Evening star., 1935-05-01

and responsibilities Of the United
States attorney for the District Of
Columbia should be Cd an attorney
who possesses a creditable record as
trial lawyer: ca he should have
broad knowledge and thorough un-
derstanding of Federal and District
of Columbia laws and procedure; 90
he should possess the vigor and energy
to personally prosecute dangerous
criminals; (4) he should command
the confidence and respect Of the
bench, the bar, his subordinates, and
the citizens of the community; (5)
he should, by his official conduct and
his personal behavior. personify the
dignity and the majesty of the law;
co he should, by persistent and
adamant prosecution Of criminals,
symbolic the power of the Govern
ment to condemn and punish enemies
of society; CD he should possess the
executive and administrative ability
and the qualifications of leadership
to organize capable, hard-working,
and efficient staff that would emulate
his own courageous and competent
conduct.
Garnett Removal Urged.
3. Garnett should be removed
The immediate replacement of Leslie
c. Garnett by q prosecutor possessing
the attributes described above, would
do as much to reduce the frequency
of crime in Washington as would the
adoption at this time Of any single
remedy.
Mr.. Garnett's testimony before the
Mr.. Karl w. Kindleberger, clearly in
the United States Attorney for the
District of Columbia are being con-
Quoted without adequate knowledge of
the law, without proper or efficient
supervision, and minus an attitude
conducive to public confidence and re-
spect
4. Condemned by Citizens
and representatives Of organized
groups, who testified before the sub
committee, either openly criticized Mr..
Garnett in his official capacity or con-
spicuously failed to indorse his admin
istration Of the offlce.
(The report quotes testimony by
James G. Yaden, Mrs. Harvey w.
Wiley and Arthur Clarendon Smith.)
S. Bar association noncommittal.-
Mr.. H. Winship Wheatley, testifying
before the subcommittee in the repre-
sentative capacity Of president Of the
District of Columbia Bar Association,
was asked for his opinion as to the
manner in which Mr.. Garnett was
conducting the Office of the United
States attorney. Mr.. Wheatley de-
clined to commit himself in replying
to the question, as indicated by the
testimony below. 1t is regarded as
particularly significant that Mr..
Wheatley, in his representative ca
pacity, did not wish to make any
observations with regard to the prose-
cution of criminal cases in this
Jurisdiction.
Testimony Of Mr.. Wheatley.
Mr.. wheatley's testimony on this
point follows:
@. And I believe you are an officer
of the Bar Association Of the Dis
trict of Columbia.
Mr.. Neutrality-suspicious..
=
Mr.. Wheatley-I regarded the in
vitation of the committee more or
less as q subpoena to come.
1t is not quite apparent that any,
thing may know will assist the COM
mittee. I am perfectly willing, how
ever, to give you any assistance I
can, but it has impressed me the in
quiry was more particularly directed
to sociology, criminology, and to the
operations Of the police than to a
lawyer.
I am perfectly willing, and I know
I speak for every member Of our as
sociation District of Columbia Bar
Association), to give you any possible
information and assistance we can.
@. Would you care to make any
observation with respect to the pros
ecution of criminals here-any OBJ
servations with respect to the con-
duct of the district attorneys Office?
Mr.. Wheatley-No; because do
not feel that have the necessary In
formation to give to you one way or
the other. All I say is from the stand
point of q citizen. I have no COM
ments to make about the district at.
torney's ofaca. becauas I have not had