Evening star., 1951-04-16
District Officials
Join COP. Fight
On Crime Bill
U. S. Attorney Stoff
Of Investigators Not
Needed, Hearing Told

BY Harold B. Rogers

ny Horoio b. Rogers
District officials today joined
Republican members of the House
District Committee in sharp
attack on the provision in the
pending omnibus crime bill which
would set up a special staff of in
vestigators in the Office of the
United States Attorney here. .
The provision was criticized by
District Commissioners F. Joseph
Donohue and j. Russell Young,
and Maj. Robert j. Barrett. Su-
perintendent of Police. But it
was strongly defended by Repre-
sentative Davis, Democrat, of
Georgia, chairman of a special
subcommittee which developed
the bill to tighten law enforce
ment here,
Opponents charged the measure
was unnecessary and in effect
would set up what would amount
to a super-police department un-
der authority of the United States
attorney.
Next Session Wednesday.
Mr.. Davis, a former judge, in
sisted that the United States at
torney had requested the staff of
investigators to help prepare cases
of purely local crimes, as dis
tinguished from Federal cases.
The controversy ran through
most of the morning session of
the House District Committee as
it continued consideration of the
Davis bill, which would make
about rs changes in District law
to strengthen law enforcement
against crime.
The committee has not yet fin
ished its series of open meetings
on the bill. It's next session was
set for 10 am. Wednesday.
Republican Representatives Pat
terson of Connecticut and Sitter
of Pennsylvania, hammered away
at the provision.
They asked why the police de-
partment could not perform ade-
quately the duties of preparing
evidence for prosecution.
Assignment Changed.
The discussion touched on the
now-abandoned practice of full
time assignment of police officers
to the District Attorneys Office
Maj. Barrett explained the change
was made when Police 1t. Joseph
Shimon was transferred from the
District Attorneys Office to a police
precinct.
Alleged overlapping activities
of 1t. Shimon were the subject of
a grand jury investigation and a
lengthy probe by a special Senate
District Subcommittee, but mol
final action was taken either by
the grand jury or the Police De-
partment.
The Senate District Subcommit-
tee in it's report sharply criticized
the police officer.
Principal contention Of Repre-
sentative Davis in support of the
five new investigators was that
these men were needed to be under
full authority of the district at
torney, He contended that police
officers assigned to the district
attorney, but still on the payroll
Of the Metropolitan Police Depart
ment, would be placed in the un-
tenable position of sometimes re-
ceiving conflicting orders from the
United States attorney on one
hand and the chief of police on
the other.
Little Previous Discussion.
This was challenged by critics
of the proviso, including Commits
sioner Donohue. Commissioner
Young told the committee there
had been very little discussion of
the question prior to the appoint
nent of Mr.. Donohue. He said,
however, that after listening to
the testimony of Mai. Barrett and
Mr.. Donohue, he would side with
them.
Maj. Barrett was the first to at
Jack the provision when it was
read to the committee by Mr..
Davis. He said this special staff
of Investigators as civilians would
be in conflict with the Police De-
partment. He offered the full
services of his own men whom he
highly praised for their efficiency
10 assist the district attorney.
Another witness was Acting
Capt. Earl Hartman, head of the
statistical bureau and assigned
before World War II to the office
Df district attorney. Capt. Hart
nan said he had never run into
any conflict in orders, but that if
he had he would have referred
his conflict back to the United
States attorney and the chief of
police and would have taken no
action.
Chief Judge George P. Barse of
Municipal Court asked the House
committee to restore to the bill a
provision which previously had
oeen in it but was stricken by the
Davis subcommittee.
This proviso would have created
l statutory right to jury trial inI
pertain cases where the accused
now has no Sllch right