Evening star., 1952-01-27

: ~ ~
hung over the District crime
investigation as the week ended.
II one looked ahead, there was
nothing but uncertainty. Senator
Neely's subcommittee has been
given 30-day time extension and
AMI additional $4,000 by the Sem
ate. But this adds up to narrow
working margin, and the commit
teeI members themselves do not
seem to know whether they will
schedule more time-consuming
public. hearings, or whether the
additional 80 days will be spent
running down leads and trying to
tie together a final report.
II one looks back, there are even
faore-and tougher - questions.
Many thousands OF Washingtonians
have been following the public
hearings in their newspapers, on
television and by radio. Certainly
the great majority must be asking
themselves: What Is It all about2
Who is guilty of what? s
Much Smoke, Little Fire
The truth is that the investiga-
stion has produced lot Of smoke
but very little fire up to this time.
The next 80 days may tell differ
ent story. AS of this moment,
however, there is almost no solid
evidence to prove the basic as
sumption which underlies the in
vestigation-that the police depart
ment has been bought up and cor
rupted by the professional gam
blerS.
There have been any number OF
interesting and possibly significant
tidbits of testimony.
The ex-girl friend of Roger
(Whitetopl Simkins, reputed num-
bers man, told the committee Sim.
kins had said he paid 'ice" for po-
lice protection. But that was prior
to 1945, and the girl friend couldn't
name any policemen who had been
paid of.
A police sergeant and a corporal
told of being disciplined in the
ninth precinct after arresting
gambler. But the case against the
gambler was thrown out for lack
of evidence when it reached the
court,
Charles H. Nelson, Brass Rail
manager, testified he had given
sealed envelopes to policemen at
Simkins' direction, and that he had
seen police officers 60 down to the
Brass Rail cellar with Simkins. The
trouble with this testimony was that
Nelson didn't know what was in the
envelopes and didn't know what
went on in the cellar. Furthermore,
1t, too, all happened more than
four years ago.
The committee, Of course, put
Simkins on the stand. But he, like
Emmitt Warning, the Georgetown
numbers king, and other gentry
in and on the fringes Of the gam
bling fraternity, refused to testify.
He said he might incriminate him
self, and that was that.
Much Suspicion, Little Proof
4 what is the net effect of these
items Of testimony, and others like
them? They encourage suspicion,
as did the testimony concerning
former Police Chief Barrett's marked
preference for using cash in his
business transactions. They leave
a mark Of doubt on the Police De-
partment. But they are not evi-
dence against any policeman. They
do not prove anything against
any one.
It is easy enough for Senator
Nicely to say that gambling on the
scale which prevails in Washington
could not exist unless the police
officers were crooked and in league
with the gamblers. AS common
sense matter it would seem that
this, to some degree, must be true.
But the assumption is easier to
make than to prove. And 1t is
1,reciselv at this point that the
committee investigation breaks
down.
Senator Nicely returns a blanket
rhetorical indictment against the
Police Department. But he and
his committee have failed to prove
that even one identified policeman
is crooked or in league with the
gamblers. And if this cannot be
proved in the remaining time, then
this investigation, like those which
have preceded it, viii have been a
futility. For a congressional in
vestigation, to serve a constructive
purpose, must either lay founda-
ton for the prosecution of wrong
doers, or produce facts which will
enable Congress to legislate against
an established evil Yesterdays
headlines are not an adequate sub
stitute for either of these.