Mr. WALDIE. I mean that is different? Mr. LEIBOWITZ. That is not so because you may find a few miscreants here but you just can't indict the whole system. I will tell you why. You asked a very specific question and you are entitled to a specific answer. What are we trying to do here? We are trying to stop the flow of this stuff into this country by the use of customs and narcotics agents. We are trying to sweep away the ocean with a broom. Only 15 percent of the heroin that comes into this country is seized by our customs and other enforcement people, 85 percent comes in because they just can't handle it. You remember we tried an experiment with Mexico in an endeavor to stop the hashish from coming into this country? It was a failure. We just had to give it up, didn't we? It just can't be done simply with customs guards and enforcement officials. You have got to nip it at its source. You have got to dry it up there where it is manufactured and that is the solution. Now, I feel, as undoubtedly you feel, there is nothing lower in the human calendar, than a police officer who would do business with a dope peddler. If you ask the people at large what they would do with a rascal of that kind, I would say that they would recommend that they should tie him to a post in a public place and whip him. There is nothing lower than that and if the New York Times is correct that some detectives here in New York, members of the narcotics squad, are doing business with dope peddlers, then if they ever land into the courtroom, I hope they land before a judge that will just bury them in prison. Now, we have a Federal statute. It provides for the capital punishment where a peddler sells dope to a minor. I think you are all familiar with that statute. But it has never been enforced and there is a reason why. The statute makes no distinction between the dope peddler per se, who is not an addict and a dope peddler who is peddling narcotics in order to satisfy his own craving. I recommend to you Members of Congress that the law be amended so as to make clear that capital punishment should be visited upon a dope peddler per se and not an addict who is also a dope peddler. Now, have I answered your question, Mr. Waldie? Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Wiggins, any questions? Mr. WIGGINS, No; I have no questions of the judge. Thank you. Mr. PEPPER. Judge, we thank you very much. We are very much pleased that you have given us the benefit of your valuable learning. Thank you. Mr. LEIBOWITZ. I wish to offer for the record the letter that I have read. Mr. PEPPER. Without objection, the letter will be received and incorporated in the record. Thank you again, Judge. The next witness will be Mr. William M. Tendy Judge, we would be delighted to have you stay with us and counsel with us in any way. Mr. LEIBOWITZ. There is a case being held for me over in the supreme court and I cannot say to them that Chairman Claude Pepper and his committee come first. Mr. PEPPER. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate it. Mr. William M. Tendy, an assistant U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York since 1957, has been chief of the narcotics unit in that office for the last 12 years. A graduate of Fordham College and Fordham Law School, Mr. Tendy as chief of the narcotics unit has had direct responsibility for the prosecution of all Federal narcotics violations within the southern district of New York, the district with the greatest volume of this type of criminal activity in the country. Mr. Tendy supervised the pretrial and legal investigations which resulted in the indictments and convictions of Vito Genovese, Mauricio Rosal, the Guatemalan Ambassador to Belgium, Joseph Valachi, Vincent Mauro, Frank Caruso, Attorney Frances Kahn and her secretary, Israel Schwartzberg, Vincent Rao, and a group of Australians who had imported a substantial quantity of heroin from Hong Kong to the United States. He personally tried and convicted John "Big John" Ormento, Carmine Galante, Salvador Pardo-Boland, the Mexican Ambassador to Bolivia, Juan Carlo Arizti, the Uruguayan Minister Plenipotentiary, the infamous retired Army major, Samuel Desist, Frank Dioguardi, the brother of the well-known Johnny Dio, and the members of the famous fish can and ski pole narcotic importing conspiracies. So we are very fortunate to have so experienced and so able a man to testify before our committee, and the country is fortunate to have so able and so dedicated a public servant. Mr. Tendy, we will welcome your statement. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. TENDY, ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Mr. TENDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, of course I certainly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and to make a statement about this extremely serious problem. I would like you to know that the opinions which I express are my own. They don't necessarily reflect the opinion of the Attorney General, the opinions of anybody in the Department of Justice, or the opinions of the U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York. I am testifying here, however, with the approval of the Department of Justice. Mr. PEPPER. We want to express our appreciation to the Department of Justice for making your testimony available to us. Mr. TENDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My contact with narcotics far preceded my service with the Department of Justice. I first saw it as a knock-around high school dropout when I lived in the South Bronx and the East Harlem areas of this city. Eventually I came into much more intimate contact with it in a professional way as a private practitioner in East Harlem. I have always been acutely aware of its potential and I have seen it grow to the monstrous proportions that we now know. Gentlemen, it can and will get considerably worse unless and until something is done about it. The recognition of the existence of a most serious narcotics problem has finally blossomed to the point where in my opinion an alarmed and concerned public is ready to grasp at almost any approach_that would seem to offer a solution. Sound solutions, however, and I use the plural advisedly, since there is no single answer, can only be arrived at through thorough and objective inquiry. A committee such as yours can serve this purpose and also act as a bulwark for the public against the veritable tide of panaceas with which it is being bombarded-one of the most dangerous of which is the suggestion that narcotics should be supplied to the addict. I know, this was adverted to yesterday by Agent Costello of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, but it bears repetition. He pointed out to you the difficulty that England is having, and our own experience here in the early 1920's. I would like to add to that, to point out to you the fact that Israel tried this system for 10 years and gave it up as a hopeless, miserable failure that only enhanced their problem. As I see it, there are two broad approaches to the entire problem: (1) The scientific approach. This includes all of the possible medical, psychiatric, social and educational aspects; and (2) the law enforcement approach. This includes all of the diplomatic police and prosecutive aspects. As to the former, I believe that I am as qualified to give an opinion as any well-informed layman who has had personal contact with the problem. I am not a doctor, psychiatrist or social worker but I believe it to be apparent that, given the fact of addiction there must follow the facts of demand and supply. By the same token, a readily available source of supply will enhance the growth of addiction where the potential for addiction exists whatever might be the reasons for that potential. It is this situation that has been responsible for the growth of the illicit narcotics traffic to the point where it is one of the most highly organized areas of criminal activity-an area that constantly challenges the talents of the most competent in law enforcement. Let us look at the enforcement problem in broad outline and then discuss briefly what is being done and what can be done about it. At the outset, let me state that the addiction problem in the United States as we know it could not exist but for the fact that the illicit traffic is so well organized. Federal enforcement experience has enabled us to chart with reasonable accuracy the channels of heroin distribution. It is true that channels may vary. This is so, for example, in the case of the occasional seaman who will pick up a kilogram in Marseilles to turn a quick dollar. This type of exception is not in any way illustrative of the highly organized and sophisticated narcotics maneuver nor does it contribute in any substantial degree to the narcotics problem as it exists in New York or elsewhere in the United States. I distinguish this, of course, from the use of individual couriers by overseas mobs to smuggle two or three kilograms at a time in what we call a ratpacking operation. The general organizational setup of the illicit narcotics traffic is illustrated by the chart which I have provided. The chart is the result of the facts in documented cases which I have prosecuted such as the case of Mauricio Rosal, the case of Salvador Pardo-Boland, and the case of Samuel Desist, the retired Army major. What are some of the smuggling techniques that are utilized? There are a number of exhibits in the room today, practically all of them from cases with which we have had personal contact. 1. Sectionalized automobile gas tanks. 2. Freezers over there on my left there is a freezer that was brought to the United States by an Army warrant officer and it was shipped to this country at the taxpayer's expense among his personal belongings. Instead of insulation, that freezer was insulated by 95 kilograms of pure heroin. Mr. PEPPER. Excuse me, Mr. Tendy. Just to be sure you get it in the record and also so that the people listening may understand, would you just quickly run through your chart? Mr. TENDY. Yes. Mr. PEPPER. These are the channels of heroin distribution? Mr. TENDY. These are generally the channels of heroin distribution. (The chart delineating channels of heroin distribution follows:) |