Mr. GIBSON. Directly responsible to the major of the Metropolitan police?

Miss MILLIKEN. Yes.

Mr. GIBSON. Now, Judge Gilbert made some suggestion in regard to the protection of women on the streets. Are you able to do that with the force that you have?

Miss MILLIKEN. Not very well. We should always have two women in those cases to deal with that properly. Otherwise we subject our own women to the criticism such as Mr. Hammer made the other day.

Mr. GIBSON. You say "criticism." I won't say that

Miss MILLIKEN. If we try to do our duty, it is the defense of the man in that case that she is doing something besides her duty.

Mr. GIBSON. Judge Hammer is one of the most kind-hearted men that we have in Congress. He asks questions sometimes like a lawyer in court, but he is all right, I assure you.

Mr. HAMMER. Thank you.

Mr. GIBSON. I have no doubt that he will be in favor of this bill when he gets around to it. But he was asking you about certain shows. Do you enforce the regulations in regard to every show as you understand the regulations to be?

Miss MILLIKEN. Yes; and when there are any questions we take those up with the corporation counsel for advice.

Mr. RATHBONE. Is there any further question?

Mr. HAMMER. The lady seems to misunderstand me. I am not talking to the lady as a lady; I am talking to her as a sergeant. I hope that you won't take any umbrage. I was for 20 years a member of the State board of charities and for 20 years prosecuted in the courts of the United States and in the State courts, and while I don't understand these matters as well as some who have given their entire life to them I have some conception of them. It is because of the conscience that was involved in the matter and because of the fact that the lieutenant the other day made a statement that was utterly at variance with my conception of what this kind of work ought to be and how it ought to be conducted that I did give utterance to the remark that I did think that her method of operating this bureau did not agree with my conception of the way that it ought to be operated; and I haven't changed my mind, not one bit. The objection is to that and not to this bill.

Mr. GIBSON. I am going to make this suggestion to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina: That he go with me down to the bureau and look it over.

Mr. HAMMER. I am half favorable to it, and I almost did think so before; but I can not indorse this method.

Mr. BLANTON. If my colleague from North Carolina will go down and look over the house of detention from top to bottom, he will withdraw what he said about Lieutenant Van Winkle.

Mr. HAMMER. Until she changes her mind I don't want to, because she is not in accord with my conception about it.

Mr. BLANTON. You don't understand it.

Mr. HAMMER. I do. She stated it in simple, Anglo-Saxon, modern English.

Mr. RATHBONE. Is there anything further of this witness?
Mr. BLANTON. I move that we adjourn.

Mr. RATHBONE. We have a few minutes yet. There are requests from other witnesses to be heard.

Mr. HAMMER. There are opponents that want to be heard. It is now 3 minutes to 12, and we have to be on the floor at 12.

Mr. RATHBONE. My watch may be wrong, but I have 11 or 12 minutes to 12.

Mr. HAMMER. I have not been spoken to by anybody opposed to this bill; I do not want to be understood that I have conferred with anybody opposed to this bill.

Justice KATHRYN SELLERS. I would like to be heard very much in opposition to this bill.

Mr. BLANTON. I would like her to have an opportunity to be heard. I would like to ask some questions.

Judge SELLERS. I should like to be heard now and not have to spend any more time. I am here. I am a paid official of the District, and there are people here who have nothing to do. I have a court here this morning, and I have had to leave it to come here. Mr. BLANTON. I am representing 4,000 people of the State of Texas, and I have to be here, too.

Judge SELLERS. Yes; but you are here as a part of your official duties. I would like to be heard at some time when it would not interfere with my calendar.

Mr. HAMMER. I understand that the House will adjourn out of respect to a Member who died last night. I don't know whether that is true or not. I just make that suggestion. It is possible that we might go right on with this hearing.

Mr. RATHBONE. We have about 10 minutes more anyway. We are entitled to that time. It is a question of just what the people on both sides, the proponents and the opponents to this bill, want to do. If the proponents want to put on any more witnesses-I think that I have a number of requests for them to appear in favor of this billwe will have to have many further hearings. If they do not wish to put on any other persons in favor of the bill, we can then take up in the regular way whoever appears against the bill.

Mr. BLANTON. How many more witnesses has Mrs. Van Winkle? Mr. RATHBONE. I understand that she has five or six.

Mrs. VAN WINKLE. I have members of several local and national organizations that wish to be heard.

Mr. BLANTON. I move that we meet here at 1.30, if the House will adjourn.

Mr. RATHBONE. We are not entitled to do that unless the House does adjourn.

Mr. BLANTON. Undoubtedly the House will adjourn. It always does in deference to the death of a Member. That is the ground that I make this motion that we meet here at 1.30. Of course, we could not hold the hearing unless the House does adjourn.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. BLANTON. I move that we hear Judge Sellers at 10 o'clock on Saturday.

Mr. RATHBONE. We have now two motions before us. We will take up the first one. The first motion, that of the gentleman from Texas, is that we meet here at 1 o'clock on the understanding that the House is not then in session and on the understanding that we

must leave here by a quarter past 2 to keep prior engagements at the Capitol.

(The motion was carried.)

Mr. RATHBONE. There is a second motion, that after the proponents and the federations have had their say, we give those who are opposed to the bill a hearing on Saturday morning.

Mr. BLANTON. And let Judge Sellers be heard first so that she can go back to her work.

Mr. RATHBONE. I will state that it will not be possible for me to be here on Saturday morning, but that need not delay things. I will deputize some one else. I will deputize the gentleman from Texas to serve as chairman.

You have heard the motion.

(The motion was carried.)

Mr. RATHBONE. We will meet here at 10 o'clock on Saturday. The committee will take a recess now until 1 o'clock, if Congress adjourns then, and we will meet at 10 o'clock on Saturday morning for the purpose of enabling the opponents of the bill to be heard.

(The subcommittee took a recess at 12 o'clock noon until 4.30 p. m.)

AFTER RECESS

Mr. RATHBONE. This committee will come to order. The first speaker will be Judge Hardison.

STATEMENT OF JUDGE ROBERT HARDISON, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Judge HARDISON. Mr. Chairman, I hardly know just what I am wanted for. Mrs. Van Winkle asked me to come up and be at the meeting.

Mr. BLANTON. This is a bill, Judge Hardison, introduced by Congressman Gibson of Vermont to give a legal status to the women's bureau.

Judge HARDISON. Yes. I have read the bill, Mr. Blanton.
Mr. BLANTON. Will you state your official position?

Judge HARDISON. I have no official position at the present time. For five years and a half I was one of the judges of the police court here, about the time that it was started. I came intimately in contact with the bureau and was well acquainted with its personnel. With reference to the bill: I have read it over and I see no objection to it as an original proposition. But I understand-in fact, I know that it is a fact that the bill simply crystallizes in the form of a statute the regulations and practices that have grown up and prevailed with reference to the women's bureau for some time past. It does not in any degree that I have discovered from the reading of it change their powers from what they are now.

Mr. BLANTON. But it does give it a legal status?

Judge HARDISON. It does give a legal status to this bureau, which heretofore has existed by virtue of the will of its superior officers, and to the practice that has grown up in the bureau.

Mr. BLANTON. From the experience that you had during the four and a half years that you were a police judge in Washington, do you believe that there is a necessity for a woman's police bureau here?

Judge HARDISON. I haven't the slightest doubt in the world.
Mr. BLANTON. Are you in favor of it?

Judge HARDISON. Highly in favor of it.

Mr. BLANTON. You approve of the administration of Mrs. Van Winkle?

Judge HARDISON. I do approve of it.

Mr. BLANTON. You have been a citizen of Washington how long? Judge HARDISON. I am here but I am not a citizen of Washington at all.

Mr. BLANTON. But you have been living in Washington how long? Judge HARDISON. I have been living in Washington since the first of 1918.

Mr. BLANTON. You have been here ever since?

Judge HARDISON. Yes. I practiced law here for the last two and a half years. Since I went off the bench I have been more or less familiar with the affairs of the bureau.

Mr. BLANTON. You have been practicing law here and you are practicing now?

Judge HARDISON. Yes.

Mr. BLANTON. You make your meat and bread in Washington?
Judge HARDISON. Yes.

Mr. BLANTON. To that extent you are a Washington citizen?
Judge HARDISON. Yes.

Mr. RATHBONE. Does anyone desire to ask the gentleman any questions?

Thank you very much. The next speaker will be Mr. Patterson.

STATEMENT OF MR. D. S. PATTERSON, REPRESENTING THE BOARD OF TEMPERANCE, PROHIBITION, AND PUBLIC MORALS OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH

Mr. PATTERSON. I represent the Board of Temperance, Prohibition, and Public Morals of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

We are here to say that we are in sympathy with the activities of Mrs. Van Winkle in trying to clean up the contemptible situation in some of the theaters in Washington. We believe that the work of her bureau is to be highly commended by the decent, self-respecting citizens of Washington. They certainly have the backing of the church people of the District. Not alone that, but I understand her activities, and herself personally, have the backing of groups of women who may not be formed as representing church. groups but who are public spirited enough to appreciate the efforts. of Mrs. Van Winkle and her bureau.

I understand that Judge Schuldt, in referring to her, said that she had proved beyond a doubt by her investigations that the shows put on by the Mutual Theater were indecent and unfit to be shown there or anywhere in the city, for that matter.

It seems to us it is time that this particular Mutual Theater and other similar places realized that the citizens of Washington, the clean, Christian citizens of Washington, are not going to stand their contemptible flaunting of the law in the District of Columbia.

I just wanted to say a word on behalf of Mrs. Van Winkle. Mr. RATHBONE. Let me ask you a question. Is the trouble with the law or is it with the police regulations or what is it with--that

some of the shows are allowed to run? Where do you locate the trouble?

Mr. PATTERSON. We think that it is simply a disregard for the law on the part of the managers.

Mr. RATHBONE. If the law were enforced, they would be closed up? Mr. PATTERSON. We think that they should be. They have been enforcing it, as I understand it, and the objections now are because she is enforcing the law-the objections from the theater people. Mr. RATHBONE. Does anybody wish to ask any questions?

Mr. BLANTON. You believe that there is a necessity here for a woman's police bureau?

Mr. PATTERSON. I think that has been proved.

Mr. BLANTON. You think that it is doing a good work?

Mr. PATTERSON. Yes.

Mr. BLANTON. You would not like to see it abolished, would you! Mr. PATTERSON. No, sir.

Mr. BLANTON. You would not want it dependent absolutely upon the whim of some commissioners?

Mr. PATTERSON. I am not going to state on that particular phase. Mr. BLANTON. You would like to see it legalized by law?

Mr. PATTERSON. I would like to see it have sufficient power to do the most effective and efficient work.

Mr. BLANTON. You would like to see it made a part of the police system by law?

Mr. PATTERSON. I think that it would be a good thing.

Mr. RATHBONE. I would like to get something a little clearer in my mind. In your judgment should the regulations of the police department, which were referred to in the session this morning, be made more stringent than they now are as applying to certain classes of threatrical performances, moving pictures, and so on?

Mr. PATTERSON. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that our research manager, Deets Pickett, has made a statement; and if I could be permitted, I would like to offer it to you, his official statement concerning the detailed regulations. I am not familiar with the discussion had at the morning session.

Mr. RATHBONE. We would be glad to receive that statement, without stating whether we can incorporate it into the record or not. I don't know about that. That will be passed upon by the committee. That will depend upon whether it is relevant or whether it is too voluminous or whether it would be too expensive, and so on. We will be glad to take and I will be glad to look at it.

Mr. GIBSON. You are speaking of picture houses and theaters. Have you made any investigation relative to dance halls? Mr. PATTERSON. Our organization, do you mean?

Mr. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. PATTERSON. No, sir; we have not. Our information has come to us from people who have observed them.

Mr. GIBSON. Have you any information relative to them?

Mr. PATTERSON. Of a general nature, not of a detailed nature, here in the city.

Mr. GIBSON. Do you know anything about the regulations concerning those?

Mr. PATTERSON. I personally am not familiar with the regulations. Mr. HAMMER. What church are you from?