back leading into one of the warehouses, and there was a hole in the warehouse. They had something like 200 portable televisions in there, probably 100 typewriters and the Lord knows what else. The gang was looting all of these things. It was an organized gang. So, he immediately went out and got an officer and told him about this hole. "They have broken into my place, and they are looting," he tells him. He looked down and he said, "It is almost curfew time. Get off the street, or else we will have to lock you up." So, the boy left. He was worried. So, he goes to one of his friend's houses, and he repeated the story to him. I do not know what was done. Nothing was done.

The whole day, they paraded and they looted. They went through a house next door and on down the street.

The Metropolitan Police Department had been a very efficient organization, very efficient, always had done a wonderful job. If they were not given orders not to do anything, why would this thing have occurred?

And for any individual to prove that they were given such orders. is impossible, because the orders are not given to a layman but to the members of the police department.

That is the story.

As to removing the debris or the building, it is really out of reason to order us to do it. My income is gone. My brother's income is gone. We will collect some insurance.

The next question was: Would the insurance company pay off?

I have been paid for my building, which is about one-half of the value of the building, I guess, if we want to rebuild it. The insurance companies are paying off, that is, my company

is.

Mr. WINN. Do you know, percentagewise, how many in businesses similar to yours are going back in?

Mr. PARKS. I think that probably that three-quarters of them would like to go back. I do not think that any of them will go back unless they are assured of protection. How can you possibly rebuild a business and go back in when fellows like this issue statements: "Build them up and we will burn them down." And he, incidentally, is being paid by you and the rest of us. He has a Government job-Marion Barry, and he teaches these boys that work under him the black power movement. This is not any imagination. I have been around these people.

Mr. WINN. I think we are familiar with his operations. You do not think that anybody will go back into business under the present circumstances?

Mr. PARKS. I would think 50 per cent will go back in providing they are assured of protection.

Mr. WINN. Thank you.

Mr. WHITENER. You mentioned what you had out in front of your building. I happened to have been up through that area. Was your building the one where they actually tore the metal open?

Mr. PARKS. No, sir, my building was the only building with the rail still standing. It was the only one. The walls were down, but the railing was standing up. They did not destroy that railing. The only time it came down is when they came along and hit the building. Mr. WHITENER. We certainly thank you for being with us.

We express our appreciation to each of the witnesses who have been here.

PARADE PERMITS ISSUED

Mr. Kneipp, as I understand it, you are here today to represent the District Government, to sit in. I wonder if we could ask you to please provide for the Committee-for the record-a list of these 84 or 85 permits to which Mr. Winn has alluded: the name of the applicant, the date, and the purpose stated by the applicant, as to what was sought to be served in the parade or the march or whatever you call it.

Mr. KNEIPP. I will get that from the Police Department, sir. (Subsequently, the following letter and enclosure as to issuance of parade permits were received for the record :)

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL,

DISTRICT BUILDING,

Washington, D.C. 20004, May 20, 1968.

The Honorable BASIL L. WHITENER,
Chairman, Special Investigating Subcommittee, Committee on the
District of Columbia, United States House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. WHITENER: On Friday, May 17, in the course of the hearing on H.R. 16941, authorizing an officer or employee of the District of Columbia to require applicants for permits to parade in the District to post a bond to cover certain costs of such parade, you asked me to supply your Subcommittee with a list of the parade permits issued during the past year.

I enclose a list prepared by the Metropolitan Police Department showing, by date, organization, and purpose, the parade permits issued from April 1, 1967, through April 30, 1968.

Should you desire any further information concerning parade permits, I will be glad to secure it for you.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT F. KNEIPP,

Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C. Chief, Legislation and
Opinions Division.

Enclosure.

METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT-PARADE PERMITS ISSUED FROM APRIL 1, 1967, THRU

METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT-PARADE PERMITS ISSUED FROM APRIL 1, 1967, THRU APRIL 39, 1968-Continued

STATEMENT OF ROBERT KNEIPP, ESQ., ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM N. DRIPPS, SUPERINTENDENT, INSPECTION DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LICENSES AND INSPECTION-Resumed

H.R. 16948

Mr. KNEIPP. May I make a statement on behalf of H.R. 16948? The other day, the Mayor just briefly stated that the District favored the enactment of the bill-strongly favored the enactment of the bill, with amendments.

And the amendment is this, sir, the bill requires the District to tear down buildings that are found to be unsafe, and to remove the debris. But it also requires in clause two of both subsections that the District tear down a building that has been damaged if the owner requests to have it removed. There could be very minor damage.

Mr. WHITENER. As I understand it, the Commissioner in his letter recommends that there be an amendment to the effect that if the owner has been ordered to do so, pursuant to the Act of 1899.

Mr. KNEIPP. Yes; yes. If the bill be limited to tearing down unsafe buildings for reasons of health and safety, the District strongly believes it.

Mr. WHITENER. I do not believe that this Committee is recommending any type of building to be torn down. They are already tearing down new buildings around here. I just wish that we could prevent the destruction of good buildings so that we would not have that expense.

Although a building has been condemned-you are talking about a technical matter-so that it should not get out hand-all of the buildings that have been condemned or called unsafe would be such that they have already been inspected and passed on, or whatever is required; is that not so?

Mr. KNEIPP. I wonder if I could have Mr. Willliam N. Dripps step forward on this. He is Superintendent of the Inspection Division of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. He has this knowledge. Mr. WHITENER. Very well.

Mr. DRIPPS. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before the Committee. The buildings which would be covered under this bill have pretty largely already been served notices. I have to be a bit indefinite because we do not know the precise buildings involved at this time. Mr. WHITENER. You do not know what buildings have been burned?

UNSAFE BUILDINGS

Mr. WINN. When I was going through the riot area, the two main areas, there were signs the first or the second day, about 8 x 11 signs. Mr. DRIPPS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WINN. They were plastered along the streets, saying that this building is condemned, or something on that order.

Mr. DRIPPS. We put signs that was one of the first things we didwas to put them on-we put unsafe notices against the buildings. Mr. WINN. Do you have the addresses of all of those that you considered unsafe?