Page images

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. T'HOMAS. 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. Booch. 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. Bares. 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

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

you, sir.

[blocks in formation]

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.)


the recess.

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

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.


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. Ruhlásd. 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 seryice 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

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

[ocr errors]

jurisdiction of some other department, and if so, what were those departments, and bring it down through the years!

Dr. RUHLAND. Yes. There we must bear in mind that the Department of Health inherited by transfer the care of the institutional services.

Mr. BATEs. What year was that?
Dr. RUHLAND. That was in 1937 that we inherited that service.

It appeared in our budget in 1938, but the transfer was decided upon in 1937.

Mr. Bates. That probably brings us to the conclusion that it would be better to use a 1938 figure, would it not, for the comparison. Were there some other functions of the city transferred since 1937 to the Health Department along with the institutions?

Dr. RUHLAND. Excepting this, we are made responsible in our budget for such items as $400,000 for services rendered at Freedmen's Hospital, where we have no control whatsoever.

Mr. BATES. Now, did you have those same services or expenditures for Freedmen's Hospital either in a lesser degree in 1937 or

Dr. RUHLAND. No, Freedmen's Hospital is a Federal institution, you see, under the care specifically of the United States Public Health Service.

Mr. Bates. So, no expenses of the Health Department went to maintain or toward the cost of Freedmen's Hospital in 1937 at all.

Dr. RUHLAND. No, this cost of $100,000 which appears in our budget is there for the purpose that we, through our hospital permit office, investigate eligibility and financial responsibility of patients that are being taken care of there at the District's expense.

Mr. BATES. Are there any other activities that have been taken over by the Health Department besides the institutions and the expenses at Freedmen's Hospital since 1937?

Dr. RUHLAND. Well, there are the other medical charities which we contract with hospitals where the overflow of patients that could not be accommodated, say, at Gallinger, will be taken in, and then, too, there has been an appropriation in the budget which has doubled over the period of years because of the increased cost of living.

Mr. Bates. But you did have those activities, those expenses in 1937; those are new, where the overflow has come about during, say, the last 5 or 6 or 7 years, but did not exist in the budget of 1938; is that right?

Dr. ŘUHLAND. Yes, that is true. We have had those contracts with the hospitals, those contract hospitals, but not Freedmen's.

Mr. BATEs. In 1937 you had the contract hospital?
Dr. RUHLAND. We had some of the contract hospitals.

Mr. Bates. Then, I think, for the purpose of this record, give me the 1938 expenditures, and that would include institution expenditures.

Dr. RUHLAND. That is right. I have prepared a table that as I said, I shall be

Mr. BATEs. Just give me the round figures for 1938, the first year that the institutional figures were included.

Dr. RUHLAND. That is a total of $2.243,190. Mr. BATEs. And this year, the 1948 estimate is $6,802,965. Dr. RUHLAND. No, the 1947 only is $6,394,965, that is exclusive of Freedmen's, however.

Mr. Bates. Well, the 1948 figure you have given me was $6,802,000, and that includes Freedmen's, and includes all institutions.

Dr. RUHLAND. No-that would include Freedmen's.

Mr. BATEs. And would include all the contract hospitals and so forth.


Mr. BATES. Those are the basic figures that we want to work on, Doctor, and now, you go ahead in your own way and tell us how those expenses have increased down those years, and why. You mentioned particularly Freedmen’s, that you did not have in the 1938 figures, that today costs $400,000 or more a year, is that right?

Dr. RUHLAND. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Bates. Then you have the contract hospitals that in 1938 amounted to a certain number of dollars, and 1948, the estimate is what?

Dr. RUHLAND. Let me see, we have 1948 on here. 1948 we have not mcluded because that is not an adopted budget as yet. We confined

Mr. BATEs. I mean, you have it in your estimate, do you not?

Dr. RUHLAND. We have it in the estimate which gives us a total of $6,802,965, that is true.

Mr. Bates. What is in that estimate? What is there that you estimate to spend on contract hospitals ?

Dr. RUHLAND. Well, $225,000 is estimated under the prevailing contract we have with these institutions.

Mr. BATEs. Have you a relative figure for 1938 ?

Dr. RUHLAND. In 1938, we had $119,000—I beg your pardon, that was in 1939. In 1938, it is $155,000.

Mr. BATEs. So, we had an increase of about $70,000 in the period of, say 10 years, is that right, in contracts?

Dr. RUHLAND. That is correct, sir.
Mr. BATEs. In contract hospitals. Now, Freedmen's is $400,000!
Dr. RUHLAND. That is right.

Mr. Bares. 1948 for Freedmen's; and that is over and above anything you have in 1938 for that purpose, is that true, $100,000!

Dr. RUHLAND. That is correct, sir.

Mr. BATES. That accounts for $470,000 due to those two items alone over and above the expenditures of 1938. Now, go ahead and tell where the rest of that increase took place, Doctor.

Dr. RUHLAND. Well, the development of special services, that is the addition of new bureau activities that were added to the existing Health Department back in 1937, I mean thereby such bureaus as maternal and child welfare, venereal disease bureau, psychiatry, bureaus of that type that we have added; the development of the bureau of sanitation, an expansion of those bureaus. Those are the bureaus that round out accepted present day Health Department activities. That added to personnel, and by comparison, you will see where the weight of the expenditure goes.

For example, for the Health Department alone we had in 1937, some two hundred

Mr. Bates. Have you got it for 1938? We are starting out with the year that the institutions were added to it.

Dr. RUHLAND. I don't have it right here, but I will be glad to submit

it by years.

« PreviousContinue »