in the manufacture or use of fire-bombs or Molotov cocktails, regardless of whether or not they are ever put to use. At present, there are no provisions in the D.C. Code under which prosecution could be had for such activities. In the instance I mentioned above, in connection with the Anacostia riot in 1966, if some of the incendiary devices had actually been used, a charge of arson might possibly have been brought if private property had been burned as a result. At best, however, this provision in the present law is woefully inadequate, and I strongly urge that this loophole in the District of Columbia code of law be closed forthwith.

I anticipate that anguished voices will be raised in protest against the provisions of this legislation dealing with inciting other persons to engage in rioting, on the grounds that freedom of speech will thereby be violated. Mr. Chairman, freedom of speech is a zealously guarded heritage in this country. But freedom of speech must not be allowed to immunize from punishment a person who incites others to maim or to kill or to riot. Freedom of speech must not be distorted to guarantee to anyone the right to create disorder. Those who incite others to deeds of violence should be punished whether or not their freedom of speech is involved.

Mr. Chairman, I urge favorable action on this measure as a duty to the citizens I have the privilege to represent in the Congress, as well as to the millions of Americans who come to this city as to a shrine, with a feeling of reverence and respect for the provisions of our Constitution which were designed by our forefathers to maintain law and order in this great nation.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Thank you, Mr. Broyhill.

Mr. BROYHILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCMILLAN. Are there any questions? (No response.)

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Bevill from Alabama.

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM BEVILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, members of the distinguished District of Columbia Committee, I appreciate the opportunity of submitting to you a statement in support of pending legislation to prohibit riots in the District of Columbia.

As a matter of record, I have introduced a bill relating to the prohibition of riots and incitement to riot in the District of Columbia. This bill, H.R. 12557, is now pending before you.

It goes without saying that our Nation's Capital, the District of Columbia, is visited daily not only by people from all over our country, but from all over the world. These people who come to visit the District of Columbia may very well form a lasting opinion from the impressions they receive. Therefore, I believe that every possible step should be taken to make this a "model city."

✔ Never before in the history of the United States have we experienced such outbreaks of rioting and violence, as in this year of 1967. Never before have such violent civil disorders racked our nation, extracting great physical, moral and financial costs from our citizens. I believe the best way to combat this sort of behavior is to strengthen local law enforcement agencies through the enactment of laws such as those you are now considering.

I respectfully urge a favorable recommendation of this bill. I believe it will serve as a strong deterrent to future rioting in the District of Columbia.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Vinson, if it is agreeable with the Committee, I will not call you as a witness now, because Mr. Whitener would like very much to hear your statement.

Mr. Bress?

Mr. VINSON. United States Attorney Bress and I are here together, and we had planned to make a very short statement and then be available for questions, both of us.

Mr. MCMILLAN. All right, we will call on you both later.

Chief Layton, do you care to make a statement this morning? If you do, we will hear from you at this time. Please come around to the table. Some of us may desire to ask you some questions. Give your full name and position for the record, please.

STATEMENT OF CHIEF JOHN B. LAYTON, METROPOLITAN

POLICE DEPARTMENT

Chief LAYTON. I am John B. Layton, Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department.

Mr. Chairman, I do not have a prepared statement. I know that as to H.R. 12328, the bill that was introduced by you at the request of the Attorney General and Commissioner Tobriner, I am in accord with what is provided therein. It is my feeling that we do have need for such legislation in the District of Columbia.

We do not now have this kind of statutory authority. So I am prepared only to agree with Mr. Vinson and the Department of Justice and Mr. Kneipp, speaking for the Commissioners. We feel that this is a piece of legislation which is needed in the District of Columbia.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Just how would this proposed legislation prove to be of assistance to you and to the Police Department?

Chief LAYTON. Åt the present time, Mr. Chairman, other than the substantive offenses which might occur during a riot, such as arson or grand larceny or housebreaking, other than those offenses we only have statutory authority for the offense of disorderly conduct, which has a very minimum penalty, and the offense of affray.

It is my understanding, and I am sure that Mr. Vinson and Mr. Bress can give you a better explanation than I, but it is my understanding that in order to deal with, or charge an individual with, the offense of inciting to riot, it would be necessary to go back to the old common law in order to bring such a charge. It is my further understanding that that would be much more difficult to obtain than if there were specific statutory authority saying that such actions as are described in these bills constitute a riot and a specific penalty is set out in the statute.

Mr. MCMILLAN. I was wondering if the Congress has been sitting up here for 100 years without any protection against riots or anything else.

Chief LAYTON. It is my further understanding, Mr. Chairman, that we are not without any protection. Frequently in a riot situation, almost always I would say, there are other offenses that a person can be charged with, and it is possible legally to go back to the common

law provisions. But this is somewhat involved. Our situation here in the District would mean that we would have to go back to the Maryland common law in order to bring such a charge. That would be done, I believe, by presenting evidence that was developed to the Grand Jury.

As I say, we do have the offense of affray, where two or more people become involved in a fight or disturbance on the street, can be charged. Of course, the offense of disorderly conduct is just not adequate, in by judgment, to deal with a riot situation.

So while we have not been without protection, in my judgment, I agree with the Attorney General and the Commissioners that we should have specific statutory authority.

There are some few other offenses that go back to the common law, but in most cases the law has developed, as you know, from congressional action and enactment of specific statutes to clearly define the offense and to provide specific penalties.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Nelsen, would you care to ask any questions? Mr. NELSEN. I am greatly concerned about the critical problem that currently prevails relative to recruiting of District police officers. The District Police Department is now short over 300 policemen and recruiting is difficult.

There has been some recent objection to the military cadet program in the District high schools. What are the possibilities of some kind of a police cadet program in our school system where our young men could be taught some of the fundamentals of police work and civic responsibility with the idea that this might stimulate interest in police work. This might make it easier for the D.C. Police Department to recruit able young men from within the confines of the area? Have you given some thought to such a program?

Chief LAYTON. Yes, Mr. Nelsen. More than just thought has been given to that kind of a proposal.

Actually, we have mounted a pretty active recruiting campaign in our high schools. In addition to having our recruiting officials go to the schools, during the past year we engaged the services of one of the Redskin players to assist. He talked for the Police Department to groups of students. Primarily, this was aimed at recruiting young men who were graduating from high school into our cadet corps at their age. We have had a good bit of success. The vacancies in our cadet program are just about full.

In direct response to your question, there have been discussions beyond that of trying to develop programs that could be fit into the school curriculum. This has not been finalized but there have been some conversations in this direction also.

Mr. NELSEN. You will recall that during our hearings on crime many testified that certain court decisions have greatly inpeded the effectiveness of police work.

One can't help noticing that in cases where the police have attempted to perform their duties, such as perform an ordinary arrest, they are frequently interfered with by heckling mobs which at times attempt to free the policeman's prisoner. Oftentimes, too, police are beaten, simply because they are trying to do their duty to the public. This is tragic. As a member of this Committee, I want you to know that I am in complete support of you and your officers in the District, and if there is anything you need from us we will be ready and willing to give it to you.

I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Chief LAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Nelsen.

Mr. MCMILLAN. On that subject, Chief Layton, what is wrong with getting good policemen from anywhere in the United States? They are paid for by the taxpayers of the whole country. What is wrong with getting good people from any of the 50 States?

Chief LAYTON. Not anything is wrong, Mr. Chairman, with getting policemen from all over the country. In fact, we have recently had some conversations with the recruiting office in Civil Service to broaden their activities in recruiting for police officers in the District of Columbia. Primarily because of mileage and distance, that is in the eastern part of the country, but it is possible for men who are interested in becoming Metropolitan police officers to arrange to take examinations from anywhere in the country and there is nothing wrong with that.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Do you give the same exam all over the United States?

Chief LAYTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Of course, in my home town we don't have too many policemen, I guess about 75; but the Chief of Detectives is from the State of Pennsylvania and we think he is one of the best men we have on the force. So I don't think there is anything objectionable to recruiting good men from any State if they can meet the necessary qualifications. We do not have any priority as to whether they come from South Carolina or Florence County, or anywhere else; if they are good policemen we don't care where they come from. Chief LAYTON. I concur in that, Mr. Chairman. I could cite several outstanding examples in our own Department where men have come to us from other parts of the country who have worked their way up in our Department to official positions, to the rank of Deputy Chief, even. So that I agree with you that good men are available in many areas of the country, from Southern States as well as Northern or Eastern or Western States. We have a number of them.

Mr. MCMILLAN. I have not had any requests from my State for jobs on the police force, but I just wondered if all the people in the United States have the same opportunity to be members of the Nation's Capital Police Force.

Chief LAYTON. Yes, sir, they certainly do.

We have expanded our recruiting efforts, particularly with the Civil Service. We are attempting through Civil Service to make contact with men who are being discharged from the service. We think this is one area that may well be a source of recruits for us.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Are there any further questions?

Mr. FUQUA. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Fuqua.

Mr. FUQUA. In a letter dated August 5th, to the Speaker of the House and to the Vice President, signed by the Attorney General submitting this bill we are considering today to both the Senate and the House, he stated that you had to rely on a disorderly conduct provision of present law. Have you had any problems getting convictions under the disorderly conduct law?

Chief LAYTON. There have been some. There have been a couple of recent decisions in this area where one of our Judges in particular has handed down some decisions on it, in the matter of disorderly conduct.

We have had also an opinion from the Corporation Counsel that, in my judgment, clearly defines how the disorderly statute should be used by the police. This was issued about a year ago now. This opinion citing Court opinions, stipulates that there should be three or more persons engaging in certain types of disorderly conduct in order to make a case. One of the recent decisions I think involved whether or not prosecution should be by the Corporation Counsel or the United States Attorney.

Mr. FUQUA. In other words, then, you have run into some difficulty, particularly with one of the Judges, regarding convictions under the disorderly conduct statute?

Chief LAYTON. Yes, sir; some. I would say that up to this time that has not created a major problem, but the Judge has set down his opinion. This at the present time is his opinion. I don't know that other Judges have incorporated it, but they well might. So at this moment I would say it has not become a major problem.

Mr. Fuqua. Another point you mentioned was that the Judge stated it should be three or more persons, and the bill states five or more. Chief LAYTON. Yes.

Mr. FUQUA. Do you think this should be changed to three? I know there has been some concern about this. Maybe Mr. Vinson or Mr. Bress can elaborate more on this later as to how the figure was derived. It might be three or, for that matter, even two.

Chief LAYTON. I would prefer to defer that to Mr. Vinson. I think probably in drafting the bill there were reasons for setting the figure at five.

I can envision and I think of some of the recent experiences which would indicate that not always are five persons engaged immediately in riotous activities. We have seen some situations where just a few people, just two or three, may at that moment be together. It might not be as many as five. I am sure there were good reasons for setting the figure at five and I will say there is not a great deal of difference between the number three and the number five.

Mr. FUQUA. Chief, this summer we have seen in several cities quite extensive rioting, looting and burning. There have been allegations made that people were looting while police officers were standing by and looking the other way. I think there has been television documentation of this. Have you had any instructions in writing or orally that you should instruct your men to look the other way if looting occurred?

Chief LAYTON. No, sir, I have not. Quite to the contrary, I also have taken notice of the same kind of situation that you just alluded to to the extent of photographs being taken which appear to depict the police officer standing by while looters were carrying things away and we have given specific instructions to our police officers, through training sessions, to deal with these sort of things, that they shall make attempts to arrest individuals to the fullest extent.

One of the things that I learned from inquiring of other chief polices in various meetings about this same kind of situation is that frequently there are too few policemen to deal with the great volume of stealing and looting that occurs. But it is our feeling, and we have specifically instructed our officers, as I have indicated, that they will take positive action, arrest action, to the fullest extent that it is possible for them to do.