capital of the United States and should be the concern of every citizen of the United States. At the rate we are going, we don't set a very fine example for the rest of the country. The affairs of the District of Columbia are managed and supervised by the Congress of the United States and fortunately we the residents of Maryland elect some of the Congressmen. It therefore behooves us to elect those who will fight for our rights as citizens and small business owners, and we must have some assurance now that we will be protected in the future with a strong police force, and with protection insurance, should this ever occur again. Some insurance companies have cancelled policies of those stores that have reopened. When we read that the Negro people would want all businessses in the District to be run by their people, we wonder why we are fighting so hard for integrationdo they want it? Sincerely yours, Mrs. EDITH BOOKOFF. HYATTSVILLE, MD., May 8, 1968, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON D.C. AFFAIRS. DEAR SIRS : I think the following should be brought to your attention. My husband was working a laundry route in S.E. and he said he does not like the way the negroes on the street are looking at him. He was born and raised in Washington and has worked routes for over 20 years; so he should be able to judge. One of the other men who was working 14th St. N.W. had the same feeling. My son (22 years old and 6'8" tall) also made a delivery in S.E. yesterday, and said he had the same feeling, and he was not going back. At that my son who is in Northwestern High School, Prince Georges County, said the negroes there are saying "You ain't seen nothing yet." I am concerned for their safety as well as my own, since I work in the District. Very truly yours, KITTY W. WILLS. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTHOUSE, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, House District of Columbia, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We, the members of the March Grand Jury One for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, have concluded from our experience of the past two months that there is a significant need for legislative action concerning crime in the District of Columbia. We respectfully offer the following comments and suggestions. First, we are dismayed by the prevalence of crimes of violence in our community. In case after case presented to us, the defendant has shown little restraint in resorting to violence in the execution of his crime. According to the Report of the President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia, there was an arrest for crimes of violence in forty-five percent of all arrests and sixty-one percent in arrests for assault. In 1965, only fifty-four percent of those defendants convicted for aggravated assaults were imprisoned. Based on the apparent lack of penal deterrents to the use of violence, we would recommend that a minimum sentence of imprisonment be mandatory when a defendant is convicted a second time for a crime of violence. Second, we were astonished by the number of defendants who were already on bail under the Bail Reform Act of 1966 for one or more other crimes brought before us for indictment in another crime. The Commission's report mentions, "Other felon charges were pending against more than eleven percent of all ar rested offenders." We are aware of the fact that the original intention of bail was to guarantee the presence of the accused at trial, but it appears there is also an equal need for the protection of the community when it becomes apparent that the defendant flaunts the privilege of bail by committing further crimes, or even, jumping bail. In either of the aforesaid instances, a judge under the Bail Reform Act of 1966 is powerless to deny bail except in capital cases. We feel that in such situations and others where warranted by the circumstances of the crime the judge should be allowed to exercise his prerogative to deny bail. Third, we believe that the high incidence of guns involved in the cases presented to us requires a new approach to the regulation and control of firearms. According to the Commission's report, the use of handguns in murders and robberies (including attempts) doubled and in assaults quadrupled over an eleven-yearperiod from 1955 to 1966. Rigid laws in the District governing the sale and carrying of handguns, and the new laws enacted in the suburban counties, are necessary and have helped slow down the increase of the flow of firearms into the District. They appear, however, to have done little to reverse the trend toward the use of firearms or to curb effectively the illegal market in guns in the District. The Commission's report states that of the sixty-two homicides committed with handguns in 1965, only twenty-six of the guns were obtained legally. We suggest that legislation be enacted which would require all firearms to be registered and that the second and third violations demand minimum sentences of increasing severity. Such legislation should aid law enforcement officials in curtailing the illegal exchange and regulating the possession of firearms. Fourth, we are appalled at the sentences which are handed down for cases similar to ones which we have heard. We have learned that many defendants "shop around" for the easiest judge. The Commission's report relates that, "There were considerable disparities in sentences imposed by 22 District Court judges in the period 1964-1966 as well as a marked disproportionate assumption of the court's criminal caseloads by 2 judges." It goes on to say, "Not unexpectedly, judges who accept a disproportionate number of pleas place a great many offenders on probation." We would suggest a review of the judicial procedure in the handling of cases and mandatory minimum sentences for second or third convictions for repeated offenses. Our exposure to crime has shown us the result and patterns of criminal behavior, therefore, we have limited our suggestions to this area in the hopes of inhibiting the use of violence and discouraging the repetition of offenses by the criminal. We realize that social, economic, and political steps must be initiated to surmount the real problem, the conditions in our community which cause crime. We also realize that the Bail Reform Act of 1966, the Federal Youth Correction Act, the expanded probation programs, and the work release programs are serious efforts in the judicial province to rectify the inequities of the system and shift the emphasis from castigating to rehabilitating the offender. Our present efforts as a society to protect the rights of the defendant are not only a laudable cause but an indispensable one, however, we should not in this endeavor sacrifice the safety of any individual in our community. This letter is being sent to the Chairmen of the Judiciary and the District of Columbia Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Respectfully, J. M. R. Hutchinson (foreman), Robert A. Arthur, George W. Babb, MICHIGAN PARK CITIZENS' ASSOCIATION, Hon. WALTER WASHINGTON, District Building, Mayor-Commissioner, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MAYOR-COMMISSIONER: The Michigan Park Citizens Association, at their meeting in May, passed a resolution expressing their sympathy and concern for the property owners, businessmen, and investors who suffered heavy losses in the holocaust of early April. This anxiety stems from our interest in members of our Association, as well as all entrepreneurs whose property was destroyed, damaged, and looted. Currently, there is still apprehension among business and financial interests about the daily news reports of arson, robbery, and burglary. This does not offer an environment that would encourage constructive plans for the early reestablishment of these business enterprises. A most important step in behalf of these businessmen is their adequate compensation through insurance or government grants, or both to provide capital This is because rebuilding of these enterprises is recognized as most urgent in order to provide an income for the businessmen, employment for workers, rent for the property owners, interest and dividends for the investors, and above all reestablish the tax base for the District of Columbia. These are basic requirements if our Capital is to regain its stature as a place for visitors. We suggest the following action to create an atmosphere that will encourage rapid restoration and further development of our Capital City: Immediately terminate the irresponsible acts of arson. Enforce law and order. Apply the law of the land most vigorously to all law breakers. Finally, ensure citizens of the District, visitors, and tourists of their complete safety and security in the Nation's Capital. Only then can the rebuilding and further expansion of this Capital City take place. Thanking you, we are, Respectfully yours, ROY L. SWENSON, President. MICHIGAN PARK CITIZENS' ASSOCIATION, The PRESIDENT, The White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mr. PRESIDENT: The Michigan Park Citizens Association at the May meeting unanimously passed a resolution demanding that law and order be maintained and enforced in the District of Columbia. The daily lists of arson, robbery, and assault indicate ineffectual local administration. Leadership and vigorous action by the Executive Branch of the Government is necessary to secure law enforcement in every detail. The solution of the Capital's urban and business problems require time, patience, and wisdom and cannot even begin in this atmosphere. On the other hand, control of riots, and the maintenance of law and order require only police and military manpower and could be achieved almost instantly. The situation in the District of Columbia demands immediate action. If we cannot ensure domestic tranquility, health, and safety for all citizens including personnel of business establishments in our National Capital, then martial law by Executive order would be necessary and the obvious solution. The following statement is taken from a recent Congressional Record: "All people in this country must realize that this is a land of liberty, not a land of license; that this is a land where laws must be respected, not violated; that this is a land where each man is free to carve out his own destiny and choose his own future so long as he harms no one else in the process; that this is a land where a man's value is not determined by his race and his color, but by what he has contributed and is contributing toward making this a decent, law-abiding society in a free nation." We subscribe to this philosophy and trust that prompt action will be taken to restore law and order in this great Capital. Respectfully yours, ROY L. SWENSON, President. PARK AND SHOP, INC. Washington, D.C., May 15, 1968. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, MY DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The citizens and the business community of Washington, D.C. are seriously concerned over the increasing incidents of lawlessness and violence in this city and especially over the possible repetition of the recent rioting and looting. We feel obligated to join in the rising demand for a restoration of peace, order and progress through law. I am enclosing a copy of our open letter to the President of the United States, the Mayor and Officials of the District of Columbia, and the Congress of the United States. Very truly yours, J. GRIFFIN ROUNTREE, Executive Director. AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; THE MAYOR AND OFFICIALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; AND THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES All citizens of the United States have a right to visit their national capital, and this right should be denied to none. All citizens have a concomitant right to do so with reasonable assurance of personal safety. This dream of every American from childhood, this privileged pilgrimage to the shrine of liberty, is now denied to the vast majority of the people by the actions of a few. The majority of the people are afraid to visit Washington, and many of its own citizens are leaving the city. The effect on business, property values, and tax income cannot escape even the casual observer, nor can our need for support by the people's representatives. The economic advancement, or even survival, of the entire community of Washington depends largely on the existence and growth of commerce within the city. If all commerce ceased, the community would cease. The daily needs of the people, rich and poor alike, for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, services, health, recreation, and many other aspects of life are provided by the business community. In many areas of this metropolis the innocent citizens are now denied convenient access to these requirements because businesses have been destroyed or driven out by arson, looting, and ever increasing harassment, violence, and open crime. These same businesses provide the opportunity for tens of thousands to support themselves and their families, but many are now denied the means of livelihood by the destruction or dispersal of the businesses for which they had worked. Why do the many innocent have to continue to suffer while the guilty run rampant through the streets. The taxes of the business community provide a large part of the support of the social welfare, police, fire, and other public functions of this city. Taxes have been increasing, and are expected to increase more, but protection has been decreasing, and if the recent past is any indication, it is expected to decrease more. As businessmen and as private citizens we want to live within the law, but we want others also to live within the law. We want the protection and justice of the law for all. We want to respect the rights of others, but we want them to respect our rights. Men have given into the hands of society their own defense and the defense of their families in order to attain order and the general welfare through law. Not fear or intimidation, but love of civilization has been the genesis of the self-control and the reluctance to react with force against force on the part of threatened communities during recent disorders. There may well be a dangerous misunderstanding of this point on the part of a militant few. If people are pressed too far, or if their families, communities, or means of livelihood are threatened beyond endurance or beyond the ability or willingness of society to provide adequate protection, they will retake into their own hands their inalienable right to self-defense and survival. This nation has borne the allegedly spontaneous rape of its cities with restraint and patience beyond ordinary understanding, but the eyes of the whole country are now on Washington, and with a clear understanding that the approachig events will not be spontaneous. An aura of uncertainty and personal insecurity, a growing smog of fear, hangs over this, the national capital. It is not just another city. It belongs to all Americans, and all Americans are watching. Continued order and justice under a common law depends on the outcome. If the Government is incapable of assuring the security of the capital and the personal protection of less than a million citizens, you may fully expect that the lesson will not be lost on two hundred million. Our national policy has been to assure national security wherever possible through the existence of sufficient force to be an overwhelming deterrent to aggression rather than through the use of that force to punish aggression. Will the Government of the District of Columbia and the nation provide an overwhelming deterrent to violence? Will they provide visible police and troops sufficient to discourage the criminal few from acts which, unfortunately and unjustly, are often blamed on the innocent majority of one segment of our whole people? Or will they allow an apparent danger to become a real disaster? Will they bear the guilt of driving each State, each city, and even each citizen to provide his own protection? Will their example teach each individual that in order to survive he must meet the threat of force with force, action with reaction, and counterreaction with escalation until the fabric of our society and our civilization is rent asunder? We of the business community feel that we have some guilt for not having pressed for greater protection in the past, for having allowed ourselves to be intimidated by the potential and at times real threat inherent in sticking one's neck out. But it is time to stop worrying about sticking our necks out, about not getting involved. We are involved, and we intend to defend the commercial and economic interests of this city and its people. We ask for the protection to which we have a right, for our lives and property and for the lives and property of the entire community. It will be achieved, but we prefer that it be achieved through the law. We ask for a deterrent to destruction, not only a promise of control after it has started. A curfew is an effective emergency weapon to curb destruction, but it penalizes the innocent far more than the guilty. Use of a curfew for long periods in itself could destroy large segments of commerce. If sufficient police are patrolling this city, are seen in large enough concentrations and numbers, and are known to be authorized to enforce the law with all means necessary, serious rioting, arson, and looting will never have the chance to begin. If suffcient police are unavailable, there are in the area of Washington and at the disposal of the Commander-in-Chief more than sufficient troops to provide the necessary show of force. It would seem preferable to show force before, rather than to have to use it afterwards. It is obvious to all that the existing number of police does not allow adequate protection, especially when their effectiveness is reduced drastically by imprudent restraints. We, therefore, ask that troops be placed on duty to supplement the police forces prior to and during the impending demonstrations, that they be made clearly visible in sufficient numbers to provide an overwhelming show of force, and that the President of the United States and Government of the District of Columbia make a public statement of policy that the police and the troops will be authorized and directed to use all force necessary to assure the peace and order of the community, and that the courts will support them. You have taken the oaths of the highest offices of this land that you will to the best of your abilities preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution guarantees the rights of the citizens to live in peace and free from fear. We citizens now call upon the executive, legislative, and judicial officers of the United States and of the District of Columbia to fulfill their oaths of office. Very truly yours, PARK AND SHOP, INC. (This letter is sent at the unanimous request of the Executive Board of Park and Shop, Inc., which represents over 200 member merchants and professiona! firms and over 95% of all commercial parking facilities in the District of Columbia.) Mr. NASH CASTRO, U.S. Interior Department, National Capital Park Region, COLUMBIA, S.C., May 19, 1968. DEAR MR. CASTRO: Several friends and myself are planning a trip to Washington during the first two weeks in August (4th thru 17th). We have decided that it would not only be nice, but much more economical to camp on the same park grounds that you and the Interior Department have made available to the organizers of the "Poor Peoples Demonstration." Our party will include approximately twenty to twenty five people, including women and children. Being able to camp on these public grounds will make it possible for us to give the children a good while to see the Nation's Capital and its many historical places of interest and to observe some of the most recent changes made by not such historical events. Of course we are in a position and would expect to comply with the same requirements that you are asking from the "Poor People", actually we are poor too, that's why camping in the middle of Washington appeals to us. |