CONTENTS H.R. 16941 (Abbitt, Stubblefield, Gettys, Watson and Fountain), to STATEMENTS Abbitt, Hon. W. M., Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia_ Appleby, Thomas, Executive Director, Redevelopment Land Agency. Friedel, Hon. Samuel N., Representative in Congress from the State of 41, 63, 90, 111 41 41 4 Fountain, Hon. L. H., Representative in Congress from the State of North Haase, Richard O., Chairman, Legislation and Taxation Committee, Roth, George, 8th Street, N. E.. Howard, Mrs. Ernest, Representing Federation of Citizens Associations, Kalavitinos, George, Washington, D.C. citizen and businessman. Naquin, Oliver, Rear Admiral, USN (Retired) Fourteenth Street, N.W. Ruppert, Raymond R., Realtor, 1017 7th Street, N. W.. the North Washington Council, and the Columbia Heights Citizens Association__. 103 64 83 91 106 113 95 Warden, Jr., Charles, on behalf of the owners of a building at 14th and 86 30 Watson, Hon. Albert W., Representative in Congress from the State of MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD Boston College Industrial and Commercial Law Review, Student Com- (III) 11 17 5 61 D.C. Government: Letter dated May 10, 1968 to Chairman McMillan reporting on Letter dated May 10, 1968 to Chairman McMillan reporting on Letter dated May 20, 1968 to Chairman Whitener and enclosure listing Report dated July 8, 1968 of Costs to the District of Columbia of the Poor People's Campaign___ Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia, resolutions. Maryland-Delaware-District of Columbia Jewelers' Association, An Open Letter to the President of the United States, and the Mayor of Washington, being an advertisement in the Washington Post of May 17, 1968. Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade, William H. Press, executive vice president, letter to Chairman McMillan dated May 13, 1968---Metropolitan Washington Federation of Business Associations, Inc., Mrs. Josephine Ashby, president, letter to Congressman Ancher Nelsen, dated April 29, 1968 Retail Liquor Dealers Assn., Hilliard Schulberg, Executive Director, statement_-_. Washington Post, advertisement "Ben Brown is Dead", issue of May 7, Washington Evening Star, August 7, 1968, article entitled "U.S. Sends Page 2 3 108 54 51 59 103 98 116 115 81 115 117 Washington Sunday Star, June 30, 1968, article entitled "Adding Up the 117 51 WMAL, Evening Star Broadcasting Co., editorial dated May 5, 1968, entitled "Bonds for Demonstrations". BONDS FOR PARADE PERMITS, AND REMOVAL OF DESTROYED BUILDINGS MONDAY, MAY 13, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL INVESTIGATING SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The Special Investigating Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 o'clock a.m., in room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Basil L. Whitener (chairman of the Special Investigating Subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives McMillan (chairman of the full committee), Whitener (presiding), Nelsen, Winn, and Steiger. Also present: James T. Clark, clerk; Sara Watson, assistant counsel; Donald Tubridy, minority clerk; and Leonard Ó. Hilder, investigator. Mr. WHITTENER (presiding). The subcommittee will now come to order. We will proceed with hearings on H.R. 16941, a bill by Mr. Abbitt and others to authorize an officer or employee of the government of the District of Columbia to require applicants for permits to parade in the District of Columbia to post a bond to cover certain costs of such parade. We will also hear the testimony relating to H.R. 16948, a bill to direct the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to remove at the expense of the District of Columbia buildings destroyed or damaged in riots or other civil disorders. These bills relate to subjects which are very much on the minds of the people, not only in the Nation's Capital, but throughout the Nation. And we are delighted that we are having as witnesses Members of the Congress, members of the District government, as well as members of the community. H.R. 16941 and H.R. 16948, together with the Commissioners' reports, will be printed in the record at this point. (The documents referred to follow :) [H.R. 16941, 90th Cong., 2d sess., by Mr. Abbitt (for himself, Mr. Stubblefield, Mr. Gettys, Mr. Watson, and Mr. Fountain), on May 1, 1968] A BILL To authorize an officer or employee of the government of the District of Columbia to require applicants for permits to parade in the District of Columbia to post a bond to cover certain costs of such parade Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no officer or employee of the government of the District of Columbia shall issue or sign any permit for a parade in the District of Columbia if such officer or employee determines that such parade may cause property damage or disorder which would constitute a breach of the peace unless the person requesting such permit posts a bond in an amount determined by such officer or employee as will cover the estimated cost of— (1) damage to property; and (2) equipment and personnel needed to maintain order, excluding such equipment and personnnel as are needed to route traffic and to protect those parading. SEC. 2. (a) If the conditions of such permit are violated, the issuing officer or employee shall immediately revoke such permit, and the person to whom such permit was issued shall declare such parade at an end and shall actively cooperate in the dispersement of such parade. (b) Failure by the person to whom such permit is issued to comply with the requirements of subsection (a) shall result in forfeiture of the total amount of the bond. SEC. 3. The term "parade" includes march, demonstration, or other assemblage. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Washington, May 10, 1968. The Honorable JOHN L. MCMILLAN, DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The Government of the District of Columbia has for report H.R. 16941, 90th Congress, a bill "To authorize an officer or employee of the government of the District of Columbia to require applicants for permits to parade in the District of Columbia to post a bond to cover certain costs of such parade." The bill provides that no officer or employee of the District Government shall issue or sign any permit for a parade (a term defined by section 3 of the bill to include marches, demonstrations, or other assemblages) if he determines that the parade may cause property damage or disorder which would constitute a breach of the peace, unless he first requires the applicant for such parade permit to post a bond in an amount determined by the officer or employee to cover the estimated cost of damage to property, and the estimated cost of equipment and personnel needed to maintain order (but not including the cost of such equipment and personnel as may be needed to route traffic and to protect the persons participating in any such parade). Failure to comply with the conditions of the permit will, under the bill, result in its revocation, and in such case the permittee is required to declare the parade at an end and actively cooperate in its disbursement. The failure of the permittee to comply with the last-mentioned requirements will result in the forfeiture of the total amount of the bond which the permittee has posted. It is the view of the District of Columbia Government that while the object of the bill is to relieve the District government from bearing property damage and other costs arising out of a parade, march, demonstration, or other assemblage, it raises a constitutional question as to whether the bill infringes on the right of peaceable assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Metropolitan Police Department, the United States Park Police, the National Park Service, and the General Services Administration are presently the agencies responsible for the issuance of permits for parades, demonstrations, and the like. While these agencies require the filing of an application in writing, and some consultation as to time, place, date, duration, number of persons involved, equipment and facilities, there are no charges made, and the permit form is considered informational, rather than restrictive. Under the bill, no criteria are provided to guide the government official or employee as to what constitutes "property damage or disorder". The official or employee is thus faced with formulating his personal view as to whether any disorder will occur and the amount of damage that may accrue. The bill provides for no avenue of appeal from the decision of the official or employee if he decides that a bond is required. Failing to post the required bond demanded would prevent the issuance of any permit. The result of the enactment of the bill could be to establish a government official or employee as the arbiter of who is worthy of parading, marching, or demonstrating, and the amount of bond, if any, that it will cost the permittee to parade, march, or demonstrate. |