Evening star., 1935-05-22

ing members Of the bar who had frst.
hand knowledge Of the work Of the
district attorneys office.
mo sure testimony was heard ex-
cept that Of Mr.. Chief Justice Wheat
His testimony was in complete refuta-
ton Of the unsupported and biased
statements in the report, but 1t was
utterly ignored therein.
THAT dependable, first-hand testi-
mony of this character, in addition
to that Of the chief justice, was avail
able, has been demonstrated by the
fact that 1t has been reported in the
public press and otherwise that all
that justices of the Supreme Court OF
the District of Columbia and the
judges of the Police Court, as we'll as
the Bar Association and the Barristers
Club, have given their unqualified
Endorsement and expressed their con-
fidence in the ability and efficiency of
the present district attorney and his
office. Some of the resolutions of this
character have been filed with this
committee. Moreover, the record of
Mr.. Garnett's Office. as shown by the
testimony Of Chief Justice Wheat and
as contained in Mr.. Garnett's letter,
is conclusive evidence of his fitness
to administer the Office of United
States attorney. Therefore, the Bar
Association is not 'noncommitar as
the report states. Further, the testi-
mony of its president, Mr.. Wheatley,
does not support the conclusion there
in contained. The report partially
quotes Mr.. Wheatley, but stops short
OF his statement that he does know
that there has never been a time
in the 80 years have been at the
bar when the civil and criminal court
calendar has been as nearly up to
date as it is now This is only one
of a number of examples of half
truths contained In the report, which
comparison with the testimony will
demonstrate.
Time Was Limited.
''In reply to the proposed retirement
of police officers above the age of
so, which, If the report previously
submitted were truthful, would be a
recommendation for the retirement
of Brown and Headley, I might say
that the transcript of the testimony
was handed to me, after insistent de-
mands, on May IS, and any report
might have cared. to submit based
on this transcript must have
been submitted on or before May
20, under the unanimous consent
request granted by the House on May
II. I have given such eXamina.
ton to this extensive transcript as is
possible during this limited period of
time and nowhere therein do I find
any evidence justifying the recon-
mendation contained in the report
previously submitted for the retire.
ment Of these officers Maj. Brown
and Inspector Headley and the other
officers who appeared before the sub
committee, whether over or under
so, all rose from the ranks and there
is no evidence in the transcript tend
ing to indicate that they are in any
sense exhausted either mentally or
physically, as the former report
states, or that the Police Department
is not being satisfactorily admins
tered, or that there is a lack Of
morale and esprit de corps, as
charged by the report. In fact, it
would not only be unfair to them to
bring about their dismissal under such
circumstances, but it would be unfair
to the people Of the District Of Co
lumbia to deprive them OF the ex-
perience and Judgment of these men
in the direction of the affairs of the