The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-03-09

For information of the Court, perhaps | should state that the policy racket, If I may use that term, has been conducted in Wa tcrbury without serious police in- terfercnce for some years past. Formerly there were sporadic ar- rests and prosecution, but lately even these have ceased entirely. This particular type of organized crime seems, at this particular time, in this City, to be immune from m0lestation and fOurishes apparently in utter defiance of tho laws of the State.
 It is evident that there is a prevailing definite belief, amount ing almost to q certainty in the City, that this policy racket is protected by the officials whose duty it is to enforce the laws. The belief that q protected racket ex- ists in the City tends to breed distrust and contempt for the ad- ministratiOn of criminal laws and loss of confidence in the public officials. It seemed to me, in view of this situation, urgent, there fore, that something be done about 1t, and realizing the inher- cnt difficulty of securing evidence through the police, who are Ob- viously well known throughout the community, have secured evidence for prosecution through other sources.
 The evil consequences flowing from organized crime of this type must he obvious to the most un- initiated.
 The Mayor of the City is prop erly to be held responsible for the enforcement of the laws, and preservation of peace and order, which, of course, means keeping the City well rid of crime and racketecring. In the main, this duty has been efficiently executed by the present incumbent and his predecessors in office. I have nOth- ing but words of praise and com mendati0n in the handling by the police, of crimes of major im- p0rtancc. The responsibility of the Mayor. however. Is only par tial. It is limited to a test of the efficiency of the police service, and, moreover, he obviously has no control or responsibility over the work of the various criminal prosecutors of the courts having jurisdiction, or for the proper functi0ning of my office. It is very easy for lethargic prosecutor, be he an official of the City or higher courts, to say, after all, T have no evidence upon which to act"
 Inasmuch as no one else seems to be particularly interested, and by reason of inactivity on the part of the police and others, [ cOn- cluded that it was my duty to act in this matter. if, for no other reason. than tO attempt to dispel from the public mind the notion that the racket Is protected by officials whose duty to the public requires action.
 1his job Is A police affair. The fuBctiOniDg of my office primar- fly, as Is well known, is limited tO the presentation and trial of eases properly brought before it. How eyer. ! conceive that I have . responsibility and duty not SO limited Go scope,
 Tine leader Of this policy racket seldom appears iD the picture. bat hts identity is well known tO the man on the street. The eyI- deBee Co fine possession Of my Of- flee al ihe present time is iDsuf. neieBi tO justify application for lhe Issuance Of . bench warrant in his ease. ] am confident. how. eyer, that he ean De ferEeied Out by vigorous pursuit, especially if my office, eF ihe office ef the pF0s' sculing attorneys iD tbe inferior Cenris. ls furnished wtlb inf0rs nation and evIdfHee which ls within lbe poser ef certain lDdl' ylaHals ln lhls community ts fuT' pisb saa @Fsssnf@.