confidence in his ability. But I would want to be aware and to respond to the scene of such an incident if I feel it appropriate.

When the incident you have made reference to occurred, I was unaware of it, received an inquiry concerning it, and I mistakenly stated that such an incident could not have occurred since I was not aware of it so many hours later. When I did become aware that there had been such an incident, I responded to the precinct where the investigation was under way. And Chief Layton and I have discussed. that since, and I think we have completely clarified it. And he understands now that I would like to be made aware of a major incident of that nature immediately and certainly just want to know about what it is and what is going on. And if I feel I should become involved, I would. But it is my expectation that I would be completely satisfied with the handling of these incidents by Chief Layton.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am certain you agree that matters of this nature should be planned and you and Chief Layton should have an agreement as to who will contact who

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN (continuing). On occasions of that type and not try to do it through the news media.

Mr. MURPHY. I agree, sir. I agree, sir. Unfortunately, some things do come to the attention of the press that I cannot control and Chief Layton cannot control, and sometimes an erroneous impression occurs. But Chief Layton and I have a complete understanding about how we want to handle these matters, and certainly those things that should be handled internally will be handled internally. That is our understanding, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, there is no objection to the press having news and publicizing it, but I think before the press has it, you and Chief Layton should have an understanding as to what to expect of each other.

Mr. MURPHY. Yes sir; I agree with that.

The CHAIRMAN. And if it is not carried out, then the press should grumble a little.

Mr. Nelsen.

Mr. NELSON. I have no questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dawson.
Mr. DAWSON. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Whitener.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Murphy, I was somewhat interested to read in the press some time ago a statement that you allegedly made with reference to the incident which you have mentioned. I wonder if you would say that you were accurately quoted at that time.

Mr. MURPHY. I am sorry, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. WHITENER. You were quoted in the Washington Post on Sunday, February 4, 1968, as saying, "I am going to ask some hard questions, and I am going to expect some hard answers. If I am not satisfied with the answers, I am going to take whatever action I think is necessary." The story goes on, "Asked what this might include, he said, 'Whatever I feel is appropriate, including reassignment'. He would not elaborate. He did say, "The higher a man's rank, the greater his responsibility.'

What do you mean by "hard answers" and "hard questions"?

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Congressman, I think that is an accurate reporting of what I said. Frankly, I was gravely concerned, and continue to be gravely concerned, about reports of police officers drinking alcoholic beverages in police or on police property, and I was gravely concerned about the incident which occurred, the discharging of firearms by police officers without

Mr. WHITENER. Do you find anything to indicate that Chief Layton was not equally concerned about that?

Mr. MURPHY. No, sir; I did not find anything, but I was concerned, sir, about some of the actions of officials of the Department at various levels, and that would reach from Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain and maybe higher.

Mr. WHITENER. What you were commenting-as you were quoted in the press, you were not referring to sergeants, lieutenants, or captains, were you?

Mr. MURPHY. I was referring to captains, sir, and possibly higher ranking officers. I think responsibility for discipline in a police department does rest with officers at the precinct level and higher levels. Mr. WHITENER. You said, according to this newspaper article, I quote, "This was not an example of strong discipline. It was an example of weakness some place." Have you determined where that weakness was?

Mr. MURPHY. Sir, I am concerned about drinking in a police building.

Mr. WHITENER. Of course, everybody should be.

Mr. MURPHY. Yes. I think that is some reflection of a weakness in discipline at least at the precinct level.

Mr. WHITENER. Now, Mr. Murphy, I observe here from your job description that among your many duties that are outlined in your job description (see p. 14) one of them is to "serve in a liaison capacity with the courts in the District of Columbia." What does that embrace, what type of liaison?

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Congressman, I have met with Judges from the various courts in the District where the cases of our police officers are taken for trial.

Mr. WHITENER. Have you made any headway?

Mr. MURPHY. Well, I think some slight headway, sir, not much. We appreciate, I think, the Judges and ourselves in the Police Department, that there are many problems because of our close working relationship, the scheduling of appearances of police officers in court, getting our officers in court on time, trying as much as we possibly can to reduce the loss of time of police officers in court which is taken from work on the streets, understanding the decisions as they come down, as new decisions come down, the necessity for training our officers. We have worked with the Prosecutor's offices as well as in trying to coordinate this entire function.

Mr. WHITENER. Have you made any headway about getting a little cooperation on the part of courts toward abuse of police officers that we have had complaints about?

Mr. MURPHY. No, sir; we have not pursued that particular problem. I hope to get to it, sir.

Mr. WHITENER. Would that not help morale more than making statements to the press criticizing the chief of police and doing that sort of thing?

91-105-68- -2

Mr. MURPHY. I am very concerned about police officers being shown the proper respect in court as well as on the streets and in police buildings. I think its tragic that there is the amount of disrespect for police officers that we see today. And to the extent that I can be helpful in trying to improve that respect and the fair and proper treatment of officers in court, I will attempt to do so.

Mr. WHITENER. I am sure you are familiar with the study that was made by a special subcommittee of this Committee on morale and recruitment, and this is one of the key areas in which we found morale problems, that not only the courts but some of the Government officials had committed acts or done things which caused the police to feel that they were not being supported by either the courts or the public officials.

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITENER. I was just wondering how do you go about liaison with the courts. Do you deal with the Chief Judge or do you deal with all the judges in a judicial conference, or how?

Mr. MURPHY. Well, I have met with the Chief Judge of the District Court and some of the other members of that bench. I am very concerned that there seems-it seems to me there is so much misunderstanding of the function of the police officers. I think it is tragic that we find this even in some courts and in some prosecutors' offices. I would certainly urge members of the bench and prosecutors as well as other interested people to come down with us, to come right out with us in a police car and see the difficult problems that the officer faces every day. It seems to be that the police officer is the man in the middle. In this year 1968, he is frequently misunderstood by people of good will and others. And I think there is a great need for this entire nation to develop a better understanding of the difficulty of the police officer's function in our complex and changing society today. A police officer is the man who our society sends out to deal with its most difficult problems, the problem society itself has not successfully dealt with, and we must support the police officer in a better way. We must understand him, cooperate with him and assist him, not only our citizens but people in the rest of the criminal justice branch as well.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Murphy, on the date of February 7, 1968 in the Evening Star, you were quoted as follows: "Obviously I will be making many of the decisions that previously were made at Chief Layton's level." What did you mean to imply by that statement?

Mr. MURPHY. Well, Congressman, as I have seen my position, since this position did not exist in the District Government before and because my responsibility extends only to the three agencies that come under me, the Police Department, Fire Department and Office of Civil Defense, that I would have the time to devote to these three departments that the Commissioner of the District Government responsible for the agencies in the past did not have, because he had many other responsibilities, and because I do have a police background I will be involved in the development of new policy. Of course, there is much policy in the Department in existence which Chief Layton has developed and has been developed historically in the Department, and much of that policy will remain. But in developing new policy I think I will play an active role.

Mr. WHITENER. In this same story in the Evening Star you were alleged to have indicated that you might go directly to a subordinate

of the Chief of Police in dealing with the departmental matters. They quoted you as saying, "There will be flexibility. I am a real liberal when it comes to organization charts."

Is that an accurate statement?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITENER. You are going to go around the man that is duly appointed and

Mr. MURPHY. I would not see myself ever going around Chief Layton, Congressman. In my experience in administration I always told my subordinates to talk freely to my superiors should they visit them, but, unless they were instructed otherwise, I would want a report on what was discussed, and that has been my policy.

I have talked with Assistant Chief Hughes and Assistant Chief Wright, and I have met with the Deputy Chief of Traffic and Chief Trotter. I have visited many precincts and criminal investigation units. And in trying to educate myself, because I am new, I have talked at that level about many problems. I frequently sent notes to Chief Layton after such meetings, raising questions. And as I think I made clear to the Chief, it was never intended that I would shortcircuit him.

Mr. WHITENER. I think this story implies an entirely different situation, that you were saying that sometimes "I will act through Chief Layton; sometimes I will go to his subordinates." Now, this is talk about action, not discussion.

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir. Well, for instance, Congressman, if I am in my car and I respond to a police call and the Chief is not present, if I feel an important decision has to be made, I would not hesitate to do it, but the Chief would be advised of it. I certainly do not intend to short-circuit the Chief at all.

That comment simply meant that I did not feel that every time I had a contact with someone higher in the police department that we would require Chief Layton to be present or that I would always discuss it in advance with Chief Layton. I think that would be quite restrictive.

Mr. WHITENER. So, as I understand it, what you are saying is you did not imply that you would be issuing orders to-

Mr. MURPHY. Oh, no, sir.

Mr. WHITENER. To subordinates of the Chief of Police on policy matters?

Mr. MURPHY. No, sir; just in an emergency.

Mr. WHITENER. Or personnel matters?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir; that is right.

Mr. WHITENER. That merely for the purpose of doing your job better you would seek information from any sources available whether they were commissioned officers or not.

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir; that is accurate.

Mr. WHITENER. Well, I think that clarifies it a little. I was concerned when I read the story in the Post of your statement-"an angry Murphy" it said, and I suppose you now disclaim that you were off base because of some great anger, is that

Mr. MURPHY. I try, Mr. Congressman, never to be angry. I am not always successful.

Mr. WHITENER. Well, I suppose all of us have that problem at times. It is not too advisable to get angry.

Now, about the promotion announcement that you made the other day. Is there any reason for eliminating from promotion boards duly constituted officers within the Department here in Washington?

Mr. MURPHY. The promotion

Mr. WHITENER. Do you feel that the Chief of Police in some strange community would be better able to serve on a promotion board than local officers who have had an opportunity to see it firsthand, the performance of the individual who was considered for promotion?

Mr. MURPHY. Concerning the use of some outside police administrators to assist us in the selection process, Mr. Congressman, my view is that certainly the opinions of the ranking commanders of the Department who have had the opportunity to observe men over the years, their opinions would be most valuable. I think we enrich the selection process somewhat by adding to it the benefit of opinions of outside police experts. I think it is a fact, an unfortunate fact, that our police departments in the United States do not exchange personnel. They are very much entities unto themselves because of the civil service system. I think this is a negative rather than a positive influence.

As I explained earlier, some of the most progressive developments made in various police departments throughout the nation tend not to reach other departments because of this lack of communication and exchange of personnel, and the opportunity to work in different systems as occurs in the professions, in medicine, in law, in teaching, and so forth. And the significance of asking some outside people to assist us is simply to get another kind of opinion. It in no sense implies the exclusion of the recommendations of our ranking commanders. And I have been asking

Mr. WHITENER. Yes, but it would not matter what the ranking commander had said on a fitness report. If these nomadic members of a promotion board took an action contrary to that recommendation, there would be nothing anyone could do about it.

Mr. MURPHY. Well, they will not have the authority to make the promotion. They will simply submit their comments, Mr. Congressman. The final decision will rest with me. And I will be discussing all of the promotions with Chief Layton and possibly some other members of staff.

So their authority or their function will not be to select the members but simply to provide us with one other factor.

Chief Layton and I met with people at the United States Civil Service Commission to discuss this approach, and all of us who attended that meeting felt that we could improve the process even further by doing something like this.

Mr. WHITENER. Well, as I read this newspaper article, you contemplate that there will be oral examinations by this nonresident board of officers who are being considered for promotion in Washington.

Mr. MURPHY. Well, they will—————

Mr. WHITENER. Now, does this mean that the glib tongue will get the promotion, or what is the purpose?

Mr. MURPHY. No, sir; not at all. I think it will provide the officers appearing before that oral interview panel the opportunity to express their philosophy, policies.