Information from the annual report of the police department of the city of New York, calendar year 1945

Decrease and increase in the force beginning with the fiscal year of 1908

Increase to give 1 day off in 7.

? Increased to take care of the increase of lieutenants so they could work 8 hours a day.

3 Crossing men transferred from street crossing roll to the pay roll of the Metropolitan Police Department (increase only on paper).

35 men to replace the decrease brought about by the economy act.

$ 25 men to take care of annual leave which was increased.

The rank of corporal created with the appointment of 65 men.

7 Congress refused to return to full strength after war.

Mr. BATES. About 94 percent of your increase in cost is due to personnel cost?

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. And 40 percent of that is due to increase of wages? Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. And balance due to the increase in numbers?

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. Are there any other questions? Thank you, sir.

Mr. THOMAS. I have here, if you would like to hear it, what I like to boast over, our good record with respect to clearance of crime. In 1936, 8,926 felonies were reported, and out of those reported we cleared 70.2 percent.

I would like to state at this time that the national average of crime clearance is 52 to 54 percent, so we feel rather proud of that record. In 1946, we had reported 8,426, and cleared 71.8 percent of those reported cases. That is, in felonies.

And the arrests for felonies, we have that also, but you would not be concerned with that, because the clearance percentage gives you the base.

The arrests for misdemeanors in the fiscal year 1936 were 56,243 and the arrests in 1946 were 70,238.

Now, arrests for violation of municipal regulations in the fiscal year, including traffic, in 1936 were 69,447, and in 1946 there were 109,938 arrests.

Mr. BATES. I notice by some statistics that we have here from the Bureau of the Census comparing the costs that the cost of maintenance of our correctional institutions on a per-capita basis, I believe, shows that the figures are far in excess of other communities.

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. That may be due to the police work.

Mr. THOMAS. Well, that could be the case, sir.

Recently, there was the crime of the Kelly murder. The men worked on that case day and night. Some of the plain-clothes men and even those in uniform worked long hours. They knew no limit to hours. They possibly worked a couple of days without sleep or rest. The commanding officer gave them some time off for that time. They did not give up until the case was closed.

Mr. BATES. I notice in this figure that we have for 1945 of these 14 cities, out of the distribution of moneys for over-all municipal expenditures, that the average is 2 percent for corrections in these other 13 cities, and it is 3.9 percent, nearly double, for the District of Columbia.

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. In other words, for every $2 that these other districts gave, on an average for correction, they give $4 in the District. So you must have a pretty heavy penal population here.

Mr. THOMAS. As it will indicate, concerning the statistics just given on the arrests, and so on, that is important.

There is a quotation that occurred in the newspaper which if you would care to have me give, I would like to, just as a slight thing, which might border on the revenue.

The report was submitted to the Attorney General from the chief judge of the Municipal Court of the District of Columbia, and it is stated in this newspaper report, if this can be called authentic, that fines, fees, and forfeitures amounted to $756,543. This was compared with $491,406 for the similar period of the previous year, an increase of 51 percent.

The court's outlay and expenses, its budget, was $406,225 for the present fiscal year, so that the cash income of the court for a half year was about double the cost for the entire fiscal year.

Estimating cash receipts for the whole of the 1947 fiscal year, June 30, was $1,513,000. This would be three and one-half times the amount of the year's budget. This amount indirectly came as the result of the Police Department's activities, quite naturally.

Mr. BATES. Does the District get the money?

Mr. THOMAS. It goes into the general fund of the Treasury.

Mr. WILDING. That is deposited in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the District of Columbia.

Mr. BATES. Fine.

Chief, I think you have been doing a very excellent job, from the newspaper reports, rounding up these criminals in the last few weeks. Especially, I have seen the very favorable comments in the papers, and I think we could all speak in the same vein as Members of Congress, that we are very grateful that you are on the job, and especially respecting those who commit crimes and who take the lives of our police officers.

Mr. THOMAS. That is right.

Mr. BATES. They should run them down to the very limit, and be not a bit sparing on what penalty they inflict on them.

Mr. THOMAS. And I have one officer confined in the hospital not expected to live. He is 54 years old and they say he has no chance. I hope, however.

Mr. BooсH. Might I comment on these two figures, because the same matter was before the Appropriations Committee of the House. There is a slightly erroneous impression put out by the 2.5 or the 1.6, as of the present date, because there are many police services that are handled by other police systems and by special police commissions throughout the metropolitan district other than the Metropolitan Police. They figure really that they cannot use that to apply to the District of Columbia, because of the curious nature of the police in the District.

That 2.5 figure that the inspector has provided.

Mr. BATES. Yes.

Mr. BOOCH. I think the Appropriations Committee broke it down that there is a uniformed police in some category for every 189 persons in the District of Columbia.

Mr. BATES. Thank you a lot.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Bates, with respect to the fine compliment paid by you to us, I should like to say for the record that we are grateful, but I am just one, now acting as the executive head, and I would like those people to have your compliment passed on to them, I mean the men really doing the work.

Mr. BATES. Of course, you are all entitled to whatever compliments we can give, but we are all tremendously interested in the protection of our persons and property, and when you are doing a good job, I think it is up to those in authority to say so, and with a good deal of interest I read what Commissioner Young has had to say within the last 24 hours in regard to getting all of the facts and fittingly recognizing those who are responsible for this exceptionally outstanding work we have read about in the papers.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, sir.

(Statement later received for the record by the Police Department covering a 10-year period.)

1 Began charging Highway Fund with proportion of policemen's salaries.

1937 to 1941: Increase of 14 civilians and 71 policemen. Gradual expansion to compensate for increases in population and police activities.

1942: Increase of 5 civilians and 274 policemen to compensate for wartime conditions and sudden rise in population.

1943: Increase of 10 civilians and 125 policemen for same reasons as in 1942. Salary increases under Public Laws 22 and 49, approximately $585,000 per annum. 1944: Increase of 9 civilians and reduction of 40 policemen. Reduction due to inability to recruit policemen.

1945: Increase of 1 civilian and reduction of 82 policemen. Reduction in policemen because of recruitment difficulties.

1946: Increase of 1 civilian and reduction of 50 policemen. Reduction still due to recruitment difficulties. Salary increases under Public Laws 106 and 151, approximately $700,000 per annum. Public Laws 22 and 49 expired.

Mr. BATES. If there are no other questions by the committee, we will adjourn until 2 o'clock.

(Thereupon, at 12: 35 p. m., a recess was taken.).

AFTERNOON SESSION

The committee reconvened at 2: 10 p. m., upon the expiration of the recess.

Mr. BATES (Cochairman of the joint subcommittee). The meeting will kindly come to order, please.

We have completed the testimony of the Police Department this morning, and next on the list is the Health Department, the health officer, Dr. Ruhland.

Doctor, will you come up here and take the stand, please.

We will be very glad to hear anything you have to offer in the way of testimony at this hearing. You can proceed in your own way to discuss some of the questions that are disturbing, perhaps, some of us who are not altogether familiar with the facts as to the reason for the constantly increasing costs in the District government and whether or not that applies to the Health Department, we do not know until we have made an examination of the facts as you proceed with your statement.

You can go right along in your own way, Doctor, and tell us just what happened to the Health Department in the last 10 years, show what the total cost was under your jurisdiction, say, in 1937, and what it is today.

STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE C. RUHLAND, HEALTH OFFICER, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Dr. RUHLAND. I am aware, of course, of the testimony that has been presented to the committee earlier, and so I shall avoid repeating

those factors as much as possible and confine myself to explanatory data that may be helpful to the committee to understand the local public-health service.

Mr. BATES. Who covered this testimony?

Dr. RUHLAND. I have reference to the testimony that was presented by the budget officer, the auditor, and so forth.

Mr. BATES. Now, give us the total expenses of the Health Department in 1937, and what the estimate in the budget for this year is.

Dr. RUHLAND. Before we go into that, may I submit to the committee certain basic essential data which I think might otherwise lead to confusion?

Mr. BATES. Yes.

Dr. RUHLAND. Specifically, I should like to call attention to this circumstance for the District health service, that in the District of Columbia you have a health service which differs from the health serv ice in other cities, because you combine here both State and county health services.

Mr. BATES. That is right.

Dr. RUHLAND. I think that is a material factor.

Mr. BATES. Well, that applies to many other departments of the District.

Dr. RUHLAND. That is right, but I want to emphasize that.

Mr. BATES. Oh, yes; we understand that, Doctor. We are thoroughly informed on that end of it, although I think in your testimony you might elaborate on that overlapping into what we call outside the city area.

Dr. RUHLAND. Then, too, and I might add this as a general statement, that we are prepared in the Department to submit to you and to the members of your committee a detailed tabulation that will be helpful, we believe, to a better understanding of the multiplicity of detail of various bureau activities.

Mr. BATES. Now, your various departmental activities under the jurisdiction of the health officer who, in this case, is yourself, have they materially changed in the last 10 years so that the base of appropriations and the specific departments or divisions of the Health Department have changed materially during that period of 10 years that would change the comparison or perhaps would not give a good comparison to the over-all cost?

Dr. RUHLAND. Well, for the information of your committee, sir, I would like to call attention to the fact that since 1935 or 1937, if you will, there have been added to the local health service bureau activities which were not formerly in the service.

Mr. BATES. That is what I wanted to know, and I would like to know what they are. For the purpose of the record at the moment, give us a total expenditure amount in the Health Department in 1937 as it was constituted at that time.

Dr. RUHLAND. Yes. Well now, taking the Health Department, including the institutions, Gallinger Hospital, Glendale, and Upshur, we find that we see an increase under the title of Health Department from $507,970 to $6,802,965 in 1947.

Mr. BATES. At this point, realizing that tremendous increase, was that due to any increased departmental activity that had been added to the Health Department since 1937 that was formerly under the