and protected by the Federal Government, and all expenses incident thereto be paid from the general fund of the Treasury. If the Congress feels that any part of this expense should be borne by the District of Columbia, this amount could be considered as part of the Federal contribution to the operating expenses of the District government.

At this point I would like to add for the record-since 1934 the Federal Government has made physical improvements on park land within the District of Columbia to the value of $8,418,900. During this same period the District of Columbia has given the National Capital parks $18,000 for park development.

Mr. ALLEN. At that point, Mr. Root, unless there is objection we can conclude that the amendments proposed can be inserted in the record without reading. They require no special comment other than what you have said.

(Without objection, the changes proposed by the Secretary of the Interior are inserted in the record below. They are as follows:)

In accordance with these recommendations it is suggested that H. R. 4902 be amended in the following respects (omit the matter in black brackets and insert new matter in italics):

Section 1004 (b) on pages 77 and 78:

"(b) The Joint Committee, upon the recommendation of a board composed of the Chairman of the Joint Committee] National Capital Park and Planning Commission, the Superintendent of National Capital Parks, and the Director of the Department of Recreation, shall determine which of the public parks and playgrounds within the District of Columbia under Federal control [were established or are being] may be advantageously used essentially] for the purpose of [recreation and primarily] conducting a supervised, comprehensive program of public recreation for the benefit of residents of the District [and shall designate as District recreational areas those parks and playgrounds so established or used.] of Columbia as authorized by the Act of Congress approved April 29, 1942 (56 Stat. 261), and, pursuant to the provisions of said Act, shall direct the District of Columbia Council to enter into agreements with the Secretary of the Interior, commensurate with the Federal interests, for the utilization of such park and playground areas as are determined to be suitable and desirable to meet the recreational needs of the District of Columbia. [The executive officer of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission is authorized and directed to convey by quitclaim deed to the District all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the land located within such areas.] All supervised recreational activity carried on in such areas, under agreements with the Secretary of the Interior, shall be under the management of the Director of the Department of Recreation, and as part of the costs of maintaining such areas shall be paid from Federal funds.] all expenses incident to the administration, maintenance, improvement, and protection shall be borne by the Federal Government." Section 1005 (a) and (b) on page 78:

"(a) The functions of the Metropolitan Police force. the police surgeons, the Fire Department, the poundmaster, the Department of Vehicles and Traffic, the United States Park Police in the District] and the national Zoological Park Police (except those functions relating primarily to the protection of the buildings within such park), are hereby transferred to the Director of the Department of Public Safety. The expenditures formerly made from the general funds for the District of Columbia for the compensation, uniforms. equipment, and other expenses of the United States Park Police, shall be paid from the general funds of the Treasury beginning with the fiscal wear commencing July 1, 1949.

"(b) The functions of the United States Park Police and the National Zoological Park Police transferred by subsection (a) shall be administered by the Metropolitan police force under the supervision and direction of the Director of the Department of Public Safety."

On page 114, line 15, after the words "The Metropolitan Police Force," insert the words "United States Park Police Force."

On page 114, line 18, after the word "force," insert the words "of the United States Park Police force."

On page 115, line 4, after the word "force" add the words "of the United States Park Police force."

On page 115, line 9, after the words, "White House Police Force," insert the words "and of the United States Park Police Force."

On page 115, line 14, after the words "Secret Service," insert the words "and a member of the United States Park Police force, to be designated by the Superintendent of National Capital Parks."

On page 115, line 17, after the word "force," eliminate the period and add the words "and the United States Park Police force."

To place this report before you not later than January 28, the deadline set by your subcommittee, it has been necessary to forward it before clearance by the Bureau of the Budget. It cannot, therefore, be regarded as committing the Bureau of the Budget in any respect. A copy of this report is being forwarded to the Budget Bureau.

Sincerely yours,

Hon. JAMES C. AUCHINCLOSS,

Secretary of the Interior.

Subcommittee on Home Rule and Reorganization
of the Committee on the District of Columbia,

House of Representatives.

Mr. ROOT. Mr. Chairman, I believe there were two of us listed to appear and we have some letters that I think are very important that we get in the record.

Mr. ALLEN. Will you state the general contents? We can put them in the record.

Mr. ROOT. Mr. Kelley is here representing the Park Police, which come under his control, and if you could give him a minute he could present those letters for the record.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD J. KELLEY, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT, NATIONAL CAPITAL PARKS

Mr. KELLEY. My name is Edward J. Kelley, and I am special assistant to the Superintendent of the National Capital Parks.

Mr. Chairman, in my appearance before Congress I appear in defense of the separate Park Police force. We have had occassion to call on other cities for their experience where they had maintained separate park and metropolitan police forces and consolidated them. Recently we learned that the city of Louisville, Ky., in 1942, merged its park police force with the city police force. On January 26 we wrote a letter to the mayor of Louisville and to the chief of the metropolitan police department in Louisville, asking them to give us an unbiased and impartial statement of their experience in operating a combined police force for both city and park purposes. They replied, and with your permission I will read our letter to the mayor of Louisville, which is the same as that sent to the chief of police. Under date of February 2, 1948, the mayor of Louisville, Hon. E. Leland Taylor, wrote Superintendent Irving C. Root, transmitting a letter of T. Byrne Morgan, director of parks and recreation, Louisville. The correspondence reads as follows [reading]:

J

The honorable the MAYOR of LOUISVILLE,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, Washington, D. C., January 26, 1948.

Louisville, Ky.

MY DEAR MR. MAYOR: The January 1948 issue of Parks and Recreation, a magazine published by the American Institute of Park Executives, carried an article by Mr. L. H. Weir, director, park recreation service, National Recreation Association, which in effect was a statistical analysis of park and recreational

activities of the principal cities of the United States. In considering the city of Louisville, Mr. Weir states: "Here, too, is an example of the incorporation of a very efficient system of park guards or police force of the city with the result that the policing of the parks and recreation grounds is now very inadequately and inefficiently performed."

At the present time the Federal park system of the District of Columbia and environs is policed by a separate police force which according to certain proposals would be abolished as such with the provision that the park police would be absorbed by the Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia. There appear to be many good arguments for and against a rearrangement of this kind and since Louisville has within recent years effected a similar change, we would like very much to have your forthright opinion as to the correctness of Mr. Weir's statement quoted above.

I am sending a similar letter to the chief of police of Louisville, with the hope that you will both be good enough to give us a prompt and unbiased opinion in reply to this inquiry. Hearings are being held currently on a bill which would accomplish the consolidation of the park and metropolitan police in the city of Washington, and your opinion would be invaluable in consideration of this question.

Very truly yours,

IRVING C. ROOT, Superintendent.

CITY OF LOUISVILLE, KY., DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, February 2, 1948.

Hon. E. LELAND TAYLOR,

Mayor, City of Louisville, Louisville, Ky.

DEAR SIR: This will acknowledge receipt of your memo of January 29, 1948, attaching letter from Mr. Irving C. Root, superintendent, United States Department of the Interior, in connection with references of Mr. L. H. Weir, made in the January issue of Parks and Recreation relative to the policing of our city parks, and asking our opinion as to the change made in such policing.

Prior to February 1942 the board of park commissioners had the entire responsibility of policing all parks and playgrounds, under the supervision of that body, composed of 35 regular park police and provisions for 19 playground guards for the summer season. At which time a bill was passed in the State legislature abolishing the board of park commissioners, and setting up in its stead a department of parks and recreation, and transferring the park police to the department of safety, which has not worked at all satisfactorily, for many reasons, a few of which I will attempt to clarify:

First. The actual duties of policing parks and playgrounds and policing a metropolitan city are as different as day and night. Very few occasions arise in park work where you need an officer who has been trained in criminal investigation. You actually need an officer who is interested in parks, in children, in people; if at all possible, one who is willing, and does, learn the location of various points of interest in the various parks, one who has the knack of leadership with younger people.

Second. I doubt that there is a single officer in the police department who desires placement on park detail. That being the case, you can't possibly expect a well-done job. Any police officer assigned to park duty looks on the assignment as a punishment.

Third. Naturally the director of parks has no authority at all over police officers assigned to parks. He is required to make his request known to the chief of police, who in turn passes the request on to the lieutenant in charge, and this regardless of the necessity of prompt and immediate action.

Fourth. In the present arrangement the turn-over is so frequent that the policeman is not on park duty long enough to become familiar with his duties. However, the lieutenant in charge of park detail is permanent.

Fifth. It is a known fact that we get a great many of the older men on park work when we should have much younger men to patrol our parks. It cannot be done from cruising cars, or possibly it could be but isn't. It's not at all possible to shift successfully from a job of criminal investigation to instruction to the thousands who visit our parks.

I notice in the second paragraph and second sentence of his letter: "There appear to be many good arguments for and against a rearrangement of this

kind." Frankly, I can think of no good argument for ever doing away with a well-trained force of park police, or guards if you please, and assigning park duties to a metropolitan police force. If this is done in the District of Columbia, in my opinion, it will prove to be the biggest mistake that could possibly be made, unless supervision of the park detail remains his responsibility.

Why should the director of parks and recreation be held responsible for millions of dollars worth of property and not be provided with a force to protect it? Be they police, guards, or rangers.

It is the hope that in the not too distant future the department will be authorized to replace the park police with park rangers, which will repair the damage done when trained park police were transferred to the safety department.

Yours very truly,

T. BYRNE MORGAN, Director of Parks and Recreation.

Mr. KELLEY. C. E. Heustis, chief of police at Louisville, under date of January 28 wrote Mr. Root as follows [reading]:

CITY OF LOUISVILLE, KY.,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF POLICE,
January 28, 1948.

Mr. IRVING C. ROOT,
Superintendent, National Park Service, National Capital Parks,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: With reference to your inquiry for an unbiased opinion relative to a metropolitan department absorbing the park police system, I shall report the experience from my viewpoint in Louisville.

On February 12, 1942, the Louisville Division of Police fell heir to 32 uniformed park guards, who had very little, if any, training in municipal policing; however they were a fairly efficient group as park guards.

Immediately upon transfer, the entire group requested transfer from the park to prowl cars, indicating their dislike for their former assignment, and presented with an opportunity for transfer, they took advantage of it.

It is rare that we ever have a request from our veteran police to be assigned to parks. The officers generally feel that the park assignments are a dumping ground for aged police or those bordering on malcontent.

Replacements to be assigned to the park patrols after having been assigned to general police duty are not in sympathy with the problems of guard work in the parks, and as a consequence do not give their best performance.

The duties of park' guards or police are in my opinion greatly different, to the extent that a well-trained, capable, and energetic police officer of a metropolitan police department in most instances fails miserably in properly carrying out the desired assignment as a park guard, and likewise a well-trained park guard who may have given excellent service in that capacity need not necessarily have the qualifications of a metropolitan police officer.

I have often discussed this problem with our local director of parks and recreation, and both of us believe that it was pure folly to have made this change, and at the first opportunity, we intend to recommend that park guards be assigned under the direct supervision of the park board as they were originally.

Very truly yours,

C. E. HEUSTIS,
Chief of Police.

Mr. DEANE. In that connection, Mr. Kelley, when were the park police placed under the metropolitan police in Louisville?

Mr. KELLEY. In 1942, sir.

Mr. DEANE. Is there any evidence from those who were interested in seeing them placed in the metropolitan police force? Do you have that?

Mr. KELLEY. We wrote to the Mayor of Louisville, who we assumed probably was to some degree responsible. I do not know whether he was in office at that time, but we assumed it was probably the wish of the city officials that the police departments be merged. As I read Mr. T. Byrne Morgan's letter, that fully described the situation there, and the mayor merely sent us a copy of Mr. Morgan's letter with a very

brief letter of transmittal. In his letter Mr. Morgan gave us his opinion of the merger.

Mr. DEANE. What was his opinion?

Mr. KELLEY. I will summarize his arguments at the end.

(The arguments are as given above.)

Mr. DEANE. Can you say whether or not it was economical for the city administration?

Mr. KELLEY. Perhaps, sir, I should read our letters to both the mayor and the chief of police so that you will understand just what we did ask.

Mr. DEANE. He did not give you any indication whether or not it was economical in its operation?

Mr. KELLEY. Except that they used the same number of men, which would indicate that there was no economy as far as reduction of personnel was concerned, and there was a resulting lag in efficiency.

Mr. DEANE. Can you say under the proposed legislation that the metropolitan police as well as the park police would be not necesarily integrated, but maintained as separate entities, and yet through cooperation it would result in a more economical administration in the city?

Mr. KELLEY. I do not believe it would be as economical as at present, where we have direct contact and supervision over our men. At the present time we have only contact with the police captain, who is directly responsible to the Superintendent of Parks. If our police were integrated with the Metropolitan Police and were the Metropolitan Department to have this situation of a special police department, it would be necessary for a superintendent to contact 13 or 14 precinct captains, and at any rate he would not have authority, direction, and control over the officers as he now does. He has complete control over them right now.

Mr. DEANE. Do you think it is sound to maintain five or six different police systems here?

Mr. KELLEY. I think it is sound to maintain an efficient force. We are not qualified to pass on the other police forces.

I would also like to mention the fact that the preponderant portion of our park system is now outside of the District of Columbia and growing considerably, so that we would have to maintain a police force to police those areas outside the District in any case.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Root, how would you say that the Park Service here in Washington compares with the park services in other cities throughout the United States, from a recreational standpoint?

Mr. Root. It is rather hard to compare cities as to facilities because of the need for the various facilities, which depends on the climate and the kind of population you have; but visitors here compliment our park system very highly, and I think they do that not so much on the cost of the maintenance that we have, which isn't the best on account of the lack of funds, but because of the fact that very fine land was acquired when land could be bought; that is, before development, to provide such parks as Rock Creek Park, for instance. We have many compliments on Rock Creek Park, but most of the beauty of Rock Creek Park is its natural beauty and not what has been built there.

I believe you would find that the parks of Washington.compare very favorably with the parks throughout the United States. We have