Mrs. GREEN. I wondered if you could tell us how many youngsters were involved in this 20-month period that has been referred to?

Mr. YEAGER. I cannot recall all of them. Two of them do come to my mind-the younger child you referred to, and another boy of approximately 4 or 5.

Mrs. GREEN. The younger child was how old?

Mr. YEAGER. I do not know how old. Approximately 20 months. Mrs. GREEN. Would you outline briefly what happened? What was the procedure in regard to the 20-month-old child?

Mr. YEAGER. I believe that the mother signed the complaint and counsel was appointed for the child by the United States Commissioner. The counsel went to the hospital to visit the child and make his observation. He talked to the mother. And then he came back, came into court at hearing time and the mother was present, and also the doctor who had taken care of the child since birth.

Mr. O'BRIEN. If you had followed the letter of the law at what point would that 20-month-old child have gone to jail?

Mr. YEAGER. When the complaint was signed.

Mr. O'BRIEN. How long would that child have remained in jail? How much of a lapse was there between the complaint and the actual sending of the child to Morningside?

Mr. YEAGER. It was not too long in this instance, I remember, because it was a local doctor. Dr. Anderson of the Department of Public Health was not called in in this case. The other doctor had personal knowledge of it and the child was in the hospital. So the period here was short.

Mr. O'BRIEN. 10 days, perhaps?

Mr. YEAGER. Perhaps even less than 10 days.

Mrs. GREEN. What was the time in regard to the 4- or 5-year old child?

Mr. YEAGER. That child also remained at home with his mother. The time there was very short also.

Mrs. GREEN. In your opinion, how can a jury-did they both come before a jury?

Mr. YEAGER. Yes, ma'am.

Mrs. GREEN, In your opinion, how can a jury of six lay people determine whether or not a 20-month-old child is insane?

Mr. YEAGER. Only from the testimony of the doctor. They must have weighed the doctor's testimony. And also counsel acquiesced in the commitment.

Mr. O'BRIEN. The jury trial was of absolutely no value to that child.

Mr. YEAGER. No, sir.

Mr. GREEN. Or anybody.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Or anybody.

Mr. YEAGER. It is my personal opinion as to cases before a jury
that oftentimes a person needs commitment at that time and can
receive great help from the psychiatrist and proper attention.
Mrs. GREEN. At 20 months?

Mr. YEAGER. No, ma'am, I am not talking about that specific
case. I am talking about others, and older people where they need
care and need it immediately. The jury will overlook that fact and
until a later time, until people are in desperate need and a psychia-

trist would not be of the benefit they could have been at an earlier time. I have noticed that.

Mrs. GREEN. I think all of the testimony would bear that out. $500 spent at that time would bring about the very rapid recovery of the patient where you could spend thousands of dollars later and he would never recover.

Mr. YEAGER. Yes, ma'am, that is my impression.
Mr. O'BRIEN. Are there any other questions?
Thank you very much.

(A document submitted by Mr. Stevens follows:)

STATEMENT OF THEODORE F. STEVENS

I am the United States attorney for this Division, which is the Fourth Judicial Division, District of Alaska. I do not, however, appear here to present the views of the Department of Justice, nor do I appear on behalf of the Department. If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to have the record show that I am here to present my personal views and opinions and not the official position of the Department of Justice.

I am concerned about certain provisions of House bill No. 6376, as reported by your committee to the full House on July 25, 1955. We are all very much appreciative of the time and effort you have devoted to this Alaska mental-health bill and I would not want to leave the impression that I do not realize the complex problems which are involved in this subject.

There are two particular aspects of this bill that I would like to discuss.

DESIGNATION OF UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER

This bill refers to a "United States Commissioner." Section 107 provides for a judicial determination of a patient's need for continued treatment. This section refers to "the United States Commissioner." Section 122 of the bill refers to "a United States commissioner of the precinct in which the patient is resident or present ***"

At the present time, we have 13 commissioners in this Division. As we have over 60 precincts, the number of commissioners varies, and will continue to vary, according to population trends. It is my opinion that this bill should specify the commissioner to whom a petition under section 107 or an application for commitment under section 108 shall be directed. The application under section 108 could be directed to the nearest or most accessible commissioner to the place at which the alleged incompetent is found at the time of the application. Provision should be made, however, for a transfer of the hearings to the commissioner nearest or most accessible to the residence of the proposed patient, upon his request.

The petition under section 107 should, in my opinion, be made only to the commissioner who either issued the commitment under section 108 or was connected with the proceedings pursuant to section 104.

SECTION 108 (f)

Your committee inserted into the original bill, as introduced by Mrs. Green an amendment which permits "the proposed patient, his counsel, or any member, of his immediate family" to request a jury trial. I am not unmindful of the basic constitutional question which obviously gave rise to this amendment, However, this is a Federal Territory and your committee is considering special local legislation for this Territory in this bill. It is my opinion that none of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States require a jury trial on the issue of insanity as a prerequisite to commitment of an insane person in this Territory. There is no doubt that the due-process clause of the 14th amendment does not require a State to provide a jury trial in an insanity hearing. Whether the fifth, sixth, or seventh amendments do require jury trials for commitment by Federal authorities, because of insanity, has not been directly decided. However, our Court of Appeals in this Ninth Circuit has held that a jury trial is not required in the Territory of Hawaii on the issue of insanity in a proceeding to appoint a guardian for an insane person, despite an objection that both the fifth and seventh amendments required Hawaii to provide such a jury. This holding together with

decisions of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia are the basis for my opinion that this provision in H. R. 6376 for a jury is not required by the Constitution.

I have been the United States attorney here since September 1, 1953. Since that time, 67 insanity hearings have been held here in Fairbanks. While there is no provision in either the present law or the proposed bill that requires a Government attorney to participate in these hearings, a representative of my office is normally requested to appear to aid the commissioner. The alleged incompetent is always represented by an attorney. While I have complete faith in the jury system in criminal trials, I have often seen a jury at an insanity hearing release a person vitally in need of treatment because the person was able, in a few lucid moments, to convince the jury that he was perfectly sane. In these 67 hearings, 21 of the alleged incompetents were released.

I know your committee has finished with this bill, but, if possible, I ask your support to have this amendment to the bill deleted.

Mr. O'BRIEN. We have three final witnesses to be heard today. It
is my understanding they will testify as a group.
Maurice Langberg, Mrs. Lois Roach, and Irving Reed.
Identify yourself, Mr. Langberg.

STATEMENT OF MAURICE LANGBERG, PRESIDENT, UTILITY
BOARD, HAMILTON ACRES; ACCOMPANIED BY MRS. LOIS
ROACH, HOMEOWNER AND FORMER PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE;
AND IRVING REED, TERRITORY HIGHWAY ENGINEER

Mr. LANGBERG. Maurice Langberg, president of the utility board of Hamilton Acres.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Mrs. Roach.

Mrs. ROACH. I am Mrs. Lois Roach. I am a homeowner.

Mr. O'BRIEN. And a former public health nurse?

Mrs. ROACH. Yes.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Reed.

Mr. REED. Irving Reed, Territory highway engineer.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Thank you very much.

You people can decide among yourselves who wants to lead off. Mr. LANGBERG. First I would like to have these passed to the members here. We have a problem in Hamilton Acres. It is a health problem. It may turn into a mental problem if we do not get some relief. We have got about a mile of access road to the base. We probably have about 500 families that are involved. Now this particular road is traveled to such an extent that it is unbearable to live in that part of the area during the summertime. A particular count was made of the cars in that area a year ago and it averaged out 54 cars an hour for 24 hours a day for a 2-week period. The increase is approximately 75 percent greater at this time.

Mr. DAWSON. Could I ask a question? This is a subdivision of the
city of Fairbanks?

Mr. LANGBERG. This is a utility district outside of Fairbanks.
Mr. DAWSON, Outside of the city limits?

Mr. LANGBERG. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAWSON. Is there anything about this traffic outside of volume that is particularly annoying-heavy truck traffic?

Mr. LANGBERG. It has been established as the access road to the military base for all of the people going to it, for heavy traffic, for trucks, for your airplane vehicles coming off your convoys. And we

have asked for some relief, to have it paved or oil surfaced of some kind, or dust control put onto it.

Mr. O'BRIEN. You are not complaining about the volume of traffic. but the condition of the road?

Mr. LANGBERG. Yes.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I was going to say that would be a nice quiet country lane back in New York, 54 cars an hour.

Mr. DAWSON. Who have you complained to?

Mr. LANGBERG. We have brought the problem up with the Alaska. Road Commission and we have asked them for some relief and they claim they do not have any funds to go ahead with it. We went to the Army and they maintain at the present time they did not have the money to go ahead and do anything about this particular job. Now I understand it was on the agenda and it was turned down possibly in Washington, D. C. Do you know anything about that, Delegate Bartlett?

Mr. BARTLETT. It never reached Congress.

Mr. DAWSON. On whose agenda, the Army or appropriations for Alaska Road Commission?

Mr. LANGBERG. May I turn to Mr. Reed?

Mr. REED. It was on the appropriation for the Alaska Road Commission. I understand that the Bureau of the Budget cut the Department of the Interior's appropriation and they, of course, then cut the Alaska Road Commission appropriation so as to bring it down within their limits and twice this paving was cut off from the Alaska Road Commission.

Mr. DAWSON. As I understand it, the Alaska Road Commission makes its request to the Department.

Mr. REED. That is right.

Mr. DAWSON. For a lump sum of money. I assume they probably specify some particular projects. Then it goes to the Interior Department who makes their request to the Appropriations Committee, but the committee does not attempt to delineate just how the Alaska Road Commission is to spend its money; it is just a lump appropriation as I understand it. Am I correct in that?

Mr. BARTLETT. I do not know, Mr. Dawson, what permission they are given to transfer funds but by and large they appear before the Appropriations Committee for $1 million, we will say, for the Richardson Highway, $2 million for another highway. In other words, for specific projects. I do not believe they have too much authority to transfer funds although there is a certain degree of latitude there. Mr. DAWSON. They would not specify so much money for paving Third Street in Hamilton Acres; would they?

Mr. BARTLETT. I think they likely would.

Mr. REED. I understood from Mr. Ghiglione that was the case, that they had specified certain moneys for that and they had been cut off of the appropriation.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Do you happen to know what the amount was, the cost?

Mr. REED. It was something a little over a hundred thousand dollars. Equivalent roads of the same length have cost $103,000 to pave.

Mr. ABBOTT. May I ask a question at that point, Mr. Chairman? Hamilton Acres is an unincorporated area?

C

Mr. REED. That is right.

Mr. ABBOTT. You refer to it as a public utilities district area; is that right; or does it happen a public utility is operating in that area? Mr. LANGBERG. We are the public utility.

Mr. ABBOTT. Do you have any taxing authority?

Mr. LANGBERG. We assess our people 5 mills to maintain our own streets and take care of our own roads in our own area.

Mr. ABBOTT. That is what in general governmental structure we would call general levy?

Mr. LANGBERG. That is right.

Mr. ABBOTT. Do you have authority to create paving districts for a special levy, with a tax assessed against the property owner? Mr. LANGBERG. No.

Mr. ABBOTT. Is there any thought of annexing Hamilton Acres to the municipal corporation of Fairbanks?

Mr. LANGBERG. It is possible but there are two areas between us and Fairbanks.

Mr. ABBOTI. It would require multiple annexation to reach you?
Mr. LANGBERG. Right.

Mr. ABBOTT. You do not have authority to levy specially for creating a paving district?

Mr. LANGBERG. No.

Mr. ABBOTT. Do you create lighting districts?

Mr. LANGBERG. No.

Mr. ABBOTT. Sewage districts, sanitary?

Mr. LANGBERG. We do not have any of that out there at the present time. All we have is our fire department which is a voluntary fire department. We have a building and all our equipment and we maintain our own roads because we have no other way of having them taken care of.

Mr. ABBOTT. Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me that in line with your earlier statement that this may be a special example of where some detail, perhaps in a written statement, of this situation might be placed in the record at this point and in turn that be transmitted to either the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee handling it or some other committee so that it could be especially brought to their attention. Mr. O'BRIEN. Perhaps I had better explain to these people. I do not know whether you were here at the time. This is not under our jurisdiction. In other words, any remedial legislation would not be handled by our committee. But we have decided on this trip if we run into any matters of this kind which are controlled by other committees that we will submit those matters to those committees. In other words, let the Government get a little more mileage out of what it cost to send us up here. We think that is the proper thing to do. That is the best we can do in this particular instance, is to submit to the appropriate committee our findings here, what we learned, and the record.

I would like to ask you this: Was there a time when Third Street was an acceptable street? Did it become what it is as a result of the heavy traffic from the airfield, for example?

Mr. REED. May I answer that?

Mr. O'BRIEN. Yes.