Evening star., 1952-11-29
Critics Riddle
P|antoWithho|d
Police Pensions
Proposal Affecting
Firemen Also Hit as
Class Legislation

fIremen Also hit as !.
Class Legislation
An almost unrelieved barrage Of
criticism against proposed legisla-
ton to give the District Com
missioners greater control over po-
lice and firemen's pensions had the
= NCitizens' Advisory Council wonder
lag about the measures worth to-;
day.
Nine witnesses testified on it at
the councils public hearing yes
terday. All but one lambaSted it.
mainly on the grounds that the
proposal amounts to "class legisla-
ton"
The measure would empower the
Commissioners to revoke the pen
sion of policemen or f1remen who
refuse to testify before a legal
body on the ground of possible
Standardization. The city heads
would have the same authority inl
cases where there employees are
"habitual drunkards" or are guilty
of lewd and laScivious conduct, orr
found to have committed, "here-
tofore or hereafter" any offenseI
involving moral turpitude while anI
active member of the force.
Judges of Facts.
Under these provisions, the
Commissioners themselves would
apparently be the sole judges of
the facts. While it is true that
the present law places such power
in the Commissioners hands in
cases involving habitual drunk
enness and lewd conduct, a court
conviction must figure in the
moral turpitude section of the
statute.
The proposed amendments
would at least provide for hear
ings in any case.
The lone approving voice at the
proceedings yesterday was that of
Deputy Police Chief Howard ".
Covell, speaking for Chief Robert
v. Murray. Inspector Covell read
a statement previously made byI
the chief. agreeing with the Sen
ate Crime Investigating subcom-
mittee that any person taking an
oath of public Office should forfeit
his job land all benefits derived
therefrom." if he asserts the
standardization privilege guar
anteed by the Constitution.
Lutz Disagrees.
Inspector Clarence H. Lutz, one
OF Chief Murray's top aides and
president of the Policemen's Asso-
citation. differed with his boss.
Since the proposed law affects
only one class of city employees,
Inspector Lutz declared, it is class
legislation.
1T makes us out as the only
group likely to betray its trust,
which is not true" the official de-
clared. why single us out when
other city and Federal employees
are susceptible?" i
Fire Chief Millard H. Sutton
Joined in the view that the law
should apply to all District en-
ployes. He was backed also by
officials of two fire-f1ghters asso-
ciatiors.
Attorney Charles E. Ford added
his booming voice to the chorus.
Mr.. Ford represents former Police
Chief Robert j. Barrett, whose re-
fusal to testify before the Sen
ate subcommittee on certain of
his finances was largely RESPONSE
BILE for the proposed legislation.
Sees Change in Amendment.
He charged that the law was
an attempt to write into the
Fifth Amendment a proviso that
all but cops and firemen are en-
titled to the privilege against self
incrimination."
Policemen and f1remen, Mr..
Ford added. have been picked
on long enough and as long as
this goes on how can you expect
their morale to be good?"
The Washington Board of
Trade, represented by Henry
Lerch, also criticized the class
legislation aspects. Mr.. LerchI
added that the proposal seemed
to penalize employees who exercise
their constitutional right against
self-incrimination.
Walter B. Castonguay of the
Randle Highlands Citizens Asso-
citation declared he failed to seeI
one logical reason why this bill
should be passed"