bers of the District Committee, in not doing more than we have, and I think we must do something.

.

I agree with the chairman and Mr. Williams, in calling this to the attention of our witness. And I thank him for his testimony; I think it has been very good.

- Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I might comment that in the last Congress this committee did its very best and brought out a bill, presented it to the House floor, that I think would have gone a good way in doing what you have commented on, but some of these leftwing organizations here in town persuaded the majority of the House Members to vote against it. That is the thing that I wonder about. I think the majority of the people here in the District of Columbia want the law enforced. But the powers that be apparently do not.

Getting back to this school business, Mr. Gasch, what I think is an injustice to these young criminals in the schools is that the schools are not permitted to do anything about them. That is because of the regulations, of course.

I asked a question in the other hearing we had about the possibility of giving the schools, the principals of the schools, some authority to punish these young hoods, like the one Mr. Williams mentioned. They have to keep them in the school. They can't punish them. They can't do anything with them. Now, it is an injustice to those, but it is a greater injustice to the decent students, who are going to those schools and want to learn. That they have to associate and be disrupted by such goings on.

Mr. GASCH. I agree with you, sir.

Mr. Dowdy. I notice since the last hearing that Dr. Hansen has recommended to the school board that some punishment be permitted. Mr. Tobriner, at the hearing on February 6, stated he was opposed to punishment of offenders in the schools, but apparently in the newspapers in the last day or two he has changed his mind about it, which I think is good. But the trouble now seems to be in the School Board and they might-perhaps they ought to be witnesses before one of our joint committee hearings to see what their reasons are and how they propose to take care of the situation.

Now, regarding the mention of the number of the police force, Mr. Murray is probably right, you have enough policemen. I think if they had 10 times as many, under the handicaps they work, we would still be in the same shape as now, he would still have the same problems facing him.

It is just that these young criminals are taught in the schools, the fact that nothing can be done with them, they can get away with anything, and the teachers are afraid of them. If a teacher tries to correct one of them and lays his hands on him, apparently the teacher is jerked up and maybe fired. I know some teachers in the schools have told me they quit here and went somewhere else because of those situations.

Now, that is training these young people to have a complete disrespect for law or any other regulations and when they get out on the streets they do these yokings and so on that have been mentioned here, and the policemen arrest them. Well, from the evidence we have had in other hearings, these young hoods will just tell the arresting officer, "You can't do anything with me, I am a juvenile." Apparently it

has worked out that way, at least when one has had 80 arrests of one juvenile and still nothing has been done with him.

proce

There was an article in the newspaper a few days ago indicating there had been an educational course on a new and successful dure for the criminal to pursue, that had been presented here in the District of Columbia on the movie screens, and that such procedure has been adopted by the street criminals, and they are using it very successfully. I forget the name of the show-yes, "West Side Story." And they said that what it had shown them was being very successfully used here in the District of Columbia.

Now, all of these things I think are proper for us to consider in action we ought to take. Whether the Congress as a whole or whether the powers that be in the District of Columbia want something done about it or not, that is a different matter.

I think our committee can come up with some laws or some proposed laws that will go a long way toward helping the police do something without having to have a 30,000-man police force here in the District of Columbia.

Mr. GASCH. My thought was not to have a 30,000-man police force or anything approaching that. But I did feel that a few more men on the beat would not only be in accordance with the wishes of the citizens in the areas involved, but would do a great deal of good in cutting down the number of yoke robberies, which is our most serious single problem.

Mr. DowDY. Would it really cut them down, if there is no punishment for them when they are caught?

Mr. GASCH. Well, I think in cases in which we have the evidence, we can do something about it. But the difficulty with yoke robbery situations is that in many instances the elderly victim cannot identify his assailant. You have none of this scientific evidence, like fingerprints, hairs, and that kind of thing, and a print of a signet ring. But you do have suspicion, and the police go out and quite properly try to do the best they can with a bad situation. But I think if we had people patrolling, more people, voluntary policemen, you could cut down the number; yes, sir.

Mr. DowDY. I agree with you on that, especially plainclothesmen or undercover agents, who can set themselves up as possible victims and can handle the situation when they are attacked.

Mr. GASCH. New York tried that, I think, quite successfully.
Mr. DOWDY. I think it would work here.

There is just one other thing I would like to talk about, and that is the Mallory case. Of course, now, I don't know that my thoughts about it agree with anybody else's.

I believe that an arrest should not be made except on probable cause. I believe it is very likely, if you look into it, you will find most arrests are made on probable cause. You mentioned a man that killed his wife

Mr. GASCH. Killough.

Mr. DowDY. If he came to the police and told them he killed his wife, that would certainly be probable cause to arrest him.

Now, I think the test-and I am serious about this. I have always felt people have some rights of protection from their government, at least as much right of protection from their government as does the

criminal-I think the test on the admission of a confession in evidence should be first whether the man was warned and, second, whether he is telling the truth or not, and whether the arrest was not proper or whether he had not been arraigned within the few minutes after or even a few hours after should not be the test. It is whether he was warned, he knew his rights, and whether he was telling the truth. Mr. GASCH. And whether the confession is voluntary.

Mr. DowDY. Yes, of course. That is, of course, a part of the issue in the thing, a voluntary confession. I have dealt with this matter so long I didn't assume anybody would raise the question that it shouldn't be voluntary.

Now, I am not sure there is an indication here, from testimonyin the District of Columbia, is a confession alone sufficient to convict a man in the District of Columbia?

Mr. GASCH. No, sir; you must have some additional evidence.

Mr. Dowdy. That is all right, then. I believe too, you should have other evidence that connects the defendant with the commission of the crime. The fact that a crime was committed is not in itself sufficient corroboration of the confession.

Now, what additional safeguards do you think a confessed criminal ought to have, other than warning, his confession is voluntary, it is the truth, and it can be used against him?

Mr. GASCH. Well, the problem that came up in that regard, prior to Mallory, was whether or not the confession was the product of an extended delay. Of course, that originally came up in the Wan case back in the 1920's. That was a case characterized at least by third degree, some aspects of third degree, mental third degree. He wasn't beaten, but I think he was questioned for a long period of time.

So I can see some basis for rule 5A. But I think so narrowly construed as it was in the Killough case it definitely puts a severe limitation on the ability of the police to deal with these situations.

Mr. Dowdy. I will go a little further on that. If a man makes a confession that results from a promise that they will go easier on him or anything like that, that should be thrown out. I don't believe in anything like that. That is not coercion, but it is just not right. Mr. GASCH. Yes.

Mr. Dowby. I don't believe that a few hours of questioning after a man is arrested for probable cause is harmful. He may make statements in support of an alibi or something like that, that the officers have to check out, before they can intelligently or fruitfully question him further.

Mr. GASCH. Then you get a situation, as in Mallory, where there were three suspects, Mallory and his two half-nephews. They all looked alike, they lived in the same building, and the police gave lie detector tests to all three of them. Mallory was the No. 3 man on the list.

If you look at Justice Frankfurter's opinion, you will see that in the 7 hours which elapsed between his arrest and his confession, he was under interrogation only 2 hours 10 minutes, in accordance with the specific times mentioned by the Supreme Court itself.

Mr. DOWDY. Thank you.

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I am Frank Horton, and I am new on the committee and haven't been in Washington very long. How

ever, there are a couple of things I would like to ask about, and it goes back to the matter of the school situation.

In the first instance, we could not expect teachers to handle the type of situation that Mr. Williams referred to. A youngster who has been arrested some 80 times is certainly not appropriate to a school discipline type of program.

So, I think you have to separate the type or problems that are involved. I think the teacher needs authority to handle, if you will, the normal type of youngster, who needs some discipline in school, but I do not think we can put the burden on the schoolteacher to correct a youngster who is violating the law.

Mr. Nelson referred to an instance that was reported in the Star on February 21, where a youngster threatened the teacher and came back with two or three of his friends.

The questions I have to ask have to do with the type of criminal aspect of the situation that Mr. Nelson presented. Are there, in the District of Columbia, statutes that will protect the teacher in that type of instance?

Mr. GASCH. None especially designed for the protection of teachers. Mr. HORTON. I am not thinking in terms of teachers. Suppose I am walking along the streets and three hoodlums comes up to me. One threatens me and says, "I am going to get you," and then threatens to stomp my face with his combat boots. It appears to me that he can do it, the three of them. They are bigger than I am. am certainly in some apprehension of my life but fortunately someone comes to my assistance and they run off.

Mr. GASCH. Yes, there is something for that.

Mr. HORTON. Is this type of thing reported by the schools?

I

Mr. GASCH. Oh, yes; in the district attorney's office we used to have hearings on those cases, not infrequently.

Mr. HORTON. Do you still, as far as you know, have this type of hearing?

Mr. GASCH. Oh, yes. Of course some people, unfortunately, are reluctant to bring that type of situation to the attention of either the police or the district attorney's office.

Mr. HORTON. So there is a crime or a violation of a penal statute, in this instance that was referred to by Mr. Nelsen?

Mr. GASCH. Yes.

Mr. HORTON. Of course, we have to differentiate between these criminals in the schools, as distinguished from normally mischevious boys.

Now, do you feel there is anything that can be done by these committees to prevent this type of thing? You mentioned something about the delay in reaching these cases in the juvenile court. Do you attribute to this delay the number of these youngsters that are in school, these hoodlums, if you will?

Mr. GASCH. I think that has a lot to do with it, sir. Now that we have three judges in the juvenile court, the backlog is being cut down, the hearings are being held with some promptness. Whether three judges can deal effectively with the entire problem, I am not prepared to say. I think that that is the area where we can do the most good for law enforcement. Because that is the area in which we can separate those who have a useful life in front of them from those that are probably just criminals, whom we have to deal with as criminals.

Mr. HORTON. Do you feel the incident Mr. Williams referred to of course, this was unusual-but do you feel there is an abnormally large number of these hoodlums in the public school system or is this something you feel is amplified out of proportion, because of the present atmosphere.

Mr. GASCH. Well, sir, I think Deputy Chief Winters could give you a more accurate answer to that question. He will will probably testify here this morning. He is the Chief of the Juvenile Division of the Police Department. And he has the facts and figures on the juvenile problem more accurately.

Mr. HORTON. But this is a problem, to put a teacher in that type of situation, to deal with hoodlums.

Mr. GASCH. Oh, yes. Two suggestions the superintendent has is that you give the School Board power to get rid of the disruptive pupil. They don't have that power at the present time. You have to keep them in until they are 16 years of age. That is wrong in my judgment.

No. 2, so far as the teachers are concerned, they are handicapped by this present rule of the Board of Education, which precludes or prevents or prohibits the teacher from laying a hand on the child. And they are always threatened with the possibility of a suit, because of that rule. Those are the two things that should be changed. Mr. HORTON. Thank you.

Mr. Dowdy. Mr. Chairman, I have one more thing.

You mentioned a staff study or Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, for the development of the text of rule 2A. Were you a member of that!

Mr. GASCH. No, sir; Judge Holtzoff, when he was in the Department of Justice, was a member of that Committee and he has the original print, he showed it to me, in which that rule, with a sanction was offered, but he said was rejected by large majority of the Committee.

Mr. Dowdy. Mr. Chairman, I think our committees, or others, or both, should recommend that the staffs of our committees study those minutes of the meetings leading up to that thing. I think the files are in the custody of the Supreme Court.

Mr. MCMILLAN. I agree with you and I expect to order the staff to study the minutes of the meeting you mentioned.

Mr. Dowdy. Thank you.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Gasch, I asked to serve on the District Committee, because I have some definite ideas about some things I think need to happen. I am impressed with your testimony, incidentally. I think you have grasped the situation very well, and I am glad to have had you here to talk to us about it and give us the benefit of your thinking.

Others have referred to articles that have appeared in the papers, and I didn't think to bring one that appeared in the Des Moines Register, front page, a week ago, yesterday, about the terrible crime situation here in the District of Columbia and indicated, among other things, that it was so bad that some of the criminals are even afraid to get out in certain areas at certain times. I think this is probably an extreme assumption on their part, but there is some reason to believe that something is wrong in Denmark, in this case, the District of Columbia.