« PreviousContinue »
Senator DANIEL. Commissioner, we appreciate your appearance before us, and the suggestions.
Now, do you want us to go ahead with Inspector Terranova, or should we direct our questions to you, if we have any now, or direct them to him?
Mr. KENNEDY. Well, suppose you direct them to him. He has all this information at his fingertips.
But before you go forward, I would like to say that I have the greatest admiration for the work you are doing. I think that this is a field that does require thorough study, and it is very obvious to any of us here in New York who have followed the committee that we are convinced that you are doing a thorough study, and it is not a superficial investigation as, I think perhaps, in some quarters it was supposed to be.
I think you are doing admirable work.
Mr. KENNEDY. And if I can be of any further assistance, I shall stay here in any case-I think I will get a little more education from Deputy Chief Terranova on this whole problem, because he really knows it. He has been working at it for years; very happily I had a part in his earlier training, so I look with a great deal of interest and pride upon his activities.
So I think I will stay just a few moments longer.
Senator DANIEL. We appreciate your appearance very much. Now, Mr. Terranova, I do not know what to call you now, since your new title. Is it deputy inspector?
Mr. TERRANOVA. Just inspector.
Senator DANIEL. It used to be captain; is that right?
Mr. TERRANOVA. That is a long time back.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have a prepared statement, or do you wish to make
Mr. TERRANOVA. We have just about covered, I think, the police commissioner covered, about all we want in a prepared statement. But if you have any questions regarding our activities here in the city, or toward the arrests, what figures we might have, and question some of them, we would be only too glad to explain them and clarify them.
Senator DANIEL. All right, then, we will proceed with our questions.
Senator Butler, do you have any questions right now?
Senator DANIEL. Maybe some will come to your mind.
I would like to begin right on page 6 there, a report on the addicts actually reported to the department of public health.
Under the New York law-and, by the way, I don't know what others may think, but I think that is a good law, requiring the reporting of the addicts to some agency like you have it here in New York, so that you can locate these people.
Mr. TERRANOVA. Mr. Chairman, it is the only media that we have of accumulating evidence of the amount of known addicts we have in the city. There is no other way of telling how many addicts we have in the city of New York, only through this, and I do not believe this 10,638 is very many-as an exact number or anywhere near the exact number we have in the city.
Senator DANIEL. That is my question. What would be the estimate? This is the number that has been reported.
Mr. TERRANOVA. Yes, sir; in 3 years, over 3 years.
Senator DANIEL. In 3 years' time?
Now, what would you estimate?
Mr. TERRANOVA. I couldn't; I couldn't even start to hazard a guess,
Senator DANIEL. You could not hazard a guess?
Mr. TERRANOVA. No, sir. It would be impossible.
Senator DANIEL. Could you give us any kind of idea of it? Do you think there are more than 10,000 addicts in New York City? Would you think that there were twice that number?
Mr. TERRANOVA. It would be very difficult, sir. We don't knowof course, our information, other than this information, comes through arrests, and I don't know whether we are doing a half of 1 percent job, or 50 percent job, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I see. In the Nation there are about 30,000 names reported. That includes, of course, this 10,000?
Mr. TERRANOVA. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Because your department of health reports to the Bureau of Narcotics all of these names.
Mr. TERRANOVA. We send them down to Jim Ryan, too.
Senator DANIEL. You send them down to Jim Ryan?
Mr. TERRANOVA. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, all addicts that come to your attention are reported to the Bureau, Jim Ryan, the local agent in charge?
Mr. TERRANOVA. That is right; using the same form of the Federal Narcotics Bureau.
Senator DANIEL. About 30,000 have reported so far to the Bureau in Washington, and the Bureau in Washington, through Commissioner Anslinger, estimates that the total number in the Nation is nearer 60,000 or about double the number actually reported.
Mr. TERRANOVA. Well, I couldn't pose on that. I mean, as I said, I wouldn't want to hazard a guess on that.
Senator DANIEL. You do think there are quite a few more than 10,000?
Mr. TERRANOVA. Quite a few more.
For example, I had attended a meeting of doctors talking to them on narcotics, and we got on to this particular law here, and there was quite a controversy between the older men and the younger men in the room. They were all medical men.
The older men didn't feel it was their right to report this. So from that, are they reporting or are they not?
Senator DANIEL. I see. Some of them objected to this law?
Mr. TERRANOVA. Well, they did there at the meeting this night at this discussion, and the younger men seemed to get up and take the side of the fact that the law was correct, and it should be reported; and some of the older doctors thought it should not be reported, that it was a privilege they could not take with their patients by reporting
So that you assume from that-I do not say they are not, but it could be assumed from that, I believe, that some of them figure that they would not report it.
Of course, then there is always-again you have persons who have the means of purchasing narcotics that will never come to our attention, in the higher echelon, economic echelon, of the city.
Senator DANIEL. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Senator, I would like to point out in toying with figures, we can be put in a very fallacious position.
Mr. Anslinger reported, how many did you say, 30,000 reported? Senator DANIEL. Approximately 30,000 reported on the cards that are sent in to the Bureau of Narcotics, that is, from the whole Nation.
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
But a great deal depends on how good the reporting system is; is that correct?
Senator DANIEL. No doubt.
Mr. KENNEDY. So that while we report 10,000, we may have a very good reporting system.
Senator DANIEL. There is no question about that.
Mr. KENNEDY. And the fact that there are 30,000 reported in the Nation may not be a true reflection of the actual number of addicts: is that correct?
Senator DANIEL. That is correct.
The Commissioner said he estimated the correct number was nearer 60,000.
Mr. KENNEDY. Well, even 60,000, he is just projecting the figure, just doubling the figure, isn't he?
Senator DANIEL. No, that is based on actual contacts through the field or the estimate given in localities where they would venture an estimate.
Mr. KENNEDY. I would suggest, however, that no definite percentagewise opinion be drawn on the basis of these figures, because of the differences in reporting systems.
Senator DANIEL. Yes, that has been brought out.
Mr. KENNEDY. Because I think if you have the State has a good reporting system, it may be characterized as having a very high rate of addiction, whereas, in fact, it may not.
Senator DANIEL. Our record is clear on that, because when all of these figures were put in at our first hearing, it was said by several and recognized by the committee that New York has the best reporting system of any State, and that is due to your law that requires the doctors to assist you by sending in reports, not just your police officers, doing it, as in most of the States, but your doctors being required to do it also.
So you have the best reporting system, there is no doubt in the world about it.
You are nearer reporting a 100 percent of yours, than probably any State in the country.
Mr. KENNEDY. Well, you know, Senator, you understand what I am getting at. I love my city and State, and I don't want it characterized, you know, before the Nation as having a high percentage of narcotic addicts, whereas, in fact, it may very well be that it is not true, you see.
Senator DANIEL. Yes. Well, it has a higher percentage, of course, and it is something that I know you recognize. As you say, it is a
problem, but as you say, as far as the presently reported drug addicts for instance, Los Angeles reports less drug addicts-has reported only 4,000; yet in all the other figures they are higher than New York City on arrests, and in practictlly all other figures, and we know they do not have a proper reporting system.
They are not sending the names in from Los Angeles, and the Commissioner said so before this committee. They are not sending them in like you are from New York.
Mr. KENNEDY. Well, of course, there, where you have variances in arrests, you have differences in laws. They have certain tools with which they can work, to make arrests, whereas we may not; and I think we made some of the suggestions here for our local, State legislation. They may make arrests under circumstances where it would not be a violation of law in New York State.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Inspector, we have been in some of the cities, and we have found that the drug traffic is concentrated in certain areas, localities within a city. Do you have that situation here in New York? Mr. TERRANOVA. We have made arrests in every part of the city of New York, but we have made more arrests in certain parts of the city. Senator DANIEL. Is it enough-is it more heavily concentrated in certain parts to where it stands out or not?
Mr. TERRANOVA. Yes; it is.
Senator DANIEL. And where do you have your heaviest concentration?
Mr. KENNEDY. Senator, we would be very happy to give you that in private session, but we would not care to disclose it at this time. I think it might impede the ends of justice.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you might just send us that information. Mr. TERRANOVA. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Together with any observations that you think might be of assistance to the committee in accounting for the concentration.
That point has been brought out in other cities where we have been by the officials themselves in accounting for the causes of the traffic within their city, and so with that in mind, if you would give us that information in writing, send it to us with any observations that you might have along that line that would be helpful.
In Philadelphia, for instance, it was brought in by the officers themselves with their maps, and in accounting for the addiction that they had in the entire city, they showed us the problems right here in these areas where they have the highest concentration. All right. Have any questions come to your mind, Senator?
Senator BUTLER. No.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Counsel?
Mr. GASQUE. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the commissioner approximately what would your budget be for your narcotics bureau for this year?
Mr. KENNEDY. For this unit we run, you mean, for personnel? Mr. GASQUE. For personnel and other expenses. In other words, I should like to draw a parallel between that and, perhaps, what our Federal Bureau's budget is.
Mr. KENNEDY. I will have to just stop and think a little bit and break it down in my mind.
Personnel we run over $1 million; and expenses about $100,000. It is very hard to get a definite figure. I would have to go back, and go back to my budget, a very painful experience, by the way.
Mr. GASQUE. Of course, my only reason for asking was to have in the record the amount of money that the people up here are spending.
Mr. KENNEDY. That is right; that is the point I want to make. An awful lot of local tax dollars is going into this type of enforcement. That, I think, could be saved by a more comprehensive-if you gave the Federal people the tools with which to work, where we could prevent the smuggling and the rest of it, and we had the proper legislation, I think there would be, aside from the moral wastage and the general filth of the whole business, just in tax dollars alone that we have to appeal to our hard-headed citizens, they could save money, and I say on a local level we are paying too much for that type of enforcement. It is an undue burden on the State.
Senator DANIEL. As a matter of fact, do you have nearly as large a force here on your narcotics squad, devoted to narcotics as we have in the Bureau of Narcotics for the whole Nation? The Bureau has 250-some-odd, and you have now 200.
Mr. KENNEDY. They are moving rapidly in the direction of 250, Senator.
Senator DANIEL. Here in New York?
Mr. KENNEDY. We are.
Mr. TERRANOVA. I think we are the largest municipal, local police enforcement in the world.
Senator DANIEL. By far, I think you have almost twice as many as the next city, the city next to you.
Mr. KENNEDY. But personally-well, you know the problems involved here. It is awfully difficult to get the investigators and train them, and so on and so forth; but, personally, I intend to do everything in my power within the limited manpower that I have available to direct it specifically at this problem.
But, on the other side, I know it is a terrific expense to the city, and we have to take, we really have to rob Peter to pay Paul in these situations, take men from one job to another.
We cannot hit on all fronts as we would like to. But this specific problem is demanding our full attention at this time.
Senator DANIEL. Inspector Terranova, I would like to ask you for your personal opinion, as I did the Commissioner, on this proposal to give addicts at clinics or through physicians drugs to maintain them and keep them comfortable, whether or not you think that that would get rid of the problem here in New York, get rid of the black market.
Mr. TERRANOVA. I think the problem is a very difficult one, and I personally, myself, do not think I have gone into it enough. It is not just a case of sitting down and talking with it a few minutes or hours and you will be able to solve whether it will or it won't.
I think the subject should be taken under advisement and examined and searched out with the proper people to determine whether it is or whether it isn't a good problem.
By that I mean that law enforcement and the medical profession, or those people that are absolutely close and familiar with the subject, not those that might just be interested and don't know too much