Mr. SHREVE. And while in attendance on these conventions you learned that there was more or less criticism of the manner in which the work was conducted?

Mr. VAN BUSKIRK. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHREVE. Was that criticism made to any great extent, or was it simply made now and then?

Mr. VAN BUSKIRK. I would say it was made indirectly at different times.

Mr. SHREVE. Was it openly discussed in the meetings?

Mr. VAN BUSKIRK. Yes.

Mr. SHREVE. You may state whether you were present at the Attorney General's office and heard any discussion there by the chiefs of police of this matter.

Mr. VAN BUSKIRK. Yes.

Mr. SHREVE. Were you present at the meetings of the various chiefs of police in the Attorney General's office with the Attorney General?

Mr. VAN BUSKIRK. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHREVE. What conversation was held at that time between the Attorney General and these chiefs of police?

Mr. VAN BUSKIRK. Chief Quigley was really the spokesman. He is chairman of the board of managers which conducts the affairs of the National Bureau of Criminal Identification. Chief Quigley voiced the sentiment of the association, or the members of the association, in saying he was not satisfied with the kind of work and the reliability of the work which was turned out from the Leavenworth bureau, and to get that bureau away from there and to get the work conducted by reliable individuals is one of the principal objects of the police chiefs turning in at this time in an effort to consolidate the bureaus and get them functioning on reliable lines and under a reliable administration.

That was what prompted them to make an offer to turn over their property, which they had been something like 24 or 25 years accumulating, to the Federal Government, in order to have the Federal Government assist in carrying on this work of identification.

You must remember, gnetlemen, that this fingerprint work has grown remarkably, since it began, and I presume it will continue. Mr. Reno has done very well in building up his bureau.

Mr. Reno

is a very able man, and the result of that growth is a credit to his own effort. Still, you want to consider the fact that this fingerprint work was taken up here in the United States about 1905, and from that time until this it has been developing all over the country. One of the principal objects of these conventions is to bring out the latest ideas that the chiefs of police have along this line and to get them to cooperate and to function together. With one bureau properly managed, it would act as a clearing house for the whole United States, if it is properly managed and equipped.

As I say, the efforts of chiefs of police for the last 15 or 20 years have been directed to bringing this system up to the point where it now is.

Mr. SHREVE. They have supplied all this information to Leavenworth, have they not, during all these years?

Mr. VAN BUSKIRK. This bureau has also been working in the same way.

Mr. BURNS. I wanted to say this word in closing, Mr. Chairman, at the purpose in bringing the bureau to Washington and trying › get the chiefs of police to cooperate would be to reduce crime › a minimum, and to make the identification of criminals easier for e Government and for the chiefs of police.

Mr. SHREVE. You think it would be more available here in a entral office?

Mr. BURNS. Yes.

Mr. GRIFFIN. You do not intend to employ any criminals in the orting out and classification of the fingerprints?

Mr. BURNS. No; you could not trust them, and, as the chiefs of police stated to the Attorney General, they would not have anyhing to do with the bureau because they have no confidence in it. The chiefs of police on that occasion, when I was sitting there with hem, cited a number of instances where the bureau at Leavenworth had their records wrong, those records having been changed by prisoners, and purposely changed.

Mr. OLIVER. What, if any, are the disadvantages that might folow from the removal of the records to Washington?

Mr. BURNS. It will be a very great advantage to bring them here. We will have the cooperation of every chief of police and every peace officer in the country.

Mr. OLIVER. This will in no way militate against securing records from every prisoner either before or at the time he enters Leavenworth?

Mr. BURNS. No.

Mr. OLIVER. You will be able to get from Leavenworth all the information you now are able to get?

Mr. BURNS. Yes. The bureau has materially increased. The moment it was established here we could see the change, and it has increased at least 50 per cent. I have here a chart which shows that perfectly. It shows how it has changed from 1914. It shows that there were more prints in 1922 than in 1923. That was due to the fact that a great many penal institutions sent a great number of prints that they had collected to the bureau, and that is why the figures for 1922 are so much greater than those for 1923.

Mr. SHREVE. How long has the bureau been operating?

Mr. BURNS. Since November. I have here, also, a chart showing the users of the identification service. It shows where the fingerprints come from, police departments and State institutions, and shows where they are used.

Mr. GRIFFIN. You might read the figures into the record.

Mr. BURNS. The principal users of the identification service of the Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, based on an analysis of 14,225 fingerprints submitted for classification and report. Of criminal inquiries from the police departments there were 60,600; from State institutions, 4,882; from county officials, 2,020; from Federal authorities, penal institutions, 1,137; and from miscellaneous detective agencies, 181.

This demonstrates perfectly what the cooperation of the police departments throughout the country means to us.

I may say that, just as Mr. Reno states, his individual efforts were responsible for getting the police departments to send him their records. They sent in their records, but they never would depend

Mr. SHREVE. And while in attendance on these conventions v learned that there was more or less criticism of the manner in whi the work was conducted?

Mr. VAN BUSKIRK. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHREVE. Was that criticism made to any great extent, or w it simply made now and then?

Mr. VAN BUSKIRK. I would say it was made indirectly at differe times.

Mr. SHREVE. Was it openly discussed in the meetings?

Mr. VAN BUSKIRK. Yes.

Mr. SHREVE. You may state whether you were present at th Attorney General's office and heard any discussion there by th chiefs of police of this matter.

Mr. VAN BUSKIRK. Yes.

Mr. SHREVE. Were you present at the meetings of the variou chiefs of police in the Attorney General's office with the Attorne General?

Mr. VAN BUSKIRK. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHREVE. What conversation was held at that time betwee the Attorney General and these chiefs of police?

Mr. VAN BUSKIRK. Chief Quigley was really the spokesman. H is chairman of the board of managers which conducts the affairs c the National Bureau of Criminal Identification. Chief Quigle

voiced the sentiment of the association, or the members of the ass ciation, in saying he was not satisfied with the kind of work and the reliability of the work which was turned out from the Leavenworth bureau, and to get that bureau away from there and to get the work conducted by reliable individuals is one of the principal objects the police chiefs turning in at this time in an effort to consolidate the bureaus and get them functioning on reliable lines and under a reliable administration.

That was what prompted them to make an offer to turn over their property, which they had been something like 24 or 25 years accumulating, to the Federal Government, in order to have the Federal Government assist in carrying on this work of identification.

You must remember, gnetlemen, that this fingerprint work has grown remarkably, since it began, and I presume it will continue. Mr. Reno has done very well in building up his bureau. Mr. Reno is a very able man, and the result of that growth is a credit to his own effort. Still, you want to consider the fact that this fingerprint work was taken up here in the United States about 1905, and from that time until this it has been developing all over the country. One of the principal objects of these conventions is to bring out the latest ideas that the chiefs of police have along this line and to get them to cooperate and to function together. With one bureau properly managed, it would act as a clearing house for the whole United States, if it is properly managed and equipped.

As I say, the efforts of chiefs of police for the last 15 or 20 years have been directed to bringing this system up to the point where it now is.

Mr. SHREVE. They have supplied all this information to Leavenworth, have they not, during all these years?

Mr. VAN BUSKIRK. This bureau has also been working in the same way.

Mr. BURNS. I wanted to say this word in closing, Mr. Chairman, that the purpose in bringing the bureau to Washington and trying to get the chiefs of police to cooperate would be to reduce crime to a minimum, and to make the identification of criminals easier for the Government and for the chiefs of police.

Mr. SHREVE. You think it would be more available here in a central office?

Mr. BURNS. Yes.

Mr. GRIFFIN. You do not intend to employ any criminals in the sorting out and classification of the fingerprints?

Mr. BURNS. No; you could not trust them, and, as the chiefs of police stated to the Attorney General, they would not have anything to do with the bureau because they have no confidence in it. The chiefs of police on that occasion, when I was sitting there with them, cited a number of instances where the bureau at Leavenworth had their records wrong, those records having been changed by prisoners, and purposely changed.

Mr. OLIVER. What, if any, are the disadvantages that might follow from the removal of the records to Washington?

Mr. BURNS. It will be a very great advantage to bring them here. We will have the cooperation of every chief of police and every peace officer in the country.

Mr. OLIVER. This will in no way militate against securing records from every prisoner either before or at the time he enters Leavenworth?

Mr. BURNS. No.

Mr. OLIVER. You will be able to get from Leavenworth all the information you now are able to get?

Mr. BURNS. Yes. The bureau has materially increased. The moment it was established here we could see the change, and it has increased at least 50 per cent. I have here a chart which shows that perfectly. It shows how it has changed from 1914. It shows that there were more prints in 1922 than in 1923. That was due to the fact that a great many penal institutions sent a great number of prints that they had collected to the bureau, and that is why the figures for 1922 are so much greater than those for 1923.

Mr. SHREVE. How long has the bureau been operating?

Mr. BURNS. Since November. I have here, also, a chart showing the users of the identification service. It shows where the fingerprints come from, police departments and State institutions, and shows where they are used.

Mr. GRIFFIN. You might read the figures into the record.

Mr. BURNS. The principal users of the identification service of the Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, based on an analysis of 14,225 fingerprints submitted for classification and report. Of criminal inquiries from the police departments there were 60,600; from State institutions, 4,882; from county officials, 2,020; from Federal authorities, penal institutions, 1,137; and from miscellaneous detective agencies, 181.

This demonstrates perfectly what the cooperation of the police departments throughout the country means to us.

I may say that, just as Mr. Reno states, his individual efforts were responsible for getting the police departments to send him their records. They sent in their records, but they never would depend

KAKA, KATTEL Aed on the percentage of investigative wil

That is to say, while the post off

****** 436 It is estimated that only one-third of the

gure of 145 is taken thereform.

Me Oliver. I want to sex you just one other question. When You Go work for other departments, do you collect anything from Work Reperiments for the work done by request ?

Me Bokse No: not a cent.

Me Ouver. So everything you do is paid for out of this appro pration!

Mr. Borna. Yes.

Mr. Guteris. I was going to add this to Mr. Oliver's question. The fact that these other bureaus have their own investigating staffs: does not preclude those departments from calling upon your bureau for aid!