OTHER LOSSES Estimated cost of insured property losses or damages, including inventories, as revised by insured underwriters (making Washington's losses, under these preliminary estimates, higher than those in any other U.S. city) (million). Job losses in riot-torn areas. (This is an elusive figure. There was testimony before the Committee that on 7th Street alone one of the several areas of widespread destruction-1,034 people were put out of work.) Cost of Federalizing the National Guard and Bringing in 14,000 Army $24 ? $5.3 ESTIMATES OF COSTS TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT OF THE RECENT DISTURBANCES EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Washington, D.C., May 3, 1968. Mr. JAMES T. CLARK, You will note that the footnotes on pages 3, 4 and 5 indicate the purpose for which the money was used. D. P. HERMAN, Budget Officer, D.O. SUMMARY OF INDICATIONS OF AGENCY COSTS OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DISTURBANCE 1 Indicates figure includes "Capital outlay costs." See explanations for details. 2 Indicates total includes anticipated $200,000 grant from Federal Government to Licenses and Inspections Agency to help finance the estimated $300,000 costs of razing dangerous buildings and removing debris. 94-293-68-7 (Subsequently, the following letter was received for the record:) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Hon. JOHN M. MCMILLAN, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: At the Committee hearing held on May 16, 1968, Congressman Mathias requested that I submit a list of areas for new legislation which would be helpful to prosecutions in the District of Columbia. Accordingly, I submit the following areas which merit Committee consideration: 1. The common-law rule in the District of Columbia permits an arrested person to use force to resist an illegal arrest. A like common-law rule has been changed by decision in New Jersey and by statute in six other states. In a recently argued case in the Court of Appeals an opportunity was afforded the Court to re-examine the rule, but it appears the Court will decide the case without reaching that point. Further consideration should be given to the question whether the law should require an arrested person to submit to arrest without the right to resist by the use of force or should the common-law right to resist be retained. In cases involving assaults on police officers it is common to find defendants justifying use of force to resist arrest on the theory that the officer did not have sufficient probable cause to arrest thereby claiming the arrest to be illegal. 2. It is essential that we have strict gun control legislation in the District of Columbia, and that the law cover both hand guns and long guns. Such legislation has been previously proposed by the Department of Justice. I cannot too strongly urge the Committee to re-examine this proposal. 3. Modification of the Bail Reform Act is currently being studied by a committee of the Judicial Council of this Circuit and by the D.C. Committee on the Administration of Justice under Emergency Conditions. Recommended amendments of the Act will no doubt emerge from those studies. A recent interim report of the Council Committee indicates some sentiment favoring legislation providing for pretrial detention during declared emergencies in certain civil disorder cases such as arson, possession or use of firearms, explosives and incendiary materials; there was also some indication that inciting to riot, burglary and assault with a dangerous weapon should be included. Needed legislation should probably await the reports of these on-going studies. Please be assured of my cooperation in connection with your effort. cc: Hon. CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS, Jr. House of Representatives 107 Cannon Building Washington, D.C. DAVID G. BRESS, United States Attorney. APPENDIX STAFF MEMORANDUM, MAY 15, 1968-THE APRIL 1968 CIVIL Beginning on the evening of April 4 of this year, the District of Columbia experienced a widespread outbreak of rioting, looting, arson, and destruction of property. When the last Federal troops were withdrawn from the city on April 16, many blocks of the city were a burnedout shambles, with a total of 645 buildings and 283 housing units badly damaged or destroyed. Also, some 909 commercial establishments and their contents were destroyed or damaged. The commercial areas of 14th Street and 7th Street, N.W., and of H Street, N.E., were particularly hard hit by this wave of vandalism and arson. As a result, many small business establishments in these sections were badly damaged or totally destroyed by fire. Many of the men and women who owned these businesses have lost not only their property, but their sole means of earning a living and their entire life savings as well. While some have recouped a portion of their loss through insurance, few if any of these people will ever be completely reimbursed. The District estimates that the cost of demolishing and removing these unsafe damaged buildings or parts thereof will be approximately $300,000. Total losses of property in the riot-torn areas may never be completely calculated. The latest estimate of losses or damages to "insured" properties alone in the concentrated areas of looting and destruction has been fixed by insured underwriters at $25 million. Job losses, business losses, and hotel, restaurant and sightseeing losses, during this the busiest season in Washington likewise have been appalling and presently not determined. Widespread reports have been received by the Committee of innumerable instances attested to by witnesses, seen personally or on the various TV channels, of looting and plundering in the presence of the police, and subsequently in the presence of troops, with no apparent attempt being made by the police or troops to prevent or control same. What actual orders were issued to the police or troops is not clear from preliminary inquiry. Estimates of losses from the April 1968 civil disturbances in Washington No. of Public and Institutional Establishments Damaged or Destroyed____ These are estimates of losses in the concentrated areas of destruction; scattered damages outside thereof would run 15% of those figures, according to D.C. Government estimates. 8 (87) Of the $36,440 costs to date, $25,385 was for labor and $11,555 was These costs were for small repairs and labor. This agency cannot GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Washington, May 8, 1968. Mr. JAMES T. CLARK, Clerk, House District Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CLARK: Following up on my letter of April 29, 1968 concerning the costs of the recent disturbances, I now have some figures for the cost of federalizing the National Guard and bringing in Army troops. They are as follows: Gross Cost---- Normal Costs_-_. Net Cost--- $5, 394, 072 (2,966, 255) (246, 440) 2, 181, 377 The normal costs are those which would have been expended for paying Army troops and their other costs wherever they would have been located. The offset costs are for items which were issued and subsequently returned after the disturbances. It is of interest that one of the largest costs was that of transportation, which was $1,050,960. These costs included the cost of federalizing the National Guard, although the costs thereof other than salaries has not been computed. The pay for the National Guardsmen was $232,983. I trust this information will be of assistance to you and the Committee. Sincerely yours, THOMAS W. FLETCHER. AUTHORITY FOR USE OF TROOPS IN THE SUPPRESSION OF RIOTS (D.C. Code, Title 39, Sec. 603) When there is in the District of Columbia a tumult, riot, mob, or a body of men acting together by force with attempt to commit a felony or to offer violence to persons or property, or by force or violence to break and resist the laws, or when such tumult, riot, or mob is threatened, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, or for the United States marshal for the District of Columbia, to call on the commander-in-chief to aid them in suppressing such violence and enforcing the laws; the commander-in-chief shall thereupon order out so much and such portion of the militia as he may deem necessary to suppress the same, and no member thereof who shall be thus ordered out by proper authority for any such duty shall be liable to civil or criminal prosecution for any act done in the discharge of his military duty. (Mar. 1, 1889, 25 Stat. 778, ch. 328 § 45; Feb. 18, 1909, 35 Stat. 634, ch. 146, § 48.) (See also U.S. Code, Title 32) |