Mr. EMERICK. That is true.

Mr. MITLER. The money may channel back to him.

Mr. EMERICK. That is entirely possible.

Mr. MITLER. If there are a lot of customers, and perhaps one gets arrested, he has a fertile field with others coming through.

Mr. EMERICK. But the amount paid is governed by the person arrested and the quantities of marihuana or heroin seized.

As far as Tijuana and Mexicali are concerned, which Mr. Neeb is interested in of course, there is not an abundance of heroin there available for sale. The cases we make in that area are for the most part small cases, a few grams and an ounce or 2 or 3, we consider a very large case for that particular area.

There is opium available there in quite some quantities, there is some marihuana, but there again marihuana for the most part is grown south of Laredo and in that particular area of Mexico, down in the Monterey area. Tijuana itself, narcotics are available there, but they are not available in the large quantities as they are in some other places.

Our heroin for instance for the most part comes from Europe. It is a product of the raw materials that are obtained in the Near East and it is manufactured largely in France and smuggled across in the United States.

Mr. MITLER. Could I just ask this question? You spoke about money being paid to informants by narcotic squads. Don't you think there is a distinction after a man is arrested and a narcotics squad officer goes out in his presence and the person who is an addict makes a buy from a pusher and perhaps he gets a reward there in terms of money, don't you think that is a different situation than receiving information after a sale has been made and the money going to the informant afterward and perhaps sending back to the peddler himself?

Don't you think there is a big difference?

Mr. EMERICK. We don't know where the money goes after we pay it. Mr. MITLER. But theoretically or logically, it could go to the peddler?

Mr. EMERICK. It is possible, yes, sir. But if we did not make payments for information, we wouldn't get very much information on the Mexican border.

Mr. MITLER. Isn't it really encouraging the peddler?

Mr. EMERICK. No, sir; we do not pay to the peddler.

Chairman KEFAUVER. What Mr. Mitler is getting at, if the peddler has a confederate, the peddler makes a sale and he tells his confederate he sold to a man wearing a yellow shirt with a certain license number, then the confederate tells your agent and your agent collects money for information.

You wouldn't have a very good way of preventing that from happening; would you?

Mr. EMERICK. The money we pay, Senator, the amount is so small that it wouldn't make it worth while for a dealer in Mexico to turn his customer to an informant who in turn would give the information to the customs. We are very careful in making payments and deciding the amount of payment which should be given in any given case.

Mr. STRUBINGER. I might add this: If that were a good way of operating, there would be more of it and I can assure you there is not

an awful lot of it. There just isn't an awful lot of cases where we pay for information. So if it were a lucrative business, you can bet there would be more of it.

Chairman KEFAUVER. Are you gentlemen willing to make any comment relative to the testimony of Mr. Neeb that Communist China is a substantial source of heroin at the present time, what they are sending in is uncut, comparatively pure?

Mr. EMERICK. We have an office in Hong Kong, quite an active. office. Narcotics are available in that area. They are also available at Macao, the Portuguese Crown Colony just 35 miles across the sound or the bay from Hong Kong.

We have advised the Macao authorities and Portuguese authorities of conditions there and we believe they have improved.

However, narcotics are available throughout the Orient but the cases we have made have been in the neighborhood of 5 or 6 pounds at a seizure, and we consider that a very good seizure of heroin from the Orient.

Now the heroin is laid aboard the vessels in Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangkok, and other places and ports in the Orient, but we have not had any information or have not made any substantial seizures such as have been made in the Atlantic seaboard from vessels coming from Europe.

Customs here last year made a seizure of over 21 pounds of heroin from a vessel in New York.

At Montreal about the same time 32 pounds of heroin were seized. Both of these vessels were French vessels. The information was that the merchandise had its origin in France.

Now, the raw materials no doubt originated in the Near East.

Chairman KEFAUVER. Then there was testimony that unusually large amounts were coming from Yugoslavia. Can you confirm that? Mr. EMERICK. No, sir; I have no knowledge of that, sir. Chairman KEFAUVER. Ánything, Senator Langer?

Senator LANGER. What is the attitude of the Federal judges when you present a case to them? Do they hand out stiff sentences or don't they?

Mr. EMERICK. It is mandatory now that they do hand out stiff sentences. We have this problem, Senator: Many times we make seizures of a few marihuana cigarettes or a small quantity of marihuana for instance, and they were a little hesitant in invoking the Boggs Act in imposing sentences. They figured 5 years was a little bit too severe. Now they are required to; it is mandatory. However, some of these cases may be referred to the State authorities for prosecution, where it involves just 1 or 2 marihuana cigarettes and first offenders. I don't know just what attitude or what action the United States attorneys are going to take in their respective districts on that matter, but we are governed by the United States attorneys in regard to the prosecution of cases.

Mr. STRUBINGER. Generally speaking, Senator, we can say that the Federal judges do hand out stiff sentences on commercial smuggling of narcotics.

Chairman KEFAUVER. Do I understand from what your answer was to Senator Langer's question that you think some United States at

torneys and judges rather than impose the severe penalty of the Boggs Act in cases that they think are relatively minor would rather defer to the State authorities and let them do the prosecuting?

Mr. EMERICK. That applies only to the United States attorneys and not to the courts.

Chairman KEFAUVER. Is that the reason they think they might be able to get a conviction where the penalty is so heavy?

Mr. EMERICK. That is in part true where the amount involved is so small and the person, the violator does not have a record, and other circumstances which may be in his favor.

Chairman KEFAUVER. Of course the Boggs Act does not require a penalty on the first offense.

Mr. EMERICK. That is true.

Chairman KEFAUVER. So it would have to be a second offense to come under what you are talking about?

Mr. EMERICK. The recent act, Marihuana Act, imposes quite a severe penalty for the first offense.

Mr. CHUMBRIS. Mr. Emerick, isn't one of the reasons why the States prosecute many narcotics cases is because of the searches and seizures clause in State constitutions is more liberal in favor of the State than the Federal prosecution?

Mr. EMERICK. That applies to traffic within the United States. But insofar as the customs barrier is concerned, we are not disturbed in that way.

Mr. CHUMBRIS. You are relating only to what came into the country?

Mr. EMERICK. The fourth amendment is not applicable until after you entered the United States. At the line the customs officer under section 1581, title 19, can conduct a complete examination of your person, papers and effects and even the clothing you are wearing without first obtaining a search warrant.

Senator LANGER. Have you agents in Hawaii?

Mr. EMERICK. Yes, sir.

Senator LANGER. What is your experience there at Honolulu?

Mr. EMERICK. Honolulu at the present time is very clean from the standpoint of narcotic traffic.

Senator LANGER. Is that true of all Hawaii?

Mr. EMERICK. Yes, sir.

Senator LANGER. It might interest you to know that some years ago a judge was nominated for a Federal position, a Federal judgeship in Hawaii, and the judiciary came in and refused to confirm him because he had been a lawyer for a lot of these people dealing with narcotics. Do you recall that case?

Mr. EMERICK. I don't recall them. But I think they were wise. Senator LANGER. The Judiciary Committee wouldn't confirm him. Senator Kefauver was interested in that case.

Chairman KEFAUVER. Thank you very much. Mr. Mitler, our next witness?

Mr. MITLER. Mr. Rosenfeld.

Chairman KEFAUVER. Suppose we have a 5-minute recess before Mr. Rosenfeld testifies.

(Short recess.)

Chairman KEFAUVER. Dr. Schulz?

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN D. SCHULZ, CHIEF PHYCHIATRIST, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr. MITLER. Would you spell your name, please, Doctor?
Dr. SCHULZ. John D. Schulz.

Chairman KEFAUVER. Chief psychiatrist, District of Columbia General Hospital, associate professor of psychology.

Dr. SCHULZ. Phychiatry. Associate professor of psychiatry at Georgetown.

Chairman KEFAUVER. At Georgetown University?

Dr. SCHULZ. Yes, sir.

Chairman KEFAUVER. All right, Mr. Mitler.

Mr. MITLER. Dr. Schulz, would you tell us about the civil commitment program that has been developed here in the District of Columbia? I think it is of value for other communities to know about. I understand that it is the only one of its nature in the country.

Civil commitment, of course, in connection with drug addicts.

Dr. SCHULZ. It has been in operation only a short while. I have a few figures for the record.

Mr. MITLER. Will you tell us what it is first?

Dr. SCHULZ. It is a civil act in three parts. Part 1 refers to the treatment of drug users. This is the section with which we at the hospital and here in the District of Columbia as physicians are most concerned.

Title 2 has to do with the regulation and control of certain drugs other than narcotics, this concerns largely pharmacies and pharmaceutical channels.

Title 3 is a miscellaneous section that covers various aspects of the laws particularly the vagrancy statutes as they might apply to addicts and redefines some of these.

Mr. MITLER. Apart from the law at the moment.

Chairman KEFAUVER. Let's get the statute. What is the statute and give us the number of it, when was it passed?

Dr. SCHULZ. This is Public Law 764 of the 84th Congress, chapter 674.

Chairman KEFAUVER. When was the program put into effect?

Dr. SCHULZ. Second session. It was approved and signed by the President July 24 of this year. In effective operation September 5. The reason for the delay was the necessity of setting up procedural channels.

Mr. MITLER. In effect what does the program do that would not have been done before?

Dr. SCHULZ. It makes treatment mandatory. It makes the addict committable through a civil process in the same sense that a mental patient is committable for treatment.

Mr. MITLER. An addict goes where in the District to have the benefit of the Civil Commitment Act?

Dr. SCHULZ. The District of Columbia General Hospital does the original screening, evaluation, determination of need, presentation of the facts to the United States attorney's office, so then the question of the need for commitment can be determined.

Mr. MITLER. And this is a voluntary kind of commitment?
Dr. SCHULZ. Oh, no, sir.

It is a commitment.

Mr. MITLER. What I mean to say is the person goes and asks initially to be committed.

Dr. SCHULZ. No, sir. Wherever an addict is known to the Health Department from any source of information to be a user of the drug, the Health Department must ask for the detention of the addict this is involuntary from that point on. They may present themselves voluntarily at the hospital and the fact of their addiction is immediately known and then it immediately becomes involuntary.

Chairman KEFAUVER. The proceeding is in the nature of a civil commitment not a criminal commitment.

Dr. SCHULZ. That's right.

Mr. MITLER. After they first go to the District of Columbia General Hospital for a period of time what is the next step; where do they go next?

Chairman KEFAUVER. Let's take it a step at a time. Tell us your experience with it. How many commitments have you had? Give us your record.

Dr. SCHULZ. I asked the secretary this morning to tabulate our experience thus far. I have sufficient copies.

Chairman KEFAUVER. You have some copies which we will make exhibit 9 to the subcommittee hearing.

(The document was marked "Exhibit 9" and will be found in the files of the committee.)

Dr. SCHULZ. The act has been in effective operation only since September 5. The emphasis has been to process the cases that would be most likely to benefit from rehabilitation.

Chairman KEFAUVER. Has this report been made public, Doctor? Is there any reason why it should not be?

Dr. SCHULZ. I know of no reason why it should not be.

Chairman KEFAUVER. Do you have enough so the press could have copies?

Dr. SCHULZ. I have only one additional so if the committee could spare one of its copies.

Chairman KEFAUVER. Suppose you summarize for the press what your experience has been. You only had it in operation since September-September, October, November, and part of December here.

Dr. SCHULZ. There are certain limiting factors that have limited the number that have been processed. Our facilities are limited so we have tried to handle no more than 10 to 20 in the hospital at any one particular time. Also it is a matter of the prosecuting authorities available resources to process these cases and so on.

Therefore since September 5 the actual total of patients in the hospital has been 62. The top section shows the origins, whether they come from voluntary admission, police, or court, by months.

Chairman KEFAUVER. So during these 32 months, you have 44 males and 18 females that have been placed in the hospital? Dr. SCHULZ. That's right.

Chairman KEFAUVER. And then your discharges

Dr. SCHULZ. Have been nearly the same. We actually have as of today in residence only three patients. We sent a large number to Lexington within the last 10 days. There are three still awaiting transfer with orders that we received from the court in the past week.