portant one. The legislature through the Police Training Act of 1965 has taken the first step toward providing a uniform educational program for the training of our police officers. This program should include effective riot control training and the individual departments should be adequately trained to anticipate and prevent the kind of outbreaks which have unfortunately occurred. There should also be a program of intercommunity cooperation developed so that riot situations can be handled promptly and with maximum manpower available.

2. Make certain that insurance coverage is adequate.-Many of the smaller communities have extensive liability insurance programs. It is incumbent upon the municipal attorney to make certain that this area is adequately covered. It is to be hoped that the insurance companies do not attempt to eliminate such coverage from municipal policies.

3. Seek appropriate statutory amendments.-Such amendment could involve setting up defenses for municipalities when the plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence or failed to exercise due care for their own safety. Again liability might be precluded if the municipality was not negligent and had made reasonable efforts to prevent mob violence. Finally the possibility of requiring the State of Illinois or the county to share in the liability should be examined. 4. Prompt enforcement of criminal sanctions against violators.-Article 25 of the Criminal Code 20 provides substantial penalties for participants in mob action. It would appear that the imposition of these strict penalties and proper circumstances might deter rioters in the future. Certainly token penalties or booking offenders on lesser charges can only contribute to a disrespect for the law and encourage further violations. As noted, the municipality does have a lien in the amount of moneys recovered by plaintiffs against persons participating in mob action. In practice these lien rights may be valueless.

It is, of course, possible that the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act could be amended to specifically grant immunity to a municipality from claims arising out of mob action. The conflicting policy decisions involved in seeking such amendments, however, deserve careful consideration and the possibility of outright immunity or repeal of Section 1-4-8 of the Illinois Municipal Code seems unlikely. Thus it may be concluded that this is another problem that already overburdened municipal officials will have to assume, at least until the threat of mob violence is vitiated.

The only real answer to the problem must lie in the re-establishment of peace and security in our community. The mob violence statute is a recognition that respect for the law is not always prevalent. As lawyers we all have a basic responsibility to promote that respect for law and order which will render such statutes unnecessary.

Mr. WHITENER. Thank you very much, Mr. Friedel.

Are there any questions? Mr. McMillan?

Mr. MCMILLAN. I assure you that our committee will do everything possible to expedite action on this bill.

Mr. FRIEDEL. Thank you.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Thank you for taking your time to appear before us. Mr. WHITENER. I notice on page two of your statement that you say: "But since the District government is responsible for maintaining law and order and for preventing and suppressing riots, looting and burning, then it seems only fair and reasonable to me that the District government should bear the cost of removing the resultant debris."

This is in line with the thinking of some of the citizens whose articles I have read in the papers, who are preparing law suits against the District government for not exercising due diligence in maintaining law and order and in the suppression of the rioting, as I understand it.

Mr. FRIEDEL. Mine does not go that far. This is as to the cost of removing the debris. I do not want to cast any reflections on the police department or the military. I think that they did a wonderful job.

20 Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, Ch. 38, § 25-1.

Mr. WHITENER. Thank you very much, Mr. Friedel.

Mr. FRIEDEL. There are quite a few other people who want to be heard on this bill, and I want to thank you very much for this opportunity.

Mr. WHITENER. At this point we have Congressman Fountain, of North Carolina, who is a cosponsor of H.R. 16941, to present his testimony.

We are delighted to have you with us, Mr. Fountain. I believe this is the first time I have had the privilege of having my colleague before this subcommittee. He and I do a lot of talking every day on other matters and maybe on this, too. We will be delighted to hear from

you now.

STATEMENT OF HON. L. H. FOUNTAIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. FOUNTAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I would like to say that I have not had occasion to come before this subcommittee, because I felt that our interests have been well protected by my colleague who has just spoken, Mr. Whitener, from North Carolina.

First, let me thank the committee for meeting and taking testimony. There have been times when we were wondering whether any of our committees had the courage to sit down and listen to this subject and to take some action.

I am here this morning to join my colleagues in urging that your subcommittee favorably report a bill which would place appropriate restrictions on the uncontrolled use of public areas in the District of Columbia. I have joined Congressman Abbitt in a bill which leaves this matter in the discretion of the authorities as to whether or not they will permit parades or demonstrations. Frankly, the bill is too weak. I think that the committee can write appropriate legislation.

I introduced another bill which had been referred, I think, to the House Interior Committee, which provides, in effect, that the Secretary of the Interior shall not permit any person to camp upon or otherwise occupy overnight any land within the District of Columbia under his jurisdiction within the areas bounded on the east by 11th Street, S.E. and N.E., on the north by M Street, N.E. and S.E., and on the west and south of the Potomac and the Anacostia Rivers, including East Potomac Park which includes the central part of the District of Columbia.

As a sponsor of legislation which I think could be helpful I am gravely concerned that without some restriction the announced plans of those who are already marching on Washington will lead to disorder and disruption of the orderly functioning of our federal government. First, I think we should consider that public grounds are set aside for the general use and enjoyment of all of the people of this country, and to permit one group to erect tents or huts or other structures for an extended period of time denies all others the use of the property intended for all.

And let me emphasize this point: Such a practice may well plague Washington as the seat of government for years to come.

I think that the problems of health and sanitation and the food and the like recognized by every member of the committee. They always raise possible difficulties whenever large numbers of persons are concerned, and they will be greatly expanded in park lands surrounded by government office buildings.

There has been some fear expressed that any legislation restricting the use of the District public areas would conflict with the First Amendment guarantee of assemblage to petition the government. I think that argument is not valid here, because from everything I have been able to read and from what I have heard, the petitions that are supposed to take place will not take place on the Mall, except that it might be construed a public petition, or in the West Potomac Park area or wherever the camp site is planned.

I do not think that anyone and I, certainly do not want or intend to deny any person any right to present his case to this government.

One of the problems today is that so few have that opportunity and unless they are members of organized groups, that right will not be endangered in any way by limiting the use of public lands, and to say so, in my opinion, is a specious argument.

Another factor I think should be considered which is the possibility—and this is a very real one on the basis of experience that persons who are not members of the groups coming to Washington, encouraging or instigating disorder among the group.

Senator McClellan has just invited the attention of the Senate and the country to some confidential information which he has received on this subject. This sort of thing would be all too easy to accomplish if the Mall or the nearby territory is permitted to be used as a camp ground, certainly, for the period of time which I understand has already been agreed to with the group in question. And it would be vastly enhanced by the danger to the thousands of government employees who must travel that area each morning and each evening, by those who like to do their dirty work under cover of the night.

When all of these factors are considered I hope and I believe that the members of the committee will decide that appropriate limitations on the use of public areas and the activities permitted to take place on these areas are necessary and that no constitutional right is endangered by so doing.

If this Congress, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, does not soon show some extent of responsibility in connection with matters of this kind, there is no telling what people otherwise considered responsible people may do and how irresponsible some of them may become. I think all of the facts are known. I think that we know what has been taking place in America—what is taking place in Washington-and I think that it behooves us here in the Congress, in the absence of action on the part of the Executive Branch so far to do anything, that we should provide the tools that will keep America as the land of the free and the home of the brave and that will protect not only the lives of our people, but the property which is almost a part of themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity to be heard.

Mr. WHITENER. Thank you.

Mr. McMillan?

CREATING THE FEDERAL CITY

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Fountain, we all appreciate your taking your time to give us your opinion on the proposed legislation present before us this morning.

I wonder if you could give us some idea what George Washington's reasons were for taking out the original ten-mile square area here— why do you think he did this?

Mr. FOUNTAIN. Your colleague sitting on your left probably could give you much better explanation in response to that question because of his experience on this committee, but it has always been my understanding that it was staked out as the seat of the government, the Federal government, and was to be used for that purpose. I do not think that purpose should in any way deprive our citizens of any rights which they have under the Constitution.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Is it not a fact that in the City of Philadelphia, where Congress met before the District of Columbia was created, that the Congress could not transact its business in a businesslike manner? The situation became so bad that George Washington felt that something should be done to correct the same. He staked out the ten miles square known as the District of Columbia, so that the Congress of the United States could be protected, since the police force and militia in Philadelphia did not even try to protect the Congress and that is the reason for the creation of this city.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. It is my understanding that it was one of the basic causes for it.

Mr. MCMILLAN. For the protection of the people who are trying to transact the business of the Federal government-it was for that purpose, was it not?

Mr. FOUNTAIN. It is my understanding that that was one of the basic reasons for it.

Mr. MCMILLAN. We recognize, every person has the right to come to Washington and petition his Congressman, or petition the Congress. I do not think that they should be permitted to remain here on public property and suppress the orderly procedure of the government. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Winn?

Mr. WINN. No questions.

RIGHT OF APPEAL

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Fountain, we have here a report from the District Commissioner's office on this legislation in which some objection is expressed as to the enactment of this legislation. And they say in this report that one of their objections is that the bill does not spell out any avenue of appeal for the applicant from the decision of the official or employee if he decides that a bond is required, and the exercise of discretion by the District official is involved. As they interpret the legislation, this would deprive a citizen of any remedy at law; at least, that is my interpretation from a hurried reading of the report. Is that not a rather nonsensical statement in the light of the cases that are now on the books, the decisions of the Supreme Court, such as in the Birmingham case and many other cases where citizens have

I think that the problems of health and sanitation and the food and the like recognized by every member of the committee. They always raise possible difficulties whenever large numbers of persons are concerned, and they will be greatly expanded in park lands surrounded by government office buildings.

There has been some fear expressed that any legislation restricting the use of the District public areas would conflict with the First Amendment guarantee of assemblage to petition the government. I think that argument is not valid here, because from everything I have been able to read and from what I have heard, the petitions that are supposed to take place will not take place on the Mall, except that it might be construed a public petition, or in the West Potomac Park area or wherever the camp site is planned.

I do not think that anyone and I, certainly do not want or intend to deny any person any right to present his case to this government.

One of the problems today is that so few have that opportunity and unless they are members of organized groups, that right will not be endangered in any way by limiting the use of public lands, and to say so, in my opinion, is a specious argument.

Another factor I think should be considered which is the possibility—and this is a very real one on the basis of experience that persons who are not members of the groups coming to Washington, encouraging or instigating disorder among the group.

Senator McClellan has just invited the attention of the Senate and the country to some confidential information which he has received on this subject. This sort of thing would be all too easy to accomplish if the Mall or the nearby territory is permitted to be used as a camp ground, certainly, for the period of time which I understand has already been agreed to with the group in question. And it would be vastly enhanced by the danger to the thousands of government employees who must travel that area each morning and each evening, by those who like to do their dirty work under cover of the night.

When all of these factors are considered I hope and I believe that the members of the committee will decide that appropriate limitations on the use of public areas and the activities permitted to take place on these areas are necessary and that no constitutional right is endangered by so doing.

If this Congress, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, does not soon show some extent of responsibility in connection with matters of this kind, there is no telling what people otherwise considered responsible people may do and how irresponsible some of them may become. I think all of the facts are known. I think that we know what has been taking place in America—what is taking place in Washington-and I think that it behooves us here in the Congress, in the absence of action on the part of the Executive Branch so far to do anything, that we should provide the tools that will keep America as the land of the free and the home of the brave and that will protect not only the lives of our people, but the property which is almost a art of themselves.

ank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity to be

WHITENER. Thank you.