[WMAL, Editorial dated Oct. 30, 1966, entitled "D.C. Omnibus Crime Bill"]

President Johnson should sign the District Omnibus Crime Bill. Even though the District Commissioners, civil rights groups and liberal organizations want it vetoed, the death of the crime bill would be a misfortune. The District crime rate has risen almost every month during the past four years. The increase last month was 42 per cent over the same month a year earlier. Public opinion polls in Washington and elsewhere have indicated that crime is the major worry of both Negroes and whites. As President Johnson has said, "Crime is a malignant enemy in America's midst."

The Omnibus Crime Bill may not be perfect. But it is the product of six years of Congressional consideration. The final draft was refined in nine joint sessions of the Senate and House District Committees. The bill has been hailed by Judge Leonard Walsh of the U.S. District Court as a possible clarification of fuzzy and controversial rulings.

The opponents have questioned the constitutionality of some crime bill provisions. These questions can only be settled in court. Meanwhile, we urge President Johnson to sign the District Omnibus Crime Bill without delay.

[Editorial, The Evening Star, Nov. 3, 1966]

"No CASE FOR A VETO"

It will be a sad day for this city if President Johnson vetoes the new District crime bill or permits it to die through failure to sign it within the prescribed period of time.

The bill as finally passed is not a perfect instrument. Nor will a perfect bill ever be enacted. Senator Bible, who steered the measure through the Senate, says he thinks it is a good bill "and possibly as good as any that can be worked out by men who have strong and varying views" on how to deal with the difficult problem of curbing Washington's runaway crime rate.

It is false to charge, as some do, that this bill was rammed through with little or no consideration in the closing days of the 89th Congress. Actually, it is a product of months, even years, of hard work. The final conference version, reflecting a serious effort to meet requirements laid down by the Supreme Court, was, of course, a compromise. But it was a compromise in which the sounder Senate version largely prevailed over the more extreme provisions wanted by the House. Any lawyer can always find something to attack in any legislation. And if the attacks rest on conjecture as to what might happen under a given law, as distinguished from what the sponsors say the law is intended to do, the critics, as has been true in this case, can really have a field day.

The test of any criminal statute can come only with judicial review of its application in specific cases. This is especially relevant to the contention that Title III of the crime bill is unconstitutional. This much-misrepresented section, as explained by Senator Bible, would permit a police officer, having probable cause to believe that a person had committed or was committing a crime, to "detain" the individual for not more than four hours. After that the person would have to be released or charged with an offense. The Supreme Court has never ruled on this or any similar provision. So how can the critics say with such unrestrained assurance that it violates the Constitution? Why not let the court decide?

If the President is persuaded by the critics not to sign this bill, no one should think that another and better bill will become law in the future. The same critics will be equally vocal in their opposition to any effective anti-crime measure for this city. Meanwhile, the crime situation will go from bad to worse. An FBI report in July showed that crime in this area, particularly in Washington, was increasing at a rate much above that for the rest of the country. In September alone serious crime in the Capital climbed by an appalling 42 percent over September of last year.

The President has said that Washington must be made a safe place for lawabiding people. Congress, most of our local judges, a number of civic leaders and the chief of police think this bill will help in reaching that goal. President ought to sign it.

[The Evening Star, issue of Nov. 4, 1966, Letter to the Editor]

WHAT ABOUT CRIME?

SIR: Unless one is willing to concede that the crime situation in the District is beyond control and that nothing can be done to reverse the ever-increasing crime

rate, he should be in favor of the final enactment of the anti-crime bill, passed by Congress and now awaiting the President's signature. In my opinion, the great majority of Washington citizens, Negro and white alike, stand firmly for better law enforcement and stronger measures to aid the police and public prosecutors in apprehending and punishing criminals. To believe otherwise is to say that the respectable and responsible people of the District are willing to tolerate the uncivilized state of affairs that now exists.

In spite of obstacles thrown in its way by civil righters in the administration, that were supported by local politicians and misguided liberal groups, Congress has made an honest effort to provide some relief to a citizenry which objects to being subjected to the uninterrupted attacks by lawbreakers on its peace, security and personal safety.

Now, the same obstructionist forces have rallied to kill this bill entirely. They have suddenly become ardent constitutionalists-strict constructionists, if you please. This is an odd pose for them to assume since they have always sneered at arguments of unconstitutionality made by opponents of the various civil rights bills in the past. In short, if they favor a bill: pass it even if it is unconstitutional; perhaps the Supreme Court will change the Constitution. If they oppose a bill, they don't want to take a chance on the danger that the Supreme Court might listen to the reason which the legislators who passed this bill hoped they would accept.

While the reactions to a given situation on the part of the chairman of the Democratic Central Committee and the Americans for Democratic Action are always predictable in the field of so-called civil rights, the opposition of the District Commissioners to the crime bill is serious business indeed. The D.C. government is directly responsible for the maintenance of law and order and is in charge of the machinery of law enforcement and crime prevention. Can it be that the city fathers are more influenced by political winds than by their obligation to discharge their sworn duty to protect law-abiding citizens from outlawry

and crime?

A principle is involved here. Washington is at a crossroads. Either the responsible people of all races and colors are going to demand and receive some kind of adequate law enforcement in Washington in the near future, or the further decline of the city as a place where decent people can live and raise their families will take place. One would almost think the noisy opponents of the crlme bill favor crime and criminals.

ALLEN C. PHELPS.

THE CAPITOL HILL SOUTHEAST CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

RESOLUTION RE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OMNIBUS ANTI-CRIME BILL

WHEREAS, two of the three District of Columbia Commissioners have recently voted to request President Johnson to veto the anti-crime bill, and this request has now gone to the President officially as a split-vote action; and

WHEREAS, since the Congress acting on its Senate and House Committee recommendations has passed this bill after long consideration and exhaustive hearings and debate, it would seem unwarranted for the Commissioners to substitute their judgment for that of the Congress in finally passing this bill and, following the lead of only a fraction of the D.C. citizen and political groups, for the Commissioners to inject themselves into this question in this manner; and WHEREAS, if the legislation, in the face of the President's urgent and widelypublicized plea for stronger action in controlling our crime siutation, does not have an opportunity to be tried out in practice by reason of veto or neglect of being signed into law-the President's plea will have been badly discredited and the citizens of the District of Columbia will again find themselves helpless, and, just as much as before, at the mercy of the arrogant unafraid-of-the-law criminal contingent in our society; and

WHEREAS, the Capitol Hill Southeast Citizens Association has been working ceaselessly for years to help break the stranglehold the criminal element and its supporting defenders have been able to keep on the public through the inadequacy of existing legislation and the other more subtle elements that have been factors in letting the crime situation get so completely out-of-hand in the first place; BE IT RESOLVED THEREFORE, that the Capitol Hill Southeast Citizens Association, once more, go on record in support of the full enactment of the anti-crime bill and any additional, even stronger if necessary, follow-up measures

that will finally make our criminality a non-paying business for anyone directly or even second-handedly engaged in it.

Adopted by unanimous vote at the Association's meeting, November 3, 1966.

[Telegram]

NOVEMBER 10, 1966.

Hon. LYNDON B. JOHNSON,

President of the United States,

Johnson City, Tex.

Mr. PRESIDENT: As Vice President and Chairman of the Legal Committee of the International Conference of Police Association representing over 250,000 policemen in the United States request that our President approve H. R. 5688, the District of Columbia Crime Bill now before you.

We join with many Professional Business and Civic Organizations in the District of Columbia who have requested you to approve this bill.

If there is any question as to the constitutionality with any respect to this bill, it should be settled by the Courts.

The Congress was three years in preparing this bill, after many days and months of consideration by the members who are former Judges, Lawyers and Prosecutors. We fully agree with Mr. Miller, Chairman of the President's Crime Commission of the District of Columbia, that this bill should be enacted into Law.

JOHN L. SULLIVAN,

Vice President, International Conference of Police Association.

[WMAL, Editorial dated Nov. 13, 1966, entitled "Veto of D.C. Omnibus Crime Bill"] President Johnson gave in to the demands of liberals and vetoed the District Omnibus Crime Bill.

The Crime Bill is gone-but crime itself continues to increase at a phenomenal rate. Polls show that the rising crime rate is the biggest worry of both Negroes and whites.

So the liberals owe the community an explanation of what they propose in place of the vetoed Crime Bill.

Police authority must be strengthened at the same time re-organization of the police department adds efficiency. A better police image is important-but it is by no means a magic elixir-because police say most serious crime is committed by a growing hard-core of professional criminals.

The liberals may exult in the Crime Bill veto, but they must face up to the crime rate. We anxiously await their proposals in the fight against crime.

[David Lawrence, The Evening Star, Nov, 16, 1966, "Johnson's Crime Bill Veto."]

President Johnson had a chance this week to start a constructive movement throughout the country to deal with crime. But he passed it by. This may plague him in the election campaign two years hence when it seems certain the administration will have to face the country on what it has done or failed to do about the tremendous increase in the crime rate in the United States in recent years. Since the District of Columbia is governed by the President and Congress, its handling of local problems could serve as an example to the rest of the nation. The President had before him a bill that would have helped the police to deal with crime, but he vetoed it. The excuse given was that some phases of it are unconstitutional. This question often is raised as to legislation. Strangely enough, however, when civil-rights measures have been before the President in the last two years, he didn't worry about objections on constitutional grounds but took if for granted that the courts would draw the necessary distinctions between lawful and unlawful paragraphs in a law.

Instead, therefore, of giving the District crime bill a chance, the President not only vetoed the measure but denounced it. He said that better-trained and betterpaid policemen are necessary. But though he has had plenty of time to work out a plan, no legislation has been passed to provide such improvements.

There were, to be sure, many criticisms of the crime bill, but any defects in it could readily be taken care of later by amendments, and at least a start toward

crime prevention would have been made if the President had signed the measure. The Evening Star-which of course, has an intimate knowledge of local conditions here was disappointed in the President's action, and said in an editorial: "In vetoing the D.C. crime bill, President Johnson followed bad advice. His decision discards, with the stroke of a pen, a positive, constructive attempt to strengthen the arm of law enforcement in Washington-and leaves nothing in its place.

"This bill, despite the President's disparaging reference to its final passage in the 'closing hours' of the session, was no hurried affair. It was the fruit of years of debate. Its authors, particularly in the Senate, were acutely aware of the constitutional ramifications. We share the view of those legal experts, including the chairman of the D.C. Crime Commission, who have argued that the bill could have been administered in a manner acceptable to the courts."

What difference does it make, for instance, if a criminal is kept four hours under questioning as a suspect? If he is innocent, he can say so and explain why. If he is guilty, he may under interrogation mention names or reveal facts which are useful in prosecuting either his crime or the crime of others. Most crimes are committed in secret, and there are no witnesses.

Which is more important-the right of a criminal in a case of murder to be spared an ordeal of questioning, or the right of society to see that those who commit crimes are punished? The President, by vetoing this bill which would have helped the police, may unwittingly have been instrumental in letting many criminals go free to commit other crimes.

The police here are discouraged by the President's action. Police Chief John B. Layton said he was "disappointed, of course," by the veto. The problem of supporting the efforts of police to see that criminals are punished is nationwide. In New York City in a referendum last week, the people voted overwhelmingly against a civilian review board that, it was believed, would have impaired the morale of the police force itself. The same kind of issue has been up in other cities.

The President had an excellent chance to show the nation that in the capital of the United States crime would be dealt with effectively. Ambiguous clauses in the law could have been decided in the courts, but at least there would have been a considerable moral effect by enactment of the statute. Instead, law enforcement has suffered a real defeat.

[The Evening Star, Nov. 27, 1966, Letters to the Editor]

DEPLORES VETO

SIR: The Star is to be commended for its fight for the D.C. crime bill. It is unfortunate that President Johnson allowed himself to be sold a veto action by a few misguided do gooder liberals. As a former liberal I wonder what has to happen to make our leaders see that the time is long past to allow a blind dedication to our Christian sentimental philosophy to govern our actions. Sloth is catered to at the expense of the worker on whose back the tax is falling. The guilty are protected at the expense of the innocent.

J. K. EVANS.

[Editorial, The Gastonia (N.C.) Gazette, November 28, 1966, entitled "LBJ poorly advised on D.C. crime bill veto"]

President Johnson's veto of the District of Columbia crime bill is an outstanding example of the President's unwillingness to face full and square the seriousness of the crime situation.

The latest statistics show that serious crime in the district rose by almost 29 per cent in October over October, 1965.

And, it was the 53rd month in succession that crime rates have increased over previous comparative periods in Washington. Records show that October's crime rate was 182.6 per cent higher than the total for April, 1957, the lowest point in the last nine years.

Yet, the President, with full knowledge that the crime bill had been given overwhelming support from the Congress, decided that he would not allow the bill to become law.

He did so, in our opinion, on poor advice.

Mr. Johnson based his veto on the fact that his Acting Attorney General advised him that fundamental constitutional questions pervaded the bill.

There also were some constitutional questions which surrounded the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Yet, the President hesitated not a moment to attach his signature to it-indeed, with much fanfare.

The Supreme Court of the United States decided on that bill's constitutionality within a year. It reasonably could have been expected to act likewise on the D.C. bill.

Gastonia's Congressman Basil Whitener authored the bill. It was a great disappointment to him to see years of work nullified by the nonpenmanship of the President.

Whitener believed in the bill. He was convinced that there were no constitutional aberrations within it and that it would work for the benefit of good lawabiding citizens of and visitors to Washington. It would, likewise, make for the discomfort of the lawbreaker.

Five years of discussion and debate in the Congress went into the bill. The House of Representatives approved such a bill in the 87th, 88th, and 89th Congresses by approximately 2-to-1 margins on roll-call votes.

In the 89th Congress, the Senate passed the bill with substantial amendments. This threw the bill into a conference between the Senate and House. Whitener chaired that conference committee and 13 meetings later presented a revised bill which was adopted by the House 208-79 and by the Senate without a roll-call vote.

It was to this overwhelming margin that President Johnson said “no”. Now that two weeks have passed since the veto, there are some notable rumblings of discontent among congressmen that may have implications far beyond the welfare of Washingtonians.

Said The Christian Science Monitor:

"It is believed that congressional dissatisfaction with the President's handling of the crime bill may stir opposition in the 90th Congress to major new proposals aimed at curbing crime and improving the system of criminal justice in all parts of the country.

"Next January, the National Crime Commission will be making its longawaited report which will include a number of specific legislative proposals. And the President has publicly committed himself to act promptly on these recommendations.

"He will need help from Congress to have some sort of a record before the 1968 election. A worsening of crime conditions could well be a negative election issue." If there is one thing Mr. Johnson doesn't need, it is another negative election issue.

The President and his advisors appear to have negative answers about what not to do about crime.

They have few, if any, affirmative answers about how to protect law-abiding people from the rampaging criminal element.

Unless they come up with a proper solution, there will be no keeping this crime-bill turn-down from becoming a 1968 election issue.

[Editorial, The Evening Star, November 26, 1966]

CRIME AND THE CONSTITUTION

Commissioner Tobriner says he feels that an effort is needed now to "restore a balance" between the rights of society and the rights of suspects in criminal cases. "The imbalance," he adds, "is too great at the moment."

These comments are especially welcome in view of the fact that the Commissioner strongly recommended that President Johnson veto the omnibus D.C. crime bill passed in the last session of Congress a piece of advice which the President unfortunately followed. It might have been more helpful if Tobriner had stated his personal views more fully at the time the fate of the crime bill was at stake.

Better late, however, than never. With the old crime bill dead, the question now is where we go from here.

It is Tobriner's view that rather than attempt a new law, the "balance" can be best restored, and the arm of law enforcement best strengthened, by an amendment to the Constitution, proposed by Congress and subject to ratification by three-fourths of the states. This, he contends, would give the people of the nation a chance to express themselves on the subject. But his primary argument is that any meaningful law passed by Congress would inevitably be challenged on constitutional grounds in the courts, leading at the very least to long litigation.