That is, it was decided whether to file papers or have official hearings or return or hold the child. [Reading:] This is in line with the modern trend of caring for delinquency among children and should be in effect now. When I came to the juvenile court I found it the custom to hold hearings in children's cases twice a week. This necessitated holding the child for long periods without hearing while an investigation was being made. Believing that under the present law the child is entitled to a prompt hearing and that the court has no right to make an investigation prior to an adjudication of the case, I passed an order that all pending cases of children would be heard without investigation; and for that purpose the court would sit every morning at 10 o'clock to hear of cases of children arrested prior to the convening of court at 10 a m. The order reads as follows: "ORDER "It is this day by the court ordered that on and after September 5, 1921, cases of children arrested and taken into custody and detained will be heard at 10 a. m. every day in the week except Saturday." That was on the 15th of August, 1921. [Reading:] A copy of this order was forwarded to the then major and superintendent of police, Harry L. Gessford, who promulgated an order to the Metropolitan police force requiring police officers arresting children and sending them to the house of detention to present their cases to the juvenile court on the following morning and to notify the parents of any child arrested and detained. This order is scrupulously observed by the policemen, who in practically every case appear the next morning after the arrest of the child, in many cases when they have been on duty all night, and file information and petitions so that the case can be brought to a speedy conclusion. The men do not hold the children except in the occasional case, such as this child in Gallinger Hospital where the policeman did not appear. [Reading:] They also notify the house of detention to send the child to the court. In the event that the policemen can not appear, they invariably telephone or come in later and state their reasons for not having been able to file an information immediately. The tendency in modern standards of caring for delinquent and neglected children is to centralize the work as much as possible in the juvenile court. It is necessary in the determination of every case involving a child to make a comprehensive investigation. If the woman's bureau is given the authority proposed in the bill, then the families of the children coming under their care will have the annoyance of two investigations, one by the woman's bureau and another by the juvenile court. We should as far as possible not interfere any more than is necessary with the functioning of the home, and should not intrude upon the rights of parents. In my opinion every child placed in custody should be brought immediately to the juvenile court if in session, or to court as soon as the court convenes. No investigation should be made by the woman's bureau after the child is taken into custody. The power exercised by the police now is almost beyond belief. It would probably surprise Members of Congress to know, for instance, that any policeman can take into custody a child or an adult and on his own responsibility send that child to Gallinger Hospital for mental observation. That child can be held there and the parents held from the child. Mr. BLANTON. You are not charging that up against the woman's bureau? Miss SELLERS. I am mentioning this to call your attention to the power that the policemen and policewomen have, and before you give them any more power you should consider the power they now have. Mr. BEERS. Do you think that is being abused now? Mr. BEERS. I am just asking. As a member of the committee, I have the privilege of asking you. Miss SELLERS. I do not know; there is no way of knowing. Mr. BLANTON. Would you pardon one other question? Miss SELLERS. Surely. Mr. BLANTON. You have treated this police bureau as if it were handling only children under 17 years of age, over which you have jurisdiction. Miss SELLERS. That is the only class I have. Mr. BLANTON. You object to having the bureau do that? Miss SELLERS. That is my opinion. My opinion does not amount to much. Mr. BLANTON. Your opinion does amount to something. Mr. BLANTON. As to matrons, we have 13 police precinct stations, and we will soon have 14. There is no matron service at all. Miss SELLERS. There was once. They were all taken to the house of detention. The house of detention is a precinct, you know. Mr. BLANTON. If a policewoman brings a poor woman into a station at 11 o'clock at night, she is taken to the house of detention. Miss SELLERS. You should take her directly to the house of detention. Mr. BLANTON. Do you not think we need the bureau established by law, especially for the matron service? Miss SELLERS. I do not know. It may be the best thing. I am not saying that. Twenty-five years from now I hope that we will have a good strong woman's bureau. I have a good deal of respect for the commissioner of police, Mr. Fenning, and also for Mr. Rudolph. They say they do not want it done, and I am willing to believe that the persons who are running the department must know something about their business. Mr. BLANTON. These commissioners want you to pay an 8-cent carfare, but you would rather pay 5? Miss SELLERS. Well, I do not know. Yes; I would rather pay 5.Mr. BLANTON. And these commissioners did not want street cars to be put under the jurisdiction of the traffic department, but Congress disagreed with the commissioners. Miss SELLERS. Congress can always do that. Mr. BLANTON. We can not always depend on the commissioners. Miss SELLERS. No; but I have the utmost respect for the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. Whoever occupies that office should have our respect. Mr. BLANTON. You may proceed. It is now about 12 o'clock. Would you mind putting the balance of your statement in the record? Miss SELLERS. I would like very much to read it. Mr. BLANTON. If it is only a few pages, I will wait on you. Miss SELLERS. I do not mind your going, as long as I have a chance to say what I feel it is my duty to say. Mr. BLANTON. I am willing to stay here. 13971-26-7 Miss SELLERS. I am almost through. [Reading:] It is the custom of the woman's bureau to have the physical examination made of the girl, I believe, whenever possible. In pursuance of this plan it is possible to exercise, considerable pressure on the parent in order to gain the consent of the parent to the physical examination, which would otherwise be an assault punishable by law. To this end, the parent might be told that unless consent were given the girl would be sent at once to Gallinger Hospital for observation by the policewomen, or even to St. Elizabeths; because policemen and policewomen have that authority and exercise it. I was told that by former Commissioner Brownlow. Mr. BLANTON. Do you mean that the police have authority to send a girl to St. Elizabeths? Miss SELLERS. I can say that Commissioner Brownlow told me he had signed such orders on the request of the policemen. Mr. BLANTON. You will find that is a mistake. Miss SELLERS. Mr. Brownlow had been a commissioner. Mr. BLANTON. I investigated that. Miss SELLERS. Of course, Mr. Brownlow knew what he had signed. As a matter of fact, I had heard something which made me ask him whether it was possible, and he said it would be possible. Mr. BLANTON. I think you are mistaken about that. Miss SELLERS. I could not be mistaken. It may not be true now; I do not know that. [Reading:] It is the duty of the District of Columbia to see that the children of the city are protected as to their rights. This bill provides only for the prosecution of the child by the woman's bureau and leaves the child entirely at the mercy of he woman's bureau. The child should have someone to present his side of the case. You can not combine the duty of arresting and prosecuting with the protection of the constitutional rights of the children. Attention is called to the enormous increase in the expense incident to the running of the house of detention now under control of the woman's bureau. I have attached hereto a statement prepared by the clerk of the court from official statistics, which I believe to have been carefully prepared, and to be correct, which gives in detail the increase since 1919, the year, I believe, that Mrs. Van Winkle took charge of the house of detention. I am not sure whether it is 1919 or 1920. [Reading:] In studying these figures, it should be carefully remembered that the number of children held there under the order of the juvenile court shows very little, if any, increase between 1918 and 1926. We were not able to have this done for all the years, but I did have the statistics gotten together for one year, and that was the daily average of children held for the juvenile court between July 1, 1924, and June 30, 1925, and that was six children per day. That is the average, and there are half a million people here. [Reading:] The average residence of the child was eight days for the whole group, and four days and under for 42 per cent of the group, while 25 per cent of the whole group were in residence for one or two days. The average length of residence in the house for the whole group was raised by the holding of certain boys who were fugitives and whom it was difficult to get back to the jurisdiction to which they belonged, and whom it seemed best to maintain temporarily in the house of detention rather than commit them permanently to the National Training School for Boys where they would be an expense to the District of Columbia of approximately $400 per year. The number of children held under court order for the Supreme Court of the District has not been ascertained, but I venture to say that it could not have averaged one a month. I might be wrong in this, but that is just my guess. [Reading:] Bearing this in mind, it is interesting therefore to see that in 1918 the cost of maintenance for the house of detention was $3,930, with a personnel expense of $10,400. This sum practically doubled in 1919, and in 1921 it had advanced from $3,930 to $34,940, with a slight increase in personnel. In 1922 the maintenance was $20,320; in 1923, $17,000; in 1924, $17,000; in 1925, $17,000; and in 1926, $16,800, with a personnel of $14,340. The amount expended for personnel did not include the salaries of policewomen and policemen on duty as telephone operators, clerks, guards, chaffeurs, etc. In addition to this, we have been told that Mrs. Van Winkle spent a sum of $60,000-and I think I have seen a statement of $64,000 Mr. BLANTON (interposing). Mr. Rudolph told me that. Miss SELLERS (continuing): of her own fortune in maintaining this house of detention in Washington. İ think she has been in the house of detention seven years, which would make about $9,000 a year she has spent of her private fortune. So this amount must be added each year, in studying the development of the house of detention. For instance, if she spent the $9,000 in 1921, the maintenance of the house would have cost nearly $43,000. In addition to this I have been told by Mrs. Van Winkle that large donations have been made by firms in the city, one firm giving as much as $1,000 for the equipment of the house of detention. I have been told by Mrs. Van Winkle that the private expense of her apartment at the Woodward amounts to $500 a month, and it is quite possible that of this $64,000 spent in the last seven years in Washington, D. C., perhaps $42,000, I will say, can be accounted for, leaving a balance of $22,000 that has been spent on the house of detention and incidentals. Mr. BLANTON. Well, now, Judge Sellers, do you think it is quite fair to go into the home life of Mrs. Van Winkle and tell what she pays for her apartment? Judge SELLERS. We have a right to do this. I am a judge of the juvenile court and a citizen of the District of Columbia. Mr. BLANTON. Is it any business of the people what she pays for her apartment? Miss SELLERS. I have heard her make the statement more or less publicly. I think the District of Columbia is entitled to know what that $64,000 was spent for. Mr. BLANTON. Her own money? Miss SELLERS. Yes. Mr. BLANTON. Mrs. Van Winkle has never said one word to me in her life about spending a cent for the house of detention. The only information that I ever received, and I have never asked her about it, was from Commissioner Rudolph in his own office, and he voluntarily made that statement to me. Miss SELLERS. Well, then, you are my authority for the statement which is in the record. Now, then, I have just two more pages. Mr. BLANTON. You may proceed. This is the first time I have ever stayed away from the House, and I am doing it out of courtesy for you. Miss SELLERS. Thank you very much. It will be a great relief to me when I get through. [Reading:] But if it is true that she has spent $64,000 of her private fortune, I believe that the people of the District are entitled to have an itemized account of the spending of this money if it was used privately to maintain the house of detention. In the development of the work by the woman's bureau it is necessary to have a going institution, and to have the institution it is necessary to have a population. In view of the expense already incident to the running of the house of detention and the statement of Mrs. Van Winkle that she has spent $64,000 of her private fortune Mr. BLANTON (interposing). That is a mistake. She has never made that statement. Miss SELLERS. I could not say what she said to me; I could not say as to that. Mr. BLANTON. But she has never made the statement before the committee or anywhere else. Miss SELLERS. Well, then, I will cut that out. I will make it the statement of Representative Blanton. Mr. BLANTON. That Commissioner Rudolph told me that. Mr. BLANTON. Every statement I ever made was based upon what Mr. Rudolph himself told me. Miss SELLERS. I do not doubt it in the least. I think Mrs. Van Winkle has spent this money, but I do not say that at all. [Reading:] In view of the expense already incident to the running of the house of detention, and the statement of Mr. Blanton in the Congressional Record that she has spent $64,000 of her private fortune, it seems to me that the time has come for Congress to seriously consider whether this plan is to be financed on a larger scale each year by the Federal Government and the District government, for eventually Mrs. Van Winkle will cease to contribute to the running expenses of the house of detention. If it is the desire of Congress that people shall be taken and held without court order and that the District should maintain this expensive lodging house for women and children, the passage of this bill will meet the need, for it would enable the woman's bureau to go out to the byways, highways, and houses and invite to the house of detention a sufficient population to make it a live, vigorous institution. In closing, I desire to say that I have the utmost respect for Mrs. Van Winkle I do not know whether she believes it or not, but I have. I absolutely differ with her on various things, but I have the utmost respect for her. [Reading:] and the remarkable group of splendid women that she has been able to bring to her bureau, many of whom have remained with her for years and have done excellent work. What I have said is no personal criticism of Mrs. Van Winkle, for whom I have the highest regard. I can not allow, however, any personal feeling that I may have for her to turn me aside from the duty that I feel incumbent upon me in a matter of the statement of principles affecting the children of the District of Columbia. I believe, as I have said, in a good, strong arm in the way of a police force of peace officers, but I also believe in the judicial arm of our Government and I believe that every child is entitled to his or her day in court. We do not want police government. We have seen how this operated in Germany and Russia. I can not go into this as I should like, because I am not sure of what I want to say, but at some future time I may do so. [Reading:] We all know the history of the Bastille, where persons were lodged on lettres des cachet. So important was the day which saw the destruction of this Bastille that the key is lodged at historic Mount Vernon as one of the memorials incident to the establishment of freedom and the right of every man to have his day in court, and not to be deprived of his liberty without due process of law. |