Evening star., 1935-05-22

and attention of the subcommittee
for many days. Without many OF the
exhibits the stenographic transcript OF
the testimony comprises $50 printed
pages. Much of the testimony was
irrelevant and beyond the boundary
line of the subcommittee authority.
For example, many pages OF testimony
we're taken up with individual COM
plants concerning matters OF ad-
ministration in the district attorneys
office and in the Police Department.
The subcommittee permitted itself to
be a sounding board for unnamed
police officers who had personal
grievances of one kind or another
against their superior officers
The personal affairs of an assist
ant district attorney were delved into
with most searching care with view
| to discredit and destroy him. Not only
| we're some of the matters both ir-
relevant and eXtraneous, but in addi-
ton constituted practically an at
tempt to rehear cases disposed of or
pending in the laW-enforcement
agencies, even including the grand
jury. 1t is apparent that the sub
committees insistence upon the dis
closure OF evidence in cases pending
in the aw-enforcement agencies
prior to their disposition embarrassed
and hampered the machinery of en-
forcement.
When the selection OF the sub
committees counsel was under con-
sideration, my views were sought and
I stated that I had no one in mind
and only suggested that the commit
tee make certain that they secured
the services Of sound, impartial
lawyer To my amazement l later
learned that the attorney selected
was a man of scant experience who
had never practiced law on his own
account, but had learned the ins and
outs Of the criminal courts by reason
of his employment as an assistant
district attorney, and who had sew
cred his connection with the district
attorneys Office under conditions
which obviously left him disgruntled
and dissatisfied and with venom
against his superior. the present dis
trict attorney.
Motives Questioned.
"An examination of the cold tran
script of the hearings will of course
not disclose the demeanor of the
counsel for the subcommittee at the
time he cross-examined his former
superior, the present district attorney,
but his method Of examination, the
scope of his inquiries. and the pre-
emptory character of his questions
as shown in the transcript will dis
close that from the very outset OF his
interrogation he was actuated by
purpose to discredit the present dis
trict attorney and not to elicit in
formation of the character contem-
plated by the resolution prescribing
the subcommittee authority.
There Is another matter under
this heading which I wish to call TO
the attention of the full committee
and that is the unusual method under
which this subcommittee held its hear
ings. The hearings were neither
open to the public nor executive in
their character, though the sessions
were denominated executive Repre-
sentatives OF all the local newspapers,
including photographers, were in
vited to be and were present. This
resulted in the publication of lurid
stories not justified by the testimony
adduced.
Furthermore. cannot approve the
methods pursued by the subcommittee
in accepting unsupported conclusions
Of witnesses obviously testifying from
hearsav or without any knowledge
whatever. especially when it now
turns out that one of the objectives
of the subcommittee was the at
tempted virtual impeachment of pub
lie officials. both municipal and Fed
| eral.
Authority Held Exceeded.
THE authority Of the subcommittee
as contained in the resolution author
izing the investigation is limited. The
subcommittee is authorized % to in
l vestigate all forms of criminal ac-