to offer anything in rebuttal.

STATEMENT OF MR. MATTHEW E. O'BRIEN, WASHINGTON, D. C., REPRESENTING THE BOARD OF TRADE

Mr. O'BRIEN. I am here as the representative of the board of trade to state its position.

The board of trade as a body is not opposed to the women's police or to the work they are doing. But the board of trade is opposed to any difference between male and female members of the police force. In other words, the board of trade is on record as favoring the assignment of all officers of the police department, whether male or female, to the particular duties that the major and superintendent of police thinks that they are best suited for; and the qualifications of each should be the same. That is our position.

Mr. BLANTON. You are the member of the board of trade who in open meeting made a report against the traffic bill?

Mr. O'BRIEN. I did not make a report; I spoke against the report that was made.

Mr. BLANTON. You spoke against it?

Mr. O'BRIEN. Yes.

Mr. BLANTON. And you took a very decided stand against the proposed traffic measure?

Mr. O'BRIEN. As proposed at that time; yes.

Mr. HAMMER. And very wise, too, in some particulars.

Mr. BLANTON. But Congress did not agree with you?

Mr. O'BRIEN. Yes; it did. A great many things were taken out of the bill as it was proposed at that time.

Mr. BLANTON. But they passed it with provisions in it to which you objected?

Mr. O'BRIEN. No. They did not pass anything that I objected to. Mr. BLANTON. I mean that the House did.

Mr. O'BRIEN. No. I am in favor of the traffic director having the right to suspend permits.

Mr. BLANTON. I was present that night and listened to you very carefully.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I spoke

Mr. BLANTON. And I understood you as recommending against the traffic director having a right to stop the street cars.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I never mentioned street cars.

Mr. BLANTON. Didn't you?

Mr. O'BRIEN. No, indeed; I did not.

Mr. BLANTON. Didn't you take the position down there that the traffic director ought not to have the right to suspend permits? Mr. O'BRIEN. No, sir.

Mr. BLANTON. Or to annul them?