Miss SELLERS. Yes. He gives me his name and address. This is not an anonymous letter.

Mr. HAMMER. Before you leave, Mr. Gibson, we had an agreement when the witness started that she was to go through without interruption, and I want to make the motion now, and I think it is necessary, that she be permitted, as she has requested, to finish her statement, and then we can ask our questions of her at the close.

Mr. BLANTON. Concerning matters as she goes on?

Mr. HAMMER. I desire to make that motion, and I desire, Mr. Chairman [addressing Mr. Gibson], that you return. I have made a motion and I want you to put my motion.

Mr. GIBSON. I will be back.

Mr. BLANTON. The members of the committee certainly have a right to ask proper questions.

All in favor say

66

aye."

Mr. HAMMER. Õh, no; I am asking the chairman to come back and proceed.

Mr. BLANTON. Well, I have been designated as chairman.

Mr. HAMMER. I do not want you to pass judgment on a matter that affects yourself.

Mr. BLANTON. I am going to pass judgment on this.

Mr. HAMMER. Not when Mr. Gibson is in the room. I move that we adjourn.

(The question was put and the motion to adjourn was rejected.) Mr. BLANTON. The "noes" have it, so the gentleman is defeated. Mr. HAMMER. The only thing that I had in mind-and this has happened many times before is that I made a motion that the request of the witness to proceed with her statement be respected, and I have never known of such a request not being respected before. Mr. Blanton has continually asked her embarrassing questions. Mr. BLANTON. Have I asked you embarrassing questions? Miss SELLERS. No; not embarrassing.

Mr. HAMMER. And she requested permission to go on with her paper, and if she desires it I think that we ought to grant that request.

Miss SELLERS. I am very anxious to read this memorandum.
Mr. GIBSON. I suggest, Mr. Blanton, that you let her read it.

Mr. BLANTON. When there is improper testimony put in here I have a right to ask questions. I just want to say to you, Judge Sellers, that you are reading a letter from some man who is complaining. Would this be, Judge Sellers, the right way to read into the record letters here attacking you? You would not want me to do that?

Miss SELLERS. I would like to read this memorandum. Now, if you do not want me to read it, if you want to analyze everything that I have said here

Mr. HAMMER (interposing). And analyze it now; that is what you are doing.

Mr. BLANTON. As one member of the committee, I shall object to you reading unsworn letters from witnesses reflecting on somebody else.

Miss SELLERS. I do not know that this reflects on Mrs. Van Winkle. It may reflect on the men police.

Mr. BLANTON. I will put it up to you, as a judge of a court, as to whether you should read ex parte letters.

Miss SELLERS. I am perfectly willing not to read anything more, but I was very anxious to read it.

Mr. BLANTON. You have permission to go ahead and read it, but we do not want you to read letters

Mr. HAMMER (interposing). The chairman is now returning and has taken his seat.

Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Rathbone delegated me to act as chairman of this subcommittee. The gentleman may not like it, but I am going to act as chairman.

Mr. HAMMER. I desire to make a motion, and that is that the witness, if she desires, be permitted to go on without interruption and to have the privilege which has been accorded to witnesses in every committee that I have ever known of, of completing her testimony. after which time questions may be asked of her by the chairman or members of the committee if they decide to do so; and, if they can not remember the questions desired to be asked, they can take notes. just as Mr. Blanton and all of us have frequently done before on a similar motion when it was necessary to have orderly procedure. I have never heard questioned before the right of a witness, upon request, to be permitted to complete his or her testimony without interruption.

So I make that motion now.

Mr. BLANTON. On that motion, I desire to say this to the committee. One member of this committee knows that we have ex parte charges about Judge Sellers, but we have paid no attention to them. 'We are not putting them in the record here with regard to a case of truancy of a boy that was kept out of school for 31 days. We are not going to put anything in the record like that.

Miss SELLERS. That can not be truancy; there is no such thing in the District.

Mr. BLANTON. I reserve the right, as a member of the committee, whether I am acting as chairman or not, to object to any improper testimony going in the record, and I shall not interfere with Judge Sellers's statement except when she goes to offer letters, ex parte letters unsworn to, when I shall object to them.

I submit the motion of the gentleman from North Carolina to the committee as to whether or not she shall proceed without interruption. He has a right to have that motion submitted.

(The question was put, and the motion was carried.)

Mr. BLANTON. You may proceed, but I shall object to your letters. Mr. HAMMER. There are a number of other witnesses who will corroborate the actual facts, so they say, on what Judge Sellers has said. She is only one of many.

Miss SELLERS. I will withdraw that letter.

Mr. GIBSON. I must go to the Committee on Civil Service, because we are considering a very important bill and want to close it to-day. I have made notes on certain things that Judge Sellers has said and I shall desire to examine her in relation to every specific case that she has mentioned in her letter, because I have the full record of each case, and I will be back.

Mr. BLANTON. She will stay, and when you come back you may cross-examine her.

You may proceed, Miss Sellers.

Miss SELLERS. Of course, I am going to object seriously to any names being given as to those cases. I am going to object to the committee making public the names of these eight children that have been there. Mrs. Van Winkle knows the names and I know them

Mr. BLANTON (interposing). And we know the names. I have investigated some of them myself.

Miss SELLERS. If you investigated them, you know that they were held without court order except in the three cases.

Mr. BLANTON. I am not saying now as to my conclusions.
Miss SELLERS. You can not have "conclusions."

Either they were held or they were not without court order. In three cases they were. [Reading:]

This bill to establish a women's bureau reads very smooth and is apparently a beneficient measure. When one considers the amiable and sincere woman who is at the head of the women's bureau and in whom we all have a great faith

She does not believe we think that of her, but it is the truthone is apt to take the bill for what it appears to be, but a careful study of the bill shows that it is indeed a subtle document. To my mind section 4, which sets forth the functions of the women's bureau, is in itself enough to condemn the bill. For instance, (A) of section 4 reads, "The functions shall include preventive-protective work." Even to a person of meager knowledge of social work and social conditions this expression "preventive-protective work" would cover such a multitude of things that might be done or left undone as to vitiate the whole bill. Who is to decide what constitutes preventive-protective work? It might mean any sort of violation of a person's constitutional rights. When we consider paragraph 1, which reads as follows:

"Deal with all matters relating to women and children, fugitives from parents or guardians, fugitives from institutions, females of whatever age, and wayward minors, provide for the care of such persons pending investigation, and take such steps authorized by law in connection there with as may be deemed advisable, including steps to have instituted such proceedings as may be necessary to correct or eradicate conditions tending to cause or contribute to delinquency."

And when we consider the most objectionable paragraph in Senate 4274, Sixty-eighth Congress, second session, which Mrs. Van Winkle was fostering last year, section 3 (2)—

"To deal with all matters relating to cases of lost children, fugitives from parents or guardians, juvenile fugitives from institutions, and cases of females of whatever age coming into the custody of the police and unable to give proper account of themselves but against whom no charge is placed."

we see that the present bill is not quite so frank but that the intent of section 4 governing this vital point, that of taking into custody and holding persons against whom no charge has been placed, is provided for.

It could be done under this section of the new bill.

Mr. BLANTON. Would you mind my calling your attention to the law on that point of detention?

Miss SELLERS. No; what is the law?

Mr. BLANTON. If you don't mind, I would like to call it to your attention. [Reading:]

For maintenance of a suitable place of

Miss SELLERS (interposing). That is simply an appropriation bill. Mr. BLANTON. That is the law.

Miss SELLERS. And no appropriation bill can set down the charge upon which people can be held. You are a judge, Mr. Blanton, and you know that.

Mr. BLANTON. Judge Sellers, there is just as much law in an appropriation bill as anywhere else. Why, we put riders on appropriation bills creating great bureaus.

Miss SELLERS. But you are not proud of it.

Mr. BLANTON. It is done.

Miss SELLERS. It is done, but it is irregular.

Mr. BLANTON. The law creating the Utilities Commission was passed as a rider.

Miss SELLERS. I know that. There are plenty of cases where it has been done.

Mr. BLANTON. It provides for the very things she has been doing, and here is what it says:

Held as witnesses

Miss SELLERS. Under court order.

Mr. BLANTON. It does not say that. [Reading:]

or held pending final investigation or examination.

Miss SELLERS. All right; but, now, does not that violate the fourth amendment to the Constitution?

Mr. BLANTON. But this is the law passed by Congress.

Miss SELLERS. If it violates the fourth amendment to the Constitution, it is unconstitutional, whatever Congress has said.

Mr. BLANTON. Congress never pays any attention to the Constitution when it passes laws.

Miss SELLERS. I should hate to believe that, Mr. Blanton.
Mr. BLANTON. The Supreme Court has to attend to that.

Miss SELLERS. I think Congress does pay attention to the Constitution when it passes laws.

Mr. BLANTON. I just wanted to call your attention to the organic act. This is the organic act that provides for holding children there.

Miss SELLERS. Until 1923, when Mrs. Van Winkle had it changed, the commissioners could have put the house of detention any place they wanted to. She caught on to that, so to speak, and the thing was changed.

But, at any rate, you and I may differ. An investigation may be a charge, but I know that when an attorney appears in the case the girl is released. You know that, too, that they can not unduly hold a person charged only with investigation.

Mr. BLANTON. Would you want to read it?

Miss SELLERS. I have read it; I have read all the statutes relating to the delinquent child in the District. I have had attention called to certain statutes recently, and I still maintain that any man that has read my letter and that has the spirit of our forefathers will agree you can not indefinitely hold a person for investigation.

Look at the Wan case. You know that all the third-degree work is done when the person is held without a charge. In no other country do they arrest people and hold them as we do in America, and we are getting the fruits of it.

This bill aims to do away with the courts. It is the beginning of police government and it is the responsibility of this subcommittee

and of the committee above and of Congress that initial step is taken. This step can be looked upon as an historic thing. [Reading:]

Paragraph 1 of section 4 would hand over to the woman's bureau the entire responsibility of dealing with children of the city. It is aimed to give the woman's bureau the authority to have hearings to determine whether the case shall be brought to the juvenile court and to prevent any person other than a member of the woman's bureau from filing a petition or information in the juvenile court relative to alleged misbehavior of the child. At some future time, under corrupt officials, this could be developed into a system of graft paid for agreement to prosecute.

Paragraphs 1 and 4 are particularly objectionable. Authority is sought to do the work assigned by law to the juvenile court and the Board of Children's Guardians.

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. They should not be shut up in jail. [Reading:]

Under this paragraph it might be claimed that the woman's bureau has a right to place women and children on probation. No person, child or adult, should be placed on probation except after a court hearing and by a duly constituted court. While I have been told that at present it is not the custom of the woman's bureau to place girls under 17 on probation, I do know that at one time a large group were on probation to Mrs. Votaw, attached to the woman's bureau; and later, after Mrs. Votaw left, a group of girls was placed on probation to Mrs. Sank, at the time a member of the woman's bureau. These girls were required to report at stated times to the house of detention and were supervised by the woman's bureau. I do not know whether any girls are on probation to the woman's bureau at present. This is another development to an attempt at police government which might lead to graft.

How would you like your son to have to report to the station house, perhaps once a week? Our girls are no different from our boys. Reading:]

Under the provison, "Provide for the care of such persons pending investigation," it could be claimed that the director of the woman's bureau should have charge of the house of detention.

Now, there was a specific provision in the bill introduced at the last session that they should have charge of the house, but apparently there was an objection and they cut that out; but they put this in this section 4, and if it becomes a law the woman's bureau will have charge of the house of detention. [Reading:]

Paragraph 4 reads:

"Investigate neighborhood conditions, hotels, rooming houses, public dance halls, restaurants, cabarets, skating rinks, and other places of public assembly." This is a dangerous paragraph and gives the woman's bureau powers of regulation which might constitute an absolute invasion of the constitutional rights of persons to be secure in their persons and property from public visitation and search without due process of law, a right guaranteed by the fourth amendment to the Constitution.

Now, I am going to read this fourth amendment to the Constitution. [Reading:]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers. and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or thing to be seized.