Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1946-02-13
Postponinq Justice

drug operations In washington that
Federal Narcotics Commissioner
Harry J. Anslinger has made to a
House Appropriations Subcommittee
He pictured the Nations Capital as
being one of the outstanding sore
spots in the Federal narcotic law en-
forcement field, with the 1945 fiscal
year total Of known violations ex-
ceeding the totals for 40 of the
States. Mr.. Anslinger told the sub
committee that he attributed the
deplorable local conditions to leni-
ency on the part of the courts in
dealing with drug peddlers and adj
diets. He cited figures to show that
narcotic sentences in the District of
Columbia average eight months, as
compared, for example, with a So
month average in Baltimore.
Court officials contend that this
is not fair comparison, however,
for the reason that Mr.. Anslinger
appears to have based his average
on minimum sentences imposed
under the Districts indeterminate
sentence law, whereas the sentences
imposed in Federal courts outside
the District are equivalent, in effect,
to the maximum penalties provided
in indeterminate sentences. To say
that one court is more lenient than
another on such basis of COMPARE
son is to overlook the parole factor
that potentially modifies penalties
imposed outside the District. Even
If this factor were taken into con-
sideration in making comparisons,
however, the fact remains that mar
cotic law violators seem to be doing
thriving business in Washington,
as evidenced by the numerous arrests
made in recent raids.
That District Court officials are
concerned over the city's unenviable
reputation as an attractive place for
drug peddlers is we'll known. Fol-
lowing conference not long ago
with Commissioner Anslinger, Chief
Justice Laws requested Associate
Justice Schweinhaut to make a spe-
cial study of narcotic law cases pend
ing in District Court. While this
study has not been completed, it is
said that the court is convinced that
there have been too many and too
long delays in bringing drug cases
to trial, and that one of the chief
reasons is the fact that drug de-
PENDANTS seem to prefer to have their
cases handled by very small group
of attorneys who specialize in such
work. AS a result, these attorneys
have become overloaded to such an
extent that they must request re-
peated delays in order to give each
of their clients a chance at their
services.
Since the higher courts have ruled
that under the Constitution every
defendant is entitled to choose his
own lawyer, District Court authori-
Ties nave approached With caution
any proposal to limit the number of
cases of one kind that an attorney
may handle simultaneously. How
ever, the welfare of society at large
should be paramount in such sit
uation, and society certainly is not
being served by the notorious delays
which occur in bringing drug viola
tors to trial in Washington. 1t is to
be hoped that the court, perhaps
with cooperation of the District Bar
Association, will find some way of
solving this postponement problem,
even if it is necessary to adopt a
rule limiting the number of post
ponements caused by inability of
2verworked attorneys to handle ex-
peditiously all the cases which they
accept. The problem is an urgent
one, warranting drastic action by
the court.