Mr. BULLOCK. What papers would be in there that are supposed to be missing?

Mr. BAUMAN. Any and all papers, orders, commendations, disciplinary records, anything that is normally in your police record.

Mr. BULLOCK. There was no disciplinary record.

Mr. BAUMAN. I am not suggesting that. You asked me what type of papers.

Mr. BULLOCK. I have no knowledge of that.

Mr. BAUMAN. Now, Inspector, you were paid as a captain $191.74 every 2 weeks; is that not about right?

Mr. BULLOCK. That is about the salary, I think. It changed in there somewhere.

Mr. BAUMAN. According to our records, you received your pay checks regularly and were able to hold them for very long periods of time without depositing them. For instance, on December 22, 1949, 3 days before Christmas, you received, according to the records, $191 pay check and you did not deposit it until April 13, 1950; in other words, you held that pay check for a period of 15 weeks.

You were next paid on January 6, 1950, and you did not deposit that check until May 29, 1950, which means, Inspector, that according to the records you held onto a $191 pay check for a period of 18 weeks 412 months-before you cashed that pay check. How were you able to do that?

Mr. BULLOCK. Well, I cashed the other ones, didn't I? The ones in between-in between?"

Mr. BAUMAN. Well, now, we have prepared a schedule showing the period of time which you held these pay checks, ranging from 2 weeks to 42 months, a total of 18 weeks, and I now show it to you and inform you that that schedule was prepared from the original records in each case—namely, your bank check or from appropriate deposits, in other words, the official records.

At this time, I should like to offer that statement in evidence.
The CHAIRMAN. It will be made a part of the record.

(The document referred to was marked as "Bullock Exhibit No. 56", and will be found in the files of the subcommittee.)

The CHAIRMAN. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Inspector, if you have any explanation, please make it?

Mr. BULLOCK. I have no explanation.

Mr. BAUMAN. The exhibit is in the record.

Mr. FORD. May he keep this one, or shall he give it back?

Mr. BAUMAN. I have no objection.

Senator WELKER. Let him have it.

Mr. BAUMAN. I have no further questions of this witness, Senator. I think that the exhibit speaks for itself, Senator.

Senator WELKER. He says he has no explanation.

Mr. BAUMAN. He says he has no explanation. He has asked for a copy, and we have given it to him.

Mr. FORD. I asked if he could keep the one you handed him.
Mr. BAUMAN. Just one last question, Inspector.

This exhibit, Bullock Exhibit 56, indicates that you managed to

weeks, 7 weeks, 5 weeks, up to 15 and 18 weeks, 14, 15, and 18 weeks. Do you have any explanation as to how you were able to do that before you cashed or deposited them-do you have any explanation as to how you were able to do that?

Mr. BULLOCK. I don't remember the circumstances under which that was done, Mr. Bauman.

Mr. BAUMAN. I have no further questions at this time, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Inspector, this exhibit shows that you withheld checks as indicated by counsel's last question for long periods of time, through 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, and until September 19, 1951. Can you explain your unusual delays in using these checks?

Mr. BULLOCK. I can't remember why I would do that.

The CHAIRMAN. You cannot explain why you withheld them so long from circulation or how you obtained money with which to pay your expenses during these periods when you were having no salary checks cashed?

Mr. BULLOCK. As Senator Welker says, you do not like me to say things about my wife, but that is probably how we did. We practically-well, I ate at her house for years before we was married and I really don't remember why in the world I would hold them up.

Mr. BAUMAN. May I say, Senator, that my own personal reaction as counsel of this committee is exactly the same as that which has been expressed by various members of the committee this morning. I do not believe that this witness has made an honest statement before this committee.

It is my personal feeling and judgment that he has sought to evade the answering of questions by the constant and repeated use over a day and a half now of "I don't know," and, "I don't remember." It is my feeling that he has done this deliberately.

Accordingly, I want to recommend, if I may do so, without being out of order, that the record in this case be forwarded to the Board of District Commissioners for such disciplinary action as they feel necessary.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be done. The record should also be sent to the district attorney.

Senator Welker, have you any comment?

Senator WELKER. Well, I certainly agree with everything that counsel has said. I hesitate to prejudge a man. I am not satisfied with his testimony. I think he has been evasive. He has offered me the explanation that he is not well, but I think what we do with this file should be fully discussed by the committee.

I am more impressed with the chairman's suggestion that it might go to the grand jury than I am to the District Commissioners, because I have felt, and I still feel, that if there is malfeasance in the Police Department here, the fault of a lot of that malfeasance lies right at the doorstep of the District Commissioners. And after all of these long years, a gentleman by the name of Bauman from New York, a Senator by the name of Neely from West Virginia, Hunt of Wyoming, Pastore of Rhode Island, and Welker of Idaho must come in here and clean up a mess that should have been apparent to the District Commissioners, and I do not care who they were. That should have been apparent long, long ago.

So I will do anything that is right and just in this matter but I think we should discuss it. As a matter of fact, I am not familiar

with yesterday's testimony. I have not read it, but I will by the time we meet again.

The shocking example that has been brought out here today and on prior days may be very embarrasing for people who take pride in the Metropolitan Police Department.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair fully concurs in the statement of the distinguished Senator from Idaho. During the years embraced in the committee's investigation, the Commissioners certainly should have known what was going on in the Police Department and should have protected the District of Columbia against the malfeasance, graft and disgrace from which Washington has long suffered. That some of the Commissioners have, in the past, been most reprehensibly derelict in the matter of stamping out crime in Washington is now a humiliating matter of common knowledge.

The Chair, after many years of impatience and many complaints, is at last happy to be able to voice his complete confidence in the District of Columbia's present Board of Commissioners.

Senator WELKER. I have one more observation.

In fairness, Mr. Chairman, to the witness Bullock, I want to say that he is not the only witness who is an insulter of the intelligence of every member of this committee and the staff, by coming before us and passing the blame to his wife and operating financially by ear, as I might say. I say it is an insult to the intelligence of anyone on this committee or the staff, because it just is not done that way, and I want the record to show that. I am not saying, Inspector, that you are the only one to be criticized, but these officers who have come up here and said, "Well, my wife may have done it-we handled that cash," or, "I sold the car."

It has just about reached the end of my patience. I have been a pretty good friend of every witness on this stand. It is just beyond! the ropes, so far as I am concerned.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, may I make a request on behalf of my client? May I obtain a copy of this testimony, provided I pay for it myself? May I finish? Yesterday I made the request of Senator Pastore at the time he was presiding, and he said that he desired not to grant it at that time because he felt that the committee had made some ruling and he wanted to be consistent and following that ruling of the committee heretofore. I would well see that had he granted it to me I would have had the opportunity last night of having read it, but I am asking now that it is all over, because it involves, as you will see, a considerable matter of accounting, and I do not want to go into the details of accounting with what little I know about it, but I think in fairness that I am justified in asking, Mr. Chairman, if at our cost I may obtain a copy.

Mr. BAUMAN. I have no objection to it, Senator. Mr. FORD. May I put a condition on that, incidentally? I also want to put a condition on it that inasmuch as it has been an executive session that the copy that I get will not be released or discussed with anyone except myself and my client until the time comes when the committee decides itself to release whatever in the committee's judgment it feels it should release.

I want to put that condition on myself, too.

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator WELKER. I want the record to be perfectly clear on this: That I think counsel is entitled to a copy of this-any witness is entitled to a copy of the proceedings, especially since he offers to pay for it, but I join in the distinguished chairman's off the record that I am not going to be a party of hiding any executive meetings, because there has been something wrong here. People who build fires will feel the heat, if there has been.

The best thing this committee could do would be to portray to the people of the District of Columbia and this Nation, who are proud of this Nation's Capital, something that does not look very wholesome on the cold-blooded black and white type, as it comes out of this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Inspector Bullock, you are excused.
Mr. FORD. Are we excused?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; you are.

The hearing is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:20 a. m., the subcommittee adjourned.)