I believe as a result of this, Mr. Page's office in the investigative end of it, has made two seizures; I am not quite sure. Mr. PAGE. We made one very good one. Senator BUTLER. This will be made a part of the record. (The document referred to follows:) HELP FIGHT THE SMUGGLING OF HEROIN For original information leading to the seizure in a port of the United States of smuggled heroin, the UNITED STATES CUSTOMS OFFERS A REWARD OF $500 PER KILOGRAM Payment in cash will be made immediately following seizure, and the identity of the payee will be fully protected. To qualify for reward, information must be sufficiently detailed to make possible the seizure of a particular shipment being smuggled. If you have such information, use the quickest means to place it in the hands of any customs officer, who will see to it that when seizure is made you receive the reward. Cash payments will also be made for information leading to seizure of opium, morphine, cocaine, marihuana, or other narcotics. D. B. STRUBINGER, WASHINGTON, D. C., February 1954. Senator BUTLER. Mr. Flynn, tell me this: In connection with your personnel, have you, by reason of your advanced methods of inspection, been able to employ less people, or how do you account for the discrepancy? Mr. FLYNN. Well, as far as passengers and their baggage are concerned, about a year and a half ago we used to examine the passengers' baggage 100 percent. Now we only spot check, unless we have some suspicion or evidence to go through it and examine it all. Of course, with the port patrol officers, we are not covering the area with the limited manpower we have now that we formerly covered. Senator DANIEL. Are you handicapped because of your limited manpower? Mr. FLYNN. Well, I might put it this way. I suppose if we had more manpower we could have better coverage and probably do a better job. Senator DANIEL. Yes. Mr. FLYNN. I have 3 or 4 Senator BUTLER. Has there been any agitation, Mr. Flynn, to your knowledge, to do away with the inspection of passengers' baggage? Mr. FLYNN. No, I have not heard anything about doing away with the inspection. Senator BUTLER. Has there been any pressure brought to bear, so far as you know, to lighten up a little on customs examinations generally? Mr. FLYNN. Well, as I say, yes, about a year and a half ago we began to spot check the passengers' baggage; instead of examining the 8 or 9 pieces, we only examine 1 now. Senator BUTLER. That does not go to cargo? Mr. FLYNN. No; cargo is handled practically in the same manner that it formerly was. On recommendations, I recommend that consideration be given to the inauguration of a 24-hour marine patrol, to be operated jointly by the United States Coast Guard and customs, to patrol the harbor, particularly the waters adjacent to the piers. 2. That consideration be given to augmenting Treasury personnel abroad to devote their activities solely to narcotics traffic, obtaining information that would lead to the interception of narcotics abroad or upon their arrival in the United States. This should include the more extensive use of informants and the payment of awards and compensation, as provided by law. Of course, we are accustomed under the Tariff Act-and 619 does apply for the payment of moneys to informants up to $50,000. No. 4-I mean No. 3-consideration be given to augmenting port patrol and customs agency personnel, as it is generally assumed that the best protection comes from the number of "cops on the beat.” New York City has a police force of over 22,000 men. Customs throughout the United States has about 2,500 inspectors and 650 port patrol officers. If you take into consideration our Atlantic and Pacific coastlines and the gulf, and our Mexican and Canadian borders, I think it is apparent that customs is not overmanned. 4. Consideration be given by appropriate authorities to enlist the aid of masters of United States and foreign-flag vessels to set up controls abroad to prevent the lading of contraband including narcotics, aboard a vessel during its stay in foreign ports. If masters would keep crew members and their effects under surveillance when they return to the vessel and have suspicious packages searched, particularly at foreign ports of bad repute, it would deter smuggling attempts, I believe. Senator BUTLER. Have you anything to say in connection with penalties for smuggling? Are they sufficient, in your opinion? Mr. FLYNN. Well, I happen to think probably the penalties could be increased. During the past 3 years there were about 14 large-sized seizures made in connection with the arrest in those cases. The sentences ran anywheres from 1 to 7 years, I would say an average of probably 3, 4 years. It is a strange thing that I have never known of a carrier, a smuggler, who was actually a user of narcotics, in my experience. Senator BUTLER. That is from the standpoint of the wholesaler? Mr. FLYNN. The wholesaler. A crew member who is delegated as a carrier, we call him a carrier, who conceals it on board, and makes the contact here. Senator BUTLER. You feel that we could give serious consideration to increasing the penalties in connection with narcotics? Mr. FLYNN. I do, sir. Senator BUTLER. Tell me this: In connection with your fourth recommendation would that be an activity carried on by the company as an individual or carried on under the supervision of your Department? Mr. FLYNN. By the companies as individuals. Senator BUTLER. Well, how do the companies take to such a suggestion? Mr. FLYNN. Well, I suppose the seamen, the crew, would resent being searched and kept under surveillance, so I do not think it would appeal to them. Senator BUTLER. As a matter of fact, would there be any possibility that they just would not tolerate it at all? Mr. FLYNN. Quite possibly. Senator BUTLER. You would not be able to sign a crew aboard. Senator BUTLER. Don't you think we ought to find some other way of getting at that situation, through having a doublecheck? We have a check abroad before the ship leaves, and have a check when she gets here. Could that be done without greatly increasing the number of customs officials? Mr. FLYNN. No, I think it is almost beyond possibility in the personnel and manpower that would be involved. Senator BUTLER. There are just too many ships to go into that sort of thing? Mr. FLYNN. Too many ships and too many places. Senator BUTLER. Even a spot check of that kind, you feel would be too much? Mr. FLYNN. I believe so. It is a question as to personnel, whether they have the authority to do this. Senator BUTLER. Yes. In a great many cases you would have a foreign ship in a foreign port, and we would have no authority to go into it at all. Mr. FLYNN. No authority. I mentioned about the 21 pounds of heroin which was almost pure, which we seized here at the port on August 31. We think that was placed on the vessel at Le Havre or Bordeaux, France. However, that is under intensive investigation at the present time. Of over 1,600 narcotics Senator BUTLER. Tell me this, Mr. Flynn, what is your experience, if you have any figures, on the smuggling of crewmen on American vessels? Mr. FLYNN. As compared to foreign vessels? Senator BUTLER. Yes. Mr. FLYNN. I would say it is about evenly divided. Would that be your recollection? It is about the same. Mr. PAGE. From our seizures, just about. Mr. FLYNN. Judging from our seizures we have made. Of over 1,600 narcotics seizures, less than a dozen of these were made as a result of information. In fact, we received no information concerning narcotics. I think these seizures are all the more remarkable when a large narcotic seizure is made just as a result of searching, probing, and surveillance by our men. 71515-56-pt. 5-19 Now, very often and quite frequently you will hear it said that it appears to be the consensus of opinion that most of the narcotics are smuggled in through the port of New York. I am personally disinclined to agree with that statement. I do not say that narcotics are not being smuggled through the port, but we here at New York have about 50 percent of the total port patrol officers in the United States, and our men on the pier, in interrogating a suspect or talking to a crewman, will invariably say to them, "Do you think we are crazy? We won't attempt to bring it off here in the port of New York." And of the last 14 seizures that were made in New York City by customs or through our Customs Agency Service and narcotics agents, I believe at least 6 of those seizures, it was determined, that the narcotics in 6 cases were brought into ports other than New York, but eventually they reached New York, which is probably the distributing point. Senator BUTLER. How do the cases where the narcotics are thrown from the ship as she comes up to the pier coming up to the port of New York, compare with the ones that you find on the ship when she docks? Mr. FLYNN. There is no evidence in the last 10 or 15 years of any narcotics being smuggled in that manner by throwing it from the vessels. Senator BUTLER. Then I go back to your first recommendation: What would be the purpose of increasing the patrol force? Mr. FLYNN. Oh, while the ship is moored at the pier, to keep it under surveillance there. You have small craft going in and out. Senator BUTLER. I see. Mr. FLYNN. Yes. Senator BUTLER. Rather than throw it overboard they could do it at the pier, discharge it in that manner. Mr. FLYNN. In that manner. Mr. GASQUE. Mr. Flynn, you say you do not regard New York is the port of entry for the major quantity of narcotics coming into the United States? Mr. FLYNN. That is my personal feeling on it. Mr. GASQUE. You think that there are other ports? Mr. FLYNN. I think there are other ports. Mr. GASQUE. Do you care to identify those ports? Mr. FLYNN. I do not. I am just assuming. I think we have better protection with the manpower that we have available than they do in many other ports, and that is indicated to us by conversations with crew members. Senator BUTLER. Have you made recommendations that a study be made of that situation and that the authorities-that we increase the number of inspectors at all other ports? Mr. FLYNN. No. We just act locally here; we have not made any recommendations on a nationwide scale. But I think our Bureau of Customs is aware of the situation. Mr. GASQUE. You believe, though, that the narcotics coming in through the other ports eventually find their way to New York? Mr. FLYNN. Well, we have evidence of that, I say, in at least 6 cases within the past 2 years. Mr. GASQUE. Then I believe you stated that you regarded New York as the distributing point of narcotics for the United States.. Mr. FLYNN. No, I wouldn't say that. But in view of the fact that. these 5 or 6 shipments that I mentioned were smuggled in through ports other than New York, and eventually wound up in New York, would indicate that this might be a distributing point. Senator BUTLER. Were they intercepted between the point of origin and New York or in New York after they got here? Mr. FLYNN. Well, our investigative branch, Mr. Page, handled those; he probably could answer that. Mr. PAGE. I will cover that. Senator BUTLER. And you will cover surveillance of interstate traffic, shipments in interstate traffic? Mr. PAGE. A good many times we find a smuggler from the Mexican border right here in New York, before we knock him off, for the simple reason that we want to get the people here who are getting the narcotics, break up the gang; otherwise we just get a carrier. Senator BUTLER. Yes. Mr. GASQUE. Mr. Flynn, how do you rank New York as a consumption area in narcotics? Mr. FLYNN. I would not be qualified to discuss that. Mr. GASQUE. I see. Please go ahead, sir. Mr. FLYNN. Well, that is all. Senator BUTLER. Mr. Flynn, did you make a part of the record the major narcotics cases from 1953 to date? Mr. FLYNN. Yes. Mr. Page has this record here; I believe there is a copy attached. Senator BUTLER. There is a copy here. Mr. FLYNN. It has not been made a part of the record. (The document referred to follows:) Major narcotic cases, 1953-55, Bureau of Customs (New York City) |