conviction is had shall cause a certified copy of the judgment of conviction to be transmitted to the board having authority to issue licenses to practice medicine or pharmacy in the District of Columbia. The CHAIRMAN. The committee meets to-day to consider Senate 3344, a bill supplementing the national prohibition act for the District of Columbia, and introduced by Senator Howell. I would like to insert in the record correspondence with the Attorney General on this bill. OCTOBER 30, 1929. MY DEAR MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I understand that the Department of Justice recently has had occasion to examine the law-enforcement situation in the District of Columbia, and it occurs to me that possibly the need of some legislation to aid in administering justice in the District has been discovered. The members of the Senate District Committee are anxious to improve law enforcement in the Capital of the Nation and would welcome any suggestions that you care to make. If you are of the opinion that additional legislation would be helpful to the law-enforcement officers of the District and will forward to me drafts of the bills you have in mind, I shall be glad to introduce them, with a view to early consideration and action by the committee. With highest regards, I am, Cordially yours, ARTHUR CAPPER, Chairman. Hon. ARTHUR CAPPER, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D. C., December 30, 1929. Chairman Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, United States Senate. MY DEAR SENATOR CAPPER: Under date of November 8 I acknowledged receipt of your letter of October 30, in which you suggested the need of some legislation to aid in administering justice in the District of Columbia and stated that the Senate District Committee are anxious to improve law enforcement in the Capital of the Nation and would welcome any suggestions that I care to make. I have the honor herewith to submit some suggestions on this subject. They are limited to matters with which the Department of Justice deals and I have refrained from making any reference to matters which would normally be covered by legislation nation-wide in its application. It may be that some of these suggestions are not within the province of your committee, but that, of course, is for you to determine. 1. I inclose for your consideration a draft of a bill for an act supplemental to the national prohibition act for the District of Columbia, together with an explanatory memorandum prepared in this department. The basis for this draft is a bill submitted November 21 to this department by Senator Howell of Nebraska, the inclosed draft being a revision of Senator Howell's bill. We used Senator Howell's bill as a basis in order that those interested in this matter might work along the same lines and avoid confusion. Many things in this bill are more in the nature of clarifications of existing law than new legislation. It enlarges and more sharply defines the duties and powers of the District Commissioners and the police of the District in matters of prohibition enforcement, and in that respect it responds to the suggestion of the President in his recent message to the Congress. 2. I recommend legislation to provide at once two additional judges for the Supreme Court of the District. I am inclosing for your information documents containing a mass of statistical information respecting the business of the court, together with reports from its Chief Justice and the United States Attorney. There is no room for difference of opinion as to the need for at least one additional judge. I am satisfied that two additional judges should now be provided and that the only question about the second additional judge is whether he may be needed after the lapse of three or four years. If it be deemed advisable to anticipate that event, the legislation might provide that the first vacancy occurring after the expiration of four years shall not be filled unless it be in the office of Chief Justice to be filled by then advancing an associate. There is a very serious congestion of cases in that court. Criminal cases, where the accused are in jail without bond are kept fairly current, being given preference. The calendar of cases where the defendants are able to give bail is many months behind. Delay in the trial of criminal cases means lax law enforcement. Witnesses move away, die, or disappear, acquittals result, cases have to be nolle prossed, guilty defendants thus escape punishment, and the whole machinery of law enforcement slows down, and we lose the deterrent effect of speedy trial and punishment. A similar condition exists in the District respecting padlock injunction cases under the national prohibition act, which should be effective weapons in the enforcement of that statute. There are a large number of those pending in the District, and it takes from one to one-and-a-half years to secure a trial in such a case after it is instituted. The prompt trial and disposition of such cases would tend to deter proprietors and tenants of real estate from allowing the use of their property for the violation of the national prohibition act. There is likewise a great delay in the trial of private civil cases in the Supreme Court of the District. The equity calendar is more than a year behind. Such delays result often in denial of justice to private litigants, particularly to poor people. The court is so far behind that with one additional judge it would be a slow process for it to bring its dockets up to date. The public interest requires that this be done as rapidly as possible. Two additional judges will expedite the work. Suggestions have been made for rearranging the respective jurisdictions of the police, municipal, and supreme courts of the District, or for simplifying the procedure in the Supreme Court through its rule-making power or by legislation, and for relieving congestion in the Federal courts generally by one means or another. Ultimate improvement may be brought about by such means, but immediate relief requires an addition to the number of judges. If other measures for relief make it unnecessary to retain nine judges permanently, that can be arranged at the appropriate time. I can not lay too much emphasis on the effect of congestion in the courts on enforcement of the criminal laws, including prohibition. The District of Columbia is not the only place where such conditions exist. There are four main cogs in the machinery for the enforcement of criminal laws: First, the agencies authorized to discover offenses and obtain evidence; second, the prosecuting attorneys who use the evidence thus prepared for them and try the cases in court; third, the courts and judicial machinery for the trial of the cases; and finally, the prison system, including probations and paroles. All of these agencies, especially the first three, must be adequate. If any one of them is overloaded and clogged, it slows down the others. The United States attorneys charged with the duty of prosecuting the cases in court can not be effective if the courts are not able promptly to dispose of the cases. Likewise the police of the District and the agents of the Prohibition Unit of the Treasury, whose duty it is to detect offenders, collect the evidence, and lay it before the United States attorney, are not encouraged by a delay of a year or more in the trial of the cases after they are prepared. It is for these reasons I suggest that every doubt be resolved in favor of any step which tends to expedite the business of the court. With respect to the matter of quarters for two additional judges, I am informed that one court room already has been provided and there is space in the present courthouse which could immediately be arranged to accommodate a second judge. In that connection I am inclosing a report from the chairman of a committee of the local bar association. I believe bills authorizing additional judges have already been drawn and introduced. 3. I am inclosing documents showing the extent of the business transacted by the municipal and police courts of the District of Columbia. The police court of the District, operating under great difficulties, is disposing of a vast amount of business, including many minor cases arising under the national prohibition act. The great need of the police court is for enlarged quarters. Those now provided are inadequate, and all corridors and offices to which the public has access are badly congested when the court is in session. I am informed that the plan for a municipal center in the District, as part of the District development, will care for this, and that legislation has been enacted authorizing the acquisition of sites and that some appropriations have been made for that purpose, but none yet for the building which is to house the police court, and that the present plans do not contemplate appropriations for a building to house the police court until the fiscal year 1932. On this basis it may be four or five years before adequate quarters are provided for the police court. There is not much use in considering any enlargement of personnel in that court before additional space becomes available. Possibly the District Commissioners can arrange for additional space to relieve the congestion pending construction of the permanent building. 4. In respect of the office of the United States attorney in the District of Columbia, there is no District legislation needed. Any increase in personnel that may be required is merely a matter of additional departmental appropriations. If the court machinery is enlarged so that the volume of business transacted may be increased and the work speeded up, this department will see to it that the district attorney is provided with adequate assistance. 5. One other matter deserves mention, and that is the need for some legislation in the District providing for governmental supervision of those engaged in the business of the sale of securities. While that is not a matter directly within the province of this department, we touch it indirectly. This department is at times required to investigate and prosecute, and the courts of the District to consider, transactions of this nature alleged to violate the statutes relating to use of the mails, and other Federal penal acts. Prevention is better than prosecution, and it would tend to relieve the burdens of this department and of the courts of the District if legislation were enacted similar to that adopted in many States for the supervision of such business. Respectfully yours, Hon. ARTHUR CAPPER, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D. C., February 25, 1930. Chairman Committee on the District of Columbia, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: I have your letter of February 19 transmitting a copy of Senate bill 3344, introduced by Senator Howell, being a bill supplementing the national prohibition act for the District of Columbia. On November 21 last Senator Howell submitted to me a draft of such a bill. With that draft as a basis, a bill was drawn here in the department and submitted to you under date of December 20, a copy having been at the same time transmitted to Senator Howell. His first draft was used in this way in order to avoid confusion and to bring about cooperation between those having the same purpose; that is, to improve enforcement of the law in the District. Senator Howell's bill (S. 3344) was no doubt prepared by him after seeing the draft made in this department. I inclose a memorandum which states the particulars in which Senate bill 3344 differs from the draft I sent you on December 20. There are but two points of difference which I desire to emphasize: 1. In his bill Senator Howell has added a provision in section 10 which allows search warrants to issue in the District of Columbia to enter dwellings if a still is unlawfully set up or used therein or if liquor is unlawfully delivered thereto or removed therefrom. The national prohibition act now allows searching of dwellings only if there be proof that liquor is being sold therein. The effect of Senate bill 3344 would be to subject the dwellings of persons residing in the District of Columbia to more drastic searches than Congress has authorized in the United States, Alaska, and some of the insular possessions. I do not believe this discrimination would be justified. It is true that in some States local State legislatures have made more drastic provision for search of dwellings than has Congress in the national prohibition act, but that does not seem to justify lack of uniformity in Federal legislation. Furthermore, in my judgment, effort to improve the enforcement of the national prohibition act may be better expended, at least for the present, in other directions than in an attempt to make more drastic the provisions for searching private dwellings-an attempt which would arouse controversy, with doubtful results. 2. In Senate bill 3344 there has been added in section 10 a provision that if the Government makes an illegal seizure of liquor it shall not be returned unless the claimant is able to show he possessed it lawfully. A serious constitutional question arises as to the validity of a provision which attempts to put the Government in an advantageous position as the result of a seizure in violation of constitutional guaranties; but, aside from that, and as a matter of principle, the Government, by violating the constitutional rights of the citizen, should not be placed in a better position than it otherwise would be in. In the long run, nothing will be gained for the cause of law enforcement by such means. In the other respects in which Senator Howell's bill differs from that prepared in this department, I see no reason to take any exception to what his bill contains. Respectfully yours, WILLIAM D. MITCHELL, Attorney General. Senator, would you like to make a preliminary statement about your bill? Senator HOWELL. It is not necessary. I suggest we call Assistant Attorney General Youngquist. The CHAIRMAN. We will ask Mr. Youngquist, Assistant Attorney General, representing the Department of Justice, to address the committee. STATEMENT OF G. A. YOUNGQUIST, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Youngquist, I think the committee would be interested in knowing just what this bill attempts to do, and the reasons that move the Department of Justice to give its support to Senator Howell's bill. If you have made any study of the conditions in the District of Columbia as to prohibition enforcement, possibly a statement at the beginning as to what conclusions you have reached, and whether you think legislation of this sort is advisable, will be of interest to the committee. Mr. YOUNGQUIST. Mr. Chairman, I appear here in the absence of the Attorney General who is not able to be present to-day, to express, so far as I can, the view of the Department of Justice. I have made no detailed study of conditions in the District. We, of course, keep watch of conditions generally, not only throughout the country, but in the District as well, so far as prohibition enforcement is concerned. That becomes my particular task, being in charge of the division that has taxation and prohibition. Heretofore it has been necessary to designate as prohibition officers certain members of the District police force, in order that search warrants might be served, and various other work done under the national prohibition act. One of the purposes of the bill is to place the duty upon the District police to enforce in their own right, as it were, the provisions of the national prohibition act. That is a very much. better plan, I think, than delegating only specified members of the force to devote their energies to that particular work. Senator VANDENBERG. Will you indicate for the record how small a portion of the force at present has the authority? Mr. YOUNGQUIST. Between 30 and 40. Senator VANDENBERG. Out of how many? Mr. YOUNGQUIST. I don't know what the number is. Senator KEAN. How many of those are traffic police? Senator KEAN. I mean to say they wouldn't have anything to do with prohibition. Senator HOWELL. They might arrest in case of drunkenness, and in case of driving while drunk, but the bill which is proposed gives them broader authority than they now have. Mr. YOUNGQUIST. There is another reason for the proposed legislation. In 1917 the so-called Sheppard Act was passed. That related to the District of Columbia alone, and it had to do, in some respects, with intoxicating liquors. When the national prohibition act was passed in 1919, it superseded in part the Sheppard Act. There was doubt, however, as to how much of the Sheppard Act remained. One of the things this bill does is to incorporate in it so much of the Sheppard Act as is deemed necessary for the proper law enforcement within the District, and repealing the remainder of it. In sections 3 and 4 in particular are found provisions which were contained in the Sheppard Act. That, in general, is the purpose of the legislation, and to make applicable to the District the laws that generally apply to prohibition enforcement throughout the country. I am not undertaking to give a detailed statement of all the reasons for the proposed legislation, nor am I undertaking to detail all of its provisions. The CHAIRMAN. There is no question in your mind but that legislation of this character is needed in the District of Columbia? Mr. YOUNGQUIST. I think it is; yes. The Attorney General was asked by the chairman of the committee for an expression of his recommendation on the bill, and his reasons for them, and I think I should at this time lay that before the committee as well. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have you present it to be put in the record. Mr. YOUNGQUIST. A letter was written by the Attorney General to the chairman on February 25, 1930, in which he set out that there were only two points of difference between his views and the views expressed in the bill, and I think in order that the department's position might be clear I should refer to that. One relates to section 10 of the bill. It will borne in mind that under the national prohibition act a search warrant for the search of a private dwelling may be issued only if the officers have evidence. that intoxicating liquor has been sold in the dwelling house. Section 10 proposes to extend the search-warrant provision so far as the District of Columbia is concerned by authorizing the issuance of a search warrant on a dwelling where intoxicating liquor is being sold, and also where a still or distilling apparatus is unlawfully set up or being used therein, or intoxicating liquor is unlawfully delivered thereto or removed therefrom. The view of the department is that this additional provision in section 10 would be subject the dwelling of those who reside in the District to more rigorous treatment than is true of dwellings elsewhere in the country, and Senator JONES. Have not many of the States passed just as strong search-warrant provision as this is? Mr. YOUNGQUIST. I think they have, but as is stated in the communication that I refer to, in the opinion of the department, that would not justify a lack of uniformity in Federal legislation referring to prohibition enforcement. Senator HOWELL. Might I ask if there is not a dual duty imposed upon Congress in connection with the District of Columbia? The national prohibition act provides for controlling and punishing |