checked and rechecked, and it has been supported by the figures given us by the Army in rejections for drug addiction.

I think generally the experts will agree.

Now, if we had a thousand, it would still be a bad problem. So we do not minimize it in any way. It is ridiculous for anyone to say that we do minimize it, because we try to, by international, national, and State action, to bring the problem down as much as we can.

Senator DANIEL. You estimate that there are about 60,000 addicts in the Nation today?

Mr. ANSLINGER. That is my estimate. I heard one of the proponents say that nobody knows.

Well, rarely can a drug addict keep away from the police longer than 2 years. He becomes known to the authorities generally within about a period of 2 years, because he is engaged in criminal activities. Now, this idea of crime and narcotics

Senator DANIEL. Were there not a lot more addicts back before the Harrison Act in this country than there are today?

Mr. ANSLINGER. Oh, yes. Well, 1 in 400 as against 1 in 3,000 today. Senator DANIEL. Yes.

Mr. ANSLINGER. But it is still a problem.

Senator DANIEL. Yes. It is bad enough today, but I just wanted to get your idea as to the improvement in the addiction problem since the Federal Government entered the field.

Mr. ANSLINGER. Yes.

Well, by international action by 1931, the 1931 convention-for instance, the morphine manufacturer has gone down as much as 40 tons in a year. Well, that had its effect here.

One reason, as Dr. Stevenson stated, the United States and Canada always fought shoulder to shoulder against this legalized sale of drugs in the Far Eastern monopolies was because we got the backwash, Canada and the United States.

We suffered because, as a result of that legalized addiction we got the products of the Government plants that were operating, supplying the addict with his smoking opium.

Senator BUTLER. I was a little confused in connection with the figures that you gave. I thought when you first testified that those figures, 1 in 400, were for the State of Michigan. Was I incorrect in that?

Mr. ANSLINGER. They were for the State of Michigan, but they applied generally throughout the United States.

Senator BUTLER. Throughout the country.

Mr. ANSLINGER. Yes, sir.

The question is often asked, Who is responsible for the subtle but unrelenting pressure on our national thinking for the legalizing of drug addiction?

I think I would go just a little beyond what Dr. Stevenson said, and certainly from the addicts, whom I have talked to, and in this article here by a sociologist, he said:

For it is the confirmed addict himself who is the most articulate advocate of legalizing the distribution and use of narcotic drugs, and he has the support of those who want to be realistic about this problem.

Senator DANIEL. What article is this you are quoting from?

Mr. ANSLINGER. This is an article from a magazine called Listen, and the article is entitled "Narcotic Addiction: Whose Problem?"

It is reprinted from Listen-a Journal of Better Living. I think it is put out by the Seventh-day Adventists.

Senator DANIEL. May we have that for the record?

Mr. ANSLINGER. Yes, sir.

(The document referred to will be found in the appendix at p. 1890.) Mr. ANSLINGER. Now, that is all I have, Senator, in the way of extemporaneous remarks. I did not bring a prepared statement.

Senator DANIEL. Well, we thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner. I am sure we will have some questions. Senator Butler, do you have any questions?

Senator BUTLER. I do not think so.

Sentaor DANIEL. Commissioner, in your opinion, if there is any legalized system of giving narcotics to addicts to maintain their addiction or to maintain their comfort, it would have no effect whatever on the black market except to increase it; is that your opinion? Mr. ANSLINGER. It would increase it threefold because the addict spreads addiction.

Senator DANIEL. Do you think the addict spreads addiction in order to sell the drugs to get enough money to take care of his own habit? Do you judge from your study of the situation that addicts spread addiction?

Mr. ANSLINGER. Our experience is that addiction is spread by association, and one addict likes to see another person addicted. The spread has taken place certainly over 70 percent through association. Senator DANIEL. Would that be one reason why addictions spread even though there were free or legalized narcotics, that those addicts spread it to their associates?

Mr. ANSLINGER. Yes. You will find that brought out in this pamphlet in the record. One addict addicted several others with the morphine that he got at the clinics. That was one reason why the medical association demanded they close because some of these people naturally would come to the attention of doctors, who found out that they were addicted through narcotics coming from the clinic through another addict.

Senator DANIEL. Well, now, Commissioner, do you have any recommendation to make as to what is the best way for us to treat the addicts? We have 60,000 addicts estimated in the country. What do you think we ought to do about it? I would suppose that you would feel that they ought to be gotten off the streets.

Mr. ANSLINGER. Yes, sir. The legalized-you have to get an addict under legal restraint.

I am sorry I have to differ with our good colleague from Canada on that, but certainly in our experience, and I think you will find that these other gentlemen who are going to testify, who are all experts and who are at daily grips with this problem, Dr. Baldi, and Dr. Isbell, Dr. Lowry, Dr. Himmelsbach and Dr. Trautman, have seen this problem at Lexington.

They have seen the voluntary commitment; it just has not worked. The Canadian committee, I believe, also decided that the addict must be under some legal restraint and there must be compulsory hospitalization.

71515-56-pt. 5-10

Of course, with the action of Judge McLaughlin and Judge Wigg, and the action of those Baltimore judges, and Forida, Virginia, West Virginia, there is not any question about the fact that you get there a forced reduction treatment because some of these addicts are transient and they leave to go to places where things are a bit easier. But we have got to have a system of compulsory hospitalization. That is my recommendation on how to treat the addicts.

I do not think any other system-any other system is doomed to failure.

Senator DANIEL. Haven't any other States passed laws that would permit the incarceration of the addicts if they get out on the streets or mingle with society, if they are confirmed addicts? I am thinking about the New Jersey law.

Mr. ANSLINGER. Well, the New Jersey law is one which provides that they are picked up as disorderly persons, and they are just about taking care of the situation in New Jersey with that addict law.

They go into the prison, they are given hospital treatment; they are given psychiatric treatment.

I do not know what the percentage of so-called cures is there but, as I say, the State of Minnesota, there you have about 1 addict in every 25,000 of the general population, because there is compulsory commitment of the addict through their mental health statute.

Senator DANIEL. You think compulsory commitment and treatment is the only solution?

Mr. ANSLINGER. That is what I have felt, and I think you will find that the experts on the United Nations Narcotic Commission are in accord, that you must have hospitalization, compulsory hospitalization. That is the opinion of the Germans, the French; and nearly all the European countries feel that way.

Incidentally, I do want to pay tribute here to Dr. MacLeod, whom you will hear, who has worked on that British system. He has worked under the British system.

He can tell you just how the British do that, and actually their system is one of compulsory hospitalization because they force that addict into a nursing home until he is cured.

Senator DANIEL. Mr. Counsel, do you have any questions?

Mr. GASQUE. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Any further questions?

Senator BUTLER. No questions.

Senator DANIEL. Mr. Commissioner, we thank you for your appearance today and for the cooperation that you have given this committee from the very beginning.

Mr. ANSLINGER. Thank you.

Senator DANIEL. We appreciate your being with us.

We will have a 2-minute recess.

(Short recess.)

Senator DANIEL. General, we are swearing everybody to be in conformity here.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give to this subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. JAVITS. I do.

TESTIMONY OF HON. JACOB K. JAVITS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Senator DANIEL. Attorney General Javits, we are glad to have you back before our committee.

As I understand it, you are appearing today to supplement your previous statement and to give us a statement on this subject as chairman of the committee of the National Association of Attorneys General committee. You may proceed, sir.

Mr. JAVITS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that the reasons for my appearance are twofold: First, that since my previous appearance the attorney general's office has issued its 1955 report on narcotics; and, secondly, since that time, the National Association of Attorneys General has acted upon the subject.

Mr. Chairman, by way of preliminary remarks, may I state that I have taken the liberty, with the chairman's approval, of having at my side Dr. Arnold Pfeffer, who is an assistant professor of psychiatry at New York University Medical School, and who, in the years 194245 was in charge of the psychiatric activities at Lexington, at the Lexington Public Health Hospital, and who is, as a voluntary matter, but with tremendous usefulness to the people of the State of New York, and has been a consultant to the attorney general's office long before I was there, and with my distinguished predecessor, who did so much in this field, Attorney General Goldstein, on the medical aspects of the problem as we found it, has continued that consultant service to us.

I thought we could give the committee, because what you want is as much information as you can get, a more rounded picture if he were with me, and if he could supplement any answers that I might make. Senator DANIEL. We are glad to have you with us.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, the National Association of Attorneys General, meeting at Bretton Woods last week, adopted the following resolution, and if I may, I would like to read it into the record.

I read this as chairman of its committee on narcotic control. This was unanimously adopted:

NARCOTIC DRUGS

Whereas this association, by appropriate resolutions adopted at its annual meetings in 1952, 1953, and 1954, established a committee on narcotic drug control, which has sought to advance the care, treatment, and rehabilitation of narcotic drug addicts, and has urged the enactment by the Congress of legislation to permit the institutionalizing of such addicts in appropriate Federal hospitals upon commitment thereto by courts of competent jurisdiction of the States and other measures: Now, therefore be it

Resolved the 49th annual meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General:

1. Supports the enactment of legislation by the Congress now contained in the Payne bill, Senate Joint Resolution 19, to permit narcotic addicts committed from the States to be treated in the special United States Public Health hospitals, subject to reimbursement for the care cost, and urges its members to work for such enactment.

2. Supports the development of a permanent national narcotics policy and urges a national review conference to be called under the auspices of the Federal Government to consider means for the coordination of existing Federal and State narcotics laws and procedures, stricter enforcement of laws dealing with the

narcotics traffic, and the establishment of a program of research into the causes and cure of narcotic addiction through the National Institutes of Health, with the aid of a national council.

That ends the resolution.

Now, Mr. Chairman, before commenting on the so-called Howe plan. I would like to call the attention of the committee to the salient points of this resolution, because they represent the views of the 48 law enforcement officers and those in our Territories and possessions who are mainly concerned with this at other than the State level.

We all recognize, of course, that it is our Federal Government which is primarily concerned, both with the question of illegal importation and the question of enforcement of the narcotics law.

First, we are very anxious to have this access to the Federal hospitals.

Now, it brings me to what I know is a highly controversial question in this field, the question of involuntary commitment for all addicts. There seems little question about the fact that this danger to society ought to be dealt with in a rehabilitative way, unless it becomes criminal by a crime having been committed by the addict, and that the safest way to deal with it is obviously under controlled conditions. But, Mr. Chairman, all of that is wishful thinking as we stand today because the States that have laws which bring about the confinement of these addicts do nothing but chase them into other States, and because they have not got a place really to put them, and so the addict, let us say, in New Jersey, our sister State, which we love and admire, which has a law like this, he is not going to just hang around until somebody puts him in jail.

When the going gets a little warm, well, he lights out for New York or some other State.

Now, a State like New York, with the greatest port of entry in the whole country, and with an enormous problem in this particular area, would be facing a situation almost equivalent to our enormous burdens with mental health, if we, unaided and alone, felt that we could take every one of these addicts into custody and deal with them for a very long period of time, which appears to be required if you are really going to do a job.

Hence we have got to have the help of the Federal Government, at least in this limited way, by making available the facilities of both of the hospitals on a shared-cost basis, that is, the Fort Worth and Lexington establishments.

Now, I emphasize "shared costs" because the Association of Attorneys General, when I was in Congress, took the same position, and Senator Ives and I and others in the House and Senate, introduced bills to implement their position, but it did not carry the shared-cost idea, and I always objected to it on that ground, and said so on the floor, and I am very glad that we have corrected it.

We should share the costs because that is not the question. The question is just this enormous burden of capital investment which it would take to deal with thousands of addicts, let us say, in an enormous State like New York or in a State like California.

The other thing that is a possibility in this area is interstate compacts which we certainly must consider seriously, and with modern means of communication, there is nothing so extreme about an interstate compact between New York and California.