1955 Senate Illict Drug Trafficking Texas

ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
(AUSTIN, DALLAS, FORT WORTH, HOUSTON, AND

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS)
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENTS IN THE

FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

UNITED STATES SENATE
EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
PURSUANT TO
S. Res. 67
ON
PART 7
OCTOBER 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, DECEMBER 14 AND 15, 1955
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
0
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71515
WASHINGTON : 1956
I I

HARLEY M. KILGORE, West Virginia, Chairman
JAMES 0. EASTLAND, Mississippi
ESTES KEFAUVER, Tennessee
OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina
THOMAS C. HENNINGS, JR., Missouri
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
PRICE DANIEL, Texas
JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Wyoming
ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin

WILLIAM LANGER, North Dakota
WILLIAM D. JENNER, Indiana
ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utah
EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois
HERMAN WELKER, Idaho
JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENTS IN
THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL
CODE
PRICE DANIEL, Texas, Chairman

HERMAN WELKER, Idaho
JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Wyoming
JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland
JAMES 0. EASTLAND, Mississippi
C. AUBREY GASQUE, General Counsel
W. LiE SPEER, Chief Inve8tigator
CONTENTS
Statement of-
Page
Adams, Jerry James, Houston, Tex -----------------------2796, 2810

Aeby, Neil, Seagoville, Tex., accompanied by Clayton Fowler, his
3028
counsel ------------------------------------------------Alexander, William F., assistant district attorney, Dallas County,
Tex ---------------------------------------------------3184
Avant, Grady, agent in charge, Bureau of Customs, El Paso, Tex,
Department of the Treasury --------------------------------2662
Baca, Frank, El Paso, Tex -----------------------------------3381
Baca, Hope, El Paso, Tex -----------------------------------3374
Bass, (Jetty) George Washington, Irving, Tex., accompanied by
Robert Payne his counsel ---------------------------------3133
Bichsel, George W., chief of police, San Antonio, Tex -------------2476
Blackshear, 0. B., Dallas, Tex --------------------------------2986
Bonnee, John, New Orleans, La -------------------------------3461
Bromley, Thomas H., agent in charge, Bureau of Narcotics, San
Antonio, Tex., Department of the Treasury -------------------2674
Broussard, James, Houston, Tex
2791, 2799
Burns, W. J., chief of police, Galveston, Tex ----------------2922, 2927
Cascio, Nick, Dallas, Tex., accompanied by Robert B. Allen, his
counsel ------------------------------------------------3147
Cherry, H. F., supervisor of customs inspectors, Bureau of Customs,
El Paso, Tex., Department of the Treasury --------------------2662
Contreras, Juan, San Antonio, Tex ----------------------------2489
Cornelius, Roosevelt, Jr., Fort Worth, Tex3252
Dawson, Tommie Jean, Dallas, Tex -----------------------2979, 2993
Decker, William, sheriff, Dallas County, Tex --------------------3011
Ellis, David, customs agent, Bureau of Customs, Houston, Tex., Department of the Treasury ----------------------------------2944
Fender, Howard M., criminal district attorney, Tarrant County, Tex- 3276
Fleishman, Lawrence, supervising customs agent, 10th Customs
Agency District, Bureau of Customs, Department of the Treasury- 2532,
3469
Flint, Clarence Cecil, San Antonio, Tex., accompanied by Herman G.
Nami, his counsel ----------------------------------------3425
Floore, Heajd L., United States attorney, northern district of Texas. 3266,
3291
Flores, Rudy, San Antonio, Tex ------------------------------3471
Friloux, C. Anthony, assistant United States attorney, southern district of Texas -------------------------------------------2903
Gannaway, William P., lieutenant detective, Dallas Police Department, Dallas, Tex -------------------------------2975, 3035, 3075
Garcia, Jessie, Corpus Christi, Tex., accompanied by Manuel B.
Lopez, his counsel ----------------------------------------3414
Garrison, Homer, Jr., director, Department of Public Safety, State of
Texas -------------------------------------------------2361
Gentry, Ernest M., district supervisor, Bureau of Narcotics, Dallas,
Tex., Department of the Treasury ---------------------------3100
Gray, Hershall H., Bureau of Narcotics, San Antonio, Tex., Department of the Treasury -------------------------------------3437
Green, Hubert W., Jr., district attorney, Bexar County, Tex-------2637
Grice, Horace, Corpus Christi, Tex ----------------------------3459
Griffin, Vandeburg, Corpus Christi, Tex ------------------------3449
Hanssen, Carl F., chief of police, Dallas, Tex --------------------2968
Harvey, Gladys, Irving, Tex., accompanied by Robert B. Allen, her
counsel ---------------------------------------------------3156
Heard, J. F., chief of police, Houston, Tex ----------------------2687
Heddens, Warren, narcotic agent, Bureau of Narcotics, Dallas, Tex.,
Department of the Treasury ---------------------------3094, 3285
Herbert, K R Austin Police Department, Austin, Tex -----------2394
Hernandez, Roberto, San Antonio, Tex -------------------------2509
CONTENTS
Statement of-Continued
Herring, Charles, attorney, Austin, Tex ------------------------Hicks, Thomas Odell Bond, Dallas, Tex ------------------------Hightower, Cato, chief of police, Fort Worth, Tex_
----------
Howerton, Roland R., assistant chief of police, Fort Worth, Tex.;

president, Texas Police Association --------------------------Hubbard, Charles Nathan, Corpus Christi, Tex ------------------Huggins, Harry J., Denton, Tex ------------------------------Hutton, Jack, lieutenant in charge of narcotics detail, San Antonio
Police Department, San Antonio, Tex ------------------------Jackson, W. T., lieutenant, narcotics division, Corpus Christi Police
Department, Corpus Christi, Tex ---------------------------Johnson, Nathan, Houston, Tex ------------------------------Juraschek, Erwin A., director, Catholic Youth Organization, San
Antonio, Tex --------------------------------------------Kerley, Gloria Gene, Corpus Christi, Tex -----------------------Kerley, Harry F., Corpus Christi, Tex -------------------------Kern, C. V., sheriff, Harris County, Tex -----------------------Kilday, Owen W., sheriff, Bexar County, Tex --------------------Kline, J. B., detective, narcotics division, Galveston Police Department, Galveston, Tex -------------------------------------3332,
Kucker, Jeanine, Fort Worth, Tex------------------------Laws, R. B., captain, criminal investigation department, Austin
Police Department, Austin, Tex -
-------------------
Levine, Morris, Los Angeles, Calif ----------------------------La Cascio, Allec-, Houston, Tex ------------------------------Look, Joan, El Paso, Tex------------------------------------Lott, John Thomas, Fort Worth, Tex., accompanied by R. C. Green,
his counsel ---------------------------------------------Love, Edward Keith, Houston, Tex ---------------------------McLeaish, Bernard J., customs agent in charge, Bureau of Customs,
Brownsville, Tex ----------------------------------------McMahan, J. C., captain, Houston Police Department, Houston, TexMesser, Luther Spurgeon, Houston, Tex ------------------------Miller, Tom, Hon. mayor, city of Austin, Tex -------------------Moreno, Rudy, San Antonio, Tex., accompanied by Raul Villareal,
2604,
his counsel -----------------------------------------Murphy, Merle, customs inspector, Bureau of Customs, Laredo, Tex.,
2572, 2575,
Department of the Treasury ----------------------Murray, Frank captain of the homicide squad, Houston Police
Department, Houston, Tex --------------------------------Naylor, Walter E., chief, narcotics division, Department of Public
2381,
Safety, State of Texas--------------------------------Niess, William Lee, Dallas, Tex ------------------------------Od-m, Brian S., assistant United States attorney, Brownsville, Tex-Orosco, Ignacio, Jr., San Antonio, Tex -------------------------Parrott, Harmon, assistant United States attorney, Western District
of Texas -----------------------------------------------Parrott, James Edward, San Antonio, Tex_ --------------------Paul, Ida, Brownwood, Tex TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Perez, Pura Rodriguez, Houston, Tex --------------------------Queves, Angel, Richmond, Tex --------------------------------
Reese, Shirley Orlowski, San Antonio, Tex., accompanied by James

R. Gillespie and Herman G. Nami, her counsel ------------- 3397,
Reynolds, Daniel G., managing director, Dallas Crime Commission,
Dallas, Tex---------------------------------------------Richards, Albert D., customs agent in charge, Bureau of Customs,
Larrdo, Tex., Department of the Treasury ------- 2551, 2598, 3362,
2897,
Roblcdo, Teodoro, Merc-dos, Tex ------------------------Rodrigu-z, Rudy, Austin, Tex., accompanied by William Yelderman,
his counsel ---------------------------------------------Rodriguez, Simon, San Antonio, Tex., accompanied by M. W. Garcia,
his counsel---------------------------------------------Saenz, Albert, sergeant, narcotics squad, San Antonio Police Department, San Antonio, Tex -----------------------------------Salazar, Ruben, reporter, the El Paso Herald-Post, El Paso, Tex...-Sanchez, Silvestre, San Antonio, Tex ----------------------------
Page
3300
3037
3189
3293
3447
3260
3464
3406
2909
2655
3452
3453
2711
2461
2928
3463
2388
2404
2725
3389
3281
3336
2815
2701
2771
2422
3476
2592
3438
3349
3166
2963
2584
2629
3343
3179
2949
2961
3418
3175
3370
2901
2440
2523
2476
3304
2600
CONTENTS
Statement of-Continued
Saulter, Helen, Houston, Tex ---------------------------------Scharff, Alvin F. customs agent in charge,. Bureau of Customs,
Houston, Tex., department of the Treasury -------------------271 6,
Schofield, Mary Ann, Houston, Tex -----------------------Schoultze, William Francis, Dallas, Tex ------------------------Scott, Chester, Galveston, Tex -------------------------------Scott, R. C., investigator, Austin Police Department, Austin, Tcex_ Selman, Lawrence R., patrolman, Dallas Police Department, Dallas,
Tex---------------------------------------------------Shepperd, John Ben, attorney general, State of Texas; president,
National Association of Attorneys General --------------------Sistrunk, Roy, Dallas, Tex., accompanied by Clayton Fowler, his
counsel ------------------------------------------------Speer, Wayland Lee, special investigator, Subcommittee on Illicit
Narcotics, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate. 2456,
Steger, William M., United States attorney, Eastern District of TexasTaylor, Walter B., Dallas, Tex -------------------------------Thornberry, Homer Hon., Representative, 10th Congressional District, House of Representatives, United States Congress ---------Thorp, R. D., chief of police, Austin, Tex -----------------------Tollenger, William F., agent in charge, Bureau of Narcotics, Houston,
Tex., Department of the Treasury ---------------------------Trautman, John A., M. D., medical officer in charge, United States
Public Health Service Hospital, Fort Worth, Tex ---------------Turner, Perry Milton, Austin, Tex ----------------------------Tyler, Olin Ray, Grand Prairie, Tex ---------------------------Undisclosed witness, Austin hearing ---------------------------Undisclosed witness A, San Antonio hearing ---------------------Undisclosed witness B, San Antonio hearing ---------------------Undisclosed witness X, Houston hearing -----------------------Undisclosed witness B, Dallas hearing --------------------------Velasquez, Raul, Chicago, Ill ----------------------------3365,
Wade, Henry, criminal district attorney, Dallas County, Tex -------Wallace, Luke Murray, Dallas, Tex ----------------------------Walton, Dan, district attorney, Harris County, Tex ---------------Weilbacher, William, San Antonio Police Department, San Antonio,
Tex---------------------------------------------------Whitburn, W. J., chief of detectives, Police Department, Galveston,
Tex---------------------------------------------------Wilkey, Malcolm R., United States attorney, Southern District of
Texas -------------------------------------------------Williams, Gladys, Houston, Tex ------------------------------Wine, Russell B., United States attorney, Western District of Texas-Wood, Harry, Fort Worth, Tex -------------------------------Woods, Richard, assistant district attorney, Bexar County, Tex- - --Wright, Harlon, sheriff, Tarrant County, Tex
Statement submitted by Hidalgo, J. L., assistant director, Catholic Youth
Organization, Archdiocese of San Antonio, Tex ---------------------
Page
2928
2936
2729
3051
3324
2396
3049
2430
3119
3417
3069
2997
2357
2385
2957
3226
2371
3130
2423
3352
3356
2734
3062
3396
3018
3007
2917
3371
2926
2740
2832
2624
3212
2642
3205
2656
EXHIBITS
Letters to Dr. Oscar Rabasa, Director General del Servicio Siplomatico,
Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores, Mexico City, D. F., and Licenciado
Carlos Franco Sodi, Procurador General de Justicia de La Naci6n,
Mexico City, D. F., from Senator Price Daniel, chairman, Subcommittee
on Improvements in the Federal Criminal Code, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, dated October 1, 1955, inviting both to sit
in on hearings -----------------------------------------------Telegram (in Spanish) to Senator Price Daniel from Licenciado Oscar
Rabasa, dated October 11, 1955, and letter (with translation) to Senator
Price Daniel from Licenciado Carlos Franco Sodi, dated October 4,
1955, refusing invitation to sit in on hearings__.
Report entitled "Summary of Arrests for NTarcotics Violations by Sex,
Race, and Age, 1947-55," by R. D. Thorp, chief of police, Austin Police
Department, Austin, Tex--------------------------------------Photograph and description of Simona Y. Cavazos, prepared by Austin
Police Department, Austin, Tex ---------------------------------
2366
2367
2389
2397
CONTENTS
Photograph and description of Alfonso Cavazos, prepared by Austin

Police Department, Austin, Tex ---------------------------------Photograph and description of Patsy Suarez Terrazos, prepared by Austin
Police Department, Austin, Tex --------------------------------Photograph, description, and police record of Morris Levine, prepared by
Austin Police Department, Austin, Tex --------------------------Photograph and description of Raymond L. Murdock, prepared by the
Austin Police Department, Austin, Tex --------------------------Newspaper article entitled "Warrant Out for Big Sam: 75 'G' Forfeited"-Statistical report entitled "Summary of Narcotic Arrests, 1953-55," by
the San Antonio Police Department, San Antonio, Tex --------------Photograph and description of Simon Rodriguez, prepared by the San
Antonio Police Department, San Antonio, Tex ---------------------Photograph and description of Roberto Hernandez, prepared by the San
Antonio Police Department, San Antonio, Tex ---------------------Photograph and description of Mike G. Escobedo, prepared by the San
Antonio Police Department, San Antonio, Tex ---------------------Photograph and description of Gilbert Litterio, prepared by the San
Antonio Police Department, San Antonio, Tex ---------------------Letter from Lawrence Fleishman, supervising customs agent, 10th Customs
Agency District, Bureau of Customs, to Senator Price Daniel, chairman,
the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Narcotics, dated October 11,
1955, on narcotic offenses -------------------------------------Report entitled "Marihuana and Narcotic Drugs Seized by Customs in
Texas," with summaries of narcotic cases, submitted by Lawrence
Fleishman, supervising customs agent, 10th Customs Agency District,
Bureau of Customs ------------------------------------------Letter from A. D. Richards, customs agent in charge, Bureau of Customs,
Laredo, Tex., to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Narcotics,
dated October 11, 1955, on narcotic offenses ----------------------Table entitled "Narcotic Arrests and Seizures, 1953-55, Bureau of Customs,
Laredo, Tex.," with summaries of narcotic cases, submitted by A. D.
Richards, customs agent in charge, Bureau of Customs, Laredo, Tex--Card records of known addicts and associates crossing the Laredo Bridge
into or from Mexico, initiated by the Bureau of Customs, Laredo, Tex
Recommendations for improving narcotic laws, submitted by Russell B.
Wine, United States District Attorney, San Antonio, Tex ------------Recommendations on 8 U. S. C. A. 1324 (transportation of aliens), submitted by Russell B. Wine, United States District Attorney, San Antonio,
Tex -------------------------------------------------------Recommendations for improving narcotic laws, submitted by Harmon
Parrott, Assistant United States District Attorney, Western District of
Texas -----------------------------------------------------Recommendations for improving narcotic laws, submitted by Hubert W.
Green, Jr., criminal district attorney, Bexar County, Tex ------------Report entitled "Narcotic Cases Filed in Criminal District Courts of
Bexar County, Tex., During Years 1953, 1954 and 1955," by Hubert W.
Green, Jr., criminal district attorney, Bexar county, Tex ------------Report entitled "Background Testimony Available," citing statistics on
narcotic arrests and seizures with summaries on narcotic cases, submitted
by Thomas H. Bromley, narcotic agent in charge, Bureau of Narcotics,
San Antonio, Tex --------------------------------------------Report of the Federal grand jury, southern district of Texas, Galveston
division, January term ---------------------------------------Statement of J. F. Heard, chief of police, Houston, Tex., containing narcotic
cases and recommendations for proposed narcotic legislation ---------Report in five categories: The Problem, the Laws, the Penalties; Enforcement; and A Program, with statistics on narcotic violators, by Malcolm
R. Wilkey, United States attorney, southern district of Texas --------Supplemental Summary of Narcotics and Marihuana Cases, Houston
division, September term 1953, with statutes used in prosecution,
submitted by Malcolm R. Wilkey, United States attorney, southern
district of Texas ---------------------------------------------
Page
2398
2399
2419
2426
2457
2486
2494
2495
2504
2508
2533
2534
2565
2566
2595
2633
2635
2636
2643
2645
2679
2685
2687
2749
2767
CONTENTS
VII
Page
Supplemental Summary of Narcotics and Marihuana Cases, Laredo

division, September term 1953, to October 11, 1955, with statutes used
in prosecution, submitted by Malcolm R. Wilkey, United States attorney,
southern district of Texas -------------------------------------Photograph of Pura Rodriguez Perez ------------------------------Photograph of Ernesto Jiminez Herrera, alias "Chamaco" --------------Photograph of Leopoldo Ochoa-----------------------------------Statement of Bernard J. McLeaish, customs agent in charge, Bureau of
Customs, Brownsville, Tex., on the United States-Mexican border
narcotic problem with statistics on seizures and arrests, 1951-55 ------Testimony of George Hall taken in executive session, hearings before the
subcommittee investigating illicit narcotics, Committee on the Judiciary,
United States Senate, September 22, 1955, New York City ----------Statement of C. Anthony Friloux Jr assistant United States attorney,
southern district of Texas, on the background and results of three of
the largest narcotic conspiracies in the area -----------------------Statement of Dan Walton, district attorney, Harris County, Tex., with
statistics on the illegal narcotics traffic in Harris County and recommendations for proposed narcotic legislation -----------------------Statement of W. J. Burns, chief of police, Galveston, Tex., with statistics
on narcotic arrests and seizures, 1953-54 -------------------------Photograph of Frank Leroy Saulter -------------------------------Photograph of Chi Chui Dong-----------------------------------Statement of Alvin F. Scharff, customs agent in charge, Bureau of Customs, Houston, Tex., with cases of narcotic smuggling and automobiles
seized -----------------------------------------------------Photograph of Juan M. Cantu -----------------------------------Photograph of Manfredo B. Martinez -----------------------------Statement of William F. Tollenger, customs agent in charge, Bureau of
Customs, Houston, Tex., with statistics on narcotics convictions and a
summary of cases--------------------------------------------Statistical report of cases prosecuted in the Brownsville, Corpus Christi,
and Laredo (Tex.) Division, 1953-55, compiled by Brian S. Odem, assistant United States attorney, southern district of Texas -----------Statement of Henry Wade, criminal district attorney, Dallas County,
Tex., on narcotics cases and recommendations for proposed narcotic
legislation --------------------------------------------------Statement of William M. Steger, United States attorney, Eastern District
of Texas, on narcotic cases and recommendations for proposed narcotic
legislation --------------------------------------------------Photograph of Michael Ergovich, Cecil Green, and Eugene McCroskey,
submitted by the Police Department, Dallas, Tex ------------------Statement of Ernest M. Gentry, district supervisor, Bureau of Narcotics,
Dallas, Tex., with statistics on narcotic arrests, seizures, and convictions ------------------------------------------------------Statement by Cato S. Hightower, chief of police, Fort Worth, Tex., with
statistics on enforcement of narcotic laws and recommendations for
proposed narcotic legislation -----------------------------------Statement of Harlon Wright, sheriff, Tarrant County, Tex., on narcotic
cases and convictions, and recommendations for proposed narcotic
legislation --------------------------------------------------Statement by Dr. John A. Trautman, medical officer in charge, United
States Public Health Service Hospital, Fort Worth, Tex., containing
statistics on admissions, drugs, age, length of sentences, and case historiesPhotographs (two) of United States Public Health Service Hospital, Fort
Worth, Tex --------------------------------------------3240,
Section 260 (d), Title 42, United States Code Annotated, entitled, "The
Public Health and Welfare, Addicts Admitted to Hospitals as Voluntary
Patients, * * *
2770
2804
2824
2826
2830
2841
2905
2921
2923
2932
2932
2937
2947
2948
2959
2963
3023
3074
3094
3100
3201
3207
3228
3241
3248
Statement of Heard L. Floore, United States attorney, Northern District

of Texas, containing data on narcotic cases tried and convicted-------- 3272
Statement of Roland R. Howerton, assistant chief of police, Fort Worth,
Tex., and president, Texas Police Association ----------------------3294
VInI
CONTENTS
Page
Recommendations on proposed narcotic legislation of the Texas Police

Association -------------------------------------------------3295
Telegram from Manuel Tello, Mexican Ambassador to the United States.
Washington, D. C., dated December 13, 1955, to C. Aubrey Gasque,
general counsel, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Courthouse,
San Antonio, Tex., refusing subcommittee's invitation to sit in on
hearings ------------------------------------------------------3300
Article entitled "La Nacha Sells Dirty Dope at $5 a 'Pap6l,' Herald-Post
Reporter Makes Purchase from Border 'Queen,' " by Ruben Salazar,
reporter for the El Paso Herald-Post, El Paso, Tex., dated August 17,
1955 ------------------------------------------------------3308
Photograph of house of La Nacha, Ju~rez, Mexico -------------------3310
Articles entitled " 'La Nacha' ya no vende Drogas, dice el Inspector de
Policia," and "Moviliza a la 'Policia de Jur6rez un Reportaje sobre 'La
Nacha,' " from El Continental, El Paso, Tex., Wednesday, August 17,
1955 ------------------------------------------------------3310
Map of the city of Ju6.rez, Mexico, with black dots showing the locations
of the worst narcotic violators, furnished by Ruben Salazar, reporter on
the El Paso Herald-Post, El Paso, Tex ----------------------Faces3312
List of places in Jugrez, Mexico, where narcotics were sold, as shown on
map furnished by Ruben Salazar, reporter, the El Paso Herald-Post,
El Paso, Tex-----------------------------------------------3312
Photograph of Bafios Jordan, run by the son of La Nacha, Jutrez, Mexico-3314
Photograph of Natividad Jasso, manager of Baflos Jordan, JuArez, Mexico- 3314
Articles from the El Paso Herald-Post, El Paso, Tex., as follows:
Two Arrested in Mystery Death of El Pasoan. Prisoner Says Man
Was Slashed after Taking Dope, dated September 1, 1955 -------3320
Five Held in Death Inquiry, dated September 2, 1955 -------------3321
Five Held in Death of Barrera, dated September 3, 1955 ----------3321
Judge Wants Dead El Pasoan's Body Exhumed. Hopes to Determine
Whether Dope Killed Former Paratrooper, dated September 9 1955. 3323
Photograph of a house in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, where Witness A bought
narcotics ---------------------------------------------------3354
Photograph of the same house in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, where Witness A
bought narcotics --------------------------------------------3355
List of defendants who received light or suspended sentences for narcotic
violations in the Federal courts, submitted by Lt. W. T. Jackson, narcotic
section, police department, Corpus Christi, Tex --------------------3411
Resolutions adopted by the Laredo Bar Association, Laredo, Tex., and
the Cameron County Bar Association (Texas), deploring the reported
criticism of indictments and sentences for narcotics violations in the
Federal courts of the Southern District of Texas -------------------3411
Document entitled "Narcotic Deaths Under Investigation by Homicide
Division, Houston Police Department," submitted by the Houston Police
Department, Houston, Tex ------------------------------------3439
Articles entitled "Dope Blamed for Death of Young Wife," Houston Press,
November 2, 1955 -------------------------------------------3441
Photograph of Victor G. Morgan found dead from an overdose of narcotics
in a tourist court in Houston, Tex.. October 1, 1955 ----------------3443
Photograph of paraphernalia for a 'fix" found in the room of Victor G.
Morgan at his death in Houston, Tex., October 1, 1955 -------------3443
Photograph of Wilburn Mundine found dead from an overdose of narcotics
in tourist court in Houston, Tex., October 4, 1955 ------------------3444
Photograph of paraphernalia for a "fix" found in the room of Wilburn
Mundine at his death in Houston, Tex., October 4, 1955 --------------3445
Document entitled "San Antonio Morphine Fight Organized," submitted
by narcotics education committee of San Antonio, Tex --------------3467
Report from the San Antonio Police Department, San Antonio, Tex., on
arrests for possession and/or sale of narcotics, January 1, 1953, to December 12, 1955 ---------------------------------------------3468
Photograph of George Georges -----------------------------------3471
Photograph of Simon Rodriguez ----------------------------------3472
Record of physician's report concerning Arturo Castillo ---------------3476
CONTENTS
N. -0
IX
APPENDIX
Laws pertaining to narcotics enacted at the regular session of the 54th
Legislature, 1955, State of Texas, taken from the general laws as published under the authority of the State of Texas, as follows:
H. B. No. 308, chapter 30097, entitled "Contraband NarcoticsTransportation or Possession" ------------------------------H. B. No. 204, chapter 354, entitled "Uniform Narco ic Drug ActPenalties" ----------------------------------------------H. B. No. 65, chapter 385, entitled "Narcotic Drugs and Barbiturates-Penalties" ----------------------------------------H. B. No. 647, chapter 386, entitled "Narcotic Drugs-Paraphernalia"
S. B. No. 143, chapter 486, entitled "Narcotic Drugs and Barbiturates".
Testimony presented by Lawrence Fleishman, supervising customs agent,
10th Customs Agency District, accompanied by John J. Givens, assistant
supervising customs agent, El Paso, Tex., in the hearing before the
Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the* Committee
on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 83d Congress, 2d session, pursuant to Senate Resolution 89, entitled "Investigation of Juveline Delinquency in the United States," pp. 17-33 --------------------------Letter to Mr. Lee Speer, investigator, Investigating Committee, Senate
Subcommittee on Improvements in the Federal Criminal Code, San
Antonio, Tex., from J. H. Osborn, postal inspector, Inspection Service,
United States Post Office Department, dated October 13, 1955, on the
relationship between thefts of mail and addicts --------------------List of known addicts and their associates who crossed the bridge at
Laredo, Tex., into or from Mexico, submitted by Bureau of Customs,
Laredo, Tex ------------------------------------------------Police records of Luther Spurgeon Messer, submitted by the Department
of Police, Bureau of Criminal Identification, Houston, Tex -----------Map of Dallas, Tex., showing locations of concentrations of narcotic traffic
and list of locations by streets -----------------------------Faces
List of narcotic cases indicted in the Northern District of Texas, their last
known address, sentence received, or final disposition of their cases...---
Page
3481
3483
3484
3485
3486
3486
3487
3499
3500
3544
3551
3551
~PA~

WEDNESDAY,
OCTOBER 12, 1955
UNITED STATES SENATE,
SUBCOM ITTEE ON IMPROVE3ENTS
IN THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Austin, Tex.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 10 a. m., in the crystal
ballroom of the Driskill Hotel, in Austin, Tex., Senator Price Daniel,
chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senator Price Daniel, of Texas (presiding), and Senator
John Marshall Butler, of Maryland.
Also present: C. Aubrey Gasque, of South Carolina, subcommittee
counsel; and Wayland Lee Speer, of Amarillo, Tex., committee investigator.
Senator DANIEL. The committee will come to order.
This is the first session of this committee in the State of Texas. We
are convening in Austin today, will sit in San Antonio tomorrow and
Friday, and in other Texas cities during next week.
WTe have for the first witness to appear before the committee today
Congressman Homer Thornberry. I want to say before I call him
before the committee that Congressman Homer Thornberry offered
the first resolution calling for a nationwide investigation of the narcotics traffic. We offered our resolutions about the same time, but
his was the first. When he saw the Senate was going to act first he
very graciously said he would be willing to cooperate with our committee rather than set up a duplicate committee in the House.
So it gives me real pleasure to call before our committee as our first
witness in Texas this Member of Congress who introduced the first
resolution for a nationwide investigation of the narcotics traffic, Congressman Homer Thornberry, if you will come forward. Homer, just
proceed in your own way, either from your statement or as you desire.
STATEMENT OF HON. HOMER THORNBERRY, MEMBER, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, UNITED STATES CONGRESS
Congressman THORNBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Butler, Mr. Gasque, I very deeply appreciate your courtesy in granting me this opportunity to testify this
morning.
My interest in this problem goes back many years-specifically to
the days when I had the privilege of serving as district attorney of this
county, Travis County. Like every other law-enforcement officer, I
quickly learned the close relationship of narcotics to a long series of
crimes other than the drug traffic itself.
2357
2358
I would not say that Austin is a city which is confronted with an

enormous traffic in narcotics. So far as I know, that has never been
the case.
But I would say that the illegal sale of drugs-though relatively
minor as compared to other cities-has had a direct bearing on our
general crime problem. It has complicated law enforcement and
stepped up the number of crimes of practically every type.
It has been suggested by some authorities that the criminal addict
is a type who would have been a criminal regardless of his addiction.
In other words, it is contended that it is the crime that makes the addict, rather than the addict who commits the crime.
I do not want to become involved in any lengthy discussion over
psychology or sociology-fields in which I am not an expert. But I
do believe that for our purposes the point is academic in view of one
fact which I do not believe will be challenged by anyone experienced
in law enforcement.
It is that it is virtually impossible to reform or to rehabilitate any
criminal addict unless some way is found to cure his addiction.
No successful appeal can be made to the moral impulses of a confirmed addict, as those impulses have been destroyed. No successful
appeal can be made to his fear of punishment as the terrors of withholding drugs far outweigh any punishment society is willing to
inflict.
The confirmed addict must have the morphine or the cocaine or the
heroin that satisfy his unholy craving. But since these drugs have
destroyed his capacity to earn honestly enough money to buy them,
he must turn to crime.
In some instances, he will become a peddler-always on the lookout
for some unwary dupe who can be hooked. In other instances, he
will turn to theft to supply the money that he needs. In either case,
another criminal force has appeared on the scene.
To these crimes must be added the strange, unnatural acts that
men and women will commit when hopped up by marihuana and
similar drugs.
I can recall during my days as district attorney, numerous cases
of young men-very young men-in the early stages of addiction.
They were also in the early stages of lawbreaking-the stages of
hoodlumism.
I have no crystal ball which tells me that these men could have been
reformed if they had not been addicts. But I strongly suspect that
it was possible.
My suspicion is based on the fact that practically without exception,
the men who were both hoodlums and addicts have continued to build
up police records over the years. Others who were merely hoodlums
had
-young boys who were engaged in malicious mischief but who
useful
not acquired the dope habit-have succeeded in becoming
citizens.
dates. There
I do not intend to burden this record with names anddispute.
Namwould be no point to it as I doubt whether this fact is in
to ining names would serve no purpose other than to cause distress
nocent families or to men who have reformed. effect of the narcotics
The basic point is valid. It is that the evil
souls that the drug
traffic goes far beyond the blasted lives and ruined
peddler leaves in his wake.
2350
The best estimates available-those of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics-indicate there are about 60,000 addicts in this country. They
spend somewhere between $219 million to $657 million annually in
their futile effort to satisfy an appetite that cannot be satisfied.
The majority of these addicts are centered in our border and coastal
regions. They flock to the points where narcotics are most easily
obtainable. Here in Texas our attention has been called to the fact
that narcotics are crossing our international border. Mr. Chairman,
you will recall Mr. Charles Herring, United States district attorney for
this western district, made the statement that this border area was the
undisputed national gatepost for this deadly multibillion dollar narcotics traffic that flourishes illegally in the United States.
Senator DANIEL. For the record, I believe Mr. Herring served several years as Federal district attorney handling cases that involved
narcotics smuggling across the border?
Congressman THORNBEIRRY. Yes, sir, he did, and did a fine job in
checking the problem that existed on the border.
Those figures I have cited are sufficiently disturbing standing alone.
But they become positively alarming when we realize that those
60,000 addicts are a criminal fifth column--driven by forces over
which they no longer have control to wage perpetual warfare against
our society.
There is another factor of even greater importance. It first appeared on the horizon when the Communists took over control of mainland China. It has since become the cause of major concern to the
highest officials of our Government.
This factor is the use of narcotics as a "cold war" weapon by international communism.
As I said earlier, my interest in this problem arose from my background as a law-enforcement officer. As such, I followed the facts
for many years. But when this new factor appeared, I came to the
conclusion that drastic action was necessary.
Action without forethought or study is not only futile but dangerous. On that basis, I introduced my resolution calling for a select
committee of the House to investigate the situation and make recommendations.
When it became apparent that the Senate could act more quickly
than the House, I was happy to defer to the distinguished junior
Senator from Texas.
Senator DANIEL. I might say the reason we could act more quickly
was due to the fact that Senator Johnson heard both of us as majority
leader. He pushed that resolution very fast in the Senate. through.
Congressman TIORNBRERRY. I am happy that he did push it,
I know that in the hands of Senator Daniel and Senator Butler' the
public can be certain there will be a thorough and fearless inquiry.
The major point that I wish to urge upon this committee is concommunism.
sideration' of the narcotics traffic as an instrument of leaders
when
This instrument fell into the hands of the bolshevik
they took over the opium-producing sections of China.
to iruore
It would have been too much to expect the Communists
abandoned
the possibilities of the drug trade. They have long since world
conany moral scruples which conflict with their designs for help them
quest. In narcotics, they found a double-edged weapon to
achieve their goal.
2360
In the first place, the sale of opium and opium derivatives provides
them with foreign exchange for which they are so desperate. In the
second place, the spread of the narcotics habit contributes directly to
undermining the will of the free world to resist their aggression.
It is no accident that the Chinese Communists have located a heroin
factory in a suburb of Peiing -in the same area where Communist
political agents are trained., cor is it any accident that non-Communist South Korea has been granted a special priority in the distribution of heroin produced in Communist North Korea.
The fact that our country is a drug target of Communist China
has been attested by Harry J. Anslinger, United States representative
to the U. N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs. He has repeatedly laid
before that body documented cases of Communist efforts to bring
large supplies into our country through the west coast.
When I was district attorney of Travis County, the narcotics problem was entirely a matter of law enforcement. Today, it is a matter
of international diplomacy and ideological conflict.
We cannot take any chances on leaving unplugged this breach in
our cold-war defenses.
I do not intend to make specific recommendations to this committee
today. I believe that proposals for action should await the conclusion
of your study.
But I would like to outline some aspects of the problem which I
believe should be considered.
First, there is the question of the traffic itself. Are the laws sufficiently stringent? Is a Federal force of somewhere between 200 and
300 men sufficient to stem the tide? Is there adequate machinery for
cooperation between Federal and local officials?
Second, are there adequate controls over the somewhat milder narcotics whose effects may not be quite as drastic but which do so much
to lead young people into the more severe forms of addiction?
Third, do we have adequate machinery to handle addicts in the
early stages when reform and rehabilitation might be possible without
drastic treatment?
Fourth, do we have adequate machinery to handle the confirmed
addict, or must we be content with the familiar pattern of sentence
after sentence which does nothing other than to give society a brief
vacation from the depredations of the individual addict?
Fifth, should there be especially severe penalties for selling narcotics to minors who have not developed the resistance to vice which
comes with maturity?
I do not pretend to know the answers to these questions although I
am aware that cities which have cracked down and cracked down hardI
on narcotics violators have been blessed with immediate results.
refuse to believe that the traffic cannot be brought under control.
This is an issue which has a direct bearing upon our future and the
the
future of our children. I am confident that this committee has
await
ability and the determination to do the job and I will eagerly
its conclusions and recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your many courtesies to me and the
kind statement about me. I wish all of you well.
for your
Senator DANrEL. Congressman Thornberry, we thank youthis
comwonderful help and fine contributions you have made to
urn
2361
mittee, and while we are here today or any of the other Texas hearings,
we will certainly welcome you to sit in with us if you have any time
to spare.
Senator Butler, do you have any questions?
Senator BuTLER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the Congressman for his very clear and concise statement. I wholeheartedly
agree with that statement.
I want to remark about this in particular, that law enforcement,
where you have a severe penalty attached for peddling and pushing of
narcotics seems to dry the traffic up. I think it is particularly true of
the city where I was born, Baltimore; we used to have quite a problem
but our problem has been brought under control and it has been
brought under control because there are law-enforcement officers and
the judges have been tough on the people who engaged in this traffic.
Senator DANIEL. Any questions?
Mr. GASQUE. No.
Senator DANIEL. Thank you, Congressman Thornberry. Sit with

us at any time you may be able to do so.
I will ask the witnesses who have been asked to appear, being lawenforcement officers, to get together so I can swear you in together:
Colonel Garrison; Mr. W. E. Naylor, chief of the State narcotics section, department of public safety; Austin Chief of Police R. D. Thorp;
Lt. K. R. Herbert of the Austin police.
Just a minute. If any of these are undercover men let us know and
we will not bring them in for pictures, Chief Thorp.
Mr. THORP. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How about Lieutenant Herbert? Do you want
him sworn separately?
Mr. THORP. That will be all right; swear him now, and Captain
Laws.
Senator DANIEL. Capt. R. B. Laws. Now the other two, I believe,
are undercover men and should not be photographed; is that right?
Mr. Scott, Lieutenant Herbert?
Mr. THORP. Right, Bob Scott.
Senator DANIEL. If you will raise your right hands. Do each of
you swear the testimony you are about to give to the subcommittee of
the Senate Judiciary Committee to be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
(All witnesses answer "Aye.")
Senator DANIEL. You gentlemen may be seated. Colonel Garrison
will be the first witness.
I want to say for the benefit of Senator Butler and the committee
staff and for this record, that it has been my pleasure to work with
Colonel Garrison as attorney general and a member of the legislature.
I know of no finer law-enforcement officer in the United States. We
are happy to have you with us.
TESTIMONY OF COL. HOMER GARRISON, JR., DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF TEXAS
Col. HoMFE GARIISON, JR. Gentlemen of the committee, I would
like to read several pages of prepared statement.
Senator DANIEL You may.
2362
Colonel GARRISON. It is extremely gratifying to note the obvious

concern of the United States Senate in the vital and pressing subject under investigation by the appointment of this special committee to take a searching look into the illicit drug traffic.
Senator Butler, I should like to add also, by way of preface, that
we are all extremely fortunate in the selection that has been made
of the chairman of this committee.
Senator DANIEL. That wasn't the part we were going to ask you
about; I didn't know about that.
Colonel GARRISON. I know you didn't.
It has been my happy privilege to have been associated with him
and to have worked with him in law enforcement at the State level
here in Texas for a number of years. In other words, he is the author
of the attorney general's crime conference which has been instrumental
in bringing together what we call law enforcement, the court, the
prosecutor, and law enforcement. I know of his energy, his interest,
,is zeal, and his efforts on behalf of better law enforcement, and I am
confident that much good will result from the Nationwide meetings
which the committee is now holding.
Narcotics and narcotic addiction poses a very real problem for us
here in Texas-a social, a moral, and an economic problem. I could
make that same statement if I knew of but a single narcotic addict
in this State. Unfortunately, we know of many hundreds.
We are not able to say, of course, just how many addicts we do have
in Texas but on the basis of a survey which the narcotics section of
the Texas Department of Public Safety has conducted, we can say
that we have a working knowledge of at least 1,800. This figure, we
realize, is far from being complete and in spite of the fact that 1,800
doesn't appear to be an impressive figure, I should like to remove my
statement from any possible conjecture of guesswork and base them
on what we know to be the facts.
Let us consider these 1,800 narcotic addicts for a moment and see
just how unimpressive their impact is on the economic phase, alone,
of our society.
In the first place, these 1,800 addicts would "shoot" an average of
five 1-grain capsules each per day. Each of these capsules costs about
$7. That means that every one of the 1,800 addicts are going to have
I say
to dig up $35 a day to sustain their individual habits. Whenmanual
"dig up" I am not talking about ditch digging or any other
Ibr, or for that matter, any honest work at all. People on a fivefor
cap habit have, generally, long since lost the will and the capacity
buy the
honest toil. So it is, that in order to obtain the money tothe
dope, they must resort to crime. That, gentlemen, is where andcause
hot
lies for most of the shoplifting, safe burglary, car stripping,
checks.
to realExperienced law-enforcement officials estimate that in order
steal a piece
ize $7 cash-the cost of one cap-that it is necessary tosimple arithof merchandise of a value of at least $30. A little
minimum of
metic at this point begins to firm up the picture. A of
9,000 caps.
1,800 addicts, using 5 caps each per day, makes a total
1 of these caps,
Since $30 of merchandise must be sold to pay for each of
$270,000 per
that means that the addicts must steal on the average
day to pay for their drugs.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2363
I would like to emphasize that of the 1,800 narcotic addicts revealed

in the survey which we conducted-this figure does not include users
of marihuana or barbiturates.
Now, to this point, we have looked at only one facet of one side of
the narcotics problem; namely, the economic impact of a mere 1,800
users of hard drugs. The tremendously important social and moral
aspect of the addiction problem
Senator BUTLER. I would like to ask you a question at that point.
Colonel GARRISON. Yes, sir.
Senator BUTLER. It has been suggested by a very eminent physician
in the city of New York that we give the confirmed addict free drugs
to sustain him in the minimum use of his addiction. You think that
is the answer to this problem?
Colonel GARRISON. Senator, I could not answer that problem. I am
very familiar with the gentleman's statement. It has some merit, but
I would not be in position myself to give an answer upon it.
Senator DANIEL. I might say most of the law enforcement officers,
every law enforcement officer appearing in the New York hearing

felt that it would be a mistake to give free narcotics, that it would
not really get rid of the black market. So we heard evidence on both
sides on that.
Colonel GARRISON. I would rather refrain from an opinion on that
particular subject at the moment.
Mr. GASQUE. I wonder if Colonel Garrison has prepared copies of
his statement?
Colonel GARRISON. Yes; I do.
Senator DANIEL. Give us prepared copies, please.
Colonel GARRISON. Yes.

Senator BUTLER. I think the evidence, to go back to that question
again, the evidence adduced at New York in my mind was conclusive
that such a practice would not dry up the traffic at all but would in
fact increase it.
Colonel GARRISON. Senator, I rather agree on that, I think a little,
oh, due to the geographic position of TexasSenator BUTLER. I have no desire to ask you until you are ready.
Colonel GARRISON. I think later on maybe an explanation of that
statement, why I say "because of the geographic position of Texas,
Texas and Mexico," should be discussed.
Senator DANIEL. I want to agree we should not minimize the fact
that 1,800 is the figure of narcotics in this State and not more. Actually in England they have only about 400. I notice somebody wrote
in the paper this morning, the figure, 4,000.
We are glad to have the mayor of the city of Austin here to sit in
with us, Mayor Miller.
only
But in the whole country of Great Britain there are reported
400 addicts, so in Texas we have quite a lot more than in that great
nation. So I certainly agree with you.
Colonel GARRISON. As I said, we know of 1,800, how many more
Senator DANIEL. That is the absolute minimum ?

Colonel GARRISON. That is an absolute fact. We know of that many
addicts in the State of Texas.
Senator DANIEL. All right.
moral
Colonel GARRISON. The tremendously important social and
psycholoaspect of the addiction problem is a matter for psychiatrists,
71515-56-Pt. 7-2
2364
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
gists, and medical people, and I shall not attempt to encroach in this
eld.
After all of those things have been considered, however, there remains the other side of the narcotics problem, and that, of course,
deals not with those who use it but with the wholesalers and pushers
who traffic in them.
I am sure that the psychiatrists, the psychologists and the doctors
to whom I referred a moment ago can ably explain the complicated
motivating force which drives the addicts, themselves, and that is
another discourse which I will have to leave to them.
On the other hand, I think that I can very well point out to you
the motivating force which lies behind the dealers in drugs.
It is
simply the age-old spoils of crime-profit. Perhaps you would be

interested in a little example of just how compelling this force is and
just how big the profit it. A person with $350 in his pocket can go
down to almost any one of our border towns and with a little maneuvering can get steered to some supply of narcotics across the border
in Mexico. He buys an ounce of heroin for $350. This ounce is uncut
or almost pure. If he has another $5 and if he is so inclined, he can
have it waded back across the river into Texas. To the ounce of heroin
he will add four ounces of powdered milk-sugar. This makes five
ounces of the heroin that he now has for sale. Each ounce will yield
437 capsules-that is, 437 1-grain capsules. The five adulterated
ounces of the drug will yield him 2,185 caps. Since the going price
is about $7 per cap, that means that the gross return on the original
$350 investment will be $15,295. Looking at it from the addict's standPoint again, it would take $65,550 worth of stolen merchandise to pay
or that single original ounce of heroin.
I would be remiss, Senator and gentlemen, if I did not express
my appreciation to the Federal Narcotics Bureau, particularly Mr.
Ernest Gentry, the supervising agent in Dallas and his predecessor,
Mr. P. A. Williams, and Commissioner Anslinger, himself, for the
excellent and may I say, perfect cooperation that agency has rendered
to us and to the officers of Texas. I would also like to compliment
highly Mr. Lawrence Fleishman, the supervising agent of the customs
at El Paso, who has done a marvelous job in stemming some of the
tide of narcotics crossing the border.
Now, we know on the basis of interviews with addicts that we can
make this statement that 90 percent of the narcotics seized by Texas
officers either comes from or through the country of Mexico.
We are hopeful that this committee will give serious consideration in
writing your report to increasing the forces of the Federal Narcotic
Bureau, the Customs Service. That will help us try to stem this. In
other words, we look at it rather like a small fire in the attic when
the basement is on fire where it comes from.
Senator BUTLER. Chief Gaxrison, do you know how many men are
now engaged?
Colonel GARRISON. No, sir; I don't, but it is a very minimum. The
reason I can't say is the fact that every time I asked it seemed to be
fewer than the time I asked before.
Senator BuTLrR. Totally inadequate number?
Colonel GARRISON. Very inadequate.

Senator DANIEL. We have no Federal narcotics officers patrolling
the border that come within the jurisdiction of the Customs Agency.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2365
Colonel GARRISON. They have done an excellent job with what they
have to do with.
Senator DANIEL. It is your opinion that Congress is not providing
sufficient forces here in the Customs and Narcotic Bureaus to take care
of the situation in Texas?
Colonel GARRISON. That's correct, sir. May I go on just a few
minutes, if I may?
The State in 1937 set up a State narcotics bureau. In 1939 the then
governor, in rather an economy move cut it out, cut the appropriation out and it died. About 2 years ago it was reinstituted by the
legislature and during the past session added additional men where
we will have a force of 10 nen in the State narcotic bureau. lncidentally, as you well know, it takes specialized men to do the job.
In the average crime, you call a policeman after the crime has been
committed but in narcotics enforcement the officer must be there at the
time when the offense is committed, otherwise he will never be able
to make a case.
May I say I am extremely proud of the 4 men and only 4 men in our
narcotics section who cleared some 430 cases. Some of course, were
unfounded, some were not prosecuted for lack of evidence. The final
analysis, 140 convicted peddlers of narcotics and addicts for a total of
595 years confinement and $2,200 in fines.
I know time is of the essence. May I emphasize this, there are two
things. We think the Federal forces should be increased. We think
some thought should be given to amending the Federal law which says
when an addict goes into a governmental hospital the director cannot
give information that he is there and he may leave at any time even
against medical advice. Therefore, he is turned back into the community. In Texas we have a hospital where they are being turned
back. We do not know when an addict is uncured and when an addict
hits Texas. We feel law enforcement should know where these people are and who they are.
That brings us to the thing the Federal Narcotics Service is now doing in asking each law enforcement officer to fill out a form of known
addicts. We are doing it and asking Texas officers to do it. It would
be a wonderful weapon to know what the situation is.
Senator DANIEL. You put your finger on one thing in the Federal
law that seems to be inconsistent; of the Federal Narcotics Bureau trying to get the names to know where the problem is. It is a contagious
disease and is going to spread addiction and pushing drugs and stealing to pay for their drugs, as you have said. On the other hand we
have a law which says the Federal narcotics hospitals at Fort Worth
and Lexington. Ky., cannot give the names of those who come for
treatment and leave the hospital and go back on the streets. You put
your finger on something I imagine this committee is going to have to
try to straighten out.
You do think it is a good thing to have some centralized system for
finding where the addicts are so we can keep an eye on them?
Colonel GARRISON. Absolutely, Senator; I certainly do.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Senator Butler, do you have any questions?
Senator BUTLER. And I would say you also believe they should not
be able to go in and out at will that they should be retained by law
until the medical authorities see At to let them go .
2366
Colonel GARRISON. That is correct, absolutely correct.

Senator DANIEL. Colonel, you understand we are going to about 10
of the States, one of the main things we are interested in is what you
have touched on about cooperation. Do you have complete cooperation with the Federal officers who are assi ned to Texas?
Colonel GArRISON. It is absolutely p erct, Senator.
Senator DANIEL. And you said a minute ago that it seemed that narcotic drugs were easily available across the border, in Mexico?
Colonel GARRISON. Yes, sir; that is a known fact.
Senator D.IENr. Then would you say we are receiving proper co-
operation from the officials in Mexico in stopping this traffic?

Colonel (ARRISON. No, I would say not. We are not.
Senator DANIEL. Of course, some of the top officers, officials of the
Mexican Government seen to be trying to do all they can.
I want the record to show we have invited the Attorney General of
Mexico to sit in any of the hearings, knowing some of the testimony
will concern Mexico and knowincy that we must have a good neighbor
spirit and relationship in everything, to work together on this. We

also invited the Mexican representative on the United Nations Commission on Narcotics. Both of these gentlemen have been doing an excellent job in trying to help out and cooperate. At this point in the
record we will include the letters of invitation and the replies stating
that they could not join us in the Texas hearings. We hope they can
attend while we are conducting our California hearing.
(The letters of invitation to Mexican officials and their replies
follow:)
OCTOBER
1, 1955.
Dr. OSCAR RABASA,

Director Generaldel Servicio Diplomdtico,
Seeretaria de Relaci6nes Exteriores,
MexTico City, D. F.
DEAR DR. RABASA: Our United States Narcotics Commissioner, Hon. Harry J.
Anslinger, has told me of your excellent cooperation and interest in combating
the evils of the illicit narcotic-drug traffic. At this time we have a Senate Judiciary subcommittee conducting the first nationwide investigation of the subject,
and we are about to begin hearings in Texas and California which may be of
interest not only to our country but to yours. I attach a schedule of these
hearings.
I am writing to both you and the attorney general to extend an invitation for
you to sit with our committee at any of these meetings, and especially urge that
one or both of you, or a representative of your office, be with us at the hearings
in San Antonio and Houston. It is in these two cities that we expect evidence to
be developed bearing on the traffic on both sides of our border.
A precedent for this type of cooperation was set at the first session of our
committee in Washington, D. C., where Canadian Senator Tom Reid, chairman
of the Canadian Senate's narcotics investigating committee, sat with us and made
a short statement to the committee. We would not expect you to be a witness
or even to make a statement unless you wanted to do so. The main purpose
would be for you to have the opportunity to observe and to ask any questions
that might be of special interest to your country and to our combined efforts to
end this drug traffic.
If there is a member of your own Federal Congress whose committee has jurisdiction over this subject, or who might be interested, we would be glad also for
him to sit with us at any of the meetings, and in such event I will extend formal
invitation if you will send his name and address by collect wire.
In any event, I would appreciate hearing from you on this matter by wire collect
in order that I might make hotel arrangements at San Antonio and Houston,
,a
2367

as well as any of the other cities where you may be able to Join us.
assured of our cooperation in every way.
Sincerely yours,
Please be
Pi icx DANIEL, Chairman.

(An identical letter was addressed on the same day to Licenciado Carlos Franco
Sodi, Procurador General de Justl'la de la Nacl~n, Mexico City, I). F., Mexico.)
MEXICO CITY, MEXICO,
October 11, 1955.
Senator PRICE )ANIEL,

908 Commodore Perry Hotel,
Senate JudiciarySubcommittee, Federal Court Building,
Au8tin, Tem.
Por ausencia esta ciudad hasta hoy puedo contestar su carta octubre primero.
Expres~le sincero agradeimiento por su atenta invitaci~n. Seguramente Senor
Itarry Anslinger, Comislonado Narc6ticos Estados Unidos, habrale informado
motivos impidenme aceptar sii invitaci6n pues escribile sobre particular. Jndudablemente autoridades correspondientes Mexicanas y Norteam6ricanas estamos manteniendo estrecha y amistosa ('ooperaci6n para coiibatir problema
comtn afecta nuestros dos paises traflco ilfcito narc6tlcos con excelentes resultados como apliamente reconocelo Comisi~n Estupefacientes Naci6nes Unidas y el
propio Senor Anslinger, quien habra dado a usted amplia y completa informacl6n al respecto. Esta cooperaci6n sostenida entre autoridades Mexicanas y
Norteamericanas esta basada naturalmente sobre el concepto de soberania y
Jurisdicci~n que corresponde a nuestras respectivas autoridades en los dos
palses y que felizmente se desenvuelve aniniadas por el mutuo propsito de
amistosa cooperaci6n international y dentro (le un respeto reciproco de competenclas nacionales y con la mira, decidida de eliminar los males inh(erentes
a la toxicomania, adquisici6n y consumo ilicitos de los estupefacientes, por una
parte y por la otra producci6n y trafico ilegales de tales drogas, pues elirnindndose la toxicomania y el consume se irradicar, al mismo la produccifn o
vice versa. Como este grave mal afecta por igual a uno y otro de nuestros pauses
respectivamente la continuada cooperaci~n entre nuestras autoridades en la
forma y terminos antes dichos es la mejor manera de atacarlo y resolverlo.
Puedo asgurar a usted que por parte del Gobierno de Mexico .w mantendrd con
todo vigor la campana nacl6nal de la que ya tendr(L usted amplia informacifn
que habrale proporcionado el Senor Anslinger contra producei6ii y traffco ilicito
de los narc6ticos asi como el estrecho contacto e intercamblo de informaci6n
que nuestras ,utoridades tienen con las autoridades correspondientes norteam~ricanas, actuando cada una de ellas dentro de sus respectivas jurisdicci6nes.
De igual modo tengo la seguridad de que las autoridades de vustro pafs estan
empefiadas en similar esfuerzo para atacar en su pafs la parte del problema
relativo a toxicomania y consumo ilfcito de estupefacientes que les afocta y
que seguran sosteniendo su cooperaci6n con nuestras autoridades con el mismo
fin. Por las raz6nes antes dichas que nuestro comfin y distinguido amigo el
Comisionado Anslinger le confirmard ampliamente y ademfis por mis actuales
obligaciones oficiales como funcionario del Gobierno de Mexico lamento no
poder aceptar su atenta invitaci6n para estar presente con usted en las reuniones
del subcomit6 judicial del Senado de los Estados Unidos y aprovecho la oportunidad para reiterale las seguridades de mi distinguida consideraci6n.
Licenciado OSCAR RABASA,
Representate de Mexico Ante Comisidn Estupefacientes Naciones Unidas.
PROCURADOR GENERAL DE LA REPUBLICA,
Mexico, D. F.. a 4 de Octubre de 1955.

Sr. PRICE DANIEL,
United States Senate,

Washington, D. C.
APRECIABLE SEVOR SENADOR: Agradezco su invitaci6n para estar presente en las
reuniones del Subcomit6 Jurfdico del H. Senado de los Estados Unidos para la
investigaci6n del trflfico iflcito de enervantes, invitaci6n que se me hace para
observar u obtener informaciones que puedan ser fitiles al Gobierno de Mfxico
2368
en la campafia permanente que reliza y seguirA realizando para combatir el

tr,fico de que se trata y para combinar, respetando la soberanfa de nuestros
paises, el esfuerzo que se lieva a cabo desde hace afios en la lucha contra los traficantes de estupefacientes que nos afectan por igual pues opecan internacionalmente. Lamento que por mis funciones no pueda tener la oportunidad que ousted
me brinda; pero de todas suertes el intercambio de datos que pedanos continuar
suministrAndonos, nos serA desde luego muy fItil.
Atentamente,
Lie. CARLOS FRANCO SODL.
[Translation]
MEXICO CITY, October 4, 1955.

Senator PRICE DANIEL,
United States Senate,
Washington, D. 0.
DEAR SENATOR: Thank you for your invitation to attend the meetings of the
United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee To Investigate the Illicit Traffic
in Drugs, an Invitation which I received in order to observe and to obtain information which might be useful for the Mexican Government in the permanent campaign which is now being, and will continue to be, corried on to combat the
traffic under reference and to join, with due respect to the sovereignty [also,
jurisdiction] of our [two] countries, in the effort which was initiated several
years ago to fight the distributors of drugs [drug peddlers] who are affecting
us [both our countries] equally as they are working internationally. I regret
that my workload does not permit me to accept the opportunity which you offer
me; but the exchange of such data as we may be able to continue to furnish one
another will naturally be very useful.
Very truly yours,
Dr. CARLOS FRANCO SODI,
City, Republio of Meico.
Me.Tico
General,
Attorney
Senator DarneL. Now, do you have anything else to suggest to the

committee as to what Congress might do, Colonel Garrison, in helping
the States or in any way toward licking this narcotics traffic?
Colonel GARRISON. NO, Senator, the two things I mentioned by my
suggestion, the consideration of more personnel and that consideration
be given to information as to the releasing from hospitals and, as
Senator Butler said, that they should be kept there until, of course,
they are cured.
Senator DANIEL. Do you agree with those who say we ought to
have stiff penalties for narcotic violators?
Colonel GARRISON. Yes, I do. In fact our legislature, in the last
session, recently increased the penalties. We have what we think are
pretty adequate laws now (see pp. 3481-3486 of the appendix).
(The remainder of the prepared statement of Colonel Garrison is as
follows:)
In order to combat the narcotic menace, it is, first of all essential that there be
complete cooperation between the existing law enforcement agencies at all levels
who are concerned with the enforcement of the narcotic laws. I am happy to
say that there has never been a lack of cooperation between our State agencies
and the Federal agencies. The supervising agent of the Federal Narcotics
Bureau in this area, Mr. Ernest Gentry, and his immediate predecessor in that
post, Mr. P. A. Williams, and the entire staff of the Federal Narcotics Bureau,
including Commissioner Anslinger himself, have always worked in perfect
harmony not only with State narcotics officers but with all peace officers. Mr.
Lawrence Fleishman, supervising agent of the United States custom agency
service at El Paso, has been another who has rendered outstanding service and
assistance in dealing with the narcotic problem. Mr. Gentry and Mr. Williams
made several trips to Austin when the Texas legislature was in session, offering
their help and the benefit of their experiences to the various committees investigating the narcotics situation in Texas while attempting to set up the present
State narcotics section. Before this committee finishes Its Investigation in Texas,
1111li11111111111
2369
I am sure that they will experience the fullest cooperation from all law enforcement agencies.
I am sure that as you conduct your investigation through the State, you
will be presented with testimony and evidence over which you have some jurisdiction on a Federal level. I particularly hope that during this investigation
the committee will obtain evidence to warrant actions, on a Federal level, toward
attempting to stop the flow of illicit narcotics from Mexico. On the basis of interviews which we have conducted with narcotic addicts, we can say that 90
percent of the narcotics seized by Texas officers came from or through Mexico.
I hope too that the committee will see the necessity of recommending an increase in the personnel of the Federal Narcotic Bureau, since this agency is
directly responsible for enforcing the Federal narcotic laws. All peace officers
are confronted with the narcotic problem and should welcome the work of an investigating committee such as this, because it assists in focusing the spotlight
of attention on a very grave problem. Although the public has heard and
read a great deal about the narcotic situation, I am sure that the majority of the
citizens of the State are not fully aware of how serious the problem of narcotic
addiction really is.
We readily admit that we do have a serious dope problem in Texas. At the
same time, however, our best information Indicates that we do not have
nationally organized or syndicated crime in Texas.
The solid and closely knit front which the law enforcement team of Texascourts, prosecutors, and police-have continually exhibited, is the best deterrent
and the best assurance in the world that it it has not and will not happen here.
A large number of criminals use narcotics, but they are criminals because of
this fact alone. They commit crimes to secure the necessary finances to purchase
their narcotics. The majority of these criminals operate alone and are not
members of a gang and, therefor, have not organized themselves.
The narcotic aspect in Texas is simply this. A serious narcotic problem
exists because of our geographical location with respect to a very large supply
point-Mexico. Not only are Texas addicts and pushers taking advantage of the
supply point, but we are a crossroads for out-of-State buyers.
The concern of our Texas lawmakers over this problem goes back nearly a
score of years when the 45th Texas Legislature created a narcotics section in
the Texas Department of Public Safety, effective September 1, 1937. This unit
was abolished as of August 30, 1939, because the then Governor of the State
vetoed the appropriations that had been set up for the support of the narcotics
Section. The 53d legislature again set up a narcotics section, effective September 1, 1953, with a chief and three narcotic inspectors. The 54th legislature
granted six additional men, effective September I of this year.
I would like to emphasize the considerable difference between the work requried of officers investigating narcotics cases and that of police engaged in the
investigation of most other crimes. In the usual crime, the police are called
after the crime has been committed, but if a narcotics investigator is to make a
case, he must be on the scene when the offense takes place-that is, when the
sale of the narcotics is made. Added to this is the fact that narcotics investigation poses one of the most dangerous assignment incumbent upon any law enforcement agency.
To show you just what can be accomplished by even a small 4-man force of
trained investigators, I would like to give you some very brief statistics concerning the activities of the chief and 3 inspectors that were assigned to the
Texas Department of Public Safety narcotics section from September 1, 1953,
to August 30, 1955. During that time these men received requests for assistance in investigations in 173 instances. These requests came from Federal,
State, and county and city agencies, as well as the other divisions of the Texas
Department of Public Safety. These 4 men cleared 430 cases during that time.
Some of the reports were unfounded and in others no complaint was filed because
of lack of evidence but they did file a total of 168 cases in the Federal, State,
and county courts. Convictions were secured on 140 cases for a total assessed
penalties of 595 years' imprisonment and fines of $2,200; 28 of the cases made
during this time are still pending. In addition to all this, and aside from actual.
investigating work, this quartet participated in 706 other activities pertaining
to narcotics, such as delivering speeches and teaching in police training schools,
et cetera.
In addition to the six men who have been added to our narcotics section, we
have been given some new tools with which to work, also. These are the new
2370
Texas narcotic laws which were recently enacted. One is the car seizure law
which provides for the seizing of vehicles transporting illegal narcotics.
Another is the paraphernalia law which makes it a felony to possess a hypodermic syringe, needle, or any instrument adapted for the injection of a liquid
under the skin. Two cases have been filed, to date, for the illegal possession
of this equipment and are awaiting trial.
Texas recently had what is commonly referred to as a compulsory treatment
law. The law at that time was knocked out by higher courts because it was
Illegal to probate a misdemeanor. The Fifty-fourth Texas Legislature, under
the provisions of house bill 65, changed this section, and now this violation is a
felony, which can be probated if the defendant enters a hospital for treatment.
Several dope addicts have been handled under the provisions of the new law
and have plead guilty to being addicted to the illegal use of narcotics and have
entered hospitals for treatment. Under the provisions of this new law, certain
problems have been created concerning the treatment and rehabilitation of the
addict. A person convicted of being addicted to narcotics can be sentenced to
a maximum of 3 years and probated if he agrees to enter a hospital, He, or she,
can be handled in one of several ways. They can be sentenced to the penitentiary
and placed under the supervision of a doctor. I am informed that at the present
time, there is sufficient bed space in the penitentiary system to accept male
patients but the women's ward of the penal institution is overcrowded and the
female dope addicts must await their turn to enter. On a number of occasions
this waiting period Is carried out in equally overcrowded county jails without
proper medical treatment. Dope fiends can be treated in the Texas State hospital. However, the person must be adjudged insane before he can be admitted.
Naturally, 4 out of 5 dope addicts refuse to volunteer for treatment and, by the
same token, they refuse to voluntarily commit themselves to the penitentiary.
To be treated in a Federal hospital, the patient must commit himself on a
voluntary basis because State court sentences cannot be honored. The patient
has a right to leave if, and when, he wishes, even against medical advice. Now,
here is an important point which I would like to make-the Federal hospital
authorities are prevented by Federal law from notifying law-enforcement officers,
or anybody else, for that matter, that the patient is leaving. Thus it is that the
United States Public Health Service hospitals must release half-cured dope
addicts if they want to leave. And, further, the authorities are prohibited by
law from letting us know that these probable menaces have been turned loose.
These are not only Texas addicts but those who have been gathered from other
States as well. Women addicts must be transported to another State for Federal
treatment.
On the other hand, we are attempting to do as much as we can to keep the
Federal Narcotics Bureau informed on narcotic addicts which come to our
attention. The Federal Narcotics Bureau furnishes us with a printed addict
form. These cards have also been sent to a majority of the peace officers
throughout the State. We are filling out the reports and forwarding them as
soon as we make arrests. Naturally, we are of the opinion that this compiling
of statistical information by the Federal Narcotic Bureau, and its dissemination
to the various police agencies throughout the United States will greatly benefit
all peace officers.
I would respectfully recommend that this committee look to the possibility
of amending section 344 (d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U. S. C. 260)
which prohibits the Public Health Service officials from letting us know when a
half-cured addict leaves their hospitals.
In conclusion, I would like to say that narcotic enforcement in Texas, as a
whole, is as good as can be expected with the limited number of trained personnel we have assigned to those duties. Texas narcotic officers are closely united in
this fight. The Texas prosecutors and courts make every effort to act on the
evidence submitted by the officers as quickly as possible.
Texas is limited on penal institutional space, and no State hospital facilities
are available for the overall treatment in the rehabilitation of narcotic addicts.
The source of supply-Mexico-is more or less wide open and something needs
to be done about it.
Texas narcotic enforcement needs to be Improved with the addition of trained
personnel both at the Federal and State level.
Enhanced treatment and rehabilitation facilities are desperately needed.
El--
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2371
Senator DANIEL. Now, I believe you have in your organization Mr.

W. D. Naylor, W. E. Naylor?
Colonel GARRISON. W. E.
Senator DANIEL. Dub Naylor, who has been in charge of your narcotics section as long as you have had it?
Colonel GARRISON. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. He is going into the new Texas laws later on today.
Colonel GARRISON. That's right, he will be glad to.
Senator DANIEL. Also Attorney General Shepperd is going to appear in the afternoon.
Colonel Garrison, I want to express my appreciation.
Mr. Gasque, do you have any questions?
Mr. GASQUE. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Senator Butler, do you have any other questions?

Senator BUTLER. No, I want to say I am delighted to know the
colonel and have enjoyed his very concise testimony.
Senator DANIEL. Thank you very much, Colonel Garrison.
(Witness excused.)
Senator DANIEL. Now, will the following witnesses come forward
in order to be sworn: Morris Levine, Milton Turner, and Rudy Rodriguez.
(The three witnesses were duly sworn.)
Senator DANIEL. All right, you may be seated over there except
Mr. Turner, if you will just sit in the witness chair there.
TESTIMONY OF PERRY MILTON TURNER
Senator DANiEL. Will you state your full name?
Mr. TURNER. Perry Milton Turner.
Senator DANIEL. Where do you live?
Mr. TURNER. In Austin, Tex., 640 Tillery.

Senator DANIEL. And how long have you lived there?
Mr. TURNER. Oh, approximately 12 years, 15 approximately.
Senator DANIEL. You might pill your chair forward and speak
out so that we can be sure we are hearing you and so the reporter can
get your answers. How long (lid vol s:iy you had lived in Austin?
Mr. TURNER. I was born and reared here.
Senator DANIEL. I see. Now, Mr. Turner, I believe that you have
had the unfortunate experience of being a narcotic addict?
Mr. T-wR. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. To what form of narcotics were you addicted?

Mr. TURNER. To morphine and heroin.
Senator DANIEL. To morphine and heroin?
Mr. TuRNmR. Yes, sir, at different times.
Senator DANIEL. Have you recently been to one of our Federal
hosr)itals for treatment?
Mr. TURNER. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been to one of the Federal
hospitals?
Mr. TURNER. Yes, sir, I have.
Senator DANIEL. What hospital?
Mr. TURNER. Both of them.
2372
Senator DANIEL. You have been to the Lexington Hospital and to

Fort Worth?
Mr. TURNER. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How many times?

Mr. TURNER. Well, I have served time five times in narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. Were they on convictions for various narcotic offenses such as selling or possession of narcotics?
Mr. TURNER. Possession and forgery, that was all.

Senator DANIEL. Forgery?
Mr. TURNER. Of doctor's prescriptions.

Senator DANIEL. Forgery of doctor's prescriptions?
Senator
drugs?
DANIEL.
When did you first become addicted to narcotic
Mr. TURNER. The latter part of 1932.

Senator
DANIEL.
How old were you?
Mr. TURNER. Nineteen.

Senator DANIEL. And was that in Austin?
Senator DANIEL. How did you happen to try out narcotics?
Mr. TURNER. Well, I was shot 1 time in 1929, 3 times, and I was in
the hospital and they gave me morphine.
Senator
DANEL.,
Is that how you happened to start?
Mr. TURNE. Well, I wouldn't attribute that to be the cause but

that gave me a taste of it.
Senator DAnIEL. How did you happen to start using it again in
1932?
Mr. TURNER. That was the beginning of the depression, there wasn't
any work. You know how a bunch of youngsters get together.
Senator DANIEL. Were some of your associates using morphine?
Mr. TURNER. Well, no, sir, I wouldn't say that, no, sir. You know
about that ballyhoo in the papers, in magazines, about addiction and
all that, you get that you know.
Senator DANIEL. This committee appreciates an addict who is willing to come before us and give the evidence. We would like for you
to tell us exactly how in 1932 you started taking morphine for the relief it would give you or for whatever purpose you took it, and who
gave it to you.
Mr. TuRNER. More through curiosity.
Senator DANIEL. More through curiosity?
Mr. TURNER. I had had a taste of it before in the hospital.

Senator DANIEL. And you did it through curiosity, to see what it
would do to you?
Mr. TURNER. Well, you know how a youngster is about getting a
kick, looking for something to be different.
Senator BUTLER. Do I understand the publicity that had been given
to addiction was the thing that urged you to try it?
Mr.
TURNER.
Sir, that's one thing that causes, I wouldn't say a
great deal of them, but a vast majority of them to try that this day
and time, is that ballyhoo and that propaganda in the papers. I
don't mean it isn't good; don't misunderstand. I know it is wrong to
2373
use narcotics; never brought me anything but sorrow and trouble.

You know how a youngster is. They are curious. If you forbid them
to do something they are liable to try to do it on the sly.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think it might be a pretty good idea for
others if you tell the, story as to how you got started and what happened to the friends that got started with you? As I understand from
our investigator there were about 10 in Austin who started off on
morphine in 1932. They were young people, weren't they?
Senator DANIEL. What happened to the rest of them?
Mr. TURNER. Practically all of them are dead, may be 3 or 4 living.
Senator DANIEL. Do you agree with those who say the use of morphine and heroin as a drug the illicit use of it, is a living death and it
will end up killing you earlier than you would die if you hadn't used
it? Do you agree with that?
Mr. TURNER. Well, the big trouble about an addict, what I foundI am speaking of my experience-it's not. I've worked and I have got
that drug and used it in moderate amounts and it didn't interfere with
my work because I could buy it in a manner, get it from a doctor, getting the prescription filled in a drugstore, it didn't interfere with my
work. In fact, I put on weight. It didn't have any bearing on my
health. I don't think the heroin, it's the strangest drug. You know
in the medical profession it is outlawed; it is bootleg.
Senator DANIEL. Two people this last week died from heroin in
Houston.
Mr. TURNER. I could easily die from that.
Senator DANIEL. From an overdose?
Mr. TURNER. Or narcotic poisoning. That is a poison.
Senator DANIEL. Did you start using heroin after you had used
morphine awhile?
Mr. TURNER. Yes, sir. You see in later years-I say in later years,
after I got to using it off and on morphine just about went out, got so
expensive. Heroin is cheaper. That is when we switched.
Senator DANIEL. You switched to heroin when it became cheaper
than morphine. In the depression what did you do to get enough
money to buy the heroin and morphine?
Mr. TURNER. The majority of the time I was stealing.
Senator DANIEL. Stealing?
Mr. TURNER. Yes, I worked some. I worked some. I worked last
year about 6 or 8 months.
Senator DANIEL. What about your associates who were also on the
drugs here in Austin, did they steal, too?
Mr.
TURNER.
Well, I couldn't speak for anyone else.
I am just
speaking for myself.

Senator DANIEL. Now, what about your wife, is she an addict, too?
Senator DANIEL. What is her name?
Mr. TURNER. Ruby.
Senator DANIEL. Is she one of the persons arrested recently here
in Austin?
Senator DANIEL. Now, as I understand it she has been a confirmed
addict. Was she an addict at the time you married her?
2374
Mr. TURNER. She was.

Senator DANIEL. How old were you when you were married?
Mr. TURNER. We married in 1933, I was 30 years old.
Senator
DANIEL.
You married in 1933 and you were 30 years old.
And I believe that the records show-
Mr.
TURNER.
We married in 1943, I was 30 years old. I believe I
stated that wrong, we married in 1943.

Senator DANIEL. In order not to embarrass you since you have been
willing and told this committee you would tell us everything we asked
you about this matter, let the record show according to the count made
by use of your police record, that you have been arrested 52 times on
narcotics charges. Would you think that is about correct?
TURNER. Probably is because
Senator DANIEL. In other words,
Mr.
the records speak for themselves.

addiction has gotten you in trou-
ble a lot with the law?

Mr. TURNER. I have wasted my life, that's right.
Senator
DANIEL.
And your wife, according to the records here, has
been arrested 122 times?

Senator DANIEL. Does that sound about right to you?
Mr. TURNER. I wouldn't be surprised. I wouldn't be surprised.
Senator DANIEL. And your wife's sister also is al addict; isn't she?
Senator DANIEL. Do you know which one became addicted first?

Mr. TURNER. The sister.
Senator DANIEL. The sister, and then your wife?
Senator DANIEL. And how old were they when you first knew them?
Mr. TURNER. Well, they were young women.
Senator DANIEL. I think the records show 140 arrests of your wife's
sister on narcotic charges.

Senator DANIEL. I believe they are now at the State hospital here
in Austin under our new law receiving some type of treatment?
Mr. TURNER. They are.
Senator DANIEL. Well, let me ask you in view of all this, is it hard
for a person after he once gets addicted to heroin or morphine to
break the habit?
Mr.
TURNER.
Senator, it does something to you, I don't know.
served time in Lexington right by fellows who had higher degrees

than any of the staff members. It is no respecter of persons. In other
words, when you stick that spike in your arm you're on your way.
It don't make no difference what walk of life you come from. It's
something, it's a curse. I don't know why the good Lord put it out.
It's an awful curse for human beings to have this.
Senator
DANIEL.
Like all things it has some good purposes. Mor-
phine is still used for medical purposes. Heroin has been outlawed
by most of the nations of the world. Still we have the traffic in them
and misuse of these drugs. Do you think your treatments at Lexington
or Fort Worth helped you any?
Mr. TURNER. Well, it's like this, Senator, when I was admitted in
Fort Leavenworth annex in 1935 and they opened up this hospital
in Kentucky in May of 1935 and I was transferred down there in
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2375
November, I was off of drugs then. You see, I had been in since
about a year.
Senator DANIEL. What were you convicted of ?
Mr. TURNER. Narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. For selling?
Mr. TURNER.
I tried to help a fellow out with a dollar and a half's
worth of morphine and he happened to be a Government man.

Senator DANIEL. You happened to be selling to an undercover man?
Mr. TURNER. I wasn't selling. I never did get enough to use myself.
I am not no seller, no pusher. I'm what you call "boot and shoe."
Senator DANIEL. Call what?
Mr. TURNER. "Boot and shoe," manage, try to get some for myself.
I never did get enough for myself when I was using it.
Senator DANIEL. How long is it since you have used heroin?
Mr. TURNER. Well, it has been some time, I haven't used any.
Senator DANrEL. Lately?
Senator DANIEL. You feel like you can stay off of it?
Mr. TURNER. I am making an effort to.
Senator DANIEL. Do you realize Texas now has a pretty stiff law on
the addicts?
Mr. TURNER. I do. I got to make a change or they are going to
force me, I know that time has come.
Senator DANIEL. In this State?
Mr.
TuRNER. Yes.
[Indicated by nodding his head.]
Senator DANIEL. Do you think that it is a good thing as far as

licking this curse to get the addicts off the streets and behind the walls?
Mr. TURNER. Sometime if you get the opportunity read some of
the articles by Dr. Kolb, medical doctor at the hospital in Kentucky.
Senator DANIEL. He appeared before our committee.
Mr. TURNER. If you get an opportunity read some of his articles.
The Government doctors, United States Public Health, recognizes a
drug addiction as a mental disease. It is an illness the same as a
cancer, tuberculosis, ulcerated stomach. An addict isn't a criminal
according to their statements.
Senator DANIEL. Well, of course, you know some addicts who commit crimes?
Mr. TURNER. Sure do and I have done it myself to get this drug.
Senator DANIEL. And most of them do?
Mr. TURNER. I won't argue the point. I was saying what these
authorities in United States Public Health Service say.
Senator DANIEL. Some people appeared before our committee in
New York and advocated free clinics for confirmed cases-I'm sure
you would classify your wife and her sister and yourself confirmed
cases unless you are able to stay off of it, I certainly hope you can
this time
Senator DANIEL. On confirmed cases they advocated giving free
drugs, either free or at a cheap price so as to sustain the person's addiction. Do you think that would be a good idea?
Mr. TURNER. May I say this, Senator? You know in United States,
it's not a right, don't misunderstand, I don't lnow how to even suggest how to solve it, I'll just state this. United States is the only country in the world that has a problem of addicts. You take all the free
2376
nations, England there, for instance, they don't have a problem. An

addict can go up to a doctor and declare himself and the doctor has the
problem.
Senator DANIEL. Somebody has given you the wrong information.
I happen to have made an investigation of that on the ground, Senator
Butler and I, in connection with another committee. We talked with
the authorities over there. That is a misimpression. They are just
as stiff against giving drugs to addicts to satisfy their needs or their
desires as any country in the world. So you are getting the wrong
information there. I would like for you to speak from personal experience on it.
Mr. TumfER. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think we would ever get rid of the black
market of narcotics by giving drugs out free and letting anybody come
in and get it free?
Mr. TURNER. No, sir. I don't think that's a good idea. But this
way, there's a profit in that drug. That's your problem.
Senator DANIEL. Did somebody ever teach you to use the drug trying to make money off of you?
Senator DANIEL. You learned it from associates, didn't you?
Mr. TURNER. Yes. sir.
Senator DANIEL. Don't you think it is a contagious disease, so to
speak?
Mr. TURNER. Yes, sir, it is.
Senator DANIEL. Addicts, whether selling or not, want their wife
or husband, or brother or sister, or friends to join in?
Mr. TURNER. On the contrary, I wouldn't get my worst enemy a
dose of it.
Senator DANIEL. You wouldn't, but haven't you seen it happen
where different addicts spread it and have gotten friends and some
of their family to try it out?
Mr. TURNFR. I have heard it happened, I have never seen it in my
time. As the Lord is above, I have never seen it.

Senator DANIEL. You have had experience in buying these drugs in
Mexico, have you not?
Senator DANIEL. I wish you would just tell the committee exactly
how you went about going to Mexico and buying these drugs, how the
whole thing worked. I will try not to ask you too many questions.
Senator Butler and I may want to interpose. You are the first witness
who has appeared who has had actual experience going below the
border and getting heroin, and I would like for you to just tell us in
your own words exactly how it operates.
Mr. TURNER. A person can go down there, as long as he has got
the dollars; that's all it takes.

Senator DANIEL. Well, tell us just where you went and how did
you know where to go?
Mr. TURNER. Right now I wouldn't know no more where to go than
a man in the moon.
Senator DANIEL. You did know?
Mr. TURNER. No, sir, just have to find it.
Senator DANIEL. How many times have you been there?
Mr. TURNER. I haven't been down there in years.
2377
Senator DANIEL. I mean when you did go down.

Mr. TURNER. Years ago I went down there.
Senator DANIEL. You were down there a couple of years ago?
Mr. TURNER. Perhaps.

Senator DANIEL. All right, tell us just what you did. How did you
get across the border?
Mr. TURNER. Walked across.

Senator DANIEL. Did anybody recognize you as an addict?
Mr. TURNER. Well, they do have men down there, you walk, if I
walked up on that bridge, and they got a man in the office, he usually
called my name before I ever think about it.

Senator DANIEL. He let you go on across?
Mr. TURNER. That was on the way back.
Senator DANIEL. He recognized you and called your name?
Senator DANIEL. The last time you went to Mexico where did you
go to get the heroin?
Mr. TURNER. Well, I inquired around, finally found it.

Senator DANIEL. Where did you cross the river?
Mr. TURNER. At Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. You went into Nuevo Laredo?

Senator DANIEL. Where did you go in Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. TURNER. Just went up town there.
Senator DANIEL. Did you make contact with somebody there who
had some heroin?
Mr. TURNER. I just got to inquiring where I could make connection.

Senator DANIEL. What happened? Go on and tell us how you made
the purchase, what you paid, where it was delivered to you and everything.
Mr.
TURNER.
Well, you can get it, you can locate the source of it
and buy it, buy what you want, whatever money you've got.
Senator DANIEL. You mean to say it is that free over across the
Mexican border?
Mr. TURNER. Well, it isn't as simple as that, it isn't as simple as that.

But if a person, if a person using that drug, if he ever uses that drug
he learns those things just like you know how to go about these hearings
and procedures.
Senator DANIEL. I see. All right, you learned where to go then
from experience across the border?
Senator
DANIEL.
All right, were you after heroin or marihuana?
Mr. TURNER. I never used marihuana.

Senator DANIEL. What were you after?
Mr. TURNER. Heroin.
Senator DANIEL. All right, did you buy from someone?
Senator DANIEL. How much did you pay them for it?
Mr. TURNER. I usually paid $20 a paper.
Senator DANIEL. Twenty dollars a paper, and how much heroin
is there in a paper?
2378
Mr. TURNER. A gram, approximately 15 or 16, between 12 and 16

grams.
Senator DANIEL. What would the same cost you if you bought it
here in Austin or in San Antonio?
Mr. TURNER. It would cost in San Antonio about $30.
Senator
much in Austin?
Mr.
can't buy it in Austin now, but one time you
DANIEL. How
TURNER. Well, you
could buy it for $40.

Senator DANIEL. In Austin?
Senator DANIEL. In other words, the price gets lower as you go
toward the border, is that right?
Senator DANIEL. Could you buy heroin in San Antonio in recent
years very easily?
Mr. TURNER. As a rule. You can get it in practically any part of
the country not necessarily in Texas.
Senator bANIEL. We are holding the hearing in Texas. We want
to see what the situation is here. You say it is easy to get in San
Antonio?
Mr. TURNER. Comparatively easy.
Senator DANIEL. Does it cost more?
Mr.
TURNER.
Yes, sir, and it isn't as strong.
Senator DANIEL. You say you paid about $20 a paper?

Senator DANIEL. The last time you bought in Nuevo Laredo. Now,
did they deliver -you the heroin there when you paid them the money?
Mr. TURNER. You mean in Mexico?
Senator DANIEL. Yes.
Mr. TURNER. Well, a person could take it there if he wanted to try
to come back across the border but you can pay a fee and they will
deliver across for you.
Senator DANIEL. I want to know how you did it. Our investigator
tells us after having talked with you that you did not take it across,
back across the border with you because you were afraid they knew
you as an addict, therefore you made arrangements for somebody to
bring it back?
Mr. TURNER. That's right.

Senator DANIEL. Tell us how it happened.
Mr. TURNER. I bought the heroin. I told him I would like to get
it delivered on the other side. He said all right, cost you so and so.
So I paid the fee.
Senator DANIEL. You paid the amount of the heroin and paid for
the delivery, paid for the messenger to bring it across the river?
Senator DANIEL. When you crossed the bridge and they searched
you, they couldn't find it on you?
TURNER. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. How much
Mr.
did you pay this messenger to bring it
across the river?
Mr. TURNER. Oh, I would pay him ten or fifteen dollars.

Senator DANIEL. Ten or fifteen dollars?
Mr. TURNER. Depend on what he brought, just the amount.
2379
Senator DANIEL. Did you see the messenger?

Mr. TURNER. No, sir; I would never see him. Evidently they had
some way of looking me over. I was sitting in the room talking to
this man I bought it off, evidently had a way of seeing me, whoever it
was looked me over. When they come across, up come a stranger and
he said, here, and he was away.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't see the man who was going to deliver
to you across the border?
No,sir.
Senator DANIEL. You paid them the money, then when you went
Mr.
TURNER.
back across the bridge without any heroin you went to an appointed
1)lace and they delivered to you?

Mr. TURNER. Maybe a cafe, maybe a block in the street.
Senator DANIEL. Wherever they told you?
Mr. TURNER. They would tell me.
Senator DANIEL. Did they guarantee to deliver to you?
Mr. TURNER. Yes.
Senator BUTLER. And it was still cheaper than buying in San
Antonio or Austin? Was it still cheaper?

Mr. TURNER. Yes, sir, because you get stronger drugs down there.
If you buy some up the country here it has been cut.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you know who was dealing in heroin the last
time you were over in Nuevo Laredo?

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear of two brothers?
Senator DA.Zn'iL. Did you ever buy from a place where you understood two brothers ran it?
Mr. TURNER. No, sir; I didn't know wlo I bought from. You know,
I wasn't acquainted. I wasn't acquainted with anybody.
Senator
DANIEL.
About how many trips wou d you say you made
to Mexico to buy heroin ?
Mr. TURNER. Just a few in my life.

Senator )AxkImL. Just a few in your life?
Mr. TURINER. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. In talking with people and finding out how you
could do this, did you find out whether or not it was a relatively easy
lm~atter to get someone to run that heroin across the border for you ?
In other words, is that a common pract ice? Did you find that to be so?
Mr. TURNEiiR. Yes, sir. You know that American dollar down in
Mexico, Senator, it's highly thought of. That dollar will (et just
about anything you want, anything you want.
Senator DXIEL. What I am trying to get is, do you think this is
ai unusual thing the way you got your heroin across the border?
Mr. TUINNER. No, sir, that wasn't unusual.
Senator DAXIEL. From your having talked with other people and
other addicts, you think that is a pretty common practice?
Mr. TTun,NER. I would think so. I never, you know, looked into anything like that. I imagine that's the way it worked.
Senator DAN.IEL. In other words, you found it worked relatively
easy, is that right ?
Mr.
TURNER. Yes.
Senator DaNIEL. Senator Butler, do you have any questions?

71515-56-I)t. 7-1
2380
Senator BUTLER. I don't think so.

Senator DANIEL. Mr. Counsel, any questions?
Mr. GASQU-E. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Speer?
Senator BUTLER. I would like to ask this one question. You say
you have to take the profit out of the traffic to dry it up?
Mr. TURNER. Yes, sir; you would solve your problem then, Senator.
Senator BUTLER. How do you do that? That's the big thing we're
after, you can't do it by giving it away. When you give it to people
they have to come out in the open and register. A lot of addicts won't
do that no matter what you give them. You probably wouldn't get
as much as 10 percent of the people who were addicts. They
won't come out in the open, they had still rather buy on the black
market and pay more money rather than for it to be known.
Mr. TURNER. I don't agree with you, Senator. I don't agree with
you because an addict., if he has his drugs-lI am speaking at the time
a person has a habit-if he has the drugs he is not aggressive, he
doesn't try to create trouble.
Senator BUTLER. He doesn't want to be known as an addict, doesn't
want to be publicly known as an addict.
Mr. TURNER. He is not looking for any trouble. He will not cause
anyone any trouble as long as he has his drugs and in a period of time
these old addicts like myself and the ones that would register, in time
we would die out, you wouldn't have any more.
Senator BUTLER. The testimony in New York was that less than 12
percent registered in a 5-year period. That was tried in the State of
New York. They just didn't come out in the open, in other words.
Senator DA\IEL. I want to set the record straight. We have evidence before this committee-I am not going to go into the detailsthat some addicts have committed some of the most heinous crimes
in this State. Do you know a fellow named Abey?
Mr. TURNER. Yes, Sir.

Senator DANIEL. Didn't he commit crimes?
Mr. TURNER. ie sold drugs; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Stole drugs. Didn't he kill another man? Didn't
he kill George Miller?
Mr. TURNER. Well, I couldn't say whether he did or didn't Senator,
I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. You know some addicts that have committed
crimes of murder?
Mr. TURzER. Perhaps there are, I wouldn't say. Yes, sir; I will
agree with you.
Senator DANIEL. Any further questions, Mr. Speer ?
Mr. SPEER. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You may stand aside for the time being but remain in the witness room until we notify you.
Mr. YELDERMVA\N-. I am William Yelderman, a local attorney here in
Austin, and here as attorney represeniting Rudy Rodriguez. Rudy
Rodriguez appeared before the committee as a witness who is under a
subpena. Now, Rudy Rodriguez appeared in the presence of a confessed addict who appeared on the witness stand just a few moments
aoo.
I never knew Rudy Rodriguez until yesterday when
he informed
me he had been served a subpena to appear before this committee.
2381
Unfortunately, the statement I am making is not being televised but I

want the committee and the public to undJerstand he is not an addict.
He is not a dope peddler and he has been lined up here with a selfconfessed addict and in that way he thinks an injustice has been done
to him in that this statement made before this committee does not
appear publicly.
I make that statement in his behalf and as his attorney to make his
situation known to the committee.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Yelderman, the committee appreciates having
your statement and in order that the record and those who might
write about these proceedings might be clear, let the Chair state that
there was no intention to call any particular class of witnesses here to
be sworn. I believe Mr. Rodriquez was up with two other people, and
there was certainly no intention to class those witnesses together for
any purpose. And it will be the Chair's request that anything that
Mr. Rodriguez testifies about, that those who might be televising these
proceedings make that information public.
Mr. YELDERMAN. I am certain it wasn't intentional on the part of
the committee, but it did throw him in a bad light.
Senator DANIEL. I believe the record clearly shows now those called
up simply were for the convenience of the Chair in swearing everybody in together or at one time so we would not have a delay.
Mr. YELDERMAN. Mr. Chairman and committee, I thank you for
hearing my statement. Thank you.
Senator DANIEL Mr. Rodriguez will be given every opportunity
to clarify it further.
Now, we will have a 2-minutes recess.
(Committee recessed for 2 minutes)
Senator DANIEL. The committee will come to order. Mr. W. E.
Naylor.
TESTIMONY OF W. E. NAYLOR, CHIEF, NARCOTICS DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator DANIEL. State your full name.
Mr. NAYLOR. My name is Walter E. Naylor.
Senator DANIEL. And your position?
Mr. NAYLOR. I am chief of the narcotics division of the Department
of Public Safety of the State of Texas.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you held that position?
Mr. NAYLOR. I have been in this work for 15 years.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Naylor, do you have anything to add to Colonel

Garrison's testimony or any matters that you would like to supplement
there?
Mr. NAYLOR. No, sir; I think the Colonel handled it pretty well,
covered most of the points we wanted to get across to the committee.
I'll be glad to answer any questions*you gentlemen want to ask.
Senator DANIEL. Have you in your experience had occasion to find
out where marihuana, heroin, and other drugs are most readily available here in the State?
Mr. NAYLOR. About 90 percent of the heroin that comes into or
through Texas originates in Mexico. That information comes from
the addicts themselves that we have worked with. We have gone into
Mexico, although we haven't had the funds that we could legally use
2382
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
in Mexico; we have attempted to purchase heroin, and my agents can

buy it very easily in Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. You could?

Mr. NAYLOR. Yes, sir; my agents or myself, either.
Senator DANIEL. Can you buy heroin?
Mr. NAYLOR. No question to get it down there if you have the
money; or marihuana either.
Senator DANIEL. What do you think of the officials of Mexico; do
they cooperate with you?
Mr. NAYLOR. No, sir.

Senator I),NuE'L. For instance, have you had any contact with
higher officials that are said to be cooperating in this effort in a

worldwide effort? You have one man on the United Nations on this
and the Attorney General of Mexico, both of whom at the top apparently are working with our top officials. Have you had any contact
with the Attorney General or the Minister of Health or the representative on the United Nations Commission?
Mr.
NAYLOR.
Not directly.
Recently, Colonel Garrison made a
speech in which he dealt with the Mexican situation. Shortly thereafter the Mexican consul came out and talked to Colonel Garrison,
wanted to get his country and Texas together to attempt to partially,
or to control the narcotic traffic that we alleged was coining out of
Mexico, and colonel told him he would be glad to work with him
any way he possibly could, any way to try to control that flow of
illegal drugs from Mexico. The Mexican consul suggested Colonel
Garrison meet with some officials. I understand him to say one of the
officials would be a member of the Attorney General's department out
of Mexico City. The consul called me. A tentative date was set and
the consul called me later and said that because of some other plans
that they wouldn't be able to meet with the colonel. They would meet
with him later. We haven't heard anything from them since then.
I did write down to Mexico City through the consul, attempting to
find out what the statistical setup on the narcotics traffic in Mexico
was and asked for some statistics and how many cases were made and
how many arrests were made, and so forth. We haven't received a
reply from that letter. Some of the officials in the border towns in
Mexico worked with us; some of them wouldn't.
Senator DANIEL. Some of them wouldn't?

Mr. NAYLOR. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you had any specific occasions to find lack
of cooperation in Mexican border towns?
Mr. NAYLOR. None that I care to name at this time.

Senator DANIEL. None that you care to name at this time?
Mr. NAYLOR. No, sir, it would involve investigations that are under
progress at this time.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever had occasion to doubt the efforts of
any of the officials across the border in trying to stem this traffic out of
Mexico?
Mr. NAYLOR. We went in one border town in Mexico and contacted
some cab drivers, a cab driver, just to see how easy it was to get the
narcotics. He said: "What do you want and how much?" We said
we would like to have marihuana. He said we would have to go inland, the chief of police of one of the towns inland that's in the
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2383
marihuana business, that we could go down there and buy all you want
from him. Of course, due to the funds on which we operate, we
couldn't use those legally by buying narcotics in Mexico, and so we
told him we would see him later.
Senator DANIEL. Did you further check to see if there might be
something to the report -that a local chief of police inland might be
dealing in marihuana?
Mr. NAYLOR. I talked to some Mexican officials. They said they
thought that was true, that particular chief was dealing in marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. Can the addicts or peddlers across the border in
Mexico buy marihuana and heroin, both?
Mr. NAYLOR. Yes, sir, most ayone can whether he is an addict or not.
Senator DANIEL. They can be bought?
Senator BUTLER. Do they have any organization that resembles in
any way our Narcotics Division?
Mr. NAY IOR. I don't know, sir.
Senator BUTLER. Do they have any certified officers to deal with

questions of that kind?
Mr. NAYLOR. I don't know.
Senator BUTLER. If they have you have never been put in contact
with those people?
Mr. NAYLOR. No, sir, they haven't contacted us to try to work out any
future problems.
Senator BUTLER. Do you think the traffic is quite extensive?
Mr. NAYLOR. It is very easy to get over there.
Senator DANIEL. I think I might say, Senator, in answer to one of
your questions, that the Mexican Government does this: This representative on the United Nations Commission has been cooperating with
the higher officials, and we have a representative in Mexico from the
customs agency. There is one representative from our country to
Mexico who works with the top officials over there on narcotics. So
there is some work going on. But the committee is especially interested in whether or not that work is being followed from the top on
down, especially into these border towns of Mexico.
Mr. NAYLOR. I might add one thing. We thought we might be able
to assist the Mexican Government in their problems, if they do have
a problem, and we think they do. I offered the Mexican consul the
use of my men to use as undercover agents if they would put up the
money. We feel we could very easily find out, buy in their country
and testify in their court, in an attempt to get to their trouble if they
have trouble. We haven't heard any more.
Senator DAN ET,. You haven't heard any more from them?
Mr. NAyoR. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You still stand ready to assist?
Mr. NAYLOR. I imagine the committee will make so much heat my
men would get killed. Later on, after it dies down, we will go with
them, do anything to try to set to the root of that problem in Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think the committee could put enough heat
on it to stop some of the smuggling?

Mr. N Nyron. I hone you can.
Se-nntor DANIE,,. I hoPe so, too. I agree with you, there must be
movrp wvi'k on bofli .saies of fhe border. As I said before. I don't mean
to bA eri -icizin Mepxieo or throwing brickbats when we bring out the
2384
facts in this hearing. That is why I wanted, if possible, some of their

officials to sit in on these hearings. That precedent was set when we
opened in Washington, the chairman of the Canadian narcotics division sat in with us and also a representative of the mounted police
there. That is why I would like for Mexico's officials to sit with us,
if it were possible so they will know we want to cooperate. We don't
want to take the narcotics coming from Mexico. Actually it isn't just
criticism of Mexico for being lax in enforcing their narcotic laws and
staying with the treaties we have signed on the subject, but it is also
criticizing our own country and our own people, because if there wasn't
somebody on this side of the line willing to buy it, I doubt the Mexicans
would be willing to bring it over here.
Mr. NAYLOR. Well, yes, sir, that's true. Yes, sir, you're right. I
would say if you have a very large epidemic and those germs were
getting over and contaminating our people, narcotics traffic is more
or less contagious, and with the ease of your buying narcotics in Mexico it makes it instrumental in the creation of the number of new addicts we are getting here in this country, put it that way.
Senator DANIEL. You brought up a good comparison. Take the
hoof-and-mouth disease. When that broke out in Mexico our Government went to work cooperating with Mexican officials and sent a lot
of money and men down there to keep that disease from spreading to
the cattle of our own country.
Mr. NAYLOR. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Is there any reason why we couldn't have the same
kind of program to keep this narcotics disease from spreading to

people?
Mr. NAYLOR. That is the way I look at it and also the sheriffs and
chiefs of police. We are getting the leaves of the tree, getting nowhere
near the root of that tree.
Senator DANIEL. Are there any further questions?
Senator BUTLER. No.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Counsel?
Mr. GASQUE. No.
Senator DANIEL. How do you identify this heroin that comes from
Mexico? How do you know it is coming in from there?
Mr. NAYLOR. We know from the addicts, the dope fiends themselves
and purchasers of narcotics who go down there. By the number of

men that we have handled in the final analysis we figured about 90
percent comes from or through Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. Are you talking about 90 percent of the heroin
that ends up for use in Texas, as well as the amount that goes on through
north and east or to other parts of the country?
Mr. NAYLOR. From the number of arrests and number of informers
and dope fiends themselves that have purchased down there, we figure
about 90 percent.
Senator DANIEL. What percent of marihuana would you say is
coming across the border?
Mr. NAYLOR. I would say about 2 percent is homegrown.

Senator DANIEL. Do you know any other place marihuana comes
from other than Mexico?

Mr. NAYLOR. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right, are there any further questions?
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2385
Most of this Mexican heroin has a peculiar appearance:

you couldn't exactly say you could identify it, but it does have a
perculiar appearance?
Mr. SPEER.
Mr.
NAYLOR.
The color wouldn't have anything to do with it. Of
course, you know from your experience, too, with Federal narcotics,
your morphine, then on down to heroin, in the first stage of the chemical
reaction there you have a brown color and then if they want to purify
it further, which they very seldom go to the trouble, you can bring
it on out.
Mr. SPEER. So the heroin from Mexico does have a characteristic
tinge?2
Mr. NAYLOR. By the same token, you have white heroin.
Mr. SPEER. Is there white heroin coming from Mexico at the present
time?
Mr. NAYLOR. We have had information from Houston that they
can buy white heroin.
Mr. SPE ER. What would that indicate to you?
Mr. NAYLOR. It means just going to a little more trouble and purifying.
Mr. SPEER. Probably have better laboratories?
Mr. NAYLOR. Could be; yes sir.

Senator DANIEL. Thank you, Mr. Naylor. J believe you are going
to be with us through the rest of the Texas hearings?
Mr. NAYLOR. Yes, sir; Colonel Garrison told me to stay with the
committee.
Senator DANIEL Thank you very much.
Chief (addressing Chief Thorp), did you want to bring along your
men who are in charge of your narcotics work?
TESTIMONY OF R. D. THORP, CHIEF OF POLICE, AUSTIN POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Chief THORP. Yes, sir; if you please.

Senator DANIEL. Yes; you may. You may have them sit with you,
if you want. That is Captain Laws, Lieutenant Herbert, Investigator
Scott.
I want to say to any cameraman who may be in the room not to
take any pictures of Mr. Scott. You haven't even been sworn, have
you, Mr. Scott?
Mr. ScoTT. No, sir.
(Mr. Scott was duly sworn.)
Senator DANnmL. Remain standing just a minute in order that the
press and photographers may see you, that your picture is not to be
taken.
Chief Thorp, before you proceed with your statement I would like
to thank you on behalf of this committee for the wonderful cooperation
you have shown our staff and the members of this committee and the
job that you are doing here on narcotics in Austin. We are glad to
have you with us. We will hear from you at this time.
Chief THORP. Thank you, Senator. Senator, I want to thank you.
Senator DANIEL. You have a prepared statement, I believe?
Chief THoRP. No, sir.
2386
Senator DANIEL. You have some statistics you are going to put in
the record ; go right ahead, sir.
Chief THORP. It makes us very happy and I want to thank you,
Senator Butler, and your committee along with our fine Congressman
Homer Thornberry for making it possible to open the official hearing
in Texas on narcotics in Austin, your capital city.
We of the Austin Police Department have the full cooperation,
we enjoy the full cooperation of the Federal Narcotics Bureau, from
Mr. Anslinger's Department, to Mr. Toni Brumley in San Antonio,
also the full cooperation of Col. Homer Garrison and his fine department of public safety, and especially so with Mr. Dub Naylor in
charge of his narcotics division. Also, our fine sheriff, T. 0. Lange,
and his deputies. We work together a hundred percent. We have to
do it a hundred percent in order to combat this evil of the narcotic
problem.
I did not prepare a speech or a paper and you will have to bear with
me as I am just talking off the cuff.
We realize that the narcotic problem is great throughout the United
States, and we need the help of every man, woman, and child to help
us enforce this problem. It is a problem for the people, and I am so
proud that you and your committee have undertaken to pioneer in this
kind of a meeting, hearing, on this very, very important problem,
narcotics, that the people might learn more and be educated into what
their enforcement officers are trying to do in combating this problem.
I have done quite a lot of hunting in my life, and I have had the
opportunity to watch wild animal life come, in to drink, and I have
never yet found one that ever came in with the wind under its feet.
He always keeps the wind in his nose, especially the coyote. But
after he gets in the coyote lets his presence be known by lapping the
water, drinking. You can hear him a quarter of a mile against the
wind. That is the way we kill the coyote. Now, he lives by his wits.
By the same token a pusher and a seller of narcotics is in that class.
He lives by his wits. The enforcement officers have to match.their
wits against their wits much the same as hunting coyotes and, as I'say,
when you kill the coyote after he comes in and you don't see him, and
he laps the water and gives himself away, and you kill him, that might
be called the law of entrapment.
I have been in enforcement work over half of my life. and of all the
laws to enforce the narcotic law is the hardest one, especially making
cases. It is easy
to arrest, but you have got to have a case when you
go to court, as you know. We have run into technicalities, so to

speak, where our case wouldn't stand up in court. We would know
this man is a seller or pusher. but now we have got to prove that, the
burden is upon us.
Working narcotics is a very closemouthed job, more so I guess than
any other offense we have to work. Our vice squad is made up of 4
men under Lieutenant Herbert and under the command of Detective
Capt. Beverly Laws, we work with the 3, on gambling and narcotic.
I am a great believer in fighting fire with fire. I know that an officer
cannot, at least is not supposed to violate a law in order to enforce a
law, but this law we have, called entrapment, I am sure it has a place.
But we intend and I do as long as I am head of the police department,
to gig them and trap them and then trap them just as long as I am
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2387
here and let the burden fall upon them and not upon us, until some
judge tells me I am wrong. We are fighting fire and we have got to
hIght it with fire. I am speaking of pushers and peddlers.
Senator DANIEL. And when you used the word "entrapment" you
mean the use of undercover men or other people?
Chief TiIoRp. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL,; To catch the pushers and peddlers in their sales?

Chief THORP. That's right; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And you have been using that, and you think it is
a method that you should continue to use?
Chief THORP. Yes, sir. I will have to if I expect to accomplish
anything.
Senator DANIEL. As one member of this committee I want to agree
with you fully, and I imagine Senator Butler agrees.
Senator BUTLER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Because the Federal officials would never be able
to do their work without using g it, as strict as the Federal courts are,
certainly permitting cases to be made where undercover agents made
the purchases. So this committee certainly agrees with you. We
hope no Texas court will keep you from following that procedure.
Chief TIOR. Colonel Garrison covered this question, I think,
mighty well. We have adequate laws, as he has stated, and I go along
with him on what he has stated to you. It is in the record.
Our work here is in the confines of the city limits. We do, however, on request from a sheriff or chief, send a man to help them if we
can spare him, and we always try to spare the man to work on this
terrific narcotic problem.
I don't -think we have enough agents in the Federal Narcotics Bureau, but I mustn't criticize. I don't want you to take it as criticism
because Mr. Anslinger is my personal friend. He needs more room.
Mr. Al Rathen, a retired narcotics agent, had 85,000 square miles to
cover, and he had two men. Now, Mr. Broimley in San Antonio, I don't
know how many men that he has now.
Senator DANIEL. For the record, that is the narcotics agent in
charge in San Antonio?
Chief TILORP. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Bromley?
Chief THORP. Tom Bromley. He has four now at the present time.
I don't know that there is anything much more that I could add
other than to say this, I am so glad that you have started out with your
hearings in Austin, the capital city, and wherever you go we of the
Austin Police Department in this city wish you and your committee
the very best of everything, and do not hesitate to call on me and my
men for anything we might do. We will come to you or do anything
we can to help you with your hearings.
I certainly do thank you.
Chief TiLORP. And I am not going to read the reports that have been
Senator
DANIEL.
prepared. I would prefer, if you please, to allow Capt. Beverly Laws

of the CID to do that. but maybe you want to ask me some questions?
Senator DANIEL. That will be fine, Chief. I certainly thank you
again. If you are giving the Federal officers the kind of cooperation
you are giving this committee from the Congress I know that you all
are going to do a good job here. We have already heard from them
2388
that you are giving them that kind of cooperation, too. As a matter
of fact, haven't you had considerable arrests recently for narcotics violations here in Austin?
Chief THORP. Yes, sir, just recently.
Senator DANIEL. Would you say that is an indication of an increase
in the traffic here or not?
Chief TnoiP. Well, yes, I guess you could call it an increase.
Senator DANIEL. Of course some of the arrests I first remember
seeing in the paper concerned the confirmed addicts that you had arrested over a hundred times, some of them that were testified about
a minute ago, but it seems to me I recall your making recent arrests
of some musicians here?
Chief THORP. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Was that on narcotics or not9
Chief THORP. That was not good information, Captain Laws says.
Senator DANIEL. Is there anything else to indicate an increase of
the use of marihuana or narcotic drugs in Austin in recent months?
Chief THORP. Oh, I don't think that there is anything that would
indicate that. I think it is just about a 50-50 proposition between
marihuana and narcotics here.
Senator DANIEL. We certainly thank you, Chief, and if you will
let Mr. Laws trade seats with you, we will go into this.
Chief THORP. Thank you.
Senator
DANIEL.
Captain Laws, we are going to make that table
part of the record at this point. Would you call the attention of the
subcommittee to any particular items that should be stressed?
TESTIMONY OF R. B. LAWS, CAPTAIN, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
DIVISION, AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT
Captain LAWS. Senator, the first flysheet here describes the detail
the chief of police has in the department. He has already given you
the number of men assigned. Lt. K. R. Herbert is the officer in charge
under the supervision of the chief of police and myself. It describes
the hours that these men have worked, the hours regulated by the activities of the offenders. That is all in that report. I will go into our
figures here.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
The entire report now will be made a part of the
record in connection with your testimony.

Captain LAWS. Yes, sir, and if you would, we would like a little
later on, for Lieutenant Herbert to point out some of the high spots
in the recent activities we have had and at the end probably wind up
with Investigator Scott telling about the activities he has.
All right.
(The prepared statement of Chief Thorp is as follows:)
AGE,
SUMMARY OF ARRESTS FOR NARCOTICS VIOLATIONS BY SEX, RACE, AND
1947-55
This report reflects the number of persons charged with violations of Federal
and State narcotic laws and an analysis as to year of arrest, sex, race, and age
of offenders. Also, a summary of recent cases involving narcotic law violations
in this vicinity, by vice detail, Austin Police Department.
The Austin Police Department has a detail assigned to the criminal investi-
ingation division charged with the responsibility of investigating all offenses

volving vice and narcotics.
2389
This detail consists of 1 lieutenant and 4 investigators and is under the

supervision of the chief of police and the captain of the criminal investigation
division. Approximately one-half of the working time of this detail is devoted
to the investigation or reported narcotic law violations. The investigators work
in pairs and are assigned from 8 a. m. until 5 p. m. and from 5 p. m. until 2 a. m.
These hours are flexible and are regulated by the activity of offenders.
AUSTIN
POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Summary of arrests for violations of State and Federal narcotic laws for the
period of 1947 until October 1, 1955:
Persons
Year:
charged
1947 ----------------------1948 ----------------------1949 ---------------------1950 ---------------------1951 ---------------------1952 ----------------------
9
9
14
15
19
29
Per8on8
charged
Year-Continued
1953 ----------------------32
1954 -----------------------29
1955 ----------------------23
Total -------------------
179
Distribution as to sex: Male, 149; female, 30; total, 179.

Distribution as to race: Anglo-American, 81; Latin American, 62; colored, 36;
total, 179.
Distributionas to age
15
16 ......
17 ....
18
19
20.
21_
-2223
24_
25
26
27
28
29
30 .....
31
32
33 --------------34--------------35--------------36
37--------------38
39--------------40
41
42
43---------------
44----------------45----------------46 - - - - - - - - -
47------------------
48 ------------------
49 -----------------50 -----------------51-----------------52 -----------------53-----------------54-----------------55 -----------------56-----------------57------------------1

58-----------------59-----------------60------------------
5
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Total--------- 170
At approximately 7: 15 p. m., June 17, 1954, a white male, 18 years of age,

identified as Bobby Joe Phelps of 604 East 17th Street, was found in an automobile registered to Thos. Oliver Glenn. This automobile was parked at the
corner of Willow Street and Canadian Street in East Austin. Phelps was unconscious and critically ill. An ambulance was called and Phelps was admitted
to Brackenridge Hospital. Phelps expired in the hospital at 3: 15 a. m., June
18, 1954. The suspected cause of death was an overdose of narcotics. Numerous
individuals were interviewed regarding the death of Phelps: William Patrick
O'Connor, Doris Cartana, Tratvis Schnautz, Rudy Rodriquez, and Ben Curryall known or suspected users of narcotics. The autopsy surgeon gave as the
cause of death "Poisoning by an opium derivative." It was also determined that
the deceased had been drinking at the time he took the narcotic injection.
Information obtained from persons interviewed regarding the death of Phelps
indicated that the San Antonio area was the source of the narcotics used locally.
Assistance was given in this investigation by the State narcotics bureau.
In September of 1954 the services of a special employee was obtained who
had wide acquaintance with local and San Antonio users of narcotics. Through
this special employee and with the full cooperation of Federal and State narcotics bureau personnel it was possible to place a Federal Narcotics Bureau
agent, working undercover, in a small local hotel, no longer in existence, where
the local narcotic addicts were congregating. Through the combined efforts of
the Federal, State, county, and city officers cases of "sale" and "conspiracy to sell
narcotics" were made and prosecuted against the following: Carmel Campbell,
Ruby King, Dominga Eaton, Arthur M. Fulton, W. C. Eaton, Sebe Stevenson,
2390
Joseph Gonzales, and Ernestine Gomez. Two additional cases which were filed
and were dismissed for lack of evidence.
From information obtained in this investigation, the Federal Narcotics Bureau
made case* against a notorious San Antonio seller of heroin, Ray Murdock, who
is.now serving a long sentence in a Federal penal institution.
In October. 1954, a consultation was held with the county court at law judge
and the district attorney's staff regarding the validity of the State narcotic
addiction law then in force. It was their belief that the law was invalid. For
that reason no effort was made at that time to arrest suspected narcotic addicts
for observation to determine their state of addiction, since no successful prosecution could be accomplished.
Numerous amendments were made to the existing narcotics laws by the last
legislature, one of which made valid the narcotics addiction statute.
On September 17, 1955, Chief W. E. Naylor, of the State narcotics bureau,
John Allen of the district attorney's office, Dr. Ben Primer and Dr. Lee Edens,
of the city health office, Capts. Bob Miles and R. B. Laws, and Lt. K. R. Herbert
met in the office of Chief of Police R. D. Thorp, to discuss procedure for the
arrest, examination and observation of suspected narcotic addicts in Austin.
It was agreed that assistance would be given by Chief Naylor's men in locating
and arresting these subjects and that they would be examined for signs of narcotic addiction by Dr. Ben Primer and Dr. Edens.
As a result of this meeting 10 arrests were made on Friday, September 23,
1955. After observation by the arresting officers and Dr. Lee Edens. Physical
examinations were made by Dr. Edens and it was determined that 6 of the 10
subjects were narcotic addicts. Written confessions, admitting addiction, were
given by the six who were retained. The other four subjects were released. Of
the 6 retained 4 were women.
On September 27, 1955, the cases against the 6 subjects were presented to the
Travis County Grand Jury and indictments against all 6 were returned the same
day. On Wednesday, September 28, these subjects were brought to trial before
Judge Jack Roberts in the 126th district court and entered a plea of "guilty" to a
charge of being narcotic addicts. The 4 women were sentenced to 2 years each in
the Texas State Prison and then placed on probation. One of the requirements of
the probation was voluntary commitment to the Austin State Hospital for a cure
of the addiction to narcotics. On Thursday, September 29, Ruby Bell Turner,
white, female, 40; Julia Mae Snowden, white, female, 47; Peggy Watson, white,
female, 44; and Mabel Plumley Wilson, white, female, 38, were admitted to the
Austin State Hospital.
On October 7, 1955, the 2 remaining subjects, Louie Leslie Taylor, white, male,,
42; and George Arthur Thompson, white, male, 31, were sentenced to serve 2
years in the Texas State Prison on a charge of being narcotic addicts and then
placed on probation, one of the requirements of probation being their voluntary
commitment to the United States Public Health Service Hospital in Fort Worth,
Tex., for a narcotics-addiction cure. They were transported to Fort Worth by
personnel of the State narcotics bureau.
On Thursday, September 22, 1955, James Wade Braswell, white, male, 32, of
Dallas, Tex., and a driver, were apprehended by State Highway Patrolmen W. D.
Wilson and Don W. Ross, for road-law violations and were taken before Justice
of the Peace Frank W. McBee. Judge McBee called Investigator Scott of the
vice detail of the Austin Police Department, stating that he suspected these subjects were in possession of narcotics. Investigator Scott called Investigators
Petri and Guentzel, also members of the vice detail, who accompanied these subjects to Brackenridge Hospital for a thorough search. Five and one-half grams
of heroin were found secreted in a cast worn by Braswell.
Thomas H. Bromley, agent in charge, San Antonio Division, Federal Narcotics
Bureau, was notified of the apprehension and of the impounding of the car, a
1955 Olds 98 Holiday sedan with air-conditioning and power features. Agent
Bromley came to Austin and took possession of the automobile and custody of
the subjects. A complaint of "possession of heroin" was filed by Agent Bromley
with United States Commissioner Robert C. Sneed, on September 23, 1955, against
James Wade Braswell. Interrogation of these subjects revealed the heroin seized
was purchased in San Antonio and that the purchaser was en route to Dallas, Tex.
The services of a special employee were obtained who professed to be able to
buy heroin from Simone Cavasas, a Latin American female, 34 years of age, of
434 Merida Street, San Antonio, Tex., known to be the source of supply for most
of the Austin narcotic users.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2391
Chief George W. Bichsel, of the San Antonio, Tex., Police Department, was
advised on September 24, 1955, that a special employee was available who had
contacts from whom he could purchase heroin in that area and who would introduce an undercover officer of the Austin Police Department to these contacts.
Chief Bichsel requested by letter that an officer of this department be permitted
to work in San Antonio with the special employee. A similar request was also
made by Agent Bromley.
Chief R. D. Thorp assigned Investigator R. C. Scott to accompany the special
employee and Federal Narcotics Bureau agent to San Antonio, September 26,
1955.
At 7: 30 p. m., September 26, 1955, Investigator Scott, in company with
the special employee, went to 434 Merida Street where the special employee
bought three grams of heroin from Patsy Saurez Terrazos. On the afternoon of
September 27, 1955, Investigator Scott was introduced to Simone and Alfonso
('avasas and the purchase of heroin by Investigator Scott from Simone Cavasas
was discussed. The same night a gram of heroin was purchased from Alfonso
Cavasas by Investigator Scott. On the afternoon of September 29, 1955, Investi-
gator Scott was able to make a direct purchase of 16 grams of heroin from Simone
Cavasas in the presence of John Palmer, Jr. Shortly after this purchase was
made, Lt. Jack Hutton and Sgt. Barney Saenz of the San Antonio Police Department and Federal Narcotics Bureau Agent Bromley and other agents effected
the arrest of Simone Cavasas, Latin American female, 34 years of age, Alfonso
Cavasas, Latin American male, 45 years of age, Patsy Saurez Terrazos, Latin
American female, 25, and John Palmer, Jr., white male, 27, who were arraigned
before United States Commissioner Lockhart in San Antonio, Tex., on September
29, 1955, for violations of the Federal narcoti-cs laws.
Captain LAws. (hief Thorp has prepared a summary of arrests for

violation of State anid Federal narcotic laws for a period 1947 until
October 1, 1955. These are arrests here, charges have been filed, breaking it down by the year and this does have some interest, I think, in
showing there has been an increase in the number of arrests and certainly by the number of arrests bound to have been more instances of
more people handling it. We realize we don't get hold of all of them.
Senator DANIEL. You think the number of arrests is a pretty fair
gage of the traffic when you compare by communities and cities?
Captain LAWS. Yes, sir, I believe that would be true.
Senator DANIEL. I am glad to hear you say that all we can go by
are the figures of addicts' arrests and convictions. Are arrests and
convictions the only figures you have great detail on?
Captain LAWS. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. But some city officials complain when we use their
arrests and conviction figures as comparative figures as to how they
shall rate in the drug traffic. They seem to think perhaps that shows
they are doing an especially good job in their city in making arrests
and convictions. I am glad to hear you say "in deciding how much
traffic there is."
Captain LAWS. I am sure it is partially correct. It certainly stands
to reason we can't catch them all, a certain amount we are going to
miss. As our arrests increase it would indicate more of them actually
are involved. That is my personal opinion about it. And if you like,
I can give you a little rundown here on the years.
Persons charged in 1947 were nine. Persons charged, this doesn't
account for persons handling; there were many, many more arrests
made, these were actually charged. In 1948, 9; 1949, 14; 1950, 15,
1951, 19; 1952, 29, 1953, 32; 1954, 29; 1955, 23, to date.
Distribution as to sex: male offenders, 149; female, 30; a total of 179.
Distribution as to race: Anglo American, 81; Latin Anerican, 62;
colored, 36.
2392
Senator DANIEL. I want to make a comment there. This is the

first city in which we have held a hearing in which the Anglo Americans have more who are involved in arrests than the other races. The
figures here are considerably higher than in the colored, for instance.
In some cities it is an unfortunate thing, it may be the fault of the way
we have taken care of certain races, but we find the arrests among
colored population to be as high as 90 percent of the total arrests.
Here you have just the reverse, not that high a percentage, but there
are twice as many Anglo Americans arrested during these years than
you have colored.
Captain LAWS. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. It speaks well for your colored population here
I would say.
Captain LAWS. I believe that you would fid in our records, in our
annual reports, that this is true in most other offenses here. Chief
Thorp has had a record bureau for a number of years, since 1936, 1935
and he has had wonderful help from the Federal Bureau of Investigation in setting it up and periodically has had agents from that
agency here to check and approve or add to our records and we believe
in our records, we believe they are as accurate as we can make them
with human faults taken into consideration.
Distribution as to age, and this was interesting to us, when the picture showed we had the youngest age-the age of 15, involving someone
who handled or was charged with narcotics violation of the Federal or
State narcotic laws. This particular case happened several years ago
and it was a Latin American boy who had in his possession marijuana
cigarettes. He was transferred to the probation department. Then
we jump to 17 with 2 persons. Skip 18 and jump to 19, 7 persons; age
20, 6 persons; 21, 7 persons; age 22, 12 persons; age 23, 13 persons;
age 24, 10; age 25, 6; 26, 9; 2V, 8; 28, 6; 29, 9; 30, 3; 31, 5; 32, 2;
33, 5; 34, 11; 35, 7; 36, 2; 37, 6; 38, 5; 39, 1; 40, 5; 41, 5; 42, 2;
43, 5; 44, 2; 45, 1; 46, 3; 47, 1; 48, 1; 49, 5; 50, 1; 51, 1; 52, 1; 53,
none; 54, none; 55, none; 56, 1; 57, 1; 58, none; 59, none; 60, 1.
From earlier testimony here it seems that carried out the fact that
they don't live very long or we don't have many men in the higher age.
Senator
Captain
DANIEL.
LAWS. I
DANIEL.
You think that might bear that testimony out?

do.
Senator
It is nice to see you do not have too many under
21. I see in the age group of 19 you have 7; 7 are 19 and 6 are 20.
Other than that you have only 3 under the age of 19?
Captain. LAWS. Yes, sir, going on from this, still in the age groups,
we had an unfortunate incident that occurred here. We had an 18year-old boy die from narcotic poisoning. Lieutenant Herbert probably will go into that with you on this 18-year-old boy who died a
couple of years ago from an overdose or narcotic poisoning.
You have heard both Colonel Garrison and Chief Thorp. In our
opinion they are the most outstanding men in Texas in law enforcement. You heard their remarks about what they think should be
done, and we certainly agree with them. We have had wonderful
cooperation from the Federal Narcotics Bureau, from the Department of Public Safety Narcotics Section headed by Chief Naylor.
Sheriff Lange has assisted in every way and has a very good department. I am sure that Lieutenant Herbert and Mr. Scott will bring
2393
out the fact that we don't lack for cooperation. The only thing we
lack is that we haven't got more people to help us in this problem here.
Senator DANIEL. How about yourself? Just as an incidental inquiry, do you have enough? It's not the business of the Congress,
except for the record, but I would like to know if you think you have
enough of a local force to take care of the problem, your part of the
problem.
Captain LAWS. Every city probably is lacking in sufficient police
personnel to take care of all their problems. Narcotics is one problem
every city has in law enforcement. We have four men assigned to
this detail, and they spend about half their time dealing with narcotics,
the rest of their time is spent with gambling, prostitution, and other
related problems. Certainly we could use more but the men Chief
Thorp has in this detail are eager and they are anxious to do a good
job. I personally think they do a very good job.
Senator DANIEL. You think you could do even a better job if you
had more men?

Captain LAWS. I am sure we could.
Senator DANIEL. Are there any questions, Senator Butler?
Senator
BUTLER. NO,
sir.
Senator DANIEL. Any questions?

Mr. GASQUE. I would like to ask the Captain how he feels about the
proposals about wiretapping to gain corroborative evidence and leads
on narcotic violations?
Captain LAWS. Well, I feel pretty much about like Chief Thorp
does about that. In this particular offense, in dealing with narcotics,
that you could almost let the gates down to do what you have to do.
Certainly every other crime we have is related at some time or other
to narcotics because these people have to maintain a habit; as long
as they are on the thing they have got to live and if they are, if they
have got to have it they are not going to be able to work too well, contrary to what they have to say. I don't think many businessmen are
going to hire and maintain a person like that in their business. So
they have got to steal. Our drugstore burglaries, many of our safe
burglaries, and I would say the majority of our shoplifting and even
lots of forgeries are done by narcotic addicts.
M r. GASQUE. Have you ever tried to figure a percentage; have any
of you men from the Austin Police Department ever tried to arrive at
an estimate as to how much of your crime in this city is attributable
to narcotic addicts?
Captain LAws. No, sir, I am sure we haven't.
Mr. GASQUE. It might be an interesting figure for you to try to work

up, because in the other places, Philadelphia and New York, we heard
low figures, as low as 30 percent of all crimes in New York were attributable to narcotic addiction; it went as high as 50 percent in Philadelphia, according to the officers who appeared before our committee.
Captain LAWS. I am sure all our drugstore burglaries could be
counted as done by narcotic addicts or pushers or peddlers; certainly
car prowling of distributors' cars. And I don't know how we would
arrive at shoplifting. That is the quickest and easiest way they can
obtain it.
Senator DANIEL. All right, now is Lieutenant Herbert going to
appear? You were going to tell us about this 18-year-old boy who
died. Were you going to tell us about that?
2394
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
TESTIMONY OF K. R. HERBERT, LIEUTENANT, NARCOTICS

DIVISION, AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT
Lieutenant HERBERT. I would be glad to.
Senator DANIEL. Give us any information you have on that in that

particular case.
Lieutenant
HERBERT.
The death of this boy occurred on the 18th
of June 1954. He was a white male, 18 years of age, who was found
unconscious in an automobile parked on an east side street. Later investigation developed he had been abandoned in this State by an associate of his. The autopsy surgeon's report reflected his death was due
to an overdose of opium derivative taken or self-administered while
he was under the influence of alcohol. There was no way to prove
that he had self-administered this drug but it was fairly common
knowledge that he had been using drugs prior to that time.
Senator DANIEL. What was the source of his heroin?
Lieutenant HERBERT. As far as we were able to determine the source
of his heroin was San Antonio.

Senator DANIEL. Well, is that true of the heroin you find on this
Austin market here? Are you able to trace where it comes from?
Lieutenant
HERBERT.
From thie opinion of Federal narcotics agents
familiar with the color, texture, and other things on which they base
their opinion, the narcotic comes originally from Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. From Mexico?
Lieutenant HERBERT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any wholesalers or large operators or
some other place in Texas from which the narcotics come into Austin?
Lieutenant
HERBERT.
They come into here, from the information we
have been able to obtain, from San Antonio, from wholesalers there.
Senator DANIEL. All right, go ahead.
Lieutenant HERBERT. After this boy was found he was carried to
B1rackenridge Hospital where he expired. The autopsy surgeon did

a post mortem examination and came to the conclusion that his death
was due to an overdose of ol)imi derivative. The chemist and toxicologist at the department of publicc safety, figuring the absorption
and the amount of alcohol found in the bh)od at the time they did it,
concluded that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time he
took this shot of heroin.
This case more or less highlighted, brought to our attention the fact
that we were going to have to increase our efforts to try to apprehend
the people responsible for the selling of heroin in this city. We examined the State laws on narcotic addiction, talked to the judge of the
county court at law, the district attorney's staff. They came to the conclusion that this law was invalid because of the fact that the judge
could not place a man on probation where he had been tried for a
misdemeanor offense.
We were able to gain the services of a special employee who had a
wide acquaintance with narcotic addicts in Austin and San Antonio.
In fact he told us he had made purchases himself in San Antonio and
gone with others when they purchased heroin over there. We had a
small hotel in operation where most of the narcotic addicts were sent.
This undercover or special employee was able to -take in with him an
undercover agent of the Federal Narcotics Bureau. This Federal
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2395
Narcotics Bureau agent was able to make purchases and witness sales
by one to the other. They were more or less dealing among themselves on a small scale. As they would get enough together one would
go to San Antonio and buy heroin and bring it back, cap it up and mix
a little with milk and sugar, and sell it. They weren't getting wealthy
but able to get enough money to keep it up. And in other ways, stealing from merchants, such things as coffee, sugar, things that were readily salable. They were supporting in that manner.
Along about the latter part of October we raided this small hotel
and arrested numerous people. We were able to make cases. The
Federal Narcotics Bureau was able to make cases against these people
with our assistance; several were sentenced to terms in Federal penal
institutions and are now serving their time.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you have listed the names of these people?
Senator DANIEL. And that will be a part of our record?

(See report entitled: "Summary of Arrests for Narcotics Violations
by Sex, Race, and Age 1947-55" ,tp. 2389.)
Senator DANIEL. All right. Now, do you have anything else to

point out that would illustrate how the traffic operates as far as Austin is concerned.
Lieutenant HERBERT. Later after the State laws had been amended
we picked up some narcotic addicts here and after we interrogated
them they freely and.voluntarily made statements to us that they were
addicted, and they said they considered they needed help. They
entered a plea of guilty, were given a 2-year sentence, and voluntarily
placed themselves in hospital for treatment.
Senator DANIEL. That is under the new Texas law?
Lieutenant HERBERT. That is under the new Texas law.
Senator DANIEL. That makes addiction itself a felony?
Lieutenant HERBERT. Yes, sir, with a minimum sentence of 2 years
in -thepenitentiary.
Senator DANIEL. This is the first experience the committee has had
with this type of law.
Lieutenant HERBERT. It was our first experience, too.
Senator DANIEL. Yours, too?
Lieutenant HERBERT. Yes, sir. Later we effected apprehension here.
with the assistance and aid of the State highway patrol, the cooperation of the justice of the peace, Frank W. McBee, of a man arrested for
road-law violation who was possibly holding narcotics. He was carried to Brackenridge Hospital, searched by one of the investigators
who found 51/2 grains of heroin-excuse me, 51/ grams of heroin concealed in his cast.
Senator DANIEL. In a what?
Lieutenant HERBERT. He had a broken leg, his leg was in a cast, a.
broken hip, I believe.
Senator DNTEL. Concealed in the cast?
Senator TANTE. In what part?
Lieutenant HERBERT. He had an opening in the cast and this was
near the crotch, and this officer removed 6 papers which weighed out
to be about 51/2 grams.
Senator DANIEu.. When (lid this happen?
71515-5.6-pt. 7-4
2396
Lieutenant HERBERT. This happened on, I believe, the 23d day of
September.
Senator DANIEL. This year?
Senator DANIEL. Well, we have heard of hiding it in everything,
in a lot of places, but this is the first time we have had that kind of
hiding place before the committee.
Lieutenant HERBERT. This gentleman had quite a criminal, record.
It indicated he was a procurer and lie had at one time on his sheet, I
believe a narcotic conviction which he told us was on appeal and he had
never been in the penitentiary on it.
Senator DANIEL. Now, wait, was this man peddling narcotics?
Lieutenant I-EBRERT. No, sir; at least we had no sure information
indicating he was. He apparently was acquiring these narcotics for his

own use.
Lieutenant HERBERT. After we had effected his apprehension and
from his conversation and the conversations of other people with whom
we had contact, our opinion crystallized that the source of the heroin
that was coming to Austin and part of it that was coming through
Austin was a peddler in San Antonio known as Simona Cavazos.
Senator DANIEL. That is a woman?
Senator DANIEL. In San Antonio?
Lieutenant IHEPBERT. Yes, sir.
Lieutenant HERBERT. We were able to obtain the services of a special
employee who told us he had on numerous occasions made purchases
from this woman. After we were able to obtain his services through
Mr. Bromley, a request was made that one of our investigators, Mr.
Scott, be allowed to work in San Antonio. This request was made in
writing by Chief Bichsel of the San Antonio Department. After we
had obtained the services of this special employee, Mr. Bromley rethe chief of police of Austin that one of our officers, Mr.
uested
cott, R.ofC. Scott, be allowed to go to San Antonio to work. And he
did go over there and he can tell you in detail far more about his
experiences while there than I am able to do.
Senator DANIEL. That is Mr. Scott that is here with you?
Senator DANIEL. Now, do you wish for him to do that now?
Lieutenant HERBERT. I would like for him to.
Senator DANIEL. I believe this involves one of these entrapment

cases?
Chief THORP. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. At least undercover jobs.
All rialht, Mr. Scott, first the photograph we have just handed you,
do you identify that as Simona Cavazos?
STATEMENT OF R. C. SCOTT, INVESTIGATOR, AUSTIN POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Mr. ScoTT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. We will mark that as exhibit A of the Austin
hearing.
(Exhibit A of the Austin hearing appears on the following page.)
2397
Senator DANIEL. All right, will you proceed to tell us about how
you were able to catch this person and any information that it might
reveal with reference to the narcotics traffic here in this area?
Mr. SCOTT. As Lieutenant Herbert mentioned, I went over at the
request of the chief of police in San Antonio and Mr. Thomas Bromley of the Federal Narcotics Bureau. And it was just more or less a
pattern handed to me that I had to conform to and I was first introduced to these people by a special employee furnished by the Federal
Narcotics Bureau.
Senator DANIEL. Another undercover agent?
Mr. SCOTT. No, sir.
EXHIBIT A
S"16"'
$"
"
"46
l:
,
"ON"
Picture of Simona Y. Cavazos, age 34, 434 Merida Street, San Antonio, Texas; 5
feet 3 inches; 200 pounds; short and fat; brown hair and eyes.
Senator DANIEJ. He was a special employee?

Mr. SCOTT. A special employee of the Federal Narcotics Bureau.
Senator DANIEL. I see.
Mr. ScoTT. He himself had quite an extensive record and was well
known to these people. On our first few visits there he made a small
purchase.
Senator DANIEL. This was in San Antonio?
Senator DANIEL. And when you say these people, who do you mean
by that?
Mr. ScoTT. Alfonso Cavazos who is the husband of Simona Cavazos.
Senator DANIEL. All right, I'll ask you to identify this picture. Is
this the picture of Alfonso Cavazos?
Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. That will be marked "Exhibit B" of the Austin
hearing.
2398
(Exhibit B of the Austin hearing follows:)

EXIIIBIT B
..
cl*
S.
P
be
s T.
Picture of Alfonso Cavazos, 45 years: 434 Merida Street, San Antonio, Tex.,
5 feet 8 inches; 170 pounds; black hair and brown eyes.
Senator
DANIEL. What
other person?
Mr. SCOTT. Patsy Terrazos.
I believe she is a niece or cousin of-
yes, sir; that is the one [looking at photograph].

Senator DANIEL. That is the one?
Senator DANIEL. All right, mark that exhibit C of the Austin

hearing.
(Exhibit C of the Austin hearing appears on the following page.)
Senator DANIEL. Anyone else operating here at the place you made
the purchases?
Mr. SCOTT. No, sir; at the time I made one purchase there was an-
other subject there by the name of John Palmer, Jr., I believe. This
was the last purchase that was made shortly before the arrest. I
hadn't seen this subject prior to the last buy.
Senator DANIEL. Did John Palmer, Jr., have anything to do with
the sale?
Mr. ScoTT. He was present at the time the transaction was made.

Mr. ScoTT. I never had any conversation with him other than to
speak with him when I went in and he spoke to me.
Senator DANIEL. You were operating as an undercover agent. Did
you hold yourself out to be an addict?
Mr. ScoTT. No, sir; allegedly I was engaged in a prostitution ring
up the country. I never made mention of any particular place. The
Dallas-Fort Worth area, I believe, was where they presumed I was
from.
MLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
2399
EXHIBIT C
Picture of Patsy Suarez Terrazos, age 25, 434 Merida, San Antonio, Tex.; 5 feet;
139 pounds; black hair; brown eyes; short and fat. Possession and sale of
heroin, September 28, 1955.
Mr. Scorr. This was operated in conjunction with a bar down there,
a very small bar in the Latin American district in San Antonio.
Simona Cavazos and her husband lived next door to this bar, just
about a 15-foot driveway that. separated the 2 buildings. In other
words, they ran the bar.
On our first visit down there I didn't try to make a purchase. The
special employee purchased three grams, and he had previously been
an addict. He had come from Lexington; I believe he was discharged
against medical advice on the 16th of September, this year. And he
was still thought by Simona and her husband to be an addict.
Senator DANIEL. How much did he pay for it?
Mr. SCOTT.
On the 3-gram. purchase it was $30 a gram, a total of
$90. She sold, if you bought more than 4 grams you could get it at
$20, anything less than a 4-gram. purchase costs you $30 a gram. On
the first visit there he made a purchase of three grams and this was
made from Patsy Terrazos. Simona and her husband were not there
at that time.
We returned to the bar again next afternoon and spent approximately 4 hours there at which time they evidently looked me over and
decided I was all right. I was invited over to the house. At this time
Simona and her husband, X1, were both present and we discussed the
purchase of an ounce of heroin. And she told me she had had difficulty lately in Mexico getting it at an ounce; that is, in bulk ounce.
She said dealers over there were selling the papers because they could
make more money by selling by papers than just bulk ounce. I think
bulk ounce someone previously stated sold around three or four hundred dollars, depending on the market. By selling that at$25 a paper
I believe they could derive a larger profit.
2400
Senator DANIEL. You know what it sells for a paper, how many
papers you can make out of an ounce?
Mr. SCOTT. No, sir; I don't.
Senator DANIEL. Thirty papers to the ounce.
Mr. ScoTT. Thirty papers to the ounce?

Senator DANIEL. Mr. Speer said that. Do you know how much it
costs a paper in Mexico now?
Mr. ScoTT. No, sir. She didn't say that at all, we talked at great
length about the purchasing of it in Mexico and from her conversation

it was quite easy to acquire there, and she also stated to me that she
always had it delivered across, she never brought it across herself.
She didn't name any fee that was charged for-bringing it in. She
told me she had it delivered to her in San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. Did this Cavazos woman tell you she went down
in person to make some of the purchases?
Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir; she would go across she told me at Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. You heard a description a moment ago by one of

the witnesses as to how the purchases were made. Tell us just how
did her story compare with what the witness, Milton Turner, had to
say ?
Mr. ScoTT. From what Simona told me her story conformed to Mr.
Turner's testimony. She would contact someone, make a buy, come

back across the bridge, it would be delivered at a predesignated time
in San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. Did she say whether or not she bought in Laredo?
Mr. ScoTT. No, sir, she told me she crossed. I didn't want to press
her too much because

Mr. ScoTT. And the first night that we went there when the first
three grams were purchased, Simona had gone. She told me the next
afternoon that she had been out waiting to make contact and, in other
words, she was out Monday night waiting for somebody to bring her
in some heroin. And on the following Tuesday when we had quite a
lengthy conversation, when we were trying to buy an omce, that was
when she told me she couldn't deliver bulk ounce. She told me she
just had a supply in, she could let me have 200 grams that afternoon
it would run in the vicinity of $5,000, $20 a gram. Naturally, we
weren't going to put out that much money.
Senator DANIEL. She had that much available for youI
Mr. ScoTT. She told me that; yes. There was a question in my mind
whether or not it was too soon to make a buy from her so we just let it
pass. The conversation went on many things. Your name came up.
Senator DANIEL..My name?
Mr. ScoTT. Yes, sir. She was under the impression you had passed
a law, that there was going to be a sentence of hanging for anyone who
brought any back from Mexico, and she was quite disturbed about that.
Senator DANIEL. Well, Mr. Speer, in reporting to this committee
his conversation with you, told us that the committee's name had been
brought up.
Mr. ScOTT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have the quotation, what she said about
this committee, in writing?
2401
Mr. ScoTT. No, sir. It is a quotation that couldn't be used in mixed

company.
Senator DANIEL. You couldn't use it in mixed company?

Mr. ScoTT. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, I'll ask you if she said this, if this is correct:
"I can't quit selling heroin as long as I can sit on my butt and make
$400 or $500 a day." Did she tell you that?
Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir ; she told me tliat.
Senator DANIEL. She told you she couldn't quit?
Mr. ScoTr. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did she say that this "G. D." Senate committee
recommended hanging?
Mr. SCOTT. Yes, si'.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, do you think hanging would be too severe
for this traffic, after having examined what she has done?
Mr. ScoTT. My personal opinion; it wouldn't.
Senator DANIEL. What?
Mr. SCOTT. My personal opinion would be I don't think it is too
severe.
Senator DANIEL. Has she been convicted since?
Mr. SCOTT. No, sir.
S'enstor
Has she been arrested?

Mr. SCOTT. At which time? You mean previous?
Senator DANIEL. No, sir. Since you made this case has she been
DANIEL.
arrested? Where is this Simon a?

Mr. SCOTT. She is out on bond at this time.
Senator
DANIEL.
Out on bond now?

Mr. SCOTT. I had a charge of sale and a charge of conspiracy. She
is out on $2,500 bond on each count.
Senator
DANIEL.
$2,500 bond?
Mr. ScoT. On each count, a total of $5,000.

Senator DANIEL. I wonder if there is any evidence that she is still
operating her sales of narcotics while out on bond ?
Mr. SCOTT. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. That is one of the things this committee is most
interested in on this matter of bail bond and the way these narcotics
traffickers operate while out on bail, and over and over again we find
them out making money for their lawyers or out trafficking. That
bail means nothing. One man, Antoine d'Agostino, jumped $25,000
bail and ever since he has been out, was let out on bail he has been
trafficking, so it will be an interesting thing to know whether or not
this is another instance in which the trafficking is continued after the
woman gets out.
Mr. SCOTT. To the best of my knowledge they were released or posted
bond immediately after being arraigned before Commissioner Lockhart, possibly the same day.
Senator DANIEL. 'Well, we'll ask about that when we get to San
Antonio.
Mr. SCOTT. I imagine Mr. Bromley could possibly give you information as to whether or not she has done further trafficking.
Senator
BUTLER.
Are these people American citizens?
2402
Mr. SCOTT. I don't know. That question came up, Mr. Bromley
was going to question that. I believe that they are because this particular women I noticed had been in business down there for some
time and had been under surveillance and observation for some time.
1 believe if she hadn't been an American citizen it would have come
out before.
Senator
Is there anything further on that particular case ?
DANIEL.
Mr. SCOTT.
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Any questions, Mr. Counsel?

Mr. GASQUE. No.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator Butler, any further questions?
Senator BUTLER. No.

Mr. SCOTT. I would like to mention this, a question came up earlier
about the color of the heroin. All this heroin I purchased was white.
Senator DANIEL. White heroin?
Mr. Scorr. That was approximately 34 grams.
Senator
DANIEL.
What is the name of this joint?
Mr. SCOTT. Al's Bar.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
In what part of San Antonio?
Mr. ScoTT. It is in the western section. It is 430 Merida, that is

the address of the bar, the house next door, 434. That street is
between Brazos and Zarzamora.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know if that bar is closed now?
Mr. SCOTT. No, sir; I don't. I left. I made the last sale one afternoon about 2 o'clock. The i)la(-e was raided about 2:15 and I returned
to Austin that night, went back the next day for the arraignment, and
returned to Austin again. I don't know whether it is closed or not.
Senator DANIEL. About what day was that, that was last month?
Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir, that was October 29, September 29, of the last
buy, and arrest was made.
Senator DANIEL. Well, Detective Scott, this is a very interesting
relation of how you did a good job. it shows us something also about
the up-to-date traffic narcotics hearing. Do you agree with your colleagues that most of the heroin coming in here comes from San
Aitonio?
Mr. SCOTT. Just about 90 percent of the addicts that we have handled, known addicts, have told me personally they have purchased not
only from San Antonio but from this particular woman.
This particular woman in San Antonio?
Senator
Senator
BUTLER.
Senator
BUTLER.
DANIEL.
Any further questions, Senator Butler?

I want to get some of these figures in my mind,
Mr. Scott. How many papers are in an ounce of heroin?

Mr. ScoTT. I believe Mr. Speer said 30, about 30.
Mr. SPEER. A gram, a paper-be 600.
Because the figures that Colonel Garrison gave
was somewhat along this line, $350, for a pure ounce.

Senator BUTLER. You can take 437 one-grain caps of pure heroin and
cut that 5 for 1, which was 2,185 one-grain caps at $7, would be
$15,295. Now, you say they have changed that method of sale and
it is even higher? You pay more for it now in Mexico?
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2403
Mr. ScoTT. I don't know what the price was in Mexico. She just
refused to sell me a. bulk ounce of it. I don't know whether she was
telling the truth, I doubt she was. I think she was just asking for
more money, because if I had bought a bulk ounce I could have gotten
a cheaper price than papers.
Senitor BUTLEIR. I think Colonel Garrison said $350 for a pure
ounce.
Mr. Sco'rr. I have never had the occasioii to bnuy anything in that
amount.
Senator DANIEL. Anything further, Mr. Counsel?
Mr. (GASQUE. NO, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right, thank you very much.
We appreciate all of the testimony which has been given to us by

you gentlemen and especially the help in arranging this hearing and
your assistance to Mr. Speer.
Captain Laws, just one question from where you are. Do you feel
like the arrest of these addicts throws out the heart of your traffic
here or not?
Captain LAWS. Yes, sir; this group of four women that are now at
the State hospital, being treated or being observed, are long-time residents of Austin. Milton Turner is a long-time resident of Austin.
They have all grown up in Austin together, some of them had personal knowledge of Milton and Ruby Bell Turner, Julia Mae Snowden, Peggy Watson, and Mabel Plumley Wilson, and for years, they
have been a source of problem in Austin. Naturally, when you get
a group of folks like that, they will attract outsiders to them. I mean,
if I were an addict or user and went to a town and wanted to find
where I could get it, I would seek out the people who use it.
This is the first time the chief had an opportunity under this new
State law to give these folks a compulsory treatment. That is just
about what our State law amounts to, they have to go take treatment
under probation or else go to the penitentiary.
Senator DANIEL. Do you feel that if you can get your addicts or
your main addicts off of the streets into the hospital or jail or somewhere, that then you can lick the problem, is that right?
Captain LAWS. Yes, sir; I think we would gain several things. I
think it will stop a lot of our thievery, lot of buglary, especially drug
store burglary. A good share of our crime is committed by these people, and it givpo them a little added incentive to take treatment. Of
course, it would always be voluntarily.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right. Thank you very much.
Before recessing I will say the committee intends to call this afternoon Morris Levine, Rudy Rodriguez, other officials, Attorney General John Ben Shepperd, and not necessarily in this order, but also the
witness, Antoine d'Agostino.
We will stand recessed until 2 o'clock this afternoon, meet back
promptly at 2.
(Whereupon, at 12: 30 p. m.. the subcommittee recessed to reconvene
at 2 p. m.,the same day.)
2404

AF' ERNOON SESSION

Morris Levine, will you be sworn?
(The witness was duly sworn.)
Senator DANIEL. You may be seated. State your full name.
TESTIMONY OF MORRIS LEVINE
Mr. LEvINz. Morris Levine.
Mr. LEvINE. I live at the county jail right now.
Senator DANIEL. Will you sit up close to the microphone there?
You are in the county jail here?

Mr. LEVINE. In Austin, yes.
At the present time?

Mr. LEVINE. That's right.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. Where do you claim your home?

Mr. LEVINE. Los Angeles, Calif.
Senator DANML. Had you lived here in Austin at any time before
being placed in the jail?
Mr. LEVINE. No, sir; I was just passing on through here.
Senator DANIEL. YOU were just passing through here?
Mr. LEVINE. Yes. [Indicating by nodding his head.]
Senator DANIEL. What age are you?
Mr. LEVINE. Forty-three.
Senator DANIEL. Are you being held on some charge that was com-
mitted here?
Mr. LEVINE. I am under 5-year sentence now) possession of narcotics

charge.
Senator DANIEL. What type of narcotics?
Mr. LEVINE. Morphine.
Senator DANIEL. Morphine. Was morphine found on you here in
this county?
Mr. LEVINE. I don't know where it was found on me. They claimed
I had a box that was taken from the hospital under my arm. I was
in no condition to remember what was in the box. The box was sealed
at the time, never had been broken open.
Senator DANIEL. Where had you gotten the box?
Mr. LEVINE. The box came out of the hospital, out of this Brackenridge Hospital.
Senator DAoiEL. How did you happen to be at the
hospital?
Mr. LEVINE. I was sick.
Senator DANIEL. And being treated there at the hospital ?
Mr. LEVINE. I was sick and went there for treatment and they shot
me up, gave me a couple of shots of some kind of medicine, gave me,
I believe it was the second shot, all told, and then the next thing I
know they claim they found me wandering around about a block
from the hospital with a box under my arm.
Senator DAN-iFL. And in this box was what?

Mr. LEVINE. I don't know what was in that box. They claimed
there was narcotics in the box.

Senator DANIEL. Have you been tried on that charge?
Mr. LEVNE. I have been tried on that charge.
1111111111
Senator
DANIEL.
2405
And convicted?
Mr. LEVINE. Yes; it is on appeal now.
Senator
DANIEL. How long have you been a drug addict?

Mr. LEVINE. Oh, about 22 years.
Senator DANIEL. At what age did you become addicted to drugs?
Mr. LEVINE. About 20 years old.
Senator DANIEL. And where was that?
Mr. LEVINE. New York City.
Senator DANIEL. Will you tell the committee just how you happened
to become addicted to drugs and what drugs you first used?

Mr. LEVINE. Well, I had, I'll tell you how it happened.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Levine, first let the record show, did Mr.
Speer, our investigator, talk with you?
Mr. LEVINE. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. You are willing, of your own accord, to give this
committee any information you can as someone who has had the terrible experience of having been a drug addict, is that correct?
I have been using that over 22 years
now and I finally broke away from it with God's help.

Senator DANIEL. And how long have you been off of the drug?
Mr. LEVINE. About 8 months now.
Senator DANIEL. What drug did you first use?
Mr. LEVINE.
Senator
try it?
Mr.
Heroin.
DANIEL.
LEVINE.
And how did you happen to know about it, first
Well, the neighborhood I was raised up in was just
flowing with it. That is the Harlem section of New York City. It
seemed to be sort of a style, all the kids were going for it, all for kicks.
Senator DANIEL. Kids you had been acquainted with?
Mr. LrVINE. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. And did one of them offer you the first shot of
heroin?
Mr. LEVINE. No; I'll tell you how I got started. I knew what it
was. I tried it a time or two and one time I was arrested and put
under the Federal Detention Home on West Street. And that place
was just crawling with addicts at that time. It was in 1932 and I
really had had a taste of it before, you know. I wasn't hooked or
anything.
Senator DANIEL. When you say you weren't hooked, in the terminology of addicts that means you had not become addicted; is that
right?
Mr. LEVINE. And, well, there was a lot of stuff in the place. These
addicts used to send lines down and get it smuggled in, have balls
thrown on the roof when we were taken up for exercise.
Senator DANIEL. Was that in the prison?
Mr.
LEVINE.
Senator
In the Federal Detention Home.
DANIEL.
In the Federal Detention Home?
Mr. LEVINE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. That was in West Street Prison, New York City ?
Mr. LvIN. That's right.
Senator
DANIEL.
And in 1932, is that about the right date?
2406
Mr. LEVINE. 1932, around this time of the year, in October.
Senator
DANIEL. You were how old?

Mr. LEVINE. Twenty years old.
Senator DANIEL. Now, had you used
heroin or any other dru
be-
fore you committed the offense that caused you to be put in this West
Street Prison?
Mr. LEVINE. I had a taste of it, I never shot it, you know, I took a
sniff, smoked a little weed.
Senator
DANIEL. By weed
Mr. LEVINE. Marihuana.
you mean marilmana ?
Senator DANIEL. But you had not become hooked before you got in
other tvpes of trouble; is that right?
Mr. LEVINE. No; that's right.
Senator
DANIEL.
And you say that is where you were when you
got hooked or addicted?

Mr. LEVINE. Right there on West Street.
Senator
In the prison ?
Mr. LEVINE. In the prison.
Senator DANIEL. And in 1932 it was possible to get the narcotics in
DANIEL.
that prison?
Mr. LEVINE. Yes, possible to get it anywhere.
Senator DANIEL. Anywhere?

Mr. LEVINE. That's right. Selling then for about $12 an ounce,
10 or 12.
Senator
You are speaking about heroin?

Heroin.
DANIEL.
Mr. LEVINE.
Senator DANIEL. All right, have you ever gone to any of the hospitals for treatment of addiction?
Mr. LEVINE. I took about 50 cures.
Senator
DANIEL. How many?

LEVINE. About 50, voluntarily.
Mr.
I have been with private institutions. I have been in hospitals. I have been sent away to prison
numerous times and every time -I come out it didn't seem to do any
good, I just wanted the stuff more.
Senator DANIEL. Did you say 15?
Mr. LEVINE. Fifty.
Fifty times ?
Mr. LEVINE. F-i-f-t-y.
Senator DANIEL. You tried about 50 times?
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. Either in prison or hospitals to take cures for your

addiction?
Senator
DANIEL.
And did you go to the Lexington Federal Hos-
pital?
Mr. LEVINE. I have been to Lexington, and Fort Worth.
Senator
DANIEL.
How many times have you been in the Lexington
Federal Hospital?
Mr. LEVINE. Four or fives times. Been in the Marine hospitals.
Been in Fort Worth about a half dozen times. I wouldn't even stay
there. You know, I checked out of there.
Senator DANIEL. What do you mean, when you were in Fort Worth
you checked out?
Mr. LEVINE.
Senator
2407
You can leave any time you want.
DANIEL.
Do you mean the Federal Narcotics Hospital at
Fort Worth?
That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Did you enter as a volunteer patient?
Senator DANIEL. Each time?
Mr. LEVINE.
Mr. LEVINE. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL. Or were you ever sentenced?

Mr. LEVINE. Went there voluntarily.
Senator
DANIEL.
About six times?
Mr. LEVINE. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. A volunteer patient, as I understand it, may leave
-mytime he wants to?

Senator DANIEL. You say you did leave too soon to do any good?
Mr. LEVINE. It wouldn't done any good if I had stayed there.
Senator DANIEL. Why?
Mr. LEVINE. Because I just kept it in my mind. They can cure you
physically but they can't cure a man mentally. It gets into your
mind and your only way to get it out is the good Lord.
Senator DANIEL. He is the only one who can help you?

Mr. LEVINE.
now.
That's right.
And that's who has been helping me
Senator DANIEL. How long did you say you have been off the drug?
Mr. LEVINE. About 8 months. I don't care for it. You can lay it,
put it down alongside of me now and I'll go to sleep, you can believe
that, without touching it.
Senator DANIEL. Now, have you been in jail these 8 months?
Mr. LEVINE. Been in jail these 8 months.
Senator DANIEL. You now have a conviction of 5 years in prison?
Senator DANIEL. And you have been to prison how many

fore on narcotics charges, approximately?
Mr. LEVINE. Well, everything, every time I went to prison
was the cause of it.
Senator DANIEL. Now, that was except for your first time
in New York, I believe?
Mr. LEVINE. Yes, that's right.
Senator DANIEL. You got in trouble first before you ever
narcotics addict?
times be-
narcotics
in prison
became a
Mr. LEVINE. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. What kind of trouble was that?

Well, I, somebody passed a phony $10 bill on me. I
got it in my business and when I found out it was phony, that was
during the depression when money was real hard to get, I sold it for
$5 to another guy. He said, "I'll give you five for it"and I sold it for
five. He got to court with it, and he told them he got it off me. They
picked me up and put me in West Street and that's where I became
addicted. When released on probation I came out of there with a
habit. I was afraid to tell anybody about it. I wouldn't tell the
probation officer or my people. I just kept right on using drugs.
The way I was sent to prison the first time, I was hooked already, I
Mr. LEVINE.
2408
was on the stuff and on probation and in order to get money to buy
some stuff I had to steal and I broke a telephone open, that was the
first time.
Senator DANIEL. That is after you got out of the West Street
Prison?
Mr. LEVINE. That's right, I was on probation.
I broke a telephone
open to get some money to buy narcotics and I was sent away 3 years.
Senator DANIEL. Was that on a charge of burglary?
Mr. LEVINE. NO, they dropped that, maliciousSenator DANIEL. Malicious mischief?
Mr. LEVINE. That's right, and sent me away for violating my
probation.
Senator DANIEL. Violating probation.
That was a 3-year sentence?
Mr. LEVINE. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did you serve that 3 years?

Mr. LEVINE. I served that 3 years in Bull's Prairie, never got any
kind of treatment whatever. I was ashamed to admit I was an addict,

no addicts there. They didn't keep any drug addicts there. That
was how ashamed I was of it, you know.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you get any narcotics in that prison?
That was the USDH, the United States Detention Home?

Mr. LEVINE. No, that was Federal prison at Lewisburg.
Senator DANIEL. Northeastern Penitentiary?
Mr. LEVINE. At Lewisburg.
Senator DANIEL. I see. Did you get any kind of drugs there?
Mr. LEVINE. Well, once in a while somebody would score for a little.
Senator
score"?
DANIEL.
For the record, what do you mean by "would
They would have some of the guards get it brought in

to them some way.
Senator DANIEL. Is that the addiction terminology for having gotten
some of the drugs, that word "scored"?
Mr. LEVINE. That's right. Scored.
Senator BUTLER. I take it from your answer, even if you could have
gotten the drug for nothing you wouldn't have registered and applied
for it?
Mr. LEVINE. If I could have gotten it?
Senator BUTLER. Would you have registered and applied for it'?
Mr. LEVINE. I guess I would have. I sure would have. I would
have got mine.
Mr.
LEVINE.
Senator BUTLER. You said you kept it such a big secret.

Mr. LEVINE. I kept it then. I didn't want my people to find out,
or none of my friends because at that time anybody that was, anybody

that used narcotics, hardly anybody had any use for them, you know,
especially the people I ran around with. They couldn't trust them,
you know, they looked down on them like a dog.
Senator DANIEL. Now, just one inconsistency I would like to clarify.
I thought you said that where you were raised, where you lived before
you went off to prison the first time was near Harlem, over in Harlem?
Mr. LEVINE. In Harlem.
Senator DANIEL. And there were a lot of addicts there?
Senator
DANIEL.
So they didn't look down on it there?
II I I1
2409
Not these guys I hung around. I hung around with

two different bunches, some kids I play around with.
Senator DANIEL. Who was it in your family or in your associations
that looked down on narcotic addicts?
Mr. LEVINE. 'Well, some of my associates, some of my friends and
some would and some wouldn't, you know.
Senator DANIEL. All right, about how much did your habit cost
you after you got to be a confirmed heroin addict? How much did it
cost you a day to take care of it ?
Mr.
LEVINE.
Mr. LEVINE.
Well, at that time it wasn't very high.
Senator DANIEL. You talk about "at that time", say back in 1934,
that period of time; after you got out of Lewisburg, after you were
released from Lewisburg in 1937 ?
Senator DANIEL. Three years
later, you went on back to drugs, did
you?
LEVINE. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. After having
Senator DANIEL. Did you take
Mr.
been off of them for 3 years?

them once in a while when you could
prison?
in Lewisburg
getMr.
them
LEVINE.
Every now and then.
Senator DANIEL. Did you want them while you were there?
Mr. LEVINE. 1 craved it every day I was there, wanted it, desired it.
Senator DANIELS. How long after you got out of the penitentiary
befdr you went to buying drugs again?
Mr. LEVINE. I bought some the first day.
Senator DANIEL. Where?
Mr.
LEVINE.
In Harlem.
Senator DANIEL. All right, about what did it cost you then per day
to take care of your habit?

Mr. LEVINE. Oh, about $2 a day. That was plenty. Buy an eighth
of an ounce Would cost you $2, buy a sixteenth of an ounce for a dollar.
Senator DANIEL. And it was plentiful there?
Mr. LEVINE. Plentiful.
Senator DANIEL. All right, then through the years there what did
your habit cost? Did heroin become more expensive in New York?
Mr. LEVINE. It got up pretty high.
Senator DANIEL. When was the last purchase of heroin you made in
New York?
Mr. LEVINE. Well, that was around 1940, I think, 1940 or 1941.
Senator DANIEL. Do you remember what it cost then?
Mr. LEVINE. 1 think an ounce of pure cost about a hundred dollars
then, about $20 for an ounce of cut stuff.
Senator DANIEL. About what did your habit cost you in New York
in1940?
Mr. LEVINE. Wasn't very high, very cheap.
Senator DANIEL. All right, then 'what did you do to get enougli
g
money to buy the drugs from day to day?
Mr. LEVINE. Well, I would do a little buying and selling and trading, different merchandise, try to make a living some way. I always
tried to keep honest, keep out of trouble.
Senator
DANIEL
kind of drugs?
Did that include the buying or selling of any
2410
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Mr. LEVINE. No, sir, I never handled drugs, never sold ally.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you ever commit any other kind of offenses in order to get money to buy your drugs?
Mr. LEVINE. I broke into a drug store one time.
Senator DANIEL. And what did you do that for?
Mr. LEVINE. Down in Florida.
Senator DANIEL. What did you do that for ?
Mr. LEVINE. Because I was sick and needed the niedicine.
Senator DANIEL. Did you take some type of narcotic drug out of
the drug store you broke into?
Mr. LEVINE. Here's what happened, I'll tell you what happened
down there. I was getting my stuff from a doctor, through a doctor's

rescription. I took this prescription to this drug store and had it
lled there. It was about 9 o'clock in the evening. I lived in the
city of Miami. This was on Miami Beach and I didn't know this
druggist there, and I think the bill was a dollar and sixty-five cents,
somewhere around that. I didn't have enough to pay him. I had
about a dollar and some change. I didn't have quite enough. And
I told him I would have to bring the money in to you, all I got. He
said, I'll be open till 11. He filled that prescription, you know, and
said, I'll have it setting right here for you, right behind the cash
register. I got back there about 10: 30 with the money and the place
was blacked out, just a little dim light over the register, and I could
look in there and see all them prescriptions laying there that was
filled. I was sick. I mean I was desperate, needed my medicine bad.
I went next door to the neighbors, people who lived next door and
asked them where the druggist lived. They said they didn't know.
Down there they use them screen doors, little light locks, you know.
I went around to the back door, pushed the door in, went in there and
got my medicine. I picked up the medicine that belonged to me and
left the money there for it.

Senator DANIEL. What was that, morphine?
Mr. LEVINE.
That was dilaudide, 26 grams of dilaudide.
I got
picked up for it and they didn't want to punish me, thought they could
cure me, after I explained it. The man who operated the drug store
told them I didn't touch any other narcotics. They gave me a year
anyway.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you know of other addicts who have
broken into drug stores to steal the narcotic drugs? I'm not going
to ask you to name them. I want to know, is that a customary or
usual thing?
Mr. LEVINE.
It is custom; when an addict gets desperate and needs
that stuff he will do almost anything to get it.

Senator DANIEL. Just tell us exactly how it feels, as a person who
has been an addict for these many years when you are deprived of
your drug and you no longer have the heroin or some opiate?
Mr. LEVINE.
Yes.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL. Does it make you sick?

LEvIxE. Well, it is hard to put in words,
you get so miserable,

so low, and so sick-did you ever have a hangover? I mean this is
only a hundred times worse than a hangover.
Senator DANIEL. I have heard, I think I know what you meanfortunately I haven't had that experience. But does it make you
physically sick to not have the drugs?
2411
It not only makes you physically sick, it knocks you

half out of your mind, you don't know what you're doing half the
time. Just got one objective, got dope on your mind, you're going to
get it by hook or by crook, you're crying, the devil gets into you so
deep you just got to have it.
Senator DANIEL. Now, I suppose you have tried as many treatments
as any man that has been before this committee.
Mr. LEVINE.
Mr. LEVINE. I guess.
Senator DANIEL. Fifty treatments, I believe you said a minute ago,

you have been either to prison hospitals or some type of confinement
50 times?
Senator DANIEL. Since you became an addict in 1932, and you say
that none of those treatments worked, relieved you from the craving
for the drug?
Mr. LEVINE. None of them done me a bit of good. Take it from me,
physically, cure me physically, I would still have it in my mind.
Senator DANIEL. You say now that since you have been here in
Travis County jail for these 8 months you feel like you have it out of
your mind now?
Mr. LEVINE. It is not the jail that done it, the jail helped some. I'll
tell you what happened. You see, laying there, given a dirty deal like
I got, I started, you know, to sorta review my life and look back and
see the way I lived and I seen where I slipped up, you know, and seen
the way I had been living and I just got to, and I sorta woke up and
I got, to praying and asked, you know. I asked God to help me. I said
I tried so many times, you know, and it seems like the more I prayed
the more strength I got. And then pretty soon I got to where it didn't
bother me at all. I got over that craving, first time in my life I got
over that craving, over that wanting. I could lay down and sleep like
a baby every night.
Senator DANIEL. And that is still true?
Mr. LEVINE. Before that, the time I was at Lewisburg., the first time
I mean, I think I had done 6 years, not 3, I was awake every night, just
wanting stuff, couldn't wait for the day to get out to get it. And now
since I have been, since I got that, I don't know, I can call it a gift, I
overcome all that, I don't crave it, I don't want it, don't bother me in
the least and in fact we hardly get anything to eat up there and I am
getting stronger every day. I have been up there 2 months. That's a
fact.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you think that after you serve this prison term
that has been assessed against you you are going to be able to stay off
of drugs?
Mr. LEVINE. I got peace of mind now. I don't see why it would
leave me.
Senator DANIEL. I certainly hope that that is correct, and we appreciate your coming before this committee and giving us this information. I want to ask you, you went into the merchant marine in World
War II?
Mr. LEVINE. I joined the merchant marine in 1940. I though it
would help get me off narcotics sorta by travel, took a different, you
know, outlook.
71515-56--pt. 7-
2412
Senator DANIEL. But I believe you did not get off, continued to
use narcotics?
Mr. LEVINE. In every port I hit, everywhere I went.
Senator DANIEL. In how many countries have you bought heroin ?
Mr. LEVINE. Pretty near every port I went to.
Senator DANIEL. Just name them.

have been pretty near all over the world.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy in Germany?
Mr. LEVINE. Up in Germany, in England, Holland, Belgium, and
France.
Senator DANIEL. Did you find heroin harder to get in any of those
countries than in this country?
Mr. LEVINE. No, they don't seem to have a problem. You can go
to a doctor and get it pretty easy.
Mr. LEVINE. Anywhere, in European countries, in Germany, you
can buy a kilo of stuff for $800, a kilogram four and a quarter.
Senator DANIEL. Did you find a considerable number of people
using heroin in Germany?
Mr. LEVINE. I
Mr. LEVINE. Germany has quite a few, mostly prostitutes and under-
world, you know, underworld people.

Senator DANIEL. And what about in England, did you have any
trouble finding it?
Mr. LEVINE.
I never stayed there long enough.
I never had no
trouble. If you want that you can find the devil anywhere, the same,
you know, you find it anywhere.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever land in any port in your merchant
marine service or your travels over the world where you did find it
difficult to get heroin-in any country?
Mr. LEVINE. I found it pretty hard here in Texas.
Senator DANIEL. In Texas?
Mr. LEVINE. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. What cities did you visit in trying to find heroin?
Where did you find it difficult?

Mr. LEVINE. Dallas.
Senator DANIEL. Any others?
Mr. LEVINE. San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. Were you able to buy?
Mr. LEVINE. You can buy black-market stuff. I wasn't looking for
that. It is mostly powdered sugar and milk. I mean through doctors,

good stuff, they got that doctor situation pretty well sewed up.
Senator DANIEL. How do you mean?
Mr. LEVINE. Well, I'll tell the committee about it.
I prepared a
little, some notes on this here deal. I wasn't ready for you. I didn't
know what was going to happen and I wrote some notes down, sort of
a little testimony you may call it and I'll read it to you and that may
cover all you want to ask.
Mr. LEVINE. Well, gentlemen, I take it we are all here to try to
solve this terrible problem which is growing into a monstrous mountain. It is not only ruining the lives of younger generations but also
demoralizing our entire country. Newspapers and many more ignorant publicity seekers who are trying their utmost to get you to
pass more drastic laws in order to mete out severer punishment to
2413
the offender, if that would help I would be the first to beg you to do
so. Gentlemen, I hope and pray that you understand what severer
punishment will do in order-will do or in fact is now doing-just
helping to create a bigger racket. It is boosting the price. It is making it tougher on old dopey, he is forced to go out to steal, rob, or
push the stuff in order to obtain a supply. 1e may even push it ,to
your own son, daughter, or your neighbor's kids, anybody. If he gets
desperate enough he may even kill for it. It is just boosting the price
for the manufacturer, smuggler, and manufacturer, all connected with
the bigger profits for them. It is just ruining the lives of our teenagers. It is just putting a heavier load on our taxpayers. Why not
face this problem in a sensible manner? A few years ago in China
death sentences were meted out to offenders. Did that stop it? They
took those addicts out in the city square and shot them before the
eves, of the people and now-now they have more offenders than ever.
'the death penalty could not stop it. Where do we expect to get with
meting out severer prison terms? If an addict is honest and gets a
supply through a doctor's prescription the narcotic agent will be
around to visit the doctor and tell him if he don't quit prescribing too
much for his patient, he is prescribing too much for his patient, and
there are other medicines to prescribe, and if he don't stop he will
revoke his license aiid send him to prison, even go around threatening and scaring the druggist, try to keep him from filling the prescription. In the same way the poor addict is then forced into a life of
crime or if a girl she is forced into prostitution.
(The next portion of Mr. Levine's prepared notes were stricken
from the record by Senator Daniel.)
Senator
DANIEL.
Let's use language with respect to anyone you
talk about that will not be libelous or otherwise libelous if not made
under oath before a committee.
Mr. LwImE. Well, they should at least realize that certain problems belong to God only and God is not the Devil, that's for sure.
Confinement, punishment will never cure an addict. He is just creating a monster and playing right into the hands of the Devil. The
only way to cure an addict, that an addict can ever be cured, is through
God, through real deep and sincere prayer and in due time you will
actually overcome its affliction. The affliction probably is so great
that it don't belong to man, it is out of man's reach. That is how
big God is, I believe. It is just plain nonsense to even think of curing
an addict in prison, prison cell, or in a hospital. It is of paramount
importance that drug" addicts be recognized and treated as sick people
just as the insane are. Years ago people regarded insane as possessed
of the Devil. We flogged them and chained them. We burned them.
Today we realize these people are sick, and we look upon them with,
compassion. An addict should also be looked upon with compassion
and not thrown into a prison cell to be forgotten.
Senator
DA=IEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
On that comparison, don't we put our insane in
hospitals, keep them off the streets? You admit yourself a drug
addict is going to spread his addiction to other people?
Mr. LEVINE. He won't spread it, I'll tell you why, I'll come into
that.
addicts.
This committee has heard too many figures on
We had in New York 3 members of a family before us,
2414
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
spread from the husband to his wife to the 17-year-old brother.
Haven't you seen addicts spread it to other people?

Mr. LEVINE. I have seen it.
I can take you to New York in 1 day's
time, I'll get you a hundred kids under 16 years of age that are using
stuff. Why?
Senator DANIEL. They spread it to each other?
Mr. LEVINE. That's right. I'll tell you why, I'm coming to that.
Senator DANIEL. All right, if insane or leprous, you would be for
putting them in some kind of institution, wouldn't you, where they
wouldn't infect other people?
Mr. LEVINE. Dangerous to anybody else, but an addict isn't even
damaging anybody but his own self.
Mr. GASQUE. Nobody but the whole community; he spreads addiction; he commits crimes, burglary, stealing, and shoplifting.
Mr. LEVINE. Why?
Mr. GASQUM. In order to support his habit.
Mr. LEVINE. I'm going to tell you why.
Senator
BUTLER.
Also I think this record should show we have had
very eminent medical authorities tell us that an addict can be cured.

Mr. LEVINE. Physically.
Senator
BUTLER.
This record should not state that it cannot be
cured; it can be cured, addicts can be cured.

Mr. LEVINE. I have been an addict. I have been around with them
all my life, and there is only one way to cure them. That is here.
Therefore I propose clinics devote time exclusively to where they
would receive psychiatric study and spiritual leaders and daily quota
of narcotics, to register with the Bureau of Narcotics and be assigned
to local clinics where he will receive guidance and his supply of narcotics and if he is found to violate the law after being given a break
like that, drastic punishment should then be meted out to him.
Senator
BUTLER.
Don't you know that was tried in the State of
New York 5 years?

Mr. LEVINE. When?
Senator
BUTLER.
New York never got as much as 20 peYeent to
register.
Mr. LEVINE.
Senator
Yes.
BUTLER.
Addicts don't like to register and come out in the
open.
Mr. LEVINE. How long ago?
Senator
BUTLER. They had rather deal in the black market.

Mr. LEVINE. How long ago did they try that?
Senator BUTLER. That was tried in 1929 through 1935. They
had
no success with it whatever.

Mr. LEVINE. The city tried that maybe.
Senator
BUTLER.
You, yourself, said there in your testim-y that
you didn't want anybody to know about your addiction. You kept it
away from your family, from all your friends, and broke open telephone boxes and other things.
LEVINE. That's right.
Senator BUTLER. So you could
Mr.
get the drugs, you didn't go to any-
body to help you with it because you didn't want it known. One of
the chief things about the clinics you're talking about is that the
addicts come out in the open. He confesses publicly that he is an
addict.
2415
His last name is listed, given a card so he can go to get his
drugs. It just won't work that way.

1 Ir. LEVINE. Be given treatment and spiritual and psychiatric
study, been trying to do it for 30 or 40 years.

every day.
Can't do it, growing
Senator DANIEL. But if you can't break a man from addiction after
putting him in a hospital and keeping him there for 12 or 13 months,

how are you going to break a man by giving him his drug, increasing
his dope, making him more of an addict?
Mr. LEVINE. Let me get through with this, then we'll talk about
that.
Senator DANIEL. I heard almost too much of that t]e first two lines.
Mr. LEVINE. I am almost sure, wait, drastic punishment should be
meted out. I am almost sure that it will very rarely occur. You will
find an offender will do almost anything to prevent the source of
supply from being cut off. You know that. You all know that.
Well, you don't want to hear nothing about the Commissioner, I ain't
going to knock him. I am going to say Commissioner Anslinger still
insists on having his own way, not the way to control this. He has
been in office many, many years and every since then the narcotics
situation has grown into a monstrous Frankenstein and still growing.
Gentlemen, don't you believe the time has come when the people had
something to say about this growing trade? We all know when the
profit is taken out of anything it ceases to be a racket. If the clinics
were set up narcotics would cease to be a racket. The illicit factories
in the Far East, Near East, and Middle East and elsewhere will soon
close down because there will be no more market for the deadly
poisons. The smugglers and pushers will be out of business for good.
No more headlines, no more movies. Kids are always looking for
kicks and different thrills. In this fast time and age even the older
folks are looking- for kicks, many of them purposely jaywalking, beat
a parking meter, any little kicks to beat the law. You can imagine
why teen-agers, when they read about the kicks of marihuana and
heroin, they think they're chicken if they don't try it. We put the old
bootlegger out of business by legalizing liquor. Let's do the same
about narcotics, put the big smu'gler out of the business and keep the
)on't, forget the narcotics, the thrill
teen-agers from going to hell.
received by the youngster starting to use it willingly and knowingly
beats the law, after he uses it he thinks land feels like he is the smartest
and biggest guy in the world.
Senator DANIEL. That is all a mistake-just a minute.
You have
already told the committee that youngsters who beat the law for thrills
think that is going to make them the biggest guy in the world.
Mr. LEVINE. They don't know, them kids don't know.
Senator DANIEL. You have been through it, an addict all these
years, you know all about it, and you are testifying it is a big mistake
and leads to plenty of misery?
Mr. LEVINE. It sure does. Ruins their lives.
Senator DANIEL. Before this record goes any further with statements you have made, I think you speak from the standpoint of an
addict, and from the standpoint of one who has been convicted many,
many times for violations of other laws since you became an addict
and once before you became an addict. How many offenses have you
been convicted of, can you tell us?
2416
Mr. LEVINE. I don't remember.
I am speaking of the standpoint
of a sensible man. I am not an addict any more.

Senator DANIEL. From the standpoint of the fact, I certainly want
to say to you, that God can help addicts more than any other source,
I agree to that extent.
Mr. LvVINE. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Some facts I need to put in this record before

people, by silence, might think you are giving the facts. The facts
are Commissioner Anslinger, since he has been in the Bureau of Narcotics, has reduced the narcotics traffic to an immeasurable extent.
When narcotics were free and one could get them over the drug counter
we had over 400,000 narcotic addicts in the United States.
Mr. LEVINE. That's only on paper.
Senator DANiEL. Today we have an estimate of 60,000 narcotic
addicts in the United States. We certainly have less addiction. We

have less traffic than we did when it was easy to get the narcotics,
and I do not want any silence here to indicate perhaps that we agree
with your statement on that. As far as I am concerned, I think that
Harry Anslinger has done more than any other official in any country
in the world.:
Mr. LEVINE. He might be a nice guy.
Senator DANIEL. Just a minute. I am saying this for the record,
not just for you-he has done more than any other official of any
country of the world toward stamping out drug addiction. He does
have an attitude that I am sure is not agreeable to any addict, that is,
that addicts ought to be off the street like people with leprosy, that
they ought to be off the streets, ought not to be turned loose with free
shots to mingle around and mix addiction with families and otherjust a minute, you will be given an opportunity to say more-as a
matter of fact you have already been given an opportunity to say a
whole lot. If these addicts are allowed to get free shots at clinics, as
you are advocating, or at low cost, it would be just like Commissioner
Anslinger giving liquor to alcoholics, having a dispensary where they
could go up and get it free. His attitude is you might just as well
build the first floor for alcoholics, the second floor for addicts where
they might get free dope, the third floor for prostitution for those who
want to go into that. Now, that is his attitude, and he is asincere man,
and I want the record to show he has done a lot toward improving
this situation in our country and throughout the world. Now, it hasn't
been conquered. He was the first witness before us to say that all must
work at it. I simply wanted that to be in the record.
Do you have a comment, Senator Butler?
Senator BUTLER. No; I think that covers it.
Senator DANIEL. Do I speak for the committee?

Senator DANIEL. Thank you.
All right, do you have some more advice you would like to give to
the committee?
Mr. LEviNE. Take out the secretiveness in obtaining illegal drugs
like beating the law, hiding it once they have got it, making it tough,
and you've got it half solved. It is the secretiveness, them kids get together, want to smoke in closed rooms, shoot that stuff.
Senator BUTLER. Take the lock off the safe and prevent all the
burglaries.
2417
Mr. LEVINE. You want the rest of it?
Senator
Go ahead.
the big bootlegger, illicit factories out of business.
Mr.
That's the only way out, put the bootlegger out. That's the only way
you're going to solve this narcotic problem.
Senator DANIEL. What about the poor narcotic addict?
Mr. LEVINE. They will eventually die out.
Senator DANIEL. By shooting the narcotic addict with dope and
leaving them on the streets?
DANIEL.
LEVINE. Put
Mr.L~~VINE. I'll tell you what happened. You're making it so tough
when an addict gets a little stuff-you want to know why he uses so

much? They say the more he gets the more he wants. The law makes
'him use more. When he gets a little today he starts worrying about
tomorrow, where is he going to get it. When he gets that worry on
his mind, he gets nervous and excited and shoots more then. But if
he knows he can "sorta" use so much every day and no more-a lot
of them I know do it because they are on edge all the time trying to get
more, thinking about tomorrow.
Senaor DANIEL. Now, Mr. Witness, at times you seem to me to be a
sincere person trying to give this committee your best judgment.
Mr. LEVINE.
I am.
Seantor DANIEL. I am just wondering, stop and think about this:
Do you mean to say a narcotic addict is going to be satisfied with just

a minimum in clinics instead of going out on the black market where
they can get more than will give them extra kicks?
Mr. LEVINE. That's right. Wouldn't be any black markets, he'd be
satisfied.
Senator DANIEL. With just the minimum doses .
Mr. LEVINE. That's right, and work like anybody else.
Senator BUTLER. Do you think all of them would go to the clinic?
Mr. LEVINE. If they don't, then they should be punished drastically.
Senator BUTLER. In 51/2 years of trial of that method in New York,
less than 20 percent registered.
Mr. LEVINE. That was a different time and age, this is a fast age.
Senator BUTLER. Are you talking about the roaring thirties?
Mr. LEVINE. Talking about putting the bootlegger out, the same
-with him, got to give it a try.
Senator DANIEL. Do you want to legalize narcotics?
Mr. LEVINE. I would like to see it done away with altogether and
that's only possible, I looked at it your way, at the addict's way and
the doctor's way and I looked at it God's way, and I believe the good
Lord would want it that way.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think He would want it to be legalized?
Mr. LEVINE. And then it would eventually straighten out, eventually
die out. Kids wouldn't want to put their names down on the roster
that they'd be getting it, wouldn't be no kick in it any more.
Senator DANIEL. When we had clinics, as Senator Butler said, not
one-half would go and register, they didn't want their names on the
registration roster then. Let me ask you then, are you better off when
you are on narcotic drugs or when you are off of them, as a man, as a
-citizen?
Mr. LEVINE. It is according to the man himself, whoever it is.
Senator DANIEL. You think some are better off?
Mr. LEVINE. Some are better and some are not.
2418
Senator

DANIEL.
How about yourself ?
Mr. LEVINE. Myself ? I can do without it, it don't bother me in the

least bit now. It did before. I couldn't do a thing without it, I
couldn't sit up here and talk to you, I couldn't look you in the eye like
I am now.
Senator DANIEL. I mean, can you do a day's work better when on or
off of it?
Mr. LEVINE. If tedious labor-you charge a racehorse, he will win
that race; you charge an addict, he will work like hell.
Senator DANIEL. Do you wish in conclusion, to give us this, that
from all you have seen personally and from observing others, you think
that people generally are better off under dope, with their drugs, or
without them?
Mr. LE viNE. If they are addicted, they need it. They got to outgrow
it or get away from it themselves, you can't force them away from it.
That is my idea.
Senator BUTLER. Isn't it true that the addict requires more of the
drug every day?
Mr. LEVINE. No; it's the tenseness, the tenseness that drives them
to more and more, worry about the law after them, on edge all the
time.
Senator BUTLER. They have need for the dru_. in larger doses?
Mr. LEVINE. If you need a drink you get excited, if you are a drinking man and you been on edge looking around this way and that way,
trying to dodge the law, you would want more, too.
Senator BUTLER. It is a little more scientific than that. The body
builds up tolerance to the drug after a while; to satisfy the yearning
you have to take more of it; you have to keep on taking more.
Mr. LEVINE. The same with anything else, food, liquor, or anything else.
Senator BUTLER. By giving more and more?
Mr. LEVI-NE. No; you regulate them, if you've got a clinic to guide
them, got guidance. Psychiatric study, give spiritual aid and tell
them how to help themselves, make them go down to that clinic.
Senator DANIEL. Anything further?
Mr. GASQUE. I want to state for the record that this witness' testimony is shot through with holes when compared with the testimony
of medical men, people handling this problem. He speaks of regulating narcotic drugs when it is obvious that it is impossible, due to
the fact that you build up a need for more and more drugs. Every
addict says, "I started off on a dollar a day," until he has built up
to $35 a day, yet he speaks of giving minimmn dosages. He said a
moment ago, "if you give an addict heroin he will work very hard."
Yet all our medical testimony has been to the effect that heroin is
a depressant and causes one to be sleepy and drowsy. It is possible
that cocaine might build one up to where one would work very
hard. What you are asking is that the committee recommend to the
United States Senate that we clothe drug addiction in respectability;
is that right?
Mr. LEVINE. Put clinics up.
Mr. GASQUE. No further questions.

Mr. LEVINE. Well, can I answer him?
Senator
DANIEL.
No; that is not the purpose of calling you. We
wanted to ask you questions, and we permitted you to make your
TRAFFIC
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
2419
statement after we asked our questions. We appreciate your appearing before the committee.
Mr. LEVINE. Thank you.
Senator DANIEL. At this point the p hotograph and the police record of Morris Levine will be inserted in t he record.
~(
:~
N'
N
Picture of Morris Levine.
(Record of Morris Levine follows:)

AuSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Auitin, Tex.
The following is a transcript of the record, including the most recently reported data, as shown in the files of identification and records concerning our
Austin police department No. BE-17787.
D. P. S. No. 342625. FBI No. 469635.
R. D. THORP, Chief.
As Morris Levine No. 24958, PD Salt Lake City, 8-22-45, Held-Narcotic;
8-23-45, rel. to State Nar. Ag.
As Morris Levine No. 138S95-MM Fed. Corr. Inst., Milan, Miih. 11-3-49 Narc
Laws (Forg Prescrip) 3-15-50 trans, to Texarkana.
No. 7566-H Med. Center for Fel. Pr., Springfield, Mo.; 1-6-51, Narc (Forg. of
Prescript) ; viol. date since August 1951, (leaving limits w/o permission, loss of
contact, fail to report, use of Narc, & Obtaining or possessing Narc. by means of
forged fictitious or altered prescriptions) 10-5-51, wt issued, wt withdrawn &
case closes as approved by Bd of Par, 11-1-51.
Morris Levine if appre prior to 1-2-57, notify St. Div. of Crim. Ident. & Invest.,
Secramento, Calif., per inf rec therefrom 8-6-54.
Wanted: Morris Levine for vio. of parole. Notify Chief Div. of Adult Paroles
Room 504 State Office Bldg. No. 1 Sa-cramento 14, Calif. per inf rec therefrom
10-18-54.
Arrested or
received
Dec. 2,1929
May 31,1930
Oct. 5,1932
D o ------July
4,1934
Sept. 11, 1934

Oct.
5,1934
Jan.
5,1938
Sept. 12, 1938
Aug. 26,1939
Jan. 14,1940
Mar. 8,1940
July
Nov.
Jan.
Mar.
Mar.
11,
14,
24,
10,
31,
1940
1940
1941
1941
1941
Apr.
July
Sept.
Sept.
Oct.
23, 1941
8, 1941
2,1941
16, 1942
13,1942
May
4,1943
Oct. 2,1943
Dec. 28,1944
Aug. 28,1945
Dec. 3, 1945
July 22, 1947
Do.....
July 24, 1947
Nov. 13,1947
Contributor of fingerprints
Sheriff's office, Laram ie,

Police department, New
Police department, New
Secret Service Division,
N.Y.
Police department, Now
Wyo --------York, N. Y..

York, N. Y..
New York,
Number
Charge
Disposition
Dismissed.
Investigation
----------------Discharged June 3, 1930.
Grand larceny
......................
----Violation see.----Oct. 10, 1932, sentence suspended.
151
----------Possessing and
passing counterfeit $10
----notes.
malicious mischief, Sept. 6, 1934, sentence suspended.
d o -------------- -------- Burglary tools,
----petty larceny.
Violation of-----probation in former 3 years.
do .....................
charge
Counterfeiting
and violation of proba- 3 years, conditional release, Jan. 2, 1937.
do_
----tion.
---- d o ---- - -- - -- - -- - Drugs .....
Treat.
Morris Levine_
E-8676
York, N. Y..
B-107845
U. S. Department of Health, New

York, N. Y.
U. S. Northeastern Penitentiary,
Lewisburg, Pa.
Welfare
hospital,
Rikers Island, New
York, N.
Y.
Welfare hospital, Rikers Island, New
York, N. Y.
Narcotics Bureau, Washington, D. C__
Police department, Tampa, Fla ------Police department, New Orleans, La -
17242
Police department, Shreveport, La- - Police department, Macon, Ga -------Police department, Orlando, Fla -----Police department, San Antonio, Tex.-Bureau of Narcotics, Washington, D.
C., and Houston, Tex.
Police department, Pensacola, Fla-.Sheriffs office, Tampa, Fla ...........
Police department, Mansfield, Ohio. - Sheriff's office, Tampa, Fla .........
Hillsborough County prison camp,
Tampa, Fla.
Sheriff's office, Tampa, Fla .........
Name
2362
184761
200640
15947
34780
d o ---------------------d o ---------------------do ....................
do
-----------------.
do ...
----.......................
Investigation ----.........................
do .....
d o ----------------------- Investigation-shooting.
----Vagrancy and----loitering.
do ..............
Do.
Released from custody.
January 16 1940, released.
Discharged on official charge of loiterIng.
July 12, 1940, $7.50.
$19 or 37 days.
Released, out of town.
29440
43060
8006
133D-75
do .....
do ......................
do
do..............
d o --------------------
Drunk and disorderly

-----------------Drunk and disorderly
----- conduct__
Investigation ----.....
Drunk .....................
----Investigation ................
-----
5553
8990
1917
8890
do
do ......
do ......
do ......................
do..............
Drunk and investigation..........

Failure to register
----- as known criminal -Disorderly conduct.............
Released.
----Unarmed robbery
----- and resisting arrestdo.....................
1 year.
-----
do ......................
Resisting arrest,
unarmed robbery,
----destroying county property.
Investigation ----.....
Battery .....................
----Narcotics ....
----Drunk, resisting
----- and holding investigation.
Vagrancy investigation .........
8990
Police department, Frot Worth, Tex.EX-51933

do..............
Police department, San Diego, Calif_ -_ 14075-M-11
do..............
Sheriff's office, Salt Lake City, Utah..
19469
do..............
Police department, Salt Lake City,
24958
do...............
Utah.
Police department, Miami Beach,
A-11914
do
Fla.
Police department, West Palm Beach,
do ...................... Investigation -----drug addiction and
6491
Fla.
breaking and entering.
d o ---- - -- - -- - -- - Breaking
Sheriff's Office, Miami, Fla ----------and entering, petty larceny_.
87519 ----State penitentiary, Raiford, Fla.....
Unlawfully and feloniously breaking
42515 .....- d o ...........----..........
and entering a store building located
In Dade County, Fla. with intent
to commit a misdemeanor, to wit,
petty larceny.
-----
Released, Oct. 4, 1943.

Dec. 28, 1944, complaint unsigned.
Dec. 4, 1945, $10 and 30 days-floater.
30 days.
Transported out of town, Miami
Beach, Fla., Police Department.
Oct. 23, 1947, 1 year State penitentiary.
1 year, September 7, 1948, released.
Dec. 22, 1948

Apr. 25, 1949
Apr. 26, 149
Apr. 25, 1)49
Oct. 29, 1949
May
4, 1950
Police department, Tampa, Fla .....

Police department, Cleveland, Ohio.United States marshal, Cleveland,
Ohio.
Bureau *of Narcotics, Washington,
D C and Cleveland, Ohio.
Federal Correction Institution, Milan,
Mich.
Medical center for Federal prisoners,
Springfield, Mo.
do ..............
15947
do...............----do
67713 ----d o -- -- - -- - -- - -- 10526
Violation of ----criminal regulations ----- Not held.

Investigation
----------------------------Harrison Act ......
October 11,
years.
67713
3365
13895
Violation of Harrison Narcotics law
7566-H
Aug. 11, 1950
Federal corrections institution, Texarkana, Tex.
5916-TT
Jan.
Medical center for Federal prisoners,

Springfield. Mo.
Police Department, Los Angeles,
Calif.
Police Department, Santa Monica,
Calif.
Sheriff's office, Los Angeles, Calif ....
7566-H
6, 1951
July 17,1951
D o ------July 18, 1951
Jan.
2,1962
Police Department, Colorado Springs,

Colo.
California State Bureau, Sacramento,
Calif.
Mar.
3,1955
Police Department, Austin, Tex ....
Aug. 30, 1951
169460
9139
B-192701
119215
A-19856
BE-17787
do .......-
d o ......................
Narcotics laws
----- (forging prescription).
In transfer from Federal corrections
institution, Milan, Mich.
do................... Narcotics (forging
-----prescription) --------
do ..............
Narcotic (forging of prescription) ....
do ...............
Felony warrant
----71414 (4) 11715 health
and sanitation code (3 counts).
Investigation,
----- health and security
code, 11,500.
Obtaining or
possession of narcotics
----by means of forged fictitious or altered prescription (3 counts).
Addict
----Forging prescription (11715 health
and security) and prescription forgery code.
Felonious theft of narcotics ..........
do-.............
...do - - - - - - - - - - do ..............
I Harold Davis ---------------
-----
NOTE.-Morris Levine No. 10354 US Det Hdqtrs Oct. 6, 1932 counterfeit SS and 5 yrs prob on Nov. 10, 1932 (as on rpt No. 17242).
-_-
- Narcotics laws
----- (forging prescription)__
do .....
1949, parole granted,
2 years.
2 years, October 11, 1950, transferred tO
Federal corrections institution, Texarkana, Tex.
2 years, Jan. 6, 1951, transferred to medical center for Federal prisoners,
Springfield, Mo.
2 years, May 19, 1951, conditionally
released (see notations).
Chino Street Precint, No. 42, December
26, 1951 (Case 143230).
August 30, 1951, released.

0-6 years; July 2, 1954, released on
parole.
Filed, transferred to county indicted
for illicit possession of narcotics and
sentenced 5 years, State penitentiary.
2422
Senator DANIEL. Let the record show that we have Attorney General John Ben Shepperd, who will appear shortly, and Mayor Tom
Miller sitting with the committee this afternoon.
We will have a 2-minute recess before calling the next witness.
(Committee recessed for 2 minutes.)
The Chair is going to call for any coimnent Mayor Miller might
have for the record of this committee. We are especially glad that
he has been able to sit with us part of the time this morning and
this afternoon. Mayor Miller.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM MILLER, MAYOR, CITY OF AUSTIN,
TEXAS
Mayor Mi.LER. Thank you, Senator Daniel, Senator Butler, mem-
bers of the committee and others that are here. We know that we
don't have utopia in Austin, there is no perfect man, and there hasn't
been for several thousand years.
We are glad that the committee is here. We hope that good will
come out of it. It has been said by a noted author that the increase
of appetite grows by what it feeds upon, and that you soothe the
serpent, but you haven't killed it. That is the literal translation. I
am not literal, but we think we have a fine police force here under
Chief Thorp. We are undermanned.
I often say, Senator, we are a virtuous lady here in Austin, not kept
up by the State, about like Washington. You do so much for Washington. We have had more help from the State lately under our Sena-
tor here; out there in the audience, the Governor, and the board of
control, and the Attorney General, who are on the committee, they
have been making plans.
We are again very happy to have this committee here. We know
the frailities of nature. We hope that you can work out a cure and
I expect all it takes is money, that makes the mare go. It seems from
the testimony this morning, that we will have to redouble our efforts
on the boards and bring in the various branches of governments, City
government, of course, likes to work with the State and with tho
Federal Government, there is no jealousy of office. And we have
proven in the past that we will work with you, Federal and State, and
we continue that promise to you.
Thank you very much.
Senator DANIEL. Thank you, Mayor Miller, you certainly have
proven that in dnvs gone by. I observed that as a citizen here; when
I was Attorney General for 6 years, I worked with you and with your
subsequent administration as mayor of this city. I want to tell you
how much we appreciate what your fine police force has done for this
city.
We are glad to see State Senator Johnnie B. Rogers. We will be

glad to have you sit with us up here where you can hear a little bit
better.
I want to say the next witness' name will not be used and no picture
may be made of this next witness and, Mr. Marshal, I shall ask that
you be sure, in case some photographer or someone comes in after this
admonition, that no picture is made and that his name is not used.
I am sure they will respect our request on this and not try to go any
2423
further with it, because it is the only way the committee finds it possible to get the information that we expect to develop from this witness.
If the witness will come forward, please. You may raise your right
hand.
(The witness was duly sworn.)
TESTIMONY OF AN UNDISCLOSED WITNESS
Senator DANIEL. You may be seated. First, I want to say that the
committee appreciates your appearing before us to give us firsthand
information as to what narcotics can do to a member of a family.
I believe that you have had that experience with a son in your family,
is that correct?
WITNESS. Yes, one of my sons.
Senator DANIEL. You might speak a little louder into that microphone. So, if you will speak clearly, please. When did your son first
become involved in any type of narcotic charges?
WITNESS. Well, he was never involved in any narcotic charges.
He
was, I think probably 6 or 8 months before we found out about it.

Senator DANIEL. Did he become addicted to drugs?
WITNESS. Yes; he did have a slight addiction but it was enough,
as the old saying goes, he got hooked.
Senator DANIEL. He felt he couldn't leave it alone?
WITNESS. Well, there was addiction, he had to have more, he had
to have narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. And at what age was this?
WITNESS. Twenty years old.
Senator DANIEL. Was it here in Austin?
WITNESS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And had he been in any kind of trouble before
becoming addicted to narcotics?
WITNESS. Yes, he had.
Senator DN-NIEL. Wld
you Say his narcotic addiction grew out of
that trouble and out of his assocb,tes, or do you know how he became
addicted to drugs?
WTTNESS. Well, I believe he bee.ame addicted innocently. He didn't
realize the potency of this heroin druo. Thev say it is an outlawed
drug and one of the most insi(lious drugs and it takes very little to
get you on it, not like the others.
S .nqtor D %N1FL. Did it come from his associates?
WITNESS. YeS.
Senator D VNIFT,. Wheii did you first learn about it ?

W ITNESS.
It must have been in June of 1954.
Senator Dx\nw,. And how did you find out about it?
He l)ecanie ill vnd we called the doctor.

,qnator D.\MNTm. And did the doctor tell you what was wrong?
WITNESS,. He. didn't at first, but he later did after he had placed
WITNESS.
him in the hospital.

Senator DAxTEr,. Did you know that'he had been associating with
another younc man here in Austin w%'ho had been using drugs?
WIT-NESS. The boy had come to the house occasionally, if he is the
one I think you are speaking of, and I knew hA was addicted.
Senator D\NIFL. You say your son got violently sick?
WITN-ESS. Yes.
2424
Senator DANIEL. Was that after he had no more of the drug?

WITNESS. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. And what did you do with him?

WITNESS. I called a local doctor, and he placed him in the Holy
Cross Hospital and he took a cure, 10-day cure from him.
Senator DANIEL. Ten days attempted cure?
WITNESS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL.
Was it successful?
WITNESS. NO; it wasn't. I shouldn't say it was, he went back later.
He has taken it twice, 10 days the first time and 5 days the last. It
didn't seem to be enough.
. Senator DANIEL. Did he go back to the use of narcotic dzugs after
these attempted cures each time?
WITNESS"
Yes. I don't know how soon, but it seemed like he always
did.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you feel like that you had to help him get
the drugs finally?

WITNESS. Well, we had a very unusual situation. We had a trial
in New Mexico, Albuquerque, N. Mex. He had made application to
be admitted to the United States naval hospital at Fort Worth, but
they wouldn't accept him there until the trial was over.
Senator
DANIEL.
That is the narcotics hospital in Fort Worth?
WITNEss. Yes. So for that reason we felt that we did, because if

you have that habit it has to be supported, and if somebody doesn't
help you then bad things always happen.
Senator
DANIEL.
You were afraid that something even worse might
happen to your son if he didn't have his narcotic drugs?

WrrwEss. Yes, it always does, one who can't get it or don't have
the money to get it.
Senator
DANIEL.
WITNESS.
So, what did you, as a mother, do about it?
Well, I went to Mexico with him for a month, Monterrey,
Mexico, and stayed and I helped him get his drugs.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you work, do you not?

Wrr.ESS. Yes.
Senator
DANInL.
You did work then for a living?
WITNrs. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. YOU helped him buy his drugs in Mexico?
WrrINSS. NO; there didn't seem to be any market in Monterrey, but
there was in Nuevo Laredo.
Do you know from whom you bought in Nuevo
Senator DANimE
Laredo?
WITNmss. No, I do not. I didn't buy from them. We had contact
there in Nuevo Laredo, so I don't know.
Senator DANTEL. Your contact in Nuevo Laredo was a Mexican citizen or American citizen?
WrrNmss. I imagine they were Mexicans.
Senator DANrEL. And you bought from them?
WIrNEss. An occasion or two.

Senator DANIEL. Heroin?
WITNESS. Yes.
2425
Senator DANIEL. How much did you pay for it?

WITNESS. It is $17 a gram in Nuevo Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy heroin for your son at any other
place in Mexico?
WITNESS. No.
Senator DANIEL. How about here in Texas?

WITNESS. Well, at San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. From whom did you buy there?
WITNESS. Well, mostly I just went along. We could buy from some
people there.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Their names have been mentioned here
today?
I think the man is
WITNESS. They have both been apprehended.
in the penitentiary now, and the woman is in jail or on bond or something.
Did you ever go to Al's Bar in San Antonio?

WITNESS. I have been there.
Senator DANIEL. You have been there?
WITNESS. I haven't been in.
Senator DANIEL. Did you go there and wait for your son?
WITNESS. No, I usually, with whomever I went, I waited out front
a time or two.
Senator DANIEL. Who would go in to buy the heroin?
WITNESS. Well, they would usually bring it out to us.
Senator DANIEL. Give you car service?
Senator
DANIEL.
WITNESS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. At this Al's Bar?

WITNESS. That's
Senator DANIEL.
WITNESS. Well, I
right.
What is this woman's name there?
don't think it is her real name but they called her
Simona.
Senator DANIEL. Is it Simona Cavazos?

WITNESS. I never did know her last name.
Senator DANIEL. You say they call her Simona, S-i-m-o-n-a?
WITNESS. That is what they call her.
Senator DANIEL. All right, did she ever come out with the heroin to
the car and sell it to you?
WITNESS. No.
Senator DANIEL. Who brought it out?
WITNESS. A man by the name of Ray Murdock.
Senator DANIEL. A man by the name of Ray Murdock?
WITNESS. Yes, he is now in the penitentiary.
Senator DANIEL. I'll ask you if you can identify this
person here
whose picture is being handed to you?

WNEss.. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Is that Ray Murdock?
WITNESS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. We will include that in the record as exhibit D of
the Austin hearing.
2426
(Exhibit D follows:)
ExIIBIT 1)
..
Picture of Raynmond L. Murdock, 4310 Merida St., San Anlonio, Tex.
Born in
Sain tonio, 'May 6, 19.14, is 40 years of age, 5 feet, It inc.hes tall, 184 pounds;
light brown hair, brown eyes ; niedium build; light complexion; is single,
and
addicted to heroin.
Senator D.\NIEL. NOW tllen, I hand you exhibit Ak of the Austin

hearing and ask you if you call: ideiitify this Pei-soil?!
WVIrINE~ss. I don't believe I can..,As a inatter of fact, I never actually
S:,wV Sinmna. Sujp(),.vdlNy. she conltacted us in the car at night a time
o1, tWo.
Sellat(,v DA.NIEL. Tell us how this Simona could contact you at
VWrrNl.,SS. Well, -NhloeN'er was withl me would call anld she would have
to nmet us at a certain Place.
Senator ]).\UL. D~id you use the telephone in arr-anging for this
Yes, you could.
Senlator DAN. IEL. D~id you do that oil several occasions.?
WIT NESS.
V :vN~s.Yes, oin every occasion.

Se~lat()r DANIEL. Oin every occasion?
V17lTNESS.
YeS.
SenlaitrD1ANIEL. And whom would you call?

WV[rNESS.
Well, Ave had the nu-nber, 1 doii't relneiiiber what it was.
Senator DA\NEL. W(e11, would you call for Simona, Ray Murdock, or
wlioni ?
AVIrNES. \.Vell, it was usually for Ray.
Senator DA
-kL
ll right, did you ever talk to Simona ?
WVITNqESS.
No.
Sena tor DANIEL. kiid you would make an appointment as to were

to meet.?
\Vr'.:s.Yes.
2427
Senator DANIEL. Sometimes you would meet at Al's Bar, would

you?
WITNESS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And
WITNESS. Yes.
at other times you met at other places?
Senator DANIEL. Anid tlen someone there woull give you the heroill.
and you would pay the money?
W WITNESS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And about how much did that cost over in Sait
Antonio?
WrrTNEss. Thirty-ffive dollars a gram.
Senator DANIEL. About how mucl a day or a week did your son's
habit cost?
You can't depend upon the
WITNESS. Well, it varied, you know.
strength of the heroiln; sonme of it is strong and some it not. I should
say from 1 to 11/ or at most 2 grams a week.
Senator D)\NIE1'L. In other words, it; would run as high as seventy
dollars a week at times ?
W'NESS. Well, yes, I guess it did.
Senator l).\xImi.Amid ldid that last over a period of time, over a
long period of time?
XrITrNESS. Well, 1() (ays or 2 weeks. Like I say, it depends upon the
strength of it.
Senator DANIEL. Well, at Hie rate of cost that you gave us, anywhere
1'rom $5)0 to ')70 a week did your soiis addiction last over a goo(
period of time ad cost you that much a week over several years?
WrrINEss. Oh, 110, no.
Senator DANIEL. For how long0?
WITNESS. No, we only paid that from June until October.
Senator I)ANIEL. Of what year?

WITNESS.
Of 1954.
Senator I)ANIEL. Do you know if Simona knew she was selling to
a young boy?
WITNESS. Well, I made a trip to San Antonio and I called her on
lhe 'phone and I told her that I didn't know anything about the setup
over there but I said, it was after my son had gone to the hospital,
I said "Fe is in the hospital now." 1 said, "If you or any of the rest
of you sell him anything," I said "aly mre," well, I said "then I am
going to try to draw a circle around you," that is the expression.
Senator l.\NI':.L. Try to do what
WArrN.ss. "Draw a circle around you." It wasn't my business to
catch people but I was personally connected there and she said, "Well,
I don't blame you." She said, "lie is a good-looking boy and he is
young," she said "I don't blame you." I said, "You just pass the word
around because that is the way it is."
Senator DANIEL. So, from what she told you, she knew she was
selling to a young boy ?
WITNESS. I don't know, I tried to get Ray Murdock.
You could
get him at that time. I don't know whether it was Al's Bar, I rather
think it was, but I talked with him.
Senator DANIEL. And had your son been buying over there before
you went over and found out about it, went over there with him
yourself ?
71515-56Ipt. 7--6
2428"
WITNESS.
Well, I really don't know where he had been getting it,
but I assumed he had.

Senator DANIEL. And you, as a mother, figured the best thing for
you to do under the circumstances was to try to help him get the heroin
to keep him from doing something worse, committing some kind of
crime, is that right?
WITNESS. Well, my husband and I both felt that was all we could
do until the trial was over, and we could get him in the hospital.
Senator DANIEL. Had you applied to get him in the Federal narcotics hospital at Fort Worth?
Yes, we had applied and were told until this Federal trial,
which -was held the middle of October, was over that they would not
admit him.
WITNESS.
Senator
DANIEL.
That was a Federal trial on the Mann Act?
WrrNEsS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did you apply for him to go into the Federal
hospital on a voluntary basis?
WITNESS. That was on
Senator DANIEL. Did
a voluntary basis to begin with.

Simona ever tell you or did Ray Murdock
ever tell you where they got their heroin?

WITNESS. Well, I don't know where they got it, but I was under
the impression, I couldn't say Ray told me, I don't know where I
picked up the knowledge, anyway I had the impression that they
ought it in Nuevo Laredo, and then somebody swam the river with
it and met them on the other side.
Senator
DANIEL.
WITNESS.
Senator
Did one of them tell you that?
No.
DANIEL.
Do you know where you got that impression?
I don't remember. I just picked it up. I heard so much,

and I was half crazy right at that time. I really don't remember.
WITNESS.
Senator
DANIFL.
Did you lose any property, or did you have to
borrow any money to take care of this addiction for your son?
WITNESS.
No. Well, my husband makes good money and we bought
it with that, and then we had some other debts, lawyer's fees and
living expenses. My husband is out of work so we did sell some property, but it wasn't that entirely, some of it you might say did go for
the addiction habit but not all of it.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did your son finally go to the Federal narcotics
hospital?
WITNESS. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
WITNESS.
And he is to take the cure, is that right?
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Now, while you were making these trips, to -San
Antonio did you ever see the apartment of Ray and Simona?
WITNESS.
No; I just waited out in front and I was inside the bar
one time, but I never did see the apartment.

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see any young people, young girls?
WITNESS. Nobody was there at
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever
all when I was there.
hear of a young girl being there that

they thought was dying from an overdose of heroin?
WITNESS. No, I didn't see that, I heard that.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't see that yourself ?
WrrNEss. No, I didn't see it myself.
2429
Senator DANIEL. You have heard a man, an addict testify a minute

ago-were you here when this addict, Morris Levine, testified?
WITNESS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. That he thought the best way to get rid of peddlers
and smugglers would be to legalize it, give it out in clinics free or at
little cost. As a mother who has gone through the misery and worry
of a son addicted, would you like to make any comment? Do you
think that would be the way to handle the problem, to let your son have
all the narcotics, or a minimum amount, every day?
WITNESS. No; I hope he never touches it again. I have a feeling
he will not because he realizes since he was on it a very short time.
As I say, he didn't have too much of a habit. He had enough, it was
pretty bad. I really couldn't say about that. My thought has always
been that if we had more money appropriated so the Rio Grande that
runs by Nuevo LaredoSenator DANIEL. Yes?
WrrNESS. If the Rio Grande could be better patrolled, because from
all I could gather, most of this down around in here is coming in from
Nuevo Laredo. I have heard by the grapevine that they grow the
poppy seed and manufacture lots of heroin in Old Mexico, but there
is a doubt in my mind that is true. When you get in the interior it
is not so easy, at least it wasn't.
Senator DANIEL. You found it was easier to buy the heroin along
the border, south side of the border?
WITNESS.
Along the border, is the thought in my mind.
Probably
that was sent in from Europe, shipped there someway, I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. And do you also know that it was difficult to get
heroin here in Austin?

WITNESS. Yes; it was.
In fact I, most of these people from here,
I got acquainted with several of them, went to San Antonio for their
supply.
Senator DANIEL. Were some of them young people ?
WITNESS. No, no.
Senator DANIEL. Were some of them, as young as your son?

WITNESS. Well, I should say in their late twenties, some in their
early thirties. I didn't know any older people.
Senator DANIEL. Those whom you knew went to San Antonio to
buy their heroin?
WITNESS. Yes.
I don't know of any supply place here in Austin,
to my knowledge, that wholesales it.
Senator DANIEL. Senator Butler, do you have anything?
Senator BUTLER. No, sir.
Mr. GAsQuE. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. We certainly thank you very much for appearing
before the committee.
WITNESS. You are quite welcome.
(Witness excused.
Senator DANIEL. Let the record show that the next witness is not
only the attorney general of Texas but is president of the National

Association of Attorneys General which, in my opinion, is one of the
finest organizations of State officials existing in the country today,
and it is an honor to Texas that our attorney general is president of
2430
that organization. I happen to be president emeritus myself. That

ages me, you know. But I never had the privilege of serving actively,
as you are, and we are glad to have you before us for any statement
that you might make, General Shepperd, not only with reference to
the Texas situation but as president of the National Association.
STATEMENT OF JOHN BEN SHEPPERD, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
STATE OF TEXAS: PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
ATTORNEYS GENERAL
Mr. SImEPPEIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I might state at the
beginning, that the only reason you weren't president is that you
were called on for greater things.
We are very pleased that this committee is holding hearings in
Texas on the narcotics problem. The people of Texas are deeply concerned about it. Texas law enforcement officers and agencies are devoting an increasing amount of effort to its solution, and the attorney
general's office is working on it with diligence, primarily in an effort
to bring about greater coordination and cooperation among the States,
and between the State and Federal Governments. There is a great
need for better Federal-State cooperation in all areas of law enforceinent, with a more clear-cut definition of responsibilities. On both
the State and Federal level there is considerable abdication of responsibility which only a more sincere cooperative effort can remedy.
I appear here both as president of the National Association of Attorneys General and as attorney general of Texas, and my remarks
will be made from both viewpoints.
Since 1877, when 1 person out of 400 in this country was a narcotics
addict, the ratio has been lowered to not more than 1 in every 3,000,
primarily because of State and Federal legislation.
The history of narcotics legislation in this country began with a
regrettable lack of uniformity and considerable renunciation of enforcement responsibility on the part of the States, and recently has
seen vast improvements which are by no means complete as yet. In
a word, the States were the first to pass narcotics laws, but then they
backed away, leaving the field mainly to the Federal Government,
and now are reentering the field with a great deal more teamwork.
The earliest narcotics laws were State laws intended to protect the
public health and morals, but they were chaotic and impractical. One
State didn't know what another State was doing, and no State was
doing much. although practically all States had narcotics laws of
some kind, most of them passed between 1895 and 1910.
The first narcotics law passed in Texas was typical of what most
States adopted in those early days; passed in 1905, it prohibited the
illegal distribution of cocaine, morphine, opium, or chloral hydrate.
The penalty on a first conviction was a mere $25 to $50 fine. Other
States had comparable laws, often against entirely different drugs.
The first Federal narcotics law was passed in 1909, and was merely
a revenue measure designed to govern the sale and use of opium.
It had nothing to do with policing, because that was strictly a State
function.
It is an interesting fact that the use of narcotics by teen-agers was
one of the major reasons for the passage of the Federal Harrison Act
in 1914, which was more or less a policing instrument. However, it
ILLICIT' NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2431
contemplated enforcement by State and local authorities, and the

States backed away from this duty, shifting the burden to the Federal
Government and even using the Federal law as an excuse not to enforce State laws on narcotics. State and local prosecutors shied
away from dope cases, generally on the specious grounds that smalltown juries, because of ignorance of drug addiction, would not convict violators, or that the Federal courts would do a better job. For
some illogical reason now lost in the dim past, law enforcement officers in general still almost instinctively leave the narcotics violator
to Federal authorities. One Texas sheriff, for example, told me that
narcotics cases are automatically referred by his department to the
Federal Governmnent, without thought of State prosecution. In the
years following the passage of the Harrison Act, Federal courts becaime swamped with narcotics cases, resulting in a general breakdown of enforcement.
The Federal law, furthermore, was full of loopholes, which the
States failed to plug with matching legislation. For example, a person
who stole tax-paid drugs from a pharmacy was not a Federal violator,
so a State law against the mere possession of drugs illegally was necessary for a conviction on anything more than a common burglary
charge.
The obvious answer to the problem was a Uniform State Narcotics
Act, and one was promulgated in 1932. It has been adopted into law
by 43 States, the District of Columbia, and the Territories of Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and Alaska. Three of the remaining five States-California, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania-have enacted laws which
are comparable to the act in scope and effectiveness. Kansas, however,
has only sparse and sketchy narcotics laws, and those of New Hampshire lack most of the stringest provisions of the Uniform Act.
The Uniform Act consists of 26 sections which (lefine "narcotics"
forbids the illegal manufacture, possession, or dispensing of drugs,
allows certain individuals to dispense them under State supervision,
requires the keeping of records and prescribes standards of labeling.
It allocates enforcement responsibilities, provides penalties, and sets
up a certain amount of liaison between police agencies and the board
or officials who license pharmacists, doctors, and other legal dispensers.
Various States have modified the act on adopting it,and the term
"uniform" does not by any means connote exact equality among the
States' laws.
For example, penalties imposed by the various States for the illegal
sale of drugs are almost ridiculously unequal. For peddling drugs
in Montana you can get a maximum sentence of 6 months on a first
offense, while in Tennessee you can get 15 years, and in Arizona 25
years and a $50,000 fine. But Arizona has virtually no facilities or
provisions for enforcing its narcotics laws. It is utterly dependent
on the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
Penalties for possession and transportation of drugs range from
180 days' imprisonment and $100 fine for a first offense in Indiana
(with a $1.000 fine and 10 years for a second offense) to 10, 20, and
40 years in Michigan. Most States have a penalty of roughlv ,5years
for a first offense, 10 years for a second, and 25 for a third. In Texas
the maximum penalty is life. This same lack of uniformity is apparent
throughout the entire structure. of State antinarcotics law.
2432
Only a minority of the States have any kind of special appropriation for the enforcement of their laws. California has about $400,000,
Illinois $155,000. Oklahoma $27,000, Iowa $12,700, Montana $8,000,
North Carolina $8,000, and so on. These do not include appropriations
by counties or municipalities. In most cases these State appropriations
are not by any means commensurate with the incidence of narcotics
violations reported in those States by the FBI.
As a matter of fact, very few States are able to give reliable statistics
as to the percentage of crimes in which narcotics figure in one way
or another-not because of a failure in the keeping of records, but
because of the lack of uniformity in State laws. For example, States
which have no provisions for making addiction an offense may arrest
hundreds of addicts on other charges and never record that their
crimes were committed to obtain money to support the drug habit.
In Texas, however, 12 percent of the inmates of the Texas prison
system have a narcotics history. More than 15 percent of the inmates
of Federal prisons were convicted on narcotics charges.
Senator DANIEL. General, what Federal prisons are you including
there? Our figures show a much higher percentage from the Federal
prisons we have heard from. Did you say more than 15 percent of
the inmates?
Mr. SHEPPERD. That's on narcotics charges itself.
It would not
include addicts who had committed crimes, some other crimes, charged
to the crime instead of possession or other narcotics charges.
Senator DANIEL. I believe if you included there addicts who had
been put in the penitentiary and Federal prisons on other charges,
that is, stealing, robbery, murder, et cetera, that it would be a much
higher figure: you would agree with that?
Mr. SHEPPERD. Yes; I think that's right.
In about 75 percent of the States the attorneys general are not
charged by law with the enforcement of narcotics statutes, and even
where State agencies are set up to do so, they generally do not attempt
to coordinate the enforcement efforts of their cities and counties. Consequently there is much variation in the intensity of enforcement even
within a given State.
Almost unanimously, the attorneys general of the other States believe that cooperation between the Federal and State Governments is
seriously hampered by the simple lack of adequate personnel on both
levels, which by the nature of the problem means trained personnel.
since officers on narcotics details cannot function with any degree of
efficiency unless trained for that purpose and allowed to devote full
time
it. been
Wetohave
interested in Texas to know how much of the volume
of illicit drugs used in other States arrive there from Mexico through
Texas. Attorneys general have estimated it, and it is only an estimate,
in such a way that it appears that drugs going through Texas fan
out in an arc on all sides of the State, and penetrate to the depth of
1 or 2 States. Colorado. for example, estimates that most of the
narcotics entering that State come through Texas. New Mexico
guesses about 60 percent, which is odd, considering that it has a long
border in common with Mexico. States as far away as California,
Washington, Montana, Nevada, Illinois, Nebraska, and Mississippi
estimate that little or none of the narcotics used in those States come
2433
from Texas. The principal narcotic going through Texas is undoubtedly marihuana.
The greatest disparity among the States'. laws on narcotics is found
inrtho various statutes-or lack of them---ealing with the incarceration and treatment of addicts. To be a narcotics addict is not a
criminal offense under Federal law, which merely defines the term
in order to provide for the commitment of addicts to Federal hospitals
for treatment on a voluntary basis, or prescribes confinement of those
convicted of other Federal violations. There are 2 Federal narcotics
hospitals, 1 in Fort Worth and the other in Lexington, Ky.
It is fundamental that a business without customers will go bankrupt. If all addicts could be institutionalized, the seller of narcotics
would probably go broke, because without the aid of persons already
addicted, new drug users cannot be recruited fast enough for profit.
For half a century we have worked on the major premise that the solution to our narcotics problem is to cut off the sources of supply, but
now attention is also being drawn toward drying up the market by
rounding up the addicts. Emphasis is now being given to the need
for uniform compulsory treatment.
The Uniform Narcotics Act omits any provision for the commitient, care, and treatment of addicts, as well as for search and seizure,
because these were felt to be strictly within the province of the individual States. But under the new philosophy to which I subscribe.
I think there should be a redefinition of the authority of the Federal
Government in this particular field, and certainly we will start out
with the painstaking idea and premise that the individual States are
not doing their part at all in this field.
In only about one-third of the 48 States is narcotics addiction an
offense. Some make it a misdemeanor, and some a felony-again no
uniformity. Addiction has been an offense in some States for periods
up to 46 years, as is true in Washington, or for as little as 6 months,
as in Nevada and Oklahoma. As further examples, laws against
addiction were passed in Wisconsin and Oregon in 1923, in Z6uarn
in 1933, Mississippi in 1936, Michigan in 1952, and in Texas in 1955.
Again, State laws reflect a regrettable lack of uniformity in the
penalties assessed for drug addiction. Oklahoma provides 6 months'
imprisonment; California, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Washington
give 1 year; Wisconsin gives 2; and Oregon imposes a 5-year penalty
and a $5,000 fine. Texas law allows imprisonment up to 3 years.
New Jersey, which has an unusually good set of narcotics laws in
most respects, passed a law in 1952 that interested me a great deal,
and I think it would be well for this committee to go into the idea,
requiring the registration of all persons convicted of crimes involving
narcotics within 10 years prior to the passage of the act, if they intend
to remain in New Jersey as long as 24 hours. They are required to
give a complete written statement as to name, aliases, arrests, convictions, penal institutions served in, and places of residence. They are
photographed and fingerprinted, and this data is sent to local and
State police agencies.
A startling number of even those States which have legislated
against drug addiction and prescribed mandatory treatment have
failed to provide even the minimum required facilities for treating
addicts. California is an exception, having 8 State hospitals and 12
2434
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
approved private hospitals for that purpose. New Jersey, oni the
other hand, which has a model narcotics code, has no facilities. Texas
is one of those States which have none whatever.
In many States addicts are sent to State mental hospitals, but
as in Texas, these hospitals are not equipped to treat narcotics patients.
These are sick people, and a padded cell is not the answer. The addict
can be sent to prison, and often is, but the best care afforded there is
a little tapering-off treatment.
Most States do not have any set procedure for the commitment of
addicts to Federal hospitals, and the two Federal narcotics hospitals
accept patients from the States on a very limited quota. Of the 2
hospitals, only the 1 in Lexington, Ky., accepts women patients.
When addicts are committed to these Federal hospitals on court order
from the States, there is nothing to hold them there, because under
the Federal voluntary treatment law they cannot be detained against
their will.
Nowhere in the ITnited States or its possessions, as far as I am able
to determine, is there a hospital devoted exclusively to the treatment
of narcotics addicts. Although. 2,848 of the 2,934 patients admitted
to the Federal hospital in Lexington during the last fiscal year were
addict patients, the Federal hospital in Fort Worth carried an average daily patient load of 809, of which only 285 were addict patients;
524 were psychiatric.
Obviously, if you have no provision for the care and treatment of
addicts, you have virtually nothing, because they cannot cure themselves, and unless they are cured or confined, they continue to support
the illegal traffic. Actually, there is no known permanent cure for
drug addiction. Any effective treatment must begin with the realization that addiction is caused by a defect in human personality, and
continue with psychiatric and social adjustment, once the physical
withdrawal from drugs has been accomplished. This cannot be
achieved by nmere confinement for a short period among other criminals. All efforts to cure drug addiction without long-term supervision and personality adjustment have been consistently a failure.
This, then, is the picture of antinarcotics law and addict rehabilitation among the 48 States. The relationship between Federal and
State legislation and law enforcement on the local level can be seen
in the problems and opinions of Texas sheriffs and prosecutors who
were consulted on the question by the Attorney General's office.
To begin with, narcotics enforcement is almost altogether a city
problem in Texas, although it exists also in smaller towns and rural
areas along the Mexican border, and is intensified in port areas along
the coast. At least partly because of the scarcity of narcotics offenses
in the less populous counties, about 25 percent of the 59 sheriffs consulted constier narcotics strictly a Federal problem. In half the counties surveyed, according to the sheriffs, marihuana is the source of
most trouble, while roughly one-fourth of the counties are more
troubled with morphine, and the rest with barbiturates and other
drugs. A few sheriffs, most of them in the more populous counties,
cite heroin and paregoric.
Sheriffs who know the source of the drugs illegally dispensed in
their counties (and about half of them do) list neighboring cities or
Mexico as the origin. One in ten said that doctors, rather than a
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2435
city or foreign country, were the primary channel of the illicit traffic
in their counties.
District attorneys in counties bordering Mexico are almost unanimous in saying that law-enforcement officers receive little or no cooperation from officials of the Mexican Government in stopping the
influx of marihuana into Texas. Most of these prosecutors leave the
narcotics problem to the Federal Government on the grounds that
Federal officers are better trained and equipped for the job, and even
those who assume the burden of enforcement are concerned mostly
with providing for treatment as a condition of probation, sheriffs were
overwhelmingly against probation. Prosecutors tended to disapprove
it also, but in the main indicated that they would weigh the individual
case.
Everyone conversant with the narcotics problem is aware that addiction among juveniles is on the increase. What is the picture of
drug use among the schools and colleges of Texas?
The Attorney General's office took a sample poll among a large
representative selection of students and administrators in Texas high
schools and colleges which brought interesting information to light.
What the vast majority of Texas students know about drugs, for example, is learned from magazines and movies, and only about half
the students polled were aware of the general effects of drug use.
Only a minute percentage stated that they had ever been approached
by a person urging the use of marihuana or drugs, or had ever heard
of anyone else's being approached, and these were almost all in one
citSchool
.
administrators in communities large and small stated, with
only one exception, that they had no narcotics problem. In answer
to the question, Do you believe the use of drugs by students has been
exaggerated?, most high-school superintendents answered no, but at
the same time admitted that their opinions were not based on experience or observation in their own communities. College administrators, almost in a body, answered yes, with the same reservation.
When asked whether a new Texas law requiring public-school instruction in the effect of narcotics would be a deterring factor in juvenile use of drugs, most high-school officials shrugged off the question
on the grounds that they had no problem.
Senator DANIEL. Is there a new law in Texas on the subject or were
you just asking about it?
Mr. SIIEPPERD. No, there is a new law.
Senator DANIEL. There is a new law requiring education in the harmful effect of drugs.
Mr. SHEPPERD. Yes, there is a new law, passed by the last legislature, to be combined with some of the other courses, Mr. Chairman. I
think that is true in about 16 or 17 of the other States who have
similar laws in varying degrees. Most of them are combined with
other courses of instruction.
Some of these superintendents when asked about it answered with
a categorical statement that instruction could only excite students'
curiosity and lead to increased drug use. The greater number of those
who answered suggested that instruction would be all right if given
incidentally to a course in biology, physical education, or other
standard courses. A few approved the idea only if visual aids were
used to show actual pictures of drug addicts and the terrible effects of
2436
narcotics addiction. In general, the idea of the instruction on narcotics

was condemned with faint praise, except by the students themselves,
the majority of whom thought narcotics instruction would slow down
the use of drugs.
Senator DANrEL. May I interrupt you again to let the record show
that many of the authorities who appeared before us agreed with
those who answered you that instruction could only excite students'
curiosity and lead to increased drug use. Nearly all of them agreed
education on drugs would be dangerous for children unless the material was very carefully prepared. So, since that is going to happen
here in Texas under this new law I would certainly like to make that
comment for the record and I know the officials concerned have probably already anticipated the fact that extreme care should be used
as to the type of instruction that is given.
We have heard that on all hands from all sides from those who
have had experience with it, especially in New York where they have
this kind of law and where juvenile addiction is on the increase.
I might say, in connection with what you have just testified, juvenile
addiction seems to be on the decrease all over the country, except in
New York City and Los Angeles and in Washington, D. C. Those are
the only places before our committee showing an increase of juvenile
addiction. The fact that they have had these courses in New York
City and they do not seem to have helped very much is certainly a sign
that every State should be careful as to what educational material is
placed before the children, that it is the type that is going to make
them never want, to touch it instead of the type that will excite their
curiosity. I am sure you agree.
Mr. SHEPPERD. Yes, from the questionnaires a number of school
officials think the same thing. Some think the visual aids should be
used to show the pictures and the terrible effects of the addiction.
Only through such hearings as this can this information be coordinated as far as the country as a whole is concerned.
Senator DANIEL. I hate to dwell on this but I think it is really important, especially in the field we want to watch, that is, the young
people. The United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs has
passed a resolution questioning, if not opposing, these educational
campaigns. Who plans this instruction in Texas, General, do you
know?
Mr. SrEPPERD. Yes. the commissioner of education.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I am sure he will want to confer with people
who have made a real study on the United Nations Commission and
the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. I know Commissioner Edgar will
do that.
Mr. STIEPPERD. We will certainly pass on the observation you have
made here to him. I think it pretty interesting to note the students
themselves feel, at least a majority of those who have been contacted.
narcotics instruction will slow down the use of the drugs.
Mr. GASQUE. I should like to ask the attorney general if the law
would require the giving of instruction in rural areas where there is
no problem or would the instruction be limited to city areas where
there is a definite problem?
Mr. STIEPPERD. It is a general law and unless it could be done administratively I think it would have to be administered as uniformly
as possible with our new school system as of this morning.
2437
Mr. GASQUE. What is your view? Do you believe that would tend to
decrease the curiosity rather than excite, increase curiosity about
drugs, when in isolated counties and rural areas there is no problem?
I grew up in a rural area. I never knew that there was a drug problem
till I got to the big city.
Mr. SHEPPERD. Well, I argued the teaching of communism with
Commissioner Studebaker and others for a number of years. I favor
the teaching but I certainly subscribe to the observation the chairman
made here today, that the courses should be properly prepared and
that was the main reservation I had on teaching the evils and the
philosophy of communism; I wanted to know who was preparing the
courses. We had a very successful politician, a predecessor of mine
and Senator Daniel, who said: "Let the other people worry about the
other people, let me know the fellows counting the cost." On this
whole idea, I think that is the crux of the whole thing-who is preparing and if it is prepared in a practical way, there is no romance in
this thing at all.
Senator
DANIEL.
In the appendix of the record make a copy of this
law, along with all the copies of all the new laws passed by the Texas
Legislature this last time. There were several passed on narcotics,
is that right?
Mr. SHEPPERD. I will be glad to supply all of them to the committee.
(Laws pertaining to narcotics enacted at the regular session of the
fifty-fourth legislature, 1955, State of Texas, may be found in the
appendix at pp. 3481-3486.)
In connection with schools and colleges, I would like to mention
that among a cross-section of addicted inmates of the Texas prison
system questioned by the attorney general's office, including all of the
4 drug addicts confined in the Texas State Hospital under the drugaddiction law passed by the last legislature, the educational level was
consistently below the ninth grade, with the exception of 1 surgeon
and 1 female high-school graduate.
While sheriffs and prosecutors in some heavily populated counties
believe the use of narcotics by juveniles in their areas is serious, the
great majority state that in their sections it is minor or nonexistent.
I am happy to say that during the last fiscal year in Texas, only 34
children were committed to the State youth development council for
detention in State schools with liquor or drugs listed as a major factor
in their delinquency, and the majority of these records listed liquor
alone. These represented only 3 percent of the total number of
juveniles committed. If there is a serious problem regarding juveniles and narcotics in Texas, it is not revealed in the cases in which
juveniles are committed to State training schools.
I believe that the first thing vitally needed is a national effort to lay
out and crystallize all phases of the narcotics problem, beginning with
conferences on the State level to outline definite factual information,
and moving to a White House Conference under the sponsorship of
the Federal Government to coordinate our scattered efforts, define
spheres of operation, and promulgate a unified, workable program of
criminal law, treatment and rehabilitation, preventive education, and
what have you. From there the representatives of the various States
would outline to their respective legislatures the needed reforms.
Much improvement can be made through small efforts with large
effect. Federal officers assist in making most of the narcotics arrests
2488
that are made by State or local peace officers, which is a commendable

example of cooperation. The Federal Government should go even
further by filing more cases in State courts, and Congress should pass
a law allowing appropriate Federal officials to concur in the granting
of immunity to witnesses by State officers in obtaining evidence.
Federal officers should be allowed to testify in State courts without
undue redtape and should be freer in giving narcotics information to
State officers.
The attorney general of Ohio, C. William O'Neill, has pointed out
that Federal cooperation with officers of his State has been excellent.
to the extent that the Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics has instructed Federal agents to start bringing their prisoners
into Ohio courts, because Ohio narcotic statutes are more strict than
Federal laws. This is the kind of cooperation that will get the job
done.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has a program for training
State officers in general crime detection at State and local expense.
In view of the shortage of trained narcotics experts, it seems feasible
for the Federal Government to train State officers in narcotics enforcement in the same way, with an appropriation from Congress
supplementing State funds. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics has
done outstanding work in training State officers under its on-the-job
training program, but it has no funds allocated for this work, and
no school to give formal instruction. The officers merely go along
with the Bureau agents in their routine performance 6f duty and learn
by doing. The States could pass uniform laws allowing State and
local governments to pay for this training under the Bureau's
direction.
An interstate rogue's gallery of narcotics violators and addicts.
serving not merely Federal officers or State top-level agencies, but
circulating to every sheriff and police department, would be of untold
value to narcotics enforcement. The Federal Government could
sponsor it, or it could be set up by interstate compact under authority
of Congress.
In the field of addict treatment and rehabilitation it is obvious
that, even if provisions are uniformly made for the commitment
and treatment of addicts, some form of posteustodial care is essential. Maybe the solution lies in outpatient treatment through
county health units under a program sponsored by State department,of pa-role and probation. Federal funds are already sent to county
health units for outpatient treatment of polio, heart disease, cancel.
tuberculosis, maternal care, and many other things-but not a cent is
earmarked for narcotics addicts. Every known addict should be required to undergo a checkup by a competent doctor for at least 5 yearafter release.
The so-called dope stations advocated by some, which would provide narcotics to addicts and thus rob the peddlers of their livelihood,
have proved to be a public menace and should be given no further
thought. Our purpose is not to indulge the addict. but to cure him
if he can be cured and to separate him from society if he cannot.
Hardly anything is known about the basic causes and possible cure
for drug addiction-and I know, too, there is controversy in the medical profession in that-and there is very little organized effort to
2439
learn anything. No Federal appropriation has been made to anyone

for research, except to the Lexington Hospital. Funds could be made
available to the National Research Council or to any number of private
foundations.
Senator DANIEL. Just for the record there, General, we do have
appropriations to about five foundations, studying narcotics problems.
Mr. SHEPPERD. I hadn't been informed of those.
Senator
DANrEL.
That recommendation is already being carried out
by the Congress.
Mr. SHEPPERD.
I am glad to get that information because I didn't
have it.
A private foundation has been started by a group of industrialists
in New York to work on a national scale among the country's 5 million
alcoholics and estimated 60,000 drug addicts. The National Association of Attorneys General is looking into this organization to see if it
is reputable and responsible.
It would be of great help to the Western States if women patients
were admitted to the Federal narcotics hospital in Fort Worth, and if
the facilities of that hospital could be enlarged to handle more addicts.
There is no reason why the States should not pay the cost of their
treatment, and those funds could be used to increase the hospital's
capacity.
The States, in that connection, could pass enabling legislation preparatory to the passage of the Payne bill, Senate Joint Resolution 19,
which is designed to permit the admission of State patients to Federal
narcotics hospitals at State cost. This would speed up their admission
when and if the bill is passed, at it should be.
I believe that under authority already granted by Congress to the
States for making interstate compacts, regional hospitals could be set
up on a share-the-cost basis, perhaps with Federal help if needed. One
thing is certain-anything we could establish or provide by any means
at all would be better than what we now have.
In this enlightened age it is foolish to continue trying to solve co-mplex moral problems with repressive laws that we allow to' stack up
on the books and violate at leisure, or enforce only sporadically when
the public becomes aroused. Sooner or later we must face the issue
of what type of personal morality we wish to regulate by law and
what type we will leave to the individual's conscience and personal
restraint. Unenforceable laws and laws not supported by a clear majority of the people should then be erased from the books, and the reinainder enforced with all of the combined financial, physical, and
moral forces at our command.
The records of counties and municipalities are replete with concrete instances of the general philos6dhy of enforcement after the
fact, in which officers with the wisdom of experience will break up a
sudden spurt of criminal activity merely by rounding up all drug
addicts. It is surely time for us to realize that the better method is
to lock the stable door before the horse has bolted, by rounding up the
addict first, preventing the crime by removing the criminal.
Senator DANIEL. We certainly thank you for this comprehensive
statement, General Shepperd.
Mr. SHIEPPERD. Thank you.
Senator
DAnEL.
Senator Butler, do yon have any questions you
would like to ask this witness?
2440
Senator BUTLER. No; I don't. I think it is a very excellent state-
ment and contains a lot of things that deserve thought.

Mr. SHEPPERD. Thank you, sir.
Senator DANIE.. Any questions, Mr. Counsel

Senator DANIEL. Well, we thank you very much, and you are welcome to sit with us through the rest of the hearing, General, if your
time will permit.
Mr. SHaEpER. I would like to very much.
Senator DANIEL. Having been where you are I know your time is
pretty well taken up.
Mr. SHF PPED. If there is any way we can be of assistance to you in
your hearings in other cities, call on us.

Senator DANIEL. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Mr. SHPPPERU. Thank you.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Yelderman?
Mr. YELDERMAN. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. This witness, in view of what his attorney said

earlier today about wanting to have the same publicity given to his
testimony that was given to his swearing in this morning, will be given
the opportunity to have that in a hearing tomorrow at San Antonio.
I understand those hearings are to be televised, all of them, and he
will be given the opportunity to appear before this committee at San
Antonio tomorrow or may go on and appear here at this time. The
choice will be given to the witness after counseling with his attorney.
Mr. YELDERMAN. The objection which I made this morning was not
seeking after publicity to the witness. It just occurred to me at the
time it occurred. I know it occurred inadvertently that this man was
sworn in which two other voluntary addicts, and I want the record
to show this did not so classify him and to further show he is under
subrena issued by the committee.
Senator DANIEL. And this committee did not so classify him.
Mr. YELDERMAN. Now, since neither he nor I are publicity seekers,
we are ready to proceed.
Senator DANIEL. That's fine. You may sit by your client.
Would you give your full name?

Mr. YELDERMAN.
Willium Yelderman.
Attorney at law, Austin, Tex.?

Yes, sir, Perry-Brooks Building, Austin, Tex.
And I am sure you know the procedure of these
committees. Your client may seek your counsel, advice, at any time.
Mr. YELDERMAN. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You, of course, would not be permitted to volunteer
any advise, interrupt him in anyway, except when he seeks your advise.
For that purpose you may sit by him.
Mr. YELDERMAN. Thank you.
(The witness Rudy Rodriguez, was duly sworn.)
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. YELDERMAN.
Senator DANIEL.
TESTIMONY OF RUDY RODRIGUEZ

Senator DANIEL. Will voi. sfate your name in full?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Rudy Rodriguez.
Senator DANIEL. Do you spell that R-u-d-yI
Mr. RoRPIGUEZ. Yes, sir..
2441
Senator DANIEL. R-o-d-r-i-g-u-e-z?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Right, sir.
Mr. RODRIGUVEZ. 1101/ Tillery, Austin, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. In Austin?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you lived in Austin?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. About 16 years.
Senator DANIEL. In order that you may make the record clear oni
this, I will ask you if you use any type of narcotic drugs?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. iO, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Have you ever used any narcotic drugs?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. NO, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever sold any narcotic drugs?
Mr. RoDRI:UEZ.
NO, Sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever sold any marihuana?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What ty)e of business are you engaged in now ?
,Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, I am working at, supposed to work picking

cotton last week and sent us back because the cotton wasn't open yet,
but I been working here in Austin at the Driskill Hotel, been a cook
at Steak House on Burnet Highway, and I have been a cook at San
Antonio Highway and I have been working at Airway Branch, a
package house.
Senator DANIEL. All right, what other type of work have you been
engaged in?
Mr.
RODRIGUEZ.
Well, I worked at the bus station cleaning buses
up and greasing them up.

Senator BuLER. Are you also known as Rudy Perez?
Mr". RODRIGUEZ. Rudy.
Senator BUTLER. Are you known as Rudy Perez?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am the brother of Rose Perez.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever go by that name?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In San Antonio.
DANIEL. Rudy Perez,
M'.RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir.
Senator
in San Antonio?
Senator DANIEL. Were you ever convicted of any offense in San

Antonio under that name?
Mr. RoDRIGUEz. No,sir; not that I remember.

Senator DANIEL. How long did you go by the name of Rudy Perez?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don't remember.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you ever go by the name of Louis Perez?
Mr. RODmRIuEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. Only Rudy Perez?
Senator DANIEL. During the fall of 1954 did you work on weekends at Mannie Laredo's Bar in San Antonio?
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever see any narcotics sold there while
you were working there?
Mr. RODRTGUEZ. No. sir.

Senator DANIEL, You know what "narcotics" are, what I mean
when I use that term ?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, I guess I do.
2442
Senator DANIEL. I know that isn't the usual word that is used bu.
what have you heard? What do you understand me to mean when I
I
ask about narcotics
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, all I know about narcotics, what I see in the
paper, a man got arrested about narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear narcotics called by any other
name ?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Senator
Did you ever hear it called stuff ?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Oh, yes.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you hear it called stuff ?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. In San Antonio, where?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. A lot of places in San Antonio.
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL. A lot of places there?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. About how many places
have you heard narcotics
called stuff in San Antonio?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, 1 place in San Antonio that I know, 2 places
in San Antonio that I heard them say it, in poolrooms I heard them
say "stuff".
Senator DANIEL. In two poolrooms in San Antonio ?
Senator DANIEL. What were they referring to when they said
"stuff," marihuana?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ.
Senator
Yes.
Or heroin?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, marihuana, I think.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever smoke any marihuana?
DANIEL.
sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever sell any marihuana?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear anybody talk about buying stuff
at Mannie Laredo's Bar in San Antonio?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. NO, sir; most of the people who go there is Spanish
people.
Senator DANIEL. And you never sold any nor heard anything about
anybody else selling or buying any stuff, heroin or marihuana, in
Mannie Laredo's Bar in San Antonio?
Senator DANIEL. You say most of the people are Spanish-speaking
people, what do they call marihuana?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Lucas.
Senator DA-NIEL. What do they call heroin?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No,
Mr. RODRIGUEZ.
Tacata.
Senator DANIEL. Can you spell that?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No,
sir; I can't.
Senator DANIEL. Say it one more time.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Tacata.
Senator DANIEL. Tacata. Well, have you heard anybody use either
of those words in Mannie Laredo's Bar in San Antonio?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. What was the occasion for them using those
words? Why did they talk about those two words?
2443
Mr.
I didn't pay too much attention. You see, I work
RODRIGUEZ.
behind the bar. I heard a lot of people mention, "Tres tacata."

Senator DANIEL. "Tres tacata," what does that mean?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That means, "Have you got any dope."

Senator DANIEL. To whom would they be talking?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Some other people around the bar.
Senator
Mr.
Talking to anybody behind the bar?
DANIEL.
No, sir.
RODRIGUEZ.
Senator DANIEL. Did anybody ever ask you that?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir; a lot of them.
Senator DANIEL. They asked you if you had any dope?
lr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir.
Senator
N[r.
I say, a lot asked you if you had any dope?
DANIEL.
RODRIGUEZ.
Yes; they asked me.
Senator DANIEL. What did you tell them?

Senator DANIEL. How long did you work there?
Mr.
RODRIGUEZ.
Senator
DANIEL.
worked a few months; about 6 months, I guess.
And you say a whole lot of those people asked
you if you had dope?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
DANIEL. Did you hear them ask Mannie?
ir. RODRIGUEZ. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did they ask anybody else behind
Senator
the bar if they
had dope?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, sir; those people behind, I mean on the front
of the bar.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever see anybody smoke marihuana in
there?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, sir; not inside; no, sir.

Senator DANIEL. What? Not inside, you say?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Not in the place.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you see it?
RODRIGUEZ. Outside.
Senator DANIEL. Outside
M1r.
the bar?
MNr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. I-low far outside?
r. RODRIGUEZ. Well-cars, you know where they got the parking
meters, park the cars there.
DANIEL. Just
RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator
outside the door?
Mr.
Senator DANIEL. Where did they get the marihuana?
RODRIGUEZ. I wouldn't know, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How did you know they were smoking marihuana?
Mr. RODR1GUEZ. I see a lot of times, you can smell it when it is
Mr.
strong, you know the smoke, I knew what it was, when a lot of people
mention it.
Senator DANIEL. You know what marihuana smells like?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. You know what a marihuana cigarette looks like?
Senator
DANIEL.
Describe it.
71515-56-pt. 7--7
2444
Mr.

RODRIGUEZ.
Some they put on brown paper, some they put on
white paper.
Senator DANIEL. Are they about the size of a normal cigarette or
smaller?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, sir; little smaller.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ.
Considerably smaller?
Yes,
sir.
Well, while you were working at Mannie Laredo's

bar did you see them smoking marihuana outside the bar pretty often?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Not too often, sir. because I started working 5
o'clock to 12 o'clock, most of the time be busy. Sometimes take off
an hour and go eat. Sometimes take a 15-minute break. That's when
sometimes run into a standing group, about 3 or 4.
Senator DANIEL. In groups of 3 or 4 outside?
Senator DANIEL. That was in 1954, fall of 1954?
Senator DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. Did you see any of them using heroin or stuff?
Senator DANLIEL. Well. did you hear any of them there talking about
this, what did you say was the Spanish word for heroin?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Tacata.
Senator DANIEL. Did you hear them using that word there?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, yes, sir;: I did.
Senator DANIEL. And was that when they asked whether you had
any?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. They didn't ask me. I heard them saying to the
people down at the bar about tacata.
Senator DANIEL. They would talk to other men at the bar?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. A minute ago you said they asked you if you had
any dope, what words did they use?
Mr. RODRIGU-EZ. They asked if I had any weed.

Senator DANIEL. Is that another thing they use for marihuana?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. sir.
Senator DANIEL. You saw some of them smoking cigarettes inside
the bar, too, didn't you?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No. sir.

Senator DANIEL. Did you know Simona Rodriguez?
MIr. RODRIGUEZ. Simona Rodriguez?
Senator DANIEL. Or Simona Cavazos?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, sir. I don't know, I heard her name but I don't
know her.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear of a woman by the name of
Simona?
Senator DANIEL. Where did you hear about it?
\fr. RODRIGUEZ. In San Antonio and here, too.

Senator DANIEL. All right, I show you a picture, exhibit A of the
Austin hearing. Is this the Simona you are talking about?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, I wouldn't know by seeing her, I just heard
her name called several times but I never seen her before.
Senator DANIEL. You have never seen her?
Senator
DANIEL.
2445
Did you ever talk to her on the telephone?

Senator DANIEL. Tell us just how you heard about Simona?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, I heard it here by Mr. Scott and them, men-
tion to me if I knew Simona in San Antonio. I told them I didn't

kmew her but I knew by name, I heard a lot of people in San Antonio
call her name, Simona, let's go over to see Simona.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know what they wanted to go see Simona
about?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, sir. I didn't but I do now.
Senator DANIEL. You do now ?
Senator DANIEL. You didn't at that time ?

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever tell anyone in Austin you had been
selling a hundred to two hundred and fifty dollars' worth of heroin

to colored people here?
Mr. YELDERMAN. He didn't understand the question.
Senator DANIEL. I want to say this to you, I don't say this as any
indication I think you would tell this committee a falsehood. I am
sure your attorney has done it, but I am warning you while under
oath that if you do not give us the correct testimony, you would be
liable to a charge of perjury; do you understand that?
.[r.
YELDERAIAN.
You are under oath and if you tell a lie you are
committing, violating the law yourself. You have got to tell the
truth.
Senator DANIEL. Do you understand that?
Mr. RXODRIGTU-EZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. You understand that if a jury found you had lied
to this committee you could be sent to prison for that; you understand
that?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And so I am just cautioning you to be careful

about your answers. I want the record to show I have cautioned
you on that; your attorney also wants to show no indication that I
anticipate you are going to do that. I want to caution you because,
naturally, we wouldn't have you here asking you these questions if
someone had not told our committee investigator the matters about
which I am going to ask you.
All right, did you ever tell anyone here in Austin, Tex., or anywhere
else that you were selling heroin to colored people here in Austin?
M.r. rODRIGUEZ.
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You are positive you never told anyone that?
Mir. R ODRIGUEZ. No, sir, I haven't told nobody that.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you ever sell any heroin where you call
it stuff. tacata.
Mr. RODRIG-UEZ. Tacata.
Senator DANITEL. By whatever name, did you ever sell any or deliver
any to any person here in Austin?
Mf r. RODRIGUEZ. NO, sir, I haven't.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever deliver any heroin, tacata or stuff to
ny person anywhere in Texas?

r. R~ODRIGUEZ. No, sir.
2446
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Senator BTrLER. Did you ever sell marihuana or deliver marihuana
to anybody in Texas?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have any marihuana cigarettes in

your possession or marihuana in bulk quantity on your person or anywhere under your control?
Senator DANIEL. Do you know a man by the name of Ray Murdock?
Senator DANIEL. How long have you known Ray Murdock?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I just knew him here, I don't remember how long
but I met him out here at, here in Austin.
Senator DANIEL. You met him here in Austin?
..\r. RODRIGUEZ. Few times.
Senator DANIEL. How long ago?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Been a long time.
Senator DANIEL. You met him a few times, where?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. At the Olmos poolroom.
Senator DANIEL. What was your business with him?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I had no business with him. We were just playing

pool down there, I heard his name, Ray.
Senator DANIEL. Well, will you see if this is the man you are talking
about [handing witness a photograph] ?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. This is exhibit D. Is that Ray Murdock?
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, just tell us, did you ever discuss anything
Mr.
RODRIGUEZ.
with him or did he ever discuss with you anything about dope, narcotics, stuff, marihuana?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I knew what he came for.
Senator DANIEL. How did you know?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. A lot of people up here wait for him to get here.
Senator DANIEL. Where would they wait?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Over at the Olmos poolroom.
Senator DANIEL. Wait for him to bring dope?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Come from San Antonio, yes, they always wait for
somebody to come from San Antonio and Ray come from San Antonio
all the time.
Senator DANIEL. Did he bring marihuana over here?
Mr. RODRTGITEZ. I seen one time he did, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You saw him do it?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
You saw him make the sale?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I didn't see him make the sale, I seen him give a
boy a jar, one of these big jars full of it.
DANIEL. Full of
RODRIGJUEZ. Yes, sir.
Senator
Mr.
marihuana?
Senator DANIEL. Where did he do that?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Oh, behind the Owl cabstand.
Senator DANIEL. Behind the what?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Behind the Owl cabstand.
Senator DANIEL. On what street?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Congress.
Senator
DANIEL.
What were you doing there?
IIIIIIIIIII
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2447
Playing pool and dominoes.

Senator DANIEL. You said behind the Owl cabstand, out in the
alley?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Not in the alley; where they park all the taxis, I
had the car parked there, I had my car parked, a lot of cars parked
liere.
Senator DANIEL. What were you doing there?
Mr.
RODRIGtEZ.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I was fixing to go home.
Senator DANIEL. Who was the boy to whom he gave the marihuana?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. To-he's in the penitentiary now, I forget his name.
Senator DANIEL. Will you try to think of his name 'You say this
Ray Murdock gave him a jar of marihuana on that occasion?
Mr.
RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator BUTLER. Did
trial?
Mr.
RODRIGUEZ.
Senator
BUTLER.
you have anything to do with Ray Murdock's
No.
Were you summoned as a witness?

Senator BUTLER. Did anybody talk to you about Ray Murdock selling marihuana?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see Ray Murdock deliver any heroin?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see him deliver any other kind of
dope to anyone?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Nothing but that jar, all I seen.
Senator DANIEL. How do you know he was delivering heroin over
here from San Antonio?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I heard it.
DANIEL. It was pretty common talk?
Mr. RODRIGU7EZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. They do get it from Ray Murdock?
Senator
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. Where would Ray Murdock come to sell it here
in Austin?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Some hotel out here on Congress.
Sensor DANTEL. What iq the name of fthe hotel?

I don't' know, Just off Congress and Third, I think,
it's on Congress and Third.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ.
Spnftor DA-NTPT,. Were you ever out at that hotel?

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see Ray Murdock there?
Mr. ROD-,IGUEZ. Yes, sir, right across the pool hall, see everything.
Spnsitor DANIEL. T, it the ,same pool halil you are talking about?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Olmos. ves. sir.
Senator DANIEL. You have seen him coming in and going out of
th hoftpl ?
Mr. Ro'RTO ,z. Cnmino out ad goi-nq into the hotel.
Sownf nr DANIEL. (oinlg into the hotel?
z. Y',.
,,natoi D,V\TTF. You hnve h,'c people talking. waiting for him
to 1---viiiomp qfiiff -from qqn Antonio?
M'*,
,OPTGUiFr7
Mr. RODRITOEZ. Yes, sir.
2448
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Senator DANIEL. Did Ray Murdock ever talk to you about helping
him out with his business?
Mr. RODIGUEZ. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever talk to him about the dope business
or the marihuana business?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, sir; I haven't talked to him.
Senator DANIEL. Are you sure you haven't had marihuana in your
house or on your person?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. They made a search about a year ago in my house,
found a can in my house, the kids picked up a Prince Albert call,

some Federal agent said some marihuana had been in that can. I told
him the kids picked them cans from outside, I never have any st,,ff
in my house nowhere.
Senator I)ANIEL. Did you ever see this Prince Albert can before'?
Mr. RODRIGU-EZ. No, sir. They picked it up from under my bed.
Kids had been playing around with toys and the can was in one of
the boxes where the kids had toys.
Senator DANIEL. You never had that Prince Albert can in your
pocket?
Senator DANIEL. Was that the first time you ever saw it when the
officers found it?
Senator DANIEL. Did you look in it after the officers found it, did
you look to see what was init?
Senator DANIEL. What was in it?
Mr. RODRIGUFZ. I didn't see anything. He said something been in

the can but you couldn't hardly tell if anything there, I couldn't see
none. He said he couldn't see anything hardly to file on me for it.
That's what he said.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you see a small amount of marihuana
left in the can?
Mr.
RODRIGUEZ.
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever give any marihuana to anyone?

Mir. RODRIGUEZ. No, sir. Yes, I did, in San Antonio, I find I think
14 cigarettes when I was sweeping, cleaning up, I give to my boy. I
asked what would he do with them, he said he would take them.
Senator
DANIEL.
Then you have had marihuana cigarettes in your
hands?
Sir?
Senator DANIEL. You have had them in your hands, on your person?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I found them and give to this boy.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mannie's Bar.

Senator DANIEL. Is that Mannie Laredo's Bar in San Antonio that
I have been asking you about?

Senator DANIEL. Didn't I ask you if you ever saw marihuana cigarettes: what did you tell me?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I said "Yes," sir.
Senator DANIEL. I thought when I asked you about that, you told
me you never did see any marihuana cigarettes or any other dope in
Mannie Laredo's Bar.
2449
MAr. RODRIGUEZ. I told you, you said if I had on my hands, I found

on the floor, I give to this boy, but I never have no stuff.
Senator DANIEL. How many marihuana cigarettes did you find on
the floor?
MIfr.
RODRIGUEZ.
Mr.
RODRIGUEZ.
Fourteen.
Senator DANIEL. What side of the bar?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Sir?
Senator DANIEL. What side of the bar?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. On the outside, on the booths, where they sit, on the
booths.
Senator DANIEL. On the booths? On the rail?
Senator
Yes, sir, on the booths, from the rail.
DANIEL.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ.
You picked them up

Yes, sir.
Senator
what they were?
Mr.
Senator
did you give them.
DANIEL. You knew

RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir.
.Mr.
DANIEL. To whom
RODRIGUEZ. To a boy.
Senator DANIEL. What is his name?

IMr. RODRIGUEZ. Alfonso Galvan.
Senator DANIEL. Wasn't he Alfonso Cavazos?
Senator DANIEL. Are they the same? Do you know Alfonso
Cavazos?
Senator DANIEl. Let's see if you know this fellow here? This is
exhibit B.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, he worked for the Pearl in San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. He works for whom?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Pearl, Pearl Brewery.
Yes, I seen him a lot of
times come in there.

Senator DANIEL. Do you know him?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. You have seen him in Mannie's Bar?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Is he the one to whom you gave the cigarettes?
Mr. RoDRIGUEZ. No, sir; not him.
Senator D.kNIEL. And you have seen him in Mannie's Bar?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir; he delivers beer, he work for the truck,
the Pearl.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
RODRIGUEZ.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever see him deliver any dope?

No.
Did you ever hear anybody talk about getting dope
from him?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I seen him and Ray.
Senator DANIEL. Ray Murdock?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you see him and Ray Murdock?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Over at Mannie's.
Senator DANIEL. That is the bar you worked in?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir; and over at Cinco de Mayo, next bar from
where I was working, in the next building, and I seen him over at
Market Cafe. All the time come to Market Cafe and drink coffee and
eat.
2450
Senator DANI EL. Did you ever see Al when Murdock was delivering
dope?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear anybody talk about buying
dope from Ray Murdock.
lr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You know he deals in dope?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, I didn't.
Senator DANIEL. You heard him talk about it?
Senator DANIEL. I want you to think real well. Just a moment,
Mr. Rodriguez, think again now and tell me whether or not the 14
marihuana cigarettes are the only marihuana you have ever handled,
ever possessed or had in your hands or in your pockets, anywhere; are
you sure?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir, I ami sure.
Senator DANIEL. You are sure that is all?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Are you sure that is the only marihuana yol
have ever delivered or given?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I give 14 sticks to the boy that I told you about.
Senator DANIEL. Is that the only marihuana you ever touched'?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. About that can up over here at the house, about all.
Senator DANIEL. Is that all you have ever touched?
Mr.
RODRIGUEZ.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Carmel Campbell?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, I think I know him.

Senator DANIEL. Where did you know him?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Here in Austin.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Willie Crawford, Pete, Willie Crawford, Pete Eden?
Mr.
RODRIGUEZ.
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know about whom I am talking?

Mr.
RODRIGUEZ.
Used to be a cab driver.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever know that they were in the business
of selling heroin?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I know he used it.
Senator DANIEL. Who did?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Pete. One day playing pool he dropped out of his
handkerchief, he dropped a needle.
Senator DANIEL. A needle?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir, and a box of matches.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ask him whether or not he was using it?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I didn't ask, I knew.
Senator DANIEL. How did you know what that was for?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I seen them in the paper, things like that.
Senator DANIEL. You saw about it in the papers?
Senator DANIEL. Carmel Campbell and Pete Eden are in the penitentiary on charges of sale of heroin, you know that?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir, I seen them in the paper.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear they said you were one of their
connections?
Mr.
RODRIGUEZ.
I didn't.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2451
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear that?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, sir, I did not.
Senator DANIEL. You never heard they said you delivered anything
for them?
Senator
DANIEL.
I want to ask you this question, did you ever de-
liver or hand to anybody any kind of dope, marihuana or narcotics

for Carmel Campbell and Pete Eden?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have any kind of business with those
two men at all?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. They wanted one time, this Pete here, Pete I'm
talking about.
Senator DANIEL. Pete Eden?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, heavy-set man, told me loan him my car. I
said no.
He wanted to sell some irons.
Senator DANIEL. Sell what?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. He had some irons.
Mr. YELDERVIAN. Electric irons.
He wanted to sell electric irons.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ.
Senator
DANIEL. Did you

Senator
loan him your car?
All right, did you ever make trips to Temple, Tex.,
DANIEL.
or to Taylor, Tex.?
Senator
Do you know Andrew Lee Wilson, Shorty Wilson?
DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. Who is Shorty Wilson?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That's some colored boy.
Senator DANIEL. Ruth Wilson, do you know her?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Both at Temple?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ.
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever go to their place?

Senator DANIEL. How did
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In Taylor,
Senator
DANIEL.
you know her?

in the ball game.
Did you ever have any business with them, ever
deliver them anything?

Senator DANIEL. No kind of package of any kind?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No. [Indicated by shaking his head.]
Senator DANIEL. All right, did you ever deliver any type of package to Taylor, Texas?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever go to Taylor for any other purpose
than a ball game?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What for?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ.
Work.
Senator DANIEL. What type?
*Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Behind the bar for Miss Hattie, during the cotton
season I tend bar for her.
Senator DANIEL. At Taylor?
2452
Mr.

RODRIGUEZ.
Yes, sir.
Senator D.AN.XIEL. But, you never had anything to do with dope in

Taylor?
Senator DANIEL. Did you know Bobbie Joe Phelps, a boy found
dead over at Canadian and Willow Street, Bobbie Joe Phelps ?
Senator DANIEL. How long had you known him?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don't know, not too long, about 2 or 3 months,
ill Olmos, playing pool.
Senator
DANIEL. You saw him in there?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know he was using
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, sir, I didn't.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Ben Curry?
heroin?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir, that's the boy I'm telling you about, the
one that Ray give him the bottle.
Senator DANIEL. Ray gave him the bottle of marihuana?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Ben Curry.
Senator DANIEL. I believe he is now in prison?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. He is in prison, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How long had you known Ben Curry?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I know him about the same I had Bobby, about 3
months.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Doris Cratana?
Senator DANIEL. She is now serving in the penitentiary on a narcotics charge, isn't she?

Senator DANIEL. How long have you known her?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. About the same, all met at the cab stand in the
morning, about 8 or 9 o'clock in the morning, always hang around the
pool hall.
Senator DANIEL. Had you been there at that time?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator
What would you be doing there?
DANIEL.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Playing dominoes, playing pool.

Senator DANIEL. Every morning?
Mr.
RODRIGUEZ.
Some mornings.
Senator DANIEL. At what time ?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Nine or 10 o'clock.
Senator DANIEL. Did you work there?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No; I wasn't working at the present time.
Senator DANIEL. What were you doing?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Nothing.
Senator DANIEL. During that 3 or 4 months you would be out there
in the morning at what time?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. About 9, sometimes be in the afternoon, 12 o'clock.
Senator DANTIEL. And these 3 young people would meet out there?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And how often did they meet Ray Murdock there?
Mr.
there.
RODRIGUEZ.
Senator
heroin ?
Well, I seen about a couple, about 3 or 4 times down
DANIEL.
Did you know these young people were using
I I
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2453
Mr. RODRIGU-EZ. No, sir; I didn't.

Senator DANIEL. You didn't ever hear about that?
Mr. RODRIuLEZ. I know, I knew Bobby was all the time acting like
he was drunk when he was playing pool, sleepy all the time.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't have any idea what was wrong wit]
him?

Senator DANIEL. Did you know he smoked marihuana?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No sir I didn't, know it.
Senator DANIEL. Y'ou didn't know what he was buying that mari-
huana for?
Mr. RODIGiuUEZ. Bobby? But this other boy, Ben Curry.
Senator DANIEL. I mean Ben Curry.
Mr. RODRIGTEz. No: I didn't know why he was buying it.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know Ben Curry was using marihuana '
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Had you seen him?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, a couple of times.
Senator DANIEL. Did he ever ask you to get him some?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. Did Doris C0atana ever ask you to get her some
marihuana?
Mir. RODRIGUEZ. No, sir.
Senator DANieL. Or heroin?
Mr.
RODRIGUEZ.
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, about these meetings that you had out at
the pool hall in the mornings where you saw these three people, wis
that after you worked over in San Antonio or before?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I wasn't working when I was seeing Bobbie.
Senator DANIEL. You worked over at Mannie's Bar in San Antonio
in the fall of 1954; is that right?
Senator DANIEL. Was that before you met these young people out
here at the pool hall?
Mr. RODRIGuEz. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And over in San Antonio you had met Ray
Murdock?
Senator DANIEL. And this man whose picture you have there,
Alfonso Cavazos?
Mr.
RODRIGUEZ.
Yes, sir; I seen him every day because he delivered
some beer, delivered beer every day.

Senator DANIEL. And after you came back to Austin you would see
these people here, these young people, Bobbie, Joe Phelps, Ben Curry,
and Doris Cratana at the pool hall?
Senator DANIEL. And you knew they were buying from Murdock?
Senator DANIEL. Did any officer ever ask you about it?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I told them I don't know anything about it.
Senator DANIEL. About what?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If they were selling to them or not.
2454
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Senator DANIEL. Did they ask you if you ever saw Ray Murdock
sell or deliver any marihuana to any one of these three young people?
Did they ask you that?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, sir, they didn't.
Senator D.NLIEL. They never asked if you saw him deliver any kind
of drugs?
Senator DANIEL. They never asked you that question?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, I guess they did ask me.
Senator DANIEL. What did you tell them? Who asked you?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Scott and the Sergeant.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Scott and one of the other men on the police
force?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I told them I never seen them.

Senator DANIEL. You had seen it, though, hadn't you?
Senator DANIEL. Why did you tell them you hadn't seen it?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, I didn't want to get bothered by things like
that.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, it ailn't my business to tell people what other
people do.
Senator DANIEL. Youi knew this Ray Murdock was selling to these
18-year-old children, boys-is Doris Oratana a girl or boy?
Mr. RODRIGU-EZ. Girl.
Senator DANIEL. You knew he was selling to this 18-year-old boy
that was found dead, Bobbie Joe Phelps, and Doris Cratana, a young
girl, and to Ben Curry ?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Seen to Ben Curry, not them, I didn't see them to
Bobbie or Doris.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't you know what they were out there for?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I knew what Ben Curry was doing there after I
seen Ray.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't know what the others were doing out
there?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, sir; I didn't.
Senator DANIEL. You knew he was coming over to sell to Ben
Curry? You knew he was in the dope racket over in San Antonio,
you found that out; didn't you?
Senator DANIEL. You knew he was selling at least to this one?

Senator DANIEL. A young boy ?
Senator DANIEL. Is Ben Curry a young man?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No; old boy.
Senator DANIEL. Under 21, wasn't he?
Well all right, lets just
say he was a young fellow about your age or younger.

as old as
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I guess not as young as me, I mean not
me, I am 34 years old.
Senator DANIEL. He is younger than you?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir; younger.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2455
Whien the officer asked you if you ever saw Ray

-furdock deliver any mnarihuaila, you told him no?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Officer asked iirn if 1 see Ray deliver stuff; no, sir,
I didn't.
Senator DANIEL. They asked yott, didn't they?
Senator
right
DANIEL.
And you told tlhei no, you never saw it; is that
All'. I)DRIGUEZ. Yes, sir.
Senator D,\I-lr,.4 Do you kniow aiytliltg else about the dealings in

dope around here and in San Antonio that you have not told this
committee?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I hiea'd all al)otit Siliona and all that after that
come out in the papers.
Senator D.ANIEL. I an talking about what you saw firsthand, what
you knew about.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know anything more about the dope racket
in Austin or San Antonio or delivery of heroin or marihuana that
you have not told this committee about?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No; I don't, that's all I know about this Simona,
about all I heard, seen stuff, and Ray, Ray and she were all together.
Senator DANIEL. You heard that in San Antonio before you read
it in the paper?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir-no, I heard it by peoples, like Ben Curry
say he was waiting for Simona and Ray to get here.
Senator DANIEL. That is what Ben Curry said?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. You knew what he was
Senator DANIEL. Why he was waiting?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
doing?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever call Simona Cavazos or Ray Murdock?
Senator DANIEL. You never called by phone at any time?
Senator DANIEL. You never arranged for them to come over and
meet any of these people?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, sir; I didn't.
Senator DANIEL. Any questions, Senator Butler?


Senator DANIEL. All right. Let the record show that the counsel
for Antoine d'A\ s'ostino whose alle is Mr. Putnalm. from Sani Antonio,
has asked the committee for time to confer with his client before he
is called to appear before the coiimittee and that, therefore. the committee has gTanted that time, a right which we feel the witness has,
to confer with his attorney before he talks to this committee, and
tllat. tflerefore. it m'" l)e Possible that th committee will either take
tle, testimony from Mr. d'Agostino over in the jail later today or in
San Antonio, depending on what arrangements might be made. But
at this time let the record show that Antoine d'Agostino was given
2456
the opportunity to be here while we developed part of the evidence

concerning his case, and that it is necessary due to the time element
to go ahead with that evidence, at least part of it at this time, and it
will be presented to him so that he may answer any part of it that
he may care to before this committee.
I will ask Mr. Lee Speer, investigator for the committee, to take the
witness stand for a few minutes. You may be seated.
(Mr. Wayland Lee Speer was duly sworn.)
Senator DANIEL. State your name.
TESTIMONY OF WAYLAND LEE SPEER, SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR,
SUBCOMMITTEE INVESTIGATING THE ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC, UNITED STATES SENATE
Mr. SPEER. Wayland Lee Speer.
DANIEL. Are
SPEER. Yes, sir.
Senator
Mr.
you originally from Amarillo, Tex.?
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been with the Bureau of Narcotics, Federal Bureau of Narcotics?
Mr. SPEER. Eighteen years.
Senator DANIEL. You are now loaned to this committee as our chief
investigator?
Mr. 9PEER.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. During your experience with the Bureau of Narcotics have you had occasion to work in foreign countries?
Mr. SPEER. Yes, sir; I have.
Senator DANIEL. How many years?
Mr. SPEER. Seven years.
Mr. SPEER. In the Far East.
Senator DANIEL. Did you have occasion to set up a narcotics control

program in Japan after World War II?
Mr. SPEER. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you had occasion to deal with, at least study
records of international traffickers in narcotics drugs?
Senator DANIEL. You have records of the Bureau of Narcotics or
transcripts from those records which you have examined at the request
of this committee as part of your duties concerning one Antoine
d'Agostino?
Mr. SPEER. Yes, sir, excerpts from those records.
Senator DANIEL. Will you give us just a brief outline on four
points, Mr. Speer, as to what the records of the Bureau of Narcotics
and of this committee have concerning the connections of d'Agostinio
to international dope traffic, with bail bonds, and the effect of bail
bonds on him and others connected with his ring, on the method used
for smuggling and on the significance of Mexico as his base of operation? We would like to have a brief summary of it because those are
the points we are interested in as far as this witness is concerned. Tile
first one is in connection with the international ring.
Mr. SPEER. According to the records, the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police in 1949 determined that Antoine d'Agostino supplied drugs to

Sebastino Bellanca, and other associates of his in the drug traffic who
were also in the Mafia in New York. One of these associates who has
been subpenaed before the committee was closely associated with
2457
Settimo Accardi, alias Big Sam Accardi, who jumped a $75,000 bond
on a narcotic charge in New York on the 28th day of September of
this year.
Senator DANIEL. That is last month?
Senator DANIEL. And this Sam Accardi-let's put in the record at
this time a newspaper report of him having junped $75,000 bond.
Mr. SPEER. Yes, sir; I have it.
Senator DANIEL. Let's place that in the record here at this point.
(Following is the newspaper article :)
[From the Daily News, Thursday, September 29, 1955]
WARRANT OUT FOR BIG SAM: 75G FORFEITED
The $75,00) bail of Settimo (Big Sam) Accardi, 52-year-old New Jersey
racketeer, was ordered forfeited yesterday by Federal Judge Irving R. Kaufman
when Accardi failed to appear for his trial on charges of conspiracy to violate
the narcotics law.

A warrant for the arrest of the defendant, who has been fighting deportation,
was at once issued by the court.
LINKED TO DOPE RING
Accardi was arrested August 3 at his home, 188 Franklin Street, Bloomfield,
N. J., as Federal agents in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and New Jersey smashed
three big-time rings of narcotics distributors with connections reaching back
to the Italian haunts of Lucky Luciano.
United States Attorney Paul Williams said Accardi was reputed to be a close
associate of Lucky, and added: "He is on the Federal Narcotics Bureau's list
and is rated as one of the major international dope peddlers. Every effort will
be made to find him."
FREED IN BAIL AUGUST
18
He was freed in bail August 18 after pleading not guilty to the sale of drugs
valued at $300,000 in the retail black market.
Officials said that Judge Kaufman's warrant covers all the United States and
that an alarm was being sent to Mexico, Cuba, and Canada.
(Article carried picture of Settimo (Big Sam) Accardi.)
Senator DANIEL. Did Antoine d'Agostino jump bail bond, too?

Mr. SPEER. Yes, sir; he did.
DANIEL. From what country?
Mr. SPEER. From Canada.
Senator DANIEL. How much was that bail bond?
Mr. SPEER. That was $25,000, if I remember correctly.
Senator DANIEL. All right, proceed. Is he now wanted
Senator
on that
bond and on the charges filed in Canada?

Senator
DANIEL.
Go ahead.
Al. SPEER. Accardi was one of the bio,'gest wholesale smugglers and
dealers of heroin apprehended in the United States for several years

and he admitted he was in partnership with a man named Robino
who is now a fugitive on that charge.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. SPEER.
Senator
How much bond did he jump?
He was never arrested.
DANIEL.
SPEER. No,
He has never been arrested yet?

sir. However, this Robino entered the United
Mr.
States in 1948 and immediately became involved in the drug traffic.
All of these members that I have mentioned are traffickers who are
in the so-called Sicilian traffic narcotics in the United States. In 195,
t'hat was after ('orge and Jolm Mallock
2458
How do you spell it?

Mr. SPEER. M-a-l-l-o-c-k, had all jumped bond in Canada on a
charge of smuggling and distribution of heroin. One of the members
of their gToup stated that this entire group was operating with Mexico
as a base and that they were smuggling the narcotics into Mexico,
flying it to Canada and then smuggling it into the United States.
Senator DANIEL. NOW, this group was composed of d'Agostino, the
two Mallock brothers and who else?
Mr. SPEER. And a member of the group in New York.
Senator DANIEL. And the member of the group, the name yon do
not wish to call at this time who gave this evidence to the B1ureau,
is that correct?
Senator DANIEL. Were they all indicted on this charge of
smuggling?2
Mr. SPEER. One of the Mallock brothers, I don't recall the date,
died in an automobile accident when fleeing officers. The other
brother, either John or George, has been arrested.
Senator DANIEL. And didn't he jump the Canadian bond?
Mr. SPEER. He has jumped the bond.
Senator DANIEL. And now he is a fugitive from Canada?
Mr. SPEER. Yes, sir, as far as I know. This same group in 1953,
by the admission of this same member who had smuggled 6 kilograms,
this one man, as his part of the organization had smuggled 6 kilograms of heroin in 2 aluminum trunks for this particular organization, and he had sold the 6 kilograms at $6,500 a kilogram.
Senator DANIEL. Where did he admit that lie brought it from?
Mr. SPEER. This heroin came from France, through Mexico into the
United States.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have one of these aluminum trunks?
Senator I).xxIi.
Do you have it here where the committee may
examine it?
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator DaNiEL. Would you bring it forth here?

(The witness shows an aluminum trunk to the nenbers of the
committee.)
Mr. SPEER. This is one of the trunks sent, it has the spaces in the
walls here, 1)ackages of heroin were fitted in each space, I think packages of heroin were in the entire wall of this thing.
Senator DAkXIEL. You say in two of these trunks they had $6,500
worth of heroin ?
Senator D.ANIEL. Did this informant, or through other information that you have, give you any evidence as to who constructed these
trunks?
Mr. SPEER Nathan Cisco designed and
constructed the trunks.
Senator DANIEL. You mean that is the information given you?
Mr. SPEER. By the informant.
Senator D.INIIEL. By the informant, by the one whose name you
will not call?
Senator DANIEL. And this same person is the agent for d'Agostino,
for Antoine d'Agostino?
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
Mr. SPEER.
TRAFFIC
2459
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did this person say he made other false bottom
trunks to be used in smuggling narcotics?
Mr. SPEER. As I recall that was the modus operandi, they smuggled
it in this particular type of article concealed in this manner.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Now then, do you have any evidence
to show as to how long this d'Agostino operated with Mexico as his
base of operation?
Mr. SPEER. Well, by his own admission he went there in 1952 but
evidence indicates he went there considerably before that.
Senator DANIEL. His admission to whomV
Mr. SPEER. To me.
Senator DANIEL. YOU have interviewed d'Agostino yourself?
Senator DANIEL. He admitted having been in Mexico since 1952?
Mr. SPEER. Yes, sir. He admitted going to Mexico actually in 1947
and being in Canada in 1949, and he skipped a period there saying
he was in Mexico in 1952.
Senator DANIEL. Now then, is this same man wanted on narcotic
charges anywhere else?
Mr. SPEER. In New York City, the southern district of New York.
Senator DANIEL. -[as he ever made bail on the New York charges ?
Mr. SPEER. I don't believe he has. sir.
Senator DANIEL. Is he wanted on conspiracy of smuggling narcotics in New York?
Mr. SPEER. Yes. sir.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Speer, just on this point, after these bail
bonds were jumped, after these men in this ring had gotten out on
bail, have you found evidence, while working for the committee or
for the Bureau, that they continued to engage in narcotic traffic?
Mr. SPEER. That is the evidence and information that we have, yes,
sir. Of course, it has been well established that Cisco did this very
thing, he jumped a bond in 1949 and he was in the traffic in Mexico,
either continuously or intermittently after that time until recently.
Senator DANIEL. Did the Bureau of Narcotics have cooperation
from the. Mexican officials in apprehending d'Agostino finally?
Mr. SPEER. The only thing I know about that. Senator: he was
arrested when he illegally entered the United States in San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. Did -the Narcotics Bureau put out a reward for
dAgostifo?
Senator DANIEL. How much?
Mr. SPEER. Twenty-five hundred dollars.
Senator DANIEL. And he was picked up then by an agent of the
Federal Government in San Antonio
Senator DANIE. When he landed there from Mexico?
Mr. SPEER. Yes. sir.
Senator DANIEL. That is the same man that is in the jail here in
Austin?
Mr.SPEER. Yes. sir.
Senator I)ANI. Now. have you got any evidence that he might
7151 5-56-pt. 7-
2460
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
have been engaged in making bail for other prisoners in San Antonio
when he was in jail over there?
Mr. SPEER. I have direct evidence. I didn't establish it myself but
authorities have informed me.
Senator DANIEL. From your investigation do you feel that there
is evidence?
Mr. SPEER. Yes, sir, he did that.
Senator DANIEL. He did make bail for prisoners while he was in

the San Antonio jail?
Senator DAN IEL. Mr. Speer, I will ask you this question for the
record, as this is the first time we have had you as a witness since you
came to this committee. We had you before the Subcommittee on
Internal Security on what Red China was doing as to pushing drugs
into our country, since you had 7 years' experience over there. This
is the first time you have been a witness before this committee, so I
would like to ask you what your experience has been with reference
handling narcotic smugglers and trafare
you
to bail bonds. When
them?
hold
bonds
bail
fickers, will
Mr. SPEER. Bail bonds won't hold them. They disregarded the
$75,000 bond. Benny Bellanca jumped a $20,000 bond last year,
another member of the organization.
Senator D.NiEL. Would it be your recommendation that Congress
ought to look into some type of legislation to make it impossible for

these smugglers and racketeers to get out on bail?
Mr. SPEER. I feel that money means nothing to these people.
They
deal in such tremendous sums of money. For instance, in our investigation they speak of putting up $20,000 or $40,000 as if, well, to me
maybe a hundred dollars would be comparable to that. Money means
very little to them.
They make it fast, it is available, and it seems
that someone undoubtedly carries the organization and pays the bonds.
Senator DANIEL. All right, sir. Now, if you will give the committee the information that I requested about informing Mr.
d'Agostino of the material you presented to this committee some
time ago as soon as possible after adjournment, it will be appreciated.
Senator DANIEL. Senator Butler, any questions?

Senator DANIEL. All right, thank you.
Is Mr. Putnam here in the committee room?
Again for the committee, I want to thank those who helped us
here at this hearing, especially the law-enforcement officers and the
press, radio and television, our able reporter who has been writing
avery word down all day long, and all of you who have been with
us and assisted us in this hearing.
The committee will stand recessed till 10 o'clock tomorrow in the
Federal district courtroom, San Antonio, Tex.
(Whereupon, at 5: 30 p. m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene
at 10 a. In., Thursday, October 13, 1955, San Antonio, Tex.)
[LLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

THURSDAY,
OCTOBER 13, 1955

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENTS
San Antonio, Tex.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 10 a. m., in the district
courtroom of the Federal Building, in San Antonio, Tex., Senator
Price Daniel, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
counsel; and WVayland Lee Speer, of Amarillo, Tex., committee
investigator.
We are especially glad to have the Congressman from this District,

Congressman Paul Kilday, who is sitting in with us on the hearings
today and will be with us as much as his time will permit. I know
you are going to have to attend to other things, too, but, Congressman
KIilday, we are glad to have you and hope you will sit in with us as
much as possible.
And we have United States District Attorney Russell Wine; we are
"lad to have you with us. We appreciate the others who are here
today, others who are interested in this proceeding.
We will call as our first witness, Sheriff Owen W. Kilday.
(Sheriff Owen W. Kilday was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. You may be seated, Sheriff.
First, Sheriff, this
committee wants to thank you for this investigator and all the help
you have already given the committee. For the record, will you state
your name?
TESTIMONY OF OWEN W. KILDAY, SHERIFF OF BEXAR
COUNTY, TEX.
Mr. KILDAY. Owen W. Kilday.
Senator DANIEL. And your title ?
Mr. KILDAY. Sheriff of Bexar County.

Senator DANIEL. How long have you been Sheriff of Bexar County?
Mr. KILDAY. Fifteen years.
Senator DANIEL. And prior to that you were chief of police of San
Antonio?
Mr. KILDAY. Yes, sir.
2461
2462
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Senator DANIEL. The chairman of this committee could almost

answer all these questions as to your qualifications and, for the record,
I will say we have before us one of the most distinguished lawenforcement officers that this State has ever known.
Mr. KILDAY. Thank you, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And I have always called you "Chief" so long it is

hard to call you "Sheriff" but, Sheriff
I wish you woll(l tell
this committee from your experience Kilday,
in law enforcemet here in
lexar County exactly what the narcotic situation is in this vicinity
in your opinion.
Mr. KILDAY. In my opinion, like it is every place else, it is bad.
However, I don't think that it is any worse here than it is at other
places. The cities are rated by the Narcotics Bureau by the number
of arrests made, the number of seizures. We happen to be a crossroads from the border; a. great many arrests are made in San Antonio
and a lot of large seizures of narcotics.
This city is blessed with having an efficient narcotics squad in the
police department, although lacking in numbers, a very active and
very efficient narcotics squad. The United States Government narcotics agents are very active in this community. And also the customs
officers work here where they don't work a great many other places.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have good cooperation with the Federal
officials here in Bexar County?
Mr. KILDAY. It could not be better.
Senator I)ANIEL. I)oes that apply both to Custonis and to the
Bureau of Narcotics'?
Mr. KILDAY. Both.

Senator DANIEL. What about your cooperation with your city and
between city officials and the Federal officials, according to your
observation?
Mll. KIL IAY. I don't think any of those tlifngs could be improved
upon in any way.
Senator DANIEL. Sheriff, what, type of narcotic drugs are you principally bothered with in San Antonio and Bexar County . "
Mr. KILDAY. That is a matter of opinion but I believe the most
widespread use here is marihiiana; that is, more people use marijuana.
Senator DANIEL. Have you had occasion to observe whether or not

the use of heroin has also become widespread in Bexar Couty ?
Mr. KILDAY. It certainly has.
Senator BUTLER. Sheriff, do they start with marihuana and thel
go t.o heroin or do they usually stay with marihuana?
Mr. KILIDAY. They ordinarily stay with marihuana.
Of course,
some graduate from marihuana to other drugs. Marihuana is not

what 1)olice call a true habit-forming drug. The only habit-forming
drugs in our book I'll say, is the derivatives of opium.
Senator DANIEL. Which include heroin, morphine, and other drugs?
Mr. KILDAY. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. You do believe, though, that the heroin situation
has become a matter of serious consequence here?
Mr. KILDAY. Certainly.
Senator DANIEL. Now, will you enlarge on that, Sheriff, just what
experiences have you observed with reference to the heroin traffic
here
2463
Mr. KILDAY. I wNiii relate just a recent experience that I had with
i S-year-old boy. He had a heroin habit. His parents didn't lkow
it. IIIvestigatio(i showed that he miiet a 2,-3-year-old man at a filling
station who gave him a needle l)et)are(l, told him to shoot limuself
with that. He didn't even know what it was. Next day he went back.
This boy happened to be suffering fr'on stomach ulcers alld felt bad
anyway. That made him feel so niiichl better he returned to the place.
The nman was tlheie again, charged him '2.50. The boy had a summinertime job., so he coiltinued to use it.
Senator DANIEL. The, man gave the first shot free?
Ar. KILIAY. leS, b)ut lie ('iarge(l $2.5() for the next one. Investigation shows that particular peddler imust have put 40 or 50 boys and
girls of high-school age using heroin. This community will be paying
off for 40 or 50 years tor his action.
Senator DANIEL. What happened to that peddler?
Mr. KILDAY. He is (loing 8 years in the State prison. Of course,
this developed after lie was already in the prison on another charge.
Senator DANIEL. You mean to say the evidence Yoti have related
as to his selling to 40 or 50
in
1uvemils
this county was developed
after he had been convicted and (iven 8 years on another charge
Mr. KrLDAY. That's right. Of course, we lha\e't ffiislh(l with that
invpstigatiom, he may l)e tried a,,aiu.
Senator DANIEL. Possibly, of course, he will be tried again. Now,
Sheriff, did the conviction he received have anything to do with the
sale of narcotics to minors?
Mr. KILDAY. I believe he was convicted of assault on a minor girl.
Senator DANIEL. What is your idea as to the penalties that we now
have in our Federal laws and State laws concerning peddlers who sell
to juveniles?
rn
Mr.
KILDAY.
The State law is entirely adequate, as high as the
death penalty; they could get the death penalty for that under State
law.
Senator DANrEL. Under our Federal laws, what is your idea there?
You know the maximum is notMr. KILDAY. Twenty years, isn't it?
Senator
DANrEL.
I believe 20 years, such as this case. We have a
bill introduced-a bill before this committee which would make it possible to give the death penalty on second sale to minors. What is your
opinion about that bill?
Mr. K1-LDAY. Well, that's all right. You know jurors are so reluctant
at times to give the death penalty. If that would carry the alternative of a life sentence it would be much better. Of course, you could
do that under all of them.
Senator DANIIr,. Of course, in the death penalty bill now pending
before our committee, it would simply provide that the jury could
give up to death.
Mr. KLDAY. Life term, they should get nothing less on second
offense.
Senator DANIEL. You think that would help deter people selling to
minors if we had such a law?
Mr. KLDAY. I believe that it would.
Senator
DANIrEL.
All right, Sheriff, what are the problems of en-
forcement as far as this district. this county is concerned, and do von

have any suggestions as to any changes that we might make in either
2464
our Federal laws or cooperation between State and Federal agencies ?

Mr. KILDAY. Cooperation could not be improved upon. State laws
could be amended, say, in this way, put your key narcotic men under
a $10,000 surety bond. Then allow those men to procure search
warrants on a best of knowledge and belief statement. The State
law now compels you to attach a statement of facts before a search
warrant is legal. In other words, you have to make a buy almost,
you have to buy some of those drugs.
Senator BUTLER, Aren't you there getting into a constitutional
question; don't you have certain constitutional requirements that must
be met?
Mr. KILDAY. You do search with a search warrant, you have a
search warrant. In Texas you must attach a bill or a statement of
facts.
Senator BUTLER. Which would convince a judge that there was
probable cause for issuing the warrant, otherwise he would not issue it?
All. KILDAY. Well, if a man was under $10,000 bond it would prevent
him from making unreasonable searches. That is my idea of the bond,
that he would be sure of what he was doing before he made that
affidavit.
Senator DANIEL. And you would provide that he had reasonable
cause?
Mr. KILDAY. Yes; in other words, he would be subject to suit on his
bond if he was wrong.
Senator BUTLER. That may be true, that may not satisfy the con-
stitutional requirements.
Senator DANIEL. Sheriff, I think one of the main things that concerns Senator Butler is whether or not it would satisfy the constitutional requirements as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Mr. KILDAY. I understand that. It might not be constitutional.
Years ago, of course, we did that all the time; to the best of your
knowledge and belief you could get a search warrant. Since then it
was held by the State court of criminal appeals that you must have
a statement of facts.
Senator DANIEL. This testimony is interesting to this committee,
although we have nothing to do with the State laws, because the
same recommendation has been made to our Federal search and seizure
laws by practically every Federal district attorney and Federal official who has appeared before us, including Commissioner of Narcotics
Anslinger. He related to this committee how he had a man on whom
they had a tip in New York, who came into the airport with a suitcase
in which he had narcotics. They got him. He let them search, he
said "go on." Still the Federal court threw the case out. That man
was never convicted for bringing those narcotics into Washington.
So you see, in the Federal courts we are having the same trouble that
you now say you are having in the State courts on search and seizures.
Mr. KLDAY. In my first experience, a narcotics peddler shot me:
of course, I shot him.
Senator DANIEL. Shot you?
Mr. KILDAY. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Would you detail that?
Mr. KILDAY. I was in a room in a hotel where a United States
agent was in the act of purchasing 2 ounces. The agent was under-
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2465
cover, of course. When I got in, he shot me with a .45. Of course, I

shot him, but he beat both cases.
Senator )ANIEL. You mean to say the narcotic peddler was in the
act of selling to the Federal undercover agent ?
Mr. KILDAY. That has been many years ag'o. He shot me. I shot
him. The court held I had no right to make an arrest without a warrant. Of course, I always think that court was mistaken. I had reliable information and he was being committed.
Senator DANIEL. Where was that tried?
Mr. KTILDAY. It was tried in the district court in San Antonio. State
court. He was acquitted on chare of assault and murder on me.
1,cquitred here in the post office, in the Federal court on a plea of
entrapment, that he had been entrapped.
Senator DANIm,. He was acquitted in the lower Federal court here?
Mr. KILDAY. Of course, he had the greatest criminal lawyer I have
ever seen.
Senator DA\ iEL. Sheriff, you have had some other experiences with
dope racketeers in the way of shooting. too: haven't you.
Mr.
KILDAY. Yes.
Senator DANIEL.
sir.
Some men have told us these mneiare not dangerous characters. Can you give the committee any information about
what type of men they are?
Mr. KILDAY. Ordinarily an addict is not dangerous. He lives in
fear and dread of that terrible sickness, all he worries about is getting
a supply of the narcotics. Some of tflem, of course, when they are
bordering on that stage have a terrible illness. They are dangerous
but not too many of them.
Senator BUTLER. How many of those people who are addicts go to
peddling for the purpose of spreading addiction and getting money
to make money to satisfy their own needs?
Mr. KILDAY. Well. not too many addicts peddle, because they have
a rough enough time getting what they need. Ordinarily the peddler
is not. an addict.
Mr. G.ASQUE. I wonder if you are speaking of your experiences here.
particularly in the San Antonio area?

Mr.
KILDAY.
GASQUE.
I mean that.
Mr.
The reason I make that observation is that in New
York the street pusher, the gum and shoe pusher is ordinarily an addict.
Mr. KILDAY. I understand that, but here I am thinking of local conditions. Ordinarily, of course some of the addicts do push also. The
majority of them are just hustling, trying to get it.
Senator BUTLER. You would make a distinction between a pusher
to minors and a pusher to adults in the penalties?
Mr. KILDAY. I certainly would. There is a great lot of difference
in that fellow that gave that kid out there the first shot.
Senator BUTLER. In other words, you believe that a man that is
guilty of a second offense of supplying minors with narcotics should in
the discretion of the jury be hanged, if they so provide?
Mr. KILDAY. I don't think there is anything bad enough that you can
do to him.
Senator BUTLER. And you leave it, up to the jury, either life im-
prisonment or death ?
2466
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Air. KILDAY. Talking about the second offense, miglt inake a inistake on the first.
Mr. GASQUE. Relating to that question, Sheriff Kilday, and to vo u'

previous testimony here I wonder if you can tell us how you feel San
Antonio will pay for the action of that peddler who put 40 or 5,
juveniles on drug addiction .
Mr. KILDAY. Well, we are going to have to put them in jail, write
them up, and if they continue to use it they are going to be stealing
from everyone. Steal-those kids when they first get on that will
steal from their mother, father, will steal from anyone to get it.
Mr. GASQUE. So you feel the community then, is going to get it
twice, first, the taxpayers have to support them in jails and hospitals
and, secondly, the citizens are going to pay for it in terms of property
stolen .
Mr. KILDAY. Packages from automobiles, shoplifting, all things of
that kind. The pitiable thing about it as far as that goes, is that any
addict, after he becomes addicted, no one has any sympathy for hini,
no one, he is just another dope fiend.
Mr. GASQUE. Can't get a job?
Mr. KILDAY. Can't get a job, everybody kicks him. Medical men
have no sympathy for him.
Mr. GASQUE. Only about 15 percent at a maximum are cured once
they get on it?
Mr. KILDAY. I don't believe it is that high.
Mr. GASQUE. You don't believe it is that high?
M r. KILDAY. Any reformation must come from within. I have
found few addicts who really had a sincere desire to quit.
Senator DANIEL. That brings us to a very important question in
our hearings and that is, what should we do with these addicts who
are out on the streets? You say that people do not have sympathy
for them, that they continue to engage in various crimes and do you
believe that they spread the addiction to their friends?
Mr. KILD-AY. In some instances they do.
Senator DANIEL. Now, what shall we do with the addicts? What
do you think would be the best solution?
Mr. KILDAY. I don't know what could be done with those people.
Of course, the United States Government has spent a lot of money
putting these narcotic farms around. I think they have done a lot of
good in some cases.
Senator DANIEL. We have two hospitals, one at Lexington and
one
Mr. KILDAY. And one at Fort Worth.
Senator DANIEL. Lexington, Ky., and Fort Worth, Tex.
Mr. KILDAY. I know a man who has been in and out of those hos-
pitals as high as 4 or 5 times.

Senator BUTLER. Is that because they haven't stayed long enough to
effect a cure or how do you account for that?
Mr. KILDAY. Well, they haven't got that desire from within, that
sincere desire to quit, stop it.

Senator BUTLER. Do you think if they were compelled to stay there
until the medical authorities told them they could leave it would be
a better plan?
Mr. KILDAY. It would assist but if he doesn't have that desire, no
one unless he has talked to thousands of these people will ever un-
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2467
derstand the terrible craving that these people have for those drugs
and the mental condition that they are in. They live in a terror of
not being able to get it, and they bring on that sickness that they
]lave. No one that has ever seen an addict kicking a habit, that is
what we call it-a real one with 10- or 12-grain habit a day, can 1inderstand how
sick he gets.
Senator I)ANIEL. You mean when the drug is taken away?
Mr. KILDAY. WYhen we put tlen in jail-no one whto has never seen
an addict while he is kicking a habit can understand how sick lie is.
Senator DANIEL. What do you call that treatment when you just
put them in jail and take the narcotic away?
Mr. KILDAY. Iron cure.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL. The
KILDAY. Yes.
iron cure?
Senator DANIEL. They call it the cold-turkey treatments where we

have been holding the hearings. I am glad to know what we call
it down here now.
Mr. KILDAY. I think all authorities agree that is the best; all agree
that the iron cure is the best.
Mr. GASQUE. Has it been your experience that a second terror of the
addict is getting the hot shot, the overdose, the cyanide?
Mr. KILDAY. Yes, to buy something bad. I don't know how, I don't
understand how those fellows know that. We have to conduct a
laboratory test of it to find out that that is the real stuff, but they
know. I saw one addict shoot 12 grains in the main line, that is what
they call the vein. In those days narcotic people wanted good pictures and I was a police photographer. They allowed me to keep
them, I would put them in a darnA room and teach them to wash their
hands.
I left a cube of it, I didn't think that fool would take all of
it, he whirled out of that dark room and fell unconscious on the floor.
le came to in 5 minutes, he was all right, 12 grains.
Senator DANIEL. An overdose of heroin will kill some persons.

Mr. KILDAY. Kill you or me.
Senator DANIEL. It would kill some addicts, I believe according
to the testimony before us. A very serious thing that we I-ave heard
about just since coming to Texas is that there have been three people
found dead in the last 10 days in Houston by their heroin needle and
their heating spoon, showing definitely they were addicts.
Mr. KILDAY. Well, they must have gotten something bad.

Senator D.NIEL. Something bad or else big overdose.
Mr. KILDAY. They have been known to use as high as 40 or 50 grains
a day. Every one will tell you an addict will use all he can get. He
might have gotten a little strychnine.
Senator DANIEL. Back to this question here about whether these
people are dangerous or not. Did you have another experience with
someone here in the jail who led a riot here in the jail not too long
ago?
Mr.
KILDAY. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Was he
Mr. KILDAY. Well, he was
Senator DANIEL. Both an
an addict. drug addict or peddler?

both.
addict and peddler?
Mr. KILDAY. Well, there were 2 or 3 leaders. I suppose there were
more than that, but they were all addicts.
2468
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Senator DANIEL. Who were those people?

Did you have a riot in the jail?
Will you name them?.
Mr. KTIDAY. We did.

Senator DANIEL. And who was this, can you name the drug addicts
that were in on this riot? This committee has heard every once in a
while these addicts are not violent, that they are not dangerous. I
heard you had a different experience recently on that. Will you tell
us about that and name the people involved?
Mr.
KILDAY.
A man named Morales, Bernardo I believe was the
first name.
Senator DANIEL. Morales.

MIr. KILDAY. He was a San Antonio man but he spent some time,
15 years, I think, in Chicago.
Escevado.
Senator
DANIEL.
There was another man named Joe
Joe Escevado.
He was an addict charged with marihuana, possession

of marihuana. Both of those were charged with possession. I think
that Morales was arrested in Del Rio and convicted, appealed the case
and brought to San Antonio and placed in jail here for security reasons. I believe he was taking that to Chicago. Then these riots, I
had several of them. they all took place on visitors' day.
Senator DANIEL. On what?
Mr. KILDAY. On visitors day, on days visitors were allowed. Being
short of help there, it was almost impossible to watch the number of
visitors that come to a jail of that size. When it happened, it happened on Tuesday, and I presume or just think that they got something through those visitors.
Senator DANIEL. When you say something you mean some type of
drug?
Mr. KILDAY. I imagine it would be marihuana
the way they acted,
because they acted like demented people. They were wild, couldn't
do anything with them at all.
Senator DANIEL. Were they leading the riot in this jail?
Mr. KILDAY. All rioting. This man Morales was a natural leader
and Escevado was, too. Two named Escevado, Rudolpho Escevado
and Joe. But the leaders were narcotic addicts. I don't know whether
Joe Escevado was an addict or not but he was a peddler anyway.
Mr.
KILDAY.
Senator
BUTLER.
From your experience in handling addicts, do you
believe it would be possible for a man on dope to pursue a gainful

occupation and be an ordinary citizen?
Mr. KILDAY. Some of them do.
Senator BTUTLER. Some of them do?
Mr.
KILDAY.
You know you never know who is an addict. There
is no way of someone saying there are 500 addicts or 5,000 addicts

in San Antonio. A lot of wealthy people are addicts that you don't
know anything about, never hear and never see. Those people buy
the drug in wholesale quantities, like the peddler buys it. You never
hear of them. You never hear of the person that is suffering from
an incurable disease, that drug is given to him by prescription legally
by his physician, by prescription.
Senator
BUTLER.
We do know certain people that fall in that
category.
Mr. KILDAY. Made a success and keep operating a business.
2469
Senator BUTLER. Mostly confined to home, are they not, with dread
diseases?
Mr. KILDAY. Some conduct pretty big businesses, addicted to
morphine. They don't use morphine any more, they use heroin.
Mr. GASQUE. The wealthy addicts who exist use heroin rather than
mlor)hine which they get on doctor's prescription?
Air. KILDAY. That's right. If he gets it through the doctor he has
to get morphine or Demerol, synthetic morphine, but the wealthy man
caII buy the heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Before we leave this, I know we will want to ask
some more questions here on this subject. Before we leave this matter
entirely about the riot in the jail, did you find out this same Joe
Escevado was also involved in a riot in Cook County jail?
Mr. KILDAY. Well, I presume he was. There was a riot in Cook
County jail; he was in it at that time.
Senator DANIEL. Just how violent did these men get? Did it come
to the point you had to shoot one of them?
Mr. KILDAY. Three of them.
Senator DANIEL. Which ones?
Mr. ICMDAY. Shot Rudolpho Escevado, shot a man named Betranwell, I really shot 2 and 1 was hit by ricochet.
Senator DANIEL. By ricochet. What about Joe Escevado?
Mr. KILDAY. He was not hurt. Morales wasn't hurt.
Senator DANIEL. But they did get violent enough?
Mr. KILDAY. Extremely violent.

Senator DANIEL. Where you had to resort to shooting them to stop
the riot?
Mri'. KILDAY. There certainly had to be something done.
Senator DANIEL. And to keep from getting hurt yourself ?
Mr. KILDAY. I tried to get in the cell block but couldn't subdue
them. They would have done injury to anyone that went in there.
One of them had divided stainless steel plates, had gotten those
through getting a broom out, getting a little cart pulling it to the bars,
and they are dangerous weapons.
Senator DANIEL. Were they in the act of attacking?
Mr. KILDAY. They were throwing them at me.
Senator DANIEL. At the time?
Mr. KILDAY. Yes. [Indicated by nodding his head.]
Senator DANIEL. Now, back to this other subject as to the treatment
of addicts and what to do with them. Have you heard about the
proposed clinic treatment, some doctors in the New York Medical
Society up there are advocating that addicts ought to be given free
narcotics at a cheap price, give them their shots on a clinic plan so as
to try to get rid of the black market. Have you heard about that
proposal ?
Mr. KILDAY. I strongly approved of that at one time.
Senator DANIEL. You strongly approved of it at one time?
Mr. KILDAY. I looked at it this way. We tried to enforce the prohibition laws; we didn't do any good. We have destroyed the market,
done away with bootlegging. I thought maybe if we destroy the
peddlers' market, but my experience with this kid here, my experience
with this boy
Senator DANIEL. This 18-year-old boy?
2470
Yes, showed me that if you did away with a market

they would create another one and I am opposed to it all the way. I
don't believe there ought to be any clinic whatsoever.
Senator DANIEL. You have changed your mind on the subject of
these free drug clinics ?
Mr. KILDAY. I certainly have.
Senator BUTLER. Wouldn't it be difficult to have them all register
and come out in the open and say, yes, I am an addict, I want my dope
for nothing?
Mr. KILDAY. Look what this fellow did. He didn't have any customers, so be created them. I always thought that was an old wives'
tale, that it came out of the larger cities, about giving those kids a
shot. I didn't think they did that, but now I find out it was so, they
will do that.
Senator DANIEL. Are there any other questions concerning this
method of treatment, of what should be done with addicts, gentlemen?
All right, Sheriff, give us your idea as to the effect of marihuana on
people and the use of that.
Mr. KILDAY. That depends a great deal on the temperament of the
individual that uses it. A fellow who is jolly, easy going, he just
takes the giggles and will do a lot of laughing. A morose individual
may turn violent. They don't turn as violent these days as they did
Years ago when they smoked that stuff. They refine it. Years ago
they smoked it just in the rough, had a lot of seeds. I thought maybe
those seeds had something to do with that violence. You know, it
has some kind of effect on musicians.
Mr. IILDAY.
Senator
DANIEL.
Have you had trouble with musicians using mari-
huana or other people in tle entertainment world?

Mr. KILDAY. It is a national thing. I don't know whether the Narcotics Bureau knows that or not but for some reason or another these
so-called hot bands, a lot of them smoke that marihuana. We have
had quite an experience, the police department has recently with those
bands coming to our auditorium. The youngsters dance in the aisles.
fighting. You know you can't fool those kids, they know some of
those fellows smoke that stuff. They smoke some themselves, go down
and drink a few bottles of beer and they are ready for combat.
Senator DANIEL. When you mix liquor with that, does it make them
violent?
Mr. KILDAY. The youngsters, not the old ones.
Senator DANIEL. Does it make them commit crimes?
Mr. KILDAY. Makes them do almost anything.
Senator DANIEL. Have you found marihuana on orchestras and
bands that come here?
Mr. KILDAY. Several of them have been arrested all over the
country.
Mr. GASQUE. Sheriff Kilday, does that not bring out the difference in
heroin and marihuana, in that heroin is a depressant, causing the individual's character to decay and his habits to become bad habits,
whereas marihuana is a stimulant that produces much the same feeling
as too much alcohol in an indivdual, they get "hepped" up?
Mr. KIDAY. That is true, but I don't agree with you that heroin
is a depressant. These addicts, that's the only way I have of finding
out anything-I have, I guess, a heck of curiosity about finding out.
I have talked to a lot of them about why they prefer heroin to mor-
2471
phine. Most of them have told me when they take morphine they
just feel normal, but that heroin makes them feel that way and gives
them somewhat of a boost, too. I don't know how true that is, that
might be mental. Oh, fifteen or twenty have told me that.
Senator DANIEL. The heroin gives them a boost, too?
Mr. KILDAY. Years ago, they would take the morphine then take
a small shot of cocoaine and get that boost.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I am certainly inclined to agree with you,
Sheriff, that from what I have heard on this committee, although
heroin might be a depressant, a certain amount, a certain level that
an individual has, one can get enough of that to make him, so to speak,
higher, make him commit crimes and violent crimes.
Mr. ILDAY. Well, like a professional criminal plies his trade a
certain number of years, and starts to lose his nerve--you take a pickpocket, it takes a good deal of nerve to stick your hand in a man's
pocket. He takes narcotics to regain that so he can carry on his
occupation. Hotel prowlers, for instance, go into a room with people
asleep in them. As they grow older they lose that nerve and they
can't do it. They take some kind of a stimulant to do it.
Senator DANIEL. That is exactly the evidence I have been wanting
to hear from some peace officers who have had experience with this
thing because already the committee has got some intimation of that,
but it was never developed under oath from people who have looked
into the matter like you have.
Mr. KILDAY. It works both ways.
Senator DANIEL. These criminals take that to help go and do the
heinous crimes which otherwise they might not do because they lose
their nerve?
Mr. KILDAY. Lose their nerve. It works both ways, the addict and
the thief. The thief has to become an addict to carry on.
Senator DANIEL. Commissioner Anslinger told this committee. I
believe, that John Dillinger used narcotics to help him hold his nerve,
and I may say to you that there have been some murders in this State
and some robberies in which the police officers indicate to us that the
people committing them were under the influence of heroin at the
time. We are going to go into that in one of the cities in Texas. Do
you have any other experiences or have you had any other experiences
of violent crimes that have been committed either by marihuana
addicts or heroin addicts?
Mr. KLDAY. Oh, there have been a lot of them over these years.
I couldn't name any right now but especially the marihuana. You
know we were one of the first cities that felt the impact of marihuana
on its creep northward.
Senator DANIEL. On what?
Mr. KTT)DY. On its creep northward from Mexico. You see, it came
out of Mexico. We were contending with it without any law back
in 1912, 1913, 1914, the rest of the country didn't know anything
abnut it. It grows wild here. This climate suits it fine.
Senator DANIEL. Is there any marihuana grown in Bexar County?
Mr. KrTDAY. Not now.
Senator DANIEL. You have stamped that out?
Mr. KTLDAY. Yes; they have chopped down acres of it.
Senator
Antonio?
DANIEL.
What is your main source for marihuana in San
24-72
Mr. KLDAy. It comes from Mexico.

Senator DANIEL. What about the heroin?
Mr. KILDAY. It all comes from Mexico, too.
Now, I have heard, you might know something about this. I have
heard that in the mountains of Mexico they have started growing the
poppy, cultivating it. The poppy is a source of all this evil.. The
United States Government had better get busy with the Mexican
Government and stop that.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I will say to you that Mexico has signed the
treaty under which it is supposed to stamp out all growth of the poppyseed within the country, or at least limit it to legitimate uses.
Mr. Speer tells me the first thing I said is correct, they have signed
the treaty which would provide that no poppyseed would be grown
in Mexico.
Mr. KILDAY. That is all right.
Senator DANIEL. So the treaty is all signed up.
Mr. KILDAY. Good.
Senator DANIEL. But from what you hear you think it needs
enforcement?
Mr. KILDAY. I don't know, I just knew they started growing it.
Mr. GASQUE. Sheriff Kilday, could you tell us whether the opium
or the heroin that comes out of Mexico into Texas is produced in
Mexico, or do you believe it is foreign heroin that finds its way into
Mexico?
Mr. KILDAY. Most of it is foreign.
Mr. GASQUE. Foreign?

Mr. KILDAY. Yes.
Mr. GASQUE. So Mexico is a point of transit ?
Mr. KILDAY. Yes. It is a worldwide problem. I believe if the
United States Government could have some kind of agreement to
assist the Mexican authorities to search those boats coming into those
Mexican ports that we could cut off a lot of that stuff. It comes in on
the boats; sailors or anybody else could carry it. The Mexican Government is undermanned and don't have enough people, and those people
are not properly trained, as our customs officers are, to search the boats.
iM1. GASQUE. Your testimony now confirms the evidence which the
chairman has received before, that the narcotics racket is international
inscope and not confied to one or two countries or to a few individuals.
Mr.
KILDAY.
It is a worldwide problem.
There is no excuse for
the manufacture of heroin at all.

M[r. GASQUE. What, in your opinion, is the effect of the barbiturates
and amphetamines. Do you have a problem with those here?
Mr. KILDAY. Not so much of a problem but they are widely used.
Of course, benzedrine is something new to us. The first time I rani iinto
it) the doctor at the jail left his case too close to the bars. One of the
prisoners got a whole bottle of that benzedrine. I thought what we
called 'goof balls,' that is, barbiturates. They didn't go to sleep, raised
sand all night. I think that is getting widespread. I don't think there
is too much harm in those drugs.
Mfr. GASQUE. Well, the committee has received some evidence that
it can be quite hanful.
Mr. KILDAY. No drug is extremely harmful unless it is a derivative
of opium-that is a threat to the American youth-unless it is a derivative of opium that creates that habit.
I III
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2473
Mr. GASQUE. In Washington the subcommitee received a statement

signedd by Bobby Greenlease's murderer to the effect he was on amiphetamines when he killed Bobby Greenlease.
Mr. KILDAY. You come back to the same thing. He was a criminal.
who didn't have the nerve to do it. He took that to get the nerve.
That drug didn't cause him to do it.
Mr. GASQUE. So you believe that in common with the other drugs
the amphetamines and barbiturates may be used to increase the nerve ?
Mr. KILDAY. Certainly, to get that nerve to do something.
Senator DANIEL. You would say that is a dangerous drug to that
extent?
Mr. KILDAY. To that extent.
Senator DANIEL. Another thing we might say to you, Sheriff, we
are here to get information from you to help the committee. While
this subject has come up-it might be helpful to you and others hereour committee has heard that, overuse of barbiturates and amphetamines, the benzedrines, have led to young people in many instances
using the worst drugs, such as heroin.
Mr. KILDAY.
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And also that overdoses, overuse of the barbiturates themselves are or have been connected with a lot of crimes.
Mr. KILDAY. Caused thousands of deaths.
Senator DANIEL. There is one thing that we are certainly going to
have to watch, according to evidence before the committee; if we dry
up and lick the marihuana and heroin racket we will have to watch
the other drugs. the barbiturates which people with a criminal mind
turn to.
Mr. KILDAY. Philipon and demorol are habit forming the same
as morphine and heroin, aren't they?
Senator DANIEL. The ones you have named are, yes, sir.
Any further questions, Mr. Butler ?
Senator BUTLER. No.
Senator DANIEL. Any questions, Mr. Speer?
Mr.
No, sir.
DANIEL. Sheriff,
SPEER.
Senator
do you think that we have covered the
situation as far as any recommendations that you might make to
the committee as to what we can say to the Congress when we go to
make our report to the Congress? We have gotten the picture where
the source of these drugs are, and so forth. You have given us some
very valuable testimony today coming from your long experience.
Do you have any other specific recommendations as to what Congress
ought to do to help beat this narcotic traffic?
Mr. KILDAY. No, I don't. I think they have done everything they
could. Of course, that wouldn't come in Congress' province to do
something about the worldwide situation. I think the United Nations
ought to do something about that. Of course Red China doesn't
belong. I understand a lot of that stuff is being produced in Red
China.
Senator DANIEL. You are right. That is one reason this committee
got started to work on a nationwide investigation, the first held.
Both Senator Butler and I are members of the Committee on Internal
Security of the United States Senate and we heard evidence, con-
2474
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
elusive evidence, that Red China is pushing this, the manufacture

and exportation of narcotics not only for dollars but to try to demoralize people in the free nations. Any time that they can get a shot of
heroin in a soldier's arm of one of the free nations they have disabled
one of our men, and that is one thing that got us interested in it.
You are right, it is a worldwide problem. In Iran the Senate of
Iran passed a bill outlawing the growth and use of opium.
Mr. KILDAY. They haven't stopped it in India.
Senator
DANIEL.
In India they have taken steps to stop it, similar
steps. In Iran I understand that that bill is tied up in the lower

house. We are certainly hoping that the Government of Iran will
do what it promised to do under the Narcotics Treaty, that is, stamp
it out in their country. So Congress is working and our United
Nations Commission on Narcotics is working on that very diligently.
Do you think we have enough Federal law-enforcement officers down
here in Texas?
Mr. KILDAY. Not enough of us any place, we haven't enough policemen in this crossroads here. The Narcotics Bureau ought to put at
least 25. I think 5 or 6, maybe ,4
Senator DANIEL. You think there should be at least 25 Narcotics
Bureau men in this State?
Mr. KILDAY. Right here.

Senator DANIEL. And what aboutMr.
KILDAY. I
Senator
don't mean in this State, I mean in San Antonio.
DANIEL.
You mean in San Antonio. What about along
the border, you think there are enough customs officers there?
Mr. KILDAY. No, I don't. But San Antonio-anyone that brings
it across the border at Laredo, Del Rio, Eagle Pass-will come through
here.
Senator DANIEL. Will you name those over again so that we might
be questioning some later witnesses ?
Mr. KILDAY. Laredo, Del Rio, Eagle Pass. Of course, they don't
have to come through here but they generally do. That is why so
many seizures are made. Most of that stuff, those large quantities of
marihuana are not destined just for San Antonio, but are going to
the northern and eastern markets.
Senator DANIEL. Only a part of it stops for use here?

Mr. KILD.Y. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. We have certainly had testimony to bear you out.
In Austin yesterday they said that was their source of heroin, at least
their intermediate source, and in New York week before last, I believe
it was, Senator Butler and I held hearings in which we found marihuana coming from San Antonio to New York.
M r. KILDAY. From Mexico through here.
Senator
DANIEL.
Right, and Mexico is the source of it, San Antonio
is simply one of the transit points for these narcotics; is that your
belief?
Mr.
KILDAY.
That's right.
It is not quite fair to the city. For
years we have had a very active police narcotic squad. In fact, as

efficient for a narcotics squad for their number as any I have ever
known any place: they work extremely hard. The result, Mr.
Anslinger gets up there and calls their town a dope traffic center. Of
course, their work enabled him to say that. It is not fair for them
to just say that; they ought to explain the situation just a little bit,
2475
that most of those large quantities of drugs seized here are not to be
used in San Anonio.
Mr. GASQUE. In other words, the truth of the matter is you have
no control over the airports; you can't go out and search the planes;
is that what you are saying?
Mr. KILDAY. No, no, we get a kickback from various congressional
committees, like before the Kefauver committee when we were designated as one of the dope centers of the United States. The record
shows more arrests and seizures made by the police and narcotics
squad because they had that efficiency, and the only pay was to be
labeled as a dope center.
Senator DANIEL. I am glad to say the chairman took care of that.
One Federal official was about to testify before this committee with
a prepared statement that San Antonio was the dope center for
marihuana, and I believe that Laredo was the capital, marihuana
capital of the world. Before he got on the stand I said, "Sheriff,
you are going to leave the wrong impression. Do you mean to tell
me that Laredo and the people around Laredo are using this stuff and
they are participating in this traffic?"
"No, no, that's not what I mean," he said, "but what I mean is, it is
passing across the river at Laredo."
I said, "Now with reference to San Antonio, what do you mean?
Do you mean the officers are not working at it there, that that is the
place you can go and get it easier than any other place?"
"Oh, no," he said, "what I mean is," just like you said, "San
Antonio is one of the transit points. It passes through San Antonio
going to other parts of the country."
I said, "Don't you think you ought to change that and word it so
it will be known what you mean?"
The Federal official saw he was going to leave the wrong impression.
I am certainly glad you brought it out. I think the situation in San
Antonio, as far as the use of narcotics, is bad enough, even though
it is, of course, not as bad as many cities in this country. But I am
glad that you have clarified the record and made it certain that the
public will understand that much of this marihuana and heroin that
gets to San Antonio is intended to go to other parts of the country.
Mr. KILDAY. It is just a crossroads where they happen to be, we
catch them.
Senator DANIEL. We are not minimizing the fact that some of the
stuff stays and we ought to get rid of it.
Mr. KILDAY. Oh, the situation is bad, no question about it, but not
near as bad as painted.

Senator DANIEL. Are there any other questions? Thank you very
much. We would be pleased for you to stay with us any time during
these 2 days, if you have any other suggestions to make to the committee. We certainly thank you.
Mr. KILDAY. Thank you very much. Senator, for your help.
Chief of Police Bichsel. Do you wish to bring anyone fromyour
department with you.
Mr. BICTISEL. Yes, sir, I would like to bring Agent Albert Saenz.
(Mr. Bichsel and Mr. Saenz were duly sworn.)
Senator DANIEL. Chief, will you give your full name for the record?
71515-56---pt. 7-......9
2476
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE W. BICHSEL, CHIEF OF POLICE, SAN ANTONIO, TEX., AND SERGEANT ALBERT SAENZ, NARCOTICS SQUAD,
SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. BiCHSEFL. George W. Bichsel.
Senator DANIEL. And you spell that?
Mr. BICHSEL. B-i-c-h-s-e-i.
Senator
DANIEL.
How long have you beei chief of police in San
Antonio?
Mr. BICHSEL. A little short of 2 years.
Senator DANIEL. And you have with you whom ?
Mr. BICHSEL. Sgt. Albert Saenz.
Senator DANIEL. .nd what is Sergeant Saenz" position with the
police force?
Mr. BICHSEL. He is in charge of one detail of the narcotics squad.
Senator DANIEL. And how long have you been in police work?
Mr. BICHSEL. That is for me?
Mr. BICISEL. I have been in police work 15 years.
Mr. BICHSEL. Here in San Antonio, city police.

Senator DANIEL. In San Antonio? All in San Antonio?
Mr. BICHSEL. Yes, sir, that's correct.
Senator DANIEL. Chief, will you outline to us the situation as you
see it as far as narcotic drugs are concerned in San Antonio?
Mr. BICHSEL. Would you like for nme to use that map as a starter?
Senator DANIEL. Yes, if you like: ll ask you this. is your narcotic
traffic centered pretty well in certain localities?
Mr. BICHSEL. It is much more intense in certain localities which I
can indicate here on this map much better than I can describe.
Senator DANTEL. All right, if you will refer to the map and show
that to the committee.
Mr. BICHSEL. This circle in the upper right-hand corner of the map
represents the 2-mile circle or the center of the city which would be
identical with this circle here. It is expanded some on a little larger
scale than this map it is imposed upon but this is the center of the city.
from San Fernando Cathedral out about 2 miles. Each one of the map
tacks on this map represents a possession case or a sale case. There
is no indication on here of the arrests made on suspicion. This covers
a period from January 1, 1953, until June 1, 1955.
The yellow pins are suspects who were of Latin American descent.
The red pins with the w lite dots are Anglos, as we refer to them.
Anglo-Americans, and the black pins with the white dots are colored
people. The pins without the dots are marihuana. The pins with the
dots are heroin.
This represents a total of about 309 arrests. The concentration is
mostly in a 1-mile circle west of the central downtown area and a
little south of the downtown area.
Senator DANIEL. WVould you outline that 1-mile area by streets?
I don't get it clearly in my mind what area that would be. First, let
me thank you for the best map of this nature showing more detail than
any I have seen on this committee. Would you identify that heavily
concentrated area there by streets'.
Mr. BICUSEL. Well, let's say it extends about a quarter of a mile in

each direction from about the 5, 400 or 500 block of Monterrey
2477
Street, that being this heavily pinned section right in here [indicating] or it is bounded on the west by the Missouri-Pacific
tracks and on the east by Military Plaza, on the north by Martin Street
and on the south by South Laredo, I think would be pretty close.
Senator DANIEL. Now, what kind of residential section is that?
I see most of those pins would indicate that those are Latin American
areas.
Mr. BICHSEL. Yes, sir, that is correct, predominantly Latin American. It is very heavily populated. It is in some instances slum district. I think if you had an opportunity to look at the health department map indicating concentrations of tuberculosis and diarrhea
you would find the pattern is very similar. It seems there is a strong
connection between narcotic addiction and narcotic sale and poverty.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, the people who can least afford it
are out spending money for these drugs?
Mr. BICHSEL. Either that is the inducement or the fact is that kind
of a neighborhood makes the best contact for them.
Senator DANIEL. And, of course, being in a low income area, naturally those people are going to have to steal or do something to get the
money to buy the drugs?
Mr. BICHSEL. That's correct.
Senator BUTLER. But also that could be a contact point where people
living in other areas would come to get their drugs?
Mr. BICHSEL. That's right. It is so congested, so many people there,
activity day and night. There is, of course, a number of beer joints
that enjoy pretty heavy trade; once in a while contacts are made
there. Its concealment is easy. Albert do you offer any other reasons why that area gets more business than any other part of town?
Mr. ZENz. It is so easily accessible from one street to another,
those alleys back of those houses and the people will not give us any
information whatsoever when someone isSenator DANIEL. People who live in that area?
Mr. SAENZ. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. All right, Chief, do you have any other significant
things on the map before you leave that map? You say the pins with
white dots are heroin?
Mr. BICHSEL. The pins with the dots are heroin.
I would say a
little over 50 percent of the pins, maybe 60 percent.

Senator DANIEL. That is what it looks like from here; you had
more heroin cases than marihuana?
Mr. BICHSEL. That's true.
Senator DANIEL. That would bear out what Sheriff Kilday said,
heroin traffic here vas becoming probably more of a problem than the
marihuana problem.
Mr. BICHSEL. Yes, we find it more of a problem.
We find more
crime, put it that way, we find more crime connected with heroin than
with marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. Marihuana is bad enough.
Mr. BICHSEL. That's right.

Senator DANIEL. Didn't there used to be more use of marilhuana
drugs here than heroin?
Ivfr. BICHSEL. To the best of my recollection it was very much the
other way 10 or 12 years ago.
Mr. SAENz. More marihuana.
2478
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Mr. BICHSEL. Moreover, the position of marihuana was greater.
Senator. DANIEL. When did this change come about? When did
heroin become used here more than marihuana?
Mr. BIOHSEL. I would rather let Sergeant Saenz answer. He has a
closer working knowledge of this problem than I do.
Mr. SAENZ. Probably right after the war, sir.
Senator
DAN IEL.
World War II?
Mr. SAENZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BICHSEL. There seems to be an added attraction in the fact that
heroin can be carried in a very much smaller package than a profitable
quantity of marihuana can and can be easily disposed of in a hurry.
Senator DANIEL. Senator Butler, do you have any questions about
this map?
Senator
BUTLER.
No.

Senator DANIEL. What is this area over on the right? There seems
to be q ite a few arrests centered over there with your black pins.
Mr. BICHSEL. That is East Commerce Street, about the 400 block
out to about the eight or nine hundred block, both sides of the Southern Pacific tracks there. It is predominantly Negro, and most of those
suspects were Negroes. I would like to make one observation in bringing Sergeant Saenz with me. He has had a personal working experience with narcotics. I have not. Of course, I get a fair reflection in
handling the police department, but I have not had the opportunity
to work as a narcotic detective any time during my tenure of duty
as a police officer.
Senator DANIEL. We are glad to have the sergeant here with us.
Now, from your work as chief and supervising your narcotics bureau
or squad, what is your estimate of the narcotic problem here? You
think it is serious here in San Antonio?
Mr.
BCHSEL.
I certainly do and I think it is serious from the stand-
point of inadequate manpower. I believe the sheriff made that point.

I would like to reiterate. Any one of those pins on that map represent or any of those pins that represent a sale, put it that way, may
take as many as five men to complete the case. Once you have got the
original information, in order to keep up surveillance, you have to
watch it day and night, before you finish there may be working s
many as 5 men on 1 sale case. knd of course, if we knew of all the
transactions, that map wouldn't hold the pins. We are limited in what
we can do by what we have to do it with.
Senator DANIEL. You think, in other words, the actual narcotic
traffic here is much greater than what your arrests would indicate?
Mr. BICHSEL. Well, at least there is a great deal of narcotic traffic
we don't even know about. We estimate probably 50 pushers and
if you were to keep an accurate surveillance on those 50 pushers it
would certainly use up the time of 150 mien. I have 11 men assigned
to narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. You have those 11 men assigned wholly to narcotic

work?
Mr. BICSEL. Yes, sir. That is larger than
the squad has ever
been
before. We do receive fine cooperation and assistance from the Federal narcotics agents and from the State, but both of them suffer our
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2479
problem, too. They are short handed. They have got bigger areas,
Much larger than they have manpower to even make a dent in it.
Senator DANIEL. So your recommendation to this committee, as far
as the Congress is concerned is the same one you would make to your
city officials, that is, try to have more manpower to enforce the narcotic laws, is that correct'?
Mr. BICHSEL. Yes, sir, that is correct. The recent grand jury suggested that men be removed from other duty and placed on this kind
of work. We did that. We removed several and placed them on it.
In a sense it is justified that we take men off other crime investigation
and place them on narcotic investigation, inasmuch as it is sort of a
common denominator.
Senator DANIEL. Before you leave that, you say a common denominator, you mean that narcotics causes other crimes?
Mr. BICHSEL. It causes, it is, it figures heavily in theft.
Senator DANIEL. How much other crime in San Antonio would
you say is attributable to narcotic addiction and traffic now?
Mr. BICHSEL. I am guessing or estimating, if you want to put it
that way. I would estimate that in burglary, in theft and in automobile theft, accessory theft connected with the automobile, that in
those three lines the narcotic figures in about 60 percent or more of
the' cases. That may be a conservative estimate. Going from that
some people jump to the conclusion that, why not cut all other criminal investigation down 50 percent and put those men on narcotic
investigation? Of course you have to say, the people who suffer
these losses, a man whose car is stolen is interested in the recovery of
that car, and it is not going to be satisfactory to answer him that
you are working on a long-range program against narcotics, the thief
may be a narcotic so you may be doing him good. He wants some
results now. You have to maintain adequate investigators in all those
different types of crime.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you think that you would be assisted
much better in stamping out the narcotic traffic here if you had some
more Federal agents from the Bureau of Narcotics here?
Mr. BICH SEL. I certainly do, the ones here do an excellent job.
Senator DANIEL. You have full cooperation from them?
Mr. BICESEL. Yes, sir, we certainly do.
Senator DANIEL. You consider you have a good working relationship with them or do you just get along?
Mr. BICHSEL. I go along with the sheriff, I don't think it could be
improved upon, considering the number of men they have. I do find

one point, the policy I presume is justified in one sense, the policy of
the Federal narcotics is to take onlv the bi . cases. Sometimes we
would like to have some help with the small cases. I assume that
policy is justified in the amount of court time and what not that they
have. As a rule, my understanding of it is. they like 'cases of a
pound of marihuana or an ounce of heroin or more.
. Senator DANIEL. Well, I think, with the limited force, that they do
have to confine themselves to interstate shipments or the larger smuzglers and, of course, that division of responsibility is something this
committee is interested in knowing about. I believe the Bureau feels
that local and State offlcialq should takp carp of the addicts and the
small-time pushers and peddlers and that the Federal Government
should be responsible for trying to stop the smuggling, interstate ship-
2480
ments, big-time wholesalers. Do you think that is a fair division of

responsibility ?
Mr. BicHsEa. I presume that it is. We would just like to have
a little more of the good help we are getting, cut it down on a little
smaller scale so we could get more.
Senator DANIEL. Any questions, Senator Butler?
Senator BUTLER. I don't think so.
Senator DANIEL. I have another subject on a question I wanted to
ask. What has been your experience with narcotic violators who are
permitted to go out on bail?
Mr. BICHSEL. In several instances we have had, we have apprehended them a second time and I believe in a few instances a third
time, that is, twice while on bail on original case or twice on a narcotic case: once on narcotic and burglary while on a burglary or
narcotic charge.
Senator DANIEL. In other words you have had the same experience
some other law-enforcement officers had in other cities, narcotic violators out on bail will go back to selling and continue in their rackets
in many instances, is that right?
Mr. BICUSEL. Yes, indeed, I think the inducement is greater, you
have attorney's fees to make. Of course, it may be that the only way
they know to get money is through the sale of narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Speer told us that you had told him about a
person named Lita Demos.
Mr. BECHSEL. Lettie Demos I believe referred to here.
Senator DANIEL. What was her situation there?
She was a narcotic
peddler, wasn't she?

Mr. BECHSEL. Let Sergeant Saenz describe that case.
Senator DANIEL. Sergeant, would you give us information as to her

activities during the time she was waiting trial or on a peal?
Mr. SAENZ. As I understand, it wasn't so much peddling but trading
for stolen goods.
Senator DANIEL. Did she also engage in narcotics?
Mr. SAENZ. I presume she did. She was arrested for accomplice
I believe the last time.
Well, I understand we have someone else
to testify about it. Do you know whether or not during the time that
she was waiting trial 21/2 years that she sold narcotics or acted as a
fence for stolen goods which were tied into narcotic sales?
Mr. SAENZ. We' had information to that effect and she was raided
twice, I believe, but I understand all they found was just stolen stuff.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what about the time lag between arrests and
convictions or trial in San Antonio; do you have any trouble with that?
Mr. BECHSEL. We have had, or, that is, we have had long periods
between the time of arrest and the time of trial. In many ways
it was understandable, court docket crowded, had an office overworked,
and so forth. Nevertheless it left that long on-bond period. At this
time it has been reduced considerably. Of course that is having a
marked effect. We feel like it is.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you think that speedy trials of narcotics
violators will help in stamping out the racket?
Mr. BECHSEL. I certainly do.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think that is important?
Mr. BECHsEL. Yes, sir; I do.
2481
Senator DANIEL. What about heavy sentences?

Mir. BECHSEL. I think both the severity and the certainty, the cer-
tainty of sentence I am speaking of. I think that on the sale in

many cases the pusher, before he has ever been convicted the first time
is more or less counting on 1 probation or 1 suspended sentence before
he gets the rap. I believe that where you could prove a case of sale
that probation is hardly ever warranted.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think it is a mistake to put any seller even
on the first offense, to put him on probation?
Mr. BECHSEL. Yes, sir; I believe that should be eliminated from the
possibility, and I don't think 10 years is too little on the first trip.
Senator DANIEL. First offense?
Mr. BICHSEL. We have to stop and remember this narcotics is a
business and the primary motive, where sale is concerned, is profit.

Some of the pushers are addicts; some of them are not addicts. But
in all cases they weigh to some extent the risk against the gain.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now you have said you think heavy penalties, speedy trials and heavy penalties on the traffickers, what about
the addicts themselves? Do you have any recommendations to the
committee as to how we should treat the addicts and what we should
do about them?
Mr. BICHSEL. I am reluctant to believe just a free clinic is the
answer. I think this addict law we have in Texas might bear fruit
if we could reduce the matter of proof down to a simple process. If
the Health Department-maybe some help from the Federal agencies-if they could arrange a method by which observation and all the
other factors you have to bring in could be simplified, the big problem
is proving a person an addict. We feel like we know, addicts from
experience with them, having been in our jail many a time, apparently
under the influence, possibly arrested once or twice.
Senator DANIEL. Under the new Texas law just passed-was it, this
year?
Mr. BICHSEL. I believe last year.
Senator DANIEL. Under this new law passed in the last session of
the legislature, that was this year-under this new Texas law, as I
understand it, just simply being a narcotic addict and using the drug
as an addict is a felony offense; is that correct?
Mr. BICHSEL. Is it a felony offense? My understanding that the
penalty-well it would be a felony offense.
Senator DANIEL. Imprisonment in the penitentiary orMr. BICHSEL. Or in the hospital so it would be the same thing.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, imprisonment in the penitentiary
but give probation of the sentence while the person goes and gets
treatment?
Senator DANIEL. You say you think that is a good law?
Mr. BICHSEL. If we can get that.
Senator DANIEL. Have you all made any arrests under that law yet?
Mr. BICHSEL. Seems like about two.
Senator DANIEL. That wouldn't be any secret. Have you made any
arrests?
Mr. SAENZ. No, sir; I haven't been in this narcotic detail till here
about a month ago; I was reassigned to it.
Since then we have not
2482
made any arrest under the addicts; we have made under paraphernalia
arrests.
Senator DANIEL. I won't ask you if you have plans to make any.
Mr. BISCHEL.
The only convictions we have gotten are those who
have pled guilty. To my knowledge we haven't obtained a conviction

where a person offered a defense on the addict law.
Senator DANIEL. Now our counsel asked Sheriff Kilday about barbiturates. I'll ask you if you are having any trouble in the city?
Mr. BICHSEL. Yes, sir, we do. They figure rather heavily in the
juvenile end and the teen-age end of the narcotic picture. They seem
to be in many instances stepping stones to heroin or something
stronger than the barbiturates.
Senator DANIEL. Well, are you having any luck with enforcing the
laws? I mean the law against the illicit use of barbiturates, because I
helped write a couple of those laws when I was Attorney General.
What about the enforcement of those laws? Are the courts meting
out penalties to those who allow these young people to get these
barbiturates ?
Mr.
BECHSEL.
Mr.
BECHSEL.
When it can be satisfactorily determined we have
had good luck with it, but there haven't been too many convictions.
We haven't been able to make too many cases, but we have found in too
many instances juveniles in possession.
Senator DANIEL. Well-has there been any effort, by anyone, any
kind of a city conrnittee, commission, to go into this matter of barbiturates; has there been any public education or awareness as to the
damages of these barbiturates and amphetamines here in San Antonio?
We are showing at this time a moving picture to only
the selected groups of adults which gives a good illustration, not

only of the barbiturates but of the heroin and marihuana.
Senator
DANIEL.
And you are confining that to adults for what
reason?
Mr. BECnISEL. That was the request made by the firm that we bought
the film from, purchased by the department and they more or less
asked for an agreement it would only be shown to adult and responsible adult groups.
Senator DANIEL. I am sure that is because of the fact many people
in authority think that certain films should not be shown to children
because of curiosity it might arouse.
Mr. BECHSEL. That is correct.
Senator DANIEL. I would like to say this, that I hope that every
effort will be made here and over this country to let adults at least
know about the dangers of these barbiturates drugs and amphetamines,
what they will lead to, especially how they are going to bring on trouble
among people who are inclined that way if we do get rid of the heroin
and marihuana. They are dangerous drugs and those who are giving
to children, selling to children against the law, it seems to me should be
punished just like the dope peddlers.
Senator Butler, any questions?
Senator BUTLER. Have you given any thought to the question of
an addict or peddler being put in almost on a permanent basis on an
indefinite sentence after the second, after the first or second time?
Mr. BECHSEL. No, sir, I haven't.
Senator BUTER. Do you think there is any merit in an indeterminate sentence to handle the addict?
2483
Mr. BECHSEL. It certainly seems like there would be inasmuch as
all the statistics I have run into indicate that only somewhere between
2 and 5 percent, after they have been gone a year or 2 years definitely
off the habit, go right back on it.
Senator BUTLER. So you think the time may come when it may be
legally possible, you may have to incarcerate these people for an
indefinite period of time?
Mr. BEc1ISEL. I assume that is possible.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, do you agree that the addicts spread their
addiction to their friends and family?

Mr. BECI-SEL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you agree it is sort of like a contagious disease?
Mr. BICHSEL. That's right. They have to have the money to satisfy
their own addiction. They may reach a point, often do reach a point,
where the only way they can get it is to develop a sale for it to a person
not on it.
Senator DANIEL. I am not talking about that so much now as I am
addicts who simply want to be sociable, not selling to family or friends
but bringing them in and getting them to try it with them so they
can associate together. You find that happens also?
Mr. BICHSEL. I think I have heard of cases. Sergeant Saenz,
haveyou?
Mr. SAENZ. Only in the instance where a man needs someone to
make money for him, induces his wife to take it and puts her to work.
Senator DANIEL. You are talking about your local and personal
observation?
Mr. SAENZ. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I will say to you that out observations and testimony before this committee show that they spread it like a disease
whether spreading for money or not, and if that is true-you know
we find a lot of things different in these localities in Texas, the two
we have been in, and you may be right. I notice Sheriff Kilday
showed that the pushers for profit started these young people off,
and we find several things like that different in our Texas hearings,
but we have found in other places, Philadelphia, New York, and
Washington, that the addicts want to get their families into it even
though they are not selling it and that it spreads in that fashion.
That is in justification of what you say, they ought to be taken off
the streets some way.
Mr. BICHSEL. That is right.
Senator DANIEL. Just like we do lepers.
Senator DANIEL. We put lepers away where they cannot, spread
the disease or commit crimes to sustain the disease, that, would be the
case in narcotics.
Is there anything further?
M[r. GASQUIE. Chief, there is a wide difference of opinion on the
value of educating youth on the dangers of narcotics. We are gathering some evi(lence on that. I wonder if you would give us your
opinion?
Mr. BICIISEL. I doubt if I am really qualified to render an opinion
on that. It seems to me that boys and girls in the last year of high
school at least ought to be ready for something, some pretty factual
information on what narcotics consist of, how it is distributed and
2484
what it does to a person. I was wondering about this film we have.

Of course we are not going to violate our agreement. It is a good
picture. It is interesting. It illustrates the case well. You mentioned the association there, the passing it around through association or through friends, it illustrates that, so apparently that is more
prevalent in other communities. It shows the shooting gallery and
a boy getting a girl to take a shot. Whether they would do more
harm than good I don't know.
Mr. GASQUE. Another question: Do you use the Bureau of Narcotics
form for reporting addicts-do you use the form which they have
sent out to all of the various States?
Mr. BICHSFEL. I think we have been sending this information on
them since this addict law was passed in Texas; isn't that correct?
Mr. SAENZ. Yes, and before.

Mr. BICHSEL. Sergeant Saenz has been in this, he says we have
been doing it a number of years.
Senator DANIEL. What counsel is asking, the Bureau of Narcotics
is trying to get the names an addresses of all of the narcotic adicts in

the country, and I am sure you see why that would be valuable information. The counsel has just shown you a copy of the form that is to
be used by officers over the country and from your information, your
office is filling out these forms on addicts?
Mr. BIcHSEL. I am certain we are; isn't that correct?
Mr. SAENz. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Do you intend to continue to cooperate in sending

in every addict that comes to your attention?
Mr. :BICHSEL. Certainly are.
Mr. GASQUE. That is your view on it, for the purpose of gaining
corroborative type evidence and leads?
Mr. BICHSEL. You mean from a standpoint of the narcotic
enforcement?
Mr. GASQUE. Yes sir.
Mr. BIcHsEL. I think it is justified.
Senator DANIEL. All right, thank you very much, Chief, for your
excellent assistance to this committee and for your testimony today.
Mr. BICUSFL. This data I have you want that left up here?
Senator DANIEL. Yes, I do. Y'ou have some prepared data?
Mr. BI HSEL. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. Concerning the situation and arrests here in San
Antonio?
Mr. BICHSEL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All of that information together with any pre-
pared statement that you had will be made a part of the record at the
_ .
conclusion of your testimony.
Chief, did you finish giving all the recommendations you had so
far as anything else Congrbss could do on that, you have some more
recommendations in your prepared statement ?
Mr. BICHSEL. I have only one recommendation, that was fairly well
brought out by Sheriff Kil day, that was search and seizure evidence.
We have a specific problem there and I guess more of a State law
problem.
Senator DANmm. On search and seizure?
2485
Mr. BICHSEL. That is correct. But our hands are tied a little too
tight.
Senator DANIEL. Do you agree with Sheriff Kilday on that?

Mr. BICHSEL. I think where you are dealing with an exconvict on
a narcotic rap, that is, a person who has been convicted of narcotic
possession or sale one time, that you should have more freedom of
search and seizure. When you see that person in a suspicious neighborhood that you should have the right to search him, search his
person or when you see him in a car leaving or coming toward a
)lace where he may be picking up or delivering from, we should
have the right to search him. I think that would aid us materially.
Senator DANIEL. All right, sir, anything else other than what you
have in your prepared statement?
Mr. Bici-ISEL. The only other thing that comes up occasionally,
that is the use of force where the apprehension of a narcotic peddler

generally is concerned, that since narcotic is now recognized as imiportant a crime as nighttime burglary, rape, or murder, considering its effect on the community at least, that where it is necessary for
an officer to use force to prevent the escape of a person suspected of
selling or distributing narcotics, hie should have the same tolerance in
amountt of force used as he would in nighttime burglary, rape, or
We had one particular case in Laredo, Tex., where one of
Our men, because of his access to an informer, waS helping the customs
agent and it involved going across the river, making the contact,
making the arraiigeme t, meeting the person delivering, the young
ian delivering the marilnuana back on this side. Upon delivery and
receiving the evidence onie of the two made a break for it, and the
Officer fired to stop hin and accidentally killed him. Now, he has
been indicted for inurder, for murder without malice and will be
tried. If the sanme thing occurred on a nighttime burglary it, would
iave been considered justifiable homicide. I think if narcotics is as
important as we have a tendency to believe it is. then enforcement.
should be given at least that much tolerance.
Senator D,\TrL. Thank you very much, Chief.
(The statistics subiiltted by Geore IV. Bichsel. Chief of Police,
follows:)
lilurder.
2486:
ILLICIT :NARCOTICS -TRAFFIC

Summary, of narcotics arrest8--Jan. 1, 1953, to June 1, 1955:,
San Antonio Polir'e 7heqa tm.nt--fl 19
.O.
1953:
Arrests from Investigations --
Arrests for possession and/or sale
609
138
--
Evidence. seized:
Heroin (grains)
Morphine (grains)
'Marihuana (grains)
Hypo needles
Money expended .......
1954:
Arrests from investigation ......
Arrests for possession and/or sale ....
Evidence seized:
Heroin (grains)
Morphine (grains)
Marihuana (grains)
Hypo needles
Cocaine (grains)
Opium (grains) approximately
Codeine (grains)
Money expended
1955 (first 5 months) :
Arrests from investigations
Arrests for possession and/or sale
Evidence seized:
Heroin (grains)
Marihuana (grains).
Opium needles
Barbiturates (grains)
Money expended
23, 768
302
781, 857
350
$804. 63
567
138
5, 626
171
1, 184, 712
292
16
2, 000
165
$1,439.35
44.5
57
29 075
65, 221
196
1, 246
$665. 75
___
Narcotic arrests, Jan. 1, 1958, to June 1, 1955, by race and age

Latin
Age group
17
21
31
41
to
to
to
to
20
30
40
50
Marihuana
White
Heroin
Marlhuana
Colored
Heroin
Marl.
huana
------------------------------------------------------------------or over----------------
19
50
16
7
19
80
25
6
2
4
3
5
0
4
4
2
Total --------------------
92
130
14
10
Grand total.
----
309
I
Heroin
3 ----------29
II
12
1
61
50
13
Summary of juvenile narcotics violations by age and race

12
13
14
15
MX F
M IF
1[ ....
8-23-- 4
16
17
Year
FK1I! F
1953 --------------2
1954 --------------..1955 (to June 1) --- ------
-2-
Awalo
L"atin
A meria
24
MI F
11---------
4 -------------
4 11
1
_
_ _
Colored
5
_ _
2487

Charges filed in State court (8-1-1955)
Defendant
Disposition
Charge
Date
NOVEMBER
Jean Sm ith ------------------Joe Gonzales -----------------
Carlos Lujano ---------------Ray Flores ------------------Felix Ortiz -----------------Joe Esquivel -----------------Robert Gomez ---------------Floyd Bennett ---------------Carmen Balderas
Betty Hanson ---------------Rudy Zamora-..
M arihuana ------------------
do .......
----5 years, penitentiary
H eroin ---------------------- 6 years, penitentiary -------No billed (defective search
do ......................
----warrant).
-- d o ------------------------------ d o ......
d o --------------------------- ----- d o .......
.. . ..-d o ----- - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - Feb. 21,1955
Jury dismissed
Mar. 25,1955
M arihuana ------------------ Not guilty, jury. -- d o ----------------------Do.
----N o billed -------------------d o ----------------------Do.
----do -....
----d o --------------------
DECEMBER
Daniel Estrada --------------Sidney Allen ........

Moses Westman -------------Joe Gomez._
Frank White..
H eroin -------------------------d o ----------------------Marihuana ....

Heroin ........
MAarlhuana-_.
5 years, penitent iary- .

1 year, penitentiary
7 years, penitentiary --------
Jan. 26, 1955

Mar. 1, 1955
Jan. 26,1955
5 years, suspended -----------
May 23,1955
Dismissed ----------2 years. penitentiary_ .......

4 years, penitentiary
5 years, penitentiary -------3 years, penitentiary
Apr.
May
May
Apr.
JANUARY-FEBRUARY
Merideth C. Stone -----------Hector Maldonada -----------Jessie Ram irez ---------------Helen Cuevas .......
Joe Cam pos ..................
Joe L. Esquivel ---------------
. . . ..-d o ------
- - -- - - -
- - - - --
H eroin ---------------------Marihuana ....

H eroin ............
do -----------------------------d o .....
25, 1955
10, 1955
31,1955
25,1955
MARCH
Harold Francis-_
Samuel E. Fouther ----------Augustine Zepeda -----------Manuel Zepeda -------------Nick Palacios .-------------Jesus Escobedo --------------Epifano Sanchez -------------Benito Alonzo ---------------Domingo Cantu_
Pedro Alvarez_--------
Marihuana ........
do
(10. -. -. -. -. .
-...
- - - ----- - - 4 years, penitentiary ----
do .....
----2 years, probation_
d o ..........
--------- 4 years, suspended ----------d o .....
H eroin ---------------------. . ...- d o ------ ------- --- - --- -....
-do
3 years
Mlarihuana ------------------
Mar. 28, 1955

May 24, 1955
June
3, 1955
APRIL
Loretta Terrazos..
James Locke
Tom Oarza ..................
Porfirio G. Rios
Paul Ellis
heroin ............
3 years ------- ------- --Marihuana ......
d o ------ --------------------- ..............................
d o ------ -------------- ----d o --..........
MAY
James D. Young -------------
-- do -----------------------
JUNE
Gilberto 1)avila --------------- -10d

o ---------- .---......
Ignacio Luna ....
Heroin _
Tomas Torres___
_-do ----------Frank Gonzales ....
_do_
Sam Curtis-_
Marihuana....
.
.
Rodrich Craig --------------- -.- --d o ............ ...
Rudy Orosco ----------------- ---- do _
- -.- d o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. . . .
Floyd Rivera._
Olga Zamudio -------------Heroin ................
Marihuana (Ambrosio CasJoe Reyna.._
tillo).
Mike SanchezM arihuana -----------------JULY
\\ illie Win ------------------ .

10---do -----Euladio Cisneros ------------- ---do
_.
M anuel M oon ---------------- - - - -d o -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -Chas. G irdy -----------------do ------------------------Frank W hite ----------------do_
---Raymond Roysten ..........
- - - -- - - ---(10
- -
4 y ears
-------...
.. ...
3 years, penitentiary .......
4 rears_ _.
3 years, penitentiary -------3 years, penitentiary --------
2 yenrs --
- -- - --
Sept. 24, 1953
2488

Charges filed in State court (8-1-1955) -Continued
Defendant
Charge
Date
Disposition
I-
AUGUST
Dr. W hitmore ---------------Em ilio Rosas ----------------Manuel Martinez ...........

Enrique Terrazas ------------Manuel Zuniga ---------------
Possession of dolophine ____

Possession of narcotic paraphernalia.
d o ------------ -------------H eroin ---------------------Possession narcotic paraphernalia.
Marihuana ............
- - -- .d o ----------------------H eroin ---------------------Marihuana ---------------o ----------------------0d
--H eroin ----------------------
Joe Rendon ------------------Jack Beeson-.

Marcelino Medina-_------Augustine Tyjerina.__
Jessie Lozano ----------------Johnny Warren ..............
Rafael Arce .....
-d o ---- - ---- ---- --- ---- --Tommie Reed --------------- M arihuana -----------------Genro Diosdado ............
do -----------------------(10-
-- -- -- - :::
--------: - :------ -..
. .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . .
CHARGES FILED IN FEDERAL COURT

DECEM BER
Jose Munoz Castillo

Rudolpho Hernandez
Luis Lara Saldivar -----------Jesus Medina..------------Nick Hernandez...-..........
Antonio Litterio -------------Frank Arriola ----------------Enrique Andrade .............
Alex Gonzales-
H eroin ............
_do ......................
M arihuana ------------------ - -- -d o ------------------------ - -do .......
Heroin_...............
M arihuana ---------------------- do.
do.__
-----
....
32 years,
years,J$100
100 ................--
Jan.
13, 1955
1)o.
3 to 4years------------------ .Tan. 15, 1955

Not indicted ..............
2 years ...----------------5 y ea rs . ..................
May 2, 19.i
Do.
JANUARY
Virgil Kim ble ----------------- Heroin_-
2 years .....................
MARCH
Alan Purdy ....
M arihuana ------------------
4 years -
APRIL
Booker T. Washington ------- Heroin ----------------Robert Prultt ----------------do ------------------
5 years ---------------------2 years ----------------------
YAY
Albert Rodriquez.
do_--5 years ---------------------Lilly Rodriquez -------------- ----- do ......................
..............................
Rudy Garza-----d o --------------------------- ..............................
Ernest Trevino --------------do .....
----- 3 years ---------------------Roy Trevino ------------------ M arihuana ------------------ 2 y ears ---------------------Epifano Sanchez__
Heroin ....
10 years ....
May 1955.
Tomasa Terrazas ------------do ......................
----Beto Huerta .................
Marihuana-.
5 years - - - - - - - - - - Do.
Rudy Flores ------------------ .--- d o ---------------------d o -------- ----------------Robert Garnet ---------------H eroin ---------------------- 3 years ---------------------Ignacio Luna.. -.-.---------Rosa Terrazas -----------------d o --------------------------------------------------Bidal Montalbo ..
..
M arihuana -----------------JUNE
Frank Leandras---------Joe Sanchez ..................

W anda Sharp -----------------
do ......................
----Killed resisting arrest -----d o -------------- -------- ---Heroin .....................
JULY
Ramon Vargas ....

Ramon Espinoza ............
Frank Gonzales ---------------
......................
-do
d o ---------------------Marihuana ....
5 years ....................
--d o .....
.................4 y ears ----------------------
July 1955.
Do.--Do.
2489
Senator DANIEL. We will have a recess for about a minute and a

half.
(Short recess.)
Just a minute, the television cameras and other cameras will not take
the picture of the man on my left here. Stand up. Now, no picture
is to be taken of this man. He is an undercover agent and, therefore,
I know the press and the television will understand why this cannot
be done. As a matter of fact, if you would sit on out here, somewhere
a little further away. He may act as interpreter if we need an
interpreter.
Now, will the witness stand?
(Mr. Juan Contreras was duly sworn by chairman of the commnittee.)
Senator DAN.IEL. You may be seated. Now, if you will speak up
so the reporter and those of us here on the committee can hear you we
will appreciate it. Will you state your name?
TESTIMONY OF JUAN CONTRERAS
Mr. CONTRERAS. Juan Contreras.
Senator DANIEL. How do you spell that?

Mr. CONTRERAS. J-u-a-n.
Senator DANIEL. All right, your last name?

Mr. CONTRERAS. C-o-n-t-r-e-r-a-s.
Mr. CONTRERAS. 415 Chihuahua.
Senator DANIEL. Is that here in San Antonio?

Mr. CONTRFIRAS. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you lived in San Antonio, Juan?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Twenty-five years.
Senator
DANIEL.
And that is all your life, is it?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I want to say the committee appreciates your

willingness to come before us and give us information on which we
might be able to help try to beat the menace of the drug traffic, and I
believe you have had personal experience with it; have you not?
Senator DANIEL. When did you first start using drugs?
Mr. CONTRERAS. About 1946.
Senator DANIEL. How old were you at the time?
Mr. CONTRERAS. I will say about 16 or 17.
Senator DANIEL. What did you use at first?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. How did you happen to start using it?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, I need an interpreter.
Senator DANIEL. All right, you may say it in Spanish and he will
interpret it for us.
Mr. CONTRERAS. I started by others.
Senator DANIEL. Were these other people members of your faiiiily
or just boy friends or girl friends?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Friends of mine.
Senator DAtr. Friends of yours, in the neighborhood.

Mr. Gomms. Yes.
249.0
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Did they give you the drug or did you buy it?
Mr. CONTRERAS. We all got together and chipped in and bought it.
Senator DANIEL. How long did you use marihuana? Now, Juan,
to save time we would appreciate it if you would answer in English
if you can.
Senator BUTLm.
Mr. CONTRERAS. Two years.
Senator DANIE.L. Wherever you think you might misunderstand or

where we think so, we will use the interpreter. About 2 years on
marihuana. Then did you start using some other drug?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes, amitol, sleeping pills.
Senator DANIEL. And any others?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes, heroin.
Senator DAaEL. What was the general name used among those
who used heroin, what is the general term used for it, what did you
call it?
Mr. CONTRERAS. The word "carga."
Senator DANIEL. What does it mean, Mr. Interpreter?

The INTREPRETER. It means like "merchandise."
Senator DANIEL. Like "stuff"?
The INTERPRETER. That's right, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear it called "stuff"?
Senator
DANIEL.
heroin?
Mr.
CONTRERAS.
And where did you get your marihuana and
Well, from different guys.
Here in San Antonio?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. Have you been engaged in the traffic of heroin

or helping others in selling heroin in San Antonio?
The
INTERPRETER.
He says he has sold for himself to support his
habit.
Senator DANIEL. To support your habit. You became addicted to
heroin; did you?
Senator DANrEL. I believe that you were convicted on a narcotic

charge once; is that correct?
How long did you serve?

Mr. CONTRERAS. About 2 years.
Senator DANTEL. And then when you got out of prison did you
Senator
DANIEL.
start using heroin again?
Senator DANIEL. Did you start selling it again?

Senator DANIEL. And have you more recently been convicted again?
Mr. CONTRERA.S. Yes. sir.
Senator DA\Nr,. How many years were you given this last time?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Six years.
SPnafor D.x-,Tr,. Was that here in Bexar County?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Ye s. sir.
Senator DANTEL. Feders] or State sentence?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Federal.

or is your
Senator DANIEL. And you are now awaiting that sentence
case on appeal?
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
Mr.
CONTRERAS.
Senator DANIEL.
2491
TRAFFIC
No; I am waiting to serve the sentence.

You are waiting to serve the sentence.
Senator BUTLER. You are not now under indictment, you have been
tried ?
Mr. CONTRERAS. I have been tried; yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
And you have agreed to voluntarily tell your story
to the committee through the request of our investigator, Mr. Speer,

here; is that correct?
Senator DANIEL. About how many heroin addicts are in San Antonio?
Mr. CONTRERAS. I haven't an idea.
Senator
DANIEL.
Could you give us any estimate?
Do you know
quite a few heroin addicts?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, I know quite a few.
Senator DANIEL. Among what age group are they?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, some, most of them are old.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. CONTRERAS.
Senator DANIEL.
Older?
Yes. [Indicated by nodding his head.]
Do you know any of them among the 17-, 18- or
19-year-old group?
Mr. CONTRERAS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did
you know back in 1947 some among the
younger group?
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you think there has been any difference in the
number of heroin addicts in San Antonio since 1947?

Mr. CONTRERAS. (by the interpreter) I don't know.
Senator
DANIEL.
here than in 1947?
You don't know whether there are more addicts
Mr. CONTRERAS. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. 'Well, in trying to sell heroin was it easier to sell

it here recently than it was back when you first began .
Mr. CONTRERAS. I believe it was the same.
Senator
DANIEL.
About the same. Could you find plenty of peo-
ple who would buy it?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, there were a few of them.
Senator
DANIEL.
And what did these people, these addicts do, how
did they get enough money to buy their heroin?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, I don't know, but theySenator DAN-ML. Well, did you ever know any of them to steal?
Mr. CONTRERAS. (by the interpreter) It could be, I don't know.
Senator
DANIEL.
About how many sellers of heroin do you know
in San Antonio?
Mr. CONTRERAS (by the interpreter). I know some that sell but I
haven't any idea how many.
Senator DANIEL. Well, would you say you know at least 10.
Mr. CONTRERAS. Could be.
Senator DANIEL. At least 10 people in San Antonio who sell heroin?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Could be.
Senator
DANIEL.
There could be that many.
Do you know what
the market price was, what is the going price for the heroin?
Mr. CONTRERAS. By caps.
71515-5-5--pt. 7-
10
2492
Two fifty.
$2.50 per capsule ?
Senator
Mr. CoNTwmAs. Yes, sir.
Mr. CoNT
Rs.
DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. Now, do you know what these dealers were having
to pay for the heroin?
I am talking about the people who sold it.
Mr. CONTRERAS. I don't have no idea.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you know how much it is costing by gram?
Mr. CoNrUAS. Well, maybe $30.

Senator DANIEL. About $30?
Senator DANIEL. I believe those are the figures you gave Mr. SpeerI
Mr. CoNT mAs. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. About $30 a gram and then they were selling it at
$2.50 a capsule?
Mr. CONTmRAs. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, where were these, you used the term "guy"?
I'll use the same term you used for them, where were these guys getting
the heroin that they sold here in San Antonio?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, they say it come from Mexico.
Senator DANL. Did you ever go to Mexico to get any heroin?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes, I went once.
Senator DANIEL. One time?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you cross the borderI
Mr. CONTRERAS. Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. And who did you buy it from?
Mr. CoNTRERAS. Well, I don't know the guy by his name, he is by
nickname.
Senator DANIEL. What is his nickname?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Raton.

The INTERPRETER. R-a-t-o-n.
Senator BUTLER. Did you have any difficulty in making connection
with the seller?
Senator BUTLER. You mean to say that in Mexico it is hard to find
a seller?
Mr.
CONTRERAS. Well,
they don't come up to you and ask you if you
want some stuff, you got to find, you know, look around for them.
Senator BUTLER. It is not too difficult to find one, is it?
Mr. CONTRERAS. No, you ask for one, you find.
Senator BUTLER. If you ask about them, you find them. They are
there to be found?
Senator DAN=L. Did anyone tell you before you went across the
river at Laredo to ask for this Raton? Did they tell you were you
could find him?
Senator DANIEL. In other words, when you left here and went over
to Laredo, Nuevo Laredo, you were looking for this man, Raton?
Mr. CoNTRERAs. I was lookinF where I could find stuff.
Senator DANIEL. You weren t told about this particular man before
you left here?
Mr. CoNTRERAs.
2493
No.
Senator DANwiE. You just looked to see where you could find stuff?
Mr. Cow mas. That's right.
Senator DANEL. How long did it take you to find it?
Mr. CoNnunus. I would say 2 or 3 hours.

Senator D~Imir. And how long ago was that?
Mr. CoNR=As. That was back in 1949, 1 believe.
Senator DANIEL. Now then, have you talked to some of these sellers
of heroin since 1949 and up to the time you were arrested this last
time about what they were paying down in Mexico per gram for the
heroin?
Mr. CONTREiAs. No, sir.
Senator DANrEL. But you have talked to them about buying it, is
that how you know where they buy the heroin?
Mr. CONTRERAS.
How's that?
Senator DANIEL How do you know where some of these guys who
sell heroin in San Antonio were buying it, how do you know they
bought it over in Mexicof
Mr. COwTRAS. How do I knowI
Senator DAxmL. Yes.
Mr. COMTRERAS. Well, you know, some guys used to tell me.
Senator DA NmL. They would tell you?
Mr. CoNTRERAs.
Yes.
Senator DANlEL. Name one of them that told you he bought his
heroin in Mexico?
Mr. CONTERS. Well, I don't know their names. I know the nicknames.
Senator DANIEL. You know the nicknames. Well, do you know
Robert HernandezI
Mr. CoNTwmAS. Well, I was convicted with him.
Senator DANIEL. You were convicted with Robert HernandezI
Senator DANIEL. You knew of him before you were tried?

Mr. CONTRERAS.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Simon Rodriguez?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes.
Was he also tried at the same time?

Senator DANrEL. Did you sell heroin for those two men here in
San Antonio?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes, sir; at that time; yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator DANIrEL. About how much heroin did you sell every week
for them?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, I don't remember exactly.
Senator DANIEL. Well, would it run from 5 to 10 grams of heroin

a.day on Friday and Saturday of each week?
Senator DANIEL. Would it run that much?
Senator DANIEL. I am reading from Mr. Speer's report of his conversation with you.
Senator DANIEL. And do you think this would be about right?

2494
Senator

DANIEL.
Five to ten grams of heroiU a day on Friday and
Saturday of each week?

.
Senator DANIEL. NOW, have both Robert Hernandez and Sinmoi
.
1
Rodrigo-ez been convicted?
Mr. CoNTPmi.tIs. Well, they picked them up at the same time they
picked up me.
Senator DANIE. Where did Hernanidez live, his address?
Mr. CONTRERAS. I don't know his address.
Senator DAN IEL. Is Robert Hernandez in jail now or out on bond
Mr. CONTRERAS. No, he is out on the streets; he is out.
Senator DANIEL. Out on the streets?
Senator
DANIEL.
AMr. CONTRERAS.
Senator DANIEL.
Where is Simon Rodriguez now?
Out on the streets, too.

Are they still selling heroin?
Mr. CoNTRERAs. I don't know.
When is the last heroin you sold for them?

That was back in-when I got out-I mean the
last time they picked me up, that was the last time.
Senator DANYEL. The last time you were arrested you were selling
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. CONTRERAS.
for them ?
Senator DANIEL. And on what date was that? We'll get the records on that in a minute. Let's see if you can identify these men. I
hand you this picture which will be marked "Exhibit: A" of the Sani
Antonio hearing, and ask you if you can tell us who this is 2
Mr. CONTRERAS. That is Simon.
Senator DANIEL. That is Simon Rodriguez?
Senator DANIEL. The reporter will mark that.

(Exhibit A of the San Antonio hearing follows:)
EXHIBIT A
Simon Rodriguez, 611 Southwest 25th Street, San Antonio, Tex. Mexican male,
45 years of age, 5 feet 4 inches, 180 pounds; has brown eyes, dark complexion,
of heavy build.
11111
Senator DANIE L. Now then, let him identify this picture.

picture will be exhibit B.
Mr. CONTRERAS. That is Roberto Hernandez.
Senator DANIEL. That is RobertMr. CONTRERAS. Roberto Hernadez.
(Exhibit B of the San Antonio hearing follows:)
2495This
EXHIBIT B
2 , .
)< :A
"
"
Roberto Hernandez, 2020 San Luis Street, San Antonio, Tex. Mexican male,
born in Rockdale, Tex., March 27, 1901, is 54 years old, 5 feet 6 inches tall, dark
complexion, black hair, 160 pounds, brown eyes, medium build.
Senator DANiEL. That is Robert Hernandez you have testified about.
Now, the record here shows you were arrested April 30, 1955, for
violation of the Federal Narcotics Act; that is April this year?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Is that the time you are talking about?
No, I am talking about the first time.

Senator DANIEL. The first time you sold for these men before up
Mr. CONTRERAS.
until you were arrested in 1952?

Mr. CONTRERAS. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. In 1952?

Senator D.NrIEL. All right; then after you got out of prison did you
start selling for these two men again ?

Senator DANIEL. Did you sell for one of them?
Senator DANIEL. After you got out of prison on this sentence that
you started serving in 1952, did you ever sell any kind of narcotics,
heroin or anything, for Simon Rodriguez
Mr. CONTRERAS. NO, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did he give you any heroin?
2496
Senator BUTLER. Did you ever get any for him from any source?
Mr. CowTRmAs. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, do you know what the runners who brought
the heroin across Mexico were paid? Did you ever hear them tell
you whatthe-cstis to bring it across the border?
Mr. CONTiRAS. Well, some paid about a hundred dollars.
Senator DANIEL. About a hundred dollars?
Mr. CONTRERAS. That is what I heard.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did either Simon or Robert, Simon Rodriguez
or Robert Hernandez tell you that?

Mr. CONTRERAS. No, some other guys to]d me.
Senator DANIEL. What other guys told you that?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, I don't know them by their names.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know any nicknames?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. What are their nicknames?
Mr. CONTRERAS.
One called Paton.
Senator DANIEL. All right, who else?

Mr. CONTRERAS. The-otherwas called Antiojudo.
Senator DANIEL. Will you spell it?
Mr. CONTRERAS. A-n-t-i-o-j-u-d-o.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever know any of these runners that
brought the heroin or marihuana across the border?

Senator DANiEL. Did you ever know of any of them being arrested?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Not that I remember; no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. The time that you went down to get some heroin
yourself at Neuvo Laredo, did you bring it back across the bridge
yourself ?
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did anybody search you?
Mr. CoNTREu.,s. No, sir.
Mr. CONTRERAS.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you have it hid?

Mr. CONTIMRAS. I had it in my pocket.
Mr. CONTRERAS. In my pocket.
Senator DANIEL. Concealed in anything in your pocket ?
Senator DANIEL. Just in one of your pockets?

Senator DANIEL. How much did you bring back?
Mr. CONTRERAS. I had about 5 grams.
Senator DANIEL. Are you still a narcotic addict ?
Senator DANIEL. Did you go back to using heroin after you got out
ofprison the last time?
Mr. CONTRERAS.. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. About how much did it cost you a day to keep up
your addiction?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, some, about seven fifty.
Senator DANIEL. Seven dollars and fifty cents a day?

Senator DANIEL. How did you make that money?

Mr. CoiqnrmA- -Well, I was working.
IIIIIIIIIII
2497
Senator DANIEL. What type of work?

Mr. CONTRERAS. I was painting here, at first started working.
Senator DANIEL. All right, did your job play out?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, I quit my job. You know, I see I couldn't
make it and I started selling.

Senator DANIEL. You couldn't make enough money to take care of
your narcotic habit, could you ?

Senator DANIEL. What did you start doing?
Mr. CONr.SRAs. I started selling some.
Senator DANIrL. Started selling heroin?
Senator DANIEL. Who for?
Mr. CONTRERAS. For myself.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you buy it?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, I used to buy from a guy, I don't remember
his name.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you know his nickname?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, he ain't got no nickname.
Senator DANIEL. Where does he live?
Mr. CONTRERAS. I used to meet him on the streets.
Mr. CONTRERAS. On the streets.
Senator DANIEL. You just met him on the streets?

Senator DANIEL. Do you think you would recognize him or his
picture?
Mr. CONTRERAS. I might, yes.
Senator DANIEL. Since you got out of prison the last time and up
until you were arrested here in April this year what type of heroin
were you using, white heroin orMr. CONTRERAS. Well, I was using both of them, white and brown.
Senator DANIEL. Well, just tell the committee where you got the
heroin.
Mr. CONTRERAS. Where I got-how's that?
Senator DANIEL. Where did you get it, where did you buy it?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, I was buying from that guy I was telling
you about.
Senator DANIEL. The guy whose name you do not know?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear of Pancho Trevino?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes, I heard about him.
Senator DANIEL. 'ho is he?
Mr. CONTRERAS. He is supposed to be a dope peddler up in Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. In Mexico?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Does he live at Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes, Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear of his brother, Henrique?

Mr. CONTRm AS. Henrique, yes.
Senawr DANIEL. Or his son, Arturo?
IIIIIIIIIIII
2498
Where did you meet those men?

I heard about them.
You have heard of them?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see one of them?
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you know where they operate over across
the border?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. CONTRERAS.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. CONTTRmRAS. Well, I was told but I am not sure where.
Senator DANIEL. You were told by someone interested in helping

you get heroin ?
Mr. CONTRERAS. No, just in the conversation that's what lie told me.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what was the name of the place that you
operate in Nuevo Laredo?
that they
understand
Mr. CONTRERAS.
It is a house, I don't know the address.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear of Hotel Dellas?
M r. CONTRERAS. I heard about it.
Senator DANIEL. What is Hotel Dellas .
Mr. CoNiTRERAs. Dellas?
The INrERPRETER. Well, lie is not sure of the name himself, the
way lie says it, it is V-i-e-l-a-s, Vielas.
Senator DANIEL. And the way we have it spelled is D-e-l-l-a-s. So
you have to put it both ways there. Where is that hotel supposed
to be?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Over in Laredo.
Senator DANEL. In Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. CONTRERAs. I don't know whether over or not.
Senator DANIEL. You don't know?
Mr. CONTRERAS. It is across the border, I know that.
It is across the border?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. But you do know you were told you could buy
Senator
DAN-EL.
heroin there?
Mr. CoNTRERAs. Well. I know a bunch, I know Poncho Trevino
owns that hotel.
Senator DANIEL. Poncho Trevino owns that hotel?

Mr. CoNTEmRAs. Yes.
Senator DANEL. And is it commonly talked among the narcotic
peddlers around here that you can go there to get some heroin, is it
generally talked among them that is a good place to go get heroin?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, I don't know. You know, just a few guys
told me about it.
Senator DANIEL. A few guys, more than one. How long have you
known Simon Rodriguez to be in the hereoin business here in San

Antonio?
Mr. CONTRERAS. I can't say exactly, I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Well, several years?
Mr. CONTRERAS. When I knew him it was in 1951.
Senator
DANrEL.
Mr. CoNTRERAs.
Senator DANIEL.
in San Antonio?
1951 and up until you were arrested in 1952?

Yes.
How long did you sell heroin for Simon Rodriguez
Mr. CoTRERAS. I don't remember.
2499
Senator
DANuL.
Mr. CONTRERAS.
More than a year?

I don't know, I am not quite sure how long it was.
Senator DANIEL. And how long did you sell for Robert Hernandez?
Mr. CoNTmsRAs. I don't remember either.
Senator
DANIEL. Well, was it several months;

Mr. CoNTRExAs. Well, it was several months.
Senator DANIEL. You began in 1951 you said?
Mr. CONTREAS. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And you were arrested in
is that correct?
quite a while?
1952 on March 15;
Mr. CON FRAS. Yes sir.
Senator DANIEL. Were Simon Rodriguez and Robert Hernatidez

partners in the heroin traffic when you were working and selling for
them?
Mr. CONTRERAS. I believe they were, I don't know.
friends, the were friends.
They were
Senator DANIEL. Why do you believe they were? Didn't they tell
you they were working together?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, you know, I heard guys say it but I am not
sure.
Senator DANIEL. Which one did you go to get your heroin from?
Mr. CONTmrERAs. Robert Hernandez.
Senator DANIEL. Did you also go to Simon Rodriguez at times?
Mr. CONTRERAS. No, sir: I used to gyo to his place; I used to see
Roberto.
Senator DANIEL. Did you always have your dealings with Roberto?
Senator DANIEL. What makes you think Simon Rodriguez was
partner with him in the traffic?

Mr. CONTRER AS. That's what I heard, I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Well, were they together usually?
Senator DANIEL.
No, they were not together usually?
Senator DANIEL. 'Well, did you ever see Simon Rodriguez with
some heroin?
Mr. CONTRERAS. With some heroin?
Senator DANIEL.
Yes.
Not that I know of.

Senator DANIEL. I just want to caution you, I don't mean to say
you are not being careful about what you are telling the committee, I
just want to caution you that under your oath you should be careful
to give us true answers to the questions? You know that
Senator DANIEL. You understand you would be liable to punishment if you didn't give us true answers. I am saying that to you,
so you may think, and take your time if you need to, and I want to
ask you if you ever gave Simon any money for heroin?
Mr. CONTRERAS.
Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, I did.
Senator DANIEL. On more than 1 occasion?

Senator DANIEL. Did he deliver, hand you the heroin when you
gave him the money?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes, sir; that was back in 1951.
2500
Senator DANIFL. In 1951. And did he ask you to sell it for him or
did you ask him to give it to you so you could go sell and use it?
Mr. CONTRERAS. I was buying it.
Senator DANIEL. For your own use or for resale?
Mr. CONTRERAS. For my own use and sell it.
Senator DANIEL. For your own use and sale, both?
Senator DANIEL. About how much heroin did you buy a day from
Simon Rodriguez?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, I didn't deal too much with him.

Mr. CONTRERAS. I didn't deal too much with him.
Just about how much did you?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, I don't know how much.
Senator DANIEL. You don't know how much?
Senator
DANUEL.
Mr. CoNTRER.s. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. But you do know that he handed you the heroin
gave him the money for it?

-1nd
MNr.youCOtRExAs. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. On more than one occasion?
Mr. CoN mERAS. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. On many occasions?
CONTRERAS. Could be.
Senator DANIEL. And is
Mr.
the same true concerning
Roberto
Hernandez?
Where would you buy this heroin from them?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Roberto Hernandez?
Senator DANIEL. Either one of them. Take Hernandez first, where
-would you buy from him?
Mr. CONTRERAS. At his house.
Senator DANIEL. Where was his house located? San Louis Street?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And where would you buy from Simon?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Simon, ovei in the beer place.
Senator DANIEL. Over where?
Mr. CONTRERAS. At a saloon.
Senator
DA-NIEL.
Senator DANIEL. What was the name of the saloon?

Mr. CON-T RERAS. Simon's Place.
Senator DANIEL. Simon's Place, that was the name it went by?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes. sir.
Senator D.ANIEL. Did Simon Rodriguez ever go to jail for selling

narcotics as far as you know?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, he was picked up the same time I was in 1952.
Well, did he serve a sentence'?

Mr. CONTIRERAS. No. sir; I don't think so.
Senator DANIEL. He did not. Do you know if he was ever tried?
Mr. (ONTRERAS. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. You don't know. All right, what other people
Senator
DANIEL.
were pushing heroin for Simon Rodriguez back in 1952?

Mr. CONTRERAS. What is that?
Senator DANIEL. What other people were pushing or selling heroin
for Simon Rodriguez back in 1952 when you were doing it?
Mr. CONTRERAS. In 1952?
Senator
DANIEL.
2501
Yes; before you were arrested in 1952 or 1951.

Senator DANIEL. Well, did you know a person by the name of
Manuel Ortiz?
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. What else did they call him?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Flaco.
Senator DANIEL. How do you spell it?
Mr. CONTRERAS. F-l-a-c-o.
Senator DANIEL. He is in prison; isn't he?
Mr. CONTRERAS. He is out on the streets.
Senator DANIEL. Is he out on the streets now?
Senator DANIEL. Well, did he sell for Simon Rodriguez?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, I believe he was.
Senator DANIEL. Did you see him get his heroin from Simon?
Mr. CONTREIRAS. Well, I saw him up there.
Senator DANIEL. You saw him?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes. I saw him up there.
Senator DANIEL. You saw him at Simon's place and you knew he
was selling heroin?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did Manuel tell you he was selling for Simon?
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you see him ever give Simon any money?
Senator DANIEL. All right, do you know Felix Ortiz?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Felix Ortiz, that is the same one.
Senator DANIEL. I asked you about Manuel Ortiz.
Mr. CONTRERAS. Oh, yes.
Senator DANIEL. We will simply change that, all you have said so
far refers to Felix Ortiz; is that right?
Senator DANIEL. All right, now then I will ask you next about
Manuel Ortiz, did you know him?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Manuel, he was in the same. raid over in 1951, he
was picked up with us, too.
Senator DANIEL. He was picked up with you. Was he selling for
Simon Rodriguez?
Mr. CONTRERAS. All supposed to be selling for him.
Senator DANIEL. All these people picked up were supposed to be
selling for Simon, the same person you were selling for, is that right?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. That was Manuel Ortiz. What about Manuel
Delgado?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, he was picked up the same time.
Senator DANIEL. Was he selling for Simon Rodriguez?
Mr. CONTRERAS. I believe so.
Senator DANIEL. He was latex killed?
Mr. CONTRERAS. I don't know whether he was killed or not.
Senator DANIEL. Did you see him get any heroin from Simon?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see him get any from Roberto
Hernandez?
Mr. CONTRERAS.
I I
2502

Senator DANIEL. How about
Nicholas Hernandez?
That is Roberto's brother.
Mr. CONTRERAS.
Senator DANIEL. That is his brother. He was pushing for Roberto
and Simon, wasn't he?

Senator DANIEL. When you say you believe so, tell us what yott
base it on. We can't keep taking evidence about what anybody
believes. Tell us why you told Mr. Speer what you did about selling
for these men. In other words, what did you see?
Mr. CONTRERAS.
They were in the same raid with me.
They were in the same raid with you?

Senator DANIEL. In that raid were you doing any dividing of
money, what were you doing?
Mr. CONTRERAS. We were in jail together.
Senator DANIEL. Did they tell you there they were selling for
Senator
DANIEL.
Simon and Roberto?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, that is what the papers said.
Senator DANIEL. What the papers said?
Mr. CONTRERAS. That is what they put out in the paper.
Senator DANIEL. I don't want you to testify to anything you learned

in the newspaper.
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes, sir, what I have heard.
Senator DANIEL. I want you to testify just what you know. What
people do you know who were selling for Simon Rodriguez like you
were ?
Mr. CoNTmEXRS. Well, all of them was supposed.
Senator DANIEL. Well, how many of them did you see get heroin
from Simon Rodriquez, did you ever see Manuel Delgado?
CONTRERAS. No, I can't
Senator DAN rEL. Did you
Mr.
say I seen him.

ever see Nicholas Heranandez get any
from him?
Mr. Co-NTRE.As. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see anybody else get any heroin from
Simon Rodriguez?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Are you talking about Simon Rodriguez?
Mr. CONTRERAS. I thought you were talking about Roberto.
Senator DANIEL. All right, now on Simon, did you ever see anybody else buy from him?
Mr. CONTiERAS. Well, I didn't see nobody.
Senator DANIEL. No one but yourself ?
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. All right, did you ever see anybody buy heroin
from Roberto Hernandez?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, I used to see guys, you know, up at his house,
I didn't see him hand him the stuff.
Senator DANIEL. You (lidn't put down the name, you didn't remember the name ?
Mr. CONTRERAS. No, I didn't see Roberto hand the stuff to them.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't see that. All you ever saw Roberto
handle was always to you; is that right?
Mr. CONTRERAS.
2503
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Mike Escobedo?

Senator DANIEL. Do you know whether or not he was in the business
of selling heroin in San Antonio?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes, sir, he was.
Senator DANIEL. He was, did you buy from him ?

Senator DANIEL. Is he the brother of Joe Escobedo?
Senator DANIEL. How long ago was it you bought heroin from Mike
Escobedo?
Mr. CONTRERAS. I don't remember.
Senator DANIEL. Well, was it this year?

Mr. CONTRE RAS. Yes, I believe it was this year or last year.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you buy from him?
Over at his house.
Senator DANIEL. Is his wife also selling heroin?
.Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you ever see her sell it?
Mr. CONTRERAS.

Senator DANIEL. You did not. Where is Escobedo now?

Senator DANIEL. Did you see
other people coming in there to their
house buying heroin?

Senator DANIEL. How much did you pay for your heroin to Mike
Escobedo?
Mr. CONTRERAS. $30 a gram.
Senator DANIEL. $30 a gram?
Senator DANIEL. And then would you break it down and go out
and sell it to other people?
Mr. CONTRERAS. No, I used to shoot half of it myself.
Senator DANIEL. Shoot some of it yourself and then sell the rest to
others?
Senator DANIEL. In capsules
Mr. CONTRERAS. Capsules.
or by the gram?
Senator BUTLER. Did you ever reach the point where you had to
have all of it for yourself ?
Mr. CONTRERAS. How's that?
Senator BUTLER. Did you ever reach the point where you used all
of it for yourself ?
Senator DANIEL. All right, I hand you this picture here and ask
you if you can identify who this person is?
Mr. CONTRERAS. This is Mike Escobedo.
Senator DANIEL. That will be exhibit C
of the San Antonio hearing.
2504
(Exhibit C follows:)
EXIT C
Escobedo, Mike G.; age, 29; height, 5 feet 9 inches; weight, 142; born, September
29,1922; complexion, dark; eyes, brown; hair, black; build, medium.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Victoria Terrazos?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Does
she live here in San Anitonio?

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy heroin from her?
Mr. CONTRERAS. From her son.
Senator DANiEL. What is her son's name, Henrique?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Henrique.
Senator DANIEL. Henrique Terrazos?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes.
Senator DAkNIEL. Where did you buy from Heiirique Terrazos?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Over at his house.
Senator DANIEL. Where is his house'l
Mr. CONTRERAS. I don't know the address.

Senator )ANIEL. What did you pay for the heroin?
Mr. CONTRERAS. $30.
Senator DANIEL. Per gram?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Wheni did you last buy front Henrique Terrazos?
don't remember.
Senator DANIEL. Well, was it this year?
Mr.
CONTRERAS.
Senator DANIEL. Wasn't it in August.?
Mr. CONTRERAS. I believe so, in August.

Senator DANEL. Of this year?
Senator DANIEL. Just month before last?
Mr. CONTRERAS. No, no.
Senator DANIEL. You do remember it i this year?
ilr. CoNT.ER..s. Yes, sir.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2505
Senator DANIEL. Where did you buy this heroin from Henrique
Terrazos, at what place?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Over at his house.
Senator DANIEL. All right, did you ever go to his mother's house?
Mr. CONTRERAS. That is where he lives.
Senator
DANIEL.
Victoria's house ?
Mr. CONTmRAS. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy aniy from his mother?
Mr.
CONTRERAS.
Senator DANML.
Mr. CONTRERAS.
Senator DANIEL.
No, sir.
How about from his sister, Rosa?
Yes, sir.
You bought heroin from her?
Senator
This year?
No.
Mr. CONTRERAS. I believe it was last year.
Senator DANIEL. Last year. How about Tomasia?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes, sir, I bought some.
Senator DANIEL. Is Tomasia a sister?
DANIEL.
Mr. CONTRERAS.
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Or brother of Henrique?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Sister.
Senator DANIEL. Did you buy from Tomasia?
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I believe that Rosa, Tomasia, and Henrique are
children of Victoria Terrazos?
Mr. CONTRERAS.
Mr. CoNTRRAs. That's right?
Senator DANIEL. All live at the same house?

Senator DANIEL. Well, who lives with Victoria?
Mr.
CONTRERAS.
DANIEL.
CONTRERAS.
Senator
Henrique Terrazos.
All right, what about Rosa, where does she live?
I don't know her address.
Mr.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you buy from Rosa?
At her house.
On what street?
Mr. CONTRERAS. I don't know the name of the street.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know the name of the street where Victoria Terrazos lives?
Mr. CoNTRoERAS. I don't remember.
Senator DANIEL. Is it Mercedes Street?
Mr.
CONTRERAS.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes, sir, I believe that is it.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. CONTPRE
Where does Tomasia live?
. In Vera Cruz Street.
Senator DANIEL. Vera Cruz Street?

Senator DANIEL. And you have bought from Rosa, Tomasia, and
Henrique Terrazos heroin this year?
Senator DANIEL. What did you pay them for it?
Mr. CONTRERAS. I bought some caps from Tomasia.
Mr. CONTRERAS. Two thirty.
2506
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Senator DANIEL. Two thirty a capsule?

Senator DANIEL. Did you
ever buy by the gram from any one of

those persons? Think well on that, Juan.
Mr. CONTRERAS. I believe I did.
Senator DANIEL. On 108 Mercedes Street did you buy any heroin
at $30 a gram?
Mr. CONTRERAS. On Mercedes, I just got through telling you.
Senator DANIEL. By the gram?
Mr. CONTRERAS. $30.
Senator DANIEL. To who did you pay it?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Henrique Terrazos.
Senator DANIEL. All right, did you ever hear of Vickie's Bar?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Vickie's Bar?
Senator DANIEL. V-i-c-k-i-e-s Bar?
Senator DANIELS. Did you ever buy any heroin there?
Mr. CONTRERAS. That is where I bought from Rosa.
Senator DANIEL. That is where you bought from Rosa Terrazos?

Mr. CONTREJAS. I believe, I don't remember.
Senator DANIEL. You don't know how long agZo. Well. who runs
Vickie's Bar?
Senator DANM-L. That is in San Antonio, isn't it?
Senator DANIEL. On what street?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Guadalupe Street.
Senator DANIEL. Gadalupe Street. Now, don't one of these people
sell heroin for more than the others? Do you know of any heroin you
can buy in San Antonio or you could buy in San Antonio this year for
$25 a gram?
Mr. CONTRERAS. There is some of them sell it.
Mr. CONTRERAS. I say there is some of them sell for $25.

Senator DANIEL. All right, whom did you buy from at $25 a gram?
Mr. CONTRERAS. The stuff, the same people, used to go up.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Juan Castillo?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes. sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy any this year from him at $25 a
gram?

Mr. CONTRERAS. On the streets.
Senator DANIEL. On the streets. What corner does Juan Castillo
sell on ?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Well, I used to meet him on Concho.
Senator DANIEL. Concho and Monterrey, the corner there?
Mr. CortER.As. Yes, sir.
Senator
you ?
DANIEL.
And you bought from him there this year, have
Mr. CoNmRAs. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIMEL. What kind of car does he use?
2507

DANIEL. Did you ever see a 1949 Ford?
CONTRERAS. I believe he had a Ford-a Ford;
Senator
yes, sir.
Mr.
Senator DANIEL. And where did these pople go to get their heroin?
Senator
DANIEL. What did they tell you?

Mr. CONTRERAS. They didn't tell me nothing.
Senator DANIEL. Did you start buying your
heroin from Juan
Castillo about the middle of this year?

Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. CONTRERAS.
Somewhere around the summer?

Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. At how much a gram?

Mr. CONTRERAS. $25 a gram.
Senator DANIEL. Was that cheaper than what you had been buying
it from the Terrazoses for?

Senator DANIEL. And did y.u change over and do all your buying
from Juan Castillo after about the middle of the year?
Mr. CONTRERAS. No, sir, I used to go to different places.
Senator DANIEL. Different places. You didn't do all your buying
from Juan?
Senator DANIEL. Where else did you buy from here in San Antonio
this year ?
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you ever hear of Gilbert LitterioI
DANIEL. L-i-t-t-e-r-i-o?
Senator
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy from him?

Senator DANIEL. Where does he operate his place?

Mr. CONTRERAS. ie used to be in the-over on Laredo Street.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did he have a bar or somebody have a bar

ovr there? Did any member of the family operate a bar?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes, his mother did.
Senator DANIEL. Well, that is at Laredo and Kemp Streets?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes, somewhere around there.
Senator
DANIEL.
Somewhere in there?
Mr. CON=TRERAS. YeS.
Senator DANIEL. Did you buy the heroin there from Gilbert Litterio
at this bar?
S i for T)ANrTl. Did vou do flmt sometime, this summer?
Mr. CONT E,AS. I don't remember.
S.n,+or DANIEL. It wns this
Mr. CONTE r AS. Could be.
Senator DArE,L. What.?
year, though ?
I don't remember.
,onmtor DANIEL. This year?
Mr.
Co,NT
nAs.
I believe it was this year.
Senator DANIE,L. Now, this Litterio had iut gotten out of prison
himself before you bought from him, hadn't he?
71515-6-pt. 7-11
2508
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. lie.had been off to prison on what charge?
Mlr. CON'TRERAS. I think it. was, I don't know what it was.
Senator DANIEL. You don't remember
Mr. CONTRERAS. NO.
Ilndi(ated by shaking his head.j
Sew'tor DANIEL. You know he just came back from prison wheli
you started buying heroin from him ?
Mr. CONTRERAS.
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did you biy several times from him'

Senator DANIEL. I hand you this picture and see if you can identity
this person.
Mr. CONTRERAS. That is Gilbert Litterio.
Senator )ANIEL. Gilbert Litterio. That. will be marked as out.
next exhibit, exhibit D of the San Antonio hearing.
(Exhibit D follows:)
ExHIBI'r D
,,
,',
Gilbert Litterio, 2505 Guadalupe, San Antonio, Tex. Litterio is a Mexican male.
born in San Antonio, Tex., June 8, 1932; is 23 years of age; 5 feet 4 inches
tall: 116 pounds; black hair, brown eyes.
Senator
DANIEL.
Any questions, Senator Butler?
Senator BUTLER. No.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. Counsel?
Mr. GAsuE. No, sir.
Mr. Speer?
Mr. SPEER. When you got out of prison from the sentence you got
in 1952, when did you get back to San Antonio?
Mr. CONTRERAS. About 1953, I believe.
Mr. SPEER. 1953?
Mr. SPEER. Did

Mr. CONTRERAS.
Mr. SPEER. And
Mr. CONTRERAS.
you see Simon Rodriquez right after that?

I believe I did.
what did he say?

I don't know, I don't remember.
2509
Mr. SPEER. Did he give you any heroin?

Mr. CONTRERAS. I believe he did, I don't remember.
Mr. SPEER. Did he give you 2 or 3 grams of heroin to sell?
Mr. CONTRERAS. No, sir, I bought a gram.
Mr. SPEER. You bought a gram '
Mr. SPEER. He didn't give you anything?

Were you already back using heroin at that time or did

you start after that? When you met Simon were you already an
addict again?
Mr. CONTRERAS. That's right; I was an addict.
Mr. SPEER. Already using it?
Mr.
SPEER.
Mr. SPEER. That was about 2 months after you got out
At that time you say he sold you a gram of heroin?

Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes.
Mr.
SPEER.
Senator DANIEL. IS Simon Rodriguez in the courtroom?
Speak
out. Is Simon Rodriguez in the courtroom?

Juan, is this the man you are talking about, Simon Rodriguez, the
same man you are talking about?
Mr. CONTRERAS. Yes; that is him.
Senator DA NIEL. What?
Mr. CONTRERAS. That is right.
Senator DANIEL. The same man.
All right, the committee thanks you again for your testimony that
you have given at our request that you appear before us and the committee will stand recessed until 2 o'clock at which time all witnesses
who are subpenaed will be sure to come back to this place, 2 o'clock
this afternoon.
(Whereupon at 12: 30 p. m. the subcommittee recessed to reconvene
at 2 p. m. the same day.)
A1YERNOON SESSION
Roberto Hernandez, come forward, please.

(Roberto Hernandez was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. You may be seated. State your name.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERTO HERNANDEZ
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Sir?
Senator DANIEL. What is your name?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Roberto Hernandez.
Senator DANIEL. I have to ask you that for the record.

R-o-b-e-r-t-o?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. H-e-r-n-a-n-d-e-z?

Mr. HERNANDEZ. 2020 San Luis.

That is
2510
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you lived in San Antonio?
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Mr. HERNANDiZ. Since 1929, 1 think.
Senator DANIEL. Since 1929. Where did you live before then?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I lived on Guadalupe Street, Guadalupe Street.
Senator
DANIEL.
Where did you live before you moved to San
Antonio?
In the country. Can I get in touch, don't think
I can answer all these questions
Senator DANIEL. Go right ahead, we will have an interpreter up if
you need it.
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I think I will, I would rather have one.
(An interpreter was furnished.)
Senator DANIEL. You lived out in the country from San Antonio?
Senator DANIEL. Now, were you sentenced to the Federal penitentiary on a narcotics charge?
Mr. HERNANDEZ.

Senator DANIEL. What year?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I think it was in 1952.
Senator DANIEL. Are you now on probation?
Senator DANIEL. Now, were you engaged in the sale of heroin here
in San Antonio?
Senator DANIEL. For how long a period of time?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Oh, about 3 or 4 months.
Senator DANIEL. Were you ever addicted to heroin yourself?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever use it?
Senator DANIEL. During this time that you sold heroin in San
Antonio with whom were you associated?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Well, with a lot of friends.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Simon Rodriguez?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes; I do.
Senator DANIEL. Were you associated with him in the heroin
business?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever sell with him or have any dealings
with him in any kind of business?
Senator DANIEL. You remember Mr. Speer here who sits to my
leftMJr. HERNANDEZ. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Talking with you recently?
Senator DANIEL. And you made a statement to him, did you not?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I didn't make no statement.
Senator DANIEL. Did you talk with him?
Senator DANIEL. Did you give him some information?
2511
Senator DANIEL. Now, you understand that at that time he told

you that we would like to have you as a witness before this committee,
to come in and give us any information that you could that would be
of help to this committee. He asked you that, did he not?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I don't remember if he asked me that question
or not.
Senator DANIEL. You don't remember that he told you for whom
he was working? Did he tell you he was working for a Senate
committee?
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Yes, sir; I remember that.
Senator DANIEL. And that he would like to have you tell your story
to this committee as to what you knew about the narcotic business in
San Antonio?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Well, I don't think he asked me that question to
be here.
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I don't think I remember that lie told me that.
Senator DANIEL. You do remember you did tell him about what you
knew about narcotics here in San Antonio?

Senator DANIEL. I want you to know, to caution you, you are under
oath and you realize that if you do not give us a truthful answer that
you would be subject to punishment for perjury; do you understand
that?
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you understand fully what I have just said

to you?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I don't quite understand what you told me.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I will ask the interpreter to tell it to you
plainly. You see you took an oath a minute ago to tell the truth, nothing but the truth. Under the law of the land if you should come before the committee and not tell the truth and come before the com-
mittee and swear falsely, then you could be convicted and sent to the
penitentiary for telling a lie before this committee. Do you understand that?
Senator DANIEL. All I am doing is just telling you about that so

you will be careful with your answers and give us a full and true
statement or answer to any questions that are asked.
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Give me the interpreter to explain.
Senator DANIEL. All right, the interpreter will explain in Spanish.
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I understand now. [By the interpreter.]
Senator DANIEL. Do you understand now?
Senator DANIEL. I will remind the photographers not to take a
picture of the man doing the interpreting. I know that those that
were here this morning will remember but I want to remind the others.
All right, now with that caution, with that warning I want to ask
you again whether or not you were ever in any kind of heroin business
or any business with Simon Rodriguez?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes, I do. I been in business with him.
Senator DANIEL. What kind of business were you in with him?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Just tell us about it. Were you partners?
W2*512
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. In the sale of heroin?
Mr. HERNANDEZ.

Mr. HERNANDEZ. Here in San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you operate your business?

Mr. HERNANDEZ. On Guadalupe Street.
Senator DANIEL. Did you have a house or a bar or what?

Mr. HERNANDEZ. No, we just had the bar.
Senator DANIEL. Had a bar?

Mr.
HERNANDEZ.
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. What is the iiame of the bar?

Mr. HERNANDEZ. Used to call it Simon's Place.
Senator DANIEL. Simon's Place?
Mr.
HERNANDEZ.
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Is that bar still operating here in San Antonio?

Mr. HERNANDEZ. I think so in a different n'vme.
Senator DANIEL. A different name?
Senator BUTLER. Under what name?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I don't know.

Senator DANIEL. How long were you and Simon Rodriguez partners in the heroin business here in San Antonio?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. About 3 or 4 months.
Senator DANIEL. And what year?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I think it was 1952.
Senator DANIEL. Was it just before you were arrested?
Senator DANIEL. On the charge on which you now stand convicted?
Senator DANIEL. Were you tried and convicted?

Senator DANIEL. Of the sale of heroin?
Senator DANIEL. Was Simon Rodriguez tried?

Senator DANIEL. Is that the same Simon Rodriguez you saw in the
courtroom this morning?
Senator DANIEL. Where did you all get your heroin?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. From Nuevo Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. From whom in Nuevo Laredo?

Mr. HERNANDEZ. From Pancho.
Senator DANIEL. Pancho Trevino?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Trevino; yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Did you know Pancho Trevino's brother?
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Yes, sir.
What was his name?

Henrique.
Enrique?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever go to Mexico to get the heroin?

111lll
lll
llll
ll
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2513
Senator DANIEL. Just tell the committee in your own words,

Roberto, how would you go down to get the heroin? Did you know
before you left San Antonio who to go to see in Nuevo Laredo?
MAr. HERNANDEZ. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right, how did you do it?
Mr. HERNANDEZ.,.Vell, I just went up there and asked somebody,
you know, have dope to sell and I found him.
Senator DANIEL.
You
found, you ended up at Pancho Trevino's
1)lace?
Mr.
HERNANDEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
bring it back across

Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr.
HERNANDEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Yes, sir.
At office, house, hotel, or where?
His house.
His house. And did you buy the heroin there and
the river yourself?
No, sir.
How did you arrange to get it delivered?
To send it.
What?
They sent it over here.
With whom did you deal'? Pancho, himself?
Yes, sir.
And where was the heroin delivered to you?
Delivered to, just anywhere here in town.
Where, in San Antonio?
Yes, sir.
Did you see the runner who would bring it across
the border?

Senator DANIEL. Where did you see him the first time?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I didn't see him.
Senator DANIEL. The one who brought the heroin, to whom would
he deliver it?
They deliver to me but I didn't see him.
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't see him?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. How did he deliver it to you without him seeing
you?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Well, he left in such a place, such a place, and
I went and picked it up.
Senator DANIEL. Tell us just exactly how that happened, the first
time you ever went to Mexico and got heroin. Do you remember what
you paid for it?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Twenty dollars a gram.
Senator DANIEL. What did it sell for here in San Antonio?

Mr. HERNANDEZ. Well, about 25.
Senator DANIEL. Did you have to pay extra to get the messenger
to bring the heroin back across the border?
Senator DANIEL. Did that include delivery?
Senator DANILEL. How much did you buy the first time?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Oh, I think, I don't remember exactly, about $300.
Senator DANIEL. All right, where did you tell them to deliver it I
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I didn't tell them, he told me.
2514
Senator DANIEL. Where did he tell you he would deliver it the first
time you ever got any?
Mr. HERNANDEZ (By the interpreter). He told me that he would
leave, that he would leave it at the corner near a cemetery.
Senator DANIEL. And what place at the corner?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Guadalupe and Stephenson Road.
Senator DANIEL. In some container or somewhere, where were you

to pick it up? This is several hundred dollars' worth of dope.
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Wrapped up in some rubbers.
Senator DANIEL. Was it hidden there?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. It was in the weeds at the corner.
Senator DANIEL. Did you find it there all right?

Senator DANIEL. Who went with you to get it?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Nobody.
Senator DANIEL. Who put up part of the money you paid for it?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Nobody.
Senator DANIEL. Did Simon have any interest in that first trip that
you made across to Mexico?
Senator DANIEL. Wlhen did he give you his part of the money?
Mr. H:ERNANDEZ. Well, before I went over there and got it.
Senator DANIEL. How much did Simon give you for that first trip
across the border?
Mr. HEIRNANDEZ. Half.
Senator DANT-L. Half of what you paid for the heroin? Then did
yoi giv him half of the heroin ?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. And then who did you get to sell this heroin for
you?
Mr. IERNANrDEZ. Well, I got Jlan Contreras.
Senator DANIEL. Who testified here before lunch?
Mr. HEiRANDEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIrL. 1W0ho were some of the other selle's that were
pushing heroin for you?
Mr. HR1NANDEZ. Nobody else.
Senator DANIEL. Nobody else for you?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Nobody else.
What part of this business did Simon handle?

Senator DANIEL. What did Simon do in this partnership you had
with him, he put up half the money, did he do any of the work? Did
he ever ao to Mexico to get the heroin like you did ?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. HE iRNAN.DEZ.
I don't know. I don't remember.

Well, think well about it. Did you make all the
Senator DANIEL.
trips to Mexico during the 3 or 4 months you all were selling?
Mr. H'F-RNVANQDEZ. I make 3 or 4 trips myself.
Senator DANIEL. Did he give you part of the money each time to pay
for the heroin?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes.
Senator DAN EL. One-half of the money?
Mr.
HERNANDEZ.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
HERINANDEZ.
Yes.
Did you give him one-half of the profits?

I didn't give him no profit, I give him half.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
TRAFFIC
2515
Half of the heroin ?

Yes. Sir.
Senator DANIEL. Were you all partners in purchasing the heroin

or were you also partners in slling?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I don't know whether he sold it or not.
Senator DANIEL. Well, all you are testifying about is that you were
partners in buying the heroin?
Senator DANIEL. Is that correct?
Senator DANIEL. And when you brought it back here you divided
half to him and half to you ?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes.
Senator DANTEL. And then what did YouI do with your half of the
heroin ?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Sold it.
Senator DANIEL. Do voU know what he did with his half'?
Mr. HE RNANDEZ. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever seen him take any heroin himself,
inject heroin in his arm or otherwise?
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever used heroin?
Senator DANIEL. I mean for your personal use?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see Simon sell any heroin?
Senator DANIEL. But he always gave you his half of the money for
the heroin that you went to Mexico to buy?
Senator DANIEL. Tell us about the last trip you made to Mexico to
buy heroin, from whom did you buy that?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I bought it from a fellow in Monterrey.
Senator DANIEL. What was his name?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I can't think of his name.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know his nickname or anything about
him?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. No. sir. His name is Lujan, Santos Lujan.
Senator DANIEL. L-u-j-a-n? Is that correct?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Lujan, Santos the first name.
Senator DANIEL. How much did you buy from him on that trip?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Oh, about $300, I think.
Senator DANIEL. Was it cheaper than you bought from Pancho
Trevino?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. No, the same.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you had to pass right through Laredo to go
to Monterrey, didn't you?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Why didn't you buy from Pancho Trevino in
Laredo ?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Because they say they didn't have any at that time.
Senator DANIEL. They had none at that time. Did they tell you
where you could get it in Monterrey?
2516
Senator DANIEL. Did it take you very long to find out where to bny
in Monterrey?
Senator DANIEL. How long?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Same day.
Senator DANIEL. Did you bring it back across the border yourself?
Mr.
HERNIANDEZ.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have heroin delivered to you from
Monterrey to San Antonio?
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
No, sir.
Senator
To Monterrey?
DANIEL.
That is for the last time.
What?
That is the first and last time I went up there.
Senator DANIEL. Were all your deliveries from Nuevo Laredo made
by other people or did you ever bring any back across the river.
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
No, sir, somebody delivered for me.
Somebody would deliver.

ever caught, ever arrested that you know of ?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. No,
Was tbat somebody
sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know the name of the man who delivered
it, over here?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear his name?
Senator DANIEl5 . Where did he leave the last batch of heroin for you
here in San Antonio?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Same place.
Senator DANIEL. Same hiding place?
Senator DANIEL. You say that was in some rubber tires?

Mr. HERNANDEZ. Rubber bands.
Senator DANIEL. Rubber what'.
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Rubber what?
Senator DANIEL. In some rubber bands. Just exactly how was it
hidden. what type of rubber bands?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. (by the interpreter). It is in a finger stall and
then tied with a rubber band, regular elastic rubber band that we use.
Senator DANIEL. Did Simon give you $150 of the money you spent
down in Monterrey?
Mr.
HERNANDEZ.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. For heroin?
Mr. HERNANDD.EZ. Yes. sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you give him half of that heroin after von
brought it back to San Antonio?

Senator DANIEL. About how much heroin were you selling a day
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Well, pretty hard to say, I can't remember that.
Senator DANIEL. Well, when was the last that you sold any heroin
here?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Just before I got caught.
Senator DANIEL. And you were caught this last time when-in 1952?
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2517
Senator DANIEL. Since the 3d of March, you have been out, 15th of
March 1952-now you have been on parole since December 18, 1953;
liaven't you?
Senator DANIEL. What have you been doing since then?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Working.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
HERNANDEZ.
What type of work?

Well, carpenter, painter, and cutting lawns, such
things like that, labor, different things, working in a filling station.

Senator DANIEL. Have you been staying out of the heroin business
since then?
Senator DANIEL. Did you see Simon after you got out of prison, talk
to him any?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Well, I seen him twice.
Senator DANIEL. Did he ask you if you wanted to go back into selling dope?
Senator DANIEL. Didn't you tell him if he wanted to go ahead selling
that was all right but you were not going to sell any more dope?
Senator DANIEL. Did you tell Mr. Speer, the man sitting here on
my left, that you told Simon after he contacted you that you were
through with dope, that if he wanted to go ahead selling that was
all right but that you were not going to sell any more dope?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I might tell him, I don't remember.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, did you tell him or not?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Well, I just don't remember.

Senator DANIEL. You might have told him?
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Might have been.
Was that true or not?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Might have been.

Senator DANIEL. No; I mean, was it true now that you told that to
Simon?
Mr.
HERNANDEZ.
Well, I can't remember if I told Mr. Speer I don't
know.
Senator DANIEL. After you got back here in San Antonio out of
jail, you did see Simon?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I seen twice.
Senator DANIEL. What did you all talk about?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Oh, just talking, just talking, that's all. I don't
talk about no dope.
Senator DANIEL. Did he talk to you about going back to Mexico for
some more heroin?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Well, I don't remember that, if he told me that
or not.
Senator DANIEL. You understand, I want to just admonish you
again that all we ask you to do is tell this committee the truth?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I'm telling the truth, I can't remember, I can't remember everything I told him that night.
Senator DANIEL. I appreciate your telling us what you have already, you understand that?
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Yes, sir.
2518
Senator DANIML. You don't have any recollection of talking with

him about the dope business after you got out of prison in 1953?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Who?
Senator DANIEL. Simon Rodriguez?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. Speak out.
Mr. HERNANDEZ (by the interpreter). I don't remember.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, on one occasion didn't you and Rod-
riguez, you and Simon go to Mexico together to buy dope, alid didn't
they go to a cousin of Simon in Monterrey?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. That's right, I remember that one time.
Senator DANIEL. What were you all over there in Monterrey for?
(by the interpreter). I went the time that I said

before the first and only time when I purchased $300 of heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Was Simon with you on that trip?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. He was with me on that trip.
Senator DANIEL. Did you all divide the heroin over in Mexico or
did you divide it after you came back across the border?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I divided it here.
Senator DANIEL. Did Simon carry any of the heroin with him back
across the river?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. No; we come together.
Senator DANIEL. But you had the heroin on you?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I dont have it on me, he dont either, but I had it
in the car.
Senator DANIEL. You had it hidden in the car?
Mr. ITERNANDEZ
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Yes.

Mr. HERNANDEZ. Just in the car, on one side of the seat.
Senator DANIEL. Whose car was it?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Mine.
Senator DANIEL. Your car?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Now, have you ever taken any marihuana to
Chicago?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Not me.
Senator DANIEL. I am talking now about marihuana.
Mr. HERNAXDEZ. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever deal in marihuana?
Senator DAnEL. Did you ever buy any?
Mr. IIERNANDEZ. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever know of Simon dealing in marihuana?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Well, I hear, they say deal with some marihuana,
but I didn't see it.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't see him. Did you ever know of him
making a trip to Chicago?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I think so. No; I didn't see it. I hear it, went to
Chicago once.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear of marihuana or heroin being
sent to Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, or Temple?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes; I think so, I hear it.
Senator DANIEL. You have?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2519
Senator DANIEL. Who did you hear of sending it up there?

Mr. HERNANDEZ. Well, Simon and another fellow was taking. ,m
there.
Senator
DANIEL. Who?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Simon and some other guy.
Senator DANIEL. Simon and some other guy was taking it up where 2
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Well, to Chicago and Dallas and Houston and some
of those other places.
Senator
DANIEL.
Fort Worth?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. Temple?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did you hear them talk about their trip?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. No, sir; not to him.
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Well yes; he told me once he was going to deliver,
he would deliver or send some marihuana to Chicago.
Senator
DANIEL.
This is Simon told you that?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes, yes; one of those, I think one of those times,
two times I met him. I was working in the filling station. That is
when I told him he can do anything he wants but I am free forever.
Senator DANIEL. Say that a little louder and a little plainer, you
didn't remember telling Mr. Speer that?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes, that's right.
Senator DANIEL. You were working at the filling station?

Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. When you were trying to stay off the dope, he came
and asked you to get back into business?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. No; he didn't ask me.

Senator DANIEL. What did he ask you to do?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. He didn't ask me nothing. He just said, you
know, they don't have no money to help me, he knew I was broke but
he said when deliver marihuana to Chicago, soon as that money
come back he was going to help me out with some money.
Senator DANIEL. And what did you tell him about the dope business?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. I told him I don't have nothing to do with it, no
more dope.
Senator DANIEL. Did you tell hin he could do whatever he wanted
to, you weren't going to fool with dope any more?
Mr.
HERNANDEZ.
That's right.
Senator BuTLER. Did Simon ever tell you who was pushing the
half of the dope he got from you?
Senator BUTLER. You never talked to him about what he did with
his?
Senator BvrLER. You don't know what he did with his?
But you do know that from time to time lie would

take additional dope from you?
Senator
BUTLER.

Mr. GASQuE. Are you out of the narcotics racket completely now?
2520
Mr. GASQUE. Do you know of any traffickers or any peddlers who

are now on the streets of San Antonio?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Well, no.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you not know of any or do you decline to tell this
committee of any?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Well, I don't think, I don't want to involve in
that matter myself.
Senator DANIEL. There is some rumor that has come up here to
this desk since we had the witness on earlier this morning, that someone in this room, and I am not refering to Simon Rodriguez, but
that others in this room are making different statements about those
that come here and tell the truth, that they are not going to be treated
right, something is going to happen to them by those persons that
they are talking about. I just want to say for the record that this
committee appreciates the fact that some of these people will come in
here and tell the truth about the dope racket, especially those that
want to get out of it, help lick it, and get rid of it, I want to say as
far as this committee and law enforcement, city, State, and Federal
are concerned, those we have talked with during the recess, that they
had better not let anything ever happen to any witness that appears
before this committee-threats or otherwise.
Do you have something to ask?
Mr. SPEER. Do you know a man called Black Angel in Laredo?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Black Angel-no, I don't know.
Mr. SPEER. Angel Puerto?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. No; I don't.

Mr. SPEER. You say you bought the heroin for $20 a gram and sold
it for $25?

it in the same conMr. SPEER. Did you sell it, Roberto, did you sell
it?
dition that you bought it or did you mix something else with out
more
That would only be $5 a gram difference. Did you make
of it?
Mr.
HERNANDEZ.
Yes, I make more of it, sometimes; sometimes
don't, too weak.

Mr. SPER. You sell in capsules?
Mr.
Mr.
HERNANDEZ. Capsules.
SPEER. You sell it in capsules?
Mr.
IERNANDEZ.
Yes.
Mr.
HERNANDEZ.
Well, I put a half gram in each capsule, $12.50.
Mr. SPER. How much did you sell it for a capsule?
Mr. SPEER. $7.50 a capsule?

Mr. HERNANDEZ.
$12.50.
Mr. SPEER. $12.50?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes; that is a 1 gram.
would
Mr. SPEER. One gram. But how much, how may capsules
you make out of a gram?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Two of them.
Mr. SPEER. Oh, you would divide it?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes.
you mean. You have
Mr. SPEER. I don't exactly understand what
a gram that you bought for $20?
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Mr. SPEER.
That's right. Make two parts.
Make two parts?
11111
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
2521
TRAFFIC
Yes.
Mr. SPEER. Divide into half?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes.
Mr. SPEEI. And sell each half, but you would mix something else
z-o you would have maybe four?
[r. HEHNANDEZ. No, not quite.
AlJr. SPEER. Not quite four ?
Mr. I-ERXANE'Z. Not quite three, just a little.
Mr. SPEER. Now on occasion when this heroin was delivered to you
by the man from Mexico, by the peddler from Mexico, did you turn
it. all over to Simon Rodriguez?
Mr. HE1NANIEz. No; I gave him half.
Mr.I HERNANi)EZ.
Ml. SpiER. You gave him half?

Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes.
Mr. S PEE.u. He had to account to you for some money, right?
Ile
would tell you occasionally about his business, something about his
business, what did he tell you?
Mr. IEIERTNANDEZ. He wouldn't say nothing to me.
Mr. SPEER. Did he tell you occasionally someone beat him out of
part.of hiis aud he couldint pay you the money?
Mfr.
HERNANDEZ.
Yes.
Mr. SPEER. Ile told you that, didn't he? What did he mean by
tim t ?
Mr. HERNANDE Z (by the interpreter). He meant that I should
replace or make good the amount of heroin that he got beat out of.
Mr. SPEER. Well, he said he wouldn't pay you the money because
he uot beat out of it, right?
Mr. HERN ANDEZ. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. Now, he had already paid you half of it?
Mr. IHERNANDEZ.
Yes.
Mr. SPEER. When you bought it, so why would he have to pay you
again? lie was paying you part of the profit, wasn't he? was he
paying you part of the profit he made?
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
No.
Mr. SPEER. He simply wanted you to replace whatever heroin he

got beat out of?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes.

Mr. SPEER. Do you think he really got beat out of the heroin?
Mr. SPEER. You don't know?

Mr. HERNA DEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. Who did he tell you beat him out of part of the
heroin, did he think you did it?
Mr. HERNADEZ. Well, he didn't say.
Senator DANIEL. You don't know. Did you ever deliver all the
heroin on any of these trips to Simon?
Mr. HTERNANDEZ. I think once.
Senator DANIEL. Once you delivered it all to him?
Mr. IHERNANDEZ. Yes.
Senator
DANwiL.
Was that half yours?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes.

Senator DANrEL. Well, who sold that heroin?
of the sales of that heroin?
Did he take care
2522
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes, that is one time he told me he was, somebody
beat him out of the dope, you know.

Senator DANIEL. Who did he say beat him out of it?
Mr. IENANDEZ. He didn't say.
Senator DANIEL. Well, he took all the heroin that time?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And sold all of it. When he went to give you
half of the money from the sales he didn't give you the full half.?
Mr. IIERNANDEZ. No, sir.
Senator DANxIEl. That is the way it happened?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Yes. sir.
Senator DANIEL. You know
that Simon at least sold that heroin
that you gave him, don't you?

Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Senator
did he?
DA-IEL.
Vell, might be.
He gave you money for your part of the sale,
No, he didn't give me half. He didn't give me my

half. He told me somebody beat him out of the heroin, that he don't
have much money left.
Senator DANIEL. Beat him out of all of it or part of it?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Part of it.
DANIEL. Did lie give you your part of the profit?
Senator
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
No, not the profit. They don't (ive me the money
off the profit, just give me about, oh, I think give me 75 or some dollars
back.
Senator DANIEL. After he had sold the heroin?
Mr. HERNANDEZ.
Mr.
HERNANDEZ.
Yes.
Is that right ?
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. HER-ANDEZ. Yes. sir.
Senator DAN.NIEL. Any further questions?
You were making pretty good money at this, weren't you?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Not much.
Senator DANIEL. Well, how much did you pay for attorney's fees,
lawyer's fees?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. Well, I had that money when I had the saloon.
Senator DANIEL. You had a saloon?

Mr. HERNANDEZ. I had a saloon from 3 or 4 years or 5 years and my
wife was keeping that money because everything I make I give to
my wife.
Senator BUTLER. That money didn't come from the sale of heroin?
Senator DANIEL. You did pay your lawyer $3,000?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have to pay any Mexican officials any
money for letting you bring that dope back?
Mr. HERNANDEZ. No.
Senator DAN.WIEL. You never did pay any money to any officials at
all?
Senator DANIEL. All right, that's all. You may stand aside. Thank
you very much.
Simon Rodriguez.
Mr. GARCIA. I am the attorney representing Mr. Rodriguez. M. W.
Garcia.
I I I I
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2523
Senator DANIEL. M. W. Garcia. All right, just a moment. Now,

you cannot use that picture if that is of the interpreter. All you
cameramen, all who came in after we told you about it or after the
noon recess, the interpreter sitting here-his picture is not to be used
and cannot be used.
You can move on over, conusel, aive us your name.
Mr. GARCIA. M. W. are the initials; Garcia, G-a-r-c-i-a.
Senator DANIEL. You may be seated right there.
(Mr. Simon Rodriguez was duly sworn by Senator I)aiiiel.)
Senator DANIEL. You may be seated.
Mr. Counsel, I am sure you are familiar with the rules of our coinnlittees. Your client may turn to you for advice at any time or consult
with you.
Mr. GARCIA. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Of course you will not interrupt him. It is up to
him when he wants advice or not.
Mr. GARCIA. I would like to call the committee's attention, probably
he will need an interpreter.
Senator DANIEL. If he does we will ask the interpreter to come
back to the side there.
Mr.'GARCIA. However, Mr. Daniel, I would like to voice my objec-
tion to the use of Mr. Hobson as an interperter in view of his position.

Senator DANIEL. All right, can you interpret?
Senator DAIEL. For the committee?

Senator DANIEL. Well, you may act as interpreter. Just a moment,
let me see if we should do that. Well, that is satisfactory with the
committee for you to interpret for the witness but you speak some
English, do you not?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Just a little.
Senator DANIEL. We do want you to speak in English as much as
possible.
State your name.
TESTIMONY OF SIMON RODRIGUEZ
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Simon Rodriguez.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. 611 Southwest 25th Street.
Senator DANIEL. Did you at one time run a place called Simon's
Place?
Senator DANIEL. Where was that located?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. 1802 Guadalupe.

Senator DANIEL. Did you own that place?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Do you still own it?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. When did you sell it?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, I rent it.
Senator DANIEL. When did you quit the business?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In September 1953.
71515-56--pt. 7-12
25324
Senator DANIEL. And what type of business did you run there?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. What type, now?
Senator DANIEL. What kind of business did you have at this pla'e?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Oh,
beer, saloon.
Senator
DANIEL. Did you ever sell heroin there?

Senator DAN IEL. Have you ever sold any heroin
anywhere in San
Antonio?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Mr. GARCIA. At this time I am instructing my client to refuse to
answer on the grounds it may incriminate.
Senator DANIEL. I said any time he wishes to consultMr. GARCIA. May I instruct?
Senator DANIEL. No, sir; you may not instruct or nudge him.
Mr. GARCIA. May I instruct him he has that right?
Senator DANIEL. As to his rights you may instruct him, as to what
his rights are.

Now, you answered that last question that you had never sold any
heroin anywhere in San Antonio. Is that a true and correct answer.
Mr. RODRiGuEZ. No, sir.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. That is not a correct answer?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don't understand what he said.
Senator DANIEL. Well, the question that I had asked you a moment
agoMr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Was whether or not you had ever sold any heroin
in San Antonio and you answered that you had not.
M1r. GARCIA. He wants me to interpret, Mr. Daniel.
Mr. GARCIA. He says that is true.
Senator DANIEL. Is that true?
Mr. GARCIA. That is true.
Senator DANIEL. Now. I want to give you the same warning I am
sure your attorney has. I want to warn you again so our record will
show it, you understand if you do not give a truthful answer to a
question from this committee that it is possible that you could be
charged with perjury and convicted for failing to give truthful answers to the questions. Do you understand that?
Mr. GARCIA. He understands that. May I again advise him of his
rights?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. In view of that I am asking you again whether or
not you gave a truthful answer when you said that you had never sold
heroin to anyone in San Antonio?
Mr.
RODRIGUEZ.
No.
Mr. GARCIA. I am advising my client to answer that he refuses to

answer on the grounds it may tend to incriminate him.
Senator DANIEL. You can advise him of his rights but don't advise
him what he should do. When he wants to exercise the right that is
'll right. You have told him what iecan do. You have explained it
to him and he understands it.
2525
Here is the difficulty, Mr. Daniel, in this matter that

the interpretation from English to Spanish of his constitutional right,
even this man doesn't know how to state it even in Spanish. Therefore, having the right to merely refuse to testify, that will be construed thathe has refused to testify under the fifth amendment.
Mr.
GARCIA.
Senator DANIEL. If he wishes to refuse to answer a question on ac-
count of'the fear that it might incriminate him, to stand on his right
under the fifth amendment, it should be stated but it can be stated
once and you do not need to state it over again every time in the same
complete full language. But he has certainly waived any right to
claim any right. He answered the question that he never sold heroin
in San Antonio, and I will ask you after your attorney has counseled
with you and after the admonition from the Chair, if you still want
to say that this is a truthful answer, that you never sold any heroin
to anyone in San Antonio?
Mr. GARCIA. His anwser is: No, I have not sold to anyone.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever bought any from anyone in San
Antonio?
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever bought heroin from anyone in
Mexico?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever go to Mexico to buy heroin with a
man named Roberto Hernandez?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ.
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You heard Roberto Hernandez testify here, did

you not, today?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did you hear him tell about you all going to
Monterrey once?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes; I went one time. I didn't buy nothing.
Senator DANIEL. Did you go with him to Monterrey?

Mr. RODRIOUEZ. Yes, I went to Monterrey one time. I didn't buy
nothing.
Senator DANIEL. What did you go with him to Monterrey for?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. What?
Senator DANIEL. What
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I went
did you go to Monterrey with him for?

to Monterrey to see some members of the
family. I have gone on several occasions to see members of the family.
Senator DANIEL. Do you say you did not buy any heroin in
Monterrey?
Senator DANIEL. On any occasion?
Senator BuTLER. Do you also say you contributed no money to the
purchase of heroin on the trip to Monterrey?

Mr. GARCIA. I am asking whether he fully understands the questions being asked by the committee.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.
Senator BrTLER. That is, you think a truthful answer to the question that I have asked you would tend to incriminate you?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I refuse to testify.
2526
Senator DANIEL. NOW, Mr. Counsel, the colmnittee is just not going
to let you advise him "no contesto" is that what you call it?
Mr. GARCIA. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator DANIEL. What does that mean

Mr. GARCI,\. I ref use to answer.
Senator DANIEL. Well, don't tell him that.
Mi. G.lCIA. May I advise him of his right ?
Senator D.NT 1.L.You may the third time advise him of his rights
under the Constitution provided you will not put "no contesto," whatever you say, in his mouth.
Mr.
Yes, sir; he fully understands it now, Mr. Daniel.

Senator DANIEL. All right, what were you in Monterrey for?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I took a trip to visit members of the family and too,
GARCIA.
for pleasure.
Senator DANIEL. Why did you take Roberto Hernandez with you ?
Mr.RODRIGUEZ. We both went for pleasure.
Senator
DANIEL.
Were you in any business dealings with Roberto
Hernandez at that time?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been associated with Roberto Hernandez in any type of business or dealings?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We have been friends for some time in our jobs
and on some occasions he went to the bar and played the drums.
Senator
DANIEL.
Is that the only business dealings you ever had
with Roberto Hernandez?
Senator
Did you ever give Roberto Hernandez any money
DANIEL.
with which to buy heroin for you?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Senator
Did Roberto Hernandez ever give you any heroin?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever give any heroin to any person to
DANIEL.
sell for you?

Mr.
RODRIGUEZ.
Senator
No.
Did you ever give Roberto Hernandez money with
BUTLER.
which to buy heroin .

Mr. RODRIGUEZ.
No.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Juan Contreras?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I know a lot of people, I don't know who you are
referring to.
Senator
DANIEL.
Juan Contreras, is he here in the courtroom?
Well, you saw him here testifying?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Are you referring to the one that was here?
Senator
DANIEL. That
is correct. Here is his picture, the one who
identified you in the courtroom this morning.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I know him by sight only.
Senator
DANIEL. Did
you ever have any type of business dealings
with Juan Contreras?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever sell Juan Contreras any heroin?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever give Juan Contreras any heroin?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Pancho Trevino in Nuevo Laredo?
2527
Mr.
RODRIGUEZ. NO.
Senator DANIEL. Did
you ever hear of such a man?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Pancho Trevino?
Senator DANIEL. Pancho Trevino.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. Have you recently been out to Odessa and Big
Spring, Tex.?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ.
'When?
About a month ago.
A month or a month and
a half.
Senator DANIEL. What did you go to Odessa and Big Spring for?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I went to see sonic friends of mine and also a. boy
who was going to be tried in Midland.
Senator DANIEL. Did you take any marihuana with you to Big
Spring or Odessa?
Senator DANIEL. Did you take any heroine with you to Big Spring
or Odessa?
Senator DANIEL. Iave you ever been to Chicago?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever send any marihuana to Chicago?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever go to Dallas?
Senator DANIEL. Were you ever in Temple?
Senator DANIEL. Fort Worth?
Mr.
RODRIGUEZ.
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Were you ever in Houston?

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever send any marihuana or heroin to
Chicago? Mr. Counsel, translate the question so he will understand.
Did you ever send, ship, send by anyone or by any means any marihuana or heroin to Chicago?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I have never sent anyone.
Senator DANIEL. Did you tell Roberto Hernandez that you were
sending some marihuana to Chicago?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever send any marihuana or heroin to
Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, or Temple?
Senator DANIEL. Iave you ever seen any marihuana?
Senator DANIEL. You never saw marihuana cigarettes?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. Never had any marihuana in your possession?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see anybody smoke marihuana?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see any heroin?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, sir. No.
Senator DANIEL. Translate for him, please, sir.
2528
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have any heroin? Do you know what
heroin is?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know what itarcotics or dope or stuff are?
Senator DANIEL. Now, what are the Spanish names for dope? You
have heard something about dope, haven't you?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don't know.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever heard the word "marihuana" used
before?
Mr. RomiIGUEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. You never have heard the word used before?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever heard the word "weed" used before?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Weed, I have heard it used all my life. I was
born on the ranch. They don't speak of anything else other than
weeds.
Senator DANIEL. You never have heard of anyone smoking weeds?
Senator D.\NIEL. Mr. Counsel, what is the Spanish word for
marihuana, it is a Spanish word?
Mr. GARCIA. Marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. Have you heard that word pronounced that way?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No. I have heard it used but I don't know what
it is.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I asked you that question a minute ago.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. What, regards what?
Senator DANI EL. I asked you the question, whether or not you ever
heard about marihuana, or heard the word used?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I have never seen anyone smoke marihuana. I
have heard the word used before but I have never seen it. I don't
know what it looks like.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever seen any heroin?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Senator DANIL. What is the Spanish word for heroin ?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Hereoina. I don't know the spelling of it.
Mr. GARCIA. H-e-r-e-o-i-n-a.

Mr. GASQUE. Have you ever heard of the word hereoina?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ.
No.
Mr. GASQUE. Have you ever heard in referring to heroin the word
tecata?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Mr. GASQUE. Or carga, c-a-r-g-a, marihuana?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Mr. GASQUE. You are testifying under oath before this committee
that you never heard these names used?
Mr. RoDPIGuEZ. If I have heard them I haven't paid any attention
to them because I don't get involved in that.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you have any knowledge of what narcotics are!
Mr. RoDR oGEz. No.
2529
Mr. GAsQuE. You have no knowledge of what narcotics are?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. NO.
Mr. GAsQuE. Have you ever had in your possession any marihuana
or any heroin?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.

Mr. GASQUE. Do you know the color of heroin?
Mr. RODPGUEZ. No. No, sir, I don't know what it is.
Senator DANIEL. When you all came back across the border from
Monterrey whose car were you riding in?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Whose car?
Senator DANIEL. Yes, whose car?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Roberto's car.
Senator DANIEL. Roberto's car? You heard him testify here you
had some heroin there in the seat; didn't you?
Mr.
RoDRmGUEZ.
No, sir; I don't know nothing about it.
Senator DANIEL. I say, you were sitting out there, did you hear
Roberto testify that you had some heroin in that car that you brought
back across the border?
Mr. GACIA. He says: I didn't understand him too well because
I don't understand too much English. I don't know if he had anything with him when he caiue across the border.
Senator DANIEL. And Robert never handed you any heroin at any
time?

Senator DANIEL. You never gave any money for it?
Senator DANIEL. Has your income for the last 5 years been entirely
based on your Simon's Place and the work that you have done yourself ?
Mr. RODRIOUEZ. I had Simon's Place up until 1953. Since that time
it has been rented and I used some of the money I have saved to exist
up to this time.
Senator DANIEL. Have you been in any other kind of business since
then?
Mr. RODRIGuEz. No, just that bar.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you own a residence?
Mr. RODRIGu-EZ. Yes.
Mr. GASQUUE. What is the value of the residence?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Approximately $5,000.
Mr. GASQUrE. What are the taxes on the residence he has?
Mr. RODRmGuEZ. From $48 to $50 a year.

Mr. GASQuE. Do you own any business establishment or building?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am payIng
Mr. GASQUE. What is the value
Mr.
RoDmuGEz.
on 1802 Guadalupe.
of that?
It was sold to me for $7,500. I paid $2,000 down
in 1952.
Mr. G. ,nrr. Wherp are you getting the money to make the payments on that property?
Mr.ROw mTrUZ. I had a little money and the rent that I collect on
the place, I am making the payments with that.
fr. GAsor.. Do vou hove a bank ,account?
Mr. ROnT(rTr-7. No. Rir.
M'r. GASqr-rE. Do yo' keep your money in a strong box?
2530
I had some nioney put away at home with my wife.

Mr. GASQ 'E. Do you have any securities?
Mr. GARCIA. I don't know the interpretation of that, Mr. Counsel.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you own stock in a corporation or business?
Mr. RODInau1EZ. No, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Are you an American citizen?
Mr. R)DRIGUEZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. G.ASQUE. Did you file an income tax report last year?
Mr. RoDizm ;z. No.
Mr. GASQUE. You did not file last year?
Mr. ItODRIGUEZ. I got about-1953 is all.
Mr. G.sQu. You have not filed a tax report since 1953?
Mr. RODRIGUFZ. Yes, I filed in 19=3, yes.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you file prior to 1953?
Mr. GARCIA. To expedite matters, Mr. Counsel, he was requested to
bring copies of his income tax returns from 1951 through 1954, which
I have here in my possession.
Senator DANIEL. Will you pass those up. please, sir?
Mr. GARCIA. Yes, sir; I surely will.
Mr. GASQUE. Could you tell us the reason you did not file an income
tax statement in 1954, for the year 1954?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I didn't work and in view of that I didn't think it
was necessary to file an income tax return under the law.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you have any income?
Mr. RODRIc.UEZ. Just the rents, the rent from this place of business.
AIr. GASQUE. And how much would that amount to in a year?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The rent, a hundred dollars a month.
Mr. GASQUE. That is $1,200 a year?
Mr.
RODRIGUEZ.
Mr. RODRIGTITZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Are you married?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Is your wife living?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Does either one of you have any further income
over $1,200?
Mr.
GASQUE.
For that year 1954.

Senator BUTLER. Are you living with your wife?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.

Senator BUTLER. And you have been since 1951?
Mr. IRODRIGUEZ. Since 1938 when I got married.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you own an automobile at the present time?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Mr. GARCIA. In order to expedite, we have the papers on that, too.
Mr. GASQUE. What type of automobile?
Mr. GARCIA. For the record, it is a 1954 Chevrolet automobile. Will
the committee (are to see the
Mr. GASQUE. Is it paid for?
Mr. GARCIA. The contract which he signed on this automobile?
Senator DANIEL. That would be all right, if you will pass it up.
Mr. GASQUE. Is the automobile paid for?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, I owe approximately $700 on it.

Mr. GASQUE. Are you making payments on that currently?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes; on that, yes.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. GASQUE. No.
Senator DANIEL.
Senator BUTLER.
Mr. GASQUE. Up
TRAFFIC
2531
Any further questions, Mr. Counsel?

Senator Butler?
No.
to this time, in 1955, what has been approximately
your income?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am not working. I had to borrow a thousand
dollars from Garza Finance to help out the family. The family is
now out in west Texas picking cotton.
Mr. GASQUE. Your family?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. My family is picking cotton out in west Texas.
Mr.
GASQUE. So,
would you like to restate your position that you
have had nothing to do with the drug traffic in San Antonio and across
the border into Mexico?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you understand that the prior witness testified
under oath that you and he had been engaged in the drug traffic?
Mr.
RODRIGUEZ.
No.
Mr. GASQUE. He does not understand that?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I understand what he said but he can say anything
that he wishes.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you deny what he said?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I deny it.
I have not done anything like that.
Senator DANIEL. I want to ask you if you were ever with Roberto
Hernandez when he made a sale of narcotic drugs, heroin, to any
person; did you ever see him make a sale of narcotic drugs to anyone?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. When I was with him I never did see him sell
anything.
Senator DANIEL. On March 4, 1952, at about 11 o'clock in the morning were you riding with Roberto Hernandez when a man came up
and asked for some stuff and gave Roberto Hernandez the money
for some heroin?
Mr. GARCIA. That was what date?
Senator DANIEL. March 4, 1952, 11 o'clock in the morning.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I
don't remember that.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don't remember that.
Senator DANIEL. Well, were you with him, in a car with him when
someone boughtMr. RODRIGUEZ. I never see anyone.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If he did do it I don't remember. He has many
friends who come up and talk to him, as I have many friends come
up and talk to me. Whether it occurred or not I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. I will ask you if on the 5th of March 1952 you
were in a car with Roberto Hernandez when two people purportedly
addicts bought some heroin from Hernandez?
Mr. GARCIA. What year was that?
Senator DANIEL. 1952, March 5.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don't know whether he did or whether he didn't
do it. On many, many occasions people came up and talked to him
whom I presumed were friends. What happened, I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Were you ever in the automobile at any time when
you saw Hernandez receive money?
2532
I don't know whether he ever received any money.

If anyone ever gave him any money it was on the sly, I didn't see it.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Leo V. Flores?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Leo V. Flores?
Senator DANIEL. Leo V. Flores, F-l-o-r-e-s. San Anitonio Police
Force? :
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The policeman?
Mr. RODRIOUEZ. Yes, I know him.
Mr. GASQUE. Mr. Counsel, will you
responding for your client?

confusing.
clearly indicate that yoi are

Sometimes it is a little difficult if not
Mr. GASQU:. Thank you.

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see Leo Flores pay any money to
Roberto Hernandez in your presence?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I saw him talking to hil Oil one occasion, but f
didn't see him give him any money.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know an Eliso Morales?

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see him pay Roberto Hernandez
some money in your presence?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.
Mr. COUNSEL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right, you may stand aside. You will stay
under subpena by the committee and in the room, in case we should
wish to recall you.
Mr. GARCIA. I would like to ask the committee if they have any
further use for the contract on the auomobile?

Senator DANIEL. We will look these over tonight and return these
papers to you tomorrow. Is that all right, Mr. Counsel?

Mr. GARCIA. Yes, sir; that will be fine.
Senator DANIEL. The committee will take a 2-minute recess.
(Short recess.)
Mr. Fleishman.
(Mr. Lawrence Fleishman was duly sworn by Senator I)aniel.)
Senator
DANIEL.
You may be seated, Mr. Fleishman.
TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE FLEISHMAN, SUPERVISING CUSTOMS

AGENT, 10TH CUSTOMS AGENCY DISTRICT
Senator DANIEL. Do you have a prepared statement?
Mr. FLEISHMTAN. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You may pass out the copies up here to the cominittee and to the press.
Will you state your name?
Mr. FLEISHN AN. Lawrence Fleishman.
Senator DANIEL. And what is your position?
Mr. FLEISHXAN. I am supervising customs agent. I have supervision over the 10th Customs Agency District which comprises the
States of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and a very small portion of
Louisiana.
Senator
DANIEL.
2533
You then are in charge of the customs' work in
a supervisory capacity for all of Texas and New Mexico border then?
Mr.
FLEISHMAN.
And Arizona.
That includes investigative and
enforcement. That is separate and distinct from the collectors' function.

Senator DANIEL. That is separate and distinct 'from the collectors?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And separate and distinct from the Bureau of
Narcotics work?
Senator DANIEL. In other words, your agency tries to intercept
smuggling of any type of goods not supposed to come into the country, that is one of your duties?
Senator DANIEL. All right, sir. Would you like to proceed with
your prepared statement or simply include it in the record?
Mr. FLEISHMIAN. I would like to have it included in the record if
I may.
Senator DANIEL. We will include the entire statement and all of
your exhibits in the record.
(The prepared statement anid exhibits presented by Mr. Fleishman
follow:)
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS,
El Paso, Tex., October 11, 1955.
United States Senator LIaci.E DANIEL,
Chairman, Sevate Judiciary Subcommittee on Narcotic8,
Senate Offee Building, Wa8hington, D. C.
DEA Smit: In response to your request that you be furnished with 20 copies
of any prepared statement or statistics for the record in connection with my
appearance before your committee, there is furnished herewith the required
number of copies.
This statement consists of the following:
1. A narrative statistical report for the fiscal years, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955,
and 1956 for the first 2 months (July and August), for all marihuana, opium
derivatives, and opium seized in that part of the State of Texas, which was
then included in this the 10th Customs Agency District.
It shows marihuana, opium derivatives, and opium by fiscal year, volume
seized, number of seizures and number of arrests.
2. An outline describing the facts and circumstance, concerning a number
of seizure and arrest cases developed and completed by customs agents along
the Mexico-Texas border from Brownsville to El Paso, Tex.
The above-listed statistical and descriptive data cover only results accomplished in this customs agency district in the State of Texas.
The 10th Customs Agency District prior to September 23, 1955, with headquarters at El Paso, Tex., comprised the States of Arizona, New Mexico, and all
of Texas with the exception of two customs collection districts in the eastern
and northeastern part of the State, i. e., No. 21 (Sabine) and No. 22 (Galveston).
The district was changed effective September 23, 1955, to include all of the
States of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and that part of the State of Louisiana
lying within the 21st Customs Collection District (Sabine). This includes also
Customs Collection Districts Nos. 28 (Laredo), 24 (El Paso), and 26 (Arizona),
with headquarters for the district remaining in El Paso.
The district as presently constituted, includes in addition to the headquarters
office, subordinate offices as follows: customs agent in charge, Brownsville Tex.,
which office has immediate supervision over the office at McAllen, Tex.; customs
agent in charge, Laredo, Tex., which office has immediate supervision over the
offices of the customs agents at San Antonio, Eagle Pass, and an office which is
now being opened at Del Rio, Tex.; customs agent in charge, El Paso, Tex., has
no immediate jurisdiction over any other office; customs agent in charge, Houston, Tex., which office will have immediate supervision over an office soon to
2534
be opened at Corpus Christi, Tex.; customs agent in charge, Nogales, Ariz.,

which office has immediate jurisdiction over customs agents' offices at Douglas,
Ajo, and Yuma, Ariz. It is planned to move the office of the customs agent in
charge to Tucson, Ariz., and leave a subordin ite office at Nogales, and to also
open an office at Phoenix, Ariz.
It is hoped that the information furnished w th this statement and the attachments hereto, together with such testimony I may be able to give, will be of
some assistance to you and your committee.
Very truly yours,
,AWRENCE FLEISCHMAN
S-upervising Custom Agent,

10th Customs Agency Disfriet.
Marihuanaand narcotic drUgs seized by customs in Texas
MARIHUANA
Number of
seizures
Volume
seized
Fiscal year
Number of
arrests
Pounds
1952 ----------------------------------------------------------
1,401
124
166
1953 --------------------------------------------------------1954 ......-------------------------------------------------1955

---------------------------------------------------1956
----------------------------------------------------
1,052
1,132
1,080
146
132
131
138
23
190
182
205
41
OPIUM DERIVATIVES
Ounces
1952_.
1953
3---------------------------------------------------------19
47
------------------------------------------------------
14
21
19
57
23
27
36
46
Ounems
None
1,429
262
None
None
7
3
None
None
7
4
None
None
None
None
19.54------------1955 ----------------------------------------------------1956 1---------------------------------------------------------
OPIUM
1952
--------------------------------------------------1953
---------------------------------------------------1954----------------------------------------------------1955
--------------------------------------------------1956 --
1 1956: 2 months only.

Source: Office of the Supervising Customs Agent, El Paso, Tex., Customs Agency District, No. 10,
Bureau of Customs.
BRIEF OF ERNESTO AGUIRE-CANO CASE
No. 6-441
Information was received in this office on May 28, 1952, to the effect that certain individuals, including Rafael Rodriguez, mayor of the little Mexican town
of San Antonio, Chihuahua, opposite Candelaria, Tex., were seeking an outlet in
the United States for a large quantity of opium. After prolonged negotiations,
Customs Agent George Scales finally succeeded in introducing himself as an
opium buyer to the group of persons concerned, who completed final arrangements in a small tavern in the city of Presidio, Tex., with Scales unarmed and
outnumbered 5 to 1 at the time negotiations were completed and a sample of
the opium was given Agent Scales.
This case culminated in the arrest of Ernesto Aguirre-Cano on July 8, 1952,
as he was effecting delivery of 47 pounds, 5 ounces of crude gum opium to Agent
Scales in his undercover capacity at the San Jacinto Motor Courts in Marfa, Tex.,
under the surveillance of three other customs agents. Also seized with the
opium was 1 1951 Chevrolet pickup truck, in which the opium was being delivered, together with 1 loaded rifle, a val-pack valise, in which part of the opium
was being transported, and 1 wheel and tire casing, in which over 38 pounds of
opium had been concealed.
Interrogation of Aguirre-Cano, directly after his arrest, revealed that he was
a principal opium dealer, residing in Parral Chihuahua, where his connections
I I I I
2535
in the opium trade appeared to be extensive. He readily admitted that opium

He
was freely traded in Mexico for commodities such as food and clothing.
AnSan
to
Parral
provided full details with regard to hauling the opium from
in
tonio, Chihuahua, accompanied by two other dealers, and storing the opium
in detail
the home of Rafael Rodriguez, mayor of San Antonio. He also related
by
accompanied
River,
the story of carrying the opium across the Rio Grande
Parral,
in
Rafael Rodriquez. Aguirre-Cano indicated that he had connections
whereby he could obtain and deliver to any qualified purchaser quantities up to
100 kilos of gum opium.
When he was taken before the United States Commissioner at Marfa, on July
9, 1952, Aguirre-Cano was held under $10,000 bond. A warrant was issued for
the arrest of Rafael Rodriguez, who was observed by customs agents to have been
waiting in Marfa on the afternoon of July 8, apparently anticipating receipt of
his cut following payoff after delivery of the narcotics. It was subsequently
determined that when delivery of the narcotics was delayed beyond the agreedupon time by unexpected heavy rains in the Marfa-Presidio area, Rodriguez
became frightened and returned to Mexico before delivery of the opium was
effected in Marfa.
Aguirre-Cano pleaded not guilty to smuggling charges when this case was
taken to Federal court and was subsequently found guilty by a jury requiring
only 10 minutes for deliberation following selection of a foreman. Aguirre-Cano
was sentenced to serve 5 years and was fined $1, payable upon execution of
sentence.
BRIEF OF THE DR. BLAB SOTELO CASE No. 6-808
For a considerable period of time, information was received to the effect that
there was a large supply of Mexican heroin and morphine available in Juarez,
Mex., to large and small purchasers in the United States. Painstaking investigation disclosed that the owner and would-be seller of such narcotics was Dr.
J. Blas Sotelo, a prominent Juarez physician, who operated, in addition to his
regular office, an antialcoholic clinic at 1118 Avenue V Guererro. Dr. Sotelo
allegedly used his offices and clinic as so-called shooting galleries where addicts
could freely obtain narcotic "fixes" for nominal sums. It was also learned that
Dr. Sotelo had recently received a large quantity of heroin, approximating 3
pounds, which he was endeavoring to dispose of in the United States in the
event he could find a suitable buyer.
As this case developed, it became rapidly apparent that Dr. Sotelo was not
a dealer of small consequence since he had made a remark within hearing of
one of our informants to the effect that "What we need now is one, good, big
deal."
Customs Agent Fred L. C. Patton, acting in an undercover capacity, was introduced to Dr. Sotelo, following which arrangements were made for delivery of a
large quantity of heroin to Agent Patton in the Del Camino Motor Courts in El
Paso. On the morning of August 28, 1954, Dr. Sotelo arrived at the courts, driving a 1949 Chrysler, and was seen by customs agents, who were stationed in other
rooms in the courts, to go directly to Agent Patton's room, carrying under his
arm a small leather briefcase. After Dr. Sotelo had set up his portable scales
in Agent Patton's room and was in the act of weighing the heroin, Agent Patton
gave a prearranged sign, following which customs agents placed Dr. Sotelo under
arrest.
An unusual turn to this case occurred a few hours before a hearing on a petition
filed by Dr. Sotelo's attorneys, in an endeavor to have reduced the $25,000 bond
under which the defendant was being held. Just before the hearing, county
officials discovered at a very propitious moment a hole, approximately 12 inches
by 18 inches, which had been sawed in the boiler-p!ate walls of cell 12, tank 6, in
the El Paso County jail, where Dr. Sotelo and 16 other Federal prisoners were
being detained. The hole led to a plumbing shaft, through which the prisoners
had planned to escape following the filing of a lock on a door leading from the
shaft. According to other Federal prisoners, who were confined in this part of
the jail, the escape plot was wholly engineered by Dr. Sotelo, who allegedly had
obtained 12 large hacksaw blades, which had been smuggled into the jail to him
by friends and relatives. Had the escape plot not been discovered at that particular time, it is apparent that Dr. Sotelo in a very few hours would have
effected his escape to Mexico.
On October 22, 1954, a jury in United States district court found I)r. Sotelo
guilty, following which he was sentenced to serve 5 years on each of 2 counts,
sentence to run concurrently, and to pay a fine of $1 upon execution of sentence.
2536
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
BRIEF ON THE ROBERTO GARCIA RAMIREZ AND MARTIN M. HERNANDEZ MAMIHUANA.
CASE, No. 6-727

During the early part of January 1954, information was received from a reliable source to the effect that Roberto Garcia Ramirez, a former heavyweight
boxing champion of Mexico, who fought under the name of Lotario, was endeavoring to find purchasers of narcotics of all types, including marihuana,
heroin, and opium, in the El Paso area. An opportunity was provided Ramirez
for a possible outlet when Customs Agent Fred L. C. Patton, of San Antonio, Tex.,
was introduced to him under the pseudonym of Joe Dugan.
After several unsuccessful attempts to arrange delivery of a quantity of mairihuana and heroin, arrangements were finally concluded on January 29, 1954, for
the delivery to "Joe Dugan" of 18 kilograms of inarihuana, which were offered
at $100 per kilo, and 1 ounce of heroin for the sum of $750, which were to be
delivered to "Dugan" at room No. 17 in the El Jardin Motel in El Paso. During
all the preliminary negotiations, a man in a red shirt or jacket, subsequently
identified as Martin M. Hernandez, was seen by customs agents acting in a capacity of lookout or bodyguard for Ramirez.
At the time scheduled for the delivery on the afternoon of January 29, 1954,
Ramirez arrived at the El Jardin Motel alone in a 1939 Chevrolet sedan and
stated he was afraid to make delivery at that motel, requested that "Dugan"
rent another tourist court in order to effect delivery of the narcotics. When
"Dugan" refused, Ramirez agreed to return in 15 minutes, which he did after
having changed vehicles, this tilne driving a 1948 Mercury. Upon attempting
to effect delivery of 41 pounds of marihuana concealed in 2 large sacks and 2
new suitcases in the Mercury automobile, Ramirez was arrested by customs
agents, who noticed that in the meantime, Hernandez had been making many
trips around and about the area of the El Jardin Courts, apparently in an effort
to warn Ramirez if he found evidence of any law-enforcenent officers in that
vicinity. When Ramirez was arrested, Hernandez immediately left the area on
foot, but was subsequently apprehended and implicated in this whole transaction as a full partner.
These men pleaded guilty to marihuana smuggling charges and were sentenced
to serve 3 years each in the penitentiary and were fined $1, payable upon execution of sentence. Both the Mercury and the Chevrolet automobiles involved were
placed under seizure and subsequently sold at auction by the United States
marshal.
BRIEF ON TIE RAUL PEREZ GONZALEZ CASE, No. 6-701
Climaxing 6 weeks of tedious endeavor on the part of customs agents, 2 of
whom worked at intervals undercover, one of the biggest runners of narcotics,
Raul Perez Gonzalez. from Mexico in this area, and his accomplice, Bardomiano
Hernandez, were arrested as they were delivering a quantity of high-grade
marihuana to a customs agent, acting in an undercover capacity.
The marihuana seized on this occasion, together with that purchased on 2
previous occasions, totaled approximately 16 pounds and at the same tine
approximately 6 grains of top-quality heroin and a small sample of gum opium
were seized from these men. An interesting element in this case was brought
to light when it was found that the principal dealer, a native of Torreon, Mexico.
might not have been caught if he had trusted his accomplice, a resident of
Juarez. Mexico, to bring the narcotics to El Paso alone. Since he would not
trust the judgment of his accomplice and also feared that the Juarez man might
not bring back to him the full share of the money, he insisted on participating
in the ultimate delivery himself.
It appears that the narcotic runners in this case might attribute their downfall to their having boasted among El Paso narcotic addicts that they were able
to deliver up to 170 kilos of marihuana or 1 kilo of heroin in any one load. Customs agents, hearing of this boasting, were able to set in motion the investigation
which led to the arrest of the bragging narcotic dealers. When these men were
taken before the United States commissioner they were held under $5,000 bond
each.
Both of the defendants in this case received sentences of 5 years each and
fines of $1, payable upon execution of sentence.
BRIEF ON THE ADOLFO AGUILERA MARTTNEZ CASE,
No. G--742
On January 30, 1954, customs agents seized a small handbag containing approximately 2 pounds 12 ounces of bulk marihuana, which had been smuggled from
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2537
Mexico by Adolfo Aguilera Martinez, who was not arrested at that time since
he had made complete arrangements to deliver, the following week, a quantity
of cocaine which he had in his possession in Juarez, Mexico. After many (lays
of tedious negotiations, the trap was finally sprung on Martinez as he arrived
from Juarez, Mexico, at the Santa Fe Street International Bridge carrying
a pharmaceutical bottle concealed on his person, which bottle was found to
contain 5 ounces of a substance, which Martinez claimed was cocaine. This
culminated a lengthy investigation involving long hours of tedious work on
the part of customs agents acting In an undercover capacity.
When Martinez was taken before the United States commissioner on February
12, 1954, he waived hearing, as well as grand-jury action, and indicated that
it was his intention to plead guilty to cocoaine-smuggling charges. The case
took a peculiar turn when analysis by the United States Customs Laboratory of
the substance, believed to have been cocaine, disclosed that it was actually
procaine hydrochloride and contained no narcotic drugs. It is significant, however, that Martinez is known to have been a prominent narcotic dealer in
Mexico and at no time following his arrest did he indicate that the substance
he smuggled from Mexico was other than cocaine. He possibly had been
deceived himself upon acquisition of the substance in Mexico.
Although the procaine hydrochloride in question is not a narcotic drug, it
is said to be extremely dangerous and might have caused the death of unsuspecting addicts to whom it might have been sold as cocaine. Martinez was found
guilty in Federal district court of smuggling this substance from Mexico, following which he was sentenced to serve 2 years in the penitentiary.
BRIFv ON THE JOHN H.
JACKSON CASE,
No. 6-534
During the early part of December 1952, Customs Agent Bourke received
information from a confidential source to the effect that John H. Jackson was
engaged in importing marihuana cigarettes from Mexico for the purpose of selling them in El Paso. On several occasions, the activities of this person were
placed under surveillance, at which time he was seen to have made at least
two trips to Juarez, Mexico, between December 1 and December 12, 1952.
At approximately 9 p. m. on December 12, 1952, Customs Agents Griffin and
Bourke observed the defendant returning on foot from Mexico to El Paso at
the Santa Fe International Bridge and caused a thorough search to be made
of the defendant's person. This search revealed 32 marihuana cigarettes concealed in the sleeve of a sweater worn under other clothing of the defendant.
Interrogation of Jackson, subsequent to his arrest, disclosed that he was
employed as a waiter at Radford School in El Paso, Tex., where he had resided
during the previous month. He admitted having been a marihuana user during
the past 5 years, but denied having smuggled marihuana cigarettes to El Paso
for the purpose of selling them.
Although the quantity of narcotics in this instance is relatively small, this
case is not without importance since it demonstrates the ease with which smugglers of Jackson's character are able to obtain employment in respectable institutions where their potential danger to the unsuspecting public is considerable.
After pleading guilty in Federal court to marihuana-smuggling charges, this
defendant was sentenced to 2 years, which sentence was suspended for 2 years,
and to payment of a $1 fine.
BRIEF ON THE CASE OF THOMAS EVERETT AND GUMERCINDO RODRIGUEZ,
No. L6-904
On November 12, 1951, following receipt of information to the effect that

Thomas Everett was endeavoring to sell a large quantity of marihuana smuggled
from Mexico, arrangements were made to introduce Customs Agent George
Scales in an undercover capacity as prospective purchaser of this marihuana.
Following extensive negotiations, introduction of Agent Scales was finally
effected and after lengthy maneuvering on the part of Everett and his accomplice,
Rodriguez, delivery of 110 pounds of bulk marihuana was made to Agent Scales,
following which both Rodriguez and Everett were placed under arrest.
After a lengthy jury trial, lasting 3Y 2 days, both men were found guilty as
charged and Everett was sentenced to a total 12 years' imprisonment and a fine
of $100, whereas Rodriguez received a sentence of 2 years and a fine of $25.
BRIEF ON JOSE VALLEJO
CASE, No. L6-1009
On June 11, 1952, information was received to the effect that Jose Vallejo,
driving a 1941 Dodge sedan, bearing an Ohio license, would attempt to smuggle
a quantity of marihuana into the United States.
2538
A lookout for the vehicle in question was placed at the International Bridge
and on June 12, 1952, the vehicle was seen to enter the United States, following
which it was placed under surveillance by United States customs agents, who
followed it to a point approximately 40 miles east of Laredo, where it was
stopped and submitted to customs examination by Agents Yates and Palacios.
In the trunk of the vehicle were found 2 burlap bags containing approximately
.56 pounds of bulk marihuana, which had been smuggled from Mexico.
On July 29, 1952, Vallejo entered a plea of guilty in Federal district court, following which he was sentenced to serve 5 years. At a subsequent term of court
on September 25, 1952, his sentence was reconsidered and reduced to 3 years.
BRIEF ON THE NORAL
"BILLY"
WILLIAMS
CASE,
No. L6-885
On September 15, 1951, custom agents at Laredo received information from a

confidential source to the effect that Noral "Billy" Williams, of Brooklyn, N. Y.,
was in Mexico City for the purpose of obtaining a quantity of marihuana. Information subsequently developed disclosed that Williams had gone to Mexico
City by train and it was believed that upon his return he would have the contraband concealed on the train when it crossed the border and that Williams would
not be close to the load until the train arrived in or near San Antonio, Tex.
Further information provided by this informant disclosed that Williams intended
to arrive at Laredo from Mexico City on the morning of October 5, 1951, and
that he would be in pullman car No. 326.
When the train was met on the morning of October 5, the sole occupants of
car No. 326 appeared to be only two colored passengers, both women, who were
occupying drawing room A. Further information provided by the informant disclosed that WVilliams and a colored woman had left the train in Nuevo Laredo,
Mexico, and later crossed the International Bridge in a taxicab and boarded the
train after it had cleared customs inspection just prior to its departure for San
Antonio. Customs agents in San Antonio were furnished information with regard to these developments and upon arrival of the train in San Antonio, they
examined the baggage, consisting of 3 large suitcases belonging to 3 colored
women and Noral Williams, and found concealed therein approximately 140
pounds of manicured, prepared marihuana.
All of the defendants were found guilty when tried in Federal court. Noral
Williams received a sentence of a total 4 years and the 3 colored women, Rebecca
Smalls, Gertrude Young, and Laura Young, all received sentences of 18 months
each. Subsequently, Federal Judge Ben H. Rice, Jr., dismissed the indictment
and set aside the convictions because of an incorrectly worded indictment drawn
up by the United States attorney's office, which left out the words "knowingly
and fraudulently" from the last two counts of the indictment. The dismissal
of the indictment was carried out by Judge Rice following a fifth circuit court
of appeals dicta on that point. When the case was appealed by the United
State attorney to the fifth circuit court, that body rejected its own dicta in
the other case and reversed Judge Rice's ruling, upholding the conviction, saying
that the words "knowingly and fraudulently" need not be included, especially
where the point is first raised after verdict. The Supreme Court thereafter
refused to reject the case on write of certiorari and the fifth circuit opinion
became law in this circuit.
BRIEF ON THE LOZANO,
HINOJOSA,
AND CANALES
CASE, No. BM6-246
In April 1953, information was received by Customs Agent Scott in McAllen,

Tex., to the effect that Guadalupe Lozano, of Donna, Tex., owner of a beer tavern,
was actively engaged in narcotic trafficking and that he had In his possession
8 ounces of morphine, which he was attempting to sell. Arrangements were
made through the office of the supervising customs agent in El Paso to have
Customs Agent George Scales introduced to Lozano for the purpose of providing
him an opportunity to sell the morphine and any other narcotics which he was
reputedly in possession of and was allegedly endeavoring to sell.
From April 1953 until August of that year, Agent Scales made repeated contacts with Lozano and his confederates and it appeared that It would be impossible
to conclude a successful purchase of large quantities of marihuana and other
narcotics said to have been in the possession of Lozano and his confederates.
During the early part of August 1953, Agent Scales, In his undercover capacity,
again made contact with Lozano by long-distance phone from Houston, at which
time Lozano indicated that he would be ready to deal with Scales for the sale of
a large quantity of marihuana. Considerable subsequent maneuvering took
2539
place in the Donna-Hebbronville area, following which a total of 102 pound-s,

7 ounces of crude marihuana contained in 3 army barracks bags and 1 sugar
sack were delivered to Scales in his Government vehicle by Lozano and his 2
confederates, Hinojosa and Canales. Customs agents, after placing the three
men under arrest, seized, in addition to the marihuana, one 1952 model Buick
sedan, one 1947 model Mercury sedan, and one 1960 model Chevrolet sedan, all
of which vehicles were used by the defendants during the course of the negotiations for the sale of the smuggled marihuana. Also seized was a .45-caliber Colt
automatic pistol, which was found fully loaded and ready for use in the Buick
automobile at the time it was seized. When the defendants were searched,
immediately following their arrest, Canales was found to be carrying in his right
front trouser pocket a .32-caliber Colt automatic pistol, which was also fully
loaded and ready for use.
All of the defendants in question pleaded guilty in Federal court and each of
them received a 2-year sentence and were fined $500.
BRIEF ON BERNARDO ROMERO GEARY CASE,
No. B-438
In July 1954, Bernardo Romero Geary was brought to the attention of

customss agents in Brownsville, Tex., by a confidential informant, who pointed
this man out as a narcotic smuggler and trafficker. When Romero Geary registered at a Brownsville hotel, he was placed under surveillance by customs
agents. After several days, Romero Geary sent a small 10-year-old boy to pick
up an overnight bag at a railroad station locker, telling the boy that the bag
contained only shaving articles. Customs agents kept this small boy under
surveillance at all times and when he returned to the hotel, it was learned that
Romero Geary had left hurriedly to return to Mexico.
A vigil was maintained at the hotel for a period of 3 days and nights and
when it appeared that Romero Geary had definitely become aware of the fact
that he was under surveillance and would not return, the overnight bag was
opened and was found to contain 954.2 grams of pure heroin.
Information with regard to this seizure was kept secret for a period of 9
months, during which time every endeavor to apprehend Romero Geary proved
futile.
Photographs and a complete description of Romero Geary have been disseminated to law-enforcenient agencies along the border with the request that
efforts be continued to learn of his activities and whereabouts.
BRIEF ON THE LEONEL RODRIGUEZ-SANTOS
AND JOirJE i)AVILLA-FTLoRES CASE,
No.
BM6-75
In November 1951, information was received by Customs Agent Herbert F.
Scott, in McAllen, Tex., to the effect that a Mexican national by the name
of Leonel Rodriguez, a resident of General Teran, Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, had
in his possession approximately 100 kilos of marihuana, which he was en(leavoring to sell in the United States.
An initial attempt was made to introduce Customs Agent Abraham G. Palacios
as an undercover buyer for this marihuana. However, following his contact
with the seller in Matamoros, it was evident that the sale would have to be
consunmmated at a subsequent date. At the time this original contact was made,
it was ascertained that Rodriguez had an accomplice by the name of Jorje
)avila and that both men were anxious to sell the 100 kilos of marihuana for
the sum of 250 pesos per kilo. At the termination of this initial contact, Agent
Palacios indicated that if he were unavailable for any subsequent dealings,
he would provide satisfactory introduction for his partner to conclude the
deal.
During the early part of December 1951, Customs Agents Joe F. Ray and
John R. Kent, acting in an undercover capacity, introduced themselves to Rodriguez and Davila and, following a lengthy discussion regarding purchase of the
marihuana, it was agreed that it would be delivered on December 10, 1951,
-it the intersection of Military Highway and the Alamo Road, Hidalgo County,
Tex., at which time payment of 20,500 pesos was to be effected.
In accordance with the usual pattern in cases such as this, delivery was
not effected at the place agreed upon, which place was kept under constant
surveillance by customs agents.
Another contact with the sellers brought out a second agreement to deliver
th'niarihuana on the American side of the border, which delivery was scheduled
71515-56-pt. 7-13
2540
for 12: 30 a. m., December 10, 151, at a place on the Rio Grande River east of the
Santana Ranch. Although surveillance of the second agreed-upon place was
maintained until 6 a. m., delivery of the marihuana was not effected and Davila
was seen to contact Agents Ray and Kent at their automobile, following which a
third agreement was made to deliver the marihuana at 9: 45 a. m. on December
11, 1951, a short distance from where the previous delivery was to have beeti
made, east of the Santana Ranch. The sellers stated that the marihuana was
contained in 6 burlap sacks and 3 boxes and was concealed under a pile of brush
near the river south of Alamo, Tex.
The undercover buyers met the sellers at the agreed-upon place on the morning of December 11 and were advised that the marihuana was ready for delivery,
following which the undercover agents left under the pretext of "running the
road out" prior to accepting delivery of the marihuana. Customs agents,
assisted by United States border patrolmen, then proceeded to the delivery spot
and placed under arrest the 2 defendants, 1 of whom was armed with a loaded
9-millimeter Luger automatic pistol found in the waistband of his trousers.
The marihuana was not found in the place previously described, but by following the men's tracks in the soil, the marihuana was found about 35 feet froiii
the fence corner where Rodriguez and Davila had first been observed. The
marihuana was found in a pile of brush concealed in 6 Mexican burlap sacks
and 2 cardboard boxes, which were hidden under a large brush heap approximately 10 feet from where the men had been standing.
When interrogated subsequent to arrest, both men admitted participation in
the sale of the marihuana, but denied having actually participated in the
smuggling of it to the United States. They both admitted knowing they were
violating the law by handling the marihuana in Mexico and in the United States,
but stated that they took the chance because they needed the money. They
both waived hearing when taken before the United States commissioner and
were held under $2,500 bond.
Our file on this case does not show ultimate disposition relative to final
sentencing of these defendants.
Senator
DANIEL.
A-Vll right. Mr. Fleishman, if you will proceed to
present to us the information called for by the committee; that is, as

to the conditions you find with respect to narcotics along the border
and your recommendations as to what we can do toward helping improve the situation.
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Yes, sir. May I read part of my prepared
statement?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. The statistical data in narrative form showing the

volume by fiscal years and the number of seizures and the number of
arrests, broken down under the headings of marihuana, opium de-
rivatives, and opium seized during the fiscal years 1952 up to and
including the first 2 months of the fiscal year 1956. In fiscal year
1952, that part of my district which includes Texas, we seized 1,401
pounds of marihuana. In 1953, 1,052 pounds; in 1954, 1,132 pounds;
in 1955, 1,080 pounds; and in 1956, 146 pounds.
Senator DANIEL. Those 2 months are simply July and August of
the 1955-56 year, you call that 1956 fiscal year.
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Yes, Senator, that is correct. You will probably

notice that the amount seized during the first 4 years there was fairly
constant except that in 1952 there was a larger quantity seized. We
have a lesser number of seizures with a larger quantity and a lesser
number of arrests; in the other years we had somewhat smaller quantities but we had more seizures and we had more arrests. For example,
if you will note 1955, we had 1,080 pounds seized, 138 seizures and 205
arrests. In opium derivativesSenator DANIEL. Can you account for that? Do you have any
particular reason why more seizures and more persons were involved
with a comparatively less amount in pounds of marihuana?
I1II1
2541
Mr. FLEISII[AN. Yes, because there seems to be a trend in recent
years to bring it over in the so-called prepared or man-cured marihuana. In the first place it is less bulky. It takes, we estimate, from
2 to 21/4 pounds of bulk inarihuana, crude marihuana, to make 1 pound
of the man-cured marihuaiia. It does not appear in this statement.
There has also been a trend in the past 5 years for an increase in the
number of marihuana cigarettes that have been seized all along the
border coming from Mexico. I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, about 5 years ago we only had about 700 of them. There has
been a gradual increase each year. I believe last year we had around
3,600 of them. That doesn't sound very big when you reduce quantities to cigarettes but it indicates to ne the people on the Mexican side
have found out probably they can make more money by peddling in
that manner, or some other manner, or there are more people going
down there willing to buy it in that form.
Now for opium derivatives. Begin with the years 1952. 1953, 1954,
1955, and 1956 for the first 2 months. In 1952 we only seized 31/ ounces
of opium derivatives, a total of 19 seizures and 47 arrests. In 1953 we
seized 2 ounces, with 14 seizures and 21 arrests. In 1954, 19 ounces,
23 seizures and 36 arrests. In 1955. 57 ounces, 27 seizures and 46
arrests. That included a kilo of heroin which we seized in Brownsville, Tex., in which there was no definite-it was actually placed in a
locker by a young boy.
Senator DANIEL. Well, Mr. Fleishman, for 1955 you seized more
heroin and other opium derivatives than all the previous 4 years put
together?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Yes, sir, Senator.
Senator DANIEL. Can you account for that?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Actually we seized more in that year than we
did in the previous 5 years.
Senator DANIEL. Would that indicate to you that there is an increase in the traffic in heroin across the Mexican border?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. If you will notice also, in 1954 we seized 19 ounces
which was considerably more than we seized in the previous 2 years.
I don't know whether it indicates an increase in the traffic or whether
we had a little better luck that year. I think it is a combination of
both.
Senator DANIEL. Did you make any particularly large seizure in
1955 that would account for this total being so large?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Yes, there was one which we seized at Brownsville, as I just related, approximately one kilo.
Senator DANIEL. How many ounces are in a kilo?
Mr. FLEISILMAN. That is 2.1 pounds.
Senator DANIEL. Now, when we talk about ounces it sounds like a
small amount but with opium derivatives what would that amount to
in dollars, approximately, on the retail market, the 57 ounces which
you seized in 1955?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Well, I would say 57 ounces by the time that it
reaches the addict on the street would be worth many thousands of
dollars.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any estimate there .
Mr. FLEISI-IHAN. No, sir, I don't have an estimate, by the time that
is cut as it always is and recut-
2542
Senator DANIML. Mr. Speer says it would probably amount to

$100,000 on the retail market.
Mr. FLEISHMIAN. I would say at least.
Senator DANIEL. At least $100,000?
Mr. FLEISITM3.AN. At least that. So far in 1956 we have had only
1 ounce, 5 seizures and 6 arrests.
Now, for opium, again for the same fiscal years, 1952 through the
first 2 months of 1956. We had none in 1952. In 1953 we had 1,429
ounces, avoirdupois. We had a very good year that year, 7 seizures
and 7 arrests. In that case we had 1 case we worked out of Presidio,
an agent by the name of George Scales did the undercover work on
it and we seized 48 pounds. That was made near Marfa, Tex. Unfortunately we had heavy rains in southern Texas 2 days preceding that,
some of the defendants that we had hoped to catch were unable to
get up. The one man got through with the drug. He attempted to
make the delivery of the 48 pounds.
In 1954 we seized 262 ounces of opium, 3 seizures and 4 arrests. In
1955 we had none and the first 2 months of 1956 we have had none.
Now, as I stated before, all of these, this volume, that are mentioned
here was in the State of Texas. I have eliminated everything from
my figures for New Mexico and Arizona.
Senator DANIEL. You mean all of these figures that you have given
on this chart are for the State of Texas.
Mr. FIlSiHMAN. Yes, sir and that is only along the border.
At
that time I did not have the northeastern and the eastern part of
Texas in my district. That was the two eastern collection districts.
Just since September 23 they have been put in my district.
Senator )ANIEL. Do you have the figures prepared for the other
States?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. I do not have them with me. I understood this
hearing at this time related to the State of Texas only.
Senator DANIEL. Well, we would like to have the figures on the
other States. We are moving on west from here and would like to
have the same figures with reference to the other States. Senator.
Mr. FLEISHMAN. They will be very readily produced,
Mr. FLEISIHMAN. We have had a number of what I would consider
stateto be important cases inasmuch as they are all set forth init the
would be
ment. I don' t believe I should go into each one because
quite time consuming.
you
Senator DANIEL. Well, we have made all of these cases that comthe
have outlined here part of the record, and I want to say that
illusmittee appreciates your giving us this large number of cases
and what you have
trate how the smuggling is done across the border
summarize
to do in your enforcement problem. I wonder if you would
ideas about the main
those cases, though, and give ;us some of your what
you have to do
systems that are used by the smugglers and
there?
with law enforcement. Could you give us a little picture a couple
Mr. FLEISIMAN. Before I do, Senator, may I relate just
of cases that I think would be of interest?
Senator DANIEL. -Yes.
a year ago, the

Mr. FLEISHMAN. About a year ago or slightly over
in El Paso by
me
for
latter part of August, I had an agent working
and we got
the name of Philip Burk. He developed an informer
2543
reliable information from other sources about a doctor in Juarez,

Dr. Sotelo. He was graduated from a medical school in Mexico, recognized doctor, very well connected politically and he was operating
a so-called alcoholic clinic in Juarez. Actually that clinic was known
in the traffic as a shooting gallery. He was also what we consider to
be a big-time smuggler. When we first sent an undercover man in to
him by an introduction through an informer he was talking in kilos.
And he related to our agent, a man by the name of Fred Patton who,
by the way, is stationed here in San Antonio, he told Fred Patton of
other big deals he had been in, always discussed kilo lots.
Senator DANIEL. Which indicated he was a big dealer?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Senator, any time you talk about a kilo of heroin
and they can deliver, it is a big dealer. Anyway, he wanted Patton
to wait, that he would deliver a kilo, but he had 101/ ounces which he
would deliver immediately. Well, I was a little bit afraid that if
we let it drag on too long until he could get delivery of a kilo that we
might lose the case, so I decided we would take the case for 101/2
ounces. So we made an agreement, our undercover agent did, to buy
the 101/ ounces. I believe that the agreed price was $700 an ounce,
delivered in El Paso. He attempted to make delivery and when he
did we took him and he had the 101/ ounces. He was in a motel in
El Paso. He had a scale all set up, he was weighing it out when we
crashed in and took him. That man was held in a very high bail; he
was held in $25,000 bail. His attorneys attempted to have the bail
reduced and had a hearing before Judge Thomason. However, the
night before the hearing was to come up, he with another group of
inmates, I believe there were 16 in that particular tank, attempted a
jail break. They actually did saw out a piece of an airshaft, I believe,
or shaft leading into the plumbing building and they were just caught
at that particular time. His bail was not reduced. We had information that had it been reduced to $10,000 he would have forfeited that
much money or the people that were back of him. He refused to
cooperate with us in any way. He never told us anything except that
he did say the source of supply was from a clandestine chemical plant,
I believe in Guadalajara.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now tell us about what cooperation you
have with the Mexican officials in enforcing the narcotic laws.
Mr. FLEISHMIAN. Senator, I would say in the top echelon we have
excellent cooperation; with the rank and file, we don't deal with them,
we always deal with the top men if we can.
Senator DANIEL. By top men you mean the top men in Mexico City ?
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
FLEISHMAN.
And the Federal Government?
Yes, sir; and the top men along the Mexican
border, I would say insofar as cooperation is concerned we get what

cooperation we ask for. Not too long ago we had a case in El Paso.
We arrested two people and we got a quantity, considerable quantity,
of marihuana. I just don't remember the figure but it was a considerable amount and there was some heroin. The night we took that we
had information as to the source and who had it in Juarez. We immediately contacted the chief of detectives in Juarez and they went
right out at our request and they made a raid and they got a considerably quantity and made a couple more arrests over there. So I
would say you couldn't ask for better cooperation than that.
2544
Senator

DANIEL.
Well, is that typical or do you have that-
Mr. FLISHMAN. I wouldn't say that that is exactly typical. We

don't always get that kind of information, Senator.
Senator DANIEL. 1 know you do not like to talk about our good
neighborr to the south, but after all, we are talking about ourselves, too, because the Mexican citizens wouldn't have much place to
smuggle or send this stuff if there wasn't somebody on our side who
wanted to buy it.
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Senator, I would consider this to be cooperation.
The Mexican officials, if they did not want to permit us to do so,
wouldn't have to let us come over into Mexico. They know when we
cross that line, go into Mexico into any of the cities in northern
Mexico, they know what we are over there for. They know we are
interested in enforcing the United States laws. If they were not
cooperative enough to permit us to do it, they could make it awfully
tough for us.
Senator DANIEL. Do you find in some instances that you do not have
cooperation from local officials along the border ?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. I would say, "No." At least by word of mouth
they always indicate cooperation.
Senator DANIEL. By word of mouth?
Mr.
FLFTSH mAN.
Senator DANIEL.
Yes, sir.
What is the heroin situation along the border in
Mexico? Would you say it is plentiful? You have heard the witnesses here today who say it is pretty easy to go over there and find
it. What is your opinion?
Mr. FLEISHiaAN. Well, I think those figures I just read off speak for
themselves. I think that the volume of our seizures, the number of
seizures, the ease with which a violator can go into cities in northern
Mexico and buy it and bring it back is indicative of the fact that
it is plentiful and is readily available.
Senator DANIEL. You mean to say that it is plentiful and can be
bought with ease, is that right? Purchases of heroin can be made
with ease south of the border in Mexico?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. In my opinion, yes. Now, I would like to illustrate this a little bit if I may. Sheriff Kilday this morning said he
had heard they were growing opium poppies in Mexico. I don't think
anybody can dispute that fact. The opium poppy has been grown
in Mexico many years. I can remember 20 years ago when agents
from the United States, customs agents, went down with Mexican
officials. They toured all over Mexico with them. They were supposed to be burning fields of opium poppies. To this day you hear
about burning oDium. I have always had a little
reservation. I have
always felt possibly they burnt the fields after they had been harvested.
Senafor DANIEL. Mexico is a party to the opium treaty?
Senator DANIEL. Under which they obligate themselves to prevent
thp growing of the poppy, isn't that true?
Mr. FLTS:HAW. Yes. sir: I believe in recent years the Federal
government in Mexico has taken some considerable measures to fulfill
that oblization.
Spnmtor DANIEL. I think that's true. Let me ask you this first.
doe Mexico have laws outlawing marihuana and heroin the same as
we do?
2545
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Yes, sir; yes, sir.
Well, would you say that those laws are being

enforced very rigidly along the border?
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. FIISCHMAN. I wouldn't say they were being enforced as rigidly
as they are on the United States side, but I would say they are being
enforced as rigidly as they are in position to do at the present time.
They have a small force of Federal narcotic officials in Mexico City,
and I believe that their funds appropriated for the purpose are probably very limited. I don't know how much. I don't believe their
salaries are overly large and I believe -that they are doing the best
they can with what they have to do with.
Senator DANIEL. You mean the Federal officials of Mexico?
Senator BUTLER. Do you have any record of violations and arrests

or seizures on the other side of the border?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. No, sir, I do not.
Senator BUTLER. You don't swap figures with the Mexican Government?
Mr.
FLEISHMAN.
No, sir. I will say this, that there has been in
the State of Chihuahua, there has been a change in the State government recently. The former governor was removed from office
or was forced to resign. There was a lot of talk in the press and
on the air, a lot of publicity given to this former governor of his
connections with narcotic traffic, prostitution, and other forms of
law violations. He is alleged to have made a great deal of money;
allegations are he had money in banks in Europe and in the United
States. The former mayor of Juarez was also forced to resign and
with him went the chief of police and chief detectives, and so forth.
Well, now, immediately thereafter there were 2 or 3 raids made in
Juarez on the so-called shooting galleries and they came up with a
couple of seizures of marihuana in considerable quantities, 30 or 40
pounds. I know we made 1 in El Paso last month, in 1 case we got
313 pounds and immediately thereafter the Mexican police came up
with 1 in Juarez, I think they had 34 pounds. But there was one
case in Juarez some time ago, several years ago, a great big seizure
was announced; when it came time to destroy it, it was decided it
wasn't marihuana, it was mint. I think any enforcement officer,
knowing what it smells like, wouldn't go for the fact that marihuana
would be mistaken for mint.
Senator DANIEL. Do you feel that was an instance where you did
not have cooperation across the border?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. We didn't have cooperation, we didn't have anything to do with the particular case.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you think if the Mexican Government
could increase its personnel along the border and help enforce its own
laws a little bit that that would help the situation over on our side?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Senator, I think insofar as any traffic from Mexico
is concerned the only place to stop it, the proper place to stop it is
at the source.
Senator DANIEL. I believe the customs agency has one man who
works in Mexico with the top Mexican officials; is that right?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. That is correct. His name is Ben White, he used
to be an agent. He worked for me at Laredo, Tex.
2546
Senator DANIEL. Is he the only agent we have over on the Mexican

side?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. We have other men in Mexico City but they are
more or less on certain types of technical work.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have enough men along this border to
stop smuggling or keep it at a minimum? I know you cannot stop
all of it but keep it at a minimum?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Senator, in order to stop it.or to do any good with.
it at all you have got to have competent enforcement agents. You
have got to have a type of agent who can develop information and
who can develop informants, who can work well with other agencies,
police, sheriff's offices, military, and so forth.
At the present time we have a very hard-working staff along the
border. Our Bureau, in order to strengthen this situation down here,
have increased, have given me an increase of 12 men. most of whom
will be stationed in Texas. They have also increased the district to
include the northeastern part so the traffic that is running on up to
Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and so forth, will all be incorporated
in one district.
Senator DANIEL. When did this increase of 12 men come about?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Last month and we are in the process of making
appointments at the present time, and they have also given me an increase in the clerical staff.
Senator DANIEL. And how many will that bring your total to in
Texas?
Mr. FLEISHIM AN. About 38 active agents.
Senator DANIEL. You have about 26 now, then ?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Active agents; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And that will be increased by 12 then, or has been
increased by 12 in the last month?
Mr. FLISHMAN. Yes, sir. We have not actually put the men on.
We have put 2 or 3 on, but we are in the process of getting the rest
of them.
Senator DANIEL. Well, that should help the situation some?
Mr. FLEISHM3AN. It should relieve it a great deal.
Senator DANIEL. Now, in addition to your work right on the
border
where you have your agents, then you have your investigators: do
you not?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. I am speaking of investigators only.
Senator DANIEL. Only of investigators?
Air. FLEISHMIAN. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And you are speaking of any of the customs
agents ?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Customs agents are the investigative personnel.
You may be mistaking customs inspector for customs agent. Customs inspectors would come under the collector of customs.
Senator DANIEL. So the customs agents handle investigation work?
Mr. FLEISLIMAN. And the development of cases; yes, sir.
Senator DANieL. And the inspectors are the ones who handleMr. FLEISHMAN. Commerce and the traffic as it crosses the border.
Senator DANIEL. Searching those who come across the border?
Mr. FIEISHMAN. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, the inspectors are under a different supervisory setup from yours?
....--
2547
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Yes, sir; they are.

Senator DANIEL. Who is in charge of the inspectors for this dis-
trict
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Each collector in his own particular district would
be the man responsible for the inspectors.
Senator DANIEL. Now, in addition then to these?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Of course the collector would have subordinate
personnel who would be in charge of the inspection forces. For example, a witness here I understand from El Paso who is the chief
inspector at El Paso is in charge of all the customs inspectors in that
particular area.
Senator DANIEL. The customs inspectors stay right along the border
itself?
Mr. FLEISIMAN. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And where do your agents stay?
Mr.
FLEISHMAN.
Well, I have an office at the present time in El Paso,
Tex.: that is the headquarters office for the entire customs agency
district. In addition to that, I have a customs agent in charge at
Houston, Tex., and under him we are opening an office at Corpus
Christi. We have an agent in charge at Brownsville, Tex., and under
him we have an office at McAllen, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. What other laws do you all enforce, other than
laws against smuggling narcotics?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Well, the customs laws, of course narcotic laws
Ansofar as the legal importation would be concerned or the illegal

traffic in narcotics, various embargoes from time to time. For instance,
the foot-and-mouth disease, public health laws, smuggling of parakeets, parrots, and so forth, the Gold Reserve Act.
Senator DANIEL. All types of smuggling?
Mr. FLEISHIMAN. All types of smuggling and any of the violations
of the Air Commerce Act, the navigation laws. Any of the many
laws that are enforced by customs, any violations of international
traffic in arms and munitions of war, export-control laws.
Senator DANIEL. Can you give us any idea what percent of your
time is spent on the enforcement of the narcotic laws?
Mr. FLESITSMAN. Along this border I would say, safely say, 60 percent. of our time, 50 percent anyway, probably the outside figure might
go as high as 60 percent.
Senator DANIEL. Does that include about the same percentage of
your personnel
?
Mr. FLEISHMLAN.
Well, from time to time all of our personnel get

into these narcotic investigations in someway or another.
Senator DANIEL. In addition to your work, in addition to the work
of inspectors on the border, the agents under your supervision, we also
have the border patrol in another agency of the Government, the
Justice Department; is that right?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Yes, sir; the Immigration and Naturalization
Service.
Senator DANIEL. And they have many men along the border?
Mr. FLEISIMAN. Yes, sir. May I say something about that, at this
time?
Senator DA-NIEL. Yes.
Mr. FLEIsIt1AN. We have recently inaugurated a new program.
Heretofore we had a great deal of assistance from time to time in co-
2548
operation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service; their

assistance has been invaluable. However, I believe a question of legality arose on searches and seizures made by them for customs violations,
and at the request of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and
from a program worked out by the Treasury Department we are designating each one of them a customs patrol inspector. It takes a little
personnel file to do it and then I issue a credential signed by me to
each one of them and under an authorization from the Treasury Department designating them as customs patrol inspectors which gives
them the added legal authority to make any kind of customs search
or seizure.
Senator
DANIEL.
General Swing, head of the Immigration and
Naturalization Bureau, testified before our committee in Washington

at our last hearing, and he gave us the list of seizures his agency had
made along the Mexican border. In his testimony I was interested to
note that he said the type of people who smuggled, at least the ones
his agency has caught are people in this business professionally, not
the wetbacks, so-called bracero laborers, or the laborers. Have you
found that to be true also?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Senator, I could confirm that. That is absolutely
true so far as they have found. The so-called bracero or so-called
wetbacks have given us very little trouble. I don't know of any case
of any importance wherein a wetback or bracero was involved. Only
one or two very minor cases where just a very little quantity was found,
say in a little matchbox, and in each case it was not a commercial transaction but it was a laborer who claimed that it was for his own use and
there was no indication of traffic or resale in either of those cases. But
I believe General Swing is 100 percent correct when he said the type
they have found were commercial violators and not these poor little
braceros or wetbacks.
Senator
DANIEL.
I am glad to hear you confirm that,. You know
sometimes in Washington they want to blame all the evils on the border
on wetbacks, the laborers, they blame them sometimes for Communist
activities, next they want to say the laborers are bringing across narcotics. I frankly did not know what it was. I was a little afraid I
might find some of those people were smuggling, but I was very pleased
to hear General Swing's testimony that the laborers who come across
the border very seldom get in this trouble.
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Our records do not show that they are any menace
from that point of view.
Senator
Senator
Senator
DANIEL.
BUTLER.
DANIEL.
Do yOu have any questions, Senator Butler?

No, sir.
Mr. Counsel?

Senator DANIEL. Now, Mr. Fleishman, do you have any recoinmendations to make to this committee as to what we might recommend
to Congress to help strengthen your position or to help in any way
lick this narcotics racket?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Of course I am not a sociologist, but you were
speaking this morning about addicts going to these hospitals for
cures. I am not sure of what I am saying, but I believe it is a fnct
that when an addict leaves a Government hospital, he is just simply
turned out and that is the end of him. It seems to me if they are
going to make that cure effective that there should be somewhat of
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2549
an enforced parole for those people where they go back for a period
of time periodically to some public health doctor for an examination
to see if the cure has taken, to see if they have reverted to an addiction. I don't believe it is being done at the present time. but it always
seemed like a good idea to me.
Senator
DANIEL.
You would make that in the form of a recom-
mendation ?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. I would personally.

Senator DANIEL. Do you have any other recommendation?
Mr.
FLEISI-IAN.
Well, we are coming to the point nowadays where
invariably if defense counsels go to trial and don't plead their man

guilty, they demand that we produce the informer. God knows, it is
hard enough to get a good informer and good information in the
first place. The last thing a good officer ever wants to do is to divulge
hiis source of information, he certainly doesn't want to get the informer hurt, nowadays it is more common where they demand we produce an informer. I have always felt an informer should be protected
regardless of the consequences, if an officer gives his word to the
informer he should keep it. It has always been my impression that
you need not divulge the name of an informer unless he actually participated in the case. For example, you use an informer to introduce
an undercover agent to a smuggler, for the )urpose of making a buy
and setting up the background for a successful case. In that case you
might have to use an informer as a witness or divulge the source of
your information, also in that case we would tell the informer of
the possibility. But I don't believe that an informer should ever be
divulged unless he does actually participate in the case. If an
informer, for example, merely comes along and gives you a piece of
information that somebody is doing something, then through
you]own methods and means you work up a case, 1 see no reason in the
world why his identity should ever be revealed or questioned.
Senator BUTLER. Are the courts granting those petitions?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. We have had 2 or 3 instances where we have been
forced or the court has forced us to divulge informers. I was not
present at one particular case.
Senator BUTLER. Even though you could prove your case without
divulging the name of your informer?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Yes.
Senator BUTLER. And even though you have no intention of calling
the informer as a witness?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Yes, sir. Now, I have one case in mind. I was
not present in the case, what I am relating would be from hearsay
only. I was told of the case which was in another judicial district,
it was told to my office in El Paso but it was in another State and the
informer in the case had no participation in the case whatever except
that he furnished the information that they were down there to pick
up a load, and what happened? When they went to trial with them
and they demanded the name of the informer and the agent flatly refused to give the name of the informer, well, they recessed court.
The judge called them in, told them they would have to give the name
or lie would dismiss the case. The agent said he would not. They
went back in, the judge just simply dismissed the case.
Senator BUTLER. Where did that happen?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. In Arizona.
2550
ILLICIT NARCOTICS, TRAFFIC
In the U~nited States I)istrict Court of Arizona?

Mr. FLEISIMAN. Yes, sir.
Senator
BUTLER.
Senator BUTLER. Do you know who the judge was?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. No, sir, I do not. As I said before, what I am
saying is hearsay because I was not there.

Senator BUTLER. When did it happen?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Just recently, probably last month or the month
before.
Mr. GASQUE. Mr. Fleishman, there are so many of these questions
that have two sides I should like to ask you this question. Do you
know whether narcotics traffickers and violators have been kept in
business as a consequence of being informers?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. I can say that insofar as my agency is concerned
that there never has been anything like that occurred.

Mr. GASQUE. We have heard that in some cases, there have been
accusations in some cases that a permanent address has been set up
and used.
Mr.
Mr.
FLEISHMAN. We haven't
GASQUE. Thank you.
got anything like that.
Senator DANIEL. "Well,we certainly thank you, Mr. Fleishman, and
your testimony before another subcommittee of our Judiciary Committee at pages 17 through 32 of our Juvenile Delinquency Committee,
held last year, will be made a part of the appendix to this record.
Thank you very much.
(The testimony referred to may be found in the appendix at p. 3487.)
I believe your agents in charge at El Paso and at Laredo are here?
Mr. FLEIsHrAN. Yes, sir, both of them.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Richards, is he here?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Mr. Richards is the agent in charge at Laredo.
Under his jurisdiction he has an office at San Antonio, one at Eagle
Pass.
I heard Del Rio mentioned this morning. We are opening an office
in Del Rio. I am in the process of appointing two agents for Del
Rio.
Senator DANIEL. Now, are there any other places in Texas where you
have not had agents along the border that you are opening up offices now?
Mr. FLEISHMAN.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. FLEISHMAN.
Senator DANIEL.
I don't understand the question.

In Del Rio, you are opening up a new office?
Yes, sir.
Are there any other places on the Texas borders

where you are opening new offices now?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. No, sir. We have offices at Brownsville, McAllan,
Laredo., Eagle Pass, Del Rio, and El Paso.
Senator DANIEL. You are opening one in Del Rio now?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Opening one in Del Rio now, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Thank you very much.
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Thank you.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Richards.
(Mr. Albert 1). Richards was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)

Senator DANIEL. Mr. Richards, you may be seated. Will you state
your full name?
2551
TESTIMONY OF ALBERT D. RICHARDS, CUSTOMS AGENT IN CHARGE,

LAREDO, TEX.
Mr. RICHAiD. Albert D. Richards.

Senator DANIEL. And your position?
Mr. RICHARDS. Customs agent in charge, at Laredo, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you held this position?
Mr. RICHARDS. I have beeii a customs agent in charge nearly 6
years. I have been in Laredo a little over 3 years.
Senator DANIEL. Just state to us briefly what are the nature of your
duties there at Laredo.
Mr. RICHARDS.
I supervise the customs agents making investiga-
tions of violations of customs laws, on any law where customs are

charged with the enforcement such as export control, also to apprehend smugglers, any who enters the United States from Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Richards, do you have a prepared statement?
Mr.RCIARDS. I do, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you wish to file that with the committee and
summarize it or how would you like to handle your testimony .? We
want any information you think would be helpful.
Mr. RICIHADS. I would like to file the statement with the committee
and then more or less summarize the important high points in the
statement.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right, suppose you proceed to point out the
main things in the statement that you think will be of interest to us.
Mr. RIcnARDs. Well, I would like first to go over the figures of the
seizures during the past fiscal years, from the fiscal year of 1953 up
to and including 2 months of the fiscal year of 1956.
During the fiscal year of 1953 the agents under my supervision in
Laredo made 107 arrests, seized
Senator DANIEL. Eighty-eight pounds?

Mr. RICHARDS. No, they seized 727 pounds of marihuana, that is
crude and prepared marihuana. Ninty-eight and one-half grams of
heroin.
For the fiscal year of 1954 we made 122 arrests, seized 732 pounds
of marihuana; 1 pound, 6 ounces and 3 grams of heroin.
For the fiscal year of 1955 we made 115 arrests, seized 765 pounds
of marihuana, 10 ounces and 24 grams of heroin. The seizures during
this period have more or less been about the same. However, our personnel had dropped 2 men during that period, so we are operating
at the present time 2 men, 2 agents short of what they were when
I first went to Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. You first went to Laredo when?
Mr. RI HARDS. In 1952.

Senator DANIEL. Well, wasn't the situation a little bit less critical
there then than it is now?
Mr. RICHARDS. I don't believe there has been too areat
there has been an increase in the seizure of heroin since I
there but the marihuana has been just about the same.
there have been more seizures of prepared marihuana than
when I first went there.
a ch,1ne.
have been
However,
there were
Senator DANIEL. There certainly have been more seizures of heroin.

Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, sir.
2552
Senator DANIEL. Does that indicate to you the heroin traffic from
Mexico is growing?
Mr. RICHADS. Well, it would, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, are you short-handed with 2 men?
Mr. RicHARDs. I have been promised under this new increase 2
additional agents in Laredo, 2 additional agents in San Antonio and
2 additional agents in the Del Rio office which is now going to be open.
Senator DANIEL. Do you need that personnel?
Senator DANIEL. Badly?

Mr. RICHARDS. Very badly.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I am glad to see that it is being furnished to
you. We asked you to give us some information as to whether or not
most of the seizures you have made would indicate that heroin and
marihuana were being brought across from Mexico for use in Texas
or destined for other States.
Mr. RICHARDS. AS to heroin I would say that the majority of heroin
that we have seized in the Laredo area has been for use in the State
of Texas. However, it is just the opposite with marihuana. I believe that 90 percent of our seizures of over 25 or 40 pounds have been
destined for points outside the State of Texas, mostly to Chicago and
Illinois, some of it into New York.
Senator DANIEL. You said 90 percent of marihuana was destihled
forMr. RICHARDS. Points outside of Texas, some to California, the
great majority to Chicago, Ill., various points in Illinois, Indiana, and
New York.
Senator DANIEL. But you think the majority of your heroin is
destined for Texas?
Mr. RICHARDS. That's correct, most of the heroin is seized in gram
lots, anywhere from 10 to 20 grams at a time and I do not believe that
quantity is large enough to warrant the transporting of it out of the
State.
Senator DANIEL. Now, you have listed several cases which illustrate
what you have just concluded?
Mr. RICHARDS. That's correct.
Senator DANrEL. They will all be made a part of the record at the
end of your testimony. I would like to ask you if you can tell us something about operators in heroin and marihuana across the border
from Laredo. Do you happen to know any of the Mexican citizens
who are engaged in selling this dope?
Mr. RICHARDS. Through our sources of information we have a
number of people who we believe are selling heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Will you name those to us?
Mr. RICHARDS. I will name some that have been brought up here in
the committee if that will be agreeable. Pancho Trevino, for one, his
brother Enrique, or Henry Trevino.
Senator DANIEL. Let me ask you about those two men. Haven't
they been arrested at various times, at least once in Mexico for violations of the law?
Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, sir; Pancho Trevino was just released from
jail a short while back. He was in jail for nearly 2 years.
Senator DANIEL. Haven't they been wanted in the United States
for conspiracy to kill or for violation of narcotic laws?
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2553

Senator DANIEL. Both men?
Mr. RICHARDS. Both men.
Senator DANIEL. What States now want these two men who are
operating in heroin traffic over in Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. RICHARDS. I don't know of any State other than Texas.
Senator DANIEL. Texas wants them?
Mr. RICHARDS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know if efforts have been made by Federal
or State officials to have these men extradited, brought over here for
trial?
Mr. RICHARDS. I do not.
Senator DANIEL. At least you know these men have not been
brought to trial in the State or Federal court?
Mr.
RICHARDS.
That's correct.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know from the evidence that you have
examined that these men have been engaged in a conspiracy to smuggle narcotics into the State of Texas?
Mr. RICHARDS. We have numerous statements from defendants
which we have arrested.

Senator DANIEL. Do you know any way we can get these men over
to Texas to stand trial for violating our laws?
Mr. RICHARDS. I understand the Mexican law prohibits the extradition of any Mexican citizen or any American citizen of Latin American descent.
Senator DANIEL. And so these two men are free to continue in future
conspiracies to smuggle and sell narcotics in this country?
Mr. RICHARDS. As far as we are able to tell.

Senator DANIEL. They are out of jail now?
Mr. RICHARDS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Operating over there as far as you know?

Mr. RICHARDS. As far as I know.
Senator DANIEL. 'What about another character named Angel
Ramon, known as Black Angel?

Mr. RICHARDS. The Black Angel has been selling narcotics in Nuevo
Laredo for many, many years. His main trade is juveniles. Juveniles come from San Antonio and other cities and go across and buy
openly from him and he will deliver, have the narcotics delivered on
the American side.
Senator DANIEL. Now, what do you mean about the Black Angel,
you call him the Black Angel?
Mr. RICHARDS. Yes sir; this is the name he is known by in the trade.
rhat do you mean, he sells openly in Nuevo
Senator DANIEL.
Laredo?
Mr. RICHARDS. Anyone can go to his place and buy.
Senator DANIEL. Juveniles?
Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, sir. I believe Chief Bichsel mentioned a case

when he was on the stand this morning about a killing we had in
Laredo. That was the result of juveniles buying from the Black
Angel.
Senator DANIEL. Is Angel Ramon a Mexican or United States citizen V
Mr. RICHARDS. He is a Mexican.

Senator DANIEL. Didn't he serve a 4-year sentence in the United
States?
2554
Mr.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
RICHARDS.
TRAFFIC
I understand he served time in Texas.
We have
no Federal record of him.

Senator DANIEL. But he is now engaging in this traffic in Nuevo
Laredo?
Mr. RICHARDS. That's correct..
Senator DANIEL. How far is that from Texas? I know how far it
is but for the record
Mr. RICHARDS. It is the width of the Rio Grande River.
Senator DANIEL. The width of the Rio Grande River?
Mr. RICHARDS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. All you do is cross the bridge?

Mr. RIClArDs. Parts of the year the river is dry so it is a matter of
walking across the river bed.

Senator DANIEL. All right, can you name some more dealers of
heroin in Nuevo Laredo?

Mr. RICHARDS. I would rather not at this time, Senator, it might
interfere with certain investigations which we have.

Senator IDANIEL. All right. Are there others?
Mr. RIciARDs. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Known to you?
Senator DANIEL. Now, let me ask you about these juveniles crossing
there. Do you have any way of watching that, do you have anybody
who can watch and see the juveniles or addicts who might go across
and buy dope so as to check them when they come back across the
bridge to see what they have on them?
Mr. RICHARDS. That would be very hard. Thousands and thousands
of people are crossing the bridge daily and coming back. However,
we do have a check. When an inspector on duty sees someone they
susl)ect of being .an addict, when they find they have needle marks or
admit it, we make the card up on them with the name, address, and all
the information we can. That is kept on file so that any time the man
is picked up in the future the inspector who examines him will know
he has been handled previously.
Senator DANIEL. The information has come to our committee that
quite a few narcotic addicts are crossing the border into Mexico. Have
you had any occasion that you could tell us about? You say you watch
them, those you know?
Mr. RICHARDS. We can't watch them all, Senator. However, when
an inspector at the bridge stops an addict or sees one we know is an
addict they have handled before, they try to detain them. Most of
them will not bring the narcotics back across with them, they have
someone deliver to them in Laredo. So the inspector detains them
and calls the office and I send an agent or I will go, try to tail these
people to the point where they make the pickup, but there are so
many we can't tail them all.
Senator DANIEL. About how many narcotic addicts would you

say cross the border there at Laredo each day?
Mr. RICHAR.DS. That would be very hard to say. We have made
cards since February on 35 addicts that have admitted being addicts
and where needle marks showed at the time they come back that they
have just had a shot.
Senator DANIEL. They have 35 cards on addicts who crossed over
the border and received shots?
2555,
Mr. IUCHARDS. In Mexico, yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. When did you start making these cards?
Mr. RICI1ARDS. I believe that was started ini February, I'm not sureThat was the collectors, and the inspector is here with those records.
Senator DANIEL. Where do most of those addicts come from?
Mr. RICHARDDS. Houston, San Antonio, as far north as Dallas. That
is, the repeaters.
Senator DANIEL. That cross back?
Mr. RICHARDS. We see them every week or so, every few days.
Senator DANIEL. Now what would your estimate of the daily traffic
of known addicts who cross there be ?

Mr. RIChARDS. I believe we can safely say at least 10 addicts, known
addicts, a day coming across the bridge.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what do you think they are crossing for.?
Mr. RICHARDS. Well, sone of them are going over to get shots.
others are going over to make deals, to pick up narcotics on this
side to take back.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you think you all recognize all the
addicts that are crossing the border there at Laredo?
Mr. RICHARDS. Absolutely not.
Senator DANIEL. If you know an average of at least 10 a day crossing that you recognize and that you have cards on, wouldn't it be
pretty safe to estimate that there are quite a few more addicts crossnig there every day "
Mr. RICILAm)s. There's bounI to be ninny more than we ever find.
Senator I)ANIEL. Do you have any way of estimating about what
type of purchases they make over there?
Mr. Ricil. uu)s. The average addict that we have, I am mentionillg
now, are mA.king small purchases for their own use or just a little
to sell to get enough money to go back and buy more. The biodlealers I don't believe are the addicts. They are the ones we are
after but they come back clean.
Senator )ANIEL. They come back clean and have delivery made by
someone else?
Mr. RIcHAIDS. Have delivery made in San Antonio, Dallas, Fort
Worth, or Houston, or other large cities.
Senator DANIEL. Well, let's say there are at least 10 addicts a day
who go over there. Do you ever find them, when you search them
coning back, do you ever find them with any narcotics on them?
Mr. RICHARDS. Usually they will have their delivery made after
they are back on this side.
Senator DANIEL. What would you estimate that traffic amounts to?
How much do you estimate those narcotic addicts crossing there daily
are purchasing in the way of narcotics?
Mr. RICHARDS. Oh, I would estimate their purchase as from 1 to
5 grams.
Senator DANIEL. Per trip?
Senator DANIEL. One to five grams and that is worth what in
Mexico?
Mr. RICHARDS. There has been a standard price in Mexico since I
have been there of $20 a gram.
2556
Senator
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
DANIEL.
TRAFFIC
Well if, they purchased 5 grams a piece, 10 ad-
dicts, that would be a thousand dollars a day. Do you think that

would be a minimum, counting the addicts you also don't know that
do cross?
Mr. RICHARDS. That would be hard to estimate.
Senator DANIEL. What do you think? Give use your best estimate.
It is goi ng in the record as an estimate only.
Mr. RICHARDS. It would be a very hard estimate to make.
Senator DANIELS. What would be your best estimate as to how many

narcotic addicts cross the border there daily at Laredo?
With the ones we know and those we don't know I

would say it would be at least 25 a day.
Mr. RICHARDS.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you believe that they are going over to
get a few shots or most of them are trying to arrange to get narcotics
delivered to them after they get back on this side?
Mr. RICHARDS. Some go over for their shots.
Senator DANIEL. A few?
Mr. RICHARDS. A few hangers-on around Laredo until run out of
town. Others try to get enough for their own use and to make enough
money to come back and buy more.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Richards, why does our Government let the
addicts go across the border?
Mr. RICHARDS. I would not answer that.
Senator DANIEL. Sir?
Mr. RICHARDS. I would not answer that.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know of any other way in which your
narcotic addict can leave this country ?
Mr. RICHARDS. Well, there is no law to prevent them from leaving.
Senator DANIEL. Well, as I understand the law, narcotic violators
and addicts are prohibited from leaving the United States on passports or visas.
Mr. RICHARDS. You 'don't need a passport or visa to cross at the
border. All you need is 5 cents.
Senator DANIEL. Five cents?
Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, Sir.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, the way our laws are today,
there's nothing to keep these addicts from crossing that border?

Senator DANIEL. Or the Canadian-border? It is the same on the
Canadian border?
Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, sir, because I was stationed in Seattle before
I came to the Mexican border, and it is the same.
Senator DANIEL. Well, it would appear to me with all the evidence
we have heard about how addicts buy and sell drugs to sustain their
habits that there ought to be some way you people who can recognize
these addicts could stop them and keep them from crossing the bridge.
What would you think about that?

Mr. RICHARDS. It would be a good thing if it could be done. It would
take a lot of personnel.
Senator DANIEL. You are just talking about Laredo?
Senator DANIEL. How many more bridges do we have across the
Rio Grande where addicts maybe crossing?
2557
Mr. RICHARDS. In Texas we have one at El Paso, at Del Rio, Eagle
Pass, Laredo, Falcon Dam, Roma, Hidalgo, Brownsville.
Senator DANIEL. Well, it would appear to me that if they are cross-
ing at other points as much as they are at Laredo these addicts could
be bringing a lot of drugs into this country.
Mr. RICHARDS.
Senator
They could very easily.
DANIEL.
And they are in your opinion?
Senator DANIEL. Bringing a considerable amount?

Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, sir. There is another thing, Senator, there's
no protection between the bridges other than an occasional patrol by
the immigration. The customs have no patrol. The river can be
waded at most points, and around the Laredo area it is dry part of
the year. So the only inspection they get is when they come across the
bridge. Go up the river around the bend, if we don't have information
all they have to do is wade right across the river. They wouldn't get
their knees wet.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Richards, you are telling this committee something. You mean there's no patrol of the river between these bridges?
Mr. RICHARDS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Where does the border patrol come in?

Mr. RICHARDS. The immigration border patrol have a patrol out
but I say as far as watching the river crossings, there are many river
crossings where there is no watch whatsoever. The border patrol is
a roving patrol and is not stationed at any point along the river.
Senator DANIEL. They are on a roving patrol, stationed back away
from the river?
Mr. RICHARDS. They follow the highway along the river, but they
do not patrol the river on foot. It is all by automobiles. They have
roadblocks and road checks at points some 18 or 20 miles from Laredo
where they stop automobile traffic but as far as crossing the river, if
they know where the roadblocks are, it is not hard to get around the
roadblocks.
Mr. GASQUE. If a man doesn't mind he can walk 18, 20, or 30 miles
and avoid the roadblock?
Mr. RICIIARDS. That's right. He can ride in a car 15 miles and walk
around, get back.
Senator DANIEL. Get back to the bridges, I am glad you brought in
the evidence. This is the first time it has been brought before this
committee. We had been under the impression that the border was
being patrolled pretty carefully.
Mr. RICHARDS. It is being patrolled the best they can with the personnel.
Senator DANIEL. But let's get back to the bridges where they just
walk across conveniently, where 10 addicts can walk across right there,
you know them, recognize them and keep cards on them. And you
know that there are more than that going across that are bringing drugs
or having them brought back over nere. What do you think the cominittee ought to do with a situation of that kind? What would you
recommend to the Congress through us?
Mr..- RICHARDS. About the only thing I know is more personnel and
try to prevent it as much as we can.
Senator DANTFL. Well, what is wrong with the law preventing ad-dicts from leaving this country?
2558
That would be a very good law, that would stop a

great deal of it. However, we are then going to have the same probleiii
with the large dealer who is not an addict, going down making arrangements.
Senator DANIEL. You have that anyway?
Mr. RICHARDS. We have that anyway.
Senator DANIEL. You have that trouble anyway and there's no telling how much these addicts are bringing back over here that you
don't catch.
Mr. RICHARDS. That's correct. However, I do believe, Senator, that
the addicts that we have catalogued aren't the people that are giving Us
the big trouble, they are bringing back small quantities. It is trouble
in a small way. They are not bringing back the large quantities.
Senator DANIEL. If they are bringing back a thousand dollars a
day across the Laredo bridge alone, of course, that is going to amount
to something itself, that will amount to a pretty good sized amount of
money. I am counting now the 10 that you recognize coming back,.
who you say bring back 1 to 5 grams, worth $20 a gram. You say
you recognize 10 a day. You figure there are at least 25, maybe 15
more that you don't recognize. You add that all together on that
bridge, it would run to about half a million dollars' worth of traffic
a day-I mean a year, excuse me.
Mr. RICHARDS.
Well, now, do you think that would be a good recommendations
for this committee to make to Congress, that we pass a law preventing

narcotic addicts from leaving the borders of this country?
Mr. RICHARDS. I believe it would be, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, do you report those addicts to the BurealL
of Narcotics?
Mr. RICHARDS. We haven't in the past. However, Mr. Speer, wheni
he was in Laredo, brought that question up and I understand that they
have those forms iin El Paso. and if they will send them to me I will
make them out.
Senator DANIEL. Make them out and report to the Bureau of Narcotics?
Mr. RICHARDS. Bureau of Narcotics, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Has the Bureau of Narcotics ever communicated
with you to inform you as to the names or descriptions of any adyou could look out for them on the bridge?
dicts
Mr.soRICHARDS. Yes, sir. they interchange with the Narcotics Bureau
at San Antonio and our office continually. If they have any infornation, any addicts coming down for narcotics, they call me and we put
a lookout for them.
Senator DANIEL. You mean trying to get all the law-enforcement
agencies to get the name, description, and all the information they
can and exchange with the Bureau of Narcotics?
Senator DANIEL. Those information sheets you have not been sending in in the past?
You do intend to start that?

Mr. RICHARDS. We'll be glad to.
Senator DANIEL. It will furnish the Bureau of Narcotics with information and should give you all the information possible on the
Senator
DANIEL.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2559
Ad(licts that might be coming across your border so you can recognize
],iore of them.
Mr. RICHARDS. They are giving me every bit of that information
they have, I'm quite sure.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I will be frank with you, this testimony
astounds me, that our laws are not any more strict on this matter of
addicts leaving the country.
Senator Butler, do you have any questions?
Senator BUTLER. Mr. Richards, insofar as the State of Texas is concerned, do you give information to the local authorities of persons that
you know to be addicts so they can be apprehended under the Texas
law ?
Mr. RIcIl\RDS. I give all the information relative to addicts in the
State to Mr. Naylor.
Senator BUTLER. Well, so far as you know, are those addicts appreheded under Texas law and taken off the streets or are they perrnitted to go across the bridge?
Mr. RICHARDS. As far as Laredo is concerned they do not enforce any
of the law. I meani they do not pick them up and take them off the
streets.
Senator BuER. That is possible under the Texas law, isn't it?
Senator BUTLER. That is mandatory?
Mr. IiCHARDS. However, before I came I had the office checked,
there has not been a )rosecution under the Texas law in Laredo since
the law.
Senator BUTLER. That,is because of such recent origin?
Mr. RICHARDS. That may be, yes, sir.
'Senator BUTLER. You don't luow whether the State of Texas has any
plan on foot to pick these addicts up that you know are crossing the
bridge every day?
Mr. RICHARDS. I do not know what the plans are, no, sir.
Senator )ANIEL. Mr. Counsel?
Mr. GAsQUE. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator DANIEL. Now, do you know any other narcotic violators
from tle Unlited States who have fled over there to Mexico and whom
iw can't get back to the United States for trial?
Mr. RICnARDS. I have three major violators who are fugitives at the
present time in Mexico.
Senator
DANIEL.
RICHARDS. I
Sir?
Mr.
say I have three major violators who are fugitives
in Mexico at the present time.
Senator DANIEL. Would you give us their names and tell us a little
oI)out them?
Mr. RICHARDS. They are in the statement. Vicente Garcia who was
one of the main violators who lived at Beeville, Tex., failed to appear
for trial. 1-is bond was forfeited. He is now operating a saloon in
Reynosa across from Hlidalgo. A man by the name of Francisco Omar
Vela who escaped at Laredo is living in Nuevo Laredo at the present
time.
Senator DANIEL. Now wait, where was Francisco Vela born, in
Lja redo?
Mr. RICHARDS. Born in Laredo, American citizen of Latin American
,descent.
2560
Senator DANIEL. What was he arrested for?
Mr. RICHARDS. He had 18 pounds-13 pounds of marihuana con-
cealed under the hood of his automobile, when the inspector started to
raise the hood he drew a gun on the inspector and escaped'back to
Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. And he is now in Mexico?
Mr. RICHARDS. Now in Nuevo Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. Just across the river?
Senator DANIEL. But he's wanted, I suppose, for more than one
offense?
Mr. RICHARDS. The marihuana smuggling and the assault on the
officer.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know what attempts have been made to
get him back for trial?
Mr. RICHARDS. I talked to the Federal district attorney in Nuevo
Laredo, and he is the one who informed me of the law of Mexico; any
Mexican citizen or American citizen of Latin American descent could
not be extradited.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know if this Omar Vela is engaged in
narcotics traffic?
Mr. RICHARDS. I don't know what he is doing.
Mr. GASQUE. The individual who drew the gun was a Mexican citizen ?
Mr. RICHARDS. American, of Latin descent.
Mr. GASQUE. Of Latin descent. Of course, it is our law in the United

States that they will not deport an American citizen or extradite an
American citizen to answer criminal charges.
Senator DANIEL. Now, did you name all of those?
Mr. RICHARDS. There is one other. There is Armando Menchaca.
Senator DANIEL. Better spell it.
Mr. RICHARDS. M-e-n-c-h-a-c-a.
He is living now in Villa Acuna,
Mexico, across from Del Rio. I believe he and his brother were two
of the largest smugglers of marihuana shipping it into Chicago that
we had in the Del Rio-Eagle Pass area. We have caught many, many
pounds of marihuana which they had their hanils in. At the time they
were brought up for questioning we couldn't get anything on them
and they were released. Later we found enough evidence to change
them and they escaped across to Mexico. We later apprehended one
of them. He is serving 5 years in the Federal penitentiary. The other
one is still a fugitive in Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. Are they American citizens?
Mr. RICHARDS. They are American citizens.
Senator DANIEL. All right, do you have any other cases of narcotic
violators who are wanted in this country but who are now across the
border in Mexico?
Mr. RICHARDS. I believe those are the only three outstanding ones
I have.
Senator
DANIEL.
What about Juan Cantu?
He is not in my area. He is in the Brownsville

area. I know his name has come up quite often. However, we don't
have him.
Senator DANIEL. How about a Gonzales in Reynosa?
Mr. RICHARDS. That is out of my area.
Mr.
RICHARDS.
I1II1
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
Senator
DANIEL.
TRAFFIC
2561
That is out of your area?
Senator DANIEL. You have his case in this statement, though, I

believe?
Mr. RICHArMS. No, I don't believe so.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Richards, do you feel that the Mexican authorities across the border there are doing their best to keep down
narcotic traffic and smuggling?
Mr. RICHARDS. I do not have too much dealings with the Mexican
authorities, the civil authorities. However, the Army has been cooperating very good with me, the officers of the Army, and the Army
now has out patrols up and down the Mexican side of the river to
try to prevent a certain amount of this smuggling, and the officers
in charge have been very cooperative.
Senator
DANIEL.
Any further questions, Senator Butler?
Senator BUTLER. No, I haven't.

Mr. GASQUE. Then it is that part of the law, Mexican law, referring to Latin American descent which causes this difficulty?
Mr. RICHARDS. That is what I understand; yes, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, does that mean that if an Irishman goes over
the border you can bring him back?
Mr. RICHARws. They will extradite him.
Mir. GASQUE. But not one of Latin American name?
Mr.
RICHARDS.
Senator
That's correct.
DANIEL.
Latin American descent; is that correct?
Mr. RIcl-TARDS. That's correct.
If any of their forefathers came
from Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, do you have any other information
that you think will be helpful to this committee?
Mr.
RiCIArMS.
Yes, Senator, I have one thing, that I believe should
be remedied. We have a ruling at the present time that when we

catch marihuana at the bridge being smuggled across or when we
app ehend a man coming across the river with marihuana acquired
in Mexico or admits he acquired it in Mexico and we catch him, we
can only indict that man under section 545, title 18, which is the
smuggling section, entering merchandise into the United States contrary to law, which will not allow us to file; we file before the commissioners under the marihuana laws. However, they will not indict and the judges will not even accept a plea of guilty to violation
of marihuana law where the man acquired the marihuana in Mexico
and brings it across himself. They have ruled it must be a transfer
of marihuana within the United States before the marihuana tax
laws become applicable.
Senator DANIEL. Now, who has ruled that?
Mr. RICHARDS. I believe that is the California court ruling and
now the courts in the Southern Judicial District of Texas ruled the
same way.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, the smuggling case of marihuana
is not tried under the statutes that purport to cover marihuana but
tried under your general smuggling statute which has a lower penalty?
Mr. RICHARDS. It has 5 years; the Boggs Act does not apply. We
can catch a man 3 or 4 times smuggling marihuana, the maximum he
can get on any of those is 5 years, where your Boggs Act makes a
'2562
mandatory sentence on the second time of 5 years and 10 years on

the third conviction; but on the smuggling it is anything up to 5
years or probation.
Senator
So on smuggling marihuana, the law I thought
DANIEL.
covering marihuana specifically is not used?

Mr. RICHARDS. It is not used. Section 4744 of title 26 is the marihuana law; I believe 4751 is the law that prevents importation or puts
the penalty on the importation. However, the courts have ruled a
man bringing marihuana across is not an import.
Mr. GAsQUE.That is because of the internal revenue provisions of
the marihuana tax law, I believe.
Mr. RICHARDS. However, in the tax law it says that you must be
registered and pay a $24-a-year tax to be an importer, manufacturer;
it names a number of things. The courts have ruled this man who
acquired marihuana in Mexico is not an importer and cannot be
charged with anything.
Senator DANIEL. I don't quite understand why the courts hold that.
It is not the first time I have failed to understand court decisions, you
know. But do you have all that detail here in your statement?
Mr. RIC-ARDS. I have a number of cases listed there where we have
seized marihuana coming out of Mexico where they were only charged
with section 4745.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Give us some of that information, let's see how it
works. These listed on page 12.

Suppose you go over a couple of those, at least,
your main point.

Mr. RICHARDS. My main point is this: If we can't get them under the
marihuana tax penalty, a penalty should be written into section 4745,
anyone caught smuggling marihuana would be subject to the provisions of the Boggs Act.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Does it end up that you get real small sentences;
is that why you don't like the present procedure?

Mr. RICHARDS. No, sir; I don't like it because you have no prior
conviction of a narcotic violation or marihuana violation even though
you catch them 2 or 3 times.
Oh. I see.
In other words, under the Boggs Act
which applies on narcotic drugs, after you catch a person so many

times his penalty, his sentence, each time is so much higher; is that
correct?
Senator
DANIEL.
sentence?
Mr. RICHARDS.
Your point is, this should count as a narcotic
That's correct.
Senator DANIEL. When someone smuggles marihuana across the

border?
Senator
DANIEL.
The way it is now being filed under the General
Smuggling Act does not count as a conviction for narcotic violation?
Mr.
RIcIARDS.
Yes, sir.
Senator D.ANIEL. I see. Would you give us a case or 2, pick out

:any 1 or 2? you think illustrates the point you are making to the
committee
I1II1
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2563
Mr. RICHARDS. Well, on August 6, 1955, Louis Pulos, of New York

City, was arrested after he had entered the United States. Search of
his automobile disclosed 26 paper packages containing approximately
161/ pounds of crude marihuana. This man was charged by the customs agents before the Commissioner with a violation of the marihuana tax laws and with the smuggling statute. However, he was
only indicted under the general smuggling statute and went to trial
and was convicted of the violation of the general smuggling statute.
That same thing applies in all of the other cases.
Senator DANIEL. What did he get?

Mr. RICHARDS. He got 9 months.
Senator DANIEL. I don't know if that is what is worrying you, that

is the thing about it which is bothering me-sentences of 9 months for
such cases. In what court was this?,
Mr. RICHARDS. That is the southern judicial district of Texas.
Laredo court, Judge Conley. That isn't only Judge Conley's ruling,
it is all of the judges.
Senator DANIEL. I am just wondering, though, under the statute
that was applied here, couldn't a larger sentence be given?
Mr. RICHARDS. Up to 5 years.
Senator
DANIEL.
Up to 5 years. I missed that when you were read-
ing, did he plead guilty or not? Do you remember?

Mr. RICHARDS. He entered a plea of guilty.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right, now let's see, you have about four of
those cases there. I see 3 defendants here entered pleas of guilty, each
was given 6 months' sentence, suspended for a period of 5 years?
Senator DANIEL. Was that for smuggling marihuana, too?
Mr. RICHARDS. Smuggling 18 , ounces of marijuana.
Senator DANIEL. The case of Louis Judge, of New Jersey, arrested
for 4 pounds of marihuana, and it seems he was given, sentenced to a
term of 18 months, suspended for a period of 5 years?
Mr. RICHARDS. That s correct.
Senator DANIEL. And he paid a $500 fine at the rate of $100 a
]flonth ?
Senator DANIEL. Now, Mr. Richards, regarding these sentences, do
you think they are going to deter people from smuggling across that
border? In other words, frankly, what is your opinion about the sentences? I am sure, possibly there's something here that causes the
judges to give these low sentences and 1 am not saying it in criticism
of the judges. I am just asking you, if they slapped higher sentences
on these smugglers it would deter people from bringing drugs across
the border?
Mr. RICHARDS. I believe it would have effect on them, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Generally, what about penalties in the district in
which you operate, are, they heavy or low?
Mkr. RIcHARDS. I would say that they are moderate.
Senator DANIEL. Moderate?
Mr. RichIiARDS. Yes, sir.
Mr. Speer shows ine another case in which a hundred pounds of crude marihuana contained in 4 burlap bags, 250 bags.
of boiler onions, and a 1954 2-ton truck were seized in the raid.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
RICHARDS.
Yes, sir.
'2564
Senator
Are you acquainted with that one?

Yes, sir.
DANIEL.
Mr. RICHARDS.
Senator DANIEL. That was in March, this year?
Senator DANIEL. That involved a hundred pounds of marihuana?
Mr.
RICHARDS.
Two men from Los Angeles, Calif.
Senator DANIEL. One was given 2 years in the penitentiary and fined
'$100 and the other sentenced to a term of 18 months and fined $100.
Well, have you ever looked to see how the sentences on narcotics cases
in your district compare with the sentences in the rest of the country?
Mr. RICHARDS. No; I haven't had any comparison, I couldn't tell
you.
Senator DANIEL. Would you have any recommendation to this committee other than what you have given us now?
Mr. RICHARDS. I believe that would have its effect because it would
make it a mandatory sentence of 5 years on second offense.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, do you think that it would help
to get the smuggling over under the Boggs Act which has it mandatory
of 5 years on the second offense?
Mr. RICHARDS. It would have its effect.

Senator DANIEL. Well, do you find any judges in your district that
,object to the Boggs Act because of the mandatory penalties?

Mr. RICHARDS. I understand from the United States attorney that
they all do. However, I do not know.
Senator DANIEL. You do not know. Are there any further questions?
Senator BUTLER. No.
Mr. GAsQUE. No.
Senator DANIEL. Oh, Mr. Richards, did you bring your cards on
the narcotic addicts that you have registered crossing the bridge?
Mr. RICHARDS. The inspector who handled the cards or did handle
the cards brought them. I did not bring them.
Mr. RICHARDS. Inspector Murphy.

Senator DANIEL. Inspector Murphy if you will come forward.
Mr. Richards, are you going back to Laredo today?
Mr. RICHARDS. I will stay through the hearing.
Senator DANIEL. Just in case you have any further suggestions to
give us before you leave, we would appreciate it. You have given
us some evidence here that has come before the committee for the
first time.
Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Fleishman reminded me of one thing I heard
mentioned earlier by the sheriff, that is, relative to wiretapping in
narcotic cases. I am heartily in favor of that. I believe that wiretapping should be legalized in narcotics cases.
Senator DANIEL. 1b 0 you find the narcotic traffickers use the telephone a great deal ?
RICHARDS. They used to.
Senator DANIEL. What do you
Mr.
mean, they used to?
Mr. RICHARDS. Before they outlawed the wiretapping they did.

I don't know what they have done since then.
2565
Senator DANIEL. Oh, I see. In other words, you haven't been tapping any wires lately?
Mr. RiCHAIDS. Not lately.
Senator DANIEL. Is that what you mean?
Mr. RICHARDS. That's what I mean.
Senator DANIEL. When you were able to tap them, you found a lot
of information on narcotic traffic?
Mr. RICHARDS. That's correct. We made some very, very large
cases.
Senator DRNIEI.. And it slows you down a lot because under the
rulings of our courts, you could not use wiretapped evidence in
Federal courts?
Mr. RICHARDS. It even goes further, you cannot even wiretap, let
alone use the evidence. We very seldom, in fact, I don't know of a
customs case where they ever used the evidence or information in court,
but used the information to develop the case only.
Senator D. NiIEL. Well, if you will stay with us tomorrow so as to
'ive us any further information or suggestions you might have, we will
appreciate it.
(Following is the prepared statement submitted by Mr. Richards:)
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS,
Laredo, Tcx., October 11. 1955.

SENATE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS,
Senate Office Building, Washi)ngton, D. C.

(Attention: Counsel C. Aubrey Gasque.)
I)EAR SIR: In compliance with a letter and telegram received from the Honorable Price Daniel, United States Senate, the following prepared statement is
submitted relative to the activities of the office of the customs agent in charge
at Laredo, Tex.
At the present time, a customs agent in charge and nine customs agents are
assigned to the Laredo area of the Customs Agency Service. A customs agent
in charge and 5 customs agents are stationed in Laredo, 2 customs agents are
stationed in Eagle Pass, Tex., and 2 customs agents are stationed in San Antonio,
Tex.
The area supervised by the customs agent in charge at Laredo, Tex., extends
from the Pecos River on the west to Rio Grande City, Tex., on the east, which
is a distance of approximately 400 miles of international border between the
United States and Mexico. This area then extends from both the east and west
points north to the Oklahoma line, excluding the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth,
Tex. Along the international border, which is the Rio Grande River in this
area, there are numerous cities on both sides of the river. The largest of these
on the United States side are Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Laredo, Roma, and Rio
Grande City. On the Mexican side are Villa Acuna, Piedras Negras, Nuevo
Laredo, Cuerrero, San Pedro de Roma, and Camargo. On the American side
of the international border there are fine paved roads paralleling the river
throughout this area. There are also lateral highways leading to San Antonio.
Dallas, Fort Worth, and Houston, Tex.
2566
Narcotic arrests and seizures, 1953, 1954, and 1955, Bureau of Customs,
Laredo, Tex.
FISCAL YEAR 1953
Arrests ........
Crude marihuana .........
Prepared marihuana-_
Marihuana cigarettes ...............
---------------------------------Heroin
107.
88 pounds 11 ounces.
639 pounds 101/ ounces.
160.
98
grams.
FISCAL YEAR 1954
Arrests -...
Crude marihuana
Semiprepared marihuana ---------------------Prepared marihuana ......
Marihuana cigarettes---------------------------------Crude opium
Heroin
---------------------------------Codeine
---------------------------------
122.
52 pounds % ounce.
335 pounds 1% ounces.
99.
17 ounces.
1 pound 6 ounces, 3 grams,
11 grains.
200 grains.
FISCAL YEAR 1955
Arrests ----------------------------------Crude marihuana -------------------------Semiprepared marihuana -------------------Prepared marihuana --------------------------.

Marihuana cigarettes ---------------------Crude opium
----------------------------Heroin
---------------------------------FISCAL YEAR 1956
115.
293 pounds 9
ounces.
5 pounds 12 ounces.
69.
18.50 grains.
10 ounces 24 grams, 10 grain&
(TO DATE)
Arrests ----------------------------------Crude marihuana -------------------------Prepared marihuana ----------------------Marihuana cigarettes ---------------------Heroin

-----------------------------------
32.
24 pounds.
55 pounds 8 ounces.
41.
2 ounces 29 grams, 8 grain&
In addition to the above-listed seizures of narcotic drugs, customs agents

assigned to this area, during the fiscal years 1952, 1953, 1954, and 1955, made
seizures for violations of customs laws amounting to $970,771 and fines and
penalties were incurred for violations of customs laws discovered or investigated
by customs agents amounting to $1,363,722. The majority of the cases resulting
in these fines and penalties were in addition to investigations for violations of
the narcotic laws and narcotic smuggling.
I was requested to list a number of cases in which narcotics, which had been
smuggled into the United States in the Laredo area and were intended for points
outside the State of Texas, were apprehended. There is listed below a brief
r(sum6 in a number of these cases which this office considers important.
L 6-885
Noral Williams, Gertrude Young, Laura Young, and Rebecca Young Smalls,
all residents of Brooklyn, N. Y., were apprehended in San Antonio, Tex., on
October 5, 1951, as they alighted from the train which came from Mexico City.
The marihuana, which was contained in 3 large zipper suitcases, was transferred
from one pullman car to another pullman car for which the 3 women defendants
had tickets, and amounted to 140 pounds. At the time Williams was questioned
relative to the marihuana which was seized, he stated that on this particular
trip to Mexico City, he had purchased 727 pounds of marihuana; that he had
15 canvas zipper suitcases made specially to order and had concealed the marihuana in these bags; that upon his arrival in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, he wns
unable to find storage space in the pullman car to conceal the marihuaina and
unloaded 12 bags containing the balance in Nuevo Laredo and stored it in a
small hotel.
In addition to this particular trip, Williams stated that he had made numerous
trips to Mexico City, bringing back a large quantity of marihuana each time and
transporting it to Brooklyn, N. Y. On January 12, 1954, these defendants were
sentenced in Federal district court, as follows: Count 1 of the indictment against
each of the defendants was dismissed upon motion of the defense attorneys.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2567
Noral Williams was given 2 years to serve on count 2; 2 years to serve on count
3, sentence under count 3 to begin at expiration of sentence under count 2.
Gertrude Young was sentenced to serve 18 months on counts 2 and 3, sentences
to run concurrently on count 3 with count 2. Laura Young was sentenced to 18
months to serve on counts 2 and 3, sentence on count 3 to run concurrent with
sentence on count 2. Rebecca Young Smalls was sentenced to 18 months to serve
on counts 2 and 3, sentence on count 3 to run concurrent with sentence on count 2.
L 6-868
On September 21, 1952, Jose Onesimo Gonzalez, Mexican alien residing in
Victoria, Mexico, was arrested approximately 20 miles north of Laredo, Tex.,
afer 93 pounds of prepared marihuana had been found concealed in a 1952 Buick
sedan which he was driving. Information had been received by customs agents
that Onesimo Gonzalez would receive this smuggled marihuana in Laredo, Tex.,
and transport it to Chicago, Ill. He was charged, indicted, and convicted for
violation of section 545, title 18 and 2593 (a), title 26, United States Code. He
was sentenced to serve a term of 2 years on count 1 and 5 years on count 2, both
sentences to run concurrently.
L 6-1081
On January 22, 1953, Juan Baez Gonzalez, Jr., Joel Fernandez, Juan Baoz,
Sr., Trinidad Gonzalez Baez, Concepcion Baez Gonzalez, and Guadalupe Soto
Serna were arrested approxiamtely 20 miles north of Laredo, Tex., after 115
pounds of prepared marihuana had been found concealed in 2 steel footlockers
in a 1937 model Hudson sedan being driven by Guadalupe Soto Serna with Joel
Fernandez as a passenger in the car. Information had been received by customs
agents that the above marihuana would be smuggled into the United States at
Laredo, Tex., and transported in the Hudson automobile to San Antonio where
it was to be transferred to a public carrier and shipped to Chicago, Ill. This
agent received further information that Juan Baoz, Sr. would assist in the smuggling of the marihuana into the United States and Juan Baez Gonzalez, Jr.,
Trinidad Gonzalez Baez and Concepcion Baez Gonzalez would accompany the
marihuana after it left San Antonio but would ride in a Travel Bureau car
between Laredo and San Antonio. These three persons were taken from the
Travel Bureau car at the time it passed the place the Hudson automobile had
been stopped and the marihuana found concealed therein. This case is interestin,, in view of the fact that Trinidad Gonzalez Baez was the sister of Onesimo
Gonzalez, mentioned in the previous listed case; Juan Baez, Jr. and Concepcion
Baez Gonzalez were niece and nephew of Onesimo Gonzalez. The case against
Joel Fernandez, Trinidad Gonzalez Baez, and Concepcion Baez Gonzalez was
dismissed on motion of the United States attorney. Juan Baoz, Sr., Juan Baoz
Gonzalez, Jr., and Guadalupe Soto Serna were tried before a jury and found
guilty as charged. Each of these defendants was sentenced to serve a term of
5 years on counts 1 and 2 of an indictment charging violation of section 545,
title 18 and 2593 (a), title 26, United States Code.
LE 6-11180
On June 1, 1953, Roberto Rodriguez and Daniel Vargas, both American citizens
and residents of Grand Rapids, Mich., were arrested at Eagle Pass, Tex., when
22 pounds of refined marihuana was found concealed in a 1950 Buick sedan
which was being driven by Rodriguez. Rodriguez, when questioned, admitted
that he had picked up Vargas in Chicago, Ill., brought him to Eagle Pass where
he had purchased 10 kilos of marihuana in Mexico, smuggled it across the international bridge at Eagle Pass and intended to return it to Grand Rapids, Mich.,
where he intended to smoke some of it and sell the rest. Each of the above
defendants entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to serve a term of 2 years
and fined $1.
LS 6-1129
On March 8, 1955, customs inspectors, acting on previous information furnished
by customs agents, searched Pedro Rodriguez, 'United States citizen resident
of Sap Antonio, Tex., when he alighted from an American Airlines airplane
from Mexico City. Search of his person disclosed 1543.72 grains of heroin,
18.50 grains of opium, and 33.35 grains of marihuana concealed in his pockets.
This mnn had been the subject of an investigation by this office since July 6,
1953. Information was to the effect that Rodriguez, after successfully receiving
smuggled narcotics, would transport or have same transported to California
or New York.
This defendant entered a plea of guilty to 3 counts of an
2568
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
indictment and was sentenced by a Federal district judge in San Antonio to serve
5 years on count 1 and a $100 committed fine; 7 years on count 2, and a $100
committed fine and 7 years on count 3 with a $100 committed fine, counts 2 and
3 to run concurrently and consecutively to count 1.
LE 6-1138
On July 28, 1953, Vicente E. Mendoza, a resident of New York City, was arrested at the international bridge, Eagle Pass, Tex., when 50 pounds of refined
marihuana were found in a 1949 Buick Roadmaster sedan by customs inspectors who became suspicious of this man's actions when he was asked to declare
merchandise he had acquired in Mexico. This defendant entered a plea of guilty
in Federal district court in El Paso, Tex., and was sentenced to serve a term
of 3 years in Federal penitentiary.
LE 6-1153
On September 26, 1953, Gregorio Guzman and Higinio Galvan, American citizens and residents of Eagle Pass, Tex., were arrested on U. S. 90 near Cline,
Tex., when they attempted to pick up 72 pounds of refined marihuana contained
in 3 suitcases which had been concealed in the brush near the highway. These
men were arrested by United States immigration border patrol inspectors who
had received information from a railroad station agent that two Mexican men
had purchased two tickets to travel on the railroad from Cline, Tex., to Chicago, Ill. They were further advised that the two men who had purchased the
tickets had made the same trip several days before. Acting on this information, Alfredo Menchaca, Armando Menchaca, and Gregorio Guzman wore picked
up and questioned by border patrol inspectors. However, they were later
released and the border patrol and customs agents instigated a systematic
search of the highway leading into Cline to attempt to locate the 3 suitcases
these 3 men had in their possession at the time they purchased their tickets.
On September 26, 1953, the border patrol followed all tracks indicated that a
car had pulled off the highway. At 10: 30 a. m., at a point about 1/ miles west
of Cline, they found tracks showing that a car had pulled off the highway. From
there they followed footprints about 30 yards from the highway and found 3
suitcases. Examination of these 3 suitcases revealed that they were filled with
1-pound packages of marihuana.
Border patrol officers watched this point until approximately 4 p. m., at which
time Higinio Galvan alighted from the car and almost immediately saw the
officers. He was taken into custody and, along with the suitcases, taken to
Cline, Tex., where a witness identified the suitcases as those taken off the bus
by Gregorio Guzman on September 24, 1953. This witness also identified Higinio
Galvan as the man who had delivered the three suitcases to the Men.haca
brothers on a previous occasion during the first week of August 1953. Galvan
later admitted that Alfredo and Armando Menchaca had hired him to haul the
suitcases to San Antonio. Higinio Galvan and Gregorio Guzman were arrested.
However, Alfredo and Armando Menchaca escaped to Mexico before they could
be apprehended. Warrants were issued for their arrest. Subsequent to that
date, Alfredo Menchaca was arrested and has since entered a plea of guilty and
was sentenced to a term of 5 years and fined $100. HLginio Galvan was tried
before a jury in Del Rio, Tex., and found guilty on October 28, 1954, and was sentenced to serve a term of 2 years. Guzman was sentenced to serve 3 years in
Federal penitentiary. Armando Menchaca is still a fugitive living in Villa Acnna, Mexico.
L 6-1171
On February 12, 1954, 83 pounds of manicured marihuana was seized in New
York City after the trunk containing this marihuana had been followed from
Laredo, Tex., to New York City by a customs agent. As a result of the seizure
in New York City, Stanley Halprin and Martin Snyder, residents of New York
City, were arrested. In addition to these two defendants, Jose Daniel Guerrero
Ruiz, and Oscar Frans Toren, residents of Laredo, Tex., were arrested. This
case had been under investigation for quite a period of time and through surveillance on the part of customs agents, they were able to determine when the trunk
containing the marihuana was shipped by railway express from Laredo to New
York.
As a result of these arrests, Oscar Frans Toren and Jose Daniel Guerrero
Ruiz entered a plea of not guilty and stood trial In Federal District Court for
the Southern District of Texas in Laredo. Stanley Halprin and Martin Snyder
both entered pleas of guilty before a Federal district judge in Laredo. Halprin
2569
was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and fined $100. Snyder was sentenced
to 3 years imprisonment and fined $100. Jose Daniel Guerrero Ruiz was found
guilty by a jury and was sentenced to a term of 8 years due to the fact that he.
had a previous narcotic conviction. However, this 8-year term was reduced
by the Federal district judge to a term of 5 years. Oscar Frans Toren was
found guilty by a jury and sentenced to a 3-year suspended sentence.
L 6-1180
On February 1, 1954, Arkansas State police arrested Waver Louise Ellison
and Richard Eldridge, both of Cleveland, Ohio, at Hope, Ark., while in possession
of 22 pounds of crude marihuana. This arrest was made as a result of an all
points lookout which the customs agents had placed for these defendants and
their automobile after they had succeeded in out-running customs agents in a
dense fog at approximately 5 a. m. on February 1, 1954, near Sinton, Tex. An
investigation had been conducted over a period of approximately 6 months relative to the activities of Vicento Garcia of Beeville, Tex., who was reported to be
smuggling marihuana into the United States and selling it to Negroes from Cleveland, Ohio. As a result of the investigation conducted, in addition to Richard
Eldridge and Waver Louise Ellison, Vicente Garcia, his wife Rosemary Garcia
and his brother Jesus Victoriano Garcia were arrested. At the time of trial,
Vicente Garcia failed to appear and is now a fugitive in Mexico. His wife
Rosemary Garcia was found not guilty and the court, on motion of defense
counsel, dismissed the case against Jesus Victoriano Garcia. At that time Jesus
Victoriano Garcia was under a sentence of 13 months for smuggling a quantity
of marihuana into the United States at Laredo. Richard Eldridge received a
sentence of 5 years and Waver Louise Ellison received a sentence of 2 years,
on December 1, 1954.
L 6-1246
On September 19, 1954, Jesus Andrade Diaz, a citizen of Mexico, was arrested
at Roma, Tex., after a suitcase which he had in his possession was found to contain approximately 30 pounds of prepared marihuana. This defendant had just
purchased a ticket to Chicago, Ill., and when questioned stated he knew
nothing about the marihuana contained in the suitcase but that a stranger,
upon learning he was proceeding to Chicago, requested him to carry the suitcase from Roma to that city. Later, however, upon being questioned by customs
agents, he stated that he had purchased the marihuana in Mexico, manicured it
and smuggled it into the United States across the river and was transporting it to
Chicago, Ill. On November 12, 1954, this prisoner entered a plea of guilty in
Federal district court in Brownsville, Tex., where he was sentenced to a teri
of 5 years and fined $10.
LE 6-1304
On February 1, 1955, acting on confidential information, customs agents seized
48 pounds of manicured marihuana at a railroad station in Del Rio, Tex. Information had been received that a suitcase and trunk locker had been checked
to Gary, Ind., by an unknown man who had purchased a ticket for that city.
Surveillance was maintained at the depot. However, the man did not depart
on the train on which the baggage containing the marihuana was supposed to
have left Del Rio. Surveillance was continued and on the following train leaving Del Rio, the man who was later identified as the person who checked the
baggage, was picked up and questioned. This man identified himself as Federice
Sotelo and readily admitted that he had checked the suitcase and trunk locker
at the railroad station the previous day. A search of his person disclosed
two baggage checks bearing the claim check numbers of those attached to the
suitcase and trunk locker. Further investigation by customs agents established
the fact that Efrain Arredondo was implicated in the shipment of this marihuana. Further, that the marihuana was to go to a Victoria Flores, 7400
Sowers Street, Gary, Ind.
The two men were arrested, indicted, and the defendant Sotelo entered a plea
of gulity and agreed to testify for the Government, which he did. He was given
a two-year suspended sentence and placed on probation for a period of two years.
Defendant Efrain Arrendondo entered a plea of not guilty. However, in the
middle of his trial, after the Government had presented its evidence, he changed
his plea to guilty and was sentenced to serve a term of 2 years in a Federal
institution.
2570
L 6-1309
On February 9, 1955, Raymond John Koren, United States citizen and resident
-of Ilialeah Park, Fla., was arrested at the international bridge with 27 pounds,
4 ounces of bulk marihuana, which were found concealed under the hood of a
1949 Oldsmobile sedan bearing a Florida license. Koren admitted purchasing the
marihuana in Nuevo Laredo and stated that he intended to take the same to
Florida if he had been successful in smuggling it into the United States. This
man entered a plea of guilty to violation of section 545, title 18, United States
Code, and was sentenced to a term of 2 years which was suspended for a period
of 5 years.
L 6-1331
Information was received by a customs agent on March 24, 1955, that what was
believed to be a quantity of marihuana was being transported by two women,
later identified as Petrona Soto Allende and Belen Garcia Athio. Customs agents
followed the travel bureau automobile that was to take these two women to New
York to a point north of Laredo where one of the agents was able to establish
the fact that the baggage being transported by the women contained marihuana.
Authority was granted for this agent to continue on to New York in the travel
bureau car acting as an assistant driver. On arrival in New York on March 27,
1955, the two women alighted from the travel bureau car and were arrested by
New York customs agents and approximately 63 pounds of marihuana was found
in their baggage. These women were to be tried in New York. In addition to the
two women, Fidencio Garcia Benavides, a Mexican citizen and resident of Nuevo
Laredo, Mexico, was arrested as a coconspirator in this case and on September
16, 1955, he was sentenced to serve 6 years in a Federal penitentiary.
L 6-1358
On March 17, 1955, customs agents received confidential information that
there would be a quantity of marihuana smuggled across the Rio Grande River
at Laredo, Tex., and delivered to an out-of-State truck. Surveillance was maintained at the point where the smuggling was supposed to take place and when
the truck bearing Idaho license made contact with unknown persons near the
point where the information indicated the marihuana would be smuggled and
departed, the truck was followed, stopped, searched and 100 pounds of crude marihuana contained in four burlap bags, 250 bags of boiler onions and a 1954 Chevrolet 2-ton truck were seized. The two men in the truck who were arrested,
identified themselves as Pedro Garza Gallardo and Rodolfo Estrada. The marihuana seized was destined for Los Angeles, Calif. Both men entered pleas of
not guilty and requested a jury trial, at the conclusion of which they were found
guilty and Gallardo was sentenced to a term of 2 years in a Federal penitentiary
and fined $1. Estrada was sentenced to a term of 18 months in a Federal penitentiary and fined $1.
L 6-1366
On the morning of June 14, 1955, information was received that a man driving
an automobile bearing Illinois license, had been in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, inquiring about the purchase of marihuana. This car was placed under surveillance until the afternoon of June 15 when after tailing the car to the outskirts
of Laredo, it was stopped and searched and 8 pounds of crude marihnana was
found concealed under the hood of the automobile. The man driving the Illinois
automobile was identified as Gordon William LeBarge, a resident of Chicago.
Further investigation by customs agents disclosed that Miguel Perez Valdoz
and Jorge Abed Vargas, both citizens of Mexico and residents of Nuevo Laredo,
Mexico, had delivered the marihuana to LeBarge. LeBarge stated that he was
going to take this marihuana to Chicago. On June 23, 1955, when arraigned
before a Federal district judge for the southern judicial district of Texas at
Laredo, LeBarge entered a plea of guilty to violation of section 545, title 18,
United States Code and was sentenced to serve a term of 1 year in a Federal
penitentiary.
Defendant Miguel Perez Valdez, when arraigned in Federal district court,
entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to 2 years, suspended for 5, provided
his fingerprint record showed no previous criminal record. However, this was
reduced to 6 months to serve when it was found that Valdez had been arrested
in Edinburg, Tex., as a juvenile delinquent. Jorge Abed Vargas entered a plea of
guilty and was sentenced to 2 years suspended for a period of 5 years.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2571
LE 6-1876
Information was received on July 7, 1955, that Frank Gonzalez, a resident of

Mineral Wells, Tex., had checked a metal footlocker and suitcase from Del Rio,
Tex., to Oklahoma City, Okla., on a Painter bus. The bus was followed from
Del Rio to San Antonio where Frank Gonzalez was questioned. Examination of
the footlocker and suitcase which he held claim checks for contained 50 pounds
of refined marihuana. This man was indicted and when brought before a Federal
district Judge in San Antonio, entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to
serve a term of 4 years in a Federal penitentiary and fined $100.
L 6-1407
On August 6, 1955, Louis Pulos and Joseph Robin Hood, both residents of the
State of New York, were arrested when a search of their automobile at the International Bridge at Laredo, Tex., disclosed that it contained 26 paper packages containing approximately 161 pounds of crude marihuana. The marihuana was
found concealed in the door panels of the automobile which belonged to Pulos.
When questioned, Pulos admitted he had purchased the marihuana in Monterrey,
Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, and that Joseph Robin Hood had no knowledge of its
being concealed in the automobile at the time they entered the United States at
Laredo. The case against Hood was dismissed on the motion of the United States
attorney. Pulos was sentenced to serve a term of 9 months in a Federal penitentiary.
At the present time, there are three fugitives in Mexico who are wanted by
this service for the smuggling of marihuana, which this office considers major
violators. Vicente Garcia, who was arrested February 21, 1954, and released
on a $2,500 bond, was indicted but failed to put in an appearance at the time
of his trial in Corpus Christi, Tex. A fugitive warrant was issued by a Federal
district judge and bond in the amount of $5,000 was set on this warrant. Information has now been received by this office that Vicente Garcia is operating a tavern in Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico, just across the international
border from Ilidalgo, Tex. Vicente Garcia is one of the principals in the
case described earlier under our file L 6-1180 which involved two Negroes from
Cleveland, Ohio.
Armando Mencha-ca, an American citizen formerly a resident of Eagle Pass,
Tex., is a fugitive now living in Villa Acuna, Mexico. He was the principal
in the case described eariler in our case LE 6-1153. This case involved the
seizure of 72 pounds of manicured marihuana in Cline, Tex., on September 26,
1953. The Menchaca twins, Alfredo and Armando, have been big time marihuana dealers for a number of years in the Eagle Pass-Del Rio area. A
third brother escaped from La Tuna Federal correctional institution by stealing a Government truck and driving to Mexico. He is at the present time residing in Villa Acuna, Mexico.
On August 31, 1954, an automobile driven by Francisco Omar Vela entered
the United States across the International Bridge at Laredo, Tex. This automobile was stopped for searching. When the inspector who was searching
the automobile lifted the hood, he observed a sack laying on top of the motor.
When he started to question Vela about the sack, Vela drew a gun on the inspector and made his escape back to Mexico across the International Bridge.
Vela was arrested by Mexican soldiers on the Mexican side of the river and
taken to the military garrison for further questioning and later turned over to
the Mexican Federal district attorney for prosecution. It has been learned
that all charges against this man were dismissed. He is still a fugitive residing in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.
Mr. Lee Spear, investigator for your committee, requested that I list certain
cases where marihuana had been smuggled from the Republic of Mexico and the
smugglers apprehended in the United States where only section 545, title 18,
United States Code, which is the smuggling statute, was used in the prosecution
of the criminal aspects of the case. In all cases where marihuana is acquired in
Mexico and smuggled into the United States and no transfer of the marihuana
is made between the smuggler and other persons in the United States, only
section 545, title 18, United States Code, is used in the indictment in this area.
I have been advised that this was due to a California court ruling that held that
a person smuggling marihuana into the United States is not an importer and
that unless a transfer actually takes place in the United States, the smuggler
would not be liable under the provisions of the marihuana tax laws. The follow71515-56-pt. 7-
15
2572
ing are a few representative cases in which marihuana was seized in the United
States from smugglers where section 545, title 18, United States Code, was the
only criminal section used in the prosecuttion.
L 6-1311
On February 12, 1955, Henry Leon Mallory, Chicago, Ill., Marilyn Grant and
Tonia Grant, New York City, were arrested when they entered the United States
across the international bridge at Laredo, Tex., after 1812 ounces of refined
marihuana and 7 marihuana cigarettes were found in their possession. These
three defendants were charged by customs agents before the United States
commissioner with violation of criminal sections 545, title 18 and 2593 (a), title
26 (sec. 2593 (a), title 26 at that time was what is now sec. 4744, title 26). The
indictment in this case, however, only charged violation of section 545, title 18,
United States Code. The three defendants entered a plea of guilty and each was
given a 6 months sentence suspended for a period of 5 years.
L 6-1328
On March 10, 1955, Louis Judge, Camden, N. J., was arrested at the international bridge, Laredo, Tex., after his automobile had been searched and 4
pounds of semirefined marihuana pressed in brick form was found concealed
behind the door panels of a 1947 Buick automobile he was driving. This man
was charged with violation of section 545, title 18 and section 2593 (a), title 26,
United States Code, by the customs agent before the United States commissioner.
The indictment in this case, however, only charged violation of section 545, title
18, United States Code. On September 6, 1955, this man was sentenced to a term
of 18 months, which was suspended for a period of 5 years and fined $500, payable
at the rate of $100 month.
L 6-1407
On August 6, 1955, Louis Pulos, New York City, was arrested after he had
entered the United States driving a 1954 Dodge and a search of this automobile
disclosed 26 paper packages containing approximately 161/2 pounds of crude
marihuana concealed behind the door panels. This man was charged by customs
agents before the United States commissioner with violation of criminal sections
545, title 18 and 4744, title 26, United States Code. Indictment against this man,
however, only charged violation of section 545, title 18, United States Code. This
man entered a plea of guilty on September 19, 1955 and was sentenced to a term
of 9 months confinement.
L 6-1418
On September 4, 1955, Walter Henry Farrier, Boston, Mass., was arrested after
approximately 2 pounds of prepared marihuana had been found concealed in an
automobile he was driving after he had returned from the Republic of Mexico
and was proceeding toward San Antonio, Tex., out of Laredo, Tex. This man
was charged with violation of section 545, title 18 and 4744, title 26, United States
Code. The indictment, however, only charged this man with violation of section
545, title 18, United States Code. On a plea of guilty, Farrier was sentenced on
September 19, 1955, to serve a term of 9 months.
Very truly yours,
A. D. RICHARDS,
Customs Agent in Charge.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Murphy, if you will come forward.

(Mr. Merle Murphy was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. You may be seated. Do you have with you the
cards of the known narcotic addicts who have been crossing the bridge
at Laredo?
TESTIMONY OF MERLE MURPHY, CUSTOMS INSPECTOR, BUREAU
OF CUSTOMS, LAREDO, TEXAS
Mr.
MURPHY.
I have with me the cards that we keep on the known
narcotic addicts and suspects, people who accompany them, and so

forth. We make a card on all of them.
Senator DANII L. Do you make a card on all of them?
I I I I
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2573
Mr. MURPHY. Those with whom we come in contact, or make per-
sonal contact.
Senator DANIEL. I wonder if you could leave the cards with the
committee overnight?
Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And we would like to talk with you about them,
too, so we might go over those cards. I understand we have some of
those people subpenaed here to appear here tomorrow?
Senator DANIEL. And if you will let us have those cards we will
appreciate it.
Senator DANIEL. If YOU will just stand aside until tomorrow mornig we will come back to you in the morning. The committee will
stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon at 5 p. m. the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at
10 a. m., October 14, 1955.)
I I I I

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1955
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMrROVEMENTS
IN
THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE OF THE

CO31M1ITTEE ON TIIE JUDICIARY,
San Antonio, Tex.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 10 a. in., in the district

counsel; and Wayland Lee Speer, of Amarillo, Tex., committee
investigator.
TESTIMONY OF MERLE MURPHY, CUSTOMS INSPECTOR, BUREAU

OF CUSTOMS, LAREDO, TEXAS-Resumed
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Murphy, if you will resume the witness stand.
Yesterday you gave us the cards that you keep, at Laredo, on known
narcotic addicts and their associates who are crossing the bridge.
That is correct.
Senator DANIEL. Now, I am not sure that we gave for the record
Mr. MURPIxy.
your full name. Will you give us your full name?

Mr. MURPHY. Merle Murphy.
Senator DANIEL. What is your official position?

Mr. MURPilY. I am United States customs inspector, stationed at
Laredo, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been stationed at Laredo?
Mr. MURPHY. Approximately 9 years.
Senator DANIEL. Where is your office in Laredo?
Mr. MURPHY. Laredo is our main office for this district.
Senator DANIEL. Where is the office located?
Mr. MumRHY. In the Federal, in the post office building.
Senator DANIEL. Then, do you have a room or some type of setup
on the bridge?
Mr. MtRPHY. Yes, sir. We have a customshouse on the bridge, an
inspection station for all departments.

Senator DANIEL. Now, do you stay at this customshouse on the
bridge, or just tell us exactly what men you have there to watch these
people who come and go across the border.
Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir; the chief inspector and all his assistants,
and the regular inspectors are stationed at, the building on the bridge.
2575
2576
Senator DANIEL. Is there someone there at all times who is supposed to check those who come and go across the bridge at Laredo,
Mr. MURPHY. Well, all inspectors are, however, we rotate shifts, but
all the inspectors are supposed to do that same type of work.
Senator DANIEL. How many are there at all times?
Mr. MURPHY. Well, you mean how many men do we have?
Senator DANIEL. How many inspectors would you say are on duty
day and night there on the bridge at Laredo? One at a time, or two
at a time?
Mr. MURPHY. No, sir, for a 24-hour period I would say that there
is probably 20 or 22 on duty during the week. On Sundays and holidays that force is reduced to about 11 or 12.
Senator DANIEL. Do you always have someone on duty, at least one
or at least two insp ectors ?
Mr. MURPHY. Xes, sir, never less than two on duty. On midnight
until 8 in the morning, we have two inspectors, one northbound cominm in and one southbound, that is the least traffic.
enator DANIEL. You have less on weekends?
Mr. MURPHY. We have more on the weekends.
Senator DANIEL. On Sundays and Saturdays?
Senator DANIEL. Is your force reduced?
Mr. MURPHY. On Sundays, that is because that is an overtime day
and we are on a separate schedule on that day, on any Sunday or holiday, and we have reduced the force on those days.
Senator DANIEL. Although you have more traffic on Sundays?
Senator DANIEL. Is that a matter of money that causes you to reduce
your force on Sundays?
Senator DANIEL. Because it is an overtime day?
Mr. MurPiHY. Yes, sir; that is it.
Senator
DANIEL.
Is the same thing true with reference to Saturday?
Mr. MURPHY. No, Saturday is a regular work day.
We have a regu-
har force on Saturdays, Moilday through Saturday.

Senator BUTLER. Do you consider the force you maintain on Sunday
as adequate to do the job?
Mr. MURPHY. No, sir. In my opinion it is uot adequate.
Senator D.NIEL. Well, can you tell us anything else that you think
of on the border at Laredo that is not adequate to do the job of stopping this smuggling across the border?
Mr. MURPHY. I can only speak for my own service.
Senator DAmEL. And from your own personal viewpoint; the committee understands it will not be necessarily the viewpoint of your
agency
?
Mr. MUPIY.
Yes, sir. Well, I am sure, as Mr. Richards
said, that
with an increase of personnel for him it would help very much.

Senator BUTLER. And he is gaining 4 people, 5 people?
Mr. MUmHY. I really don't know, that is another department. I
am under the collectors, he is in the investigating branch.
Senator BUTLER. In your opinion, the job cannot be done adequately on the schedule you are now following, especially as it relates to
Sunday?
Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir; that is my opinion.
2577
Senator DANIEL. You say, yes, sir. Do you mean you do not have
enough to adequately do the job on Sunday?
Mr. MuPHY. That is correct.
Senator BUTLER. That is the time when there is the heaviest traffic
across the bridge?
Mr. MURPHY. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. All right, do you have any recommendations other
than more personnel there on Sunday?
Mr. MURPHY. None that I can think of; that is, outside of our local
problems, more concentration on this particular problem, and so forth,
possibly more training.
Senator DANIEL. During the 9 years you have been there, have you
had occasion to find niarihuana, heroin, and other drugs on people
who came from the Mexican side of the border?
Senator DANIEL. From what you have seen of the traffic across the
bridge, is it your opinion that most of the marihuana that you have
seen stopped there at the bridge is destined for Texas or for other
States?
Mr. MURPHY. Well, I believe the larger amounts are probably destined for other places. The small stuff, where they bring 2 or 3
cigarettes, something like that, is probably for their own use.
Senator DANIEL. What about the heroin? Where do you find that
the people who have been arrested seem to be going with that?
Mr. MURPHY. Well, of course, I am not qualified as well as some of
the others to speak on that. A lot of your seizures on the bridge
amount to quite small amounts. Therefore, that would indicate that
the problem is not destined for outside the State.
Senator DANIEL. Now, I hand back to you your card system here
and ask you to be sure that we have for the record the date you started
keeping the cards on the narcotic addicts across the river.

Mr. MURPHY. These cards started approximately October 4, 1954,
about a year ago.
Senator DANIEL. And tell us how you determine whose names will
go into that card index system.
Mr. MURPHY. To begin with our files on people that we give personal searches are divided into two groups. One group is addicts that
we personally search or people who are accompanying addicts or
people we have had a lookout on. The people in our other files which
are not here, are searched for other reasons than narcotics, in other
words, other contrabands, etc.
Senator DANIEL. Now then, do you have to depend on your inspectors or someone else on the bridge to recognize these addicts?
Mr. MuRpriy. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, all of the card system that you
have now on the subject consists of the addicts recognized by you or
someone else on the bridge?
Mr. MURPHY. Well, of course our agents oftentimes tell us to be on
the lookout for certain addicts, certain type of driver of cars, but all
these cards are derived from people who were given personal searches
from inspectors on the bridge and were recognized.
Senator DANIEL. It includes also those people who might be accompanying addicts across the border?
Mr. MURPHY. That's correct. In other words, this file is not completely addicts, it is people who are accompanying addicts and who
I1II1
2578
naturally are good suspects in case we see them later on we can refer
back and find that a person was in the company of a well-fnown addict.
Senator DANIEL. Do you agree with Mr. Richards that most of these
addicts bring drugs back with them, or have the drugs brought back
across the border and pick them up?
Mr. MuRPiy. I am sure that many of them do; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What is your feeling about the proposal that was
made yesterday that we have a law that would prevent addicts from
crossing the borders of this country leaving the country?
Mr. MURPHY. That would be a step. Sometimes it is often hard to
recognize addicts, it is not just as easy as that. If they have long sleeve
shirts, etc., and have not been on it too long, and are apparently in good
health, it is pretty hard to tell. I am sure we don't tell all of them.
Senator DANIEL. I am sure of that, too, and Mr. Richards so testified
yesterday. But you can recognize, I believe he said an average of at
least 10 a day. Would you think that there is at least 10 a day who
are recognized addicts crossing the bridge?
Mr. MURPHIY. Well, possibly between Mr. Richards' organization
and the inspectional force they probably could recognize 10 a day.
Senator DANIEL. How many addicts do you have in your files
there?
Mr. MuRiY. I believe there are cards on approximately 104 differ-
ent addicts in here; that doesn't count the repeat records where male
addicts have made quite a few trips.
Senator BUTLER. There are persons who are well-known addicts, in
other words, persons whose names are in there, and you know them
to be addicts ?
Mr. MURPHY. They are persons we have given personal searches
to, who either admitted being addicts or had complete markings on
them which indicated they were.
Senator BUTLER. In other words, when a man gets in there, you are
perfectly certain he is an addict?

Often
Mr. MuRPHY. I believe we have been pretty conservative. have
a
times they will admit they are, often times they won't, if they
lot of marks on them
would have
Senator BUTLER. So insofar as the 110 are concerned, you leaving
the
no difficulty administering the law, preventing an addict
country?
there are
Mr. MURPHY. We would have difficulty because, as I say,mean each
about 103 or 104, and we change shifts. That doesn't
inspector on the bridge is familiar with the 103 or 104 addicts, probmost.
ably 1 inspector would not know more than 10 or 15 at the have
been
Senator DANIEL. But your card records show that there
how many addicts cross the border since you began keeping those
records in 1954?
103
Mr. MURPHY. We have cards on what we believe to be about
addicts.
and do not
Senator DANIEL. You say those are separate people
include the repeat trips?
Mr. Mtnu'HY. No, sir, that's individuals.
on them,
Senator BUTLER. You don t have any other information than
that
other
a picture or anything by which to identify them,
record?
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2579
No, sir; unless someone happens to give us a picture.

In other words, we don't photograph them.
Senator DANIEL. Let's see one of your cards. Do any of the cards
have anyone from San Antonio?
Senator DANIEL. Just pick out an example of your cards and tell
us exactly how the particular case was handled.
Mr. MURPHY. Well, this is a card on a man by the name of Ignacio
Orosco, Jr.
Mr. MURPHY. I-g-n-a-c-i-o O-r-o-s-c-o.
Senator DANIEL. Junior?
Mr.
MUPHY.
Mr. MURPHY. Junior. There was a lookout on this man.

Senator DANIEL. Where is he from, have you got an address?
Mr. MURPHY. 1022 South Pinto, San Antonio, Tex. One of the
inspectors picked him up.

Senator DANIEL. On what date?
Mr. MURPHY. On the street, this was on December 2.
Senator DANIEL. Of what year?
Mr. MURPHY. 1954. He brought him inside and asked me if I
would help him give this man a personal search which we did. We
took him back in the search room, but didn't find any contraband
on his person. While in the process of searching we questioned him
as to his activities, etc. At that time he told us he was joy-popping.
In other words, that he was taking shots about once a week, that was
his statement, that he had a shot the day before which would make it
December 1. We asked him if he had ever served any time. He said,
yes, that he had served time for selling narcotics, and then we asked
him what his occupation was and he stated that at that time he was
a janitor for the school board at Burbank High School in San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. Janitor at a high school here in San Antonio?
Mr. MURPHY. Burbank High School in San Antonio, Tex.
Senator BUTLER. And he called himself a joy-popper?
Mr. MURPHY. That is what he called it; yes, sir. That is a term
1 believe they refer to when they are taking it once a week, something
like that.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have all that information on the card?
Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir; he was accompanied by his wife who was
given a personal inspection also. She apparently was not an addict.
Senator DANIEL. Is there any other information on the card?
Mr. MURPHY. No. sir; that is it.
Senator DANIEL. Will you pass the card up in order that we may
see just how that is recorded?
(Card handed to the committee.)
Senator DANIEL. Now, I believe Mr. Richards said yesterday that
you have not been turning a report of these addicts into the Bureau
of Narcotics for their central files; is that correct?
Mr. MURPHY. We haven't turned any report on these over to anyone, that I know of.
Senator DANIEL. Whose records are these? Do they belong to the
inspector there, under the collector of customs; is that correct?
Mr. MURPHY. These belong in the files, the collector's files at the
footbridge at Laredo, Tex.
2580
Senator DANIEL. And therefore they are under the jurisdiction of

the collector of customs?
Mr. MURPHY. That is correct.
Senator DANIEL. Rather than the Customs Agency, the customs

agents, right?
Mr. MURPHY. That is correct. These are under the collector, these
are made for him.
Senator DANIEL. But those of you who are customs inspectors work
with the customs agents and investigators in keeping these records?
Senator DANIEL. And they are available to all of you who are there
working on the bridge?
Mr. MURPHY. That's correct; yes, sir.
Senator BUTLER. Did this man say how long he had been addicted?
Mr. MURPHY. No; I don't remember that we asked him that particular question.
Senator DANIEL. Did you get any basic information as to how he
got into the addiction, or anything of the kind?
Mr. MURPHY. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You do not have any system for making photographs or fingerprints of these addicts?
Mr. MURpHy. No, sir; we don't take fingerprints, we don't photo-
graph them. This is all we have.

Senator DANIEL. Wouldn't that be a good plan if Congress would
enable you to do this?

Mr. MURPHY. I believe it would, a photograph would help a lot.
Senator DANIEL. Well, as a matter of fact, do you know who originated the idea of keeping these? There is no law requiring you to
keep these records ?
Mr. MURPHY. No, sir; there isn't. Frankly,
I am not
positive who
did originate it.

Senator DANIEL. Senator Butler and I have gone over this with
counsel and investigators and we find there is no law requiring you to
keep this record.
Mr. MURPHY. No; that is correct.
Senator DANIEL. And on behalf of the committee I want to congratulate those of you on the bridge, whoever started it, whoever had
the idea of keeping the records, at least, that is some help.
Senator DANIEL. And if Congress authorized you to make photographs and fingerprints of these addicts that would certainly improve
your records ?
Mr. MURPHY.
I am not certain but I believe Mr. Strubinger might
have suggested the filling out of a form on these addicts and we decided
to keep the cards from them. I am not sure of that.
Senator DANIEL. Now, then, do you keep any records of returns,
do you have any records which would show whether or not this individual returned, made subsequent trips?
Mr. MURPHY. Yes. sir; if he was given another personal search there
would be another card filled out on him.

Senator BUTLER. Do you have any information that would indicate
that this man is selling narcotics?
Mr.
MURPHY.
2581
No, sir. I personally have no information that he is
or was selling narcotics excepthis statement to us that he had served

time for the sale of narcotics prior to this time.
Senator BUTLER. Did he say when?
Mr. MURPHY. I don't remember that he did.
Senator BUTLER. How long has he been the janitor out here at the
high school?
Mr. MURPHY. I don't know, I don't know if he is still the janitor.
Senator BUTLER. I think that would be a pretty sensitive spot for a
man dealing in narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Murphy, do you put on these records anywhere, where the person was born?
Mr. MURPHY. No,
sir.
Senator DANIEL. That is information, according to what we have

heard here in this hearing, that is important, right?
Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir. But to my knowledge we don't put where
they are born. You probably noticed no description. We are putting

a description on now, as best the inspector can describe; it's not as
good as a photograph, but it will possibly be of some help.
Senator DANIEL. I would think, having discussed this matter with
Senator Butler and this staff, that this committee will certainly make
some recommendations as to laws with reference to narcotic addicts
crossing the borders of this country. Do you have any other suggestions as to what records might be kept in case the Congress should not
prevent them crossing the borders completely; do you have any other
information as to what records should be kept, or what restrictions
should be placed on these people?
Mr. MURPiiY. No, sir; I don't know of anything else as far as
restrictions are concerned.

Senator DANIEL. Senator Butler suggests that it might be a very
good idea to provide that anyone who had been convicted of a narcotic
charge should not be permitted to cross the border. What would you
think of that?
Mr. MURP Y. Sounds very good.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think that might help the situation?
Mr. MURPIHY. I believe it might; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, all right, you were about to tell us, in case
this individual had crossed the border more than once; this record
was a personal search made December 2,1954?
Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir. If he was to cross again and he was taken
inside and given a personal search then there would be another card
filled out on this particular individual. The reason, because it helps
us to know how many times they are coming down to the border, and
so forth, because it might influence you on your followup. In other
words, if you find 6 or 8 cards in here on an individual that had been
coming to the border very regularly you would probably think more
about having him taken to a doctor or something like that to see if any
narcotics could be found on him.
Senator DANIEL. Do you keep cards only when you make personal
searches ?
2582
Senator DANIEL. If you saw a known addict walking across there

and you did not search him, would you make any record of him having crossed that day?
Mr. MURPHY. No, sir; however, very few known addicts would
walk across without somebody recognizing them without a search.
Senator DANIEL. Both before and after?
Senator DANIEL. When do you make it?

Mr. MURPHiY. When he is coming back.
Senator
There is no search made when crossing?

As far as addicts, and so forth, no; the only search
DANIEL.
Mr. MURPHY.
going to Mexico would be for the violation of the national traffic in
arms, something like that.
Senator
DANIEL.
Now, do you have any record as to whether this
particular Ignacio Orosco, Jr., had made more than the one trip in
December 1954?
Mr. MURPHY. No, sir; that is the only record I have on it.
Senator
DANIEL.
That is the only record you have on this particular
individual?
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you have some records there that indicate the
same addicts have been crossing many times?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir; we have records on some people who are; in
other words there are several cards on various people in here.
Senator DANIEL. Give us some examples of those.

Mr. MURPHY. Here is a man, Hubbard, that we have quite a sheaf
of cards on.
Senator DANIEL. Give us his full name. Is he a man that admitted
to you that he is an addict?
Mr. MURPHY. Not to me; I never had anything personally to do with
this.
Senator DANIEL. Does you record show he admitted to others there,
other officials on the bridge, that he was an addict?
Mr. MURPHY. Nothing here states that he admitted that he is an
addict.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you have any evidence there that would
indicate that it is positive he is an addict? I do not want to call the
names of any of these people over the air unless you feel certain that
they are addicts. Are you satisfied from your having checked through
these cards that this man is an addict?
DANIEL. All right, what is his name?
Mr. MURPHY. Hubbard, H-u-b-b-a-r-d. Charles
Senator DANIEL. Charles Nathan Hubbard?
Senator
Nathan Hubbard.
Senator DANIEL. Where is he from?

Mr. MURPHY. It gives several addresses here.
Senator
Will you give those?

One of them, general delivery, Port Lavaca, Tex.;
DANIEL.
Mr. MURPHY.
1505 Sam Rankin, Corpus Christi, Tex. That's the only two ad
dresses, 1505 Sam Rankin. Corpus Christi, and one in Port Lavaca.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right, since you have started keeping these
records how many times do the records show this man has been
searched coming back from Mexico?
11111111
2583
MURPHY. We have 10 cards on this particular individual.

Senator DANIEL. Is there any other information there that might
Mr.
be of interest in letting us know the type of case it is?

Mr. MURPHY. Well, for instance the date on the cards shows that
he is pretty regular, one of them is dated September 30, 1955, September 21, 1955, September 4, 1955, September 2, 1955, August 27, 1955,
August 23, 1955, August 9, 1955, June 8, 1955, and April 1955. That
shows he is pretty consistent in crossing.
Senator DANIEL. I think those dates speak for themselves.
Is
there any other information there that you wish to call to the committee's attention on that particular case ?
Mr. MURPHY. I believe that I would have to check the cards, but
I believe that in some of these cases he was also accompanied by other
addicts that we have other cards on also. In other words, he didn't
always come alone, he came with other addicts at times, I believe.
Senator DANIEL. All right, do you have a person by the name of
Jerry James Adams?
Mr. MURFi-Y. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Will you please look at your cards to see if you
have evidence there that would indicate there is no question about
him having been an addict?
Mr. MunPHY. According to one of the cards, he said he had a shot
on the day before; he had served time for burglary and each one of
them states that he is an addict, each card.
Senator DANIEL. By his own admission?
Mr. MURPHY. It doesn't say, it states a definite fact: He is an addict.
Senator DANIEL. All right, where is this man from?
Mr. MURPHY. Jerry James Adams?
Senator DANIEL. Jerry James Adams.
Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir. 181/ North Hutcherson, Houston, Tex.
That is the address we have listed for him.
Senator DANIEL. And on what dates did he cross?
Mr. MURPHY. We have cards for August 21, 1955, August 10,
1955, May 5, 1955, March 19, 1955, and February 5, 1955.
Senator DANIEL. Was he accompanied by anyone?
Mr. MURPHY. He arrived with Richard Clinton Brown, one of
the addicts on the card.
Senator DANIEL. What date was that?
Mr. MURPHY. On August 10, 1955. Another time he was accompanied by a man by the name; you want me to give these names?
Mr. MURPHY. James Broussard, which we have listed as an addict,
and also accompanied by a man by the name of Glenn Hawthorne.
Mr. MURPHY. H-a-w-t-h-o-r-n-e. It doesn't state whether that man
was an addict or not.
Senator DANIEL. On what date?
Mr. MURPHY. That was in February 1955, February 5.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any way of knowing whether any of
these people crossed over the border at some other bridge at intervening
periods?
Senator DANIEL. Do you know whether or not these records are being
kept at the other bridges along the Rio Grande?
2584
Mr. MuRPHaY. No, I don't. I have no knowledge of whether these
or anything similar to them are kept at other ports or not.

Senator DANIEL. Is there any exchange of this information between
your office and the other customs inspectors offices?
Mr. MURPHY. To date there hasn't been; no, sir. It has been con-
templated starting that but to date there has been no exchange between
our office and the other ports within our districts.
Senator DANIEL. No telling how many times these same people have
crossed some other bridge on intervening dates?
Mr. MURPHY. That's correct. In other words, if we perhaps give
them several personal searches, maybe they get scared or somethingof
this sort; we have no way of knowing to my knowledge whether they
cross at other ports or not.
Senator DANIEL. I am going to give you these other names on paper
so you can check to see what evidence you have on them before we go
into them. Suppose Mr. Speer does that while you stand aside and
we hear another witness. Senator Butler, do you have any further
questions until we go into some of these other cards?
Senator DANIEL. I will ask our investigator, Mr. Speer to confer
with the witness, listing these other names that might be inquired about
so that you will eliminate any on which there is any question about
the person being an addict.
Senator DANIEL. Is Ignacio Orosco, Jr. in the room? Come forward.
(Ignacio Orosco, Jr., was duly sworn.)
TESTIMONY OF IGNACIO OROSCO, JR.
Mr. OROSCO. Ignacio Orosco, Jr.
Senator DANIEL. Are you the same person that Mr. Murphy was just
testifying about?
Mr. OROSCO. Yes, sir.
Senator
2,1954?
DANIEL.
Did you cross the border at Laredo on December
Mr. ORosCo. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. For what purpose?

Mr. ORosCo. Well, me and my ex-wife were going over across the
border to see if we could find a plastic surgery to fix her face.
Senator DANIEL. Plastic surgery?
Senator
DANIEL.
And for what other purpose?
Mr. OROSco. That's the only purpose.

Senator DANIEL. Well, have you been a narcotic addict in your life?
Senator DANIEL. What type of narcotic did you use ?

Mr. ORosco. Heroin.
Senator DANIEL. When did you start using heroin ?
Mr. OROSCO. 1951.
Senator DANIEL. How old were you then?
Mr. OROSCO. 21.
Senator
DANIEL.
How did you happen to start using it?
I I I
2585
Mr. OROSCO. Well, I was in a saloon drinking, and a boy asked me

if I had ever done that. I didn't want him to know that I was a
square or anything. I told him I had, and he said come on with me
and we went outside and he fixed some and he give me some.
Senator DANIEL. Did he sell it to you or give it to you?
Mr. ORosco. Give it to me.
Senator
DANIEL.
The first heroin you ever got then was given to
you instead of being sold to you?

Senator DANIEL. How long did it take before you felt like you were
addicted or hooked, that you had to have more of it?
Mr. ORosco. Well, that day I got too sick and I stayed away from
it for about 3 or 4 months, and then I got some given to me again.
Senator DANIEL. And how long was it before you felt like you had
to have it daily?
Mr. ORosco. Well then I got another one about a week after that
and then I used to do it, I was working then, and I used to do it every
payday, once, and then I did it afterward on Sundays. I used to do it
on Saturdays and then I used to do it on Sundays, then pretty soon I
got to where I wanted some on Monday before going to work and generally it got to where I needed it.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did it get to where you finally developed you had
to have heroin every day?

Mr. ORosco. Well, not necessarily.
Senator DANIEL. Well, how often?
Mr. OROSCO. I would get it every 3 days, 2 days, sometimes I would
do it.
Senator DANIEL. Did you buy it here in San Antonio?
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you have any trouble finding it?

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever start selling it?
Mr. ORosco. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever give any heroin to anyone?
Mr. ORosco. No, sir, I sold one that I had found in my taxicab while
I was driving a taxicab and I sold it to a colored man.
Do you want to correct your previous answer that
you had never sold any?

Mr. ORosco. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Is that correct?
Senator
DANIEL.
And now you say that you sold some to a colored
man?
Senator
DANIEL.
While you were a taxicab driver?

Senator DANIEL. Where did you get the heroin that you sold this
man?
Mr. ORoSCO. I was cleaning my cab and I found it inside the cab.
Mr. OROSCO. Well, it was a little pill.
Senator DANIEL. Were you charged with selling that heroin?
Senator DANIEL. What kind of sentence were you given?
2586
Mr. ORosco. 2 years and $100 fine.
Senator DANIEL. Did you serve those 2 years?

Senator DANIEL. When was that?
Mr. ORosco. It was in September 24, got the sentence September
24, 1952.
Senator
DANIEL.
And how much of the time did you serve?
Mr. OROSCO. I came out in May 10, 1954.
Senator DANIEL. After you got out of prison were you off of
narcotics or did you go back to using them?
Mr. ORosco. No, sir, I didn't. I was off.
Senator DANIEL. You were off of narcotics?

Senator DANIEL. Have you stayed off of them since then?
Mr. ORosco. Well, I haven't never had a habit but-
Senator DANIEL. Since you got out of the penitentiary?

Senator DANIEL. After you got out of the penitentiary did you get
a job?
Senator DANIEL. And have you held a job since that time?
Mr. ORosco. No, sir, I was fired on account of the customs agents in
Laredo notified the San Antonio Independent School Districts that

I was working as a janitor with them at Burbank High School and
I was called-they held some kind of a meeting-and they told me they
had to fire me, that they couldn't have anybody with the record and
all that working for the school board, especially in the junior high
school.
Senator DANIEL. How long had you been working there at Burbank
High School?
Mr. Orosco. About, well, I had been working for the book department a few months and then I had been a janitor for about 3 or 4
months.
Senator DANIEL. Hadn't you worked for the school district a little
while back in 1951 ?
Senator DANrEL. Where did you work then?
Mr. ORosco. In the book department.
Senator
DANIEL.
Were you using heroin then?
Senator
You didn't use heroin in September 1951 ?

Mr. ORosco. Well, I guess so, I guess I was.
Senator DANIEL. You guess you were using it then ?
DANTEL.
Senator DANIEL. After you went to prison and got out you came
back and got a job in September 1954 with the Burbank High School?
Mr. ORosco. No, sir, I got a job with the book department first.
And I put in my application as a janitor, as a custodian, and then I
was called, I was laid off from the book department and a week or two
later I was called as a janitor and I was assigned to Burbank High
School.
Senator DANIEL. And you worked there how long; do you remember the day you were discharged?
Mr. ORosco. No, sir; I don't.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2587
Senator DANIEL. Well, on this trip you made across the border
December 2, 1954, you were coming back to Texas that day; were you
not?
Senator
DANIEL.
On the 2d of December they searched you?
Mr. OROSCO. Well, I don't remember the exact date, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Do you remember the occasion that you were
searched ?
Senator DANIEL. In coming back across the border in December or
around that time last year?
Mr. OROSCO. Yes,
sir.
Senator DANIEL. NOW, did you tell those who searched you, Mr.
Murphy and the other man there, that you had taken some heroin the
day before in Mexico?
Senator DANIEL. Did you tell him that you were a joy popper?
Mr. ORosco. Well, not exactly in them words, but I did mean that.
Senator DANIEL. What did you tell him?
Mr. OROSCO. I told him that I took some once in a while.
Senator DANIEL. And you told him you had had some heroin the
day before in Mexico?
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you find your heroin easily over there in
Mexico?
Mr. OROSco. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, was it hard to find it?

Senator
DANIEL.
How long did it take you to find some?
Mr. Onosco. Well, I had to go into, it was a taxi driver and ask him
and he took me to one place and they told him that they didn't have
anything that they, they didn't sell anything there, so then he took
me to another house and I got some there.
Senator
DANIEL.
What did you have to pay for it?
Mr. ORosco. Paid one American dollar.
Senator
DANIEL.
For one shot of heroin?
Mr. Oaosco. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Now, how much heroin did you arrange to get
after you came back across the border?

Mr. ORosco. I did not arrange to get no heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Is this the only time you ever went across the
border at Laredo?
Senator
DANIEL.
Have you ever gone across the Mexican border at
any other bridge or any other place to get shots of heroin?

Mr. ORoSco. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever crossed the Mexican border at any
other part or on any other occasion than this one you have told us
about?
Mr. ORosco. Well, back in 1946 1 went across the border in Piedras
Negras Coahuila.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I will confine this to 1951, when you became
addicted to heroin
71515-5,6-pt. 7-16
2588
Senator DANIEL. After you became addicted to heroin, did you ever
cross the border any more?
Mr. Orosco. No, sir, I don't think so.
Senator DANIEL. You don't remember any other occasions?

Mr. Oitosco. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any questions, Senator Butler ?
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any questions, Mr. Counsel?
Mr. GASQUE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the witness this:
Where were you born?
Mr. ORosco. In Edna, Tex.
Mr. GASQuE. Now, did you ever have occasion to use heroin or
marihuana at any time while you were employed at the school? Were
you then an addict?
Mr. GASQUE. During the period that you worked at the school, did
you ever use heroin or marihuana?
Mr. ORosco. I never did mess with that while I was working for
the school board.
Senator DANIEL. Now I want to be sure that we have the records
straight. You understand that you are under oath?
Senator DANIEL. Do you know the penalty if you give us an untrue
answer?
Senator DANIEL. Even if you do it by mistake, do you know?
Mr. ORosco. Well, I am trying my best to answer.
Senator DANIEL. I know you are, I just wanted to point this fact
out to you.
Senator DANIEL. It would appear there is some conflict in what

you told the counsel in reply to his question, if I understood it right,
and what you told me earlier when I asked if you were using heroin?
Mr. OROSCO. Well. I was referring to when I was working as a
laborer, I didn't mean while I was working in the school board.

Senator DANIEL. You mean while you were working as a janitor?
Mr. ORosco. As a laborer, I was working with a contractor, a general contractor.
Senator BUTLER. May I say to the witness, do you understand your
constitutional right to refuse to answer a question if you feel that it
would incriminate you?
Senator BUTLER. You understand that if a question is asked you

here that you feel would incriminate you, you have a right to plead the
fifth amendment?
Senator
BUTLER.
Do you understand that
Senator DANIEL. So it will be entirely clear, did you use heroin at

anytime while you were working for Burbank High School?
Mr. ORosco. Well, I used it when, of course, I got some days off
fTom Burbank, you see that is when I went across the border in Mex-
ico, see, but I got that shot over there not while I was working.
Senator DANIEL. Yes, but you came back to work?
Mr. ORosco. Well, not right away.
111111111
2589
Senator DANIEL. How long did you stay over there in Mexico?
Mr. O.Rosco. In Mexico I stayed for 1 day, stayed that night and the
next day we came over.
Senator DANIEL. And did you report back to work the next day?
Mr. ORosco. No, sir, I didn't.
Senator DANIEL. How long was it before you went back to work
at Burbank?
Mr. ORosco. Well, it was about a month, I guess, 3 weeks at least.
Senator DANIEL. I believe the records show you were discharged
December 15. It isn't important, the only thing is that you did go
back to work after you had used the heroin in Mexico?
Mr. ORosco. I did for about 3 days until that letter got in from the
customs agents that I had been over there.
Senator DANIEL. Then the school authorities discharged you?
Senator DANIEL. Because of the fact that you were an addict?
Mr. OROSCO. Well, not necessarily on that, for that.
Senator
DANEI,.
What grounds did they give you?
Mr. ORosco. That I was an ex-convict, that they couldn't keep me

around, you know, a high school.
Senator
DANIEL.
What have you been doing since you were dis-
charged by the school board?

Mr. OROSCO. WVell, I have been working in the produce peddling.
Senator
DANIEL.
Produce business?

Senator DANIEL. Have you been selling any narcotics?
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator Butler has told you, of course, that you
are not required to give an answer that might incriminate you; you
understand that?
Mr. ORosco. Yes, sir, I understand that.
You have the right to say that you do not want to
answer a question because you fear it might incriminate you; you understand that?
Mr. OROSCO. Yes, sir, I understand that.
You also understand, though, that you must give
truthful answers if you are going to answer.

Senator DANIEL. I want to ask you again, and I have no reason to
doubt what you are telling me, I haven't looked at any of these records
or anything else to cause me to doubt what you have just said, I want
to ask it over to you again so you will have an opportunity to tell us
everything, if you wish to, that is, whether or not you have sold any
heroin, marihuana, or any other narcotics in San Antonio since you
were discharged from the school?
Senator DANIEL. Have you bought any heroin in San Antonio since
you were discharged from the school?
Mr. ORosco. Well, not directly.
Senator DANIEL. Well, indirectly?
Mr. ORosco. I have sent for some.
Senator DA\NIEL. You have sent for some?
Senator DANIEL. What do you have to pay for it?
2590
Mr. ORosco. Two-fifty a cap.
DANIEL. Where did you send for it?

Mr. OROSCO. I don't know where they went to
Senator DANIEL. Did you go to Mexico?
Senator
get it.
Mr. ORosco. No, sir; here.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Here in San Antonio?
Did you just tell someone to go get it for you?
And did you give them the money?
Is that this year 2

Senator DANIEL. All right, Senator Butler, any further questions?
Any.questions, Mr. Counsel?
Mr. GASQUE. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. What is your present

address in San Antonio?
Mr. ORosco. Well, I tell you, I don't have no present address because right now I am staying with a lady friend of my mother but
my family, my father and mother live at 111 Garner Lane here in San
Antonio.
Mr. GASQUE. 111 Garner Lane here in San Antonio?
Mr. GASQUE. Now, to the best of your knowledge, is the supply of
marihuana and heroin plentiful here n San Antonio?
Mr. ORosco. Well, I don't have no idea how much there is. you send
Mr. GASQUE. Do you have difficulty getting drugs when
for them?
Mr. ORosco. Well, sometimes.
Mr. GASQUE. Why do you send for them?
Mr. OROSCO. Because I don't want to be around the places.
Mr. GAsQUE. Do you send for them for your own use?
Mr. GASQUE. Are you presently using drugs.
Mr. ORosco. Well, I use it once in a while.
you
Mr. GASQUE. Now, I wonder if you would tell us the last time
used drugs, when is the last time you used heroin?
Mr. ORosco. The last time I had a shot?
Mr. GASQUE. The very last time.
Mr. ORosco. The night before last.
Mr. GASQUE. Where did you use it?
Mr. ORosco. In my house.
Mr. GASQU-E. In your house?
Mr. ORosco. Where I am staying now.
Mr. GASQUtE. Where did you get that heroin?
Mr. ORosco. It was given to me.
Mr. GAsQUE. By someone at your house?
didn't have a place to go to
Mr. OROSCO. No, sir, by somebody that
me if he could do it atmy house
do what he was going to do, he asked
and I took him up there.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you mean that another addict wanted to take a
shot of heroin?
I I I I
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2591

Mr. GASQU. And had no place to do it?
Mr. ORosco.
Mr. GASQuE.
Mr. ORosco.
house.
Mr. GASQut.
Mr. ORosCo.
Mr. GASQUE.
Mr. ORosCo.
Yes, sir.
And came to your house?
No, I met him on the street but I brought him to my
Did he share his heroin with you?

He gave me a little bit.
How did you use it?
How did I use it?
Mr. GASQUER. Did you skin pop?
Mr. ORosCo. Main line.

Mr. GASQUE. You mainlined it?
Mr. GASQUE. You put the hypodermic needle in your veins?

Mr. GASQU-E. Who cooked the heroin up?
Mr. OROSco. He did.
Mr. GASQUE.
Mr. ORosco.
Mr. GASQtE.
Mr. OROsco.
Mr. GASQUE.
Mr. Oi~osco.
What did you use to cook it with?

One of them bottle stoppers.
A bottle stopper, a cap?
A cap.
And did you use a hypodermic needle?
Yes, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you have any idea where he got his heroin from?
Mr. ORosco. I didn't ask him.

Mr. GAsQux. Do you know the person?
Mr. ORosco. Vell, I don't know his name, I don't know, see he ain't,
me and himMr. GASQUE. I haven't asked you his name, merely asked if you
know him. Now, I believe you stated that you never used heroin
while you were employed at the school?
Mr. ORosco. Thats right, while I was working, I said.
Mr. GASQUrE. Now, I want to refine that question a little and ask
it in this way. Did you ever take a shot of heroin on the premises
of the school?
Mr. ORosoo. No, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you ever take a shot of heroin in San Antonio
while you were working with the school?
Mr. ORosco. Yes, sir; I did.
Senator DANIEL. Now, the committee has information about where
you have made at least some of the purchases of this heroin, and we
are not going to ask you to go into that. I will say for the record
that the information was not gained from you and so, therefore, we
are not going to ask you to name these places that you buy your
heroin. The only final question I want to ask you is, do you know
where you could go and get this heroin after ou leave this courtroom, do you know how you could get some? How long do you think
it would take you to get some heroin today in San Antonio?
Mr. ORosco. Arell, it could be quick and again it could take a long
time, I don't know, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You have gotten it pretty quickly at times?
Mr. ORosco. Sometimes.
2592
Senator DANIEL. Without naming the places, you know where you
can send to get it today or tomorrow, or at least where you could have
done it yesterday or the day before; don't you?
Mr. ORosco. I don't know about that.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I am going to ask you that question over
again and I am not going to ask you to name the places, do you understand
Senator
DANIEL.
Because we have the names of the places.
Senator DANIEL. But you know where you could have gone to get
some heroin, where you could have done it day before yesterday or last
week; don't you?
Senator DANIEL. You know?
Senator DANIEL. And there is more than one place; isn't that right ?
Senator DANIEL. All right, that is all.
Mr. Murphy, will you come forward.
FURTHER TESTIMONY OF MERLE MURPHY, CUSTOMS INSPECTOR,

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, LAREDO, TEXAS
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Murphy, do you have a list of names there
that the committee wants to ask you about?
Mr. MuRPHY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. On which you have checked cards to be sure that
your information indicates either an admission of an addiction or
definite evidence on your records that the people were addicts or in
the narcotics trade?
Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir; in other words, in our opinion, they are con-
nected with the narcotics trade.

Senator DANIEL. All right, will you take them up one by one, give
the name, address, and various crossings and any other information
you think might be of help in illustrating exactly what goes on.
Mr. MlURPHY.
Richard C. Brown, 7306 First Street, Houston, Tex.
We have two cards on this individual, one dated Auguiist 21, one
August 10 given.
Senator DANIEL. Of what year?
Mr. MuRPHY. 1955. On August 10, he, according to this card,
arrived on foot accompanied by another addict by the na:me of Adams
whom we talked about a few minutes ago. Nothing was- found on lhim
and it states he is an addict. On the 21st of August lhe was given a
search by two other inspectors, nothing was found at that time but he
was recognized by one of the inspectors as having been through the
week prior when at that time he was apparently under the influence of
narcotics. After the personal search in a 1949 Mercury sedan, it was
thoroughly searched, 32 marihuana seeds, 6 hulls were found by the
inspectors and the customs agents were called, of course, at that time
and they conducted an investigation on it.
Senator DANIEL. Have charges been filed on this individual?
Mr. MuRPHY. I believe so but I am not sure. Mr. Richards can tell
you about. that I am sure. As I say, we called the customs agents and
2593
they investigated from there on, prepared their cases and everything.
Senator DANIEL. All right now, the next one.
Mr. MURPHY. Charles A. Mikiski, 6805 Lozier, Houston, Tex. We
have cards on him on two different dates, one May 19, 1955, one May
8, 1955. No contraband was found at either time but on the card dated
May 8, he was accompanied by James Broussard, who we also have
listed as an addict and on May 19 he was accompanied by a man named
Glenn Hawthorne; it doesn't say whether he was an addict or not.
That is all we have on him.
Mr. MURPHY. We have a card on Leo Bustamante, 214 South Pine,
with a notation also, 1331 South Comal, San Antonio, Tex. Arrived
from Mexico accompanied by an individual by the name of Silvester G.
Sanchez. He was given a personal search, nothing was found but the
notation is here that he is an addict. We also have a card on this
Silvester Garcia Sanchez, 3139 West Popular, San Antonio, Tex., with
a cross reference that he was accompanied by Leo Bustamante. He
was given a personal search by inspectors, nothing was found. Here
is a little bit of a description of him, in other words, he is tattooed on
both arms, "La Chiva" on the left arm, "La Chiva" on the left knee,
"Love SSRK," I guess means love or something.
Senator DANIEL. Let's go on. Let's get copies of those cards for our
records so we can check this information.
Mr. MURPHY. Howard Butler, 821 Parkland, Corpus Christi, Tex.,
listed occupation as a taxi driver. He was alone when he arrived, came
in a bus. He was given a personal search, nothing was found on him,
but notation is here that he is an addict, has needle marks on both arms
and hands. Armador A. Cruz, 717 Lane Street. Laredo, Tex. There
are two cards on this individual, one dated February 17, 1955, one dated
January 28,1955.
Senator DANIEL. May we have copies of those cards for our records
Senator DANIEL. Suppose you pass along to any others where there
have been several trips across, according to your cards.
Mr. MURPHY. On Marcelino Medina, we have two cards. Do you
want the address? Not necessary?
Senator DANIEL. No; just the name and number of trips is sufficient,
the town.
Mr. MURPHY. San Antonio, Tex. We have two cards on him with
notations that he is an addict and says he uses dope about twice a week,
veins are scarred. At that time he had a vast sum of money on him, on
his person, on one of the searches; it says his age is 20 years.
Senator DANIEL. How much money did he have?
Mr. MURPHY. Three hundred and fifty dollars on one of the searches,
one of the notations.
Senator DANIEL. All right, sir.
Mr. MURPHY. Williamlee Niess, Dallas, Tex., also lists him at the
Hotel Hidalgo, Nuevo Laredo. Another address, different address
than Dallas, another hotel in Nuevo Laredo, Dallas again.
Senator DANIEL. That is sufficient. We will make the cards a part
of the record. How many trips did this man make across the bridge at
Laredo?
Mr. MuRPiiY. We have eight cards on this individual.
Senator DANIEL. Some of those pretty recent trips?
111111111
2594
Mr. MUPHY. September 10 is the last one.
Senator
September 10, 1955?

Mr. MURPHY. 1955 is the last one we have on him.
Senator DANIEL. All right, then will you pass on to the next?
DANIEL.
Mr. MURPHY.
Chester Scott, Corpus Christi, Tex.
We have two
cards on this man and it says he is a merchant seaman; he denied being

an addict until the second card was found on him in the file.
Senator BUTLER. May I ask, Mr. Murphy, is that man still a merchant seaman?
Mr. MURPHY. I don't know.
Senator BUTLER. I would like to have that.
Mr. MuRPHY. On the date these cards were made both of them
list him as a merchant seaman.
Senator BUTLER. I would like to have a memorandum of that particular case and any other cases you have in connection with merchant seaman.
Senator DANIEL. I will say to Senator Butler that we will make
that part of the record when that is received.

Senator BUTLER. Yes, I would like it very much because we have
had some legislation in connection with people at sea who are addicts.
We have had some very unfortunate results, and I would like to have
any information on any man who sails in an American ship who is
an addict.
Senator DANIEL. This man, Chester Scott, your card shows going
to Mexico on various occasions to buy for other people, or do you
have any information in that regard?
Mr. MURPHY. No, it says that he-apparently he must have admitted that he is a merchant seaman, that he was arrested for theft,
vagrancy, drunkenness, 3 years for robbery in Galveston County, but
we have only two cards on him and nothing to indicate how often he
went.
Senator DANIEL. It does not show how many trips he took across
the border?
Mr. MumHY. No, sir.
Senator DANIELS. You don't know whether he made other trips
or Mr.
not ?
MURPHY. No, sir; we have
no records of
other trips.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right.
Mr. MurpHY. William L. Taylor, Ardmore, Okla. He had needle
marks on his right arm and foot, no contraband found on him, at that
time driving a 1954 Cadillac, stayed in the Shamrock Hotel in Houston. This card is dated February 15. He stayed there on the 10th and
11th of 1955, paid $11 per day, address shown on bill from the Shamrock Hotel 5201 Denton Boulevard, Kansas City, Mo., a different
address he gave at that time, and there are some names and addresses
listed that were in his possession listed on this card.
Senator DANIEL. Make that a part of the record. Do you have
any idea or have you counted to see how many of those 104 addicts
came from other States?
Mr. MURPHY. No, sir, I haven't. I believe they primarily gave ad-
dresses in this State. I don't think too many are from other States.
There are a few, I know.
Senator DANIEL. All right; go ahead.
2595
Mr. MURPHY. Robert Eugene, San Francisco, Calif., according to

this, was given a personal search; no contraband found. He also said
he was a merchant seaman and states he is an addict.
Senator DANIEL. You will give us any further information you can
on this man under Senator Butler's request?
Senator DANIEL. All ri ht.

Mr. MURPHY. William Baxter Frierson, Chicago, Ill. He was given
a personal search.
Marilyn Grant. At that time we found 1 gram of heroin on his
person. He is an addict.
Senator DANIEL. Marilyn Grant, who is that?

Mr. MuRPHY. Marilyn Grant, New York.
Senator DANIEL. That is a woman?

Senator MURPHY. Yes, sir.
Mr. MuRPHiY. M-a-r-i-l-y-n Grant.
Senator DANIEL. What address in New York?

Mr. MURPHY. 14 East Second Street, from this.
Senator DANMEL. Go ahead, sir.
Mr. MURPHY. There was marihuana found on this girl. I believe
it was-I believe Mr. Richards can probably give you more information on this particular person because I believe they were primarily
responsible on this.
Senator DANIEL. Is Mr. Richards here? Is that your last one, Mr.
Murphy, that Mr. Speer asked you about?
Senator DANIEL. Come forward, Mr. Richards, and let's complete
these records on these addicts. Mr. Murphy, we certainly appreciate
your assistance.
(Following are the cards referred to by Mr. Murphy:)
Butler, Howard, 821 Parkland,Corpus Christi,Tem.
Personal Search, July 1, 1955.
Taxi driver, age unknown, alone, came in bus from Mexico, was given a personal search by Customs Inspectors Botello and Villarreal. Nothing found. Is
an addict, needle marks on both arms and hands.
Bustamanate, Leo, 214 South Pine (also 1881 South Comal), San Antorio, Tex.
Personal search, April 12, 1955.

Arrived from Mexico accompanied by Silvester G. Sanchez in a car. Given
a personal search by Customs Inspectors Scherr and Haley. Nothing found.
Occupation: rubber stamp maker. He is an addict.
Sanchez, Silvestre Garcia,8139 West Poplar,San Antonio, Tex.

Arrived from Mexico accompanied by Leo Bustamante in a car. He was
given a personal search by Customs Inspectors Scherr and Haley. Nothing
found. Tattoos on both arms. "La Chiva" on left knee, "Love SS RK San
Antonio, Tex." on back. Occupation: knitter. He is an addict.
Mikeska, Charles,6805 Lozier, Hoziston, Tea.
Personal search, May 8, 1955.

Arrived from Mexico by automobile accompanied by James Broussard, addict. Was given personal search by Inspector W. E. Jones, witnessed by J. E.
Cisneros, inspector. No contraband was found. Occupation: air-conditioning
man. He Is an addict.
2596
Mikcska, Charles, 6805 Lozier, Houston, Tex.

Arrived from Mexico on foot accompanied by Glen Hawthorne; was given a
personal search by Inspector Botello, witnessed by Cisneros. Nothing was
found on him. Mikiski is a dope addict. Occupation: air conditioning. Dope
addict.
Medina, Marcelino, 607 Colinia,San Antonio, Tex.
Personal search, March 16, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico on foot and alone. Given a personal search by Customs Inspector Biggio, witnessed by Inspector Volle of the Department of Agriculture. Nothing found. Says he uses dope about twice a week. His veins are
scarred. Had $350 cash on person. Twenty years of age. Occupation: works
for his father. He is an addict.
M cdia,Marcelino, 607 Colima, San Antonio, Tex.
Personal search, January 16, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by his uncle, Hilan Medina. He
was given a personal search by Customs Inspector Villarreal, witnessed by
Customs Inspector Cullinan. Nothing was found. Occupation: market helper.
He is an addict.
Cruz, Amador A., 717 Lane Street, Laredo, Tex.
Person search, February 17, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico on foot and alone. Given a personal search by Customs
Inspector Villarreal, witnessed by Inspector Valdez. Nothing found. Occupation: None. He is an addict.
Criz, Amador A., 717 Lane Street, Laredo, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico on foot and alone. He was given a personal search by
Customs Inspector Jones, witnessed by Inspector L. A. Marks. Nothing found.
Occupation: No work; lives on Government pension. He is an addict.
Brown, Richard C., 7306 FirStreet, Houston, Tex.
Personal search, August 21, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by Neal H. Barbee. Given a personal
search by Customs Inspector S. J. Leyendecker and Inspector E. W. Jackson of
the Department of Agriculture. Nothing found. He was recognized by Inspector Jackson as having been searched last week (was under influence of narcotics) ; 1949 Mercury sedan license MZ-4445 thoroughly searched and 32 seeds
(marihuana), 6 hulls, and foreign matter found by Inspector Jackson. Agent
Yates called and conducted investigation. Seeds and hulls placed in an envelope
and initialed by all concerned. Envelope containing seeds placed in vault. Witnesses. Jackson, Leyendecker and Aderhold (highway patrol). (See seizure
48-L.) Occupation: Painter. Age: 21. He is an addict.
Orosco, Ignacio, Jr., 1022 South Pinto, San Antonri, Tex.
Personal search, December 2, 1954.
This man is a janitor for school board at Burbank High School, San Antonio,
Tex. He is an addict, takes joy pops about once a week, and had a shot on December 1, 1954. He has been to jail for sale of narcotics. Given personal search
by Inspector J. T. Gonzalez, witnessed by Inspector M. L. Murphy. No contraband found on his person. His wife, Mary Gloria Orosco, was also given personal
search by Inspectoress Maedell J. Pearson, and no contraband found on her
person, apparently not an addict. Customs Agents Ellis and Richards called.
Brown, Richard Clinton, 7306 Fir Street, Houston, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico on foot accompanied by Jerry James Adams (addict).
Was given personal search by Inspector G. E. Villarreal, witnessed by BEPQ
Inspector Jackson. Nothing found. Occupation: Painter. He is an addict.
(See report on Jerry James Adams.)
Frierson,William Baxter, 301-1 Wcst Walnut, Chicago, Il.
Personal search, November 30, 1954.
Given personal search by Inspector Peter Parker, witnessed by A. C. Munoz.
Found 1 gram of heroin on person. Addict. Customs Agent Ellis investigated.
2597
Grant, Marilyn, 14 East Second Street, New York, N. Y.

Personal search, February 12, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by her sister, Tonia, and Mr. and
Mrs. Mallory of Chicago, Ill. She was given a personal search by Customs
Inspectress Pearson and three packages of Marihuana were found. Two small
cellophane packages were found in her brassiere and 1 large package in a white
sock was worn as a sanitary pad. She stated she and her sister had been in
Monterrey about 2 weeks, that they had met the Mallory's in Monterrey about
4 days previously, and that she had smoked marihuana for the first time about
4 days ago in Monterrey. Marihuana smoker. Occupation: Registered nurse.
Eugene, Robert
Arrived from Mexico by automobile accompanied by Harry F. Kerley (colored) and Tom Hall (colored). Was given personal search by Inspector G. E.
Villarreal, witnessed by Customs Agent T. Wagner. No contrband found. Occupation: Merchant Seaman (cook). Age: 24. He is an addict.
Taylor, William L., 509 C Avenue, N.W., Ardmore, Okla.
Arrived from Mexico in a Taxi, alone. Given a personal search by Customs
Inspectors Villarreal and Worley. Had needle marks on right wrist and right
foot. No contraband found. Driving a 1954 Cadillac, Oklahoma license 1-39291
(1955). Stayed in Shamrock Hotel, Houston, February 10, 1955 and February
11, 1955. Paid $11 per day. Address shown on the bill from the Shamrock
Hotel: 5201 Benton Boulevard, Kansas City, Mo. The following names and
addresses were in a little book in his possession: Lauro Lopez Gonzalez of San
Antonio and North Laredo, Mexico; Matt Tinsley, San Antonio, Tex. The taxi
driver stated he had a companion who stayed In North Laredo, Mexico. Occupation : Gilfield worker. He is an addict.
Scott, Chester, 3616 Morgan Strcet, Corpus Christi, Tcx.
Personal search, July 2,1955.
Merchant seaman, age: 36, alone, walking, was given a personal search by
Customs Inspector Worley and witnessed by Customs Inspector Chamberlain.
Nothing found. Denied being an addict till card on him was found in file-had
no money with him. Addict.
Scott, Chester,509 Duncan, Corpus Christi,Tex.
Personal search, June 25, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by William Albert Schmidt.
Given a personal search by Customs Inspectors M. E. Winters and F. R. Pena.
Has been arrested for theft, vagrancy, drunkenness. Did 3 years for robbery
in Galveston County. He is a merchant seaman and goes to foreign countries
on Esso tankers. Occupation: Merchant seaman. He is an addict.
Niess, William Lee, 317 Cicama Street, Dallas, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico as a pedestrian, and was given a personal search by
Inspector J. T. Gonzaez, Jr., witnessed by Inspector E. L. Haley. No contraband found. Last time he was here was 2 years ago. Has been in the penitentiary 4 times on narcotic -charges. Occupation: In the produce business.
He is an addict.
Niess, William Lee, Hotel Iidalgo, Nuievo Larcdo, Mexico
Arrived from Mexico on foot and alone. Given a personal search by Customs Inspector Villarreal. Nothing found. Occupation: Unemployed. lie is
an addict.
Niess, William Lee, 317 Diceman, Dallas,Tex.
Arrived from Mexico on foot and alone. Given a personal search by Customs Inspectors Herring and Biggio. Nothing found. Has served time on
narcotics charge. Stays at Hidalgo Hotel, Nuevo, Laredo. Usually accompanied a blind man named Smith who takes shots (heroin) in Nuevo Laredo.
Occupation: Unemployed. He is an addict.
111111
2598
Niess, William Lee, Romanos Hotel, Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico

Arrived from Mexico on foot and alone. Given a personal search by Customs Inspectors Meade and Ramirez. Nothing found. Occupation: Unemployed.
He is an addict.
Niess, William, 1218 West Clarendon,Dallas, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico on foot, accompanied by Ernest Sweatt. He was given
a personal search by Customs Inspector L. S. Marks, witnessed by Customs
Inspector Sanders. He had no new scars and claimed to be giving up use of
narcotics. His last shot was 4 months ago. (See statement he made on
December 27.) Occupation: Painter and produce worker. He is an addict.
Niess, William L., 1218 W. Clarendon, Dallas, Tex,.
Arrived from Mexico on foot alone. He was given a personal search by
Customs Inspector Scherr, witnessed by Customs Inspector Jones. Nothing
was found. He claims he has not used narcotics for 2 years and used to use
heroin. (See his card made on December 24 where he made a different statement.) Occupation: Laborer. He is an addict.
Niess, William Lee, 317 Diceman, Dallas, Tex.
Inspectors Haley and Cisneros. Nothing found. Occupation: Unemployed. He
is an addict.
Niess, William Lee, 1411 Diceman, Dallas, Tex.
Personal search, September 10, 1955.
Inspectors Meade and Worley. Nothing found. He says he doesn't use any
narcotics anymore. Has no signs that he uses them. Occupation: Grader of
produce. Age: 50. He is an addict.
(An additional list of known addicts and their associates who crossed the
bridge, at Laredo, Tex., into or from Mexico will be found in the appendix at
p. 3500.)
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Richards, if you
will sit down there a minute.
Are you familiar with this case of Marilyn Grant of New York?
FURTHER TESTIMONY OF ALBERT D. RICHARDS, AGENT IN
CHARGE, BUREAU OF NARCOTICS, LAREDO, TEX.
Mr. RICHARDS. I didn't handle this personally, Senator.

Mr. RICHARDS. One of my agents, however, it came across my desk.
I am not too familiar with this particular case though.
Senator DANIEL. Is there anyone here who is personally familiar
with the case?
Mr. RICHIARDS. I believe not, no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. This woman gave her title as a registered nurse,
according to the card, is that right? Do you have any notation on that?
Mr. RICHARDS. She gave her occupation as a registered nurse when
she was searched on February 12, 1955.
Senator DANIEL. And what was found on her, according to your
records?
Mr. RICHARDS. According to the record, two cellophane packages
were found in her bra and one large package which was placed in a
kotex and worn as a sanitary pad containing marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. All right, are charges filed on this woman?
Mr. RIClIARDS. Yes, sir. I do not know the result according to the
card, it would not be on this card.
I I I
2599
Senator DANIEL. Can you get us information as to what happened

in this case?
Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, sir, I can.
Senator DANIEL. The card shows she crossed the border again more
recently?
Mr. RICHARDS. There's only the one card here and probably she did
not because she was placed under arrest after the marihuana was
found.
Senator
DANIEL.
We have information here that the same woman
left on Labor Day from New York to go back to Mexico. Do you

have any record of her having crossed the border again since these
.lIarges were filed?
Mr. RICHARDS. It does not appear on this card.
Senator DANIEL. Will you give us any information later on about
that ?
Mr. RICHARDS. I will give you a full report.
Senator DANIEL. Thank you, Mr. Richards.
We will have a little break of about a minute recess.
(Short recess.)
Senator DANIEL. The committee will come to order. Leo Bustamante, Leo Bustamante. Mr. Marshall, will you call that name out
there? Leo Bustamante, Leo Bustamante.
Silvestre Sanchez, Silvestre Sanchez, Silvestre Sanchez.
Mr. SPEER. One of the boys informed me he was in the county jail.
Senator DANIEL. Well, he was here yesterday.
Mr. SrFE. He was?
Senator DANIEL. That is my information. Silvestre Sanchez, is he
out there? See if he is out there.
Mr. SPEER. They got him in jail, they got him last night.
Senator DANIEL. Senator Butler, I suggest you place this that you
are telling the chairman about here in the record, your interest in the
merchant marine, in particular.
Senator DANIEL. Place that in the record.
Senator BUTLER. My interest is very vital in the merchant marine.
I am a ranking member of the Commerce Committee of the Senate. I
am interested in safety at sea and I think this question is very vital to
safety at sea, and I want to quote for the record section 710d of title
706 of the United States Code Annotated. And it says in effect that
any person who has been convicted of a narcotics charge shall lose his
papers and right to sail in an American ship, and also any person who
has ever been a user of, or addicted to the use of narcotic drugs, unless
he furnishes satisfactory evidence that he is cured. And I want to say
to the officers present here in the room that if any such information
comes to your attention, be sure that it goes immediately to the Department of Commerce or the other departments charged with the
supervision over our American merchant marine.
Senator DANIEL. I appreciate these comments by Senator Butler.
lie is one of the outstanding merchant marine maritime lawyers and
one of the outstanding lawyers on merchant marine matters in
Congress.
What is your name?
2600
Mr. SANCHEZ. Silvestre Sanchez.

(Silvestre Sanchez was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. You may be seated. Will you spell your name?
TESTIMONY OF SILVESTRE SANCHEZ
S-i-l-v-e-s-t-r-e.
Senator DANIEL. And your last name?
Mr. SANCHEZ. S-a-n-c-h-e-z.
Mr. SANCHEZ. 127 San Christopher Court.
Senator DANIEL. Have you been addicted to heroin?
Mr. SANCHEZ. Injected some.
Mr. SANCHEZ. Injected some.
Senator DANIEL. Yes, have you injected heroin in your arm?
Mr. SANCHEZ. Yes, I used to inject before they locked me up.
Senator DANIEL. Before they arrested you?
Mr. SANCHEZ. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. When did you start using heroin?
Mr. SANCHEZ. About 5 years ago.
Mr. SANCHEZ.
DANIEL. How old were you then?

Mr. SANCHEZ. Sixteen.
Senator DANIEL. Were you in school?
Senator
Mr. SANCHEZ. No, sir.
Senator
Who gave you the first heroin you ever used?

Who gave it to me?
DANIEL.
Mr.
SANCHEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. SANCHEZ.
Did they give it to you or sell it to you?
I bought it.
DANIEL. You bought it

Senator DANIEL. What did you
Senator

pay for it?
Mr. SANCHEZ. Two-fifty.

Senator DANIEL. Two dollars and fifty cents a capsule?
Mr. SANCHEZ. Yes. [Indicated by nodding his head.]
Senator DANIEL. How much was it costing you for your habit before you were arrested?
Mr. SANCHEZ. Well, I didn't have a habit, I just do that about 2
or 3 times a day, I didn't have a bad habit.
DANIEL. Two or three times a day?
Mr. SANCHEZ. Sometimes 3, sometimes 2, I
Senator DANIEL. A capsule each time?
Senator
didn't have a bad habit.
Mr. SANCHEZ. No, half.
Senator DANIEL. Half a capsule each time?

Mr. SANCHEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Costing you from seven toSANCHEZ. About $6 a day.
Senator DANIEL. About $6 a day.
Mr.
How were you getting the money
to pay for it?

Mr. SANCHEZ. I used to work in the Plaza, in that, where they sell
some fruit.
Senator
d
At a fruit stand, did that pay you that much a

Well, unloading trucks.
DANIEL.
r. SANCHEZ.
Senator
DANIEL.
2601
Well, did that pay you enough to take care of your
heroin?
SANCHEZ. Sometimes.
Senator DANIEL. When it
Mr.
didn't give you enough money what did
you do?
Mr. SANCHEZ. Well, sometimes I, I do, I had some friends where I
could find some.

Senator DANIEL. You would do what?
Mr. SANCHEZ. Have to go somewhere else where I could find some.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever go to Mexico to buy your heroin?
Mr. SANCHEZ. I never have gone to Mexico to buy it, but I have
been over there but never to buy some.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you go across the border at Laredo on
April 12, 1955?
Senator DANIEL. Who was with you?
Mr. SANCHEZ. Just Bustamante.
Senator DANIEL. Did you get on heroin while you were over across
the border?
SANCHEZ. I didn't get none.
Senator DANIEL. Were you looking
Mr.
Mr.
SANCHEZ.
for any over there?
No.
Senator
DANIEL. What were you doing over there?

Mr. SANCHEZ. To have a good time.
Senator DANIEL. You were a narcotic addict using it every
Mr. SANCHEZ. Sometimes use it every day, but when we
day?
left, I
ain't getting something, I didn't need any until we came back, we
just stayed a few hours.
Senator DANIEL. You stayed only a few hours across the border?
Mr. SANCHEZ. Yes, just a few hours.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you use any narcotics, did you get any
delivered to you back across the river?
Mr. SANCHEZ. I never had any.
Senator DANIEL. Is that the only time you ever crossed the border
at Laredo?
Mr. SANCHEZ. That I remember of, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you crossed into Mexico at other places?
Mr. SANCHEZ. No; that is the only place I have gone to.
Senator
river
DANIEL.
You bought all your narcotics this side of the
Mr. SANCHEZ. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL. Where?
Mr. SANCHEZ. In San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. How long is
the last time you used any?

Mr. SANCHEZ. In May.
Senator DANIEL. Of this year?
it since you used heroin, when was
Senator DANIEL. Did you buy that?

SANCHEZ. Yes, sir; I buy it.
Senator DANIEL. You bought it where?
Mr. SANCHEZ. Here in San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. Now you know that
Mr.
you have sworn to tell the

committee the truth, that you could be punished, a court or jury could
I I I I
2602
punish you if you do not tell this committee the truth. You understand that, without any insinuations or inference that there is any
doubt in the mind of the chairman of this committee about whether
you are telling the truth, I just want to give you that warning. Also,
you know you have the right, if you feel any truthful answer would
incriminate you or might cause you to be convicted of some crime to
stand on your constitutional rights not to answer, do you understand
that
DANIEL. Do you understand both of those things?
Senator DANIEL. That you should give truthful answers
Senator
and if
you fear that any truthful answer might cause you or tend to cause
you to be convicted of something, you could stand on your right not
to answer, do you understand that?
Senator DANIFLL. I want to ask you this question over again, after
having given you that warning, When was the last time that you shot
any heroin in your arm?
Mr. SANCHEZ. In May.
Senator DANIEL. May of this year?

Mr. SANCHEZ. May of this year, when they locked me up, before
they locked me up.
Senator D.N\.
IEL.
And then you were locked up, and when did you get
out of jail?
Mr. SANCHEZ. I haven't got out of jail; I am still in jail.
Senator DANIEL. You are still in jail. Did you ever get any heroin
while you were in jail?
Senator
DANIEL.
Have you had any other type of drug since you
were in jail?
Senator DANIEL. Nobody brought you any type?

Mr. SANCHEZ. No. [Indicated by shaking his head.]
Senator DANIEL. And you are now in the jail here, the county jail?
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you feel like you can stay off the habit if
you were let out of the jail, do you think you would go back to using
heroin?
Mr. SANCHEZ. I don't think I would.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. SANCHEZ.
From whom did you buy your last heroin?
A person on the street.
What was his name?

don't know his name, only by nickname.
What was his nickname?
Mr. SANCHEZ. Pulmas.
Mr. SANCHEZ. P-u-l-m-a-s. I don't know him by his real name.
Senator DANIEL. P-i-u-m-a?
Mr. SANCHEZ. P-u-l-m-a-s, Pulmas.
Senator DANIEL. You don't know his full name?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. SANCHEZ. I
Senator DANIEL.
Mr.
SANCHEZ.
Senator
No.
DANIEL.
San Antonio?
Who else have you bought heroin from here in
Mr.
SANCHEZ.
2603
I know him but I don't know by their names, just
the nicknames.
Senator DANIEL. Give us the nickname, whatever you know them
by.
Mr. SANCHEZ. Bought from about two more other fellows because
I don't use it too much.
Senator DANIEL. Name those two other fellows.
Mr. SANCHEZ. Their nicknames only.
Senator DANIEL. What are they?
Mr. SANCHEZ. Pera.
Senator DANIEL. And what is his last name?
SANCHEZ. Just Pera.
Senator DANIEL. Can you spell his name?
Mr. SANCHEZ. They call it Parrot.
Senator DANIEL. Like a bird?
Senator DANIEL. All right, who is the other one?
Mr. SANCHEZ. Parrot and Pulmas, Rock, you know like Dracula.
Senator DANIEL. Dracula?
Mr. SANCHEZ. Dracula.
Senator DANIEL. Dracula. Do you know what place you went to
Mr.
to buy from any of these three people?

Mr. SANCHEZ. Only on the streets, you know near some other houses,
butSenator DANIEL. Did you ever go inside a bar or inside a house to
buy from them?
Mr. SANCHEZ. A bar?
Senator DANIEL. A bar.
Mr. SANCHEZ. Not in bars.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't ever buy there?
Mr. SANCI-IEZ. Saloons and bars?
Senator DANIEL. Who sold you narcotic drugs here in San Antonio
when you were 16 or 17 years old, the same people?
Mr. SANCHEZ. I think that person has already died.
Senator DANIEL. The person has already died?
Mr. SANCHEZ. Took an overdose.
Senator DANIEL. Died from an overdose of heroin?
Mr. SANCHEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Do you remember his name?

Mr. SANCHEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. What is the name?

Mr. SANCHEZ. Just his nickname.
Senator DANIEL. What was his nickname?
Mr. SANCHEZ. Cevolla.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any questions?
Mr. GASQUE. Just one question, Mr. Chairman.
born ?
Beeville, Beeville.
Mr. GASQUE. Is Beeville in Texas?
Mr. SANCHEZ. In Texas.
Mr. GASQUE. That's all.
Senator DANIEL. All right, you may stand aside.
Rudy Moreno.
Mr.
SANCHEZ.
71515-56-pt. 7-17
Where were you
2604
Rudy Moreno was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)

senator DANIEL. You may be seated.
Mr. VILLAREALL. Senator, I am Raul Villareall representing Mr.
Moreno.
Senator DANIEL. And what is your name?
Mr. VILLAREALL. Raul V-i-l-l-a-r-e-a-l-1.
Senator DANIEL. Now, I understand. Are you representing this
man?
Mr. VILLAREALL. Yes, I am, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you understand the rules of the Senate that
you are to inform your client of his rights and that he may turn to
you when he has doubt in his mind and needs your counsel for any
reason whatsoever?
Mr. VILLAREALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. But you are not to instruct your client?
Mr. Counsel, suppose you proceed, begin the interrogatories and then Mr. Speer will go ahead with him.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
Will you give your name, please?
GASQUTE.
TESTIMONY OF RUDY RUIZ MORENO

Mr. MORENO. Rudy Ruiz Moreno.
Mr. GASQUE. What is your address?
Mr. MORENO. 104 Parker Avenue.
Mr. GASQTE. Where were you born?
Mr. MORENO. Lockhart, Tex.
Mr. GASQUE. How long have you lived in San Antonio?
Mr. MORENO. Practically all my life.
Mr. GASQUE. Have you ever used drugs?

Mr. MORENO. I would like to consult my attorney before I answer
that question.
Senator DANIEL. We are going to have a 3-minute recess, you might
consult your attorney.
We will have a 3-minute recess.
(Short recess.)
Senator DANIEL. All right, Mr. Counsel, you may proceed.
Mr. GASQUE. Mr. Moreno, have you consulted your lawyer on the
previous question?
Mr. MORENO. Yes, sir, I have.
Mr. GASQUE. What is your answer?
Mr. MORENO. I refuse to answer on the grounds it might incriminate
me.
Mr. GASQUE. Now I will repeat the question to you again. Have
you ever at any time used drugs?
Mr. MORENO. I refuse to answer on the grounds it might tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. GASQuE. Have you at any time in San Antonio sold drugs?
incriminate me.
Mr. GASQUE. Have you in San Antonio ever received drugs, narcotics, opium, heroin, or marihuana from any individual?
incriminate me.
Mr. GASQUE. What is your age, Mr. Moreno?
2605
Mr. MORENO. Thirty-eight.

Senator DANIEL. Are you now engaged in selling heroin here in
San Antonio?
Mr. MOREN-O. No, sir, I am not.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever engaged in selling heroin here in
San Antonio?
Mr. MORENO. I refuse to answer that on the grounds that it might
tend to incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. But you do answer you are not selling them today?
Mr. MORENO. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Were you selling them yesterday?

Mr. MORENO. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Were you selling them on the day before yes-
terday ?
Senator DANIEL. How long is it since you sold any heroin here in
San Antonio?
MI. MORENO. I refuse to answer that on the grounds it might tend
to incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you went back to yesterday, you didn't sell
any; you said day before yesterday you didn't sell any; what about
the day before that, did you sell any heroin 3 days ago?
sir.
Senator DANIEL. Four days ago?
Mr. MORENO. No,
Senator DANIEL. Five days ago?

Senator DANIEL. Six days ago?
Senator DANIEL. Seven days ago?
Senator DANIEL. Eight days ago?
Senator DANIEL. A month ago?

Senator DANIEL. Anytime this year?
Senator DANIEL. Anytime last year?
Senator DANIEL. You never sold any heroin in this town in 1955
or 1954?
Mr. MORE NO. No, sir, I have not.
1953?
Mr. GASQUE. Now, what is your present occupation?
Senator DANIEL. What is the answer to 1953.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. MOiRENO. No, sir, I have not.

Senator DANIEL. Go ahead.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, what is your present occupation?

that question.
Mr. GASQUE. You would like to consult your attorney as to what
your present occupation is?
Mr. GASQrE. Go ahead.
2606
Mr. MORENO. I refuse to answer that on the grounds that it might
Mr. GAsQUE. Are you manager of the Diamond Horseshoe Night
Club?
Mr. MORENO. Yes, sir, I am.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you have a liquor license for operating the Diamond
Horseshoe?
Mr. MORENO. No, sir, I do not have.
Mr. GASQUE. Whose name is the liquor license in?

Mr. Mo
o. Mrs. Rose Macias.
Mr. GASQUE. Now to your knowledge has there ever been a sale of
narcotics in the Diamond Horseshoe Night Club?

Mr. MopmENo. To my knowledge?
Mr. GASQUE. Yes.

Mr. MoPEN-o. No, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Have you ever sold any heroin or marihuana in the
Diamond Horseshoe Night Club?
Mr. MOPRENO. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, have you ever sold heroin or marihuana
anywhere?
Mr. MoRENo. I refuse to answer that on the grounds it might tend
to incriminate me.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, what is the name of your wife?
Mr. MORENO. Maria Moreno.
Mr. GASQUE. And has she been engaged in the narcotics traffic?
Mr. MORENO. I refuse to answer that, it might tend to incriminate.
Senator DANIEL. Was she formerly married to someone who was
engaged in the narcotic traffic?
Mr. MORENO. I refuse to answer that on the grounds it might tend
to incriminate.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know a man by the name of Martias Martinez? Did you ever know such a man serving now a 10-year sentence
for narcotic violation?
that question.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, Mr. Counsel, sit over just a little fur-
ther from the witness. You may consult him at any time but you
understand you must wait for him to consult you.
Senator DANIEL. You can get close to him when he is consulting
you, that's all right, go right ahead. Let him consult you.
Mr. MARENO. Yes, I know Martias Martinez.
Senator DANIE.
Now, was your present wife married to him pre-
viously, had she been previously married to Martinez?

Mr. MORENO. Yes, sir, she was.
Senator DANIEL. You know Martinez is now serving in the penitentiary for drug conviction, for selling narcotics?
Mr. MORENO. Yes, sir, I am aware of it.
Mr. GAsGuE. Now, where were you born?
Mr. MORENO. In Lockhart, Tex.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, Mr. Speer, would you ask the witness some ques-
tions here on the factual data?

Mr. SPEER. Do you own a 1953 Buick automobile?
Mr. MORENO. No, sir; I do not own a car.
2607
Mr. SPEER. Do you drive a 1953 Buick?

Mr. MORENO. Occasionally; yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Who does own that automobile?
Mr. MORENO. Mrs. Rose Macias.
Mr. SPEER. Who is she?

Mr. MORENO. She is my sister.
Mr. SPEER.
And where does she live?
Mr. MORENO. She lives at 104 Parker Avenue.

Mr. SPEER. Where do you live?
Mr. MORENO. I live with her.
Mr. SPEER. And do you own a 1951 Cadillac coupe?
Never have owned a 1951 Cadillac.

Did you ever drive one?
Mr. MORENO.
Mr. SPEER.
Mr. MORENO. 1951 Cadillac coupe, not that I recall.

Mr. SPEER. Do you own a 1951 Mercury coupe?
Mr. MORENO. No, sir; I do not own.
Mr. SPEER.
Have you recently driven a 1951 Mercury coupe?
Mr. MORENO. Well, I have driven a Mercury coupe but I don't
know whether 1951, 1950, or 1949.

Mr. SPEER. Whose
car was that?
Mr. MORENO. This car belongs to Carmelo Moreno.

Mr. SPEER.
To whom?
Mr. MORENO. Carmelo Moreno.
Is Carmelo Moreno a relative of yours?

Mr. MORENO. He is a close friend.
Mr. SPEER. Close friend but not a relative?
Mr. SPEER.
Mr. MORENO. Well, he is about a half a cousin, half-cousin, I would

sa I SPEER. Half-cousin. Where does he live?
Mr. MORENO.
I refuse to answer that on the grounds it might tend
to incriminate.
Mr. SPEER. You said a few minutes ago you never had sold any
heroin in the Diamond HIoreshoe Club?

Mr. MORENO. That's right.
Mr. SPEER. Did you ever discuss selling heroin in the Diamond
Horeshoe Club?
Mr. MORENO. Did I ever discuss selling any?
Mr. SPEER. That's right.
Mr. MORENO. Well, I have had agents approach me about trying
to make purchases off of me.
Mr. SPEER. Known agents?
Mr. MORENO. At the time they were not known to me; no, sir.
Mr. SPEER. But you did discuss it?
Mr. MORENO. Well, they approached me about buying it.
Why would they approach you about buying heroin?
Mr. MORENO. Because of my past record.
Mr.
SPEER. You have a narcotics record?
Mr. MORENO. I have been in prison for narcotics.
Mr. SPEER. How many times?
Mr. MORENO Several times.
Mr. SPEER. When was the most recent time?
Mr. MORENO. I was released in 1952.
Mr. SPEER. When were you sentenced?
1liii
Mr.
SPEER.
Mr.
MORENO.
In 1949.
2608
Mr. SPEER. For how many years?
Mr. MoRENo. Four years.

Mr. SPEER. Four years and when did you get out?
Mr. MORENO. In 1952.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever sold any heroin since you got out
in 1952?
Mr. MORENO. I have not sold any heroin since 1952.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever get anybody to sell any for you since
1952?
Mr. MORENO. I have not.
Senator DANIEL. You have not?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever handle any heroin, have any in your
possession or under your control since 1952?
Mr. MORENO. No, sir, not in my possession or in my control at all.
Senator DANIEL. You never sold any or gave any heroin to anybody
since 1952?
Mr. MORENO. Since 1952; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever give any marihuana to anybody or
sell marihuana to anybody since 1952?
Mr. MoRENo. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Then since 1952 you have never sold, given away or
handled either marihuana or heroin?
Mr. MORENO. That is right.
Mr. SPEER. Are you a narcotic addict?
Mr. MORENo. I refuse to answer that on the grounds it might tend
to incriminate.
Mr. SPEER. Do you have tracks on your arms from using narcotics?
to incriminate.
Mr. SPEER. On January 23, 1954, did you tell two men in the Diamond Horseshoe Club after they asked you, and after you asked them
how much they wanted, did you tell them you sold papers of heroin
for $40 apiece ?
Mr. MORENO. No, sir: I did not.
Mr. SPEER. Did you tell them there were 27 papers of such heroin
to the ounce?
to incriminate me.
Mr. SPEER. Now, did you tell them you had the pure brown stuff?
Mr. MOREN.O. I refuse to answer that on the grounds it might tend
to incriminate me.
Mr. SPEER. On the following day. did you offer to sell 14 papers
of such heroin for $500?
Mr. MORENO. Can I give an explanation on that before answering
that question?
Senator DANIEL. Yes, that is all right.
Mr. MORENO. I have said before that during the time that I have
been out of prison that I have had several people to approach me
trying to buy narcotics off of me. Now, I do not recall what we discussed while they were-they had approached me at that time.
Senator DA NIEE. Well, is that your answer, that you do not recall
or don't you remember having said that?
I I II I II I I
2609
Mr. MORENO. I refuse to answer on the grounds it might tend to incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, you have just waived your right there,
you have already answered partially and tried to explain it, go on
and give us the complete answer to the question.
Mr. MORENO. Well, I do notMr. VILLAREALL. Just a moment, at this time, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to say he has not given a partial answer to the specific question involved. Now this is a specific question. The man has already
answered previously in generalities that narcotic agents unknown
to him at that time had approached him and thereafter the record will
show that this man invoked the fifth amendment and that the Chair
allowed him to invoke the fifth amendment and that the specific question is whether he offered to sell 500 pieces of paper, whatever it is, for
$500 and he has not attempted to answer that specific question and I
believe he has not waived his rights.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I have ordered you to answer the question.
Mr. VILLAREALL. May I advise him as to his rights?
Senator
DANIEL.
Yes, as to his rights. Included in that advice I
hope that you will tell him, if the Chair is correct and you are wrong,
that he would be subject for charges of contempt of this committee.
Mr. Counsel, because of our tine schedule here today, we are going
to recess now until 2 o'clock. That will give you sufficient time to
talk with your client about this matter in detail. I will say to you
now we intend to go into these matters. The Chair feels any right
to claim the fifth amendment of several questions that are going to
be asked has been waived because of the evidence that this witness
gave without claiming the fifth amendment, and so we intend to go
into those in further detail after we come back at 2 o'clock. So you
might go ahead and advise your client fully on the matter, what is
involved, including the fact that if this Chair is right in ruling he
must answer because of having waived his right to claim the ffth
amendment on certain matters, if the Chair is right, the witness
would be subject to contempt if. he continues to refuse to answer the
questions. I am sure you understand that.
Mr. VILLAREALL. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator DANIEL. We will stand recessed until 2 o'clock this
afternoon.
(Whereupon, at 12: 05 p. m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 2 p. in., the same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
The committee will come to order. Now the witness Moreno, will he come back to the stand '?
Senator DANIEL. Before we resume this afternoon let the Chair
state that Senator Butler, of Maryland, was called back to Washington
on important business. He hopes to rejoin the committee later.
Senator James Eastland, of Mississippi, is to sit in later. The Chair
had the consent of the members of the committee to proceed in the
absence of any members of the committee today.
I believe the last question we asked you before taking a recess was,
on the following day did you offer to sell 14 papers of heroin for
$500 ?
Senator
111111111
DANIEL.
2610
Mr. MORENO.
I think I consult the attorney on this.
Senator
DANIEL. All right, you may consult

MORENO. I will have to assert the right
your attorney.
to refuse to answer
Mr.
because it might tend to incriminate me under the State law and
Federal law.
Senator DANIEL. Well, have you previously answered that you did
not ever sell, offer to sell, any heroin since 1952? Did you offer to sell
heroin to anybody since 1952?
Mr. MORENO. I do not recall the question.

Senator DANIEL. Well, I am asking you the question now over
again, Did you ever offer to sell heroin to anyone since 1952?
Mr. MORENO. I would have to refuse to answer on the grounds that
it might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. GASQUE. Now to be a little more specific here, do you know
a man by the name of Tommy Harrison?
Mr. MORENO. By name, I do not recall knowing him.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever hear of a Tommy Harrison?
Mr. MoPRENo. Tommy Harrison?
Senator
DANIEL.
Tommy Harrison.
Now, Mr. Attorney, the Chair
has cautioned you once. I don't know whether you are doing it or not,
but it appears from here that you are in contact with the witness before
he asks to consult you.
Mr. VILLAREALL. No, sir. I am not.
Senator
DANIEL.
Suppose, let's avoid the appearance, you can get
a little closer, you don't need to get so far away.

Mr. VILLAREALL. I haven't personally touched the witness before
he motioned to me at all, either deliberately-
Senator
DANIEL.
That's all right; I said in the first place, I wasn't
sure, but here our chief counsel and investigator both felt that it might
be done and you are perfectly welcome to have him consult with you
when he wants to but only then. All right, what about Tommy
Harrison?
Mr. MORENO. I would like to consult my attorney, if I may.
Senator DANIEL. All right, you may.

Mr. MORENO. I refuse to answer dn the grounds it might tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. GASQE. Do you know narcotic agent, T. E. McGuire?
Mr. MORENO. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend
to incriminate me.
Mr. GASQUE. On January 23, 1954, did Tommy Harrison or Narcotic
Agent T. E. McGuire come to the Diamond Horseshoe Club and
discuss with you the possible purchase of heroin?
that.
Senator
Mr. MORENO.
incriminate me.
Mr.
All right.
I refuse to answer on the grounds it might tend to
DANIEL.
GASQIJE.
Did you state to Agent McGuire at the time "how
much you want to get," "we sell the papers here for $40 a piece." Now,
what kind of papers were you referring to?
Mr. VILLAREALL. At this time I object to the question.
Senator DANEL. We don't receive any objections from counsel to
questions. Go ahead.
1liii
2611
Mr. GASQUE. What kind of papers were you referring to that you
stated you sold for $40 apiece?
Mr. MORENO. I would have to refuse to answer on the grounds it
might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. GAsQtm. Did you state to Sergeant McGuire, 27 papers to the
ounce so at $40 a paper you can see how much it is going to cost you?
Mr. MORENO. I have to refuse to answer on the grounds it might
Mr. GASQUE. Did you state to Agent McGuire, "we have the pure
brown stuff here?"
incriminate me.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you state to Agent McGuire you felt the white
stuff was very weak but that the brown stuff was much better heroin?
incriminate me.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you point out a policeman at that time in uniform
and state that "he used to be on the narcotic squad and that they had
just put him into uniform, that is a good fellow but be careful of
him?"
incriminate me.
Mr. GASQUE. Mr. Moreno, do you own any property.
Mr. GASQUE. What is your income?
that question.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL. All right.

MORENO. I refuse to answer
on the grounds it might tend to
incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. Did you bring your income-tax returns here to
the committee?
Mr. MORENO. No, sir; I don't thinkSenator DANIEL. Well, did you see the subpena that asked that you
bring your income-tax returns to this committee? Did you make
income-tax returns for 1950 through 1954, through 1951 through 1954,
the ones that were called for in the subpena?
incriminate me.
Senator DANEL. Well, you certainly are not going to be allowed
to refuse to answer that question. We subpenaed you to come before
this committee and to bring your income-tax returns, your copies,
1951 through 1954. Did you bring them with you? Do you have
them here?
Mr. VILLAREALL. May I advise my client?
Senator DANIEL. No, sir; you may not advise your client unless he
seeks your advice. I am just asking, did you bring them? Do you
have them here?
Mr. MORENO. Well, I would like to seek my attorney's advice.
Mr. MORENO. No, sir; I did not bring any.
Senator DANIEL. You did not bring them?
Mr. MORENO. No, sir; I do not have any copies.
2612
Mr. MORENO. I do not have any copies.

Senator DANIEL. Do you have any account
books or papers that
were called for on the subpena?

Mr. MORENO. I have no papers whatsoever, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you bring any financial records that were
asked for on this subpena?
Mr. MORENO. I have none whatsoever.
Senator
DANIEL. I said, did

Mr. MORENO. I have none to
you bring them with you?
bring, sir.
You never did have any to bring?
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. MORENO. No, sir, never had.
Senator
DANIEL.
You never kept any books on your receipts from
your business?
Mr. MORENO. I refuse to answer that on the grounds in might tend
to incriminate me.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, have you ever filed a Federal income-tax report?
to incriminate me.
Mr.
GASQUE.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that is a question that the
witness cannot refuse to answer, that is a requirement of the Federal

law.
Senator DANIEL. Well, Mr. Counsel, if he failed to file an incometax return I suppose it would be a violation of the Federal law, would
it not?
Mr. GASQUE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And if he does not wish to, it is possible that his
answer could tend to incriminate him. So, therefore, I am going to
sustain his right if he insists on it. I will sustain your right to refuse
to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate you, if you
want to insist on refusing on that ground.
Mr. VILLAREALL. In addition to that I believe it was an erroneous
impression left by the counsel that everybody has to file an income tax.
As I understand the Federal law, there is a condition attached to the
filing of an income-tax return. It doesn't necessarily mean because
an individual didn't file an income-tax return he violated the law and
that is not the law, as I understand it.
Senator DANIEL. We received your statement. Did you receive more

than $600 through any of the years, 1951 through 1954?
to incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. All right, Mr. Counsel, proceed.

Mr. GASQuE. Do you have an automobile?
Mr. MORENO. No, sir, I do not have an automobile.
Mr. GAsQuE. Do you own a home?
Mr. MoRoO. No, sir, I do not own a home.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you own a business or business property of any
kind?
Mr. MORENO. No, sir, I do not own any property.
Mr. GASQuE. How much cash do you have at the present time?
Mr. MORENO. I do not have any cash-oh, I say, around a dollar
or two.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you have a bank account?
Mr. MORENO. Never have had a bank account, no, sir.
2613
Mr. GASQUE. Now, what was the nature of your employment in

1951?
Mr. MORENO. In 1951, I was employed by the Government at that
time.
Mr.
GASQUE.
You were employed by the Government at that time?
Mr. MO.REOO. Yes, sir.

Mr. GAsQuTE. Do you recall what your salary was?
Mr. MORENO. I did not have any salary. I was in the prison.
Mr. GASQUE. Oh, you were in prison?

Mr. MoREwo. Yes, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. All right, let's go on now to Sunday, January 24we will hold that for a moment. Now, after you were out of prison
have you had employment?
Mr. MORENO. May I consult my attorney before I answer?
Senator
DANIEL.
You may consult your attorney on any of these
questions, just look over there and consult him at any time you want
to consult him.
incriminate me.
Mr. GASQUE. Are you the Rudolph Ruiz Moreno who was convicted
in November, October 17, 1942, violation of the Marihuana Act and
sentenced to 4 years in Leavenworth Penitentiary? in 1942, violation
of the Federal Narcotics Act?
Mr.
MORENO.
Yes, sir. I am Rudolph Ruiz Moreno.
Mr. GASQUE. How many times have you been convicted of violations
of the Narcotics Act or violation of the Marihuana Act?
Mr. MORENO. Several times, I do not recall how many.
Mr. GASQUE. And you have beentimes?
convicted of violating the Federal
Narcotics Marihuana Act several
Senator DANIEL. Was your answer that you have been convicted
several times?
Mr. MORENO. Let me think back just a little bit-i, 2, yes, sir.
Senator
How many times?

To be exact I don't recall how many times.
DANIEL.
Mr. MORENO.
Senator DANIEL. You mean it is so many times you don't remember
or has it been more than twice ?
Mr. MORENO. Yes, sir. I do not know exactly how many times I
have been in prison, several times for marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. And you have used marihuana, haven't you?
Mr. MORENO. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it
Senator
DANIEL.
Have you used heroin?
I also refuse to answer that question on the grounds

Senator DANIEL. Since you have been out of prison the last time
haven't you been using heroin?
Mr. MORENO. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it
Mr. GASQUE. Isn't it true you told the agents you used 2 caps a day,
2 caps of heroin a day?
r. MORENO. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it
Mr. SPER. I would like to ask you how long has it been since you
were driving this automobile you told me about this morning? You
Mr. MORENO.
2614
told the committee this morning you were driving an automobile, a

Mercury.
Mr. MoPl!o. A Mercury?
Mr. SPEER. And also a Buick. When was that?
Mr. MoRENo. I would like to consult my attorney before I answer.
Mr. SPEER. You answered that this morning.
Senator DANIEL. He can consult his attorney. Go ahead and

consult him.
Now, wait a minute, whenever you consult your attorney I have
noticed the last two times you haven't said a thing to him. You have
just listened to your attorney. By consulting an attorney it is meant
the witness would ask you something, Mr. Counsel, you understand
that ?
Mr. VILLAREALL. Yes, I understand.
Senator DANIEL. SO, if you want to ask your counsel something you
may do it but I am not going to let you simply give your ear for advice
without asking anything, you understand?
Mr. MOPENO. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, what is the answer to this question?
Mr. MORENO. Well, I was looking to him for advice at the time. I
refuse to answer on the grounds it might tend to incriminate me.

Mr. VILLAREALL. For the information of the Chair, this man does
not have an operator's license and it might tend to incirminate him
under the State law and that's the only reason that I advised of his legal
rights not to answer on the grounds It might tend to incriminate him.
Senator DANIEL. That is the only reason then?
Mr. MORENO. Yes,
sir.
Senator DANIEL. That you don't want to answer, that you are
afraid that you might be convicted if you gave a truthful answer under the drivers-operators license law, right?
Mr. VILLAREALL. Operating without a license.
Senator DANIEL. Operating without a license, that is the only reason he does not wish to answer, is that correct?
Mr. MORENO. That is correct.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, Moreno, do you know a Pedro Rodriguez?
Mr. MORENO. Pedro Rodriguez?
I refuse to answer on the grounds
it might tend to incriminate.

Mr. GASQUE. Do you know that Pedro Rodriguez, an international
Red violator, was arrested on March 8, 1955, at the International Airport by United States customs inspectors in possession of 1,543.72
grains of heroin, 33.35 grains of marihuana and 18.5 grains of opium,
do you have knowledge of such an arrest?
Mr. MORENO. Do I have any knowledge of such an arrest?
I do
not have.
Mr. GASQUE. In Rodriguez' address book this name appears: Rudy
Moreno, 104 Parker Street, San Antonio, telephone number LE29217. Then on another page in the address book is listed Rudy
Moreno, 424 West Houston Street, Diamond Horseshoe, San Antonio.
Could you tell the committee how your name happened to be in his
address book?
incriminate me.
Mr. GASQUE. Could any of that heroin or narcotics that he was
bringing into the country have been coming to you?
2615
Mr. MoRENO. Not to me, no, sir.
Why do you state that?

Mr. MORENO. Because I am not dealing in narcotics.
Mr. GASQUE. Were you dealing in narcotics at that time?
Senator DANIEL. That was in March 1955.
Mr. MORENO. No, sir, I wasn't dealing in narcotics.
Mr. GASQ
E.
Senator DANIEL. Are these addresses your addresses?

Mr. MORENO. 104 Parker Avenue?
Senator DANIEL. Right.
Mr. MORENO. That is my sister's address and I live with her.
Senator DANIEL. You live with your sister?
Senator DANIEL. What about the address, 424 West Houston Street?
Mr. MORENO. That is the club's address.
Senator DANIEL. And the telephone number, is that right, Belmont
37106?
Mr. MORENO. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator
DANIEL.
Is that your phone number?
Do you have any
explanation to give this committee as to why this dope trafficker

caught out here at the airport would have your name and addresses
and phone numbers in his book?
Senator DANIEL. You just can't imagine?
Senator DANIEL. Haven't some people brought you heroin here in

San Antonio since 1952?
incriminate me.
Mr. GASQUE. Moreno, what is your wife's name?
Mr. MORENO. Maria Moreno.
Mr. GASQUE. Is she trafficking in narcotics? Is she selling narcotics at the present time?
Mr. MORENO. NO, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Has she ever sold narcotics?
to incriminate.
Mr. GASQUE. Was she married to Macias Martinez before you
married her?
Mr. MORENO. Before I married her? Yes, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Yes. Did you know Martinez to be a major violator
of narcotics laws dating back several years?
incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. All right, Mr. Investigator, do you have any
questions?
Mr. SPEER. In 1954 did you own an automobile?
Mr. MORENO. 1954, 1954-I would like to consult my attorney on
that answer, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right, you may do it.
Mr. MORENO. I do not recall what year it was that I had this car.
Mr. SPEER. What car was that?
Mr. MoRENo. The car you just asked me whether I had a car in
1954, I do not recall.
Mr. SPEER. You did have one in 1954?
2616
Mr. MORENO. I do not recall whether I had one in 1954.

Mr. SPEER. Well, to be more specific, did you own a car in April
of 1954?
Mr. MORENO. I do not recall when I had the car.
Mr. SPEER. Would you have any trouble remembering if you were
arrested in 1954?
Mr. MORENO. Arrested in 1954? I would like to consult the attorney
before I give an answer.
I refuse to answer on the grounds it might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. SPEER. Were you arrested in April 1954?
Mr. MORENO. April 1954, I would have to refuse to answer on the
grounds it might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. SPEER. Do you know Jesus Reyna Guerro?
Senator DANIEL. Jesus Reyna Guerro, do you know a person by

that name?
Mr. MORENO. I would have to refuse to answer on the grounds it
Mr. SPEER. Were you driving his automobile or your automobile
with him in it in April 1954?
incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. Just a moment. Well, now, the Chair is going
to rule that you must answer that question. As I told you before the
noon recess, the Chair is of the opinion that on some of these questions
that we are going to ask you, you have waived your right to claim
the fifth amendment and this is one of them, because the question is
leading up to whether or not you had had any dealings in heroin since
1952. You told the committee you had not and, therefore, the Chair
ruled you waived any immunity you might could claim. If you
haven't had any dealings in heroin, how could a truthful answer to
the questions here concerning heroin since 1952 in any way tend to,
incriminate you, you see?
Senator DANIEL. So, therefore, I order you to answer the question.

Mr. VILLAREALL. At this time I would like to assert my exceptions as
a matter of record. One, we except to the rule of the Chair on the
grounds that it would be a violation of his constitutional right under
the fifth amendment to compel this witness to testimy against his will.
Second, it will be a violation of the 14th amendment under the State
constitution of Texas to compel this student, I mean this witness to
answer against his will. Third, that the Chair is estopped to now
deny this witness the privilege, whereas as a matter of record the
Chair has ruled and has allowed and permitted this witness to assert
his rights under the Constitution under the fifth amendment.
Fourth-
Senator
DANIEL.
VILLAREALL.
All right, counsel. go ahead.

That this would be in effect, if his testimony waIs
Mr.
permitted to be given here against his will, this would be in efect ,
dual violation of the law under the Federal statutes and under the
State statutes, and for that reason we respectfully except to the ruling
of the Chair.
Senator
DANIEL.
Your exception is noted and overruled.
I order you to answer the question. You understand, of course,

what you may do. If your counsel advises you to still insist on refus-
IIIIIII
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2617
ing to answer the question you may do so. You would be subject to
contempt proceeding for contempt of this committee. It is a chance
that you would have to take, so I order you to answer the question.
Mr. MORENO. Answer the last question?
DANIEL. That's correct.
Mr. MORENO. May I consult with the attorney?
Senator DANIEL. YOU may.
Mr. VILLAREALL. I have another exception to make.
Senator
Senator DANIEL. The Chair has already ruled. We have been

through these things time and again all over the.country. The Chair
has ruled you clearly waived, in the Chair's opinion. If you think,
Mr. Counsel, that the Chair is wrong, of course you know what you
can do, you can advise your witness accordingly. Go ahead.
Mr. MORENO. Would you repeat the question?
Senator
DANIEL.
Repeat the question, Mr. Speer.
All right, we
will ask the reporter to search it out and read it back exactly as it
was asked before.
Mr. SPEER. (read by the reporter). Were you driving his automobile or your automobile with him in it in April 1954?
Mr. MORENO. I didn't understand-his automobile with him in it?
Mr. SPEER. I said, were you driving your automobile with this
Guerro in it on that date?
Mr. MORENO. Now, I would answer that question providing I would
have a chance to explain.
Senator
You will be given a chance to explain any answer.

If it is the particular case that I am thinking about.
DANIEL.
Mr. MORENO.
Senator DANIEL. Well, tell us about the case you are thinking about.
Mr. MORENO. This happened last year some time, I had a, oh. must
have been a 1946 or 1947, 1946 or 1947 Lincoln, and we were driving
down Guadalupe Street, and the battery went down on me and couldn't
charge it, so told me to run it. Driving out on Guadalupe Street, had
my wife with me. I saw two boys there I knew, catching a taxi at the
time, and I hesitated for a minute and they waved at me. I stopped,
asked me where I was going. I told them I was driving the car to raise
the battery a little. So they asked me if I would drive them back to
town. I said I would after I drive the car around a little bit. They
got in the car with me.
Senator
DANIEL. Who was this

MORENO. Two fellows.
that asked you that?
Mr.
Senator
DANIEL. What were their

Mr. MORENO. I don't know their
names?
names. I know, let's see, one of
them, both of them in prison now, different cases but both in prison.
If I am not mistaken they were some relation, one of them was Blackie,
I don't know what, Blackie something, and the other one
Senator DANIEL. Would that. be Boston Blackie ?

Boston Blackie; yes; and the other one was a fellow
by the nickname of Fila. So they got in the car with me. They got in
the back seat and I kept driving down the street. Drove about, oh, say
about 3 or 4 blocks and I saw a car drive up besides me and I saw an
officer, I don't know, I saw a man draw a pistol and right away he
identified himself and told me to pull over to the curb and I did. By
that time they came rushing to me and told me to get out of the car,
took these two fellows out of the back seat and they searched them and
then they came to me and they searched me and 1 had the moneybox
Mr. MORENO.
2618
there for the place and searched that. Searched the car and they
asked me what I was doing with these two fellows. I said, well, they
were getting ready to catch a taxi and they asked me if I would bring
them, and I said, yes, I would give them a ride into town, and they
told me right away, said, "You have no business with this class of
people, as long as you fool with this class of people we are going to
stop you." I said, "Why, I have known these people for quite some
time, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't speak to them or pick them
up like I did." They said, "If you do, you know what we are doing."
So I said I would appreciate the advice and they let us go. We drove
about, for about 10 more minutes, I would say we drove around 12 or
14 blocks and by the time that I was getting ready to let them out, at
the icehouse, two detectives drove up again for the second time and
stopped the car. I stopped the car and they came over to the car and
they asked one of the boys, says, they asked Fila, "You threw this
away, didn't you?" So Fila says, "No, I didn't throw anything away."
Senator DANIEL. Was this, was that
Mr. MORENO. It was a bundle, little bundle in a rag or piece of silk
or something. A little rag, I don't know what was in it at the time, see.
So he says, "' ou threw this away, didn't you ?"
Senator DANIEL. Was that what you had just delivered to this man?
Mr. MORENO. No, sir; I didn't deliver anything to this man.
Senator DANIEL. What was in this little bag?
Mr. MORENO. Well, I am getting to that.
Mr. MORENO. Now, so they said, "You threw this away, didn't you?"
So Fila says, "No, sir; I didn't throw anything away." He said, "You
didn't throw it away?" Says, "I saw you throw it away." So the
officer insisted Fila had thrown this out of the car on the right side
of the car and Fila, because he was sitting on the right side of the car,
Fila says, "No, I didn't throw such thing away." Boston Blackie, he
jumps up, says, "He didn't throw that away," says, "I threw that
away."
Senator DANIEL. Saying he did it or you did it?
Mr. MORENO. NO; that he did it. Boston Blackie, he jumps up
voluntarily and says, "He didn't throw it away," says, "I threw that
out of the car," soMr. SPEER. What did he get for saying that later on?
Mr. MORENO. Well, I am getting to that later on, just a minute.
So, he says, "I threw that out of the car." So this officer says, "You
sure you threw this out of the car?" He said, "I am positive." He
says, You know what is in it?" He says, "Yes, sir; I have some marihuana, some dope." So he says, "All right, if you going to admit it is
yours, come on and we will go see the city sergeant." So they took us to
the sergeant. They told the sergeant about it and the sergeant said,
"The man admits it is his, if he is willing to make a statement that it
is his, he's not going to back out later on, why, file on him." So they
brought him, brought us to the city jail. So I asked him, "What are
you booking me for?" He says, "Well, this two officers claim that they
were watching these two men make some kind of a connection with
this taxi driver at the time that you drove up." Says, "So we are going
to book you for investigation." So they booked me for investigation.
Mr. SPEER. What was in this package?
1111111111
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
2619
TRAFFIC
Mr. MoRENo. Well, I don't know exactly, but when Blackie described
the package he said it was marihuana and heroin, both of them. He

mentioned both of them.
Mr. SPEER. Marihuana and heroin in the package?
Mr. MOIRENO. In the package and I think he said needles also or,
I don't know whether he said, I think he said.
Senator DANIEL. Well, didn't you ever see what was in the package?
Mr. MORENO. No, sir; the package was never shown to us at all.
Never.
Senator DANIEL. You just saw somebody throw it away?
Mr. MORENO. No, sir; I didn't see nobody throw it away.
Senator DANIEL. You had no idea of what was in it except what
you were told?
Mr. MORENO. Nobody knew it, I mean, we didn't know the package
had been thrown out of the car, hut the officers claim they saw this
Fila throw it out of the car but yet Boston Blackie jumps up and says
that he was the one threw it out, he, Boston Blackie.
Mr. SPEER. How was the heroin, was it in capsules?
Mr. MORENO. I didn't get to see it. Thiey didn't show me the package, never did show the package to us.
Mr. SPEER. This was your automobile?
Mr. MORENO. The automobile was mine; yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. At that time did you have a driver's license?
Mr. MORENO. I haven't had a driver's license; no, sir.
Mr. SPEER. You did not have a driver's license?
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
SPEER. How long since you had a driver's license?

MORENO. Since I went to prison.
SPEER. Did you have one in 1953?
MORENO. I haven't had a driver's
license since I come back
from prison.
Mr. SPEER. Do you drive a car without a driver's license?
Mr. MORENO. Occasionally.
Mr. SPEER. On September 16, 1955, were you using heroin ?

Mr. MORENO. September what?
Mr. SPEER. September 16, 1955.
Mr. MORENO. I refuse to answer that on grounds it might tend to
incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, the chair is of the opinion that you
have waived your right to refuse to answer that.

Mr. MORENO. Well, this is another question.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I am ruling the same way on this question,
if I remember the record correctly. If I do not, of course you are
not taking any risk whatever, but if I remember the record correctly
you testified that you had not used heroin or sold heroin since 1952.
Mr. VILLAREALL. Mr. Chairman, may I say, as a matter of record,
he specifically invoked the fifth amendment when you, the Chairman
interrogated the witness as to specifically whether he used heroin or
any type of narcotics, then and there he declined to answer on the
grounds that it might tend to incriminate and that is a part of the
record and before he is bound to answer I would like to see the record
read back.
Senator DANIEL. Well, we will but we will not take time to do it now,
we will read the record before I'rule .on that.
71515-56--pt. 7-18
I do know that the
2620
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
witness testified though under oathi, that he had not sold any heroin or
marihuana since 1952, and, Mr. Speer, any questions you have relating to sales I will make the ruling that he will have to answer them.
Mr. SPEER. Trafficking?
Senator
DANIEL.
That's sales, isn't it?
Yes. What questions do
you have on that?

Mr. SPEER. On that day you had heroin in your possession; did you
not?
Mr. MORENO. September?
Mr.
Mr11'.
SPEER. September
VILLAREALL. Is he
16, 1955.
going to be compelled to answer that ques-
tion, Mr. Chairman?

Senator DANIEL. Well, he hasn't claimed any rights under it yet.
Mr. Speer withdraws the question and asks the question this way,
if on September 16, 1955, you had on your possession, if you had
heroin on your possession for the purpose of sale? And I order that
you will have to answer that question.
Mr. MORENO. No, sir, I did not have.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you have heroin on your possession at
all?
Senator DANIEL. All right, go ahead, Mr. Speer.

Mr. SPEER. Had you had heroin in your possession the day before?
Did you have heroin in your possession 3 days before?

Senator DANIEL. NoW, when he is talking about 3 days before, you
understand that is September 16th that he has asked you about, and
the 3 days prior to September 16, 1955, you understand that?
Mr. MORENO. Yes, sir I understand.
Senator DANIEL. Ani you are testifying you never had any in your
possession?
Mr. SPEER.
Senator DANIEL. Any heroin in your possession ?

Mr. MORENO. In my possession.
Senator DANIEL. For any purpose on those days?

Mr. SPEER. Did you have any heroin in your possession during the
entire month of September 1955?
Mr. MORENO. No, sir, I didn't have no heroin in my possession.
Mr. SPEER. On Friday, September 16, 1955, did you tell Narcotic
Agent Hazer that you were addicted to narcotics and using two capsules of heroin every day?
Mr. MORENO. No, sir, I did not tell narcotics agent that.
Mr. S'EER. Did you tell any other police officer that?
Mr. MORENO. Never have been mentioned.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever tell anyone in September, this year,
Senator
DANrEL.
I want to say to you now that there are 2 witnesses,
that you were using several capsules of heroin a day?

Mr. MORENO. No, sir, I haven't spoken to anybody about heroin or
anything.
2 narcotics agents who are going to testify, as I understand it, accordthem

ing to the investigator here, that in questioning you you told
of
that you were addicted to narcotics, and this was in September
that you
this year, on or about September 16, that you had told them
I1III1
..ANN
2621
were using several capsules of heroin a day. Now, with that information I want to ask you whether or not you want to stick with your
story? I don't mean to call it a story, stick with what you have just
said, that that is not true. Did you tell those officers that, that you
were addicted and that you were using two capsules, several capsules
of heroin a day?
Mr. MoRENo. I would like to consult my attorney before I answer
this question.
to incriminate.
Senator
DANIEL.
The Chair is going to order you to answer. You
answered the exact question just a few minutes before. You waived
any right to claim the fifth amendment on the question. I simply
asked it over again to you to see whether or not you wanted to stick
with that answer after I told you what I did about two other witnesses. So I order you to answer the question.
Mr. VILLAREALL. At this time I want to repeat the exceptions that
this witness is under the impression that this man is compelled to
testify as to any dealings in narcotics in this hearing and under that
impression he has testified he immediately heretofore under preceding
questions and for that reason we respectfully except to the ruling of
the Chair on the ground that it might tend to incriminate him and
violate his constitutional rights under the 14th and 5th amendments.
Senator
DANIEL.
Because he has already answered the question the
Chair rules that he has waived the right to claim immunity and orders
you to answer the question. And the question is simply this: In view
of what I have just told you about the evidence we expect to adduce
here from two witnesses, do you still want to say that you did not tell
them this on September, on or about September 16, 1955?
Mr. N1ORENO. Well, there was only one agent there.
Senator
DANIEL.
Now answer my question and then explain any-
thing you want to.

Mr. MORENO. Well, I would like to explain how this come up.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, you have already answered the question you
did not tell them this. I ask you is that a true answer?
Mr. M\fORENO. It is a true answer.
DANIEL. Now you may explain.
MORENO. On about that date I was
Senator
stopped by about, oh, 7, 6

Mr.
agents, and I went to, oh, I think it was 1227 North Colorado Street,
looking for a waitress there. I knocked on the door and this waitress
had moved from this 1227. As I left there about 5 or 6 agents stopped
me and searched the car, searched me and neither one of them found
anything and they looked at my arms, one of them, only one came
to me and looked at my arms, and he asked me, are you on dope?
I says "naw"-I just says like that. He says, "what are you using,
joy-popping?." I said "naw," I just kept saying that way all the time.
Senator DANIEL. Just "naw"?
Mr. MORENO. That's the only conversation I had with that agent
and there was only one agent at that time with me.
Senator DANIEL. And when that agent asked you if you were an
addict you just said "naw"?
Mr. MOREN.o. That's right.
2622
Senator DANIEL. And when he asked you what you were using what
did you say ?
Mr. MORENO. He didn't ask me what I was using. He asked me,
what you using, says, you using heroin. I says "naw." He says
and he's looking at my arms and, you know, round about way, and
he says, what are you using, 1, 2, 3, kept mentioning like that. I just
said "naw," that's all. That's the only explanation that I gave this
officer.
Senator DANIEL. Did he ask you if you were an addict?
Senator DANIEL. What did you tell him ?
Mr. MORENO. No, sir, he didn't ask exactly if I were an addict.

Senator DANIEL. What did he ask you that sounded like that?
Mr. MORENO. He asked, "you on dope?" That's what he asked me,
"you on dope?" I said "naw."
Senator DANIEL. That's all the conversation you had?

Mr. MORENO. I had on short sleeves and he got round about way
started looking at my arms, kept on talking all the time and I kept
saying "naw." That's the only words that I gave this omcer.
Senator DANIEL. In the whole interview that's the only words you
gave him, in all of his questions, to all of his questions about dope?
Mr. MORENO. Those were the only questions that he asked me.
Senator DANIEL. Now, then, one final question. Have you ever
been across the border to Mexico?
incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I'll ask you if you have ever been across
the border to Mexico since 1952 when you say you were not in the
heroin traffic.
Mr. MORENO. I have to refuse to answer on the grounds it might
tend to incriminate.
Senator DANIEL. Well, have you ever been across the Mexican
border for any lawful and legal purpose?
Mr. MORENO. May I consult my attorney?
Senator
DANIEL.
You may.
Senator
DANIEL.
How many times?
Mr. MORENO. Now, now this was since 1952?

Senator DANIEL. Since 1952.
Mr. MORENO. Yes, sir; I have.
Mr. MORENO. Once.
DANIEL. For what purpose?

MORENO. We went to the -an Juan
Senator
de Los Lagos Cathedral.

Mr.
Senator DAMISEL. Is that all?
Mr. MORENO. My wife and I promised the Virgin of San Juan
some flowers if our baby would be born healthy, we would visit the
cathedral of San Juan, for that purpose we went there.
Senator DANIEL. Is that the only purpose for which you have ever
crossed the Mexican border? Now, I am asking you now about all
years. Is that the only purpose for which you ever crossed the Mexican border?
Mr. MORENO. All the years since?
DANIEL. All the years
MORENO. Not since 1952?
Senator
Mr.
that you can remember.
2623
Senator DANIEL. Well, have you crossed the border more than that
since 1952, more than that one time?

Mr. MORENO. No, sir; just once.
DANIEL. For any
Mr. MORENO. Just once.
Senator
purpose?
Senator DANIEL. Did you buy any heroin or marihuana in Mexico

on that trip?
Mr. MORENO. No, sir; didn't buy anything on that trip in relation
with drugs at all.

Senator DANIEL. Did you talk to anybody about heroin or marihuana?
Mr. MORENO. Not a person.
Senator DANIEL. Not a person?
Mr. MORENO. Didn't even see anybody.
Senator DANIEL. Before that time had you ever crossed the Mexican border for any other purpose before that trip?
Mr. MORENO. In 1952
Mr. MORENO. Before 1952?
Senator DANIEL. Yes; or during 1952, before the trip you are talking about.
Mr. M\'IORENO. No, sir; I had not crossed the border whatsoever.
Senator DANIEL. None whatsoever. Then why did you say a minute
ago you refused to answer my question about crossing the border
because it might tend to incriminate you?
Mr. MORENO. Vell, for the simple reason that I have a record of
having dealt in narcotics and just for going across the border might
leave the impression that I am still dealing in narcotics or that I went
over there to deal in narcotics. That was the only reason that I
refused to answer.
Senator DANIEL. All I asked you was, had you ever been across the
border to Mexico and you claimed the right under the fifth amendment. Now, I don't care to pursue the point any further. I just want
to ask you, have you ever bought any heroin in Mexico, either yourself directly or sent somebody to get it for you?
to incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever had any heroin delivered to you
here in San Antonio which was purchased for you across the Mexican
border?
to incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. All right, that's all. You may step aside. Just 1
minute, you are not in jail now or under bond at all; are you?
Senator DANIEL. And haven't been for how long?
Mr. MORENO. On bond or in jail?
Senator DANIEL. Yes. Several months?
Mr. MORENO. Well, I was, April.
Senator DANIEL. Last April?
Mr. MORENO. 1955.
Mr. Russel Wine. Mr. Wine, is your assistant here in the room?
Mr. WINE. Yes, sir.
2624
Senator DANIEL. I know he has been here through most of the

hearings, and has been very helpful to this committee.
Mr. WINE. He is coming through there now.
Senator DANIEL. Fine. You gentlemen be sworn together.
(Mr. Russell B. Wine and Mr. Harmon Parrott were duly sworn by
Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. Will you state your name, Mr. Wine?
TESTIMONY OF RUSSELL B. WINE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
ATTORNEY FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Mr. WINE. Russell B. Wine.
Senator DANIEL. And what is your official position?
Mr. WINE. United States district attorney for the western district
of Texas.
Senator
DANIEL. ])o
AMr. WINE. Yes, sir.
you live in San Antonio?

Mr. WINE. Since January 21. 1955.
Senator DANIEL. And the assistant with you is?
Mr. WINE. Mr. Harmon Parrott.
Senator DANIEL. And he is the assistant. United States district
attorney?
Mr. WINE. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Is lie in charge of narcotics prosecution?
Mr. WINE. Yes, sir; he has been since I have been in the office.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Wine, do you have a prepared statement?
Mr. WINE. Yes, sir, I have a prepared statement, five pages long,
but I would like just to summarize it if I may.

Senator DANIEL. You may and we will put your statement and all
supplementing material in the record.
Mr.
WINE.
I would like to state that the western district of Texas
is composed of 68 counties and lies along the Mexican border from

south of Eagle Pass to west of El Paso, a distance of approximately
a thousand miles, and that since I have been in the office this time I
don't believe the western district of Texas now has any rings, or
cliques, or combines that are handling narcotics as such. I happened
to be assistant, United States attorney in this district from 1925 to
1933 wheni we had the other condition but in my experience in both

of those and 4 years in the State district attorney's office, I believe
that I am safe in saying that there is not at this time an organized
ring of narcotics peddlers in this district. And I am glad to say that
I believe it is due largely to the unqualified cooperation that the
officers are giving each other in the enforcement of this law.

Senator DANIEL. When you say an organized gang, you mean an
organized ring of smugglers?
Mr. WINE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You are not talking about peddlers and pushers?
Mr. WINE. No: I mean on a big importing scale, international scale;
yes. And I have found one of the most wholesome layouts that I
have ever seen in law enforcement since I have been back in office
t hi. time of the cooperation that is given between the Federal, the
State, and the county, and the city enforcement officers. That goes
from the policeman up to the heads of the officers that do the prosecut-
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2625
ing, and I think that is one of the best symptoms that we have cooperation in this district. I have made some records as to the number
of cases that were handled and the sentences that were meted out
beginning on September 1, 1954, and ending September 1, 1955, for
this district. In the San Antonio division there were 32 defendants
in narcotic cases sentenced to get time and they averaged four and a
half years a piece. Four defendants were given suspended sentences
and placed on probation and their probationary sentence averaged
1/ years. The overall average for the San Antonio division was
4.3 years.
In the El Paso division, there were 23 defendants in narcotic cases
who were sentenced to serve time. The average time to serve was 2.7
years. Ten defendants were placed on probation and given suspended
sentences and the average suspended sentence was 2 years. The overall average in the El Paso division was 2.3 years.
Senator DANIEL. You say 10 were giiven suspended sentences?
Mr. WINE. Yes, sir, in the El Paso division.
Senator DANIEL. Was that for selling narcotics?
Mr. WINE. The only thing I have is on narcotics. It may have

been for smuggling or bringing in. A lot of those cases are handled
if they have marihuana it is
because
that way under the Tariff Act the
marihuana laws, and so we use it
hard to get a conviction under
under the tariff law, the smuggling act on the border.
Senator DANIEL. Not by way of criticism of the courts at all, maybe
there were circumstances under which there should be that many suspended sentences, but what is your idea about it? I know you don't
want to embarrass yourself by criticising the courts. You generally
believe suspended sentences should be meted out to traffickers in narcotics?
Mr. WINE. No, sir; I don't. For a trafficker in narcotics, no sentence
is too strong for him. I think circumstances, where some person falls
into it, like some of the evidence where a bunch of kids get out and
start out, the court ought to have a lot of latitude and discretion.
Senator DANIEL. Might give them one more chance?
Mr. WINE. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. If they go into it by accident or running with the
wrong people, on smuggling though across the border
Mr. WINE. That is a different thing.
Senator DANIEL. I am wondering if you think they ought to be
given another chance?
Mr. WINE. No, sir; I don't. I know these were given suspended
sentences; I don't know what the situation was; I have 2 assistants

handling those cases in El Paso. I haven't had an opportunity to discuss this with them since I was asked to get up the statements.
Senator DANIEL. Let me ask you this, Mr. Wine. In smuggling

across the border, bringing in narcotics into this country, do you see
any reason why that shouldn't be punishable by just as severe a sentence as we punish murder?
Mr. WINE. I can't see much difference.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, it is murder on the installment
plan, that narcotics is going to destroy the lives of not one person but
many. It has been shown that it spreads out like a contagious disease.
Mr. WINE. That is what happens.
Senator DANIEL. I said once in a hearing the other day and I say
it again, it seems to me that in smuggling cases we ought to have the
2626
death penalty permissible. I am not saying death penalty for everybody. I mean fix it so the judge, or the jury in that case, the jury can
assess the highest penalty in cases that deserve it, for instance, smugglers that brought it over here and sold to a lot of minors. You take
a case on sales, as Sheriff Kilday mentioned where this fellow sold to
40 or 50 young people here in town. It seems to me we ought to have
the highest penalty available in case the jury wanted to mete it out
in certain cases. What do you think of that?
Mr. WINE. I think that is fine. There is a distinction though from
a prosecutor in the State and Federal. In the Federal court the jury
has nothing to do. In the State court to qualify a jury, you have
to qualify on death penalty. You would have a hard time selecting
juries, I am afraid, if you made it mandatory and made it too high.
Senator DANIEL. Well, of course, it wouldn't be mandatory, as you
say, simply the highest sentence--instead of 20 years, say the death

penalty?
Mr. WINE. I have qualified a lot of juries on that kind of case when
there wasn't much prospect of getting capital punishment. The juror

don't know that until selected, often times qualify, but they have
scruples against the death penalty. I think it should be a severe
penalty. The question, whether severe enough to say death penalty,
will have to be worked out, it ought to be severe enough to put the fear
of God in people when they start trafficking in this thing.
Senator DANIEL. Don't you think though, if people in other countries, for instance, Red China, even Mexico could get as high as the
death penalty for bringing this stuff into this country across the
border, it might help some of that?
Mr. WINE. I believe that, I believe it more thoroughly since I heard
Mr. Anslinger make the statement in a conversation that St. Louis was
the cleanest place in the United States for a city of that size; the
reason, the Federal judges don't bat an eye about giving a man 10
years for the first offense, so they stay away from St. Louis. So if it
works in a city of that size
Senator DANIEL. Well, you know it would work right along this
border?
Mr. WINE. Sure it would.
Senator DANIEL. If 10-year sentences were meted out and people
dealing in narcotics knew they were going to get a heavy penalty from
any court, Federal or State court, it would help dry up some of this
business, don't you think so?
Mr. WINE. The certainty of quick prosecution and the severity of
this punishment is about the only thing that tends towards retarding
trafficking in narcotics in my opinion.
Senator DANIEL. Excuse me for interrupting, go right ahead.
Mr. WINE. That is all right. In the Del Rio division 6 defendants
that were sentenced to serve sentences with an average of 2.3 years;

8 defendants were given suspended sentences and placed on probation,
and the average suspended sentence was 2.3 years, overall average
being 2.3 years. Then I have an itemized Austin and Waco division
together, 14 defendants in narcotic cases sentenced to serve an average
of 41/2 years each. One defendant was given a suspended sentence and
placed on 2 years probation. That made an overall average for the
Austin and 'Waco division of 41/2 years.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2627
In the Pecos division no cases were prosecuted during that year.

Those cases if there were any, were prosecuted either in Del Rio or
El Paso. That office handles those two divisions. From inquiries I
made from peace officers, narcotic officers, and different enforcement
officers I have concluded that there are about 300 known addicts in
the San Antonio area, or more, and perhaps as many that are using
the drug and not registered, and very few, if any of these are getting
their supply from any legitimate source.
Senator DANIEL. Well, in other words, you estimate that there are
about 600 narcotics addicts here?
Mr. WINE. There must be.
Senator
DANIEL.
You figure about 300 known addicts?
Mr. WINE. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. You know if all of those have been reported into
the Bureau?
Mr. WINE. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. You are familiar with the reporting system?

Mr. WINE. Yes, sir. I am advised that there is close cooperation
now between the local enforcement officers, who augment the Federal
enforcement officers, and that through this close cooperation these
reports are being more nearly met than they ever were before and,
contrary to a lot of evidence I have heard here, I believe that from
information I have had that I consider reliable that it costs an addict
who is really on the addiction from $15 to $20 a day, instead of $6
to $12 a day like it shows here. I think that has always been the
rule. It costs so much more money than they can make.
Senator DANIEL. That is certainly the evidence this committee heard
in other cities. It is true it seems cheaper here than in New York,
Washington and Philadelphia. I would say from the evidence we
have heard, it certainly would cost a confirmed addict more money
than most of the evidence we have heard about.
Mr. WINE. I am certain that is correct. Now another thing, sinco
this hearing is for the purpose of amending or correcting or augmenting the criminal code under the Boggs Act, I don't know that any of
the judges in this district have hesitated about going along with" the
Boggs Act, but my recommendation would be, that in the Boggs Act
if you could give a little more latitude, for instance, give a man who
)leads guilty to second offense, boost it up and give him not less than
he got the first time and then put the top limit as high as you please.
Now you get 5 years the minimum under the Boggs Act, you may get
some person who wouldn't maybe deserve that in the court's opinion,
the court might hesitate a long time, might have a serious question
but a man that has been in the penitentiary, knows what the situation is, and knows what he has to face when he goes back. If he
knows that he was going to face the minimum sentence he had served
the first time and a maximum of whatever Congress saw fit to make
it, he would think a long, long time. I think set it 5 to 10 and so on.
I think with fixing that, the limits maximum or minimum, you take
away from the judge, a man who is well qualified for the job, a whole
lot of his personal touch when he comes in contact with the defendant;
in giving a better opportunity, I believe, oftentimes to handle the case
than he could if his hands were tied and give definite minimum and
definite maximum. I believe if you could, the Boggs Act is perfectly
all right, it would be a little more elastic with the limits on it.
2628
Senator DANIEL. Well, of course, you know why Congress passed
the Boggs Act.
Mr. WINE. Oh, I realize that.
Senator DANIEL. Some of the courts were not meting out very heavy
penalties on narcotic cases. I suppose the Members of Congress felt
they should make an absolute minimum sentence and set that sentence
at 5 years in the cases provided as the lowest that could be given. You
would recommend, though, that we study that matter?
Mr.
WINE.
I think that should be studied in the light of the fact
that the local judge is trying a case, is there on the ground and knows
what the situation is. And if you give him latitude enough to handle
any situation-it ought to be given him, latitude enough, give him-a

second or third offender, a third offender trafficking in narcotics-a
severe enough sentence, they wouldn't want to come back or wouldn't
want to go the first time.
Senator DANIEL. What are you going to do about the judges who
give very small sentences?. They did before the Boggs Act was passed;
they just gave small sentences, and the narcotic traffic continued to
grow in those places.
Mr. WINE. That's correct.
Senator DANIEL. So it is a problem?
Mr.
WINE.
It is a problem of whether you get the best results by
Mr.
WINE.
Another thing right at that point, I mean the Attorney
tying their hands for everybody or to loosen their hands and make it
worse in some of the districts, you have to weigh one against the other;
it would depend entirely on the makeup of the judge handling the
case. It is a hard job for Congress to pass a general law that would
cover all of them.
Mr. WINE. Another thing that I believe would help the prosecution
of these cases a whole lot is that in questions of search and seizure the
law is strict. The Bill of Rights gives the defendants all these protections and puts around him all of these safeguards so that you can't
go out and search his place without a search warrant, and the Commissioner can't issue a search warrant without proper cause that crime
is being committed there. Well, we come into court, I think that is
covered by all of our new criminal rules that the defendant's attorney
should be compelled to file his motion to suppress the evidence because
of illegal search before the man is arraigned so he wouldn't be in
jeopardy, and the Government and defendant each have the right of
appeal, because of the question of law, and I believe both sides should
have the right of appeal and let the circuit or appellate courts decide
what the law was, whether the facts in the particular case are covered
by the law to the effect that was an illegal act or not.
Senator DANIEL. Since the Government has no appeal from the
ruling of the court on search and seizure cases, it is uncertain just
what the law is. Some courts rule one way and some another. Thanks
for that recommendation. I will say it has been made by the Attorney
General of the United States to the committee, too.
General has made the recommendation, that is that this committee
should consider, and I think Congress should consider favorably,
to one
passing a law that when a man takes the witness stand, testifies
state of facts today, takes the stand tomorrow and turns coat and
testifies to another state of facts, when you make proof of those two
2629
instances the man is automatically guilty of perjury, take your choice

of whether he lied the first time or second time. If you do that it will
take care of a lot of cases that have happened not so long ago.
DANIEL. That would take care of the Matuso case?
Mr WINE. I happened to have tried that case.
Senator DANIEL. I wondered if you didn't have that in mind.
Senator
You
know our Internal Security Committee had a long hearing on Matuso.

I think most of the members would agree with you on that recommendation.
Mr. WINE. And I know that has been recommended by Attorney
General Brownell, and I believe has been favorably considered by
your committee.
Senator DANIEL. I know the Internal Committee has, I am not sure
about the full Judiciary Committee, but we will have that up the next
session of Congress.
Mr. WINE. Another thing that would help here, and I think it would
be recommended by practically every. law enforcement officer taking
the stand, and it is going a long way in view of all of our protection
that has been given us under the Bill of Rights, is wiretapping. I
think that certain crimes get down to a state wTiere they are committed
through the grapevine, as has been illustrated and demonstrated here
the last 2 days, and if we can't use the light procedure to detect it,
the majority of the violators get away with it. I really believe in
cases like that, the youth of the country being put on narcotics through
that kind of a condition, that the 10th amendment, Bill of Rights,
never intended at the time passed that a thing like that should be
allowed to exist and run in this country, and I thoroughly believe that
a recommendation that wiretapping be allowed in narcotics traffic,
trafficking in narcotics, would be something I believe the people of the
country as a whole would be glad to clear up.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, Mr. Wine, have you found that narcotic
violators often use a telephone in their business ?

Mr. WINE. I haven't had much experience this time since I have been
up here, I know before when I was here, they did.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. Parrott, what do you say, have you found
the telephone is used considerably?

TESTIMONY OF HARMON PARROTT, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES
DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Mr. PARRO'ir. Yes, sir, one recent case the telephone was used on
one definitely. That was about all we had on him was telephone conversations. I think if recording could have been made I don't think
there would have been any question but what he would have been
convicted.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, the dope traffickers use the most
modern means of getting orders and messages back and forth, while
law enforcement officers are prohibited from using those means or
intercepting those messages. I think one district attorney in New
York told us he thought that. was sort of like chasing traffic violators
who were in Cadillacs. chasing them with a horse and buggy, not
being able to use the same modern methods the traffickers are using to
catch them.
2630
As long as it is being operated like it is. Now I think

that both sides should be afforded the same facilities. I think the
same thing on a search warrant, as long as it is used to facilitate the
rights of the defendant that the Government ought to have the right
'.o appeal to determine whether they had been properly facilitated.
Mr. WINE.
Senator DANIEL. Of course you know the reason why wire tapping
is not admitted into Federal courts. It goes back to the whole theory
of one of the great theories of our Government, that is, to protect
everyone in individual rights. We don't want people wire tapping
our private conversations and all that. I certainly agree with you
that in certain exceptions with a sealed court order, that it would
be perfectly proper for wire-tapping evidence to be used. And the
three I have in mind are kidnap cases, subversion, where somebody
over the telephone is working out plans to destroy this country, and
in narcotic cases. It seems to me that those are justified, especially
if you set up procedures where you can go to the court, tell the court
what you have, what makes you want to wire tap a certain phone or
certain line and then get a sealed order from the court permitting you
to do it. That would be a proper safeguard it seems to me and I agree
with your recommendation wholeheartedly on that.
Mr. WINE. Now yesterday Mr. Richards, the customs officer from
Laredo, was talking about several rulings that the court had recently
made and I have made an excerpt from both of them, it will be very
short, in iValker v. The United States.
Senator DANIEL. Suppose we put those excerpts in the record. (See
p. 2635.)
Mr. WINE. These are cases, one pertaining to heroin, in which a
man was charged with selling narcotics without b-ing registered

and paying the tax. He filed a motion to dismiss the indictment
on the grounds that the indictment failed to state an offense. The
court granted the motion and said the statute applied only to legitimate dealers and stamped drugs, and that those who were not legitimate dealers were dealers in contraband drugs, and therefore the
indictment was bad, and the case was dismissed.
Senator DANIEL. Let's just simply put those excerpts of the cases
in the record.
Mr. WINE. All right. The other one, United States v. Horton,was
a marihuana case and the court held the same thing in that. (See
p. 2635.)
Senator DANIEL. Do you agree with Mr. Richards that we ought to
make it clear, ought to change the law so the smuggling cases come
under the same penalties as the Boggs Act?
Mr. WINE. Absolutely.
I think they ought to add on to title 18,
United States Code, the general smuggling statute, the provisions of

the Boggs Act that left that to apply to the smuggling count in your
indictment. And another thing I believe, the law should be amended
to include cons piracy to violate the law as an offense and to make the
provisions of the Boggs Act applicable. I think that the Boggs Act
should be made to apply to any heinous offenses like these narcotic
cases are, whether smuggling narcotics or violating the narcotic law.
Senator DANIEL. I will say to you, I think the Congress intended
to have the Boggs Act apply to narcotic smuggling cases. Whether
they wrote it that way or whether the courts are justified in making
their interpretation or not, I do not know, but I do feel that Congress
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2631
intended in passing the Boggs Act to cover smuggling as well as

traffic within our own country.
Mr. WINE. One other recommendation that I had and I gave a
copy of that report to Mr. Gasque, on the transportation of smuggled

aliens.
Mr. WINE. That law is, so indefinite at this time, and I have taken
that up with the attorney for Mr. Brownell who is in charge of writing his laws and he thinks that the bill I drew covers the situation.
I have given a copy of that to Mr. Gasque.
Senator DANIEL. We will make that a part of the record following
your testimony. (See p. 2635.)

Mr. WINE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And all the remainder of your statement will be
a part of the record. Does that cover the main points you have to
recommend?
Mr. WINE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Wine, we certainly appreciate your appear-
ance before the committee and all the excellent help you have been
to the committee in conducting this investigation; we especially appreciate your sitting with us as much as you have and hope you will
continue.
Mr. WINE.
I want you to give a lot of that credit to Mr. Parrott
and Harvey Williams. They worked up a lot of this report.

Senator DANIEL. I know they have helped, both of them.
Mr. Parrott, do you have anything to add? We shall be glad to
hear from you if you do.
Mr. PARROTT. Well, sir, mine is more technical, it might be best to
just incorporate it.
Senator DANIEL. On any technical matters that we will have to

study, especially where the staff would have to do a lot of study,
we will incorporate that in the record in full. Do you have any
general matters or any recommendation to make or to supplement
what Mr. Wine has said?
Mr. PARROTT. Well, as far as the minimum and maximum on the
first offense, I have spoken to members of your committee before

and I am of the opinion now that the maximum should be raised from
5 to 10 years for this reason. There are certain violators who are only
brought in on a conspiracy and as a consequence they are only
amenable to a 5-year maximum and generally speaking, those who
are involved in conspiracy are more culpable, more vicious type criminals; if by amending the maximum that could be imposed for any
narcotic felony violation, then putting in there the same provision
you have in the kidnapping statute, a conviction for violation of conspiracy would carry the same penalty as those who are convicted as the
principal. Then I think you would have a little more leeway. One
person the committee heard evidence on before is this d'Agostino. It
is my understanding, under the indictment pending in New York, he
could only receive 5 years.
Senator DANIEL. I am glad you brought it up. You say this man,
d'Agostino, now in jail in Austin or who was in jail here, under the
New York offense for which he is wanted could only receive 5 years ?
Mr. PARROTT. Yes, sir; and I understand he deals in amounts of
2632
kilos which the committee knows by now is a tremendous amount of

heroin, one kilo is a very large amount.
Senator
A kilo is 2 pounds?
Mr. PARROT. 2.2.
DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. Thirty-three ounces, worth about what on the retail market, Mr. Parrott ?
Mr. PARROTT. Mr. Speer is an expert on those things. Mr. Speer
says it's worth fifteen to twenty thousand dollars on the retail market.
And I understood from our testimony on the removal of d'Agostino,
they were talking in terms of buying 3 kilos, so that is a tremendous
amount and as I pointed out he can get only 5 years upon conviction
where a simple addict case or 2-cap or 1-paper man can still get 5
years, just the same, see?
Senator DANIEL. in other words, the conspiracy in which d'Agostino
has been indicted and for which he is wanted in New York involves
from forty-five to sixty thousand dollars' worth of heroin?
Mr. PARROTT. Yes, sir.
Your point is, the penalty is just not high enough,

the possible maximum penalty for that offense?
Mr. PARROTT. That's true, and as the committee well knows, a
criminal of that status is not going to handle merchandise themselves,
generally speaking, .therefore it is hard to get a constructive case of
possession where a jury finds, like a man actually in possession.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Parrott, we have been talking about the evidence having shown a lot of narcotics coming in from Mexico. Did
you, in connection with this d'Agostino case, find any evidence that
some narcotics, including heroin, were being brought from other countries to Mexico as a transit point into the United States?
Mr. PARROTT. Yes, sir, by an indirect route, which I understand
came into Mexico and then was flown over the United States in
Canadian airline planes, landed in Canada and then came through
the Canadian border, apparently not subject to much inspection, they
are pretty lax on the borders up there.
Senator DANIEL. Then came where?
Mr. PARROTT. Well, it is my information, from what I understood,
most of that was for delivery in New York.
Senator DANIEL. Well, in the d'Agostino case did you see any evidence that would indicate shipments from European countries by way
of Canada. by air through and over the United States into Mexico
and then later would come up the border from Mexico into the United
States?
Mr. PARROTT. No, sir, there might be some misunderstanding on that
information, my information was it came out of France in the air,
French airlines, and landed in New York in bonded warehouse and
stayed in bond there, then continued on to Mexico City, where it was
delivered there and then dispatched from there to Canada, then to
points within the United States.
Senator DANIEL. That's correct. Is that the information and the
evidence you found in looking into this d'Agostino case?
Mr. PARROTT. Yes. Of course, the committee realizes it is pure
hearsay.
Senator DANIEL. I understand, but on this character his record is
so well known and he has been at it so long, the chairman doesn't
mind receiving some hearsay testimony concerning it, exactly what
Senator DANIEL.
1111111
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2633
our committee found had happened on its investigation. It came to

Canada first, actually the heroin came from New York, from France
to New York then to Mexico and then from Mexico into this country.
Mr. Speer tells me some of it came up from Mexico to Canada and

back to New York. I think we ought to get in the record at least
some indication in the files in the d'Agostino case of some heroin coining into Mexico from other countries of the world. It isn't all being
or manufactured
there.
grown
Mr. PARROTT.
It is my
understanding he dealt only in European
heroin. I know of no one who told me he was dealing in any heroin
that was native to Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. Yes. Well, I thought we should make that clear
in this record that there are some cases, and this is not the only one,
where the evidence, the direct evidence shows that has happened, that
Mexico is not producing all of the heroin that comes into this country
of ours, but that much of it is coming from Red China, from Turkey
or Iran, France and other places. That is, much of it has in the past.
In other words, Mexico, to some extent, is a transit point and a base
of operations for these international sellers. Do you have any other
information that you think might be of help to the committee?

Mr.
PARROTT.
Well, sir, only these technical points of what you
might consider loopholes that might be considered by the committee

in its future legislation, that would be all.
DANIEL. Those you are going to place in the record?
Senator DANIEL. We thank you very much for your testimony and
Senator
the excellent testimony you have given this committee, both before
and during the hearing.
Mr. WINE. May I make this one more suggestion?
Senator DANIEL. Yes. sir.
Mr. WINE. There is another recommendation I think should be
followed, that on these cases at present the law has a mandatory fine,
and the courts often will mete out a sentence of time to serve and
only to be collected on execution only. Well of course, that doesn't
mean much but it keeps the case open, always on the clerk's docket,
you never close up the case but always have a pending case unless
that is eliminated; somebody pays a fine and if it is not for any purpose I have an idea when the court imposes a fine like that it never
expects to be paid. I believe if we should not make it mandatory to
impose a fine but let them have a fine without any minimum, it will
expedite the closing of a lot of these cases that might be carried as
pending cases. It might look like a big backlog when you haven't one.
(Following are the prepared statements of Russell B. Wine and
Harmon Parrott:)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RUSSELL B. WINE, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, WESTERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS, SAN ANTONIO, TEX.
The western district of Texas is composed of 68 counties and stretches along

the Mexican border about 1,000 miles from south of Eagle Pass to west of El
Paso. Our close proximity to Mexico affords an attractive inducement to those

interested in narcotic traffic. Even with this attractive situation I am confident
that there does not now exist in this district any organized rings, gangs, or
cliques trafficking in narcotics. This condition is brought about largely through
the excellent cooperation of all law-enforcement agencies, Federal, State,
county, and city.
2634
The records of the courts of the western district of Texas, for the period beginning September 1, 1954, and ending September 1, 1955, reveal that in the
San Antonio division 32 defendants in narcotic cases were sentenced to serve
time, and the average sentence was 41 years. Four defendants were placed on
probation, and the average suspended sentence of the defendants placed on probation was 1% years. The overall average sentence in the San Antonio division
was 4.3 years.
In the El Paso division 23 defendants in narcotic cases were sentenced to serve
time. The average time to serve was 2.7 years. Ten defendants were placed on
probation and given suspended sentences. The average suspended sentence being
2 years. The overall average for the El Paso division being 2.3 plus years.
In the Del Rio division 6 defendants in narcotic cases were sentenced to serve
time, with an average of 2.3 years. Eight defendants were given suspended
sentences and placed on probation. The average suspended sentence being 2.3
years. The overall average being 2.3 years.
I am showing Austin and Waco divisions together, and 14 defendants in
narcotic cases were sentenced to serve time with an average of 42 years. One
defendant was given a suspended sentence of 2 years and placed on probation.
The overall average for these 2 divisions is approximately 41 years.
There were no narcotic cases in the Pecos division.
From information derived from a number of sources, I venture the guess
that there are over 300 narcotic addicts in San Antonio with records and many
without records. There are from 12 to 15 in Austin and a very few in Waco.
Few of these known addicts are getting their supply through legitimate channels.
The cost to the addict to satisfy his or her craving is from $15 to $20 per day.
In El Paso most narcotic offenders are indigent persons and many of them
aliens. In imposing sentence upon these defendants, due to the mandatory fine
provision of the law, the court usually imposes a sentence of imprisonment and
a fine of $1 to be collected on execution, only. I doubt if it is ever intended that
the fine be paid, and it seems to serve no purpose. When the defendant has
served the sentence and is discharged the case should be closed, but such is not
the case. The clerk's records carry the fine as an uncollected judgment. By
eliminating a mandatory fine would bring finality to the record when the imprisonment part of the sentence was ended.
Since the object of this committee and the results obtained through these
hearings is an attempt to improve the Federal Criminal Code, I will direct
my remarks to that end. I believe the penalties provided in the Boggs Act should
have the maximum raised in order to meet the situation when a flagrant and
persistent offender is convicted, but I also believe that there should be a minimum
equal to the last prison sentence imposed upon the defendant. Each case should
be considered separately in the light of all the circumstances and I believe as
much latitude as possible should be given the court in discharging this important
and unpleasant function. A mandatory minimum could be too severe in some
instances. The Boggs Act should also apply to conspiracy to violate narcotic
laws.
Questions of law frequently arise in connection with motions to suppress evidence due to alleged illegal search. It seems that such motions should be filed
and acted upon before arraignment under the present rules, and I believe that
both the defendant and Government should have the right of appeal.
Some years ago there was a movement toward a clinic plan, whereby any
addict would get free treatment upon being registered as such addict. This,
in my opinion, would encourage the use of narcotics, since they would always
be assured of a haven to resort to when pressed for narcotics. The greatest fear
and deterrent to an addict is that the supply will be cut off. Many such addicts
would cooperate with law enforcement agencies in exchange for a promise to take
care of them.
The detection and enforcement of the narcotic laws is tedious and entails considerable expense, and the manpower and appropriation for this purpose should
be considerably augmented. From my observations I am convinced that the
addict is an addict first and then enters other fields of crime in order to satisfy
his addiction. The same applies to young women addicts who resort to prostitution in order to purchase narcotics to gratify their addiction to drugs.
We use the smuggling statute (18 U. S. C. A. 545) on the border in connection
with marihuana cases and therefore the Boggs Act should be made to apply
to such cases.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2635
Under the ruling of the court in Walker v. U. S. (176 Fd. 2d 796), the ninth
circuit-where the indictment charged defendant with selling narcotics (heroin)
without having registered and paid the tax-defendant contended that the indictment did not state an offense, because it did not allege that defendant was a
person required by law to register-the ninth circuit court held that the statute
applied only to legitimate dealers In stamp drugs and not to dealers in contraband drugs, and that therefore the indictment did not state an offense. This
was under article 3224 (a) title 18, United States Code, now article 4755; and
U. S. v. Horton (180 Fd. 2d. 427), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals-a case
in which the defendant was indicated and convicted of unlawfully selling, dealing in or distributing marihuana without registering and paying the tax, the
appellate court in reversing the case said "the statute was intended to apply to
persons in business and not to isolated transactions." I doubt if there is an
instance where a person holds himself out as a seller, dealer, or distributor of
heroin or marihuana, therefore there is a need for a change in the wording of
the statute to meet this objection.
It would appear that the present marihuana law does not include an isolated
importation. These cases hold that the only persons required to register and
pay a special tax are those persons engaged in the respective businesses (not
isolated cases). Congress should amend the law to make the importation of
marihuana, whether an isolated instance, or otherwise, a Federal offense.
We are fortunate in having law enforcement officers, courts, and juries in
this district who respect the defendant's rights and at the same time preserve
the people's rights by the honest enforcement of all laws, and I feel confident
that any changes in our criminal laws which this committee recommends and
Congress passes will be impartially administered.
(The following recommendation was submitted by Russell B. Wine, United
States Attorney, Western District of Texas:)
Due to much conflict of opinion concerning the constitutionality of 8 U. S. C. A.
1324, resulting in the inability of prosecutors to try cases involving transportation
of aliens, it is my belief that this statute should be amended to read as follows:
"BRINGING IN
ARREST.
AND
HARBORING
CERTAIN
ALIENS; PERSONS,
LIABLE; AUTHORITY
TO
"(a) Any person, including the owner, operator, pilot, master, commanding
officer, agent, or consignee of any means of transportation, who"(1) brings into or lands in the United States any alien not lawfully entitled to enter or reside therein, by any means of transportation or otherwise, or attempts, by himself or through another, to bring into or land in
the United States by means of transportation or otherwise any alien, including an alien crewman, not duly admitted by an immigration officer or
not lawfully entitled to enter or reside within the United States; or
"(2) whoever knowing that any such alien is in the United States in violation of law, and knowingly or having reasonable grounds to believe that
the last entry into the United States by such alien occurred last within three
years prior thereto, transports or moves, or attempts to transport or move,
within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise in furtherance of such violation of law; or
"(3) whoever willfully or knowingly conceals, harbors, or shields from
detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, any alien
who is in the United States in violation of law, in any place, including any
building or any means of transportation or
"(4) whoever willfully or knowingly encourages or induces, or attempts
to encourage or induce, the entry into the United States of any such alien
shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by
a fine not exceeding $2,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five
years, or both, for each alien in respect to whom any violation of this subsection occurs: Provided, however, That for the purposes of this section, employment (including the usual and normal practices incident to employment)
shall not be deemed to constitute harboring.
"(b) No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrest for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service
designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a
class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws."
71515-56---pt. 7-
19
2636
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HARMON PARROTT, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
1. Title 18 United States Code, section 545 should be amended to contain the
standard provisions of the Boggs Act and the penalty provisions found in title 21
United States Code, section 174 and title 26 United States Code, section 2557 (b)
(1) should be amended to include a violation, of title 18 United States Code, section 545 where such violation was for the smuggling of a narcotic.
2. The standard provision of the Boggs Act should be amended to include prior
convictions of a conspiracy to violate the Harrison Narcotic Act, the Narcotic
Drug Import and Export Act or the Marihuana Tax Act. That is, if a defendant
was convicted in 1938 of a violation of the Harrison Narcotic Act, the Narcotic
Drug Import and Export Act or the Marihuana Tax Act and convicted again in
1955 of the Harrison Narcotic Act, the Narcotic Drug Import and Export Act, or
the Marihuana Tax Act, on a conspiracy to violate any of them, then a minimum
sentence is 5 to 10 years under the Boggs Act. However, if a defendant was convicted in 1938 of a conspiracy to violate the Harrison Narcotic Act, the Narcotic
Drug Import and Export Act or the Marihuana Tax Act, then the Boggs Act does
not apply and the maximum sentence is 2 to 5 years. This could be cured by
amendment of the standard provision of the Boggs Act by adding in the fifth
sentence of 2557 (b) (1) in the definition of the second or subsequent offender
those who have been convicted of a conspiracy to violate any of the enumerated
acts set forth in such sentence.
3. Title 18 United States Code, section 371 should be amended to allow the
imposition of a greater maximum penalty upon conviction; that is, increase the
maximum from 5 years to 10 years, since most conspiracies involve the bigger,
more culpable and vicious defendant. On the other hand the maximum penalty
imposed for a violation of the narcotic laws could be increased from 5 years to
10 years and thus avoid the necessity of amending the conspiracy statute, if upon
increasing of the penalty for violation of narcotic laws it was stated that a conviction for conspiracy under title 18, United States Code, section 371 would carry
the penalty equal to that of a principal.
4. The statute should be amended in such manner to get around Eugene Carroll
Stone v. U. S. (5th Cir., 223 F. 2d 23). It might be the statute could be amended
to give venue in any place the person is apprehended with the stuff or that a
codefendant or coconspirator was apprehended with the stuff, regardless of
where the transfer took place.
5. The Boggs Act could be amended to include State offenses. That is, State
convictions of conspiracy or as accessory before and after the fact or as principal
of the handling of the narcotics of the grade of felonies might be considered a
previous conviction for purposes of involving the Boggs Act.
6. The Boggs Act could be amended to include a penalty of 15 to 25 years for
a fourth offense under the Boggs Act.
Senator DANIEL. The next witness is Hubert W. Green, Jr., district
attorney of Bexar County, but we will take a 5-minute recess at this

time.
(Committee recessed for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Green, do you have a prepared statement?

Mr. GREEN. Yes, I do, Senator, I have a prepared statement and
copies are there with the counsel and on the press table. If you like,
I can just summarize briefly what is in that statement so as to save time
for the committee.
Senator DANIEL. First, let's get your full name for the record.
Mr. GREEN. My name is Hubert W. Green, Jr.
Senator
County?
DANIEL.
And you are criminal district attorney of Bexar
Mr. GREEN. That's correct, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Now, Mr. Green, how long have you held that
position ?
Mr. GREEN. Since July 15, this year.
2637
Senator DANIEL. Have you since being appointed district attorney

made an investigation of the narcotic situation in this county?
Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir; I have.
Senator DANrEL. And did you at the request of the committee work
up figures on narcotic convictions and other information which might
be of assistance to the committee?
Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir, the office has.
Senator DANIEL. I appreciate all the work that you have done for
the committee, and you may proceed either to summarize or to present
your evidence in any way that you desire.
Mr. GREEN. All right, sir. First of all with the permission of the
committee I would like my assistant of the felony, chief of the felony

section, Mr. Dick Woods, to come forward. Mr. Woods has been in
the office for a number of years and is chief of our felony section.
Senator DANIEL. Suppose I swear you all in case you do give any
evidence which might have to do with other people.
(Mr. Hubert W. Green, Jr., and Mr. Dick Woods were duly sworn
by Senator Daniel.)
TESTIMONY OF HUBERT W. GREEN, CRIMINAL DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEX.
Mr. GREEN. I would just like to repeat perhaps the sentiment of
a number of other officials here in this county. It is my personal
opinion from the investigation that I have made and from the cases
and types of cases and the contacts that we have had with the situation,
both in the past everal months and in the past, it is my opinion that
the narcotic traffic is the No. 1 crime problem in Bexar County today.
I say that not so much from the number of cases, narcotic cases
that are filed in our courts but primarily for the reason that so many
of the other cases, particularly stealing offenses, burglary, robbery,
cases of that type al-e attributable to narcotic situations, ani so we have
a very large percentage of other cases that we have to deal with in our
courts that come from the narcotic traffic in this county. Actually
from a percentage standpoint of the total felony caseload, narcotics
are only 8 percent, approximately 8 percent of the cases that are filed
in the district courts of Bexar County.
I might give an example to the committee of what I mean, mentioning here the fact that so many of these addicts are required to steal in
order to get the money that is necessary to buy their daily quota. I
know an instance that care to my attention where shoplifters in
grocery stores, for instance, have been stopped and they have been
found to possess with them shopping lists, for instance. In other
words, they are stealing only specific items in order to get along for
that one day, specific items that they know they can take and fence
and sell for a particular sum of money. In others words, they know
exactly what they want when they go into a grocery store to shoplift,
just the specific items that are necessary to carry on their daily necessity for these drugs, and so it is a tremendous problem from a standSoint of a total caseload that we have to deal with. Just to summarize
riefly-
Senator
DANIEL.
Just a minute, before you leave that. In view of
what you say and in view of what Mr. Wine said a minute ago, he
estimated 600 narcotic addicts in Bexar County. Then there must be

a lot of crime going on to pay for their dope habits?
2638
Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir; that's correct.
Senator DANML. Mr. Speer just handed me this figure, that there
were 361 addicts reported from this county by name and address to
the Bureau of Narcotics in Washington, 361.
Mr. GREEN. That's right. Senator DANIEL. So, and Mr. Wine estimates there are others that
haven't come to the attention of law-enforcement officials, do you

believe that probably is true?
Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir, I believe so. I believe a very large percentage,
over 50 percent of the various stealing offenses result from narcotic
addicts. In other words, we send a number of addicts to the penitentiary on burglary and robbery and cases of that type.
Now, to go on with the statistics here which we were requested to
get up, statistics covering the years 1953, 1954, and 1955, to date.
We show a steady increase of the filing of narcotic cases during those
years. You will notice from our summary 28 of these cases filed in
1953, that 81 were filed in 1954, and that 72 have been filed to date for
this year.
We see that on the first page of our report here that from the standpoint of pendency of these cases, I believe the committee was interested
in the lapse of time between the date of filing and the date of disposition of the case. The year 1953 the average length of pendency of
a narcotic case was 3 months and 25 days. The year 1954 the average
pendency was 3 months and 26 days. And this year-that is just the
cases that we have dealt with, naturally, we have only those cases in
which we can make our average-the average length is 2 months and
15 days.
Senator DANIEL. That is between arrest and trial?
Mr. GREEN. Between filing and disposal, filing and disposing in
the criminal district court o] our county. Covering the year 1953
we show 14 convictions for straight time in the penitentiary for a
total of 36 years.
Senator DANIEL. What page are you on?
Mr. GREEN. That is the second page there.
Mr. GREEN. Comparing that with 1954 as a comparison, there is
an increase from 14 to 49 cases for a total of 188 years in straight
time. In the year 1953 we had 6 cases of probation which probation was granted for 16 years. Compared again with 1954 there
were 7 cases for 15 years probation. In that year also there was just
one case in which a suspended sentence was given.
I might state that under the present law of Texas there is no suspended sentence possible. There may be a probationary sentence but
not a probation sentence under the present law.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think that is a good thing?
Mr. GREEN. Yes, I do. I think there may be instances in the case
of an addict who may be sent to a hospital and cured, there may be
a proper case where he should be given a probationary sentence and
sent to a hospital in an attempt to cure him. During that time he
stays on probation. Under the setup we have now in our office we
receive a letter from the addict, from the defendant authorizing information to be sent from the hospital to our office when he is released, so that it permits our adult probation officer, Mr. South, to
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
- N
2639
keep in touch with that addict when he leaves that hospital and during
the time he serves out his probationary sentence.
Now, I believe the committee earlier expressed an interest in the
various kinds of narcotics. You will see first of all before we leave
that question we have in 1953 a total conviction of 20 cases for 52
years, an average of 2.6 years per conviction, 66 percent conviction,
which includes no bills and dismissals. That is what that percentage
includes. Now, compare that with 1954, there were 57 convictions,
totaling 208 years, an average of 3.65 years per conviction, 70 percent conviction, also which includes no bills and dismissals. Comparing that with the present year thus far we have had 25 cases of
convictions, that is of cases filed in 1955, totaling 83 years, being
an average of 3.32 years per conviction or 74 percent conviction.
Now, as to the kind of narcotics. We see an increase in heroin.
We see in 1953 13 cases of heroin and 13 of marihuana and two others
of minor drugs. Comparing that with 1954, we see a great increase in heroin, 41 heroin cases filed, 39 marihuana, one of opium.
Now, the breakdown to the present year, 1955, we see again an increase in marihuana of 21 heroin cases filed, 42 marihuana cases
filed and 2 of lesser known drugs.
Briefly that summarizes the statistical summary that we have given
you. We have given you each case by name of the defendant and
by number during each one of these years. Wre have shown the type
of drug and our particular interest should be the amount of drugs
in which the defendant was charged with possessing or selling.
It has been our experience in State courts, the cases filed in the
State cours, there was primarily a small amount of drugs involved.
You have heard testimony from some of the other individuals in
Federal court handling the larger cases. Perhaps they should. Our
cases involve, as you will see, small amounts, 1 capsule of heroin, 1
cigarette, maybe 4 caps all the way down. I think on the whole, considering the amounts of drugs that we have and we deal with in our
State courts, that the sentences that have been given have been good,
have been fair.
Senator DANIEL. When you say that, do you think that sentences
have been stiff enough?
Mr. GREEN. Of course, we would like to have them a lot stiffer.
Senator DANIEL. Most prosecuting attorneys would like to have the
sentences stiffer in most cases?
Mr. GREEN. That's right, we are never satisfied with that. I think
you know under the previous law under which all these statistics fall
there are a minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 10 years on first
conviction. Now, under our new law effective just this past month,
we have a greater leeway, the minimum 2 years as before, the maximum is life imprisonment. So now under our present law we have
that broad area to deal with and the jury may assess punishment
anywhere between that 2 years and life sentence.
Senator DANIEL. I want to say to you, after saying that most prosecuting attorneys like to see higher sentences, I certainly agree with
you in this instance that they are justified in this in 'narcotic cases.
Mr. GREEN. We have a few examples here. For instance, here in
1955, on the 26th day of May a defendant was charged with possession
of an infinitesimal, very small amount and he was given 10 years
in the penitentiary, the maximum. We have other cases of that type
2640
in which only being found with small amounts we have given quite
a large sentence. We have here in 1954 the sale of 1 marihuana
cigarette to a minor, a 7-year penitentiary sentence was inflicted. We
have another instance of the possession of an infinitesimal amount of
heroin, 5 years, of the sale of 1 cap of heroin, 7 years in the penitentiary.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think these heavy sentences will help deter
the traffic here in San Antonio?
Mr. GREEN. I think undoubtedly they will, Senator. I think primarily it is a matter of education. I think the thing, as I pointed
out here in my summary, the thing that impresses me most about
this whole problem, is the matter of education of the entire public
to the problem that we have, educating the general public, educating
the judges, Federal judges that inflict these penalties in the Federal
courts, educating the jurors and peace officers themselves on the problems we have in this narcotic traffic. It is primarily a matter of education. One thing I would stress to the committee so far as I am
personally concerned, in the way of legislation or anything else, it is
a matter of education, something that can be done from Federal standpoint, Federal Government, to assist in educating the public all over
the Nation in this problem, and I think you will be doing quite a
job in rendering a blow to this illegal narcotics traffic. It is a matter
of understanding the seriousness of it.
Senator DANIL. I agree with you, Mr. Green, and I will say this
to you, the purpose of this committee in conducting this first nationwide investigation of narcotics traffic, is to recommend back to Congress what the Congress may do in order to bring about better cooperation of the State and local officials on narcotics enforcement, and
in order that we might see if Congress should pass some new laws, but
I believe an incidental result of these investigating committees sometimes is just what you have mentioned; that it gives us a chance to get
the law-enforcement officers together over the country. We are going
into the 10 States which are most bitterly affected and have the most
traffic, and we hope that one of the incidental benefits of this committee's work will be to do just exactly what you have recommended
there, to awaken the interest of law-enforcement officers in cooperating
together in stamping out this traffic and also to awaken the interest of
the public. I can't help but say this at this time, while there may be
some corunittee proceedings which shouldn't be televised, I believe in
the people knowing about their business, and especially about something as serious as narcotics. And I think these newspapermen here
who have been covering these hearings, radio and television, WOAI
and others who have given this coverage so the public can know about
it, are doing a great service.
Mr. GREEN. I believe you are right.
Senator DANwm. Not just to this committee but to the country and
to the people who might be affected because there are so many people
that know nothing about this narcotic traffic, and you are looking at
one of them. I knew nothing about it until I started getting reports
fron grand juries in Texas and from Mr. Herring, the former district
attorney over here, and I heard about how Red China was pushing it
to the free nations when I was in the Internal Security Committee in
the Senate. I didn't realize that was going on. And so I just want
to say I think you are exactly right, and I want to express my appreciation to you and all of the officers who have helped make this hearing
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2641
possible and also to the press and the radio and the television, and
others who have helped get this message from the enforcement officers
and others over to the public. And I also want to thank you for the
detailed information that you have given this committee. We have
received information from a lot of State district attorneys over the
country but this is perhaps the best, most detailed that we have received, and we appreciate the trouble that you and your assistants
went to on this information.
Now, excuse me for interrupting you and go ahead.
Mr. GREEN. I was simply going to give you an example of the need
for education. You know the seriousness of this problem stems from
the fact that there are so many of the young people coming in contact
with these narcotics. Our caseload shows a very large percentage of
the cases prosecuted in court are against defendants under 21 years of
age, as a matter of fact.
Just several weeks ago I had an individual approach me and he
said his son, while he was walking home from school, was stopped by
a man who tried to sell him some marihuana cigarettes. The boy
fortunately did nothing in the way of cooperating with the man and
waited several days and told the man about it. The man waited
severa.1 days and was asking me the question as to whom he should
report it? what about it? is it a. problem? and asking general questions
such as that. If the father had known of the seriousness of that situation, if that child had known of the seriousness of that narcotic situation and understood what that man was trying to do to him, he would
have been in position to report to responsible authorities, and, of course,
they perhaps might have put a stop to that situation. Simply an
example of a child completely ignorant of what was going on and of
how the parent was not fully acquainted with the full dangers that
lie in that particular thing. "We see it is increasing as time goes on.
We know that we must do everything we can to reduce it and put a
stop to it. I have made some general recommendations here in the
report I have handed you. I won't go in detail on those.
One thing I have pointed out, the matter of searches and seizures.
Of course, as any prosecuting official sees the problem come up in
court, it is a matter of search, seizure, and legality of the arrest. I
think again it is a matter of educating the law-enforcement officials in
this particular area, and I would be quite willing in conjunction with
anybody else to assist in perhaps something along the lines of narcotic institutes to acquaint all of the surrounding officers now to recognize an addict, how to handle, what to do with him, things of that
nature and perhaps make that on an annual basis, have annual narcotic institutions so all those peace officials in this territory, including
south Texans even who are interested in this problem, might. come
and get expert training from those people who know how to handle
this situation. I think something should be done to improve the
situation from the standpoint of the prosecutors, both State and
Federal.
We have a number of assets, as I call it, on the assets side of the
docket in fighting this narcotic traffic. We have 2 criminal district
courts and 2 judges who are very active and very interested in the
narcotic situation. In discussing this with one of our judges, Justice
Buck Jones, judge of the criminal district court No. 1. he pointed
out to me it was his opinion that this area needed an additional num-
2642
ber of Federal narcotic agents because as previous testimony has

pointed out, the fact that San Antonio is so important in the international drug traffic, this area certainly does need an additional nurnber of Federal narcotic agents in this particular locality. Of course,
if we have that it certainly will improve the State prosecution picture,
too.
Senator DANIEL. You heard the good news announced yesterday,
12 more men will be available for the customs in the Customs Service
in the State. You were here then, I suppose, and heard that?
Mr. GREEN. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And I hope that Congress can furnish more narcotic agents also. That is going to be a recommendation of the chairman of this committee, and I am sure the other members of the committee will follow it and will also agree, as a matter of fact.
Mr. GREEN. Well, we have a very good law we feel, a State law
that we are operating under now that gives us that leeway. We will
be able to prosecute these individuals, also an additional law makes
it illegal to possess paraphernalia, such as a hypodermic needle, just
possession is illegal under the present new narcotic law. And also
we have our addict law which as I mentioned, permits an individual
to be convicted and given probation and sent to a hospital for treatment even though he has previously been convicted of a felony offense,
and so we think, although that law has not been tested yet, we think
that perhaps some good can come from that and the Federal hospitals
certainly should be maintained and maintained in an adequate position to be able to receive these individuals that are placed on probation
under the Texas law.
Senator DANIEL. We certainly thank you for your appearance. Do
you have any other suggestions other than what you might have in
your prepared statement!
Mr. GmE.
I do not. Dick, do you have?
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD WOODS, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY,

BEXAR COUNTY, TEX.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. Woods, do you have anything further?
Mr. WooDs. I have one. It has been brought out that there would
be a registration of addicts, that information be furnished to the

Bureau of Narcotics. I don't know whether it violates any Bureau
rules or regulations or not, but if that information could be disseminated to the prosecuting officials, just the Bexar County officials,
I'm not talking about anything else, if just the description of the individual could be furnished, we could better deal with them. Many
times we pick up and have for trial an addict possibly that is charged
with burglary or theft, or some other crime. Now, many times in our
recommendation to the, lets say the court on a plea of guilty, it would
be a different recommendation had we haa the information that he had
been dealing in narcotics or been an addict.
Senator DANEL. Let me say this to you, the information is available. Of course the Commissioner of Narcotics, Mr. Anslinger, is
asking all law-enforcement officers to fill in these blanks that show
name, address, and all information on every narcotic addict who
comes to their attention and over 30,000 names have been sent in.
They are coming in at the rate of over a thousand a month, and they
will continue to do that until, you know, they get them all finally
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2643
reported. Now, a copy of each of those blanks is to be retained by

the officer making the reports, so those copies should be here with
your local officers. In addition to that, Mr. Speer informs me, you
can write the Bureau and get information on other addicts.
Mr. WOODS. Senator, what I had in mind was some dissemination,
say in mimeographed pamphlet, to be treated as confidential by all
prosecuting attorneys in that area.
Senator DANIEL. We'll certainly pass it on.
Mr. WOODS. It is the unknown one that is the problem, not the
ones known to us or the officers making the arrest; it is the unknown

dealer or peddler that might be charged with some other offense we
would be concerned with.
Senator DANIEL. You are faced with this, for the Commissioner
of Narcotics to have the name of the known narcotic addicts in this
particular county, the information, perhaps which would have been
sent in by some officer, Federal, State, or local in this county?
Mr. WOODS. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. There may be exceptions but, anyway, you have

a suggestion there that certainly would be helpful, and we will pass
it along to the Commissioner and consider it in writing any laws we
might recommend with reference to this subject.
Mr. WooDs. Thank you very much.
Senator DANIEL. I am talking now about the registration or the

keeping of the names of these narcotic addicts. I know it will be
helpful to you, be good for you to have the list of 361 addicts already
reported to Washington.
Mr. WOODS. Right, that is what I am talking about.
Senator DANIEL. Is there anything further ?
Mr. GREFN. Nothing unless you have more questions.
Senator DANIEL. Nothing more than to thank you for your excellent
help and for the great work that you are doing.
Mr. GPREN. We appreciate the invitation.
Senator DANIEL. Now, to make the record entirely accurate, Mr.

Speer informs me that the names of these 361 addicts from San
Antonio or Bexar County are in the office of the Bureau of Narcotics
here in San Antonio, Mr. Tom Broinley's office. So they are readily
available for such use as the cooperaiing law enforcement officers
wish to make of them.
(Following are the prepared statements and statistics submitted by
Mr.. Green:)
STATEMENT
OF HUBERT W. GREEN, JR., CRIMINAL DismuarI

COUNTY,
To
the Senate
Chairman:
Suboonmittee
ATTORNEY, BExA
TEx.
Investigating Narcotics, Hon. Price Daniel,
In accordance with the request of your chairman, I have prepared this written
statement for your use in the study of the narcotics problem, and as it affects
Bexar County. I personally have been criminal district attorney for a period
of only 3 months, but from the Information that I have gained in my office,
and, in coordinating my activities with other local officials I recognize that the
illegal narcotics traffic Is the No. 1 crime problem in Bexar County.
We have submitted herewith a detailed analysis of the handling of all narcotics
cases in the criminal district courts of this county (State courts), covering the
years 1953, 1954,1955, to date.

I. The committee may wel be interested in some of the problems which we
face in combating the narcotics traffic.
2644
Prosecutionwise, a frequent difficulty is the matter of the legality of the arrest,

and the arrest procedures that have been followed. I recognize most of the
cases filed in the State court are ones involving the possession of small amounts
of narcotic drugs, and many arise out of circumstances under which an officer
must act quickly and cannot wait to secure more expert opinion, or follow other
procedures. Many arrests which are illegal under Texas law, are perfectly valid
under Federal law, and evidence obtained under such arrest and seizure would be
admissible in the Federal court. However, I understand that in the past Federal
authorities prefer that the State authorities handle the smaller cases; I. e., cases
involving small amounts of illegal narcotics and, therefore, have a hesitancy
to accept the filing of such cases in Federal court.
The present State law, Penal Code, article 725b, section 24, was amended by
a recent act of the legislature so as to eliminate the previously existing provision
permitting a conviction upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.
Although that provision was not always relied upon by. the State, nevertheless
we are of the opinion that the legislature made a mistake in eliminating such
provision when it attempted to strengthen the State narcotics law. The State
should be permitted to convict upon uncorroborated testimony of the accomplice
in narcotics cases.
We find that perhaps 75 or 80 percent of the cases tried concern subjects
under 21 years of age. Many are Latin American youths, who are often tempted
to take up the use of narcotic drugs as a dare, and to receive a temporary thrill.
He soon becomes hooked and thereafter is the prime target of the peddlers.
(Perhaps a lack of sufficient information and education as to the extreme evils
and consequences of the use of narcotics is largely responsible.)
A general lack of information and education among the members of the public
in general is a great problem. Many parents still are not aware of the tremendous evil of narcotics and the danger to their children who may from time
to time be approached at school or elsewhere by narcotics peddlers. As to the
use of barbiturates, many people are not aware of the consequences in the use of
these drugs.
I believe that the various city, county, and State enforcement officials do a
satisfactory job considering the available manpower assigned to narcotics, and
the money available for this work. However, the shortage of funds and experienced personnel is a matter that constantly effects the overall enforcement
picture.
II. The following are constructive suggestions made in the interest of reducing the illegal narcotics traffic:
1. Education, to include enforcement officials, the general public, parents and
the minds
teachers, and the children themselves. Recognizing the uncertainty inrequired
by
of many enforcement officials as to the arrest procedures that are
would
the law and which are essential to strict prosecution in the State courts, we
all
and
any
of
benefit
the
for
suggest that a periodic narcotics institute be held
include
to
cases,
neighboring enforcement officials interested in making narcotics
an addict and other
the subjects of arrests, search and seizures, recognition of
officers, and
advisable procedures, to be conducted by competent attorneys, peace
in any
assist
to
ready
stands
office
Our
other officials who are expert in the field.
necessity
the
feel
officials
way possible in initiating such a program, if other
therefor.
teachers, to explain
A program could well be instituted to reach the parents and
so as to try to prevent our
the evils of narcotics, and the means to combat it, information.
Also a limited
youngsters from taking drugs by reason of lack of
the schoolon
program, of carefully guarded scope, might also be attempted
children themselves with good results.
and attempt
2. An increase in Federal hospital facilities, so as to take care of
to cure existing addicts, would seem advisable.
prosecuting authori3. More complete cooperation between local and Federal
we cannot reasonably
ties would be advisable. In an instance where we find that
or seizure which is Illegal
expect a conviction in State court, because of an arrest of Federal prosecuting
under the State law, we would invite the cooperation
and prosecuted there,
authorities so that such case might be filed in Federal court
where a conviction could lawfully be obtained.
Jones, judge of crimi4. In discussing this problem with Judge M. D. "Buck" made by Judge Jones
was
nal district court No. 1, of this county, a suggestion
be increased in the San
well
might
that the number of Federal narcotic agents
that San Antonio is the
Antonio and south Texas area. It is entirely evident
there being large quantities
focal point of a great deal of the narcotic traffic,
2645
smuggled into the United States across the Iexican border between Del Rio
and Brownsville. San Antonio is viewed as a distribution center for these drugs,
much of which winds up in the northern and eastern portions of the United States.
Since the Federal officials are more concerned with the international traffic, and
properly so, and have made adequate funds for the making of cases against large
sellers and buyers, it would seem that the San Antonio area should receive prime
consideration in the allocation of Federal narcotics agents. Of course any such
stepped-up program against the large operators would diminish the local narcotics supply, and thus permit the local officials to more adequately handle the
local problem.
Most will agree, however, that the greatest need is for more money and more
undercover agents.
III. We cite now some of the assets that we have in fighting the narcotics
traffic :
We now have in Bexar County two criminal district courts, presided over by
judges who are extremely interested in the narcotics problem. Considering the
type of cases which are filed in State courts, primarily cases involving small
amounts of narcotics, the punishment and sentences that have been levied by the
courts and juries have generally been good.
Since taking office, I have been particularly interested In expediting our
felony cases before the grand jury, so as to reduce the delay in indicting the
offenders and thus reducing the time before disposal. Our present Bexar County
grand jury is now meeting 4 times a week instead of 2 times a week as was
customary in the past, and with the cooperation such as displayed by this
grand jury, we have brought our cases to a current status.
We also expect to receive great benefits from recent amendments of State
narcotics laws. For instance, the penalty (for first offenders) under our State
law is now any term in the penitentiary not less than 2 years nor more than
life. This gives the prosecutor the latitude that is required. The minimum
is not too large, so that a jury may give a light sentence where it feels so
inclined. On the other hand the maximum has been increased from 10 years
to any term of years including life, so that a jury may now assess any term
which it feels is justified by the facts in the case. Another benefit has been
the amendment which makes it illegal to possess a hypodermic needle, which is
not possessed under doctor's instructions. This permits a conviction in cases
where various narcotics paraphernalia is seized on the person of an individual.
Our law now permits a probationary sentence in the case of an addict who should
be sent to a hospital for treatment and cure, despite a previous narcotics conviction. This law is relatively untested, yet we trust that many benefits will
come of it. A suspended sentence is not permitted under the present law.
If any further facts or statistics concerning the disposition of narcotics cases
in the Bexar County courts are required by the committee, we would be very
happy to furnish them.
We thank you for the opportunity of appearing before this subcommittee.
NARCOTIC CASES FILED IN CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURTS OF BEXAR COUNTY,
DURING YEARS
TEX.,
1953-55
Included are a list of every narcotic case filed during the respective years, a
brief explanation of each case no-billed by the grand jury, a brief explanation
of each case dismissed by the court and a statistical breakdown of the cases filed
as to kind of narcotic and disposition.
1955 to date
1954
1953
28
81
72
Convictions -------------------------------------------------Acquittals -------------------------------------------------
20
0
57
2
25
0
No bills ------------------------------------------------------
Narcotic cases filed ------------------------------------------Dismisals ---------------------------------------------------
Pending ---------------------------------------------------
3
0
7
7
1
8
38
1 25 of the 1954 cases were disposed of during year 1955.
Average lapse of time between date of filing and date of disposition

Year 1953
Year 1954
Year 1955
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 months 25 days.
3 months 26 days.
2 months 15 days.
2646
Total cases filed
Year 1953
-------------------------------------------
28
No bills
-------------------------------------------------------Dismissals
-----------------------------------------------------Convictions
----------------------------------------------------Acquittals
-------------------------------------------------------
5
3
20
0
Convictions
Cases
Penitentiary ---------------------------------------------------------------Probation -----------------------------------------------------------------Suspended sentence -----------------------------------------------------Total -----------------------------------------------------------------
Years
14
6
0
36
16
0
20
52
Average: 2.6 years per conviction; 66 percent conviction.
Cases
Kind of narcotics
Heroin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Marihuana ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dilandid
-------------------------------------------------------------------------Morphine -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13
13
I
1
28 cases
Heroin
Marihauna
Dilandid
Morotine
Cases ------------------------------------------
13
13
No bills ---------------------------------------Dismissals -------------------------------------Convictions -----------------------------------Acquittals --------------------------------------
2
0
11
0
3
3
7
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
Total ------------------------------------Convictions ------------------------------------
13
11
13
7
1
1
1
1
Cases Years Cases Years Cases Years Cases Years

Penitentiary cases ----------------------------Probation cases ------------------------------Suspended sentences -------------------------Total ------------------------------------
10
1
0
26
4
0
6
1
0
15
2
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
11
30
17
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2647
Narcotic ca8es, year 1953

Grand
jury
Case
No.
Defendant
William D. Henson_
Dilandid ----tablets. - 24
Heroin ---- capsules - 21
Disposition
Disposition
date
Filing
date
Narcotics and amount
Eddie Espinosa .....
Feb. 19
Apr. 16, 1953

Sept. 9, 1953
Sept 16, 1954
3 years probation.
Do.
Probationary retiew.
63713 Lorenzo Medrano - ----- do---------- do ---1 July 13 July 29,1953 No bill.
63763 Moises Contreras ------- do---------- do ---15 July 21 July 24, 1954 3 years probation.
June 30,1955 Probationary review.
63754 Milton Wyatt ------ Marihuana.cigarettes.. 10 July 27 Aug. 21,19,53 2 years pen tentiary.
---.
do ---------- do...
63771 Juan Cisneros ------July 23
Oct. 13,1953 No bill.
--capsules.
63800 Roy Trevino -------- HeroinJuly 24 Nov. 16,1953 2 years probation.
Oct. 13,1954 Probationary review.
July 25 Dec. 3, 1953 Dismissed.
63803 John Matula -------- Marihuana.cigarettes.
Heroin- --- capsules.
63876 Percy Williams ....
Aug. 21 Oct. 22, 1953 2 years penitentiary.
63877 Pete Alcoser, Jr_____-Marihuana- cigarettes_.
Aug. 24
Oct. 23, 1953 2 years probation.
63878 Raul Moreno ----------..do --------- do- - -do...... Oct. 22,1953
2 years penitentiary.
do --------- do-_63880 Rudy Orosco .......
.....
3 Aug. 18 ---- do----- 3 years probation.
do -------- do. .....
7
June 20, 1955
Probationary
rev iew.
Morphine- --- gram. ..L
63882 E. C. Klobedous ....
Aug. 18 Dec. 14,1953 2 years probation.
63932 Juan Garcia --------- Marihuana. cigarettes- 2 Sept. 2 Nov. 10, 1953 3 years probation.
June 18, 1953 Probationary review.
_ d o -----Oct. 22,1953 2 years penitenHeroin.....-- capsules. - 1 -63938 Lorenzo Medrano --tiary.
63939 Emilio Ramos .....
------------ do-.... I -do
--do -l)o.
----.
do
No%
.
3,
19h3
19----3
6395
Alejandro Aguirre. _ Marihauna-cigarettes..- 15 Sept. 8..
Dismissal.
Nov.
10,
19.53
63974 Carroll L. McMa. ------- do ___
1 -(doSupt. 12
No bill.
han.
(10 -grains..
13-----do-- 63975 Ruben H. BuckNov. 17.1953 Verdict, insane.
holdt.
I)(-c. 8, 1954 Verdici, sane.
63978 George Moore ------- Heroin ..................
Nov. 5, 1953 2 years penitentiary.
63995 Jesse Villalobos ------- do ------- capsules.
Sept. 21 June 22, 1954 3 years penitentiary.
Oct. 14
64098 -Crescencio Ramirez- --.. do---------- do....-Nov. 18,1954
No bill.
64111 Antonio Fernandez- --- do ---------- do- Oct. 23
2 years penitenJan.do .5,...
tiary.
Leonardo Varela ------ do ---------- gram s
64143
Nov. J_ dtn. 25, 1954
64159 Aaron Walker ------ Marihuana -grains
Nov. 4
.1i1t1. 19,1954 No bill.
do ------ cigarettes
64220 James L. Grant ------an. 28, 1954 3 years probation.
Nov. 24 Feb.
re10,1955 Probationary
view.
64239 Samuel Mireles ....
Heroin ------- grams.
2 Dec. 3._.
Aug. 30,1954
4 years probation.
64334 Henry Lee Williams. Marihuana...ounces._ 10 Dec. 30.. Mar. 24, 1954
6182
68021
June 10
NO BILLS, 1953
63713. Lorenzo Medrano: Unlawful possession of heroin; one capsule. Testing

showed the substance wasn't heroin.
63771. Juan Cisneros: Unlawful possession of marihuanm; one cigarette. Arrested smoking one marihuana cigarette. Defendant's probation revoked
on August 22, 1953 in No. 52730 TO.
63974. Carroll Terrell McMahan: Unlawful possession of marihuana; one cigarette. Defendant arrested with Ruben Buckholdt, who is criminally
insane. All parties agreed that the marihuana belonged to Buckholdt.
64098. Cresencio Ramirez: Unlawful possession of heroin; 17 capsules. Search
warrant fatally defective; illegal search; no case; "China" Alley instead
of "Shiver" alley.
64159. Aaron Walker: Unlawful possession of marihuana; 12 grains. Illegal
search; no warrant. In any event, defendant pleaded guilty as habitual
user of narcotics and got 3 months in jail.
2648

DISMISSALS, 1953
63803. Joe John Matula: Possession of marihuana; one cigarette. Defendant

neither a user nor peddler seventeen years old. Enlisted in Air Force on
December 2, 1953. Dismissed so as not to blot record.
63958. Alejandro Aguirre: Possession of marihuana; 15 cigarettes. Defendant
17 years old. Arrested with 15 cigarettes in possession. Dismissed so
defendant could enter Armed Forces.
63975. Ruben Henry Buckholdt: Possession of marihuana; 13 grains. On Novem.
ber 17, 1953, on sanity trial in limine, defendant found insane at both
times, on December 8, 1954. Restored to sanity and case automatically
dismissed.
Year, 1954
Total cases filed
-------------------------------------------81
No bills
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dismissals
----------------------------------------------------Convictions
8
7
57
---------------------------------------------------------
Acqittals --
Pending
Convictions
Years
Cases
Penitentiary --------------------------------------------------------------Probation -----------------------------------------------------------------Suspended sentence -------------------------------------------------------Total -----------------------------------------------------------------
49
7
1
188
15
5
57
208
Average, 3.65 years per conviction; 70 percent conviction.
Kind of narcotic&
4
3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Heroin
Marihuana ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Opium
81 cases
Marihuana
Heroin
Opium
Cases --------------------------------------------------------
41
39
No bills ....----------------------------------------------Dismissals ------------------------------------------------Convictions -------------------------------------------------Acquittals --------------------------------------------------Pending -----------------------------------------------------
5
3
29
1
3
3
4
28
1
3
0
0
0
0
1
Total -------------------------------------------------Convictions -------------------------------------------------
41
29
39
26
1
0
Cases Years Cases Years

Penitentiary cases ------------------------------------------Probation cases ---------------------------------------------Suspended sentences ----------------------------------------Total --------------------------------------------------
Cases Years
26
3
0
102
6
0
22
4
1
86
9
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
108
26
90
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
2649
TRAFFIC
Narcotic cases, year 1954

rand
jury
case
No.
Defendant
64342
Catarino Hernandez-
Heroin ---- capsules_- 19
Jan.
Apr.
64365
Manuel S. Soria .....
Marihuana ---------
Jail.
Feb. 18, 1954
64415
Emillano Hernandez. 2
Luis Ramos
Joe Perez, Jr -------Joe Castro ..........
Jan.
25
Mar. 18,1954
()
do ----cigarettes------2
Filing
Disposition
date
date
1,1954
Disposition
years penitentiary.
3 years probation.
do ------- do.. -----12 - -- do -----M ar. 24, 1954

1 Jan. 25 Nov. 12, 1954
do----- pounds------do ----ciagrettes_------8 Jan. 25 Mar. 18,1954
No bill.
Do.
64419 David Pena.
25 Apr. 6,1954 No bill.
... .
(1) Jan.-(do
64420 Carlos Guzman -----do ----cigarettes-_----6 Jan. 25 Dec. 16, 1954 3 years penitentiary.
__do ....................
64421 John Doe .......
Pending.
... 27do3 years peniten64424 Frank L. Martinez. -_
do ---- cigarettes.----18 Jan. 27 Mar. 1,1i94
tiary.
64435 Joe Escobedo .......
-.. do --------- do....
38 Jan. 28 Aug. 31. 1955 10 years penitentiary.
64436 Robert Bueno ----do --------- do ....
----1 --- d o -----Apr. 15, 1954 2 years probation.
64528 Aurelio Silva -------- Heroin ---- capsules- 10 Feb. 9 Apr. 6,1954 No bill.
64529 Francisca Garcia ..-do ------ grains-_ 2 ---do-....
Apr. 15,1954 2 years probation.
64539 Samuel Sheppard .... Marihuana cigarettes 10 Feb. 10 Dec. 3, 1954 D ismissed.
64579 Santiago Benavides._ - -- do- ------- do-- 98~ AMar. 8 May 13,1954
years penitendo ------ pounds------_1
tiary.
64608 James Shaw_
do cigarettes -----10 Mar. 11 Sept. 13, 1954 2 years probation.
do ---------- do-..-.. 30 ----64618 Rudy Gomez -------Mar. 12 May 6,1954 4 years penitentiary.
d o -------- 2 years peniten64624 Susano Mercado-.do------- pound. ----- 1 Mar. 16 _---tiary.
5 Apr. 2 June 9,1954 Dismissed.
64683 Antonin E. Gascar -- --.. do ------ pounds.
capsules__ 30 Apr. 6 May 25, 1954 No bill.
64700 Rudy Gomez -------- Heroin ....
64734 Robert O. Quintero.. Marihuana cigarettes- 9 Apr. 12 Dec. 14, 1954 4 years penitentiary.
1 Apr. 19 June 14, 1954 Dismissed.
64746 Rudy Gonzales ------ Heroin ---- capsule-. 64841 Rudy Flores -------- ......
grams..
(In Federal Peni3 May 6
(3)
tentiary) 10 years
sentence.
do --------- do-..----I May 10 Feb. 2,1955 2 years probation.
64846 Antonio Perez ------64880 Maria Torres ------- Marihuana-cigarettes - 53 May 21 Nov. 16,1954 3 years penitentiary.
do..-------- do ...
----- 1 June 3 June 11, 1954
64885 Oscar Guerrero -----Do.
(2)
do -------- do .... ----- 2 May 28
64892 Pat Phillips ........
Bond forfeited Dec.
15, 1954.
Heroin ---- capsules.
2 May 28 Mar 11, 1955
64893 Antonio Garcia 2 _ _.
Dismissed.
-.-.-.-d o ..
-- .-----.. . d o ---- 5 -- do..-64894 Felix Ramos 2.......
July 19,1955 3 years penitentiary.
do --------- do...---5
64895 Martin Sanchez 2....
May 28 Oct. 26,1954 5 years penitentiary.
64896 Joe Armauza 2 --- Marihuana-cigarettes._ 25 May 28 Nov. 3,1954 2 years penitententiary.
Heroin ---- capsules__ 3 May 28 Aug. 2,1954
64897 Mike MartineZ 2____
1)o.
64898 Sabino Jaramillo 2 __ ----- do --------- do .... 4 May 28 May 23, 1955
Do.
3 May 28 July 9, 1954
64899 Baltazar Garcia 2 ._ ----- do--------- do ....
Do.
----- do -------- do .... 5 May 28 _---- do -----64900 Paul Leyva 2 .......
64901 Genaro Molina 2....
----- do.........
do....
3 May 28 Sept. 16,1954 4 years penitentiary.
4 -.. do.....-- July 19, 1954 3 years peniten64902 Cresencio Martinez 2 ----- do --------- do ....
tiary.
.... do ------- grams_ 2 June 1 Oct. 26, 1954 o years peniten64917 Joe Vasquez, Sr .....
tiary.
(1)
__do --------- do ....
6 June 18
64986 Jose F. Encina_
Bond forfeited
(Federal; infinistesimal).
65001 Marcos Baez -------do -------- do-do---- .....
June 26 July 28. 1954 5 years penitentiary.
do -------- do .... ----- 2
65002 Ciralda Ramirez 2_ __
Aug. 7,1954 2 years penitentiary.
--- d o ----65003 Cresencio Ramirez._
do .........
do.... ..... 9
June 23, 1955 Dismissed.
----- do ---------- do ....
4 July 6 Sept. 9, 1954 10 years peniten65032 Alfonso Terrazas -tiary.
Mar ihuana-cigarettes_ 20 July 8 July 19, 1954
65054 Eligio Nino-----3 years penitentiary.
65061 Alphonso Hernandez.
- do.... -do. July 12 --2 years pewitenDee. 6. 1954
tiary.
65070 Joe Barrientes ------do
..
.do-.... 50 --- do.. Dec. 15, 1954 10 years penitenS
oI
tiary.
See footnotes at end of table, p. 2650.
64416
64417
64418
{2
2650
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Narcotic cases, year 1954-Continued

Grand
jury
case
No.
Defendant
65074
Paul Ramos ---------
65095
65096
65100
Maudine Mosely...-
65124
Leonardo Barrego 2__
.....do --------- do....
65125
Esequiel Salinas.....
--- do -------
4 -.do
6.51.51
Santiago Sanchez.. - - - Marihuana- - -pound.
65164
Narcotics and amour
Heroin -
capsules-..
)Osition
16
July
do --------- do....----2 July 28

_do-....
do ------------- -----() -doapsules.......12 July 30
Aug. 19,1954 2
Daniel Mosely -----Alicia Garza ---------
-do....
Aug.
Oct. 9,1954
Oct. 12,1954
Nov. 8, 1954
Oct. 27, 1954
...-
Nov. 15,1954
Aug. 13
Oct.
Eddie Espiniza_....
Heroin ----capsules. - 21
Aug. 27
Sept. 16,1954
65165
65211
65264
Pete Ramos ------Joe Cruz --------Ricardo Torres 2.....
do ------- do15 -- do-.

Jan. 3,1955
Marihuana cigarettes.
1 Sept. 19 Oct. 8,1954
-.. do ------------- ()
Sept. 22 June 20, 1955
65295
Loranshiel Tealer 2
65348
Rudy Escamilla
65349
Robert Quintero_....
6&361
Arturo Gonzales-----
65372
65406
----do -- capsules. - 5
George Espara-.
Billy Jean Davis....-d o -------- ---------------
65440
Gene M. Smith 2
Marihuana ----------
65454
65487
65489
Victor Villarreal_-_
Carmen Balderas..Joe Gonzales 2.......
65490
Carlos Lujano
65498
Joe Esquivel ........
Heroin .--- capsules.

1 Nov. 12
Marihuana.cigarettes_ 36 Nov. 22
do .-------- do....-----1.5 Nov. 24
Heroin- _-.capsules.- 1 --- do -----. do...-..
Narcotics ------------ (1)
June 15. 1955
Heroin ------------... do...........

_do ...............
Marihuana cigarettes. ... do........
do....
----- do ---------- do - Heroin ...
capsules.-
Mar. 29,1955
Jan. 12, 1955
Mar. 29, 1955
Mar. 24, 1955
do........
Mar. 28, 1955
Dec. 23, 1954
-....
.... cigarettes..-do3
-do -------- pound.-
---.
._do..
2_ _ _ _
o ... ..
65562
Daniel Estrada...----
65589
Moses Westman
65590
Sidney Allen -------
Opium..............
65591
Frank White .......
Marihuana ..........
I Unknown amount.
2
Denotes sale.
Mar. 14, 1955
Oct. 13
Mar. 8, 1955
Oct.
Dec. 14, 1954
34
9
-cigarettes.-
Heroin -------------
Oct.
Oct. 16
Apr.
Oct. 19
(3)
Apr. 15,1955
Nov.
Jan.
()
(1
_-d...
65499 Ray Flores..........

65500 Robert Gomez -----65501 Felix Ortiz.
65504 Rudy Zamora -----65505 Betty Hansen ------65509 Floyd Bennett ....
65541 Marion Bubba Reese 2_
6,1954
Marijuana cigarettes..
(4)
(4)
...
(4)
42 Nov. 29
42 --- do-.11 Nov. 9
I Dec. 2
-_
4))d
.(. 13
Dec.
Dec. 20
(4) --- do....

Dec. 22
Pending.
1,1955
5,1955
Nov. (8)
15, 1954
May 23, 1955
Feb.
9,1955
Jan. 26, 1955

.....-d o. . . .
(3)
May 24, 1955
4 Infinitesimal amount.
years penitent.
tiary
Do.
No bill.
2 years penitontiary.
Do.
2 years probation.
Do.
(In narcotic hospital.)
2 years probation.
Set Nov. 21, 1955.
3 years peniteiitiary.
No bill.
Not guilty.
No bill.
Dismissed.
Do.
Not guilty.
7 years penlte 'tiary.
(In narcotic hospital.)
5 years suspended
sentence.
To minor.
NO BILLS, 1954
64416. Luis Ramos: Possession of marihuana; 12 cigarettes. Marihuana purchase was made by Sergeant Sandoval. Deposition of Sandoval taken.
Sandoval transferred to Korea.
Thereafter discrepancies discovered
between Sandoval's testimony and other witnesses' testimony. It was

apparent that Sandoval had confused two or more of the cases he bad
made. Grand jury voted a no bilL
64417. Joe Perez, Jr.: Possession of marihuana, 1 pound. Defendant a police
informer; was filed on to get him back in line. Police narcotics squad
requested a no bill as the informer was helping them again.
64419. David Pena: Possession of marihuana: unknown amount. The only
witness against defendant was Sergeant Sandoval working under cover.
Defendant had not been arrested at time the witness was giving deposition in the cases he made, and was not arrested until after Sergeant
Sandoval had been transferred to Korea.
.....
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
2651
TRAFFIC
64528. Aurelio Silva: Possession of heroin; 10 capsules. Defendant was on 4

years probation for burglary. On April 1, 1954, his probation was revoked on ground that he was a user of narcotics, and defendant was
sentenced to 4 years in penitentiary.
64700. Rudy Gomez: Possession of heroin; 30 capsules on May 6, 1954, defendant
received 4 years in the penitentiary on case, hence this case was no
billed as defendant was in the penitentiary.
,5096. Daniel Mosely: Possession of heroin; 2 capsules. Husband and wife filed
on for offense. Husband wasn't at home at time of raid. Wife took full
responsibility and was sent to penitentiary for 2 years.
Flores: Possession of heroin; infinitesimal amount. March 29, 1955.
Ray
6,5499.
65501. Felix Ortiz: Possession of heroin; infinitesimal amount. March 29, 1955.
Narcotics officers made raid and found Flores and Ortiz in possession of
9 eye droppers, 9 hypodermic needles, 3 bottle caps, 2 spoons, 2 pieces of
used cotton, and 2 pieces of fingerstall. The paraphernalia was tested
and had traces of heroin on it. Grand jury didn't see fit to indict.
This occurred before narcotic paraphernalia law went into effect.
DISMISSALS,
1954
64539, 54541. Samuel Sheppard: Possession of marihuana; 10 cigarettes. Trial

court granted motion to suppress evidence as resulting from
illegal search and seizure.
Antonio
H. Gascar: Possession of marihuana; 80 ounces. Illegal
64683, 53546.
search of defendant's home without search warrant. Confession illegally obtained; purportedly taken by officer who wasn't
even in county at time.
64893, 53636. Antonio Garcia: Possession of heroin; 2 capsules. Defendant suffered from severe case of yellow jaundice. On July 8, 1954,
he was permitted to plead guilty to habitual use of narcotics
in county court, No. 101657, and received 1 year in county jail.
65003, 53645. Cresencio R mirez: Possession of heroin; 9 capsules, plus bulk.
Raid was made at time defendant was not at home. The wife,
Ciralda Ranirez, claimed the heroin and in cause No. 53644 received 2 years in penitentiary. This defendant was convicted of
burglary in cause No. 54351 and received 6 years in penitentiary
on June 20. 1955.
65505, 54058. Betty Hansen: Possession of marihuana; 42 cigarettes.
6.5504, 54078. Rudy Zamora: Possession of marihuana, 42 cigarettes. Thtabove parties stayed at a tourist court for a few days. Four
days after they left there was found under the icebox 42
marihuana cigarettes. The room had been rented to others in
the interim. Insufficient evidence.
Year 1955 (through October 7)
2-------------
Total cases filed

No bills
l)isiuIssa]s
Convictions
Acquittals
Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------25
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Convictions
Cases
Years
Penitentiary ................................................................
P ro b atio n . . ...... ........... ...............
........... .. ..........-Sqspended sentence --------------------------------------------------------To ta l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Averge: 3.32 years per conviction; 74 percent conviction.
,1515-56-pt. 7-
20
83
2652

Kind of narcotics
Case.*
21
42
I
I
Heroin ------------------------------------------------------------------------Marihuana
----------------------------------------------------------------------Dolophine -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Demerol -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------65
NoTE.-Habitual user of narcotics cases and possession of narcotic paraphernalia cases, of which there
are 7, are included in the total number of cases filed.
Year 1955 (through Oct. 7, 1955)

Heroin
Marihuana
Dolophine
Demorol
Cases ------------------------------------------
21
42
No bills ---------------------------------------Dismissals ------------------------------------Convictions -----------------------------------Acquittals ------------------------------------Pending ---------------------------------------
1
0
7
0
13
7
1
14
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
1
Total -----------------------------------Convictions ------------------------------------
21
7
42
14
1
0
1
1
Cases Years Cases Years Cases Years Cases Years

Penitentiary ------------------------------Probation --------------------------------Suspended sentence --------- -----------------Total -----------------------------------
7
0
0
30
0
0
11
2
1
35
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
30
14
44
Narcotic cases, year 1955

Grand
jury
case
No.
Defendant
Narcotics andFiling
65761
65767
65779
Meredith C. Stone--Hector Maldonado.Jesse Ramirez -------
Marihuana ..........
Heroin.
Marihuana cigarettes__ -
65783
Helen Cuevas----.--
Heroin ----------------
65810
65811
date
Disposition
date
Feb. 1
__ do----Feb. 7
Mar. 17, 1955

May 9,1955
Apr. 25, 1955
May 10, 1955
Nick Palacios ------- Marihuana cigarettes-_

Augustin Zepeda ------- do --------- do ---
Feb. 15
--- do----
Mar. 30,1955
Mar. 22, 1955
65812
65900
Manuel Zepeda ..------do ---------. do ....

Joe M. Campos----- Heroin ------- grams-_
65906
65943
Joe L. Esquivel --.-.----- do ---- capsules-Jesus R. Escobedo._ Marihuana cigarettes--
Mar.
Fedo 21--Feb. 21 May
Apr.
Feb. 23
Mar. 5 May
65956
65957
Harold Francis --------- do ------ pounds-Samuel E. Fouther ------ do ------- do
66003
Benito Alonzo 3......
Heroin..- .... capsules
66004 ---- do ---------------66005 Epifanlo Sanchez ...--
do
do ---------------
66007
Domingo Cantu -----..
do ---- capsules.
66023
661)24
6i080
65081
65093
65139
Carmelo Lopez ------ Marihuana _pounds_ -_

Caesar Ramirez -------- do --------- do-.-.
Tom R. Garza
----do cigarettes.
James W. Locke -------- do ------- pound-.
Dr. L. A. Busch----- Demerol ---- tablets-Tomas Torres ------- Heroin ---- capsules--
66140
Ignacio Luna ------....... do --------
See footnotes at end of table, p. 2653.
do..-..
Feb.
Mar.
--- doMar.
Mr.do
Mar.
Mar.
15, 1955
20,1955
25, 1955
23, 1955
(2)
Disposition
No bill.
Do.
2
years penitentiary.
4 years peniten.
tiary.
2 years probation.
4 years pcitenitiary.
No bill.
Do.
4 years suspended
sentence.
Dismissed.
Nonarrest.
Do.
NMar. 15 Aug. 25, 1955 No bill.
Do.
- - do-.------ do ........
(2)
Mar. 28
--_do ---- Sept .19, 1955 3 years penitentiary.
Mar. 31 Apr. 15,1955
2 years probation.
Apr. 13 Sept. 30, 1955 4 years penitentiary.
--- do ....
June 14, 1955 3 years penilntiary.
(2)
14
(2)
14-11 May 26,1955
14 June 3,1955
-.-.-----
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
2653
TRAFFIC
Narcotic ca8e8, year 1955-Contiwucd

i rand
i1ry
Defendant
ase
Filig
Disposition
date
date
(2)
(2)
(2)
66163
66165
66233
66238
(6239
Porfiro Rios --------- Marihuana..-- grams_. 74

Paul Ellis ----------do --- cigarettes_.
-----5
James D. Young .. ..- do
Gilberto Davila_
10-do --cigarettes-- 4
------- do....
-do 5
Joe Gonzales -
Apr. 18
__do _
May 3
. do_ May 10
May 23,1955
66237
Sam Curtis --------- I--
do -------- do..-..
May 17
June 20,1955
66288
66300
66335
Frank M. Gonzales Roderick J. Craig -_Floyd Rivera --------
Heroin -------- gram Marihuana cigarettes_

do ------- do-------
June 7
May 23
June 8
Sept. 26, 1955
6W85
Olga Zamudio ----- I Heroin ---- capsules_

Ambrosio Castillo__ - Marihuana cigarettes..
June 21
June 28
Sept. 13, 1955
C6389
66394
66402
66F,411
Mike Sanchez 3.
- do ------- do
19
Ricardo Torres 3.
-- do ------- do-...
3
Willie Win --------- ----- do -------. do.... 15
Eulalio Cisneros-.----- do --------- do ... 23
66412
Manuel
Moon
(Luna).
Charles Girdy .....
Frank White -------Raymond Royster__
Loretta Tarrazas .. - -..
Enrique Tarrazas_-_
Dr. H. G. WhitmoreEmilio Rosas -------Manuel Zuniga....
6423
66424
66462
66471
66472
66474
66482
66495
1
9
July 1
June 28 Sept. 8,1955
July 1 ----- 13,1955
July 5
Sept. 27, 1955
_do-....
do --------- do ----.... 1 ---
66496
66498
66522
----do -------- do.... 33 July 8

_do-....
----do --------- do....
6 ------- do --------- do....
3 July 19
Heroin ....
capsules.
5 July 25
----- do------- do....
5 JuydoDolophine -----------July 25
Heroin ------------(4) July 25
Possession of narcotic 7 July 26
paraphernalia.
Manuel Martinez. -- _. .....- do - - - - - - - --. -do- .
Marihuana ........
Jose Rendon 3(') July 29
Augustin Tijerina....
cigarettes-_..--do-.-3 Aug. 9
66523
66524
6531
66539
Jesse Loazno -------- ----. do_.

-do..-..
3
Jack L. Beeson ....
do ---------- grains
----- 60
Marcelina Medina - - Heroin .....
capsules
2
Genaro S. Diosdada_ Marihuana ---------- (1)
66548
66560
66573
66574
66580
66581
66617
66626
66645
66670
66672
66681
Richard Sanchez..--.. Habitual user of heroin (1) Aug. 19

Marihuana. -- cigarettes 1 Aug. 18
Johnny Warren ....
Gilbert Gonzales..--- Habitual user of heroin. (1) Aug. 23
George Mosley ---- Marihuana- -cigarettes 1 ___do.-Tommie Reed ------- Heroin .......
capsules 9
Rafael Arce ---------- ----. do......
do-.... 1 __ do....Manuel Alfaro ..... Habitual userof heroin - (4) Aug. 29
Marihuana.. -cigarettes 4 Sept. 1
Jesse Wheeler .....
Darrell Colunga ---------- do -------- do.... 28 Sept. 9
Jimmy Canales ....
do ......
do....
.....
10 Sept. 14
Habitual userof heroinBenjamin Uribe ....
Sept. 16
Jodye Christopher- Marihuana ..........
Sept. 15
63688
6.3708
66729
Charles M. Hill ....

Robert Alejandro ...Richard Lozano ....
66732
o;6737
66736
....
Aug.
Aug.
years penitentiary.
Set Oct. 19, 1955.
Set Oct. -, 1955.
2
years
tiary.
peniten-
(In penitentiary).
4
years penitentiary.
Set Nov. 14, 1955.
No bill.
Set Oct. 17, 1955.
Set Oct. 20, 1955.
Do.
Aug. 23,1955
Set Oct. 20, 1955.

1)o.
2 years pententiary.
Set Oct. 20, 1955.
No bill.
Set Oct. 20, 1955.
2 years probation.
Set Oct. 20, 1955.
2 years probation.
No bill.
Oct. 7.1955
Oct. 11, 1955
Set Oct. 20, 1955.

3 years probation.
do
Sept. 13, 1955

Sept. 12,1955
8
9
Set Oct. 24, 1955.
._do....
-_
son.
Heroin -------- grains 6

do ------- capsules
----. 12
Possession of narcotic
paraphernalia.
Chester White ......
Marihuana cigarettes_ 4
T.ihorio Villegas ---do ------- do..... 45
Willie Mathews- ..-do ........
do ....
5
Felipe Martinez ....
Heroin...............
Aug. 25, 1955
Disposition
Sept. 26, 1955

Sept. 13, 1955
Sept. 13, 1955
Sept. 20
Sept. 23
Sept. 28
Sept. 29
O(4. 3
.- do ....
Oct. 7
'Unknown amount.
Pending.:
Denotes sale.
4 Infinitesimal amount.
NO BILLS, YEAR 1'955
,65761. Meredith C. Stone: Possession of marihuana. The above referred to case

was filed as an aftermath of a traffic accident. When the investigating
officers arrived at the scene, they found a match box containing marihuana in the automobile of the defendant. Defendant made a written
statement in which he admitted the possession of the marihuana, and
said that he used it for his sinus headaches. That he had twice been
hospitalized for these sinus headaches, and it appeared that marihuana
2654
65767.
65812.
66574.
66023.

was able to help him in his case. Defendant was taken before the gran'i
jury, and the grand jury had an opportunity to talk to him and hear
his story. The defendant is a colored preacher from Lockhart, Tex.
His only other arrest on his FBI record is one traffic violation in January of 1953. The defendant is 43 years of age.
Hector Maldonado: Possession of heroin. The above defendant was fill
on as a result of a serving of a search warrant at his home at 518 Monterrey Street. There officers saw him throw something In his mouth,
took him to the Robert B. Green Hospital where his stomach was,
pumped. The contents of the defendant's stomach was sent to Austin
where an analysis was made and found to contain heroin. A writ of
habeas corpus was filed on this case and at that time it was determined
by Judge Joe Brown that the search was unlawful, based on which the
heroin was obtained. Since it was ruled that the search was unlawful
on which the narcotics was gained, the State had no legal evidence tc,
offer at the examining trial and the defendant was discharged on February 15, 1955.
Manuel Zepeda." Unlawful possession of narcotics. At the time this case
was filed, it was filed by officers of the San Antonio Police Department,
having information that a certain described vehicle would have in It
narcotic drugs. The officers of the San Antonio Police Department
saw the vehicle, stopped, and on a thorough search of the car found
two marihuana cigarettes wrapped in cellophane paper under the dashboard on the driver's side of the vehicle. The automobile is owned
by Manuel 0. Zepeda, the defendant in this case. Another man with
him was Agustin Zepeda, his brother. The prior record of the defendant
in this case indicated he had been arrested twice before for investigation, once in 1945 and once in 1953. Other than this case, there were
no other arrests. The brother of Manuel Zepeda, Agustin, had previously been to the Federal penitentiary for possession of narcotics, and
at the time of the filing of this case was out on parole from El Renc,
Federal Penitentiary. On being contacted in the city jail, Agustin
Zepeda made a full confession, taking the blame for the two cigarettes
found under the dashboard. In view of his record and the lack of
record on the part of his brother, Agustin entered a plea of guilty and
was sent to. the penitentiary. The case against defendant was presented to the grand jury and the grand Jury no-billed Manuel Zepeda.
George Mosely: Possession of marihuana. Facts of these cases were that
W. A. Weilbacher, San Antonio Police Department, having information
that Defendant Charles Girdy (No. 66424) was transporting narcotics.
stopped the automobile of Girdy with White and Mosely in company
with him. According to Officer Weilbacher he saw Charles Girdy throw
a bundle, which he found later to contain many marihuana cigarettes.
Weilbacher also says he saw defendant Mosely make a throwing motion
out of the right hand side of the car and on looking in the vicinity ,of
the right hand side of the car, Officer Weilbacher found one marihuana
cigarette. After searching all three of the individuals, Officer Weilbahcer had them get back in the car, at which time, according to Officer
Weilbacher, he saw Frank White throw a yellow object to the ground
with his left hand. Upon picking up the yellow object he found it to hle
n bundle containing six marihuana cigarettes. Frank White ani
Charles Girdy appeared before the grand jury. The grand Ju;ry w:ninformed that F'rink White was presently under a 5-year suspended
sentence for possession of marihuana. and Frank White told the grand
jury that lie did not possess any marihuana but that Charles Girdy had
rolled a number of cigarettes in his room and that those that Weilbacher
found belonged to Girdy. Girdy also testified before the grand jiur.
and admitted ownership of all the marihuana cigarettes and denied that
he had ever seen either White or Mosely in possession of any marihuana.
The grand jury did n(ot feel it was sufficient evidence to indict eitlier
White or Mos.ly.
Carmelo Lopez: Possession of marihuana. On information, nareotir,
oticers stopped a taxicab containing a driver and two carpenters. Theyr*e
was found in the trunk a package containing 2 pounds of marihuan:'.-.
The driver testified, on examining trial, that the occupants had put tI',
marihuana in the trunk of the cab. There was no other evidence t,
connect the occupants with the marihuana other than the testimony Of
the driver. Thereafter. the driver retracted his testimony and stated
'AM
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2655
that he had placed the package (not knowing it contained marihuana)

in the trunk of the cab and understood that it was going to be removed
from the turnk by the occupants at the end of their trip. The grand
jury heard all of the testimony and no-billed the two occupants of the
cab. All of the confidential information substantiated that the driver
was a pawn and had no knowledge that the package contained marihuana. Hence, the driver was not indicted.
6524. Jack L. Beeson: Possession of marihuana. Marihuana, heroin, and
heroin paraphernalia were found in the defendant's room at his home.
The heroin and paraphrenalia were found in the pocket of a jacket
belonging to a known addict, Floyd Fielder, with whom the defendant
was associating at the time. Defendant was not an addict, and there
was no information that he had ever used or dealt in narcotics. Defendant appeared before the grand jury and denied any knowledge of
the narcotics. The grand jury no-billed the case, apparently believing
that Beeson was not the guilty party, but that Fielder, who has since
been sentenced to the penitentiary, was the owner of the narcotics.
DISMISSALS.
YEAR
1955
65957. Samuel E. Fouther: Possession of warihuana. Motion to dismiss on

part of State sets out reason this case was dismissed. It should be added
that in that the unlawful search was reason for dismissal and the fact
that it was committed by city officers, this case was turned over to the
military authorities at Randolph Air Force Base for prosecution there
under court-martial. Jack Kaufman and Lieutenant Hutton, San
Antonio Police Department, talked to Colonel Lobelle and Colonel
Lumpkin with reference to this case and turned over what evidence was
at our disposal in form of statements and otherwise with respect to
above defendant. Cose was accepted by them and Jack Kaufman has
received several phone calls from Lt. Ed Finck, prosecuting officer in
that court, with reference to information needed in order to make
their case.
Senator DANIEL. Rev. Erwin A. Juraschek.

(Father Erwin A. Juraschek was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. You may be seated. Will you give your name to
the reporter?
TESTIMONY OF ERWIN A. JURASCHEK, DIRECTOR, CATHOLIC
YOUTH ORGANIZATION, ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN ANTONIO
Reverend JURASCHEK. Rev. Erwin A. Juraschek, director of the
Catholic Youth Organization, Archdiocese of San Antonio.

Senator DANIEL. Will you spell your name, Father, because I had
trouble even pronouncing it?
Reverend .JURASCHEK. I don't blame you, Senator. with a name like
that you can't be very fussy.
J-u-r-a-s-c-h-e-k.
Senator D.NlEL. And that is Erwin?

Reverend JURASCIIEK. E-r-w-i-n, first name, right.
If you please. Senator, if Mr. Juan L. Hidalgo, my assistant, is present in the audience, I will ask that he join me; if not, I will turn in this
prepared statement.
Senator DANIEL. From him?
Reverend JURASCHE . Yes. sir.

Senator D.NIEL. Mr. Juan Hidalgo, director of the Catholic Youth
Organization?
Reverend JURASCHEK. Assistant director.
Senator DANIEL. We will be glad for him to come forward if he is
here. All right, we will receive his prepared statement and make it a
part of the record.
2656
(Following is the prepared statement of Mr. Hidalgo:)

CATHOLIC YOUTH ORGANIZATION,
ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN ANTONIO,
San Antonio 5, Tex., October13, 195.7.

STATEMENT
To: The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Investigating the Narcotics Traffic.

From: Mr. J. L. Hidalgo, assistant director of the Catholic Youth Organization,
of San Antonio.
1. I have been employed by the Archdiocese of San Antonio since July of 1946:
my chief work has been centered in the development and promotion of a youth
program that has had for its chief emphasis the concentration on a recreational
or physical activity. Boys and girls of all colors, nationalities, and creeds, have
participated actively in this year-round, character-building program that has been
sponsored by the Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of San Antonio, with His
Excellency, the Most Rev. Robert E. Lucey, S. T. D., Archbishop of San Antonio.
honorary chirman of this project that numbers around 450 clubs or athletic teams
in any given year; last year alone in conjunction with the D. C. C. Y. effectively
reaching 25,491 youthful participants.
2. Many professional and lay leaders who daily work with our boys and girlsand with our adults, too-will testify that our program has certainly been a pre-
ventive one in fighting the encroachment of several vices that are always endeavoring to come in as a "fifth column" and damage the welfare of our society.
Included in the category of vices, we must single out the one that our Senate
judiciary subcommittee is currently investigating, the narcotics traffic.
We
sincerely congratulate the work of this brave committee and wish all of its Ineinbership complete success in its mission, pledging to this commission all of the
support and loyalty of the Catholic Youth Organization of San Antonio.

(Signed)
J. L. HILDALGO.
Reverend JURAScHEK. As I was listening to the various testimony I

would like to make the further observation in the course of this fine
effort that is displayed here, Senator, and your good committee, however, I got the feeling that we can pass all the effective laws as a result
of these hearings, and yet I feel that we would miss a corrective
measure if we didn't get to the real core of the problem by getting
some sound basic morality restored to our people which I think is
the basic problem.
Now, I am not going into details, because of time. I have a prepared statement, I am going to touch a few pointers merely and slide
over what I think is the problem.
Senator DANIEL. We will make the prepared statement in full
a part of the record and you may summarize as you see fit.
Reverend JURASCHEK. I was hoping as you went along that you men
would get further inspiration for the fine work that you are trying
to get done. It is encouraging I think to all the people of our coinmunity. Certainly it is to us who have been dealing in youth work
many years because we are aware of the problem. So many times
it seemed like we were on, just sounding brass and tinkling cymbal,
and no one seemed to mind or seemed to listen to the voice in the
wilderness. We appreciate your concern very muoh.
Certainly, if we could get our people to return to simple little
things like the Ten Commandments, let that be their guide, I don't
think you would have half these people testifying before you on
the other side of that gate. I would venture to say, Senator, that
if they were asked what kind of religious people they were, how they
were living, I would venture to say they were, as we say in the parlance among youth, they were "goofing."
2657
Whatever you fellows come up with in the course of these hearings,

I think you have got the good Lord on your side. I am not going
to touoh on the recommendations. There have been recommendations
made on clinics, how to go about trying to help people out of trouble.
I think that is worthy of your further consideration. I would like
to point this out; we need medical supervision of existing addicts
with vigorous efforts toward their rehabilitation. The American
Medical Journal of October 8, 1955, refers to the subcommittee hearings on drug addiction and cites a case of a witness, a former addict,
who recommended compulsory treatment program including checkup every 30 days.
I am pointing these things out, thinking of a lot of people that
were running into problems, not only with the law but how we can
help them to straighten out. We listened to the testimony as we
were going along. We saw a lot of people with Spanish speaking
names. I am sure of those 361 that you mentioned, Mr. Speer, that
there are others besides Spanish speaking people in this testimony
and we are concerned for everybody in our community. So we don't
want anybody to get a one-sided impression of our problem here in
San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. That's right, and we don't want to get a onesided impression anywhere, in Austin I remember of the figures on
known addicts given to us, there were about twice as many Anglo
Americans, who were addicts as there were colored, and nearly twice
as many as there were of Latin Americans.
Let me give you the figures if I have them here, I see this is not
broken down by cities, on that basis, but if it is broken down, if we
have any records on these addicts we will give them to you. Well,
here are the figures for the entire States on addicts which have been
reported to the Bureau of Narcotics, this doesn't mean this is all the
addicts or all the known addicts. This is just the addicts who have
been actually reported to the Bureau, 551 white and 112 colored, and
Reverend JURASCIIEK. That is the way it should be, of course.
227 others.
Senator DANIFL. Yes. So this breakdown shows, bears out what
you say.
Reverend JURASCHEK. That's right.
Senator
DANIEL.
And more white addicts in this State than there
are colored, more Anglo American addicts in Texas, that is, who have
been reported, than there are Latin Americans.
Reverend JURASCHEK. Thank you very much, Senator. I propose
the question in regard to this compulsory treatment because I think we
want to try to mae some recommendations to you good men that you
might carry back for your considerations. Shall registration of all
addicts, those receiving voluntary treatment in clinics included, be
followed up by notation on their file in Central Medical Index of
whether or not patient completed the treatment, and the like. I think
it should be so. I was tying that up with the idea the assistant district attorney recommended a while ago, of some source of keeping tab
of these people and taking care of those who could be helped, at the
same time stiffening up on those where we figure they are beyond hope.
Creation and extension of local facilities to do direct preventive
and rehabilitative work with potential and active addicts. These f acilities are law-enforcement agencies, social agencies, medical clinics,
26ydo5 8
school counseling, and school social worker programs. I would like
to make this observation. This is provided by the Gilner-Aikin bill.

However, we note in Bexar County and other areas we have no social
workers, only attendance officers. I think if we are trying to deal
with, to help these young people, coming along trying to pass on marihuana or goof balls, whatever you call them,I do think we need this
type of counseling and work along those lines in respective schools,
that these facilities should be created expanded and encouraged to
work as a team rather than as isolated agents in the prevention and
treatment of addiction.
No relaxation in the efforts toward complete and permanent -eli'mination of the supply of illegal narcotics drugs: provision for suppression of illegal traffic should be retained.
Now, I would like to make this observation. We would like to
advocate adequate control of our State highways which is one means
of detecting and suppressing illegal narcotics traffic. Our Texas State
Highway Patrol is presently understaffed. This sounds like a broken
record. Recruitment is slow, as highway patrolman salaries do not
attract enough men who could undergo the rigid preparatory training, maintain the high standards of on-the-job performance required
by State highway patrol.
Presently the State highway patrol is some 72 men short of the
original strength allotted of 470 men. The last legislature allowed
for 200 additional men, but no provision has as yet been made for a
raise in salaries. I throw that out for your consideration as part of
our problem here.
Furthermore, we would call the attention of your committee, I
think someone touched on it, to the plight of our border patrol and
the wetback mohado problem. Again from personal experience I
have seen the handicap of our border-patrol men to do their job
because of lack of numbers. It is a known fact, gentlemen, I am
sure you know, these wetbacks have been caught with marihuana and
heroin. Are we going to let the greed of certain ranchers to stymie
this particular situation?
Senator DANIEL. Father, there is one thing I would like to call to
your attention. Were you here to hear the testimony yesterday from
the customs agents and the supervisor in charge, and when we told
about General Swing's testimony, the head of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, they gave some very interesting testimony to
the effect that they found very little marihuana or heroin on the
so-called wetbacks or agricultural laborers. As a matter of fact, both
of them were very definite in saying that they found only an occasional marihuana cigarette or two and that it was the professional
smugglers who brought it over from Mexico, were you here then?
Reverend JuP.scEpx. No, Senator, I missed that.
Senator DANIFL. I am glad to give you that information.
Reverend JIT-RASCHEK. I appreciate it.
Senator DANIeL. I know you are interested in that matter, and I
know you would be glad, as I was, to find out that those poor people
-arenot really the ones who have been bringing this over, as far as our
officials say and know.
Reverend ,JUPASCH.X. We further encourage, and I perhaps again
will be sounding like our district attorney-he stole my thunder :-the

educational program for adults as well as for adolescents. Combined
2659
with the medical care of narcotic addicts and severe penalties for trafficking in drugs, there should be an adequate program of education by
means of all educational media.
Community, church, school, civic organizations, and so forth, make
every effort to use attractive media of education that also effectively
secure the desired end results and do not merely appeal to idle curiosity
of the public.
I was most appreciative, Senator, of your fine remarks in covering
this particular Senate subcommittee hearing. I do think it is through
means like that that we can begin to stimulate the consciousness of our
people to take this thing seriously, and above all I am concerned about
the youngsters who are involved. That is why I think you are making
a real contribution to our community. The media should be designed
in such way that commercially sponsored movies and literature designed along thrill interest lines be given competition along acceptable
but attractive lines.
Just as an off-comment, I have it here, I would advocate that the law,
contributing to the delinquency of a child, the law that we have in existence be changed in that it says misdemeanor. I would advocate that
it be made a felony. I get quite vehement when I see some things occur
and some of the things I have heard, and I do wish we could make these
things more effective to control the trouble we are here facing.
We:should like to call your attention, Senator, and 'that of the committee, to the report of the New York State Joint Legislature Committee To Study the Publication of Comics, Legislative Document, 1954,
No. 32.
Gentlemen, if time would permit I could show you a few things that,
these comics, movies, and the like are doing. I am of the opinion that
among a lot of youngsters, their morale is broken down. Their sense
of morality is thinned down certainly by this rubbish, this garbage
that some of these peddlers are putting on our stands, making it wi e
open for any kiddo to read, to see, to put I guess in his little head as he
grows up into a teen-ager, I do think if the opportunity comes along
and he thinks it is a wonderful thing-just to quote you one example of
something that you will find in these magazines quite frequently.
Here is a classical passage taken from one, we quote: "He never asked
her to share the needle. He didn't have to. She was well aware of his
scheming, of why he made her give him a fix. Rusty just lived for the
day he could get her on the needle again. When that day came she
would belong to the needle, not to Bart, not to Rusty, but Rusty would
possess her because Rusty knew in that hour, on that day, she belonged,
she would be with him, with Rusty." That sort of a thing is bound to
be by repetition-we have learne', those of us who are in education,
have learned that repetition is a good source of education. Certainly
if they keep reading this hogwash, keep getting it, it strikes me we
have got to go to that cause, to where they get the ideas.
We note that communitywide efforts be made to study multiplecausative factors that lead to antisocial behavior and encourage the
influx of criminals to our community. I should like to state that San
Antonio is unfortunately a victim of circumstances in some of the
things you are hearing. That communitywide efforts be made to set
up resources that, stimulate and furnish the people of the community
with means toward normal physical and moral growth, that stimulate
their cultural development so that, the sense of values of the corn-
2660
munity's composite personality may be raised far above that of the

common crirmnal.
I do feel, Senator, that you are trying hard to arouse this con-
sciousness, and I do hope and pray that we shall see much more response of our people, of parents and others, to the responsibility of the
things that are quite terrible in our midst.
Senator DANIEL. Thank you so much for your fine contribution.
We appreciate your appearance and any material you wish to leave
with the staff we would be glad to have.
(Following is the prepared statement of Reverend Juraschek:)
We may pass all the effective laws that may result because of these hearings
but unless we get to the core of the problem our solution will not be realized.
We need a return of all our people to sound basic morality. If the 10 commandments of God guided our people in their everyday lives, you men would find
your job comparatively easy.
June 7, 1955, report on drug addiction issued by committee on public health
of New York Academy of Medicine, drew up six-point program of recommendations, of which we wish to call your attention to a few for the record.
1. "Change in attitude toward the addict that he be looked upon and treated
as a sick person and not as a criminal."
2. "Take the profit out of illicit drug traffic by making it possible for the
addict to obtain his drug at low cost under Federal control, in conjunction with
efforts to have him undergo withdrawal. Under this plan these addicts as sick
persons would apply for medical care and supervision." 1
(a) Use of public-health clinics to administer medical treatment to addicts.
(b) To avoid misuse of public-health and private medical care, but all cases
of addicts treated by these facilities be registered with a central medical index.
(c) That patients receiving medically prescribed barbiturates for diseases
other than drug addiction be registered with a central medical index to prevent
potential or undiagnosed addict from receiving duplicate administration of barbiturates from several physicians.
3. "Medical supervision of existing addicts, with vigorous efforts toward
their rehabilitation."
(a) American Medical Journal, October 8, 1955, subcommittee hearing on
drug addiction cites a case of a witness (former addict) who recommended compulsory treatment program including checkup every 30 days.
(b) We propose this question to the point: Shall registration of all addicts
(those receiving voluntary treatment in clinics included) be followed up by
notation on their file in central medical index of whether or not patient completed the treatment. I think so.
(c) Creation and extension of local facilities to do direct preventive and rehabilitative work with potential and active addicts. These facilities are lawenforcement agencies, social agencies, medical clinics, school counseling and
school social worker programs. (Provided for by Gilmer-Aikin bill. We have
no school social workers-only attendance officers.) That these facilities be
created. expanded, and encouraged to work as a team, rather than as isolated
agents in the prevention and treatment of addiction.
4. "No relaxation in the efforts toward complete and permanent elimination of
the supply of illegal narcotic drugs; provision for suppression of illegal traffic
should be retained."
(a) Adequate control of our State highways is one means of detecting and
.upnressing illegal narcotics traffic. 2 Texas State highway patrol Is presently
understaffed. Recruitment is slow as highway-patrolman salaries do not attract enough men who could undergo the rigid preparatory training, maintain
the high standards of on-the-job performance required by State highway patrol.
Presently the State highway patrol is some 72 men short of the original
strength allotted of 470 men. The last legislature allowed for 200 additional
men, but no provision has as yet been made for raise in salaries. State highway
if
patrol cannot compete with private Industry in recruiting workers. Also,
training
rate of turnover of the last 60 or 90 days continues, the State highway than add
school will do well to keep abreast of trying to fill old vacancies rather
the 200 additional men provided for by legislature to the training program.
'I think this Is very Important.
2I think this Is Important.
2661
Recommend maintenance of present high standards of training and on-the-job

performance of State highway patrol, increase in staff as allotted by legislature,
but that salaries be increased so that State highway patrol can compete with
private industry in the recruitment of workers.
(b) Would further call the attention of this committee to the plight of our
border patrol and the "wetback" mohado problem. Not enough officers to do
the job. It is a known fact that many of these "wetbacks" have been caught
with marihuana and heroin. Are we going to let the greed of certain ranchers
stymie this situation?
5. "Encourage educational program for adults as well as for adolescents.
Combined with the medical care of narcotic addicts and severe penalties for
trafficking in drugs, there should be an adequate program of education * * *
by means of all educational mediums."
(a) Community (church, school, civic organizations, etc.) make every effort
to use attractive mediums of education that also effectively secure the desired
end results and do not merely appeal to idle curiosity of the public. The
mediums should be designed in such a way that commercially sponsored movies
and literature designed along thrill-interest lines be given competition along
acceptable but attractive lines.
(M4 That the law, Penal Code 534a, section 1, contributing to the delinquency
of a child, a misdemeanor, be amended to being termed "a felony." 1
Please see pages 409 and 410 of Texas Juvenile Court Research Reports, volune VII.
(b) That the law, Penal Code 534 a, section 1, contributing to the delinquency
Legislature Committee To Study the Publication of Comics, legislative document
(1954, No. 32).
(d) That communitywide efforts be made to study multiple-causative factors
that lead to antisocial behavior and encourage the Influx of criminals to our
community. That communitywide efforts be made to set up resources that
stimulate and furnish the people of the community with means toward normal
physical and moral growth, that stimulate their cultural development so that
the sense of values of the community's composite personality may be raised far
above that of the common criminal.
First.-Necessities:
Food: Tax supported relief program.
Shelter: Slum clearance.
Protection: Need child protective agency. Removal of establishments that law
could term nuisance. A bar in almost every block on the West Side.
Second (but simultaneously).-CYO activities and other character building
programs.
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND
SOURCES
American Medical Journal, Oct. 8, 1955; Subcommittee Hearing on Drug Addiction.

Science, July 8: 122: 67; New York Academy of Medicine Report.
Coronet; June 1955; Should We Legalize Narcotics.
Sources not covered:
Time, Mar. 21, 1955; 65:18 ; Dope From Red China.
U. N. Review, April 1955; 1: 33-34; U. N. Work in World Control of Narcotics.
Newsweek, Aug. 15, 1955; 46: 40; This Enveloping Evil.
American Mercury, October issue had an article on immigration worth
reading.
P. S. President's Commission on Migratory Labor-its recommendations are
worthy of this committee's concern-re immigration problems.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Avant.
While Mr. Avant is coming do we have Leo Bustamante?

Mr. Avant is right here. We don't want to get you all mixed up
here.
(Mr. Grady Avant was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. Will you state your name?
I think this is very important.
2662
TESTIMONY OF GRADY AVANT, AGENT IN CHARGE, BUREAU OF

CUSTOMS, EL PASO, TEX.
Mr. AVANT. Grady Avant.
Senator DANIEL. -And what is your official capacity?

Mr. AVANT. Customs a ent in charge, El Paso, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. Howlong have you been customs agent in charge,
Mr. Avant?
Mr. AVANT. Since 1948.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have your customhouse there on the bridge
at El Paso?
Mr. AVANT. No, sir; the agency service is out on El Paso Drive
about 3 miles from there. I am under Mr. Fleishman who is the
supervising' customs agent.
;enator)ANIEL. Now, is Colonel Cherry, the inspector, thereI
Mr. AVANT. He is the chief inspector at the bridge.
Senator DANIEL. Come on up, Mr. Cherry. We will ask botL of
you gentlemen about the situation at the El Paso-Juarez Bridge.
k Mr. Cherry was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. Gentlemen, you have heard the testimony from Mr.
Richards and Mr. Murphy concerning the situation on the bridge at
Laredo with reference to narcotic addicts crossing that bridge. I
would like to ask first,.Mr..Avant if you have any idea about how many
narcotic addicts may be crossing the bridge at El Paso going over into
Mexico?
Mr. AVANT. I wouldn't estimate quite as high as Mr. Richards did
at Laredo. So far as the known addicts we wouldn't average over 2
or 3 a day there, I don't believe.
Senator DANIEL. I believe Mr. Cherry might put a higher figure on
that according to the investigation report I have here. So, Mr.
Cherry, will you identify yourself, you are H. F. Cherry?
TESTIMONY OF H. F. CHERRY, SUPERVISOR OF CUSTOMS INSPECTORS, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS; EL PASO, TEXAS
Mr. CHERRY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And -you are supervisory customs agent?
Mr. CHERRY. No, sir, supervisor of customs inspectors.
Senator DANIEL. You are under the collector of customs directly :

Senator DANIEL. What would your estimate be of the number of
narcotic addicts who go over across the border on the El Paso bridge:
Mr. CHERRY. Well, it is a very difficult thing to determine actually,
due to the geographical condition there. The addicts may pass
through El paso from east to west, but I believe it might be just a
little bit higher than Mr. Avant suggests.
Senator DANIEL. What would you say?
Mr. CHERRY. After considering it I don't believe it is quite as high
as I told Mr. Speer before. I had a little opportunity to consider,
a little more time to consider it than at the time I spoke to him. I
doubt if more can be recognized by our boys, more than eight or teii
a day I would say.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, you feel that figure is probably
8 or 10 known addicts, that is, known to some of you officers on tha
bridge?
I I I
2663
Mr. CHERRY. Yes.
DANIEL. Who go daily'?

Mr. CHERRY. Not the same ones, though.
Senator DANIEL. No, I understand, but
Senator
I understand you think

Sor 10 daily cross the bridge from El Paso into Juarez?
Mr. CHERRY. I rather think so.
Senator DANIEL. That is about the same number of known addicts
that Mr. Richards gave us. He, of course, said that he figures from
that that there were quite a few more addicts crossing who were not
known to our officers. Would you agree with that?
Mr. CHERRY. It seems reasonable.
Senator DANIEL. What do you think, Mr. Avant?
Mr. AVANT. I am sure a lot of them are not known to us that do
cross there.
Senator DANIEL. Now, do either of you officers keep cards on the
known addicts that pass the border at El Paso?
Mr. AVANT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Cherry?
Mr. CHERRY. We don't keep a card system like they showed you
from Laredo, but we do have a general suspect file. We aren't just
working in the dark. We have a suspect file on all types of would-be
smugglers or suspected smugglers. We have it cross-indexed so we
can look into the narcotics group.
Senator DANIEL. How many of those cards do you have on narcotic addicts ?
Mr. CHERRY. Well, I would just have to guess at it because I didn't
get any figures on that, but I imagine that we have somewhere around
at least a hundred, maybe more of them.
Senator DANIEL. Would you get that information for the committee?
Mr. CHERRY. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And let us know what your records show as to

how many of those crossing the border are narcotic addicts?
Mr. CHERRY. Addicts or suspects?
Senator DANIEL. Addicts, known addicts.
Mr. CHERRY. Could I change my statement there then?
Senator DANIEL. Yes, sir; correct the record.
Mr. CHERRY. I was thinking of suspects, Senator.
Senator DANIEL. No.
Mr. CHERRY. I doubt if we have nearly that many, perhaps, very
few listed as actually known narcotic addicts.
Senator DAN rEL. Well, do you keep any record byMr. CHERRY. Not in that category.
Senator DANIEL. You don't keep the same type of record that Mr.
Murphy keeps and Mr. Richards down in Laredo?
Mr. C IF.RRY. No, sir.
Mr. AVANT. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Now, what do you gentlemen think about that?
ks I understand they started keeping the addicts' record down there
on their own accord, they weren't directed to do that. What do you
think about Congress passing a law that would authorize that to
'The following names of known addicts who have crossed the bridge at Laredo, Tex.,
into or from. Mexico, on file with the Bureau of Customs, El Paso, Tex., were submitted
to the subcommittee by Mr. Cherry: Salvador Assad, Jesus R. Guillen, Paul 0. Torres,
William R. Andrews, Ramon Payan Canales, and James Robert Mason.
2664
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
be kept and direct that it be kept on all these bridges, on all of these
points where there are lawful crossings from our country into Canada
or Mexico?
Mr. CmRRY. I think it's a very fine thing to have.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Avant?

Mr. AVANT. It would be very beneficial and it should be augmented
by photographs, at least the first time a. man comes by he should be
photographed and fingerprinted so the information could be disseminated to other agencies with accurate description of the individual,
if you are going to the trouble to keep it. Of course, that would take
extra time and equipment to do that.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Colonel Cherry, let me ask, have you ever
thought about keeping one of these records on narcotic addicts who
cross the border on your on accord voluntarily like they are doing
at Laredo?
Mr. CHERRY. I believe we have thought about it but we didn't
actually get it done.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think it would serve a good purpose after
hearing the testimony here yesterday and today?
Senator
DANIEL.
Could you tell us whether or not you might put in
such a -progam?
Mr. CHERRY. Well, I will be very happy to discuss the matter with
my immediate supervisor and collector of customs and recommend to

them that we do that when we get back to El Paso, and I feel very
sure he will authorize us to do that.
Senator DANIEL. I am glad to hear that. I recommend it to you
very highly. I think on this border there should be a record kept
like they have been keepin a at Laredo and that it ought to be iimproved in every way possible because if there are 8 or 10 known
addicts crossing that border daily into Juarez, evidently going tlere
to get narcotics, some are bringing narcotics back across the border.
wouldn't you think?
Mr. CHERRY. They probably do from time to time but our boys
at El Paso are right on them.
Senator DANIEL. When you searched them on certain occasions have
they been found to have narcotics on them?

Senator DANIEL. M.r. Avant, what has been your experience on
narcotic addicts? Do you find some of your seizures have been on
addicts themselves who have been across the border and have come
back ?
Mr. AVANT. Yes, sir, that frequently happens.
Senator DANIEL. In other words these people that we are allowing
to leave the country so easily to go over into Mexico are people who
bring it back in here, to your own knowledge in many instances.
isn't that right?
Mr. AVANT. That's true.
Senator DANIEL. Is that right, Colonel Cherry?
Mr. CHERRY. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. I think we figured yesterday at the very inimurn
from what Mr. Murphy and Mr. Richards thought about those people
going across the Laredo bridge, the average amount that they might
be bringing back ran' close to half a million dollars' worth of narcotics
I I I I
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2665
,iyear. Then if you have about the same number going across at
El Paso, it would run it up to about a million dollars' worth a year
in traffic by addicts alone, to say nothing of what they might have
spent across the border for shots they took there.
Mr. AVANT. I think the big majority of the addicts who walk across
go over to get their shots and do not bring back
the bridge to Juarez
person.
their
on
anything
Senator DANIEL. Well then we have sort of a clinic system
operation ?
Mr. AVANT. Yes, sir; we have shooting galleries, well known.
Senator DANIEL. Well-known shooting galleries at Juarez?

Mr. AVANT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What do you mean by shooting galleries?
Mr. AVANT. Where you can go in for a nominal fee-get your shot
of heroin.
Senator D.xIEL. Can you identify these places? Do you know
where they are located?
Mr. AVANT. Not personally but less than 6 weeks ago a big article
appeared in the local paper where a reporter went over, made several
places, gave the address of one La Nacha, and La Nacha incidentally
is under indictment.
Senator DANIEL. La Nacha. who is La Nacha?
Mr. Avtxrr. I don't know, I couldn't give it to you.
Senator DANIEL. Is she a dope peddler?

Mr. AVAN'r. Notorious.
Senator DANIEL. In Juarez, Mexico?
Mr. AVANT. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Under indictment in this country for what?
Mr. AVANT.
Narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. Sale of narcotics?

Senator DANIEL. And is she an Americali citizen?
Ir. AVANT. No, sir; she is a Mexican nationalist.
Senator D.NIEL. And because of the Mexican extradition laws she
cannot be brought over for trial .'
Mr. AVANT. That's right.

Senator DANJL. What does slie do, does she, keep on with her racket
over there?
Senator _)ANIEL. Can young people go and get shots there?
Mr. AVANT. Anybody that has the price.

Senator DANIEL. Have you known young people crossing the border
to get shots?
Mr. AVANT. We have known of juveniles.
Senator D.\NIEL. That's what I mean, juveniles.

Do you have any
Senator D.\NIEL. Well, what do you recommend
recommendation you could give us to stop it '
Mr. AVANT. My recommendation on that would be through economic
sanctions. AWe have-Senator )ANIEL. Against Mexico?
Mr. AVAN.". We have a big milit-ary establishment there in El Paso.

We possibly average arresting I or 2 military personnel a month for
s jugglingg marijuana aud other narcotics. If the military authorities
2666
would threaten, they wouldn't have to do it, but if they would threaten
to place Juarez off limits for the military personnel unless the local
officials cleaned up Juarez, they would clean it up, because the local
citizens over there who receive from a hundred thousand dollars on
up a month of this military pay for various things, they would force
the local officials to clean it up, and that is true in Del Rio and all
your border cities where you have large military establish mients.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, at Del Rio the military men go
across the border there-what is the name of the Mexican city?
Mr. AvANT. Villa Acuna.
Senator DANIEL. And spend considerable money there?
Mr. AVANT. Yes. sir. And we have noticed that with an increase in
the military personnel on this side, the town adjacent there, there is
always an increase in prostitution, narcotic peddling, and other things
which build up along with the increase in the military personnel.
Senator DANIEL. Do you find that prostitution and narcotics go
hand in hand across the border?
Mr. AVANT. Hand in hand.
Senator DANIEL. How about on this side?
Mr. AVANT. Same thing all over the United States, all over, every
place I have ever worked.
Senator DAmTEL. Do we have that kind of situations in cities in
our own country?

Mr. AvANT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Don't you know some cities where gambling or

prostitution and other things are going on which are harmful to the
men? I am thinking of Phenix City, Ala.
Mr. AVANT. It was put off limits; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Until they cleaned it up?
Senator DANIEL. It seems to me that you have a good recormnendation that the Government of the United States could follow. I hate
to deal in that kind of terms with our good neighbor to the south, but
at least it is not a unanimous proposition of our neighbors to the south
because some of these people who are selling heroin and marihuana
and smuggling across the border are not good neighbors, and they are
not representative of the Mexican people, do you think?
Mr. AVANT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Just the same, when we let people go across the
border to get drugs, they are not representative of American citizens,
do you agree to that?
Mr. AVANT. Yes, sir, and if the local citizens of Juarez were threat-
ened with the cutoff of the money which the Army in El Paso is
spending over there every month, they will clean up their own city.
Senator DANIEL. Well, are some of these Army boys getting into
narcotics?
Senator DANIEL. Have you known actual cases of it?

Mr. AVANT. We arrest on an average of between one and two a
month I would say right there at the bridge and in El Paso.
Senator DANIEL. Of American military personnel?
Mr. AVANT. In uniform.
Senator DANIEL. Bringing narcotics back across the bridge?
2667
Senator DANIEL. In uniform?

Senator DANIEL. And you arrest an average of one or two a month ?
Mr. AVANT. Yes, sir; I am pretty sure that is about what it averages.
Senator DANIEL. Colonel Cherry, do you think it averages more or
less?
Mr. CHERRY. It is likely no more than that, that's about right.
Senator DANIEL. Well, of course, I am glad it isn't more but that is

bad enough.
Mr. CH-1ERRY. I would like to say, although it is serious when even
one soldier of the United States comes over with narcotics in his
possession, a serious thing particularly for the mother and folks back
home to think he will do that, but I would like to call attention to the
fact that with hundreds of thousands of military personnel passing
through El Paso since the war, the percentage of soldiers and airmen,
who have been caught smuggling is very, very small. I would like to
say that in their behalf.
Senator DANIEL. I think it is good that you make that point, and I
want to say here we have already had a hearing on the use of narcotics
by our men in the Far East where it has been some problem. The
percentage of soldiers in the Far East who have been talked into using
narcotics is very small when you look at all the men we have over
there, but it is bad enough to make a serious problem-just like over
here at El Paso, if you have one or two a month of our men whom you
arrest and catch with the dope on them you know that means that there
are probably a few more who are using it over on the other side of the
border. I think it is well taken when you say that it is not a great deal,
the percentage is low but even low, it is bad enough.
Mr. CHERRY. It is bad enough.
Senator DANIEL. The percentage of narcotic addicts in this country,
G0,000, for all the people in this country, is low in a way, but it is a
terrific problem and it is bad enough. In England there are just 400
in the whole country. But I am going back to what Mr. Avant said
earlier; I would like to study it a little while longer. At first blush,
its the first time it has been recommended to this committee, it would
seem to me your recommendation ought to be followed by the Army,
that the Army ought to tell them as long as they have wide open shootdope in Juarez, the Army is going to
ing galleries or heroin andofother
river.
the
side
this
on
men
the
keep
Mr. AVANT. That wouldn't require any legislation and it would be
effective. Well, during the war I saw it applied in other cities. I
was in the Navy during the war and we applied that to Honolulu and
different places.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any other suggestions as to how we
may stop this situation on the border there at El Paso?
Mr. AVANT. I believe that is the only suggestion that I have on that.
There is one, there is one phase of narcotic smuggling which I haven't
heard discussed here which I am very much interested in, that is, the
bigtime operators. I believe the big smugglers are bringing it out of
Mexico by plane.
Senator DANIEL. Give us any suggestion you might have on that.
What leads you to believe that? Does it reveal anything now that
might be tied up in any investigations? We want the people's business
71515-56--pt. 7-21
2668
to be open except anything that has to do with any pending investigation, and probably that is why that hasn't been mentioned here. I
wonder if we might not just pass that for the time being. You said by
air, didn't you?
Mr. GASQUE. It is possible he is referring to the case brought to our
attention some time ago in New York where the largest amount of
cocaine ever brought into the United States was brought in from
Mexico City through Texas and on to New York.
Mr. AVANT. I am not speaking of commercial air lines. I am talking of clandestine flights by plane which are constantly crossing the
border and violating the commercial regulations.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you are familiar with the cocaine case that
Counsel Gasque mentioned?

Senator DANIEL. About $2/2 million worth, the cocaine was flown
from Mexico to two Cubans, stopped off in Houston in transit, went

on to New York where they were caught. You are talking about a
different type of flight?
Senator DANIEL. Is it information that you think is all right for

you to make public at this time?
Mr. AVANT. Well, I can say this, that I have been told by some
of these cropdusting, barnstorming pilots, by only one that I can
recall definitely, about him having been propositioned by certain
people.
Senator DANIEL. On this side of the border?
Mr. AVANT. American pilots, yes, sir, to fly down and pick up
packages and receive enormous sums for doing so.
Senator DANIE. Propositioned by a citizen of our country?
Mr. AVANT. Yes, sir, and I have a note here in regard to the military personnel from Mr. Richards there saying five air men from
Craig Field which is at Del Rio, I believe, Laughlin Field, were
arrested last month in his district down there, five military men last
month.
Senator DANIEL. With narcotics in their possession? Are you
referring to Mr. Richards who previously testified.
Mr. RIcHARDs. With marihuana ranging from one pound to five
pounds.
Senator DANIEL. And they were arrested?
Mr. RICHArmS. They were arrested.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Do you have any other reason to
believe that they are using these small planes to fly across the border?
Mr. AVANT. Nothing. .
Senator DANIEL: Carrying marijuana or heroin?
Mr. AVANT. I have no actual knowledge of it except that I know
we have caught planes smuggling whisky out of Mexico, caught
planes smuggling lobsters. Common sense tells you smuggling bulky
cargo like that with excess weight for a nominal profit, it would be
much more practical to smuggle a small kilo or two of heroin out for
a hundred times the profit.
Senator DANIEL. What means do we have to stop that?
Mr. AVANT. Practically nothing.
Senator
DANIEL.
2669
You mean to say there's no air patrol there on
the border ?
Mr. AVANT. The Immigration does operate an air patrol to a lim-
ited extent. I don't know the details of that.

Senator DANIEL. That is quite new, isn't it?
Senator DANIEL. That is brand new?

Senator DANIEL. That is Immigration and Naturalization, what
we usually call the Border Patrol?
Mr. GASQUE. Anybody who wanted to smuggle across the border
with a plane could just keep his eyes open and wait until the Immigration plane had gone along?
Mr. AVANT: That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any lookout to see the planes come
over?
Mr. AVANT. We set out a lookout, but as I say, we got so many reports
we couldn't do anything about it, we just abandoned it, we can't
follow when we see a plane going over five thousand feet in the air.
We tried to investigate some of them, but they are usually so high
we don't get any numbers or identification. What can you do? A
man on foot or in an automobile, he just sees a plane going over.
Senator DANIEL. Well, is it against the law for a plane to fly
across the border?
Mr. AVANT: The commerce regulations require that they report
their departure and return, and those regulations are enforced by
Customs, they report to Customs.
Senator DANIEL. They report, what about a plane coming from
Mexico? Let's talk about a plane going over to Mexico and going to
fly back. What is that plane required to do?
Mr. AVANT. Theoretically they are required to report at a customhouse in the United States and report their intentions of going to
Mexico and the probable date of their return.
Senator DANIEL. And that is all?
Senator DANIEL. And where are they inspected to see if they are
bringing back contraband?
Mr. AVANT. When they come back and land at the designated field
they are given.

Senator DANIEL. Do they have to land at port of entry.?
Mr. AVANT. Yes, sir; except, well, under certain conditions, those
regulations are waived for emergency landings, then they land anywhere.
Senator DANIEL. For emergency landings they could land anywhere,
and they could drop something out of the plane anywhere?

Mr. AVANT. Well, they could and, we do know, too, that there is
a lot of trips made down there that are never reported.
Senator DANTEL. Well, what would you recommend to do about
this?
Mr. AVANT. I have discussed it with my superiors and the only partial solution we arrived at at that time was to have paid informers
in Mexico to report certain planes, you know, people that can see them
on the ground there that might be bringing stuff out. But that is
2670
hardly practical because the communications are so bad that they

see a plane down there this afternoon at 4 o'clock, it might take them
2 days to get word to us, in the meantime the plane is in Denver or
somewhere else.
Senator DA NIEL. Well, it would appear then the best things that
have been suggested to this committee, in order to lick the narcotic
traffic, would be for us to gret the addicts, by some way get the addicts
off the street, take care of them where there would be no market for
it over here, and also to get the Mexican Government to do something
about stopping the traffic on that side of the border, would you think
that might help?
Mr. AVANT. That would be a tremendous help.
In other words,
if economic pressure is brought on the citizens of these towns, the

Mexican Government would do a whole lot toward cleaning up the
notorious places.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know any other cities besides Juarez where
they have narcotic wide-open shooting galleries?

Mr. AVANT. That is the only one I am familiar with that I know.
Senator DANIEL. Colonel Cherry, do you know of any others?
Mr. CHERRY. I have no knowledge of any other.
Senator DANIEL. You do have knowledge that there are some in
Juarez ?
Mr. CHERRY. That one he mentioned, but I have never been there
personally.
Senator DANIEL. Colonel Cherry, do you have any further suggestions to give to the committee?
Mr. CHERRY. Well, they are strictly local conditions there at El Paso
that might be helpful to us.

DANIEL. We'll be glad to hear them.
Senator
Mr. CHERRY.
One of them is, I would like to tell you we have a tremendous volume of traffic from Mexico through the port of El Paso,
probably the largest number of crossings, if not the largest on the
Mexican border, probably in the whole United States. For example,
to be brief about it, in the fiscal year 1955 we had a total of 20,379,185
people cross the Mexican border from Juarez to El Paso in 1 year,
coming this way.
Senator DANIEL. How many thousand?
Mr. CHERRY. Twenty million.
Senator DANIEL. Twenty million?
Mr. CHERRY. Twenty million plus, twenty million plus. I would
like for you to stop and think how much that is. Now, let's go back
to 1950. In 1950 there were only 14,328,000 and some odd.
Senator DANIEL. That is, coming from Mexico across the bridge;
that would include American citizens that went over and came back?
Mr. CHERRY. That includes everybody who makes trips several
times a day. Each one of those persons arriving in the United States
from Mexico is a potential importer of merchandise and he is a potential smuggler of merchandise, and that potential merchandise
smuggled might be narcotics. In 1950 we had a total of 53 employees
in my division with 14 million crossers and in 1955 we have 44 employees, with 20 million crossers. And I would like to say to you it
is a tremendous job to sift through 20 million people and find out
which one of them have narcotics or which one of them are smuggling,
'III''''''ll
2671
which one are just citizens, people going by there trying to live up to
the law and cause no trouble. It is a big job.
Senator
DANIEL.
You have less personnel now than you had back
then with much fewer people crossing?

Mr. CHERRY. That's right. So the suggestion I might make is,
one of the suggestions, that we could use an increase in personnel.
Senator DANIEL. Well, it certainly seems to me that you could, too.
Some of these figures you all have given us at this hearing are amazing to me.
Mr. CHERRY. I have these and will be glad to make them available.
Senator DANIEL. Especially in the way of personnel cut. Somebody told us that on the Laredo Bridge on Sunday when the traffic
is the heaviest, they have about half the personnel on those days.
Mr. CHERRY. I can confirm that same situation. Our personnel is
cut down somewhat on Sundays and holidays for the same reason.
Senator DANIEL. Well, on Sundays and holidays you have the heaviest traffic back and forth across the bridge, do you not?
Senator
DANIEL.
And your personnel is cut down about what per-
centage over the other days, approximately?

Mr. CHERRY. Oh, it is cut down 25 percent.
Senator
DANIEL. Why?
Mr. CHERRY. For budgetary reasons.

DANIEL. And what budgetary
CHERRY. Well, we are given only
Senator
reasons?
so much money to operate.
Mr.
We have to try to divide it up in such a way as to take care of everything, but briefly, we mean because we have to pay overtime.
DANIEL. On those
Senator
days?
Senator DANIEL. Well, I hope something can be worked out on that

before Congress meets, but if it isn't, I know this is going to be brought
to the attention of the Appropriations Committee, if the Lord wills.
This committee will continue its work and get back there to report.
Now, Mr. Avant, what about your personnel, have you been shorthanded there at the El Paso crossing?
Mr. AVANT. Not especially. We are getting 12 men, as Mr. Fleishman told you.
Senator DANIEL. You are getting them this month?

Mr. AVANT. Well, as fast as we can recruit them.
Senator DANIEL. I wonder how your agency went about getting
these extra men?

Mr. AVANT. We convinced the powers that be we had to have them.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Colonel Cherry, are you all working on the pow-
ers that be in your organization to try to get some more men?

Mr. CHERRY. Well, we are constantly but the same situation obtains
throughout the entire United States in the Customs Service I am told.
But do you have any area in which any more
dangerous article is being smuggled than along this Mexican border?

Mr. CHEmRRY. Not to my knowledge.
Senator
DANIEL.
Certainly the Canadian problem doesn't compare.
I am sorry to say that the evidence so far that we have heard shows
as much drugs going from the American side to the Canadian side as
coming from the Canadian side coming to our side.
2672
Mr. CmPiRRY. I would like to say the Collector of Customs has

called to the attention of the Bureau in Washington his apprehension
over the fact that narcotics and other merchandise are readily available for smuggling into the United States, and he is somewhat concerned about the situation.
Senator DANIEL. Are there any further questions, Mr. Counsel?
Mr. GASQUE. I wonder if the powers that be in your case sent representatives from the President's Inierdepartmental Committee on
NarcoticsI
Mr. AVANT. I don't know. We were highly pleased and a little
bit surprised ourselves with the speed with which our last request
for personnel was granted.
Mr. GASQUE. I understand that representatives from the President's
Interdepartmental Committee on Narcotics did come down and inspect
the border and that, as a consequence, he was very strong in recommending that you needed some additional people.
Mr. AVANT. I don't know about that.
Senator DANIEL. You don't know about that?
Mr. AVANT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Counsel, there's no use in your being modest.
Our committee also made that recommendation after we heard 4
months ago from the head of your agency. We saw that there did
not seem to be enough personnel on this border here. I think both
the President's Interdepartmental Committee and this committee
developed evidence confirming what you are telling us, and I hope
that had something to do with it, I am not sure. Don't be too modest
about it now and just give all the credit to the President's Interdepartmental Committee, because we did develop much of this evidence. I want to say this about it. You men have been franker
about the need of personnel than some of the higher officials have
been. We saw it was obvious that you needed the personnel, even
with the evidence we heard in Washington. For some reason or
other, diplomatic reason, they couldn't be as frank with us in Washington as you men have been. I appreciate your being so frank with
US.
Mr. Counsel?
Mr. GASQUE. Not a thing, Mr. Chairman, except to say we did
call it to the attention of the Preident's Interdepartmental Committee,
I think we gave rise to their visit.
Senator DANIEL. Gentlemen, do you have anything else to suggest?
Mr. CnEmY. I have one more thing I would like to call to your
attention. At the port of El Paso, we have a situation whereby we
feel it would be a great improvement if our facilities for the inspection
of vehicular and pedestrian traffic could be improved. As I pointed
out to you, this tremendous traffic is in a highly congested area and
with just a few more employees, we could reach a saturation point
so far as employees are concerned. We need more facilities so we can
spread this traffic out and get to it.
Senator DANIEL. Will you give us a detailed report on that in
writing later?
Mr. CHERRY. Yes, I will be glad to.
Senator DANIEL. We will be glad to have it. You know, this is an
occasion, when you are before a congressional committee, where you
can tell us things that you might not otherwise be able to volunteer,
2673
you know. So we are asking you for the information. We are asking
you to furnish that and any other suggestions you gentlemen might
have, and we certainly appreciate your coming in here from El Paso
and being with us throughout these hearings.
Mr. AVANT. Thank you.
Senator DANIEM. Thank you very much.
The chair regrets to announce that it is going to be impossible for

us to hear all of the witnesses we had called for the San Antonio
hearing, but we wish those who were subpenaed to remain under the
subpoena of this committee, in the event that we can have a further
hearing in San Antonio before January 1st.
Now, there is one witness about which there has been some question
as to where we would hear him, that is Antoine d'Agostino. The
committee has decided that it will question him in the Travis County
jail at some time before we complete the Texas hearings, in a closed
session of the committee. I regret to say that is the way in which it
must be done, but for security reasons and for other reasons which
have been thought best by those in charge of the prosecution of this
man, the committee will hear him in a closed session at the Travis
County jail. We have already heard most of the information that we
wanted to. develop with reference to this man, but we do want to give
him the opportunity to affirm or deny what has been put in this
record concerning him and his activities in the international narcotics
racket, especially with reference to his smuggling from Mexico, with
Mexico as the base of his operations, a transit point I may say in some
of his operations because the heroin came from other countries than
Mexico originally.
Now, these witnesses will please stand when your names are called:
Leo Bustemante, Gilbert Litterio, Victoria Terrasos, Maria Moreno,
Felix Ortiz. Are all of these witnesses here, except Gilbert Litterio.
Is his attorney here, Mr. Nami? He told the committee he would be
necessarily away. We were to have called his client this morning and
did not get to do it, so we will advise him that his client shall stay
under subpena of the committee to appear back in this room.
You witnesses, will you step forward, please? You will remain
under subpena of this committee. Do either of you have an attorney?
Maria MORENTO. Yes, sir, I have.
Maria MORENO. Maria Moreno.
Senator
DANIEL.
Is your attorney here in the courtroom now?
Maria MORENO. Yes.
Senator DANIML. Just be sure he is hearing. You will remain under

subpena of this committee until you are further notified and unless you
receive notice for an earlier date it will be December 14 in this room.
You understand, December 14, unless we give you further notice,
back in this room. Thank you.
Now, the next witness cannot be photographed and the television
and press will please respect that admonition and assist us in seeing
that we do not make any error and that someone who comes in later
does not make an error, because this gentleman is head of the Narcotics
Bureau here, Federal narcotics agent, and it is obvious that his identity
cannot be known by pictures. I believe the rule is not to be photo-
2674
graphed above the hands but the rule we will follow here: he is not to
be photographed at all.
Mr. Thomas H. Bromley.
(Mr. Thomas H. Bromley duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. State your name please.
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS H. BROMLEY, AGENT IN CHARGE, BUREAU

OF NARCOTICS, SAN ANTONIO, TEX.
Mr. BROMLEY. Thomas H. Bromley.
Senator DANIEL. And what is your official position?

Mr. BROMLEY. Narcotics agent in charge of San Antonio branch,
narcotics office.
Senator DANIFE,. How long have you been stationed in San
Antonio?
Mr. BROMLEY. Approximately 3 years and 8 months.
Senator DANIEL. How many men do you have under you here in
this office?
Mr. BROMLEY. Four men and a clerk.
Senator DANIEL. And what area does your office cover?
Mr. BROMLEY. It covers 58 counties in South Texas from Terrell
County above Del Rio down the river to Brownsville, takes in Corpus
Christi, swings back in behind Austin, Tex., almost to Temple, then
back again to the river.
Senator DANIEL. Fifty-six counties?
Mr. BROMLEY. Fifty-eight counties, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Fifty-eight counties, five men?
Mr. BROMLEY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What type of cooperation do you have with State
and local law enforcement officers in your narcotics enforcement?
Mr. BROMLEY. It has been excellent in the complete territory, affiliations with State, Federal and local officers and military included. In
some cases it has been outstanding. At the present time it remains
at a very excellent position insofar as Federal supervision and control
of narcotics is concerned.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have good cooperation with the officers
here in Bexar County?
Mr. BROMILEY. I do, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And in San Antonio?
Senator DANIEL. Have there been any instances since you have been
in San Antonio in which lack of cooperation has hurt the efforts to
stamp out the narcotics traffic here?
Mr. BROMLEY. None that were intentional or that could not be
resolved by a fuller or broader understanding of the problem at hand.
I would not say that would exist in the true sense.
Senator DANIEL. Now, I believe you have been kind enough to
stay with us throughout these hearings. I want to express the appreciation of this committee for all that you did and for all that your
agents did in helping to prepare for these hearings, and since you
heard all of the other testimony, I just wonder if you have any
recommendations or suggestions to make to the committee in summing
up before we close this hearing.
Mr. BROMLEY. I do have, sir.
2675
Senator DANIEL. Do you also have some statistics and other information that you prepared at our request?
Mr. BROMLEY. Yes, sir, which I will give, Mr. Speer has copies of
those.
Senator DANIEL. We will make all of this information that you
have written a part of the record at the conclusion of your testimony.
(The material submitted by Mr. Bromley will be found on p. 2679.)
Mr. BROLEY. I have, of course, as you say Senator, heard the testimony by the other officers and witnesses and they have brought up
many suggestions which I think are of paramount concern to enforcement in this particular area and, of course, nationwide. They
have brought out the matter of prior convictions, perhaps there in the
Boggs Act, and the way it operates insofar as the State laws are
concerned. One of the recommendations that I might make is that
it should be reciprocal, in that at the present time if a man is convicted in State court, then it is not considered as a second conviction
if a man is given one sentence in Federal court. In other words, he
can have five convictions in State court and then be convicted the first
ime in Federal court and lie had been given the minimum under the
Boggs Act, if that could be reciprocal I think it would greatly aid
in the curtailment of this problem by giving stronger punitive action.
Senator DANIEL. All right, do you have any other recommendation?
Let me ask you about one right offhand. Do you feel that you need
more personnel for these 58 counties?
Mr. BROMLEY. Yes, sir. I believe that more personnel in this area
would be greatly beneficial in many ways. More personnel would
naturally entail more money and more equipment. I think those
things go hand in hand. Also some consideration might be given
by the local officers that we should have-I heard one officer say who
is well qualified in my opinion and by everybody else who knows him,
that we might do better with 25 additional men. I do not believe
that 25 additional men are needed in this particular area. I think
they would crowd into a position of where they will nullify their
efforts to a oreat extent. I do, however, believe we should perhaps
double our force and give us a broader cooperative position insofar
as working with local officers are concerned. Many of them tell me
that we operate on a one-way street basis, for example, that we
expect a great deal of cooperation but when it comes down to some
of the facts where they need cooperation, such as prosecution because
of search warrants or arrests in State courts, it cannot be permitted.
Then they would have an opportunity to bring it into Federal courts
under certain conditions. I believe if that could be worked out in
some way, it would give us a broader sense of cooperation. Mr. Wine,
I believe, and I have discussed that matter on many occasions and
we have it worked out at the present time in good form, but I believe
that that would help and assist the Federal arm in keeping the
excellent position that they have now.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you think your force should be increased
at least double?
Mr. BROMLEY. Yes, sir, I believe that would assist us greatly in conducting investigations in the proper manner.
Senator DANIEL. Of course, you are well aware of the fact that it is
not the fault of the Commissioner of Narcotics or anyone in your organization probably that you do not have more men. The Bureau of
2676
Narcotics for the entire United States and for its foreign operations
has only slightly over 250 men.
Senator DANIEL. You know that?
Mr. BROMLEY. Yes, sir, I am quite well aware of it.
Senator DANIEL. The city of New York on its narcotics detail alone,
devoting whole time to narcotics, has almost as many men as the Federal Bureau of Narcotics to work the United States.
Mr. BROMLEY. Yes, sir, I was stationed there 2 years.
Senator DANIEL. You were stationed in New York?

Mr, BROMLEY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. They have now raised their force to 200 and they
told us the other day they were going to raise it to 250 which would
make it as much as the Federal Bureau has for the entire United States.
Of course, New York has about a third of all the narcotic trade in the
country.
Mr. BROMLEY. Yes, sir. So many recommendations have been made,
I feel the same way everyone else does about the wire tapping, I believe
insofar as giving us broader working tools with which to do this job, it
would be highly productive.
Senator DANIEL. Let me ask you about Corpus Christi where we
have had considerable testimony here concerning narcotic traffic. Do
you find any increase in recent months in Corpus Christi?
Mr. BROMLEY. No, sir, to the contrary, I would say that it is on the
decrease, responsible, of course, to a highly efficient narcotic squad.
Senator DANIEL. In Corpus Christi?
Mr. BROMLEY. There are 2 men in the narcotic squad in Corpus
Christi who do the ordinary work of 8 or 10 men anywhere else I
have seen.
Senator DANIEL. Is that what we have been reading about latelymore action on the squad?
Mr. BROMLEY. The lieutenant in charge of this squad constitutes two
men himself and a detective who has a great deal of initiative and intelligence on the subject, an excellent officer of long standing and one
who understands the problem and the methods of operation and has the
complete cooperation of his local courts, to the point where it has almost eliminated our need for going in there on anything except the
larger type cases where extra funds and specialized equipment and
training is needed.
Senator DANIEL. What do you mean by cooperation from the courts?
Mr. BROMLEY. When he makes a case he gets prosecution, it is run
through.
Senator
DANIEL.
Fast prosecution?
Mr. BROMLEY. Fast prosecution and they give them precedence per-
haps over other cases, but they do get handled through their courts.
Senator DANIEL. What about the sentences?
Mr. BROMLEY. The sentences are good.
Senator DANIEL. Heavy sentences?
Mr. BROMLEY. Yes, sir, in keeping with what Mr. Green, our district attorney here for Bexar County, described.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think that rapid trials, that is, getting to
trial soon after arrests and then heavy sentences will dry up the narcotic traffic in most any city?
Mr. BROMLEY. It will aid greatly.
2677
Senator DANIEL. Would you say that has been done in Corpus
Christi ?
Mr.
BROMLEY.
Not to the extent I describe as being desirable but
it is in excellent form, very much like as described by District Attorney

Green here for Bexar County.
Senator DANIEL. What about Victoria, what is the situation there?
Mr. BROMLEY. Victoria is out of my territory but on occasion about
2 years ago, 3 years ago, I did work out Victoria.
Senator DANIEL. You did what?

Mr. BROMLEY. I did work out Victoria on an investigative planning
operation, undercover operation, which at that time brought to justice

approximately 95 or 98 percent of all the marijuana peddlers in the
city. They had no heroin problem except perhaps on a transient basis,
a deal made on brokerage business.
Senator DANIEL. What did you do there?
Mr. BROMLEY. All of these cases were taken into Federal courts and
all but 3 of the 13 defendants were given suspended sentences or
probation.
Mr. GASQUE. All of the 13 violators except 3 were given suspended
sentences?
Mr. BROMLEY. Yes, sir, or paroled.
Mr. GASQUE. Probation or parole?
Mr. BROMLEY. I mean probation.

Senator DANIEL. Federal court or State court?
Mr. BROMLEY. Federal court.

Senator DANIEL. Well, were you satisfied with those sentenceswhat was the reaction by the city officials of Victoria or your officials,
either?
Mr. BROMLEY. Well, officially or otherwise, I know of no reaction
on our part. The action by the court of course, stood as it was but
the comments that were passed to me
by the agents that attended
the
trial down there upon completion of the court term advised me that
the sheriff and chief of police in that town told them that in the
future they expected to avoid the Federal court in every way possible
in order to take it into a court that would give them sentences commensurate with the crimes committed.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any detailed information about these
13 cases at Victoria?
Mr. BROMLEY. No, sir, I have no detailed information.
Senator DANIEL. Would you work it up for us?
Mr.
BROMLEY.
Yes sir, I will.
Senator DANIEL. Could you have one of your agents give us the
information and any statements that you can obtain from the local
officers there about the cases?
Mr. BROMLEY. All right, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Now, what about Austin, do you have good cooperation wtih the local officers there?
Mr.
BROMLEY.
Yes, sir. Since I have been here, over 3
has been perfect.
Senator
DANIEL.
years, it
It has been excellent in every possible sense.
We had a hearing in Austin on Wednesday and a
name came out over there, Simona Cavazos, in testimony from a

mother who told about coming over here and buying narcotic drugs
for her son, her young son who had become a heroin addict. She said
she felt to keep him from doing something worse than that, before
2678
he could get into a hospital, she ought to go and help him get the
drugs. Whether that was a mistake or not, she did it and she told
us of coming over here and buying at a certain place from a woman
named Simona Cavazos. Do you know that woman?
Senator DANIEL. Has she been arrested?
Senator DANIEL. Is she now awaiting charges?
Mr. BROMLEY. Yes , sir, she is at present in the Bexar County jail
awaiting charges of violation.

Senator DANIEL. Federal violations?
Senator DANIEL. I suppose you are acquainted with some Austin
people coming over to buy from this woman, are you?

Mr. BROMLEY. Yes, sir, it has been a matter of concern to this office for years.
Senator DANIEL. Did you find that this woman was selling to
juveniles?
Mr. BROMLEY. I have had no direct knowledge of that, sir. I have
never been able to prove such. I have heard that but that is all I can
say, we never have been able to prove it.
Senator DANIEL. Was she working with a man named Ray Murdock?
Mr. BROMLEY. Yes, sir, Ray Murdock was her paramour, in spite
of the fact she lived there with her reputed to be husband.
Senator DANIEL. How was that?
Mr. BROMLEY. Ray Murdock was reputed to be a paramour of
Simona, even though all lived in the same house with her husband
included. But he was found guilty this spring and given a 12-year
sentence in this court.
Senator DANIEL. Now, was that a Federal sentence?
Mr. BROMLEY. Federal sentence; yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
So Ray Murdock is in the penitentiary now?
Mr. BROMLEY. Serving his 12 years; yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. The penitentiary or one of the hospitals?
Mr. BROMLEY. He probably went to one of the hospitals to effect a
complete cure but from that he will go to Leavenworth or such institution as is designated.
Senator DANIEL. He is an addict?
Mr. BROMLEY. An old inveterate user of narcotics and a hardened
criminal.
Senator. DANIEL. Do you mean a hardened criminal?
Mr. BROMLEY. He had four previous convictions, his attitude in the
courtroom, when you would speak to him, and our knowledge of him
on the street definitely placed him in the category of a hardened
criminal.
Senator DANIEL. You know, once in a while you hear people who
want to establish clinics and treat confirmed addicts, who say you
ought to give free drugs; they say the addicts are harmless. Have
you seen other hardened criminals, who would perform heinous crimes,
who were addicts?

Mr. BROMLEY. Yes, sir; among all branches of the dope, I mean
narcotic users, that is, the marihuana and the narcotic drugs, all of
them have their moments, as you might say.
2679
Senator DANIEL. Before we close this record I am glad to get that

information in the record concerning Simona Cavazos since we had so
much testimony concerning that person over in Austin. I wanted the
record to show that she is now in the jail and under Federal charges.
Now, I wish that we had time to hear considerably more from you.
Do you have any other recommendations other than what you have
in writing there, Mr. Bromley?
Mr. BROMLEY. No, sir, I don't believe so, in addition to what has
already been recommended, some of which I had in mind.
Senator DANIEL. We will include your entire written statement at
this point in the record. I certainly want to say again how much we
appreciate all that you have done toward helping us with these committee sessions.
(Following is the prepared statement of Mr. Bromley:)
STATEMENT OF THOMAS H. BROMLEY, AGENT IN CHARGE, SAN ANTONIO BRANCH
OFFICE, BUREAU OF NARCOTICS
A. Total number of defendants and quantities of seizures of heroin and marihuana for the years 1953, 1954, and 1955:
Defendants
Seizures
1953:
Narcotic --------------------------------------------Marihuana ---------------------------------------------
76
103
16 ounces heroin_
156 pounds marihuana ----
179
Total -------------------------------------------------------------------------------1954:
Narcotic --------------------------------------------------------------------------Marihuana
Total----------.
---------------------------------------. ------. -----------......
1955:
-------------------------------Narcotic
Marihuana ----------------------------------------------
33
31
25 ounces heroin ------------222 ponds marihuana -----....
.64
23
10
4 ounces heroin -----------783 pounds marihuana -----
33
Total --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Total number of addicts reported from the San Antonio branch office territory for the years 1953, 1954, and 1955:
Over 21
1953 ----------------------------------------------------------1954 --------------------------------------------------------1955 ----------------------------------------------------------Total --------------------------------------------------
Under 21
Total
164
54
98
22
7
12
186
61
110
316
41
357
C. Noteworthy undercover activities and accomplishments by agents during

the years 1953, 1954 and 1955:
1953
1. Adelaida Lita Demos and Richard A. Najera both have one previous narcotic conviction bringing them under the Boggs Act. On November 3, 1952,
Najero was sentenced to 5 years and on November 5, 1952, Demos was sentenced
to 5 years. Najero went on to the penitentiary but Demos immediately filed
notice of appeal. The appeal was heard before the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals during the fall of 1953 and confirmed the conviction. On November
9, 1953, the Supreme Court denied an application by the defense for a writ of
certiorari, however, the mandate was delayed until June 16, 1954, 2 years after
she violated the narcotic law, before the United States marshal was directed
to take her into custody to begin the 5-year sentence.
2680
Lita Demos was one of San Antonio's largest receivers of stolen goods and
accepted stolen merchandise in exchange for narcotic drugs. Many of the
top-flight shoplifters in San Antonio did regular business with her. A narcotic
agent operating under cover made his first purchase of heroin from Lita Demos
and Richard Najero June 12, 1952, and again on June 15 and 17, 1952, of approximately 4 grams heroin for $125.00.
2. During 1953 one narcotic agent assigned to the San Antonio office developed
cases against 22 defendants In San Antonio, I defendant in Del Rio, 13 defendants in Victoria, Tex., and 11 defendants In Austin.
3. Undercover work by the narcotic agent in Victoria, Tex., constituted the
largest single clean-up ever accomplished in that city's narcotic problem and
an estimated 95 percent of the marihuana peddlers there were arrested as a
result of his excellent work.
4. When working in the city of Austin during 1953 with cooperation from
their vice squad through the services of a special employee developed by the
San Antonio Police Department, narcotic squad, 21 defendants were arrested.
One of the undercover agents was successful in working into the source of
supply for this group of Austin peddlers by developing a case in Corpus Christi
which involved 3 defendants and arrest of a Mexican citizen in Laredo. It will
be noted this important cleanup was accomplished with the cooperation of the
Austin, San Antonio and Corpus Christi Police Departments.
5. A narcotic agent working with the sheriff's department in Nueces County,
Corpus Christi, Tex., and the police department in Kingsville, Tex., developed
a case against an important Kingsville source of supply. The principal violator
Arturo B. Garcia and his accomplice Jesus Gomez were smuggling marihuana
from Mexico for consumption by students at the Texas A. and I. College of
Kingsville and navy personnel of the naval auxiliary air station of Kingsville
and the naval air station in Corpus Christi. Garcia at the time was a student
and ex-GI attending the Texas A. and I. College in Kingsville.
I (NOTE.-67 ounces, 125 grains marihuana seized; $210 expended for purchase
of evidence; both defendants received 5-year suspended sentence.)
6. A narcotic agent working in an undercover capacity in 1953 was successful
in developing a case against major violator George Gilmore, at Truelove, and
two other defendants in San Antonio and El Paso, Tex. They were engaged
in the trafficking of marihuana to New York, Detroit, Baltimore, Washington,
and Chicago from Mexico. Twenty-one pounds of marihuana were purchased
for $1,000. The customs agency service cooperated in the El Paso area. One
defendant found not guilty, and the other two principals are out on appeal
since date of sentence, October 22, 1954.
7. San Antonio narcotic agents In San Antonio developed cases against major
violator Guadalupe Villareal Rocha and two others. Rocha supplied marihuana
and heroin in San Antonio proper and other major metropolitan areas in Texas.
Thirty-five pounds of marihuana and 114 ounces heroin were seized; $730 was
expended for evidence purchases. Rocha was sentenced to 10 years.
8. In the latter part of 1953, while working in an undercover capacity under
the supervision of narcotic agents, an airman of the United States Air Force,
then stationed at Randolph AFB purchased heroin and marihuana from narcotic
traffickers in San Antonio, eliminating 19 narcotic traffickers and major sources
of supply in this important military area.
9. Alfonso and Enrique Trevino Ramos of Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico,
were wholesale suppliers of both heroin and marihuana out of the Rio Grande.
With the cooperation from Treasury representative Benjamin S. White of
Mexico City, Mexico and Federal officers of the Republic of Mexico, narcotic
cases were developed against both of the Trevinos. Alfonso was arrested February 13, 1953, and Enrique was arrested June 14, 1953, in Nuevo Laredo, and
both for sale of 10 grams of heroin each -for a sale price of $200 each. Both
defendants were sentenced to 7 years in prison In Nuevo Laredo jail. They
have since been released after serving approximately 2 years of their sentence,
and it has been reported that the son Arturo carried on the same business all
the time has father and uncle were in jail.
1954
1. During the fall of 1954, narcotic agents working in San Antonio developed
cases against a major group of wholesale dealers working together named
George Georges, Mike Georges, Gregorio de Luna and Rudy Flores out of the
Embassy Bar on West Commerce Street. They dealt In large quantities of
Mexican heroin obtained from Julio Almarez Bazan of Laredo, Tex., and Nuevo
2681
Laredo, Mexico, to large dealers in major Texas cities, Oklahoma City, Kansas
City and Denver, Colo.
NoTE.-George Georges was found not guilty; Mike Georges received a 4-year
sentence as did Gregorio de Luna. Rudy Flores sentenced to 10 years as first
offender. (De Luna filed notice of appeal and is out on bond.)
2. A narcotic agent working undercover in Austin and San Antonio with full
cooperation of the Austin Police Department, was successful in developing a
narcotic case involving seven dealers in Austin and their source of supply dealer
in San Antonio who was a major violator having four prior convictions for
violations of Federal narctic laws-a hardened criminal addict selling to dealers
in all metropolitan Texas areas.
Years
8entence
Raymond Murdock
----------------------------------------------12
Sebe Stephenson
------------------------------------------------10
Ernestine Sullivan
-----------------------------------------------2
(armel Campbell
------------------------------------------------5
Jose Gonzales
--------------------------------------------------6
Willie C. Eaton
------------------------------------------------3
Arthur M. Fulton
------------------------------------------------5
1Iuby King -----------------------------------------------------3
The sum of $137 expended for purchase of 37 grains heroin.
31. A narcotic agent from district No. 2, New York City, working in an undercover capacity over an extended period of time during 1954 was successful in
developing a marihuana and heroin case against Eugene J. Sullivan, Louis V.
Cawley and E. L. Brice (Cawley an American citizen residing in Tampico,
Mexico). Although the agent's operations centered in San Antonio, Tex. Sullivan
negotiations with these defendants in Austin, Dallas and Waco, Tex. Sullivan
and Brice had been engaged in the narcotic traffic over a period of 6 years as
important sources of supply for both marihuana and heroin doing business both
ways to New York City and other metropolitan northeastern areas. Eighty-one
pounds of marihuana seized, 8 grams heroin seized, $1,100 expended for purchase
O evidence.
October 24, 1955, is trial date on these defendants in Federal court, San Antonio,
Tex. Sullivan now serving 10-year sentence in State prison, Huntsville, Tex.,
on State charges in this case.
4. Narcotic agents working undercover in Corpus Christi, Tex., with the
(ooperation of the Corpus Christi Police Department narcotic squad developed
cases against 11 defendants peddling both marihuana and heroin on a wholesale
basis during the period July to November 1954.
5. During January 1954, the Customs Agency Service coordinating, a narcotic
agent was successful in developing a narcotic case in Eagle Pass, Tex., involving
3 defendants who were international traffickers of narcotic drugs in wholesale
qnntities to major Texas cities, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, and Chicago.
Years
sentcnce
Nasario J. Benavides
---------------------------------------------5
Mathias Benavides
-----------------------------------------------5
Francisco M. Tovilas
------------------------------------------5
The sum of $5,565 expended for purchase of evidence totaling 14 ounces heroin$4,500 recovered.
6. In 1954 a narcotic agent working undercover developed a case against a
San Antonio tavern owner, David R. Trevino, by the purchase of 111 grains heroin
for $240, and he was sentenced to 5 years. This case culminated with the
arrest also of his source of supply, one Dolores Rodriguez who delivered to him
direct from Mexico the amount of 2 ounces 372 grains heroin which amount was
seized without expense, she receiving a 4-year sentence.
7. In 1954 a narcotic agent working undercover developed a case against Carlos
R. Vasquez in Del Rio, Tex., expending $1,200 in the purchase of 3 ounces of
bulk morphine, he receiving a 5-year suspended sentence. Vasquez was a Mexican
citizen and principal member of a large wholesale combine in Villa Acuna,
Mexico, supplying dealers in Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio, Houston, Kansas
U'ity and Chicago.
26S2
1955
1. During the spring of 1955 two narcotic agents working in San Antonio and
Laredo, Tex., developed cases against 14 narcotic and marihuana dealers in
wholesale lots. Although all the dealers were important sources of supply, one
of the defendants in Laredo (Julio A. Bazan-not yet tried) and San Antonio
defendant Pete Rodriguez (See internation list No. 218A) were international
violators supplying narcotics to Los Angeles and San Francisco, Calif., Seattle,
Wash., Denver, Colo., Kansas City, Chicago and other major violators through
the United States. He had connections in New York City and maintained an
expensive residence and automobiles in Mexico City-he supplied major dealers in
San Antonio, Galveston, Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth. Eight hundred and
sixty dollars were expended for the purchase of approximately 2 ounces of heroin
and negotiations were in process for kilo lots (35 ounces).
2. Narcotic agents in August 1955 working with the San Antonio sheriffs'
department, developed arrests of Modesto, Guadalupe and Maria Rodriguez for
sale and possession of 67 pounds of marihuana-found guilty in September 1955
term of Federal court and now awaiting sentence. They supplied wholsesalers
in Austin, Corpus Christi, Houston and Galveston, Tex., obtaining their supplies directly from Mexico through Monterrey and Nuevo Laredo suppliers.
3. On September 28, 1955, with a vice squad detective from Austin Police
Department operating as the undercover buyer, arrests were concluded of Simona
D. Cavazos, Alfonso Cavazos, Patsy Terrazos and John Palmer, Jr., and the seizure
of 34 grams of heroin. $520 were expended for the purchase of evidence and
$430 were recovered upon arrest and seizure. This case against one of San
Antonio's most important wholesale combines was also coordinated and aided
by San Antonio Police Department narcotic squad officers. All defendants
waived hearing and are awaiting trial in Federal court. These violators supplied dealers and bueysr in wholesale quantities from Austin, Ft. Worth, Dallas,
Houston, Galveston, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, Denver and Chicago-also
New Orleans.
D. Description of traffic in San Antonio, Austin, Corpus Christi and Border
areas:
Marihuana.-Observations during recent months indicate the use of marihuana in the San Antonio area is considerable in some sections of the city.
These source of supply dealers can obtain marihuana in large quantities in
Mexico on short notice. They make deliveries within 3 to 10 days after orders
are placed. Austin peddlers obtain regular supplies in small lots from San
Antonio dealers, however traffic there appears considerably restricted at the
present time.
In Corpus Christi the availability of marihuana appears to be at an alltime low
because of the excellent curtailment activities performed by the Corpus Christi
Police Department narcotic squad under its Lt. W. T. Jackson.
In the Border areas, the marihuana problem seems to be mainly transient
dealers, both inter- and intra-state, who smuggle considerable large quantities
or handle on a commission basis through various ports of entry.
Heroin.-In San Antonio the prices of heroin have dropped about 33 percent
during the past 3 years on a retail basis. There is considerable business in
ounce lots of gram decks (27 grams to the ounce) transacted with out-of-town
dealers. The wholesale price of heroin has remained almost constant throughout the past several years in San Antonio. Although numerous source of supply
dealers and their peddlers have been apprehended by local, Federal and State
officers during the past few years, we have tabulated 357 addicts since January 1953. There is a large number of San Antonio dealers transferring on
contraband which have been smuggled out of Mexico to a constant out-of-town
dealer trade.
With respect to Austin and vicinity, narcotic traffic is somewhat impaired as
a result of continued enforcement activity and implementation of the new State
compulsory addict laws, but, there is some traffic with San Antonio dealers as
well as with dealers in Mexico.
With respect to Corpus Christi, narcotic traffic has been greatly reduced because of the highly efficient police department narcotic squad. Addicts in the
Corpus Christi area generally obtain small quantities of the drug from larger
dealers in San Antonio, San Diego and Mexico.
E. The narcotic purchaser can negotiate with the large wholesale dealer only by
having sufficient funds to purchase evidence in large quantities:
Enforcement by narcotic agents in this territory has ranged generally toward
the larger sources of supply and necessary expenditure of large purchase funds has
reduced the volume of cases.
2683
F. Cooperation with other enforcement agencies:

1. San Antonio.-The San Antonio Police Department narcotic squad cooperates with Federal narcotic officers. Chief George Bischel has organized an effective narcotic squad, and, during the past few years close liaison has resulted in
the joint development of important cases.
2. San Antonio Sheriff'8 Department.-Offers every cooperation with Its limited personnel. Recently a case against Modesto Rodriguez, Guadalupe and
Maria Rodriguez and the sizure of 67 pounds of marihuana were completed.
3. San Antonio Constable's Precinct No. 1.-Gave valuable assistance in the
development of information in the case against Pilar Casares and Joe G. Martinez
resulting in the seizure of 5Y2 ounces of heroin in 1954.
4. Corpus Christi.-There has been outstanding cooperation with the Corpus
Christi Police Department for the last 3/2 years to the present time. They were
encouraged a year and a half ago to set up their own narcotic squad. Their Lt.
W. T. Jackson has done the best single handed narcotic job in Texas in enforcement including sentences obtained in state court.
5. Cooperation with the Austin Police Department has always been excellent.
Numerous cases have been jointly conducted with officers of the department's
vice squad. They have on occasion furnished officers to work in an undercover
capacity (the Simona Davilla Cavazos et al. case).
6. The Austin sheriff's office has been alert to the narcotic problem through
their Sheriff T. 0. Lang, as evidenced by the Robert Sanchez case where an
attempt was made to establish a pipeline to university students of marihuana and
heroin.
7. Border area.-Cooperation with each and every officer attached to the
customs agency service has been competent, effective, and highly satisfactory
as illustrated by several noteworthy occasions where national and international
violators were brought to justice through joint efforts. The various cities enforcement officers have worked well but limited because of activity of agents in
San Antonio. Brownsville and Harlingen police departments have been particularly cooperative.
G. Coordination with the territory's Military Establishment:
There has been continuous cooperation and liaison with the various military
establishments, Army, Air Force and Navy in this southern territory. During
the year 1952. as a result of close cooperation with officers of the Bergstrom AFB
and the Austin Police Department, a narcotic agent working undercover from
April 9 through May 2, 1952, was successful in developing cases against 10
defendants, in San Antonio, Austin, and Corpus Christi, Tex. Five of the
defendants had previous narcotic records and dealt in wholesale quantities onlyfrom grams to ounce lots of heroin and from 5 to 100 pounds of marihuana.
Similarly, through the efforts of the San Antonio area provost marshal and
the commanding officers of all surrounding bases, a large number of cases have
been developed against both major dealers and peddlers of lesser importance.
Strong and effective action conducted jointly between the military, the city squad,
and Federal narcotic officers resulted in good containment of the Armed Forces
personnel problems. Unless Federal narcotic officers give direct assistance in
the utilization of their enlisted personnel in an undercover capacity, they claim
they cannot avoid the restrictions of the posse comitatus act. Limited Federal
narcotic personnel necessarily curtails full exploitation of such assistance as
they offer from time to time and their narcotic problems in this area have been
accelerating.
Hl. Cooperation with customs agency service:
There has been continuous cooperation and liaison with the customs agency
service officers in this area. Although our duties are closely related, the Bureau
of Narcotics performs investigations on domestic narcotic and marihuana traffickers whereas the customs agency service concentrates on the foreign trafficker
or smuggler of such contraband. During the past several years, through joint
efforts, four cases of particular importance were developed. The nine defendants
involved in these cases were international traffickers of both heroin and marihuana and their elimination could not have been brought about as readily without
the mutual cooperation and aid between our agencies.
Senator DANIEL. Before I adjourn or declare a recess of this cornrnittee I want to again thanik von, our committee staff. our reporter,
and all of the law-enforcement officials and other witnesses who have
71515-56-pt. 7-
22
2684
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
appeared before us, especially the press, the television, and the radio,
WOAI, for giving up all its programs 2 days to run these hearings
as a public service. I think it is a good public service, not only to
the committee and to the Congress but to the public, the people of
the country, in letting them know how dangerous this narcotic traffic
is, what a menace it is, what a cancer it is in our society. I hope that
this committee will end up with recommendations that will help
us get new laws, improvements in our laws, more personnel and above
all, that the public as well as the Members of Congress will give the
law-enforcement officers the support that they should have in our
efforts to pass any needed legislation.
I thank you, the members of the press and all others who have been
with us in these meetings.
We will stand recessed at the call of the Chair. 1We will meet, if
not before, then in the Federal Court Building, in Houston, October
17, 1955, at 10 o'clock.
(A letter to Mr. Lee Speer, investigator, Senate Subcommittee on
Improvements in the Federal Criminal Code, San Antonio, Tex., from
J. H. Osborn, postal inspector Inspection Service, United States Post
Office Department, dated October 13, 1955, on the relationship between
thefts of mail and addicts, may be found in the appendix at p. 3499.)
(Whereu pon at 5: 30 p. m. the subcommittee recessed to reconvene
at 10 a. m., October 17, 1955, in Houston, Tex.)
11111111

MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1955
IN

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENTS
THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE OF THE
Houston, Tex.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a. m., in courtroom
No. 2, United States Courthouse and Post Office Building, Senator
Present: Senator Price Daniel, of Texas (presiding).
Also present: C. Aubrey Gasque, subcommittee counsel; Lee Speer,
committee investigator.
Let the record show the presence today of the chairman, our
counsel, Mr. Aubrey Gasque, to the chairman's right, and our chief
investigator, Mr. Wayland Lee Speer, to the chairman's left, and

we are glad to have sitting with us today Mr. Malcolm Wilkey,
United States attorney here in Houston.
Senator Eastland has notified us that he is on the way. I hope
that he will get here for part of the Houston hearings at least, but he
will be here for as much of the rest of the Texas hearings, as possible.
In the meantime, the chairman has the approval of the entire committee to proceed with the hearings.
The first witness today will be Chief of Police Jack Heard, and while
the witness is coming to the witness chair, the Chair would like to
make this word of explanation concerning the hearing here in Houston:
This is simply a part of our nationwide investigation of the narcotics traffic, the first that has ever been authorized by the Congress.
We are going into all places in the United States which happen to be
within the concentration of the traffic, according to evidence developed
by us in our first hearings. It so happens that Houston, I regret to
say, is among the top 45 cities in the Nation as far as addiction
arrests and convictions are concerned.
I might add that the original item that interested me in this matter
was a grand jury report early this year from the Federal grand jury
here in the southern district of Texas pointing out how the narcotics
traffic seemed to be increasing, and that more should be done about
it. At this time I would like to make a part of the record the report
from the grand jury, which was meeting at that time in Galveston.
(The report of the grand jury is as follows:)
To the honorable judge of the United States District Court, Southern District of
Texas, Galveston Division
The Federal grand jury in session for the Galveston Division of the Southern
District of Texas for the January term 1955 here tenders to this court a report of
findings and recommendations which are based on its observations during the
2685
2686
current session. That this report is tendered to the court for appropriate action,
with the request that it be forwarded to officials of the United States Government
as deemed proper by the court.
During the current session of this body, the largest number of cases presented
to it were cases which involved either the sale, possession, transportation, or
smuggling of narcotics and marihuana, except for immigration cases. That this
grand jury, upon questioning of witnesses, was advised and believes that the
southern portion of Texas is a most fertile field for narcotic traffic and is probably
one in which narcotic traffic is greater than in other areas of the United States.
This grand jury was informed that for a 3-State area of Texas, Mississippi, and
Louisiana, there are currently approximately 17 Federal narcotic agents assigned,
which number does not include clerical help, persons in a supervisory capacity,
or special employees of the Bureau of Narcotics.
This grand jury further has information that the number of narcotic agents
operating in this area is below the assigned number of agents which are authorized
and is far less today than it was 3 or 4 years ago. It was further ascertained that
the traffic in narcotics and marihuana has remained about the same or has increased slightly.
This body was advised that a narcotic addict may require as much as $35 to
$40 a day in narcotics, and it is peculiarly within the knowledge of this grand jury
that the average person cannot realize this amount of money from a legal source
which necessarily results in the conclusion that the sum of money mentioned is
the result of robberies, thefts, burglaries, etc. It is within the personal knowledge
of the members of this grand jury that the gulf coast area of Texas from Orange to
Corpus Christi is one of the fastest growing areas in population and industry in
the United States today. That it is the belief of this body that as the population
increases, the crime rate also increase, and as an incident to the rising crime,
particularly in the narcotic field, the loss in terms of money and property to lawabiding citizens becomes greater.
The cases presented to this grand jury and the. testimony elicited clearly indicate that the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in this area, while understaffed, is
performing an outstanding duty in its detection and apprehension of narcotic
and marihuana pushers. However, this grand jury realizes and believes that
the problem of apprehension and detection in the field of narcotics and marihuana
is not one that should be under the sole jurisdiction of the United States Treasury
Department, Bureau of Narcotics, but is one that must necessarily come under
the joint jurisdiction of the Federal Government and the local county and State
law enforcement officials. It is apparent to this grand jury that the Federal
agents, assisted in some areas by local law enforcement officials, are apprehending
narcotic law violators in numbers, there is still a greater percentage of violators
who escape undetected and unapprehended, and that such percentage can be
greatly reduced by an increase in trained narcotic agents in this area. This
body must necessarily conclude that an increase in the number of agents assigned
to this area would materially effect an increase in the number of narcotic violators
who are apprehended, and as an incident to the apprehension of these violators,
would result in a lowering of violations of the State laws.
It is this grand jury's conclusion and recommendation that there is a lack of
trained narcotic agents in this particular area encompassed within the Southern
District of Texas, and that the percentage of narcotic violators who escape undetected is far greater than the number who are detected and subsequently apprehended. That this grand jury would recommend an increase in the staff of the
Federal Narcotic Bureau in this area and cannot too strongly urge such increase
and an increase in the appropriations allowed the Narcotic Bureau for its operation.
Respectfully submitted.
E. M. HUGGINS, Jr.,
Foreman.
LEE H. COLLINS,
Deputy Foreman.
H. W. NOWOTNY
MZ ember of the Grand Jury.
C. A. DANKLEFS, Secretary.
Senator DANIEL. Chief, will you be sworn, please?

(Mr. Jack Heard, chief of police, city of Houston, was thereupon
duly sworn by the chairman.)
2687
TESTIMONY OF J. F. HEARD, CHIEF OF POLICE, HOUSTON, TEX.

Senator DANIEL. State your name, please.
Mr. HEARD. J. F. Heard.
Senator
DANIEL.
And your official position?
Mr. HEARD. Is chief of police, city of Houston, Tex.

Senator DANIEL. How long have you served in that position?
Mr.
HEARD. Slightly over a year.

Senator DANIEL. And prior to that
time you had experience with
the Houston Police Department?
Mr.
HEARD. Yes, sir; I had, Senator.

Senator DANIEL. Do you consider the
narcotics traffic a serious
problem in Houston?
Mr. HEARD. Yes, sir; I do.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think that the narcotics traffic here in
Houston is responsible for crime, other than narcotics addiction and
narcotic peddling?
Mr. HEARD. Yes, sir; I do, Senator. I believe that taking all
things into consideration, that probably 50 percent of our crime can
be traced either directly or indirectly to narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. By that you mean that you think that 50 percent of all crime in Houston could be dried up if you could dry up the
narcotics traffic and addiction?
Mr. HEARD. Yes, sir. I might explain that a little further. When
I said directly or indirectly, for example, our safe burglaries, approximately 75 percent of all safe burglaries in this area can be traced to
narcotics or to narcotic addicts.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any other -figure that you would like
to present along that line?
Mr. HEARD. Yes, sir. About 15 percent-we have approximately
a 15-percent increase in burglaries this year, that is burglaries of all
types, such as house burglaries, store burglaries, and so forth, and a
good percentage of this can be traced directly, the robberies, and so
forth, to narcotics and narcotics addicts, and of robberies, burglaries,
and so forth, on a percentage basis, I would say approximately 50
percent of all crimes can be traced directly or indirectly to traffic in
narcotics or to individuals addicted to the same.
Senator DANIEL. Chief, do you have a prepared statement?
Mr. HEARD. Yes, sir; I do.
Senator DANIEL. We will make your prepared statement a part of
the record here in full, together with all of the statistics you might
have arranged for us. In the meantime, you may proceed as you
desire, either to read from your statement or to summarize it. Also
the committee would be glad to hear any recommendations you might
have, and any information concerning the narcotics traffic in Houston,
together with any recommendations you can give to us.
(The prepared statement of Mr. Heard is as follows:)
STATEMENT FROM J. F. HEARD, CHIEF OF POLICE, HOUSTON, TEXAS, TO SENATE
SUBCOMMITTEE INVESTIGATING NARCOTICS.
SUBMITTED TO THE HONORABLE
SENATOR
PRICE
OCTOBER
17, 1955
DANIEL
AND
HONORABLE
SENATOR
JAMES
0.
EASTALND,
Narcotics is recognized as a problem confronting law enforcement officials not

only in Houston Tex., but in practically all major cities within the United States.
Although not a new problem it is one that has been brought to the attention of the
public in recent years to a greater degree. Looking at narcotics alone as a problem
2688
for law-enforcement officers does not cover the full extent of the problem.
It is
my earnest opinion that a considerable amount of the increase in other crimes can
be traced directly to the use of narcotics. In Houston alone this year the burglary
rate has increased approximately 15 percent. We realize that some of this increase
can be traced directly to the fact that we do not have a sufficient number of lawenforcement officers in Houston and Harris County. To properly furnish the
community with the preventive methods of policing that are necessary for correct
law enforcement but at the same time we find that one of our most serious problems does arise from the use of narcotics. The use and sale of narcotics itself being
not only a violation of the law but the requirement that the body needs forces the
individual into the commission of other crimes to supply this need, thereby not
only creating and continuing a narcotic problem but a law-enforcement problem
in other crimes, particularly robbery and burglary and theft cases.
We find that one of our most serious problems in the enforcement of robbery
and burglary cases is the narcotic user being arrested, allowed numerous bonds
during which time he is free to commit any type of crime and during the same
time continuing in the use of narcotics. It is common knowledge amongst lawenforcement officials in this area that addicts contribute a large-percentage to our
burglary records. Based on records in the Houston Police Department, it is
felt that approximately 75 percent of our safe burglaries are committed by addicts.
And although we will attempt to cover in this particular report safe burglaries
and robberies, this report does not cover many other offenses which have been
traced to the addicts, such as shoplifting, burglary, auto theft, forgery, and the
procuring of girls for prostitution in order to help the addict party secure money
for his habit. We feel that if it were made more difficult for criminals to secure
bond. the police officers of the Houston Police Department would have more time
to direct attention to other cases. For example the case of Luther Spurgeon
Messer, released from the penitentiary in June of 1955, was charged with possession of heroin on July 8, 1955, posted bond of $1,000. On September 16, 1955,
again arrested for the possession of heroin with one Dolly Harris, well known to
this department. Subject is presently in the county jail on this last charge but
under our present system again would be eligible for bond which would make three
cases where this individual was arrested for the possession of heroin and allowed
bond and the freedom to roam the streets and commit other crimes. Attached
to this report please find the Houston Police Department Bureau of Identification
record of Luther Messer which consists of three pages tracing the history of this
individual when he was first brought to our attention, up until the present day.
(See the appendix at p. 3544.)
It is our sincere belief that this is one of our weakest escape clauses in the present
laws for the law enforcement officials and one of the strongest points in our present
laws for the criminal. It gives the criminal the opportunity and the advantage
in that he is protected by our laws which we as police officers are sworn to enforce.
It is generally considered by police officers that, once arrested and charged, the
criminal is on the street almost as fast as the officer. We do not attempt to lay
the blame for this on any one individual or group but sincerely wish to point up
the fact that under our present laws the criminal has freedom in his activities
with the protection afforded by the laws covering an individual's bond. We
strongly urge and recommend changes in our present laws covering the bonds and
criminal cases. As stated before, we feel that is one of our greatest assets to the
criminal. It is sometimes disheartening to find an individual with a long criminal
record arrested in 2 or 3 cases and even allowed and in additional cases. We wish
also to point up another problem concerning appeal bonds and that is where an
individual convicted of a crime-and this occurs in narcotic cases also-is tried and
convicted and sentenced and then is allowed an appeal bond, then while on appeal
bond is caught, tried, and convicted on following cases while still out on appeal
bond in the original case. For example, let us say that an individual is arrested,
tried, and convicted in a felony case and sentenced to 10 years in the penitentiary,
then makes an appeal bond, then while on appeal bond is arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced in two other cases and given 10 years in each case. Then
when he is sentenced, it is generally found that he may serve all 30 years within
a 10-year period, all cases running concurrently. We are not attempting to
criticize the judgment or the rights of the courts, but we do wish to point out the
problem it does create for law-enforcement officials where an individual is allowed
freedom to commit crimes while under bond.
To cite an additional case recently brought to our attention, the case of Jerry
Wayne Connor. This individual was arrested on January 12, 1955, for the sale
and possession of marihuana. Sentenced to 2 years in the penitentiary made an
appeal bond and since January of 1955 until the present has had the freedom of
2689
the streets in the city of Houston. On October 13, 1955, this subject was arrested
for the possession of heroin which consisted of nine caps, which were found in his
possession at the time. This subject is at present out on bond on this second case
of October 13, 1955. The case of Donald D. Parsons, now under conviction of a
series of safe burglaries, charged with narcotic violation on November 14, 1952.
Subject admitted several large safe burglaries in which the loss of property was
heavy, one case involved several thousands in electrical appliances and jewelry
which he stated was traded to narcotic sellers for narcotics.
The case of William P. Scelles, alias Billy Scalles. This subject has a criminal
record dating back several years and on December 13, 1948, sentenced to the
penitentiary for 5 years for murder. He was also under suspended sentence for
burglary, was charged with safe burglary on December 13, 1953, and remained on
bond until February 17, 1955, at which time he received 7 years in the penitentiary
for burglary, felony, theft, and forgery. This subject was continually on narcotics
during the time he was under bond and many cases of safe burglary were cleared,
that he had committed while on bond.
The case of Donald D. Owens, alias Rooster. This subject was sentenced to
the United States Narcotic Farm on October 25, 1946, for the unlawful use of narcotics. Sentenced to the penitentiary, State of Texas, on November 14, 1947,
for 4 years for burglary and felony theft from Harris County. Again sentenced
to the penitentiary, State of Texas, on July 27, 1950, for 3 years for burglary from
Harris County, discharged on August 16, 1951, was sent back to the Texas Penitentiary on April 11, 1955, for 8 years on convictions from Harris and Washington
Counties for a series of safe burglaries. This subject was a constant user of narcotics during the period of time that he was brought to the attention of this
department.
The case of Glen Hawthorne. This subject was sent to the Texas Penitentiary
on May 15, 1952, on charge of burglary having been caught in a building seeking
narcotics. His sentence was 2 years and discharged on June 9, 1953. Subject
was arrested and charged at Waco, Tex., with burglary and made bond and on
July 6, 1955, caught on a safe-burglary charge, is now under 12 years conviction
for safe burglary and the present investigation connects him with a series of safe
burglaries. As stated before, we feel that approximately 75 percent of the safe
burglaries in this city were committed by narcotics addicts. This is primarily
based on the record of cases cleared by arrest. There is no doubt that the prime
purpose of the burglar of the type listed and attached to this report is to get money
to supply the necessary narcotics for the habit.
During the first part of 1952, this department had some 18 known criminals
out. on bond for safe burglaries that were second offenders in crime and all were
drug addicts. The loss of money and property to supply their habit creates
alarm not only among law-enforcement officials but legislators and laymen.
The majority of these 18 criminals that were out on bonds during this period of
time were narcotic users. It is a known fact that we have many cases where
actual burglars are merely living at liberty day to day due to the privilege of
unlimited bonds. There is a general feeling among criminals that they might as
well steal as much as they can after they are caught in the act of committing a
crime the first time and then make bond. Another outstanding example is the
case of Floyd Carl Davis and Johnny P. Wright; at the time of their arrest for
burglary of a supermarket, they had obtained $7,400 in cash and were arrested
less than 24 hours after the crime. Each man had a bondsman and attorney
waiting to make their bond immediately after charges were filed. It prevented
the recovery of most of the stolen money being found. There is little doubt as
to where the property finally went to. The merchant faced bankruptcy as he
was unable to absorb the loss. The individuals named in this report and attached
to this report have been involved in all crimes for many years and each has had
a major part in furthering the flow of narcotics into this community. Some of
them have led others into crime and into prostitution and into narcotic addition.
In years past, we have secured information in cases where valuable jewelry was
stolen and that the jewelry and the property was taken to Mexico and traded for
narcotics.
The recent narcotics raid conducted by Federal, State, county, and city officers
was ably accounted for by the local newspapers. To quote from an article of
one of the local newspapers in which an individual, one George Angel Cantu,
said that he was using three capsules of heroin a day at the cost of $21. He
stated he had no trouble finding enough money to pay for the habit. By a life
of crime, theft, and burglary, Cantu probably was able to supply this habit.
Another individual giving the account in this particular article of the local newspaper, one Walter E. Cook, age 30, listed himself as a jobless housepainter. He
2690
said he had been arrested approximately 75 times mostly for the possession of
narcotics but had never served time in prison. This type of individual is what
gives emphasis to our rising crime rate. We feel that if it were made harder for
these criminals to secure bond, the law enforcement officials in this area and other
areas would have a better chance and better weapons to fight the rising crime
rate that is facing us today. The Federal Bureau of Investigation in its reports
has indicated the problem in a clear and concise manner. Mr. John Edgar Hoover,
in reports which are submitted to the public from time to time, points up the
overall problem in that our rising juvenile delinquency rate can provide the
criminals of tomorrow. We feel that if the narcotic addicts were limited in their
ability to make bond, that we could possibly see a sharp curtailment in other
types of crime.
It is not our intention to attempt to interfere with the civil rights of any one
individual nor to violate any ones individual constitutional rights even though he
may be a criminal but at the same time we feel that the law enforcement officials,
the legislators, the district attorneys, the judges and Mr. John Q. Citizen have
rights also which are being violated day to day not only against their person but
against their property. That the loss of property suffered by the citizens certainly
calls for some strong check to curtail the rising crime which can be traced directly
to the use of narcotics. We feel that the average citizen has constitutional rights,
civil rights that are being violated daily by the users of narcotics particularly when
he is free on several bonds and therefore privileged to commit crimes against the
public. We give our strongest appeal to this committee and to all law enforcement
officials and legislators, district attorneys, and judges to give their utmost attention and study to this problem that we have attempted to present. We feel that
the facts speak for themselves not only in this community but in communities over
these United States. The necessary steps should be taken to prevent this almost
unlimited freedom of the criminal due to our present system of bonds. I speak for
myself as a law enforcement official, as a citizen, and as a father of 4 children4 children whom I as a father must raise in a community where criminals may gain
their freedom to commit crimes with ease. Speaking as just a plain police officer,
we urge this committee and all other officials to give their utmost attention and
consideration to this matter.
Mr. HEAFD. Thank you, Senator.
This is a prepared statement, and I won't attempt to read it at

this time. I will summarize it, however, if I may, but in this particular
statement that I have submitted to the committee you will find that
I stress one of our problems in relation to narcotic addiction, and tlat
is the bail bond situation that we are faced with here now in the city
of Houston. We find that one of our biggest problems, and I will
have to say one of the most serious problems, that we have is this
matter of bail bonds, and I have here a series of individuals and their
records.
In the prepared statement I have submitted to the committee I
have attempted to outline one of our greatest problems in this particular area, and in the State of Texas, and I feel sure, from conversations I have had with law enforcement officials in other areas, that
you will find that they have the same problem that we do, and that
is the bail bond system that is in effect at this time. Under the
present system, the individual, the criminal, in particular the narcotic addict, has almost unlimited rights in securing bail.
We have, for example, an individual that I have listed in tbis particular file here, who is out at the present time on three bonds. He
was just arrested the other night, in a recent raid that we made,
for the fourth time. That individual at the present time, or until
Friday night, was at liberty, and free to roam the streets of the city
2691
of Houston, and commit any crime that he saw fit to. He has a
three-page record in our files.
Senator DANIEL. What is the name of that individual?
Mr. HEARD. Luther Spurgeon Messer.
Senator DANIEL. The point you are making is that after he is
arrested on a narcotics charge, he gets out on bail rather easily?
Mr.
HEARD.
Senator
bail?
Yes, sir.
DANIEL.
And starts selling narcotics again while out on
Mr. HEARD. That is correct.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
HEARD.
And that he has done that over and over again?
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right, you just go ahead and develop that.
Mr. HEARD. Luther Spurgeon Messer, M-e-s-s-e-r, released from
the penitentiary in June of 1955, was charged with possession of
heroin on July 8, 1955, and posted bond of $1,000. On September
16, 1955, he was again arrested for the possession of heroin with one
Dolly Harris, well known to the police officers here, and other law
enforcement officials. Subject is presently in the county jail on this
last charge, but under our present system again would be eligible for
bond, which would make three cases where this individual was arrested for possession of heroin and allowed bond, and the freedom to
roam the streets and commit other crimes. That type of individual
has a three-page record with our department alone, covering burglary,
theft, all types of crime.
We also have another individual here, or two individuals, that I
would like to point up. It is another outstanding example in this
case that I am trying to make, and that is the case of the individuals
Floyd Carl Davis and Johnny P. Wright. At the time of their arrest
for burglary of a supermarket, they had obtained $7,400 in cash, and
were arrested less than 24 hours after the crime had been committed.
Each man had a bondsman and attorney waiting to make their bonds
immediately after charges were filed. It prevented the recovery of
most of the stolen money being found. There is little doubt as to
where the property finally went to. The merchant in this case faced
bankruptcy, as he was unable to absorb the loss. These types of
individuals are out on bond continuously, and as I said before, I
wanted the committee to remember that 75 percent of our safe
burglaries are committed by narcotics addicts.
Senator DANIEL. By narcotics addicts?
Mr. HEARD. By narcotics addicts, yes, sir; and when you see individuals that do commit these crimes, once they commit the crime and
get out on the street again on an easy bond, they are free to commit
the same crime again. In other words, we have them on our hands
again.
The point I am trying to make is that practically under our present
system, it gives the individual or individuals, the narcotic addicts, a
license to steal. In fact, they almost force him to go and steal, because
when he is out on the street and everything he gets goes to his addiction, so due to the fact that he can secure his release so easily, he is
licensed and he must steal to keep up his habit, and he must turn to
stealing to make his livelihood, he must turn to crime.
Senator DANIEL. You mean to say that narcotic addicts usually
turn to crime, such as thefts and burglary, in order to buy narcotics?
2692
Mr. HEARD. Yes, sir; Senator. In my opinion no addict can ever

work at a legitimate job and pay for his habit.
Senator DANIEL. About how much would you estimate it costs a
heroin addict here in Houston to keep up his habit?
Mr. HEARD. Well, the average price today is about $7 per cap, and
say the addict is shooting three caps a day, that is $21, and you known
an individual has to have a pretty good income to spend that much
money per day to support his habit. At the same time, if he worked
and had a good job-and you know he must have a good one, if he is
going to spend that much money for narcotics every day, but show me
an addict that can hold down a job, any kind of a job that will pay him
enough to continue his habit. I have never seen one, so as a result, it
it is a female, they must turn to prostitution, and if it is a male, he
must turn to either dealing in prostitution or turn to theft, robbery,
and safe burglary, and so forth. That is my opinion.
I would like to also point up another thing here in relation to a
license to steal, which I think is the terminology which I might place
on them, and that is that we, as any law enforcement officers, we are
not attempting to violate anyone's civil rights, or constitutional
rights, but at the same time we feel that the narcotic addict is so
affected by this particular system of bail bonds and the present law,
whereby he can get such easy bail, that we are the ones, the law
enforcement officials, the legislators, the judges, and Mr. John Q.
Citizen are the ones who are having their civil rights and constitutional rights violated, because they are the ones who are not protected
by the law. Mr. John Q. Citizen doesn't give any trouble, but he is
paying for any loss that may come about through turning that addict
out on the streets, and so forth.
Senator DANIEL. Do you find also that some of these addicts
become pushers and peddlers of narcotics, in addition to committing
other crimes?
Mr. HEARD. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
They will become sellers and peddlers to make
enough money to continue their habit?

Mr. HEARD. Senator, the habit-I wish to point it up-the habit
is so strong that once a person or an individual gets the narcotic habit,
or is addicted, there is nothing he will not do to secure that supply
of narcotics, so if it is robbing an individual, or if it is committing a
burglary, or burglarizing a safe, or a residence, or a business, or if it
is selling narcotics, or whatever it may be, he has no qualms about it
whatsoever, he has no feeling for any citizen or the rights of anybody
else. That is why I so strongly urge that the various individuals in
law enforcement, and this committee in particular, and the judges,
district attorneys, the United States Attorneys, that I urge them again
that they strongly give this matter their most serious and sincere attention, and as to recommending changes in 'our present laws.
Senator DANIEL. I may say to you that we have heard the same
evidence concerning bail bonds with respect to Federal cases as you
are giving now with respect to State cases. There are many individuals out on high bonds who go right back into the traffic, and some
of them never show up, they just forfeit their bonds because the
traffic means so much to them in money that they can afford to do it.
What, would your recommendation be on this subject, chief?
Mr. HEARD. My recommendation, Senator, would probably be
rather drastic, but that is the way I feel about it. If an individual
2693
is a confirmed narcotic addict, when he is apprehended either on a

narcotics addiction charge, or the possession or sale of narcotics, or any
other charge, such as safe burglary, robbery, or anything else, that
that individual be denied bond altogether, and that he be put out of
circulation until a proper trial is held for that individual.
Senator DANIEL. I am not going to ask you for your opinion on the
constitutional rights of any individual, but let me say that we have
staff members studying that recommendation, and the constitutional
aspects of it, at this time. Now, if bail could not be denied completely
then the next best thing we could do would be to hope that the judges
would set the bail bonds high enough to keep these individuals from
easily getting back on the streets, and back into their crime, isn't
that true?
Mr. HEARD. That is correct, yes, sir.
I realize the constitutional
angle of it does enter into it, and I realize that full well. We realize
we may not be able to do that, but if the law enforcing officials have
our complete wishes in the matter, that is what we would have done,
but at the same time we do feel-or at least I do; I probably should
not be speaking for every individual in law enforcement, but I certainly personally feel that some stringent changes are needed, and
are needed immediately.
Senator DANIEL. Well, there is one other possible solution, I
believe, and that would be a quick trial, isn't that true?
Mr. HEARD. Yes, sir, that would help, too.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, if the courts-and some of them
are doing it-were to give preference to these narcotic cases, before
the individuals would be out very long, and the trial would be held
and the case disposed of quickly, that would be of some help, too?
Mr. HEARD. Absolutely, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I just want to pay tribute to the city of Philadelphia, where this year the city has rounded up 240 narcotic addicts
and peddlers, and they made peddling cases on these people, and have
tried them and convicted them. Those trials, as you may imagine
since that all being done this year, were speedy trials; and I think
that may be a solution to the problem you are talking about here.
isn't that right?
Mr. HEARD. I believe it will help, Senator, yes, sir. I would like
to point up something in regards to that, in our own locality here.
We have, as I have said before, have testified before, we have an
increase in crime, we have a 15 percent increase in ordinary burglary
cases, felony cases, the problem of a quick trial of these peddlers of
narcotics, and narcotics addicts, and the addicts committing these
crimes, the burden follows right on down the line. In other words,
we, are arresting these individuals, and they get out on bond; the
courts are overburdened with burglary cases, robbery cases, and so
forth, but if we could eliminate the problem of narcotics, or at least
curtail it, that burden will not only be lessened on us, but it will also
be lessened on the district attorney, the United States attorney and
the judges, because I believe we will see a tremendous drop in crime,
and speedy trials will automatically bring that about. I believe that
is correct, indeed I do.
Senator DANIEL. Go ahead. You were going to give us another
case, I believe.
Mr. HEARD. I was going to mention the case of Puri Perez. I
don't have all of the detail on that particular case, but she is con-
2694
sidered one of our better known narcotic pushers in this area, and
she is out on bail bond right now. You see it amounts to the same
thing.
SENATOR DANIAL.
Puri Perez, is she also known as Purificacion
Rodriguez?
Mr. HEARD. That is correct; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I believe she is under subpena.
Mr. HEARD. I don't know, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Is Puri Perez, or Purificacion Rodriguez, in the
courtroom? Please stand.
(No response.)
Senator DANIEL. Well, she is under subpena, and we do expect her
to be here, or expect to bring her before the committee.

Senator DANIEL. Do you have any other outstanding examples of
this nature?
Mr. HEARD. Yes, sir; I have several pages in here, in this particular
file, this report that has been submitted to the committee. I would
like to point up one or two here, just as a matter of record, and that is
the case of one Donald D. Parsons, now under conviction of a series
of safe burglaries, who was connected in crime with another individual,
Robert C. Harvey. He was charged with narcotic violation on
November 14, 1952, and he spent some time on a narcotic farm on this
charge. He admitted to several large safe burglaries, and the loss of
property was heavy, extremely heavy. One case involved several
thousand dollars worth of electrical appliances and jewelries, which
all went for narcotics, which he stated was traded to narcotic sellers
for narcotics.
So pointing this thing up, these additional burglaries which occur
all go back into narcotics in some way, or at least the greatest percentage of them do, and it is a problem that we are not going to be
able to get away from.
One other point I would like to point up, or another case, and that
is the case of William R. Scelles, S-c-e-l-l-e-s, alias Billy Scelles, and
this subject has a criminal record dating back several years, and on
December 20, 1948, he was sent to the penitentiary for 5 years for
murder. He was charged and was also under a suspended sentence
for burglary. He was also charged with safe burglary on December
13, 1953, and remained on bond until December 17, 1955-I want to
stress this, for the purpose of the record-he was charged with safe
burglary on December 13, 1953, and remained on bond until February
17, 1955, at which time he received 7 years for burglary, felony theft,
and forgery. He was a continual user of narcotics during the time
he was under bond, and he cleared many cases of safe burglary that
he had committed while on bond.
I may go on for any amount of time on this type of cases, but I
don't want to burden the committee or the chairman with them.
Senator DANIEL. Well, Chief, we can probably make the whole
summary of this kind of cases with this fellow George Hall, who was
a member of the Sutton ring, I believe.
Senator DANIEL. George Hall is a Texas colored boy who began
with marihuana use at 10 years of age. He was convicted on a narcotics charge in New York, and around 1949 I believe was the date
of the conviction, and he had an appeal pending for 3 years.
1111111111
2695
During that 3 years he became the biggest marihuana wholesale dealer

in New York, and as you know, he tied in his marihuana from down
here with this Sutton gang, and brought heroin back from New York
to flood the Houston market while taking marihuana from here to
New York. That is another illustration of what you are saying to
this committee as to how these traffickers operate when they are out
on bond, out on appeal bond. I think you are familiar with those
operations.
Mr. HEARD. They have to operate, Senator. I would like to point
up one other little item here that is not included in this report submitted to the committee, and that was the recent raid we had here
in Houston, on last Friday, in which the Federal officers, the State
and county officers, the sheriff's department, and the city officers all
participated. It was over a long time of planning, and originated
some time back with a new law that we recently had passed in the
State of Texas.
Senator DANIEL. I believe under this new Texas law it is an offense
to be a habitual user of narcotics, is that right?
Mr. HEARD. Yes, sir, or under the influence of or addicted to.
Senator
time.
DANIEL.
That is a felony under the Texas law at the present
We arrested some 50 of them on that raid,
and we are still picking them up. Of course we set it up with the
doctor in prison for examinations, and we realized that this was the
first trial under the new law of the State of Texas, under this new law,
and more or less we were trying to break the ground for it. We hope
to follow this up in other cities, and again in Houston. I personally
intend to attend the next raid, the next thing that occurs, in whatever
city it may be. We do not intend to stop it at this point. We feel
this was more or less the original experiment in it, and we can see
improvements that we need to make, but I feel certain that we did
make an inroad or a dent in the situation, and we are generally satisfied, with approximately fifty arrested so far.
Senator DANIEL. Chief, about how many narcotic addicts would
you estimate you have in Houston?
Mr. HEARD. I would have to say that as to metropolitan Houston,
because our county is fairly well populated. I would say we would
have somewhere between 150 to 200. That, of course, includes all
types. We had 133 on this list the other night, but we didn't get all
of them. In other words, I am including the joy poppers, the individuals that take an occasional shot just for the fun of it, and the
ordinary habitual user, and all of them.
Senator DANIEL. Does that include marihuana users too?
Mr. HEARD. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. If you added in your marihuana users, what
would be your estimate?

Mr. HEARD. I would hestitate to estimate that, Senator, because
the marihuana addiction, and the use of marihuana, is a little more
difficult to identify, and to tell about. It is so easy for a person to be
smoking a marihuana cigarette, and it not come to the attention of
the police unless he is involved in something else, or is actually caught
with. it.
Senator DANIEL. IS the use of marihuana also a problem here?
Mr. HEARD. Yes, sir, definitely.
2696
Senator DANIEL. Do you find marihuana can be a dangerous drug?

Mr. HEARD. Definitely, and a person under the influence of marihuana, a marihuana cigarette, it affects him so differently, the effects
of it are absolutely unpredictable in my opinion, as to his actions, and
what he is going to do. They can be the happiest person in the world
1 minute, and then the next minute the most vicious individual in the
world. You just can't tell what they are going to do or be like.
Senator DANIEL. Do you find the use of marihuana also leads
certain individuals into the use of other drugs, such as heroin?
Mr. HEARD. Yes, sir. You will find that pattern is followed in
many cases.
Senator DANIEL. Would you estimate then that there might be as
many as 200 narcotic addicts in Houston?
Mr. HEARD. Yes, sir; Harris County.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever thought about how much stealing
or robbery, or how much money it takes, for 200 addicts?
Mr.
HEARD.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. To keep up their habits?

Mr. HEARD. I certainly have, and all we have to do is to look at
our police department records for evidence of that.
Senator DANIEL. Now, you were figuring there about the amount
of money probably involved in supplying 200 addicts with narcotics.
Mr. HEARD. I couldn't give you, Senator, the exact amount at this
moment. I don't have the figures with me, but all I would say is
that the answer to that would be that all you have to do is to look
at our police reports, and the increase in crime, and as I said before,
just in safe burglaries alone, where we estimate 75 percent can be
traced directly or indirectly to narcotics users, or to addicts, as is
submitted in this report, and we feel, I believe, in answer to that
question, that just a mere check of our records at the police department will give a fair estimate or count of crime, or the amount of cost
that the citizens are paying for crime.
Senator DANIEL. Well, if it costs $21, or if they average $20 a day
for the habit, and you have 200 of them, that would be $4,000 a day
right there, isn't that right?

Senator DANIEL. If I figure right.
Mr. HEARD. That is right, but I think the cost would be more than
that, Senator.
Senator
DANIEL.
Tell us why you think it would be more than
$4,000 a day.
Mr. HEARD. For this reason, that the individual, the merchant, or
the citizen, the one who has his place robbed, or he is robbed himself,
or some type of theft is perpetrated against this merchant or citizen,
and he loses, say, $300 worth of merchandise, why, that individual
that gets it will sell that merchandise, and the addict cannot near, in
any way, shape, form or fashion, come close to selling it for that
amount, so he sells it, say, for $100, and buys narcotics with this
hundred dollars. Well, the actual cost is overlooked, that that
particular individual would lose, because the addict, in turn, will
actually sell $300 worth of merchandise for a hundred dollars, and will
take that hundred dollars, say, and for instance, say he buys $100
worth of narcotics; then say he sells $50 worth of it to another addict,
or an individual, and then that second one steals another $300 in
11111111
2697
order to pay for that, for which he probably pays a hundred, and it is
a repetition process right on up to where the loss to the public in
generall is tremendous.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, the one who steals the property
loes not get full value for the property?
Mr. HEARD. No, sir; he definitely does not. He has to sell it to a
ence, or something like that.
Senator DANIEL. Colonel Garrison told us in Austin last week that
he figured that the amount of property and money involved would be
3 or 4 times the actual cost of the narcotics. Do you agree with that?
Mr. HEARD. I definitely agree with that; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Then the people of this city are losing from $12,000
to $16,000 a day to have these 200 addicts keep up their habits?
Mr. HEARD. That is right. All you have to do is to look at the
Federal Bureau of Investigation reports and see what it is that is
influencing the rate of crime over the country. I pointed that up in
this report. Mr. Hoover pointed up the fact that we have a rise in
juvenile crime rate, and we do have a rise in juvenile crime rate all
over the country. That is your criminal of tomorrow. If you will
look at the narcotics addiction rate, at the number of teenagers, the
individuals went up, that is individuals under 21 years of age. Some,
of course, vary. I believe in the recent raid we found 1 individual that
started at 14 years of age, and that individual has, of course, continued
with that narcotic habit, and that, of course, creates a greater problem,
and we can't say the same thing can't happen again. If it can happen
to one 14-year-old, it can happen to another and to another.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have much trouble with juvenile addiction
in Houston?
Mr. HEARD. I would say we have our share of the trouble, Senator.
Senator DANIEL. Is it on the increase or decrease?
Mr. HEARD. I would have to check my records on that to give an
accurate answer, but it is holding its own.
Senator DANIEL. It is holding its own?
Senator DANIEL. In this raid you made the other night, did you
find any juveniles?
Mr. HEARD. I don't believe we arrested any juveniles the other
night; no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you find any who had started on heroin when
they were under 21 years of age?

Mr.
HEARD.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Quite a few?

Senator DANIEL. I am glad to say that our committee finds that
the juvenile use of marijuana and heroin seems to be on the decline

throughout the country, except in three places, New York City,
Washington, D. C., and Los Angeles, California.
Senator DANIEL. So far that is what the evidence before our committee has shown, and that is a bright sign in this picture.
Senator
DANIEL.
And I hope that it will be on a decline here in
Houston, and your figures tend to show that.
2698
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Mr. HEARD. I will be glad to submit that information by checking
our crime-prevention division and narcotic division records closer.

They would have that information I am sure.
Senator DANIEL. We would like to have that information.
Mr.
HEARD.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I think it is important, because maybe something

has been done here in recent years that will let children know the
dangers of narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. So we would like to have the figures, any comprehensive figures you can give us along that line.
Mr.
HEARD.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What about the use of barbiturates, chief?

Mr. HEARD. Yes, sir, we have our troubles on that here in Houston.
Senator DANIEL. Will you give us some information on that?
Mr. HEARD. I don't have the facts and figures on that, Senator,
because I only covered the stronger problems of narcotics, but Captain McMahan, who is the head of the narcotics and vice squad, is
present, and he could give you that.
Senator DANIEL. He can give us that information?
Mr. HEARD. Yes, sir, he has it more up to date than I do. I premarily tried to stay with the felony cases concerning burglary, theft,
robbery, and of course the use of the stronger forms of narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. Chief, would you finish there on a review of this
roundup of addicts? What else did you find in rounding up these
addicts that might be of interest to the committee?
Mr. HEARD. I just had a general rundown on it, the number of individuals arrested, and of course it is still working. We
haven't quite finished with it. We are still processing them. We
believe it is a good plan. It was our first trial, and we do intend
to continue it. It is something we cannot stop. I didn't bring all
of the data on it. It is just the latest brief rundown that I had on
it, and I don't have any more pertinent details on it at this time.
Senator DANIEL. Going back then to our question about bail bonds
and quick trials, my brother, Bill Daniel, who is in the audience,
and who used to be a prosecutor, sends this question: whether or not
you might also feel that the probation or suspended sentence pro visions ought to be eliminated and made impossible for narcotic violations.
Mr. HEARD. Yes, sir. I have a theory on that myself, that I believe that at least some changes should be made, but I was attempted
to take, of course, one step at a time, but since you have brought it
up, yes, sir, I would like-I may sound a little harsh, I am afraid,
but that is the way I feel about it-I would like to see, of course, as
I stated before, addicts not allowed bond, realizing the constitutional
problems there, and also on the probation, and so forth, where the
person is a confirmed addict now, I don't think it should be allowed.
Where there is a possibility of cure, definitely I am in favor of that.
Senator
DANIEL.
I suppose you also include in that, naturally,
traffickers in drugs, either the confirmed addict or trafficker in drugs,
some of whom are too smart to be addicts, you know?

Mr. HEARD. The individual who is a seller or salesman in the
group, of course, and is too smart to become addicted himself, I don't
think there is anything too strong for that individual.
2699
Senator DANIEL. I think, Chief, we would be safe in saying that
the majority of your narcotics traffic in the country today is being

conducted by people who are out on bail, on suspended sentence, on
parole, on probation or on appeal. I would say that the majority of
your traffic today is being conducted by people who are out on the
streets because of one of those five proceedings?
Mr. HEARD. Plus the other types of crime.
Mr. HEARD. That I was thinking about, yes, sir; I agree with that.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, they get out and if they are in
the traffic they make so much money they can afford to forfeit bail
bonds.
Mr. HEARD. Yes, sir. It is much easier to get sent up for stealing
a car, and harder to make your bond on that, we will say, than it is
on narcotics. Possibly I should not say easier, but I will say certainly
an individual that steals a car, and nothing else, and is out on bond,
and he does nothing else, and is not addicted to any narcotics, is
certainly not as dangerous an individual as one using narcotics, or
selling it while out on a bond, an appeal bond or bail bond.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you know of any crime in which you have
more repeaters than you have in narcotics?

Mr.
HEARD.
No, sir; not to my knowledge at this time, I do not.
I think that is the most prevalent repeater, not only in narcotics,

Senator, but in all other types of crimes while he is, of course, using
narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. While he is addicted?
Mr.
HEARD.
Senator
Yes, sir; while he is addicted.
DANIEL.
He is going to turn to other types of crime?
Mr. HEARD. He has to, Senator.

narcotics.
Senator
DANIEL.
He has got to get his supply of
Well, do you have any other suggestions or
recommendations to make before we hear from Captain McMahan?

Mr. HEARD. I do not at this time, Senator, without, of course,
reading this complete report, which is rather lengthy.
I would like to point up one more thing again before I complete, at
the committee's pleasure, and that is that as I pointed out before, this
bail bond system that we have, and appeal bond system, is giving
licenses for these individuals to steal, and licenses to sell narcotics,
and licenses to use narcotics, and as pointed out before, I believe the
individuals whose constitutional rights are being violated more than
anybody else's is the average citizen. He is the one who is paying for
it through the pocketbook in every way, shape, form or fashion. That
is the individual who is suffering, not the narcotic addict. I want to
point that up again, because I think it is a pertinent matter.
Senator
DANIEL. Mr. Counsel,

GASQUE. Chief, could you
do you have any questions?
Mr.
tell us the source of the narcotics
that find their way into Houston?
Mr. HEARD. I think most of it, from what I have been informed of
by odr narcotics agents, that is of the Houston Police Department, I
think the majority of ours is the yellow heroin from Mexico.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you believe it is produced in Mexico?
Mr.
HEARD.
As far as I know, it is, yes, sir.
71515-5G-pt. 7-23
2700
ILLICIT - NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
Mr. GASQUE. Can you tell the difference between narcotics )roduced in Mexico and those coming, say, from New York?
Mr. HEARD. Usually by the color, yes, si'. 1 am, of course, not as
experienced a narcotic agent as some of the men working on that
detail, and I don't want to claim to be that experienced, but I do know
the difference in the types of narcotics, heroin and so forth, in the
color, and the makeup of it, and in my opinion I think most of it we
are getting here is coming from Mexico.
Mr. GASQUE. That would represent your belief then, that there are
some clandestine factories in Mexico producing heroin?
Mr. HEARD. Oh, I don't know how clandestine they are, but in my
opinion there are factories operating there.
Mr. GASQUE. How does it get to Houston?
Mr.
HEARD.
It is smuggled over the border.
MN
r. GASQUE. Through what routes?
Mlr. HEARD. Several different routes, of course. I imagine they
would try most any route to bring it across. They bring it across in
cars, on their person, or any route possible.
Mr. GASQUE. Through what cities?
Mr. HEARD. I couldn't say offhand, but I figure, not having gotten
any knowledge of that, but in my opinion, and not considering myself
an expert, I would say any route they could get it across, and from
the amount we are getting, there must be plenty of routes.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you also find that you are getting some of it
from New York?

Mr. HEARD.
We have run across it, yes, sir, from time to time,
but primarily most of ours is coming from Mexico.

knowledge, it is.
Senator
DANIEL.
I believe, to my
During the days of the Sutton gang, I believe
quite a bit of heroin was coming in from New York?

Mr. HEARD. It was my understanding that it was, but at the time
I did not hold the position I do now, and was not quite as well informed of the situation.
Senator
DANIEL. Mr.
SPEER. Chief, an
Speer, any questions?

ordinary narcotic peddler, whether he is an
Mr.
addict or not, manages to maintain an automobile and perhaps live
above the average standard of a working man, does he not?
Mr.
HEARD.
SPEER.
Ordinarily; yes, sir.
Mr.
How does that compare with what he does after he
has been arrested and gets out on bond? Does that activity become
more or less feverish?
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
HEARD.
SPEER.
HEARD.
SPEER.
HEARD.
You mean on his part?

On his part, yes.
Yes, sir.
For what reason?
Mr.
Mr.
Well, usually he has to, of course, keep up his attorneys
fees, his bonds, and if he has the habit himself, he has to keep it up,
and of course we all-I don't see that there would be any differenceI would say they would like to have a little next egg laid aside somewhere, and if they had been apprehended once, it would by my opinion,
just purely as a business matter, that they would have to be a little
better salesman than before, because their buyers are apprehensive.
of them; they have got competition.
SPEER. So they would be the most dangerous type of seller
Mr.
then, in your opinion?
2701
Mr. HEARD. Definitely. They have got numerous other activities

too.
Mr. SPEER. I noticed one statement you made, you said there was
little doubt in your mind as to were t he property went. What did

you mean by that statement?
Mr. HEARD. Well, this was a case here of an individual with
$74,000, and the minute they Were arrested bond was made, and they
were out right back where they started from. There was an attorney
and bondsman waiting for them. I know if I were a bondsman, and
going to make a bond on such an individual as t hiis, I would say, "Let's
see the cash." I wouldn't take any time payments, particularly from
one like that.
Mr.
SPEER.
From your statement as to sentences, bonds and so
forth, with these easy bonds for narcotics traffickers, the ease with
which they make bond, would you say that perhaps the narcotic
traffic right now is one of the safest rackets that a major law violator
can get into?
'Ir. HEARD. Well, I don't know whether I would say, Mr. Speer,
whether I would use the word "safest" or not. Not at this particular
time, but, certainly it would be one of the most practical and profitable
ones under th~e conditions, because he is under bond , an.d it certainly
would be one of the most driving ones, because lie figures he is on the
hook anyway, he is sunk, and he is going to tl e penitentiary, if they
have a good case on him, and they usually know wliether they do or
not, and certainly he is going to be a. little more cautious, it is going
to be harder for the undercover agents or officers of whatever agency
they may be to reach him, and with that caution, and in the normal
operation of the. narcotic sellers and peddlers, I would say he would
stand less chance of being apprehended there than he would if he
robbed a store, or committed some other type of crime. Yes, sir.
I don't -kn.o-w whether the word "safe" would be correct or not, but.
let's say that the chances of apprehension would be less.
Probably one of the most inviting
Mr. SP ER.
Mr. SPEER. For a real major law violator?
Senator DANIEL. We thank you very much, Chief, and I believe
you may want to stay while we ask Captain McMahan to come
forward.
Mr. HEARD. Yes, sirl.
Senator DANIEL. Do so, if you would like to, and also sit with us
at any time you can through these hearings.
Captain McMahan?
(Captain J. C. McMahan, of the Houston Police Department, was
duly sworn.by the chairman.)
TESTIMONY OF J. C. McMAHAN, CAPTAIN, POLICE DEPARTMENT,

HOUSTON, TEX.
Senator DANIEL. State your full name, please.
Mr. MCMAHAN. J. C. McMahan.
Senator DANIEL. And your official title?

Mr. MCMAHAN. Captain of detectives,
division, Houston Police Department.
head of the narcotics
2702
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been captain of the narcotics
squad?
Mr. MCMAHAN.
Since July of last year.
Senator DANIEL. Previous to that had you had any experience in

police work?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Twenty-seven years, with this department.
Senator DANIEL. Here in the city of Houston?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir.
Senator 'DANIEL. Captain, you have heard the testimony given by
Chief Jack Heard. Is there anything that you would add to his
testimony? We asked him particularly about barbiturates, and I
believe he said you could give us that information.
Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, Senator; I can. Barbiturates is one of the
hardest things to deal with in the city, or in the narcotics field, for
the simple reason that they come from the drug stores, and from these
drug stores that are looking for the almighty dollar, and they will
dispense those barbiturates without prescription, or without a doctor,
and some doctors in town here will give prescriptions for them without
even examining the patient. We are dealing with the legal people
when we are dealing with barbiturates, and it is a very hard thing to
cope with.
Senator-DANIEL. You mean they can otherwise legally distribute
the barbiturates?
Mr. MCMAHAN.
Senator DANIEL.
Yes, sir.
Doctors and drug stores?
Senator DANIEL. Before we say anything that might reflect on the

great majority of druggists and doctors who are honest, and who go
by the law and deal only in these drugs for medical purposes, I will
ask you if it is not true that it is only a small minority of the druggists
and doctors that ever step out of the way and give these for illicit
purposes?
Mr. MAHAN. Very definitely; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. About how many druggists have come to your
attention in Houston dispensing barbiturates unlawfully?

Mr. MCMAHAN. We have put three druggists in jail, and charged
them with illegal sale of barbiturates.
Senator DANIEL. Have any of those been selling these barbiturate",
to juveniles?
Mr. MCMAHAN. We had information to that effect, Senator, but
there was no way of proving it, because we had to have an actual
buy ourselves, and we sent an undercover police officer to make
these buys, these direct buys.
Senator DANIEL. But you do have information that some of thesc
barbiturates have been going to juveniles here in Houston?
Senator DANIEL. How many doctors have you had trouble with ii,
this connection?
Mr. MAHAN. I could name off about four doctors.
Senator DANIEL. Now, what-would you say concerning the danger
of these barbiturate drugs here in Houston? Would, you say there is
enough use of them to make it a dangerous problem here or; not?
Mr. McMAHAN. It is dangerous in this respect: it is the,firerummer
of a heroin habit.
2703
Senator DANIEL. Do you mean that children or grown people who

use barbiturtaes in excess are often led into the use of the more dangerous drugs, such as heroin?
Mr. McMAHAN. Yes, sir, they build up a tolerance for these barbiturates. They are weak to start in, they are weak, and they build
up a tolerance for them, and they go on from there to the heavier
stuff, heavier narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. I read in the paper not long ago about a party
being charged here who was alleged to be selling barbiturates to
students at San Jacinto High School. Is there a pending case on that?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir, there is.
Senator DANIEL. What is the name of that individual?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Dr. John Randall Storm.
Senator DANIEL. Is he a doctor?

Mr. MCMAHAN. No, he is a registered pharmacist.
Senator DANIEL. He is under subpena, as I understand it, by the
committee. All right, are any others of your cases pending now for
sales to juveniles?
A/fr. MCMAHIAN. No.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Captain McMahan, can you pinpoint or
locate your narcotics trouble in Houston, like we have in most cities?

Usually it is concentrated in certain very definite areas of the larger
cities. Is that true here in Houston?
Mr. McMAHAN. Yes, sir, it is.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you prepare that map behind you?
Senator DANIEL. Is that the map prepared for the purpose of locating your concentrations of narcotics here in Houston?
Mr. McMAHAN. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
I wonder if you would give us your explanation
or particulars?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Our heaviest concentrated area on narcotics,
especially narcotics traffic, in the city of Houston is in this particular
area bounded by black, which is in our police districts. Those districts are known as No. 7, and the large district is known as No. 8.
All of district 7 and the northeast portion of district 8, in here [indicating on map], carries 55 percent of our dope traffic in thecity of Houston.
Senator DANIEL. Will you outline those districts by street names.
just give us the approximate boundaries of the distircts?
Mr. MCMAHAN. The bayou, Buffalo Bayou, which runs into the
the Houston ship channel and turning basin area and then
Senator
DANIEL.
Buffalo Bayou would be what boundary?
Mr. MCMAHAN. The north portion of district 7.
Senator
DANIEL.
channel area?
That would be Buffalo Bayou and the ship
Senator
DANIEL.
MCMAHAN.
Then trace it from there.

Then on down would be around Leeland Avenue,
Mr.
or Blodgett Avenue, on out to that outlying district-I can't see these
street names from this distance, but over allSenator DANIEL. Your line there of the heaviest traffic in narcotics
branches off, and tell us just approximately what is that street, that
looks like quite a good sized street along your district line there?
2704
Ir. MCMAHAN. This takes in the freeway.
This is all your Gulf

Freeway, all of the way through here [indicating].
Senator DANIEL. Your Gulf Freeway runs right through the
district?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Right through the center of it; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Just go on and bound that for us, just the best
you can, by city names, or street names, or other locations, because

in the record, you see, it is impossible for us to describe this except
by some type of words, some street, or some geographical location.
Mr. MCMAHAN. This is the H. B. & T. Railroad, this line right
through here [indicating], and this takes in a little area around the
University of Houston. There is a little colored section in there
that we are having a little trouble with.
Senator DANIEL. You mean this district dips down into the location of the University of Houston?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir, this part here; this particular 7 area.
This other district No. 1, and district 9, which only carries 10 percent of our dope traffic here-No. 9 is predominantly colored, this
whole area here, and this is where we have about 10 percent of our
traffic, inhere [indicating].
Senator DANIEL. What type of people live over in district 7 and
the north part of 8 where you say you have 55 percent?
Mr. MCMAHAN. The north part of 8, the northeast portion of 8,
in here [indicating], and the eastern part of 7 is Latin Americans.
That is, our population of Latin Americans is greater there than in

any other place in the city, in one concentrated area.
Senator DANIEL. What other type of population do you have in the
heaviest districts there, 7 and 8?
Mr. MCMAHAN.
Well, we have the waterfront, and the ship channel
area, and of course the industrial areas in there also.

Senator DANIEL. Approximately, by name, tell us now, or describe
the rest of this district, the black line from the railroad.
Mr. MCMXHAN. From the railroad here [indicating]?
Senator DANIEL. Yes; from the railroad that you have mentioned,
and then just about how you would describe that curve around back
to the navigation channel.
Mr. MCMAHAN. This takes in a lot of the Golfcrest area. Tele-
phone Road runs here, and this is the Golfcrest area in here, and this
is a section there, on both sides, in the new Greenway addition in
there, where we have in this particular area, right in here [indicating],
what is known as the Telephone Terrors. That is a gang of boys and
girls that use marihuana and heroin. They will do anything in the
world they can. They will steal automobiles, they will beat up on
people, they will catch lone people on the street and they will beat him
up and rob him, and steal his property and cars, if he has one.
Senator DANIEL. And you call that gang the Telephone Terrors?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir; they call them the Telephone Road
Terrors.
Senator
DANIEL.
And about how many are in that gang?
Mr. MCMAHAN. I would estimate around 20.

Senator DANIEL. Did you arrest some of those in this recent round
up of addicts you made?
Mr. MCMAHAN. No, sir; the Telephone Terrors, the Telephone
Road Terrors, are all juveniles.
2705
What can you do with juveniles who are addicts?

Mr. MCMAHAN. We can't do anything with them. We have to
turn them over to the crime prevention, and let them handle them.
We can't file a charge against them.
Senator DANIEL. This new felony law doesn't apply to them; is that
correct?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. MCMAHAN. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Isn't there some way they can be sent off to a
Federal hospital?
Mr. MCMAHAN. To a reformatory, yes; sir, but that would have to
be the Federal function there.
Senator DANIEL. So all you can do is to try to catch them on some
of the other crimes?
Senator
DANIEL.
Other than drug addiction?
We can't even do anything with them, Senator,

on other crimes. See, we can't file a charge on a person under seventeen. If they are 16, or below, we have to turn them over and let the
juvenile authorities handle them. We can't.
Senator DANIEL. There ought to be some way that those people
can be gotten off of the streets.
Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir, definitely there should be.
Senator DANIEL. All right, go ahead. Does that pretty well
describe the location of your district or area where 55 percent of your
narcotic cases are?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Where our heaviest is, yes, sir, the heaviest area.
Mr. MCMAHAN.
Senator
DANIEL.
What is the next then?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Next is district 5 and district 6.

about 15 percent.
Senator
DANIEL.
That handles
And those are police districts?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir, that is police districts 5 and 6.
Senator
DANIEL.
North of Buffalo Bayou?
Senator
DANIEL.
And the ship channel?
Mr. MCMAHAN. North of Buffalo Bayou and the ship channel,

and this is Buffalo Bayou coming all of the way through here, you see
[indicating], and that would be-this is the city limits line, you see,
here, and this is the principal area here into district 6. Of course this
area here is uninhabited and unsettled. It is abutting Jacinto City
and Galena Park on the east.
Senator
DANIEL.
MCMAHAN.
Then where is your next district?

Then our next district is 1, and the top part or
Mr.
the northeast part of district 9, which, as I said before, is predominantly colored. All right, this district here is colored, and is known as
the fifth ward. The fifth ward, that is the old ward heelers' day, and
the ward still remains known in those districts as the fifth ward, the
third ward and the fourth ward. That is all colored people.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you mean to say you have a lesser percentage
of your narcotics traffic in Houston in the colored areas than in some

of these of these other areas?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir; we sure do.
Senator DANIEL. I think it is a compliment to the colored people
of Houston then, because in every city outside of Texas, let me say,
where we have held hearings, anywhere from 80 to 90 percent of all
of the narcotics traffic has been among colored people.
2706
ILLICIT' NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
Mr. MCMAHAN. Is that right?
Senator DANIEL. And in the Army the same thing is true. Our
committee was quite surprised to find in Austin and in San Antonio,
and now I am glad to say here in Houston, that the colored people
account for a much smaller percentage of all the narcotics traffic
than white people and Latin Americans.
Mr. MCMAHAN. We sure do.
Our percentage here is very small.
As I said, this district here (indicating on map) is the fourth ward,

this is the third and this is the fifth ward, right in this area here, and
that area accounts for 15 percent of our dope traffic, in these two large
districts. This No. 1 and the northeast portion of No. 9 here is
10 percent, and then No. 2, or No. 3 and part of No. 2, is another 10
percent. This is a colored section in here, and then of course 10
percent around in the rest of the city, around the city limit lines.
Senator DANIEL. Thank you very much for this explanation. It,
appears from what you have said that even within the districts where
you have the most trouble, you have found your traffic concentrated
in small localities, within those districts.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Captain McMahan, do you have any
recommendations to give us, other than what the Chief has already
suggested to the committee?
Mr. MCMAHAN. I think the Chief covered those points very well,
Senator, and that is our biggest trouble here, is keeping those people
off the streets. I want to disagree with something I heard, a remark
I heard, about the traffic situation-the dope traffic. They say
that wherever you have more traffic, the more arrests-narcotic
arrests-the more you have, the more narcotics you have, and it
makes the city look bad. I disagree with that. I think that the
more arrests that are made goes to good law enforcement. I can give
you the reason I say that.
From July 1 of 1953 to July 1, 1954, there were 178 felony cases
filed. I took charge of the narcotics and the.vice squad in July of
1954, and the cases filed from July 1954 to July 1955 were against
366 defendants. Now, that is quite an increase. I don't think that
we had that much increase in dope. We just got below the surface,
and we waded out into these underground quarters, these underworld
people.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, you had an increase in law
enforcement and convictions during that time, and you don't think
those figures should be taken to mean that there is an increase in dope
traffic in the city?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes sir; that is right.
Senator DANIEL. It is true that these arrests and conviction figures
are not always accurate. By those figures Houston is rated 11th in

the country, but actually what is really being said is that Houston
is 11 th in the number of arrests for narcotic cases.
Senator DANIEL. And, as you say, as long as you have good law
enforcement, you may be up pretty high, but those are the only figures
the Bureau of Narcotics and officers in general have to go by.
Senator DANIEL. And most of them do explain, as you have done,
that this might not be a true picture.
2707
Senator DANIEL. As bad as these figures are here in Houston,

Captain McMahan, I think it should be comforting to compare them
with Los Angeles and New York. In New York City alone they
have the names and addresses of 9,000 narcotics addicts, and they
figure they have at least that number there. Los Angeles, Calif.,
has the largest number of arrests in the whole nation. They run in
the thousands. They have reported already, by name, over 2,000
addicts, so with these comparisons, when you say Houston is 11th
in arrests, it is still far below cities such as New York, Los Angeles,
Washington, D. C., and some of the others.
Mr. MCMAHAN. We can still feel pretty good about it then?
Senator DANIEL. You can still feel pretty good about it, but, on
the other hand, you have enough here in Houston to where it is going
to be a real problem.
Senator DANIEL. As both you and the Chief have stated that it is
already a real problem.
Senator DANIEL. It is going to be worse if it is not stopped.
Senator DANIEL. Do you agree that addicts spread their addiction
like disease, to other people?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir, definitely.
Senator DANIEL. So the big problem is to get the addicts and
traffickers off of the streets of Houston?
Mr. MCMAHAN. I think that will solve our problem, yes, sir; more
than anything else.

Senator DANIEL. Where would you say is the source of your heroin?
Of course we will ask the customs inspectors about this too, but do
you know yourself of any coming in from this port, or from Galveston,
or off of any of our ships?
Mr. MCMAHAN. No, sir, I personally think that 90 percent of our
dope, both marihuana and heroin, comes from Mexico. We have very
little coming in on boats, and very little on airplanes. The customs
agents are keeping that down very, very good.
Senator DANIEL. Well, of course, some of it is coming in on airplanes
to Houston, and going on to other cities.
Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, that would be possible.
Senator DANIEL. We heard evidence that Houston is a transit point,
a point of entry, for illicit narcotics. We heard evidence in New York
not long ago that the largest shipment of cocaine in history came in
from Mexico through Houston. Two Cubans brought it in to the
airport here at Houston, and got by customs here by concealing the
cocaine in false-bottomed suitcases. It was 2} million dollars worth
of cocaine on the retail market. Of course the customs agents caught
it when they came to New York, and I can't say for sure that, these
agents in Houston didn't, know what they were doing.

Mr. MCMAHAN. Possibly they did.
Senator DANIFL. I am not saying that they missed a thing, because
when they delivered it to the place in New York where it was supposed to go, they caught them.
Senator DANI EL. And those two Cubans are now serving time.
2708
Senator DANIEL. But it does appear that Houston and San Antonio
are points of transit for a lot of this stuff coming from Mexico.
Mr. MCMAHAN. I suppose so; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And then are you still finding some New York
heroin here?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Very little.
We found some of what they call
pure white heroin, New York or eastern heroin, eastern seacoast

exoin, here about 3 months ago, or 4 months ago, and we got about 4
defendants out of it and recovered about 2 ounces of the stuff.
Senator DANIEL. Our committee has heard evidence of the Sutton
gang's business which was involved in bringing heroin into Houston

from New York, for marihuana for sale in New York, and that some
individuals in New York tried to take over the business on that end,
and others here in Houston tried to take over the business on the
Houston end. Do you know how successful that has been?
Mr. MCMAHAN. It has not been successful so far.
Senator DANIEL. Because you don't find very much of the white
heroin here in Houston?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Not in 3 months, we haven't.
Senator DANIEL. And you figure the yellow heroin, the traffic in
the yellow heroin, is coming from Mexico?

Mr. GASQUE. What is your view on wire tapping, Captain?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Wire tapping? It certainly would help us.
Mr. GASQUE. Would you be in favor of it?
Mr. MCMAHAN.
I sure would.
Mr. GASQUE. You people, the law enforcement agencies, do you
feel that you operate under a disadvantage today in not having the
same facilities as the smuggler or the peddler of narcotics?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir, I sure do.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Speer, any questions?
Mr. SPEER. Captain, these arrests in 1953 and 1954, and 1954-55,
those were not arrests for investigations?

Mr. MCMAHAN. That was actually defendants.
Mr. SPEER. All of those were actually defendants?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir, that was actually defendants, felony
cases filed.
Mr. SPEER. Now, from your statement there, I believe you agree
that the number of addicts on the street in any given area, rather
than the number of arrests, might be indicative of the extent of the
traffic, is that right?
MIr. SPEER.
MCM AHAN.
Yes, words,
I thinkthat
thatthe
is true, yes.
TMfr.
In other
traffic in an area hinges on a
number of addicts on the street?

Senator DANIEL. Let me ask you, are you reporting addicts to the
Federal Bureau of Narcotics now?

Mr. MCMAHAN. We are now. We haven't been in the past.
Senator DANIEL. Do you agree that that is a good idea for all law
enforcement officers to accept the invitation of Commissioner Harry
Anslinger to report known addicts to the Bureau by name, and other
information that is called for on those cards he sends out?

Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir, I think it is a very good idea, and we will
be most happy to cooperate in that respect.
2709
Senator DANIEL. And your office does intend to do,, that in the
future?
from the Federal

formstype.
some
Mr. McMAHAN. Yes, sir, we received
that
of
seen
had
I
forms
first
the
men last week,
Senator DANIEL. I might say to you that already peace officers
over the country have sent in the names of over 30,000 addicts, and
they are coming in at the rate of about a thousand new ones a month,
and when these addicts are all cataloged in a central place, I think it
will be very helpful to the entire problem of licking the narcotics
traffic. Do you agree with that?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir; I think so.
Senator DANIEL. And I am glad to know that you do intend to
send those reports in from Houston. I believe that 108 addicts have
been reported from Houston thus far to the Bureau.
Senator DANIEL. What is your estimate as to how many more
there might be in Houston?
Mr. MCMAHAN. I will go along with Chief Heard. We easily
have 200 drug addicts here in the city.
Senator DANIEL. You think that would be a minimum?
Mr. MCMAHAN. I think so; yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Now, what about your cooperation with the Fed-
eral officers, Captain? Do you have good cooperation with the

Federal officers, or is there anything to be desired? That is one
thing that, this committee might be able to help on.
Mr. MCMAHAN. At this particular time we are getting good
cooperation from the Federal narcotics and customs agents.
Senator DANIEL. I understand there have been some differences in
the past.
Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir; there has been.
Senator DANIEL. I might say to you, after having checked the situation here, the present situation, that this committee does not intend
to go into any old sores, or rake up things in the past, unless they
bear on the present or future. If any witness feels that what has
happened in the past might bear on the present or future for good
cooperation, this committee will be glad to hear anything that the
witnesses want, to tell us about, but, as far as going into the matter
of the lack of cooperation in the past, we do not intend to initiate it.
M1r. MCMAHAN. As far as we are concerned, the past is forgotten.
Senator DANIEL. And you are now cooperating fully with the
Federal Bureau of Narcotics?
M[r. MCMAH AN. Yes, sir, we sure are.

Senator DANIEL. And are they cooperating with you?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir, they are, very nicely.
Senator DANIEL. IS there anything you could suggest, or anything you would like to say, that could add to that cooperation?
fr. MCMAHAN. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL.
Do we have enough Federal Bureau men here in
Houston?
ir. MCMAHAN. I don't think we have enough men in any branch
of the service, Senator. We are working short-handed, and I am

sure those gentlemen are too.
Senator DANIEL. How many men do you have in your narcotics
squad?
XM1'. MCMAHAN.
Ten, with myself.
2710
Senator DANIEL. Are you and those nine other men devoting your
time exclusively to narcotics work?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir, entirely.
Senator DANIEL. How many men does the Federal Bureau have
here in Houston, working with you?
Mr. MCMAIAN. Three, three that I know of.
Senator DANIEL. Three that you know of?

Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir, that I know the names of.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think the situation would be improved
if Congress provided for more Federal agents to be located in this
area?
Mr. MCMAHAN. I think so, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Does it appear to you they are short-handed with
Federal officers, either in personnel or money here?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Well, they are along the same lines that we are,
they are short of money too, and we are short of money and short of
manpower as well.
Senator DANIEL. Our committee can't do much about your shortage of money and manpower, but we might be able to do something
about the Federal shortage of money and manpower.
Mr. MCMAHAN. That was what led up to one of our misunderstandings here with the Federal last year, because after we had made
a couple of good cases, we were entirely dependent upon Federal for
money at that particular time, so after we had made these couple of
cases, they said, "We have got to make our case folders and files now.
We have got you shut off." Of course the peddlers were not going to
be cut off. We had to keep going, but we had no money to go on.
Senator
That is money for purchasing narcotics?

DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. For your undercover men to make purchases -with?

Senator
DANIEL.
And the Federal Government was furnishing
them with money, in a cooperative effort?

Mr. MCMAHAN. Last year.
Senator DANIEL. Last year, but they came to a point where they
said they had no more money to work with?
Senator DANIEL. So therefore, I suppose, you would recommend

that they have a little more money for that purpose?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, sir, I sure would.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have anything else now to suggest to us?
Mr. MCMAHAN. Yes, I would-of course this is going to come
back to our division and our department, which our Chief is thoroughly
familiar with, and I am sure the Federal agents are too, and they are
putting up with the same thing, and that is in the money shortage,
in the way of actual expenses for these men working undercover, not
for the buys. That is just the outright business if you order an ounce
of stuff and promise to pay a thousand dollars for it, and pay a thousand dollars and have a thousand dollars to pay for it, that is well and
good- you have a thousand dollars worth of heroin to show for it,
but these men working undercover at a low salary, they have to "big
tine" it, and they have to associate with these characters, and they
have to spend money. Well, they can't do it on those little low salaries
they are getting here, so I think, and I know the Federal men feel
2711
the same as I do, and they are having to do the same as we are, I
think they should have something there to offset these expenses that
are coming out of their own pockets. Of course I have taken that
up with my.Chief, Chief Heard, and he has agreed with me readily.
Senator DANIEL. I thank you very much, Captain, for all of your
cooperation, and between now and January 1, if you have anything
else to offer, before we submit our report to the Congress, we will be
glad
from you.or Puri
Is to*hear
Puri Rodriguez,
Perez, in the courtroom? Or Purificacion Rodriguez?
This committee has received indirect evidence or advice that this
witness went to the hospital this morning, and I will say to anyone
who might know the witness, or be familiar with her, or her whereabouts, that the committee has received no direct communication
from the witness, and unless the witness is to be held in contempt,
some communication should be received by this committee as to the
whereabouts of this witness, and whether the witness will be here
today or tomorrow.
We will take a 5-minute recess at this time.
(Recess.)
Senator DANIEL. Sheriff Kern.
The committee will come to order.
(Thereupon the witness C. V. (Buster) Kern. sheriff of Harris
County, Tex., was sworn by the chairman.)
TESTIMONY OF C. V. (BUSTER) KERN, SHERIFF, HARRIS COUNTY,
TEX.
Mr. KERN. C. V. (Buster) Kern.
Senator DANIEL. And your official position?
Mr. KERN. Sheriff of Harris County, Houston.
Senator DANIEL. The chairman can fill in the qualifications of this
officer, having worked with him as attorney general of Texas for a
long time, against the race-horse rackets, gambling wires, slot machines, and other things, and we are happy to hav e you before the
committee today, Sheriff.
Mr. KERN. Thank you, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been sheriff, Mr. Kern?
Mr. KERN. Since January 1949.
Senator DANIEL. Sheriff, do you think the narcotics problem in
Harris County is a serious problem?
Mr. KERN. I do, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I will ask you the same question I asked Chief
Jack Heard-what is your estimate of the crime in this county that
is attributable to narcotic addiction and traffic?
Mr. KERN. Senator, I would say 70 to 75 percent.
Senator DANIEL. Are you speaking now of the area outside of
Houston, or are you taking Houston in?
Mr. KERN. I am taking in Houston.
Senator DANIEL. You would put the figure even higher than Chief
Heard did?
Mr. KERN. I would; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Will you explain to us why you put such a high
figure on the crime in this county attributable to narcotics?
2712
22LICIT'
NARCOTICS THAFFiC
Mr. KERN. Well, just from the records, looking at the records,
reading offense reports and dealing with these individuals over a
period of years, some 27 years, to be exact, and naturally I have
ecome acquainted with a number of them, and we find in our records
and reports there that they are either addicted to heroin or morphine,
or they are marihuana users, one or the other.
Senator DANIEL. What was the figure you finally put on it?
Mr. KERN. I would say 70 to 75 percent.
SENATOR DANIEL. Of all of the crime in the county?
Mr. KERN. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You think if you could clean up the drug addiction
and drug traffic in this county you could, by the same token, clean up
that much of the crime in the county?
Mr. KERN, NO, I wouldn't say that. I would say it would cut it
down to a minimum figure, but I wouldn't say it would cut it down
that much, because regardless of whether they use narcotics or not,
there is always going to be stealing, I guess.
Senator DANIEL. Some of these people, as soon as they are on the
street, will probably be doing something else, is that what you mean?
Mr. KERN. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you find many narcotic addicts are of the
criminal bent to begin with, and went into crime even before they became drug addicts?
Mr. KERN. I do, sir, but I think narcotics has been a great point in
contributing to the criminal records that most of them have.
Senator DANIEL. At least their addiction has been one thing that
makes them continue in the life of crime?
Mr.
KERN.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Sheriff, what type of cooperation have you

had with the Federal officers and the customs agency and from the
Bureau of Narcotics here in the county?
Mr. KERN. It has been very pleasant.
Senator DANIEL. Would you say that it is satisfactory or could some
improvement be made in it?
Mr. KERN. Yes, sir, I think that under the conditions of the manpower and everything here, they have done everything they could.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Sheriff, do you agree with the previous witness that the Federal agency of the Bureau of Narcotics is not manned
as well as it should be? That is, I mean by that question, I mean there
should be more manpower, more men in that organization?
Mr. KERN. Yes, I do. In actual fact, I would say all the law enforcement agencies are undermanned, not only Federal organizations
but State as well.
Senator DANIEL. You think they are all undermanned?

Mr. KERN. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you have a special narcotics detail in your
office?
No, sir.
All my men are trained officers, and they all

handle murders, robberies, burglaries, and everything.
Mr. KERN-.
Senator
DANIEL.
What would be your estimate of the number of
addicts in Harris County?

Mfr. KERN. We have between 200 and 300, including marihuana
users.
Senator DANIEL. -And you think marihuana is a pretty dangerous
drug so far as drug addiction is concerned?
2713
I think it is the most dangerous drug as far

as the public is concerned. Not the individual.
Senator DANIEL. Why do you say that?
Mr. KERN. Because it more or less gives one false courage. They
use it for that purpose.
Senator DANIEL. You say it gives them false courage. Will you
explain exactly what you mean? I think I know what you mean.
But for the record tell us just what you mean. What kind of crimes
do they commit when they are given this false courage?
Mr. KERN.
Yes, sir.
Mr. KERN. Well,
they are mostly robberies with firearms.
I have
seen cases of users of marihuana where, for no reason at all, after

holding a man up, they would hit him in the face and knock all his
teeth out.
Senator DANIEL. Have you also known of heroin addicts or people
who use heroin who would commit murders or other terrible crimes
while under the influence of heroin?
Mr. KERN. Well, it could be in some cases. But my experience
has been that a person using heroin, after they become addicted, they
are dangerous when they don't have it, and not when they do have it.
In other words, it would be just the reverse of what marihuana
would be.
Senator DANIEL. 'What have you observed with reference to
juveniles and their use of drugs in the county?
Mr. KERN. Well, if you refer to juveniles starting at 17, from 17
to 23 has been the age where it has been the most frequent age where
we have found them dealing in crime overall. Under that age our
experience has been that the use has been mostly by "joy poppers."
Senator DANIEL. Joy poppers, that means what?
Mr. KERN. That is the expression that is used regularly by users.
For instance, a person that has not become addicted to it may take
the drug. People that are not on the habit, but who take the drug,
they would be referred to among the addicts as joy poppers.
Senator DANIEL. Do you agree that addicts spread addiction, like
a contagious disease, to their associates?
Mr. KERN. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator DANiEL. Do you know of any reason why these addicts
should not be removed from the streets just like you would remove
a person with leprosy?
Mr. KERN. No, sir, I do not.
Senator DANIEL. If they are not removed from the streets do you
think they are going to continue to spread that addiction to other
people?
Mr. KERN. I sure do. As a matter of fact, I have seen it spread in
the last 7 years.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any recommendations or suggestions
to make as to what Congress could do? Do you think there is anything Congress might do that would help the situation locally?
Mr. KERN. I think we have covered the local situation so far as
narcotics is concerned. Of course the bonds, Chief Heard covered
that.
Senator DANIEL. Do you agree with Chief Heari on his stateilmnt
that these low bonds are onie of the reasons for addicts and peddlers
going back out and still selling dope?

Mr. KERN. Yes, sir; I sure do agree with that, Seinator. I think
a second offender should not be allowed bond in a, narcotic s case-
2714
ELICITT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any other recommendations with

respect to bonds, paroles, or suspended sentences?
Mr. KERN. Well, I think first offenders should be hospitalized until
they are cured of the habit.
Second offenders I think on conviction, whether Federal or State,
should receive a minimum sentence of 25 years.
And I agree with Sheriff Kilday that it should be death say for
anyone convicted of selling narcotics to juveniles.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, you think the maximum penalty
should be raised to death, so the jury could assess death?
Mr. KERN. I agree with that.
Senator DANIEL. Sheriff Kilday in San Antonio testified that he
knew of one individual who had introduced heroin to 40 or 50 boys
in San Antonio, and had gotten them all addicted.
Mr. KERN. I don't doubt that.
Senator DANIEL. And he said that he thought in a case of that
kind it ought to be possible to give a maximum of death. Certainly
that man killed these boys. It was just murder on the installment
plan.
Mr. KERN. I think it is Worse than dying.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any further recommendation to
make? I believe you have a prepared statement.
Mr. KERN. It is very short.
Mr. KERN. I believe that third offenders should be on conviction
placed on an island such as Alcatraz for life. I think every effort
should be made to restore them back to health, but if there is no
other means of curing them I think they should be removed from the
public and placed in imprisonment. Most people who go to the
penitentiary have some definite weakness, and it is easy for addicts
to start them on benzidrine, barbiturates, marihuana and other drugs
that eventually lead to addiction.
Senator DANIEL. In capital cases can bond be denied in this State?
Mr. KERN. Yes, sir; it sure can.
Mr. KERN. I have seen these addicts
go to the penitentiary year

in and year out. They get out, and they go right back on the habit.
It is really a disease. I don't see any decrease in narcotics. As a
matter of fact, I have seen an increase in the use of narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. In this county?
Mr. KERN. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think it is on the increase?
Mr. KERN. I sure do. I think it is getting into our juveniles
more than it ever did before.
Senator DANIEL. If you are right about that, that is really alarming.
If the use of narcotics is on the increase, especially among juveniles,
in this county, it is certainly alarming. Because up in Washington,
D. C., and in New York and California, all the evidence thus far
that has come before this committee shows a small decline in the use
of narcotics generally, especially among juveniles.
Mr. KERN. I was basing my statement on some recent investigations we have made, all of which may not have been made public yet.
Our figures may not show that.
Senator DANIEL. Their figures indicate that.
2715
Mr. KERN. That is right. But recent investigation we have made

amongst juveniles shows it to be on the increase. I say that based
upon many years of experience. I have seen these people taken to
different points, for instance, to Lexington, Ky. I have taken
many of them up there myself. I spent 3%' years as deputy United
States marshal. They have one of the finest hospitals in the country.
If those people really want to be cured they can be cured. But my
experience has been that as soon as they are discharged they get
right back on it. I think they should be put away for an indefinite
length of time.
And our search-and-seizure laws, we run into those quite a bit.
We happen to stop a speeder at 2 o'clock in the morning, and he has
heroin or marihuana, that search would be illegal. I think possession of narcotics, whether it be heroin, morphine, or marihuana,
I think the possession of it should not be questioned. I think that
ought to be sufficient evidence for the courts.
Senator DANIEL. You mean in Texas you couldn't use that evidence?
Mr. KERN. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. This is the first case we have found where that
evidence could not be used. We couldn't use that evidence in our
Federal courts, and the Federal officers are all complaining about
the strict search-and-seizure rules and procedure. I imagine the
Texas Legislature could do something about it when they understand
the situation, just as some of the States have done, Whenever an
officer finds dope on a person he certainly ought to be able to do
something about it.
If you have any suggestions to make before these hearings are closed
early in December we will certainly put them in the record. If you
have any suggestions or recommendations to make please let us have
them.
Mr. KERN. I will sure do it.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any other recommendations at this
time?
Mr. KERN. Well, I don't know whether I have covered the bond
situation sufficiently or not.
Senator DANIEL. You said you agreed with Chief Heard.
Mr. KERN. For second offenders, I think they should be denied
bond.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Counsel.
Mr. GASQUE. Sheriff, I would like to know how you feel about wiretapping?
Mr. KERN. I am very much in favor of it-not only using wire-
tapping to get information, but as evidence.

Mr. GASQUE. Do you believe that the chief source of heroin is
Mexico?
Mr. KERN. Yes, I do.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you believe that heroin comes in here from
Mexico?
Mr. KERN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GASQUE. You agree with the previous witnesses as to that?
Mr. KERN. Yes, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Would you be of the same opinion that there exists
factories in Mexico?
71515--56--pt. 7-24
2716
Mr. KERN. I do. As a matter of fact, I have heard it from different

sources, that there are factories there.
Mr. GASQUE. What would you think would be the route it takes to
get to Houston?
Mr. KERN. Well, to Houston naturally the closest route would be
through Brownsville. There are times when you can walk all over
that river. You can come out anywhere. There are times when
there is not a bottle of water in that river, and they could cross it
most anywhere.
Mr. GASQUE. You do feel that is the source of heroin into Houston?
Mr. KERN. From Mexico, yes.
That has always been my under-
standing.
Senator DANIEL. We certainly appreciate your testimony, Sheriff,
and your desire to give this committee the benefit of the experience
and information you have obtained. We hope you will let us have
any other information you may have during the hearings, and we will
be glad to make it a part of the record, before we report to Congress
in January.
Senator DANIEL. M{rs. Schofield, you will stand up and be sworn.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give
this subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I do, sir.
TESTIMONY OF MRS. MARY ANN SCHOFIELD

Mrs. SCHOFIELD Mary Ann Schofield.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. 15051/ Congress.
Senator DANIEL. Houston?

Mrs. SCHOEFIELD. That is right.
Senator DANIEL. How old are you?

Mrs. SCHOEFIELD. Twenty-three.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you lived in Houston?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Since 1950, off and on.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I am separated.
Senator DANIEL. Who was your former husband?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Ted Schofield.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you have had the unfortunate experience

of having been a narcotics addict?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you have agreed to tell this committee

your experience in order that you might do something toward helping
other people avoid what you have experienced.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
That is correct, yes.
Senator DANIEL. The committee appreciates your willingness to

appear before us. Tell us when you began using heroin.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
1948 or 1949.
Senator DANIEL. How old were you at that, time?

Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Sixteen or seventeen.
Senator DANIEL. Where were you living then?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Los Angeles.
Senator
heroin?
DANIEL.
2717
How did you happen to take your first shot of
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Just because I was going around with somebody
using it, and I was curious and wanted to try it too.

Senator DANIEL. Were you going to school?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. At first I was a senior, the first time I ever took
any, in high school.
Senator DANIEL. At what school?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Eagle Rock High School.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Eagle Rock, Calif.
Senator DANIEL. Had you previously before using heroin used
marihuana or any other drug?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I had smoked marihuana one time, but I didn't
like it, and didn't use it any more.
Senator DANIEL. Had you used any other type drug before heroin?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. No, Sir.
Senator DANIEL. There in your high school did you know other
students who were using marihuana or heroin?
Senator DANIEL. Is that how you happened to get started?
Senator DANIEL. Did someone give you your first heroin or did
you buy it?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I bought it.
Senator DANIEL. About how many other people did you know that
that were using it?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I knew about 20 kids that were using drugs at
that time. Some of them were in high school and some had just
graduated.
Senator DANIEL. How many times did you use heroin before you
felt like you had to have it every day or every other day?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. It took 6 months to a year before I had a habit.
Senator DANIEL. Six months to a year before you had a habit?
Irs. SCHOFIELD. Yes.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
stay off very long.
ever get off the drug habit?

broke the habit myself one time. But I didn't
Senator DANIEL. What does it cause, what kind of pain, when you
are a. heroin addict and you have it taken away from you?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. How does it feel?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
At first you simply yawn, your eyes water, your
nose runs, and then you start getting cramps, and every bone, muscle
and nerve in your body aches. And then you start vomiting, and get
diarrhea, and you can't eat, and you can't sleep.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever known anyone to die from that?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Yes, I had a girl friend in New York that died.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
She died there in one of the prisons?

That is right.
Did you feel like you might die?

I felt like I wanted to die.
Senator DANIEL. And when you got out of jail or wherever you
were, did you go back to using heroin?
2718
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Well, I stayed off a while.
And eventually I
went back on.
Senator
DANIEL.
How much a day was your heroin habit costing
you in California?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
You mean when I first started?
Senator
Before the time you left California?
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
About $15 a day.
Senator
What were you doing to get that money?
DANIP'.L.
Mrs.. SCHOFIELD.
Senator DANIEL.
Do I have to answer?
You don't necessarily have to answer that if you
would prefer not to.

Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I would
Senator DANIEL. Let me
rather not.
put it this way: Did you find that you
had to commit some violation of the law to get the money?

Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Then when you came to Texas what did your
habit cost you?
Sometimes it would cost
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. It has run different.
me more than other times. Sometimes I would cut down. I can't
say exactly.
Senator DANIEL. Did you find heroin cheaper in Califorma or in
Texas?
Mrs.
SCHOFIELD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator DANIEL.
In California.
What type heroin, was there any difference?
It was about the same.
About how high would your heroin habits run
you in Texas?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. When I had the habit?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Yes.
I have had it where I spent $50 a day.
Since you have been in Texas?
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did you find it was necessary to violate the law
to get the money to buy that heroin?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator
DANIEL.
Yes.
Was your husband an addict?
My legal husband, well he had used some drugs,
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
but he is not an addict.
Senator
DANIEL.
Now were you at one time living with George
Drury, Mrs. Schofield?

Mrs. SCHOFIELD. That is right.
Senator
DANIEL.
Was he an addict?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did he also sell heroin?

Yes.
Where was he selling heroin?
Here.
In Houston?
Yes.
Has he been convicted?
Yes.
See if I am correct on this: Was George Drury,
the man you have just told us about, given 6 years in 1954 on a
Federal charge, and 10 years in the State court, for a total of 16 years"
Mrs.
SCHOFIELD.
That is right.
11111111
2719
ILLICIT 'NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
Senator
DANIEL. So he is no longer in business

Mrs. SCHOFIELD. No.
Senator DANIEL. How old was he when he was
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. About 44 or 45.
in Houston?
convicted?
Senator DANIEL. How long did you live with George Drury?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Two or three years.
Senator DANIEL. During that time when he was selling heroin
did you help him in any way?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Well, I never did sell any of it. I carried it
across the border.
Senator DANIEL. You helped carry it over the border?
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you use heroin more then?
Yes. There was more available.

Senator DANIEL. When you were living with this man he was selling
heroin here in Houston?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right, where did he get that heroin?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. In Mexico.
Senator
DANIEL.
SCHOFIELD.
Mrs.
Senator
DANIEL.
At what point across the border?

It was in Nuevo Laredo.
Did he use other points too that you know of?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. No.
Senator
DANIEL.
His source was at Nuevo Laredo?
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever go with him to get heroin in Mexico?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Yes.
Senator
Where did you go to in Nuevo Laredo?
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Well, on what occasion?
Senator
Were they Mexican connections?
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator
I would rather not say.
Yes.
They were not American citizens?

Mrs. SCHOFIELD. No.
Senator DANIEL. Let the record show that this witness has been
DANIEL.
warned of her constitutional rights, and also of the fact that she could
refuse to testify on the grounds that her refusal to answer certain
questions might incriminate her; and that she has answered all questions we have asked her except as to the identification of certain
people who are in the narcotics traffic; and in view of the fact that
she has agreed to tell us everything except these connections we are
going to receive her testimony and accede to her desire not to reveal
those connections. So that the record may be clear, that is the
understanding we have had with this witness, that this information
will not be given in a public session.
I don't know whether you meant to include the people you bought
from in Mexico. Do you mean to include those as the people you do
not identify in open session?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
I do not wish to identify any of them in open
session.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you have any fear for your life or for your
security in case you did that?

MrS.' S'HOFIELD. No; I just don't want people to think I am that
kindof. person.
Senator
DANIEL.
You just don't want to identify them?
2720
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I would rather not identify them in public or

private.
Senator DANIEL. How many times did you all buy from these
people across the border?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Numerous times.
Senator DANIEL. How much did heroin cost in Nuevo Laredo?
Mrs.
SCHOFIELD.
$20 a gram.
$20 a gram over there just across te

border, and then what was it worth a gram here in Houston?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. $60.
Senator DANIEL. How much would you buy at a time?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. About 50 grams.
Senator DANIEL. That would be about $1,000 worth each trip?
Senator
DANIEL. It
cost
Senator
der?
DANIEL.
How often would you make trips across the bor-
About once a week.

And you were bringing that much heroin into
Houston for how long a time?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. About a year.
Senator DANIEL. And then what was being done with that heroin
here in Houston?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. We were using part of it and selling part of it.
Senator DANIEL. About, how many heroin addicts do you know in
Houston?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I imagine about 75 or 100.
Senator DANIEL. About how many was George Drury selling to?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I don't know. I didn't have much to do with
that part of it.
Senator DANIEL. Did you yourself personally know of from 75 to
100 heroin addicts here in Houston?
Mrs.
SCHOFIELD.
Senator DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. You were arrested the other day in this round up
of narcotic addicts?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator DANIEL.
your arrest?
Yes, sir.
Had you been using heroin up to the time of
Senator
DANIEL.
Have you ever bought heroin in any other Texas
city?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. In San Antonio.
Did you find heroin easier or harder to get there?

Mrs. SCHOFIELD. It is easier than here, and it is cheaper than here.
Senator DANIEL. How much did heroin cost in San Antonio?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. You can get it for about the same price you can
Senator
DANIEL.
in Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. Would that be white or brown heroin?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Brown.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know whether there is any difference
between the white and the brown?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. As far as I know, the brown comes from Mexico
and the white comes from the east coast.
Senator DANIEL. You can get either one in San Antonio?
Senator
Mrs.
DANIEL.
SCHOFIELD.
2721
You can get either one in Houston?

You can get either one in Houston, but mostly
white now.
Senator DANIEL. How long has it been mostly white?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. The last 3 or 4 months.
Senator DANIEL. Would that indicate that the heroin is coming
from the west coast or from New York?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. It would indicate it was coming from New York.
Senator DANIEL. Why do you say that those purchases of white
heroin for the last 3 months indicate to you that it is coming from
New York?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Well, I know of no white heroin sold in Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. Did you get any white heroin from California?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I never have.
Senator DANIEL. Was it also dark like Mexican heroin?
Senator DANIEL. Has it been possible to get white heroin pretty
easily here in Houston for the last 3 months?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. That is all they have had practically.
Senator DANIEL. I want to be sure I understand you. You say
that is all they have had practically for the last 3 months?
Senator
You are speaking from personal knowledge?

From my own experience.
Of having bought it?
Senator DANIEL. How much has your habit been costing you here
in Houston for the last 3 months?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I have cut down quite a bit myself. I have only
been spending about $15 a day.
Senator DANIEL. Have you tried to get heroin in New Orleans?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I lived in New Orleans for a while, yes.
Senator DANIEL. How long did you live there?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. About a year.
Senator DANIEL. Were you able to buy heroin in New Orleans?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. No.
Senator DANIEL. What did you get to take care of your habit?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Drugs, medicines.
Senator DANIEL. When you say drugs, medicines, you mean some
form of narcotics?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Dilaudid.
Senator DANIEL. How were you able to buy drugs?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. You don't buy it. You have to go to a doctor's
office and convince him to write a prescription.
Senator DANIEL. How do you convince the doctor to write a
prescription?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I would tell them I was sick.
Senator DANIEL. What did you tell them was wrong?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Various excuses.
Senator DANIEL. Were you able to talk them into giving you
prescriptions?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Usually.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have a doctor contact in New
Orleans that gave you a prescription after you told him you were a
drug addict?
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator DANIEL.
2722
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
There were some.

Senator DANIEL. How many?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Two or three that I know of.
Senator DANIEL. I am not going to ask you to identify them in
open session. But did you go to those doctors on several occasions?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did they know you were a drug addict?
Mrs.
SCHOFIELD. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. About
how many dilaudid capsules would they
give you each time?

Mrs.
SCHOFIELD.
A prescription usually called for 16 dilaudid
capsules.
Senator
DANIEL.
How long were you able to keep up your addiction
habit in New Orleans through dilaudid prescriptions from doctors?

Mrs. SCHOFIELD. About 6 months.
Senator
DANIEL.
What did the doctors charge you?
The ones that didn't know I was an addict

charged the regular $3 or $5 or whatever it was for a visit.
Mrs.
SCHOFIELD.
Senator
DANIEL.
What did the doctors who knew you were an
addict charge you?

Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Well, I paid as much as $25.
Senator DANIEL. For a prescription?
find any doctors who would sell you

dilaudid direct without prescription?
Mrs.
SCHOFIELD.
No.
Senator DANIEL. Did you have any trouble getting druggist to fill
your prescriptions in New Orleans?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
No.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever try the same thing here in Houston?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I tried it here.
Senator DANIEL. Were you able to get any doctors to sell you?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. No.
Senator DANIEL. Or give you a prescription here?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
No.
Senator DANIEL. Did you say heroin was easier to get in San Antonio or easier to get here?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
No; easier to got in San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. Was that white or brown heroin?

Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Sold both down there.
Senator DANIEL. How about in New York, did you ever try to
buy it there?
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. How much did that heroin cost in New York?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I was spending about $35 a day.
Senator DANIEL. How long did you live in New York?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. About 8 months.
Senator DANIEL. The heroin was costing you more in New York
than in Houston. Was that because it cost more there?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. No; I had to use more because it was not as good.
Senator DANIEL. By that you mean it was not as strong as the
Houston heroin?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy heroin in San Francisco?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
IlIII

Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Once or twice.
Mrs.
Yes.
2723
Senator DANIEL. Was it easier to buy heroin in Los Angeles than in

San Francisco?
In San Francisco I
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I don't suppose it was.
didn't know so many people up there.
Senator DANIEL. Did you find it rather easy to buy in Los Angeles?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. It was for me, because I knew people there.
Senator DANIEL. How about compared to Houston?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. It is pretty hard to buy heroin here unless you
know the people. Sometimes then even you can't buy it. There are
times when you can't buy it in any place. But in Los Angeles there
were numerous connections and we never had any trouble.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever try to take the cure for addiction?
SCHOFIELD.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Where did you go?

Lexington.
Senator DANIEL. Federal Narcotics Hospital, Lexington, Ky.?

Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator DANIEL.
How long did you stay there?

Eighteen days.
Were you a voluntary patient?
Did it do you any good?

Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Well, I started off again as soon as I got out.
Senator DANIEL. Why didn't you stay in there?
Nobody wants to
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Because I wanted to get out.
be locked up when they know they can get out.
Senator DANIEL. Don't you know if you are not honestly trying
you can't break the habit?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Even if I had stayed 4 months or 5 I probably
on
itoff.when I got out. It doesn't make
would have still gone back
are
you
long
how
any difference
Senator DANIEL. You think whenever you are allowed to get out
of jail here, or whatever they do to you, you will go back on it?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I will try not to, but I couldn't promise, because
I don't know. But I will try not to.
Senator DANIEL. Is this addiction something some people just
can't get away from after they once take these shots?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. It seems to be.
Senator DANIEL. Do you take your shots in the vein or under the
skin?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
In the vein.
Senator DANIEL. Is there anything you would like to say to this

committee as to what Congress could do or what the enforcement
officers can do to aid people like you? I believe you would like to
see this traffic licked, so others wouldn't get into trouble and ruin
their lives like you have?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I don't know of any way they could lick it. It
wouldn't be fair to lock all of us up for the rest of our lives just because
we got on it when we were young and didn't know any better, because
we haven't done anything that serious to break the law. I believe
we deserve a chance just as well as anyone else. Because we were
unfortunate enough to use drugs when we were too young to know
better, that is no reason why we should be locked up...
2724
I think the only thing that could be done that would stop the
narcotics traffic would be if they would open up clinics where addicts
could get it.
Senator DANIEL. So that they could get it free?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Not free, but, maybe for $2 or $3.
Senator DANIEL. That wouldn't, break anybody from the habit, cure
the habit.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. No, but it would stop drugs from coming from
Mexico.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator DANIEL.
That system was tried in some other States.

I know it was.
The reports that came to our committee about.
where it was tried in other cities was that it did not, satisfy addicts,
and that they would go out. to the black market to supplement their
supply and get more of the black market stuff. Do you know about
that?
Mrs.
SCHOFIELD.
Senator DANIEL.
NO.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
No.
The free clinics were also tried in Singapore and

in several other cities of the world, and they have all been closed down
because the black market and illegal peddlers increased. The sheriff
over in San Antonio told us that there was I man who sold heroin to
young people, and he told us about 40 or 50 young boys who started
buying from 1 man, and that he realized then that free clinics were
not the answer. What do you think about that?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I don't know what other answer there could be.
Senator DANIEL. Do you find that narcotic addicts spread their
addiction to other people, that is friends and associates?
Senator DANIEL. You have got to have someone to show you to
start with?
Senator
DANIEL.
Who started you?
One of the boys I was going around with.

Some of your friends or associates were using it?
Yes. Nowadays I haven't noticed many new
The ones I have seen, they have been addicts for several
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
addicts.
years.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. Counsel.
Mr. GASQUE. You say you know numerous peddlers in Houston,

in Mexico and in San Antonio?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. No, I don't know numerous ones in Mexico.
Mr. GASQUE. You know numerous ones in Houston?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I know several.
Mr. GASQUE. Are they on the streets now?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I don't know who is in jail and who is not in jail.
Mr. GASQUE. That is since the raid?
Mrs.
SCHOFIELD. That is right.

GASQUE. Where they on the
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
streets?
Previous to the raid.
Senator
All right, thank you very much.
Mr.
DANIEL.
You may step
aside.
Mrs. LoCascio, you will stand up and be sworn.
to this subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be the
2725
Mrs. LoCAscoO. I do, sir.
TESTIMONY OF ALLECE LoCASCIO

Senator
DANIEL.
Your name is Allene LoCascio?
Mrs. LOCASCIO. Allece LoCascio.
Senator DANIEL. How do you spell your name?

Mrs. LOCASCIO. L-o-C-a-s-c-i-o.
Senator DANIEL. And your first name?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. A-1-1-e-c-e.
Senator
DANIEL.
Where do you live?
Mrs. LoCAsCIO. 4412 Edsie.

Senator DANIEL. How old are
you?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. Twenty-one.

Mrs. LoCAscIo. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you have had the unfortunate experience
of having been a narcotic addict?
Mrs. LoCAsCoO. At one time, yes.
Senator DANIEL. What drug did you use?
Mrs. LoCAsCoO. Heroin.
Senator DANIEL. At what age did you start using the drug?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. Twenty.
Senator DANIEL. Where were you living at the time?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. In Houston.
Senator DANIEL. Who gave you your first shot of heroin?
MIrs. LoCAsCoO. I took it myself.
Senator DANIEL. Previouslyhad you used marihuana or any other
kind of drug before trying heroin?
Mrs. LoCAscIO. Very few before.
Senator DANIEL. What had you used very few times before heroin?
Mrs. LoCAscIO. Maybe marihuana, a couple of times.
Senator DANIEL. And then what made you decide to take your first
shot of heroin?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. I just wanted to take it.
Senator DANIEL.
doing it?
Mrs. LoCAsCIO.
Did you see someone, some of your associates,

Yes.
I have seen them do it.
Senator DANIEL. And the first time you took some were some of
Your friends with you?
Mrs. LoCAsCIO. No, not when I took my first shot, no.
Senator DANIEL. Did you shoot the needle in the skin or in your
vein?
Mrs. LoCAscIO. In my vein.
Senator DANIEL. Who helped you do it?
helped you cook the heroin?
Mrs. LoCAscIO. No, I was by myself.
Was it some friend who
I had watched people before.
I knew what to do. I did it myself.

Senator DANIEL. Had you watched your friends do it before?
Mrs. LoCAscIO. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Who gave
you the heroin that you used?
Mrs. LoCAscIO. I had got it myself.

Senator DANIEL. Did you buy it?
2726
Mrs. LOCASCIO. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. How many times had you watched your friends
use it before you decided to use it?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. I don't know how many times.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear of it or anything about it before
seeing friends use it?

Mrs. LoCAscIo. Not very much, no.
Senator
DANIEL.
What did the heroin cost you?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. I think it was $5 or $6 a capsule at that time.
Senator DANIEL. How much did it finally cost you to keep up your
heroin habit?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. Oh, more than $35 or $40 a day.
Senator
DANIEL.
What did you do to make that much money?
Mrs. LOCASCIO. It was given to me.
Senator
DANIEL.
I didn't have to buy it.
Who gave it to you?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. I would rather not answer that.
Senator
DANIEL.
Was your husband an addict?
Mrs. LOCAscIo. No.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did he deal in drugs?
Mrs. LoCAsCoO. He has been charged with possession.
Senator
DANIEL.
Has he been tried?
Mrs. LOCASCIO. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. LOCASciO.
Senator
DANIEL.
Has he been convicted?

Yes.
How many years was he given?
Mrs. LoCAsCoO. Five years.
Senator
DANIEL.
What is his name?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. Pete LoCascio.
Senator
DANIEL.
Is he any relation to Nick LoCascio in Dallas?
Mrs. LOCASCIO. No.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you know Nick LoCascio in Dallas?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. No.

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever take a cure, or attempted cure?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
Where did you go?
Mrs. LOCAscIo. I went to Lexington.
Senator
DANIEL.
How long did you stay in Lexington.
Mrs. LoCAscIo. I stayed a few days, and then I went to my
mother's and stayed 6 weeks.

Senator DANIEL. Why didn't you stay at Lexington more than
a few days?
Mrs. LoCAscio.
Senator
DANIEL.
Because our trial was coming up.
What trial?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. The trial my husband was convicted on.
Senator DANIEL. Then did you go to New York after having

been let out of Lexington?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
How long did you stay in New York?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. Two days.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you buy any heroin in New York?
Mrs. LOCASCIO. It was bought for me.

Senator DANIEL. Bought by whom?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. A friend.
I didn't buy it.
2727
Senator DANIEL. Did you meet in New York some addict whom
you had previously met in Lexington in the Federal hospital?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. Only one.
Senator DANIEL. And did that one person whom you met at the
Federal hospital tell you where you could buy some heroin?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. No, she didn't tell me where I could buy it. She
bought it, and I used some of it.
Senator DANIEL. She bought it for you?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. She had already gone back on heroin herself after
being dismissed from the hospital?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know the shot of heroin in New York
that you got was going to do more than usual damage to you?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. No, I didn't think it was going to do any damage
to me. After I took it I was ill, but not before.

Senator DANIEL. Do you think you had an overdose?
Mrs. LOCASCIO. No.
Senator
DANIEL.
What do you think was wrong?
Mrs. LoCAscoO. Something in the drug.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't your friend tell you that he knew of some
addict in New York who had died from these shots?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. Yes, a doctor did.
Senator DANIEL. A doctor told you that?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Was that the doctor who treated you?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. After you thought you had a bad shot?

Mrs. LoCAscIo. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. How many addicts did he say he had known died
from such shots?
Mrs. LoCAscIO. On the average of one a week.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know where your husband got the drugs
that he sold?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. No.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever go with him to get. drugs?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. No, he didn't take me.

Senator DANIEL. Counsel?
MJr.
GASQUE.
Are you cold?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. No.
Mr.
GASQUE.
Are you in the process of withdrawal?
Mrs. LoCAscio. No, I am not.
I am just not used to the air con-
ditioning where I have been.

Senator DANIEL. Not this cold where you have been?
Mrs. LOCAscIo. No.
Senator DANIEL. I believe that you, having experienced some of the

bad things that can happen to those who get addicted to drugs, are
willing to come here and give us your story in order that it might help
someone else stay away from it. Is that right?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. We were subpenaed.
Senator DANIEL. But after we talked with you about it I believe

you said you would come under those circumstances.
Mrs. LOCAScIO. Yes.
2728
7LLICLt
NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
Senator DANIEL. Of course we could have under subpena caused

you to come, but we wanted to talk with you and see if you wouldn't
voluntarily talk to us, because as I explained to you, under your constitutional rights you could decline to answer some of these questions.
Mrs. LOCASCIO. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And I appreciate your coming under those ciicumstances. And your advice to any young person is to keep away
from heroin oir any other type of drug.
Mrs. LoCAscIo. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Is that right?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. How high did your habit come here in Houston"
Mrs. LoCAScIo. About. a gram a day at the peak.
Senator DANIEL. How much did it cost you a day?
If I had been buying it on the street it would have

cost me around $50.
Senator DANIEL. But you were getting it from your husband?
Mrs. LoCAscoO.
Mrs. LoCAscIo. He got it.
Senator DANIEL. Got, it for you?

Mrs. LoCAscIo. Yes.
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs. LOCASCIO.
Senator DANIEL.
want you to try to
And he was engaged in the traffic here in Houston?

Yes.
Did he give this heroin to you readily or did he
break the habit?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. He said if I didn't kick the habit we would sepa-
rate. It was compulsory to kick the habit.

Senator DANIEL. Were you able to kick the habit?
Mrs. LoCAscIO. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
How long have you been off the drug?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. Six weeks.
Senator
DANIEL.
Almost seven weeks now.
Where were you raised as a child?
Mrs. LOCASCIO. I moved around all (luring my childhood.
No
specific place.
Senator DANIEL. Your mother and father were separated?
Mrs. LOCAscIo. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. When you were 2 years old?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And your mother married again?

Mrs. LOCASCIO. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And you traveled around over the country?

Mrs. LoCAsCoO. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. How far did you go in school?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. I completed my schooling.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever attend church?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Up to what age?

Mrs. LOCASCIO. About 15 or 16.
Senator DANIEL. About how many users of heroin did you know
here in Houston?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. I didn't know too many.
My husband wouldn't
let me associate with them or meet them. He tried to keep me away

from them.
Senator DANIEL. About how many would you say you know?
Mrs. LoCAscIo. It is bard to say.
I wouldn't be able to guess.
2729
Senator DANIEL. All right, thank you. You may stand aside.
Pictures may not be taken of the next witness we are about to call.
It is time to recess, so we will recess until 2:30 this afternoon.
(Whereupon, at 12:30 p. in., the subcommittee recessed until
2:30 p. M.)
AFTERNOON
SESSION
The committee will come to order.

I will ask the witness, Mary Ann Schofield, to return to the stand.
Senator DANIEL.
TESTIMONY OF MARY ANN SCHOFIELD-(Resumed)

Senator DANIEL. In questioning you this morning about your trip
to Mexico for heroin I failed to go into some of the details I would

like to ask you about at this time. Was George Drury with you?
Mrs.
SCHOFIELD.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator DANIEL.
Yes.
Did you and George Drury cross the border?

Yes.
At what point at, the border did you and George
Drury cross?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Nuevo Laredo.
Santor DANIEL. Was that the place you usually crossed during the
entire time you were smuggling heroin from Mexico to Houston?

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever cross at any other place?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. McAllen.
Senator DANIEL. How many times did you cross at McAllen?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. One.
Senator DANIEL. Did you always buy your heroin at Nuevo
Laredo?
Senator DANIEL. What about the occasions when you crossed at
McAllen, did you buy heroin at a different place then?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Yes, in Monterey.
Senator DANIEL. Did you make the trip to Monterey?
Senator DANIEL. And did you see the purchase made there?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. No.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know that George Drury did buy heroin,
in Monterey?'
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator
terey?
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Do you know from whom?

No.
Was that the only time you purchased. ip. MonYes.
Senator DANIEL. On the other occasions you made purchases in

Nuevo Laredo?
Senator DANIEL. Now you decline to tell us who you made the,
purchases from in Nuevo Laredo. I want to ask you, though, 2 names
to see whether they are involved, because these 2 men were testified
to be sellers of heroin in Nuevo Laredo at our San Antonio hearings.
And you understand I am asking you about them, and you are not
2730
bringing their names into this hearing. I would like to ask you
whether or not one of those men was Enrico Trevinio.
Senator DANIEL. T-r-e-v-i-n-i-o?
TMrs. SCHOFIELD. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. I will ask you if another one of those was his
brother, Pancho Trevinio?
Senator
Mrs.
DANIEL.
SCHOFIELD.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
That is Nuevo Laredo?

Yes.
But you did make purchases there for a year?

I didn't make the purchases.
Who made them?
George.
Did you go with him?
I went with him one time, but usually I waited
someplace else.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you said you purchased about $1,000
worth of heroin per week during this year's period?
Senator DANIEL. And then did you bring it back across the river
yourselves, or did you pay a runner to bring it back across the river?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
brought it back.
Did you do that always, or part of the time?

Part of the time.
Did George have a car?
We left the car on the other side and we would go
over mn a taxicab.
Senator DANIL. You left your car in Laredo?
Senator DANIEL. And crossed the bridge over the Rio Grande to
Nuevo Laredo in a taxicab?
Senator DANIEL. Which one of you brought the heroin back?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I did.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you hide the heroin?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. In my vagina.
Senator DANIEL. Did he ever bring it back himself?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. No.
Senator DANIEL. You hid it then within your person?
Senator DANIEL. And then did you change the method of smuggling
heroin back across the border?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Yes.
Why did you make the change?

Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Because the Federal officers stopped me and
searched me one time, and I was afraid to bring it back any longer.
Senator DANIEL. Did they find the heroin you had on that occasion?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. No, they didn't.
Senator DANIEL. Where was this search made?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. In Brownsville.
Senator DANIEL. Or in McAllen?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. We were searched in Brownsville. They followed
Senator
DANIEL.
us from McAllen.
2731
Senator DANIEL. Was that the same trip you told us about when
jou went to Monterrey?

Senator DANIEL. By way of McAllen?
MIrs. SCHOFIELD. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And you were followed to Brownsville and searched
there?
Senator DANIEL. Did they find the heroin?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. No.
Senator
Mrs.
DANIEL.
SCHOFIELD.
Did you bring it back on your person?

No.
Senator DANIEL. Then how did you arrange to get the heroin

Mrs. SCHOFIELD. He arranged
to have somebody bring it back.
Paid somebody to bring it back.

Senator DANIEL. How long did this second method of smuggling
last?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Six months.
Senator DANIEL. Would you go across the border to make the

purchases?
'r1S.
SCHOFIELD.
No, we didn't go across the border at all.
Senator DANIEL. You stayed on the Laredo side?

.Mr's. SCHOFIELD. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Just
it?
exactly how would you go about doing
lrs. SCHOFIELD. I don't know that.
In other words, you know he stayed on the

Laredo side, and someone delivered the heroin to him on the American
side of the border?
Senator
DANIEL.
.MIrs. SCHOFIELD. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. After the time you were searched at Brownsville?

Senator DANIEL. Do you know what it cost to have it delivered
across the border?

Irs. SCHOFIELD.
I think he paid him about $50.

M[r. GASQUE. Now do you have any idea that you can stay off
of heroin?
MIs. SCHOFIELD. I really couldn't say.
M1r. GASQUE. You will try?
I can try.
SCHOFIELD. I
Mt r. GASQUE. But
Irs. SCHOFIELD. I
will try.
what do you think now?
guess I could.
Mr. GASQUE. You think you can?
Mr. GASQUE. Hasn't it ruined your life?
Irs. SCHOFIELD. Well, yes, on account of I have gotten in trouble.
M[r. GASQUE. Do you go to church?
Mrs.
Irs. SCHOFIELD.
No.
Mr.
GASQUE. How long since

.Mrs..SCHOFIELD. Since 1948.
you have been to church?
M11r. GASQUE. Did you ever have occasion to hustle before you
Went on heroin?
7 1515-56-pt.
7--25
2732
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
Before?
Mr.
GASQUE. Yes.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. No.
Mr.
Since that time?

Mr. GASQUE. Now, what are you going to do? What do you hope
to do? What can you suggest to do as an individual to stop this
cancer that is eating into community life?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I really don't know anything they can do.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you think it is hopeless?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. it seems to me it is.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you think that Houston, one of those cities
afflicted by this, can do nothing to keep it from spreading to the
boys and girls of this community?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I don't know what you can do.
It wouldn't be
fair to put all the addicts in jail for a long time. That wouldn't be
fair.
Mr. GASQUE. But it spreads from addicts to other persons, doesn't it?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Well, I don't know whether it spreads from addicts
to other persons.
Mr. GASQUE. But it spreads.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I haven't seen any new addicts now in a long time.
Mr. GASQUE. That is all.
Senator DANIEL. You do know that if it had not been for addict
friends of yours getting you interested in it you wouldn't be an
addict today, would you?
Senator DANIEL. It was friends of yours, addicts who were out of
jail and on the streets and in your high school, that taught you to use
it, isn't that true?
Senator DANIEL. Now the sheriff, Buster Kern, has asked me to
ask you this question, as to whether or not if there was a life sentence
provided for addicts, if you think they could stay off of dope and be
with their families and their freinds; but if they went back to it for
a second or third time they could be put in some type of colony or some
kind of institution; do you think that would help keep you off of
drugs?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. An institution?
Senator DANIEL. A colony of some kind or an institution.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Just anybody using drugs, put us away for life?
Senator DANIEL. No. Anybody that had gone back on drugs
GASQUE.
after a second or third chance to become cured.
If you knew you
were faced with being thrown in jail, or sent to some kind of colony
or some kind of farm, for the rest of your life after you went back,
do you think that would help keep you off of drugs?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD.
I couldn't really say. I don't think that would
be fair, though.
Senator DANIEL. You don't think that would be fair?
Mrs.
SCHOFIELD.
No.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think that kind of a penalty hanging

over you might cause you to stay off of drugs after you had been
given treatment?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I don't think so.
I II
Senator
DANIEL.
2733
You don't think it would?
Mrs. Schofield. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think the treatment that is proposed for

you is going to be of any assistance?
So
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I don't know what treatment is proposed.
far, I haven't gotten any treatment.
Senator DANIEL. As I understand, it is proposed you would be sent
to one of the Federal hospitals. You went to Lexington once.
Senator DANIEL. It is my understanding that you would be sent
to either a Federal or State hospital for treatment. Do you think

those treatments would help you, provided they kept you there long
enough?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Before I didn't stay in but 18 days. Maybe if I
had stayed 4 months it would help. I would have to try it.
Senator DANIEL. I want to say to you now that this committee
appreciates the cooperation you have shown us by coming here and
giving these answers to these questions. I want to hope for you
successful treatment at whatever hospital you go to. I hope it will
be possible for you to stay away from it.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Are we going to be sent to a hospital or the peni-
tentiary?
Senator DANIEL. It is my understanding you will be sent to a
hospital first to see if you can be 'cured.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. First?
Senator DANIEL. That is my understanding.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Than what would happen?
Senator DANIEL. Under the Texas law it would be possible to send(
you to the penitentiary, but I understand you will be given ample
opportunity to be cured.
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. By the time we leave up there we have gone
through the most severe pain anyway. We have had no treatment at
all.
Mr. GASQUE. That is the physical withdrawal?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. Yes, but that is the worst part of it.
Mr. GASQUE. There is no psychiatric treatment. No social treatment. And now after you left Lexington how long was it before
you went back on drugs?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. About 3 days.
Mr. GASQUE. Where did you go back on drugs?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. New York.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think you would go back on drugs if
you were turned out tomorrow?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. I would try to stay off.
And I think pending
trial probably I could stay off.

Senator DANIEL. There are probably no drugs out there right now.
Mrs.
SCHOFIELD.
No.
Senator DANIEL. But if drugs were available do you feel like you
could stay off, or do you think you would probably go back as you
did before?
Mrs. SCHOFIELD. With this new law I think I would stay off of
of them. It. isn't worth while to be a drug addict any more. Why
they have gotten too hard. Before I never was afraid of anything
because I had never been in trouble. Now I think I would stay off,
2734
I am explaining the way I feel. I think if I was to get out I would

be able to stay off.
Senator DANIEL. I certainly hope you can. Thank you very much.
Now to the press and the television, I must say to you that the next
witness cannot be photographed, and her name will not be used.
Some of you already know the witness, and have already used her name
and her photograph. On the other hand, she has a right in appearing
before this committee to claim her rights under the fifth amendment
not to answer questions. She has agreed to answer questions and
give us information freely, but because of certain reasons she does not
want her picture used any further, or her name used any further, and
it is under those circumstances that she is appearing here.
I know the press will respect our position on that, and not try to
identify her further.
She will be known simply as witness X.
Witness X, will you stand up and be sworn.
Witness X. Yes, sir.
Witness X. I do, sir.
TESTIMONY OF WITNESS X
Senator DANIEL. This witness will be referred to as witness X for
identification.
Where do you live, what city?
Witness X. In Houston.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you lived in Houston?
Witness X. About 10 years, I guess.
Senator DANIEL. Speak up a little louder.
Witness X. About 10 years.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you live before you came to Houston?
Witness X. In Huntsville, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. What is your age now?
Witness X. Eighteen.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you have been addicted to heroin?
Witness X. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. When did you first start using heroin?
Witness X. About a year and a half ago.
Senator DANIEL. Who first introduced you to heroin?
Witness X. Well, this boy I knew.
Senator DANIEL. A boy friend?
Witness X. No, sir. Just a friend.
Senator DANIEL. But he was a boy?
Senator DANIEL. Was he running around in your crowd here
Houston?
Witness X. About 16%. Something like that.
Senator DANIEL. Were you in school here?
Senator DANIEL. At what school?
'I,
111111111
2735
Witness X. \Jarshall Junior High.

Senator DANIEL. Had you used any type of narcotics, marihuana,
or anything else like that, before trying your first shot of heroin?
Senator DANIEL. What had you used?
Witness X. Marijuana.
Senator DANIEL. How often?
Witness X. Not too much. Just 3 or 4 times.
Senator DANIEL. Who gave you your marihuana cigarettes?
Witness X. I don't even remember.
Senator DANIEL. Some of your schoolmates?
Witness X. No, sir. I will tell you the truth, I don't know anyone
in school then that ever knew anything about it.
Senator DANIEL. I am not going to ask you to call the names.
But the people who smoked marihuana, were they friends?
Witness X. Yes.
Senator Daniel. Girls or boys?
Witness X. Both.
Senator
DANIEL.
Who was it that first gave you a shot of heroin?
1 am not asking you to call the names, because I understand, having

talked with you previously, what your situation is with respect to
that, and we will respect your wishes.
Witness X. Well, just a boy that I knew. I had been knowing
him for 2 or 3 months.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did he sell you tbe heroin or give it to you?
Witness X. He gave it to me.
Senator
DANIEL.
How long did you use heroin before it seemed to
you that you had to have more of it?

Witness X. Just now and then. And then I got the habit later on.
Senator
DANIEL.
About how long did it take you to get the habit?
Witness X. Oh, about 3 months.

it every day.
Senator
DANIEL.
That was not continually using
You used if off and on for 3 months?

Senator DANIEL. And then after 3 months did you get addicted to
the drug?
Witness X. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. By addicted what do you mean?
Witness X. I had a habit.
Senator DANIEL. By having a habit what do you mean?
Witness X. If you don't have narcotics you get sick.
Senator DANIEL. About how much a day did it cost you to take
care of your habit before you became addicted?
Witness X. Well, for a little while I was shooting about two papers
a day. But that didn't last long.
Senator DANIEL. Two papers a day?
Senator DANIEL. By papers what do you mean?
Witness X. Well, it is about 12 or 13 capsules in each paper.
Senator DANIEL. What did that cost you per day?
Witness X. I don't remember. I think we were getting it for about
$20 a paper, as well as I remember.
Senator DANIEL. At $20 a paper did your habit cost you around
$40 a day for a while?
111111111
2736
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you have any kind of a, job?
Witness X. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Were you married at the time?
Senator DANIEL. Was your husband addicted too?
Senator DANIEL. What was his habit costing him?
Witness X. About the same.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, between you your habits were
costing you around $80 a day?
Senator DANIEL. Did he have a job?
Witness X. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did these habits cause one or both of you to com-
mit certain unlawful acts in order to get the money?

Senator
DANIEL.
Both of you, or just one of you?
Witness X. Both of us.
Senator
DANIEL.
How long did it last, over what period of time
did you both have to violate other laws in order to take care of your
habit?
Witness X. Just a few weeks.
Senator
DANIEL.
A few weeks?
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you use white heroin or the so-called yellow
heroin?
Witness X. White.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know where that came from?
Witnes X. No, sir. I have no idea.
Senator
DANIEL.
Have the people who sold him all the heroin been
arrested?
Witness X. I don't know. I don't know who it came from.
Senator DANIEL. Who did the buying?
Witness X. My husband.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever do any buying of heroin yourself?
Witness X. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Do you know, without naming them, other
people who are addicted to heroin here in Houston?
Witness X. I know a few, yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
About how many addicts or dope fiends would
you say you know here in Houston?

Witness X. I really don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I see here from a statement to the investigator that you said you usually saw about 30 a day on the streets.
Would you think that is a correct statement?
Witness X. Well, I guess so.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think you would recognize, or before you
were recently arrested that you would recognize, at least an average
of Witness
30 a dayX.
on Well,
the streets?
I mean it all depends on how much you are on
the streets.
Senator
DANIEL.
The days you would be on the streets and have
a chance to see people like that, have you recognized as many as 30

a day?
2737
Senator DANIEL. Well, how many drug addicts would you say,
how many would you estimate you think you would know in Houston?
Witness X. I really don't know.
Senator DANIEL. In what section do you live?
Witness X. In the north side.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you have a child?
Witness X. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator DANIEL. How old is the child?
Witness X. Thirteen months.
Senator DANIEL. Are you going to try to take the treatment?
Witness X. I don't need to.
Senator DANIEL. You think you can break the habit?
Witness X. I have quit. I already have.
Senator DANIEL. Did you quit that before you were arrested?
Witness X. Yes, sir. I had just got out of jail not 2 weeks before I
was arrested. You can't get the habit in 2 weeks. It is impossible,
unless you are shooting a gang of stuff, and I didn't have that kind of
money.
Senator DANIEL. Did you shoot any heroin between the time you
got out of jail and the time you were last arrested?
Witness X. Yes, sir; one time.
Senator DANIEL. One time?
Witness X. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. How much (lid you shoot then?
Witness X. About a cap and a half.
Senator DANIEL. Was your husband arrested?
Witness X. No.
Senator DANIEL. Has he been arrested yet?
Witness X. No, sir; not that I know of.
Senator DANIEL. Are you living together now?
Witness X. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How long since you know that he was using
heroin?
Witness X. What?
Senator DANIEL. How long has it been since you know that he
used heroin?
Witness X. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. When did you last see him use heroin?
Witness X. Well, the other day before I came to jail.
Senator DANIEL. What was that?
Witness X. The other day before I came to jail.
Senator DANIEL. How long before you came to jail?
Witness X. The same day I came.
Senator DANIEL. The same day you came to jail?
Witness X. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. You saw him take how much heroin?
Witness X. I don't know how much he took.
Senator DANIEL. Did you also shoot yourself with heroin on that
day?
Witness X. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. The day you came to jail?
Senator DANIEL. That is this last time you came to jail?
2738

Senator DANIEL. Now as a person who has had the experience you
have had with drugs you know they can ruin a person's life?
Witness X. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any recommendation whatever to
make as to what we should do in such cases as yours?
Witness X. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Do you desire to take the treatment to try to
stay off drugs?
is all up to me whether I
Witness X. I don't need treatment. It,
want to quit. I could go to a hospital and stay there 10 years, and
when I came home if I didn't want to stay off I could go right back on
it. There is nobody else can do that but you. It is all up to you. It
is up to each person whether they want to quit or not.
Senator DANIEL, Do you want to quit?
Witness X. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever taken treatment in any hospital?
Witness X. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What day were you arrested?
Witness X. Saturday.
Senator DANIEL. And that was the last time you took any herion?
Senator DANIEL. You would prefer that they let. you out rather than
send y ou to a hospital for treatment?
Witness X. I think I could do better if I got out. I don't think I
would want to go back.
Senator DANIEL. Let me ask you this: Do you live in a neighborhood where there are addicts?
Witness X. No.
Senator DANIEL. Or peddlers of heroin?
Witness X. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How did you happen to see as many as 25 or 30
addicts a day?
Witness X. When you go to score.
Senator DANIEL. You say when you score?
Witness X. When you go to get the stuff.
Senator DANIEL. That is heroin?
Witness X. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. By score you mean buy heroin?
Witness X. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. When you go to score that is when you see 25 or
30 people?
Witness X. I don't really know that I saw that many. I never
thought, about it.. I don't know really how many. I might see that
many. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. How far do you have to go from home to score?
Witness X. In another part of town.
Senator DANIEL. About how far?
Witness X. I don't know. Across town.
Senator DANIEL. What area of town do you go to to score?
Witness X. Do I have to answer that?
Senator DANIEL. Just the general area. I am not going to ask you
the specific address.
Witness X. Out off of Wayside.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2739
Senator DANIEL. Off of Wayside Drive?

Senator DANIEL. Is it a comparatively easy thing to score?
Witness X. Well, sometimes it is, and sometimes it is not.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever gone out there and failed?
Senator DANIEL. Do you have a car?
Witness X. No, sir; I don't.
Senator DANIEL. When was the last time you went to score, to
purchase heroin yourself?
Witness X. It has been about-right before I came to jail before.
Not this time.
Senator DANiEL. Not this time?
Witness X. No.
Senator DANIEL. But about 2 weeks before this time?
Witness X. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did you go to this same part of town to buy
heroin?
Witness X. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Were you able to buy it?
Senator DANIEL. Was anyone with you?
Witness X. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What did you pay for it then?
Witness X. $7 a cap.
Senator DANIEL. How many caps did you buy that time?
Witness X. Just one.
Senator DANIEL. Had you been to the same place before to buy
heroin?
Senator DANIEL. Was it white heroin or yellow herion?
Witness X. White.
Senator DANIEL. Did they tell you where it came from?
Witness X. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Was it a man or woman who sold it to you?
Witness X. A man.
Senator DANIEL. Has he been arrested?
Witness X. I don't know. I don't know who they have arrested.
Senator DANIEL. Do you want to change that part of your testimony in which you said you personally had not bought any heroin?
There is a conflict I believe in what you just said earlier. If I understood right, you said you hadn't bought any heroin; that your husband bought it. Do you want to correct the record in that regard?
Witness X. Sir?
Senator DANIEL. Earlier I thought you said you had not personally
bought any heroin yourself.
Senator DANIEL. Now you have told us about having bought some.
Do you want to correct yourself for the record? You were mistaken
when you said you had not bought it yourself?
Witness X. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You have bought heroin yourself then?

Witness X. Yes.
2740
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Senator DANIEL. So that the record may be correct, if you did

say that you had not bought any heroin yourself, that part was
incorrect?
Witness X. Yes, sir. I have bought it.
Senator DANIEL. Well, it is perhaps in conflict. We will see that
it is corrected.
Any further questions?
Senator DANIEL. All right, thank you very much. You may stand
aside.
Senator DANIEL. Pura Rodriquez.
As I said this morning, this witness has not been heard from. We
have only rumor that she went to the hospital today. If anyone in
this courtroom knows where she is going to be we will call her one more
time. If she does not appear, she will be cited for contempt of this
committee.
Does anyone in the courtroom know this witness?
Mr. COLLIER. I know the witness. I don't represent her. I am
an attorney, and I have represented her in the past.
Senator DANIEL. Could you get some word to her?
Mr. COLLIER. I can try.
Senator DANIEL. Also known as Pura Perez or Purification Perez.
We will have a 5 minute recess.
(A short recess was taken.)
STATEMENT OF MALCOLM R. WILKEY, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Senator
DANIEL.
Will you state your name, please?
Malcolm R. Wilkey, United States Attorney, Southern District of Texas.

Senator DANIEL. How long have you held the office of United
States attorney?
Mr. WILKEY. Since March 7, 1954.
Senator DANIEL. Have you since taking office given special attention to the study of narcotics cases?
Mr. WILKEY. I have, Senator.
Senator DANIEL. Are you familiar with the grand jury report which
was sent in to Washington after the grand jury study in Galveston
in January of this year?
Mr. WILKEY. In general, yes.
Senator DANIEL. That report told us that, except for immigration
the largest number of cases before the grand jury arose out of narcotics, and they asked that we in the Congress try to do something
about this traffic in the way of getting more personnel down here.
Are you familiar with that?
Mr. WILKEY.
Yes, I am, Senator, and I consider that those recommendations of the grand jury were extremely well taken. The grand
jury's statement that more cases were concerned with narcotics than
anything except immigration was correct as to that time. I think it
has been generally true over the past 2 years here in this office. I
have only been in office a year and a half, and we have got some statistical service over that period of 2 years, and the prosecution of narcotics violators amounts to from one-fourth to one-third of the business prosecuted through my office.
Mr.
WILKEY.
2741
Senator DANIEL. You think that with your office staff narcotics
takes from one-fourth to one-third of the time?
Mr. WILKEY. I believe that is correct.
Senator DANIEL. How many counties in your district?
Mr. WILKEY. Forty-six.
Senator DANIEL. Generally describe the area composing your district.
Mr. WILKEY. Well, it
extends from the Mexican border from
Brownsville along the Rio Grande to about halfway between Laredo
and Rio Grande City.
Senator
DANIEL.
So you take in Laredo?
Mr. WILKEY. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. And
all border points between say Laredo and
Brownsville?
Yes, sir. I would point out two things that are
very important in this narcotics traffic in this area. We have along
the border with Mexico only the Rio Grande. Some of the witnesses
have stated that you can walk across it at some times during the year.
There are ports of entry at Brownsville, McAllen, Hidalgo, and
Laredo.
Mr.
WILKEY.
Senator
DANIEL.
How many men do you have on your staff?
We have 15 attorneys, 5 of whom are concerned with

land work, leaving 10 attorneys concerned with the trial of both
criminal and civil matters.
Senator DANIEL. Have you checked statistics to find out how your
seven districts of Texas compare with other districts in the number
of narcotics violators brought into the Federal courts of the country?
Mr. WILKEY. The most recent check I have is for the fiscal year
1954, based on the statistics of the administrative office of the United
States courts, and on that basis the Southern District of Texas was
second in the Nation, being second only to the Southern District of
New York. I think we had 233 narcotics cases in the fiscal year, and
that represented 10 percent of the narcotics cases in the Federal courts
in the entire Nation, in the 94 judicial districts included in that total.
Senator DANIEL. Is it any wonder in you mind why this committee
should come to this district to hold its hearing?
Mr. WILKEY. No.
I think it highly appropriate that this committee has come here.
Senator DANIEL. I may state that those figures startled me. It is
an impressive thing that in this Southern District of Texas you have
one-tenth of all the narcotics cases i the whole country. Of course
one thing they show is that you bring them to trial. Do you know
what the figures are as to comparative arrests with the other districts? Have you checked that?
Mr. WILKEY. No; I haven't.
The only figures I have on that,
I believe I have heard from you or some of the other witnesses here
that Houston was eleventh in the Nation in arrests, but that included
State and local prosecutions as well as Federal.
Mr.
WILKEY.
Senator
DANIEL.
That is right.
Mr. WILKEY. How we stand on Federal arrests, I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. The State of Texas stands sixth in the Na:.ion

among the States on arrests and convictions. We have those figures.
I think that should be interesting.
If you could find those figures and give them to the committee we
would make them a part of the record.
2742
Have you checked to see how your district compares with other
districts of the country in the type of penalties that are assessed by
the courts?
Mr. WILKEY. No; Senator, I have no basis of comparison of the
types of penalties in this district as compared to other districts. I
believe that is compiled by, among other people, the director of
prisons, Mr. James V. Bennett, who keeps a tabulation of all sentences,
and also the actual months served on those sentences, including what
they were given originally and what the offender serves. We are not
furnished that report by the Bureau of Prisons, so I have no basis of
comparison with other districts.
Senator DA.NIEL. I am sure we have those figures. Let me ask you,
are you one who believes heavy sentences will help retard this racket?
Mr. WILKEY. Yes, sir. I think heavier penalties in this type of
offenses would definitely be a deterrent to this traffic. That is not
necessarily true of all types of crimes. For instance, in the crime of
murder, where the extreme penalty may historically be assessed, that
does not necessarily act as a deterrent. Narcotics is a premeditated
crime for the purpose of making money. And when you have that
sort of a crime then if you make it extremely risky that the offender
is going to serve a long term in prison then that encourages the man
who is doing this purely for money to get into some other line of
business. If the smuggler finds out it is so risky to smuggle narcotics
that he is faced with a life term in the penitentiary or death he is going
to be encouraged to get into some other line of activity, rather than
smuggling narcotics.
Senator
DANIEL.
Have you looked back over the sentences during
the time you have been in office and over any previous period of time
to see whether the sentences in the Southern District are fairly stiff,
or do you have any opinion on that?
I have looked over the sentences in the
Houston division and in the Laredo, Brownsville, and Corpus Christi
divisions for the pei'iodgoing back to the first of July 1953.
Senator DANIEL. And what did you find?
Mr. WILKEY. Some of those sentences it seemed to us would be
adequate. In some cases we have felt that the sentences might have
been stiffer. One thing I have noticed in going over the list of the total
penalties assessed is that the penalties for smuggling, under the
smuggling statute, seem to be lighter than under the narcotics statute.
The reason for that is that under the smuggling statute there is no
minimum. Under the Boggs Act the first offense is a 2-year minimum,
and for the second offense it is a 5-year minimum, and for the third
offense a 10-year minimum. In Laredo and Brownsville where the
smuggling statute is most frequently applicable to the fact situations
involved, the judges seem to prefer that the cases be brought under
the smuggling statute. In the Houston division, we bring them under
the Boggs Act, and you will find the sentences follow the statutory
minimum.
Senator DANIEL. You say the statutory limit under the Boggs Act
is 5 years?
Mfr. WILKEY. For the second offense.
Senator DANIEL. What is it under the smuggling statute?
Mr. WILKEY. There is no minimum in smuggling cases.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2743
Senator DANIEL. When a man has had a conviction for smuggling,

and then he is brought into Court and is tried we will say for selling
narcotics is he considered a second offender?
Mr. WILKEY. So far as the Boggs Act is concerned, he is a first
offender, as we understand the law. A second offender under the general smuggling statute, that doesn't bring the Boggs Act into play
until he is caught a second time for making a sale. Since the circumstances along the border usually indicate that the marihuana or
heroin was smuggled, the courts have indicated that we should bring
the indictment under the smuggling statute.
Senator DANIEL. Under the general smuggling statute?
Mr. WILKEY.
Right.
MNr.
Yes, in that, locality.
Senator DANIEL. That is the Federal courts at Brownsville and

Laredo?
WILKEY.
Senator DANIEL. Now you say you bring them under the Boggs
Act, with higher penalties, for certain offenses here in the Houston
Division?
Yes, because under the facts that would not come

under the general smuggling situation.
Mr. WILKEY.
see.
There is a distinction there.
Senator DANIEL. I
NM1'. WILKEY.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any smuggling cases involving

narcotics in the Houston division?
MI.
WILKEY. I
cannot recall having a single prosecution under
the smuggling statute.

you have smugglingr cases though that are
Senator DANIEL. Do
Boggs Act?
prosecuted under the
Mr. WILKEY.
We undoubtedly deal with smuggled heroin every
time we have a case under any of the narcotics laws, because heroin
is not legally manufactured in the United States, and I know of no

case where an illegal manufacturer has been discovered in the United
States. We are dealing with smuggled merchandise in Houston when
we are dealing with heroin. But the Boggs Act penalty is more
Severe, and we prosecute them under the Boggs Act, here in Houston.
Senator DANIEL. The thing I am driving at is as to whether or
not there is any difference in the rule applied here in Houston and at
Laredo and Brownsville in the Federal Courts with reference to
what act you must bring a prosecution under.
Mr. WILKEY. Yes, there is.
Senator
What is that difference?

M\fr. WILKEY. The difference is that when we are dealing with smuggled heroin in Houston we bring it under the Boggs Act, and on the
border we bring it under the smuggling statute.
Senator DANIEL. What is the reason for that difference?
M[r. WILKEY. Because the courts there have held that when the
matter is clearly shown to be smuggling it should be brought under
the smuggling statute, or it. ought to be brought under the smuggling
Statute.
Senator DANIEL. Under the general smuggling statute instead of
the narcotics statute?
Mr. AVILKEY. Right.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know why that is?
DANIEL.
2744
Senator, I think the answer is very simple. The

judges have looked at the law, and they have decided-in some
cases they have dismissed the counts under the Boggs Act when
they were brought under that statute, and said in their opinion the
Boggs Act did not apply to these marihuana people for the possession
just 2 miles north of the border. That being so, the judges are saying
it did not apply, we have brought them under the smuggling statute
in those cases down on the border.
Senator DANIEL. That is in two divisions of the Federal court?
Mr. WILKEY. Yes, Laredo and Brownsville.
Senator DANIEL. And you bring them under the Boggs Act here?
Mr. WILKEY. In the Houston division and the Galveston division.
Mr. WILKEY.
Senator
You have several judges sitting here in the
DANIEL.
Houston division?
Mr. WILKEY. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
What judges do you have?
Judge Hannay, here in the Houston division, and

Judge Connally at Galveston.
Senator DANIEL. What judge do you have at Brownsville and
Laredo?
Mr. WILKEY. Judge Allred usually presides at Brownsville and
Laredo, although at times some of the other judges go down and hold
court there.
Senator DANIEL. What is your opinion as to whether or not the
Boggs Act covers the Jones-Miller Act, which is a smuggling statute
for heroin, where the penalties are heavier than the Jones-Miller Act?
Have you briefed that?
Mr. WILKEY. We have not briefed that point. Well, we did brief
that point some year and a half ago, and we reached the tentative
conclusion, I believe, that it did cover, but that is a question which is
a nice legal question, and we recognized, or at least when the judges
indicated on these cases on the border that they felt it didn't apply
we did not press the point further.
Senator DANIEL. You respect the decisions of the court.
Mr. WILKEY.
Mr. WILKEY. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. I imagine that Judge Allred or the other judges

had some good reason to take that attitude. It is not in criticism of
anybody, how it is run in Houston, or how it is run in Laredo and
Brownsville. I simply would like to develop for this record exactly
how it is handled, because we didn't get it clearly in San Antonio.
Frankly, I don't think the district attorney put his statement in the
record because of the time element, but I think he has a detailed
statement on this.
If you and your assistants would give us any further information
you have we would of course like to have it. Because the attitude of
this committee, at least three members of this five member committee,
is that smuggling is one of the most serious offenses in connection with
narcotics, and if we don't have it clearly defined in the Boggs Act we
ought to have it.
Mr. WILKEY. We take the position here that it is a legal question
whether it would actually come under the Boggs Act or not. We
just say the law should be clarified so that the narcotics smuggler
faces the same penalty, no matter which statute he is prosecuted under.
Senator DANIEL. Otherwise, your smuggler is in a better position
than your seller.

Mr. WILKEY.
That is right.
2745
That is the way it has worked.

Mr. GASQuE. If you find narcotics here in Houston on the person
of an individual, with that factual situation isn't there a presumption

that is has been smuggled? Isn't that true?
Mr. WILKEY. That is about the way it works, yes.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Wilkey, let me ask you another question, and
that is as to your attitude toward the free clinic plan that has been
advocated by some, where addicts could go and obtain the drug.
Have you gone into that matter?
Mr. WILKEY. Yes, I have, Senator, for a period of more than a
year. I went into the thing about a year ago, and initially I was
considerably impressed. The scheme has a plausibility about it that
is somewhat misleading. But the more I studied it and the more I
looked into the results of the plan where they have tried it, the more
convinced I have become that such a thing would be a step backward
as far as the suppression of narcotics is concerned.
Senator
DANIEL.
The preponderance of the argument we heard in
favor of that plan was that it would cut out the black market and cut
out the smaller peddler if you have this free clinic.
Mr. WILKEY. That argument doesn't hold water. You will not cut
the smuggler and the peddler out because the ration these people get
at the clinic must in some way be limited. It cannot be unlimited.
If it is limited, those people will go to the free clinic and get their
minimum requirements, and then they will go out on the black market
and supplement their requirements by illegal purchases. You will
still have illegal traffic to supplement the amount that can be
obtained at the clinic.
Then there is another objection that to my mind is a more important
objection. It has not been brought out here as yet. And that
objection is this: You and I, and the other people here in this room
generally, unless they are law enforcement officers and have come in
contact with it, the normal average American citizen doesn't come in
contact with drug addicts. And he does not come in contact with the
source of supply. If he desired to go off in this dream world induced
by heroin shots he wouldn't know where to go to get his first shot
of heroin.
Furthermore, it is known that addicts commonly come from the
criminal classes. The areas where you can find it are generally in
the slums. And the average citizen wouldn't want to put himself
in those contacts to get the drug habit. In other words, addiction
is looked upon as a horrible thing. If you legalize it by some type
of clinics sponsored by the Government, whether State or Federal
Government, then you remove the social stigma that is attached to it.
Respectable citizens who are the victims of the habit now find it
advisable to conceal it from their most intimate friends. If the
satisfying of a craving for drugs becomes legal, and becomes the topic
of conversation in normal human relations, then many persons who
have never knowingly come in contact with drug addicts would do so,
and might be induced to become addicts simply by contact and
example.
I do not mean that perfectly normal human beings are likely to
become addicts. But there are persons suffering from psychological
deficiencies who do frequently seek drugs to compensate for their
2746
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
psychological deficiencies. If those people are forced to go down il

the gutter, to consort with criminals, shady characters, in disreputable
portions of the city, they will be much more reluctant to initiate the
drug habit than if they have the assurance that they can get it legally,
cheaply, and through a Government-sponsored clinic.
If you make narcotics addiction fashionable then addiction will
become as fashionable as a businessman's ulcer.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think narcotic addicts spread that
addiction to other people?
Mr. WILKEY. There is no question about it.
Look at the people
who have been up here today. Somebody had to show them how to
put the needle in their arm the first time.
Senator DANIEL. You think even if we had the free clinic those
who are using the free clinic would be spreading addiction to some
other people?
Mr. WILKEY. Certainly.
They would have no embarrassment in
talking about it then. As it is now people that have the habit don't
talk about it. Should it become legal it would become a normal
subject of conversation
Senator DANIEL. Do you think free clinics would put the black
markets out of business in cases like that?
Mr. WILKEY. Certainly not. There would be a ready black
market to supply the demands over and above what they got at the
clinic.
Senator DANIEL. I agree with you in your views on this clinic plan.
I simply wanted to develop any further evidence that we could so that
we will be in position to make recommendations to the Congress on it.
What do you think should be done with the addicts themselves?
,\Ir. WILKEY. I think the addicts should be confined and treated for
as long as necessary, just, like we do insane people and people who have
contagious diseases. When we speak of confining insane people we
do it not as a criminal penalty. We have a legal basis. Addicts
should be treated the same way, and should be confined until there is
no question about his rehabilitation
He should be kept away from
his environment.
I am aware that of only 20 percent, or less than 20 percent, of those
pronounced cured, or semicured, by our present institutions, more
than 80 percent regress from that situation.
Senator DANIEL. You think one of the most important things is to
keep addicts off the streets?
Mr. WILKEY. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Either send them to hospitals for treatment, or
put them in jail, or in some manner keep them off the streets.
Mr. WILKEY. Yes. One of the great, things would be to get a.ll of
them off at once in order that the narcotic peddlers would be cut. off
from his market.
Senator DANIEL. You have a prepared statement, do you not?
Senator
DANIEL.
I would appreciate it if you would let us have
statement so that we may have the entire record in full. And

if you will highlight or summarize the points that you have in
statement, we would be glad to have you do that, and let us
all of it in the record.
Mr. WILKEY.' I would be happy to.
your
then
your
have
2747
We have gone into this problem fairly thoroughly. On the penalties, it seems to me there are two places where the penalties in use
should be revised upward. First, for the smuggler, and, second, for
the peddler.
A distinction should be made between the peddler and the mere
possessor. The possessor is frequently only an addict, and a distinction should be made in the law between a sale and a mere possession.
The addict is always a weak character and subject to influence by
his associates, and the proper guidance and a different environment
might make the temptation be resisted the next, time.
The peddler however is a vicious animal. When he sells narcotics
it is a conscious, willful, and criminal act, for which no penalty is
really too severe. The minimum penalty for the sale of narcotics
should be fixed at 5 years.
Mr. GASQUE. As I understand, you would increase the penalty
under the Boggs Act?
Mr. WILKEY. For the peddler.
Mr. GASQUE. On the first offense.
Mr. WILKEY. First offense.
Mr. GASQUE. Would you give the judges any leeway there, or
would it be mandatory for a 5-year sentence?
X'Mr. WILKEY.
I think for the peddler it should be mandatory,
5-year sentence. I have no objection to leaving it to the judges as

far as addicts are concerned, but where the peddlers are concerned I
think it, should be a 5-year minimum sentence.
I think one of the next things for enforcement, would be the amalgamation and making more compact the enforcement agencies related
to this problem. I think that all the Treasury enforcement, agencies,
Narcotics Bureau, Customs Bureau, and the Secret Service, and Alcohol Tax Unit, and even the Internal Revenue, should be combined
into one Treasury enforcement bureau, similar to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation in the Department of Justice. Some of the great
problems in narcotics law enforcement stem from a lack of cooperation or coordination of the Federal agencies, lack of liaison among
enforcement agencies. Also important elements are the lack of manpower, lack of adequate compensation to agencies, lack of facilities
which could be supplied 1)y a larger organization, and lack of versatility in enforcement agencies which could be produced by more varied
work and training. Combining the Treasury enforcement agencies
would materially help solve the above problems, even if no further
men or funds were supplied.
The working liaison between the Narcotics Bureau and the Customs
Bureau and the Secret, Service is generally just, about as good or bad
as the personal relations of the local agents on the spot.. Where narcotics and customs agents now occasionally exchange information,
they should be working out of some central office under the direction
of one man in one locality.
The Narcotics Bureau has 250 men to cover the entire United
States and foreign territories. The New York police force alone has
over 200 men detailed to narcotics, with a budget larger than that of
the entire Federal Narcotics Bureau.
The lack of manpower shows up glaringly in the methods of work of
the narcotics agent as compared to the larger Federal enforcement
agencies. If the investigation calls for more than two agents the
71515-56-pt. 7-26
2748
narcotics agents usually consider it a large case. Most agents over

a period of years have grown accustomed to working either singly or
in very small groups, concentrating on apprehending a single pusher
at a time. Sometimes the agents are successful in penetrating beyond
the retail pusher to his source of supply, but narcotics enforcement
rarely get beyond that level in the illicit distribution system. The
narcotics agents have shown in some instances that large scale operations can be conducted by them if and when the manpower is available.
The available force of the Narcotics Bureau is stretched so thin
that the agents are pretty well tied down to definite geographical spots
in the United States, and agents cannot be easily drawn from one
section of the country to another when a major effort is desired.
The converse is true in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which
on numerous occasions, such as the Greenlease kidnapping, has shown
that it can in a 24-hour period mass scores of agents from all over
the country at one critical point. The Narcotics Bureau could not
attempt this because it would leave too many other vital sections
unguarded.
The combining of the Narcotics Bureau, Customs Bureau, the
Secret Service, the Internal Revenue Service, and other Treasury
enforcement agencies in one large Bureau would permit the concentration of manpower whenever and wherever the critical situation arises.
Treasury agents generally receive, even after some years of experience, less pay than the FBI agent does initially. The FBI agents
deserve the pay that they get, but the Congress has authorized it
because the prestige, standards and size of the FBI has succeeded in
attracting to it a type of men that Congress has recognized requires
this amount of pay to secure their services. The Treasury enforcement agencies are entitled to the same scale of compensation. This
will attract better men, and better men will attract other better men,
and so the esprit de corps and prestige of the organization would
spiral upward. This would be augmented if all Treasury agents were
in one large agency with an esprit, discipline, and size and tradition
similar to the FBI.
I think the amalgamation of all the Treasury enforcement agencies
into one large agency would be a great step forward in law enforcement,
as related to the narcotics problem and other problems of Treasury
enforcement.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any other recommendations that
you wish to discuss other than what is in your prepared statement?
Mr. WILKEY. I would like to concur, if you please, Senator, in
what has been said about the need of additional personnel.
In regard to bail bond matters, I was concerned when Chief Heard
was speaking on that, and I do have some thoughts on that. I
think the question of denying bail bond would be better put where
the previous offense is a narcotics offense and where in the event. ill
which bond is denied is also a narcotics offense.
I think bail should be denied on proof of addiction or on proof
of previous conviction for a narcotics offense.
I think we have right now five narcotics offenders who have jumped
bond and are now actively engaged in the traffic.
Mr. WILKEY. I believe they are located in Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have the names of those men?
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
2749
TRAFFIC
Mr. WILKEY. I don't have them right now, but I can get them.
Senator DANIEL. Will you get them for the committee.
Mr. WILKEY. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. We are interested in identifying all the people
who were active who have jumped bond and are fugitives, either in
this country or in Mexico, carrying on the narcotics racket. I would
appreciate it if you would get us the names of these five men, and any
additional evidence you can give us on that.
Now, Mr. Wilkey, we appreciate your help, your statement and the
study you have given, and we appreciate your courtesy to our staff.
Mr. WILKEY. Thank you.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you have a statistical report on the

cases attached to your statement.
Mr. WILKEY. That is right.
Senator DANIEL. For the Houston division?
Senator
Do you have a similar type report on cases from
DANIEL.
the Laredo division?

Mr.
WILKEY.
Yes,
sir.
We
have
tabulations
for Brownsville
and Corpus Christi.

Senator DANIEL. Is that distinct?
Mr. WILKEY. They are two divisions of the Southern District.

And we have a case-by-case tabulation for Laredo prepared by Mr.
Short. There is a list, of Brownsville cases prepared by Mr. Odem.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Odem is here.
Mr. WILKEY. Yes, Mr. Odem is here and will be prepared to make
a statement.
Senator DANIEL. Well, Mr. Wilkey, we certainly thank you.
We appreciate your assistance.
Do you have any other recommendation to make?
Mr. WILKEY. Not at this time.
Senator DANIEL. We appreciate your help.

Mr. WILKEY. It
has been a pleasure.
(The prepared statement of Malcolm R. Wilkey follows:)

STATEMENT OF MA.LCOiM
R. WILKEY, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY

COMMITTEE, HOUSTON, TEX., OCTOBER 17, 1955
Senator Daniel, Senator Butler, Senator Eastland, gentlemen of the committee,

as I understand the object and work of this subcommittee of the United States
Senate, it is to study the narcotics traffic for the purpose of creating new laws
and enforcement to curb this evil. I feel that I can best further that object by
submitting for consideration the remedial measures which, on the basis of the
experience of my staff and myself, I believe to be most important in suppressing
this heinous traffic.
For clarity I have divided these suggestions into five categories: The problem;
the laws; the penalties; enforcement; and a program.
i.
THE PROBLEM
1. The addict should be confined for as long as is necessary to separate him

from both his habit and his sources of supply. Until the treatment of addiction
is made compulsory, I do not believe that we can reduce the narcotic problem to
minor proportions. Where there is a variance in the laws regarding addiction
among the 48 States, we may have shifts of addicts from one state to another to
avoid the more stringent laws. Furthermore, 48 State legislatures simply cannot
be compelled to treat the narcotic problem in the same way and to pass laws of
the same stringency.
2750
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
I believe that the treatment of addiction should be made compulsory under

Federal law, and sufficient hospitals should be erected to take care of the initial
large number of inmates. After several years the market will have partially
dried up, the channels of distribution will have become atrophied and disorganized, and even if a portion of the inmates regress after treatment, they will not
find their original sources of supply so easily. A great stride will have been made
in reducing the narcotic problem.
2. The peddler and the addict should not receive the seal of legitimacy from
the Federal Government by the establishment of the so-called narcotic clinic.
I have given this matter considerable thought, and was initially favorably
impressed with the argument for the "clinic plan" as set forth by several writers.
However, I believe that there are several good reasons against the free clinic
plan, two being particularly outstanding.
(1) A free clinic plan would not substitute legal for illegal distribution of
drugs to addicts. It would merely supplement a continuing illegal distribution.
To get the stimulation that the addict requires and which is the lure of the habit,
the addict must supply himself with increasing amounts. If he continues on the
same rate of drug consumption, then he merely feels approximately like a normal
human being. The euphoria is largely derived from the increase in the intake.
The practical result of the free clinic plan would be that the addict would supply
his minimum necessities from the clinic, and then supplement the clinic's ration
by illegal purchases. There would thus still be an illegal market, and it would
be a market which could be developed, broadened, and created by the legal clinic
distribution.
(2) A free clinic plan would remove a very important psychological and practical deterrent to drug addiction. As conditions are now, public opinion scorns
drug addicts. They are recognized as pariahs of the law. The average niornial
citizen has no contact ANith either drug addicts or a source of drug supply. If the
average citizen suddenly decided to acquire narcotic drugs, unless he were a
physician or nurse or in some way in contact with a legal supply, he would not
know where to turn for an illegal source. Once we legitimatize distribution of
drugs to satisfy a craving for narcotics, then we will have given the stamp of
legitimacy to the heinous habit. Apparently respectable citizens who are the
victims of the habit now find it advisable to conceal it from their most intimate
friends. If satisfying a craving for drug addiction becomes legal, becomes a
topic of conversation in normal human intercourse, then many persons who have
never knowingly come in contact with drug addicts would do so, and might be
induced to become addicts simply by contact and example.
I do not mean that perfectly normal human beings are likely to become drug
addicts. But those human beings suffering from psychological deficiencies do
If these
frequently seek drugs to compensate for their psychological deficiencies.
people, who can develop a psychological craving for drugs, are forced to go down
in the gutter, to consort with criminals, shady characters, in disreputable portions
of the city, they will be much more reluctant to initiate the drug habit than if thelhave the assurance that after all they can get it legally, cheaply, through a
Government-sponsored clinic.
If you treat narcotic addiction like a businessman's ulcer, you may make
addiction as fashionable as it has now become to have an ulcer.
II.
THE LAWS
1. Federal laws should be based on the equal right of the Federal Government
along with the several States to control narcotics.
The whole artificiality of Federal control as based on the taxing power is not
a handicap when it is adequately explained by the trial judge. But undoubtedly
many offenders have escaped because the juries simply did not understand the
complexities of the law.
If a constitutional amendment is needed to provide for Federal control of
aldicts, the whole Federal control of narcotics should be based on the undisputed fact that the unrestricted use of narcotics is evil, and not on the taxing
power. The necessity of proof of demand ! for a Treasury order form is an absurdity in the trial of a marihuana smuggler. Most jurors understand it after
But
explanation bv the trial judge, and few prosecuting attorneys forget it.
the pitfall is there.
2. The Marihuana Tax Act needs to be revised in regard to the venue provisions to make venue lie where the marihuana was found in possession.
Under the present law, venue is depenlent entirely on the plC( of acquisition.
A revelation of the place of acquisition at the time of trial may surprise the
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2751
Government and make proof impossible on the indictment as brought in that

particular judicial district.
3. The right to bond in narcotics cases should be denied where the accused
is a second offender, and the previous offense was either as a peadler, possessor,
or addict.
The right to bond in narcotics cases usually permits the offender to go right
back in business to make the money to pay his lawyer and bondsman.
Where
previous conviction for a narcotic offense can be shown, bond should be denies.
III. THE PENALTIES
1. A distinction must be made between the peddler and mere possessor.

The possessor is frequently only an addict, and a distinction should be made
in the law between a sale and mere possession. The addict is always a weak
,character, frequently a victim of temptation which under proper guidance and
a different environment can be resisted the next time. The peddler is a vicious
animal who seeks to impose his own moral depravity on other. When the peddler sells narcotics, it is a conscious, 11illful, criminal act, for which no penalty
is really too severe. The minimum penalty for a sale of narcotics should be
fixed at 5 years.
2. The minimum penalty for a first offender who is a possessor only should be
left to the discretion of the trial judge.
There have been cases in which the trial judge would have preferred to have
given the first offender possessor less than 2 years, but could not do so under
the present state of the law. His choice was either 2 years to serve, or 2 years
on probation, or a fine and no imprisonment. In these cases the trial judge has
frequently given a 2-year suspended sentence. Probation is not advisable in
the case of addicts. The trial judge's discretion should be left unfettered, so
that he may give an adequate prison term to cure the addict, which may not
necessarily be 2 years.
3. An increase in the maximum penalties now provided by law would not be
helpful in suppressing the traffic, except in smuggling cases.
In most cases, the offender is charged in more than 1 count and can be convicted on more than 1 count. If the judge desired the sentences to run consecutively, he can thus provide an adequate penalty. The trial judge now has
all the discretion he needs in the usual case to impose a very heavy penalty, and
no change in the law is needed in that regard.
4. A very heavy penalty for smuggling or selling smuggled narcotics in the
United States would dry up the sources of both heroin and marihuana.
Heroin is not manufactured legally in the United States, and if done illegally,
the amount is very small. Some marihuana is grown illegally, but the vast
quantity is imported from Mesico. If very heavy penalties were imposed by
law for smuggling or selling smuggled narcotics, narcotics being defined as Including marihuana, the criminals engaged in this traffic would turn to less risky
occupations. They might still be smugglers, but the smuggling of jewels and
furs is less dangerous to the morals of the country than the smuggling of narcotics. A distinction in the statute should be made regarding the selling and
mere possession of smuggled narcotics, comparable to that discussed under 1
above.
I believe the effect of extra severe penalties on smuggling or selling smuggled
narcotics would be to seal the borders of the United States, if the law were vigorously enforced.
IV.
ENFORCEMENT
1. All Treasury enforcement agencies should be combined into one Treasury

enforcement bureau, similar in size, scope and function in the Treasury Department to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Justice Department.
2. The problems of narcotics law enforcement are caused principally by:
(a) Lack of liaison among enforcement agencies.
(b) Lack of manpower.
(c) Lack of adequate compensation to agents.
(d) Lack of facilities which could be supplied by a larger organization.
(c) Lack of versatility in enforcement agents which could be produced by more
varied work and training.
3. Combining the Treasury enforcement agencies would materially help solve
the above problems, even if no further men or funds were supplied.
(a) The working liaison between the Narcotics Bureau and the Customs Bureau
and the Secret Service is generally just about as good or bad as the personal
2752
relations of the local agents on the spot. But in all events, cooperation and vell
intended liaison are no substitute for command, whether it be in law enforcement
or in a military organization.
Where narcotics and customs agents now occasionally exchange information,
they should be working out of 1 central office under the direction of 1 man in I
locality.
(b) The Narcotics Bureau has 250 men to cover the entire United States and
foreign territories. The New York Police Force alone has over 200 men detailed
to narcotics with a budget larger than that of the entire Federal Narcotics Bureau.
The lack of manpower shows up glaringly in the methods of work of the narcotics agent as compared to larger Federal enforcement agencies. If the investigation calls for more than two agents, the Narcotics agents usually consider it a
large case. Most agents over a period of years have grown accustomed to working either singly or in very small groups, concentrating on apprehending a single
pusher at a time. Sometimes the agents are successful in penetrating beyond the
retail pusher to his source of supply, but narcotics enforcement rarely gets beyond
that level in the illicit distribution system. The narcotics agents have shown in
some instances that large-scale operations can be conducted by them, if and when
the manpower is available.
The available force of the Narcotics Bureau is stretched so thin that agents
are pretty well tied down to definite geographical spots in the United States, and
agents cannot be easily drawn from one section of the country to another when
a major effort is desired. The converse is true in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which on numerous occasions, such as the Greenlease kidnaping, has
shown that it can in a 24-hour period mass scores of agents from all over the
country at one critical point. The Narcotics Bureau could not attempt this
because it would leave too many other vital sections unguarded.
The combining of the Narcotics Bureau, Customs Bureau, the Secret Service,
the Internal Revenue Service, and other Treasury enforcement agencies in one
large bureau would permit the concentration of manpower whenever and wherever the critical situation arises.
(c) Treasury agents generally receive, even after some years of experience,
less pay than the FBI agent does initially. The FBI agents deserve the pay that
they get, but Congress has authorized it because the prestige standards, and size
of the FBI has succeeded in attracting to it a type of man that Congress has
recognized requires this amount of pay to secure his services. The Treasury
enforcement agencies are entitled to the same scale of compensation. This will
attract better men and better men attract other better men, and so the esprit
de corps and prestige of the organization would spiral upward. This would be
augmented if all Treasury agents were in one large agency with an esprit, discipline, size, and traditions similar to the FBI.
(d) Just as large American business corporations are able to provide larger and
better research facilities, larger and more varied training programs for the employees, and other advantages making for the efficiency of the organization which
cannot be provided by smaller competitive companies in the same line of business,
so the large law enforcement agency is able to provide better technical facilities,
better training programs for its agents, and other facilities and tools important
to law enforcement operations.
(e) There is observable in the agents of the smaller independent Treasury
enforcement agencies a certain lack of versatility in outlook, methods and technique, which would be changed if they were all part of one large organization.
While there is specialization in the FBI, yet the individual agents have a variety
of types of investigation which the average narcotics, customs or secret service
agent does not have a chance to handle because of the more limited jurisdiction
of his special Treasury service. The versatility produced by a variety of work
and training in a larger investigative agency would redound to the benefit of all
phases of Treasury investigative work.
4. To insure adequate enforcement of the narcotics laws as revised, after reorganization of the Treasury enforcement agencies into one Treasury enforcement
bureau, still additional men and funds would be needed for the next few years
to reduce the narcotics traffic to the irreducible minimum.
V.
A PROGRAM
An intensive program of enforcement, which might be styled a "crash program"

for the next few years, could reduce the narcotics traffic to a trickle compared to
what it now is. Such a program should include the following essentials:
2753
1. Reorganization of all Treasury enforcement agencies into one Treasury enforcement bureau under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, comparable
to the position occupied by the Federal Bureau of -Investigation in the Justice
Department.
2. More men, money, and equipment allocated to such a reorganized Treasury
enforcement bureau. The individual allocation of effort within this bureau could
be determined by its director as the enforcement problems of the Treasury vary
from year to year.
3. Better men, better trained men, and better paid men.
4. The Federal law should provide for the confinement of narcotics addicts,
with or without proof of any other violation.
5. Stiffer penalties for the narcotics peddler should be imposed, both by legislation and in the courts under existing laws.
6. Stiffer penalties for the smuggler should be imposed.
VI.
STATISTICAL REPORT OF CASES
Houston Division, July 1, 1953-October 11, 1955

The following statistical summary and case tabulation has been compiled by
Assistant United States Attorney C. A. Friloux from the district clerk's records
at Houston:
164 defendants formally filed on by indictment or criminal information.
16 defendants have cases pending to date.
148 have had final disposition.
Of the 148 disposed of, 86 defendants were tried by United States attorney.
Of the 86 defendants actually tried, 81 were found guilty and 5 acquitted.
94.2 percent were convicted, 5.8 percent were acquitted.
Of the remainder of cases not tried: 53 plead guilty, 9 dismissed by Government (3 were reindicted and convicted).
Total cases where defendants were sentenced amounted to 134 of 148 final
dispositions, or a percentage of 90.5 percent.
SEPTEMBER TERM, 1953

Name
Disposition
Trial
Offense charged
__
_________________________________
I
-
5 years-10 ---------------------------------Jury ----------------Clyde Porter --------------------- Marihuana ----------------------------------.----------------------------------------do _

Loreza D. Porter_
---------------------------------------do
2 years-10 ---------------------------------do ---------------------------------------(------do-------------W illie R ogers --------------------do -------------------------------------__d o ------------ ------------------------------Jam es E. Shaw ------------------- ..... do .
do
------------------------------------------do--------------W ill A . Johnson -----------------30 months-$10 -----------------------------o
---------------.d
Lupe llerrea -------------------- Marihuana and conspiracy-.
.do ---------------- 2 years--10 ---------------------------------- -- d o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ....
Marcos R. Rivera .......
-- - - -d o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - do --------------------------------------Pleaded guilty -------Augustin Zepeda.............
Fugitive -----------------------------------John Doe, alias Larry
Ju ry ----------------- 28 months-10 ------------------------------Daniel Zepada..............
do_
-...
27 months-$10 -----------------------------Pleaded guilty
Gordon Winters_
M arihuana -------------------Dismissed by Government ------------------Jam es 1). Blalock ----------------- - -- .drouii
do -- ndspry............................
----- -- -- -- -- --- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -Pleaded guilty------- 33 months-10 -----------------------------Roberto M. Martinez -----------do-------------------------------------Vernon L. Nichols .....
Ju ry ------------------ 2 years-$10 -------------.------------------Before court July 29, 1955 revoked 15 months Heroin
Archie Sample -------..
-----------------------Pleaded guilty-------- 32 months-$10
Alfonso S. Cardenas--------Iariuana
...................................
d o ---------------- 40 months-$10 ---------------------------------Refugio D. Rodriquez_
IHeroin----------------------------------d o ---------------- 2 years-$10 --------------.--------------------M arih u an a ..............
.....................
Eddie Sanders -----------------d o ---------------- 3 years--10 --------------------------------Morphine (false prescription) ...............
Bessie L. Blakely --------------do ------------.----------------------Jury
Heroin
-----------------------------Jesse T. Cook...............
. . . . d o - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - - ---- - - -- - - -- - - --.
Acquitted by court I--------------------------- do-----------Arthur C. OrtizPleaded guilty -------- 2 years-$10 --------------------------------Marijuana
--------------------------M cNeal Bolton .................
do -------------------------------------After motion pleaded
Heroin --------------------------------------Billy Roe Harris ............
guilty.
27 months-$10 -----------------------------Marihuana ----------------------------------- Jul'y_
Archie Swift
- -- -d o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Not guilty ------------------------------------- do -........
Travis P. Gebitzseh.
2 years-10 --------------------------------Pleaded guilty
Alex Archie
do -----------------------------------------... . ..d o - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - -- - -- - - -..
Heroin --------------------------------------- C ourt ----------------Earnest W oods ..................
Dismissed-see above (No. 7) reindicted and
--------------------------------------Marcos M. Rivera ..............
Jury................
convicted.
Marihuana ----------------------------------- Jury - - - - - - - - - 30 months-10 ------------------------------James C. Carmichael.........
2 years-$10 ---------------------------------do ...............
-(10do -----------------------------------------David Andersondo ------------------------------------------d o ..........
- -- ddo_
Lois Tate -----------------o - - -------------------------------...
30 months-10 ------------------------------Pleaded guilty......
Jesse Cuellar --------------------- ---- do ---------------------------------40 months-$10 -----------------------------do_
----Andrew M. Gonzales ............
do ------------------------------------------do3 years-$10 ------------------------------------James Sheffield
Her-- do ---------------------------------------- do-------------5 years-10
-------------------------Fernando L. Castillo__
Heroin
--------------------------------------do --------------------------------------M artin S. Vega ------------------- M arihuana ----------------------------------- Jury -----------------C ourt ----------------- 28 months-$10 -----------------------------Heroin --------------------------------------Arthur Cecil Ortiz_
----------------------------Pleaded guilty (juve- 27 months -----Raymond Garza Mador
do --------------------------------------nile).
Jury ----------------3 years-$10 ---------------------------------Marihuana ----------------------------------Jose G. Carmona_
Fugitive ------------------------------------do ----------------------------------------Herberto Gonzalez_
2 years-$10 (revocation) .....................
Pleaded guilty .......
- Lois Gene Murphy --------------- l[eroi n - - - - - - - ILater
convicted.
Boggs Act
2d offense.
Do.
1st offense.
Do.
Do.
I)o.
1)o.
1)o.
-do
-----do
----
)o.
I)o.
Do.
I)o.
Revoked old probation.
1st offense.
)o.
I)o.
1)o.
I)o.
----1)o.
I)o.
-----
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
I)o.
Do.
i)o.
Do.
Do.
2d offense.
Do.
1st offense.
Do.
Do.
2d offense.
-----
-----
FEBRUARY TERM, 1954

1st offense.
2d offense.
Do.
.....
do --------------------------------------Do.
3 years-10 ---------------------------------Do.
............
Jury - - -------------- 7 years- $ 10 ......................
Do.
-------------------------6 years-$10
do
........
--------do --------------------------------------offense.
3d
---------------------------------do
4 years-$10_
do -_.
----1st offense.
4 years-$1O --------------------------------do --------------------------------------do ...............
----Do.
- - - - -d o - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ..................................
years-10
2
do_
--do -----------------------------------------Do.
.do
........................................
do _
----do
-----------------------------2d offense.
5 years-$10 ..................................
1st offense.
2 years-$10.
H ero in ........................................ gaded guilty
Do.
30 months-$10 -----------------------------------do --------------------------------------. . . . .-d o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pleaded guilty -------- Transferred New York for Plea guity -------. . . . .-d o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2d offen-e.
----6 years- 10 ---------------------------------do...............
Do.
----5 years-$10._
do ...............
----.
do --------------------------------------offense.
1st
----m
onths-$
10
-------------------------------27
doMarihuana ----------------------------------...do . .
2d offense.
Ju ry ------------------ 5 years-$10__
- - - -- - - - - -- - -- - - - -- - - - - - - -d o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1st offense.
----do
...............
---do ---------------------------------Heroin
-------------------------------------------do
(lo ---------------------------------------1)o.
-- -d o - - - -- - - -- - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - -- - .....- d o - - -------------do_
--Do.
----do --------------------------------------M arihuana ------------------------------------ Pleaded guilty -------- 30 m onths- 10 -------------------------------1)o.
1)o.
----do _
27 months-10 ....- ......................
Heroin --------------------------------------D)o.
28
m
onths10
-----------------------------------d
o
-------------------do --------------------------------------D ism issed ------------------------------------------------------------------do
)o.
Marihuana ----------------------------------- - Pleaded guilty -------- 2 years- 10 ---------------------------------H eroin -----------------------------. -.----....
1)o.
--d o ---------------- 37 m onths- $ 10 ------------------------------. . . . ..
d o --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Do.
----d o ------- ---------- 3 years- $10 ----------------------------------
H ero in ------------------------------------------------------------------------do
Marihuana ...................................
Roberto H. Moreno -------------- ----- do ...... an h r----------------------------M arihuana and heroin -----------------------Pete C. Arce
Junius H arris -------------------Envaldo Perez_
Jury .................
Pleaded guilty
C ourt ...............
----- do
3 years-10 ---------------------------------5 years-$10 .................................
Clyde Tillman ------------------Alvin D ockins ------------------Raymond Pena -----------------Herman McElroy ---------------Manuel R. Martinez.
Fernando Cleavez ..............
Roland E. Wilkins_
Marie E. Rayburn.
Tony L. Gabriel ----------------Pedro Cosine -------------------George L. Drury ----------------Frank Garza --------------------Joe N . Powell -------------------Ruben Flores -------------------Arthur J. PeguesAlma Mouton_
Terrell E. Lee Caradine ---------Raymond Vargas ----------------Edward Lopez -------------John Edgar Vargas --------------Phillip D. Lamar-_.
Willie E. Scott .................
Earl Voice ----------------------Hector D. Lamas ...............
- - -- - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - In hospital -----------------------------------Ramiro R. Acuna ---------------- -- -- -- -- --dd oo -------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Do.
2 years- $ 10 ----------------------------------Pleaded guilty ---Lorenzo P. Tellez ---------------.........................
shown
No
disposition
Oscar Campos ------------------- - - - -d o - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Arturo H. Hernandez ...........
Do.
.......
3 years-$10 ..................................
guilty
Pleaded
Louis Arriola -------------------Marihuana
--------------------------Do.
2 years- 10 ----------------------------------Jury
Laura B. Oliver__.
offense.
2d
$
10
..................................
5
years-------guilty
Pleaded
Benjamin V. Francis ------------1st offense.
Ju ry ------------------ 30 m onth s ..........................
Julius B. McBride.
Do.
.
.....
.....
3
y
ea
rs
.
.
....
....
.
..
.
.
........
..
...
C
our
t
----------------Sidney Smith -----------------Heroin --------------------------------------Do.
months-10_._
27
guilty
-------Pleaded
Ellis Scott, Jr -----------------.
.
-do.
-...
.
..-----------------------------1)o.
----d o ----------------- 2 years- $10 ..................................
Charles Tucker -----------------do -------------------------------------------Do.
m
onths$
10
...............................
42
------d
o
-------------Frank H . Olivia -----------------do -------------------------------------------)o.
.Jury------------------ 2 years-10 .................................
Pedro G. Rodriguez ------------

Name
Offense charged
Roy C. Velasquez ---------------Chester A. Davis .....
H ero in ----------------------------------------
Trial
M arihuana ------------------------------------ Jury .................
Alfredo G. Rodriguez ............ H eroin ---------------------------------------- C ourt ----------------Manuel B. Garcia ---------------- - - - - -d o ----- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Jury _
Rafael M. Martinez -------------do .........................................
----d o --------- -------Nathan Daniels ------------------ M arihuana -----------------------------------do ................
Nick A. Aquilar .......
Heroin ......
Pleaded guilty.....
Donald R. Jordan .....
Heroin and marihuana__
Jury -----------------Manuel Rodriquez --------------- .. . . . .d o ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Jury -----------------Edward W. Cron ----------------- Heroin .......................................
Pleaded guilty
------- ------ -----------Francisco Cron ------------------- .....-ddoo ---------------do ..........
.....
----Clarence Crump
do ---------------- - - - -..
d o ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - Icie Granville -------------------do.
----Jury.............
Lister Yarborough
do ................
L . Z . C lay ------------------------ ................................................
Oscar Campos..
M arihuan a -----------------------------------do.............
Antonio Hernandez Ramirez ----do . . . . . . . .
do .........................................
----do
Herman Pittman ..........
- . . d o --------------------------------------do .............
Willis Anderson_
do .............
H
eroin
--------------Cora R. Luna ...................
do ................
Isaac Johnson M arihuana -----------------------------------d o ----------------Lawrence J. Veniable
do .........................................
----d o ----------------Hulen G. Templeton ..........
........................................
-do
do-_
Antonio G. Arrenando ----------do...........................
----do ................
Juan C. Morena.._
do ........................................
---------.
d o ---------------------------------------- Pleaded guilty -------Jose R. Rodrequez .....
~do
Julio A. Garcia-_
.................
H eroin ---------------------------------------- Jurydo
Foy D. Melton_
................
Houston Ross_
M arihuana -----------------------------------do
.. . . . .d o ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Leroy Robinson -----------------do
Isiac Livingston ------------------ - - - - - d o ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - do...........---H eroin ---------------------------------------Geraldine Pierce
.---- do .....
James R. Yanez ......
Pleaded guilty -------W illiam Brown ------------------- M arihuana ------ -- --- -- --- --- -- --- -- Jury-..
- --d o ----- - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - George McDade -----------------d o .------- ------Archie Doza ....
----do
....
do..........
Alfred M . Oliver ----------------- H eroin ---------------------------------------do
Alfred M . Oliver --------------------do .........................................
Pleaded
guilty
-------...... d o --------------Manual Rodriquez_
do .........................................
----Jury
- -- Juan Rodriquez Estrada ---------do -...
----_--do........
.
Pruification Rodriquez_
o --------------------d-------------------- --- d o ----- - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- John Valda Lopez ---------------Pleaded guilty .......
Disposition
Boggs Act
2 years suspended 3 i years ------------------- 1st offense.

Do.
30 months-S10 -----------------------------Do.
3 years-$10 .................................
Do.
5 years--S1i..................................
Do.
3 years-S10 ------------------------------------Do.
30 months-S10 ..............................
----2d offense.
5 years-$10 --------------------------------1st offense.
38 months-S10 -----------------------------2d offense.
5 years-S10 .................................
1st offense.
12 years-250
---------------------Do.
8 years-$10 ----------------------------------------Do.
4 years-$10 --------------------------------Do.
3 years-10 ---------------------------------Do.
3 years-S10 -------------------------------------Do.
No disposition ...............................
Do.
Not guilty -----------------------------------...
-...
Do.
4 years-S10 --------------------------------Do.
Not guilty -----------------------------------...
Do.
2 years-S1 ...................................
-...
Do.
2 years--Si
----------------------------2d offense.
5 years-S1 -------------------------------------Ist offense.
28 months--Si---------------------------------Do.
2 years-$100 ------------------------------------Do.
5 years-100 ------------------------------------Do.
3 years-$100 .................................
Do.
4 years-$10 ........................
4 years- $ 10 ----------------------------------Do.
----Not guilty ...................................
5 years-$-1..
----2d offense.
..
..
..
..------------------------40 months-S1 ------------------------------1st offense.
Not guilty -----------------------------------Dismissed -----------------------------------10 years--SI
3d offense.
----------........................
3 years-10 .................................
1st offense.
----2 years- 10 ----------------------------------Do.
30 months-S10_.................... --Do.
2 years--SI
Do.
2 years-S 10 ---------------------------------Do
5 years- $ 10 ----------------------------------- 2d offense.
----do...........................
Do.
4 years-S 10 ---------------------------------1st offense.
----do...........................
Do.
C,'
FEBRUARY TERMA,
1955
Paul Wayne Rogers --------------
M arihuana ------------------------------------ Jury

- - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - -- - -Pleaded guilty -------Antonio Cruz -------------------do .......
Granela Campos ----------------- - - - -- d o ----- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - d o ------------------- -- d o ..... .... .. .. ... . ... .. .... . .. .... .. ......
M anual Cruz ---------------------
- - --- d o -----
- - - - -d o --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ceasor W illis ---------------------
H arold Jackson ------------------Tony Raney Charles ------------Abelino M altos ------------------Victor Lo Soya ------------------Joe Jabara ..................
Jew Tin H ong -------------------L in Y ou -------------------------Manfredo Martinez -------------Lionel H errera ------------------Filberto de la Garza.
Hector de la Garza --------------Arturo M ireles ------------------Roberto M ireles -----------------John Ellis Sutton ----------------Everett Cooper ------------------Orange N olan -------------------Nathan Johnson -----------------Teodora Robledo ----------------Edward Hooker -----------------Ed Riley
Isaac W allace ....................
Frank M ires ....................
George Gale CooperWillie Winn___
L eo O choa .......................
Joe Buck Kllian .................
Don Chun Ben ..................
- - - - -.
d o ----
- - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- -- -- - - - - -- - -"
- -- - -d o
. . . . .d o -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pleaded guilty ----Jury .................
- - - - -d o --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . .. .d o ----- - - - -d o ----
- - - - - - - - -- -- - - - -- -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pleaded guilty ----
- -- - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- - - -- - - - - --
O p iu m ----------------------------------------
d o -------- --------
. . . . .-d o --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M arihuana -----------------------------------H ero in ---------------------------------------- - - - -d o ----
- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -- - d o ----
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pleaded guilty --------
Jury - - - - - - - - do - - - - - - - -- - - - d o - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - d o - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - do --- - - - - - -- - --ddoo .....

----------------------------------------do --- - - - - - ----do --- - - - - - . . . . .-d o ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - do............--. . . . .d o --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - do --- - - - - - -----d o ......... ...---.. ...-----.
........--- - -. ..d o --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - do --- - - - - - . . . . ._d
o --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - do --- - - - - - . . . .
O p iu m ----------------------------------------
---
- - - - -- - -
-- - ---- - - - - ..---
1st offense.
3d offense.
2d offense.
1st offense.
- - -- - - - - -- - - -
5 years- 10 ----------------------------------Do.
3 years- 10 ----------------------------------Do.
F u gitive -------------------------------------Do.
30 months-$10_._
Do.
----6 years-$10 ----------------------------------2d offense.
Dismissed (sub. not opium) ------------------F u gitiv e -------------------------------------. . . . .d o --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
=---=-----------------Pleaded guilty ----
H ero in --------------------- ------- -----------
- - - - -d o --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 years- 10 ----------------------------------10 years-10__

----5 years- $ 10 ---------------------------------2 years- 10 --------------------------------------Dismissed by Government._
Pleaded guilty ----
5 years- 300 ---------------------------------Do.

D ism issed ------------------------------------30 m onths-S10 ------------------------------- 1st offense.
F u gitive -------------------------------------15 years-1,000 ...............................
2d offense.
9 years- 1,000 --------------------------------1st offense.
---5 years-500 ........................---2d offense.
5 years- 1,000 --------------------------------1st offense.
--3 years-250 .................................
2d offense.
Awaiting trial ........................
---3 years-100 (suspended)--------------------Ist offense.
---3 years- $ 100 ---------------------------------Do.
--4 years-100_
Do.
--3 years-250.
Do.
---2 years-S 100 ----------------------------- :---- 2d offense.
F u gitiv e -------------------------------------P end in g trial ---------------------------------Do.
A waiting sentence ----------------------------- Ist offense.

Heroin
-------------------------------------------------Awaiting trial
-------------------------st offense.
Clifford Billy Holbrook '--------2d offense.
Awaiting sentence ----------------------------Trial ---------------Samuel C Pereida I -------------Maraihuana and heroin---------------------1st offense.
Alvin Herbert I------------------------ do ---------------------------------------------- do -------------------- do ---------------------------------------Do.
do ----------------- do-------.-----------------------------Heroin and marihuana ---------------------------Federico P. Vela I---------------Do.
do ---------------------------------.
Pleaded guilty ---------Heroin --------------------------------------Owen L. Carr ------------------Do.
-----------------------------------.-------------Maraihuana and heroin --------------------------.. do ----------------- do
Gladys Martinez I
I All to be indicted-also in Memphis, Tenn.
Corpus Christi and Brownsville Divisions-July 16, 1953-0ct. 11, 1955

Name
Offense charged
Trial
IDisposition
Boggs Act
9653
1. Moreno, Merced -------------
Smuggled 1 marihuana cigarette --------------- C ourt ----------------2. Holt, Troy C._

IPleaded guilty ---Pit ock, Billy J -------------9 ounces marhuana ----------------Pitcock, Sybil B ...........
3.-Garcia, Jose A --------------- Smuggled 2 pounds 11 ounces of marihuana- _ Pleaded guilty -------4. Williams, Beaver H --------- Importing 3 grams heroin --------------------5. Postilwalt, Don_
Spikes, Mcx E --------------- Smuggled 188 grains marihuana and 1 mari- Pleaded guilty -------huana cigarette.
M cCord, Jim ---------------6. Leon, Francisco P. de .......
Smuggled 4 ounces of marihuana ------------do_
7. Guzman, Amadeo S ........
Smuggled 53 pounds marihuana and Marido
Casares, Jesus C ------------huana Tax Act.
8. Padron, Ruben L_
Smuggled Y4 ounce marihuana and Mari- Court ...............
huana Tax Act.
9. Botello, Raul H ---------Smuggled 2 pounds 6 ounces marihuana ----- Pleaded guilty -------10. Trevino, Camilo M
Smuggled 35 pounds marihuana and MariJury -----------------Salazar, Jose C . C ----------- huana Tax Act.
11. G ibbons, R oberto I ---------- Smuggled 9 ounces of marihuana -------------- Pleaded guilty -------12. Candanosa, Ello R_
Smuggled 4 ounces of marihuana ......
d o ---------------13. Albor, Jose T ---------------- Smuggled 18 grains marihuana and Marihuana ----- d o ---------------Tax Act.
}Smuggled
I year to serve
------------------------$250 fine to be paid ...........................
$50 fine to be paid ............................
Prosecution delined.
6 m onths to serve ----------------------------F u gitiv e -------------------------------------2 years suspended sentence, 3 years and $1
fine to be paid each defendant.
----6 m onths to serve ----------------------------2 years to serve and $25 ----fine to be paid, each No previous
defendant.
tion.
Imposing of sentence, suspended sentence,
Do.
1 year.
$100 fine to be paid ---------------------------18 months suspended sentence, 5 I-cars
Do.
acquitted.
6 months to serve suspe nded sent nce, 3 years_
----4 m onths to serve ............................
6 months to serve ............................
Do.
1954
14. Sanford, John Edward .....

Huffman, George ......
Arzave, Madeline ....
Owens, Jo Ann -------------15. Conroy, Parick -------------Abene, Charles ............
16. Alvarez, Julio S..........
17. Esquivel, Jesus E_
18. Bolton, Edward ............
Rubbi, N . A ---------------W estfall, B. E --------------19. Gonzalez, Manuel H --------20. Ortiz, Frank ...............
21. Rivas, Angel F -------------Vidrine, Laney -----------22. Salazar, R. Garza -----------Hemandez, M. Amaro.
23. Martinez, Victor_Lopez. Alfredo V-
Smuggled 8 pounds 4 ounces marihuana and

Marihuana Tax Act.
Smuggled 1ipounds marihuana and 4 marihuana cigarettes.
Smuggled 5 pounds marihuana and Marihuana Tax Act.
Smuggled 437 grains marihuana --------------Smuggled 17 pounds marihuana and import
ing 2 grams heroin.
Marihauan-Tax Act 2 pounds 6 ounces ........
Smuggled 2 pounds 93/ ounces Marihuana
and Marihuana Tax Act.
Tax Act 2 , pounds marihuana.Smuggled 46i pounds marihuana and Marihuana Tax Act.
Smuggled 9 pounds 4 ounces of marihuana,
Marihuana Tax Act.
}Marihuana
60 days serve ................................

-..d o ---------------- ....
2 years serve $1 .............................
Dismissed on motion United States .........
---do
_
d
-_ - - -- - - - Dismissed on motion United States both
....
doo............
defendants.
, .do _
-- -- - -- -- - Sentenced to time served in jail, both defendants.
do _
4 months to serve.
----d o ----------------6 months serve ...............................
; .d
. o ---------------3 years serve $1 ------------------------------Court trial
Acquitted ........
2 years serve $1 ..............................
Pleaded guilty
Not guilty ------------ Dismissed court motion -----------------------..do_
--do ----------------------------------------
Pleaded guilty -------Not guilty

Pleaded guilty --------...
..
.do
do ..............
---------------...d o - - - -- - - - - - -- - ---
2 years $1 suspended sentence, 5 years .......

Dismissed on motion United States attorney-_
4 years serve ---------------------------------I y ear serve ----------------------------------2 years suspended sentence, 5 years ----------1 year suispede(l setilence, 3 years ------------
INo
previous
tion.
convic-
convic-
3
)o.
1)o.
Do.
--Do.
I)o.
Do.
24. AnesqIti,
.o.e
25. Huerta, LuLs Quirte

26. Avila, Aureliano B
27. Torres Rafael A----------.
Oonzaiez, Cesaro E .....
28. Balderas, Sabino R ---------29. Martinez, C. B.
30. Gonzalez, Esteban G ------31. Taylor, Edwin Oscar -------Taylor, Rose Altha
32. Leal, Roberto G.
33. Montes, Manuel.........
34. Garcia, Antonio B------35. Morales, Ernesto V ---------36. Vasquez, Jose H_
37. Cobb, John H --------------Thomas, Royal..........
38. Gomez, Rafael G___......
39. Perez, Joe -------------40. Martinez, Fabian G----Martinez, Julio G....
Martinez, Manuel G......
Garcia, Arturo V_
41. Ryter, John M
Smith, Charles C.........
42. Carter, Sr., W ilmer .........
43. Rodriguez, Manuel M ......
44. Mendez, Luis Lopez ------Guerrero, Jose E_........
45 Perez, SLxto Limon ..........
CC
46. Briones, Samuel V
do --------------6 m onths serve -------------------------------Smuggled I

ounces inarihuana--............
Smuggled 'i pounds niarihuana and Mari- ----do--------------- I year serve ----------------------------------Do.
huana Tax Act.
Smuggled 1 ounce Marihuana ----------------d o ---------------- 8 m onths serve ----------------------------------.Smuggled 2M ounces marihuana and Mari- ----- do
6 months serve prosecution declined__
Do.
huana Tax Act.
Smuggled
ounce marihuana-do
serve ----------------------------------do -------------------------------------------d o ...............
_-- - - - - - - 690months
days serve ................................
Smuggling Y ounces marihuana
Pleaded guilty -------- 2 years to serve_
Receiving and concealing 4 pounds marihudo...............
---Imposition of sentence suspended
sentence 3
ana, Marihuana Tax Act.
years.
----d o ---------------Smuggling 1 ounce marihuana and Marihuana
1 year to serve
-----------------------No previous convicTax Act.
tion.
Marihuana Tax Act-7 ouncesdo _
----- and $100 fine
4 months to serve and 20 months
Do.
suspended
3
years.
Marihuana Tax Act-5,1 marihuana cigar- -----d o ---------------- 2 years suspended sentence 5 years -----------Do
etts.
Smuggling 2 ounce and 1 marihuana cigarette- Court ................
N ot gu ilty -----------------------------------Marihuana Tax Act-8 marihuana cigarettes.- Pleaded guilty -------- 4 months to serve and 20 months suspended
Do.
sentence and $1 col. ex. only.
.. do ...
.
1 year suspended sentence 3 years ------------Smuggling 3 ounces marihuana__
NI.Not
guilty_
United States dismissed
Smuggling 1/2 ounce marihuana ....
Pleaded
guilty
.......
.....-do ----------- ----- 4 months to serve ...........................
Smuggling 1 ounce marihuana ................
18 m onths to serve --------------------------Court_
Not guilty ...................................
Do.
do.. .........
Do.
Marihuana Tax Act-i ounce marihuana----- ------do.
-- - - - - - - - - - -..-ddoo .......................................
- -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - -- - - - -- - - Do.
-- - -d o - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - ---do ...............
Do.
Smuggling 6 pounds marihuana and Mariot guilty -....
....
United States dismissed.._..............
Do.
huana Tax Act.
2 years suspended sentence 3 years_
Marihuana Tax Act, 12 ounce marihuana
.do ...............
4 months to serve and 20 months and $1 fine
Do.
suspended sentence 5 years.
...... d o -- ---- -- - - --- - -Marihuana Tax Act, 1 ounce marihuana-....
4 months to serve......................
Do.
Smuggling 11 ounces marihuana, Marihuana
30 m onths to serve --------------------------Do.
Court --------Tax Act.
Prosecution declined --................
Smuggling 1 ounce marihuana ....
4 m onths to serve ----------------------------
{N
Smuggling I pound 14 ounces marihuana and

do...............
1 year to serve -----------------------------------Marihuana Tax Act.
47. Williams, Claudie ---------Smuggled 1 marihuana cigarette and 20 grains Pleaded guilty ------- $100 fine to be paid --------------------------of marihuana sweepings.
.....d o -- - - - - - - - 2 years to serve -------------------------------48. Viera, Manuel ( ----------- Smuggled V ounce marinhuana_
-do.
49. Abrego, Ricardo de L------------do..............................
6 months suspended sentence 3 years ---------50. Perez, E. Ernesto ---------- Conspiracy, smuggled 33, 10, and 43 pounds
Court
__
...
..do trial
-- -- - -- -- - 3 years to serve and $100 fine colex only 2 yrs
_
Nassiff, John D------------marihuana and Marihuana Tax Act.
to serve and $100 col ex only
51. Rodriguez, Jose Z ---------Smuggled 2 ounces marihuana ...............
Pleaded guilty ......
I year to serve -------------------------------52. Palacios, Carmen M-------- Smuggled 14,1 ounces marihuana ............
do -----60 days to serve ----------------------------------.
53. Perez, Felipe R -----------Smuggled Yt ounce marihuana -----------Not guilty--.......
Dismissed on court's motion ----------------54. Delgado, Raul F ----------Marihuana Tax Act, 5 ounces ...............
--d o ---------------- -IFugitive
F -vd o ----------------- ----------------------------------------------------------55.Anzaldua, JuMariA.G-------- Smuggled 45 pounds and Marihuana Tax Act.
- --d o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Do.
Corpus Christi and Brownsville Divisions-July 16, 1953-Oct. 11, 1955-Continued

Name
Trial
Offense charged
Disposition
Boggs Act
-f--
1968
56. Morales, Ricardo de la Cruz. Smuggled 2 ounces marihuana ...............

Pleaded guilty -------57. Hart, Harvey R ------------- Importing 30 grains of heroin -----------------d o --------------------------------------Fisher, Abb M ............
iSmuggled 10 ounces narihuana...........
58. Garcia, Margarito V......
{Smuggled j ounce marihuana and Marid o ---------------59. Hernandez, Alfonso S.....
[ huana Tax Act.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
Hernandez, Maximino L ....

Smuggled 4 ounces marihuana ----------------Morales Pablo S.........
Smuggled /j ounce marihuana ---------------Hernandez, Juan.........
Smuggled 3 ounces marihuana ...............
Rosa, Juan Robles ..........
9 pounds marihuana
Rivera, Benito Torres .......
Whitfield Leon V ---------- Marihuana Tax Act, 2!j ounces marihuana..Jackson, Frank Woodrow ..--Whitfield, Rutha W
Jordan, Earl Cabot .........
Importing 9 grams of heroin .................
Rivas, Abelardo Soto .......
Rivas, Alejandro .....
... )Smuggled 7 ounces marihuana
Garza, Florencio de la Paz-..-. Smuggled
ounce marihuana ...............
Roig, Pablo ...............
Marihuana Tax Act 15 pounds and 2 ounces
marihuana.
Marihuana Tax Act 15 pounds and 2 ounces
Saldana, Daniel G........
marihuana.
Gutierrez, Genaro 0 ........
Cotton, Martin Lee --------Tax Act-21 pounds marihuana. -Abatie, Paul A -------------Martinez, Alfredo G
Smuggled i ounce marihuana ......
..
Diaz, Jesus Andrade .......
Marihuana Tax Act-30 pounds marihuana - Trevino, Urbano G ........
Conspiracy, smuggled 71 pounds marihuana
Castorena, Carlos A ........
Louis, Herman Lee.......
Gregoire, C_
Wilson, Jr., E .............
11 ounces marihuana
Beaty, J. C ................
Cheek, Richard -------------Asa, Angel Rivas ------------ Smuggled 34 ounce marihuana ---------------Espinosa, Jesus 0
Smuggled 1 ounce marihuana ----------------Garcia, Rogello P........
Importing, etc., 20 grams heroin ...-...........
77. Beacham, Walter G ........

Smith, Steve F ............
Ballon, Juan Luna.......
79. Zeedyk, Clarence W ........
)Smuggled
}Marihuana
ISmuggled
} Marihuana
huana.
Tax Act 1 pound 6 ounces mari-
Marihuana Tax Act 3 ounces marihuana -----Smuggled IV ounces marihuana
1 year to serve --------------------------------10 years to serve and I col----ex only ----------5 years to serve and 1 to be paid --------------6 months to serve ............................
----4 months suspended sentence
5 years ....
Not guilty
Dismissed on court's motion -----------------Pleaded guilty -------- 4 m onths to serve ------------...............
do .......
----6 months to serve_
1
year
suspended
sentence
3 years and $100
do ..............
----fine to be paid, each defendant
o ----------------- 2 years to serve and $100- dfine suspended senPleaded guilty -------- Prosecution declined .........................
3 years and $1 fine suspended sentence 4 years
-- --- d o --------------- 6 months suspended sentence 3 years .........
Prosecution declined .........................
iPlea-no-lo"contend re- - $10 fine to be paid. Found guilty ------------F u gitive -------------------------------------------------------C ourt ----------------- 2 years and $100 fine suspended sentence 3 years.
Pleaded guilty -------
Pleaded- -guilty......
- ------- -- ----
-- --- d o
d o ----------------
Prosecution declined -------------------------2 years and $100 fine suspended sentence -----3 years each defendant -----------------------6 months to serve
5 years to serve and $10 fine
---to be paid.......
1 previous conviction.
18 months to serve
-------...............
13 months to serve ...........................

do --------------....
................................................
Court-Not guilty --................................................
...do ...............
.... d o -------------------d o --------------- -
Pleaded guilty ---_do

Pleaded guilty -------Court ....
2 previous convictions'
1 previous conviction
40 months to serve.....................
2 years to serve and $10 fine to be paid -------5 years and $100 fine suspended sentence 5
years.
3 years and $100 fine to be paid and jail sentenceProsecution declined ..................
Dismissed on court's strike motion ...........
Acquitted ....................................
80. Paredes, Sr., Alejo.

Thomas, Royal -------------- (ISmuggled Vi onice marihuana ---------------
Valerio, Jorge A ------------
Salinas, Hector de Hoyos .....

81. Moody, Jose............
Trevino, Pedro ............
Rodriguez Roman ---------Ramirez, Juan Jose ---------82. W hite, Bennie --------------Gilmore, Samuel Padie -----Flowers, Ernest M
ISmuggled
2 pounds 8 ounces marihuana.
ISmuggled 9 ounces marihuana............
{Dismissed
Not court ---------
on court's strike motion on all de-
fendants.
N o true bill returned --------------------------
------------------------
$100 fine to be paid --------------------------Pleaded guilty --------
. d o ----------------------------------------..
6 m onths to serve -----------------------------
1955
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
Smuggled 3i pounds marihuana._........

Smuggled 1 ounce marihuana ----------------Smuggled 1 ounce marihuana_
Acquiring 10 pounds marihuana (Marihuana
Tax Act).
Gonzalez, Jesus Vasquez----- )Smuggled I J pounds marihuana ............
Chamberlaine, Marcelino M_
Loya, Gaspar M ...........
Cavazos, Calixtro -----------Tax Act 4 ounces marihuana ....
Leoncio Lozano Caballero. -Garcia, A. F-----------Marihuana Tax Act J ounce marihuana ....
Martinez, Alfredo M
Smuggled 4 pounds 10 ounces marihuana.
Garcia Thomas Vasquez ---Mari huana Tax Act 3. pound marihuana and
Solis, Ciriaco G---------I marihuana cigarette.
Smuggled 1Y ounces marihuana ............
Gonzalez, Jose David B .....
Rodriguez, Jose Garcia ....
SSmuggled 40 pounds marihuana..........
Martinez, Jose Lucio S .....
Pelayo, Jose Salinas ........
Smuggled Y ounce marihuana and Marihuana
Killian, Jr., Joe B. W .......
Tax Act.
Smuggled 20 grams marihuana ..............
Arambula Pablo S...
Guerclo, Tbomas Anthony-.- Smuggled 2 ounces marihuana ...............
Callias, Anthony -----------Lopez, Edward -------------Aguirre, Daniel G ..........
Hernandez, Victor V --------Montalvo, Marcimilliano G..- Marijuana Tax Act, 11 marihuana cigarettes- Martinez, Dionisio L.......
Smuggled 6 ounces marihuana ...............
Smuggled Y ounce marihuana ..............
8 uiroga, Joel Davila ........
Marihuana Tax Act, 4 grams marihuana -----Gonzalez, Eliberio C -------Harris, General -------------..
6 ounces marihuana.......
H urd, Luke ----------------Jarmon, M artin ------------Russel, John Louis ---------- Marihuana Tax Act, 14 ounces_
Cruz, Ysidoro Guerra ------Olvera, M anuel -------------Vallejo, Juan__
Hern'andez, Alfredo Lucio_ --
103. Gonzalez, Eliberlo C ........

104. Donavan, Jr., James F ------105. Banda, Donacio V ----------106. Valenzuela, Jesus S .........
IMarihuana
ISmuggled
Pleaded guilty.
do ...............
_do ..............
C ourt ---------.----
2 years to serve ....

4 m onths to serve --------------------------------1 year to serve ------------------------------N ot gu ilty ------------------------------------
Pleaded guilty -------
Fu gitiv e -------------------------------------2 years to serve --------------------------------
{Court-Not guilty.
--
Prosecution declined --------.....- do
Pleaded guilty.
do ..............
do ------------
Pleaded guilty -------Jury .................
--------------
---------..-----------------------......
1 year suspended sentence 5 years ........

1 year to serve_
----suspended sentences
2 years and $25 fine both ---5 years.
6 months to serve.
year to serve.
No true bill returned
---do ........................................

do ................
Court ...........
... our.................
----
SPleaded guilty ......
-le-a-ded-guilty
----
Imposing of sentence suspended 3 years ......

4 months to serve .....
6 m onths to serve ----------------------------Prosecution declined ------------------------.....d o ----------------------------------------d o - - - - --------- -------------- ------ ------ 2 years and $10 fine, suspended sentence 5 years6 m onths to serve ----------------------------F u g itiv e -------------------------------------Dismissed on court's motion ..................
Court, not guilty ...

Court............
Pleaded guilty -------- -do-- - - - - -- - - -- - - --
Smuggled 4 grams marihuana ...............

Smuggled 1 pound 4 ounces marihuana and
Marihuana Tax Act.
Smuggled
ounce marihuana ---------------do ----------------- -------------- ......d o ---------- -----------d o -----------------------
2 years and $50 fine, both suspended sentence

5 years.
6 months suspended 5 years
--- ------------------$150 fine to be paid ...........................
cd
6 m onths to serve --------------------------------o -----------------------------------------
-----
Corpus Christi and Brownsville Divisions-July 16, 1953-Oct. 11, 1955-Continued

Name
Offense charged
Trial
Disposition
1955
107. Suarez, Antonio H..........

108. Sullivan, Jack E ............
Murphy, Thomas R
Sanchez, Manual.........
109. Jones, M anuel, Jr -----------110. Lopez, Espiridion V -------111. Garza, Oscar Balli
Garcia, Teodoro G .........
112. Taber, Roger S...........
Rutherford ...............
Blankenship, Bobby E .....
113. Chamberlain, Jr., Sam R. -.114. Sanders, Handy, Jr -.....
115. Garcia, Secundino G ........
Qaribay, Beatriz ...........
Guerra, Raul Garcia
Kenneth Lonzo..........
Flores, Plutarco Varela .....
MeEntree, Joseph A -------McEntrec, Ida -----------Keller, John H ...............
Griffin, Ray -------------Vives, John V --------------.
121. Robles, Antonio M --------116.
117.
118.
119.
Smuggled 28 marihuana cigarettes ------------Marihuana Tax Act, i pound marihuana

Smuggled 1 ounce and 4 grams of marihuana -_Marihuana Tax Act, 5 ounce marihuana.
Smuggled 6 pounds and 4 ounces marihuana
Smuggled 3 ounces marihuana and Marihuana
Tax Act.
Smuggled Ni ounce marihuana._
Smuggled 1 pound 13 ounces marihuana ------13 ounces marihuana and Marlhuana Tax Act.
Smuggled 1 ounce marihuana ................
Smuggled 13 ounces marihuana ......
-Smuggled 3 grams marihuana -----------------
}Smuggled
Smuggled 3 ounces marihuana ..............
Marihuana Tax Act, 4 pounds 12 ounces mariJ huana.

Marihuana Tax Act, 13 marihuana cigarettes
and 1 ounce marihuana.
marihuana.
Smugglen
----------Walter
122. Tucker,
marihuana grams
-d 52
Parker, James E-------------Finch, Walter G--------Thurman, Edward C -----Callaway, John A
-.--------
Adams, Jr., Sherman .......

123. Rivera, Hilario B ----------
Acquitted 8 pounds marihuana ---------------(Marihuana Tax Act)

Smuggled 1 ounces marihuana and Marihuana Tax Act ------------------------------
124. Burke, Loyal E ...----M iller, W ayne L ---------125. Gillins, Robert_----------Gardner, Sylvester D -----6/
Beverly, Robert S ---------- Smuggled
ounces marihuana---------Cobb, Harvey._
126. Rangel, Marcario Salinas..:_- Marihuana Tax Act,
ounce marihuana,
4 marihuana cigarettes.
127. Mitchell. Jimmie ---------Smuggled 1/i ounce marihuana ----------------
IPleaded
Pleaded guilty
guilty .......
---d o -- -- -- -- -- -
6 months to serve ----------------------------
Dismissed on motion of United States-------2 years to serve and $1 fine to be paid..........

Dismissed on motion of United States -------Not guilty......
Defendant ordered to mental institution -----Awaiting trial -----------.-----------------years to serve ------------------------------)Convicted ----------6 months to serve ---------------------------2 years suspended sentence, 5 and $1 fine to be
paid.
)Pleaded guilty -------- Prosecution
declined -------------------------do ---------------------------------------- --d o ------- ----- -- -- $250 fine to be paid -------------------------------------------------------do--------Awaiting trial -------------------------------years and $50 fine to be paid. 1 previous
)Pleaded guilty ........
conviction.
All counts dismissed by United States
Awaiting trial ------------------------------------ do----------------.--------------------------------------------------.....- do ........-trial -------------------------------Prosecution declined -------------------------.........................
{2
{5
{Awaiting
...do ----------------------------------------1 -.
........................
Awaiting trial ................................

-----------------------------.....- do ........--
No true bill returned ..........................

..- do ----------------------------------------A w aiting trial ----------------------------------do........................................
Prosecution declined .........................

Awaiting trial ................................
----- d do
- ------------------------------------------ d-do --------------------------------------
.......-d - - -...................................
Boggs Act
Laredo Divi8ion-july 1, 1953-Oct. 11, 1955

Defendants
Offense charged
Trial
Disposition
Boggs Act
I-
William Denton Henson -------- N arcotics ------------------------------------Arthur Baker Bee ......
Pleaded guilty ......

Dismissed Government.
6 years ---------------------------------------
Marihuana ----------------------------------5 years ---------------------------------------- 1 prey.

Marihuana conspiracy .......................
Pleaded guilty
I year suspended -----------------------------do ----------------- 9 m onths -----------------------------------------Sergio Morin Cardenas ----------- M arihuana -----------------------------------2 years suspended............................
Marihuana conspiracy ------------------------ -----------------------......
.
....
. .
.........
.......
--.
........
.----.
M arihuana -----------------------------------Antonio Hernandez Gascar----Marihuana conspiracy ------------------------ Pleaded guilty.......
18 months, 5 years, suspended ---------------do .......
2 years-$10; 5 years, suspended
----------------Donald Winston Reeves -------N arcotics ----------------------------------------..
do ------------ _2 years-500 ---------------------------------do
.....
----Guadalupe Lozano Zuniga -.....
d o ----------------------------------------...
-----.
do
------------.. -- .
2 years-$ 0..............................
-Alonso Hinojosa Ramos ---------- --------d o -----------------------------------------...
Dismissed GovernArchivaldo Canales Canales ....
ment.
..
Not guilty -----------Milton Lee Applewhite ---------- .....- d o ----------------------------------------Pleaded
guilty -------- 6 years-$10-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- - - - 1 prey.
Hillery Walker ----------------------d o -----------------.
M arihuana ----------------------------------- Government, dis- 2 years ---------------------------------------- 1 prev.
Ponciano Garcia___
_----...---....--..___
-.. Donald Grant Soper -------------- -----. do .....-----.....-.-missed.
Not guilty-Jury_.....
conspiracy -----------------------Walter Herman Anderson -------- -----Marihuana
d o ............--- _...---...--_
-. -___ -._ -. ---Pleaded--guilty
30 months-Si----------------David W. Boliver -------------------- do
- - - - - - - 2 years-$; 3 years, suspended
---------------do -------------------------------------------do .............
-...
Anne Kraft Boliver ------------M arihuana ----------------------------------- --- do ------------30 days -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Meliton Domlnguez Ruiz_
Juryd-----------------8 years-$100. Reduced to 5 --------1 prey.
Jose Daniel Guerrero Ruiz -------- Marihuana conspiracy ------------............ ----o ----------------- 3 years-100; 5 years, suspended -------------Oscar Franz Toren .............
2 years- 100 ---------------------------------....--..
--.._ -..
..
. .. --Pleaded guilty
Stanley Ha rln ------------------ ...... --.-...........
do ----------------- 3 years-100 -------------------------------------M artin Snyder ------------------2 years-25 ----------------------------------do
Antonio Gonzalez Arredondo_....
Marihuana
-----------------d o .......-_---.........
--..
.....d o ------------------------------------... .--do ----------------- --------.....----.......-..
Juan Cresencio Moreno ---------__ -_. -. --_
-- - do
----------------------------------..
. ..-.-do ----------------- .....-d o ......----.................--.__
----J. A. Chetwell --------Abel Cortez ---------------------- N arcotics ------------------------------------- ----- do ...............
Pleaded guilty; Im- 5 years, suspended ---------------------------Gilberto Diaz Penalver.......
Marihuana
posed Sentence;
Sentence suspended.
---------------------------------------d o -- ---.-..-.-.-- .
- ---..
...
.
.
.--------Pleaded guilty -------- 3 -years
Antonio Fernandez Gonzalez----- .....-_d o .......-----.......--_ -.---.......---. _ -. --_
...--------- -----------d o ---------------------_---do
Juan Cruz Tirado ---------------o rearrest -----------------------------------d o -------------------------------...-..
__-Jumped bond --------- NK
Henry Hoffman ------------------ .....I
year;
5 years, suspended ------------------------- d o ----------------------------------. ...--- -Pleaded
guilty
-------Robert Vernon Nelson ----------N
arcotics
-------------------------------------Direct verdict -------- -- - - - - - - - .- - . - . ------...------...
.
.
..
.
.
-......
Homer Rogers -------------------- .....- d o -------.....d o .......----....---.
..
.
-------------------.
--..
.
-.-.
Rollin Chatman ----------------years- I------------------------------------..
Pleaded
guilty -------Jackie Lee Lyles ------------------ .....- do ---------------------------------....--__-- ----do
.......--..-..........- do ----------------------------------------Gloria Jean Smith ................
Marihuana
-do--------------------------------Pleaded guilty; Im- 3 years, suspended ---------------------------Linden Lee Wilkerson ....
eosed Sentence;
sentence suspended.
Pleaded guilty -------- ----- do .....----.- _.-.---.-.----_----.....-_--..Marvin Roark Wilkerson-.........------------................................
George Colon ....
---..............
Laredo Division-July 1, 1953-Oct. 11, 1955-Continued

Defendants
Antonio Davila ------------------
Offense charged
Trial
Disposition
Narcotics ------------------------------------
Dismissed, Govern- _-...............................................

ment.
Hortencia Perez Davila---------- - --do --------------------------------------------- do -----------------...---------------------------------------------Victoria Hernandez Davila ------ ---- do ---------------------------------------------do -----------------.................................................
Rosa Davila Terrazas -----------do ---------------------------------------Pleaded guilty ------- 5 years-100, 5 years suspended --------------Louie Frank Belluci --------do -------------------------------------------do ------------- 2 years, 5 years suspended.
Robert Marcela Chassaigne --------- do ---------------------------------------------do ---------------- 4 years --------------------------------------Willie Torres Byrd ------------- Narcotic
------------------------------do ------------- 5 years--1.00, 5 years suspended._
Prospero Gonzalez-----------Marihuana ---------------------------------------do ---------------$150 ------------------------------------------Rodolfo Ortiz
------------------ do ---------------------------------------------do ---------------2 years
Billy Hirzen Williams, Jr ----------- do ---------------------------------------------do ---------------- 2 years-1.00. 5 years suspended -------------Narcotic ------------------------------------Pleaded guilty------- 5 years suspended ----------------------------Juan Zertuche Castillo -------------- do ----------------------------------do_------------ 3 years-25 ----------------------------------Arthur Baker Bee -------------------- do ---------------------------------------Jury, not guilty .......................................................
Enrique Garcia Triarte --------- Marihuana ----------------------------------Court-guilty ------- 4 months -------------------------------------Ambrosia Flores Rios ------- ----- do
----------------------------Pleaded guilty ------- I year-3 suspended --------------------------Lino Gallegos Trevino ------------......
do ---------------------------------------Court-Not guilty ....
Charles E. Philpot -------------- do
----------------------------Pleaded guilty. Im- 1 year---------------------------------------osed sentence.
uspended sentence.
George A. Routledge ------------do ---------------------------------------Pleaded guilty ------- 1 day -----------------------------------------Maynard Dave Parsell --------Marihuana conspiracy ----------------------Jury -------------- 3 years-25 ..................................
Melvin West Parsell ------------- do --------------------------------------do ------------ 2 years-$25 ----------------------------------Alejandro Sanchez Valverde --------- do ---------------------------------------------do ---------------- 5 years-25 ----------------------------------Rodolfo Rodriguez -----------Marihuana ----------------------------------Pleaded guilty ------- 13 months ------------------------------------Ruben Rodriguez ----------------..----------------------------------------------Dismissed, Govern- -----------------------------------------------ment.
Jose Gutierrez Banuelos -------- Narcotic ------------------------------------Pleaded guilty------- 3 years-1.00 --------------------------------Jose Ortiz Perez, Jr --------------.----- do ---------------------------------------------do ------------ 2 years-1.00 ------------------------------Jesus Victorino Garcia ---------- Marihuana ---------------------------------------do ---------------13 months ------------------------------------Silvestre Beane..----------------Narcotic ----------------------------------------- do .-------------2 years-25 ----------------------------------L. D. Keith -------------------------do ---------------------------------------------do --------------------- do ----------------------------------------Grady Vernon Nowlin -----------.......-----------------------------------------.----do ---------------- 2 years-1.00 --------------------------------Edward R. Spencer ----------Marihuana ----------------------------------Dismissed, Govern- -----------------------------------------------ment.
Harry J. Newbold
---------------------------------------------Pleaded guilty ------ $50 -------------------------------------------Francisco Rodriguez Cuellar ----- Narcotic -----------------------------------------do ---------------- 3 years-1.00 --------------------------------Malcolm DuPa& ------------- Marihuana ------------------------------do ------------ 1 year ---------------------------William Baster Frierson -------- Narcotic -----------------------------------do ------------ 3 years-$5 -----------------------------------Dorothy Holley ----------------Marihuana ------------------------------do
------------ $25 -------------------------------------------Ignacio Ramirez Carreon ---------do
------------------------------- do------------$50
Roberto Ochoa Gallardo ----------..... . do ---------------------------------------No arrest ............. -----------------------------------------------Abelardo Longoria -------------- do ---------------------------------------Pleaded guilty------- 2 years ---------------------------------------Oscar Gutlerrez Ovalle ---------.----- do ---------------------------------------------do ---------------3 years-1.00 --------------------------------Willie Bowie -------------------Narcotic ------------------------------------do ------------ 2 years-1.00 ................................
Louis Q. Weaver --------------------- do ---------------------------------------Dismissed, Court .....................................................
Raymond John Koren ---------- Marihuana ----------------------------------Pleaded guilty -------- 2 years-5 suspended -------------------------Charles B. Head ----------------Narcotic
------------------------------------do ----------------2 years-1.00 --------------------------------Charles Celaya Ortlz ------------arihlana------------------------------------Gordon Williamn Lebarge ------------- do--------------------------------------------
do ----------------do -----------------
2 years-5 suspended -------------------------1 year to servo ---------------------------------
Boggs Act
----- do --------------2 years, 5 suspended_..

I figuel Perez Valdez_
... dO ..................................
----do............................
----do ....
Jorge A bed Vargas --------------do .............
--------------------13 months to serve-$1.00-...
N arcotic -------------------------------------Manuel Martinez -------------suspended18 months-500, 5 years ----do .....
Marihuana ......
Louis Judge ---------------------------d
o
_6
months
----........
do
------Benavides
Garcia
Fidencio
-do....................................i
Petrona Sato Allende I ----------Belen Garcia Athie I -------------2 years-1.00
M arihuana ------------------------------------ Jury.
Pedro Garza Gallardo.
----- d o ----------------18 months-1.00.----do ---------------------------------------Rodolfo Estrada_
9 m onths- 1.00 ------------------------------Pleaded guilty
----do .....
Louis Pules ---------------------GovernJoseph Robin Hood -------------- - - - - - d o ----- - -- -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -. Dismissed,
ment.
Pleaded guilty -------- 6 months, 5 years suspended -----------------Henry Leon Mallory ------------- ---- - d o ----- - ----- ---- - -- -- --- -------- - ---- ----o ----- --- -- ------ -- -- -- -- -- --- --- -- --- -- -----d o ----------------- ... ..-ddo
M arilyn Grant ------------------- - - - - - d o ----- - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- -- - -- - - -- - - -- -- - - .....
----- --d o ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----d
o
----------------Tonia Grant
"d
o
------GovernDismissed,
Ellis Eugene Porter -------------ment.
Pleaded guilty -------- 9 months- 1.00 ------------------------------W alter H enry Farrier -----------do ----------------------------------do
.---------------------------------.
Alejandro Rea M artinez ---------N arco
tic -------------------------------------- Pleaded guilty -------- 13 months-$1.00 --------------- d o ----- - -- - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - 10 years- .00 --------------------------------- 2 previous.
Sam Vernon May ---------------- -- -- -- - -d o ----- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Otis Oscar Rogers ---------------Dismissed,
Government.
- - - d o ----- ---------- ---- --- ----- ---- - -- -- -- --.
---do --- - - - - - Doyle Elton Meeks
M
arihuana
----------------------5 years-1 .00 --------------------------------- 1 previous.
Sabino Molina Torres ---------N arcotic ----------------------------------------- 4 years- $1.00 --------------------------------do
------------Roland Litterio
..
2 years- 1.00 ..............................
---do
-M artina Litterio ----------------- - - - - -d o ----- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
- -- --..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . .
Govern- - - - -- - -- - - - --.
Serapio Arreaga ------------------ . . . ..-d o ----- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - Dismissed,
ment.
arihuana ------------------------------------ Pleaded guilty -------- 18 months, 5 years suspended ----------------Antonio Hernandez Gascar ------- .M
. . . .d o ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P en din g --------------------------------------Jumped bail
Vicente Pedraza Alvarez de
Hoyas.
. .. . .d o ----- - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - -- - - -- -- - - - - - - Pleaded guilty -------- 6 months, 5 years suspended -----------------Jesus M end iola ------------------ -- d o ----- -- - - - - - - - - --- - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --.
Jumped
bail ---------- P en d in g --------------------------------------Henry Hoffman ------------------ ---------d
o
--------------------------------do
. .. 10 ---------------- ---------Gallardo
Ochoa
Roberto
N
arcotic
-------------------------------------term.__
for
Imprisoned
Wanda Sharpe Guy .....
M arihuana ---------------------------------------d o ----------------Jesus Maria Lara Gutierrez ------- Marihuana conspiracy
------------------------Julio Alvarez Bazan__
M arihuana ------------------------------------ Jumped bail ----Marihuana conspiracy ----------------------------John Doe alias el Manchado
M arihuana ------------------------------------ No arrest ------2 years-J1.00 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
N arco tic -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Pleaded guilty
Fayette B. Bius
.....d
o
--------------------------------------Charlotte Harris ----------------M arihuana -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Court trial----------- Pending in Hqouston..............
N arco tic -------------------------------------William Gus Noble M arihuana --- - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - Court-not guilty----Pending on brief ..
do ---------------------------------------- Court-FJDA_
Francisco Sanchez Villalpondo_- - .....I Rule 20 transfer to another District.
Pleaded guilty.
Source: The preceding case tabulation has been compiled by Assisanit U. S. Attorneys Brian S. Odem at Brownsville and Charles L. Short at Laredo.
2766

REMARKS
WITH REFERENCE TO THE FOLLOWING CASES LISTED
United States v. Jose Daniel Gherrero Ruiz, Oscar Frans Toren, Stanley Halprin,
Martin Snyder-16641 Laredo Division- September 1954
This case involved a conspiracy to smuggle 85 pounds of marihuana and to
transport the same to New York City. After trial all defendants were found
guilty. The marihuana had been shipped to New York City by express in a
steamer trunk. Dave Ellis, customs agent, followed the marihuana to New York
City and apprehended the defendants Halprin and Snyder when they called for
the trunk containing the marihuana. Mr. Smith and Mr. Oden prosecuted. A
jury returned a verdict of guilty.
United States v. Richard Eldridge, Waver Louise Ellison, Vicente Garcia, Rosemary
Garcia, Jesus Victoriano Garcia-5961-CorpusChristi Division-November
1954
The defendants were indicted with the conspiracy to smuggle marihuana and
to transfer same in violation of the Marihuana Tax Act. Mr. Wilkey and Mr.
Oden prosecuted. After trial before a jury the defendants Eldridge and Ellison
were found guilty. Rosemary Garcia and Jesus Victoriano Garcia were found not
guilty. The defendant Vicente Garcia is a fugitive.
The defendants Eldridge and Ellison were from Cleveland, Ohio, and were apprehended in Little Rock, Ark., with 22 pounds of marihuana concealed in their car.
The customs agents had information that these two defendants had made frequent
trips from Cleveland to the Mexican border for the purpose of obtaining marihuana.
United States v. Pedro Garza Gallardo, Rodolfo Estrada-17081-Laredo DivisionSeptember 1955
This is a Laredo case involving the smuggling of 100 pounds of ma.rihuana.
This case was tried at Laredo on September 14, 1955, by Mr. Wilkey. A jury
returned a verdict of guilty for both defendants. The marihuana was contained
in four tow sacks and was concealed underneath a large truckload of onions. The
onions were being shipped to Los Angeles, Calif.
United States v. Fidencio Garcia Benavides, Petrona Soto Allende, Belen Garcia
Athie -17057 Laredo Division-September 1955
This case charged the conspiracy to smuggle and transport 62 pounds of marihuana. The marihuana in question was transported to New York City, via automobile in two suitcases. The defendants Allende and Athie were apprehended in
New York City with the marihuana in their custody. All defendants plead
guilty.
The foregoing data furnished from the Official files at Brownsville Tex.
BRIAN S.
DEM,
Assistant United States Attorney.

The following summaries of narcotics and marihuana cases showing the statute
relied upon for prosecution in each case, were supplied by Malcolm R. Wilkey,
United States Attorney, Southern District of Texas, with the guide used on the
statistical report on the Brownsville, Laredo, and Corpus Christi area: (a) Smuggling in all cases, sec. 545 title 18; (b) Marihuana Tax Act sec. 2591 (a) and
2593 (a); (c) Receiving and concealing, sec. 174 title 21; (d) conspiracy, sec. 371,
title 18; and (e) Importation of heroin, sec. 174, title 21:
2767
Supplemental summary of narcotics and marihuana cases, Houston division

Criminal No.
Name
Narcotic amount
Statute
-1
I Sec. 2593 (a), 2591 (a) tit. 26. U. S. C__. 6i
11873
Clyde Porter ---------
11874
11876
11876
11877
11878
11932
11878
Willie Rogers -----------James E. Shaw ---------Will A. Johnson_

Lupe Herrea ------------Marcos R. Rivera ------Augustin Zepeda --------
11878
11878
11879
11880
11881
John Doe
Daniel Zepeda ----------Gorden Winters --------Roberto M. Martinez- _
Vernon L. Nichols -------
Sec. 2593 (a), tit. 26, U. S. C...

See. 2557 (b), 2593 (a) tit. 26, U. S. C_-..
See. 2557 (b), 2554 (a) tit. 26, U. S. C._.
See. 2557 (b), 2593 (a) 2691 (a), tit. 26,
U. S. C.
----- do ----------------------------------------------------------------d o ---Sec. 2593 (a), 2591 (a) tit. 26 U S C..
-..
Sec. 2593 (a), tit. 26, U. S. C.......
Sec. 2593 (a), 2591 (a) tit. 26, U. S. C.
10985
11882
11883
Archie Sample
Alfonso S. Cardenas ----Refuglo D. Rodriquez. -.
Sec. 2553 (a), 2554 (a) tit. 26, U, S. C.

See. 2593(a) tit. 26, U. S. C ...........
--d o ------ -----------------------------
11884
11885
Eddie Sanders ----------Bessie L. Blakely --------
Sec. 2593(a), 2591 (a) tit. 26, U. S. C....

Sec. 2554(a) tit. 26; Sec. 494. tit. 18;
Sec. 2554(a), tit. 26, U. S. C.
11886
11942
Jesse T. Cook ---------Sec. 2553(a), tit. 26, U. S. 0........

Arthur C. Ortiz ----------do ................................
11887
11888
11889
11893
11896
11933
11936
11936
11938
11938
11939
11940
11941
11944
12012
12048
McNeal Bolton ---------Billy Rae Harris_

Archie Swift ...........
Alex Archie ............
Earnest Woods ---------James C. Carmichael ...
David Anderson --------Lois Tate ..............
Jesse Cuellar_
Andrew M. (lonzales....
James Sheffield .
Fernando L. Castilo..--M artin S. Vega ---------Raymond Gar7a Amador
Jose G. Carmona .......
Lois Gene Murphy ------
Lorenza D. Porter -------
do
----
-.d o ------
---
-- -- ---
-- - ---
-- - -----
---
do ------------------------------------
Sec. 2593(a), tit. 26, U. S. C_

-do ----------------------------------Sec. 2593(a), 2591 (a), tit 26 U S C___
Sec. 2593(a), tit. 26, U. S.
d ...
-.....
S e . 2 5 53 ( a) , t i t .2 6 U S . C
-------(a5 , tit 26 U. S. C___See.
Sec. 2593(a),
2593ka), 2591
tit. 26,
U. S.d ---.........
_.
...do _
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sec. 2593(a), 259i(a),-tit.-26, . S. 0---
do........................
.....
Sec. 2593 (a), tit. 26, U. S. C

...do
Sec. 2593 (a), 2591 (a) tit. 26, U. S. C_
Sec. 2553 (a), 2554 (a) tit. 26, U. S. C..
See. 2593 (a), tit. 26 U S. C .........
Sec. 171, tit. 21, U. . ........
ounces marihuana and

3004 grains of marihuana.
317.5 grains of marihuana.
4 grains of HCL.
12 ounces of marihuana.
Do.
719 grains of marihuana and
17 ounces marihuana.
23 grains heroin.
1 capsule heroin; 16 grains of
heroin.
36 tablets (346 grain each) of
dilaudid; 20 tablets (5 milligrams each) of dolophine.
7 grains of heroin.
7 grains of heroin; 17 grains
of cocaine and 4 tablets of
pantapon.
1 grain of heroin.
13 marihuana cigarettes.
3 grains of heroin.
458 grains of narihuana.
18 grains of heroin.
4 grains of heroin.
4j grams of heroin.
FEBRUARY TERM, 1954

12058
12058
Pete C. Arce-------Junius Harris--..........
12060
Envaldo Perez-..
12060
12061
12061
Roberto H. Moreno ....

Clyde Tillman .........
Alvin Dockins ..........
12061
Raymond Pena .........
12061
12061
12061
12412
Herman McElroy ------Manuel R. Martinez ..--Fernando Chavez -------Roland E. Wilkins ------
12081
12082
12085
12086
12087
12088
12103
12103
Marie E. Rayburn .....

Tony L. Gabriel --------George L. Drury------.
Frank Garza ------------Joe N. Powell ----------Ruben Flores -----------Arthur J. Pegues -------Alma Mouton-------
12103
Terrell E. Lee Caradine
12193
12194
12195
Raymond Vargas -------Edward Lopez ..........

John Edgar Neveu .......
Sec. 2553 (a), tit. 26, U. S. C ---------Sec. 174, tit. 21; sec. 2553 (a), tit. 26
U. S. C.
See. 2593 (a) tit. 26; sec. 2591 (a), tit. 26,
U. q. C.
See. 2593 (a), 2591 (a) tit. 26, U. S. C_
Sec. 2553 (a), 2554 (a) tit. 26, U. S. C -
Sec. 2,553 (a), tit. 26; see. 1716, tit. 18,

U. S. C.
Sec. 2591 (a), 2557 (b) tit. 26; sec. 371,
tit. is,U. S. C.
See. 2593 (a), tit. 26, U. S. C.......
do ---------------------------------.....
Sec.
Sec.
U.
Sec.
See.
545, tit. 18, U . S. C -------------2557(b) tit. 26; see. 371, tit. 18,
S.C.
2553(a), tit. 26, U. S. C.
2553(a), 2554(a), tit. 26, U. S. C.__
d o . ---------- ------------ ...........do
----Sec. 2593(a), tit. 26, U. S. C_
Sec. 2593(a), 2591(a), tit. 26, U. S. C___
Sec. 371, tit. 18 U. S. C
Sec. 371 tit. 18; sec. 174, tit. 21; sec.
2553(aS, tit. 26, U. S. C.
Sec. 174, tit. 21; sec. 2553(a), tit. 26,
U. S. C.
Sec. 2593(a), tit. 26, U. S. CSec. 2553(a), 2554(a), tit. 26, (J. S. C.__
Sec. 2553(a), 2593(a), tit. 26, U. S. C---
100.5 grains marihuana.
145 ounces of marihuana; 54
grains of heroin.
)o.
40 pounds of marihuana.
3 grains of heroin.
4 grains of heroin.
4 grains of heroin.
1,322 grains of marihuana.
62 grains of heroin; 6 grains of
marihuana.
L.
2768
Supplemental summary of narcotics and marihuanacases, Houston division-Con.

FEBRUARY TERM, 1954
Criminal No.
12200
12208
12223
12231
12233
12234
12235
12371
12268
12274
12274
12285
12286
12333
Name
Narcotic amount
Statute
See. 2593(a), tit. 26, U. S. C ---------- 66 grains of marihuana.

Sec. 2553(a), tit. 26. U. S. C ---------- 571 grains of heroin.
Sec. 2553(a), 2554(a), tit. 26, U. S. C..
See. 2553a), tit. 26, U. S. C ---------- 7 grains of heroin.
Sec. 2553 (a), 2554 (a) tit 26 U S. C - - 6 grains of heroin.
.-----Sec. 2593 (a), tit. 26, U. S. --347.5 grains marihuana.
See. 2593, tit. 26, U. S. C -----------False statements Sec. 1001; tit. 18 (un- 1600--3 grain codeine tab.
lets.
lawful dispensation).
836 tablets of )46 grain diSidney Smith ---------- Sec. 371, tit. 18, U. S. C ------------laudid.
Ellis Scott, Jr ---------- Sec. 2553 (a), tit. 26, U. S. C --------- 28 grains of heroin.
28 grain-, of heroin.
do
-------------------------Charles Tucker -----------Frank H. Olivia -------- Sec. 2553 (a), 2554 (a), tit. 26, U. S. C__ 12 grains of heroin.
Pedro G. Rodriquez --- Sec. 2554 (a), tit. 26, U. S. C--------- 15 grains of heroin.
6grainsofcodeinephosphate.
Roy C. Velasquez ------- Sec. 2553 (a), 2554 (a) tit. 26, U. S. C.
Willie E. Scott --------Earl Voice ------------Hector D. Lamas ------Lorenzo P. Telles------Louis Arriola ---------Laura B. Oliver -------Benjamin V. Francis ..-Julius B. McBride ------
SEPTEMBER 1954
See. 2593 (a). tit. 26; Sec. 2591 (a), tit.
26, U. S. C.
Sec. 2553 (a), tit. 26, U. S. C ----------
Sec. 2593 (a), 2591 (a) tit. 26, U. S. C. - Sec. 2553 (a), tit. 26, U. S. C_ Sec. 2593 (a), 2591 (a), 2553 (a), 2554(a),
tit. 26, U. S. C.
Sec. 2553 (a), tit. 26, U. S. C
See. 2553 a), 2554 (a), tit. 26. U. S. C._

12334
Chester A. Davis --------
12335
12336
12337
12338
12339
12343
Alfredo 0. Rodriquez...
Manuel B. Garcia ......
Rafael Martinez San
Chez.
Nathan Daniels ---------Nick A. Aquilar ........
Donald R. Jordan ......
12423
12345
Manuel Rodriquez_......
Edward W. Crow -------
12345
Francisco Crow ------------....
do --------------------------------
12345
Clarence Crump -----------
do --------------------------------
12352
Icie Granville ------------
12352
12354
12354
Lister Yarborough ------Oscar Campos-------Antonio Hernandez Ra.

mirez.
Sec. 2593 (a), tit. 26, U. S. C
Willis Anderson --------Sec. 2553 (a), tit. 26, U. S. C........
Cora R. Luna.
Sec. 2593 (a), tit. 26, U. S. C ----------Isaac Johnson ..........
Lawrence J. Veniable .... ----- d o ---------------------------------.
Hulen G. Templeton....-- Sec. 2593 (a), 2591 (a), tit. 26, U. S. C__
----do-----------------------Antonio G. Arrenando._
Juan C. Morena --------- ----- do ......--........................
Jose R. Rodriquez ------- See. 371, tit. 18; sec. 545, tit. 18 USC___
Julio A. Garcia --------- Sec. 371, tit. 18; sec. 2593 (a), tit. 26
12356
12358
12369
12376
12377
12383
12383
12388
12388
Houston Ross........
Leroy Robinson ........
Isaic Livingston --------James R. Yanez ........
William Brown......
12M6 Gqorgq McDade -------12396 Archie DoVa..........
12407 Alfred M. Oliver ........
12423 Manuel Rodriquez .....
12462 Juan Rodriquez Estrada12392
12392
12392
12394
12396
12481
12481
Purification Rodriquez. -
John Valda Lopez -------
-_-do
-----------------------------------do ---------------------------------
Sec.
26
Sec.
Sec.
5 grains of heroin.
765.5 grains of heroin.

38 grains morphine sulphate;
1,003.5 grains herion.
1,345.5 grains heroin' 38
grains morphine sulphate.
1,172 grains of heroin; 38
grains of morphine sulphate.
2553 (a), tit. 26; sec. 2557 (b), tit.

U. S. C.
2553 a), 2557 (b), tit. 26, U. S. C__ 5.4 grains of heroin.
2593 a , 2591 (a), tit. 26, U. S. C__ 625 gains of marihuana.
UbC.
Sec. 2593 (a), 2591 (a), tit. 26, USC
do --------------------------------
---
-----
do -------------------------------....
Sec. 2554 (a), tit. 26 USC -------------Sec. 2591 a), 2593 (a), tit. 26, USC ..--do -------------------------------do -------------.---------------....
Sec. 2553 (a), tit. 26 US C----------------
Sec. 174, tit. 21, USC .................

-do
--------------------------------------do --------------------------------
1,138.5 grains of marihuana.
63 pounds of marihuana.
Do.
392 g-ains of marihuana.
1 ounce of heroin.
Do.
Do.
Do.
2769
Supplemental summary of narcotics and marihuanacases, Houston division-Con.

FEBRUARY TERM, 1955
Criminal No.
Name
Statute
12503
12508
12508
12508
Paul Wayne Rogers----- See. 2593 (a), tit. 26 USC ----------Manuel Cruz --------See. 4744 a), tit. 26, USC ----------Antonio Cruz ------------......
do ------------------------------Gravela Campos ------- Sec. 371, tit. 18, USC ---------------
1258
12593
Tony Raney Charles....

Abelino Maltos --------
12593
Victor LoSoya --------
12655
12660
Joe Jabara -------------Jew Tin Hong---------
12351
12417
Manfredo Martinez ----Lionel Herrera ---------
12473
12473
12667
12670
12562
Filiberto de la Garza.
Sec.
Arturo Mireles --------- Sec.
Joe Buck Killian -------- Sec.
Don Chun Ben --------- Sec.
John Ellis Sutton -------Everett V. Cooper.....
Orange Nolan .....
Nathan Johnson
Teodora Robledo -------Edward Hooker ------- Sec. 4744 (a), 4742 (a), 4751, tit. 26 and
Ed Riley --------------sees. 454, 371, tit. 18, U. S. C.
Isaac Wallace
Frank Mims
-ded).
George Gale Cooper ....
Willie Winn._
Leo Ochoa ...............
Sec. 4744 (a), 4742 (a), tit. 26, USC____

Sec. 371, tit. 18; see. 4744 (a), 4742 (a),
tit. 26, U. S. C.
Sec. 371, tit. 18; sec. 4744 (a), 4742 (a),
tit. 26, U. S. C.
Sec. 4744 (a), tit. 26 U. S. C--------Sec. 4704 (a), tit. 26; sec. 174, tit. 21,
U. S. C.
Sec. 2593 (a), tit. 26, U. S. C-------Sec. 2553 (a), 2593 (a), tit. 26, U. S. C__
Narcotic amount
1,701.5 grains of marihuana,
plus 5 ounces.
24j ounces of marihuana.
243j ounces of marihuana.
303.5 grains of opium.
120 grains of heroin; 22.5 lbs.
marihuana.
545, tit. 18; sec. 381, tit. 18, U. S. C__ 2,588 grains of heroin.
545, tit. 18; sec 381 tit 18, U. S. C.. 2,588 grains of heroin.
4742 (a), tit. 26 V. S. C --------- 486 grains of marihuana.
174, tit. 21, U. S. C_
-262
grains of opium.
1,082 pounds of marihuana

(evidence showed approximately 1,800 pounds han-

12672
12695
Clifford Billy Holbrook-Sam C. Pereida -------Alvin Herbert-------Federico P. Vela------Owen L. Carr --------Gladys Martinez -------
Sec. 174, tit. 21 U. S. C------------
15.5 grams heroin.
Sees. 4704, 4705, 4744 (a), 7237 (a), tit.

26, U. S. C.
320 grains of heroin; 320

ounces of marihuana; 300
pounds marihuana.
LA1I I I1I I
2770
ELICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
Supplemental summary of narcotics and marihuana cases, Laredo division, from

September term, 1953, to Oct. 11, 1955
Defendants
Type
Amount
Statute
William Denton Henson -------- Marihuana ....1 4 pounds ---------------- 26: 2593 (a).
Arthur Baker Bee -------------- Heroin-.:--:: ligram_
21: 174.
George Colon .........
Marihuana .... 3 pounds, 3 ounces .......
26:2557 (b) (1), 18: 545.
Sergio Morin Cardenas.
---- do .-------.----do
------------Do.
Antonio Hernandez Gascar_....
Marihuana..--- 314 pounds ---------------- 18: 545, 26: 2593 (a).
Donald Winston Reeves -------- H eroin -------- 10 grams
-----21: 174.
Guadalupe Lozano Zuniga ------ Marihuana---- 100 pounds
18: 545, 26: 2557 (b) (1), 26:
2591 (a), 2593 (a).
Alonso Hinojosa Ramors ----------- do

d -------- ----- do-----------------do..Do.
d o __--- - ----Archivaldo Canales Canales --- ----do ........-.....-...-Do.
Milton Lee Applewhite --------- Heroin .......
6 grains.
21: 174.
do --------------Hillery Walker.
Do.
---- do
o ......... .....-----Ponciano Garcia_
18: 545, 26: 2593 (a).
Marihuana ----36 pounds .......
Donald Grant Soper ........
----- do
d --------ounce ------------------- 18: 545.
Walter Herman Anderson ------ Heroin ---- --- 2 grams.............
21: 174, 26: 2557 (b) (1), 26:
200 grains ----------------2553 (a).
Codeine
-- - do
do----------------David W. Bolivar -------------- ----- ddo -------- ----Do.
Anne Kraft Bolivar............. ----- ddo -------- ----Do.
ddo -------------------Meliton Dominguiz Ruiz ------- Marihuana- - - - 1Y ounces ---------------18: 545.
18: 545, 26: 2557 (b) (1), 26:
Jose Daniel Guerrero Ruiz ------ ---- do --------- 90 pounds ................
2591 (a), 26: 2593 (a)..
Oscar Franz Toren -------------- ......-do -------- ----- do ...........------.....

Do.
----- do
do------- -----------Stanley Halprin _.
Do.
----do --------.
----- do
do----------------Do.
Martin Snyder_
...-----do
Antonio Gonzales Arrendondo__
18: 545, 26: 2593 (a).
33 pounds--do-----------------Juan Cresencio Moreno --------- ----- do ....... ------Do.
3. R. Chatwell............ ----- do -------18: 545.
pound.
Abel Cortez ------------------- Heroin -.....
21: 174.
23 grains ...........
*Gilberto Diaz Penalver --------- Marihuana ..--- 66 pounds ----------------- 18: 545, 26: 2593 (a).
Antonio Fernandez Gonzales- -- ---Do.
87 pounds ----------------- do -------do
do----------------Do.
Juan Cruz Tirado_.
.....-do
d -------- ----13 ounces, 7 cigarettes-.18: 545.
Henry Hoffman_
----- d
do .........
Robert Vernon NelsonDo.
2 ounces ------------------...---.
do -----7 grams ..................
18: 371, 21: 174.
H om er R ogers ----------------------Heroin
.......
do --------- ----- do .............
R ollin Chatm an ---------------Do.
----- d o --------- ----- do------------------do
Jackie Lee Lyles ......
Do.
----- d o_-------- ----- do..............
Do.
Gloria Jean Smith.
Lindon Lee Wilkerson---;
Marihuana..--- 18 pounds, 6 ounces ------- 18: 545, 26: 2693 (a).
Do.
--------------------------doMarvin Roark Wilkerson......
...---.
-----18: 371, 21:174.
61 grams .........
Antonio Davila ----------------- Heroin .......
Do.
do ----------------Hortencia Perez Davila --------- ----ddo
-------- ----- do
d o --------- ------------------Victoria Hernandez Davila ..... ----Do.
do----------Do.
Rosa Davila Terrazas ----------- .
ido
...-.-------- do ....................
Louie Frank Bellucci ----------- Marihuana - 10 pounds ----------------- 18: 545, 26: 2593 (a).
Do.
25 poundsRobert Marcelo Chassaigne_....
--- do--------35 grams .....
21: 174.
Willie Torres Byrd.............. Heroin .....18: 545.
Prospero Gonzales..
Marihuana --..34 ounces ................
Do.
Rodolfo Ortiz
----- dd-o -------- 2 pounds, 13 ounces ------Do.
Bobby Hiram Williams, Jr ----- ----- do....... 20 grains .................
1 grain -------------------- 21: 174.
Heroin .- .....
34 grams ------------------ 21: 174.
Juan Zertuche Castillo ---------- Morphine-.....
----do .......
Do.
I grain.
Arthur Baker Bee_
2 pounds, 3 ounces -------- 18: 545, 26: 2593 (a).
Enrique Garcia Triarte ........
d o -------.
Do.
10 pounds ................
Ambrosio Flores Rios ----------- ----42 pounds ----------------- 18: 545.
Lino Gallegos Trevino.
----- do
.------Do.
Charles E. Philpot--------- .----do ..... 3 pounds -----------------Do.
- -----do ....................
George A. Routledge-__
Her-- do ----18: 545, 26: 2557 (b) (1), 26:
Maynard Dave Parsell --------- ----- ddo -------- 6 pounds, 7 ounces .......
do
Melvin West Parsell

Alejandro Sanchez Valverde.. _
Rodolfo Rodriguez ....
Ruben Rodriguez__
Jose Gutierrez Banuelos -------Jose Ortiz Perez, JrJesus Victorino Garcia ---------,ilvestre Beane ----------L. D . K eith ....................
Grady Vernon Nowlin ........
Edward R. Spencer ------------Harry J. Newbold -----------Francisco Rodriguez Cuellar..--Malcolm Du Pas----------William Baster Frierson ------Dorothy Holley --------------Ignacio Ramirez Carreon ------Roberto Ochon Gallardo -------Abelardo Longoria.........
Oscar Gutierrez Ovalle
Willie Bowie ------------------Louis Q. Weaver ------------Raymond John Koren:
2593 (a).
.....-do
-d
--------------- --Do.
-----. d o . . . . . ...-----do --------------Do.
18: 545, 26: 2.593 (a).
----------.....- do ...... 53 pounds
Do.
----do ..------------------ do
Crude
opium_. 17 ounces ------------------ 21:174.
Do.
20 grams ----------------Heroin .......
18: r-45, 26: 2593 (a).
Marihuana.... 14 pounds ------------34 grams ----------------21: 174.
Heroin .......
Do.
12 grams ----------------Do.
.....-----do --------------18: 545.
Marihuana --- 1 pound, 2 ounces ........
Do.
_-----do
----------------21174.
6 grams ................
18: 545.
6 ounces -----------------... do
Marihuana....
21:174.
1 gram -------------------Heroin
------------- ----do--------20 grains ----------------- 18: 545.
Heroin--------do --- 3 cigarettes -------------- __ Do.
Do.
4 ounces -----------------Do.
pound, I cigarette .....
1)o.
88 pounds ------------Heroin
-..... 4 grams --------------- 21: 174.
Do.
--------------- - --o----18: 545.
Marihuana. . 27 pounds, 4 ounces--------do-----
2771
Supplemental summary of narcotics and marihuana cases, Laredo division, from

September term, 1953, to Oct. 11, 1955-Continued
Defendants
Type
Amount
Charles B. Head -------------Heroin ------- 6 grams ----------------Charles Celaya Ortiz ---------- Marihuana --- % pound --------------Gordon William Lebargo ---------- do ------- 8 pounds -----------------Miguel Perez Valdez -------------- do--------- -- do --------------------Jorge Abed Vargas----------------- do ------------ do --------------------Manuel Martinez ------------- Heroin ------- 33 grams -------------Louis Judge -----------------Marihuana .... (Transferred to Houston).
Fidenclo Garcia Benavides -------- do------- 62 pounds -------------Petrona Sato Allende -----------do ----------do -------------------Belen Garcia Athie -------------..
do ----------do -------------------Pedro Garza Gallardo -----------do -------- 100 pounds -------------Rodolfo Estrada ---------------do ----------do --------------------Louis Pulos-------------------- ----.
do -------- 16 pounds ------------Joseph Robin Hood -------------do ----------do -------------------flenry Leon Mallory ------------- do ------4 cigarettes --------------Marilyn Grant ----------------do----------do -------------------Tonia Grant ------------------do--------- -- do --------------------Ellis Eugene Porter .-------------.....
do-------. 2 pounds -----------------W alter Henry Farrier ------------- do--------. -- do -------------------Alejandro Rea Martinez .----------- do-------- %ounce -----------------Heroin ------- 15 grains ---------------Sam Vernon May ---------------......
.do ------- 98 grains -----------------Otis Oscar Rogers ----------------do --.- do -------------------Doyle Elton Meeks -------------do--------- -- do -------------------Sabino Molina Torres --------- Marihuana..-. 2 pounds --------------Roland Litterio-------------Heroin ------- 45 grams --------------Martina Litterio----------------.
do ----------do -------------------Sarapio Arreaga ----------------do----------- do -------------------Antonio Hernandez Gascar-....Marihuana-..
3% pounds -------------Roberto Ochoa Gallardo ---------do ------- 4 oz ------------------Wanda Sharpe Guy ---------Heroin ------- I gram ----------------Jesus Maria Lara Gutierrez --- Marihuana--4 oz-------------------Julio Alvarez Bazan ---------- Morphine.....
665 grains -------------Heroin ------- 146 grams --------------John Doe, alias El Manchado__ --- do ----------do -------------------Fayette B. Bius --------------do-------. 3 grams ---------------Charlotte Harris ---------------do ------------ do --------------------William Gus Nobel -------------do ------------- do --------------------Francisco Sanchez Villalpondo-_ Marihuana .... 1 pound ----------------
Statute
21: 174.
18: 545.
Do.
Do.
Do.
21: 174.
18:545.
18: 371, 545; 26: 2593 (a).
Do.
Do.
18: 545, 26: 2593 (a).
Do.
18: 545.
Do.
Do.
Do.
)o.
Do.
Do.
Do.
21: 174.
Do.
I)o.
Do.
18: 545.
26: 2557 (b) (1), 21: 174.
Do.
Do.
18: 545, 26: 2593 (a).
18: 545.
21: 174.
18: 545.
26: 7237 (a), 4704 (a).
4705 (a) 11954 IRC].
Do.
21: 174.
Do.
Do.
18:5031 (18: 545).
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Messer, you will stand up and be sworn.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony youare about to give to
this subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. MESSER. I do, sir.
TESTIMONY OF LUTHER SPURGEON MESSED
Senator
DANIEL. Give your full name.

Mr. MESSER. Luther Spurgeon Messer.
Mr. MESSER. 1216 Birdsall.

Mr. MESSER. Twenty-five.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever used any type of narcotic drug?
Mr. MESSED. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. What type drug?
Mr. MESSER. Mostly heroin.
Senator DANIEL. When did you start?
Mr. MESSER. March 1949.
Mr. MESSER. Nineteen.

Mr. MESSER. No, sir.
AIIII
2772
Senator

DANIEL.
Was that here in Houston?
Mr. MESSER. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
How far did you go in school?
Mr. MESSER. Through the tenth.
Senator DANIEL. Did you start using any other type drug, maria.
huana or anything else, before you began using heroin?
Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. What did you use?
Mr. MESSER.
Senator
Marihuana.
DANIEL.
How long did you smoke marihuana before
starting heroin?
Mr. MESSER. Oh,
Senator
DANIEL.
I think I started in 1945.
Then you were smoking marihuana for quite some
time before you started using heroin?

Senator
DANIEL.
Where did you buy your marihuana?
Mr. MESSER. Here in Houston.
Senator
DANIEL. Was
Mr. MESSER. Yes.
it pretty easy to get?
Senator DANIEL. How much did you have to pay for it?
Mr. MESSER. Anywhere from 25 cents up per cigarette.
Senator DANIEL. Did you start dealing in marihuana or heroin?
Senator DANIEL. How did you start using marihuana? Who first
showed it to you and asked you to try it?
Mr. MESSER. I can't even recall. I think I ran into a marine at a
pool hall and we got to talking, and he offered me a cigarette. I didn't
realize what it was. He told me what it was. I didn't realize what
it was actually. And I went ahead and smoked it with him.
Senator
DANIEL.
Had you heard anything about marihuana
before?
Mr. MESSER. I bad heard it mentioned.
Senator
DANIEL.
Had anybody warned you about what it might
do to you?
Senator
DANIEL.
Would you say it had anything to do with your
later going into using heroin?

Senator
DANIEL.
Tell us what you mean by that. How did smoking
marihuana finally lead you into using heroin?

Mr. MESSER. By frequent association with different types of people.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right, from smoking marihuana you began
associating with people who used heroin?

Senator
DANIEL. Is that how you

Senator DANIEL. The first person
say you started heroin?

who gave you heroin, was it a
friend or somebody selling dope?

Mr. MESSER. It was a friend of mine.
Senator DANIEL. Was it just in a friendly atmosphere or something
of that nature?
Mr. MESSER. Well, he just offered it to me, and I took it.
Senator
DANIEL.
Had you gotten in any tight trouble or had you
performed any unlawful acts before you started using heroin?

Senator DANIEL. You
2773
had been in trouble with the law before
then?
DANIEL. And I believe you had been convicted of what?
Mr. MESSER. Possession of marihuana and possession of heroin.
Senator DANIEL. That was in 1948?
Senator DANIEL. And you served how much time on that?
Mr. MESSER. Fifteen months.
Senator DANIEL. And you got out of prison when?
Mr. MESSER. In March 1946.
Senator DANIEL. And did you start back using marihuana?
Mr. MESSER. That is when I started using heroin. I used morphine
Senator
first, and then heroin.

Senator DANIEL. Where did you get the morphine?
Mr. MESSER. The same person I got the heroin from.
Senator DANIEL. Was this a friend of yours?
Mr. MESSER. I guess you would call him a friend.
Senator DANIEL. Was he in the business of selling drugs?
Mr. MESSER. No. He happened to have some at that time. He
was a user.
Senator DANIEL. In what part of town did you live?
Mr. MESSER. I lived in, I think they call it the third ward.
Senator DANIEL. Were there quite a number of young people using
morphine and heroin there?
Mr. MESSER. I knew a few people that smoked marihuana.
Mr. DANIEL. A few people that smoke marihuana?
Senator
DANIEL.
How many people do you know in Houston, or
have you known in Houston, that smoke marihuana?

Mr. MESSER. I couldn't count them.
Senator
DANIEL. Quite
Senator DANIEL. Quite
a few?
a few in the third ward neighborhood you
lived in?
Mr. MEssER. Yes, sir.
DANIEL. What streets?
MESSER. About what location
Senator
Mr.
San Felipe Courts.
is the third ward?
DANIEL. Could you buy it around there?

Senator DANIEL. Where did you have to go to buy it?
Mr. MESSER. The first ward and sixth ward.
Senator DANIEL. How long was it before you were
All around
Senator
hooked on
heroin?
Mr. MESSER. I think I first realized I was hooked about 3 months
after I had started.
DANIEL. What did you understand I meant by hooked?
Mr. MESSER. Addicted.
Senator DANIEL. It took you about 3 months before you were
Senator
addicted?
Mr. MESSER. Before I realized that.
Senator
DANIEL.
What do you mean by addicted or hooked?
your own words, what does that mean?
In
.111
2774
Mr. MESSER. I have a habit. Formed a habit.

Senator DANIEL. Felt like you couldn't leave it alone?
Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. About how much was your habit costing you?
Mr. MESSER. Up to that time it hadn't cost me anything.
Senator DANIEL. A friend gave it to you?

Mr. MESSER. The same person that had given me this stuff for
about 3 months straight.
Senator DANIEL. Were you still under 21 then?
Senator DANIEL. What has happened to this friend that started you
you off on heroin and morphine?
Mr. MESSER. I don't know where he is at right now.
Senator DANIEL. Does he live in Houston?
Mr. MESSER. Yes, si.
Senator DANIEL. Was he engaged in the sale of it?

Mr. MESSER. No, just a user.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know why he gave it to you?

Mr. MESSER. I don't have any idea. I came out of El Reno in
1949 and just happened to run into him. I knew him casualy then
before I started living with him.
Senator
DANIEL.
What business was he engaged in?
Mr. MESSER. I never did know.
Senator DANIEL. What business were you engaged in?

Mr. MESSER. I wasn't engaged in any business.
Senator DANIEL. How was he getting enough money to keep up his
habit and yours both?

Mr. MESSER. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know whether he was violating any other
laws of the country?
Mr. MESSER. I don't believe he was.
Senator DANIEL. You don't?
Mr. MESSER. I do not.
Senator DANIEL. Did he stay at the house all the time?

Mr. MESSER. Most of the time.
Senator DANIEL. What did you do?
Mr. MESSER. I just stayed there with him, and would ride around
in the car.
Senator DANIEL. Ride around in the car?
Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. His car?

Senator DANIEL. Who was this person? What is his name?
Mr. MESSER. I would rather not say.
Senator DANIEL. Do you refuse to say to the committee what his
name is?
Senator DANIEL. Let me warn you of your rights under the fifth
amendment to the Constitution. You would have the right to decline
to answer any question that you might believe might tend to incriminate you or that might cause you to be tried and convicted of some
offense. Do you understand that?
Senator DANIEL. Otherwise you, would not have the right to refuse
to answer the question. You might be held in contempt for failing to
2775
answer questions of the committee, and you might be penalized for

that. So I want to tell you both of those things. If you feel that
telling us that man's name might tend to incriminate you you would
have the right to decline. I am giving you this advice because you
are not represented by a lawyer. But if you do not feel it would tend
in any way to incriminate you or connect you with some offense, of
course you should go ahead and give the man's name.
Mr. M/ESSER. I can give you the man's name because the man is
not in the United States at this time.
Senator DANIEL. All right, what is his name?
Mr. MESSER. His name is Ellis.
Senator DANIEL. What Ellis?
Mr. MESSER.
Ralph Ellis.
Senator DANIEL. Where is he now?

Mr. MESSER. I heard that he was in Mexico. I don't know for
sure.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know what he is in Mexico for?
Mr. MESSER. I think he is a bond jumper.
Senator DANIEL. Is he wanted for narcotics charges in this country?
Mr. MESSER. I don't know. I just heard he jumped bond.
Senator DANIEL. You just heard he jumped bond and went to
N exi co?
Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. All right, after he left the States about what was
your habit costing you?
Mr. MESSER. That is when I first realized I was addicted. So I
left Houston and went to my grandmother's in Corpus Christi and
kicked the habit down there.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
MESSER.
Senator
Did you get rid of it?
Yes.
DANIEL.
How long did that last?
Mr. MESSER. I believe until about the first of the year.

the first of 1950.
Senator DANIEL. Then did you start back on heroin?
Senator
DANIEL. How much

Mr. MESSER. About $5.
About
did it cost you a day?
Senator DANIEL. How high did your habit ever get, how much
money a day?
Mr. MESSER. About $25.
Senator DANIEL. How were you getting the money to take care of
it?
Mr. MIESSER. I had a girl that was giving me some money.
Senator
DANIEL. Here
MESSER. No, sir.
in Houston?
Mr.
Mr. MESSER. San Antonio.
Senator
DANIEL.
How long did you live there in San Antonio?
Mr. MESSER. About

Senator DANIEL. Do
a year and a half.
you know how she was making the money?
Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. How?

Mr. MESSER. She was a prostitute.
Senator
DANIEL.
She was also an addict?
2776
Senator DANIEL. She was keeping up both your addiction and hers?
Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did you do any work in San Antonio during that
time?
Senator DANIEL. Didn't engage in any kind of business?

Did you sell any drugs in San Antonio?

Senator
DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever sell any drugs here in Houston?
Mr. MESSER. I don't know whether I want to answer that question.
Senator DANIEL. For what reason?
Mr. MESSER. On the ground it might incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. All right, the committee respects your right not
to answer on the ground it might tend to incriminate you.
I might state it more fully, that if you had an attorney he could
make that objection for you in the proper manner. Since you do not
have an attorney representing you, the committee is going to give
you the same right to state it in your own words, and will respect
your position, just the same as if you had an attorney sitting by your
side. And the same thing is true on any other questions where you
honestly feel that a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you.
Now you answered that you had not sold any herion in San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. But you refuse to answer that question, under

your rights under the fifth amendment, so far as Houston is concerned?
Mr. MESSER. That is right.
Senator DANIEL. And you still refuse to answer on that ground?
Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Isn't it true that you are in two separate cases
charged with possession of heroin?
Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever possessed heroin here in Houston?

Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. You have possessed it here?

Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Have you ever possessed it for sale?

Mr. MESSER, No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. Then you never have sold any heroin here, is
that right?
Mr. MESSER. I wouldn't say that.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever possessed any heroin for the purpose of sale?
Mr. MESSER. Not specifically for that purpose; no.
Senator DANIEL. You have possessed it?
Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. How long since you took a shot of heroin?

Mr. MESSER. September 16.
Senator DANIEL. Is that when you were last arrested?
Mr. MESSER. No, sir. I was arrested that day.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you buy your heroin?

Mr. MESSER. San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. Who from?
Mr. MESSER. All I know is his nickname.
2777

DANIEL. What is his nickname?
Mr. MESSER. Ratan.
Senator DANIEL. And what part of San Antonio?
Senator
Mr. MESSER. West side.

DANIEL. How much was heroin costing?
Mr. MESSER. $25 a paper.
Senator DANIEL. Was that the last heroin you bought?
Senator
Senator DANIEL. When was the last heroin you bought here in
Houston?
Mr. MESSER. I don't remember.
It has been a long time.
Senator DANIEL. Was it pretty easy to buy heroin in Houston?

Mr. MESSER. I didn't have any trouble.
Senator DANIEL. What did you pay for it here in Houston?
Mr. MESSER. I think it was $7 a cap.
Senator DANIEL. Did it cost more here or in San Antonio?
Mr. MESSER. Cost more here.
Senator
DANIEL.
Any difference in the type of heroin you got here
than in San Antonio?

Senator DANIEL. Tell us about it.

Mr. MESSER. Well, it is not as good here as it is in San Antonio.
It is weaker.
Senator DANIEL. You get stronger heroin in San Antonio?
Senator DANIEL. Do you know where it comes from?

Mr. MESSER. I don't know exactly, but I imagine it comes from
Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. Is that what the sellers tell you?
Mr. MESSER. I never asked them. I just figured it did.
Senator DANIEL. Did you buy from anybody else in San Antonio
besides Ratan?
Senator DANIEL. Who was the last person you recollect buying
from in Houston?
Mr. MESSER. I don't recall, it has been so long.
Senator DANIEL. You were arrested on the 16th of September here?
Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. You were charged with possession of heroin?

Senator DANIEL. When did you get out of jail?
Mr. MESSER. I don't remember, but I believe the following night.
Senator DANIEL. About the 17th?
Mr. MESSER. The night of the 17th.
Senator DANIEL. Did you get out on bond?
Senator DANIEL. As soon as you got out of jail on bond did you
get more some heroin?
Senator DANIEL. Didn't the officers find you on the night of
October 13 with heroin in your apartment.
-Mr. MESSER. They found some in my apartment,
Senator DANIEL. Where did you get that?
Mr. MESSER. That didn't belong to me.
yes.
2778
Senator
Who did it belong to?

Mr. MESSER. I don't know. Somebody lived there besides me.
Senator DANIEL. Who else?
Mr. MESSER. An apartment house.
I didn't know all the people.
Senator DANIEL. On the night of October 13, 1955, didn't you come
into the apartment when these officers were in your apartment?
Mr. MESSER. I ran.
Senator DANIEL. Would you recognize the officers who were there?
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you know their names?
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Who were they?
Mr. MESSER. Cook, Campbell, Frost, Tucker. That is all the names
Mr. MESSER.
I remember.
Senator DANIEL. As you ran what did you throw to the ground?
Mr. MESSER. I didn't throw anything on the ground.
They claimed
I threw some caps.

Senator DANIEL. Did you have six capsules of heroin on you that
night?
vr.MESSER. I did not.
Senator DANIEL. Did you throw a bottle to the ground that had
these six capsules in it?

Mr. MESSER. No, sir; I did not.
Senator DANIEL. Did you throw anything on the ground when you
ran from the officers?

I did not.
Senator DANIEL. You understand you are under oath to tell the
Mr. MESSER.
truth to this committee?

Mr. MESSER. These policemen claim I did.
It is my right to clain
I didn't until proved otherwise. I say I didn't.

Senator DANIEL. Let me explain something to you: When you are
up for trial in court you are presumed to be innocent until proven
guilty. You don't have any right under oath when you are on the
witness stand to tell a lie. I don't mean you are telling one. I am
warning you that when you are called before this committee you are
sworn to tell the truth. There is no right that you can evoke that will
authorize you not to tell the truth. Because you are sworn to tell the
truth, and if you give an untruthful answer to this committee on a
material question you could be convicted for perjury, you know.
Mr. MESSER. What if this officer says I threw something, and I
say I didn't throw something in that driveway?
Senator DANIEL. I am not asking you to say anything except the
truth. I am just warning you that if you do not tell the truth you
can be convicted of perjury. It just means if you testify falsely
you can be convicted and sentenced for perjury. You understand
that?
Senator DANIEL. So I am just warning you about that. I am going

back over these questions and ask them to you again.
Did you throw anything to the ground as you ran from these
officers?
Mr. MESSER. I refuse to answer that question.
2779
Senator DANIEL. You have already answered it and waived any

right under the Constitution on it in the opinion of the chairman.
You have already said you didn't do it. For what reason do you
refuse to answer?
Mr. MESSER. On the grounds it might tend to incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you have waived your right to that,
but I am going to resolve any doubt about it in your favor, since you
are not represented by counsel.
Isn't it true you later admitted owning these capsules and told
the officers you owned them?
Mr. MESSER. I never-I don't remember saying anything about it.
I told him I was being framed. And he said: "I never framed anybody in my life. I don't have to to hold my job."
Senator DANIEL. You are saying under oath that you did not admit
owning the capsules?
Mr. MESSER. To the best of my knowledge, I don't remember saying
that; no.
Senator DANIEL. Where is your apartment?

Mr. MESSER. I had an apartment at 1006 Aurora.
Senator DANIEL. Did you also stay at apartment 4, 512 Delcrates?
Mr. MESSER. Yes. I had that apartment, but I never stayed
there.
Senator DANIEL. You had that apartment, but never stayed there?
Mr. MESSER.
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. What did you have that apartment for?

Mr. MESSER. I intended to stay there, but never got a chance.
Senator
DANIEL.
Who was staying there?
Mr. MESSER. Well, a lot of people came in and out.

Senator DANIEL. You were renting it. What were they doing coming in and out?
Tvir. MESSER. It was an apartment house.
They could come and go.
Senator
DANIEL.
You rented apartment 4?
Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
Were there any people staying in or using that
apartment after you rented it?

Mr. MESSER. I don't know. I never did go to the apartment.
I went there to put my clothes in and I never went back.
Senator
DANIEL.
What day did you put your clothes in?
Mr. MESSER. I don't remember the day.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever go back after that day that you
rented it?
Mr. MESSER. Yes, I went back out.
I think it was Friday night.

Senator DANIEL. Before you were arrested, October 13?
Mr. MESSER. I don't remember the date. I know it was Friday
night.
I got out of jail Friday.
Senator
Did you ever see anybody else in the apartment?

Mr. MESSER. My girl.
Mr. MESSER. Dorothy Harris.
Senator DANIEL. Is she also known as Dollie Harris?
DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. Is she also known by any other name?

71515-56--pt. 7-28
2780
Mr. MESSER. I don't know if she is or not.

Senator DANIEL. Was she living with you?
Senator DANIEL. In this apartment?

Mr. MESSER. Yes, sir. She was going to.
Senator DANIEL. Did you live with her some other place before
then?
Senator DANIEL. How long had you lived with her?

Mr. MESSER. Oh, about-I think, about a month.
Senator DANIEL. Is she an addict?

Senator DANIEL. What does she use?

Mr. MESSER. Heroin.
Senator DANIEL. What business is she in?
Mr. MESSER. She is not in any business.
Senator DANIEL. What does she do for a living?
Mr. MESSER. I don't know. Since I have known her she hasn't
done anything.
Senator DANIEL. About how much does her habit cost her?
Senator DANIEL. How much was yours costing you at that time?
Mr. MESSER. At what time?
Senator DANIEL. At the time you were arrested, October 13?
Mr. MESSER. I didn't have a habit at that time.
Senator DANIEL. How much had it been costing you during the
month you lived with Dollie Harris?
Mr. MESSER. When I was living with her I didn't have a habit.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't use any heroin?
Mr. MESSER. Since September 16.
Senator DANIEL. No; during all the time you lived with Dollie
Harris.
Mr. MESSER. I don't remember the exact date I was with her.
Senator DANIEL. Did you have a heroin habit when you were
living with her?
Mr. MESSER. I believe I have taken a shot, but I don't remember
whether I was addicted at the time or not.
Senator DANIEL. Did you take heroin while you were living with
Dollie Harris?
Mr. MESSER. I believe I have shot heroin around her; yes.
Senator DANIEL. You have seen her shoot herself with heroin?
Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. At the time you were living with her?

Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know how much it was costing both of

you?
Mr. MESSER. No.
Senator DANIEL. Several dollars a day?
Mr. MESSER. I don't have any idea.
Senator DANIEL. Were you working?

Senator DANIEL. How long since you had had a job?
Mr. MESSER. Well, I have been out of jail for about 3 months, and
I haven't worked a minute since I have been out.
2781
Senator DANIEL. Was she doing any type of work?

Mr. MESSER. I don't know. She may have been up until before
I met her.
Senator DANIEL. Did she give you heroin?
Senator DANIEL. How did you buy heroin?
Mr. MESSER. I don't know. I ran by some money somehow or
other.
Mr. MESSER. I rustled up some money some way.
Senator DANIEL. Did you have to violate some law to get the
money?
DANIEL. Did you borrow
Mr. MESSER. Part of it.
Mr. MESSER. My mother.
Senator DANIEL. Did you borrow
Senator
it?
some of it from Dollie Harris?
Senator DANIEL. Did she ever give you any money?

Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Gave you money to buy heroin?

Senator DANIEL. Didn't she give you most of the money that you
bought heroin with while you knew her?

Senator DANIEL. And were you living with her?

Senator DANIEL. Did she also sell heroin for you?

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have Dollie Harris sell any heroin
for you?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have anybody else sell heroin for
you?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see a list in her purse of heroin
users?
Mr. MESSER. I saw a list of names.
Senator DANIEL. Was that a list of names of various dope fiends
here in Houston?
Mr. MESSER. It could have been.
Senator DANIEL. Don't you know that is what they were?
Mr. MESSER. To the best of my knowledge, that is what they were.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't it have telephone numbers on it?
Mr. MESSER. There was a telephone number on it.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't it have on that list the amount of money
these people owed them?
Mr. MESSER. I don't know. There were some letters written out
by the side of the name.
Mr. MESSER. There were some numbers written by the side of
each name.
Senator DANIEL. Don't you know what those numbers were?
2782
Mr. MESSER. I couldn't swear.
Senator DANIEL. What do you think they meant?

Mr. MESSER. I don't know. I just saw the list there in the Federal
Building. He told me at the time it looked like her handwriting.
Senator DANIEL. You knew she was selling drugs?
Mr. MESSER. No.
Senator
DANIEL. What was she keeping that list for?

MESSER. I don't know what she was keeping it for.
Mr.
there at the time.
Senator
DANIEL.
I wasn't
You have taken the fifth amendment on whether
or not you have ever sold heroin here in Houston, is that right?
Senator
DANIEL.
Have you ever sold any marihuana here i
Houston?
Mr. MESSER. I would like to take the fifth amendment on that.
Senator
DANIEL.
I believe you have already answered that you
never sold any marihuana here in Houston.

Mr. MESSER. I don't believe I have.
Senator DANIEL. Do you want to change your answer?
Mr.
MESSER.
No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL. Have you ever sold any?

Mr. MESSER. I don't remember ever selling
Senator DANIEL. You don't remember ever
any.
selling any?
Senator
DANIEL.
Isn't it a fact that the officers found in youi-
apartment concealed in the bathroom 45 grains of heroin?

Mr. MESSER. They said they did.
Senator
DANIEL.
Didn't you put that heroin there?
Mr. MESSER. I would like not to answer that either.
Senator
DANIEL. On what ground?

Mr. MESSER. On the ground it might tend to incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you see any heroin in your apartment
at any time?
Mr. MESSER. I would like not to answer that question.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. MESSER. On
Senator DANIEL.
On what ground?
the ground it might tend to incriminate me.
Didn't you subsequently, when the officers told
you about it, admit that you owned those 45 grains of heroin, or 45
grams of heroin?
Mr. MESSER. I may have. I don't remember.
Senator
DANIEL.
Didn't you tell the officers you obtained it in
San Antonio?
Mr. MESSER. I believe I did.
Senator
DANIEL.
You believe you told them you got it in San
Antonio?
Senator
Where did you get the heroin in San Antonio?

From the same person I told you.
DANIEL.
Mr. MESSER.
Senator
DANIEL. Is that Raton?

Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. That was just this man; is that right?
SENATOR DANIEL. How did you go to San Antonio to
heroin?
get the
2783
Mr. MESSER. Travel bureau.
Senator DANIEL. You got a ride through a travel bureau with

somebody that was going to San Antonio?
Senator DANIEL. Have you made trips to San Antonio for heroin
that way more than once lately?
Senator DANIEL. Is that the usual way you rode over to get your
heroin?
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been going to San Antonio
for heroin?
[r. IESSER. I don't know. A long time.
Senator DANIEL. Have you been making these trips once a week,
more than once a week, or how often?
Mr. MESSER. Maybe about once a week.
Senator DANIEL. For how many years?
Mr. MESSER. About 2 months. 1 think it has been about 3 months.
Senator DANIEL. Did you do that before you went to the penitentia , go to the same place for your heroin?
MESSER. I would rather not answer that.
Senator DANIEL. On what ground?
Mr. MESSER. On the ground it might incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. You have told us that you went to San
I.
Antonio.
About how often did you go for your heroin to San Antonio after you
grot out of the penitentiary?
Mr. MESSER. I didn't go for about a month, and I went for about
a month and a half.
Senator DANIEL. How often?
Mr. MESSER. I used to go once a week.

Senator DANIEL. You always arranged transportation through a
travel bureau?
Mr. MESSER. Not always.
Senator
DANIEL.
Usually did you?
Senator
DANIEL. You yourself would go

Mr. MESSER. I had an old car.
Senator DANIEL. Would you use it part
to San Antonio?
of the time?
Senator DANIEL. How much did you usually buy over there in
San Antonio?
Mfr. MESSER. Do I have to answer that?
Senator DANIEL. You have to answer unless you want to claim the
fifth amendment, and I believe you have waived the fifth amendment
on these purchases from San Antonio.
Mr. MESSER. Well, about 5 or 6 papers.
Senator DANIEL. Five or six papers?
Senator DANIEL. What would they cost?
Mr. MESSER. $20 or $25 apiece.
Senator DANIEL. $20 or $25 a paper?
Senator DANIEL. So you would usually buy $125 to $200 worth of
heroin each trip?
2784
Mr. MESSER. I never bought $200.

Senator
DANIEL.
What was the highest amount you got on these
trips?
Mr. MESSER. I believe about $175 worth.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you get the money to buy the heroin?
Mr. MESSER. Well, from Dollie.
DANIEL. From
Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator
Dollie Harris?
Senator DANIEL. She would give you the money?

Senator DANIEL. And you would buy the heroin?

Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Then would you split the profits?
Mr. MESSER. There was no profits.
Senator DANIEL. You mean you all used it all?
Well, that is the only way to keep up a habit.

Senator DANIEL. I said do you mean to say you all used all this
heroin for yourselves?
Mr. MESSER. I told you I refused to answer on account of it might
incriminate me the question did I sell any heroin in Houston.
Senator DANIEL. I asked you whether or not you and Dollie used
it all?
Mr. MESSER. I refuse to answer.
Mr. MESSER.

Mr. MESSER. It might tend to incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. Did you get those 45 grains of heroin that was
hid in the bathroom at San Antonio?
Mr. MESSER. I refuse to answer that.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Reporter, whenever the witness says he
refuses to answer the committee will understand that the record will
show that his refusal to answer is under the provisions of the fifth
amendment, whether he says it or not.
Try to remember to say the whole thing, why you refuse to.
Mr. MESSER. All right.
Senator DANIEL. I am asking you now whether or not you told

the police officers those 45 grains of heroin they found in the bathroom of your apartment belonged to you?
Mr. MESSER. I may have. I can't remember. I was sick at the
time.
Senator DANIEL. If you did tell them that was it the truth?
Mr. MESSER. I would rather not answer that.
Senator DANIEL. What is that?

Mr. MESSER. On the ground it might tend to incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. Did you tell the police you obtained this from
San Antonio?
Mr. MESSER. I don't remember saying that.
Senator
DANIEL.
What is the probability?
I don't remember.
I think you told us
you did get it from San Antonio.

Mr. MESSER. I may have.
Did you put it there in the bathroom?

Senator DANIEL. Or did the police put it there?
Senator
DANIEL.
2785
I put it there.
Senator DANIEL. Did you tell the police that was what was left
out of a total of 10 grams you purchased on October 12, 1955?
Mr. MESSER. I don't remember telling them that. I might have.
Senator DANIEL. What is the truth about it?
Mr. MESSER. I don't remember any exact times.
Senator DANIEL. Well, approximately October 12. It has not been
long ago. Did you purchase a total of 10 grams in San Antonio?
Mr. ME SSER. I refuse to answer.
Mr. MESSER.

Senator DANIEL. Were there more than 45 grains of heroin in your
San Antonio purchase?

Senator DANIEL. Was that time you purchased $175 worth, was
that your biggest purchase this year in San Antonio?
Mr. MESSER. I didn't say I purchased that in San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. I think you did say you purchased it in San
Antonio. The record will speak for itself, however. Was this $175
purchase your largest purchase in San Antonio?
Senator DANIEL. When was it you purchased $175 worth of heroin
in San Antonio?
Mr. MESSER. I don't remember the exact date.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever sold heroin to any young people
here in Houston?
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever sold any heroin to any older people
in Houston?
Mr. MESSER. I told you I refuse to answer that question.
Senator DANIEL. On the grounds it might tend to incriminate you?
Senator DANIEL. About how many dope addicts do you know here
in Houston?
Mr. MESSER. I know a lot of them.
Senator DANIEL. Just how many would you think offhand you
personally know to be dope addicts here in Houston?
Mr. MESSER. About 15 or 20.
Senator DANIEL. They all live in the same neighborhood in town?
Senator
DANIEL.
They live in various neighborhoods?

Senator DANIEL. How many do you know in San Antonio?
Mr. MESSER. I know a couple I was in the penitentiary with.
Senator DANIEL. Is it pretty easy to buy heroin in San Antonio?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have any trouble getting it?
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever get caught on the way back home
with it?
Senator DANIEL. Couldn't you buy heroin here in Houston?
2786
ILLICIT NARCOTICS, TRAFFIC
Mr. MESSER.
Senator
Yes, sir.
DANIEL.
Did it cost more here?

Senator DANIEL. Is that
why you go to San Antonio to buy your
heroin?
Mr. MESSER. Yes, sir; one of the reasons.
Senator DANIEL. What was another reason?

Mr. MESSER. It is better.
Senator
The San Antonio heroin?

Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Where did the San Antonio heroin come from?
DANIEL.
Mr. MESSER. I don't know exactly.

Senator DANIEL. Was it brown, yellow, or white?
Mr. MESSER. Sometimes it is brown, and sometimes
white, and
sometimes yellow.
Senator DANIEL. Raton didn't tell you it came from Mexico?
Mr. MESSER. No, sir; he never did say.
Senator DANIEL. How did you
M1r.
MESSER.
I just figured it did.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy heroin any place else besides
San Antonio and Houston?
Mr. MESSER.
Senator
No, sir.
DANIEL.
Did you ever go across the Mexican border?
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever buy heroin over there?
sir.
Senator DANIEL. Were you with someone who made a purchase?
Mr. MESSER. I never actually made a purchase myself; no,
Mr. MESSER. One time.

Senator DANIEL. How much heroin did he buy?
M1r. MESSER. I don't remember. It was when
I first started. I
(lon't remember how much.

Senator DANIEL. Was that this fellow you were living with?
Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Mr. MESSER. Ellis.
Senator DANIEL. Ralph Ellis?
Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you cross the border?
Mr. MESSER. Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. Where did he buy the heroin?
Mr. MESSER. In Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. Nuevo Laredo?
Senator DANIEL. Do you know the place?
Senator
DANIEL.
What is the name of the place at Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. MESSER. I don't know the name of the people.
Senator
Trevinio?
DANIEL.
Did you ever hear of Poncho Trevinio and Enrico
Did he buy heroin from them?

Mr. MESSER. No; sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
2787
Senator
DANIEL. Who was it?

Mr. MESSER. I don't remember the man's name.
Senator DANIEL. What is the name of the place?
Mr. MESSER. Corpus Christi Bar.
Senator DANIEL. Corpus Christi Bar at Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did you hear the name of anyone that sold it
to him?
Senator
DANIEL. How much heroin did he buy?

Mr. MESSER. I was all knocked out. I don't remember.
Senator DANIEL. Who brought the heroin back across the
bridge?
Mr. MESSER. Some old woman.
Senator
DANIEL. Was she with you all?

Senator DANIEL. Was she a paid runner?
Mr. MESSER. I think she was.
Senator DANIEL. Was she a Mexican woman or American?
Mr. MESSER. Mexican.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know how much he had to pay
her to
bring it back across the bridge?

Mr. MESSER. No, sir, I don't.
Senator DANIEL. Did you buy heroin anywhere else or were you
with anybody who bought heroin anywhere except in Nuevo Laredo,
San Antonio, and Houston?
Senator DANIEL. Did
you ever buy heroin and hai-e it sent in

here from New York or Chicago?
Mr. GASQUE. Will you identify Raton for us?
Mr. MESSER. A dark complected Spanish fellow.
Mr.
That is all.
Spanish, dark complected fellow?

Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Mr. GASQUE. And what places of business there?
Mr. MESSER. I don't know the names of the places.
In the street.
Mr. GASQUE. How many peddlers do you know on the streets here
GASQUE.
in Houston?

Mr. GASQUE. Do you know quite a number?
Mr. MESSER. I don't actually know, but I have heard that they
were peddling.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you know any peddlers?

Mr. MESSER. I don't actually know they are peddling, no.
Mr. GASQUE. You were able to buy it?
Mr. MESSER. I have bought here, but it has been a long time.
MR. GASQUE. What do you mean by a long time?
Mr. MESSER. About 2 months.
Mr. GASQUE. To the best of your knowledge are the people you
Douglit Irom in jail now?
Mr. MESSER. They could be. They move around a lot.
Mr. GASQUE.
Mr. MESSER.
Mr. GASQUE.
these questions,
only 2 months.
Who was the last one you bought from?

I don't remember.
Hadn't you rather take the fifth amendment under
rather than say you don't remember? It has been
2788
Because I just don't remember.
I didn't pay any attention.

Mr. GASQUE. How many purchases do you think you have made in
Houston since you have been on drugs?
Mr. GASQUE. Quite a number?
Mr. GASQUE. A hundred times?
Mr. MESSER. I doubt if it is that many.
Mr. GASQUE. You don't remember any of these peddlers? Do you
remember any of them?
Mr. GASQUE. To the best of your knowledge, are they still on the
streets?
Mr. MESSER. I don't know. They could be.
Mr. GASQUE. Are you willing individually to do anything to stop
the dope traffic in Houston?
Mr. MESSER. No, sir; I am not.
Mr. GASQUE. You are not willing to do anything to stop the dope
traffic in Houston?
Mr.
GASQUE.
Why?
Mr. MESSER. Well, I am addicted. I have been addicted, and I

have been in the penitentiary for it twice. I don't see why I should.
Mr. GASQUE. If you have been in the penitentiary twice, wouldn't
you as a human being want to do something not to see other people
go the same way?
Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you want to do something to try to help stop it?

Mr. MESSER. I don't know what I could do.
Mr. GASQUE. Are you willing to cooperate with the police and the
district attorneys and give them the names and all the information
in your possession?
Mr. GASQUE. You are not willing to do that?

Mr. GASQUE. Have you ever been in Lexington for treatment?

Mr. MESSER. No, sir. I was at Fort Worth.
Mr. GASQUE. You were at Fort Worth?
Mr. MESSER. Yes,
Mr. GASQUE. How
Mr. MESSER. Two
Mr. GASQUE. Two
sir.
long did you stay there?
months.
months?
Mr. MESSER. Yes.

Mr. GASQUE. That was while serving a prison term?
Mr. MESSER. Yes.

Mr. GASQUE. How long after you left there did you go back on
drugs?
Mr. MESSER. I don't recall the exact date.
Shortly after I was
home I took a shot.

Mr. GASQUE. You took a shot shortly after you got home?
Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Mr.
GASQUE.
Mr. MESSER.
Would you say within 10 days?

Yes, sir.
2789
Mr. GASQUE. You realize that these drug peddlers who are on the
streets now are peddling what Chairman Daniel has so aptly termed
murder on the installment plan?
Mr. GASQUE. But you are not willing to cooperate at all?
Mr. MESSER. I don't know what I could do.
Senator DANIEL. I will tell you one thing you can do, and that is
to name some of these people you have bought heroin from here in
Houston. Let's name some of them? Name the first one that comes
to your mind? Can you name one?
Mr. MESSER. I am thinking.
Wait a minute.
(Long pause.)
Senator DANIEL. Can we help you in any way? You say 2 months
ago you bought it. Who did you buy from that last time?
Mr. MESSER. My mind has gone completely blank. Wait a minute.
Senator DANIEL. Do you want a little more time?
(The witness sat for considerable time with his head down on the
table.)
Senator DANIEL. Would you rather take a little time to think this
over?
Mr. MESSER. I am trying to think. My mind has gone completely
blank. It just won't come to me.
Senator DANIEL. What about George Drury, did you ever know
him?
Mr. MESSER. I have heard of him.
Senator DANIEL. Did you every buy any heroin from George
Drury?
Senator DANIEL. How about Pura Rodriquez, or Purification
Perez, did you ever know her?
Mr. MESSER. I have heard of her, yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy any heroin from her?
Mr. MESSED. No.
Senator DANIEL. About how many people would you say you
bought from here in Houston?
Mr. MESSER. About three. At least that many.
Senator DANIEL. Can you name us 1 of the 3?
Mr. MESSER. I am trying to, if you will let me think. I told you
I was trying to think of the names.
Senator DANIEL. All right. All right, you tell me when.
Mr. MESSER. I remember one boy's name I bought some stuff from.

Mr. MESSER. Haynes.
Senator DANIEL. What is his first name?
Mr. MESSER. Fred.
Senator DANIEL. Fred Haynes?
Senator DANIEL. How long ago was that?

Mr. MESSER. About 2 months ago.
Senator DANIEL. Where was his place?

Mr. MESSER. He didn't have a place.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you buy it from?
2790
Out of his automobile.

Senator DANIEL. Can you remember the other two?
Mr. MESSER. No, sir, I can't.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know what happened to Haynes?
Mr. MESSER.
Senator Daniel. What happened to him?

Mr. MESSER. Somebody shot him.
How long ago did they shoot him?

Senator DANIEL. All right, can you name another one?
Mr. MESSER. Somebody by the name of Victor.
Senator DANIEL. Somebody named Victor?
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you know if that is Victor Romerez?

Mr. MESSER. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. Where is his place?

Mr. MESSER. He don't have a place.
What happened to him?

Mr. MESSER. Nothing that I know.
Senator DANIEL. How much was he selling heroin for?
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
MESSER.
Senator
$7.
DANIEL.
$7 a capsule?
Mr. MESSED. Yes.
Did he sell on the street corners?

Mr. MESSER. On the street corners, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What street corner?
Mr. MESSER. On Dart and-I don't remember that other streetSenator
DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. About how long ago?

Mr. MESSER. A couple of months.
All right, who else sold heroin to you here in

Houston? You have named two of them.
Mr. MESSER. That is all I can recall.
Senator DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
You can't remember the third person?
Mr. MESSER. No.
Senator DANIEL. The truth of the business is that you were in the
business of selling heroin here in Houston.
Mr. MESSER. I refuse to answer that.
Senator DANIEL. You refuse to answer that on the grounds that it,
might tend to incriminate you?
Mr. GASQUE. You may have been your best customer. Now one
way you can help us is by answering this question: Do you want to
be cured?
Mr. MESSER. Yes, sir; I would like to be.
Mr. GASQUE. Is that an honest answer?
Mr. MESSER. Yes; it is.
Mr.
GASQUE.
Do you believe a boy or girl who gets on drugs can
ever be cured?
Mr. MESSER. I believe they (an.
Mr. GASQUE. Have you ever known of any instances where they
have been cured?
Mr. MESSER. No, sir; but I believe if you want to strong enough,
you can.
Mr. GASQUE. But you don't know of anyone who has gotten on
drugs who has been cured?
2791
Senator DANIEL. Is Dollie Harris in jail or working?

Mr. MESSER. She is in jail.
Senator DANIEL. She is in jail now?

Senator DANIEL. Mr. Speer, any questions?
Mr. SPEER. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right, you can stand aside.

Senator DANIEL. Mr. Odem.
Mr. Wilkey tells me he is engaged in preparing other figures.
Now is District Attorney Dan Walton here?
Gladys Williams?
Mr. L. W. Gilman?
James Broussard. Is James Broussard in the courtroom?
Mr. Broussard, you will stand up and be sworn.
Mr. BROUSSARD. I do, sir.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES BROUSSARD
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
think. It has been
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
What is your name?

James Broussard.
How do you spell it?
B-r-o-u-s-s-a-r-d.
How old are you?
Eighteen.
Where do you live?
No. 12 Sidney Street.
Houston?
Yes, sir.
Have you ever used heroin?
Yes.
When did you start using it?
Oh, the last part of 1953.
How old were you then?
Sixteen. Fifteen. Almost 16, I think.
Were you in school at the time?
Well, it was in the summer. I am trying to
so long. It seems like
How old did you say you were at that time?
I am trying to figure it back. Yes, sir, I was 16.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you go to school?

Mr. BROUSSARD. I went to Pasadena High School for a while, and
then I went to Austin High School.
Senator DANIEL. What made you start using heroin?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Curiosity, I imagine, mostly.
Senator DANIEL. Were some of your schoolmates using it?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I wouldn't call them schoolmates, but people I
had went to school with.
Senator DANIEL. Friends of yours?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever use any other kind of drug before
heroin? Smoke any marihuana?
2792
Mr.

BROUSSARD.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Then you smoked marihuana before you started
on heroin.
Is that how you started on heroin?
Mr. BROUSSARD. No.
It was more or less like this: I never did
like marihuana too much. I didn't like marihuana. Really I had

tried it and all that, but I just didn't like it very much.
Senator
DANIEL.
What age were you when you started trying
marihuana?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Oh, about 14, I guess.
Senator
DANIEL.
Where were you living then?
Mr. BROUSSARD. In Port Arthur, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. Who led you to use marihuana in Port Arthur?

Mr. BROUSSARD. Nobody led me into anything.
Senator DANIEL. Were some of your friends smoking it?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Well, let's put it this way: There were some
people smoking, and then I became their friend.
Senator DANIEL. Were they schoolmates?
Mr. BROUSSARD. A couple of them were and a couple of them were
not.
Senator DANIEL. Did they sell it to you or give it to you?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Well, it was like this: You were good friends,
and you would just go in together, and one person would buy it.
And then after you learned the connection then you go and buy it.
As a rule, nobody gives you anything. But if you have got somebody
you are real friendly with, and if you have got an amply supply, if
he happens to be thereSenator DANIEL. You share it with him?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Is that the way addicts do mostly?

Mr. BROUSSARD. No addict will give you heroin. You don't give
heroin away.
Senator DANIEL. It cost too much?
Mr. BROUSSARD. That is right.
Senator DANIEL. Were you in school over at Port Arthur when you
started using marihuana?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. What school?

Mr. BROUSSARD. Thomas Jefferson. I mean Woodrow Wilson
Junior High School.
Senator DANIEL. Had your folks warned you against marihuana?
Mr. BROUSSARD. No. They didn't hear too much about it.
Senator DANIEL. Had you ever been warned by anybody of the
danger of marihuana?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I had read about it in the papers, and so on and
so forth, here and there, but nobody ever made a specific warning.
Senator
DANIEL.
Were you picked up the other day on this raid
here?
Mr. BROUSSARD. No, sir, I was not.

Senator DANIEL. You were subpenaed for our committee some
time ago?
Mr.BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr.
BROUSSARD.
Senator
DANIEL.
Yes, sir, about 3 months ago.

Do you know why we subpenaed you?
Well, I imagine because of the record, I imagine.
We subpenaed you because we had evidence
where you had crossed the Mexican border.
2793
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. This year with Jerry James Adams and Richard
C. Brown, all of whom told the customs inspector that they were
addicts. Do you remember that trip?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes, sir; I do.
Senator DANIEL. How many trips have you made across the Mexican border for heroin?
Mr. BROUSSARD. We didn't bring any heroin back.
Senator DANIEL. Why did you go across the border?
Mr. BROUSSARD. We went over there more or less as-the reason
I went over there, I just went over there for a good time myself.
Senator DANIEL. Were you an addict at that time?
Senator DANIEL. You told them that when they stopped you at
the bridge?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes. It was quite evident I was an addict.
Senator DANIEL. How was it evident?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I had marks all over my arm.
Senator DANIEL. You have got needle marks all over your arm?
Mr. BROUSSARD. No, sir; I haven't.
Senator DANIEL. You did then?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Jerry James Adams?
MR. BROUSSARD. Yes.
Mr. BROUSSARD. I don't know his address.
He lives out close to
Podunk somewhere.
Senator DANIEL. In this county?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes, in this county.
Senator DANIEL. Is Jerry Adams in the courtroom?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. IS this Jerry James
Adams the man you are
talking about?
Senator DANIEL. How many times havb you crossed the Mexican
border?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I have crossed it a number of tines when I was in
the Army and stationed at Fort Bliss, at El Paso.
Senator DANIEL. When were you in the Army?
Mr. BROUSSARD. 1954.
Senator DANIEL. Just 1 year?
Senator DANIEL. Part of 1954?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever cross over to Juarez?

Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes, quite a few times.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever go to a shooting gallery in Juarez
for heroin?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Shooting gallery?

Mr. BROUSSARD. No.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever shoot heroin in Juarez?

Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did you go over there in uniform?
2794
Mr. BROUSSARD. No, sir; I never did wear a uniform off the base.
Senator DANIEL. Was there any way people in Juarez could tell you
were an American soldier?

They don't ask you, anyway.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever heard or read that one of the main
Mr. BROUSSARD. No.
reasons Red China was pushing the heroin traffic throughout the
United States was to try to get it to our soldiers?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes, I have read articles on that.
Senator DANIEL. This gentleman, Mr. Speer, has had considerable

experience in the Far East and he has a lot of information on it. Do
you know of other soldiers who went across the border from Fort
Bliss into Mexico and got heroin?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Well, if I say no, I am under oath. I assume
there are quite a few. So far as seeing somebody actually go over to
score a fix, I wouldn't know. There were lots of soldiers over there.
Senator DANIEL. Quite a few?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes.
Most of them would just-they wasn't
what you would call addicts or nothing. They would just shoot a
little heroin.
Senator DANIEL. A lot of American soldiers would go over the
bridge to Juarez?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes. Sometimes they put it off limits.
Senator DANIEL. They spent a lot of money over there?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes, we kept it up.
Senator DANIEL. You kept Juarez, Mexico, going?
Mr. BROUSSARD. About.
Senator DANIEL. If we cut our American troops off from crossing
the bridge until they clean up Juarez do you think it might have a
good effect on Juarez?
Mr. BROUSSARD. No, sir; because I think feminine favors would
be the main thing that keeps Juarez going, other than dope. There
are other things that people go over there for.

Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Gambling?
Yes, lots of them gamble.
What else do American soldiers do over there?
The biggest percent go over there and get drunk.
They don't know what they do. Stumble around.

Senator DANIEL. Is it pretty easy to get marihuana over there?
Mr. BROUSSARD. It all depends. It is easy for somebody that
It is easier to get marihuana than it is heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Was it pretty easy to get heroin in Juarez in 1954?
Mr. BROUSSARD. It was supposed to be, more or less. It all
knows.
depends.
Senator DANIEL. Did you have any trouble getting any?
Mr. BROUSSARD. No, sir; I never had any trouble getting any.
Mr. BROUSSARD. I had one connection that sold it to me for $20
a gram, $300 an ounce.
Senator DANIEL. What was the biggest amount you ever bought?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Well, I just bought those decks mostly.
Senator DANIEL. What was the biggest amount you ever bought?
Mr. BROUSSARD. At one time?
Senator DANIEL. One trip?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Oh, I don't know. I imagine about 10 grams.
2795
Senator DANIEL. How much did it cost a gram?

Mr. BROUSSARD. $20.
Senator DANIEL. About $200 worth?
Mr. BROUSSARD. About that.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't buy all of that for yourself, did you?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Well, I actually didn't buy it. It wasn't my
money. I more or less just helped some people buy it.

Senator DANIEL. Who did you help buy it?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I don't believe I ought to say that. That is up
to them, if they want to tell you.
Senator DANIEL. I am asking you to tell me, unless you think it
would incriminate you.
Mir. BROUSSARD. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. You haven't claimed the fifth amendment so far,
I don't like to see people come before the committee and claim it,
but they do. I am not going to penalize you because you don't have
a lawyer. The committee wants to give you the same rights you
would have if you had a lawyer representing you. You know how
to claim it?
Senator DANIEL. If you want to claim it, if you honestly believe a
truthful answer might tend to tie you up with some crime, you can
cl im the fifth amendment, if you want to. Up to this point you have
not claimed it. If it would not tend to tie you up with some crime,
or tend to incriminate you, we have a right to know it. If it would
tend to incriminate you, you have a right to claim it. We would
like to know who you bought $200 worth of heroin for.
Mr. BROUSSARD. Let me put it this way: The way I am, I don't
see m.vself any authority or anybody up high enough to be telling
other people. I don't think-I will stand on my rights on the grounds
of the fifth amendment on that question there.
Senator DANIEL. You can't remember who you bought it for?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I refuse to answer the question on the ground it
Senator DANIEL. You honestly believe it might tend to incriminate
Vou?
Senator DANIEL. All right, was it for other soldiers? Was it for
other soldiers or peddlers?
MF. BROUSSARD. Neither.
Senator DANIEL. What general type of person was it?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Well, just good time, I guess you would call them.
Senator DANIEL. Friends of yours over on the American side?
Senator DANIEL. We have passed up the time when we were going
to adjourn for today. We will come back in the morning and complete
your testimony, because I want to go into your crossings on the Mexic,1n border at other places. This crossing on August 10, 1955, was
wlwre?
Mr. BROUSSARD. August 10?
fr. BROUSSARD. That must have been at Laredo.
Mr. ADAMS. That was not me that went with him. That was
another Jerry Adams.
71515-56--pt. 7-29
2796
Senator DANIEL. Do you want to look this man over?

Mr. BROUSSARD. What was the question?
Senator DANIEL. Is this man the Jerry Adams you crossed the
border with down at Laredo?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I crossed the border. He might have crossed
the border there, too.
Mr. ADAMS. I never walked across over there.
Senator DANIEL. Were you at the bridge with this man?
Mr. ADAMS. That is another Jerry Adams.
Mr. BROUSSARD. He is right. There are two Jerry Adamses, and
this one-they both look a lot alike. I believe they are cousins.
Senator DANIEL. Jerry James Adams, come around and be sworn.
Mr. ADAMS. I do, sir.
TESTIMONY OF JERRY JAMES ADAMS
Senator
Mr.
ADAMS.
Senator
What is your name?
DANIEL.
Jerry James Adams.
DANIEL.
Are you the same Jerry James Adams who crossed
the border on February 5, 1955, at Laredo?

Mr. ADAMS. I don't remember the dates; no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 dates. I have 5 dates
at Laredo. Did you cross the border 5 times at Laredo this year?
Mr.
ADAMS.
Senator
Yes, sir; I imagine I did.
DANIEL.
Are you a narcotics addict?
Mr. ADAMS. Not now.

Senator DANIEL. Were you then?
Mr. ADAMS. How long ago was that?
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
ADAMS.
Senator
Earlier this year, March, May, up to August.
I have not been addicted in about 5 or 6 months.
DANIEL.
Were you using heroin at the time you crossed
the border this year?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir, I was.

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever cross the border with this man,
James Broussard?
Mr. ADAMS. I think that date and another one time, but I was
not with the man.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you see him on the bridge?
Mr. ADAMS. They had him in the office, but I was not with him.
Senator DANIEL. At what office?

Mr. ADAMS. In the customs office.
Senator DANIEL. They have introduced here customs cards of May
5, 1955, showing that you crossed with James Broussard. Is that
true?
Mr. ADAMS. It has been a long time. I couldn't say if it was true
or not. It has been quite some time ago.
Senator DANIEL. Then there is another one that shows you crossed
August 10, 1955, and crossed with James Broussard and Richard C.
Brown. Do you know Richard C. Brown?

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever cross the border with Richard C.
Brown?
2797

Senator
sion?
DANIEL.
Did you ever see James Broussard on that oca-
Mr. ADAMS. No, sir; I don't believe I did.

Senator DANIEL. How long have you known James Broussard?
Mr. ADAMS. About 6 months.
Senator DANIEL. About 6 months?

Mr: ADAMS. Around 6 months.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever crossed the border at Laredo with
him?
Mr. ADAMS. He was in the office. He came across at the same
time, but I was not with him.
Senator DANIEL. You all crossed at the same time on several other
occasions.
Senator DANIEL. All right, we will hear from you further tomorrow.
We will stand recessed until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, at 5:25 p. In., the subcommittee recessed.)

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1955
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMEbPrS
FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE OF THE
COMMITTEE
OF THE JUDICIARY,
Houston, Tex.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in
courtroom No. 2, Post Office Building, Houston, Tex.

Senator Price Daniel (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senator Daniel (presiding).

Also present: C. Aubrey Gasque, subcommittee counsel; W. L.
Speer, committee investigator; and Malcom Wilkey, United States
attorney for the Southern District of Texas.
Jerry James Adams, come on up here please.

James Broussard, come on up forward, please.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES BROUSSARD-Resumed

Senator DANIEL. Mr. Broussard, you have been sworn, and you
gave some testimony yesterday.
Have you thought about this
situation as to whether or not you crossed the border with the man
sitting by you, Jerry James Adams?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Well, just like I said, you know you asked me
about that; did I come back across with him. I was in the office
down there with him.
Senator DANIEL. You were in the office on the bridge with him?
Senator DANIEL. Did you cross the border with him from the
Mexican side over to the American side on any occasion?
Mr. BROUSSARD. No, Sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever meet him over in Mexico?
Mr.
BROUSSARD. I wouldn't say I met him.

Senator DANIEL. Well, what would you say?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Well, I saw him.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know him before you saw him in Mexico?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I didn't know him until he was in the office there.
Senator DANIEL. Is that where you first met him?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Well, more or less, first officially meeting him,
where I really knew him. I had seen him on the streets before.
Senator DANIEL. Where had you seen him on the streets?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Around town and places like that.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know that he was a dope addict?
Mr. BROUSSARD. No, sir.
2799
2800
Senator DANIEL. You didn't know that he used heroin?

Mr. BROUSSARD. No, I didn't know that he used it. We just
happened to be there.
Senator DANIEL. You all just happened to be in Mexico at the same
time?
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Yes, sir.
On how many occasions?

Just that one time.
Now the records of the customs inspector on the

bridge, they have already testified at the San Antonio hearing that you
and Jerry James Adams crossed the bridge coming back into the
United States on May 5, 1955.
Mr. BROUSSARD. No, sir, I wasn't on that border May 5, not with
any Jerry James Adams.
Senator DANIEL. Well, were you on the border with anybody else?
Mr. BROUSSARD. On May 5?
Senator DANIEL. Any time in May, the early part of May? The
exact date doesn't matter too much.
Yes, I may have crossed the border then.

Senator DANIEL. What did you cross the border for?
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
We happened to be walking together.
Senator DANIEL. Who are you referring to as "we"?
I don't know the boy's name, his whole name.

Senator DANIEL. What is part of his name?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I used to call him Chuck.
Senator DANIEL. Was that Richard C. Brown?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes, sir, Richard C. Brown. I didn't recall that
Mr. BROUSSARD.
name, Richard C. Brown.

Senator DANIEL. How many times did you go across the border with
him at Laredo?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Two times.
Senator DANIEL. In May 1955?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Just two times.
Senator DANIEL. Chuck, where was he from?
Mr. BROUSSARD. He was from Galveston, I think.
Senator DANIEL. Was he in the Army at that time?
Senator DANIEL. Were you?
Senator DANIEL. When were you discharged from the Army?
Mr. BROUSSARD. July 16, 1954.
Senator DANIEL. For what reason?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I was ordered discharged.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever tell anybody in the Army you were
using heroin?
Senator DANIEL. All right, on May 7, 1955, did you cross the border
with Charles McKiskey? Do you remember that occasion?
Mr. BROUSSARD. That must be that boy Chuck. I just went
across once with him.
Senator DANIEL. Is Charles McKiskey in the court room?
Mr. McKISKEY. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Look and see if that is the boy you know as
Chuck.
1 III I
2801
Mr. BROUSSARD. He looks like he has changed a lot. The boy I

went with usually wore a short burr haircut.
Senator DANIEL. You can't remember?
Mr. BROUSSARD. No, sir, I couldn't swear to it, not under oath.
Senator DANIEL. You know that was just a few days after your
first trip across the border at Laredo?
Mr. BROUSSARD. If they have got records, I believe that is wrong.
I don't remember going but one time in May.
Senator DANIEL. The records show you crossed twice in May.
Mr. BROUSSARD. I believe there is some mistake there. I honestly
don't believe I crossed twice in May.
Senator DANIEL. The records show you crossed again at Laredo on
August 10, 1955 with Jerry James Adams and Richard C. Brown.
Mr. BROUSSARD. That is August 10 of this year?
Mr. BROUSSARD. No, sir, that is wrong, because I wasn't even in
the State of Texas on August 5.
Senator DANIEL. August 10.
Mr. BROUSSARD. On August 10.
Senator DANIEL. Did you cross the border at any time in August
of this year?
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
No, sir, I didn't.
And you say this record then is wrong, and

anyone who testifies you did so cross is not telling the truth?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Not if they say August 10, 1955. That would
be 3 months ago?
Mr. BROUSSARD. No, Sir, that is wrong, because I was not even in
the State of Texas then.

Senator DANIEL. Where were you?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Either in Vancouver, Canada or Seattle, Wash.
Senator DANIEL. What were you doing up there?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Working in a salmon cannery.
Senator DANIEL. Were you using heroin when you were up there?
Senator DANIEL. Did you continue using heroin when you came
back to Houston?
Senator DANIEL. How long since you used any heroin?
Oh, since about the middle part of this year.

Something like that.
Senator DANIEL. You realize you are under oath before this
committee?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes.
Mr.
BROUSSARD.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
I think I cautioned you on that yesterday.

Yes.
Senator DANIEL. That you would be liable for prosecution on a
perjury charge if it were proved that you had given this committee
untruthful answers.
Senator DANIEL. You understand that?

Senator DANIEL. I want to ask you again, how long has it been since
you used any heroin?
I want to warn you that the investigation of
2802
this committee would indicate that it has been since the middle of this
year.
Mr. BOUSSARD. Well
Senator DANIEL. In all fairness to youMr. BROUSSARD. Well, this is October. September, AugustWell, I will put it this way: Since 3 or 4 months ago.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you get your last shot of heroin?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I refuse to answer that question on the ground it
Senator DANIEL. Where, Houston or San Antonio, or where?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Houston.
Senator DANIEL. Who did you buy it from?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Fred Haynes.
Senator DANIEL. Is that the man who has since been killed?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes, I think he got killed.
Senator DANIEL. Who else have you bought heroin from in Houston
any time this year?
Mr. BROUSSARD. In this year?
Mr.
BROUSSARD.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Well, I bought some dope from Eddie Reyes.
How do you spell that last name?

R-e-y-e-s.
Do you know where he is now?
Yes, sir.
Where?
He got killed in an automobile accident some
months ago.
Senator DANIEL. Who else did you buy dope from here in Houston?
Mr.
BROUSSARD.
Well,
that is all I know the names of.
Senator DANIEL. You are telling me that those are the only two you
have bought heroin from?
Mr. BROUSSARD. That I know the names of.
Senator DANIEL. You have bought from other people in Houston,
haven't you?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Not directly during that time.
Senator DANIEL. Before you are asked to call any names, and without calling any names, how many people do you know in Houston
selling heroin this year?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I don't know how many.
Senator DANIEL. I mean how many do you know that were selling
heroin in Houston this year?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Well, the only ones I would know would be the
ones I bought it from.
Senator DANIEL. That is right, or that you saw somebody else
buy from.
Mr. BROUSSARD. Then that would be 2 or possibly 3 people.
Senator DANIEL. You know you bought from some people who are
not now dead, don't you?
Senator DANIEL. Well, name those for the committee.
Mr. BROUSSARD. Well, I refuse to answer that on the grounds it
I I
2803
Senator DANIEL. You don't want this committee to think that you
are trying to protect people who are selling dope to these young
people?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Well, you know I don't know if they sell it to
young people or not.
Mr. BROUSSARD. Eighteen.
Senator DANIEL. Do you consider that is an old man?
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
No, sir. But I am not a juvenile.

You are not a juvenile?
No, sir.
Well, you could buy heroin here in Houston.
I could buy heroin here in Houston.
You did buy it here in Houston when you were a
boy?
Mr.
BROUSSARD.
When I was about 15 or 16.
Somewhere around
in there.
Senator
DANIEL.
I would like for you to tell this committee who
sold you heroin here in Houston when you were 15 or 16 years old?
Mr.
BROUSSARD.
I couldn't hardly buy it directly then, you see;
Senator DANIEL. Who bought it for you?

Mr. BROUSSARD. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds
Senator DANIEL. Whenever you claim the fifth amendment you
are only supposed to do so when you honestly feel that it might tend
to connect you with the commission of a crime.
Mr. BROUSSARD. Somebody came by that knew a dope peddler.
Senator DANIEL. I want to clear that up in your mind, that you
have no right to claim the fifth amendment unless you actually feel
in your mind that if you answered truthfully it might tend to tie you
in with some crime.
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. For which you could be prosecuted.

understand?
Do you
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. That is the only circumstance under which you

will claim the fifth amendment, I judge?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. That is the only circumstance under which you
will do it in the future, is that right?

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy it from a woman here in
Houston?
Mr.
BROUSSARD.
A woman?

Senator
DANIEL.
Do you know Pura Rodriquez, also known as
Purification Perez?
Mr.
BROUSSARD. I
know of her.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see her?
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
At a distance. I knew her old man.

Who was he?
Johnny Lopez.
I hand you a picture of Pura Rodriauez and ask
you if you can identify this person?
2804
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. As Pura Rodriquez?

Is Pura Rodriquez in the courtroom this morning?
I understand a doctor's certificate will be forthcoming if the witness
doesn't appear today. If she is actually sick, the committee will
respect a doctor's certificate and call the witness at a later date. We
are certainly going to question this witness before our hearings are
over in January.
Who is that?
Mr. BROUSSARD. She looks pretty beaten in this picture. I cai't
identify her.
Senator DANIEL. We will mark this picture as exhibit A, Houstoul
hearing.
(The photograph marked as "Exhibit A," Houston, follows:)
EXHIBIT
<V...
Photo of Pura Rodriguez Perez from Police Department, Houston, Tex., No.
25190, December 29, 1954.
Senator DANIEL. You cannot identify that picture referred to as
exhibit A, Houston hearing?

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy any heroin from her?
Mr. BROUSSARD. No.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy any heroin from any other
Houston woman?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Not that I remember.
Senator DANIEL. How many people did you buy from in Houston,
Tex.?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Well, you know sometimes you buy from some
Chicheno. They are not going to tell you.
Senator DANIEL. You buy from some Chicheno?
2805
Mr. BROUSSARD. Mexican.
Senatr DANIEL. Are there Mexicans in Houston selling heroin?

Mr. BIROUSSARD. Yes, sir. There are all kinds of people selling
heroin. Heroin don't claim any particular class of people.
Senator DANIEL. You mean people of all kinds sell heroin here?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes. I would say heroin would be spread all
over the world to a certain extent.
Senator DANIEL. I am asking about what you know about it here
in Houston?
Mr. BROUSSARD. As to actually knowing, I don't know anybody

selling it at this time because I just got back in town.
Senator DANIEL. I am talking about during the time when you
were taking heroin and buying it here in Houston. How many white
people do you know that are selling it?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Well, Fred was white.
Mexican.
And Eddie Reyes was
That is about all I know, except rumors.
Senator DANIEL. I am not asking for rumors.
Mr. BROUSSARD. That is all I know.

Senator DANIEL. I know that you bought from more than two dead
people in Houston.
But how many white people have you bought
heroin from in Houston, at least how many? You have only named
two. Who else have you bought from? Both of those are dead.
Mr. BROUSSARD. That is all I remember.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy from any colored fellow or
woman?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes, sir; I have. Yes, I know I did. But no

colored woman.
Senator DANIEL. What was the colored man's name?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I don't know. They call him Corny. I think
his name was Cornelius something.
Senator DANIEL. You don't know his last name?
Senator DANIEL. You know these people selling heroin would sell
it to young people?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I believe they would sell it to young people, but
I don't know what goes on in a man's mind.

Senator DANIEL. Once you associated with a young girl here in
Houston. Did you live with a young girl here in Houston?
Mr. BROUSSARD. No, sir; I don't believe I lived with a young girl.
Senator DANIEL. You associated with her, and you had used heroin
with her, hadn't you?
Senator DANIEL. I am talking about the young girl whose name

we didn't call because I understand she is trying to lead a different
life. Do you know the girl I am talking about?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes. She is trying to lead a good life.
Senator DANIEL. Let's talk about her as Mrs. Z.
Mr. BROUSSARD. All right.

Senator DANIEL. Do you know the girl I am talking about?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I think I do.
Senator DANIEL. A Houston girl?
Mr. BROUESARD. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. You know her?
Mr. BIW)USSARD. Yes, sir.
2806
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
How old was she when you first knew her?

Sever teen.
Whei i you first used heroin with her?
Sever teen.
Did 7ou show her how to use it?
Shes showed me how to use it. I didn't sh()w her
how to use it.
Senator DANIEL. You did use heroin with her?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. Did you give her heroin?
Senator DANIEL. She got into a life of prostitution, didn't she?

Mr. BROUSSARD. No, sir; not that I know of.
Senator DANIEL. I want you to stop and think again before you
let that answer sta nd. The girl I am talking about, that you went
with when she was 16 or 17, you mean to tell me you never did make
dates for her with Teople who were going to see her as a prostitute?
Mr. BROUSSARD. No, sir; I never did pander a girl's charms; no sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever pander the charms of any girl?
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
dealings with them,
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr.
BROUSSARD.
No, sir; I never actually did any pandering.

You did that in the cannery, didn't you?
I have known several hustling girls, and had
but I never actually did any pandering.
What dealings with them?
Just friendship, that is all.
Did they give you any money?

No, they never gave me any money.
Did they pay you money?
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What kind of money did you get from them?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I didn't get any money from them.
Senator DANIEL. Not from any girls?
Mr. BROUtSARD. Well, this Mrs. Z, she helped me off the pea farm
one time.
Senator DANIEL. What do you mean by that?

Mr. BROUSSARD. I had a fine. I got in a wreck one time and had
almost $100 worth of fines. I didn't get to call anybody, and they
shot me right down into court and gave me some time out on the pea
farm. And I stayed there a few days, and she came up, and her and
my mother helped pay me out.
Senator DANIEL. You did use heroin with that girl. Did you use
heroin with girls in San Antonio?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have a girl in San Antonio that
you used heroin with?
Senator DANIEL. Did you buy any heroin when you crossed the
border at Laredo on various trips you talked about?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I shot some heroin while I was on the other side;
yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. In Nuevo Laredo?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever cross the border at any other place
besides Nuevo Laredo and Juarez?
I I I I
2807
Senator DANIEL. Did you bring some heroin back when you came
back from Laredo on these trips?
Senator DANIEL. Did you have somebody bring some back for you?
Senator DANIEL. When you were in the Army and crossed the
bridge over at Juarez where did you get your shots of heroin over
there?
Mr. BROUSSARD. In Juarez.
Senator DANIEL. At what place?
Mr. BROUSSARD. There is not any certain place. Little shacks,
that is all.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear of a La Noche Queen?

Mr. BROUSSARD. I think I have heard that name.
Senator DANIEL. La Noche Queen?
Mr. BROUSSARD. No, sir, I don't think I heard it.
Senator DANIEL. Were there several places military personnel
could go to get these shots in Juarez?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Well, you know undoubtedly there are a number
of places you could get heroin there, but I wouldn't confine it to
military personnel.
Senator DANIEL. All I am interested in is military personnel in
this question.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Well, if they are experienced heroin addicts I
imagine there would be several places, yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. How long were you stationed at Fort Bliss?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Four months and 5 days.
Senator DANIEL. During that time how many military personnel
would you know who went over there and used heroin?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Well, just those I knew about, not more than 20,
I don't think.
Senator DANIEL. Not more than 20?
Mr. BROUSSARD. No, sir; I don't think so.
Senator DANIEL. Did any of the others bring heroin back across
the border like you told us you did yesterday?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I didn't say I brought any across the border.
Senator DANIEL. You told us you bought $200 worth once.
Mr. BROUSSARD. But I didn't bring it back across the border.
Senator DANIEL. Who brought it back?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I don't know that it was brought back.
Senator DANIEL. Who did you give it to?
Mr. BROIUSSARD. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds
that it might tend to incriminate me. But the rumors were the dope
didn't come back to this side. It went to Mexico City.
Senator DANIEL. You have waived any right to claim the fifth
amendment on that. You have told us enough yesterday and
enough this morning to where this committee wants to know about
it. Tell me exactly who gave you the $200, and what you bought
with it? I don't want any rumors. I want to know what you did,
who gave you the $200 to buy heroin while you were in the Armed
Forces and over across the river, and what you did with the heroin?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I didn't buy $200 worth while I was in the Army.
Senator DANIEL. When did you (to that?
2808
Mr. BROUSSARD. That was at Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. You told us yesterday you bought $200 worth in

Juarez.
Mr. BROUSSARD. No. You asked me what was the most I ever
bought across the border at one time. You didn't say where. I told
you I bought about 10 grams, or $200 worth.
Senator DANIEL. Ang you were referring to a Laredo crossing?
Senator DANIEL. When, what year?

Mr. BROUSSARD. 1955.
Senator DANIEL. About what time this year?
Mr. BROUSSARtD. It must have been April or May.
Senator
DANIEL.
Who gave you the $200?
Mr. BROUSSARD. The party that gave me the $200 was Fred Haynes,
but there were some other people involved with him that I didn't
know about.
Senator DANIEL. What were you supposed to do with the $200?
What did you do with it?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I bought heroin with it.
Mr. BROUSSARD. Somebody named Chito.

Senator DANIEL. Chito? Spell it.
Mr. BROUSSARD. C-h-i-t-o or C-h-i-c-o.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear the names of Enrico Trevinio
and Poncho Trevinio?
Mr. BROUSSARD. No, sir, I don't think I ever knew of them.
Senator DANIEL. Did they deliver you this heroin?

Mr. BROUSSARD. Oh, yes.
Senator DANIEL. That is the party you bought it from, and paid
$200 for it?
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
BROUSSARD.
They put it in your hands?

Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Who was with you?

Mr. BROUSSARD. I was by myself.
Senator DANIEL. What did you do with the heroin?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Gave it to Fred.
Senator DANIEL. Fred who?

Mr. BROUSSARD. Haynes.
Mr. BROUSSARD. On the Nuevo Laredo side.

Senator DANIEL. I think you said you bought it from a party
named Chito or Chico?
Mr. BROUSSARD. They called him by that name.
Senator DANIEL. So you bought that heroin in Nuevo Laiedo?
Senator DANIEL. And you bought that heroin for Fred Haynes,
who is now dead?
Mr.
BROUSSARD. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did
the border?
you ever buy heroin for anybody else across
2809
No.
And that was the most you ever bought?
Yes, sir, $200 worth.
You just bou ht enough for your habit?
That is all. I didn't have a habit in the Army.
What were you buying it for?
I was just joy popping then, that is all.
Is movement of military personnel pretty easy
across the border at Juarez?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes, if you had a pass you could go on across there.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Dave Ellis, is he in the courtroom?
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. ELLIS. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. We will have a 5-minute recess.

(A recess was taken.)
Senator DANIEL. Will the committee come to order.
On this trip across the border when Jerry James Adams, the man
sitting by you, was across did you come in a car together to Laredo,
Tex., that day?
Senator DANIEL. Didn't you leave Laredo, Tex., in a car together?
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. BROUSSARD.
Senator DANIEL.
Yes, sir.
Where did you meet?

At the bridge there.
And then did you separate before you got in this
car to come back to Houston?

Mr. BROUSSARD. Y(eS, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Where did you meet to get in this car to come back
to Houston?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Somewhere there in Laredo.
street.
Senator
DANIEL.
I don't know the
Did you tell him where you would meet?
Mr. BROUSSARD. Me and Jerry?

Mr. BROUSSARD. Yes, you know we planned how to meet after
we got acquainted and we found that he was going back to Houston
and I was too.
Senator DANIEL. Who was the other person with you on that trip?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I don't know his name.
Senator DANIEL. Did you have a car?
Senator DANIEL. Did Jerry have a car?
Senator DANIEL. Who was the other person that had the automobile that brought you back to Houston?
Mr. BROUSSARD. He was a fellow that was pretty friendly with
Jerry. I don't know who he was.
Senator DANIEL. You don't know who he was?
Mr. BROUSSARD. I don't know his name.
Senator DANIEL. You never heard his name called?

Mr. BROUSSARD. They might have called it when they stopped us
and searched us, but I don't remember it, because I don't know.
2810
TESTIMONY OF JERRY JAMES ADAMS-Resumed

Senator DANIEL. You have already been sworn, haven't you?
.Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You were sworn yesterday?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Your full name is what?
Mr. ADAMS. Jerry James Adams.
Mr. ADAMS. 9403 Spaulding.
Senator DANIEL. Houston?
Mlr. ADAMS. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. Were you with James Broussard in May, 1955?
Mfr. ADAMS. I don't remember the date, but I was with him.
Senator DANIEL. In May?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. On an occasion when both of you crossed the

border into Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. ADAMS. We didn't cross the border together.
Senator DANIEL. Did you cross?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. By yourself?

Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
ADAMS.
And then when did you meet that day?
On the bridge.
Senator DANIEL. On the bridge when you were coming back?

Senator DANIEL. What did you do in Nuevo Laredo that day?
Mr. ADAMS. Just a good time.
Senator DANIEL. Did you buy any heroin?
Mr. ADAMS. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it
might incriminate me.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you want to claim your rights under the fifth
amendment not to answer the question?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. You have heard 'me explain that to James
Broussard, have you not?

Mr.
ADAMS.
Senator
Mr.
Yes, sir.
DANIEL.
ADAMS.
What that right consists of?
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Any witness may claim the right under the fifth
amendment, provided he honestly believes a truthful answer miglt
tend to tie him up with some offense for which he could be convicted.
Mr.
ADAMS.
Senator
Mr.
Yes.
DANIEL.
ADAMS.
In plain language, that is about what it means.
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Do you understand it?

Senator DANIEL. But you arc not, supposed to claim it to ke(p
from giving information to a committee that is thought[tolbe vital to
the country.
Senator DANIEL. Do you understand?
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
2811
TRAFFIC
Senator DANIEL. Is there any reason that you know of why you
should not, tell us who across the border in Nuevo Laredo is selling
heroin to young people?
.MIr. ADAMS. I couldn't name anyone.
Mfr. ADAMS. Twenty-seven.

When did you first start losing Iioiii?
I1r. ADAMS. W-hen I was fifteen.
Senator DANIEL. How old?
'lr. ADAMS. Fifteen.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you start?

Mr. ADAMS. Houston.
Senator DANIEL. Have you been using heroin off and on since you
were 15?
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever sold heroin in Houston?

Senator DANIEL. Have you ever bought heroin here in Houston?
Mr. ADAMS. I will hold the fifth amendment on that too.
Senator
DANIEL.
The records here at Laredo show that this year
you crossed the Mexican border on February 5, 1955.

remember that?
Mr. ADAMS. I don't remember the date.
Senator
DANIEL. Did you cross in February of

ADAMS. I don't remember back that far.
Mr.
Good time.
Senator
Do you
this year?
I went down there.
I don't remember the date.

DANIEL.
You say then the only reason you went across
was for a good time?

Mr.ADAMS. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
What do you call a good time?
Mr. ADAMS. Go over to Boy's Town.
Senator
Go to what?
Mr. ADAMS. Go to Boys' Town.
Senator DANIEL. What is Boys' Town?
DANIEL.
Mr. ADAMS. That is just where there is dancing and open bars.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
ADAMS.
Open bars?
Yes.
Senator
DANIEL. Heroin?
Mr. ADAMS. I wouldn't say that.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Adams, do
I never seen any over there.
you mean to tell this committee
you have never seen any heroin across the border in TMexico?
Mr. ADAMS. Well, I wouldn't put it like that.

Senator DANIEL. That is the way you do put it.
I just want to
know if that is what you want to swear to.

Mr. ADAMS. No, I don't believe I do.
Senator
DANIEL.
You don't mean to swear to that?
Mr. ADAMS. No, sir. I haven't seen any of them brothers over
there.
Senator DANIEL. I didn't ask you that.
Mr. ADAMS. You were talking about brothers.

Senator DANIEL. Didn't you buy heroin on these trips you made
over to Mexico?
Mr.
ADAMS.
I couldn't say on this trip.
7 1515-56--pt.
7-30
2812
Senator DANIEL. Well, any trips?

Mr. ADAMS. On one trip, yes.
Senator DANIEL. Only one?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. Were you present when the heroin was bought
during those times?
Mr. ADAMS. No, sir; I sure wasn't.
Senator DANIEL. On one trip when you crossed the border on
May 5, 1955, the record shows you told the customs inspector that you
got a shot of heroin the day before. Is that true?
Mr. ADAMS. On what date was that?
Senator DANIEL. May 5, 1955.
Mr. ADAMS. I may have told them.
Senator DANIEL. You told them you were drug addicted.
Mr. ADAMS. They knew I was a drug addict.
Senator DANIEL. You admitted it to them when they told you
they knew it, didn't you?
Mr. ADAMS. I couldn't say whether I did or not.
Mr. GASQUE. How long did you stay in Mexico on either of those
trips when you were over there?

Mr. ADAMS. Until my money ran out. Two or three days.
Mr. GASQUE. Were you on the habit during this period?
Mr. ADAMS. No, sir, not at the time.
Mr. GASQUE. Were you ever in Mexico when you were on the habit?
Mr. ADAMS. No, sir, I don't believe I was. I don't think I ever
was in Mexico with any habit.
Mr. GASQUE. Why did you buy heroin in Mexico?
Mr. ADAMS. Just joy popping.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you just joy pop over a period of time there?
Mr. ADAMS. No, sir, I wouldn't say over a period of time. I did
one time, or maybe once or twice, while I was there, but that was all.
Mr. GASQUE. On these other occasions when you stayed there
until your money ran out you didn't use heroin at all?
Mr. ADAMS. These other cases?
Mr. GASQUE. Yes.
Mi. ADAMS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you have a job during this period of time?
Mr. ADAMS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you had a job any time this year?
Mr. ADAMS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How did you get the money to go to Mexico on
these trips?
Mr. ADAMS. I am going to hold the fifth amendment on that.
Senator DANIEL. You won't testify in answer to that because you
claim your rights to refuse under the fifth amendment?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think a truthful answer to that question
Mr. ADAMS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Here is what the record shows: You did cross the
border, on February 5, 1955; March 18, 1955; May 5, 1955; May 8,
1955; and August 10, 1955, all this year.
Mr. ADAMS. May 5 and May 8?
Senator DANIEL. That is correct.
1111111111
2813
Mr. ADAMS. I never crossed it, no, sir.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
ADAMS. No,
You never crossed it that close together?
sir.
Senator DANIEL. Actually, you were making about one trip each
month?
Mr. ADAMS. No, Sir. No, I went when I got ready to go.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't you ever cross the border when they failed
to stop you and search you?
Mr. ADAMS. No, sir, I don't believe I did. Well, I did one time,
they didn't search me.
Senator DANIEL. One time they didn't search you?
Mr. ADAMS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever cross the border at any other place
besides Laredo?
Mr. ADAMS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Never have?
Mr. ADAMS. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Isn't it true you would go down and get heroin,
buy it, and come back here and sell it in Houston?
Mr. GASQUE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the witness a question?
Senator DANIEL. Go right ahead.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you not tell the chairman that you only bought
heroin in Mexico once?

Mr. ADAMS. Once?
Mr. GASQUE. Yes.
Mr. ADAMS. That is true.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you use the heroin you bought on that occasion?
Mr. ADAMS. I refuse to answer that question on the ground it
Mr. GASQUE. You said you used it joy popping.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you use it all for joy popping?
Mr. ADAMS. I didn't buy butMr. GASQUE. Did you use all of it for joy popping?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes.
Mr. GASQUE. Then why did you take the fifth amendment when
the chairman asked you if you bought heroin in Mexico and brought
it back for sale?
Mr. ADAMS. How is that?
Mr. GASQUE. You have no right to take the fifth amendment unless it might incriminate you, and I think you have waived that right
when you stated that you had bought heroin only once, and used it
yourself.
Mr. GASQUE. Now then I think if the chairman might want to ask
you that question again you might give a different answer.
Senator DANIEL. Counsel is right. You have told the chairman
you bought hereoin only one time, and that you used it for joy
Popping.
Mr. ADAMS. I am not an attorney. I don't know whether I can
take the fifth amendment or not. I would like to take it if I can.
I I
I I I I
2814
Senator DANIEL. The committee is not going to take advantage of

ou. I just don't believe in doing that,. People who have attorneys
have taken the fifth amendment on nearly everything a lot more often
than you have taken it here today.
Mr. ADAMS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. We don't intend to take any advantage of you.
But you have stated under oath that you bought heroin over there
one time for joy popping.
Senator DANIEL. Now then counsel's point is this, that since you
have said that, if you have given us a truthful answer, the fifth
amendment is not going to help you any.
Mr. ADAMS. That is true enough. I was just using that because I
haven't bought any heroin and brought it into the State of Texas for
sale.
Senator DANIEL. That is what I asked you when you took the
fifth amendment, and when counsel thought you had waived your
right to it. That is, if it was not true you were making these trips
and buying heroin for somebody else for sale in Houston.
Mr. ADAMS. I haven't bought any for anybody in Houston.
Senator DANIEL. Did you buy it for somebody?
Mr. ADAMS. I haven't bought any and brought it back for anyone
else of for myself either.
Senator DANIEL. Did you buy any heroin over there across the
river for anybody else?
Mr. ADAMS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Here is what the committee is interested in: The
way addicts can cross the bridge and not be stopped. It seems to be
easy for known addicts to cross the bridge along the Mexican border.
The committee is interested in the fact that it is easy to buy heroin
across the border, and the fact that a lot of it is coming back here
into our country. We are trying to see how it gets back in here.
Can you give us any information on that?
Mr. ADAMS. No, sir, I am afraid I couldn't.
Senator DANIEL. You know a lot of people selling heroin here in
Houston, don't you?
Mr. ADAMS. Not at the present time.
Senator DANIEL. How many people have you known in the past
that were selling heroin in Houston?
Mr. ADAMS. Before I kicked my habit I was using quite a bit of it.
I knew some that were selling it then.

Senator DANIEL. How long since you got, a supply of it?
Mr. ADAMS. I haven't had any for 5 or 6 months. I went to
Fort Worth.
Senator DANIEL. Narcotics hospital in Fort Worth?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. When did you get out of there?

Mr. ADAMS. I don't remember the date. It has been 5 or 6 months
ago.
Senator DANIEL. Have you used any heroin since that time?
Mr. ADAMS. I refuse to answer on the grounds it might incriminate
me.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever sold any heroin?
Mr. ADAMS. I haven't ever sold any.
111111111
2815
Senator DANIEL. You mean to tell this committee you have never
sold any heroin?
Mr.
ADAMS.
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. In your life?

Mr. ADAMS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever sold any marihuana?

Mr. ADAMS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever bought any heroin for someone
else in your life?
Mr.
ADAMS.
Not that I can remember.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever arranged for heroin to be brought

back into this country on your short trips to Nuevo Laredo?
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. When was the last time you had a shot of heroin?
Mr.
ADAMS.
Mr. ADAMS. I refuse to answer that on the grounds it might incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. When was the last time you bought heroin here
in Houston?
Mr. ADAMS. I never bought any-about 5 months, or 6 months
though.
Senator DANIEL. What did you say about last night?
Mr. ADAMS. I didn't say a word about last night.

Senator DANIEL. I am sorry. I thought you started to say last
night.
Mr. ADAMS. I started to say the last time I was in Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. Do you want that last answer to stand, that you
haven't used heroin any time in the last 3 or 4 months? Do you
decline to answer?
Mr. ADAMS. I do; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I believe that is what you say.
Mr. GASQUE. I believe you told the chairman you hadn't used
heroin for the last 5 or 6 months; that you had been off the habit for
5 or 6 months?
Mr. ADAMS. That is right.
Mr. GASQUE. That you went to Fort Worth?
Mr.
ADAMS.
That is right.
M\r. GASQUE. That is all.

Senator DANIEL. All right, both of you may stand aside, but stay
under subpena until we complete the Houston hearing, or until we
notify you further.
Mr. MCLEAISH.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give to
Mr. MCLEAISH. I do, sir.
TESTIMONY OF BERNARD J. McLEAISH, CUSTOMS AGENT IN
CHARGE, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, BROWNSVILLE, TEX., DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Mr. MCLEAISH. Bernard J. McLeaish.
2816
Mr. McLEAISH. Customs agent in charge at Brownsville, Tex.

Senator DANIEL. How long, Mr. McLeaish, have you been customs
agent in charge?
Mr. MCLEAISH. Five years.
Senator DANIEL. During that period have you had an opportunity
to see what is going on in the way of narcotics across the border in
Mexico, as well as on this side?
Mr. MCLEAISH. I have. I would like to say that prior to going to
Brownsville I was stationed at Laredo, Tex., and that covered an area
from the Pecos River east to the Gulf, and north to the Oklahoma
border, and we worked down approximately 200 miles in Mexico.
And the Brownsville area where I am now covers an area from the
east line of Rio Grande City, Tex., to the Gulf, and north to Kingsville, and over about 3 miles east of Alice, and down into Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. Your job is to prevent smuggling and to catch
smugglers who are transporting dope into this country?
Mr. MCLEAISH. That is one phase of the work. We have many
facets.
Senator DANIEL. How many men do you have with you in Brownsville?
Mr. McLEAISH. I have 4 men at Brownsville and 2 at McAllen,
Tex.
Senator DANIEL. Are you acquainted with the operation on the
bridge there at Brownsville?
Mr. McLEAISH. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What other bridges are within your district, Mr.
McLeaish?
Mr. McLEAISH. Two at Brownsville, Tex. We have one at
Progreso, from Rio Bravo, Mexico. And we have a bridge at
Hidalgo going to Reynosa, Mexico. And we have a ferry crossing at
Thayer, Tex. That is in the vicinity of Sullivan City, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. Is it possible for known narcotic addicts to cross
the bridge from Texas into Mexico?
Mr. McLEAISH. Yes, it is.
Senator DANIEL. Is there anything you can do to stop them?
Mr. McLEAISH. Not a thing.

Senator DANIEL. Wo have no law that prohibits them from leaving
the country?
Mr. McLEAISH. Not that I know of.
Senator DANIEL. And that is true, even though you know the
reason some of them are going over there?
Mr. MCLEAISH. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. About how many narcotic addicts a daywolld
you say across the border in your district?
Mr. MCLEAISH. Well, in the Brownsville division there are very
few, because I am speaking of heroin users now. The number there
is very, very limited. The supply there is very limited.
Senator DANIEL. That is, the supply across tho river from Brown~sville in Matamoros?
Mr. McLEAISH. That is true. Addicts who have gone over there
have found the stuff to be poor, and they usually don't go back again.
And it is so difficult for them to obtain there.
Senator DANIEL. What type job are the Matamoros officials doing
against heroin traffic?
2817
Mr. McLEAISH. I really don't know what they are doing on the
Mexican side.
Senator DANIEL. All you know is that good heroin, clean and pure
heroin, is pretty hard to get in Matamoros?
Mr. MCLEAISH. That is true.
Senator
DANIEL.
About how many addicts would you say cross the
bridge at Brownsville a day?

Mr. McLEAISH. I doubt that very many of them cross there at all.
Senator DANIEL. Do some cross?
Mr. MCLEAISi. Not that I know of.
Senator DANIEL. They told us I believe that around 10 or 15 known
addicts a day were recognized crossing at Laredo. What about the
situation in your area?
Mr. MCLEAISH. Like I said, the supply there is very limited, and
the-quality is very poor. There are a few that go over at Hidalgo into
Reynosa and as far as Monterrey, Mexico. There is a source of supply
in Monterrey.
As a general rule, from my observation over a period of 10 years on
the Mexican border, most of the addicts and dealers i the United
States have found Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, the best place for their
supply. A regular market has been developed there. The heroin
there is of top quality and the supply unlimited, and the price ha~s
been stabilized at $20 a gTam. And the quality is the best.
It is closer to Houston. It is 350 miles from Houston
to Laredo,
whereas it is close to 400 miles to Brownsville or .McAllen.
Senator
DANIEL.
You heard these men testify about crossing the
river?
Mr. McLEAISH. No, I didn't.
Senator DANIEL. You heard Broussard testify yesterday?
Senator DANIEL. We had some addicts before the committee in
San Antonio.
It-. McLEAISH. I believe they crossed the bridge and were searched.
Senator DANIEL. Some of them said they arranged for their deliveries of narcotics to be made back on this side. Is that a customary
procedure down at Laredo?
Mr. McLEAISH. When I first went there right after we got into the
Second World War we had addicts going in there 40 or 50 a day, and
we arrested so many of them that it looked like the Trevrinio brothers
had sent circular letters out to the narcotics traffic.
Senator DANIEL. Addicts?
Mr. MCLEAISH. Addicts.
Senator DANIEL. Peddlers?
M1r. McLEAISH. Yes, peddlers. Some were peddlers. They usually
had from 10 grams all the way up to 100 grams of heroin. They were
from all parts of the United States. Because their source of supply
was good, the quality was good, and they got the full quantity they
paid for.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mc. MCLEAISH.
Senator DANIEL.
That was at Nuevo Laredo?

Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.
On the Mexican side?

That is right. And they found in all of the people
that were arrested there that every one of them had got the best quality of heroin, and they got full weight, and they got guaranteed delivery
on this side, if they went to Trevinio's.
Mr.
McLEAISH.
2818
DANIEL.
Is that Poncho Trevinio?
Mr. MCLEAISH.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. McLEAISH.
Senator DANIEL.
Poncho Trevinio was one.
Senator
And his brother?

Enrico.
You mean to say that the Trevinio brothers eomtrolled the narcotic traffic to Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. McLEAISH. For the last 13 or 14 years to my knowledge that
has been the situation down there. Here about a year or two back the
Mexican officials picked up Poncho and bounced him around a little
bit, and during that particular time other people in Nuevo Laredo cut
into the business a little bit. But that has leveled off, and he is back
in the same business.
Senator DANIEL. What do you mean by that with reference to the
Mexican Government officials?
Mr. MCLEAISH. If you stay on the Mexican border for any length
of time you will understand the Mexican philosophy is quite different
from ours. What is immoral to us in the United States is not immoral
to them in Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. You mean the Mexican people or Mxican
officials?
Mr. McLEAISH. Most people in Mexico.
Mr. GASQUE. You are referring to officials who would have authority and responsibility of enforcing the laws?
Mr. McLEAISH. I am referring to everybody that does business in
Mexico. They have a system in Mexico that is commonly called
mordida system. That means bite. They take a bite out of you.
Senator DANIEL. Explain what you mean?
Mr. McLEAISH. Every official in Mexico, from the lowest one, from
the boy that watches your car all the way up, they expect to receive a
mordida from you. And they call it mordida. That is the way they
do business. We don't have that in this country. It goes all the way
to the top. And it is not morally wrong to do. They expect to do
business that way.
Senator DANIEL. How do you bring that in with Poncho Trevinio
getting leveled off with the Mexican officials?
Mr. McLEAISH. Apparently, if he is back in town, he must have
followed the general custom of a mordida.
Senator DANIEL. Have you in recent years reported this situation to
the Mexican officials at the top?
Mr. MCLEAISH. I have no connection with them.
SENATOR DANIEL. Don't you have a customs agent in Mexico City
working with the top Mexican officials on narcotics?
Mr. McLEAISH. That is true.
Mr. MCLEAisH. Benjamin S. White, Jr.
Senator DANIEL. Have you been in communication with Mr.
White recently with respect to the narcotics traffic?
Mr. McLEAISH. No, I have not.
Senator DANIEL. Do you receive any reports from him?
Mr. McLEAISH. Occasionally, yes. We receive a report about
once a month.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know whether or not anything is being
done through our representative in Mexico to get the Mexican officials
to stop this traffic of Poncho Trevinio?
Mlr. McLEAISF.
2819
Well, under the regular procedure, under protocol,
our man in Mexico City reports back to our people in Washington,

and they report to the Secretary of the Treasury, and it would have to
go through the Department of State. Our man in Mexico is down
there through the grace of the Department of State.
Senator DANIEL. Well, our man in Rome is there through the grace
of the Department of State of our country, and through the grace of

the Italian Government.
,Mr. McLEAISH. That is true.
Senator DANIEL. And he is working and cooperating with the
officials of Italv and most of the countries of Europe. We have just
one man in Mexico working with the officials, is that right?
Mr. MCLEAISH. Senator, we have not only our man in M\exico
City, we have in the customs agents service about 200 men. We
have 2 men stationed in Hong Kong, and this man in Mexico, and 1
man in Cuba, and 2 men in Puerto Rico. We have men in London,
Belgium, Germany, and also in Italy.
Senator DANIEL. You do not have men in some of those places who
are devoting their time exclusively to narcotics?
Mr. McLEAISH. They do that and other things.
Senator DANIEL. I am talking about, exclusively
working on
narcotics. You do not have any man in Mexico who is devoting his
time exclusively to narcotics work?
Mr. McLEAISH. I wouldn't know that.
Mr. GASQUE. I understand that the customs official in Mexico City
is concerned with diamonds and anything involving customs transactions. Is that correct?
Mr. MCLEAISH. That is true. Every customs agent does that.
Senator DANIEL. So you mean that our representative, Mr. Ben
White, handles things other than narcotics?

Mr. McLEASI. That is true.
Senator DANIEL. You would think it would be better to have one
who devoted his full time to handling narcotics, wouldn't you?
Mr. McLEAISF. I would say so.
Senator DANIEL. I am glad counsel brought that out, because I
was under the impression that his time was devoted exclusively to
narcotics. I stand corrected. I am sorry it is not true.
Mr. McLEAISH. Frankly, I think we need several full-time men
down there.
Senator DANIEL. From what this committee has heard, especially
on this Texas trip, I think we could use several more over there working with the Mexican Government.
Here is what we are faced with. When hoof-and-mouth-disease
broke out in Mexico we got busy with the Mexican officials and
worked out some kind of an agreement by which we would send our
money and help them stop the hoof-and-mouth-disease. And a lot of
our men were working below the border exclusively on that.
Mr. McLEAISH. The Department of Agriculture.
Senator DANIEL. Don't you think this narcotics traffic is more
dangerous to us than the hoof-and-mouth-disease?
Mr. McLEAISH. I certainly do.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know of any reason why our men should
not work from the top level to stop this terrible traffic?
Mr. McLEAISH. No, I don't. I think they should do something
about it.
2820
Senator DANIEL. Now, Mr. McLeaish, suppose you go on in your
own words and describe to the committee the situation on the border
with respect to narcotics, and give any recommendations that you may
have for us.
Mr. MCLEAISH. I have a prepared statement. Do you mind if I
take a look at it?
Senator DANIEL. You may look at your prepared statement. We
will make it a part of the record. (See p. 2830.)
Mr. MCLEAISH. I will make it very brief.
Senator DANIEL. You may proceed.
Mr. MCLEAISH. I don't know whether you have been furnished
with these figures before, but I will give you a little bit of an idea
about the marihuana traffic in the Laredo and Brownsville sections. I
will be able to divide it up when we get down to 1951.
Senator DANIEL. That will be fine.
Mr. McLEAISH. In the period 1949-54 our customs agents in
Laredo and Brownsville area, seized 8,677 pounds of marihuana, which
is the equivalent of 60,739,000 grains.
Senator DANIEL. What would be roughly the retail value of that?
Mr. McLEAISH. That would be approximately 10 million cigarettes, and a cigarette sells all the way from 25 cents along the border to
$1.50 up in the interior of the United States.
Senator DANIEL. So that would be approximately how much marihuana per year in dollars, if you take an average?
Mr. McLEAISH. The average marihuana cigarette will contain 4 to
5 grains. We usually figure 5 grains per cigarette. I will have to
do a little calculating.
Senator DANIEL. $1.50, that is the price in New York at that time?
Mr. McLEAISH. The average would be about $1, taking near the
border and on up to New York. So you would have $12,000,000 in
marihuana cigarettes taken out of circulation in seizures.
Senator DANIEL. Over what period of time?
Mr. McLBAISH. Six years.
Senator DANIEL. In a 6-year period $12,000,000 worth seized?
Mr. MCLEAISH. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. McLEAISH.
Senator DANIEL.
able to seize?
And I suppose of course some got past you?

There is no doubt about it.
Do you think more got past you than you were
Mr. McLEAISH. I do.
Senator
DANIEL.
So therefore you think there would be at least
$24,000,000 worth of marihuana coming from across the border in
the last 6 years?

Mr.
MCLEAISH.
Senator
That would be a very conservative estimate.
All right, proceed.

And, like I told you, I have in the Brownsville
area six agents. Last year 135 people were arrested. Of those 135,
109 of them were marihuana and narcotic violators.
And that puts us in this position on the border. There is not anybody patrolling the river. We are not patrolling it. We are tied
down working on cases involving people that we know about.
As a result of the 135 people arrested last year with the small force
of men we have there, we were taken away from our work to go into
court on 33 different occasions. We had to send men up to Houston to
Mr.
DANIEL.
McLEAISH.
2821
the grand jury, to Galveston to the grand jury, and to Corpus Christi
to the grand jury and to Laredo to the grand jury, and to trials in
Corpus Christi. And we also had men working on cases in other divisions who had to go to court in El Paso and Del Rio, Tex. So you
can understand what we have to contend with along the border area,
andit is my opinion that we are not scratching the surface, because

there is just no one down there to stop it.
Senator DANIEL. And that is why you figure it is a very conservative
estimate on marihuana that gets across the border at $24,000,000
during the last 6 years?
Mr. McLEAISH. That is one reason.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. McLeaish, what do we need? Do you need
more personnel in your agency?
Mr. McLEAISH. Well, up until 1948, Senator, we had a customs
patrol along the Mexican border that was a mobile force of men
that was available to work anywhere on their own or on information
that was obtained by customs agencies. They were really policemen
of the organization. They abolished the patrol in 1948, with the
understanding that some other Government agency would patrol
the river, and also as an economy measure. I think that we need
along the Mexican border to utilize some of the forces of the United
States Government that are there, along with a small number of men
that we could use as a mobile force to be in the area all the time,
say 10 or 15 men.
Senator DANIEL. What about the border patrol?
Mr. M LEAISH. The border patrol has given wonderful cooperation
to the customs agents and have helped us a great deal. On the other
hand, we have been in position to help them. As a matter of fact,
we have arrested and delivered to them more aliens than they have
picked up people for us.
Senator DANIEL. When you say picked up people for you, you
mean smugglers?
Mr. MCLEAISH. Smugglers, narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. Does the border patrol have any patrol actually
along the river?
Mr. McLEAISH. Up until a few weeks back they didn't.
They are
principally occuped with picking up of Mexican farm laborers, and

we have collected on an average of 40,000 a month. Last year I
think they picked up about 330,000.
Senator DANIEL. We have been told by the border patrol that these
Mexican laborers, the so-called braceros or wetbacks, are not the
ones bringing the dope across the border.
Mr. MCLEAISn. That is true.
Senator DANIEL. Has that been your experience?
Mr. McLEAISH. It has.
Most of the Mexican wetbacks that come
across are just poor hardworking people looking to make a little money
to take it back home with them. We don't have any trouble with
them. It may be true that three or four of them may bring over a
little marihuana to use themselves, but they are not selling it.
Senator DANIEL. They are more professional smugglers that are
bringing it across?
Mr. MCLEAISH. They are professional everything.
Senator DANIEL. This border patrol you say actually doesn't have
anybody watching the river?
2822
Mr. McLEAISH. Recently they have been down there to a greater
extent than they did in the past.

Senator DANIEL. Do you keep any records on narcotic addicts that
cross at Brownsville?
Mr. McLEAiSH. No, we do not.
Senator DANIEL. Do you keep any records similar to the records
they keep at Laredo?
Mr. McLEAISH. So far as I know, Laredo is the only place where
they keep that list.
Senator DANIEL. Would you go along with a recommendation
that narcotic addicts not be allowed to cross the border? Do you
think that would be a good recommendation?
Mr. MCLEAISH. Yes, I do.
Senator DANIEL. But if that doesn't happen, from your experience
don't you think that you could keep a record on the bridge of known
narcotic addicts who cross the border?
Mr. MCLEAISH. Senator, if you do that you would have to hire
a number of additional men at the bridges, because the Customs
Service is pared down to the bone. I think it is the most economy
minded division of the United States Government. In the Laredo
District you would have to increase the number of men. There are
some of those people going back and forth a number of times a day.
You would have to hire people to stay there and watch those people
go back and forth. And they don't have the money to do it.
If I had my way about the proposal I would hire women to do that.
I think when they once saw a person they could probably describe
everything about that person.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know that they started a card system,
keeping a card system, on the addicts they search?
Mr. McLEAISH. I have heard about that here recently.
That
was my first knowledge of what they have been doing on that.

Senator DANIEL. That is true. I think for about a year now,
since last November, they have been keeping a card file on all narcotic
addicts that cross the bridge. We got that information from witnesses we had at San Antonio. I am just wondering if the situation
is any worse at Laredo, or any better, than at other ports of entry.
Mr. i'LcLEAISH. Laredo has been the largest port of entry in the
district, and they have very modern facilities there.
Senator DANIEL. Would you take this message back for us to tie
collector of customs and your inspector down there where you work,
that we feel that if it is at all possible a card system should be kept
on known addicts. It seems to me that would be very valuable
information.
Mr. MCLEAISH. About the only source we would have would be
the addicts themselves. If when they have a record of the particular
addicts they would furnish us pictures we would be glad to put them
out. If the Bureau of Narcotics would furnish us pictures of addicts
we would be glad to put them out.
Senator DANIEL. It seems to me that when a known addict crosses
the bridge they could keep a record of it. It seems to me they could
keep a record of that. Don't you think so?
Mr. McLEAISH. Yes, they could keep a record.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, I believe the people that started

this thing in Laredo started a good service. The purpose of this
2823
whole thing is to got all the information we can so that we can make
recommendations to Congress with a view to putting a stop to this
terrible traffic.
Mr. McLEAISH. I want to say this, Senator: I think that probably
the best thing that could be done would be to put the narcotics addict
away. And if this new State of Texas law on it holds up I think that
would be one of the best things that has ever happened to the addicts
themselves.
Senator
DANIEL.
You have told us something of the marihuana
traffic. Do you have anything else to say on that before we go on to

heroin traffic across the border?
Mr. McLEAISH. Well, our situation down in the Brownsville area
differs from that in the Laredo area, from Laredo down past Roma,
in this way: Up at Laredo you have big dealers in the United States
going down to pick up not only heroin but marihuana because they
have established connections. They get the best quality, and they
get full weight. Down in our section of the country we have people
in Mexico coming up to the border with marihuana and also other
narcotics looking for buyers in the United States. And, as a general
rule, like 1 said a while ago, if they come up and do make a contact a
lot of times it will be a poor grade of marihuana, and it will be short
weight.
Now if it is supposed to be heroin it will turn out to be epsom salts
or talcum powder. We have one instance where two dealers came
down from New York and went over and bought what was supposed
to be cocaine. They paid $6,500 for it in Matamoros. The dealers
thought they were buying some real cocaine. They probably actually
make an examination over there. When it was delivered in the United
States they were picked up, and their 2 pounds of cocaine turned out
to be pure epsom salts. And the word got around. The big time
dealers don't go down in that section.
Senator DANIEL. What you are saying is that Nuevo Laredo is the
place where the big time dealers can go, and do go, to cross the border?
Mr. McLEAISH. That is what I am telling you.
Senator DANIEL. And the biggest dealers in the traffic are at Nuevo
Laredo?
Mr. MCLEAISH. That is right. That is where the supply is good,
where they get the best quality, and where they get full weight.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have the figures on the seizures of heroin
throughout that same period?
Mr. McLEAISH. I don't have it for the Brownsville and Laredo
divisions. I can show you in the Brownsville divsion itself.
Mr. McLEAISH. From July 1, 1951, to June 30, 1952, we seized
484.81 pounds of marihuana, which is the equivalent to 3,393,670
grains. Also seized 180 marihuana cigarettes.
During that same period there was seized 113 , grains of heroin,
which is nothing. We seized 120 grams of morphine and 20 codeine
phosphate tablets.
Senator DANIEL. I suppose you will put all of these figures in the
record, because we have 18 more witnesses for today, and we are not,
going to be able to get to all of them. We will put all of the rest of
your statement in the record, which will show the rest of your figures,
if that is all right. (See p 2831.)
2824
Mr. McLEAISH. Yes.
Senator
to ask.
DANIEL.
Because there are some other questions we want
Mr. McLEAISH. All right.

Senator DANIEL. I want to ask you particularly about fugitives
from this country who are operating in the dope traffic in Mexico.
And also there were some charges made in our San Antonio hearing
that there are some Mexican officials in local offices who are associated
with the dope traffic. Do you have any information on that in your
own experience on the border?
Mr. McLEAISH. Yes, sir, I have, Senator.
Senator
DANIEL.
Would you give us any information you can on
that?
Mr. McLEAISH. Right at this time we have 13 fugitives in Mexic(
that we know of.
We have 2 fellows that we think are fugitives.
Senator DANIEL. What do you think?

Mr. McLEAISH. We know who they are, and they ran off and left
loads of marihuana and their automobiles and everything and went

to Mexico. They are in Mexico now, and we are under the impression that they are fugitives.
Senator DANIEL. Are- they American citizens?
Mr. McLEAISH. Yes, both of them are.
Senator DANIEL. You have how many fugitives, 13?

Mr. McLEAISH. Yes, and these two.
Senator DANIEL. By fugitives do you mean they are under indictments in this country?
Mr. McLEAISH. Yes, and we have lookouts for them.
Do you want their names?

Senator DANIEL. Yes, if you have them.
Mr. McLEAISH. Ernesto Herrera, alias Chamaco, Bureau of Naircotics, Houston, Tex.
The photograph of Ernesto Herrera will be exhibit B of the Houston
hearings:
Senator DANIEL. Did he jump bond here in Houston?
(The photograph mentioned follows:)
File No. B-6-77, H-6-234, Brownsville, Tex., Customs Agency Service Photo of
Ernesto Jiminez Herrera, alias "Chamaco", taken in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon,
Mexico, November 1951.
I I I I
2825
Mr. McLEAISH. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. What was he under charges for?

Mr. MCLEAISH. That I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. It was a narcotics charge?
Mr. MCLEAISH. That is true.
Senator
DANIEL.
That man jumped bond here in Houston.
Where
is he now?
Mr. McLEAISH. He is operating out of Monterrey, Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. What is he doing?
Mr. McLEAIsH. He is in the narcotics traffic between Mexico
and
the United States.

Senator DANIEL. Has he got any official position in Mexico?
Senator DANIEL. Did he ever have?
Senator DANIEL. Is there any way we can get that man back here
for trial?
Mr. McLEAISH. 1 doubt it very seriously. That is another thing
that is different in Mexico from the United States. In Mexico they
have a law that recognizes dual citizenship.
Senator DANIEL. Yes. And I believe when a person is a native
born citizen of Mexico, even though he should become a citizen of
another country, they will not allow him to be extradited.
Mr. McLEAISH. They stretch that out quite a bit. I don't know
whether you have ever heard of George Ochoa or not.
Senator
DANIEL.
McLEAISH.
Mr.
Senator
DANIEL.
Is he any kin to Leo?

No. He was actually born in the United States.
American citizen, born in the United States?
Mr. McLEAISH. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And Mexico will not allow him to be extradited?

Mr. McLEAISH. It is due to that dual citizenship phase of their law.
DANIEL. All right.
Mr. McLEAISH. A second fugitive is Leopoldo Ochoa, alias Leo.
Mr. McLEAISH. He operates in Mexico. Makes his headquarters
Senator
over at Reynosa.
Senator DANIEL. Is he the same one who was furnishing the Sutton
gang here in Houston?
Mr. McLEAISH. He is a Bureau of Narcotics fugitive.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know what he is doing?
Mr. McLEAISH. Leo Ochoa operates probably on a legitimate basis
in Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Do you know him to identify him
personally?
Mr. MCLEAISH. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Would you see if this picture is his?

Mr. MCLEAISH. Yes. That is labeled Ago, Brownsville.
Senator
DANIEL.
That will be marked "Exhibit C" of the Houston
hearing.
(The photograph marked as "Exhibit C," follows.)
I I I I
2826
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Photo of Leo Arredondo Oohoa

EXHIBIT C
Picture taken July 12, 1949.

Male, White, Age 31, Weight 160 pounds.
Date of birth: November 15, 1917.
Place of birth: Cadereyta, Nuevo Leon, Mexico.
One Caliber Automatic Serial # 288272.
Arrested for carrying concealed weapon and suspicious person, July 12, 1949.
Senator DANIEL. Now in George Hall's testimony, which will be
made a part of this record, it was testified that Leo was operating in
marihuana from here to New York, and back here. Is that your
understanding?
Mr. McLEAISH. That I wouldn't know.
Senator DANIEL. Proceed to the next.
Mr. M CLEAISH. The next is Herberto Gonzalez. He is also a Bureau
of Narcotics fugitive from Houston.
Senator DANIEL. He is wanted for a narcotics trial here in Houston?
Mr. MCLEAISH. That is right.
Senator DANIEL. You don't know how much bond this Gonzalez is
under?
Mr. MCLEAISH. No, I don't know.
Senator
DANIEL. Is he in Reynosa?
MCLEAISH. 1 don't know where
Mr.
he is.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Dave Ellis, do you know what this man
Herberto Gonzalez is doing?
Mr. ELLIS. No, sir, I don't.
Senator DANIEL. We have down here on our investigation that lie is
chief of police, traffic department, Reynosa, Mexico.
Mr. ELLIS. My experience was north of there, through Laredo.
I II
2827
Senator DANIEL. If anyone has that information here we would

like to have it in the record.
Mr. MCLEAISH.
Wait just a minute, Senator.
I am a little bit
handicapped about the Reynosa side of it. Our agent, Mr. Herbert
Scott, who was on duty at the bridge, he told me that Herberto
Gonzalez Casanova, is the last name, is now traffic officer at Reynosa
for the State of Tamaulipas, Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. So he is now an officer in Mexico and is wanted for
narcotics charge here?
Senator DANIEL. And is now an officer for the State of Tamaulipas
in Mexico, a police officer?

Mr. McLEAISH. That is right.
Senator DANIEL. And you got that information from Mr. Herbert
Scott?
Mr. MCLEAISH. He is resident agent.

Mr. McLEAISH. At McAllen, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. And that is how far from Reynosa?
Mr. McLEAISH. McAllen is approximately 10 miles north.
Senator DANIEL. Did Mr. Scott give you the information he bad in-
tended to bring before this committee?

Mr. McLEAISH. Some of it.
Senator DANIEL. You may refer to that at, any time.
Mr. McLEAISH. Thank you.
Senator DANIEL. Go to the next fugitive.
Mr. McLEAISR. The next one is Roland Wilkerson, or Roland
Wilkins. He is known by Roland Wilkins and also a number of other

names. He is also a fugitive.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Wilkey tells us that is one the United States
has been able to get, and that he is now in jail.
Mr. WILKEY. He is now serving time. Got 5 years.
Mr. McLEAISH. When did that happen?
Senator DANIEL. YOU can strike him off your list.
Mr. MCLEAISH. Good.
We knew that he was in Mexico working
in the narcotics traffic down there.

Senator DANIEL. Was he in the narcotics traffic while wanted
over here in the United States and out on bond?
Mr. McLEAISH. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know if he was doing anything else over
there besides narcotics work?

Mr. McLEAISH. No, I don't.
Senator DANIEL. All right, proceed to the next.

Mr. McLEAISH. The next is Jorge Davilla Flores.
Where is he wanted?
He was wanted in Brownsville. A lot of these
cases, I don't have the dispositions of them by the United States
attorney recorded. We are still carrying them as fugitives in our
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. McLEAISH.
area and looking for them.
Herrera Davila Flores is the next.

Aurelio Martinez Gonzalez. He was arrested with 171 pounds of
marihuana and a 9-millimeter automatic Luger, and bond on each
charge was set at $2,500.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right, what happended to them?
71515-56--pt. 7----81
2828
This fellow, the first one, Flores, went back to

Mexico and didn't come back over.
Mr. MCLEAISH.
Senator
DANIEL.
McLEAISH.
What official position does he hold over there?

I don't have any information.
Mr.
Senator DANIEL. I have down here that in 1955, April of this year,
he was chief of police in Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Will you
see if Mr. Scott has that on his report?
Mr. MCLEAISH. I don't, have any information from Mr. Scott
on this.
Senator
DANIEL.
I would appreciate it if you would check into
that. It is reported that this man this year served as chief of police,
and his partner became chief of police at Matamoros. Do you
happen to know about that?
Mr. McLEAISH. I don't have that information.
Senator
DANIEL.
If these people who are wanted, many of whom
you have named, are wanted here in Houston for narcotics offenses,
and they can not, only remain fugitives but can get positions in the
police department, I think it is significant, don't you?
Mr. McLEAISH. From my observation, it is one of the qualifications
that they must have.
Senator DANIEL. When we are making these statements about our
good neighbor to the south I want to make it perfectly clear that according to top officials in our country the top officials in Mexico are
sincerely trying to do something to stamp out the narcotics traffic, and
that the cases that have been referred to should not be considered
typical. Further, if they didn't have buyers for it on this side they
wouldn't be smuggling it to us.
Mr. McLEAISH. That is true. I don't want to leave you with the
impression that everybody in Mexico is engaged in illegal operations
in the narcotics traffic. We have our own people right here at home
who do a lot worse things, and I am not proud of them myself. A lot
of people in Mexico are just as good as we are.
Senator DANIEL. All right, let's go to the rest of the fugitives
hurriedly.
Mr. MCLEAISH. Guadalupe Cantu Martinez.
DANIEL. Where is he wanted?
Mr. McLEAISH. He is wanted in Brownsville.
Senator DANIEL. What is he doing now?
Mr. McLEAISH. That I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. I wonder if you would complete
Senator
these names with
the information as to where they are wanted, whether or not they have
jumped bail, whether or not they have any official position in Mexico,
or whether they are in the drug traffic.
Mr. McLEAISH. It would be almost impossible for me to give that
information. In Mexico they don't keep any criminal records like
we do in the United States. Once these people go back across the
river, a lot of them come from the remote sections of Mexico, from the
marihuana growing sections there, and you have so many people with
the same names in Mexico, it makes it very difficult to keep up with
them or get any record on them. If you are looking for one of these
men it is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Those that come
back up to the border towns and stay around there, we can pretty well
find them. We know them by sight. But to go looking for them in
Mexico, it is practically impossible.
2829
Senator DANIEL. During the noon hour I wonder if you would complete from Mr. Scott's report and yours any other information you
can give us on fugitives you do know about.
Mr. McLEAISH. I will be glad to do that.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any recommendations
you want to
make to the committee that, are not included in your written statement?
Mr. McLEAISH. I would like to say this is my personal opinion.
You are never going to get a second offender under the Boggs Act if
you keep prosecuting under the general smuggling laws. Under the
general smuggling laws some of them may get, 20 months or 2 years.
That not only doesn't do anything to discourage them, but you have
a Federal law in the United States to where a person who was sen-
tenced to 1 year and a day was entitled to parole. He only had to

serve one-third of his sentence, and if his behavior was good, he was
entitled to be released. He oan get out in 90 days.
Senator DANIEL. Do you find some cases like that along the
border?
Mr. McLEAISH. We have a number of them; yes.
Senator DANIEL. Well, generally speaking, are your sentences
along the border there heavy or light?

Mr. MCLEAISH. Well, I would say in the case of people who have
marihuana or narcotics in quantity that would indicate they were
supplying the traffic, that their sentences are light. However, the
judges of the court are the ones to decide what the sentences are to
be, and I am not criticizing the courts. I want to see it tough on
these people bringing it in here.
Senator DANIEL.
o you think tougher sentences would help?
Not only tougher sentences, but I

think they should be prosecuted under one set of laws.
Senator DANIEL. And not under the General Smuggling Act?
Mr. MCLEAISH. I sure do.
Mr. McLEAISH. That is right.
Senator DANIEL. That recommendation has been made by other

officials, and I will say it impressed this member of the committee.
Do you have anything else to suggest?
.Mlr.
McLEAISH.
No; I think not, Senator.
Senator DANIEL. Thank you very much, and we will see you after
our noon recess.
Mr. McLeaish, Mr. Gasque, our counsel, has something he wants
to ask here.
Mir. GASQUE. Mr. McLeaish, I wondered if these were the type of
sentences which you say caused concern along the border.
I will hand these to the reporter later.
Here is one smuggler, 40 pound marihuana, 1 year to serve.
Here is another one, a smaller amount, $150 fine.
Here is another smuggler, marihuana, 3 years suspended sentence.
Another one, $150 fine.

Another smuggler pled guilty and got 4 months.
Another smuggler of marihuana got 1 day.

Another smuggler of marihuana got 90 days.
And one, $50 fine.
Another smuggler of marihuana, 6 months.
Another 9 months.
Another here is another one here for 6 months.
I wonder, are these the type of cases that are giving you concern?
I I I
2830
Mr. MCLEAISH. Yes; those are some of them.
Mr. GASQUE. Here is another one, in Laredo, that was tried, 100
pounds of marihuana, and he got 18 months in jail.

Mr. McLEAISH. To give you one example, we had a seizure of
marihuana of 363 pounds, bringing the stuff in. They were sentenced
for 20 months to serve. In other words, they got about 7 months
time, and they were back over across the river.
Mr. GASQUE. And eventually back in the traffic?
Mr. MCLEAISH. They went back into Mexico.
are the kind that come back on you.

huana across the river for dealers.
Those four people
Those are men carrying mari-
That was the largest seizure of marihuana, and they only get
sentences of 20 months to serve.

Senator DANIEL. And were out in 7 months?
Mr. MCLEAISH. Seven months.
Senator DANIEL. Was that a Federal sentence?

Mr. McLEAISH. Yes.
Mr. GASQUE. Are all these Federal cases you are reading?
Mr. McLEAISH. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. What about the State courts along the border,
do they go any higher?

Mr. McL:AISH. From what I have read, I think they do.
Senator DANIEL. You feel, without any criticism of the judges, you
feel that stiffer penalties are necessary if you are going to stop this
traffic on the border?
Mr. McLEAISH. I really do.
Senator DANIEL. And that they should bring the cases under the
Boggs Act, and not under the General Smuggling Act?
Mr. McLEAISH. I do.
Mr. GASQUE. Is smoking marihuana across the border against the
law?
Mr. McLEAISH. That I wouldn't know. I am not acquainted with
the laws of Mexico.
Mr. GASQUE. Does anyone know?
Mr. McLEAISH. I know you can get a license in the United States
to produce it, to grow it.
Mr. GASQUE. That is for legitimate purposes?
Mr. MCLEAISH. Yes. In Mexico, I don't know.
(The statement of Bernard J. McLeaish is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF BERNARD J. MCLEAISH, CUSTOMS AGENT IN CHARGE,
BROWNSVILLE, TEX.
My name is Bernard J. McLeaish; I was stationed at Laredo, Tex., as a customs

agent, from October 1942 until September 1946, and again from July 19)49 to
January 1951, working the area from the Pecos River east to the Gulf of Mexico.
north to the Oklahoma-Texas border, and in parts of Mexico adjacent to the
United States-Mexican border from the Pecos River to the Gulf of Mexico. I
have been stationed at Brownsville, Tex., as customs agent in charge, since
January 1951 working the area from t.he east city limits of Rio Grande City.
Tex., to the 6ulf of Mexico and northward to the Kingsville, Tex., area and in
arts of Mexico adjacent to the United States-Mexican border and east of Rio
rande City, Tex. In all, I have had 10 years' experience as a customs agent
working in such areas. In addition, I was stationed in New York City, N. Y.,
as a customs agent, from 1946 to 1949, and while there I worked most of New
York State and New Jersey and some parts of Connecticut and Massachusetts.
I1III1
2831
My supervisor in the Mexican border area was and is now, the supervising
customs agent, El Paso, Tex. My supervisor in New York was the supervising
customs agent, New York, N. Y.
From my experiences along the United States-Mexican border area I have
found, as a general rule, that United States dealers and users of heroin have found
Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico, to be the ideal place of supply for their demands. The heroin there was of top quality; the supply was unlimited, and the
price remairied stable at $20 for a full gram of heroin.
With exceptions, I would say that the bigtime marihuana dealers in the United
States have also found Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico, to be their best
source of supply, as they could always get the best grade of marihuana there for
the best price and without being cheated as to the quantity purchased.
The situation differs, as a general rule, in the areas south of Nuevo Laredo,
Tamaulipas, Mexico, as it is usually found that Mexican dealers are looking for
buyers in the United States and not being acquainted with the United States
buyers, they usually come up to some Mexican border town and send runners
across into the United States to locate buyers. In almost every case in which
customs agents have apprehended these Mexican dealers, or their runners, it has
been found that they have either cheated or attempted to cheat their customers
either by short weight, poor quality, and in some instances in substituting some
other thing, such as epsom salts for cocaine talc for heroin, etc., and that their
prices were a great deal higher than the N'uevo Laredo prices. As a result of
such gouging and cheating, the reputation of these characters has apparently
spread to the traffic in the United States and there has not been any continued
large scale development between any single one of these operators. However,
in this area, there has been, and no doubt still are, large scale operations in the
marihuana traffic on a family relationship basis between relatives living in Mexico
and relatives living in the United States in the vicinity of the Mexican border in
this area. These families have long had connections with the large-scale muovement of marihuana to the principal markets in the United States, and while a
number of them have been caught by customs agents and agents of the Bureau
of Narcotics, they have not been hampered to any great extent because when one
gets caught there is always another to step in his place. It has been found to
be extremely difficult to make contact, or to get in close to these rings, as a stranger who lingers in these small border and valley cit-ies is ahnost immediately
pegged, and the people in such locales do not put out any information as they
know that they have to live there, and they want to continue to live.
As a general rule, most smugglers of narcotics and marihuana are caught by
customs agents either through information furnished by characters who are either
working for the dealers, acquanited with the dealers, or acquainted with characters who work for the dealers. In order to contact, and to keep in contact
with such persons, they have to be met and associated with in their own environment. They are paid for the information that they furnish. The utmost caution
and patience is required in these operations as they are extremely dangerous in
many ways.
In the Brownsville division of the customs agency service there are assigned,
besides myself four customs agents at Brownsville, Tex., and two customs agents
at McAllen, tex., and in addition to the handling of narcotic-marihuana violators, we are charged with the investigation and enforcement of other matters
such as the customs laws and regulations in general; the marine and navigation
laws and regulations; the Air Commerce Act; the Mutual Security Act relating
to the control of the importation and exportation of munitions, etc.; the Export
Control Act of 1949, and a number of other laws and regulations of other departmients of the Government relating to imports and exports, etc. However, the
following seizures of narcotics and marihuana, and connected arrests, were made
by this staff during the past 4 years:
July 1, 1951 to June 30, 1952
484.81 pounds marihuana (equivalent to 3,393,670 grains).
180 marihuana cigarettes, 113% grains, heroin, 120 grams morphine, 20 codeine
phosphate tablets.
(64 arrests.)
July 1, 1952 to June 30, 1958
19 marihuana cigarettes, 1 gram heroin, 1 ampoule morhpine sulphate.
(57 arrests.)
2832
July 1, 1953 to June 30, 1954

55 marihuana cigarettes, 25 grams heroin.
(49 arrests.)
July 1, 1954 to June 30, 1955
46 marihuana cigarettes, 976.2 grams heroin.
(109 arrests.)
July 1, 1955 to September 30, 1955
77.5 pounds marihuana (equivalent to 542,500 grains).
36 marihuana cigarettes, no heroin.
(32 arrests.)
The above information will, in a brief manner, give you some idea as to the
situations recently existing in the narcotic-marihuana traffic along this area of
the United States-Mexican border, and the results accomplished by a small
number of customs agents working under tight budgetary restrictions.
(Signed) Bernard J. McLeaish
BERNARD J. MCLEAISH,
Custonts Agent in Charge.
Senator DANIEL. You will stand and be sworn.

Mrs. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; I do.
TESTIMONY OF GLADYS WILLIAMS
Senator
DANIEL.
State your name.
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Gladys Williams.

Mrs. WILLIAMS. 1708Y Solo.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you lived here in Houston?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. I have lived here in Houston since 1942.
Senator
DANIEL. Do you know
John Sutton?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Is he the man who was convicted here in Houston
for trafficking in marihuana?

Mrs. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; he is.
Senator
DANIEL.
What relation were you to him?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Once he was a common-law husband of mine.

Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Senator DANIEL.
How long was he your common-law husband?

From 1949 until 1952.
During that period of time from 1949 until 1952

was John Sutton engaged in the marihuana traffic here in Houston?
Senator DANIEL. Was he also sending marihuana into other places
in the country?
Senator DANIEL. Where did he send it?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. New York.
Senator DANIEL. Anywhere else?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Not that I know of.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know what he obtained in the way of

narcotics from New York?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. What do you mean?
Senator DANIEL. Did he traffic also in heroin here in Houston?
2833
Mrs. WILLIAMS. If he did I don't remember it.

Senator DANIEL. Do you know of him selling marihuana in
Houston?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. No, I don't know of him selling any in Houston.
Senator DANIEL. The only shipments you know of were marihuana
shipments to New York?
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Senator DANIEL.
the marihuana?
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Senator
DANIEL.
Yes, sir.
Did you ever go up to deliver marihuana for him?
No, sir; I didn't.

Did you ever go to New York to collect money for
Yes, sir; I did.
How many times did you go to collect the money?

Not more than twice.
Do you know George Hall?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; I do.

Senator DANIEL. Immediately following this witness' testimony we
will include all of the testimony of George Hall which was taken at
executive session of the committee in New York September 22, 1955,
and it has been made public, and is now being made a part of the
record of this open hearing, and it will be embodied in the record at
the end of this witness' testimony. (See p. 2841.)
How much money did you take to New York, or did you bring
from New York?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. As I remember, I brought 4 or 5 thousand
dollars.
Senator
DANIEL.
You mean some of your trips would result in
your bringing back as much as four or five thousand dollars for mariuana?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you get as much as $6,500 once from George
Hall?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I don't remember it.
Senator
DANIEL.
Four or five thousand dollars was the largest
amount you remember?

Senator
Mrs.
DANIEL.
WILLIAMS.
Senator
DANIEL.
Who delivered the marihuana up there?

Friends of his.
Who?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Friends of Sutton's.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Senator
DANIEL.
What friends of Sutton's?

You mean you want me to call the names?
Yes.
0. G. Nolan.
0. G. Nolan?
Yes.
And a fellow by the name of Hook.
Is there any way you can identify him more than
that?
Mrs. VWILLIAMS. I would probably know his picture if I would see
his picture.
Senator
DANIEL.
You would know if you saw his picture?
Senator
DANIEL.
York for Sutton?
All right, who else would take marihuana to New
2834
Mrs. WILLIAMS. 0. G., Hook, and Wallace.
Isaac Wallace? His real name is Isaac Wallace?

Yes, sir.
They would take marihuana up there, but
wouldn't collect the money, is that right?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. That is right.
Senator DANIEL. As a matter of fact, Sutton would wait until the
purchasers of the marihuana in New York had had time to dispose of
it, and then he would send up there to collect the money, is that
true?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Senator DANIEL.
Is that the way it operated?

So far as I know.
Did you know of him having any heroin while you
were living with him?
Senator DANIEL. Was he an addict himself?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Not that I know of.
Senator DANIEL. Did he use heroin?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. I saw him use it, but not with a needle.
Senator DANIEL. How did he use it?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Put it in his nose.
Senator DANIEL. You mean sniffed it?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Put a small amount of it in his hand, is that right?
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Nathan Johnson?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Yes.
What was he doing when you knew him?

Working for Sutton, if I am not mistaken.
What type work was Nathan Johnson doing?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Selling stuff for him, I guess.
Senator DANIEL. Nathan Johnson lives here in Houston now, does
he?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. I am not sure whether he is in Houston now or not.
Senator DANIEL. He was convicted with Sutton, at the same time?
Senator DANIEL. Here in the Federal court?
Senator DANIEL. Is Mr. Johnson now in the courtroom? Nathan
Johnson?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Is this Nathan Johnson you are speaking of?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever know J. R. Henderson and his connections with trafficking in narcotics?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. I didn't know him.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know Leona Henderson?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. I didn't know her.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know a person by the name of Daddy
Lord?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Not personally.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know a person by the name of Kelley?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Senator DANIEL.
2835
Senator DANIEL. What about a person by the name of Everett

Cooper?
Senator DANIEL. What connection did Everett have with Sutton?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. He was working with Sutton.
Senator Daniel. What type work was Everett Cooper doing with
Sutton?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Selling for him, I guess.
Senator DANIEL. Just tell us what you know about it.
Mrs. WILLIAMS. I am not sure. All I know, Sutton and Cooper
would work together, put their money together, and when a fellow
bought the stuff they would meet together.
Senator
DANIEL.
WILLIAMS.
Mrs.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
the stuff from.
Senator DAN-IEL.
Mrs. WILLAIMS.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Senator DANIEL.
Who would put their money together?

Cooper and Sutton.
Were they partners?
Yes.
They would send money where?
They would call the Mexican they were getting

In Mexico?
Yes, sir.
What was his name?

I only knew him by Johnny.
Mexican Johnny?
Mexican Johnny.

Senator Daniel. Do you know anything more about the man
Mexican Johnny?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. What do you mean?
Senator
Any other name?

Senator DANIEL. When did you first meet him?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. I met Mexican Johnny in February.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think you could identify a picture of
DANIEL.
Mexican Johnny?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. I probably could.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Senator DANIEL.
Where did you meet him?

I met him at my house.
Did he bring some marihuana here from Mexico?
He didn't bring it by the house.
Did you understand from your husband or from
Mexican Johnny that was what he was here for?

Senator DANIEL. You say your common-law husband would call a
Mexican and have him bring the marihuana up to Houston?
Senator
DANIEL.
Where would he call from?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. He would call from the house.
Senator
DANIEL.
From your house?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. He would call from the house some and sometimes
he would call from some other place.
Senator DANIEL. And what place did he call, a place in Mexico, or
in the United States?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. I believe Mercedes.
Senator DANIEL. Mercedes, Tex.?
2836
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Mercedes, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. And would he let the person on the other end of the
line know he wanted marihuana?
Senator DANIEL. About how often did he bring marihuana in here
from Mexico?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. I would say at least once a week.
Senator DANIEL. About how large quantities?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. From 50 to 100 pounds.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know what he was paying for it?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I don't.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know where it was coming from?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Mexico, I guess.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever go across the border with him?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. With Johnny?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir, I did.
How many times did you go across?

Mrs. WILLIAMS. Once.
Mrs. WILLIAMS. We crossed that bridge.
Senator DANIEL. At what point?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. To Mexico, I guess.
Senator DANIEL. Was it at Laredo, Nuevo Laredo, Brownsville, or
where?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. I don't know what town it was. All I know, we
crossed the bridge.
Senator DANIEL. You crossed a bridge?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did you make contact on the other side with
someone who had marihuana?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. We met this Mexican Johnny on this side, at
Mercedes, and he followed us across the bridge.

Senator DANIEL. How many cars did you meet there at the bridge?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. We didn't meet any on the other side.
Senator DANIEL. Mexican Johnny took you to someone?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Mexican Johnny followed us in a truck, and met
Johnny over there, met John Sutton.

Senator DANIEL. What happened over there?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. And they left the car and me where I was, and
where they went. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. When they came back, did they have some marihuana?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. No, sir, they didn't.
Senator DANIEL. Did you see a person by the name of Leo Ochoa?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. I saw him once.
Senator DANIEL. On that trip?
Senator DANIEL. Do you have the exhibits with you, Mr. Reporter?
The REPORTER. Here they are, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Can you identify that picture?
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Speer has now exhibit B. Can you identify
that picture? (See p. 2826)
Mrs. WILLIAMS. I don't remember it too much.
2837
If that is Leo, I
won't say.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Sutton did have some business dealings with Leo?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. No, sir. The only one I know him ever dealing
with was Mexican Johnny.
Senator DANIEL. But you did meet Leo?
Senator
On what side of the border?

This side.
Where?
I forget the name of the place I met Mexican
We were together.
DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Johnny.
Senator
DANIEL.
Was it on an occasion when Mexican Johnny
was getting some marihuana for Sutton?

Senator DANIEL. What kind of occasion was it?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. It was an occasion when I had called him from
Johnny's office to bring me 50 pounds, and then they got caught with
it.
Senator DANIEL. You called and asked for 50 pounds and asked
Mexican Johnny to bring it?
Senator
DANIEL. And Leo Ochoa showed up with Mexican Johnny?

Senator DANIEL. Where was that they brought the marihuana?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. I can't remember the name of the town.
Senator DANIEL. How often was Sutton sending marihuana to New
York?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Maybe once or twice a week.
Senator DANIEL. After he was arrested do you know who succeeded

him, who took over the marihuana business in New York?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I don't.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear of Nathan Johnson being connected with it?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Before he was arrested?
Senator DANIEL. Yes, or after?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear of Nathan Johnson having anything to do with the traffic?
Senator DANIEL. Who were your New York contacts?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. George and Ruth Hall.
Senator DANIEL. Did they get marihuana from Sutton, so far as
you know?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. So far as I know, yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
Now Everett Cooper, whom you have said was a
partner of your common-law husband, and Sutton would divide the

profits on this marihuana?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. I think so.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
That was your understanding?

Yes, sir.
Was Cooper also engaged in the heroin traffic?
To say for sure, I wouldn't know.
2838
Senator DANIEL. What opinion do you have on the matter?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. You mean on the heroin?

Senator DANIEL. On the heroin, yes.
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Well, I don't have too much opinion on the lheroill.
1 never did see too much of it. I never did hear them talk about it
very much.
Senator DANIEL. According to all the evidence we have here from
George Hall, there was transportation of heroin back from New York
to Houston. I just want to ask you once more whether or not you
ever knew about or heard anything about heroin traffic coming back
into Houston?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. I won't say that it wasn't, that it is not true, 1)Ut,
so far as me knowingSenator DANIEL. You don't know anything about that persoiall.y?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Not personally.
Senator DANIEL. Did you tell mc you knew Leona Hendersoit or

not*?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. I didn't know Leona Henderson.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see Everett Cooper with any heroin?
Senator
Do you know Owen Kelley of San Antonio?

DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know a George Gilmore of San Antonio?

Senator DANIEL. About how many people did Cooper and Sutton
have selling marihuana here in Houston?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Well, as far as I know, here in Houston, I don't
know of them selling any here in Houston at all. All I know, when
they would get it they would take it to New York.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you know of anybody they had working for
them here in Houston except those you said ran the marihuana to
New York?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. No, sir. I wouldn't say. Snooty Mims.
Senator DANIEL. Is that Frank Mims?

Mrs. WILLIAMS. That is all I can remember offhand.
Senator DANIEL. In addition to the others you have named, you
have added Snooty Mims. Are those all you can remember now?
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Senator
DANIEL.
At this moment.
How about Teodoro Robledo?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. I think that is Mexican Johnny.

Senator DANIEL. He claims he is not Mexican Johnny. I (lon't
know if he is the same person you think is Mexican Johnny or not.
Frank Teodoro Robledo. Is this the person you speak of as Teodoro
Robledo?
Mrs. WILLIAMS. Mexican Johnny.
Senator DANIEL. Is that the man that you call Mexican Johnny?
Senator DANIEL. Where was it you saw him?

Mrs. WILLIAMS. I saw him at my house.
Senator
DANIEL.
On more than one occasion?
Senator
DANIEL.
Is that all you know him by?
2839
WILLIAMS.
Senator DANIEL.
Yes, sir.
Who told you that he was Mexican Johnny?
M[rs.
Sutton.
Mrs.
WILLIAMS.
Senator DANIEL. Sutton tol you that'?

Mrs. WILLIAMS. He introduced me to him as Johnny.
Senator DANIEL. Is this the only way you know whether or not,
this is Mexican Johnny?
Senator DANIEL. All you know is what. Sutton told you on one
occasion?
Mrs. WILLIAMS.
Senator DANIEL.
Yes, sir.
Is that the only basis for your identification of
this man as Mexican Johnny?

Mrs. WILLIAMS. Yes, I never knew him by any other name.
(At this point in the record the testimony of George Hall taken at
an executive session of the subcommittee in New York, September
22, 1955, is inserted, at, the request of the chairman.)
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

THURSDAY, SFPTEMBER 22, 1955
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS,
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
New York, N. Y.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a. m., in room
618, United States courthouse, Foley Square, New York City,
Senator Price Daniel (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senator Daniel (presiding).
Also present: C. Aubrey Gasque, subcommittee counsel, and W. L.
Speer, committee investigator.
Senator DANIEL. You will stand up and be sworn.
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?,
Mr. HALL. I do, sir.
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE HALL
Mr. HALL. George Hall.
Mr. HALL. Thirty-seven.
Senator DANIEL. Where were you born?
Mr. HALL. Dallas, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. How long did you live in Dallas?
Mr. HALL. About 16 years.
Senator DANIEL. And then where did you go?
Mr. HALL. New York.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you live in New York?
Mr. HALL. At 96 Riverside Drive.
Senator DANIEL. Did you live at that address all the time that
you lived in New York?
Mr. HALL. No, sir. I lived there for about 3 years; and after that
I went by myself. I was with my father there, and I left home, and
from there I moved to myself.
Senator DANIEL. Your father had lived in Dallas, and you moved
with him to New York?
Mr. HALL. No, my father was in New York; he moved from Dallas
to New York.
Mr. HALL. Later I followed him here.
Senator DANIEL. Did you work, go to school, in Dallas?
2841
2842
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator
DANIEL.
Did you do both?
Mr. HALL. I went to Booker T. Washington High School, and

Lincoln Maynor Elementary School.
Senator DANIEL. Then, after moving to New York, did you go to
school there?
Mr. HALL. I went to DeWitt Clinton for several months, about
7 months.
Senator DANIEL. Did you finish high school?
Mr. HALL. No, sir; I went to the 1Ith grade.
Senator DANIEL. What work was your father engaged in?
Mr.
HALL.
Senator
He was superintendent.
DANIEL.
Of what?
Mr. HALL. Of a building there, 96

Senator DANIEL. Superintendent of a building?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Mr. HALL. 96 Riverside Drive.
Senator DANIEL. That, is an apartment house?

Mr. HALL. That is right.
Senator DANIEL. Then what type of work did you follow after you
left your father's house?
Mr. HALL. Well, I went into bakery work mostly, that was the
type I followed; and then into restaurants.
Senator DANIEL. What type of work did you do in bakeries and
restaurants?
Mr. HALL. Baker's helper.

Senator DANIEL. Was that true also in the restaurants?
Mr. HALL. In the restaurants, cook.
Senator DANIEL. How long did you cook?
Mr. HALL. Always, I imagine from 1942 on up through.
Senator
DANIEL.
Up to when?-
Mr. HALL. Up until the present time.

Senator DANIEL. Where are you now staying?
Mr. HALL. I am now in Rahway, N. J., an institution.
Senator
DANIEL.
New Jersey?
Mr. HALL. New Jersey.

Senator DANIEL. Serving what kind of a sentence?
Mr. HALL. Narcotics sentence.
Senator DANIEL. When were you convicted on this sentence?
Mr. HALL. July 2-July 5, 1954.
Senator DANIEL. Had you ever been convicted of anything else
before then?
Mr. HALL. Marihuana.

Senator DANIEL. Selling marihuana?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. According to the sheet we have here from the
FBI records, it would appear that in December of 1048 y6u were
convicted of possessing marihuana.
Mr.
HALL.
That is correct, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And given a 2%-year sentence and $1,000 fine in

Brooklyn, N. Y.

Senator DANIEL. That was a Federal narcotics charge?
2843
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Did you serve that sentence?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All of it?

Mr. HALL. Not all of it, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
What were you, paroled or what.?
Mr.
HALL. Paroled.
Senator DANIEL. After
how long?
.Mr. HALL. After 14 months, I think it was.
Senator DANIEL. After having served that sentence, did you go back
into marihuana traffic?
HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I mean
Mr. HALL. No sir.
Mr.
Senator
DANIEL.
some time later on?
You did not get back into selling marihuana?
Mr.
HALL. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. How
long was it after that before you did buy or
sell marihuana?
.Mr. HALL. Well, after I served this term, I didn't buy or sell any
marihuana at all at any time.
Mr. SPEER. What date were you convicted on that first charge?
Mr. HALL. In 1948. You mean the first charge in 1948?
Mr. HALL. I was convicted in 1949; it was 1949 or 1950.
Senator DANIEL. Did you have two charges pending against you
at that time?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Possession of marihuana and unlawful use and
possession?
Mr. HALL. That is right, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And then later were you tried on the second
charge, too?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Was that after you had served your first sentence?
Mr. HALL. No, sir; that was at-during the same time.
Senator HALL. During the same time?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And were you convicted on the second charge,
too ?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you serve those sentences concurrently or not?
Mr. HALL. No, sir; one sentence was on appeal. It was the last
conviction, and it was referred back to the courts, and it was an
acquittal on the case.
Senator DANIEL. There was an acquittal on that case?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, your record here shows August 4, 1953off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator DANIEL. Back on the record.
You appealed from your conviction on the possession of marihuana
charge in 1949; is that correct?
Senator DANIEL. And you were out on bond pending appeal?
715-15-56-pt. 7----82
2844
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. You did not go to serve the time on that sentence
until what date?
Mr. HALL. Until March 1953.
Senator DANIEL. In the meantime, while under sentence and your
case was on appeal, did you engage in the marihuana traffic?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HALL. In New York City.
Senator DANIEL. Over how many years did you do that? All while
the appeal was pending?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; during the time of appeal.
Senator DANIEL. Were you also engaged in any other type of work?
Mr. HALL. Restaurant business.
Senator DANIEL. Restaurant business?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Working as an employee or did you have charge
of it?
Mr. HALL. No, sir; I had charge of it.
Senator DANIEL. Your own restaurant?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And were you selling marihuana there at the
restaurant?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Where did you sell it?
Mr. HALL. I sold marihuana through my sources, was more or less
arranged through contacts that I would make with different people,
and then I would make arrangements to get the marihuana for them.
Senator
DANIEL.
You were not retailing it yourself?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. You were, what would you say, more in the wholesale business?
Mr. HALL. Yes. I was in the wholesale business.

Senator DANIEL. And you had other people who would come to
you and get the marihuana and go out tnd sell it?

Senator DANIEL. Where would they come to get it from?
Mr. HALL. They would come to my home mostly.
Senator DANIEL. And where was your home during that time?
Mr. HALL. Forty McDonough Street.
Senator DANIEL. Brooklyn?
Mr. HALL. In Brooklyn.
Senator DANIEL. Is that where you lived at the time you were
convicted of this possession of marihuana in 1948?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. And all through the pendency of your appeal did
you still live at that same place?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. And did you continually from that time, after
conviction in 1948 until you went to prison, continue to engage in
marihuana traffic?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. Well, it wasn't continuously, because the
person that I was engaged in the marihuana business with in 1948 was
arrested, so that that stopped; and then again it started back in 1951.
-
2845
Senator DANIEL. In other words, you had a lapse there from 1948
to 1951?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right.
Before we go into that, let us go back now to the time when you
first started engaging in the marihuana business. Just tell us in your
own words the first time you ever became acquainted with marihuana.
Did you use it yourself?
Mr. HALL. Well, when I first became acquainted with it, I was a
kid.
Senator DANIEL. Where was that?
That was in Texas.

Senator DANIEL. In Dallas?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Just tell us about your knowledge of
Mr.
HALL.
marihuana and the marihuana traffic and your part in it from the very
beginning, the first time you ever heard of it; let us even go back to
that.
Had you ever had any warning against marihuana, the dangers of
it?
Mr. HALL. No. I would say I was about 10 years old, and at this
time we had a place in Texas where we called it the Front; that was
at State
Senator DANIEL. The Front?
Mr. HALL. The Front, yes. Well, I mean, it is more or less like a
residential section of a Negro neighborhood, residential section; it is
where all of them congregate, and we all call it the Front, because
that is where everybody was, and that was the nickname.
Senator DANIEL. That is at the corner of State and-
Mr.
HALL.
Hall Street.

Senator DANIEL. What section, what side, of Dallas is that on?
Mr. HALL. It is North Dallas.
Mr. HALL. And we used to all meet there and hang around the pool
room. And at this time there was a couple of fellows that was there
that was dealing in marihuana, and we used to pay 10 cents a stick
for marihuana; it was a cigarette.
Senator DANIEL. With whom were you living there in Dallas at
that time?
Mr. HALL. I was living with my mother.
Senator DANIEL. Are your mother and father separated?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; at this time.
Senator DANIEL. Your father was living in New York?
Mr. HALL. No, he was in Wichita Falls, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. Are there any other children in the family?
Mr. HALL. A brother and a sister.
Senator DANIEL. You are talking about a time when you were about
10 years old when you first heard of marihuana?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. What year was that?
Mr. HALL. That was about 1930.
2846
Tell us the best you can rememiberi

now exactly who introduced you to it, what the first recollection is
that you ever have of it.
Mr. HALL. Well, at the time it would be more or less like a group of
us, a group of fellows, and you get to hear from them.
They would tell you about a cigarette they smoked that would
make you high, and one would tell you to try one and see how you
like it, and then I tried it, and I decided I wanted to smoke it, and so
I decided to smoke marihuana just from the medium of young fellows,
a kid
Senator DANIEL. Through the younger fellows, and that was when
you were 10 years old that you smoked your first one?
Mr. HALL. That is right

Senator DANIEL. Were they all friends and associates of yours?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. These young fellows?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did any of them sell you marihuana-any of
those that first got you to use it-or did they give it to you or what?
Mr. HALL. No. We would go-that is, let's say-on the front,
and there would be a couple of fellows there that we were getting
it from.
Senator
DANIEL.
Right there, do you remember smoking your
first marihuana cigarette?
Mr.
HALL.
Senator
Yes.
DANIEL.
From whom did you get it?
Mr. HALL. A fellow in north Dallas.

Senator DANIEL. Did you buy it from him?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. And older boys were around there with you?
Mr.
HALL.
Senator
smoking?
That is right.
DANIEL.
Were there many of them as young as you
Mr.HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
And you all would buy the cigarettes together
there from two men who were selling them?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
On the front.
Senator
DANIEL.
At 10 cents a cigarette?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Were they plentiful, could you get them easily
there any time you wanted them?
Mr. HALL. Well, no, you couldn't, because here is the way we used
to do it, I mean, the fellow we would just get them from was Mono:
his name was Mono.
Senator DANIEL. Mono? Do you know his first name?

Mr. HALL. No.
Mr. HALL. And the other fellow's name was B. T.
Senator D4NIEL. Do you know his full name?

Mr. HALL. I don't know his full name. But anyway these two,
fellows, they used to go to Mexico and they would buy the mari-huana in a little round package; maybe it would be about 6 inches
2847
long, well packed, and they would bring them, walk across the border,
walk in and out of the border with them, and bring them back to
Texas; more or less usually they would travel to go there, they would
hobo there and back.
Senator DANIEL. They would tell you this?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. They would tell you how they got it?
Mr. HALL. And after they arrived back into Texas proper, they
would let us know that they had some marihuana in their possession,
and we would buy it from them until they run out of it, and when
they run out they would go back and get some more.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Go right ahead and tell us, how long
did you smoke marihuana as a boy there in Dallas?
Mr. HALL. I don't think it was ever any time when I didn't smoke.
Senator DANIEL. Did you smoke some every day?
Mr. HALL. Every day, certainly.
Senator DANIEL. From the time you were 10 years old until the
time you left Dallas at the age of 16?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Every day?
Mr. HALL. Every day.
Senator
DANIEL.
While you were going to school?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
About how many cigarettes a day were you
smoking during that or averaging during that period?

Mr. HALL. We would smoke like maybe two cigarettes a day.
About how many of you boys your age were
doing that?
Mr. HALL. Oh, there would be something like maybe 8 or 9 fellows.
Senator DANIEL. That you knew?

Mr. HALL. That I knew.
Senator DANIEL. Did you all sort of run
In a clique, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Were any girls smoking it?
Mr.
HALL.
Mr. HALL. No.

Senator DANIEL. Were all these boys colored?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever start selling marihuana cigarettes

there in Dallas?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You were strictly on the vine?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you get the money to buy it with?
Mr. HALL. Well, it would be like a show allowance; weekends we
have a show, we go to a show twice a week, and instead of going to a
show I would take money and buy marihuana for it.
Senator DANIEL. And your Mama would give you the show
allowance?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; would give us something like a dollar, a show
allowance for two shows, popcorn and candies.
Senator DANIEL. This occurred all the time while you were living
there from about 10 years old until you left Dallas?
2848
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Did you get into any kind of trouble with the
law while you were in Dallas?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Were you able to keep with your school work all
right?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you form a pretty strong habit on this
marihuana?
Mr. HALL. Well, I mean, Senator Daniel, to be frank with you, I
never actually called it a form of habit, you know, like marihuana.
It was just a cigarette. You take it like a normal cigarette. You
smoke a normal cigarette, you smoke 8 a day or 10 a day.
You take a marihuana cigarette and you smoke 1 or 1 2 cigarettes.
So you figure you save half of it. I imagine he has caught quite a few
fellows with half a cigarette in their possession.
Well, that is more or less the smoke, 1 Y cigarettes. They don't
want to smoke the rest of it, and they put the rest of it in a little piece
of cellophane and put it in the pocket, and they had enough.
Senator
DANIEL.
HALL. Well,
What kind of a feeling did it give you?
if you try to describe it, you would say it was like

Mr.
you take a person if he has got a cold, and his nose might run quite a
bit when he has got a cold.
Then if you take some kind of medicine and you give it to him, it
dried his cold up and would stop it.
Well, that is the way marihuana is. Marihuana, you smoke it,
and then it gives you sort of a dryness, a sort of dry feeling as far as
taste is concerned; it makes you want candies and makes you want
ice creams and food in general. In other words, you want to eat.
You eat a lot, and the feeling that you would get from it would be
more or less a lightness, it would be just a light feeling, just like if you
drank some whisky and you get a little high on the whisky, and you
say "That is enough, leave it alone," it might relieve you about
maybe 15 minutes, and after thatDANIEL. You have
Mr. HALL. Sir?
Senator DANIEL. You have
Mr. HALL. Not too much.
Senator
drunk whisky too?

used whisky, too, haven't you?
Senator DANIEL. I mean, you have tried it?
Mr. HALL. I drink; yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Do you know how it will make you feel-how
would you compare that with a marihuana cigarette?
Mr. HALL. Well, it is the same. As I say, if you take a certain
amount of whisky and you reach a capacity, a normal capacity, or
light capacity of whisky, then you would know normally if you don't
want to get drunk, you say,"I'd better not take the next drink, "and
you leave it alone, and then you will find yourself in a period of coming
back to your normal self.
Marihuana is a little different in one respect. It will make you
high and keep you high for 15 minutes, and then you come back to
your normal self again. But it more or less lets you down as well as
pushes you up; in other words, it will build you up and then it will
let you right back down.
I I I I
2849
Senator DANIEL. Now, did it cause you any increase'in any other
of your appetites, such as your sexual appetite or anything like that?
Mr. HALL. Well, no, because I never did look at it from that standpoint. It didn't give me anything; it didn't add anything to me
normally, what I would normally do, normally.
Senator DANIEL. Except get you high once or twice a day?
Mr. HALL. That is right. You see, you would have to-excuse
me, you see here is what they call-it is two ways about marihuana, to
smoke marihuana, and you will just get high off marihuana.
Then you can smoke marihuana, and you can take some whisky;
you can take a little wine, take a little beer, and you can take a little
creme de menthe, and any drink that you know has a high potency
of alcohol in it, and you can put that on top of that, of marihuana,
and it will hold you, it will hold you up longer.
But, I mean, that is more or less from the counter-reactions of the
different drinks and the marihuana. In other words, one will hold
the next one; it goes like a chain reaction.
Senator DANIEL. It keeps you high?
Mr. HALL. Keeps you high. So you really don't know which one
is keeping you high the longest.
Senator DANIEL. Did you try them all?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You say you never personally got into any kind
of trouble before leaving Dallas, other than smoking the marihuana?
Mr. HALL. No trouble whatever.
Senator DANIEL. Did any of your associates get into trouble with
the law during this time?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Then after coming to New York did
you keep on using marihuana personally?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you said sometimes these fellows would
give you marihuana there in Dallas, and it was how long before they
got more?
Mr. HALL. Well, it figured about a week after they would have
some more.
Senator DANIEL. They would be out of it once in a while for as
long as a week?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you have much craving for it during that
week's period?
Mr. HALL. No more than waiting for him to return.
Senator DANIEL. But you were ready for him when he got back?
Senator DANIEL. All right. Now, after moving to New York you
kept on using the cigarettes?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. About the same amount a day?
Mr. HALL. Well, no. I would say it would be more because the
price was higher, so you would have to buy more in order for you to
keep a supply of it. You see, so instead of buying cigarettes you would
buy something like an ounce or half an ounce.
Senator DANIEL. Is that what you did after coming to New York?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
2850
Senator DANIEL. About how many did you smoke a day?

Mr. HALL. Oh, 2 or 3 a day.
Senator DANIEL. You say the cost was higher here?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you moved to New York when you were
16 to be with your father?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Was he using marihuana?

Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did your mother use it?
Mr. HALL. No.
Senator DANIEL. Did she know you were using it?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What about your brother and sister?
Mr. HALL. They didn't know either.
Senator DANIEL. They did not use it either?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And your father did not use marihua.na here?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Was he a pretty sober man?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did he know you were using it?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. As long as you lived with him in New York, you
still kept on smoking marihuana cigarettes?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And you continued to do that up until what
date?
Mr. HALL. Well, you can just say I continued.
Senator DANIEL. Until you went to prison?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. When you first moved to New York how did you
find out where to get marihuana?
Mr. HALL. Well, when I moved to New York I used to go like to
Harlem, to the show, and I would hang around the corner, you know
what I mean, and I would watch the different fellows, see what they
were doing, and eventually one would lead me to the man who was
selling the marihuana.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you remember the first man you ever bought
from here in New York?

Mr. HALL. Well, now, let's see; yes. I imagine it would be only
two men that you could actually pinpoint at the time, would be
Jenkins and a fellow named Demon.
Senator
DANIEL.
Jenkins?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. J-e-n-k-i-n-s?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And a fellow named what?
Mr. HALL. Demon.
Mr. HALL. D-e-m-o-n.
Senator DANIEL. You bought from them in Harlem?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL, Do you know either of them in recent years?
11111
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2851
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Are they still in the business?
Mr. HALL. Well, I don't think they are now; I am not sure of it now.
Senator DANIEL. They were the last you had heard?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Why do you think they are not in it now?
Mr. HALL. Well, Jenkins served time, I think about three times,
and he decided he would give it up.
And then Demon served time, and he talked to me as well, and he
said he decided he would leave it alone, too. This was in 1952. And
he and I had a long conversation, so he told me, he said, he finished
doing his time and he was quitting because he was quite an old fellow.
He is about 69 years old now, and truthfully I can say that I haven't
got anything from either one of them from the time that they went
and did their time until the time I come out of Danbury.
I found that they weren't interested in doing any business as far as
marihuana was concerned.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right.
Was marihuana pretty easy to get
around Harlem during the years that you were buying it?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Smoking it?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL. About what was the cost of it?

Mr. HALL. Well, you could get it here for $8 and $10 an ounce.
Senator DANIEL. Did anybody sell it made up into cigarettes?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How much was a cigarette?
They were selling cigarettes for 25 cents a cigarette.
Senator
DANIEL.
Was that when you first came to New York?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

selling some of it yourself?
Mr. HALL. 1945.
Senator
DANIEL.
What year did you decide to start
Tell us about how you decided, what led you
into trying it out, to get in it in a business way?

Mr. HALL. Well, first, I made an acquaintance with a fellow, and
at this time I think he had about ten or fifteen pounds of marijuana.
Senator
DANIEL.
How did you make his acquaintance?
Mr. HALL. He is a musician, so by being on jobs I come in contact

with him; both of us were musicians.
Senator
DANIEL.
Are you a musician?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Now, I asked you about the type of work you
followed here, and you told me about bakery and restaurant businesses.
Now tell me about your musician's work.
Mr. HALL. Well, the musician's work goes back to school days as
well as professional bands after school, after I left school there in
Texas.
Senator DANIEL. What did you play?

Mr. HALL. Well, I was a vocalist at this time, a singer, with bands
in the school as well as outside, you know, professional bands
outside.
And after I left school, left school with the school group band,
there were about 15 of us, all of us quit school at the same time, and
we started a professional band of our own.
2852
Senator

DANIEL.
Where was that?
Mr. HALL. This was in Dallas. And we got jobs around Dallas,
like the North Dallas Club. We went there and went to WRR radio
station there, and broadcast every Sunday.
Senator DANIEL. What type of music did you play?
Mr. HALL. Jazz music.
Senator DANIEL. And you would broadcast there?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. On Sundays?
Mr. HALL. On Sundays.
Senator DANIEL. How long did you do that before leaving Dallas?
Mr. HALL. I think we were doing that for about a year in Dallas.
When we started
Senator DANIEL. What was the name of that band?
Mr. HALL. That was Jimmy Wagner's Romeos of Rythm.
Senator DANIEL. Jimmy Wagner's
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And the rest of it?

Mr. HALL. Romeos
Senator DANIEL. Romeos of Music?
Mr. HALL. Romeos of Rythm.
Senator DANIEL. And you were the singer?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did all those men in that band use marihuana?
Mr. HALL. Some of them, not all of them.
Senator DANIEL. How many of them?
Mr. HALL. Oh, about 3, mostly about 3 of us.
Senator DANIEL. About three of you?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. Let's see, there was myself and 3 trumpet
players-with myself there -were 3 of us.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Then go ahead and tell me the rest
of it. Did you work with any bands in New York?
Mr. HALL. No, sir. I formed my own band in New York.
Senator DANIEL. All right. What was the name of that band?
Mr. HALL. Well, my big band's name was the Syncopaters; that
was a 17-piece band, and then I had a small combination; I just used
my name-a small combination when the big band wasn't working. I
would merely take five or six musicians and we would work together.
Senator DANIEL. What did you call that?
Mr. HALL. Small combination, small combo, under my name.
Senator DANIEL. Under your name?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. What name did you use?
Mr. HALL. George Hall.
Senator DANIEL. What was the name of your 17-pieceMr. HALL. Big band? Syncopaters.
Senator DANIEL. Was that the name you went by in Dallas?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What was the name you went by in Dallas?
Mr. HALL. The name I went by in Dallas was Lonnie Hall.
Senator DANIEL. How did you get the "Lonnie"?
Mr. HALL. Like I had two names, one chosen name and one gven
name, so I accepted the chosen name there, and I used my given
name here.
111111111
2853
Senator DANIEL. What is your given name?

Mr. HALL. George.
Senator DANIEL. I see you go sometimes by George Lee Hall.
.M[r. HALL. Lee Hall is in there for Lonnie.
Senator DANIEL. That was your own choice?
Mr.
HALL.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You put that in there as a boy or when?

Mr. HALL. Well, that has been there for years, ever since I was a
kid.
Senator DANIEL. But you have gone as George Lee Hall?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And as George Hall?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. And as Lonnie Hall?
.Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
And it was Lonnie Hall that you used in Dallas?
Mi-. HALL. In Dallas; yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. In New York you used the name George Hall?
XM r.
HALL. George.
Senator DANIEL. I
am asking you about all these background
questions because the committee is interested in how people get

started in this business, and especially when I find you started out in
Texas, I am interested in getting all the details.
Mr. HALL. 0. K.; go ahead; it is all right.
Senator
DANIEL.
How long did you have your band here in New
York?
Mr. HALL. I started my band in New York in 1949, and I kept
them together until 1951.
Senator DANIEL. Did you play an instrument here in New York?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What did you play?
IMr.
HALL.
Trumpet.
Senator DANIEL. And sing also?

Mr. HALL. Sing.
Senator DANIEL. Did you direct the band?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You were the leader of it?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. How many of them, of the musicians, in your
band here used marihuana?
Mr. HALL. All of them.

Senator DANIEL. All of them?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know a lot of musicians in New York?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; I know all of them practically.
Senator DANIEL. Do many of them use marihuana?
Mr. HALL. Well, to be truthful about it, they use marihuana and
they use heroin, and in preference I would rather for them to use
marihuana. I mean, if I had my preference to either one of them, I
would rather see them use marihuana. But some of them use heroin,
too.
Senator DANIEL. Why would your rather see them use marihuana?
Mr. HALL. Well, marihuana he has got to spend money for maribuana, and he can always have a dollar in his pocket, plus he could take
care of himself.
111111111
2854
But heroin he can't take care of himself. He doesn't have the

money, that is first. Next he loses his talents, then he becomes a bum,
and then he is not prompt; he is not adapted to himself, and he just
changes his whole appearance as far as his ambition is concerned; he
has no ambition, and in the end he is nothing at all. So it is like
taking a man that is excellent in one thing, and he tears himself down
into something that is bitter.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you say he does not have money because he
is not able to earn money. He is not able to earn money after he is oil
heroin?
Mr. HALL. It is too expensive.
Senator DANIEL. He is not able to earn the money as a musician?
Senator DANIEL. Because of what?
Mr. HALL. Because the heroin, first the heroin makes him sick, that
is first.
Senator DANIEL. He just cannot carry on as a musician on heroin?
Mr. HALL. No, sir; definitely not. And then he can't produce his
money because he has no job.
Senator
DANIEL.
Yes.
Mr. HALL. Then he hocks his horn, and then he has no horn. Then
he is out of an occupation altogether then; he handicaps himself two
ways: He loses his horn and he loses his job, and he loses his ambition.
Senator DANIEL. Have you known some pretty good musicians here
in New York who lost out on account of using heroin?
Mr. HALL. All of them.
Senator DANIEL. All of them that used it, you mean?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know any with any famous, prominent
names who were making much money who used heroin?
Mr. HALL. Sure; a pretty good piano player. But he stays on
Rikers Island; he stays over there on the island for maybe 7 months
out of every year.
Senator DANIEL. Rikers Island is what?
Mr. HALL. That is the penal institution in New York City.
Senator DANIEL. And did they pick him up on account of possession of heroin or something like that?
Mr. HALL. Yes.

Mr. HALL. They will give him maybe 90 days, 3 months, and he
will be back out, and in another 90 days he is back in. And you take
one of-what we call the greatest exponents in the saxophone world,
well, he is dead now, he died through mysterious circumstances, which
I mean, was of the same nature.
Senator DANIEL. He used heroin?
Mr. HALL. He used heroin.
Senator DANIEL. You think he killed himself with it?
Mr. HALL. Well, I could say definitely that was the case, see, because it could have been an overdose, you know. So that is the way
he left here.
Senator DANIEL. You can say definitely he had an overdose of
heroin?
Mr. HALL. Certainly.
I I I
2855
Why can you be certain of that?

Mr. HALL. Well, because he had a habit, a very expensive habit,
and it might have been just when he decided to use this heroin because
his resistance was low or something, and he overdid it, you know, trying to build himself up, trying to make another job.
In other words, we considered him more or less like a person who
eats this heroin in order to live, he wants to get this habit-once they
get this habit, they have to keep themselves fully suppliA, and they
can make little engagements that won't compel them to be there more
than an hour, two hours, and then after that he is sick the rest of the
day, you see, and probably is under his family's care, who might take
care of him or house him, keep him well enough to make his next job.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know any other famous, well-known
musicians who have used heroin?
Mr. HALL. Well, I wouldn't be at liberty to say that, because I
wouldn't know them. But I will talk about those that I associated
with.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. That is right.
What about marihuana, do you
know any famous bandsmen or musicians who use marihuana?

Mr. HALL. Well, I would say the majority of them use it, you know,
they use marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. How do you know?
Mr. HALL. Well, you take it from associating with them.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you also have been connected with the
marihuana trade?
Mr. HALL. Yes, that is right.
Senator DANIEL. Here in New York?
Senator DANIEL. You started out when, 1949?
Mr. HALL. In 1949.
Senator DANIEL. 1949; and were actively engagedMr. HALL. I mean this was in 1945, started out in 1945.
Senator DANIEL. 1945? That is when you started out in the trade?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And from 1945 up until 1953 you were actively
engaged in the marihuana traffic in New York?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you make it your business to find out who
used it?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You say most of the musicians you knew did use
it, they used marihuana?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Any of the well-known band leaders?

Mr. HALL. Well, I mean
Senator DANIEL. Big names?
Mr. HALL. Here is the way I would say that: Some of the fellows
like, that would be associated with me, they would get the marihuana
from me; if it was the leader to use it, well, if they would get it from
me, and then probably the leader would get some from them. But
for me to get it to them personally or sell it to them personally, I
would never myself sell it to them like that.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you ever smoke it with any of the big
name band leaders?
2856
Mr. HALL. No, but I know that, like the grapevine tells you who is
doing what.
Senator DANIEL. By the grapevine do you mean any big name
band leaders here that are using marihuana; first, Cab Calloway wrote
an article once, I believe, in which he said that he agreed with you
that most all of the musicians that he knew around New York used
marihuana. I think he went on to say-what was it he said?
Mr. GASQUE. He said that if all of the musicians who used marihuana were put in one hall, you would have the greatest symphony
orchestra in the world.
Mr. HALL. Well, that is about the size of that.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know a well-known drummer who uses.
marihuana or who has used it?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Just tell us how you got started now
in this traffic. That brought in the musicians, you see.
Did you engage in any other kind of business now up here in New
York besides bakery, restaurant, and band?
Mr. HALL. Music. No.
Senator DANIEL. And marihuana?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Four businesses. Well now, you were conducting
the restaurant business and the marijuana business and the band business all at the same time, were you not?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. For several years?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. All right. The way we got into the musicians
was on my question on how you got started in the marihuana traffic
yourself. I believe you said that was 1945. Now go on from there.
Mr. HALL. It was 1945. Well, at this time a fellow that I met, hr
was a musician, and he had about 10 pounds of marihuana himself.
'So he asked me if I could get rid of this marihuana for him. So I
told him, well, I would have to try to see what I could do with it..
Mr. HALL. Owen Kelly.
Senator DANIEL. Did he have a band?
Mr. HALL. No, he was just a piano player at the time.
Senator DANIEL. With whose and?

Mr. HALL. Well, he wasn't working.
Senator DANIEL. I see. All right, go ahead.
Mr. HALL. So he and I got together and we took this marihuana,
and I sold it, rather.
Senator DANIEL. You what?
Mr. HALL. I sold the marijuana and gave him the money. He was
charging $50 a pound for it.
Senator DANIEL. You charged $50 a pound?
Mr. HALL. He charged us, he charged me, $50 a pound. When
I say "us" I charged the other fellows different.
Senator DANIEL. What did you charge those to whom you sold it?
Mr. HALL. I sold the other fellows $70, $65 to $70 a pound.
Senator DANIEL. To whom did you sell it?
Mr. HALL. Well, the beginning of this was a fellow by the name of
Jimmy Suggs.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2857
Senator DANIEL. Where did he live?
Mr. HALL. Well, he was living downtown, I think he was on 10th

Street at the time.
Senator DANIEL. Is he colored or white?
Mr. HALL. He was a colored fellow.
Mr. HALL. And he and I got together on the first little deal, and
more or less I sold it to him, and he sold it to people that he wanted
to sell it to. So I gave Kelly this money, and he left New York and
went back to Texas, and when le arrived again
Senator
DANIEL.
Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)

Senator DANIEL. Back on the record. Where had you known
Kelly first?
Mr. HALL. Well, like I say, I met him through being a musician.
I actually met the fellow on the street, you know, and I told him, I
said, "I am a musician," and he said, "I am, too," and he introduced
himself to me, and from then on we formed an acquaintanceship with
each other as friends, you know; and after we were together for a while,
this is when he come to me and he told me he had this marihuana,
that he had had it for quite awhile.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
He was from San Antonio.
HALL.
Senator
Where was he from?
DANIEL.
San Antonio, Tex.?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. About how long had you known him before he
told you that he had this marihuana?

Mr. HALL. Oh, about a week.
Senator
DANIEL. Where did he tell you he got it?

Mr. HALL. He told me he brought it from Texas with him.
Senator DANIEL. I see. All right. And you paid him $50 a
Mr. HALL. A pound.
Senator
DANIEL.
told us about?
Mr.
HALL.
pound?
You disposed of it through this man you have
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And some other person?

Mr. HALL. Well, the persons that he disposed of it to, I wouldn't
know them.
Senator DANIEL. You did not know them personally?

Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Then tell us, just go on and relate
from there on how you got into the traffic.

Mr. HALL. Well, after he went back to Texas-
Senator
DANIEL.
That is Kelly?
Mr. HALL. That is Kelly-he come back after maybe about 3 weeks
being in Texas. When he arrived he had, I think it was, about 50
pounds of marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. Had you arranged with him to bring some back?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Did you know he was coming back with more?
Mr. HALL. No, I didn't know he was coming back with some more.
Mr. HALL. All I know was that he left, he left New York, and his
wife told me he was away, so I didn't actually know. So by going
2858
back and forth to his house when he arrived I found he had brought
this marihuana back in.
Senator DANIEL. I see. His wife moved here from Texas with him?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And she stayed here?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. But he went back home?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did she tell you what he was going for?
Mr. HALL. No.
Mr. HALL. Then after this he and I got together with this marihuana. It was too much for me to handle by myself. So I think I
made Jimmy Suggs acquainted with him; 1 am sure it was like that.
I made him acquainted with Kelly, and Jimmy must have introduced
another fellow to Kelly, I can't remember his name, all I know it
was Red, he is from Brooklyn, he was an old fellow, about 55 now,
and Demon. This is another old man, I can't remember his name
now to call it by his name. But he is well known as far as the department-they know his name.
Senator DANIEL. Demon is?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. He is well known to the officers?

Mr. HALL. And Red, too. They know him. All you have to say
Brooklyn Red or New York Demon.
Mr. HALL. So between the four of us we all were buying the
marihuana from Kelly for the same price, $50 a pound.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you had just gotten us to your second buy
from him.
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. When he came back from Texas with 50 pounds.
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Did he contact you when he got

back?
Mr. HALL. No. I went to his home and he was there, and he told
me after I went to his home and visited him, he said, "Well, I got
some marihuana."
Senator DANIEL. He told you how much he had?
Mr. HALL. He told me how much he had.
Senator DANIEL. Did he tell you where he got it?
Mr. HALL. Yes, he told me where he got it.
Mr. HALL. He said he got it from Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. Did he tell you he went across the border himself?
Mr. HALL. Well, he didn't tell me his particulars. He just told me
it came out of Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Was it then that he had that 50 pounds
that you decided it was too much for you?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And so you got these other men?
Mr. HALL. Well, Suggs was introduced first. I introduced Suggs to
him first.
IIIIIIII
2859
Or it
might have been just like a chain, Suggs brought Demon in, and Demon
might have brought Red in. In other words, we all four knew each
other.
Senator DANIEL. And you took the 50 pounds from him?
Mr. HALL. The four of us.
Senator DANIEL. I mean the four of you?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. This 50 pounds?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What did you do with your part of it?
Mr. HALL. And Suggs brought the other two parties in.
Mr. HALL. My part, I retailed my part; in other words, I was

selling my part by the ounces, as we call it.
Senator
DANIEL.
At that time?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Where did you sell it?
Mr. HALL. I was selling it in Brooklyn and New York.
more or less like a walking trade.
Senator DANIEL. How much an ounce?
Mr.
HALL.
It was
It was sold for $8, $10 an ounce.
Senator DANIEL. $8 and $10 an ounce?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you get out and sell it yourself or have
some helpers?
Mr. HALL. Well, I sold mine myself.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right.
Go on from there now.
How long
did you continue to buy your marihuana from Kelly?
Mr. HALL. It was up to about 1947.

Senator DANIEL. For about 2 years' time?
Mr. HALL. About 2 years' time.

Senator DANIEL. How often would he bring the marihuana in?
Mr. HALL. Well, he would bring it in like once a month.
Senator
DANIEL.
Would he go down to Mexico himself to get it?
Mr. HALL. Yes, six.

Senator DANIEL. Now, on those different trips of Kelly's, just tell
us what he identified as his source of marihuana?
Mr. HALL. Well, he didn't identify no more than just told us he
had to go to Mexico.
Senator
DANIEL.
He had to go to Mexico to get it?
Mr. HALL. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. I believe you said he was colored or white?
Mr. HALL. Colored.
Senator DANIEL. Did he ever tell you anything about what it cost
him down there or how he had to go about smuggling it across the
border?
Mr. HALL. Well, no, he never did. He never told us how much it
cost or anything.
Senator DANIEL. Did he ever tell you about how he got it across the
border?
Mr. HALL. No more than he told it came from across the Rio
Grande, across the river.
Senator DANIEL. I see. Did he tell you where he got it across?
Mr. HALL. No.
71515-56--pt. 7-88
I II II I II
2860
Senator DANIEL. During that time then he would be the one you
would get your marihuana from. Did your amounts increase as to
what you would handle?
Mr. HALL. Well, it increased over a period of 2 years.
DANIEL. Yes. To about how much a month?
HALL. Oh, like when I started out with him from
Senator
Mr.
10 pounds,
you can figure it would increase up to about 15 pounds for myself

each month.
Senator DANIEL. And what other persons were buying from him
during that time, other than the ones you have named?
Mr. HALL. Well, I mean, I wouldn't know how much they sold,
but I know it was quite a bit, you know.
Senator DANIEL. Did he increase his amount he smuggled in from
Mexico?
Mr. HALL. Well, the highest amount that I have ever known that
he brought in was about 150 pounds.

Senator DANIEL. How did he bring it in?
Mr. HALL. In suitcases on the train.
Senator DANIEL. That is, he would come to New York by train?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How did he bring it across the Mexican border?
Mr. HALL. He would come across in croker sack bags.
Senator DANIEL. In what?
Mr. HALL. Bags.
Senator DANIEL. Suitcases?
Mr. HALL. No, croker sack bags.
Senator DANIEL. Feed bags?
Mr. HALL. Feed bags.
Senator DANIEL. How do you know that?
Mr. HALL. He told us, you know, how he would get it and how he
had to pack it off and place it in bags, in the paper bags.
Senator DANIEL. I see. He had to pack it in paper bags out of the
croker sacks?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did he say anything about how those croker
sacks got across the Mexican border?
Mr. HALL. No more than he said he would bring it across the river.
Senator DANIEL. He would?
Mr. HALL. No, the messengers.
Senator DANIEL. Did he talk as though he was getting his marihuana from messengers or that he would go over the border himself?
Mr. HALL. No, he would go over the border himself.
Senator DANIEL. He would?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Just tell us. I do not want to lead you too much,
but just tell us what impression you got, what did he tell you he did.
Did he go over and make the arrangements, purchase the marihuana.
bring it back himself, or where did these messengers fit into the
picture?
Mr. HALL. Well, he would go in and pay for a certain amount of
marihuan a.
Mr. HALL. In Mexico; and then after he would wait for a couple of
days and then the marihuana would be brought on the American side,
2861
and then he paid them the balance of the money on the American
side, and picked up his marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. I see. That is where the messengers came in.
They were the ones who brought the marihuana or collected the
money?
Mr. HALL. They collected the balance of the money.
Senator DANIEL. Collected the balance of the money. Did they
also bring the marihuana across?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. That is, at least, what he told you?
Mr. HALL. Well, I mean, as I go along I will tell you the other part.
Senator DANIEL. You go ahead and tell us the whole story from
tlrore on. You tell us what other people you started getting it from,
and so forth.
Mr. HALL. So then after that in 1947, I think this was the time that
he had trouble with the Federal Government, and he went away.
And thenSenator DANIEL. To prison?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. I think it was about 1948 that I met another
fellow. This fellow is J. R. Henderson.
Senator DANIEL. Before you leave Kelly too far, was he arrested
in New York or Texas?
.Mr. HALL. He was arrested in Texas.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know whether they sent him up for smuggling, possession, or what?
Mr. HALL. I don't know whether it was for possession-I know it
was for possession.
Senator DANIEL. Possession?
Mr. HALL. For smuggling-I don't think it was for smuggling; I
think it was possession. They caught him with a hundred pounds in
a chicken coop or something like that.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Where was J. R. Henderson from?
Mr. HALL. Well now, J. R. Henderson come in in 1948.
Senator DANIEL. From where?
Mr. HALL. From Houston; Seguin was his native home, I think,
Seguin, Tex.; and it happened that one of the trumpet players in my
band told me about him. In other words, he said, "I know a fellow,
you know, that has some marihuana," and he asked me if I wanted
to meet the fellow, so I told him, yes, I would meet him. Se we met
at his home.
Senator DANIEL. Whose home?
Mr. HALL. J. R.'s.
Senator DANIEL. Had he moved to New York?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. He moved to New York, I think it was, it
must have been, about 1947, but he wasn't-I didn't meet him until
1948. I know it was 1947 when he arrived here. But I met him in
1948, and at this time he told me I could get marihuana from him in
case I wanted it. I told him, "0. K." So we went to New York, and
he went to Texas for himself, and
Senator DANIEL. Did you tell him how much you could use?
Mr. HALL. Well, I told him we could get rid of all that he could get.
Senator DANIEL. All right. By that time you had gotten into the
whOlesale business yourself?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. On a pretty big scale?
I I I
2862
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Did you tell him you could use all he could get
here?
Mr. HALL. That is right; that is right, sir. So he went away, and
he came back, and this time when he arrived back, I think it was,
with a hundred pounds at his first trip. So we worked with him up
until 1950.
Senator
DANIEL.
When you say, "we," who do you mean?
Mr. HALL. The same fellows. It was the same dealers involved.
There never was no new dealers.
Senator DANIEL. The four of you were all working together?
Mr. BALL. Yes, sir; as far as bringing them in. Now, new dealers
did come in in 1952, but the reason for that was that the old dealers
were in the Federal penitentiary.
Senator DANIEL. I understand. You four were working together.
Were you all working together as partners or separately?
Mr. HALL. No, separate.
Senator DANIEL. YOU are just using the same smuggler?
Mr. HALL. Same source.
Mr. HALL. So, J. R. started to doing business with myself personally by myself. When he had a hundred pounds of marihuana-well,
he was sort of an anxious typo of person. He didn't want it around
him too long, and he wanted money right quick, so I had to bring in
Suggs again with me and, naturally, Suggs told the other parties about
it, and they was getting their marihuana through Suggs until they
found what Suggs was getting it-where he was getting it from, and
then they cornered J. R. off and cornered him with a few drinks, and
he decided to do business with them, and so between the four of us we
were handling all of his marihuana up until 1950 or the latter part of
1951, and now when you asked me did I know about some parts of
how this marihuana was coming across and how it was brought back,
now this I can say truthfully is that when his business got large and
he couldn't handle it by himself, then he brought me in with him.
In other words, I was to go down into Texas proper, and get this
marihuana.
So we left New York in 1949, and we went to Seguin, and we stayed
in Seguin for about 3 days. Then we left Seguin and come into
Laredo, and we stayed in Laredo for a couple of days; and J. R. had
the money that he was going to purchase this marihuana with on his
person, and he left me at a little hotel there in Laredo called the
Hollywood Hotel-you probably heard of it. I can't remember the
person's name that run the place. He left me there in this person's
care, I mean, to look out for me, while he goes across and transacts
this business in Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. Did this person running the hotel know what you
were there for?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. He was a friend of J. R.'s?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Was he white or colored?
Mr. HALL. He was a colored fellow. So I stayed there in his hotel
for a day, and J. R. went over into Mexico.
But he stayed over for a whole day, a whole day and night, and I
decided I wanted to go into Mexico myself. So there was a couple
11111
2863
of fellows living in the same hotel and they said, "Come on, we will
go to Mexico, and you go with us."
So we went over to Mexico and had a few drinks and hung out
over there. We didn't do anything else other than enjoy ourselves,
and we came back, and J. R. had arrived by the time we had arrived,
and so he told me to get ready, that we were going to pick up some
marihuana. So we waited a day until about 12 o'clock that night,
and we went out on the highway there, right out of Laredo-I don't
know whether it was 75 or 80.
Senator DANIEL. It is the highway where
Mr. HALL. Well, it was between Laredo and Seguin. In other
words, we traveled down the highway from Laredo towards Seguin,
and we stopped and parked the car at a designated spot there on the
highway, and we waited for something like over the time we were
supposed to wait.
It wasn't supposed to have been no more than 5 minutes between
the stopping of the car and picking up the marihuana. But something happened whereas they didn't show up that night, so we went
back to Laredo, and he went back into Mexico, and he found out
that something did happen, so we had to arrange it for the next night.
Senator DANIEL. Did he tell you what place in Mexico he was
going?
Mr. HALL. Well, he went into-I can tell you what part where he
went in from.
Senator
DANIEL.
Yes.
Mr. HALL. He went in from El Paso.

Senator DANIEL. He went in from El Paso?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How did he get from Laredo to El Paso?

Mr. HALL. Well, we were driving. You see, we had a station
wagon, you see. We left Seguin and went to El Paso, see. Well,
I didn't go into Mexico. He went into Mexico; I just drove the car.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you drive the car to?
Mr. HALL. I don't know where it was. I just stayed around the
neighborhood there in El Paso.
Senator DANIEL. Wait now, I think we have got something-I am
confused. I thought you were at Laredo on this trip, staying in this
Hollywood Hotel.
Mr. HALL. That is when we were going to pick up this marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. You went first to El Paso from Seguin?
Mr. HALL. First went to El Paso from Seguin; that was to make
the contacts.
Senator DANIEL. But you did not pick up the marihuana there?
Mr. HALL. No.sir.
Senator DAIEL. Where did you go from El Paso?
iNr. HALL. From El Paso we went into Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. Both you and J. R.?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. To make the pickup?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Mir. HALL. And while we were there we waited until the following
night, and I went out to pick it up, but something went wrong at this
particular time, se we went back again.
2864
Senator DANIEL. In the meantime, when he went back over into
Mexico this second time to see what had gone wrong, he did not go
back across at El Paso, did be?

Mr. HALL. No, he went back into Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. Across the river at Laredo?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; he went back to see about it from Laredo.
Senator
DANIEL.
I see.
NIr. HALL. So he came back from across the river, and we waited
over until the following night; and the following night we got on this
same highway.
And a car drove past us without any lights, and then about, say,
maybe about a half block from us, he switched his lights on.
Well, then or in other words, that was the signal to let us know
they were prepared, and he went on ahead of us, and we drove up to a
stop light on the highway, and at this spot there was a bridge crossing
the highway, and we stopped the car just opposite this bridge and
got out the car. He flashed a flashlight, and a couple of these peons
came out of the bushes.
So he handed them a Mexican coin, and the Mexicans accepted
the cQin, and matched the coin, and when the coin matched, then
they told us the marihuana was there under the bridge. SO_ we
picked up the marihuana and they left, and we put that marihuana
in the car, and then we went back to Seguin.
Senator DANIEL. What was the marihuana in under the bridge?
Mr. HALL. It was in big crocus sacks. There was two of them.
Senator DANIEL. Two big feed sacks?
Mfr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
How many pounds?
Mr. HALL. I think it was about 50 pounds in each one of them.

Senator DANIEL. All right. Did you give them any money then?
Mr. HALL. No, there was no payoff. I think the whole payoff was
when we missed the arrangements, to get back again, he paid them
off. He just matched the coin; it was a coin cut half in two.
Senator DANIEL. Did he tell you he had made his payoff on his
second trip in Mexico?
Mr. HALL. He didn't, but I know there was no money passed
between them, just a coin flipped for the business.
So we picked up, and it was all in a matter of 5 minutes, and we
left this spot and went back to Seguin, and in Seguin we bagged all
of it up into paper bags.
DANIEL. At
HALL. Pardon?
Senator
Mr.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
whose place?
What place did you do this?
Mr. HALL. It was at a place there that was his home, at least I
think it was.
His own place or his family's or what?
Mr. HALL. I think his family have a place of business there, a

garage and filling station.
Where was it that you did this bagging?
Mr. HALL. In a little house right opposite the filling station.

Whose house was that?
Mr. HALL. I don't know whose house it was.

Senator DANIEL. Was anybody else in it?
Mr. HALL. No sir. There was furniture there, you know; someone lived there, but at the time when we bagged this marihuana there
2865
was nobody there. He had the key to the premises; he left the key
in the mail box, and we left to come back to New York.
Senator DANIEL. Were you driving a station wagon?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you have these bags of nilarihuana?

Mr. HALL. Inside of suitcases in the station wagon.
Senator DANIEL. Did anybody stop you on the way at all?
Mr. HALL. No, sir. A State highway patrol stopped us one time
checking travelling distance from one place to another, and I was
driving the car at one time in Texarkana, and made a wrong turn and
was heading into a ditch or a river or something, and the police
department stopped us from going into this ditch, and then directed
us back on to the highway, how to get back to the main highway.
Senator DANIEL. All right. You brought it on back to New York.
Tell us then what you did with it?
Mr. HALL. We brought it on back to New York; we distributed it.
In other words, I took my part out, and I got some extra, you know,
for working with him, and the other three parties bought their part and
sold it.
Senator DANIEL. How many of these trips did you make with
Henderson to Mexico?
Mr. HALL. Just one.
Senator DANIEL. All right. How often would he make trips
down there?
Mr. HALL. He would make a trip maybe once a month.
Senator DANIEL. Would it usually be in a station wagon, or did he
use other methods?
Mr. HALL. No; he used other methods.
Senator DANIEL. What others?
Mr. HALL. Well, sometimes his wife would go down, sometimes he
would go down, sometimes his cousin would go, and it was more or
less like a family.
Senator DANIEL. The family was helping him? What was his
wife's name?
Mr. HALL. Leona Henderson.
Senator DANIEL. Is she from Texas, too?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What about his cousin; what was his name?
Mr. HALL. I don't know his cousin's name. All I know they would
introduce us, I mean, I wasn't interested.
Senator DANIEL. Did his cousin live in New York, too?
Mr. HALL. No; he lived in Texas.
Senator DANIEL. Where did the cousin live in Texas?
M[r. HALL. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. But the cousin sometimes would bring it up
here?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. During this period of time that you were dealing
with J. R. Henderson, would
you say that he averaged more or less
month?
a
pounds
hundred
a
than
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; he would average a hundred pounds a month
every month.
Senator DANIEL. And the four of you that you named would sell
that out?
2866
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Then to retailers?
Mr. HALL. Retailers.
Senator DANIEL. Did you continue to sell yours to individual
sales by the ounce?
Mr. HALL. No; I went into the retail business, too-I mean the
wholesale business.
Senator DANIEL. You went into both?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. I was selling mine to a fellow named Ozzie
Malone.
Senator DANIEL. Where did he live?
Mr. HALL. He lived in New York.
Mr. HALL. Well, he moved so much I couldn't just give a definite
address where he was living.
Senator DANIEL. All right. You continued your retail business
also?
Mr. HALL. No; I quit the retail business.
Senator DANIEL. You went strictly into wholesale?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. About how much would you sell wholesale a
month?
Mr. HALL. Oh, I wholesaled on the average about 30, 35 pounds a
month.
Senator DANIEL. That was while you were dealing with Henderson?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How much were you getting for it wholesale?
Mr. HALL. $70.
Senator DANIEL. $70, and still paying $50?
Mr. HALL. $60.
Senator DANIEL. You paid $60 a pound?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And sold it for $70 a pound?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Go ahead.
Mr. HALL. I can't remember, I know his name is Young, but we
call him Pete.
Senator DANIEL. Pete Young?
Mr. HALL. Pete Young. His real name is, I think it was, Robert
Young, I am not sure, but we called him Pete for a nickname; and
J. B. Miller, and another fellow named Eddie, but I can't remember
his last name; he's got a funny name, he calls himself Eddie Schickelgruber.
Senator DANIEL. All these you have just named are white or
colored?
Mr. HALL. Colored.
Senator DANIEL. All of them.?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Tell us how they fitted into the picture.
Mr. HALL. Well, they would come to me and buy from me wholesale, and they would sell theirs retail.
Senator DANIEL. What price were they getting for it?
Mr. Hall. Well, the price went up to about $15 an ounce.
Senator DANIEL. On the retail market?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
I I I
2867
Senator DANIEL. Had it gone up to that much before you quit

retailing?
Mr. HALL. It went up higher than that.
Senator DANIEL. Before you quit rotQliu%?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How high had it gone &o?
Mr. HALL. It had been up to $25 an ounce.
Senator DANIEL. $25 an ounce?
Mr. HALL. Now it is $300 a pound.
Mr. HALL. Now it is $300 a pound, $350, $300.

Senator DANIEL. $300 a pound?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Marihuana?
Mr. HALL. That is today; now, right at this particular time;
right now.
Senator DANIEL. You mean here in New York?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Snator DANIEL. Or the wholesale?
Mr. HALL. On the retail market. On the wholesale market it
costs about $150.
Senator DANIEL. Well, let us get back now and come on up gradually
with these price increases and your activity. Why did you quit
retailing it? It looks as though you would have made a whole lot
more money retailing than wholesaling.
Mr. HALL. Take it lile this: You come in contact with a lot of
people retailing; in other words, you are doing business with a person
who wants an ounce, he wants a half ounce.
Then it gets monotonous, so much traffic coming at you all the
time, and you get to a place where you can't see. In other words,
you can't take your hands and put them tip there and say, "This is
my little finger." You can't distinguish anything; you can't separate people properly. In other words, you are leery of different
factors. After a while, you get leery, you get leery of the fact that the
right hand knows what the left hand is doing.
Then you become afraid that somebody might be in the wrong
capacity as far as your business is concerned.
Senator DANIEL. Somebody might be making a case on you?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. To turn you in?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. So you figure, well, you have to separate
this element of people.
So the way I separated, it was like this: I gave my retail trade to
a couple of fellows; in other words, the retail trade that I had at the
time I gave it to them, I guess it must have been about $400 a day,
and then I gave it to them, and plus giving them the retail business,
I gave them the marijuana right along with it, and I took a. percentage.
Senator DANIEL. From them?
Mr. HALL. From them.
Senator DANIEL. Who were they?
Mr. HALL. There was a little fellow named, I can't remember this
fellow's name, but I called him Gabriel.
2868
The other was named Charlie.

Senator DANIEL. Do you know Charlie's full name?
Mr. HALL. No; I don't know Charlie's full name.
Senator DANIEL. Where did the live?
Mr. HALL. They lived in Brooldyn.

Mr. HALL. But I gave them the business. They were two friends,
they were together like brothers every day. They would stay together
all the time, when they used to come to me to buy from me all the
time. So I more or less picked them and I said, "Well, I think I like
those two fellows," and I sat down and talked to them, and I asked
them, I said, "Would you like to take care of this business for me?"
So they said, "Yes."
So I started them off to taking care of the business for me; and
about, I would say, 4 or 5 months later, 6 months later, they decided
they wanted to take the business for themselves.
Senator DANIEL. Now, during those 4 or 5 or 6 months that they
were handling it on a percentage basis with you, about what was the
business running per day during that time?
Mr. HALL. Well, it was running on the average of $400 a day.
Senator DANIEL. $400 a day?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. What percentage would you get?
Mr. HALL. If he would sell, if he sells, $300 worth or $400 worth,
I would split with them.
Senator DANIEL. You would get half the profits?
Mr. HALL. I would get half of the money, and the rest the other
half.
Senator DANIEL. And you would furnish them the marihuana
without any money being put up? But you would get half of whatever they sold it for?
Mr. HALL. Yes. You see, when you take a breakdown on it, here
is the way you break it down. You take a pound, 1 pound of marihuana, there is a full 16 ounces, so you figure nobody ever gets a
full ounce of marihuana, they get what we call a glass, about this tall
from the bottom of it, and we take that we call it a glass ounce, and
out of this 1 pound we take this particular measurement of the glass,
and we break it down into about 32 bags, see, and with those bags
they sell those bags for like $15 a bag.
Senator DANIEL. One ounce
Mr. HALL. You take 1 ounce, and when you cut it down, it
won't be an ounce, it would be less than an ounce, it would be about

three-quarters of an ounce or a little less than three-quarters. We
make 32 ounces to a pound.
Senator DANIEL. I see. Now, to 1 pound of marihuana you would
bag up 32 one-ounce bags?
Mr. HALL. That is right; and we call it an ounce. So if the
customer wanted to buy it, it would be all right. If he didn't want
to buy it it would be all right, and if he bought it it would be all right.
In other words, it would be all right anyway.
Senator DANIEL. You had plenty of market for it?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Where was your main market for it? Where
were your customers mostly?
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
2869
Mr. HALL. Well, my customers were in Brooklyn.

Senator DANIEL. Did you handle anything in Harlem at all?
Mr. HALL. No; no more than just, you know, like pounds to the
fellows that I was dealing with, I would handle just only pounds to
them.
Senator
DANIEL.
Would you sell for the Harlem trade?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
That was before you got in the wholesaling or
after?
Mr. HALL. That is after I got in the wholesaling.
Senator
DANIEL.
HALL. Then
All right; go ahead.
Mr.
with these fellows working off me, they decided
they wanted to take it over for themselves.
Senator DANIEL. Let me see, at that time you were averaging about
$400 a day, that is about $12,000 a month?
Mr. HALL. Something like that.

Senator DANIEL. Were you running somewhere like that?
Mr. HALL. About that; yes.
Senator DANIEL. And you were making, you were getting, half of
that, so that would be about $6,000 a month?
Mr. HALL. Yes. Well, it wouldn't be $12,000 a month-yes, it
would, too.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever run that high?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
HALL.
Senator
Have you run that high?
Yes, sir.
DANIEL.
$12,000 a month.
Then your half was $6,000,
and then out of that you would have to pay for the marihuana?
Senator DANIEL. Yourself?
Senator DANIEL. At the rate of $60?
Mr. HALL. $60 a pound.
Senator DANIEL. But, of course, by the time you had cut it down
you were selling 32 ounces, that would be 32 ounces to you?
Mr. HALL. That would be about 32 ounces; I was getting $15 an
ounce.
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
HALL. That
All right, go ahead.
Mr.
would be about $350 a pound, you see, and when
they decided to take it over for themselves, well, naturally, I charged
them $90 a pound for their pound, and I let them have it for themselves.
Senator DANIEL. A full pound or in the sacks?
Mr. HALL. Full pound.

Senator DANIEL. Full pound.
Mr. HALL. $90, and you figure about-they did business about
3 months, and then they started cutting the ounce down to half of
the glass instead of giving them 32 ounces. They were making up
another extra 16 ounces out of this pound, they increased it, see, so
it owas 43, 44 ounces, they call it, out of the pound. Then they lost
all their customers. Then all the customers come back to me again,
and they wanted me to handle this retail market again.
I I I
2870
So I said, "Well, no, I figured better that since I have gotten rid of
that trade, to leave it alone," so little by little I begged out of it
through one conversation to another, and they eventually drifted
away.
But in other words, it took care of itself anyway, because there were
two fellows that I was doing business with, they had ruined their
business as far as the retail business was concerned, and then they had
to make a dollar, so they had to sell it by the pound themselves. So
this trade just went from me to them, and then the fellows that
probably was buying cigarettes from them, decided to try to buy a
pound from them, and once they convinced themselves there was no
selling in that neighborhood, they probably let them have it, and that
started them to handling pounds, and plus the trade went into other
channels, and these other people that was getting it from them, they
kept the ball rolling just the same; in other words, the ball didn't stop
rolling because they went broke. Another party picked it up and
carried it on.
Senator DANIEL. Picked up the retail trade?
Senator DANIEL. And did these two fellows still buy from you
wholesale?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HALL. So this went on, I think, up until, I think, 1951-say
from 1949 to about 1951.
Senator DANIEL. Were you dealing with Henderson all that time?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. He was your source of marihuana?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. And then Henderson was arrested in Texas.
I think his wife put him in jail.
Senator DANIEL. His wife, you think, told on him?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did they break up?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did he have any other woman in
Mr. HALL. Well, J. R. had another woman here in New York, and
she had another man in Texas and--
Senator
DANIEL.
You mean the wife did?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Had another man in Texas?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And they broke up?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. And she turned him in?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
DANIEL. Did he go to prison?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; and he went to prison
Senator DANIEL. Both of them?
Senator
and she went to prison.
Mr. HALL. She went to prison for heroin. I think Daddy Lorddid you ever hear of Daddy Lord in Texas?
Senator DANIEL. Did she tie in with him?
Mr. HALL. Daddy Lord; and I think Daddy Lord had her arrested.
Anyway, it was over some heroin. She had about 4 or 5 ounces of
heroin in a restaurant there in Texas, and 1 day she was arrested; it
111111
2871
was up over the ceiling, right over the door as you go in the door,
they confiscated this heroin from her, and she didtime for it.
Senator DANIEL. What was her name?
Mr. HALL. Leona Henderson.
Senator DANIEL. Where was her restaurant?
Mr. HALL. I don't know where it was located.
Senator DANIEL. What town?
Mr. HALL. Houston.
Senator DANIEL. And she was the wife of J. R. Henderson?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. At one time you said she was up here. Did she
move back to Texas?
Mr. HALL. Moved back to Texas.
Senator DANIEL. She ran a restaurant?
Mr. HALL. And ran her heroin from New York to Houston.
Senator
DANIEL.
You say she ran heroin she would get in New
York back to Houston?

Mr. HALL. Well, we knew it from the grapevine, like the different
associates like I had, would tell me what she was doing, you know,
when she would come to town. I knew every time she was in town.
When she would come in to buy I would know she was here.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know what she was here for?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And what was that?

Mr. HALL. For heroin.
Senator DANIEL. In the meantime was she bringing marihuana up
here for Henderson?
Mr. HALL. I know she was, but I was unable to get any from her.
That is the reason I knew she was coming up here, buying heroin
and going to Texas, and plus marihuana would come to New York
City every time she arrived, so it had to be, it was all involved in
the same package.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, she was bringing the marihuana
here for Henderson?
Senator DANIEL. In your opinion?

Mr. HALL. In my opinion.
Senator DANIEL. Did Henderson ever tell you she was?
Mr. HALL. No, because Henderson was arrested in Texas and
couldn't come back to New York. He was under bail in Texas.
Senator
DANIEL.
You mean she would make these trips after he
was arrested?
Mr. HALL. He was in jail.

Senator DANIEL. Did she ever make any of these trips up here
bringing in marihuana while he was operating with you in New York?
Mr. HALL. She did.

Senator DANIEL. She did?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know she brought marihuana on those
trips?
Mr. HALL. She did.

Senator DANIEL. Did she tell you?
I I I I I
2872
Mr. HALL. She didn't have to. I knew the day she was here, what
train she was leaving on, what hour; put her on the train myself, and
when she left the train or with the train at Pennsylvania Station to
go to Houston, I would meet her when she would come back to
ew York, say, or I would meet him sometimes when he arrived back
in New York.
Senator DANIEL. And who told you that she was bringing the marihuana in here?
Mr. HALL. Well, I would ask Demon. Sometimes I would ask Red
if she was bringing it.
Senator DANIEL. What about Henderson himself while he was here?

Mr. HALL. Henderson, he couldn't bring it; he was in jail.
Senator DANIEL. No, I mean before he got in jail?
Mr. HALL. He was going and getting ithi mself.
Senator DANIEL. Did she ever bring-you might have misunderstood me a minute ago. Did she ever bring marihuana in here for
Henderson while he was out of jail?
Mr. HALL. She did; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Who told you about that?
Mr. HALL. He and I would have to pick her up at the station.
Senator DANIEL. And you would get the marihuana from her?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. After he was picked up and put in jail she continued to bring back marihuana up here, you think?
Mr. HALL. I think.
Senator DANIEL. Who would she deliver it to or sell it to?
Mr. HALL. She would sell it to Demon and Red; mostly she would
sell it to them.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever get any of that?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. I would get and I got some of it through one
of my friends who was working for me.
Senator DANIEL. Who was that?
Mr. HALL. Ozzie Malone.
Senator DANIEL. Ozzie Malone?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And he would get it from
Mr. HALL. Leona.
Senator DANIEL. Leona Henderson?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right. How do you know Leona was taking
back heroin?
Mr. HALL. Well, this is the way I knew it. Ozzie would tell me
that Leona was looking for a heroin connection, and I said, "Well, I
don't know anything about any heroin connection," so he said, "Okay,
then. If you hear of anything," he said, "we can trade the heroin for
the marihuana, and you won't have to spend no money."
So it was interesting, but still in all I didn't go out of my way to find
out about heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever engage in the heroin trade?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Had you ever tried heroin?
Mr. HALL. I had.
Senator DANIEL. Personally?
Mr. HALL. Personally.
lII II
2873

Mr. HALL. This was one time we had a bag of heroin at a party,
and we all sat down and we snorted it up, and after we had snorted
this heroin, I got sick, and after I heaved and was nauseated by this
heroinSenator DANIEL. After you heaved?
Mr. HALL. Heaved, yes, and I bled sort of from my system, something must have broken loose there and I bled a while, too, and they
brought me around with milk, fed me a lot of milk, you know, and
once I felt better I left the premises and went to my home, and I didn't
bother with it any more.
Mr. HALL. This was in New York at J. R. Henderson's house.
Senator DANIEL. In his house in New York? J. R. Henderson's?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Where was his house located?
Mr. HALL. At 112th Street between Lenox and St. Nicholas Avenues. I think it is 101.
Mr. HALL. This was in 1948 to 1951.
Senator DANIEL. Was he selling heroin, too?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. here in New York?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. But he gave you this heroin to try yourself?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; he was using cocaine.
Senator DANIEL. He was what?
Mr. HALL. He was using cocaine.
Senator DANIEL. He was using cocaine?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Regularly?
Mr. HALL. Regularly.
Senator DANIEL. HOw much cocaine would he use, do you know?
Mr. HALL. Oh, he had, I guess it must have been about $1,000-a-
week habit of cocaine.
Senator DANIEL. J. R. Henderson did?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Did he have that habit all the time you knew
him?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
How many of them associated with them were
using cocaine?
Mr. HALL. Well, they had Leona, J. R., Johnson-85 is his nickname, can't think of his first name-Murphy, Harold Murphy; and
another lady named Katie, that is Katie Jenldns, that is Jenkins'
wife.
Senator
DANIEL.
They were all using cocaine?
Mr. HALL. They were all using cocaine.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you see them from time to time using the
cocaine?
Mr.
HALL.
Senator
I was always there with them.
DANIEL.
You were there with them?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. You were tied up with them in this marihuana
business?
2874
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Were you also associated with them in the cocaine trade?
Mr. HALL. No, sir; no more than being there on parties with them.
Senator DANIEL. How did they take the cocaine?
Mr.
HALL.
Senator
They took it through the nose.
DANIEL.
Sniffed it?
Mr. HALL. Snorted it.
Senator DANIEL. Were they trafficking and trading in cocaine,

selling cocaine?
Mr. HALL. No, they were getting it from another little fellow out of
Long Island. He was trafficking in it though. He was the source of
their cocaine.
Mr. HALL. McCloskey.
Senator
Do you know his full name?
Mr.
McCloskey.
DANIEL.
HALL. Billie
Senator DANIEL. Billy McCloskey?
Mr. HALL. McCloskey. But he is dead. He hung himself here

at 90 Church Street during the time they arrested him, and they
caught him in a trap, like they caught him with his marihuana and
his cocaine and everything.
So when they brought him over here and turned their backs on him
and went outside or something, and he hung himself on a chandelier.
Senator DANIEL. Over in what?

Mr. HALL. 90 Church Street.
Senator
DANIEL.
What office?
Mr. HALL. I don't know what office it is.
Senator
DANIEL.
Federal Bureau of Narcotics?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. He hung himself from the transom of the door.
With what?
Mr.
HALL.
Senator
I think it was his belt.
DANIEL.
And you say he was selling cocaine?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

and marihuana.
He was selling cocaine; he was selling cocaine
DANIEL. Where was he getting his marihuana?

Mr. HALL. He was getting his marihuana from J. R. Henderson.
Senator DANIEL. Was he selling J. R. Henderson the cocaine or
Senator
trading him?
Mr. HALL. Well, he had him hooked; in other words, here is the
way he would do with J. R. J. R. would bring him an extra 50
pounds of marihuana for cocaine. Before he was spending like $1,000
a week to Billy McCloskey for the cocaine, and McCloskey sees where
he could make some money with this marihuana, so he decided he
would trade, so this gave J. R. a chance to have all the cocaine he
wanted, so he just kept him vials of cocaine; I mean, that was his
habit.
It is like anything; that was his habit, just like if you drink whisky;
well, he used a lot of cocaine.
Senator DANIEL. He had the most expensive habit of all then.
Mr. HALL. He had the greatest habit in the world.
Senator
DANIEL.
Was J. R. also selling cocaine in Houston or in
Texas, or trading it for marihuana?
1111111111
2875
Mr. HALL. If he was he never mentioned it to me.

Senator DANIEL. I see. But you did observe and see him and
hear personally from him about his cocaine habit?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And what it was costing him?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right.
Now when they would take this
cocaine there when you were at their house, what would you take?
Mr. HALL. Scotch and marihuana.

Senator DANIEL. Scotch and marihuana.
Why didn't you try the
cocaine?
Mr. HALL. Well, I didn't bother with it.
with the heroin first.
You see, I got involved
Senator DANIEL. At their house?

Mr. HALL. At their house.
Senator DANIEL. Who gave you that heroin?
Mr. HALL. Well, J. R. had the heroin. He was trying it, too, we
was all trying it, and that is really how it happened.
He was trying heroin, and I was trying heroin, and I got sick, and
he watched me; somehow or other his constitution was better than
mine, and he was the one that had to help revive me, you know; he
had to bring me around, so he decided he would get off the heroin and
leave it alone, and I had already made up my mind I was going to
leave it alone, see.
So every time he would get them some cocaine around, I figured it
was heroin, I didn't know the difference. I didn't know cocaine from
heroin until they explained it to me, and told me exactly what cocaine
was and heroin was. So I said rather than be ticked into using either
of them, I would rather leave both of them alone, and then I would be
sure, so I would say, "Just give me some marihuana," and they would
give me some marihuana, and I would roll it, and I would get me some
Scotch.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Was J. R. Henderson, as far as you
know, selling any heroin here in New York or buying it and taking it
back to Texas?
Mr. HALL. I wouldn't know that.
Senator DANIEL. You do not know that?

Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. But you say you do know that his wife, after
J. R. Henderson was arrested and jailed, that his wife did that?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I guess we have it in the record, but to be sure,
tell us how you know about that. You have already told us that
Malone told you she wanted this connection.
Mr. HALL. She wanted to trade it. She wanted to trade marihuana
for heroin if she could get it, that is because her supply, her supply was
so great, she needed a lot of it, and she was willing to transact heroin
for marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. You said supply; you mean her market?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator Daniel. Her market for heroin?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. In Houston?

Mr. HALL. In Houston.
71515-56--pt. 7-34;
I I
I I I I
2876
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Senator DANIEL. Her market was so great she wanted to get that
and trade marihuana?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. For it?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you know if she made some contacts
where that was worked out?
Mr. HALL. Well, I don't know whether she did or not. All I
know is that Ozzie told me he was getting heroin for her, and any time
I wanted marihuana he would let me have my marihuana for the
same price I used to let him have it for, so I decided better than to
have nothing, I would take that proposition up.
Senator DANIEL. Did you help him try to find some heroin here in
New
to trade?
Mr.York
HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. But you do know from him that he worked out
that kind of an arrangement with her?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And he was able to give you marihuana that she
had brought in?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. From then on?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. About how much were you getting from Ozzie?
Mr. HALL. Well, I had to pay over the price for it, and sometimes
I would fall under a percentage of $5 percentage on the bag on the
strength he was charging me what I was charging him, and from the
price, you know, that I was selling it for, well, it was a great difference.
In other words, he was taking half of my profits. He would say,
well, he would take $5 off the top, and I would take $5, and that was
$10, and we were selling it for $70.
Senator DANIEL. A pound?
Mr. HALL. A pound, and they were letting us have it for $60.
Senator DANIEL. Have you got any idea how much heroin was
getting back into Houston through this woman on this arrangement?
Mr. HALL. No; I really wouldn't have no definite ideas.
Senator DANIEL. If it were worked out on a trade basis like she
wanted it, can you give us some idea; in other words, how much
marihuana was she bringing in here after her husband was arrested?
Mr. HALL. Well, I mean as much as I have actually bought from
her, I would say about 60, 65 pounds a month.
Senator DANIEL. A month?
Mr. HALL. Through Ozzie, between the both of us.
Senator DANIEL. Through her, you and Ozzie together were
buying aboutMr. HALL. Sixty-five pounds a month.
Senator DANIEL. Was that the amount that you were putting out
on the retail market?
Mr. HALL. No; between the both of us.
Senator DANIEL. Between the both of you, the two of you, and
others were getting some, too?
Mr. HALL. Others, too.
Senator DANIEL. Some marihuana in addition to that?
Mr. HALL. They continued to do business with Demon, Jimmy and
Red, and later on Red and Gold Tooth brought other trades in to her.
2877
In other words, she later on got big enough she didn't need anybody,
that was her personality, that was the way she felt, and I was much
more or less like after J. R. was in jail, I drifted away from her little
by little.
Senator DANIEL. If she was trading heroin, if she was trading this
marihuana for heroin, then she must have been taking back a lot of
heroin every week.
Mr. HALL. That is right. In other words, I know this, as asource,
too, from my friend Ozzie, like she would come to town with marihuana,
and the minute she would get here--her heroin connections-she
would take a plane, fly back to Houston, drop it at Houston, and
wait for her money in Texas; she had connections where she could
afford to do it.
Senator DANIEL. She would fly back and forth?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. Her marihuana connections here in New York
were safe. She had no worry about taking care of it. She had proper
people taking care of it for her, which she knew, and she undoubtedly
must have had the same type of connections in Houston in order for
them to rely on them handling her heroin and getting rid of it, and
just going back and getting her money.
Senator DANIEL. Yes. Do you know what rate she was being
charged for the heroin what price?
Mr. HALL. I don't know. All I know is that the prices, like for
$2.50 to $3.50 an ounce in Texas.
Senator DANIEL. $2.50 to $3.50 an ounce?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. On what market?
Mr. HALL. On the wholesale.
Senator DANIEL. Wholesale market. How long did she keep this
up?
Mr. HALL. Well, let's see, she kept it up until 1952, and that is
when I completely abandoned the idea of even doing business with
her or any of the intermediates. 1 just decided to quit.
Senator DANIEL. Why did you quit?
Mr. HALL. Well, one reason why I was, I was in trouble myself as
of 1948 and 1949, and plus I was having these court trials and plus I
was going to jail like this.
I would be in jail on an appeal case, and after I won the appeal case
and got an acquittal, I had been in jail 90 days, it was during 1951,
and I got out in 1951 and come back in the street, and during, say,
1950, it was the same case, I was in jail and out of jail, so between the
both of them I decided, well, I will just leave it alone and take care of
my restaurant and whatever come.
In other words, I was just grabbing whatever I could grab onto
and leaving it alone. It was a hit and miss proposition until 19511951, and 1952.
Senator DANIEL. 1951 to 1952?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You would just take whatever marihuana came
to you and you would make what you could out of it?
*Mr.HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You went out of the business on a big scale
during that time?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
2878
Senator DANIEL. You have given us the reasons, and part of the
reasons were that you became dissatisfied with this Henderson
woman?
Mr. HALL. That is one reason, and I didn't like to split my profits
with a man I was doing business with.
Senator DANIEL. With Ozzie?
Mr. HALL. That was giving a definite break; whereas I figured if
he could come to me and get abreak from me, I could get a break.
If he decided he would take a 5 percent or 10 percent break, so I
figured-so rather than cut my own throat and work for him, you
know, take the whole business, I didn't want any part of it. In other
words, she preferred him over me because she figured she was getting
my money anyway.
She said, "I don't have to worry about him and crawling to him
and get my money from him, so I will just let you go in there and get
the money from him," which she did as long as I had the desire to
continue to do business with her.
Senator
DANIEL.
Why did she prefer him over you?
She didn't; she didn't prefer him over me.

Senator DANIEL. I mean, why did she do business with him?
Mr. HALL. With him, that is it
Mr.
HALL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Instead of you?
Mr. HALL. Well, here is the way it was. She figured, she might
start to like me, and that was one reason, and the next reason she
figured I knew enough in order to hold down, and she don't want
nobody to have strings attached, and her man was in jail, you see.
She actually had presented herself to me in one respect, whereas I
could have been her friend, her boy friend, and I had no desire to be
her boy friend, so then after that she couldn't use me like she wanted
to use me, and she decided she would get another way of using me.,
and this is when she brings my friend in and lets him take care of the
business where I was concerned.
Senator DANIEL. Also you have already told us he was willing to
get her heroin which she wanted to carry back to Houston.

DANIEL. Did she ever propose to you that you ever get
Senator heroin?
her some
Mr. HALL. No; she never told me she wanted to do anything.
From your connections with her and with Ozzie,
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you think that might be a reason that she
HALL. Yes.
Senator DANIEL.
But Ozzie did get her heroin and traded it to her
did you conclude that she was particularly interested in getting heroin
instead of money to take back to Houston for the marihuana?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You do?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir:
did the business with Ozzie instead of you?
Mr. HALL. Well, she knew I wouldn't handle heroin.
Senator DANIEL. She knew that?
Mr.
for the marihuana?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; plus he was taking my profits.

Senator DANIEL. Where is Ozzie now?
Mr. HALL. Well, he was in the Federal penitentiary; I don't know.

He might be out now.
2879
Senator DANIEL. You do not know here he is now?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. But he was convicted?

Mr. HALL. Well, the Department knew where he is, too.
Senator DANIEL. But you say he was convicted?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And when you say the-Department, you mean

the Bureau of Narcotics?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Then that brings us upon until what
year, 1952?
Mr. HALL. 1952.
Senator DANIEL. Yes, sir. Did you ever get back into the wholesale
inarihuana business here in New York after th,.t9
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Tell us how that happened?
Mr. HALL. Well, this happened through the same fellow was in a
party with us in a home, it was Johnson, the person I was stating
his name was 85.
Senator DANIEL. Is his name Nathan Johnson?
Mr. HALL. Yes.

Mr. HALL. He came to me and told me, and he said, "I know
some fellow who has some marihuana. Do you want to handle it?"
He knew I was handling it, so it was a question of did I want to
handle it, plus he was trying to cut Leona's throat, too.
In other words, he didn't want to do business with her, and wanted
to run her out of business, and he figured the only way to do this
would be to come to me and say, "Here is a chance to run Leona
out of business," see.
So naturally, New York City won't stand no two supplies of no
bulk amount of marihuana. In other words, can't no 2 suppliers
come into New York City, like you bring in a quantity of 200 pounds
of reefers, 1 here, and 200 over here, and have found 200 pounds
of reefers sitting up in New York; it can't be done.
Senator DANIEL. It can't?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you mean to say all during this time that
you are talking about that this Henderson supply of marihuana was
the only one coming in here?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HALL. Definitely because the source of delivering the supply
after it arrives in New York, they won't handle anybody else's
marihuana, but one connection.
Senator DANIEL. You mean all the sellers of marihuana here in
Harlem, Brooldyn, all over New York all tie into 1 wholesaler
or 1 original source?
Mr. HALL. One big man, and 5 or 10 distributors.
Senator DANIEL. Wholesale distributors?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And has it been that way ever since you have
known the marihuana traffic here?
Mr. HALL. Ever since I got my first 10-cent stick of marihuana.
II lIII
2880
Senator DANKIEL. You mean that was in Dallas?

Mr. HALL. There were two fellows getting it then, and the most
that I have ever seen since that time would be one individual.
Senator DANIEL. You mean handling the primary source of it?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; one.
Senator DANIEL. So you think that the Hendersons then had the
one big source of supply for all of New York City and surrounding
areas?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
During the years you have talked about?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
It is true, definitely.
Senator DANIEL. All right. So in 1952 you were ready to try to

break that up; is that right?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And Johnson wanted to break that up?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And who else?

Mr. HALL. This is when Sutton come into the picture.
Senator DANIEL. What Sutton?
Mr. HALL. John Sutton.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know him by any other name?
Mr. HALL. Nothing but The Little Man. They called him The
Little Man.
Senator DANIEL. Where is he from?
Mr.HALL. He is from Houston.
Senator DANIEL. Houston, Tex.?
Mr. Hall. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Is he the one who was recently given a 15-year
sentence in Houston?
Mr. HALL. Yes, Sir.
Senator DANIEL. For violating the narcotics laws?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Go ahead and just tell it in your own way.
Mr. HALL. Well, Sutton was introduced to me by Nathan Johnson
at 125th Street and 7th Avenue.
Senator DANIEL. At the corner, or was it in the house?
Mr. HALL. It was right on the corner; and at this time he told me,
he said, "I have 25 pounds of marihuana." So I said, "25 pounds
of marihuana?"
He says, "Yes, sir."
I said, "It won't do me any good." I said, "I don't want to bother."
So he says, "I can get some more," and I asked him how soon.
He says, "Well, I can get all you can use," and so I laughed at him.
I said, "You can't get all I can use," just like that, so he said, "Yes, I
can. I can get all you can use."
So I said, "All right then." I say, "When can you give me the 25
pounds of marihuana?" "I can bring it to your house"-rather
Johnson said, "I will bring it to your house."
So I said, "All right, you bring it to my house the next morning."
So the next morning Johnson and Sutton arrived at my residence at
40 McDonald Street in Brooklyn, and they had this 25 pounds of
marihuana in one bag, and they brought it into my home.
Senator DANIEL. What were they carrying it in?
2881
Mr. HALL. In a suitcase. And I told them, I said, "Well, you see
me this evening in New York." I said, "I will bring the money to you
for this marihuana."
He says, "This evening in New York?" I say, "Yes." He says,
"What's the matter?" He says, "Man, can you get rid of it that
quick?" And I said, "I can get rid of it this morning."
He said, "I wish you could," he said, "Because I owe some people in
Houston money," and he said, "I have been in New York a month
trying to get rid of this marihuana and everybody I turned to says they
got marihuana; they don't need it. And I have been in touch with
Johnson and he can't seem to get in touch with people who want
marihuana and he has held me here, and almost past my time to get
back and to report to my parole officer."
He said, "You will not only help me on parole but you will be able
to help me to get some more marihuana."
Senator
DANIEL.
You mean Sutton was out on parole at that time?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. For what kind of a charge?

Mr. HALL. Narcotics.
Mr. HALL. So I got him the money that evening. I think it was
$1,500 and some.
Senator DANIEL. How much did he charge you a pound?
Mr. HALL. He charged me $60 a pound, $60 or $65-say $65 is
what it was, $65 a pound.
Senator DANIEL. Now, $1,500 would be $60 a pound.
Mr. HALL. $60 a pound? Well, it would be about $1,575, $1,575.
Senator DANIEL. All right. How did you get rid of it that fast?
Mr. HALL. Well, first, I knew that Suggs wanted to break off with
the connection he was on, and plus-
Senator
DANIEL.
That was a connection tying back into him?
Mr. HALL. And he wanted to break off, plus I had some customers
that wanted to break off, so this was when this fellow Young, and I
got Malone back into my confidence again, and Suggs, and between
the three of us we just took-I imagine this is the way it actually
happened-I sold my part outright to Suggs, but I think Suggs took
Leona's money and bought all of this marihuana from me at one
trip, see, and then he distributed it to Malone, and I gave Young some
parts of mine, and between the four of us we just got up this money
right quick, and I gave it to Sutton and I carried him to the Idlewild
Airport, and put him on a plane, and he flew back to Houston.
Senator DANIEL. What was Suggs doing with Leona Henderson's
money?
Mr. HALL. Well, he was doing business with her at the time.
DANIEL. I see.
Mr. HALL. You see; she was still doing business.
Senator DANIEL. You think he owed her some money
Senator
or the money
he would have spent with her?

Mr. HALL. He probably owed her the money. See, she would let
him have her marihuana, she would consign so much marihuana to
them, and they would sell it and give her her money, see.
So I think the price was a, little too high for them, because I had
them right back at the same price where we had started.
Senator
DANIEL.
What were those prices?
2882
Mr. HALL. I was giving it to them at $70 a pound.

Senator DANIEL. And they were paying her how much?
Mr. HALL. Paying probably more, because once she put the squeeze
on she could charge. She wasn't interested in anything else but the
drugs; all she wanted was money.
'Senator DANIEL. Are you talking about Leona Henderson? I
thought she was interested in heroin?
Mr. HALL. She wanted the heroin to make more money.
Senator DANIEL. She wanted the heroin to make more profit down
in Houston?
Mr. HALL. She wanted-the money; she did not want the drug; she
wanted to sell all the drug she could get, but she was more interested
in the money.
Senator DANIEL. Did she also use cocaine?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL. Go ahead.
HALL. We put Sutton on
Mr.
the plane, and he flew back to Houston,
and Johnson left New York, I think it was, about a day or so later,
and he went back to Houston also.
Senator DANIEL. Did Johnson come originally from Houston?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HALL. So he was down there with Sutton for a few days, and
Sutton called me on the phone and told me he was sending 100 pounds
of marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. Did he tell you that on the telephone?
Mr.
HALL.
Long distance telephone.
Senator DANIEL. Long distance telephone?

Mr. HALL. Yes. We had-we didn't say 100 pounds. He said,
"Man, I am sending you 100 shoes. Can you wear them?" And I
said, "Yes."
We started talking about something else, but I knew what he was
talking about.
Senator DANIEL. All right. You had arranged with him to do
that. He was going to bring-the marihuana in here and you were
going to take care of the market here?
Mr. HALL. Yes. I was going to take care of the marihuana for him,
the whole 100 pounds. So when the marihuana arrived here, I goes
to my friend Johnson's house and he tells me, he says, "I am not
going to give you any of this marihuana."
I say, "Well, you are not going to give me any marihuana?" He
says, "No, I am not going to give you any of it."
So I says, "What was the proposition?" He says, "Well, Sutton
told me to give you 75 pounds and for me to keep 25 pounds," he
says, "But I want the whole thing."
And I says, "0. K. If you think that is fair." He says, "0. K., I
think that is fair," and I left him and went back to my home and called
Sutton on the phone and said, "Look, your friend, he arrived with
those shoes," I said, "I can't wear them."
He says, "What's wrong with them?" I says, "Man, he wants to
take all the shoes."
So he says, "Well, I told him what to do." I says, "What did you
tell him to do?" He said, "I told him to give you 75 shoes," and he
says, "You go back and tell him to give you back 75 shoes."
2883
I says, "Well, you call him on the phone and you tell him to give
me the shoes."
He says, "Well, all right, I will call him."
So I hangs up the phone and goes back to New York to Johnson's
house, and he called him while I was there, and they had a big argument on the phone about the marihuana, so Johnson made him promise
him after he was sort of leery about the way he had transacted business, the first business, started off the business with us, that was the
first thing; in other words, he says, "I don't feel good about the way
I treated myself," so he figured he had to get some kind of guaranty
with Sutton that he was going to do business with him.
He said, "Sutton, if I give him the 75 shoes," he says, "Will you
guarantee me that whatever you and him get together and do that I
will get some benefits out of what you and him do?" So Sutton
guaranteed it.
So he gave me 75 pounds of marihuana, and I took the 75 pounds of
marihuana and I turned it over-I think it was 10 pounds to Malone,
15 pounds to Suggs, Young got 10 pounds, and I handled the balance
of the marihuana; and Johnson handled his 25.
So I think it was about 4 days later that I called Sutton and told
him that all those shoes was gone, and the money, I said, "Your
money is hanging on the fence, so you will have to come and get your
own money."
He says, "Man, I can't make it down here; I have a reporting day,
but I will send my wife for the money."
Senator DANIEL. His reporting date on the parole?

Mr. HALL. He said, "I will send my wife," and I said, "Whom
shall I look for?" And he said, "I will tell you what time she comes
out and who to look for."
So I went out to look at the airport, and she arrived about 6
o'clock in the evening.
Senator DANIEL. Had you ever seen her before?
Mr. HALL. No. Here is the way it works. She had my telephone; she called my home and told me she was at the airport and
where she would be standing, and I went out and picked her up at
Idelwild Airport, and brought her back to my home, and from there,
after she had rested up a couple of hours, which she didn't want to
really rest, she said she wanted to get the money and get back on the
next plane, so I said, "All right."
So we goes to Johnson's house for his money, so he didn't want to
give her any of his money.
Well, I collected up all the money for the marihuana that I had
taken care of, I had collected up the money for 75 pounds; so Johnson,
he was still bickering about his money. He didn't want to give up
his money, under no circumstances did he want to give up his money;
so we had to call Sutton again on the 'phone, and Sutton told him,
he said, "Look"-he told Gladys to tell Johnson to give the money
up, and when the next delivery come in he would make arrangements
to give him 15 pounds of marijuna for his own personal self.
So with that proposition he gave Gladys the money, and we grouped
all the money together; I think it ran into something like $5,500 between myself, with my business and Johnson's business.
Senator DANIEL. That was for the total 100 pounds?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
2884
Senator DANIEL. In other words, it didn't run quite to $60 a pound?

Mr. HALL. NO, sir.
Senator DANIEL. That you sent back.
Mr. HALL. NO, sir. We sent about $5,500 back.
Senator DANIEL. In cash?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. That was. the first transaction we had.
Mr. HALL. And after he got this money, why, then we started
marihuana coming in something like 100 pounds at the beginning
of the month, and then about 2'weeks later he would have another 100
pounds coming in; in other words, it would increase to about 200
pounds a month it was coming in; and we worked like that on up
until July 1954, andSenator DANIEL. And you started it in 1952?
Mr. HALL. We started in 1952.
Senator DANIEL. About what month?
Mr. HALL. This was about March-No, I am sorry, we worked it 6
months in 1952.
Mr. HALL. Six months in 1952 up until July. That is the way it
was; itwasn't 1954.
Senator DANIEL. Well, that date 1954, there ought to be-you are
mistaken in that date?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. I am mistaken in 1954 because in 1954 in
July I was in jail myself.
Senator DANIEL. Well, then, how long did you continue this trade
with Sutton?
Mr. HALL. From March 1952 up until about, say, July or August
of 1952.
Senator DANIEL. July or August of 1952?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. You did not go over into 1953?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, you said a minute ago it was
about 6 months?
Mr. HALL. About 5 or 6 months.
Senator DANIEL. Beginning in March?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIFL. Of 1952?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And you got it up to where you had 200 pounds
a month coming in?
Mr. HALL. Coming in.
Senator
DANIEL.
And at how much a pound?
Mr. HALL. Well, it was still $60 a pound.

Senator DANIEL. Was that comingto you?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You were handling the whole thing?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Who did you parcel it out to here in New York?
Mr. HALL. Well, I parceled it out mostly to Malone, Johnson,

Robert Young, Suggs wasn't in it-Yes, Suggs was involved, too;
yes, Jimmy Suggs was involved, because he was arrested in 1952.
He was involved in the beginning of these transactions.
2885
Senator DANIEL. At what price did you sell it to them for?

Mr. HALL. It was $75, sometimes $80 a pound, varying. I upped
the price on them because they upped the price on me. In other
words, I said, "I have been thieving you all the time. Now give me
back my 5 percent," so I charged them $75, $80.
Senator DANIEL. Seventy-five dollars to $80 during that period of
time per pound?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, you had the wholesale market on
them?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did that freeze Leona Henderson out for those
months?
Mr. HALL. It must have because she began to handle heroin exclusively, as far as we heard or knew, because her market was bad
for marihuana, because I made it bad.
Senator DANIEL. You took the market away from her on marihuana?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. You and Johnson together?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. So then did she continue to get heroin up here in

New York and take it back to Houston?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. She was doing business in Houston. This was
through Sutton that I knew she was doing business with Daddy
Lord, Sutton and Leona.
Here is the way I knew these things. There is here what I am going
to say-this is going to tie in marihuana and heroin at the same time.
This is what happened.
Mr. HALL. In May of 1952 I went to Houston myself. I went to
carry some money to Sutton, and Sutton had to leave the house for
some heroin, so I asked him where he was going.
He said "I am going out to Leona's to buy heroin," and I said,
"all right, but Leona can't see me."
He said, "I know it; I am going to leave you in the car."
I said, "0. K."
We went to Leona's restaurant, and he went in and bought some
from Leona and brought it back to the car.
The next time he wanted some heroin, which was the following
day, he took me out to Daddy Lord's, and he told me he was holding
it for Leona, and he could get it from him.
So he went out to Daddy Lord's, and Daddy Lord supplied him
with heroin; and then after I left there and come back to New York,
I went back to Houston again in June, and I paid him some more
money, and when I went back this next time the report I got from
him, the report I got from him, was that Daddy Lord was handling
all her heroin, and that he was her old man; in other words, he was
her boy friend.
So I had occasion to go out to where he had his home, sort of like
a farm where he had his home, and he gave Sutton some heroin
there, in his residence there.
Senator DANIEL. Did you go in with Sutton?
Mr. HALL. This time I did. I went to Daddy Lord once.
2886
Senator DANIEL. Is it "Daddy?"

Mr. HALL. They call him Daady Lord.
Senator DANIEL. It is not Danny.

then?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Has he been convicted since
Senator DANIEL. Did you testify in his case?

Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Go on and tell us what you observed there qt
Daddy Lord's house.
Mr. HALL. Well, at Daddy's house, he is an addict, plus hepushes
himself, so Sutton bought a quantity of heroin from him. Don't
know how much it was, what he paid for it. I know he had a bag,
this little cellophane bag.
Senator
DANIEL.
He left the house with it?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; and we went back to his home, and I went
back there, and I had to leave again and come on back to New York.
And the last time that I remembered that they involved heroin,
was when they had an accident there in Houston, and 0. G. was
using the car, and he was using heroin, and he nodded-
Senator
DANIEL.
Who was 0. G.?
Mr. HALL. This was his right-hand man, Sutton's right-hand maii.
Senator DANEL. WVhat was his name?

Mr. HALL. Orange Grafton Nolan.
Senator DANIEL. He was Sutton's right-hand man in the heroic
traffic?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
There in Houston?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator
DANIEL.
Was he tried with Sutton?
Mr. HALL. He was tried with Sutton and Johnson also.
Senator DANIEL. Johnson, Nathan.Johnson?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
They were all convicted?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIAL. I believe you testified at this trial?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right.
Go on and tell us what you saw this
time.
Mr. HALL. This time I went back, and they were supposed to be
on the road driving, but the inside conversation was that Sutton and
0. G. told me, he nodded at the wheel, was using heroin, and they
tried to get him not to drive; Gladys was asking to drive, and she
had been slowed up with heroin, and 0. G. wouldn't let her drive, so
they were asleep, and 0. G. hit an abutment on the side of the road,
and turned the car over, and practically killed her, didn't just luckily,
and they called me and let me know she had had this wreck, and I
flew back down there in August to see about how bad she was, you
know, hurt.
Senator DANIEL. This is Gladys Sutton?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; and at this time I carried a quantity of money,
went to the hospital where he was, paying some of the bills for the
hospitalization, and so forth. And this is when they really told me
about what really did happen, and how the accident really did happen, you know.
2887
So after this, this was the last time I seen any of them other than
during the trial, which I went into Danbury to have a sentence.
Senator DANIEL. You had your sentence when?
Mr. HALL. In 1953, March of 1953.
Senator DANIEL. When was this that you say you went down
after the wreck?

Mr. HALL. This was in 1952; this was in August.
Senator DANIEL. Did you do any more business with them after
that?
Mr. HALL. No.
Senator DANIEL. Were they arrested about that time?
Mr. HALL. No, sir. I was arrested about that time in 1952, and
he heard that I was arrested, and he had had this accident and all
of these things were happening to them, so he flew up here for some
money; I was in jail and needed some money. So I used $6,000 of
his money for my bonds and bails and lawyers, and so forth, and after
I got out of jail I decided that he didn't want to have no business
relationships with me because I owed him $6,000, so I just forgot
about him.
Senator DANIEL. That ended it?
Mr. HALL. That ended it.
Senator DANIEL. Who carried on your business from then on?
Mr. HALL. My business?
Senator DANIEL. Who did you turn your business over to here in
New York?
Mr. HALL. No one. Johnson took it from there.
Senator DANIEIL. Nathan Johnson?
Mr. HALL. Nathan Johnson.
Senator DANIEL. Until he was arrested?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; he handled it from 1952 until 1954.
Senator DANIEL. And he handled marihuana traffic here in New
York?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. From whom did he get his marihuana?
Mr. HALL. From Sutton.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know whether or not Sutton was getting
heroin in exchange?
Mr. HALL. Well, Sutton started getting his heroin during the time
he was doing his business with me in 1952.
Senator DANIEL. Did he ask you to get him some heroin?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; he asked me to make arrangements to connect
some people with him for heroin, and I refused him; so from then on
he was sort of, well, he was angry with me because I wouldn't exclusively handle his heroin for him. So he went into Johnson and
Johnson would say, "I will handle your heroin for you."
Johnson was getting his heroin for him, and they brought it to my
house to wrap it one night, and we was in the back room, and they
took this-there were three ounces they had that they put in a little
box, wrapped it up with some wrapping paper and tied with a ribbon,
and so forth, you know, make it look like a present, and that was
the heroin that I knew that was going to Sutton.
Skmator DANIEL. Who was there in the room?
Mi. HALL. Myself, Orange Crafton Nolan, and Isaac Wallace.
Senator DANIEL. 0. G. Nolan and yourself?
2888
Mr. HALL. And myself.

Senator DANIEL. Had Sutton sent those two people up here to get
the -heroin?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANiEL. And he had asked you to make his contact there
for heroin?
Mr.
HALL.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What was his proposition? Did he want to get

the heroin on the trips that he would bring marihuana up here or did
he want to trade marihuana for heroin or what?
Mr. HALL. No, he wanted to do either; he wanted to trade it or buy
it outright.
Senator DANIEL. Either one?
Mr.
HALL.
Either one.
And he wanted you to work that out for him?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you refer him to some people from whom he
could buy his heroin?

Mr. HALL. No, sir. Johnson took care of all that for him.
Senator DANIEL. Why didn't you do that?
Mr. HALL. Well, I didn't want to bother with the heroin.
Senator
DANIEL.
You did not like the heroin?
Mr.
HALL. I never did; I don't just want to bother

Senator DANIEL. So Johnson tool that over?
with it.
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. And from actually seeing these couriers, Wallace
and Nolan working with Johnson you know that they did get the
heroin from Johnson and did take it back to where?
Mr. HALL. To Houston.

Senator DANIEL. That is where they came from?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did they do that at a time when they had brought
up a load of marihuana?
Mr. HALL. They had brought up a hundred pounds of marihuana
at that time.
Senator
Mr.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
HALL.
I got the whole hundred.
DANIEL.
HALL.
Did you get any of that?

And Nathan Johnson got none of that marihuana?
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. But on the same trip?

Mr. HALL. They got the heroin from Nathan Johnson.
Senator
DANIEL.
At that time were you and Nathan Johnson
working together all right on Marihuana?

Mr. HALL. No, we had stopped our relationship, too, between
Nathan Johnson and myself over this argument.
Senator
DANIEL.
How did you happen to be over there when they
were wrapping the heroin?

Mr. HALL. They brought it to my home from him; in other words,
they got it from Nathan Johnson, and brought it to my home.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, they were tied in with you on
marihuana?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
They had gotten the heroin from Johnson, came
back to your home to wrap it?
2889
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. So they knew what you were doing?
Mr. HALL." Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did they tell you what they were paying for
that heroin?
Mr. HALL. No, they never told me what they paid Johnson for it.
Senator DANIEL. But they had how many ounces on that occasion?
Mr. HALL. Three ounces.
Senator DANIEL. Did I ask you if you knew what they paid for it?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you, know?
Mr. HALL. No, sir; I don't know.

Senator DANIEL. Do you know of your own knowledge that Sutton,
through his messengers, continued to get heroin here in New York on
the trips that he would send marihuana up here?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did he continue to do that while he was sending

marihuana to you?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; he did. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. But pretty soon thereafter, after only a few
months, you were in jail?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Then how do you know that Nathan Johnson

continued this two-way traffic in marihuana and heroin?
Mr. HALL. Well, during the time of this trial at Houston, Isaac
Wallace was in on the case with
Senator DANIEL. With what?
Mr. HALL. Isaac Wallace was in the case in the Government's
behalf.
Mr. HALL. And we were locked in together in the county jail
together.
Mr. HALL. In Houston; and he told me-I asked him how long he
had been associated with Sutton after I quit doing business with him.
He said, well, he worked along with Sutton for about 5 or 6 months
after I quit doing business with him or rather we quit each other, and
he said that they treated him raw, and I asked him, "How do you
mean?'
He said, "Man, I was dealing with all the heroin, and I didn't know
what I was carrying," and he said, "I am bringing this up"-let me
clear up where he was on this carrying business first. He knew what
heroin was, but he didn't know the price for it. He didn't know how
much Sutton was getting for the heroin, but he eventually found out,
and when he asked for more money for bringing marihuana and the
heroin, Sutton told him that the price had to be the same as it was
when I and he was doing business with it, and he was carrying two
loads, he realized he was carrying two loads, and so he spoke up and
asked for a bigger cut.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, when he was bringing it up to
you, except for a few cases when he would pick up some heroin from
Nathan Johnson, actually he was bringing just. a load of marihuana
to you?
2890
Mr. HALL. That is right. He took a load to me and took back a

load to Sutton.
Senator DANIEL. And he was taking back a load of heroin all the
time from Johnson?
Mr. HALL. He squawked. He said he was doing two jobs, and he
wanted more money for it, and Sutton told him he had to take the
same amount of money that I and him were paying apiece, which was
$250.
Senator DANIEL. For making these trips?

Mr. HALL. For making these trips.
Senator DANIEL. $250 a trip?
Mr. HALL. That is right. So he told me he got angry with Sutton,
so he decided he had to get even with him some way.
So Sutton, he got a sweetness all of a sudden, and Sutton let him
have 3 ounces of heroin, and he took the heroin and sold the heroin,
and bought him an automobile, and he told Sutton that this is it, he
had his cut. So he finished with Sutton.
So after he stopped doing business with Sutton, he started to watch
them, to see what they were doing. He had an automobile, and he
said he could watch and ride around, and so he watched them.
So they began to incorporate new people into his business association in Houston; he had new persons coming to New York, getting
this heroin. He had new delivery fellows for his marihuana, and he
moved to New York.
Senator DANIEL. Who?

Mr. HALL. Sutton himself.
DANIEL. He did?
HALL. He moved away
Senator
from Houston to New York. He lived

Mr.
in New York, and he lived in Houston, too. He had two residences.
And Wallace said that he just drifted away from them altogether,
but he said he knew they were the kingpin dealers of heroin in dealers
at the present time.
Senator
DANIEL.
And that they were still sending marihuana to
New York?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. During this acquaintance with Sutton and any
of his gang, did you find out where he was getting his marihuana?
Mr. HALL. No more than, well, he had sold it himself. He would
say he was getting it in Mexico.
Senator DANMEL. Did he say where in Mexico?

Mr. HALL. He didn't say exactly where.
Senator DANIEL. Did-he say who in Mexico he was getting it from?
Mr. HALL. He would say he was getting it from Leo.
Senator DANIEL. Leo, L-e-o?

Mr. HALL. Leo.
Senator DANIEL. Is that the way it sounded to you?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. I don't know his last name. He had a funny
last name. If I said it, it wouldn't sound like the name that it would
mean anyway.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you know of anybody else who was tied
in with Sutton and getting this marihuana from Mexico?
2891
Mr. HALL. Well, nobody but Sutton and Orange Crafton Nolan,
they would be the only ones who would actually know where and who
he was getting it from and how.
Senator DANIEL. Did you talk to all of them?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And all you remember them telling you was that
it was in Mexico?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
But did they mention and did you hear him men-'
tion a name?
Mr. HALL. Leo.

Senator DANIEL. Do you know Everett Cooper?
Mr. HALL. Everett Cooper was involved in the dealing with Sutton;
he was his partner.
Senator DANIEL. He was a partner with Sutton; he was his partner.
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Was he convicted also?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
HALL. Yes,
Did Cooper also deal in heroin?
sir.
DANIEL. What was his part in the heroin traffic?

HALL. Sutton, he would split this heroin together-you
Senator
Mr.
he would take a certain amount, and Cooper-
know,
Senator DANIEL. Cooper would take a certain amount?

Mr. HALL. Cooper would take a certain amount.
Senator DANIEL. Did he live in Houston?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Was he also partners with Sutton in getting
Mexico?
from
marihuana
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you know how much they paid for that mari-
huana in Mexico? Have you later found out?

Mr. HALL. Well, Sutton never told me, but from Isaac Wallace,
Wallace told me they were paying something like $15 to $20 a kilo.
Senator
DANIEL.
Was that heroin?
Mr. HALL. No, that is marihuana.

Senator DANIEL. Marihuana; that is what I thought.
But I had
not heard the term "kilo" used.

Do you know what they were paying a pound, what that would
figure a pound? Did you ever hear of it mentioned in that-
Mr.
HALL.
Per pound?

Mr. HALL. It would be maybe $10 per pound.
Senator DANIEL. Was your wife named Ruth?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Was she picked up with you in the marihuana
trade?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Where is she now?
Mr. HALL. She is at 40 McDonald Street in Brooklyn, N. Y.

Senator
DANIEL.
Is she living there now?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
HALL.
Is she engaged in the marihuana traffic now?
No, sir.
71515-56--pt. 7-35
2892
ILICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
Senator DANIEL. You are still married?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You know a Frank Mims?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What part did he play in either the marihuana
or heroin chapter?
Mr. HALL. Frank Mims to me was a deliverer of marihuana.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did anybody else deliver marihuana?
Mr.
HALL. Everett Cooper.

Senator DANIEL. Were they
He delivered some to me.

all delivering-these last one I refer to,
Cooper and Mims, were they delivering in behalf of Sutton?
.Mr.
HALL.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did they also pick up heroin here in New York
to take back to Sutton in Houston?
Mr. HALL. I wouldn't know about that.

Senator DANIEL. You do not know about those two?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. But you do know that Isaac Wallace and 0. G.
Nolan carried heroin back after bringing marihuana to New York?
Mr. HALL. I do, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Was Sutton using heroin when you first met him?
Mr.
HALL. Yes, sir.

SPEER. How long had he been using
HALL. Well, I don't know how long
Mr.
it?
Mr.
he had been using it, but
I knew he had to have some during the times he was here in New
York, and when I gave him that money he bought him some.
Mr. SPEER. So he had a heroin habit. When was that?
Mr. HALL. That was in 1952 when I first met him.
Mr. SPEER. What month?
Mr.
HALL.
SPEER.
March.
Mr.
You mentioned awhile ago that the effect of marihuana
on you was to make you a little bit high. What about the effect on
other people that you know? Have you ever known anyone who got
violent, mean, using marihuana?
Mr. HALL. No. I mean, I really haven't. I have never heard of
a case of anyone using marihuana doing anything. But heroin, I
know what they will do for heroin. I mean, I can tell you what
they will do for you for some heroin.
First, they will come to you and ask you to give them some money
just outright for heroin to buy if they are broke, and if you know them
as a friend you say, "Well, I don't have the money."
They will say, "Well, 0. K." Then they will get mad with you,
and if you go outside your home or something, they will go in and
break in your home, take whatever possessions you have, take them
and hock them and buy them some heroin or they will cash checks,
they will break in mail boxes, and anyway they can get some money
for some heroin they will use that means to get some money.
Mr. SPEER. What part did Cooper play in the distribution of
heroin in Houston?
Mr. HALL. Well, Cooper, they were selling it like by the pills.
Mr. SPEER. How much would he sell it for?
Mr. HALL. They would-Wallace told me they was getting $5 a
pill, $7.50 a pill.
Mr. HALL. And a pill would be about how many grains, how many
pills out of an ounce, in other words?
2893
Mr. HALL. They were getting something like 300 pills out of an
ounce, a little better; I don't know.
Senator
DANIEL.
What is the cost of those pills?
Mr. SPEER. $7.
Senator DANIEL. $7 a pill?

Mr. HALL. $7.50, $5.
Senator DANIEL. What is the cost of it now, of heroin?
Mr. HALL. About $90 an ounce.
Senator DANIEL. Pure heroin in the ounce?
Mr. HALL. That is right. If you try to get pure heroin, he would
have to know somebody very close to get some pure heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know anything about the heroin traffic
here in New York other than what you have told us, that is, can you
think of anything about it at this time?
Mr. HALL. Well now, like we was discussing before, this heroin
business, it is a certain amount of this heroin that is still being distributed through Brooklyn, and like, if you will remember, we were
talking about a specific case, a marihuana case, but actually it was
involved in heroin as well, and plus the larger dealers of heroin.
Senator
DANIEL.
Now, I will ask you over again as to whether
or not there is any portion of this testimony today that would cause
you any personal fear and make you want to keep it in executive
session, not made public?
Mr. HALL. No, this other part is all right.
Senator
DANIEL.
Is this heroin traffic in New York in the hands
of people that you think would do physical harm to anyone who

told on them?
Mr. HALL. Yes. You couldn't tell because you wouldn't know
who they actually are, so you couldn't never tell.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know anyone who was in the heroin
racket here in New York?
Mr. HALL. No, sir; I don't.

Senator DANIEL. Not by name?
Mr. Hall. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. But you fear that there is heroin available here
in New York?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. And from your information it would appear
that at least a good portion of the heroin going to Houston is coming

out of New York?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And a good portion of the marihuana coming
into New York is coming through Houston?
Mr. HALL. Coming through Houston.
Senator DANIEL. Or through Houston sources?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And they are getting it from Mexico.

Senator DANIEL. Have you ever heard of any of these dealers in
heroin and marihuana here getting their marihuana from any other
original source other than Mexico?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Have you ever heard them getting it through
anyone other than the parties named in Houston and Seaguin or
San Antonio?
2894
Mr. HALL. No other place other than that.

Senator DANIEL. And you feel sure that the original source of
marihuana for New York since you have known about it, and beginning in 1945 has been through Texas?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you know who has got hold of the marihuana
trade here now, who is the contact?
Mr.
HALL.
No, I wouldn't know offhand.
Senator DANIEL. Well, are there any of those that you knew in
connection with the business at the top that are not now in jail?
Mr. HALL. No.

Senator DANIEL. Do you know George Gilmore?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. HALL. He lived in San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. Has he smuggled, has he ever smuggled any marihuana up to New York?
Mr. HALL. He has; yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Did he ever tell you where he was getting it?
Mr. HALL. From Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. Did he ever send any to you?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
During what period of time?
Mr. HALL. This was during 1952.

Senator DANIEL. Did he bring it up here in person?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Was it before or after you had made your connection with John Sutton?
Mr. HALL. It Was during the same time.

Senator DANIEL. During the same time?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How did you happen to get in touch with Gilmore?
Mr. HALL. Well, this is all of the same case, Bill Williams was doing
business with Gilmore.
Senator
DANIEL.
HALL. This is
Bill Williams?
Mr.
an entirely different Bill now, this is Bill Williams.
He was doing business with Gilmore.
Senator DANIEL. Wos Bill Williams here in New York?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; and Kane Young; and Kane Young and Bill
Williams fell out. So I didn't have any use for Bill Williams' business,
but he came to me and asked me if I would take care of it, so I told
him, "Yes, I will."
So offhand I was taking care of his business, for him and Kane
Young, and when they fell out, then I started doing business with
Bill Williams and George Gilmore; and Kane Young and Bill Williams
were down in San Antonio, down there-no, they went into Mexico
proper, and had a fight with a couple of those Mexicans over there,
so they told Kane Young if he ever came back to Mexico they would
kill him. So he never went back.
So instead he let Bill Williams go in and take care of his marihuana
for him.
So he double-crossed Bill Williams, and he sent his three sisters in to
get the marihuana from the Mexicans, and they got some marihuana
and somehow or other it leaked out they were going to get it, and
2895
they were arrested in San Antonio with 107 pounds of pure clean
marihuanaSenator DANIEL. Three sisters?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. They were all arrested?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Were they convicted?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you testify in that case?
Mr.
HALL.
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How do you know about this information about
the three sisters of Kane Young?

Mr. HALL. Well, Bill Williams testified in the Government's behalf
in this case.
Senator DANIEL. Did he tell you about it? Did you hear him
tell you?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; he told me about it.
Senator DANIEL. And he told you personally about it?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How it happened?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You say that you had gotten some marihuana
from George Gilmore, too?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you go down in person to San Antonio?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How much did you buy from him?
Mr. HALL. I think the highest amount I bought from him was 70
pounds.
Senator DANIEL. Seventy pounds?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What did you pay him?

Senator DANIEL. Then did you bring it back yourself?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Who did you send it back with?
Mr. HALL. I had a fellow to deliver it to me.
Mr. HALL. Bobby Downing.
Senator
DANIEL.
Is he a New York man?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator
Did he go down with you?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And how many times did you purchase from
George Gilmore?
Mr. HALL. I think it was only about twice.
Senator DANIEL. And that was how much each time?
Mr. HALL. Each time it was about 70 pounds, each time.
Senator DANIEL. Each time?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Was George Gilmore dealing in heroin, too?
DANIEL.
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
I I I I
2896
Senator
Not as far as you know?

Mr. HALL. Not as far as I know.
Senator DANIEL. Has he been convicted, you say?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Is he white or colored?
Mr. HALL. He is colored.
Senator DANIEL. Are all these people that you have talked about
today colored?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever had any dealings with any white
people in the marihuana or heroin traffic?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have all of your retail purchases and sales been
made to colored people or did you also sell some to white?
Mr. HALL. I don't know who they sold to.
Senator DANIEL. I mean all your sales.
Mr. HALL. All my people were colored.
Senator DANIEL. What is your main worry about giving any information on any of these people connected with heroin here in New
York?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What is your particular concern there? Are
DANIEL.
you concerned about them doing bodily harm or somebody higher up

in the heroin traffic here in New York?
Mr. HALL. Well, that is what I don't know. You see, I don't
know who is higher up, and I don't know who is below them, see?
Senator
mittee.
DANIEL.
Well, we thank you for coming before this com-
I want to ask you this: Do you think you have had enough of this
marihuana traffic?
Mr. HALL. As far as trafficking, I couldn't do anything in it anyway,
so I am through with it.
Senator DANIEL. I mean, do you think there is going to be a temptation to you after you get out of prison to get back in it?
Mr. HALL. Not necessarily, sir.
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
You said not necessarily so.
What did you mean
by that?
Mr. HALL. I can do something different.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
HALL.
You can make a living another way?
Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you think you will go back to smoking mari-
Senator
DANIEL.
You think that the chances are that you would
huana?
Mr. HALL. NO, I don't know about
it. I don't know what the
chances of smoking it are concerned, because, well, you just never
can say. I mean it is just like drinking whisky or water. You can
never say definitely one way or the other.
You know, I couldn't just say it because I wouldn't want to tell you
a lie today, and tomorrow something happened.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you have been smoking it since you were
10 years old?
go back to smoking it when you get out of prison?
2897
Well, I have no desire to do so.

Senator DANIEL. You do not now have the desire to do so?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You hope you can stay off of it, is that the way you
feel about it?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I certainly hope you can, too.
Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Thank you very much for appearing before this
committee and the cooperation you have given the law enforcement
officers here in recent months.
Mr. HALL. Thank you.
Senator DANIEL. Anything else? If not, the committee is adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 12:40 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned.)
Mr. HALL.
Senator DANIEL. Teodoro Robledo, you will stand and be sworn.

this subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. ROBLEDO. I do, sir.
TESTIMONY OF TEODORO ROBLEDO
Senator DANIEL. Give your full name.
Mr. ROBLEDO. Teodoro Robledo.

Senator DANIEL. Your first name is Teodoro?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you live for a while at Mercedes, Tex.?
Senator DANIEL. Where are you living now?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Mercedes, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. That is your last home?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. You are serving a sentence in the penitentiary now,
are you?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Yes, sir; in Texarkana, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. In order to tie it up, were you convicted at the
same time that Johnny Sutton was convicted for selling marihuana,
or conspiracy to sell marihuana?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Well, excuse me. Before I say something I am
going to explain everything that I can, because I can't speak very good
English.
Senator DANIEL. Explain it in your own words.
Mr. ROBLEDO. That is right.
Senator DANIEL. Were you tried at the same time Sutton was
tried?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. John Sutton?
Senator DANIEL. You know him?
2898
Senator DANIEL. What dealings did you have with Johnny Sutton?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Well, bringing the marihuana to Houston and giving
it to him.
Senator DANIEL. Would he call you and ask you to bring marihuana
whenever he was ready for it?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Sometimes, and sometimes not.
Senator DANIEL. On those occasions when he would call you, how"
did you get the marihuana?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Well, the marihuana was gotten from the border,
from the other side, from Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. From what town?
Mr. ROBLEDO. They crossed the river from Reynosa., but I don't
know where they came from.
Senator DANIEL. Who on the other side would you get in toucll
with?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Leo Ochoa.
Senator DANIEL. Who was your largest one source of marihuana
that came into Houston here, John Sutton?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Yes; he was one of those men.
Senator DANIEL. Over how long a period of time did lie buy from
you?
Mr. ROBLEDO. I didn't buy. He do all the business with him.
The only thing they hired me to give interpretation to the other man,
He bring the marihuana to Houston.
Senator DANIEL. In your case Sutton would call you, and what
would you do?
Mr. ROBLEDO. I tell him Sutton was ready for some more manhuana. Wanted some more marihuana. They would bring it to
Houston. In other words, I tell him he was ready, and they would
bring it over here. I just show him the place they had to receive the
marihuana, and that is all.
Senator DANIEL. What were you paid for your work?
Mr. ROBLEDO. They paid me sometimes, let's see. I receive $125
sometimes, and sometimes $75, depending on the deal.
Senator DANIEL. Who were you paid by?
Senator DANIEL. Were you doing the interpreting for Leo Ochoa?
Mr. ROBLEDO. No. I was doing the interpreting for the man that
bought the marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. Give us the name of that man slowly. Was he
the runner that brought the marihuana across?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Yes, sir. Serapio de Anda.
Senator DANIEL. All right, when he would call you at Mercedes
and tell you that he was ready what would you do?
Mr. ROBLIUDO. When Sutton called me?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Well, I notify him. And he said
Senator DANIEL. Notify who?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Notify de Anda.
Senator DANIEL. Notify de Anda?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Yes. And he said: "I believe it better to go across
the border and tell Leo to get everything ready to bring it over when
he gets ready."
Senator DANIEL. Then would de Anda bring the marihuana back
across the border?
Mr.
ROBLEDO.
2899
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did Leo ever bring any back across the border?
Mr. ROBLEDO. I can't state because I don't know anything about
that.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever go and get some?
Mr. ROBLEDO. NO, sir; never in my life. You mean cross over the
river and get some?
Mr. ROBLEDO. No.
Senator DANIEL. Then when de Anda would get the marihuana
would he bring it back to your house?
Mr. ROBLEDO. No. He went straight to the house and told me
he was ready.
Senaor DANIEL. Told you he was ready?

Mr. ROBLEDO. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Then would you come to Houston?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
How did you come to Houston?
Mr. ROBLEDO. On a bus.
Rode a bus.
Senator DANIEL. You wouldn't ride with de Anda?

Mr. ROBLEDO. No.
Senator DANIEL. How would you bring the marihuana in here?
Mr. ROBLEDO. In his pickup.
Senator DANIEL. Would he hide the marihuana so it would look
like something else?
Mr. ROBLEDO. What does that mean?
Where did he keep it?

Mr. ROBLEDO. Under the seat.
Senator DANIEL. Under the seat?
Senator DANIEL. Then you would meet them here?
Mr. ROBLEDO. I would meet them here in Houston.
Senator DANIEL. Are you Mexican Johnny?
Mr. ROBLEDO. They introduced me as Mexican Johnny, but the
Senator
DANIEL.
real Mexican Johnny is in Mexico.

Johnny.
Senator
DANIEL.
He introduced me as Mexican
Is there any other Mexican Johnny mixed up in
this?
Mr. ROBLEDO. In the same deal.

Senator DANIEL. Tell us who is, and what he had to do with it.
Mr. ROBLEDO. Well, his last name is Cavasos.
DANIEL. Cavasos?
Senator DANIEL. Do you know his first name?
Mr. ROBLEDO. I can't think of his first name.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear the name Emelio?
Mr. ROBLEDO. That is right, Emelio Cavasos. That
Senator
is right.
That is exactly right.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know a man named Emelio Cavasos?

Mr. ROBLEDO. He lives in Mexico. I believe he lives in Mexico.
Somewhere in Mexico.
Senator
Johnny?
DANIEL.
Is he a person known by the name of Mexican,
2900
Mr. ROBLEDO. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Who told you that he was Mexican Johnny?

Senator DANIEL. How did he tell you about it?

Mr. ROBLEDO. Because he said they had the connections before
in Mexican Johnny's name. And he make all the connections here
before.
Mr.
SPEER.
When did Leo tell you this Emelio Cavasos was
Mexican Johnny? How did he tell you?

Mr. ROBLEDO. The circumstances, he told me this Emelio Cavasos
was called Mexican Johnny from the other side.
Mr. SPEER. Did he tell you he had been in some other marihuana
deal?
Mr. SPEER. What deal was that?

Mr. ROBLEDO. In same deal.
Mr. SPEER. Did he tell you anything about some previous time
while this was going on that Emelio Cavasos was arrested?
Mr.
ROBLEDO. I
SPEER. Did
Mr.
ROBLEDO.
didn't understand right?
he tell you Emelio Cavasos or Mexican Johnny

Mr.
had been involved in a marihuana deal at Falfurrias?
No.
Mr. SPEER. What did he.tell you?
Mr.
ROBLEDO.
Mr.
ROBLEDO.
He said that they transported some marihuana.
He didn't tell me to where, but he said they got caught in Falfurrias.

Mr. SPEER. What did he say about that?
He said he didn't believe he could stay here any
more, because they would be looking for him.

Mr. SPEER. Who do you think was selling this marihuana to him?
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
times.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
ROBLEDO. I don't know, sir. He didn't tell me.

SPEER. Who were they looking for?
ROBLEDO. He didn't say anything about that.
SPEER. This Mexican Johnny, how well do you know
him?
ROBLEDO. Well, I saw him, I believe I saw him about 3 or 4
I don't remember exactly.
SPEER.
Does he speak English?
ROBLEDO. Pretty good English.
Pretty good English?

Mr. ROBLEDO. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. Where did you first see him?
SPEER.
Mr. ROBLEDO. The first time I saw him was in Reynosa.

Mr. SPEER. When was that?
Mr. ROBLEDO. I believe 1951, I believe May.
Mr. SPEER. When you were down in Mexico with Johnny Sutton
and Gladys Williams, did you see Leo Ochoa?
Mr. SPEER. Who else did you see?
ROBLEDO. I saw Mexican Johnny too.

Mr. SPEER. What was Mexican Johnny doing?
Mr. ROBLEDO. I don't know. I just talked to him, and that is all.
Senator DANIEL. Was this Ochoa still out of jail the last time you
Mr.
heard about him?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Leo Ochoa?

Senator DANIEL. Leo Ochoa.
ILLCIT. NA
Mr. ROBLEDO. Yes.
ICS TA90
He is in Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know where he is now?

Mr. ROBLEDO. He is in Monterrey.
Senator DANIEL. Is that where he was selling marihuana?
Mr. ROBLEDO. I don't know where they buy it. They told me
one time they bought it south of Monterrey. That is all they told
me. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Was your life ever threatened in connection with
this deal?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Sir?
Senator DANIEL. Was your life ever threatened in this deal at any
time while you were working with Leo Ochoa or Sutton?
Mr. ROBLEDO.
Past?

Mr. ROBLEDO. No, sir, not before.
Senator DANIEL. After you were working for him?'
Mr. ROBLEDO. Oh yes; afterward.
Senator DANIEL. kfter the trial?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Yes. After the trial?
Mr. ROBLEDO. After they tried me?
Senator DANIEL. Yes, after the trial. Were any threats made
against you?
Mr. ROBLEDO. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What about before the trial, while you were out on
bond?
Mr. ROBLEDO. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't someone come to your house at Mercedes
and tell you what you had better do and what you had better not do?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Exactly right.
Senator DANIEL. What did they tell you?
Mr. ROBLEDO. You mean Sutton?

Mr. ROBLEDO. He told me I can make a deal or something. I
told him I was under bond and that I have to do everything right until
I get my sentence.
Senator
DANIEL.
Now you will return to the stand after the noon
recess.
The committee will stand recessed until 2 o'clock this afternoon.
(Whereupon, at 12:30 p. m., the subcommittee recessed.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
Senator DANIEL. Teodoro Robledo, resume the stand.

TESTIMONY OF TEODORO ROBLEDO-Resumed
do you have some questions?
Mr. SPEER.
Mr. Speer,
Mr. Robledo, before the recess I asked you if you had
been threatened, and I believe you told me during the recess you didn't
understand what threatened meant.
Mr. ROBLEDO. Yes.
I didn't know what "threatened" meant.
After having it explained to you, that perhaps it meant

some bodily harm, did anyone approach you while you were under
Mr. SPEER.
2902
mLici
ARCOTICS TRAFFIC
bond with reference to possible bodily harm, hiring you in some way?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Well, I believe I said yes, sir. Don't remember
exactly, but I believe it was in September two fellows
Mr. SPE R. A little louder.
Mr. ROBLEDO. There were two fellows went to my shop.
Mr. SPEER. Where?
Mr.
Mr.
ROBLEDO. My own welding

SPEER. All right.
ROBLEDO. And asked me-I
shop in Mercedes, Tex.
am working when they were there.

Mr.
I got my hammer. And when I look up and asked them: "What do
you want?"
And they said: "You are pretty busy."
And I said: "No, I am not very busy, if I can help you some."
And they said: "The only thing we want to know is do you have
some equipment for sale."
And I said: "Where are you from?"
And they said: "We are from across the border."
And I said: "Yes."
Mr. SPEER. Two men?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. Two men?
Mr. ROBLED0. Yes. You know a lot of men come over across tile
border to buy old farm equipment. So I explained to them that
while I knew a few farmers sold some old farm equipment, I didn't
know if they have still got it or not. But I said would tell them
one thing, I didn't have any time to run around the country, that I
was pretty busy in my shop.
And they said: "That is right."
And we discussed it a little bit, talking about the farmers. And
after a while they told me: "You don't know about that case, when
that case is coming up?"
And I said: "What case?"
And they said: "Some case you are involved in with narcotics."
I was just looking around, because I thought they were some kind
of Government agents.
And they said: "Well, I will tell you, if you say something about
this deal it is pretty dangerous to your life. Somebody is going to
kyou."
Well, all I said: "Deal about what?"
And they said: "About that marihuana dealer, you know."
And I said all I could say was what I knew.
And they said: "Well, you had better look out, because you will
be in on it."
So I said I didn't know why they told me that. And I said: "I
thought you come to buy some equipment."
And they said: "We try to buy some too."
Mr. SPEER. Did you see them any more after that?
Mr. ROBLEDO. No, sir. That was the first time.
Mr. SPEER. Was that man Leo Ochoa?
Mr. ROBLEDO. No.
M. SPEER. You did sell this marihuana over in Corpus Christi, in
that neighborhood?
Mr. ROBLEDO. No.
Mr. SPEER. You did sell 50 pounds over in Corpus Christi when
you were sentenced over there?
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
ROBLEDO. No, sir.

SPEER. Near Corpus
ROBLEDO. Victoria.
2903
Christi?
Mr. SPEER.
You did sell it over there?
Mr.
Victoria, Tex.
Does Serapio de Anda live on both sides of the border
ROBLEDO.
Mr. SPEER.
or not?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Yes, sir. He has got a house on the other side and
one on this side.
Mr. SPEER. Houses on both sides?
Mr. SPEER. So he could drive across the border without arousing
any suspicion?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Yes, that is right. Because some businessmen live
on this side and live on the other side you know. And they don't
suspect them because they go and come back in.
Mr. SPEER. Did Serapio de Anda bring all this marihuana across
that you were involved in?
Mr. ROBLEDO. Honestly, yes, sir, that is right.
Mr. SPEER. Did he receive a sentence?
Mr. ROBLEDO. I don't know.
Mr. SPEER. You don't know whether he did or not?
Mr. ROBLEDO. No, sir, 1 don't know anything; no, sir.
Mr. SPEER. When was the last time you saw Emelio Cavasos?
Mr. ROBLEDO. The last time I saw him was-let's see-a long time
ago. I don't remember. Maybe 1951 or 1952. I don't remember
for sure.
Mr. SPEER. I believe that is all.
Senator DANIEL. All right, you may
stand aside.
TESTIMONY OF C. ANTHONY FRILOUX, ASSISTANT UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Mr. FRILOUX. C. Anthony Friloux.

Mr. FRILOUX. I am assistant United States district attorney.
Senator DANIEL. Did you handle the details in the trial of Suttony
and Cooper?
Mr. FRILOUX. Yes, sir; I did.
Senator DANIEL. Would you briefly summarize to us exactly what

the defendants were convicted of, the nature of their sentences, and
then tell us what individuals were connected with this thing, either on
the Mexican end or the New York end.
Mr. FRILOUX. All right, sir. In the actual trial we had some 12
defendants, John Sutton; Everett Cooper, commonly and locally
known as Cap Cooper; Orange Nolen; Nathan Jackson; Teodoro
Robledo; Ed Riley; Ivey Wallace; Frank Mims; George Gale Cooper;
and Willie Winn.
Those were the 10 defendants who actually stood trial in the case..
We had two fugitives. One was Leo Ochoa, a Mexican national,
who has had some mention in this hearing, and Edward Hooker.
Senator DANIEL. Will you get to the sentences and see how all these
men were sentenced.
Mr. FRILOUX. Yes.
2904
ILCIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
John Sutton received the maximum sentence allowed under the

law for first offense, 15 years.
Everett Cooper, first offender, received 9 years.
Orange Nolen, first offender, received 5 years.
Nathan Johnson received 5 years.
Robledo received 3 years here, to run consecutively with a 3-year
sentence imposed in this case in Corpus Christi, for a total of 6 years.
Ed Riley received' a 3-year sentence suspended for 5 years. His
position was an extremely slight association in the conspiracy.
Isaac Wallace, runner, received 3 years to serve.
Frank Mims received 4 years.
George Gale Cooper received 3 years.
And Willie Winn received an additional 3 years to run consecutively with 3 years received for 152 pounds of marihuana transported
through Tennessee.
Senator DANIEL. Was this all in one trial, or did you have separate
trials?
Mr. FRILOUX. All in one trial, one conspiracy count.
Senator DANIEL. Were all these men charged with conspiracy to
sell marihuana?
Mr. FRILOUX. Charged with criminal conspiracy to sell, distribute,
deal in and dispense marihuana. In other words, they handled every
phase of the operation.
Senator DANIEL. Did these charges have anything to do with the
sale of heroin and the bringing of heroin from New York into Texas?
p Mr. FRILOQX.' At the time the conspiracy count was drawn it did
not. However, it is conclusively known that this gang received substantial quantities of heroin in New York which was brought back to
Houston.
Senator DANIEL. Have you had opportunity to read the testimony
from George Hall given before this committee in New York in executive session, which has now been made public and will be included in
this record?
Mr. FRILOUX. That is right. I read that testimony. I think I
have heard George Hall's statement three times, and had it recorded
once, and it never varied an inch.
Senator DANIEL. You have the same opinion, that these people
who were sending the marihuana to New York were bringing heroin
back?
Mr. FRILOUX. That is right.
Senator DANIEL. Large quantities of money were involved in those
marihuana transactions?
Mr. FRILOUX. That is right. And in addition to that, their profits
were greatly enhanced by heroin brought back to Houston in that
period of three months.
Senator DANIEL. You say this was a large operation?
Mr. FRILOUX. I believe the largest single marihuana operation in
the country.
Senator DANIEL. I am inclined to agree with you. It looks like
this fellow George Hall was the biggest marihuana wholesaler in
New York. He was a Government witness, was he?
Mr. FRILOUX. Yes, he was a Government witness in this particular
case.
There was one other case I would like to mention, and that was the
Tillman-Dockins case. Their activities included a heavy volume
2905
traffic in heroin, and an extremely large amount of marihuana. The

Tillman-Dockins organization consisted of a gang of ten people.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any indication that others tried to
step in and take over the traffic.
Mr. FRILOUX. Very definitely. As soon as the Sutton gang was
put our of circulation various other characters who had been associated with that gang as runners, minor peddlers and so on, tried to
take over and begin operating.
Senator DANIEL. Are you led to believe that someone has also
attempted to step into the operation on the New York end, receiving
marihuana and sending heroin back to Houston?
Mr. FRILOUX. I am sure of that. That is made quite clear from
George Hall's testimony, as well as other evidence that has come into
our possession.
Senator DANIEL. I am not asking you to go into further details as
to pending investigations, But in the Sutton gang matter have you
made any effort to get fugitives from across the river in Mexico?
Mr. FRILOUX. I have made no attempt to extradite because, in
the first place, extradition is cumbersome and takes a great deal of
time.
Senator DANIEL. Do you happen to know what the position of the
officials in Mexico has been since you have been wanting those men
for trial?
Mr. FRILOUX. No. I have no information on that on which I
could honestly make a statement.
Senator DANIEL. How many of the Sutton gang are out on bond?
Mr. FRILOUX. There are three members of the gang out on bond.
Senator DANIEL. Who are they?
Mr. FRILOUX. The biggest man is Cap Cooper.
Senator DANIEL. Do you happen to know whether any of those

persons are serving as police officers in Mexico?
Mr. FRILOUX. It may well be true.
Senator DANIEL. Have any of these defendants who have been
convicted been out on bond?
Mr. FRILOUX. I know Nathan Johnson and George Gale Cooper
are out on bond. I am not sure about some of the others. I know
they have been out on bond 3 to 4 months.
Senator DANIEL. Three or 4 months?
Mr. FRILOUX. Yes, sir. Leo Ochoa is still a fugitive and Edward
Hooker is serving time in an Oklahoma pentientiary.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you have a prepared statement?
Mr. FRILOUX. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. It will be made a part of the record.
(The statement of C. Anthony Friloux, is as follows:)
STATEMENT
SOUTHERN
OF
C.
ANTHONY
FRILOUX, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

DISTRICT Op TEXAS, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, HOUSTON, TEX., OCTOBER
17, 1955
Senator Daniel, Senator Butler, Senator Eastland, gentlemen of the committee:
I have been informed that I may be called before the committee to discuss the
narcotic situation from the Federal enforcement standpoint in the Houston area.
After my initial conference with your committee investigator, Mr. Speers, I
have e$mpiled and outlined the background, modus operandi, scope, and end
result of three of the largest narcotic conspiracies which emanated from this
geographical area during the years 1953-54 and 1954-55. The first conspiracy
of the three which is indicative of the scope of the problem facing State and Federal
2906
agencies in this immediate area was the Tillman-Dockins case. There were
seven major participants in the distributive phase of the narcotic traffic engaged
in. by the Tillman-Dockins gang. Tillman and Dockins were locally known and
nationally known violators of the narcotic laws and were listed on the national
list of narcotic offenders.
Their activities included a heavy volume traffic in heroin hydrochloride, and an
extremely large amount of marihuana.
BACKGROUND
Both Tillman and Dockins were known for a long period of time locally as
heavy traffickers, but due to extreme wariness on their part, had managed to
evade the effort of the enforcement agencies in their attempt to break this gang.
The initial break came when an undercover (colored) agent purchased 10 pounds
of marihuana from the defendant, Tillman, in New York City and used this
purchase as a way of establishing contact with the ring's activities in this area.
he other defendants in this case were traffickers of smaller standing and were
predominantly runners, smalltime smugglers, middle-size and small peddlers
(paper lots), and various other fringe area underworld characters in the dope
traffic.
Two of the defendants were actually aliens whose prime purpose for being in
Houston was to sell 40 pounds of marihuana which they had smuggled into the
United States to sell on the open narcotic market in Houston.
MODUS
OPERANDI
Clyde Tillman and Alvin Dockins had known contacts in the areas of
Philadelphia, Pa., Detroit, Mich., and New York City, and would forward money
to these areas by money orders (postal) in one phase of the conspiracy, and receive
through the mails varying amounts of narcotics (never less than 1 ounce), which
was sent to a "drop station" under a fictitious name.
In this case, Pearl and Herman Walker's home was used as the drop station
where the narcotics were received by registered mail.
After receipt, the defendants Dockins and Tillman would drive by and pick up
the narcotics.
Reliable sources indicated that these two defendants alone received 4 to 5
packages per month here in Houston containing not less than 1 ounce per package
and in some cases amounting to 3 to 5 ounces of heroin.
During the course of trial, evidence arose which indicated that there were other
drop stations in the immediate area at Port Arthur and Beaumont to which
quantities of heroin were being delivered to this ring by the same method.
While the primary source for the heroin in this particular conspiracy strangely
enough was from the East Coast, Tillman and Dockins also received heroin from
Mexico in large volumes.
I interviewed a special employee who had stated prior to his activity being
terminated by arrest, he had purchased between 500 and 700 pounds of marihuana
from these defendants here in Houston. In addition to wholesaling heroin and
marihuana, these two defendants sold, generally, to the entire narcotic traffic in
any amount the purchaser desired.
SCOPE
This conspiracy extended from the source of supply of the marihuana in the
interior of Mexico (location unknown) to the east coast area where heroin was
smuggled, in all probability, from the Middle East. These defendants sold
generally to this area as well as the States of New York and Detroit, and were
national and international traffickers in scope.
RESULT
These defendants, Clyde Tillman and A. Dockins pled guilty after the court
denied their motion to ,upress the evidence seized by officers from the United
States mail. Tillman received 7 years for this second offense and Dockins received 6 years for his participation. Herman McElroy received 4 years as a
first offender, for his work-as a member of the Tillman-Dockins gang. Manuel
Martinez and Fernandez Chavez, aliens, received 2 years apiece as first offenders
and will be deported at the conclusion of that time served. Roland Earl Wilkins,
a second time offender who smuggled heroin to the defendants from Mexico (from
an undetermined source) received 5 years for his part in this conspiracy. Raymond Pena, a third time offender in the marihuana traffic, received 10 years for
his part in the sale of marihuana in the Houston area as a member of this gang.
2907
COMMENT
All these men will be dumped back into the illicit traffic within 4 years, more
or less, and will revert to large scale nefarious activities immediately.
COOPER-SUTTON
RING
The Cooper-Sutton gang operated from Mexico to New York using Houston
as..the central location for their underworld narcotic activities, including the
maintenance of a house filled with scales, paper bags, sacks, wax paper and other
paraphanelia used to pack, weigh and sort large amounts of marihuana. Here
the marihuana was broken down into small lots, bagged and packed into cheap
suitcases for air transportation.
BACKGROUND
This case involved 12 defendants actually indicted and some 10 to 20 defendants who are named as coconspirators but not indicted in order that they might
testify as to their activities in what I consider to be one of the largest syndicated
marihuana operations in the country. In addition to this extremely large operation in marihuana, there is ample evidence indicating that a two-way narcotic
activity was in process, including the supplying of marihuana to the east coast
markets and the acquisition of heroin from the east coast as well as Mexico to
sell on the open market in the underworld of Houston, Tex. Everett (Cap)
Cooper has been known to be a nationally listed peddler for 5 years and yet has
evaded every attempt on behalf of the Government to apprehend him in these
illicit activities. John Sutton was known in the narcotic traffic for some 8 years
and when he combined with Cap Cooper to form the Cooper-Sutton gang, the
volume and scope of narcotic handling by this conspiracy was astronomical.
The rest of the defendants occupy the following status: Teodoro Yabarro Robledo
was Mexican distributor in the border area of Texas and sold marihuana to this
ring in lots never less than 50 pounds. Robledo got his marihuana from his
brother-in-law, Leo Ochoa, who is a Mexican national in Reynosa, Mexico.
Ochoa is a major source of marihuana in this area, and has been known to supply
wholesale shipments of marihuana to the Houston area since 1950. This man is
still operating in the border area of Mexico near Laredo and Brownsville. Orange
G. Nolen was a general associate of Cooper and Sutton and used as a runner for
large narcotic deliveries, as well as helping wet down, sort, weigh, pack, and process for shipment the hundreds of pounds of marihuana on the Cooper farm.
Isaac Wallis occupied the same capacity as Nolen. Frank Mims was unknown
to the narcotic traffic until his participation in this conspiracy and he was used
as a runner for carrying large quantities of marihuana to New York to George
Hall and Nathan Johnson.
Willie Winn, Everett Cooper's brother-in-law, was also used as a runner and
was apprehended carrying 152 pounds of marihuana in Tennessee destined to
Sutton in New York. Nathan Johnson was a wholesale peddler of small stature
who peddles marihuana in New York City, N. Y., and in the Houston area.
Ed Riley and George Gale Cooper were caretakers and guardians of the marihuana stasche on the Cooper farm and occupied a restricted but important status
in the conspiracy.
MODUS
OPERANDI
Cooper and Sutton organized a wholesale narcotic syndicate which included

the 12 defendants mentioned plus some 20 or more immediate known and suspected associates.
The Cooper-Sutton gang arranged for large shipments of bulk marihuana to
be smuggled into the United States from the interior of Mexico, and then delivered this marihuana by various routes to the stasche and underground processing plant at the Cooper farm, near Houston, Tex.
Sutton contacted Teodora Yabarro Robledo who is a large narcotic distributor
in the Mercedes-Laredo area of the border. Robledo received his mnarihuana
from Mexico pursuant to an agreement with Leo Ochoa, his brother-in-law.
Ochoa had various runners smuggle 50-pound sacks of marihuana into the United
States to Robledo. One method of doing this was use of a hollowed-out seat of
a pickup truck of the type driven by Robledo and one of his runners, Serpio de
Anda, who were arrested with 50 pounds of marihuana in Corpus Christi.
Robledo delivered the marihuana to Houston by truck to the Cooper farm where
Everett Cooper, John Sutton and his associates received, concealed and guarded
the marihuana until a delivery was arranged, where it was then processed and
shipped.
71515-56-pt. 7--36
2908
When an order for a large amount of marihuana occurred, these men would
travel to the farm, pour out large quantities of bulk marihuana, wet it down for
shipment, weigh it on several sets of scales maintained for this purpose, then
bag it into 8-pound grocery sacks (placed one inside of the other) containing
approximately 1 pound of marihuana each.
These one pound bags were then packed into cheap suitcases and covered by
conventional wax paper to kill any odor from the weed. After packing, these
men would send runners, mentioned earlier, to New York carrying these suitcases
of marihuana (predominantly by air).
Cooper and Sutton, the ring-leaders avoided making trips with any narcotics
except on one occasion when Cooper carried 80 pounds of marihuana to New York
to George Hall. He was accompanied by runner, Mims.
Generally, the common law wife, or mistress of John Sutton was sent to collect
the money for the shipment of marihuana. During the course of the investigation,
development of the case, and the subsequent trial evidence reflected that at
least $47,345 in cash passed between George and iRuth Hall and Cooper and
Sutton. Large sums also passed from Nathan Johnson to Sutton and Cooper.
It can safely be presumed that this is only a small part of the money handled.
(Incidentally this took place during a 4-5-month period in the year 1952.)
Additionally, evidence during the trial showed that Government witnesses
testified to having carried or received between 1,200 pounds and 1,500 pounds of
bulk marihuana having a wholesale value in New York of approximately $150,000.
(Retail value many times greater.)
Eye witnesses testify, covering a period of 2 years, 1952-53, 1953-54, that a
minimum of 2,000 pounds of marihuana was processed and shipped by this dope
ring prior to the arrest and conviction of each and every defendant mentioned.
It is conclusively known that paralleling the syndicated operation of supplying
extensive marihuana shipments to these east coast markets, this gang in return
received substantial volumes of heroin hydrochloride and further enhances the
profit for this illicit activity.
SCOPE
This was an international narcotic conspiracy using Texas as a base of operation

and for the maintenance of, the receipt of, concealment of, and processing of the
bulk marihuana preparatory to shipment throughout the country. Indicative
of the money and profit involved in this extensive conspiracy is the mode of
transportation utilized for the delivery of the narcotics; i. e., air transportation.
The New York market is a lucrative outlet for the marihuana channeled through
this area. The chart below shows the known trips made during a 3-month period
by this ring.
Result
Name
Sentence
Year
John Sutton -------------------------------------------------------------------Everett Cooper ----------------------------------------------------------------Orange Nolan ------------------------------------------------------------------Nathan Johnson ---------------------------------------------------------------Teadora Ybarra Robledo ------------------------------------------------------Ed Riley .--------------------------------------------------------------------Isaac Wallace -------------------------------------------------------------------Frank Mims ------------------------------------------------------------------George Gale Cooper ------------------------------------------------------------Willie Winn -------------------------------------------------------------------I Suspension
15
9
5
5
6
3
3
4
3
6
Fine
$1,000
1,000
500
500
250
1100
100
100
250
100
for 5 years.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Nathan Johnson. You will stand and be

sworn.
Mr.
JOHNSON.
I do, sir.
2909
TESTIMONY OF NATHAN JOHNSON

Senator DANIEL. For the record, Mr. Reporter, the Bureau of
Narcotics here in Houston advises that Everett Cooper is out on bond.
State your name.
Mr. JOHNSON. Nathan Johnson.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. JOHNSON.
Where do you live?
I live at 3260 Francis.
DANIEL. In Houston?
Mr. JOHNSON. Houston, Tex.
Senator
Senator DANIEL. Are you the Nathan Johnson that Mr. Friloux
just mentioned?
Senator
DANIEL.
You are under conviction here in the Federal
Court for having conspired to sell marihuana?

Mr. JOHNSON. Correct.
Senator
DANIEL.
JOHNSON. I
Mr.
Cooper, Nolen-
With whom were you associated in that?

was associated with Johnny Sutton, Everett
The men Mr. Friloux named?

Senator DANIEL. When did you first go to New York in this
Senator
DANIEL.
activity?
Mr. JOHNSON.
Senator
When did I first go to New York?
DANIEL.
Yes.
I never went to New York in this activity. I was

living in New York at the time I became acquainted with that activity
of knowing Sutton.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did Sutton send you to New York?
Mr. JOHNSON. No.
Senator DANIEL. When did you first go to New York to live?
Mr. JOHNSON. I first went to New York to live in 1942.
Senator DANIEL. When did you first make contact with Sutton in
marihuana?
Mr. JOHNSON. I never made any contact with Sutton for marihuana.
I just got acquainted with Sutton in Houston in 1946 by knowing he
had a shine parlor on Dowling Street.
Mr. JOHNSON.
DANIEL. By what?
Mr. JOHNSON. By him having
Senator
this shine parlor.

Senator DANIEL. Did you know that he was selling marihuana?
Mr. JOHNSON. I couldn't verify that statement definitely.
Senator DANIEL. Did you every buy any marihuana from John
Sutton?
Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir.
Senator
huana?
DANIEL.
Mr. JOHNSON.
Never arranged for anybody else to buy mari-
No, sir. It was said I had made arrangements in vny
indictment.
Senator
DANIEL.
What?
In my indictment it was said I had made arrangements for people to buy it.
Mr. JOHNSON.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. JOHNSON.
Senator
But you deny that?
I deny having bought any stuff from Sutton.
DANIEL.
Do you know George Hall?
291-0
I know George Hall from New York. His

name rings in New York, and I live there, and it was natural for me
to know him. I knew him at the bar on 8th Avenue.
Senator DANIEL. I have his testimony here where he says you told
him you could put him in touch with someone that had marihuana.
Did you ever tell him that?
Mr. JOHNSON. No I never told him that.
Senator DANIEL. You realize you are under oath before this
committee?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes,
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. You realize that if you give false testimony to

this committee you could be indicted for perjury and that you might
have to stand trial for that?
Senator DANIEL. And if a jury or judge found you had given false
testimony that you could be given a penitentiary sentence for it, do
you understand that?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator DANIEL. You understand that?
Mr. JOHNSON. I understand it.
Senator DANIEL. I want to ask you that question over again,
whether or not you told George Hall in New York you could put him
in touch with someone that had marihuana for sale?
Mr. JOHNSON. No, I didn't.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever talk to George Hall about marihuana?
Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir, I never have.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever receive any marihuana in New
York?
Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir. It was mentioned that I received it, but
I never have.
Senator DANIEL. I am not asking what someone else said about
you. Did you ever receive any marihuana in New York?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever handle any marihuana in your
life?
Mr. JOHNSON. I never have.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have any
Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir, I never have.
in your hands?
No officers have ever
arrested me when I had marihuana in my possession. I have never
had any narcotics in my possession.
Senator DANIEL. Let me ask you the questions. I asked you,
have you ever had any marihuana in your hands? I will ask you if
you ever had any marihuana in your hands?
Mr. JOHNSON. I never had any in my hands.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see any marihuana?
Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir; no more than what I saw in this courtroom.
I did see that.
Senator DANIEL. That was the first you ever saw?
Senator DANIEL. Do you mean to tell this committee you did not
see marihuana and sell it in New York City?
Senator DANIEL. You never had any business with John Sutton?
2911
Mr. JOHNSON. I never had. I know John Sutton, but I never had
any business with him, no more than we gambled. We like to shoot
dice and we have had a number of games.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't you know John Sutton wanted some
heroin?
Senator DANIEL. Isn't it true you made his arrangements for his
heroin?
Do you have a nickname?

have had.
Senator DANIEL. What nickname?
Mr. JOHNSON. They call me "85".
Senator DANIEL. "85" Johnson?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. JOHNSON. I
Mr. JOHNSON.
Senator
"85".
DANIEL.
Didn't George Hall tell you he didn't want to
handle heroin, and that he wouldn't send Sutton heroin back from
New York, but that he would continue to buy marihuana?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. JOHNSON.
And you said, "I will take care of the heroin."
No, sir.
DANIEL. Didn't you take

Senator DANIEL. And arrange for
Senator
care of the heroin?

the purchase of heroin that came
back from New York to Houston, Tex.?

Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
JOHNSON.
Senator
For Sutton?
No, sir.
DANIEL.
I want to give you one more warning, that there
is more than one witness testified that you did. I don't know whether
you want to keep on giving those answers or whether you want to
stand on your constitutional rights, or what you want to do. I am
warning you that there is more than one witness, more than George
Hall that said that you had arranged for heroin to be brought back
to Houston for Sutton in exchange for marihuana. Did you do that?
Mr. JOHNSON. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it
Senator
DANIEL.
A minute ago you pretty freely said you didn't
It couldn't incriminate you if you didn't do it.
do it, didn't you?

JOHNSON. I
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. JOHNSON. I
Senator DANIEL.
Mr.
didn't do it.
You didn't do it?
didn't do it, that is right.
Why do you want to refuse to answer the ques-
tion on the grounds that it might incriminate you? You can refuse,
but having once answered I am wondering why you changed your
mind. Why don't you tell this committee the facts about this thing,
exactly how arrangements were made to bring heroin to Houston
from New York.
Mr. JOHNSON. I didn't know of any activity of any heroin at the
time we were being prosecuted.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy any heroin for anybody else?
Senator
Mr.
IIII
DANIEL.
JOHNSON.
Did you ever have any heroin in your hands?
No, sir.
2912
Senator
ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAGIC

DANIEL.
Mr. JOHNSON.
Or on your person?
No, sir.
Did you ever see any heroin?

have not.
Did you ever talk about heroin with anybody?
Senator DANIEL. Never used the word?
Mr. JOHNSON, No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know what the slang word is for heroin?
Mr. JOHNSON. No further than heroin. I read the newspapers
quite often, and that is the only activity of that nature that I have
had.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. JOHNSON. I
Senator DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. You have never discussed it with anybody?

Senator DANIEL. Never made arrangements to send any back here

to Houston from New York?
Mr. JOHNSON. I have not.
Senator DANIEL. Now I will ask you if it is not true that since
you got out on bond during your appeal on the case in which you
were recently convicted that you have been selling marihuana here
in Houston?
Senator DANIEL. Haven't you bought marihuana?
Mr. JOHNSON. I really haven't.
Senator DANIEL. Haven't you sold heroin in Houston?
Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir; I haven't.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Everett Cooper?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; I know Everett Cooper.
Senator DANIEL. He has been out on bond at the same time you
have, and you have been to his farm since you have been out on bond?
Mr. JOHNSON.
Senator
No.
DANIEL.
Have you seen Everett Cooper since you have
been out on bond?

Mr. JOHNSON. I have.
Senator DANIEL. What did you see him about?

Mr. JOHNSON. I haven't seen him about anything, no more than
transacting with the lawyers.
Senator DANIEL. Only in your lawyer's office?
Senator
DANIEL.
You haven't seen Everett Cooper since you
got out on bond outside of your lawyer's office?

Mr. JOHNSON. I have seen him in a cafe, a place there they call
Supango, drinking a cup of coffee.
Senator DANIEL. All right, think real good. Have you ever seen
him anywhere else since you got out on bond?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I have seen him driving down Holman.
Were you in a car with him?

Mr. JOHNSON. No.
Senator DANIEL. That is the only time you have seen him?
Mr. JOHNSON. The last time.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
You are sure?
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. You haven't met anywhere, you two together?
Mr. JOHNSON. In the Supango lounge.
Mr. JOHNSON.
I
Senator
DANIEL. That
2913
was a public place?
Senator DANIEL. You didn't go to the Cooper farm since you

have been out on bond?
Mr. JOHNSON. No.
Senator DANIEL. You say you haven't bought marihuana or
heroin?
That is correct.
Mr. JOHNSON.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. JOHNSON.
Senator
That is right.
DANIEL.
Mr. JOHNSON.
Senator
Since you have been out on bail?

Haven't sold marihuana or heroin?
I have not.
DANIEL. Since you have been out on

Mr. JOHNSON. I have not.
Senator DANIEL. Well, before your trial here
bail?
in Houston had you
ever been out to the Cooper Farm?

Mr. JOHNSON. I have never been to the Cooper Farm.
Senator DANIEL. Never in your life?
Mr. JOHNSON. Never have.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever buy any marihuana from Everett
Cooper?
Senator
Ever buy any heroin from him?

Mr. JOHNSON. No.
Senator DANIEL. Ever deal in heroin or marihuana either?
DANIEL.
Mr. JOHNSON. No, I never have.
Senator
You just have never touched either marihuana or
DANIEL.
heroin?
No.
Senator DANIEL. You never have seen any marihuana?
Mr. JOHNSON. I have seen marihuana in this courtroom.
Senator DANIEL. You have seen marihuana in this courtroom?
Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct.
Senator DANIEL. Otherwise, you wouldn't know what either one of
Mr. JOHNSON.
them looked like?

Mr. JOHNSON. I personally wouldn't.
Senator
Do you know Isaac Wallace?
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL. Did you

Senator DANIEL. I believe
ever deliver any marihuana to him?

ever receive any from him?
you have already said you never received
any marihuana from George Hall, or never gave any to him?

Senator
Neither one?
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. JOHNSON. I
Senator
Do you know Preston McClendon?

do.
DANIELS.
Also known as Preston Saunders?
Senator
Did you ever deliver him marihuana?

No, sir, I never did.
DANIEL.
Mr. JOHNSON.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have it delivered to him?
2914
Mr. JOHNSON.
No.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. JOHNSON. I
Senator DANIEL.
How about Allen McClendon, do you know him?

know him from the trial.
That was the first time you ever knew him?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever deliver any marihuana to him, or
have any delivered to him?
Senator DANIEL. Isn't it true that you and Everett Cooper have
been talking about marihuana and heroin since you got out on bail
from this trial on which you were both convicted?
Mr. JOHNSON. Let me have that again?
Senator
DANIEL.
You. and Everett Cooper, haven't you talked
about marihuana and heroin since you got out on bail after this last
conviction?
Mr. JOHNSON. Talked about marihuana?
Mr. JOHNSON. No.
What about heroin?

No.
Mr. JOHNSON.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. You haven't talked about the dope traffic at all?
Mr.
JOHNSON.
No.
You haven't been carrying it on at all?

Mr. JOHNSON. We have not.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Mexican Johnny?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. JOHNSON. No sir.

DANIEL. Did you ever hear of him until today?
Mr. JOHNSON. Until at the trial in this courtroom.
Senator DANIEL. Just what business were you in up in New
Mr. JOHNSON. What business was I in in New York?
Senator
York?
Mr. JOHNSON. I was just gambling.
Senator DANIEL. How long did you live there?

Mr. JOHNSON. Off and on 55 years. Two years and 3 years. I
came to Texas and lived here a year ago.
DANIEL. What business were
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, mostly gambling,
Senator
you in in Texas?
I worked temporarily at the

Sky View Airport. And I worked for Prince's Drive In.
Mr. GASQUE. Specifically, do you remember the jobs you had in
New York?
Mr. JOHNSON. The jobs I had in New York?
Mr. GASQUE. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSON. I was counterman at the 58th Street Pharmacy.
Mr. GASQUE. What year was that?
Mr. JOHNSON.
1943.
Mr. GASQUE. What did you do before you were arrested this last
time in Houston?
Mr. JOHNSON. What did I do before I was arrested this last time
in Houston?
Mr. GASQUE. Yes; what kind of work?
Mr. JOHNSON. I worked with gambling.
Mr. GASQUE. What was your income a year?
III
2915
Well, in the field of gambling sometimes you don't

have any income. You might win this month, and the next month
you are broke and hungry. I have been surviving.
Mr. GASQUE. Let's take those months you did win; how much
did you make?
Mr. JOHNSON. There were months sometimes I would run say
$400 and some months I guess $500.
Mr. GASQUE. Over a period of a year how much would you say
your income ran during the years before your arrest?
Mr. JOHNSON. The years before my arrest?
Mr. GASQUE. Yes; the years immediately preceding your arrest?
Mr. JOHNSON. I was arrested this year, 1955; April.
Mr. GASQUE. What was your income in 1954?
Mr. JOHNSON. In 1954 I would say my income was about $1,500.
Mr. GASQUE. About $1,500?
Mr.
JOHNSON.
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. GASQUE. What
about 1953?
Mr. JOHNSON. I will say close to $1,500.
Mr. GASQUE. In any of those years did you ever have a gambler's
license?
Mr. JOHNSON. No. Just gambling places where fellows lived. If
you are lucky perhaps you can win enough to keep you for 3 to 6
months.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you have a home?
Mr. GASQUE. Do you own any property?
Mr.
JOHNSON.
No, sir. I rent.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you own any business?

Mr. GASQUE. Do you own an automobile?
Mr. GASQUE. Did you file an income-tax return for the year 1954?
Mr. JOHNSON. Did I file what for 1954?
Mr. GASQUE. Income-tax return?
Mr. GASQUE. What about 1953?

Mr. GASQUE. Now the chairman asked you a number of questions

regarding marihuana and, as counsel for this committee, I think
you ought to consider very seriously the answers you gave to the
chairman. He has asked you if at any time you had any connection
with the use, sale or handling of marihuana.
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, he has asked me those questions.
Mr. GASQUE. He has asked you those questions.
Mr. JOHNSON.
Yes.
Mr. GASQUE. And an untruthful answer before this committee

might lead to an indictment for perjury. Will you give the chairman
truthful answers to those questions?
Mr. JOHNSON. I have given them to my best knowledge. Everything he asked me has been answered truthfully.
Senator DANIEL. Did you file income-tax returns for any of the
years Mr. Gasque asked you about?
Mr. JOHNSON. No.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever file an income-tax return.?
2916
Mr. JOHNSON. Did I ever file an income-tax return?
Senator
DANIEL.
Yes.
Mr. JOHNSON. I filed for the yearDANIEL. Since 1950 have you filed
JOHNSON. Have I filed one since 1950?
Senator
Mr.
one?

Senator DANIEL. Have you made less than $1,500 any year since
1950?
Mr. JOHNSON. Sure, I have made less.
Senator DANIEL. What years have you made more?
Mr. JOHNSON. The years I have made more?
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, for the years 1953 and 1954 1 was lucky in my
gambling, and I had $1,400 or $1,500.
Senator DANIEL. What about 1952?
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I was
DANIEL. Doing pretty good in 1952?
JOHNSON. In 1952 I was getting two or three
Senator
Mr.
a month.
hundred dollars
Something like that.
Senator DANIEL. We asked you to bring your income-tax returns,

your account books, and check books. Did you bring them with you?
Mr. JOHNSON. That was approached me. I received this notice
outside of the door.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you have any bankbooks of any kind,
account books, or income-tax return copies?

Mr. JOHNSON.
No, sir; I haven't been living that good even to
this time.
Senator
DANIEL.
You didn't keep any books at all?
I mean I have no business to set my mind on those

type of books. I haven't been making that type money.
Senator DANIEL. I want to read you over a few questions and
answers sworn to by George Hall before this committee in New York,
so as to get your specific denial. I asked him this:
Mr. JOHNSON.
Senator DANIEL. Who did you turn your business over to here in New York?
Mr. HALL. No one. Johnson took it from there.
Senator DANIEL. Nathan Johnson?
Mr. HALL. Nathan Johnson.
Senator DANIEL. Until he was arrested?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. He handled it from 1952 until 1954.
Senator DANIEL. Until 1954?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Who did he get his marihuana from?

Mr. HALL. From Sutton.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know whether or not Sutton was getting heroin in
exchange?
Mr. HALL. Well, Sutton started getting his heroin during the time he was
doing business with me in 1952.
Senator DANIEL. Did he ask you to get him some heroin?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. He asked me to make arrangements to connect some
was sort ofpeople with him for heroin, and I refused him. So from then on he his
heroin for
handle
exclusively
wouldn't
I
well, he was angry with me, because
heroin
your
handle
will
I
say,
him. So he sent in to Johnson, and Johnson would
for you. And Johnson was getting his heroin for him, and they brought it to my
house to wrap it one night, and we were in the back room, and they tookupthiswith
there were 3 ounces they had that they put in a little box, wrapped it
some wrapping paper, and tied it with a ribbon, and so forth, you know, make it
look like a present, and that was the heroin that I knew was going to Sutton.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS TIAAFFIC
2917
Senator DANIEL. Were you ever in George Hall's house?

Mr. JOHNSON. Was I ever in George Hall's house?
Yes.
was at his business place.
Were you ever in his house?
Mr. JOHNSON. No.
Senator DANIEL. Were you ever in the back room of his business
place?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. JOHNSON. I
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. JOHNSON. Not to wrap anything, any narcotics.

DANIEL. Were you ever in his
Mr. JOHNSON. In his cafe.
Senator DANIEL. In the back room?
Mr. JOHNSON. Back room?
Senator
Mr. JOHNSON.
place?
Not to wrap any heroin.
Do you know Orange Nolen and Isaac Wallace?

Senator DANIEL. Were you ever in New York with them?
Mr. JOHNSON. Was I ever in New York with them?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I was in New York when they were there.
DANIEL. What did you see them doing up in New York?

Mr. JOHNSON. See them?
Senator DANIEL. Aren't they the ones that brought heroin back?
Mr. JOHNSON. They never brought any heroin back to my
Senator
knowledge.
Senator DANIEL. I believe that is all we need to ask you. I will
instruct the counsel here to turn the record of your testimony over to
the Department of Justice.
STATEMENT OF DAN WALTON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, HARRIS

COUNTY, TEX.
Senator DANIEL. Will you state your name, please.
Mr. WALTON. Dan Walton.
Senator DANIEL. And your title?

Mr. WALTON. I am district attorney of Harris County, Tex., sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. WALTON.
How long have you held that office?
Since the 1st of October 1954.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Walton, we appreciate your cooperation with

this committee and all of your assistance to us on this hearing. I
believe you have a prepared statement?
Mr. WALTON. Yes; I do,
Senator DANIEL. Would
sir.
you like to speak from that, or would you

like to make it a part of the record, and then summarize your recommendations and your evidence?
Mr. WALTON.
With your permission, I will summarize the recom-
mendations.
(Mr. Walton's statement appears on p. 2921.)
Senator
DANIEL.
Proceed then in your own way.
First, I would like, Senator, to commend this committee on its diligent efforts in ferreting out the facts in what I consider to be one of the greatest problems currently facing law enforcement officials.
Mr. WALTON.
2918
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
I think you will find in this report which I have made some statistical information which may, together with other information which
I am sure this committee has gathered, serve as some yardstick by
which to judge the incidence of the illegal narcotics traffic in Harris
County.
You will find in this statement that in the last year we have convicted 174 individuals for traffic; that is, sale or possession of heroin
or marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. Is that just in a year?
Mr. WALTON. That is in a 1-year period.
Senator DANIEL. Are those different people?
Mr. WALTON. Yes; that is 174 different individuals.
And I might say you will see from this report that we feel that the
juries in this county have never shown any hesitance at all to convict
where the evidence was clear in narcotics cases; nor have they shown
any hesitancy in assessing the maximum penalty in aggravated cases.
You will see they assessed a total of 719 years for 174 individuals.
You will find some information in here just about barbiturates in
this county. I do not know whether those statistics are of particular
interest to this committee or not.
Senator DANIEL. They certainly are of interest, not only because
they are dangerous drugs themselves when misused, but because they
lead to the use of heroin and other narcotic drugs.
Mr. WALTON. That certainly has been my observation.
It par-
ticularly is a means by which the young people, particularly in high

school, are introduced to a more serious narcotic habit. That has
been my observation.
Senator DANIEL. How many of those cases have you found?
Mr. WALTON. During the period October 1, 1954, to October 1,
1955, my office has filed 73 charges of unlawful sale or possession of
barbiturates. Of those individuals charged in such cases, 48 have
been convicted and assessed fines aggregating $3,550, and sentenced to
1,150 days confinement in the county jail. Seventeen of the cases are
now awaiting trial on the dockets of the courts.
You, of course, I am sure, are familiar with the recent revisions
which were made in the statutes or criminal laws of this State by our
last session of the legislature, by which the maximum penalty was
increased in sale and possession cases from 10 years to a possible life
sentence. And I think you are of course also familiar with the provision enacted into law which makes the minimum sentence 10 years for
a second offender.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think that heavy court sentences are a
detriment to the narcotics traffic?
Mr. WALTON. I think they are certainly a detriment.
I think that
equally important, however, is effective enforcement of those laws.

I don't think ineffective or loose enforcement of the laws can solve the
narcotics problem. I feel it is equally important that sufficient money
be appropriated for specially trained personnel to enforce those laws.
I feel in some instances that is the difficulty with which we are confronted in this county, and in this State, and I assume in other jurisdictions also.
Senator DANIEL. Then if you have -the money and the men to enforce the laws, you think that will go pretty far toward the solution of
this problem?
Mr. WALTON. Yes; I do.
2919
Senator DANIEL. How do you feel about the actual sentences, the
penalties, on these traffic charges?
Mr. WALTON. I feel certainly that a firm policy as to penalties is
important, and I feel that the certainty of punishment is equally as
important as a deterrent to crime as the severity of the punishment.
I feel that the laws our last legislature enacted in this State will prove
to be an effective deterrent. Of course it has not been on the statute
books long enough as yet to have enough experience to substantiate
that opinion.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you find you have good cooperation among your
county, State, city, and Federal authorities here?
Mr. WALTON. Yes; I have always found that we have good cooperation in this jurisdiction here. Of course, I am not in position to
know what kind of cooperation exists on what you might say the direct
law-enforcement level itself; that is, between the Bureau of Narcotics,
for instance, and the Narcotics Division of the Houstou Police Department. I would have no way of knowing, of any firsthand knowledge,
as to what the liasion may be there.
Mr. GASQUE. We are particularly interested in your suggestion in
your statement that the States should work out some arrangement
with the Federal Government for the treatment of these addicts, and
that the State should pay the costs. I wonder if you would tell us
something on that.
Of course, in
Mr. WALTON. I simply wish to make this suggestion.
view of the new addiction law which was enacted by the last session
of the legislature, as you know, we are currently in a process of a
rather large program here to put that law into effect. In preparation
for doing so, I had personnel from my own office make a survey of what
facilities would be available for the treatment-and when I say treatment I mean treatment by trained personnel looking toward the rehabilitation of the first offenders before they become hardened criminals of some sort. And in making that survey we found that Texas
has limited facilities in the Texas State penitentiary for the treatment
of male narcotic addicts, and no more than token facilities available
for the treatment of female narcotic addicts.
Our office is advised that the United States Public Health Service
Hospital in Fort Worth, Tex., can handle only a limited number of
voluntary cases for Harris County. Of course, the State courts do
not have the power to commit anyone to this institution for involuntary
treatment. The desirability of probating narcotic addicts for treatment to the Federal hospital in Fort Worth is rendered highly questionable by the current Federal statutes and regulations prohibiting
the authorities of such hospital from giving reports on the progress of
the treatment of patients admitted. We are advised that not even
a. confidential report could be made to the court which granted the
probation.
I think it is obvious that it, is questionable as to whether a judge
would feel that it was entirely the better part of wisdom to entrust the
probation for treatment without any further control or supervision
from the bench, or from the court itself.
Senator DANIEL. We received evidence that where they are prol)ated, they leave to the court no further jurisdiction over them.
Mr. WALTON. That is right. As I understand, you would not be
able to get any report. You would be relegated to this situation
2920
of possibly checking periodically to see whether or not the individual

was there.
Senator DANIEL. I will assure you we are going to draft a Federal
law that will take care of that situation, as the result of this committee's investigation.
Mr. WALTON. I certainly think that is a part of the law that needs
some serious consideration. I think it should be revised so that it

could be more useful to local agencies as well as Federal Government
agencies.
You probably know that as yet we do not have adequate State
facilities for the treatment of narcotic addicts, and until such time
as adequate facilities are available, I suggest that consideration should
be given to the possibilities of some type of mutual agreement between
the State of Texas and the Federal Government whereby a part of the
Federal hospital at Fort Worth could be used to treat narcotic addicts
probated for treatment by the State courts. Of course, the State of
Texas should bear the expense of the treatment of such persons.
Even if such procedure would necessitate the expansion of the Fort
Worth hospital, this might be more economically feasible than the
establishment of a separate State facility at this time.
Senator DANIEL. It might req uire the use of the hospital for the
purpose for which it was originally intended. At first there were so
many patients at both Fort Worth and Lexington hospitals, after our
first hearing on the subject, that we had a waiting list of 500 narcotic
addicts wanting to get in, while the hospitals had more than that
number of patients for mental cases and other diseases. That has been
rectified though since our committee found that situation to exist.
Mr. WALTON. If they have been able to accommodate them, I think
it will be a great source of help.

Senator DANIEL. It is supposed to be on a current basis. But I
don't know how long it will be that way as long as we keep sending
addicts up there. Of course, they are going to clean out some other
patients in order to have room.
Mr. WALTON. Yes.
I feel that this addiction law, even in the
present form, will probably have a great deal to do with deterring

narcotics traffic here. Because if you dry up the users of narcotics,
there will be no market for it.
I would like to say one more thing, if I may, and that is on the
personnel problem of it. I think that is one of the real problems,
the lack of adequate personnel, particularly on the State level. Of
equal importance with the enactment of stringent laws is the appropriation of sufficient moneys to provide facilities essential to efficient
administration of such laws, and adequate, specially trained, personnel to enforce such laws. These people of course come out of the
penitentiary and are turned back to our metropolitan areas without
any supervision. I feel very strongly that a system where these people were kept under direct surveillance would do a great deal to deter
narcotic traffic.
Senator DANIEL. We certainly thank you, Mr. Walton, for your
suggestions. Let us have any other suggestions that you may think
of, and we will make them a part of the record.
Mr. WALTON. Thank you.
(The statement of Mr. Walton follows:)
2921

STATEMENT
OF
DAN
WALTON,
DISTRICT
ATTORNEY,
HARRIS
COUNTY,
TEX.
I wish to take this opportunity to commend this committee on the diligent

efforts being made to develop the facts relating to one of the most serious problems
currently confronting law-enforcement agencies-the increasing prevalence of
illegal traffic in narcotic drugs. All who have more than a casual acquaintance
with the incident of crime in general cannot but be aware of the fact that a large
percentage of other crimes, such as robbery, burglary, theft, etc., are directly or
indirectly attributable to the trafficking in narcotics and those who have become
habitual users of narcotic drugs. One of the most serious factors in this problem
is that those engaged in the narcotics traffic prey largely upon the immature and
unwary youth of our society.
Pursuant to your request, I am setting forth the following facts and opinions
based upon my personal experience as district attorney of Harris County, Tex.,
since October.1, 1954.
The following statistical information may serve as some yardstick by which
to judge the incident of the illegal narcotics traffic (sale and possession of narcotic
drugs) in Harris County. During the period October 1, 1954, to October 1, 1955.
the district attorney's office of Harris County, in the prosecution of charges of
unlawful sale and possession of marihuana and heroin, has obtained the conviction
of 174 individuals who were sentenced to the Texas State Penitentiary for an
aggregate total of 719 years.
I do not know whether it is of direct interest to this committee or not, but it
probably will be of incidental interest at least to know that the incident of traffic
in barbiturates in indicated by the following statistics:
During the period October 1, 1954, to October 1, 1955, this office has filed
73 charges of unlawful sale or possession of barbiturates. Of the individuals
charged in such cases, 48 have been convicted and assessed fines aggregating
$3,550 and 1,150 days' confinement in the county jail. Seventeen of the cases
are awaiting trial on the dockets of the courts.
During the last session of the Legislature of the State of Texas, an extensive
review of the laws pertaining to the sale, possession, and use of narcotic drugs
resulted in some substantial revisions of the criminal laws of Texas applicable
thereto. The maximum penalty for unlawful sale and possession of narcotic
drugs was increased from 10 years to life, with provision for minimum punishment of 10 years in the case of repeat offenses. The benefits of the suspendedsentence law of this State for defendants convicted of such violation were abrogated with provision leaving the power or authority in the court to exercise its
discretion in according probation.
In an effort to afford greater protection to the youth of this State, the minimum
penalty provided for adult persons utilizing minors under 19 years of age to engage
in the traffic of narcotics was fixed at 5 years, with a maximum penalty of life
imprisonment. The statutes providing for seizure and forfeiture of vessles,
vehicles, and aircraft used to transport contraband narcotics was also added to
our laws to enable law-enforcement agencies to more effectively cope with the
narcotics trafficker. What is commonly referred to as the "paraphernalia law"
was also included in our statutes, which further facilitates more effective control
over the users of narcotic drugs.
Of particular importance was the addition to our criminal laws of statutes
making it unlawful for any person to habitually use any narcotic drug, be addicted
to the use of narcotic drugs or be under the influence of narcotic drugs, with
penalty of confinement in the penitentiary for a period of not more than 3 years
and provisions empowering the court in its discretion to accord probation, and
including among the conditions of the probation that the probationer shall enter
a hospital approved by the court and remain therein until discharged by the
medical authorities of such hospital as cured.
Of course, as yet, sufficient time has not elapsed since the effective dates of the
aforementioned revision of the narcotics laws of Texas, to determine how effective
the new statutes will prove as a deterrent to the narcotics traffic.
There appears to be one obvious weakness in the "addiction law" as enacted
in Texas, and that is the omission to provide adequate facilities for the treatment
and rehabilitation of narcotic addicts. In my opinion, in order to be entirely
effective an addiction law should provide for adequate facilities to treat the narcotic addicts and should also provide for compulsory commitment of narcotic
addicts to proper institutions by the courts. It also appears to me that it would
be preferable to leave the power of discharge, further confinement, or probation
subsequent to treatment to the court upon recommendation from the medical
authorities administering treatment to the narcotic addicts, rather than leaving
2922
this discretion entirely to the medical authorities. A recent survey made by my

office of the facilities available to handle narcotic addicts in this State discloses
that there are limited facilities in the Texas State penitentiary for the treatment
of male narcotic addicts and no more than token facilities available for the treatment of female narcotic addicts. This office is advised that the United States
Public Health Service Hospital in Forth Worth, Tex., can handle only a limited
number of voluntary cases for Harris County. Of course, the State courts do not
have the power to commit anyone to this institution for involuntary treatment.
The desirability of probating narcotic addicts for treatment to the Federal
hospital in Fort Worth is rendered highly questionable by the current Federal
statutes and regulations prohibiting the'authorities of such hospital from giving
reports on the progress of the treatment of patients admitted. We are advised
that not even a confidential report could be made to the court which granted the
probation. It is axiomatic that in order for a court to intelligently accord
probation and determine whether or not the conditions of the probation were being
complied with, would require a periodic report from the authorities administering
treatment.,
Until such time as adequate State facilities for the treatment of narcotic ad.
dicts is available, I suggest that consideration should be given to the possibilities
of some type of mutual agreement between the State of Texas and the Federal
Government whereby a part of the Federal hospital at Fort Worth could be used
to treat narcotic addicts probated for treatment by State courts. Of course, the
State of Texas should bear the expense of the treatment of such persons. Even
if such procedure would necessitate the expansion of the Fort Worth hospital,
this might be more economically feasible than the establishment of a separate
State facility at this time.
In conclusion, I cannot refrain from making the observation that the enactment
of stringent laws only, will not eliminate the danger inherent in illegal narcotics
traffic. Of equal importance is the appropriation of sufficient moneys to provide
facilities essential to efficient administration of such laws, and adequate, specially
trained, personnel to enforce such laws. In this latter respect, the legislative
branches of the local, State, and National Governments which have the authority
to appropriate moneys for the administration of criminal justice have a nondelegable and inescapable responsibility.
STATEMENT OF W. J. BURNS, CHIEF OF POLICE,

GALVESTON, TEX.
Senator DANIEL. Will you state your name.
Mr. BURNS. W. J. Burns, chief of police, Galveston, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been chief of police of Galveston?
Mr. BURNS. Four years.
Senator DANIEL. Chief Burns, will you identify your assistants
whom you have with you?
Mr. BURNS. Chief W. J. Whitburn, chief of detectives; Detective
J. B. Kline, narcotics division.
Senator DANIEL. And do you have another member?
Mr. BURNS. Yes. Larry McCown, detective, narcotics division.
Senator DANIEL. We appreciate your coming and appearing before
the committee. Do you have a prepared statement?
Mr. BURNS. Yes, I have.
Senator DANIEL. Would you like to file it for the record, and then
simply refer to the high points in summary?
Mr. BURNS. I certainly would; yes.

Senator DANIEL. The entire statement will be included at this
point.
(Statement of W. J. Burns is as follows:)
2923

REPORT OF GALVESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, OCTOBER 18,
1955
The records of the Galveston Police Department show that during the years
of 1953 and 1954, the narcotic cases were about 50 percent heroin and 50 percent
marihuana. During the year of 1953 we did not handle any cases of barbiturates,
while in the year of 1954 there was a total of seven cases made which would indicate a rise in the use of barbiturates.
It has been our experience that while the red-light district was open we found
a far greater amount of narcotic addiction among the prostitutes and their associates than we have found since the closing of that segregated district. In the
handling of prostitutes at the present time we find that a very small percentage
of these persons, or their associates, are addicted to narcotics.
We find that people convicted in the State court are more severely dealt with
than those convicted in the Federal court. It is our opinion that no one over the
age of 21 years should have his sentence suspended or be put upon probation for
the violation of narcotic laws. We also believe that no case should be dismissed without trial to allow the person, or persons, charged under the narcotic law, an opportunity to enter the Armed Forces of the United States. This is a practice
that has been widely used to the advantage of the law violator and detriment of
the enforcement agency. In the past, numerous cases have been dismissed to
allow addicts to be confined in a Government hospital so that they could be cured
of their addiction, only to have these same persons return to our community and
continue in the narcotic traffic, after they are released from these institutions.
We believe that the narcotic laws should be amended so as to provide higher minimum penalties, starting at 5 years for first offenders and raised according to the
gravity of the additional offenses, because we find that the policy of the Federal
court is too lenient in narcotic cases. We feel that the uncertainty of punishment for persons found guilty of narcotic violations tend to build up a disrespect
of the narcotic law, as borne out by second, third, and fourth offenders.
We do not know of any narcotic addition among juveniles in Galveston.
While it has been reported to us in many instances that the situation exists, our
investigations have failed to disclose any violations, nor have we been able to
gather any evidence or make any arrest involving juveniles. There is without a
doubt instances where juveniles do some into the possession of barbiturates,
marihuana, and milder forms of narcotics which are so easily obtained throughout
the country, but we have not had any occasion to handle a case involving juveniles.
The cooperation given us by the United States Narcotics Bureau has been excellent, and we do not know of any way this cooperation could be improved upon.
Due to the lack of manpower in the Narcotics Bureau this cooperation has been
limited, but the Bureau has always cooperated with the Galveston PoliceDepartment to the best of its ability. It is our opinion that the Narcotics Bureau has
done an excellent 'job considering the shortage of manpower and funds appropriated for the purpose of purchasing narcotics. A lot more could be accomplished by the Narcotics Bureau if the personnel was increased and if they were
granted more funds for operation. However, it is our opinion that the increase
in penalties will do more than any other one thing to discourage the traffic in
narcotics.
It is our opinion that the speedy trial of persons charged with narcotic violations
would deter the persons charged and others from becoming narcotic peddlers and
addicts. We have had cases stay on the dockets of the courts for a period of 1
year without going to trial.
One, George Flake, was arrested on July 1, 1954, charged with possession of
marihuana. He made bond in State court, and on February 5, 1955, he was again
arrested for possession of marihuana and he had not been tried for the first case.
One, Katie Rivera, was arrested on September 21, 1954, charged with possession
of marihuana and was again arrested on May 1, 1955, and charged with the sale
of marihuana by the Federal Government, while out on bond.
Likewise, Jovina Rivera was arrested on September 21, 1954, charged in the
State court with possession of marihuana, and on May 1, 1955, he was again arrested and charged with sale and possession of marihuana in Federal court.
All three of the above-named persons immediately went back into narcotic
traffic after being originally arrested, and none of them were tried before the second
arrest. We cite these three instances for the purpose of pointing out that narcotic
iolators should be speedily tried. There have been numerous other instances,
but we do not feel that it would be of any value in cluttering up the records with
these instances.
In the case of Jovina Rivera, he was tried in State court, was given a 5-year
sentence in the State penitentiary, and later brought back from the State peni71515--56-pt. 7-37
2924
tentiary, convicted in the Federal court, and given a 5-year sentence to run concurrently with that of the State court, while in our opinion he should have been
filed on as a second offender.
In the case of Katie Rivera, she was given three 5-year sentences to run concurrently in the Federal court, but she has never been tried in the State court and
probably never will be.
The following is a record of narcotic arrests and cases handled by the Galveston
Police Department for the years of 1953 and 1954:
1953
Marihuana --------------------Heroin -----------------------Total --------------------
13 State cases, convictions ---------20 Federal cases, convictions -------Dismissed or no billed cases
33
7
20
6
33
1954
Marihuana --------------------Heroin -----------------------Barbiturates --------------------
Total --------------------
22 State cases, convictions ---------16 Federal cases, convictions-------7 Barbiturate cases, convictions----No billed and dismissed cases ----Pending -----------------------
18
2
7
15
3
45
45
(S)
(S)
W. J.
BURNS.
W. J. WHITBURN.
(S)
N.D. MCCOWN.
(S)
J. B.
KLINE.
Senator DANIEL. All right, Chief, you may present the picture you
have in Galveston, and any of your recommendations, as you see fit.

Mr. BURNS. I would like to state that as far as the narcotics situation in Galveston is concerned, we believe it is very good.
We have
had a lot of very restrictive and rigid enforcement down there. We

think that the city of Galveston probably has less traffic in narcotics
now than any other comparable city in the State. We think that.
We think the laws passed by the last Legislature of the State of
Texas will be very helpful in controlling the traffic.
In our report to the committee we show that during the year 1953
we handled 33 cases in Federal and State courts. Of these cases, we
obtained 27 convictions, and 6 cases were dismissed or no-billed.
In the year 1954 we handled 45 cases.
Marihuana 22, heroin 16,
and barbiturates 7. We received 27 convictions on these cases, and

15 were no-billed and dismissed. We have three pending.
We have noted that in 1954 there has been an increase in barbiturates. The records of the Galveston Police Department show that
during the years of 1953 and 1954 the narcotic cases were about
50 percent heroin and 50 percent marihuana. During the year 1953
we did not handle any cases of barbiturates, while in the year 1954
there was a total of seven cases made which would indicate a rise in
the use of barbiturates.
It has been our experience that while the red-light district was
open we found a far greater amount of narcotic addiction among the
prostitutes and their associates than we have found since the closing
of that segregated district. In the handling of prostitutes at the
present time, we find that a very small percentage of these persons,
or their associates, are addicted to narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. Chief, when you had the open red-light district
in Galveston, did you have more narcotic arrests and cases than you
do now?
2925
Mr. BURNS. We didn't keep statistics on it, but that is my opinion.

Senator DANIEL. Chief, I certainly appreciate your cooperation.
I know the other members of the committee will appreciate your statement, and I hope we will be able to come up with some recommendations to the Congress that will help on this matter.
I notice several things in your statement that interest me very much.
In the first place, you say that marihuana and heroin cases are about
50-50 in Galveston.
Mr. BURNS. That is correct.
Senator DANIEL. But you have a total of all cases for 1953 of only
33 cases.
Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And 45 cases in 1954.
Senator DANIEL. That is county, State, and Federal?
Mr. BURNS. County, State, and Federal; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I suppose the story on narcotics is a serious
problem anywhere.
Mr. BURNS. With one addict I would figure it was an important
thing.
Senator DANIEL. But actually do you feel that as far as narcotics
are concerned that you have them pretty well under control in
Galveston?
Mr. BURNS. We do. We have a special narcotics squad of two men,
and they have done a very good job in our opinion.
Senator DANIEL. In your second paragraph of this statement is a
matter that interests me no end, that since the closing of the red-light
district you have cut the percentage of your narcotics traffic in Galveston. Is that what you mean to say?
Mr. BURNS. Yes; that has been our experience. We got rid of a
lot of narcotic addicts among prostitutes when we closed the district
in Galveston.
Senator DANIEL. Have you found that prostitutes and narcotics
go pretty much hand in hand?
Mr. BURNS. In my opinion, that is true.
Senator DANIEL. I wonder if, for the record, you would read that
second paragraph of your statement.
Mr. BURNS. "It has been our experience that while the red-light
district was open we found a far greater amount of narcotic addiction
among the prostitutes and their associates than we have found since
the closing of that segregated district. In the handling of prostitutes
at the present time we find that a very small percentage of those
persons, or their assocites, are addicted to narcotics."
Senator DANIEL. And I believe you said that when you had an
open red-light district in Galveston, you had more narcotic arrests
than you do now?
Mr. BURNS. That is my opinion.
Senator DANIEL. At least, you had more addicts in Galveston?
Mr. BURNS. That is correct.
Senator DANIEL. Do you find that these addicts spread addiction
to other people?
Mr. BURNS. They most certainly do; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Is there still an argument over whether or not a
red-light district should be maintained?
2926
Mr. BURNS. There most definitely is. There is lots of difference of

opinion.
Senator DANIEL. Does the present mayor still want that open?
Mr. BURNS. He does.
Senator DANIEL. I wonder if this effect on the narcotics traffic has
ever been brought to the attention of those who want the district
opened up?
Mr. BURNS. We have tried to bring that out over and over again.
Also from a juvenile standpoint we believe it would increase delinquency by reopening the district.
Senator DANIEL. I am certainly glad to hear you make this statement, Chief. I am glad to hear you make this statement because it
bears out what we have heard in other cities.
Senator DANIEL. There is certainly one more good argument for
enforcing the law and cutting out these houses of prostitution in
Galveston.
Now do you have any other suggestion to make to us in any way
that might be helpful in our investigation?
Mr. BURNS. NO, sir. I would like for you to hear Chief Whitburn.
Senator DANIEL. Very well. We will hear from him now.
STATEMENT OF W. J. WHITBURN, CHIEF OF
DETECTIVES, GALVESTON, TEX.-Resumed
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Whitburn, you are chief of detectives, Police
Department, city of Galveston?
Mr. WHITBURN. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Go right ahead with your statement.
Senator, I only have one thing I would like to

add to the record, and that is the fact that there is not enough restraint
R ut on these druggists and drugstores in regard to barbiturates. We
nd a number of cases in our town where these barbiturates are
getting into the hands of undesirable parties along down the line
until they get in the hands of persons who use them. We have
turned this in to the drug salesmen and the druggists, but it seems
like in many cases they won't disclose the persons working in these
places where they can get in touch with these tablets and dish them
out.
Also there are not enough restrictions put on druggists as to how
they handle them or how many they sell. There is no record kept
on that.
Senator DANIEL. Have you reported this to the Pure Food and
Drug Agency?
Mr. WHITBURN.
Mr.
WHITBURN.
We did.
We had one of those men in Galveston
3 weeks ago, and they were checking one man that we arrested approximately 8 months ago. That is a long time to check them.
Senator
DANIEL.
You buy those barbiturates without prescrip-
tions, do you?
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I certainly agree with you that it is a serious
matter, and we will call it to the attention of the Congress and to
the attention of the Federal agencies that have control over it. If
there are any other details that you want us to help you with in
Mr. WHITBURN.
2927
reporting it back to the Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare, that has jurisdiction over the Pure Food and Drug Agency,
we will do it.
Thank you, sir, for that.
STATEMENT OF W. 3. BURNS, CHIEF OF POLICE,
CITY OF GALVESTON-Resumed
Senator DANIEL. It would appear to me from cases you have listed
that your State courts have given pretty heavy sentences on these
narcotics cases.
Mr. BURNS. We have had some pretty good luck in the State courts.
Senator DANIEL. The Judges have fixed pretty heavy penalties?
Mr. BURNS. At least the juries have.
Senator DANIEL. What about in your Federal courts in Galveston?
Mr. BURNS. This last term of court, without any derogatory words
as far as the court judges are concerned, there were a number of cases
this last term of court that we thought as a whole the sentences that
were dished out were very light. There was one case where a man
was arrested and had 5 ounces of heroin.
Senator DANIEL. How much penalty did he get?
Mr. BURNS. I think he got 6 years altogether. That was a second
offense.
Senator DANIEL. Five ounces of heroin, about what would that be
worth on the retail market?
Mr. BURNS. Fifty or sixty thousand dollars' worth.
Senator DANIEL. And the party got a 6-year sentence, which he can
serve in how long?
Mr.
BURNS.
Senator
Well, he gets 3 months off for every year he does.
DANIEL.
He can serve it in three-fourths oi that time?

Senator DANIEL. And it was a Federal court case, was it?
Senator DANIEL. Do you try to bring cases in the State courts or
Federal courts, or do you have any preference for either?
Mr. BURNS. We don't necessarily have any preference, sir. When
we work in conjunction with the Narcotics Division out of Houston
here we always handle the cases in the Federal court, and when we
handle them in Galveston we turn them over to the State courts.
If we have a case where an automobile is involved we usually turn it
over to the Federal courts on account of the automobile confiscation
law, so we can put these people on the ground and keep them there
for a while.
Senator DANIEL. You do have a State confiscation law now, don't
you?
Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir, but I don't think it is going to hold up too good.
Senator DANIEL. You don't think it is going to be as good as the
Federal law?
Mr. BURNS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How about the cooperation between your people

and the Bureau of Narcotics?
Mr. BURNS. It couldn't be any better. But tkey have a shortage
of personnel both in the Customs and the narcotics divisions and they
are short of funds, and they are held down pretty good themselves.
But for man to man, it couldn't be any better.
2928
Senator DANIEL. I appreciate all of you coming before us.
Do either of you gentlemen have anything to add?
Mr. BURNS. I would like for you to hear from Detective Kline.
STATEMENT OF J. B. KLINE, DETECTIVE, NARCOTICS DIVISION,

POLICE DEPARTMENT, GALVESTON, TEX,
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Kline go right ahead with whatever you
have to say.
Mr. KLINE. I would like to say one thing. I haven't heard any
testimony on this at all here, and that is in regard to some articles
about legalized narcotics. I wish to state that after some of these
articles have come out I have talked to numerous addicts that I could
relatively believe would tell me the truth as to what they think about
legalized narcotics, if it would help control it. And each one of them
that I had enough confidence in to believe that they would tell me the
truth stated that it would not help to any extent. They said that
after a person was hooked he would use the dispensary to keep from
getting sick, and would look up the pusher in the black market for
whatever additional amount he wanted.
Senator DANIEL. Well, that is certainly in line with what we have
been told other places. I am glad to find that some addicts have
told you that, because most of the addicts themselves say that they
favor a free legalized drug clinic, although we have found some who
say it would not solve the problem.
Mr. KLINE. They say the only thing they would be in favor of it
for it would keep them from getting sick, and that is all.
Senator DANIEL. And it assures them of that much.
Mr. KLINE. That is true.
Senator DANIEL. If you are talking about getting rid of addicts
by restoring them to being normal persons they never would get well.
Mr. KLINE. That is right. They get enough to keep from being
sick, and they get that for nothing.
Mrs. Saulter, will you stand up and be sworn.
Mrs. SAULTER. I do, sir.
TESTIMONY OF HELEN SAULTER
State your name.
Mrs. SAULTER. Helen Saulter.
Senator DANIEL. To whom were you married?
Mrs. SAULTER. Frank Saulter.
Senator DANIEL. Are you separated from Frank Saulter?
Mrs. SAULTER. I am divorced from him.
Senator DANIEL. You are divorced from him?
Mrs. SATJLTER. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Mrs. Saulter, Mr. Speer has talked with you and
I am going to let.'him carry the examination. This committee is
interested in anything concerning the narcotics traffic from Red
China, and particularly because of the information you have had,
Senator
DANIEL.
2929
though it does not bear directly on Houston; while you are in this
proximity we would like to get that evidence at this time, the evidence
that you had at the time you lived in California and elsewhere on the
subject. And that is the purpose of calling you before the committee
at this time. As I understand it, your husband was engaged in importing heroin from China. Is that true?
Mrs. SAULTER. That is true.
Senator DANIEL. All right, Mr. Speer.
Mr. SPEER. Had you lived in California prior to 1949?
Mrs. SAULTER.
Yes, all my life.
Mr. SPEER. In relation to California, what city?

Mrs. SAULTER. Oakland.
Mr. SPEER. In about the middle of 1949 or sometime thereafter
during the year did you have occasion to meet a Chinese who had
just recently come to this country?
Mrs. SAULTER. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. What was the name of that Chinese?
Mrs. SAULTER. Donald Dong.
Mr. SPEER. Who introduced you to this Chinese?
Mrs. SAULTER. Frank Saulter.
Mr. SPEER. Where was that introduction
Mrs. SAULTER. In Oakland.
Mr. SPEER. At that time did you know
made?
where Donald Dong had

come from or when he had arrived in the United States?
Mrs. SAULTER. No, sir.
How long was it after that meeting before you learned

the identity of Donald Dong's business in the United States?
Mrs. SAULTER. The first part of 1950 when I found out my husband
was an addict.
Mr. SPEER. You found out your husband was an addict in the
first part of 1950?
Mr. SPEER.
Mrs. SAULTER. Yes, sir.
And what did he say Donald Dong's business was?

What did you learn Donald Dong's business was?
Mrs. SAULTER. He just told me he was getting narcotics from
Donald Dong from China.
Mr. SPEER. From where in China was Donald Dong receiving
Mr. SPEER.
narcotics?
Mrs. SAULTER. I believe Hong Kong, China.
Did you have occasion to talk to Donald Dong enough

to know from what part of China he had come?
Mr. SPEER. Was he fluent in English?
Mrs. SAULTER. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. Do you know of any other business that he came to the
United States for other than selling heroin?
Mr. SPEER. What arrangements did your husband make with
Donald Dong to receive heroin in the United States?
Mrs. SAULTER. That I didn't know until later, until my husband
told me in 1950.
Mr. SPEER. Did you ever personally see any narcotics that were
received by your husband from outside of the United States?
Mrs. SAULTER. When?
Mr. SPEER.
111111111I
2930
Mr. SPEER. Did you ever see any?

Mrs. SAULTER. Yes; I saw it several times in 1950.
Mr. SPEER. How were they receiving it?

Mrs. SAULTER. In magazines, in the post office.
Mr. SPEER. You say heroin was received where?
Mrs. SAULTER. In flat magazines, type of cowboy novels.
Mr.
SPEER.
Was that an American magazine?
Mrs. SAULTER. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. When you talked to your husband about Donald Dong
what did he tell you about the arrangements for receiving this heroin?
Mrs. SAULTER. I really don't remember. All I know is that he
received it in the post office in magazines.
Mr. SPEER. At a post-office box?
Mrs. SAULTER. At a post-office box.
Mr. SPEER. Who made arrangements for the post-office box?
Mrs. SAULTER. I believe Donald Dong.
Mr. SPEER. Was
that post-office box in San Francisco or in
Oakland?
Mrs. SAULTER. The first one was in San Francisco.
However,
there was one in Oakland later.

Mr. SPEER. Did you ever yourself remove one of these magazines,
or some of these magazines, from the post-office box?
Mrs. SAULTER. Yes, sir; many times.
Senator DANIEL. Over how long a period of time did that traffic
with Mr. Dong go on, over about how many years?
Mrs. SAULTER. Well, it started in late 1949 and he stopped in
early 1951.
Mr. SPEER. What was the greatest number of magazines received
at one time to your knowledge?
Mrs. SAULTER. I believe the most was 31. However most of them
were about 25 or 26.
Mr. SPEER. In each magazine how much heroin was there?
Mrs. SAULTER. A small package. I don't know how much they
weighed.
Mr. SPEER. Do you think it might have been as much as an ounce?
Mrs. SAULTER. I suppose so.

Mr. SPEER. Were you present when these magazines were opened
on some occasiones?
Mrs. SAULTER. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. Where were they opened, what point?

Mrs. SAULTER. They were opened in our home or apartment
where we were living at the time.
Mr. SPEER. What was done with the heroin?
Mrs. SAULTER. They were opened, poured on a piece of paper,

and cut with milk sugar.
Mr. SPEER. Who did this cutting?
Mrs. SAULTER. Frank, as well as I remember, Frank Torres.
Mr. SPEER. Frank Torres? You mean Sam Torres?
Mrs. SAULTER. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. Who was Sam Torres?
Mrs. SAULTER. My husband's partner.
2931
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. SAULTER.
In what kind of business?
Selling narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. How do you spell that last name, Torres;

T-o-r-r-e-s?
Mrs. SAULTER. That is correct. I think he is on McNeill Island
now.
Mr. SPEER. What was the greatest quantity of heroin your husband
had in his possession at any time in this particular organization?
Mrs. SAULTER. That I don't know.
I do know he did receive 25
or 26 magazines.
Mr. SPEER. Were you ever with him when he concealed some of
this heroin for future sale?
Mrs. SAULTER. I suppose I was.
Mr. SPEER. Did you ever see him hide any of this heroin?
Mrs. SAULTER. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. How did he hide it?

Mrs. SAULTER. Put it in manila envelopes.
They were closed with
scotch tape and put in a jar.

Mr. SPEER. What size jar?
Mrs. SAULTER. Large gallon jar with a large mouth where you can
get your hand inside.
Mr. SPEER. How many jars?
Mrs. SAULTER. Three is all I had ever seen.
Mr. SPEER. You saw three?
Mrs. SAULTER. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. Where were they hidden?

Mrs. SAULTER. Hidden under a bridge in Oakland.
were dug in the ground.
The bottles
Mr. SPEER. Do you remember the name of the bridge?

Mrs. SAULTER. Yes; Laimert Bridge.
Mr. SPEER. What was the distribution system of Frank Saulter?
How did he sell the heroin?

Mrs. SAULTER. He sold it to Sam and several others.
Mr. SPEER. Could you name some others?
Mrs. SAULTER. Jimmy Coker.
Mr. SPEER. Is that C-o-k-e-r?
Mrs. SAULTER. I believe James Coker.
Mr. SPEER. I would like to show you a photograph and see if you
can identify it?

Mrs. SAULTER. My ex-husband, Frank Saulter.
Senator DANIEL. We will mark that as "Exhibit D" of the Houston

hearing.
(The photograph marked "Exhibit D," Houston, follows:)
I I I
2932

EXHIBIT D
10%.
Photo: Frank Leroy Saulter. Age, 31; height, 5 feet 8 inches; weight, 150 pounds;
red hair, ruddy complexion, of medium build.
Mr. SPEER. And also this photograph.

Mrs.
SAULTER.
That is the man introduced to me as!Donald Dong.
Senator DANIEL. That will be marked as "Exhibit E," Houston
hearing.
(The photograph marked "Exhibit E," Houston, follows:)
EXHIBIT E
Photo of Chi Chiu Dong
Senator DANIEL. Is this the first time you have given evidence
in a courtroom or before any public body?

Mrs. SAULTER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. So far as you know, has your husband ever been
arrested and tried for smuggling narcotics into this country?
Mrs. SAULTER. No; only for addiction.
2933
Senator DANIEL. Where is your husband now, so far as you know?

Mrs. SAULTER. So far as I know, he is in California, Oakland.
Mr. SPEER. This Jimmy Coker you mentioned, how long have
you known him?
SAULTER. Five years. Approximately

Mr. SPEER. Was he an addict all that time?
11-S.
5 years.
Mrs. SAULTER. Yes; he was.

Mlr. SPEER. What connection did he have with Donald Dong?
Mrs. SAULTER. I don't know that even now.
Mr. SPEER. Who else was in this organization?
Mrs. SAULTER. Charley Osuna, also of Oakland.
M'. SPEER. What did you say about Osuna?
Mrs. SAULTER. I don't know if he met Donald there,
but he was
from Oakland.
Mr. SPEER. Particularly what do you know he did with reference
to this sale of heroin?

Mrs. SAULTER. He sold it over in San Francisco.
Mr. SPEER. Did he ever furnish your husband any money?

Mrs. SAULTER. Yes.
\Ir. SPEER. How much?
Mrs. SAULTER. That I don't know.
Mr. SPEER. On what occasion did he furnish him some money?

Mrs. SAULTER. Over at home. My husband gave him some
heroin to sell and he paid for it.

Mr. SPEER. On one occasion did he finance one of the operations?
Mrs. SAULTER. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. How much did he furnish him that time?
Mrs. SAULJTER. I don't know the exact amount of money, but I
know he put a thousand dollars down on an automobile for Jimmy.

Mr. SPEER. How long did this Chinese stay in the United States
to your knowledge?
Mrs. SAULTER. I think it was almost a month or so.
Mr. SPEER. About a month or so?
Mrs. SAULTER. I think he stayed in town for about a month.
Mr. SPEER. What arrangement did Frank Saulter make to com-
municate with Donald Dong to your knowledge?

Mrs. SAULTER. At the time I didn't know. However, my husband
told me later they were supposed to send telegrams through the

post-office box Donald had got my husband.
Mr. SPEER. Did they use a cable code address?
Mrs. SAULTER. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. What cable code address did your husband use in the
United States?
Mrs. SAULTER. I know the cable name. I don't
Mr. SPEER. What was the name?
Mrs. SAULTER. Spitfire.
Mr. SPEER. What was the cable code address in
Mrs. SAULTER. Castlefield.
know the number.

Hong Kong?
Mr. SPEER. Castlefield?

Mrs. SAULTER. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. C-a-s-t-l-e-f-i-e-l-d?

Mrs. SAULTER. I suppose it would be.
Mr. SPEER. What would they usually say in these cables?
Mrs. SAULTER. I don't remember.
I I
2934
Mr. SPEER.
Did you see the word Castlefield in some of these
cables?
Mrs. SAULTER. Yes, I did.
Mr. SPEER. Did you see letters your husband received from Donald
Dong?
Mrs. SAULTER. Yes. However, I never did read them.
Mr. SPEER. How did your husband write letters?
Mrs. SAULTER. He just typed every one of them over.
Mr. SPEER. How would he do that?
Mrs. SAULTER. He would run the typewriter and type them.
Mr. SPEER. Did they have some agreement about a means of
communication by using a strange typewriter?

Mrs. SAULTER. I don't suppose so. They didn't want their handwriting involved.
Mr. SPEER. Didn't want to use their handwriting?
Mrs. SAULTER. Didn't want their handwriting involved.
Mr. SPEER. How did Frank Saulter pay for these large amounts of
heroin?
Mrs. SAULTER. He sent large bills.
Mr. SPEER. What do you mean by large bills?
Mrs. SAULTER. Go to the bank and get large bills, thousand dollar
bills, five hundred dollar bills, whatever he could get, and mail them.
Mr.
SPEER.
Were these bills difficult to get?
Mrs. SAULTER. No, they were not.

Mr. SPEER. Did you ever get any for him?
Mrs. SAULTER. Several times.
Mr. SPEER. What was the cause of the interruption of this traffic
in heroin from Hong Kong?

Mrs. SAULT.R. I believe when Sam Torres sold to a Federal agent
in Oakland.
Mr. SPEER. Was he arrested?
Mrs. SAULTER. I think he was.
We were in Louisiana at the time.
Mr. SPEER. After his arrest what did Frank Saulter tell you about
the possibility of confiscation of the shipments of heroin from Hong

Kong?
Mrs. SAULTER. He didn't tell me anything.
Mr. SPEER. Did he name anyone through whom he might receive
heroin in the future?

Mrs. SATLTER. Yes, he named someone in San Francisco.
Mr. SPEER. What was the name?
Mrs. SAULTER. The name was Brown.
Mr. SPEER. Can you describe this man?
Mrs. SAULTER. No. All I know, a large elderly fellow.
Mr. SPEER. A large elderly fellow?
Mrs. SAULTER. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. When did Frank Saulter tell you that?
Mrs. SAULTER. I don't remember.
Mr. SPEER. Some time later?
Mrs. SAULTER. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. In 1951?
Mrs. SAULTER. I believe 1951.
Mr. SPEER. How much did he pay for an ounce of heroin from
China?

Mrs. SAULTER. He paid $100.
Mr. SPEER. Do you know how
Mrs. SAULTER.
2935
much he sold it for?
He sold it to Sam Torres and his partner for $200.
Mr. SPEER. And what did they sell it for?

Mrs. SAULTER. I understand Sam Torres sold it for $350 to the
final agent.
Mr. SPEER. Was that after they had cut it?
Mrs. SAULTER. Frank cut it once.
Mr. SPEER. In other words, he would make 2 counes out of 1
ounce?
Mrs. SAULTER. That is right.
Mr. SPEER. Did Donald Dong ever mention Shanghai, China?
Mrs. SAULTER. Not that I recall.
Mr. SPEER. Was he a well educated Chinese?
Mrs. SAULTER. Very well.
Senator
DANIEL.
I would like to ask our investigator a question
here now.
Mr. Speer, how many years did you spend in the Far East in narcotics work for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics?
Mr. SPEER. I have had 7 years straight, and then 3 years since
that time, for a total of 10 years.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever have any knowledge of that name
Castlefield, and did you know who that cable name identified?
Mr. SPEER. That was the cable code address used by Judah Ezra.
Senator
DANIEL.
That is J-u-d-a-h E-z-r-a?
Mr. SPEER. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL. Where does

Mr. SPEER. Hong Kong.
Senator DANIEL. Was he one
he live?
of the big operators and exporters of
heroin from China?

Mr. SPEER. Hewas. Atone timein the early 1930'shehad imported
at least 6,400 ounces -of narcotics, smuggled it into the United States
and had served sentence on it, and was deported to Shanghai, China.
Since that time, at least since 1949, he has been actively engaged in
this traffic.
Senator DANIEL. Mrs. Saulter, you say Torres was indicted and
convicted?
Mrs. SAULTER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. But
your husband wasn't?

Mrs. SAULTER. He was never picked up for selling narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. As far as you know, he has never yet paid his
penalty for having imported these narcotics into this country?
Senator DANIEL. Where was he the last time you heard of him?
Mrs. SAULTER. Oakland, Calif.
Senator
DANIEL.
When did you separate from him?
you divorced?
Mrs. SAULTER. In 1953, June 3.
DANIEL. 1953?
Senator DANIEL. Thank you
Senator
very much.
When were
2936
STATEMENT OF ALVIN F. SCHARFF, CUSTOMS AGENT IN CHARGE,

HOUSTON, TEX., BUREAU OF CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY
Senator
DANIEL. Mr. Scharif, will

Mr. SCHARFF. Alvin F. Scharff.
Senator DANIEL. Your title?
Mr. SCHARFF.
Senator
you state your full name?
Customs agent in charge, Houston, Tex.
DANIEL.
Do you hold the same position here that Mr,
McLeaish holds in Brownsville?

Mr. SCHARFF. I do.
Senator
DANIEL.
I believe you have been with the Customs Agency
for as long as any man in this State, have you not?

Mr. SCHARFF. I have been in the service longer than anyone else
who lives today.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have seniority over all other persons in the
service?
Mr. SCHARFF. I am the oldest man in point of service in the United
States. I have 37 years.
Senator DANIEL. I am very glad that you are appearing before this
committee.
Mr. SCHARFF. Thank you.
Senator
DANIEL.
Where has your experience with the Customs
Agency been?
Mr. SCHARFF. Starting at Nogales, Ariz., Mexico, the continental
United States, and Europe.
Senator
DANIEL.
How long have you been customs agent in charge
here in Houston.
I have been in Houston since 1938.
Senator DANIEL. How many men do you have in your organization?
Mr.
SCHARFF. At present there are three of us.
Senator DANIEL. What area do you cover?
Mr. SCHARFF. From the Oklahoma line to Corpus Christi in the
State of Texas, and over into part of Louisiana.
Mr. SCHARFF.
Senator
DANIEL.
As Mr. McLeaisch said, you are supposed to
handle all kinds of smuggling investigations, is that right?

Mr. SCHARFF. That is right.
Senator
DANIEL.
And a lot of other work too?
And a lot of other work too, some of which is Customs

and some of which belongs to some other agency that doesn't have the
help to do it.
Mr.
SCHARFF.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you have enough men to do the right kind of
job on preventing narcotics smuggling?

Mr. SCHARFF. I could use two more men in this district very
nicely. However, I was given a man, promised a man, from Corpus
Christi last month, and another for stenographic purposes, and I
believe they will be forthcoming as soon as it can be arranged in the
Bureau.
Senator DANIEL. You could use additional assistance?
Mr. SCHARFF. I could use another here and another man in Corpus
Christi at considerable advantage.
Senator DANIEL. We are informed there will be 12 additional
people coming into this area, into the State at least.
Mr. SCHARFF. They will run from Nogales, Ariz. to Brownsville.
I I I
2937
They will be spread over a big area?

Mr. SCHARFF. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have a prepared statement for us?
Mr. SCHARFF. I do.
Senator DANIEL. Let me suggest that the statement be made a part
of the record, in order that we may move along, and that yolu summarize for the committee any particular points you have in mind,
and any recommendations you have to make.
Mr. SCHARFF. Thank you.
(The prepared statement of Mr. Scharff is as follows:)
Senator
DANIEL.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY

COMMITTEE
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS,
Houston 14, Tex., October 10, 1955.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the following statement is
respectfully submitted for the record.
I have prepared for you the following memorandum, more or less statistical, of
facts and circumstances involved in certain cases involving the smuggling of
narcotic drugs resulting from investigations conducted by customs agents and
other customs officers, occasionally with the assistance of agents of the Narcotic
Service and/or the local police. I have tried to select from the many cases those
in which I believed the committee would be interested and those which may
illustrate the types of such cases which are made in this area by Customs.
File 6-298. December 1952, the master of the SS. Furman Victory, upon
arrival in Houston, Tex., reported that during a search conducted of his vessel on
the high seas on December 16 he found a small package containing two sheets of
a brownish, pressed substance concealed in the personal effects in a locker being
used by Lucien Collins, messman, Z-663370. Capt. Carl Johnson delivered the
substance to Customs and it was found to be hashish. Complaint was filed against
Collins before the United States Commissioner. He was released on a $400 cash
bond which he subsequently forfeited. On February 22, 1953, Collins, who had in
the meantime been arrested in San Francisco in connection with this violation,
pleaded guilty to the indictment returned against him in Houston, Tex., and was
placed on probation for the period of 2 years.
This and one other seizure of hashish are the only ones we have encountered in
this district in 5 years. Collins stated that he had purchased the hashish in
Alexandrette, Turkey, for his own use.
File 6-314. May 20, 1953, customs agents at Port Bolivar (Galveston, Tex.)
arrested Frank Dolcimascolo, merchant seaman from the SS. Longview Victory
and seized approximately five pounds of hashish from him.
Subject stated that
he had secured the hashish in Casa Blanca, Africa. The arrest came after undercover investigation by the officers, during which Dolcimascolo sold the hashish
to the officers for $300. An indictment against subject was returned by the Federal grand jury in Galveston on June 1, 1953, and on June 4, 1953, he was found
guilty and sentenced to serve 2 years and fined $50.
File 6-323. May 23, 1953, customs agents, acting on information, seized 108Y2
pounds of "manicured" marihuana which was moving from McAllen, Tex., to
New York City in 2 trunks checked as personal baggage on a one-way coach
ticket. A small amount of marihuana was left in each trunk which went forward
to New York and customs agents at the port of New York arrested Elvira Lopez
and-Aida Irma of 304 West 27th Street, New York, when they presented baggage
checks covering the baggage at the Pennsylvania Railroad Station in New York
City.
Files 6-320, 6-321, 6-322.
July 1953, customs agents working in conjunction
with narcotic agents, brought to a conclusion undercover operations which resulted

in the arrest of Leocardio Herrera, Ester Herrera, Hesquio Herrera, Timoteo
Esparza, Reuben Domingo Reyes, Ezequiel Saldana, Benito Cerliss, Bene Cero,
Alfredo Reyes Montayo, and Enrique Garza, who were charged in Federal court
with. conspiring to sell and transfer for sale various amounts of marihuana which
had been previously smuggled from Mexico. In this case there were placed
under seizure 4 automobiles, 1 Chevrolet Y2-ton truck, and 63 pounds of "mani-
2938
cured" marihuana. On September 16, 1953, the following persons were convicted: Leocardio Herrera, 4 years to serve; Ester Herrera 3 years to serve;
Reuben Domingo Reyes 2 years to serve; Timoteo Esparza 6 months to serve
and 3 years suspended for 5 years; Hesquio Herrera 2 years suspended; Benito
Cerliss 2 years suspended. In addition all of the above defendants were fined
$100 each.
Alfredo Reyes Montoya got 2 years to serve and a $1 fine, Enrique Garza got
2 years to serve and $1 fine, and Ezequiel Saldana got 3 years to serve and a $1
fine on November 6, 1953.
File 6-343. December 4, 1953, immigration patrol inspectors while on duty
in the vicinity of Alice, Tex., arrested Jose Tena-Albor, Mexican national who
had entered the United States illegally. Eighteen grains of marihuana were
found in his right shoe. The marihuana and Jose Tena-Albor were turned over
to customs agents and he was arraigned before the United States Commissioner
at Corpus Christi, Tex., on December 16, 1953. January 15, 1954, subject was
convicted at Corpus Christi and was sentenced to serve 6 months. This is a
good example of the cooperation received from the Immigration Service in this
field.
File 6-344. December 26, 1953, customs agents at Brownsville, Tex., telephoned the customs agents at Houston Tex., that they had arrested J. A. Owens
and John E. Sanford of New Orleans La., for smuggling 7 pounds of marihuana
and 1 gram of heroin from Mexico. keys found in the possession of these people
were to Cabins 17 and 18 of the Como Motel, Bay City, Tex. Customs agents
from Houston went to Bay City and searched Cabin 17 and found 690 grains of
marihuana concealed in the personal effects of E. K. Williams, alias George Huffman, and Madeline Durden. This case was prosecuted in Brownsville, Tex. I
do not have the results of the prosecution.
File 6-341. November 6, 1953, in Riviera, Tex., immigration patrol inspectors
stopped and searched George Drury, Mary Ann Schofield, and a Mexican who
gave his name as Epifanio Mendez Moreno, Jr., all of Houston Tex No narcotic
drugs were found, but sweepings from the automobile in which they were driving
were turned over to the customs agents and submitted to the U. S. Customs
chemist at New Orleans, who found therein fragments of marihuana. The immigration officers had been alerted by the customs officers at Brownsville to be on
the alert for these people as information had been received that George Drury
was smuggling large quantities of drugs to the United States from Mexico. Subsequently, George Drury was arrested in Houston by the Narcotic Service with
a large quantity of heroin. Customs agents determined later that the Mexican
who had given his name as Epifanio Mendez Moreno, Jr. at Riviera to the Immigration officers was in fact Roberto Gil Moreno, a cousin of Epifanio. The
automobile in which Drury and his two companions were traveling on November
6 was seized in Houston and forfeited to the Government.
File 6-347. January 12, 1954, in cooperation with the morals division of the
Houston Police Department, customs agents arrested Alma Mouton Terrell Eva
Lee Caradine, and Henrietta McCarty as they alighted from a Greyhound bus at
Houston, Tex. Search of these women in the office of the customs agent in
charge disclosed 3 ounces of heroin concealed on the Mouton woman and 3 ounces
on the Caradine woman. Later in the day the same officers arrested Arthur
James Pegues in this case. Information had been received that these four people
would go to Mexico with $4,000 which had been given them by the notorious
narcotic smuggler, Earl Voice, and that they would buy heroin for the money
and smuggle it back to Houston and deliver it to Voice. When it was found that
the point of delivery would be in Earl Voice's night club the customs agent in
charge d cided that there was too much danger of losing the heroin before the
officers could secure entrance to the night club; therefore, the arrest was made at
the bus station. Customs agents followed in automobile and on the bus these
people from Laredo, Tex., to Houston, and at no time were any of them out of
view of the agents.
On February 24, 1954, Pegues, Mouton, and Caradine were indicted by a
Federal grand jury. They were tried by jury on March 15, 1954, and found
guilty. March 17, 1954, Pegues was sentenced to 5 years to serve and fined $10
generally; 'Mouton received 5 years to serve and a fine of $10 generally; and Caradine was sentenced to 5 years to serve and was fined $10 generally. Henrietta
McCarty was our informer in this case and was not prosecuted.
File 6-348. January 12, 1954 while the customs agents were trailing Arthur
James Pegues on the bus, Laredo to Houston, they observed him in conversation with a man who later proved to be Junius Harris. The officers became
suspicious and when he arrived in Houston he was detained and 40 grains of
2939
heroin were found in his possession folded in a newspaper. He stated he was

taking the heroin from San Antonio to Galveston. He was indicted on February
2, 1954, entered a plea of guilty on February 17, 1954, and was sentenced to
serve 5 years in the penitentiary and to pay a fine of $2.
File 6-368. June 1954, customs agents were at this time receiving information
from several sources indicating that marihuana in large quantities were being
smuggled from Mexico to Houston, Tex., by a man called Rudy Cruz, a mexican
resident. An investigation was launched, and a pound of marihuana was purchased from Manuel Cruz, a relative of Rudy Cruz who was at that time employed
by the city of Houston as a truck driver. No action was taken in connection
with this purchase as the officers were anxious to determine the identity of Rudy
Cruz. The matter was permitted to rest for a while, although through un ercover informers customs agents maintained contact with Manuel Cruz, who, it
was determined, was a source of domestic supply of marihuana in Houston.
On September 23, 1954, customs agents received information that Rudy Cruz
was in Houston with a large quantity of marihuana, and that he had been in
contact with Manuel Cruz. The customs agents then took Manuel Cruz into
custody and gave him to understand that the pound of marihuana which he had
sold on June 8 had been sold to a customs officer. He agreed to assist the customs agents in effecting the apprehension of Rudy Cruz. With Manuel Cruz's
assistance it was determined on September 24 that Rudy Cruz had a quantity
of marihuana at the residence of Eloy Davila, Manuel Cruz's nephew in Houston,
Tex. Customs agents went to the above adress and seized 18 pounds 6 ounces
of "manicured" marihuana which was contained in an old Army duffel bag and
which at the time Rudy Cruz had in his possession. Rudy Cruz stated to the
customs agents that he had on the night of September 21 "walked the marihuana across the Rio Grande" below Hidalgo, Tex., and carried it 8 miles up
the highway below Mission, where he hitchhiked a ride on a produce truck to
Houston; that after he had arrived in Houston he asked Eloy Davila for permission to leave his clothes in the duffel bag at Davila's house and that Davila did
not know the bag contained marihuana. When Rudy Cruz arrived at the office
of the customs agent in charge, he was recognized as Rodolfo de la Cruz Salas,
subject of customs agents' file 6-399, and then it was realized that the customs
agents had finally succeeded in arresting a very important person in the narcotic
drugsmuggling racket. Rodolfo de la Cruz Salas had been arrested in Houston, Tex.,
by customs agents on February 18, 1950, in possession of 67 pounds of marihuana
which he admitted he had smuggled from Mexico. He was finally convicted and
sentenced to serve 2 years in the penitentiary. Prior to that time he had been
arrested in Brownsville, Tex., for smuggling marihuana and had served 6 months
in jail.
On September 28, 1954, he entered a plea of guilty in connection with the 18
pounds 6 ounces of marihuana seized from him on September 24, 1954. He was
October 8, 1954, sentenced to serve 5 years and was given an additional 6 months
to serve for illegal entry into the United States.
This was a tedious and difficult investigation, and several times it appeared
that results would be negative. In discussing this matter later our superior
officers complimented the agents for their persistence and ingenuity.
File 6-374. July 1954. During the investigation of the Rodolfo de la Cruz
Salas case it was learned that Manfredo B. Martinez was selling marihuana and
using a 1954 Mercury automobile to make deliveries in Houston. Our files
reflected that Manfredo B. Martinez was a notorious narcotic drug smuggler
and a three-time loser who had previously been arrested by customs agents in
Houston for dealing in smuggled narcotic drugs.
Close observation was maintained over Martinez's activities and it was determined that he was concealing marihuana cigarettes in the bumper of his automobile. Shortly after daybreak on July 13, 1954, he was apprehended in the
Mercury automobile and a search thereof disclosed 22 marihuana cigarettes concealed in the rear bumper. He was indicted by the Federal grand jury September
29, 1954, called for arraignment, he failed to appear, and his bond of $10,000 was
forfeited. Manfredo Martinez is presently in Mexico, associated with Juan Cantu
and Ernesto Herrera in the wholesale narcotic drug business there.
Juan Cantu, who at that time resided in Houston, was on September 22, 1946,
arrested along with Gilberto G. Hinojosa for smuggling 60 pounds of marihuana
to Houston. The marihuana had been shipped to Houston from Laredo, Tex., in
a trunk via railway express. Hinojosa stated that the trunk belonged to Juan
Cantu, that Juan Cantu had given him the name and address of Mrs. R. Rivera,
1114 Silver Street, Houston, Tex., with instructions to ship the trunk containing
71515-56--pt. 7-
38
2940
the 60 pounds of marihuana to that address. Involved in this case was also Man.
fredo B. Martinez and both Manfredo Martinez and Juan Cantu were considered
"tough boys" in the racket at that time. Also involved were Eduardo Flores and
Roberto Pacheco. After a lengthy investigation these men were successfully
prosecuted and Jaun Cantu was deported to Mexico and immediately after arriving there entered into the wholesale business of selling marihuana and heroin.
Subsequent to his conviction Rodolfo de la Cruz Salas told us that, prior to his
arrest in September, he had in June 1954, smuggled 50 pounds of marihuana from
Mexico to Houston and delivered 25 pounds of this marihuana to Lionel Herrera.
File 6-377. October 1954. Working jointly with agents of the Narcotic Service 25 pounds of marihuana were seized from Lionel Herrera and Juan Garcia in
Houston. A 1953 DeSoto automobile belonging to Herrera was also seized.
When information was received that Lionel Herrera was smuggling heroin that
had been smuggled to him from Mexico, the matter was reported to the Narcotic
Service and that Service joined in our investigation. Over a period of several
weeks the Narcotic Service made numerous purchases of heroin through a confidential informer furnished by customs agents. Lionel Herrera is a brother of Ernesto
Herrera, who has been a fugitive in Mexico since his arrest with Rodolfo de la
Cruz in 1950. Lionel Herrera at that time owned two restaurants in Houston,
Tex.
Juan Garcia was released on a $1,000 bond. Lionel Herrera was released on
bond of $15,000 and he shortly thereafter fled to Mexico, where he is presently
residing, according to my information.
File 6-368. As has been stated, in June 1954, a pound of marihuana was purchased by an undercover operator from Manuel Cruz, who subsequently gave this
office information, some of which was of no value. During the month of January
1955, agents of the Narcotic Service in Houston purchased a quantity of marihuana
from Manuel Cruz, who was at that time still working for the city of Houston.
In March 1955, after I discussed with the Narcotic Service the case made by customs agents in June 1954, against Manuel Cruz, it was decided to permit Manuel
Cruz to plead guilty to the case made by the Narcotic Service in January 1955, for
which offense he received sentence to serve 10 years in La Tuna Penitentiary, after
which the customs case was dismissed.
File 6-386. October, 1954. The sheriff of Wharton County, Tex., and the
constable in Louise, Tex., apprehended Julio Arroyo Garcia a Cuban longshoreman residing in Houston, Tex., and Jose R. Rodriguez, an American citizen also
residing in Houston, and seized 63 pounds of marihuana and two Chevrolet automobiles. Information with reference to the arrest and seizure was transmitted
to this office, customs agents immediately proceeded to Wharton, Tex., and
adopted the case. Both persons denied knowing each other. Inasmuch as the
arrests were effected some 30 miles removed from each other, it seemed for a time
that it would be difficult to connect the two men; however, persistent work on the
part of the customs agents definitely tied the two men together in Houston and
evidence was secured that proved to the jury's satisfaction that Jose Rodriguez
had purchased the automobile in which Julio A. Garcia was riding at the time the
constable at Louise, Tex., found Garcia in possession of the 63 pounds of marihuana. The automobile in which Jose Rodriguez was riding at the time of his
arrest was also tied to the case because of a hole in the right front door of the car
which witnesses identified, relating instances in which Jose Rodriguez andJulio
Garcia had been seen together in this automobile in Houston. In addition, evidence in the form of transfer of documents before a notary public by both persons
of one of the automobiles was secured. To prove that the marihuana had been
smuggled by Jose Rodriguez and delivered to Julio Garcia, a pair of wet, muddy
shoes and a pair of wet, muddy trousers which were found in Rodriguez's automobile were furnished the United States Attorney, aloug with samples of mud
and silt secured on the banks of the Rio Grande where Julio Garcia said he smuggled the marihuana.
When brought to trial, Julio Garcia pleaded guilty to the second count of the
indictment and not guilty to conspiracy and smuggling counts. The case took
2 days to try and the jury returned a verdict against both persons as follows:
Guilty of conspiracy to smuggle and smuggling. They were sentenced to serve
4 years and fined $10 each, the fine being remitted by the court.
In this case there was close cooperation between customs agents, narcotic
agents, the sheriff at Wharton, and the constable at Louise, Tex.
File 6-383. January 2, 1955, one of the most important cases developed in this
district in several years was successfully concluded.
Acting on information received in the office in September 1954, customs agents,
working undercover, finally reached the supplier of heroin which one organization
2941
composed of Latin Americans living in Houston was distributing locally. This

individual was Filiberto de la Garza, a resident of Houston for many years, and
a man who had an important position with a local construction firm.
Customs agents arranged with Filiberto de la Garza to purchase any quantity
of heroin that he might bring to Houston. De la Garza promised he would have a
,hipment of heroin ready for delivery shortly after Christmas. De la Garza
returned from Mexico on January 1, 1955, with his son, Hector, who also lives in
Houston, and Arturo Mireles, who resides in Reynosa, Tamps., Mexico. He
communicated with the customs agent who was operating undercover and contact
was made at a tourist court. In order to protect the informer in this case arrangements were made with the city police to arrest de la Garza and Mireles before de la
Garza could reach the customs agent who was waiting for him at the tourist court.
This was accomplished at 7:45 p. m. on January 2, 1955. When the police officers
attempted to stop de la Garza and his party a folded newspaper was thrown from
the automobile. The officers recovered the newspaper and found therein 4 ounces
and 392 grains of 84.3 percent pure heroin. De la Garza was traveling in his new
1954 Buick automobile at the time. The police arrested de la Garza and Mireles
and brought them to the customhouse. The grand jury at Laredo, Tex., indicted
Filiberto de la Garza, Hector de la Garza, and Arturo Mireles. Roberto Mireles,
Arturo's uncle who resides in Monterrey, Mexico, was also indicted. Hector de la
Garza, Filiberto's young son, was released on a Government witness bond of $1,000
IFiliberto de la Garza and Arturo Mireles were placed under bonds of $20,000 each.
The case against Hector was dismissed later, but he was used as a witness. Roberto
MIireles was never arrested, as he did not come to the United States. Filiberto
de la Garza pleaded guilty. Arturo Mireles was convicted March 30, 1955.
Filiberto de la Garza was sentenced to serve 5 years and pay a fine of $500.
Arturo Mireles received a sentence of 30 months to serve and was fined $10.
We believe that the arrest of Filiberto de la Garza by Customs put an end to one
of the principal sources of smuggled heroin in Houston.
File 6-399, etc. etc. Since December 1954, Houston police officers found it
advisable to deliver to the customs agents various automobiles that the police
;-eized from persons they have arrested violating the Texas State narcotic law.
The Texas State law providing for the forfeiture of automobiles has been found
unconstitutional or otherwise faulty and police officers in Houston have requested
Customs to forfeit automobiles and trucks seized by them in connection with
arrests of persons violating the State narcotic law. Since 1954 the following automobiles and trucks delivered by the Houston police have been placed under seizure.
by customs agents:
File
Seized frorm-
6-399
,-413
6-416
6-420
t,423
,;-427
6-430
6-429
G-431
6-431
Fred O'Neal Haynes -----------------Octavio Chavez Rivea ----------------Abel Lopez ------------------------------David Navarro ----------------------Johnny Bright ----------------------Robert M. Gonzales ------------------William McKinley -------------------Miles J. Galmiche -------------------Pete Locascio -----------------------Pete Lopez -------------------------------
6-433
6-443
G-444
6-451
6-452
6-458
Dallas Moore -----------------------Felix Villegas -----------------------Steveson Benjamin -------------------Eddie Lee Mantooth -----------------Alfred John Reyna -------------------Dawn Sanders -----------------------
Description of auto
1952 Ford coupe ---------------------------1950 Chevrolet truck ----------------------1951 Chevrolet coupe ----------------------1954 Chevrolet ----------------------------1954 Mercury coupe -----------------------1949 Chevrolet sedan -----------------------1950 Chevrolet sedan ----------------------1955 Ford sedan --------------------------1955 Oldsmobile ------------------------1953 Chevrolet l -ton truck used with
wrecker equipment.
1949 Pontiac sedan ------------------------1950 Buick sedan -------------------------1953 Chevrolet sedan ----------------------1953 Mercury coupe ---------------------1955 Pontiac sedan ----------------------1954 Oldsmobile sedan ----------------------
Value
$950
350
475
1,095
1,600
200
375
1, 850
2. 800
800
250
550
750
850
1,950
2, 750
Before these vehicles are accepted for seizure by Customs the facts and circumstances leading up to and involved in the arrest of the persons concerned are
ascertained in order to determine that there are proper grounds for seizure.
Several of the automobiles have been found serviceable and have been assigned by
the Bureau of Customs to official use. Those not found suitable have been sold
at public auction by the collector of customs. All of the automobiles are forfeited according to the laws and regulations of the Customs Service.
File 6-456. A case of considerable importance was terminated on the night of
September 30, 1955, at Sugar Land, Tex. Customs agents followed a man from
Laredo, Tex., to Sugar Land and arrested Willie E. Mapp, a Houston automobile
2942
dealer, as he received about an ounce of heroin. Mapp is a used car dealer and
has no past criminal record, his family is highly respected in Houston, and he made
a bond of $5,000 pending his indictment. His 1952 Mercury automobile valued
at $550, was seized. The man who brought the heroin from Laredo to Houstoln
was not apprehended.
Files 6-446 and 6-447. Since the latter part of August 1955, two men well
versed in the narcotic traffic in and around Corpus Christi were employed on a
subsistence basis in Corpus Christi to determine, if possible whether or not narcotic drugs are being smuggled at that port from ships. 6 n September 8 they
were withdrawn and have been assigned to work on the Mexican frontier. The
information secured by them in Corpus Christi was of a general nature and sufficient to satisfy me that there have been occasions recently when quantities of
heroin have been landed at Corpus Christi and presumably consumed there. It
is understood that results from a survey of this nature would be slow and I had
intended to continue this operation for at least another 30 days before taking
stock of the situation; however, it seemed not advisable to do so and I am yet
unable to say positively whether or not there is systematic smuggling of narcotic
drugs via ships into the Corpus Christi area. The vast majority of the drugs we
hear about or encounter apparently are coming from Mexico and if drugs axe being smuggled at Corpus Christi via ships regularly in any quantity, the drugs
move out of that area promptly, as we never hear about them.
With this same thought in mind a man of considerable experience was assigned
to work in Galveston. Some of the information this man secured was interesting,
but did not prove or disprove that drugs in any quantity are being smuggled via
ships from foreign ports into the port of Galveston. He did uncover information
indicating that drugs smuggled from Matamoros, Mexico, to Brownsville Tex.,
had been brought by one coastwise vessel in recent weeks to Galveston for local
consumption. We also have information that at least one individual is transporting drugs from the vicinity of New York to Texas gulf ports on vessels operating coastwise.
I have another undercover operation at the present time, trying to determine
whether crew members of Asiatic origin arriving in the port of Houston from far
eastern ports are engaged in smuggling opium and narcotic drugs. So far the
information this man has been able to secure has been negligible and inconclusive.
There is no question but that the marihuana which is sold in this alea is smuggled from Mexico and our experience proves that marihuana in 100-pounds lot
has in the past moved rather frequently from Mexico to New York and other
eastern and northern cities in the United States through Houston. For several
years Houston was used as a transfer point for New York narcotic traffickers and
we are told that heroin was being brought from New York and exchanged for
marihuana at rendezvous in Texas.
I have been in the customs agency service for more than 37 years. I am the
agent with the longest period of service, and I am convinced that we are only as
our information insofar as apprehending smugglers is concerned.
good asRespectively,
A. F. SCHARFF,
Customs Agent in Charoe
Senator DANIEL. Proceed with your statement, Mr. Scharff.

Mr. SCHARFF. If you will notice the memorandum I have prepared,
it covers cases that have been consummated in this district since 1952,
some of the outstanding cases involving the smuggling of narcotic
drugs. And you will also notice two instances that involve hashish,
which is a type of marihuana that is grown in the Far East. Now
the reason I mention those is because it is indicative that hashish is
not well known in this area. It is in Europe. Both of these seizures
were from ships arriving in port from foreign countries, and the seizures
were made from seamen. I do not believe they were intended to be
smuggled ashore. I think it was meant to be consumed by the seamen
themselves.
In one instance an undercover agent purchased some $300 worth of
hashish from one sailor. The sailor was arrested, removed from the
ship and prosecuted. It is good to know that hashish is not being used
2943
in this district, because it is a more vicious product than marihuana,

and stronger of course than marihuana that comes from Mexico.
Other cases I have mentioned cover the smuggling of marihuana
and heroin into the district, and all of that is coming from Mexico.
There is one case involving opium that was smuggled from a ship in
Houston.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have much smuggling from ships in
Houston?
Mr. SCHARFF. We have never encountered such smuggling in large
quantities.
Senator DANIEL. Is the same true in Galveston?
Mr. SCHARFF. The same is true in Galveston, and the same is true
in Corpus Christi. If narcotic drugs are being smuggled on these
ships they are not used for local consumption. They move out before
we get them.
Senator DANIEL. How are they being smuggled in?
Mr. SCHARFF. By carriers from Mexico, in trucks, automobiles,
and in baggage that is checked here. All of the narcotic drugs of any
quantity, including marihuana, have been brought from Mexico here.
Senator DANIEL. As far as shipments from New York in here, that
would be more for the Bureau of Narcotics?
Mr. SCHARFF. Well, we have a dual jurisdiction there. They do
leave that more or less up to us. And we have only heard of 1 or 2
instances where drugs are coming into this area from the eastern seaboard. We have not been able to catch that operation as yet.
Senator DANIEL. You know, of course, of the testimony from George
Hall and others in this Cooper-Sutton case?
Mr. SCHARFF. I am familiar with the case.
Senator DANIEL. Of heroin being transported from New York to
Houston?
Mr. SCHARFF. But that did not move in by ship.
Senator DANIEL. A "movement like that would be more or less a
case for the Bureau of Narcotics?
Mr. SCHARFF. Yes, entirely.
Senator DANIEL. Because your agency handles smuggling?
Mr. SCHARFF. Yes. I understood you were asking about intracoastal traffic, and we have been digging around in that connection.
Of course we work in close cooperation with the Narcotics Service.
Senator DANIEL. All right, you may go ahead.
Mr. SCHARFF. I doubt if I could elaborate on the things that have
been said here by the agents on the Mexican frontier, because my
experience on the Mexican frontier has only been of brief duration.
Mr. Ellis, who is now in my office in Houston, has spent many
years on the border, and has just left. the border at Laredo to come
here, and he is well versed on the situation in Mexico.
I know Mexico pretty well because I have been in and out of Mexico
since about 1912. And the growing of the poppy, from which opium
is made, in Mexico, I know about that too. And it is no fairy story
when they tell you, Mr. Senator, that Mexico produces lots of heroin
from opium that Mexico also produces. It is more profitable to raise
1 acre of poppies than to raise ten or a hundred acres of frijoles. And
just-about as safe.
Senator DANIEL. Is that still true since Mexico agreed to stop raising poppies?
I I I
2944
I see no difference.
Senator DANIEL. You don't think the Mexican Government j;
living up to their agreement to stop raising poppies?
Mr. SCHARFF. I suppose so far as the Mexican Government is concerned they feel that they are doing their part. They wish they
could stop it. Some of the men who are responsible for the law enforcement there would like to, I think, very much. But their hands
are sort of tied. They don't have the money, and they don't have
the personnel.
I know in 1935 when we first started this project, before I went. to
Europe, I learned that poppies were being grown on the west coast
of Mexico in the States of Sinaloa and Sonora. I went over to take
a look. I found some crops being hidden by corn and flax, and again
I found patches of 1 acre, 3 acres, 5 acres, that were grown just openly,
without any hiding whatsoever.
And then I took it up with the Mexican Government, and the Mexican Government sent soldiers, and those crops were destroyed and
burned. And some men were put in jail. And the next time that
for some reason we would have to go back we would see those same
people on the street.
And the next year the same thing happened. And periodically
since that time the Mexican Government has been destroying those
opium crops. So far as I see, they have not stopped.
Senator DANIEL. All right, thank you very much, Mr. Scharff.
Now you have Mr. Ellis. What is his position, assistant agent?
Mr. SCHARFF. He is a customs agent.
Senator DANIEL. Here in Houston?
Mr. SCHARFF. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. All right, we will hear from Mr. Ellis.
Mr. SCHARFF.
STATEMENT OF DAVID ELLIS, CUSTOMS AGENT, HOUSTON, TEX.,

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Senator DANIEL. I believe you were formerly stationed at Laredo?
Mr. ELLIS. I have worked in practically every area in the United
States. On the border, New York, El PasoSenator DANIEL. Do you have anything to add to what Mr.
Scharff and Mr. McLeaish have said about the situation on the
Mexican border?
Mr. ELLIS. I believe I was originally invited here to possibly help
you with the identity of some of the people who are still active in that
area, particularly on the Mexican side.
Among those people are Henry, Enrico Trevinio, and Poncho
Trevinio who have been mentioned. I call him Henry. The Mexican
name of course is Enrico.
Mr. ELLIS. I also know the background of the Trevinios in con-
nection with narcotics along the Mexican border.

Poncho Trevinio came to that country as a cowboy, worked on the
Mexican side, and after a while went to peddling narcotics. Near
the close of the era of prohibition, and the lack of prohibition enforcement along the border there, he was engaged in that illicit traffic.
And from that easy money they moved over into the field of narcotics.
When Poncho was put in jail, and he has been on three different
occasions, he sold narcotics from the jail in Nuevo Laredo.
2945
You will have to understand something about the way they handle
those things in Mexico to appreciate how that can be done. Those
people over there do not believe in restricting a man's activities as
we do in this country here.
Senator DANIEL. Are those two men pretty high politically across
there?
Mr. ELLIS. I have heard the statement made from well placed
police officers that Poncho's payoff went to Mexico City. And all
other operators in Nuevo Laredo enjoyed his license, including his
two sons, Raol and Arturo. My informers tell me that when he was
put in jail finally there was much competition in Nuevo Laredo and
the surrounding country for the beautiful traffic that he had. And he
enjoyed that because of the fact that he was a businessman. He
guaranteed quality, he guaranteed quantity, and he guaranteed
delivery. He guaranteed delivery in the United States. And if you
didn't like the grade or the quantity you could bring it back and get
your money back.
Senator DANIEL. You mean Poncho Trevinio would make that
kind of deal with smugglers?
Mr. ELLIS. He certainly did.
That is the way he had control of
the narcotics situation in Nuevo Laredo.

Senator DANIEL. On the basis of the testimony we have had in
these hearings, the biggest traffic in heroin and marihuana from
Mexico would be from Nuevo Laredo.
Mr. ELLIS. It is.
I think that is true.
But today the Trevinios do not enjoy all the traffic. Across the
river you hear other names.
Senator DANIEL. You recall that Mr. McLeaish made mention of
some names.
Mr. ELLIS. I didn't hear him.
All right, proceed.

Mr. ELLIS. Salvadore de Hoyas, he is the owner and operator of the
Corpus Christi bar in the zone in Nuevo Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. What does he sell?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. ELLIS. He sells either one, but generally heroin.
Heroin is
his speciality. He will sell either. His source is from the Trevinios.
They furnish most of the narcotics in this country.
Senator DANIEL. Is he a fugitive from this country?
Mr. ELLIS. Not to my knowledge, because I have seen him in the
United States.
Senator DANIEL. Does he have any official position over across the
border that you know of?
Mr. ELLIS. He is the owner of one of the most prosperous bars in
the zone in Nuevo Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. All right, in addition to him, what others do you
have?
Mr. ELLIS. Rogelio Pena is the owner of the "1-2-3" bar in the zone.
And a fellow by the name of Juan Conde, Preteo Angel, black angel.
I mention those people because they are people we know, that we
have come to know about. The Trevinios are not the only ones, but
they are by far the largest.
Mr. GASQUE. How would you size up the traffic down in Nuevo
Laredo?
2946
Mr. ELLIS. I would say that we have it more under control than we
did following the end of World War II; that we know more about wlat
goes on.
Senator DANIEL. Would you be willing to confirm the statement
which the subcommittee received from another official at one time,

that Nuevo Laredo is the marihuana capital of the Nation.
Mr. ELLIS. I would say the marihuana capital of the Nation is
Nuevo Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. Nuevo Laredo is not in the United States, of
course.
Mr. ELLIS. Nuevo Laredo enjoys, along with Monterrey and
Mexico City-those three, I think, supply more into the United States.
From a port of entry into the United States I dare say there is more
marihuana crosses in a 10-mile area on each side of Laredo, 'Tex.
than all of the rest of the United States put together. And we have
5 men there, 5 customs agents.
Senator DANIEL. And they come from Nuevo Laredo, Monterrey,
and what other place?
Mr. ELLIS. Mexico City.
Senator DANIEL. Laredo, Tex., is the place through which this

traffic moves?
Mr. ELLIS. The biggest we have ever caught we have caught in
Laredo, Tex.
Joe Gerrera, he was selling a thousand pounds a month.
Senator DANIEL. You don't have the traffic on the Laredo side, on
the Texas side of the border?
Mr. ELLIS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. It would be unfair to speak of Laredo, Tex., as

anything more than the transit point on the highway over which it
passes?
Mr. ELLIS. Port of entry, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Just like Houston was port of entry for $2% million
worth of cocaine this year?
Mr. ELLIS. Transfer point, receiving point.
Senator DANIEL. Joe said the customs agents probably knew what
they were doing because they pointed them out to the Narcotics
Bureau people in New York.
Mr. GASQUE. From your experience what would you say was the
extent of cooperation on the Mexican side? That is not a very good
question because you can't pin it down. I am wondering what kind
of cooperation you get in the way of getting a person in jail?
Mr. ELLIS. You can get it if you have got the money to spend.
I went there with $500 of a bondsman's money and got a man kicked
back to this side. I did that just as an accommodation to the United
States Attorney. I had that man in jail in Nuevo Laredo and on his
way back when the Trevinio fix was put in there.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know any other fugitives over across the
border who were engaged in the narcotics business other than those
who have been named so far?
Mr. ELLIS. I have heard a story of some in a place called San Pedro
de Roma. It is an isolated place and is not accessible to any well
traveled highway. That is Cuidad La Aman or San Pedro de Roma.
I understand there are fugitives there from Houston, Texas.
Senator DANIEL. Are they engaged in narcotics traffic?
Mr. ELLIS. They certainly are.
2947
Senator DANIEL. How many fugitives do you think are operating
in narcotics in Mexico who are wanted on charges of violating the

narcotics laws in this country?
Mr. ELLIS. Well, it changes.
There is Juan Cantu in this little
town I spoke of.

Senator DANIEL. Who is he?
Mr. ELLIS. He is one of the most prominent businessmen in this
town that I mentioned, Cuidad La Aman. He owns three houses of
prostitution in the zone, in addition to legitimate property in the
town itself.
Senator DANIEL. I hand you a picture. See if you can identify this
picture.
This will be marked as "Exhibit F," Houston hearing.
Mr. ELLIS. This is Juan Cantu.
Senator DANIEL. Is that Juan Cantu?
Mr. ELLIS. Yes.
(The photograph marked "Exhibit F," Houston, follows:)
'Mmi
'M
f,-7
J I
.....
Photo of Juan M. Cantu, Customs agent file 7-1-91, Exhibit "F"Hair: black; eyes: brown; height: 5'9"; weight: 170 lbs; age: 35 in 1945;
build: medium.
Senator DANIEL. Does he have any official position with the

Mexican Government?
Mr. ELLIS. He has two brothers, and one of his brothers was
chief of detectives, I believe, in this community.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know of any other fugitives from this
country who are officials of the Mexican Government who have been
engaged in narcotics in Mexico?
Mr. ELLIS. Yes, sir. Mundo Pena. He had a brother whose
name has escaped me who was chief of detectives in Nuevo Laredo.
The whole family was just a troop of outlaws.
Senator DANIEL. The Pena family?
I I I I
2948
Mr. ELLIS. Yes, sir.
They were originally a good family, but they
degenerated into a bunch of outlaws.

Senator DANIEL. Do you know of any others along the border who
are wanted on this side?
Mr. ELLIS. Manbredo Martinez.
Senator DANIEL. That is Manbredo Martinez?
Mr. ELLIS. Yes, sir. He jumped a $15,000 bond only recently.
Senator DANIEL. I show you another picture. Is that him?
Mr. ELLIS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. That will be marked as Exhibit G, Houston

hearing.
(The photograph marked Exhibit G, Houston, follows:)
Photo of Manbredo B. Martinez, exhibit "G"; customs agent's file: 7-1-91.
Hair: black; eyes: brown; height: 5'6"; weight: 145 pounds; age: 28 in 1945;
build: short.
Senator DANIEL. Did he jump bond?

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, here in Houston.
Senator DANIEL. Federal narcotics?
Mr. ELLIS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. What is Martinez doing in Mexico?

Mr. EILIS. He is living there in ease, not doing anything at all.
This man is wanted for a burglary down in Galveston.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any more now?
Mr. ELLIS. Chomoco Herrera.
Senator DANIFL. His real name is Ernesto Herrera?
Mr. ELLIS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And they call him Chomoco?
Mr. ELLIS. That is correct.

Senator
DANIEL.
He is wanted for narcotics violation?
Mr. ELLIS. Yes. He jumped bond.

Senator DANIEL. How much bond?
Mr. ELLIS. I don't recall.
2949
Senator DANIEL. Is he wanted on narcotics violation?
Mr. ELLIS. He is wanted.
Senator
DANIEL.
What is he doing in Mexico?
Mr. ELLIS. He goes back and forth between this town and
Monterrey.
Senator
DANIEL.
Are you acquainted with any other fugitives
from this country operating now across the border in Mexico, that is,
narcotics fugitives?
Mr. ELLIS. The name Lionel Herrera strikes me, but I do not recall
the circumstances.
DANIEL. Mr. Scharff do you have any information
SCHARFF. There was a joint case between my office
Senator
on him?
and the
Mr.
local narcotics office involving him, and he jumped $20,000 bond here
I think overnight.
Senator DANIEL. $15,000 bond, I am informed.
Mr. SCHARFF. $15,000. Some reduction.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever get him back?

Mr. ELLIS. No.
Senator DANIEL. He is now in Mexico?

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, in the same community where these other people
are.
Mr. GASQUE. In each of these cases where they have jumped a
bond does the Government actually get the money?
Mr. SCHRAFF. There is some doubt in my mind.
Senator DANIEL. All right, thank you gentlemen very much for
your assistance. We would be glad to have any other suggestions
you have to make before we make our report to Congress.
Will Pura Rodriquez come forward.
Hold up your hand and be sworn.
Mrs. PEREZ. I do.
STATEMENT OF PURA RODRIQUEZ PEREZ

Senator DANIEL. If you will, please pull your chair up closer so
we will be able to hear you without difficulty. Will you state your
lia-me?
Mrs.
RODRIQUEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Pura Rodriquez.
Is that your full name?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. Perez.

Senator DANIEL. Purificacion Rodriquez Perez?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. That is correct.
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs.
RODRIQUEZ.
Perez is your last name?

Yes.
Where do you live?
1138 Lathrop.
How long have you lived here in Houston?
Since 1937.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been engaged in selling heroin
in Houston?
Mrs.
RODRIQUEZ.
Senator
DANIEL.
I never sold any.
You mean to tell the committee you never sold
any heroin in Houston?
2950
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. No.

Senator DANIEL. You understand that when you raised your hauid
you took an oath to tell the committee the truth?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And that if you should tell the committee :1
falsehood you would be liable to be tried for perjury?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
RODRIQUEZ.
An offense called perjury?
Mrs.
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And that you could be sent to the penitentiary
for it if a jury found you had lied under oath?
Senator DANIEL. You realize if you give untruthful answers vou
could be charged for it?

Mrs. RODRIQUEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Yes, sir.
You understand fully?
Yes, sir.
In view of that I want to ask you again, have you

ever sold any heroin here in Houston?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. No, sir, I never sold any.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever asked other people to sell heroi'?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. I never have asked other people.

Mrs.
RODRIQUEZ.
No, I never saw it.
Senator DANIEL. You never saw any heroin in your life?

Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. Are you the same Pura Rodriquez Perez who on
April 1, I believe, was given 4 years Federal sentence for the sale
of heroin?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. That is right.
Senator DANIEL. Are you the same person?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. I am the same person.
Senator DANIEL. And you appealed from that sentence, did you
not?
Senator DANIEL. You are now out on a $10,000 bond?

Senator DANIEL. Isn't it true that after you got out on a $10,000
bond that you were arrested with 11 papers of heroin in your possession?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. They were not in my possession.
Senator DANIEL. Where were they?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. They found them in the toilet.
Senator DANIEL. In theMrs. RODRIQUEZ. In the toilet.
Senator DANIEL. Who threw them there?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. I don't know. There were two or three men
there in the house.
Senator DANIEL. Was it in your house?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. It was in my house.
Senator DANIEL. Where is your house?

Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. I used to live at 6908 Avenue N.
1111111111
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ.
Senator
2951
Where was it the 11 papers of heroin were found?
6908 Avenue N.
And that was June of this year?
Yes, sir.
What was this heroin doing in your house?
DANIEL.
RODRIQUEZ. I
don't know. I had a room rented there, and

there was this man, and two more men were with him.
Mrs.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have an attorney?

Senator DANIEL. Is he here with you today?
Mrs.
RODRIQUEZ.
Senator
DANIEL.
No, sir.
Do you understand what I have told you about
the effect of your giving an untruthful answer to this committee under

oath?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. I am not giving an untruthful answer. I am
telling it correct.
Senator DANIEL. You are telling us correct?

Senator DANIEL. Have you ever had in your possession any heroin?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. No, sir.
M[rs.
RODRIQUEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
No, sir.
Do you have any idea what it looks like?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. No, sir; I don't.

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever use any heroin?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
What?
No, sir.
You didn't see the heroin that was in the toilet
in your house?
Mrs.
RODRIQUEZ.
I didn't see it.
Senator DANIEL. You never saw it?

Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. I never did see it.
Seantor DANIEL. Did you ever sell any marihuana?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have any marihuana in your posses-
sion?
M[rs.
RODRIQUEZ.
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever seen any marihuana?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. No, I never saw any.

Senator DANIEL. You don't know what it is?
Mrs.
RODRIQUEZ.
Senator
DANIEL.
No, sir.
You have never seen any heroin or marihuana in
-our lifetime?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. No, sir; I haven't.
Senator DANIEL. And you never sold any in your lifetime?
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever given any heroin or marihuana
or delivered it to anybody?
Mrs.
RODRIQUEZ.
No, sir.
Well, I want to tell you that this committee has

been given information by more than one witness that since you were
given a four-year sentence in Federal Court and have been out under
a $10,000 bail bond, that you within 2 months were found possessing
Senator
DANIEL.
2952
papers of heroin, and you were selling heroin again, and you were
picked up on a State charge filed for possession of heroin, and that was
in June of this year. Is that right?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs.
RODRIQUEZ.
That is right.
You are out on bond, two bonds?

Yes.
Senator DANIEL. A $10,000 Federal bond, and how much is the

State bond?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. $2,500.
Senator
DANIEL.
$2,500.
Senator DANIEL. And this committee has been given information

that since you have been out on bond, the second bond, you have
twice, and maybe three times, sold heroin to people since you were
out on your second bond. That has been told this committee by
more than one person who claim that they either saw it or they bought
it from you.
In view of what you have just told me, do you still want
to say to this committee that you have not sold any heroin to anyone
since you were convicted on April 1, 1955?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. I still say that.
Senator DANIEL. You still want to say that?
Senator DANIEL. And that is a truthful answer?
Mr. GASQUE. In view of the fact that this witness has been indicted
and convicted for selling heroin, I cannot conceive that she would
want to continue with this type of testimony.
Apparently you didn't understand the chairman when he asked
did you ever in your life sell heroin?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. I never have.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever agreed with anybody that they
should sell heroin for you?
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been in any business here in
Houston?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. I had a business.
Senator DANIEL. What kind?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. I had a beer tavern.
Senator DANIEL. A beer tavern?
Senator DANIEL. What is the name of it?

Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. It was Perez Lounge.
Senator DANIEL. Perez Lounge?
Senator DANIEL. Where was it located?

Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. At 1315 75th.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever sold any marihuana or heroin?
Senator DANIEL. Have you had any kind of association with anybody that sold heroin or marihuana?
Mr. GASQUE. Would you give us the facts that led up to your conviction February 25, 1955, and sentenced to 4 years in the Federal
penitentiary? What did they charge you with?
I I
lII
II
2953
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. With three sales.

Mr. GASQUE. With three sales?
To whom did they say you sold it?

Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. Gerald Hudson.
Mr. GASQUE. Who is Gerald Hudson?
Mr.
GASQUE.
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. That is all.
Mr. GASQUE. Is he a police undercover agent?
But the facts came
out in the case fully that you sold to this individual?

Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. No. He never did testify I sold to him.
Mr. GASQUE. Who did testify you sold to him?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. Nobody did.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you plead guilty?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. No, sir; I didn't plead guilty.
Mr. GASQUE. Now when these agents arrested you didn't you make
a statement to them and tell them where you got your heroin? Didn't
you tell them you went to Monterrey to purchase your heroin?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. No, sir; I didn't tell them I went to Monterrey
to purchase my heroin.
Mr. GASQUE. Have you ever been to Monterrey?
Mr. GASQUE. In your life?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. Never.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you know Simon Rodriquez?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. No, sir; I don't.

Mr. GASQUE. Do you know or have you heard of Simon Rodriquez
from San Antonio?
Mrs, RODRIQUEZ. I have heard of him.
Mr. GASQUE. Big fat fellow?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. I don't know him.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you know Alberto Rodriquez of San Antonio?
Mrs. RODR1QUEZ. No, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you ever discuss the sale of heroin with anybody?
Mr. GASQUE. Never?
Mr. GASQUE. Do you know Mr. Ellis, the man that was last over
here, Mr. Ellis?
Mr. GASQUE. Did you ever see him before?

Mr. GASQUE. Did you ever discuss the sale of heroin with him?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. Sale of heroin to him?
Mr. GASQUE. Yes.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you know what the nickname is for heroin?

Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. I don't know what they call it.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you ever hear it called stuff?

Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. Yes, I have heard it.
Mr. GASQUE. You have heard it called that?
Mr. GASQUE. Who did you hear talk about it as stuff?
I1III11
2954
Mrs. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Ellis.
Mr. GASQUE. Mr. Ellis?

Mrs. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.
Mr. GASQUE. You have talked to Mr. Ellis about heroin, haven't
you?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. Yes; I talked to him.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you want to change your testimony that you gave
a minute ago?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. Which?
Mr. GASQUE. Do you want to correct it?
Mr. GASQUE. Don't you want to correct some of the rest?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. That is the only one I want to correct.
Mr. GASQUE. That is the only thing you want to correct?
Mr. Gasque. You now admit having talked to Mr. Ellis about
heroin?
Mr. GASQUE. Did you want to sell him some?
Mr. GASQUE. What did you talk to him about

Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. He want to ask me if I could take somebody
and see if I can catch some people in Nuevo Laredo.
Mr. GASQUE. You know some more of these undercover agents
that have been around to buy heroin from you, don't you?
Mr. GASQUE. You don't know them?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. No.
Mr. GASQUE. If they get on the stand and testify-we have statements from several of them-saying that they purchased heroin
from you, and some of them saying you admitted it was yours, and
you told them where you got it; if they got up in Court and testified
to that are you still going to say they are lying? Is that right?
Don't you think it would be better for you to tell this committee the
full truth about the matter?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. I am telling the truth.
Mr. GASQUE. Well, what is the truth? Did you sell to some of these
undercover agents?
Mr. GASQUE. You know some of them did come in and testify you
sold heroin when your case was tried though.
Mrs.
RODRIQUEZ.
Yes, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Were they telling the truth?

Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. No; they were not telling the truth.
Mr. GASQUE. They were lying on you?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. -Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Because you just never
Senator DANIEL. Or marihuana either?
have seen any heroin?
Senator DANIEL. You don't know what it looks like?

Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. No.
Mr. GASQUE. When you were arrested you made an oral statement
to the officers admitting to them you were engaged in the heroin
traffic.
2955'
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. What officers?
Mr. GASQUE. At the time you were arrested on December 29, 1954.
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. I didn't make any statement.
Mr. GASQUE. You didn't make a statement?
Mr. GASQUE. Do you know J. A. Perez?

Mr. GASQUE. Who is he?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. My husband.
GASQTE. Where
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. At
Mr.
is he?
home.
Mr. GASQUE. Has he ever served time in the Federal penitentiary?
Mr. GASQUE. For what charge?
Mrs.
RODRIQUEZ. For heroin.

Ir. GASQUE. For heroin?

Mr. GASQUE. Do you own an automobile?
Mr. GASQUE. What kind?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. 1946 Nash.
Mr. GASQUE. Is it paid for?

i[rs. RODRIQPF, Z. Yes.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you own your own home?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. No. I am paying for it.
Mr. GASQUE. You are paying for it?

Mr. GASQUE. How far along is it paid?
M[rs. RODRIQUEZ. I just paid on it 2 years.
Mr. GASQUE. How much did your home cost?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. I believe $7,500.

Mr. GASQUE. Do you own your place of business?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. I don't have any more place of business.

Mr. GASQUE. Perez Lounge, I mean.
Mrs.
RODRIQUEZ.
Somebody else has it.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you sell ft?

Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. No.
I went out of business.
Mr. GASQUE. Now we have evidence that prior to December 7,

1954, a special employee made several purchases of heroin from you,
Pura Rodriquez. Now on December 7, 1954, did you make a sale of
heroin to a special employee of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics?
Mr. GASQUE. Now at that time didn't an individual go into the

Perez Lounge and talk with you and ask you for a package of stuff?
Mr. GASQUE. At that time did you tell him to wait out on the
street, that you didn't have it with you?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ.
No, sir, I didn't tell him.
Mr. GASQUE. And did you come along a few minutes later and
meet him out in the street driving your automobile?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. I went along with Johnny, but I didn't talk to
him.
Mr. GASQUE. Johnny who?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. Johnny Lopez.
71515-56--pt. 7-39
2956
Mr. GASQUE. Where is he now?
Mrs.
RODRIQUEZ.
He is in the Federal penitentiary.
Mr. GASQUE. ]or what?
Mrs.
RODRIQUEZ.
Selling heroin.
Mr. GASQUE. On what occasion?

Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. On December 7.
Mr.
GASQUE.
On this occasion I am speaking of?

Mr. GASQUE. You went along with him?
Mr. GASQUE. Did he hand anything out to this special employee?

Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. I never did see him hand anything out. He
never did stop.
Mr. GASQUE. Did the automobile stop?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. No.
Mr. GASQUE. The evidence is thai he did stop; that both of you
stopped, and that there was an exchange of money at that time for
heroin. Did Johnny pay you $40 for heroin at that time?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. He didn't pay me nothing. I never did get
anything from anybody.
GASQUE. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator DANIEL. How much time was your husband given.-pn the
Mr.
heroin charge?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. Two years.

Senator DANIEL. Was he given a 5-year sentence?
Mrs.
RODRIQUEZ.
Senator
DANIEL.
No, sir.
Two years.
Is he back on the streets now?

Senator DANIEL. Your niece Cora Luna, did she get back from
serving a penitentiary sentence?
Senator DANIEL. Where did she serve?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. In West Virginia, Alderson.
Senator DANIEL.
What charge?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. Heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Sale of heroin?

Senator DANIEL. How about your brother-in-law, Raphael Sanchez,

is he still making time in the penitentiary?
Senator DANIEL. For what charge?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. Same charge.
Senator DANIEL. And your cousin, Pete Rodriquez?

Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. He is not my cousin.
Senator DANIEL. Where is he?
He is my brother.
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. In the penitentiary.

Senator DANIEL. In what penitentiary?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. Texarkana.
Senator DANIEL. On what charge?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. On the same charge.
Senator DANIEL. Any other members of your family under heroin

charges or in the penitentiary?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. Yes, Alberto Rodriquez.
Senator DANIEL. Alberto Rodriquez?
I I I I
ICIT
NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
2957
Senator DANIEL. What kin is he to you?

Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. My brother.
Senator DANIEL. What is he serving time for?
Mrs. RODRIQUEZ. For the same thing.
Senator DANIEL. Did all of you live together?

Senator DANIEL. Are there any other of your relatives or close
members of your familyMrs. RODRIQUEZ. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Ever been convicted for heroin?
Senator DANIEL. Are you the only one left in the family that has
not been in prison for heroin?
Senator DANIEL. And now you have been convicted and given a
4-year sentence, and you are out on bond on a State charge?
Senator DANIEL. I want to say this to you, that you would not
have been called here today had not witnesses told us that they had
bought heroin from you while you had been out on bond, and that
you were still selling heroin. And in view of your testimony I am
going to direct the counsel to turn over this testimony to the Department of Justice, with the recommendation that they take such
procedure as they may deem advisable.
In the chairman's opinion you have perjured yourself before this
committee.
You may go.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. TOLLENGER, AGENT IN CHARGEFEDERAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS, HOUSTON AREA
Senator DANIEL. State your name, please, sir.
Mr. TOLLENGER. William F. Tollenger.
Senator DANIEL. What is your official capacity?
Mr. TOLLENGER. Agent in charge, Houston area, Federal Bureau
of Narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been agent in charge here?
Mr. TOLLENGER. Four months.
Senator DANIEL. Previously where were you in charge?
Mr. TOLLENGER. St. Louis.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been with the Bureau of
Narcotics?
Mr. TOLLENGER. Twelve years.
Senator DANIEL. How have you found the situation here in Houston
with reference to cooperation from State, county and city law enforcement officers?
Mr.
TOLLENGER. Cooperation is very good at the

Senator DANIEL. I am sure you know that past
present time.
differences have
existed here in Houston between certain officers. Have those differences all about been forgotten now?
Mr. TOLLENGER. Yes, everything is cleared up.
Senator DANIEL. Are you getting along perfectly well with the
police?
I I I I
2958-:
_14"dii
cls
Mr. TOLLENGER. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Getting cooperation between Chief Heard and
the narcotics people there?
Senator DANIEL. And as to Sheriff Buster Kern is the situation

the same?
'Senator DANIEL. Are you 'in turn giving them all the cooperation
possible?
Mr. TOLLENGER. We certainly are.
Senator DANIEL." I believe that was evidenced in the recent roundup
of addicts. Did, you work with the local officers and the State officer,
Mr. Taylor, on that?
Mr. TOLLENGER. Yes, sir, we did.
Senator DANIEL. I would like for you to give us any information
and recommendations that you think would be helpful to the committee as we come'to the closing minutes of this hearing in Houston.
You know the purpose of it.
Senator DANIEL. This is the first nationwide investigation of the
narcotics traffic, and if you will sum up for us whatever information

and suggestions you have we will be glad to put yo'r written statement
iithe record. Suppose you give us a summary of anything you think
should be called to our attention before the close of this hearing.
Mr. TOLLENGER. Well, a most important thing I had in mind has
been covered by my predecessor here on this particular spot. The
District Attorney, Mr. Walton, took up the point of rehabilitation
and the information supplied by the Public Health Service hospitals,
which I am sure would be of value to us and, as has aheady been
mentioned, is not available.
Another thing is the matter of personnel. This office up until a
little over a year ago was a district office, being district No. 10. And
at that particular time the district office was moved to Dallas, Tex.
Prior to the moving of the office there were some 8 different agents on
duty in Houston. At the present time, including myself, there are 5.
That is supposed to be increased to at least 8 whenever funds and personnel are available.
Senator DANIEL. Are you shorthanded now?
Senator DANIEL. Just how serious is it?
You have the opportunity

of your lifetime. So just what do you need here in Houston?
Mr. TOLLENGER. Well, the district supervisor at the Dallas office
has intended to increase us to an 8-man group, and I think with 8 we
could do a much better job than we have been doing.
Senator DANIEL. On the equipment phase of the operations here,
do you have enough?
Mr. TOLLENGER. There is no equipment for the Houston office.
Senator DANIEL. No equipment?
Mr. TOLLENGER. No equipment for the Houston office, no, sir.
What we have is in the district office in Dallas.
Senator DANIEL. We will be glad to have any further recommendations that you may have as to what Congress can do to help you in your
job.
2959
Mr. TOLLENGER. We would appreciate more stringent laws to keep

addicts either in jail or off the streets. At the present time the addicts
are generally out, as Captain McMahon and Chief Heard mentioned
yesterday, due to being out on bonds and on parole, and so on. And
we feel that longer sentences would, if not act as a deterrent, would at
least keep them out of circulation for a longer time, so that we could
concentrate on additional underworld personnel.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have a prepared statement there?
Mr.
TOLLENGER.
Senator
district?
DANIEL.
Yes.
In which you give figures on convictions for this
Mr. TOLLENGER. Yes, I do.
Senator DANIEL. We will make this a part of the record at this

point.
(The prepared statement of Mr. Tollenger is as follows:)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS
HOUSTON BRANCH OFFICE
Houston, Tex.
Statistics and information for hearings of Daniel's committee on October 17
and 18, 1955; in Houston, Tex.
1. Addicts
Files show the following number of addicts recorded in 1953, 1954, and from
January to September, inclusive, 1955:
1953, 37; 1954, 36; 1955, 35.
1955 Statistical breakdown
White------------------------
23 Under 21 -----------------------
Black -------------------------Yellow ------------------------Others -------------------------
6 21 to 30 ----------------------4 31 to 40 -----------------------2 Over 40 -----------------------
15
1
19
Total --------------------
35
22 Heroin -----------------------13 Morphine ---------------------Opium ------------------------35 Synthetic ----------------------Cocaine -----------------------Marihuana ---------------------
12
7
3
6
0
7
Total --------------------
35
Total -------------------Male ------------------------Female -----------------------Total --------------------
35
Eleven addicts claim addiction due to medical need originally.

2. Arrests and convictions
Files show the following number of arrests and convictions for 1953, 1954,
and from January to September, inclusive, 1955:
Narcotic
Arrests:
1953 --------------------------------------1954 ---------------------------------------1955 ---------------------------------------Convictions:
1953 ---------------------------------------1954 ---------------------------------------1955 ----------------------------------------
Marihuana
Under 21
years
Total
56
59
21
56
38
13
112
97
34
0
0
)
45
44
15
54
29
9
99
73
24
0
0
2960
cIIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
8. Purchases and seizures

Files only available for January to September 1955 show the following purchases
and seizures:
Cases, 28: Narcotic, 18; marihuana, 10.
Purchases, 66: Narcotic, 50; marihuana, 16.
Seizures, 9: Narcotic, 4; marihuana, 5.
4. Important Cases, 1953 to date
(a) Clyde Elbert Tillman et a]. (Tex.-11795), sentenced to 6 years on March
17, 1954. Modus operandi: Shipped marihuana to New York, N. Y., receiving
heroin in return, for sale in Houston, Tex. Six other defendants also convicted
in this case.
(b) John Ellis Sutton et al. (Tex.-3342-M)"sentenced to 5 years on May 20, 1955.
Modus operandi: Shipped marihuana to New York, N. Y., and received heroin
in return for sale in Houston, Tex. Nine other defendants also convicted in this
case.
(c) Edward Winsor Crow, D. D. S., et al. (Tex.-11856), sentenced to 12 years
on October 8, 1954. Modus operandi: Sold heroin to addicts. Source of supply
was San Antonio, Tex. Three other defendants also convicted in this case.
(d) Sam Cuellar Pereida et al. (Tex.-11906) convicted on October 4, 1955, and
not yet sentenced. Modus operandi: Supplied marihuana and heroin in quantities, on order, to Memphis, Tenn., and Houston, Tex. Four other defendants
convicted in this case.
5. Sources of Supply for Houston, Texas area
(a) Marihuana appears to be smuggled into the United States from Mexico in
the Brownsville, Matamoros, Reynosa, Laredo, and Eagle Pass areas, and is held
in the United States border area pending distribution as needed.
(b) Mexican heroin appears to be smuggled into the United States at the same
border points, and sizable quantities appear to be held in the Harlingen, Weslaco,
McAllen, and Mission border area of the United States, and in San Antonio, Tex.
(c) White heroin in 1955 is only infrequently found in the illicit traffic in the
Houston area. Information from traffickers indicates it to be "cut" too much by
the time it reaches the consumer, whereas the Mexican heroin is of much higher
percentage of purity on reaching the consumer.
Senator DANIEL. What counties are covered by your district, in a

general way?
Mr. TOLLENGER. We cover from this side of Corpus Christi to the
Louisiana line; and up around Tenaha, Tex., going toward the
Arkansas border; and most over to Dallas going toward the west.
There are 34 counties in Texas, and we also cover 6 counties in the
State of Louisiana.
Senator DANIEL. Is the cooperation good with local officers in all
those countries?
Mr. TOLLENGER. I believe it is. We have had very little activity
in the rest of the outside area other than around Port Arthur and
Galveston and within a few miles of the city of Houston. But by
telephone we have handled certain circumstances and situations, and
that has worked very well to date.
Senator DANIEL. Where is your narcotics problem concentrated in
your district?
Mr. TOLLENGER. Well, recently we had problems in Galveston
which we cleaned up with quite a roundup a few months ago. At the
present time our problems are centered right here in Houston.
Senator DANIEL. That is usually true, isn't it, that your narcotics
are centered in the larger cities?
Senator DANIEL. That is true all over the country.
Senator DANIEL. In Port Arthur, what kind of trouble have you
had there?
2961
Mr. TOLLENGER. Principally illegal diversion of drugs, narcotics.

And that was cleaned up rather readily over there with the cooperation
of the police departments.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Tollenger, do you have any other information
other than you have in your written statement that you would like
for this committee to bring to the attention of the Congress?
Mr. TOLLENGER. I don't believe so, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now we will have Angel Queves.
to this Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be the
Mr. QUEVES. I do.
STATEMENT OF ANGEL QUEVES

Senator
DANIEL.
State your name.
Mr. QUEVES. Angel Queves.
Senator
DANIEL.
And your address?
Mr. QUEVES. Richmond, Tex.
Senator
DANIEL.
How long have you lived at Richmond?
Mr. QUEVES. I have lived at Richmond since 1928.

Mr. QUEVES. 1928.
Senator DANIEL. Since 1928?
Mr. QUEVES. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. What business are you engaged in?
Mr. QUEVES. I have some rent houses over there I bought in 1951.
Senator DANIEL. You say rent houses?
Mr. QUEVES. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What other business are you engaged in?
I have a barbershop.
Senator DANIEL. Anything else?
Mr.
QUEVES.
Mr. QUEVES. That is all.

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever sell heroin?
Mr. QUEVES. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Any marihuana?
Mr. QUEVES. I got out in 1939.
Senator DANIEL. You were convicted once for selling marihuana?
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Israel Rene?
Mr. QUEVES. He was over there a little while.

Senator DANIEL. Is he in jail?
Mr. QUEVES. No, sir. He is in the pen.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Joe Aguilar?
Mr. QUEVES. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did they ever get any marihuana from you?
Senator DANIEL. Did they sell marihuana for you?

Senator DANIEL. Did you have any business dealings with them
at all?
Mr. QuEVES. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You never did sell any marihuana or heroin
to either of these two men?

2962
ILLICIT' NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
, Senator DANIEL. Did you ever deliver any marihuana -to them
to sell for you?
Senator
DANIEL.
Are they both in jail now?
Mr. QUEVES. Yes; they got time.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever see any marihuana?
Mr. QuEvEs. Yes; I saw it when they arrested me in 1939.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever see any marihuana or have it in
your possession after you served that sentence?

Mr. QuEvEs. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Never went back to it?
Mr. QuEVES. No, sir. I had 4 years and 4 months on parole, and
I never was in any trouble since 17 years.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever sell any heroin?
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever see any heroin?
Mr. QuEvEs. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
I don't know the stuff.
Do you know what they call it, the nickname?
Mr. QUEvEs. They call it morphine.
Senator DANIEL. Morphine?

Senator DANIEL. What else?
Mr. QuEvEs. That is all I know.
Senator
DANIEL.
You never did have any in your possession?
Senator
DANIEL.
And you have never sold any heroin?
Mr. QUEvES. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
You understand you are under oath, and if you
give untruthful answers to questions asked by this committee you

would be subject to a perjury charge?
Senator DANIEL. And you still insist that you have not been
eng.ed in any kind of selling or buying or trading or dealing in
marihuana or heroin, is that correct?
Mr. QUEVES. That is correct.
Senator DANIEL. Did you bring your income-tax report?
Mr. QUEVES. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
For what years?
Mr. QUEVES. 1951 and 1952.
Senator
DANIEL.
Have you filed income-tax returns since 1952?
Mr. QUEVES. Yes; I filed this year, and 1952.
Senator
DANIEL.
What about 1953?
Mr. QUEVES. I got sick and I couldn't pay.
Senator
DANIEL.
How about 1954?
Mr. QUEVES. I haven't paid.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you file income-tax return?
Mr. QUEVES. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
In 1953?
I filed 4 years and 1 paid 2.
How much did you make in 1953?
Mr. QUEVES. 1951 and 1952.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. QuEvEs. Not much. I don't remember how much.
Senator DANIEL. In 1953?
Mr. QuEvEs. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Was it over a thousand dollars?
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
2963
TRAFFIC
Mr. QUEvEs. No; I don't think so.

Senator DANIEL. How about 1954?
Mr. QUEVES. 1954, maybe $800.
Mr. QUEVES. About $800.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't file income-tax return for 1953 and
1954?
Mr. QUEVES. I never filed it.

Senator DANIEL. You didn't file it?
Senator DANIEL. You are willing to stand on that testimony?


(A short recess was taken.)
Senator DANIEL. Please come to order.
Mr. BRIAN
STATEMENT
ODEM.
OF BRIAN ODEM, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, BROWNSVILLE, TEX.
Senator DANIEL. State your name for the record.

Mr. ODEM.
Brian S. Odem.
Senator DANIEL. And your present residence?
Brownsville, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. And your present official position?
Mr. ODEM.
Mr. ODEM.
Assistant United States attorney at Brownsville.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you formerly did hold other position?

Mr. ODEM. That is correct.
Senator DANIEL. You were United States attorney for this district?
Mr. ODEM. I was United States attorney for the Southern District
of Texas for five terms.

Senator DANIEL. What is the particular area your work covers
now?
Mr. ODEM.
I have under my jurisdiction, that is, supervision, the
Brownsville division, Laredo division, and the Corpus Christi division,

in charge of customs and immigration enforcement.
Senator DANIEL. Have you at our request, or the request of Mr.
Wilkey, prepared a list of the number of cases in your division?
Mr. ODEM.
Yes.
I submitted that to Mr. Wilkey.
Senator DANIEL. We will make this a part of the record at this time.
(The statistical report of Mr. Odem is as follows:)
STATISTICAL
REPORT
OF
CASES
IN
THE
BROWNSVILLE,
CORPUS
CHRISTI,
AND
LAREDO DIVISIONS, JULY 1, 1953 TO OCTOBER 11, 19551
The following statistical summary and case tabulation has been compiled by
Assistant United States Attorney Brian S. Odem from the original filed of the
United States attorney's office at Brownsville, Tex.:
295
Defendants formally filed on by indictment or criminal information ------
Defendants have cases pending to date------------------------------Cases have had final disposition ---------------------------------1 For the list of cases tried and disposed of, see "Corpus Christi and Brownsville Divisions, July
30
265
16, 1953
to October 11, 1955," and "Laredo Division, July 1, 1953 to October 11, 1955," prepared by assistant United
States Attorney Brian S. Odem, in the statement of Malcolm R. Wilkey, United States attorney, Southern
District of Texas, on pp. 2758 and 2763, respectively.
2964
Of the 265 cases disposed of, 55 defendants were tried by the United States
attorney.
Of the 55 defendants actually tried, 31 were found guilty and 24 were acquitted.
Of the remainder of cases not tried:
163
Plead guilty ---------------------------------------------------15
Cases dismissed by Government -----------------------------------4
------------------------------------------Cases dismissed by court
22
Number of defendants acquitted by the court ------------------------Number of defendants acquitted by the jury -------------------------2
Senator DANIEL. I will ask if you would like to summarize the

report, and point out anything you think is of particular significance
concerning your cases along the border.
Mr. ODEM. Well, of the list submitted covering three divisions,
there were 295 defendants formally filed on by indictment or criminal
information.
Thirty of these defendants have cases pending to date awaiting trial.
Two hundred and sixty-five cases have had final disposition.
Of the 265 cases disposed of, 55 defendants were tried by the United
States attorney.
Of the 55 defendants actually tried, 31 were found guilty and 24
were acquitted.
Of the remaining cases not tried, 163 plead guilty, 15 were dismissed
by the Government, and 4 were dismissed by the court.
The number of defendants acquitted by the court were 22. The
number acquitted by jury were two.
That covers the period from July 1, 1953, to October 11, 1955.
I might state in connection with these cases that in my judgment
about 75 of them are what is known as bridge cases. That is, they
are apprehended at the bridge on information received by the customs
agent, who transmitted it to the inspectors on the bridge, to be on
the lookout for a certain car bearing a given description, and after
declaration then search his car, and cigarettes, marihuana, or heroin
is found some place about the car.
Senator DANIEL. Is that one reason sentences might be lighter in
these divisions?
Mr. ODEM. In my judgment that is usually taken into consideration
by the court in assessing sentence. Most of them are young men
who go over there, probably to the red-light district, andthen they
are approached by a seller, and they become interested, by curiosity
or otherwise, in trying it. Probably a lot of these are what are
termed "commercial dealers." These larger cases, as well as I
remember, are all cases that have been apprehended by customs
agents not at the bridge, but out in the country, along the river, and
en route to Houston or San Antonio. There are four cases included
in this list of that type.
There was one case recently tried by Mr. Wilkey and myself in
Laredo involving a hundred pounds of marihuana, and that marihuana was concealed in a truckload of onions, a large truckload of
onions, and was apprehended down near the river. The onions were
destined for Los Angeles.
Senator DANIEL. What sentences were given in those cases?
Mr. ODEM. In that case the owner of the truck was given 2 years,
and the truck seized. And his codefendant, who said he was hitchhiking, was given 18 months to serve. That is the most recent case.
That case was tried last month.
2965
A case made by Agent Ellis involved a truckload of marihuana

originated at Laredo that was shipped by Railway Express to New
York, and the defendants were apprehended when they called for it
at the express station.
A load of marihuana was apprehended by customs agents en route
to Cleveland, Ohio. Those defendants were tried at Corpus Christi
and the trial resulted in conviction. You recall the sentences that
are set out in the report.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have that particular sentence in mind?
Mr. ODEM. It is on the last page.
That is the Eldridge case.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any recommendations to make to

the committee on anything you think Congress can do to help
strengthen your arm in this fight against the narcotics racket?
Mr. ODEM. I have listened with much interest to the customs agents,
Mr. Scharff, Mr. McLeaish, and Mr. Ellis. I have worked with
them, some of them for a good number of years, and I want to say
for the record that they are doing a wonderful job. I think they are
handicapped in manpower and equipment. I think they should be
provided with additional personnel and equipment to enable them to
control the traffic, because it is still coming in in large quantities.
Senator DANIEL. We will get those sentences and they will be made
a part of the record.
The time has come to close the hearing. We want to thank Mr.
Wilkey, his staff, and the officers who lave assisted us; and the
press, radio, and television, and especially Station KGUL which has
been broadcasting our proceedings. In my judgment that is a great
public service, so the people can know what is going on with reference to the narcotics traffic and be aware of what the law-enforcement officers and this committee are trying to do in regard to it.
I only wish I could be in Houston longer, because it is close to
Liberty, and close to home.
The committee will recess, however, at this time, and begin its
hearing again in Dallas tomorrow morning in the Federal Court
Building, at 10 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 5:15 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned, to meet
in Dallas at 10 a. m., Wednesday, October 19, 1955.)
IlIII

WEDNESDAY,
OCTOBER 192 1955

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS,
Dallas, Tex.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a. m. in tho
United States Post Office and Courthouse, Dallas, Tex., Senator
Price Daniel (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Daniel and James 0. Eastland (member of the
committee).
Also present: C. Aubrey Gasque, subcommittee counsel; W. Lee
Speer, committee investigator; and Hon. Bruce Alger, Congressman
from the State of Texas.

Senator DANIEL. The committee will come to order. Mr. Reporter, let the record show that we have pres*vnt today Senator
James Eastland, of Mississippi, member of the commnittec, and lhe
is also chairman of the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, on which I have the honor to serve under him.
We have present with us today, also Congressman Bruce Alger, and
the chief investigator, to my left, Mr. Lee Speer of Amarillo, Tex.,
Senator Eastland; to my right, Mr. Aubrey Gasque, our chief counsel,
of South Carolina, and Mr. William Steger, United States District
Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas.
I want to say this in opening, that one of the main reasons that I
became interested in the narcotics traffic in the United States and
offered the resolution in the Senate for a nationwide investigation
was the fact that before our Internal Security Subcommittee evidence
was adduced very clearly that Red China was trying to further the
traffic of heroin into the free nations of the world, not only for dollars,
but to demoralize the free nations of the world; and it was with Senator Eastland, who is chairman of that subcommittee, that I obtained
this information. I also heard, of course, from some of the grand
juries here in Texas, about how the narcotics traffic was increasing
in some areas, and saw the importance of it to our own people, to
our own State and our country.
But especially was I alarmed about the matter of Red China actually pushing narcotics into the free nations. And so I want to give
Senator Eastland, who is my colleague on this committee and chairman of the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Senate, credit for
this investigation getting under way.
Senator Eastland, would you like to make any remarks before we
get started with the evidence?
Senator
EASTLAND. Just
this, Price: I think the control of narcotics
is one of the most important questions that confronts the American

2967
2968
eople today. In fact, it is not being controlled, and in all probaility additional legislation will be necessary, and I know that you will
come out with that proposed legislation.
In addition to the use of narcotics by Red China in furtherance of
their foreign policy, the proof that we have shows that they have
pushed narcotics around American army camps in Asia and in the
United States, in an attempt to make addicts of the American servicemen, and I am proud that drive has not been successful.
Senator DANIEL. Thank you very much, Senator. We are happy
to have you here in Texas for these hearings.
Our first witness is chief of police Carl F. Hanssen. Chief Hanssen.
Also, if Lt. Gannaway will come forward, we will swear both these
witnesses at the same time.
All right. Do you and each of you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give to this subcommittee of the Senate
Judiciary Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. HANSSEN. I do.
Lt. GANNAWAY. I do.
TESTIMONY OF CARL F. HANSSEN, CHIEF OF POLICE, DALLAS,
TEX.
Senator DANIEL. You may be seated, Chief Hanssen.
Chief, it is a pleasure to be back working with you. When I was
attorney general of Texas, we worked together on several crime
conferences and investigations. We are happy to have you before us
today. You, of course, know the purpose of this investigation.
For the record, will you give your name in full?
Mr. HANSSEN. Carl F. Hanssen, chief of police, Dallas, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been chief of police here in
Dallas?
Mr. HANSSEN. About 10% years, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Chief, do you consider the narcotics problem here
in Dallas of serious nature?
Mr. HANSSEN. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator DANIEL. Would you like to just tell the committee exactly
why you say that?
Mr. HANSSEN. Because of the amount of crime that we can attribute directly to the users of narcotics; thefts, burglaries, and I remember a few years ago one particular instance of homicide that is outstanding in that connection.
Senator DANIEL. Well, have you ever tried to estimate about how
much of the total crime in Dallas could be attributed to narcotic addiction and traffic?
Mr. HANSSEN. It is impossible to get an absolutely accurate figure,
Senator. But an estimate, I believe possibly 50 percent of our crime

in Dallas can be attributed to those who use and dispense narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. You started a moment ago to mention certain
specific crimes that are connected with narcotics. Would you give
us some illustrations there?
Mr. HANSSEN. Well, perhaps in the shoplifting field, Senator, say
that 70 to 75 percent can be attributed to narcotic users; amongst the
I1I II1
2969
burglaries, perhaps 25 percent of our burglaries are committed by

those who use them.
A few years ago we had 2 brothers, the Allen brothers, Negroes,
committed a series of robberies, striking particularly against the operators of liquor stores. They killed 4 or 5 people. And in their statement to Captain Fritz after their apprehension, they admitted that
before going out on each job, they would smoke a couple of marihuana
cigarettes to put them in the right frame of mind to commit those
crimes.
Senator DANIEL. Now, you say these brothers were named Allen?
Mr. HANSSEN. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any other crimes of violence like
that, that you can recall, that were committed by those who were
under the influence of some narcotic?
Mr. HANSSEN. A few years ago we had several robberies where
the victims were tied up and sometimes beaten. That group operated under the Green brothers, Lois and Cecil Green and several
others, who were users and peddlers of narcotics, and those were
rather heinous crimes, Senator.
Senator DANIEL. Chief, we heard some evidence in New York;
it took about a week to hear both sides of the question. The New
York Society of Medicine and the New York Academy of Medicine
were advocating free clinics for narcotic addicts, in which they could
get free or at a small cost enough narcotic drugs to keep them happy
and sustained in their habit. The advocates of this plan said that
would cut out the black market, and those doctors told us that
narcotic addicts just wouldn't do any violent crimes. I told them at
that time that I had heard that here in Dallas and Fort Worth there
had been some violent crimes and gang murders and things of that
kind, which were done by people who were using narcotics.
Now, what do you think about the matter? From your experience,
do you think that these users of heroin are just docile people, and
will not commit crime, or just give us your idea about it, from personal
observation and experience.
Mr. HANSSEN. Our records reflect otherwise, Senator, that those
who engage in violent crimes, crimes against property, do use narcotics
to a large degree.
Senator DANIEL. And that has been the case here in Dallas?
Senator DANIEL. And do you know of any other places where that
has been true?

Mr.
HANSSEN.
I am sure that you will find that to be true in
every metropolitan city. Either the police are not informed, or the
doctors who advance the suggestion that addicts be given free drugs
have not been fully informed.
Senator DANIEL. Now, do you have a narcotics bureau?
Senator DANIEL. And who is the head of that bureau?
Mr. HANSSEN. Lieutenant Gannaway.
Senator DANIEL. I believe that he is here and will go into detail
on these various cases; is that correct?
Senator DANIEL. Now, chief, do you have any suggestions, any
other information to give the committee, so that we might have a
I I IIIII
2970
picture of the situation here in Dallas, or any suggestions to give this

committee as to what we might recommend to Congress, to help solve
this problem?
Mr. HANSSEN. I might suggest, Senator Daniel, that in regard to
the suggestion that the doctors have made in setting up free clinics,
that the committee refer back to the hearings held prior to the passage
of the Harrison Narcotic Act, the conditions existing at that tune.
Narcotics could be purchased in the drugstores. That brought about
the passage of that bill. The same condition would prevail if the
restrictions were removed.
Senator DANIEL. Now, before you leave that, your point there is
that there were more narcotic addicts then, when it Nvas easy to get
narcotic drugs, than we have today; correct?
Senator DANIEL. And, so we might have the record here, while you
are making this point, they figured that there were over 400, 000
narcotic addicts before the Harrison Act was passed; and today, as
bad as the situation is, we have an estimate of only 60, 000 addicts?
Senator DANIEL. So that certainly those figures prove your point
there?
Mr. HANSSEN. Yes, sir, I think so.
Senator DANIEL. Senator Eastland?
Senator EASTLAND. Chief Hanssen, is there a tendency of narcotic
peddlers to place dope where people will become addicts?
Mr. HANSSEN. The narcotic business is just like any other business.
They have to find new fields, find new users, in order to increase sales
and make greater profits. The peddler will make addicts wherever he
possibly can.
Senator EASTLAND. Yes, sir. Now, what is your judgment about
making it a capital offense to peddle narcotics?
Mr. HANSSEN. You mean the death penalty?
Senator EASTLAND. Yes, sir.
Mr. HANSSEN. I don't believe the death penalty will stop the
peddling of narcotics, sir.
Senator EASTLAND. Do you think it would aid in stopping it?
Mr. HANSSEN. No, sir.
Senator EASTLAND. Well, now, what about a big time commercial
smuggler of narcotics?
Mr. HANSSEN. The death penalty, you mean?
Senator EASTLAND. Yes, sir.
Mr. HANSSEN. No, sir, I don't believe that would stop it, either.
Senator EASTLAND. Well, I certainly disagree with you.
Mr. HANSSEN. Well, sir, that's a matter of opinion.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, Chief, do you think it might help stop it?
Now, some of us firmly believe that those who are smugglers and those
who sell to juveniles are committing murder on the installment plan.
I would rather someone would shoot my child with a gun than shoot
him with a needle of heroin; wouldn't you?
HANSSEN. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Because
Mr.
he will have a living death if he ever gets

heroin in his blood and becomes an addict, don't you think?
Mr. HANSSEN. I disagreed with Senator Eastland on the basis that
the death penalty would stop the peddling of narcotics. It will not.
2971
Now, the death penalty would act as a deterrent to the smuggling

of narcotics and peddling to juveniles; to that extent I will agree with
the Senator.
Senator DANIEL. Certainly; I think that is what Senator Eastland
meant, so I think you are in agreement now.
Mr. HANSSEN. No penalty we can impose will stop crime, no matter
how severe the penalty. We have the death penalty for rape, for
murder, for armed robbery, but they still go on. That is what I
meant when I said the death penalty will not stop the narcotic traffic.
Senator DANIEL. You think that if some people like the 2 Cubans
who this year smuggled 200 million dollars' worth of cocaine into New
York, if they knew that they might get the death penalty, or at least
that it was possible to get the death penalty in this country, it might
help stop the narcotic traffic?
Mr. HANSSEN. It would help act as a deterrent; yes, sir.
Senator EASTLAND. A peddler that would make an addict of a young
man, don't you think that he ought to be hung?
Mr. HANSSEN. No penalty that you can impose would be too severe
on him.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Chief, do you have good cooperation here
from the Federal officers of the Bureau of Narcotics?
Mr. HANSSEN. We have the very best. We have enjoyed that
cooperation for many, many years.
Senator DANIEL. And what about the other officers here who are
interested in the narcotics enforcement, that is, the State agency, now,
that has been set up, and then your sheriff's office? Do you have
cooperation with all of your law enforcement officers here?
Mr. HANSSEN. I doubt if there are many communities in the United
States where cooperation between the law enforcement agencies is
better than you will find it-in the Dallas area, between the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the narcotic office, the Federal Narcotics
Bureau, the United States Secret Service, and so on.
Senator DANIEL. I could have testified to that myself, 3 years ago
when I worked with your officers here. I never saw a finer group in
the way they cooperated in law enforcement, not only here, but with
those of us in Austin who were at the State level.
Now, do you have any further suggestions you would make to this
committee, as to what we might recommend to Congress in order to
help stop this traffic?
Mr. HANSSEN. Yes, sir; I would like to recommend-it wouldn't
necessarily be a recommendation to Congress-but a change in policy
on the part of the Federal Narcotics Bureau and the United States
Attorney General's office. We have had an increase in the use and
peddling of narcotics in the Dallas area, and one of the reasons we
have had that increase is because of the change of policy that occurred
a few years ago, about 3 years ago. That is the adoption of cases by
the Federal Narcotic Bureau for prosecution in Federal courts. We
are filing all of our narcotic cases now in our State court. The change
of policy, I don't recall just how long ago, about 3 years ago, has
prohibited the adoption of cases from local police agencies, and as a
result, there is not the deterrent that we had then. The addicts, just
as other law violators, fear Federal prosecution more than they do
State prosecution. We do not have the delays in Federal court; there
is greater certainty of punishment and swiftness of punishment than
71515--56--pt. 7-40
2972
we find in our State courts. And this is no criticism of Mr. Wade and
our local courts, either, because of the tremendous load they have to
carry.
Senator
DANIEL. Well,
Chief, you say narcotics has been on the
increase in Dallas?
Senator DANIEL. In the last 3 years?
Mr. HANSSEN. Of course, Dallas is a larger city, it is growing all
the time. But we have just about doubled the number of cases filed
the first 9 months of this year, as compared to the first 9 months of
last year.
Senator DANIEL. Well, would that indicate to you that there has
been that much of an increase in the traffic?
Mr. HANSSEN. Yes, sir; we have found an increase in the amount
of traffic in heroin and morphine, amongst the Negroes particularly.
The ones who used marihuana to a large extent a few years ago today
are using heroin, morphine, and cocaine- and that may be due partly
to the better economic position of the Negro.
Senator DANIEL. Well, of course, we found one Negro in New York
who had used it a good while ago here in Dallas. At the age of 10,
George Hall-you have heard of him-began using marihuana in
Dallas, and be became the biggest marihuana wholesaler in New York
City. We had his evidence in New York, and he now has turned over
all of his information to this committee. We began right here in
Dallas.
Mr. HANSSEN. Well, many of our marihuana smokers have graduated into the heroin and morphine category now.
Senator DANIEL. In addition to marihuana being a very dangerous
drug itself, it does cause them, then, to go into heroin?
Mr. HANSSEN. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Eventually, in many cases, doesn't it?
Senator DANIEL. Now, would you say that this increase in the
drug traffic in Dallas is about double over last year?
Senator DANIEL. Well, Chief, I am surprised at that estimate,
and regret it, but I guess we ought to know about it, because this is
only the fourth city we have found in the country in which there
has been an increase in the drug traffic in the last few years. In most
places there was a decrease, I am glad to say. Only New York City,
os Angeles, Washington, D. C., and now Dallas have we heard that
there is an increase in the traffic this year over recent years.
Senator Eastland, do you have any further questions?
Senator EASTLAND. Chief, what is the average sentence in your
State courts here for peddling?
Mr. HANSSEN. Well, recently there were several sentences of 10
years for peddling.
Senator EASTLAND. Is that an average?
Mr. HANSSEN. I would say 5 years was an average.
Senator EASTLAND. Five years?
Senator EASTLAND. Now, what about in Federal court?

Mr. HANSSEN. The sentences were shorter, but they were put away
more quickly.
IIIIIIIIIIII
2973
Senator EASTLAND. Yes, sir. Now, about what was the average
Federal sentence?
Mr. HANSSEN. This is purely a guess, Senator.
Senator
EASTLAND.
Yes, sir.
Mr. HANSSEN. First violation, probably 18 months, 2 years. Subsequent violations, 5 years. And I think a few years ago there was
1 sentence of 50 years here in Dallas County.
Senator EASTLAND. Now, what would you think about giving the
Federal agents, and also you, the right to wire tap?
Mr. HANSSEN. I would be highly in favor of it, sir. You are
referring to wire tapping of narcotics cases?
Senator EASTLAND. Certainly.
Senator EASTLAND. That's all.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Counsel, do you have any questions?
Mr. GASQUE. Chief, do you feel that bonds are set high enough in
narcotics cases, both in Federal courts and in State courts?
Mr. HANSSEN. No, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. I wonder if you would tell us something about that.
Mr. HANSSEN. The theory in Texas is that no bond should be set
that the person charged can't make. Consequently, bonds are rather
low in our State courts. In Federal court, the bonds in some instances,
too-and this is purely an opinion-are rather too low for the violation charged.
Mr. GASQUE. Have you had cases where people made bonds, then
went out on the street and peddled narcotics again?
Mr. HANSSEN. Yes, sir; that is standard operating procedure.
Mr. GASQUE. Why do they do it?
Mr. HANSSEN. Who? Set the bonds and let them go out on the
street, or why do they go out and peddle again? Peddling is the
business of the person we have charged with the violation. That is
his principal source of income.
Mr. GASQUE. The reason I asked that, in some instances we have
had evidence that they did it in order to raise their attorney's fees to
defend them for the first narcotic case.
Mr. HANSSEN. Well, yes. As I say, that is their principal source
of income, and that is how they make their money to pay the bondsman fee and the attorney's fee. And then too, usually subsequent
charges, they will plead guilty to subsequent charges if they are caught
again, and the second penalty will be allowed to run concurrently with
the first one. So he has nothing to lose; he feels that he will not get
any more time for five charges filed against him than just one charge.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, in order to properly understand the responsibilities between the State and the Federal officers, which cases do you
feel should go to the State court and which cases do you feel should go
to the Federal court?
Mr. HANSSEN. Well, there is one type of case that should go nowhere
except the Federal court, and that is the use of heroin, because heroin
cannot be legally manufactured in the United States or be legally
introduced into the United States. Therefore any heroin here is
naturally contraband, and should be heard in a Federal court.
Mr. GASQUE. We have had evidence that perhaps the local and
State officers should handle the peddling on the streets, and the addiction problem, and that the Federal officers should restrict their activities to the movement in interstate traffic and smuggling of narcotics.
2974
ILLICIT N4AACOTICS TRAFFIC
Mr. HANSSEN. Well, very often the man who is peddling on the
street, as you are referring to it, is also engaged in smuggling of narcotics. The man who will peddle narcotics here to the user will also
go across the border in Mexico and bring it up here. Now, of course
he may bring with him only a few capsules or a few sticks, as they
refer to it, a few sticks of marihuana. The peddler doesn't carry his
whole source with him; he will have it hidden somewhere else, and carry
with him only what he will use for immediate sale.
Mr.
GASQUE.
N"OW, where do you feel that your source of narcotics
in the Dallas area is?

Mr. HANSSEN. They come from various sources. Some is smuggled
across from Mexico, some of it comes in through sea ports, New
Orleans and Houston, and some of it comes through robberies and
burglaries. We have had a group of drugstore burglars here in Texas
who have fanned out all over the United States, to Denver, to Los
Angeles, to Madison, Wisconsin, to New Jersey, to Florida, committing burglaries to obtain narcotics that they can peddle locally.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, you would consider, then, that Dallas is a coiisuming area of narcotics, and not a transit point?
Mr. GASQUE. Such as some cities we have been in?
Mr. GASQUE. A consuming point?
Mr. GASQUE. Now, do you find that your heroin may have bce(,
produced both in Mexico and in foreign countries other than Mexico,
or not?
Mr. GASQUE. Which countries?
Mr. HANSSEN. Well, we are not sure where it comes from. Some
of it, we feel, comes from Italy, and some of it from the Far East.
And we know that some of it comes across the border from Mexico.
Mr. GASQUE. Are you able to distinguish the Mexican heroin from
theMr. HANSSEN. It is usually darker than the other.
Mr. GASQUE. That's all, Senator.
Senator DANIEL. Chief, in this increase in narcotics traffic, do you
have an increase in the use by juveniles?
Mr. HANSSEN. No, sir. The use of narcotics-and I am referring
to heroin, cocaine, and morphine-the cost is so high that the juveniles just can't afford them. The juveniles will occasionally smoke
a marihuana cigarette or use some of the barbiturates.
Senator DANIEL. Well, are you having any trouble with juveniles
who have been using barbiturates or amphetamines?
Mr. HANSSEN. Very little.

Senator DANIEL. Now, I wonder if there is anything else that we
haven't covered, that you would like to leave with the committee? I
believe Lt. Gannaway is going to follow you.
Senator DANIEL. For some details. Do you wish to identify these

burglars who you say were going all over the country and stealing
dope?
Mr. HANSSEN. Well, one of them is dead,
Olin Alvey. He and
another, Lester Vincent, were both killed out here in West Dallas
2975
recently, and I think the killing can be traced directly to the narcotic
traffic. Olin Alvey, Mack Barnes, and I think Mr. Decker has one
man down there as a guest, Massengill, a few years ago journeyed up
here to Madison, Wis., hijacked a druggist, tied him up, and I think
Lt. Gannaway can tell you more about that; he worked on the case
himself.
But then we have had Clyde James and others going to Florida and
elsewhere, committing burglaries and bringing the narcotics back here
to Dallas. We know that to be true, because we have apprehended
them in possession of narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. Senator Eastland, do you have any further questions?
Senator EASTLA ND. No questions.
Senator DANIEL. Thank you, Chief. I understand you will be
with us in case we need to call you back later in the day?
Mr.
HANSSEN.
Senator
Yes, sir.
DANIEL.
Thank you.
Lt. Gannaway.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM P. GANNAWAY, LIEUTENANT OF DETECTIVES, POLICE DEPARTMENT, DALLAS, TEX.

Senator DANIEL. State your full name, sir.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. William P. Gannaway.
Senator DANIEL. And what is your position?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. I am a lieutenant of detectives, Dallas
Police Department.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been a lieutenant of detectives?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. I don't remember. About 5 or 6 years,
I think.
Senator DANIEL. Are you head of the narcotics squad?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been head of the narcotics
squad?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. About the same period of time.
Senator DANIEL. How many men do you have on your squad now?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Seven.
Senator DANIEL. Are they and you devoting full time to narcotics work?
Lieutenant
GANNAWAY.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, lieutenant, have you prepared a map which

would show the concentration of the narcotics traffic here in Dallas?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; I have.
Senator DANIEL. Do you find it pretty well concentrated within
certain localities in the city?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Generally speaking, they follow pretty
much of a pattern as to where their locations will be, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And are most of your arrests made in those
localities or do they involve sales and uses in those localities?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; they involve sales and uses in
those localities.
Senator DANIEL. I wonder if you would get your map and put it
up here on the table, so we can see. Or you can set it right on your
chair there.
2976
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Now, we have an area [indicating on the

map] that has recently been annexed to the city of Dallas, that we
formerly called West Dallas, and around those areas out there in
West Dallas, we have a number of marihuana users, marihuana peddlers and also narcotic peddlers and narcotic users.
We find that the narcotic peddlers will move from time to time in
the Dallas areas, and we find that they will normally stay in some
tourist court maybe a couple of days, and move over to another
tourist court. We find that a lot of the tourist courts out Hines
Boulevard, out Zang Boulevard, and out Fort Worth Avenue; they
will move from time to time, and the operators of the tourist courts
have no idea who they are, because they dress nice, they drive good
automobiles, and they stay a short time and give them very little
trouble. Now, over in the Fair Park area, we also have a few peddlers
around that area, and users.
Senator DANIEL. Now, what is your most concentrated area of
narcotic users and peddlers?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. The most concentrated area that we have
here is among the colored race, and it is around the Hall and Thomas
area.
Senator DANIEL. Will you point that out on your map?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. That is generally in this area here [indicating].
Senator DANIEL. Now, you have an area circled in red there; could
you give us some idea about the streets that bound that area?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir. There is Thomas Street and
Hall Street, Hugo, and that is a general area there of about 10 or 12
square blocks; Hugo Street, Guillot, Cochran, and some of those
streets.
Senator DANIEL. How many narcotics addicts would you estimate
that you have in Dallas, the city of Dallas?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. We estimate that there are approximately
175 here in the city of Dallas.
Senator DANIEL. Is that a minimum figure?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. That's the ones that we could more or
less count noses on.
Senator DANIEL. That you could actually count?
Lieutenant
GANNAWAY.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And identify?

Senator DANIAL. Well, then, would you judge that there are some
you do not know about?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. There in all probability are a number that
we don't know about.
Senator DANIEL. What percentage of these addicts would you say
live within the area that you last mentioned, last described to us?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Probably the number living in that area
would be around ten percent, or may be 25 percent in that area.
The rest of them are scattered around all over Dallas, where they
actually live. Now, this particular area here, some of them live in
that area, some of them go there to purchase their narcotics.
Senator DANIAL. What do you call that area?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Well, it is referred to by the colored people
as "On The High."

DANIEL. On the High?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. They call it
Senator DANIEL. Do you still have
2977
Senator
the High, H-i-g-h.

an area called The Front in
Dallas? This George Hall in New York testified that when he was
10 years old, when he started smoking marihuana, he said "On The
Front." Do you have any place called that here?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Not to my knowledge; no, sir.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Now, over in the south part of Dallas,
around Colonial and Forest Avenue, and Ervay, there are some
peddlers of barbiturates over in that area. And also, there is a coijple
of peddlers of narcotics over there and some of the addicts live in
that area there.
Senator DANIEL. Now, is that a white area or a colored area?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Most of it is white there. However,
right there on Forest and South Boulevard, Peabody, Pa., there's a
lot of colored people live there now. They have moved there within
the last couple of years. And we have, on out South Lamar, we have
some tourist courts out there that we recently made cases, these
tourist courts where peddlers had moved, as I have stated, from
time to time, had moved out there and were living there at the time
we arrested them.
That is about the extent of the area that I have described here.
Senator DANIEL. How does the percentage of addicts run as between white and colored?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. I'd say about 25 percent of them are
colored.
Senator DANIEL. And 75 percent white?
Senator DANIEL. Now, that's been true, that proportion has been
about right in all of our Texas hearings.
Senator DANIEL. And I didn't know whether it would bear out
here in Dallas, but you think that is about right?
Senator DANIEL. Twenty-five percent colored as to seventy-five
percent white?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir, I believe that would be about
right.
Senator DANIEL. All right, sir. Would you describe your heroin
traffic, and where the heroin comes from? Give us any illustrations
that you have, that you think would help us see the picture, as to
how the traffic looks here in Dallas.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Well, we believe that there is an organized
syndicate bringing the heroin in here and controlling the sale of heroin
here in Dallas, because from time to time we have different people
that will be selling heroin here.
However, we find as Chief Hanssen stated, that a large part of our
heroin comes from Mexico. We can usually determine that by the
color of it; it is usually a little bit darker than the heroin that we commonly call European heroin, the white heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Why is that?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. I don't know, sir, unless it is not distilled as
good as the white heroin. I understand that the white heroin is a
little bit stronger than the Mexican heroin. Now, we have in the
2978
Dallas area a number of people that have gone down into Mexico and
bought heroin and brought it back into the United States. I know
that here a few weeks ago, we had a man here out of Dallas named
William Gus Noble, and Fred Piper and Charlotte Harris, that were
caught down at Laredo bringing heroin back into the United States,
and I understand they are under charge there now. Those people
came from Dallas; they left Dallas and went down there after heroin,
and were caught bringing it back. Howard Perkins, Herbert Perkins,
another well-known Dallas narcotic handler, was caught down in
Austin recently in possession of some heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Was he on his way back from Mexico, or from
San Antonio?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. That I don't know, sir. Now, we have
other people that have gone down there from time to time. For
instance, we have another man that is under charge now, Thomas
Odell Hicks, that was supposed to have gone down in the southern part
of the State, obtained heroin, and brought it back here to Dallas, and
he in turn would wholesale it to another character here we know as
Luke Murray Wallace, alias Bouchie; and Bouchie in turn would
peddle it out to various people, including the colored people, and the
colored people includes Blackshear and Tommie Jean Dawson and
Walter B. Taylor, and others among the colored people.
Senator DANIEL. Are those the parties that are in the ring of heroin
users that you think might illustrate exactly how the traffic operates
here?
Senator DANIEL. Let me see how many of these people are in the
courtroom. Is Tommy Hicks in the courtroom? Stand up if I call
your name.
(Thomas Odell Hicks stood up.)
Senator DANIEL. All right. Luke Wallace. 0. B. Blackshear.
A voice. He is back there.
Senator DANIEL. 0. B. Blackshear. Walter B. Taylor. He is out
here in the hall. Tommie Jean Dawson.
The MARSHALL. She is right back there.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Well, I see that these witnesses are
here. We will get to them.
Do you wish to tell us anything more about that operation, before
these witnesses come on, or shall we hear from them first?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Well
Senator DANIEL. Is Tommie Jean Dawson a girl?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir, Tommie Jean Dawson is a girl.
She is under a probated sentence now in State court, for violation of
the State narcotic law, and she is also under charge now for illegal
possession of heroin. She was
Senator DANIEL. Well, suppose we hear these witnesses that have
been subpenaed on the case that you say is an example of how the
traffic operates here, and get their story, and then we will come back
to you.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. All right, sir.
Senator DANIEL. If you will, just stand aside or come up here and
sit with us, either way.

Lieutenant GANNAWAY. All right, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Tommie Jean Dawson.
2979
,this subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be the
Miss DAWSON. I do.
TESTIMONY OF TOMMIE JEAN DAWSON
Senator DANIEL. You may be seated. State your full name.
Miss DAWSON. Tommie Jean Dawson.
Miss DAWSON. 2516 Pine.
Senator DANIEL. Here in Dallas?
Miss DAWSON. Yes, sir.
Miss DAWSON. Twenty-one.
Senator DANIEL. When did you first start using heroin?
Miss DAWSON. Last year.
Senator
DANIEL.
Where?
Miss DAWSON. Here in Dallas?

Senator DANIEL. In what part of Dallas?
Miss DAWSON. North Dallas.
Senator DANIEL. North Dallas?
Senator DANIEL. Who first started you on heroin?
Miss DAWSON. Cecil Cotton.
Senator DANIEL. Is that a boy?
Senator DANIEL. Had you ever used any kind of narcotic drug,
marihuana or anything, before you used heroin?
Miss
DAWSON. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Did you know anything about it at all?
Miss DAWSON. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How did you happen to take it the first
time?
Miss DAWSON. Well, they said it would make me feel good, and
I just wanted to try it and see how it would make me feel.
Senator
DANIEL.
This boy Cecil Cotton told you it would make
you feel good?

Senator DANIEL. And you wanted to try it?
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you put it in your vein, through a needle,
or how?
Senator
DANIEL.
Did he give it to you, or did you buy it from him?
Miss DAWSON. He gave it to me.

Senator DANIEL. How many more shots did this same boy give you?
Miss DAWSON. Oh, several. I was going with him.
Senator
Miss
DANIEL.
DAWSON.
You were going with him?
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Were you living with him?

Miss Dawson. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. He was not your common-law husband?

Senator DANIEL. How long was it before you felt like that you
had to have it and couldn't quit it?
2980
Miss DAWSON. Oh, I had used it about-about a month.
Senator DANIEL. Then did you finally have to start buying the
heroin for yourself?
Senator DANIEL. How much did it get to where your habit was
costing you a day?
Miss D AWSON. Oh, I have spent about $14 a day.
Senator DANIEL. Yes; did you have a job?
Senator DANIEL. What kind of work?
Miss
DAWSON.
Sammy's Grill and Cafe.
Senator DANIEL. Were you able to hold that job after you got to
using this heroin?
Miss
DAWSON. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Did you finally lose it?
Senator DANIEL. Well, you didn't make
$14 a day there, did you?
Senator DANIEL. Did you have to do something else to get enough
money to buy your heroin?

Senator DANIEL. You didn't ever do anything else to make money?
Senator DANIEL. Where did you get the rest of your money for your
heroin?
Miss DAWSON. He would give it to me.

Miss DAWSON. Cecil, when I didn't have it.
Senator DANIEL. Cecil who?
Miss DAWSON. Cotton.

Senator DANIEL. What kind of work was he in?
Miss DAWSON. Well, he did work as a waitress-a waiter.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, did he also sell heroin?
Senator DANIEL. How long do you know of him selling heroin?

Miss DAWSON. About a year.
Miss DAWSON. I don't know. [The witness shook her head.]
Senator DANIEL. How much did he charge for heroin here?
Miss DAWSON. $7 a cap.
Senator DANIEL. By that do you mean $7 a capsule?
Senator DANIEL. And it took about two capsules a day for you?
Senator DANIEL. NOW, how many people do you know using heroin
in your neighborhood?
Miss DAWSON. Oh, lots of them.
Senator
DANIEL.
What?
Miss DAWSON. I know several; several of them.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you said lots of them?
Miss
DAWSON. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Well, just
describe for us, without calling names,
I am not asking you for thatMiss DAWSON. Just about the amount?
111111
2981
Senator DANIEL. Yes, just about how many people do you know
in Dallas that use heroin?

Miss DAWSON. About 50.
Senator DANIEL. Are they young people?
Senator DANIEL. Like yourself?
Senator DANIEL. Do you also know some older people who use it?
Senator DANIEL. In your immediate neighborhood, right around
where you live, do you have a lot of those people, or are they scattered over North Dallas, or where are they?
Miss DAWSON. Most of them is in North Dallas.
Senator DANIEL. And you would say you know at least 50 of them
personally?
Senator DANIEL. Do you know where Cecil got his heroin?
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you ever hear of Walter B. Taylor?

Senator DANIEL. Do you know whether or not he is an addict?
Miss DAWSON. No, sir, I don't.

Senator DANIEL. Well, was he an addict? Was he using heroin?
Miss DAWSON. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. What about 0. B. Blackshear?
Senator DANIEL. Was he using heroin?

Senator DANIEL. Was he a friend of yours?
Senator DANIEL. And Luke Wallace?
Miss DAWSON. No, sir, I don't know him.

Senator
Miss
DANIEL.
DAWSON.
Did you ever hear of Luke Wallace?
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What about Tommy Hicks, a white man? Did

you ever hear of him as being the one from whom heroin was coming?

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear of a Mr. Shorty?
Senator DANIEL. Now, think well.
under oath here?
You understand that you are
Miss
DAWSON. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. I am not
insinuating that you are being careless

in your testimony at all, but I just want you to realize that since you
are under oath, you want to be careful with your answers, so that you
will give all truthful answers, otherwise you might bring on some
other charge against you. You understand that?
Miss Dawson. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Now, I want to go back to that question about
did you ever hear of a Mr. Shorty.

Miss Dawson. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. In the heroin trade here?
2982
ILIT
NARCOTICS TRAYFFC
Senator DANIEL. All right. So you became addicted to heroin

from association with a boyfriend, is that right?
Senator DANIEL. And not from a person who wanted to sell it to
you, the first time?
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been in jail this time?
Miss DAWSON. A month. A month, today.

Senator DANIEL. Did you have difficulty when the heroin was
withdrawn from you?
Miss
DAWSON.
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. It didn't make you sick?

Senator DANIEL. Do you think you can quit it, now?

Miss DAWSON. Yes, sir, I have; I already quit.
Senator DANIEL. Now, did you help sell heroin to someone?
Senator
Miss
DANIEL.
DAWSON.
You never helped sell it?
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever deliver it for anyone?

Senator DANIEL. All you did, according to your testimony, was
to use the heroin after your friends taught you how to use it?
Miss
DAWSON.
Senator
Senator
Yes, sir.
DANIEL. Senator Eastland?

EASTLAND. You say you have
quit using heroin?

Senator EASTLAND. Now, did you quit since you went to jail,
or did you quit before you went to jail?
Miss DAWSON. Well, I had quit when I got my probation about
4 of 5 months ago, I had already quit then.
Senator EASTLAND. How long since you have had a shot?
Miss DAWSON. About 5 months.

Senator EASTLAND. Five months?
Now, how many peddlers do you know on the street?
Mr.
MissGASQUE.
DAWSON. Well, I don't know but one peddler.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you buy from only one peddler?
Miss
DAWSON.
Yes, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. I see. Now, you say that you have quit; did you
quit after you went to jail?

Mr. GASQUE. Did you kick the habit yourself?
Mr.
GASQUE.
Have you known many addicts who were able to
kick the habit?
Miss
Mr.
DAWSON.
GASQUE.
No, sir.
I know two.
Two?

Mr. GASQUE. And you say you know about 50 addicts?
Mr. GASQUE. Here in the city?
Mr.
GASQUE.
Would you say that once a person becomes addicted
to drugs, it is almost impossible to ever be cured?
ILLICIT NARCOTrCS TRAFFIC
2983
Miss DAw'SON. No, sir.

Mr. GASQUE. You think it is possible to be cured?
Mr. GASQuE. How many have you known to be cured?

Miss DAWSON. Two.
Mr. GASQUE. Two?
Miss 'DAWSON. Yes, sir.
Mr.
GASQUE.
How many have you known during this period?
Miss DAWSON. How many have I what?
I didn't understand you.
Mr. GASQUE. You said you knew 50 at the present time; how
many have you known over the period since you have been on drugs?
Miss DAWSON. How many have I known to shoot? Fifty.
Mr. GASQUE. Yes?
Mr. SPEER. Now, you say you know one peddler?
Mr.
SPEER.
Who is that peddler?
Miss DAWSON. Freddie Hall.

Mr. SPEER. Freddie Hall?
Mr. GASQUE. Is Freddie in jail?

Mr. GASQUE. He is out on the streets?
Mr. GASQUE. At the present time?
Senator DANIEL. How many times did you buy from Freddie Hall?
Miss DAWSON. Well, most of all of it I bought from him.
Senator DANIEL. Over how long a period of time?
Miss DAWSON. About-I'd say about 5 months.
Senator DANIEL. For about 5 months?
Senator DANIEL. Were you buying about two capsules of heroin

a day from Freddie Hall, for about 5 months?
Miss DAWSON. Yes, sir, but I wasn't paying $7 for it then.
Senator DANIEL. What were you paying for it then?
Miss DAWSON. Three-and-a-half.

Senator
DANIEL.
Why were you getting it at such a low rate?
Miss DAWSON. Well, he was just a friend of mine.

Senator DANIEL. Was he a personal friend?
Miss DAWSON. Not a boy friend; just a friend.
Senator DANIEL. Just a friend, and he just gave you the heroin
cheaper than he sold it to other people?
Senator DANIEL. Where is his place of business?
Miss DAWSON. You mean where he live?
Senator DANIEL. Well, where did you buy the heroin from him?
That's what I mean.
Miss DAWSON. 2616 Guillot.
Senator DANIEL. What is the name of that street?
Miss DAWSON. Guillot.
Senator DANIEL. Is that a house, or a bar, or what kind of place?

Miss DAWSON. It is a house, an apartment house.
2984
Senator
heroin?

DANIEL.
An apartment house; is that where he sold the
Senator DANIEL. Did you see other people coming and going there,
buying heroin?
Senator DANIEL. You just went there by yourself, when you bought
yours?
I live there.
Senator DANIEL. You live there at that apartment?

Miss DAWSON. During that time, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. With him?
Miss DAWSON. No, sir. I roomed.
Senator DANIEL. With whom did you live there?
Miss DAWSON. Me and 0. B. Blackshear.
Senator DANIEL. 0. B. Blackshear?
Senator DANIEL. Were you living with 0. B. Blackshear during that
time?
Senator DANIEL. Were you married?

Senator
DANIEL.
Was 0. B. Blackshear using heroin too?

Senator DANIEL. How long did you and 0. B. Blackshear live
together there at the apartment where Freddie Hall lives?
Miss DAWSON. Two weeks.
Senator DANIEL. And did both of you buy from Freddie Hall?
Senator DANIEL. Did 0. B. also sell some heroin for Freddie Hall?

Senator DANIEL. And isn't that why he got it cheaper?
Senator DANIEL. Because he was peddling for Freddie Hall, right?

Senator DANIEL. And didn't you help peddle a little bit, too?
Miss
DAWSON. No, sir.

do anything else, besides working at the
drive-in?
Senator EASTLAND. Where was he getting his heroin?
Miss
DAWSON. I
Senator DANIEL.
don't know.
Didn't Freddie Hall ever tell you where he was
getting his heroin?

Senator DANIEL. Is Freddie Hall a colored man?
Senator DANIEL. Now, where did Freddie Hall cap up his heroin?
Miss DAWSON. At home.
Senator DANIEL. He would buy it in bulk, wouldn't he?
Senator DANIEL. And he would put it in capsules where?
Miss DAWSON. At home.
Senator DANIEL. At home; you mean this apartment where you
lived with him?
'''IIIIIII
2985
Senator
DANIEL.
And did you help him cap them up?

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see him doing it?
Senator
heroin?
DANIEL.
Do you know how much he was paying for the
Senator DANIEL. But you do know how much he was selling it for,
don't you?
Miss DAWSON. To us; to me.
Senator DANIEL. Yes. How much?
Miss DAWSON. Three dollars a cap.

Senator DANIEL. Do you know what he was selling it to other
people for?
Senator DANIEL. Now, who was living with Freddie Lee Hall during
this time?
Miss DAWSON. Jessie Louise Clifton.
Senator DANIEL. Jessie Louise Clifton; is she your sister?
Senator DANIEL. Are they living together there?
Senator DANIEL. Does your sister use heroin, too?
Senator DANIEL. Does Freddie Lee Hall use it?
Miss DAWSON. Not as I know about.
Senator DANIEL. And you are pretty sure Freddie Lee Hall never
has been arrested?

Miss DAWSON. Not-not as I know of.
Senator DANIEL. Any further questions, Senator Eastland?
Senator EASTLAND. You say Freddie Lee Hall is the only person
from whom you ever bought narcotics; did I understand you correctly?
Miss DAWSON. No, sir. Cecil Cotton.
Senator EASTLAND. What?
Miss DAWSON. I got it from Cecil Cotton, too.
Senator
EASTLAND.
Cecil Cotton, too; who else?
Miss DAWSON. Those are the onliest two.

Mr. GASQUE. Do you know where they got their supply?
Mr. GASQUE. Did you use the Mexican or the other type heroin?
Was it brown or white?
Miss DAWSON. Brown.
Mr. GASQUE. The brown type of heroin; did they ever tell you
where it came from?
Mr. GASQUE. And you never inquired?

Mr. GASQUE. That's all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator DANIEL. Now, did you live first with 0. B. Blackshear, or
with Cecil Cotton?
Miss DAWSON. Well, I was going with Cecil Cotton, but we didn't
live together as man and wife.
Senator DANIEL. Cecil Cotton was the one who started you on
narcotics?
-'--
--
.c,,~..
2986
--
Senator DANIEL. And then you and Blackshear lived together?

Miss DAWSON. Yes, sir, 2 weeks.
Senator DANIEL. And you used it together; 2 weeks?

Senator DANIEL. And he sold the heroin for Freddie Hall?
Senator
Miss
DANIEL.
DAWSON.
Senator
Miss
Senator
Yes, sir.
DANIEL.
DAWSON.
You saw hin doing it?
Didn't you handle the money for them?
Yes, sir.
DANIEL.
You handled the money, and you would give
Freddie Hall his part of the money; isn't that correct?

Senator DANIEL. And who gave you the money to deliver to
Freddie Hall?
Miss DAWSON. Well, I would get the money from 0. B., and he
would give it-and give it to Freddie.
Senator
DANIEL.
0. B. would give you the money for the heroin,
and then how much of the money did you give to Freddie Hall?
MIiss DAWSON. Twenty-0. B. would give him $20.
Senator
DANIEL.
Twenty dollars for what?
Miss DAWSON. For the-for the heroin.

Senator DANIEL. How much would he get for $20?
Miss DAWSON. Seven; seven caps.
Senator
DA\NIEL.
Seven capsules?
Senator
DANIEL.
And then would he have to pay for his heroin
when you got, it from Freddie Hall, or would he pay for it a little bit'
later, after you sold it?
Miss DAWSON. He had to pay for it first.

Senator DANIEL. You had to pay for it first?
Senator
DANIEL.
All right.
You may stand aside.
0. B. Black-
shear.
0. B.
BLACKSHEAR.
I do.
TESTIMONY OF 0. B. BLACKSHEAR
Senator
DANIEL.
You may be seated.
Give us your full name.
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Olenthus Barron Blackshear.

Mr. BLACKSHEAR. 1812 Pavillon.
Mr.
BLACKSHEAR.
Senator
DANIEL.
Yes, sir.
Did you at one time live with Tommie Jean
Dawson?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you all live together?

Mr. BLACKSHEAR. 2616 Guillot.
Senator DANIEL. You heard her testimony here?
2987
Senator DANIEL. Was it true and correct, as far as any part relating
to you was concerned?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Some parts was true, and some parts were false.
Senator DANIEL. Do you use heroin yourself?
Senator DANIEL. How long have you used heroin?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Well, for the last-I mean just about-about a
month, since I have been back in Dallas.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you mean it's a been a month since you
used it?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Since I started reusing it again.
Senator DANIEL. All right. When did you first start using it, I
mean?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. I started using heroin in Houston, in aboutabout 1953.
Senator DANIEL. And what age were you?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. I was about-about 24 or 25.
Senator DANIEL. And then did you break the habit?
Senator DANIEL. How did you do that?
.Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Well, I went to an institution and broke it.
Senator DANIEL. What institution?
Mr.
BLACKSHEAR.
Seagoville.
Senator DANIEL. You went to the penitentiary?

Senator DANIEL. On what kind of conviction, what kind of charge?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Passing checks.

Senator DANIEL. Forging checks?
Senator DANIEL. Did you forge checks to pay for your heroin?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, then, after you got out of the institution,
you went back to heroin?
Senator DANIEL. And how long after you got out of the prison before you started using it?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. About a month.
Senator DANIEL. And then how long did you use heroin before you
were arrested this last time?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Well, it was about-about a month altogether.
I haven't been out but about 2 months, something like that.
Senator DANIEL. Did you get back on the habit?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Well, yes, sir. But I didn't have no habit; I
just started back using it. I didn't have no habit.
Senator DANIEL. How much did you use a day?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Oh, about two.
Senator DANIEL. Two what?
Mr.
BLACKSHEAR.
It wasn't exactly two.
We would split, me
and
Tommie Jean would fix one and split it together. We would fix it
together.
Senator DANIEL. You would use two capsules between you a day?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Yes, sir. That would be about one apiece.
71515-56-pt. 7-1
2988
Senator DANIEL. All right. When did you start selling heroin?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Well, I didn't actually make-make no sale of
heroin, but I had-I owed Freddie some money, where I was getting
it on credit.
Senator DANIEL. Is that Freddie Hall?
Senator DANIEL. You were getting heroin from him on credit?
Senator DANIEL. All right; go on and tell us all about it, how you
started to sell it.
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. And I was working, and I couldn't-I could
pay him, but I couldn't pay and keep buying at the same time. So he
made a little proposition that I could buy 7 for $20. So I bought 7
for $20 but I didn't have time to sell it, because I was working.
So Tommie Jean would have it in the daytime, I would give it to
her in the daytime, and then she would sell it in the daytime, and
that's how she got the money, but the money was mine and hers, and
I took the money and I worked in order to pay Freddie.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, you say you and Tommie Jean
would get the heroin from Freddie?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. I would get it from him.
Senator
DANIEL.
Yes; did you pay him the money for it?
Yes, sir; $20.

Senator DANIEL. Twenty dollars for how many capsules?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Seven.
Senator DANIEL. And then Tommie Jean Dawson would sell the
capsules?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. I would give it to her while I would go to work.
Senator DANIEL. And she would sell them during the daytime?
Senator DANIEL. And then you would sell them at night?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. No, sir; I didn't sell them at night.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you ever sell any of them yourself, to
anybody here in Dallas?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Well, I sold-yes, sir, I sold a few.
Mr.
BLACKSHEAR.
Senator DANIEL. You did, didn't you?

Mr.
BLACKSHEAR.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And then did you and Tommie Jean split the
profit off of the sales?
Mr.
BLACKSHEAR.
Well, most of the money we got was to pay him
the debt that we owed him.

Senator DANIEL. Both of you owed him money for heroin?
Mr.
BLACKSHEAR.
Well, she was with me, and the stuff I was
getting from him was for me and her, so-of course, she was entitled
to it.
Senator DANIEL. About how much heroin were you and Tommie
Jean Dawson selling per day?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Per day?
Senator DANIEL. About how much a day?

Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Oh, about 3 or 4 caps.
Senator DANIEL. Three or four capsules a day?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Yes, sir, for about a week.

Senator DANIEL. Do you know who were the other people that
were pushing or selling this heroin for Freddie Lee Hall?
2989
I didn't know Freddie Lee till I started
going with Tommie Jean-I knew him in Dallas before, but I didn't
know he was connected with the narcotics. I knew he drove a taxi,
but I didn't know he was connected with the narcotics until I started
staying with Tommie Jean. This I got from him, I didn't see him
cap it up or nothing; he wouldn't let me in on his business.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't see him cap it up?
Senator DANIEL. What did you see him do?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Nothing.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you saw him give you the heroin, didn't you?
Senator DANIEL. That you would get from him every day?
Senator DANIEL. And you would pay him the money?
Senator DANIEL. Do you kiow whether he has been arrested?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. No, sir; I don't.
Senator DANIEL. Any questions, Senator Eastland?
Senator EASTLAND. No, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Do you know Luke Wallace?
Mr. SPEER. Do you know Bouchie?
Mr.
BLACKSHEAR. No, sir.

Mr.SPEER. Did you ever hear
of Bouchie?
Mr.SPEER. Did you ever hear of Luke Wallace?
Mr.
BLACKSHEAR. No, sir.
Mr.SPEER. Do you know a Walter B. Taylor?

Mr.
Mr.
SPEER. Who is he?

BLACKSHEAR. Well,
he is a fellow that stays over in North
Dallas.
Mr.
SPEER.
Stays over in North Dallas; how long have you known
him?
Mr.
BLACKSHEAR.
Ever since I have been back here, for about 2
months, maybe not that long.

Mr. SPEER. About how long?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. I don't know exactly how long. I have met
him since I have been back from the institution.
Mr. SPEER. Is he your connection?
.Mfr. SPEER. Does he use heroin?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Well, I never seen him use it, but, I have heard
he did.
Mr. SPEER. You have heard he used it; do you know 'Tomyni Hicks?
M[r. BLACKSHEAR. No, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Did you ever hear of Tommy Hicks?
iMr. BLACKSHEAR. No, sir.
2990
Mr. SPEER.
Mr.
How long have you lived in Dallas?
BLACKSHEAR.
stayed
in Dallas-this is my home.
I left
Dallas in 1950, and went to school, went to school in Austin. Then

I left Austin and went to Houston, and I have only been back in
Dallas since I gout of the institution.
Senator EASTLAND. How many peddlers do you know?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Don't know any.
Senator EASTLAND. Don't know any?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Not unless you call Freddie a peddler. I never
seen him peddle anything.
Senator EASTLAND. What would you call him, if you wouldn't call
him a peddler?
Mr.
BLACKSHEAR.
Well, I just got it from him. I wouldn't know
if he was peddling it to anybody else.

Senator EASTLAND. Oh, yes, you do; you lived in the house with
him; didn't you?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Yes, sir; I stayed in the house with him.

Senator EASTLAND. You have taken narcotics since 1950, is that
right?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. 1953.
Senator EASTLAND. 1953; now, what peddlers have you bought,
purchased narcotics from?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Most of my narcotics was bought in Houston.
Senator EASTLAND. In Houston?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR.
Senator EASTLAND.
Yes, sir.
All right.
Now, how long have ycu taken
narcotics in Dallas?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. I have taken narcotics in Dallas about a month.
Senator
About a month?
Mr.
EASTLAND.
BLACKSHEAR.
Mr.
BLACKSHEAR. Oh,
Yes, sir.
Senator EASTLAND. Now, you just got that from one source?
Senator EASTLAND. How many peddlers did you purchase narcotics
from in Houston?
about-about 2 or 3.
Senator EASTLAND. Two or three?

Senator EA.STLAND. Well, all right. It is 2 or is it 3?

how many you purchased from, now, how many was it?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. I'd say about two.
Senator EASTLAND. About two?
You know

Senator
EASTLAND.
Now, who are those two?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Well, one of them was a girl named Bertha.

Senator
Mr.
EASTLAND.
BLACKSHEAR.
Bertha who?
I don't know her last name. And another fellow
was Richard Shaw.

Senator
Mr.
EASTLAND.
BLACKSHEAR.
Richard Shaw?
Yes, sir.
EASTLAND. Now, who is the third

Mr. BLACKSHEAR. That's all I know.
Senator EASTLAND. You said 2 or 3; now,
Senator
one?
if you purchased it from
3, you would know that. Who are you trying to protect?

Mr. BLACKSHEAR. I am not trying to protect anyone.
2991
Senator EASTLAND. Who is the third one?

Mr. BLACKSHEAR. I said 2 or 3, but I mean I don't know.
Senator EASTLAND. Well, 2 or 3, then; that is not 2, that is 3,
isn't it?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR.
Two or three.
Senator EASTLAND.
Mr. BLACKSHEAR.
Senator EASTLAND.
Well, who is the third one?

That's all I know.
What did you mean by "2 or 3"?
Well, I wasn't for sure, I mean, how many.
Mr.
BLACKSHEAR.
Senator EASTLAND.
Wasn't for sure of what?
How many?
Now
you say just two?

Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Yes, sir. I mean that been such a long time
ago until I mean I had to think about it.
Senator EASTLAND. All right. It's been 2 years ago?
Senator EASTLAND. Now, who is that third one?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. It's not a third one, that I know of.
Senator EASTLAND. What?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. It's not a third one, that I know of, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, what are you willing to do as an individual,
to stop this dope traffic?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. To stop it?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. It's nothing that I know of to do, to stop it.
Mr. GASQUE. You think it is a hopeless situation?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Well, I-maybe it is.
Mr. GASQUE. You think it is hopeless?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. I really do.
Mr. GASQUE. You think nothing can be done about it?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Well, the law is doing all they can for it, but I
mean I imagine it is still going to go on, I don't know.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you think you will stop using drugs?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. I-yes, sir. I mean a habit, I mean I figure
like this about a habit, I mean it is like-I would say like whisky.
If a person overindulges in whisky, he will be an alcoholic and he will
have to have whisky. Well, I figure it is the same way about heroin:
If a fellow just keeps shooting and shooting and overindulging, he
will get a habit. But a fellow can shoot stuff and then don't shoot
any more for a while, and he will not have a habit.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, before you ever leave that in the record or it goes out on the radio or television or anywhere else, I want
to tell you the evidence before this committee is entirely different.
It may have taken you more than one shot to get hooked, but there is
evidence before this committee that it only took that one shot to get
many young people into a living death from heroin. You know people
that has happened to also, don't you?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. No, sir; I don't.
Senator DANIEL. Well, it has happened to plenty of people, and so
I don't want you 9s an addict telling the people here that you can get
by that first shot, because plenty of people can't do it.
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Well, I was only speaking for myself.
Senator DANIEL. Well, that's all right for you, but it looks like
your shots finally led to your getting addicted, too; didn't they?
2992
Senator DANIEL. You didn't stop after the first 1 or 2, did you?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Yes, sir; I didn't get the habit right then.
Senator DANIEL. You finally were hooked, though; weren't you?
BLACKSHEAR. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Till where
Mr.
you finally couldn't leave it alone;
isn't that right?

Mr.
BLACKSHEAR.
Yes, sir.
DANIEL. Mr. Speer?

SPEER. I would like to ask
Senator
you, how many customers did you

have personally? How many people did you sell to personally?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. I don't know how many there were, because
Puss was doing most of the selling of the stuff, while I was working.
Senator EASTLAND. He asked you how many you had had.
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. I don't know how many I had.
Mr.
Senator
Mr.
EASTLAND.
BLACKSHEAR.
Yes?
I'd say about two persons.

Did you sell to Si Brooks?
Mr. SPEER.
Mr. SPEER. Do you know Si
Brooks?

Mr. SFEER. How about Sid?
Mr. SPEER. He is your customer?
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
No, sir.
about Little Charley?
No, sir.
Randy?
BLACKSHEAR.
SPEER. How
BLACKSHEAR.
Mr. SPEER.
Mr.
BLACKSHEAR. Yes, sir.
Mr.
SPEER. He is one of your customers?

BLACKSHEAR. I sold Randy some.
SPEER. I beg your pardon?
BLACKSHEAR. I have sold him.
SPEER. You have sold Randy; who else have you sold to?
Howard
BLACKSHEAR. I can't remember.
SPEER. Howard who?
BLACKSHEAR. Howard Miller.
SPEER. Howard Miller?
Now, I am not
BLACKSHEAR. I think that's his last name.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
sure of his last name. He was with Randy all the time.
Mr. SPEER. That's all.
Senator DANIEL. Do you mean to tell this committee you didn't
have but two customers buying heroin from you personally?
Senator DANIEL. And you say Tommie Jean had the other customers?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. She would sell most of the stuff while I would be
working in the daytime.
Senator DANIEL. Well, how many customers did she have?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. I don't know, sir. She would go out by herself
and do that.
Senator DANIEL. Well, wouldn't she bring the money back to you,
and you look it over?
Mr. BLACKSLEAR. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You were partners, weren't you?
111111111111
2993
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Yes, in a way.

SeDator DANIEL. In a way?
Senator DANIEL. Well, how much do you think she was selling?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Well, she was selling all that she had, but I
don't know how many people she was selling to.
Senator EASTLAND. You mean to tell me she didn't tell you who
she was selling it to?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. She-she would say who she was selling it to?
Senator EASTLAND. Yes.
MXr. BLACKSHEAR. Well, she was selling it to Randy, too.

Senator EASTLAND. Randy and who else?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Randy and Howard.
Senator EASTLAND. Howard, and who else?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. Well, there was some girl that I don't know.
never heard-I can't remember her name.
Senator
EASTLAND.
Now, who else?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR. That's just about all I remember.

Senator EASTLAND. While you were at Seagoville, did you get any
kind of marihuana or heroin?
Senator
EASTLAND.
Now, you got my question, didn't you?

Senator EASTLAND. While you were in prison at Seagoville, did
you get any kind of marihuana or heroin?
Senator EASTLAND. Did you see anybody that got some?

Senator EASTLAND. You never saw any in the prison at all?
Mr. BLACKSHEAR.
Senator
DANIEL.
No, sir.
All right.
Tommie Jean Dawson.

TESTIMONY OF TOMMY JEAN DAWSON-Continued
Senator DANIEL. Now, you heard the testimony given by the
witness 0. B. Blackshear?
Senator DANIEL. Talking about you having sold heroin during that
time and the both of you being partners.
Now, the committee wants to know if you would correct your
testimony on that point, and tell us the information about your sales
of heroin.
Miss DAWSON. Well, my-he was lying.
Senator DANIEL. Speak loud.
Miss DAWSON. He is lying.
Miss DAWSON. He was lying.
Senator DANIEL. He was lying?
Senator DANIEL. Did you sell any heroin?

Senator DANIEL. To anybody?
2994
Senator DANIEL. You still want to stand on that?

Senator DANIEL. You never sold any heroin to Randy?
Senator DANIEL. To Walter Taylor?

Senator DANIEL. Si Brooks?
Senator DANIEL. Little Charley?

Senator DANIEL. You just never sold any heroin to anyone?

Senator DANIEL. Well, who was doing the selling of this heroin?
Miss DAWSON. He was.
Senator DANIEL. You were dividing the profits?
Senator DANIEL. Well, what was your part in the picture?

Miss DAWSON. Well, half the money that he sold the heroin for
was mine, belonged to me.
Senator DANIEL. For what?
Miss DAWSON. Because I was going with him, and he would give
it to me.
Senator DANIEL. He would give it to you?
Senator DANIEL. You were staying with him?
Senator DANIEL. And you kept the books, or kept the money, did
you?
Senator DANIEL. And what else did you do for half of the money,
anything?
Senator DANIEL. Nothing else. Senator Eastland?
Senator EASTLAND. Do you know who his customers were?
Miss DAWSON. Most all the addicts on Thomas and Hall.

Senator EASTLAND. Are you afraid you would be physicallyharmed
if you named them?
Miss DAWSON. Well, I might be.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, Tommie, Tommie Jean, don't be nervous.
Just relax, now.
Now, on what streets did this boy sell heroin?
Miss DAWSON. On Thomas.
Mr. GASQUE. What other streets?
Miss DAWSON. Thomas and Hall. Hugo.
Mr. GASQUE. What places?
Miss DAWSON. Well, just peddled it on the street.
Mr. GASQUE. Did he ever peddle it in any bars?
Mr. GASQUE. Or in any houses?

Mr. GASQUE. He peddled it on the streets?
Miss Dawson. Yes, sir.
Mr. GASQUE., How many people do you figure he sold the heroin to?
Miss DAWSON. Around 50.
IIIIIIIIIIII
2995
Mr. GASQUE. Around 50 people?

Mr. GASQUE. In North Dallas?
Mr. GASQUE. You think that is a good part of the addicts in North
Dallas?
Mr. GASQUE. Tell us anything else you know about his sales in
North Dallas, of this heroin.
Senator DANIEL. I want to be sure I understand who she is talking
about.
Are you talking about 0. B. Blackshear?
Senator DANIEL. Selling to 50 people?
Mr. GASQUE. Tell us anything else you can about his sales.
Miss DAWSON. That's about all I know.
Mr. GASQUE. How much money do you think he made a week?
Miss DAWSON. Selling heroin?
Mr. GASQUE. Yes.
Miss DAWSON. Around 85 or 90 dollars.
Mr. GASQUE. Eighty-five or ninety dollars a week?
Mr. GASQUE. Now, did he sell to many young people?
Miss DAWSON. No, sir; most of them was the old addicts.
Mr. GASQUE. How old?
Miss DAWSON. Oh, from 26 on up.
Mr. GASQUE. From 26 on up?
Mr. GASQUE. Did he ever sell to any young people?
Miss DAWSON. Not as I know of; no.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, you were living with him all during this time?
Mr. GASQUE. And so you know his operations pretty well?

Mr. GASQUE. Now, I am not going to ask you the names, but do
you know the people he sold to?

Mr. GASQUE. And you could name about how many?

Miss DAWSON. Fifty.
Mr. GASQUE. About 50 customers?

Miss DAWSON. Yes, sir. But I don't remember their names.
Mr. SPEER. If he was supplying 50 people a week, how much
was he selling each capsule for, $7?
Mr. SPEER. Now, these 50 people, these 50 people he was supplying,
would use about how many capsules a day, 1 to 2?

Miss DAwSON. Some of them used 2 and 3 and 4.
Mr. SPEER. Two and three and four?
Mr. SPEER. And he was selling that for $7 a capsule?

2996
Mr. SPEER. So,
if there were 50 people and they were using, say,
on an average of two capsules a day, that would be a hundred capsules

a day, wouldn't it?
Miss
DAWSON.
Mr. SPEER.
I guess so.
Isn't that right?
Miss
DAWSON. Yes,
Mr. SPEER. And he
Miss DAwsoN. Yes,
sir.
was getting $7 a capsule?
sir.
Mr. SPEER.
That would be, maybe, $700 he would take in?
Miss
Not in a week.
What was the largest amount you recall he sold in
DAWSON.
Mr. SPEER.
one week?
Miss DAwsoN. I really don't know. You will have to-Mr. SPEER. Maybe $500?
Miss DAWSON. No, sir; not that much.
Mr. SPEER. Of course, he had to buy his heroin and then sell it,
and you used it and he used it, and what was left over he sold?
Miss
DAWSON.
Yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Is that right?

Miss DAwsoN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Now, when you first started using heroin, were you
living with Walter B. Taylor?
Miss
DAWSON.
Mr. SPEER.
No, sir.
Who were you living with when you first started using
it?
Miss
DAWSON. I was going

SPEER. Cecil Cotton?
with Cecil Cotton.
Mr.
Miss DAwsoN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Speer. And how much older was he than you are?
Miss DAWSON. I think he is 27, I am not sure.
Mr. SPEER. Twenty-seven?

Mr. SPEER. IS that the way it generally starts, that these older
people sort of string you out?
Miss DAWSON. Well, I believe so.
Mr. SPEER. Seems to you that way?
Miss
DAWSON.
Mr. SPEER.
Yes, sir.
Until you get hooked on heroin, and then you have to
buy your own?
Miss
DAWSON. That's right.

SPEER. Do you think there
Mr.
around Thomas and Hall?
is a great deal of that going on out

Mr. SPEER. Would you say that almost everybody you know out
there is using heroin?
Miss DAWSON. Mostly.
Mr. SPEER. Most of them?
Miss
DAWSON. Yes,
SPEER. Most of
sir. In North Dallas.

them in North Dallas?
Mr.
Senator DANIEL. You mean the part of North Dallas you are talking
about; right?
Mr. SPEER. Did you ever use heroin with Walter B. Taylor?
111111
2997
SPEER. Did you ever see him use heroin?

Senator DANIEL. Now, did Freddie Hall ever
tell you where he
Mr.
was getting his heroin from?

Miss DAWSON. No, sir; he didn't.
Senator DANIEL. All right. You may stand aside. Walter Taylor.
Let's take a 5-minute recess.
The MARSHALL. Here is Taylor.
Senator DANIEL. All right. He can come up and sit down. We
will have a 5-minute recess.
(Short recess.)
Senator DA NIEL. The committee will come to order.
Mr. TAYLOR. I do.
TESTIMONY OF WALTER B. TAYLOR
Mr. TAYLOR. Walter B. Taylor.
Senator DANIEL. And where do you live?
Mr. TAYLOR. 2417 North Washington.
Senator DANIEL. Dallas?
Mr. TAYLOR. Dallas, Texas; yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
How long have you lived in Dallas?
Mr. TAYLOR. All my life.

Senator DANIEL. Have you used heroin here in Dallas?
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, I would'just say off and on, not just say I am
a user or an addict.
Senator
DANIEL.
I asked you, had you used heroin here in Dallas?
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, I have; yes.

Senator DANIEL. For how long a period of time?
Mr. TAYLOR. Oh, it's been off and on about a year, just off and on.
Senator DANIEL. How old were you when you started using heroin?
Mr.
TAYLOR.
Around 28 years old.
Senator DANIEL. Twenty-eight?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Had you ever used marihuana or anything else

like that before you started using heroin?
Mr. TAYLOR. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever sell any heroin here in Dallas?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever deliver heroin for anyone?
Senator DANIEL. Who did you buy your heroin from?
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, if it is-if it is in order, Your Honor, I mean I
would like to submit that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. You would like to what?

Mr. TAYLOR. That question, on the grounds that it may incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. As to whom you bought your heroin from?
2998
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you buy your heroin here in Dallas?
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir; I have bought heroin here.
Senator DANIEL. From more than one person?
Senator DANIEL. Well, from how many persons?
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, oh, 5 or 6 persons.
Senator DANIEL. Recently?

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, not recently I haven't.
Senator DANIEL. Well, since a year ago when you started using it,
have you bought here in Dallas from 5 or 6 persons?
Mr.
TAYLOR.
Since-I didn't understand you.
Senator DANIEL. Let me see if I have it correctly. When did you

start using heroin; how long ago?
Mr. TAYLOR. It's been about a year ago.

Senator DANIEL. All right. During that year, you have bought
from 5 or 6 persons here in Dallas?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes sir.
Senator DANIEL. -bidyou buy heroin from anyone else away from
Dallas?
Mr.
TAYLOR.
No, sir.
I went to Chicago here last year, and I
stayed there about a week, and I got tangled up with some fellows
that I was shooting what you call coke there.
Senator DANIEL. Shooting cocaine?
Senator DANIEL. Were you shooting cocaine or sniffing cocaine?

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, I shot a little bit of it.
Senator DANIEL. In Chicago?

Senator DANIEL. All right. Did you ever go to Mexico?
Senator DANIEL. All right. These 5 or 6 people you bought from
here in Dallas, who are they? Name us one of them, at least.
Mr.
TAYLOR.
Let's see: That's been about a year ago.
One name
is Roland Edwards.

Mr. TAYLOR. I think he is in the penitentiary, I believe.
Senator DANIEL. What did he charge you for heroin?
Mr. TAYLOR. $5.
Senator DANIEL. $5 a capsule?

Senator DANIEL. All right. Now, name us another one.
Mr. TAYLOR. Just a minute--
Senator DANIEL. What about Tommie Jean Dawson?

hear her testify here?
Mr.
TAYLOR.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy any from her?
Mr.
TAYLOR.
Mr.
TAYLOR.
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What about 0. B. Blackshear?

No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know them?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes sir, I know them.
Senator DANIEL. have you ever shot heroin with them?
Senator DANIEL. And they never gave you any heroin?
Did you
2999
Mr..TAYLOR. No, Sir.
Senator DANIEL. And you never bought any from them?

Senator DANIEL. All right. Name some of these others. You
have named 1 out of 5 or 6 you bought from in Dallas, and you wanted
to claim the fifth amendment on one of them a minute ago.
Mr. TAYLOR. Freddie Lee Hall.
Senator DANIEL. All right. You have bought from Freddie Lee
H1all?
Mr. TAYLOR. I didn't buy from him. AIy girl friend bought from
him.
Senator DANIEL. Who is your girl friend?
Mr. TAYLOR. Her name is Helen.
Senator DANIEL. Helen who?
Mr. TAYLOR. Helen-Helen--wait just a minute. I can't tiink
her last name.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been going with her?
Mr. TAYLOR. About a year and 6 months.
Senator DANIEL. About a year and 6 months? Does she use Your
name as a last name?
Mr. TAYLOR. Sometimes. Sometimes-Helen Bullock, that's her
name.
Senator DANIEL. Helen Bullock?
Senator DANIEL. Does she use heroi i, too?
Yes, sir, she kind of uses it, quit(, often, a little bit.
Senator DANIEL. Well, how much heroin have you and Helen
Bullock been buying from Freddie Lee Hall.
Mr. TAYLOR. Now, I never actually have bought any from him.
I have seen the transaction; she bought some from him, I think she
bought a cap from him once.
Senator DANIEL. You saw her buy a capsule from Freddie Lee Hall.
Senator DANIEL. Did you give her the money?
Mr.
TAYLOR.

Senator DANIEL. Did she buy it for you?
Mr. TAYLOR. No, sir, she bought it for herself.
How many times did you see her

buy heroin from Freddie Lee Hall?
Mr. TAYLOR. Oh, about twice, to my knowing, sii.
Senator DANIEL. For herself.
DANIEL. Where were the purchases

Mr. TAYLOR. Oh, in North Dallas hiere.
Senator
made?
Mr. TAYLOR. In North Dallas.

M[r. TAYLOR. Thomas and Hugo, right on the corner of Thomas

and Hugo.
Senator DANIEL. On the street corner?
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes.sir.
Senator DANIEL. how much did you say she paid him for them?
Mr. TAYLOR. Seven dollars.
Senator DANIEL. Is he still out on the street?
Mr. TAYLOR. I imagine he is yet. I don't think he is arrested.
Senator DANIEL. All right. How long have you known of him
being in the heroin racket?
3600
Mr. TAYLOR. Not long. I don't think he has been there over,
probably, maybe 6 months or a year or so.
Senator DANIEL. All right. N ow, name us some more of these
people, nicknames or whatever you can think of, of these people you
bought from here in Dallas. We want to see if there are any more
of them that are out on the street.
Mr. TAYLOR. That is on the street?
Senator DANIEL. That's right.
Mr. TAYLOR. I don't think so.
Mr. TAYLOR. Seems like all of them in jail, all the guys that were
selling is in jail.
Senator DANIEL. All of them except Freddie Lee Hall?
Mr.
TAYLOR.
Yes, sir.
Freddie Lee Hall isn't, I don't think he is.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know a white man named Tommy Hicks?

Senator DANIEL. Have you ever beard of him?
Mr. TAYLOR. I have heard of a Tommy Hicks.
Senator DANIEL. Or Luke Wallace?
Mr. TAYLOR. I have heard of him.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you ever hear of him?
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, the onliest one I know is Bouchie; I know him
in North Dallas.
Senator DANIEL. You know him as Bouchie?
Senator DANIEL. Who do you know as Bouchie, Luke Wallace?
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir, I think that's him.
Senator DANIEL. That is his nickname?
Mr. TAYLOR. I believe.
Senator DANIEL. Well, how long have you known him?
Mr. TAYLOR. Oh, about 4 months.
Senator DANIEL. Well, have you ever had any business dealings
with him?
Mr. TAYLOR. I nevei had no business dealings with him.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know whether or not he sells heroin?
Mr. TAYLOR. No, sir, I don't.
Senator DANIEL. Wel, what do you know about him?
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, I know he have come-he comes up in North
Dallas a lot.
Senator DANIEL. He comes over in North Dallas a lot?
Senator DANIEL. Does he go to Freddie Hall's a lot?
Mr. TAYLOR. I don't really know, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, don't you know where Freddie Hall gets
his heroin?
Mr. TAYLOR. No, sir, I don't.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you ever see Bouchie, Luke Wallace,
there at Freddie Hall's place?

Mr. TAYLOR. NO, Sir, I never have.
Mr. TAYLOR. I never did go to their place.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see them meet on the street?
Mr. TAYLOR. Bouchie and Freddie Lee Hall?
Mr. TA YLOR. No, sir.
I1III1
3001
Senator DANIEL. Is heroin pretty easy to get here in Dallas?

Senator DANIEL. You haven't had any trouble buying it?
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, I don't-I don't buy it. My wife, my old lady,
she is the one, you know, that uses it.
Senator DANIEL. Now, your old lady is Helen Bullock?

Senator DANIEL. And she uses it more than you, you mean?
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, si'.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you ever have to go buy it for her?
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, once or twice I did, but she gets it herself. In
fact, I don't allow her to use it except sometimes she gets feeling bad
and she wants a little taste, you know, and
Senator DANIEL. How long since you bought some for her?
Mr. TAYLOR. Oh, it's been 4 months ago, 4 or 5 months ago.
Senator DANIEL. Four months? How long since she bought some?
Mr. TAYLOR. I-let me see: It's been, I imagine it's been aboutit's been about a month since she had some.
Senator DANIEL. Are you out on bond?
Mr. TAYLOR. Sir?
Senator
DANIEL.
Are you under arrest?
Were you arrested in
connection with the use of heroin?

Mr. TAYLOR. Have I ever been arrested?

Mr.
TAYLOR. On
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. TAYLOR. On
Allen.
What?
Allen Street, I was going to a fellow's room to

take a shirt to him, and I was arrested there.
Senator DANIEL. Were you convicted of any offense?
Mr.
TAYLOR.
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Then you haven't been arrested in connection

with any narcotics charge?
Mr. TAYLOR. Onliest thing, well, I have been arrested like this:
They arrested me for investigation of the Harrison Narcotic Act, that
and vagrancy.
Senator DANIEL. Well, are you out on bond now?
Senator DANIEL. Is your wife out on bond now?

Senator DANIEL. Where is she now?
Mr.
TAYLOR.
Senator
She is in North Dallas.
DANIEL.
Where?
Mr. TAYLOR. The last time I seen her was yesterday, yesterday
evening.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you spend the night there last night?
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir-I haven't seen her since yesterday evening.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you all spent the night together last night?
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
TAYLOR.
Senator
How about the night before?
Night before we did.
DANIEL. Well, she is a heroin addict, isn't

TAYLOR. No, I wouldn't say she is an addict.
she?
Mr.
She uses mostly
about once, maybe twice a week. But mostly she does it, she slips
off from me, you know, and use it.
3002
Senator DANIEL. Well, she has used it once or twice, maybe tilreo
times a week clear on up, or hasn't she?
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir, about once a week, to my knowing. Onoe
in a while, you know, she feels bad, and wants to go and have a taste.
I tell her to go ahead.
Senator DANIEL. Does she have any trouble buying it over there
in North Dallas?
Mr. TAYLOR. I don't think she do, because most of the time she
goes and comes right back.
Mr. SPEER. Have you ever talked to Bouchie about buying heroin?
Mr. TAYLOR. Have I ever talked to Bouchie about buying heroin?
Mr. SPEER. Yes.
Mr. TAYLOR. If it is in order, I would like to submit that question
on the grounds that it might incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. All right; you have a right to claim the fifth
amendment on any question you think might tend to incriminate
you. And the question, as I understand, was if you had ever talked
to Bouchie, that is, Luke Wallace, about buying heroin; is that right?
Mr. TAYLOR. No, sir-yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Now, do you want to answer the
question, or do you want to claim the fifth amendment?
Mr. TAYLOR. I would like to claim the fifth amendment, please,
sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you can claim it whenever you honestly
think it would tend to incriminate you.
Senator DANIEL. But from all the answers you have given this
committee today, you have shown that you never sold heroin.
Mr. TAYLOR. No, sir, I never sold heroin, no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, you must feel in your mind that
a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you before you claim the
fifth amendment. Now, are you going to do that?
Senator DANIEL. Because this committee is not going to allow you
to claim the fifth amendment just to avoid answering an embarrassing
question.
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir, I understand, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you still want to claim the fifth amendment
to that question about whether you talked to Luke Wallace about
buying heroin?
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, yes, sir, your honor, it might incriminate me
later on, you know; something might happen.
Senator DANIEL. All right. You have got the same right to claim
the fifth amendment as a man sitting there with a good lawyer. The
committee is going to respect your right to do it, as long as it feels
like you haven't waived the right, or as long as it feels like that you
truthfully believe it might incriminate you.
All right. Anything else, Mr. Speer?
Mr. SPEER. Were you afraid to use this heroin that Helen bought
from Freddie Hall?
Mr. TAYLOR. Was I afraid?
Mr. SPEER. Afraid to use it.
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, I guess I shouldn't do it, but she would buy a
cap of stuff, you, know, and she would, you know, shoot herself, and
3003
if I wanted some, you know, she would save me what you call a
couple of drops, you know.
Mr. SPEER. So you did shoot some from Freddie Hall?
Mr. TAYLOR. Sir?
Mr. SPEER. So you did shoot some heroin she got from Freddie
Hall?
Mr. TAYLOR. I did shoot some?
Mr. SPEER. Yes.
Mr. TAYLOR. No.
I said the onliest time I would shoot some was
when she would buy some and cook it up, you know, put it in a
spoon, you know, I might tell her to save me a taste. But that's the
only way I would shoot some. But just going out and buying it, I
didn't like to spend my money like that.
Mr. SPEER. But you did use some of Freddie Lee Hall's?
Mr. TAYLOR. I believe so; yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Now, in Chicago, when you were using this cocaine,
were you shooting speed balls?

Mr. TAYLOR. No, sir; just cocaine.
Mr. SPEER. Straight cocaine?
Senator DANIEL. What is a speed ball?
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, a speed ball is cocaine and heroin. They cook
the heroin up and put coke, you know, in it.
Senator EASTLAND. How do you know so much about it if you are
not an addict?
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, I have seen my old lady do it. She have, you
know, talked about it to me, and I was in Chicago and I seen them
in Chicago.
Mr. SPEER. Is that quite common here shooting these speed balls?TAYLOR. No, sir; they don't hardly get coke in here.
Mr. SPEER. Is cocaine hard to get?
Mr. SPEER. Have you ever bought any cocaine?
Mr. SPEER. Have you ever seen any cocaine?
Mr. SPEER. Where?
Mr. TAYLOR. In Chicago.
Mr. SPEER. Chicago; how was it, in packages or in bottles?
Mr. TAYLOR. No, sir, it was in caps.
Mr.
Mr. SPEER. Caps?
Mr.
Mr.
TAYLOR. Yes, sir.

SPEER. Did you ever
see any cocaine in Dallas?
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir, I have seen some in Dallas.

Mr. SPEER. Where did you see that?
Mr. TAYLOR. In caps.
Mr. SPEER. Caps; where was it, what location?
Mr. TAYLOR. My old lady had it, Helen.
Mr. SPEER. Helen had it?
Mr. SPEER. Where did she get that?
Mr. TAYLOR. I think a fellow come to the house, out of Louisiana,
I believe, came and stayed overnight, and he gave her and another,
girl some.
71515-56--pt. 7-42
3004
Mr. SPEER. Was that drugstore stuff?
Mr. TAYLOR. I don't know whether that was drugstore stuff or
not.
I don't--
Mr. SPEER. Is most of the cocaine on the market here drugstore

stuff?
Mr. TAYLOR. I really- I don't know how they get that.
Mr. SPEER. How often does Helen use cocaine?
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, I haven't-I haven't saw her use any in quitebut twice. I believe, twice I seen her use some.
Mr. SPEER. How many times would you estimate you have us,(]
cocaine?
Mr. TAYLOR. Cocaine? Well, when I was in Chicago, I got there
on a Sunday, and from that noon to that Saturday, I was in a house
where that's all they did, and I met a girl there
M1r.
SPEER.
You mean all they did was shoot cocaine?
Mr. TAYLOR. That's all they did, was shoot cocaine.

Mr. SPEER. How many people were in that house?
Mr. TAYLOR. It was about four people.
Mr. SPEER. Four people?
Mr. TAYLOR. Me and a girl, and another fellow and his old lady.
Mr. SPEER. How often did they shoot it?
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, they just started shooting it, you know, and I
was sitting there with them, and that Sunday I got there, I met a girl
in that hotel I was staying at, and she took me out there that Monday,
we went to this house, and they was her friends, and I believe-I
think she bad something to do with it, and so that's as I-how I
actually used the cocaine.
Senator EASTLAND. Where was that house?
Mr.
TAYLOR.
I don't believe-I could probably go back to it, if
I was in Chicago.
Senator EASTLAND. Now, you know the address; where was that
house?
Mr.
TAYLOR.
I swear I don't know without-I could probably go
back, if I was in Chicago.
Senator EASTLAND. What were the names of the people there?

Mr. TAYLOR. One of the boys was named Red. Red and his wife,
and I think his wife was known as Polly, I believe.
Senator EASTLAND. What was Red's name?

Mr. TAYLOR. I don't know the last name.
Senator
Mr.
EASTLAND.
TAYLOR.
Who else?
The girl I was staying with was named Louise.
She was staying in a hotel at that time, she was staying at the Ritz
Hotel when I got there.
Mr. SPEER. Would you say cocaine is more plentiful in Chicago
than it is in Dallas?
Mr. TAYLOR. I-I couldn't say that. I wouldn't know.

Mr. SPEER. You can buy it either place?
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir, I guess so.
Mr. SPEER. How much is a cap of cocaine in Dallas?
Mr. TAYLOR. I-I
think they sell all their capsules $7 apiece.
I believe they sell all their capsules, everything, at $7.
Mr. SPEER. The same as heroin?

Mr. SPEER. Seven dollars apiece?
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
3005
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. How much was it in Chicago?

Mr. TAYLOR. I didn't shoot much of anything.
Mr. SPEER. How much did you shoot?
Did you sort of chip in
Mr. TAYLOR. No, they just had it in a bowl, you know, poured it
out in a bowl, and you just help yourself.
Mr. SPEER. Just use what you wanted?
Mr. SPEER. They had a plentiful supply,
then?

Mr. SPEER. And just four people using it?
Mr. TAYLOR. At that particular time, they did.

Mr. SPEER. Did you shoot it about every hour or so?
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, you can, you can shoot it every-I have seen
it, one of the fellows, Red, there, he was shooting it every 5 minutes.
As soon as he would take the needle out, you know, then fix up some
more, you know, and start it again.
Mr. SPEER. Did he get pretty high?
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes; sir, I believe he did.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy cocaine here in Dallas?
Mr. TAYLOR. No, sir, I never bought no cocaine here.
Senator DANIEL. Did you tell me that you did not cross the border
into Mexico?
Mr. TAYLOR. I was in the Army in '43, when I crossed the border
in Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. I asked you a minute ago, didn't I, if you had
ever crossed the border into Mexico? Remember that?
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, I probably didn't understand you. You
asked me had I crossed it?
Senator DANIEL. I asked you had you ever crossed the border into
Mexico.
Mr. TAYLOR. Oh, yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. About how many times?
Mr. TAYLOR. One time.
Senator DANIEL. Is that when you were at Fort Bliss?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir-no, I was in-I was in Fort-no, I was in
Camp Ross Field, Los Angeles.
Senator DANIEL. That is close to El Paso?
Mr. TAYLOR. No, that is in Los Angeles, 21 miles fom Los Angeles;
Wilmington, Calif.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you cross the border?
Mr. TAYLOR. I crossed the border right there at El Paso, see, where
they took me, the custom immigration officers took me to.
Senator DANIEL. Where were you stationed when you crossed the
border at El Paso and went to Juarez, Mexico?
Mr. TAYLOR. Camp Ross; I was at Wilmington, Calif.
Senator DANIEL. What were you doing at El Paso?
Mr. TAYLOR. We stopped there on delay, on layover, and I and
two other boys went over there.
Senator DANIEL. You crossed to Juarez, didn't you?
Senator DANIEL. You found heroin plentiful there?
Mr. TAYLOR. I didn't know anything about it then.
Senator DANIEL. You mean to say you did not use any heroin in
Juarez?
3006
Mr. TAYLOR. No.

Senator DANIEL. What did you go over there for?
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, we went over there to buy a little whisky and,
you know, have a little fun, that's what we went over there for.
Senator DANIEL. And none of the 3 of you used marihuana?
Senator DANIEL. Or herion?
Senator DANIEL. Well, I asked you about both of them. Now, I
am going back to marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever smoke a marihuana cigarette?
Mr. TAYLOR. No, sir, I never have smoked a marihuana cigarette.
Senator DANIEL. And none of the 3 of you all used marihuana or
heroin when you went across the border into Juarez?
Mr. TAYLOR. Not that I know of. Not that I know of; the other
guys, now, there was about 4 of us.
Senator DANIEL. What did the Customs Service pick you up for:
Mr. TAYLOR. They picked us up for marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. That was when you were coming back across the
bridge?
Senator DANIEL. It is pretty easy for servicemen to cross that
bridge, isn't it?

Mr. TAYLOR. It used to be. I imagine. The onliest time I have
been across there was one time.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't have any trouble going across?
Mr. TAYLOR. Didn't have any trouble going across.
Senator DANIEL. Well, let me ask you, had you ever used heroin
at that time?
Mr. TAYLOR. No, sir; I didn't know what that was then.
Senator DANIEL. Nobody talked to you about how you could get
marihuana cigarettes or heroin across the river?
Senator DANIEL. We had an Army boy before us in Houston yesterday who talked about going over there and getting shots of heroin.
He said he knew at least twenty or thirty of them crossing the bridge.
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. To cross the border to Juarez and go to the shooting galleries there.
That is one way Red China could really get heroin into the blood of
our own soldiers.
Mr. TAYLOR. Right.
Senator DANIEL. Did you hear about anything like that going on,
when you were over there at Juarez?
Mr. TAYLOR. No, I didn't hear anything about that. I never heard
anything about that. But I mean, just to my imagination, you know.
I imagine that is happening over there to soldiers, you know.
Senator DANIEL. You found out when you were over there it wa
plentiful, didn't you?
Mr. TAYLOR. What plentiful?
Senator DANIEL. Marihuana and heroin.

Senator DANIEL. I am not saying you used it, but, it was plentiful
for anybody who wanted it.
3007
Mr. TAYLOR. No; I didn't go over there for that purpose.

Any further questions?
Mr. GASQUE. No questions.
Senator DANIEL. All right. You can stand aside. Luke Wallace
before this subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, the truth, so help you God?
Mr. WALLACE. Yes, sir.
TESTIMONY OF LUKE WALLACE

State your name.
Mr. WALLACE. Luke Murray Wallace.
Senator DANIEL. Where do you live, Mr. Wallace?
Mr. WALLACE. 1720 Duncanville.
Senator DANIEL. Dallas?
(Mr. Wallace nodded his head.)
Senator DANIEL. How long have you lived here?
Mr. WALLACE. Well, practically all my life.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Mr. Wallace, have you over used heroin or
any other narcotic drug?
Mr. WALLACE. Well, I have been accused of it.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I didn't ask you that. I just asked you
had you ever use it.
Mr. WALLACE. Well, no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You have never used it.? Have you ever smoked
inarihuana?
Mr. WALLACE. Sir? No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever shoot yourself with heroin, or sniff
or smell heroin?
Mr. WALLACE. Well, I have took a, you know, like what they call
a joy-pop of heroin.
Senator DANIEL. You mean by that you have stuck a needle in
your skin, rather than in your veins?
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you stick the needle in, the times that
you used heroin, in your vein orMr. WALLACE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You know what they call a mainliner?
Mr. WALLACE. Well, I have heard of it.

Senator DANIEL. Well, did you put the heroin in the main line?
Mr. WALLACE. Well, yes, sir; in the vein.
Senator DANIEL. In the vein; and how often did you do that?
Mr. WALLACE. Well, just many times, I guess.
Senator DANIEL. Over a long period of time?
Mr. WALLACE. Over quite a few years.
Senator DANIEL. Are you the one who was selling heroin to Freddie
Lee Hall?
Mr. WALLACE. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever sell any heroin or deliver any
heroin to Freddie Lee Hall?

Senator DANIEL. Do you know Freddie Lee Hall?
3008
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Tommy Hicks?
Yes, sir; I know him.

Senator DANIEL. How long have you known Tommy Hicks?
Mr. WALLACE. Well, just a short while.
Senator DANIEL. You are not telling the committee that you have
never sold or handled any heroin here in Dallas, are you?
Mr. WALLACE. No, sir; I haven't ever sold any heroin.
Senator DANIEL. You mean to say that is what you are telling this
committee?
Mr. WALLACE.
Senator DANIEL. That you have never sold any heroin?

Senator DANIEL. Have you ever delivered any heroin?
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever sold any kind of narcotics, in-
cluding marihuana?
Mr.
WALLACE.
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Heroin, morphine, anything else?

Mr. WALLACE. No, Sir.
(Mr. Wallace shook his head.)

Senator DANIEL. Now, Mr. Wallace, of course you know this committee would not have called you if we did not have those who told us
that you had sold heroin here in Dallas, or delivered it; you know that,
don't you?
I am telling you that, anyway, and since you have sworn to tell the
truth to the committee, I just want to warn you that you would be
liable for perjury if you do tell us under oath an untruth; you understand that?
Senator DANIEL. You would be liable to be tried for that, if it
should happen that you tell us an untruth.
Mr. WALLACE. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. And I further want to warn you that there are
witnesses who say that you did sell heroin here; you know that, don't,
you?
Senator DANIEL. You are not under any arrest now?
Mr. WALLACE. Not for selling any of that; no.

Senator DANIEL. Are you out on bond?
Senator DANIEL. In what kind of case?

Mr. WALLACE. Well, I guess it is an addict. I don't-I don't know
what it is. It just says violation of the State narcotic law. I don't
know what that really is.
Senator DANIEL. Well, just tell us what connection, if any, you
have had with the heroin racket here in Dallas.
Mr. WALLACE. I didn't have any.
Senator DANIEL. None at all?
Mr. WALLACE. .No, sir.
3009
DANIEL. You have done nothing but buy it, is that right?
WALLACE. Well, no, sir; I haven't-I haven't had any con-
Senator
Mr.
nections with it.

Senator DANIEL. Well, did you ever buy any?
Mr. WALLACE. Well, I guess you would call it that, years ago, that
I bought.
Senator DANIEL. Well, have you ever bought any recently?
Mr. WALLACE. No.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you get the heroin that you shot in
your arm?
Mr. WALLACE. Well, that was a long time ago.
Senator DANIEL. When is the last time you ever sniffed, smelled, or
shot heroin in your arm or skin?
Mr. WALLACE. Well, I want to refuse to answer that, because I am
charged with being an addict, and I want to refuse to answer that.
Senator DANIEL. You want to refuse to answer it for what reason?
Mr. WALLACE. I am charged with being an addict.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you want to refuse to answer it under your
rights under the fifth amendment?
Senator DANIEL. Is that what you are claiming?
Senator DANIEL. Do you
honestly feel that a truthful answer to that

last question might tend to incriminate you?
Mr. WALLACE. Well, I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Do you feel it might tend to tie you up with something for which you could be convicted, is that why you do not want,
to answer?
Senator DANIEL. All right. You may come back to the stand after
the recess. We will recess until 2 o'clock, this afternoon.
(Recess from the hour of 12 noon until the hour of 2 p. m. the same
day.)
Senator DANIEL. The committee wil come to order.
Now, Mr. Wallace, when we recessed for noon, I had asked you
about whether or not you had made sales of heroin here in Dallas.
Mr. WALLACE. I would just rather not answer that, on the fifth
amendment, whether I have or not.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did I understand you previously to testify
that you had not sold any heroin here in Dallas?

Mr. WALLACE. I didn't understand your question exactly.
Senator DANIEL. Well, if you have so testified here before this
committee, that you have not sold any heroin here in Dallas, do you
want to correct the record and withdraw that, answer?
Mr. WALLACE. Yes, sir, I-I didn't understand your question just
right.
Senator DANIEL. So you want to withdraw an) answer to the effect
that you had not sold any heroin here in Dallas?
Mr. WALLACE. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And then, when I reasked you the question, you
want to stand on your rights under the fifth amendment?
Senator DANIEL. You feel that it might tend to incriminate you, if
you make a truthful answer to the question, is that right?
s010

Senator EASTLAND. Whom have you talked to during the noon
hour, Mr. Wallace?

Mr. WALLACE. I haven't talked to anybody.
Senator EASTLAND. You haven't talked to a lawyer?
Mr. SPEER. No questions.
Senator DANIEL. Just one moment.
Sit down.
Do you know
Freddie Lee Hill?

No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. A Freddie Lee Hall?
Senator DANIEL. You don't know any such person?
Senator DANIEL. Tommy Hicks?
Mr. WALLACE. Well, yes, sir; I have seen Tommy Hicks.
Senator DANIEL. You do know him?
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever had any business dealings with
Tommy Hicks?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy any heroin from him?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever sell any heroin for him?
Mr. WALLACE.
Senator DANIEL. What is your nickname?

Mr. WALLACE.
Well, they call me Bouchie.
Senator DANIEL. Bouchie?

Mr. WALLACE. Yes, sir; years ago.
Mr. WALLACE. I don't-I don't know how they did spell it.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you pronounce it Bouchie, is that right?
Mr. WALLACE.
Senator
Some of them did; yes, sir.
And Tommy Hicks never did sell you any heroin?

Senator DANIEL. You never did peddle heroin here in Dallas for
Tommy Hicks?
Mr. WALLACE. No; no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Further questions?
Senator DANIEL. That's all. Tommy Hicks.
The MARSHAL. Tommy Hicks?
No answer, Senator.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't he answer this morning, Mr. Speer?
Mr. SPEER. I believe he did. Yes, he answered.
Senator DANIEL. Sheriff Decker.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give before this
subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be the truth,
Mr. DECKER. I do, sir.
DANIEL.
II I I I .
3011
TESTIMONY OF BILL DECKER, SHERIFF, DALLAS COUNTY, TEX.

Senator DANIEL. Will you state your full name, please, sir?
Mr. DECKER. Bill Decker.
Mr. DECKER. I am sheriff of Dallas County.
Senator DANIEL. I will say to Senator Eastland and the staff that
it has been my pleasure to work with Sheriff Decker for many years
in this State, and I am glad to be with you again today and for you
to be before our committee. He is one of our most distinguished law
enforcement officers in Texas.
I believe you have held some position in the sheriffs association,
have you not?
Mr. DECKER. Vice president of the sheriffs association.
Senator DANIEL. Of the State of Texas?
Mr. DECKER. Yes, sir.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
DECKER.
Senator
How long have you been sheriff?
Since January 1, 1949.
DANIEL.
Now, Sheriff Decker, you know the purpose of
this investigation?

Senator DANIEL. I will ask you whether or not you consider the
narcotics problem in' Dallas County to be serious in nature.

Mr. DECKER. It is, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Would you like to give us just the picture of the
problem here, and why you consider it to be serious?
Mr. DECKER. First of all, as we all realize, it breaks down manpower. Number two is that,. due to our close relationship with
Mexico, we are a port whereby we receive much of the heavy drugs.
I feel that 95 or 98 percent of the heroin that comes into Texas
comes in through Mexico, and naturally a certain amount of it sifts
through Dallas.
We have been very fortunate here, Senator, due to the splendid
cooperation of your Federal Narcotics Bureau, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, your State police, your present police department,
headed by Chief Hanssen, and our department; it has been a solid
front We have worked together
I have not tried to work too hard
on the city; he has cooperated with me on information in the county,
and we have exchanged information. And by that. method, we have
had success in operation and enforcement.
I also feel that we must have enforcement if we expect to combat
this menace. It must start at the border, of course, with your
customs.
You have had some handicaps here the last year or so, due to the
curtailment of the funds and the impact for your Federal agency,
which has worked with us 100 percent. In the last few months, they
have stopped their operation on the small peddler, which has added
to our duties.
We were not prepared for that, because we were working with a
skeleton crew. Pt is my intention the first of the year, in preparation
of the 1957 budget, to ask the commissioners court to employ two
additional men, to assign to narcotics alone.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have some men now assigned?

Mr. DECKER. I have two at this time. I think I need four.
3012
Senator DANIEL. You have those men assigned to narcotics work?

SENATOR DANIEL.
That is for the county?
Mr.
DECKER. That. is
Senator DANIEL. You
for the county as a whole.

do not work in the city except when necessary to work with the police department?
Mr. DECKER. And any information received in regard to the city,
we pass on to the police department, because they are doing a good
job. If they find anything on narcotics outside the city, they join
with us.
We have made several seizures here lately of cans of marihuana,
where the peddler or pusher has carried it to the county to stash it.
Patrol cars have driven up on known addicts standing around, and
picked them up, on 2 or 3 occasions, and have checked them and found
nothing, and decided it meant that they may have overlooked something, and go back and find marihuana stashed there.
Senator DANIEL. By stashing it, you mean hid it away?
Mr. DECKER. Hide it in the woods or in an open space that we
have out here; most of the time it is near the road.
The last white heroin that we seized here was stashed out in the
county on the north side, where we watched it for 16 days. We were
never successful to get anyone to come back to it, but we seized
nearly an ounce of it and turned it over to your Federal agent,
Mr. Heddens.
That was in 1950. We have seized some brown out of Mexico
since then, but that was the last white, apparently manufactured in
some of the other nations where they make it pure.
Senator DANIEL. It would indicate to you that the white heroin
was coming in from Red China or some nation other than Mexico?
Mr.
DECKER.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Although I guess yellow or brown heroin could

be bleached in Mexico and made to look like the heroin that comes
from other countries, if they wanted to?
Mr. DECKER. That I can't answer, because I don't know enough
about the laboratory work on it to explain it to you, sir. I imagine
it could be, but I have no knowledge of the operation of it.
Senator DANIEL. What have you experienced to be the principal
drugs that give you trouble here in the county?
Mr.
DECKER.
Well, of course it is heroin all over.
Our users want
heroin. They will even go for heroin rather than drugstore narcotics.
Our drugstore burglaries, of course, are down in this local vicinity,
but out in other parts of the State and over in Louisiana and some
others, they have had enormous drugstore burglaries, where narcotics
and money both were taken at the same time. But we have been
very fortunate here, maybe due to the good enforcement work of
your agencies, or maybe we have just been lucky.
Senator DANIEL. What percentage of the overall crime would you
think might be attributed to narcotics here?
Mr. DECKER. I think between 60 and 70 percent.
Senator DANIEL. That is, within your county?
Mfr. DECKER. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, we have the same situation here in Dallas
County we found in Harris County, then, the other day. The sheriff,
in each instance; attributes the larger percentage of the crime to
narcotics than the police do within the cities.
I I I I 1L
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
3013
Mr. DECKER. I think maybe part of that is due to their increase

in personnel, the number of manpower they have, and their continual
fight.
You see, our police department here in the last couple of years has
increased almost double in size, and it has given more manpower.
After all, manpower is the greatest stopping point that we have for
crime. Because if a police officer is on the street, or if they have
manpower to work individual investigations, naturally they can do a
better job. Where we are, maybe, concerned this time with traffic,
tomorrow a house burglar, the next day something else, don't have
time to devote to the individual, Chief Hanssen, his division has
some 7 or 8 men on narcotics alone. Naturally they are doing better
than we are, with just two men.
Senator DANIEL. Has this cooperation with the Federal officers and
city and State officers been good all along, throughout the years?
Mr. DECKER. Over a period of years; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You just feel, though, that all of you are shorthanded as far as manpower is concerned?
Mr. DECKER. That is true; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Is that particularly true with the agencies we in
the Congress appropriate money for, the Bureau of Narcotics and
the customs agency?
Mr. DECKER. Yes. For many years here, Senator, you had one
Federal agent here alone, and he was more or less working as a liaison
officer between the two departments, giving us what assistance and
what financial help he could to make the narcotic cases here.
He not only was trying to enforce, but actually was checking drugstores as he went along.
Senator DANIEL. Well, Sheriff, do you agree with the chief that
more of the cases should be brought in Federal court, more of the
narcotics cases?
Mr. DECKER. Well, since the amendment in our laws, which became operative at the last session of the legislature, which increased
the penalties in our narcotics cases, I feel that we are doing a much
better job, and are doing a better job in the enforcement of narcotics
under the State laws than we have done in the past.
At the present time, I think, we have some 24 people in our custody,
some of them doing time for narcotics and other things. Some of
those are awaiting transportation to the State penitentiary for narcotics now.
Senator DANIEL. How maly?
Mr. DECKER. Twenty-four in our custody now, in the county jail.
Senator DANIEL. About how many addicts would you estimate you
have in Dallas County?
Mr. DECKER. Between 150 and 170 are catalogued in our office.
Senator
DANIEL. That
DECKER. Yes, sir.
is for city and county?
Mr.
Of course, we pick up some of the city as
we go along, and naturally don't pass up anybody that has been
handled by our department even though he was arrested by the police
department and transferred to our custody; we still carry him as a
narcotic addict in our records.
Senator DANIEL. Now, do you send in the record of your addicts
to the Bureau of Narcotics in Washington?
Mr. DECKER. I do; yes, sir.
3014
Senator DANIEL. You report on those blanks?
Mr.
DECKER.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All addicts who come to your attention?

Senator DANIEL. Do you have any suggestion that you would like
to make to this committee as to how Congress could help lick this
traffic?
Mr. DECKER. I think-I think, of course, the greatest need is
financial need at this time, to give them manpower to work with and
tools to work with.
I think we should make some change in the laws, to make the
penalty more stringent, especially where a juvenile or a youngster
as been sold narcotics. I think that man certainly should have a
stiffer penalty than some addict or some user who has sold to another
addict. After all, it is the youngsters who start on it.
I feel that we are ably fortified with our new laws given to us in
the state, and that we should do a better job than we have before.
It is true that we get quicker conviction in the Federal courts, and
of course the sentences do not run, sometimes, as severe as we are
down there.
Our new juries, especially with women on the jury, have been giving
some pretty stiff sentences down there in the past few months.
Senator DANIEL. That is what I was wondering about. Just a
quick glance, it would look to me like your State courts are giving as
high or higher penalties than the Federal court here.
%r. DECKER. We are in the last few months. We started doing it.
We had a case sometune ago where 3 people raped a 17-year-old
girl out here-we have tried 2 of them and given the death penalty;
the other one has been given life-in which they pled that they had
smoked marihuana cigarettes prior to this attack. It was part of
the mitigating circumstances that led it on.
Senator DANIEL. You mean they treated it as though you would
do if a man says he was under the influence of alcohol; he was trying
to say that he was under the influence of marihuana, and therefore
shouldn't be punished as hard?
Mr. DECKER. Yes, sir. Flaudell Fite testified that he smoked 2
or 3 marihuana cigarettes before he attacked this girl.
Senator
DANIEL.
According to the records in Washington there
are 226 addicts.

Mr. DECKER. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. So some evidently have been reported from other
officers, not included in your figures.
Mr. DECKER. Yes, sir. See, the only time we pick them up is
when they are people who are or have been in our custody; so there
could be a variation there very easily, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Sheriff, have you found the use of narcotics or
traffic increasing in Dallas, any, in the last year?
Mr. DECKER. I think we have some increase, yes. We have ha(I
an increase in addictions; we have increased population. Naturally
we would pick up some additional narcotics cases.
Senator DANIEL. Where have you found the main increase?
Mr. DECKER. The main increase, of course, would be in isolated
places. Narcotic addicts gang together, sir.
Senal or DANIEi. Do you find that they spread the addiction to
other people?
I1 Ik,
3015
Mr. DECKER. I have always felt that a narcotic addict would try
to have somebody go along with him, to help him carry the load,
yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Sort of like a contagious disease?
Senator DANIEL. So, as long as you have these 226 narcotic addicts
on the streets of Dallas and in Dallas County, there is a danger
that they are going to spread the addiction to other people who are
not now addicts?
Mr.
DECKER.
They definitely are, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, do you have any other recommendations

to make to this committee with reference to our Federal laws or our
Federal appropriations?
Mr. DECKER. Well, I think, as I said before, I think you should
give additional funds to both your customs and to your narcotic
agents. I think you should give them additional manpower.
There is no reason to employ a man unless you give him tools to
work with, and naturally our tools are the equipment that is necessary
to make these cases, and most of them are made with undercover men,
which costs dollars and cents.
Senator
DANIEL.
Now, you have heard what I asked Police Chief
Hanssen about this morning, as to whether or not he agreed with

some of these doctors in New York who are advocating free drug
clinics, especially in their argument that those who get under the
influence of heroin and other opiates are not dangerous people. What
do you think about that?
Mr.
DECKER.
I think they are dangerous.
I think that some of
our major burglaries and some of our major homicides have led from
narcotics.
Senator
DANIEL.
That is true here in Dallas County?
Senator DANIEL. Could you give us an illustration or two, an

example or two?
Mr. DECKER. Well, this case I just spoke to you about is one.
Senator
DANIEL.
That is the rape of a 17-year-old?
Mr. DECKER. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, three of them raped her.
Senator DANIEL. Three men?
Mr. DECKER. Yes, sir, over 21 years of age.
Senator DANIEL. And all over 21?
Mr. DECKER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And smoking marihuana?
Mr. DECKER. Yes, sir. Two of them raped her; the third one did
not. He just stood by.
That is a fair example of what it can lead to, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How about some of these robberies of drugstores?
Mr. DECKER. Well, robberies of drugstores, we have had one series
of robberies here where drgustores were preyed upon, a few years ago,
where it was all narcotics, and each man who was committing the
offense was a narcotic user. They have since been apprehended and
sent to the penitentiary, but they took only drugstores, both safe
burglaries and armed robberies.
It is true that the person who is the user of a drug will go to any
extreme to obtain possession of that drug; and I feel that no mainline
shooter can work and keep up a habit. He must steal. That is why
3016
we have so much shoplifting and other petty theft, to supply their
drugs.
You see, a cap of morphine--a cap of heroin which has been cut
some 3 or 4 times with sugar costs 6 dollars, 7 dollars in our county,
and many of them will shoot 2 or 3 of them a day, and it takes-lie
has to work pretty hard to furnish the 21 dollars.
Senator DANIEL. If you had the free clinics, that would stop that
kind of crime, but it would not stop the rape cases and crimes of that
character which you have mentioned; is that true?
Mr. DECKER. I don't approve of a free clinic, sir.

Senator DANIEL. I am not talking about what you approve.
don't, either.
But I said, would it, stop that kind of crime, if an addict could go
to a clinic and get a shot; he wouldn't have to steal it to get it then,
he wouldn't have to rob a drugstore; would it tend to stop that kind
of crime?
Mr.
DECKER.
I don't think so, because I think this: Even though
the cost of it is tremendous, if he could get it for free, I still believe

it would not stop or control.
I am for treatment, yes; if they can prove to me that they can cure
an addict, I am for it.
But I can't say-I can't advance any theory why a cheap supply
of narcotics would be of any help to anybody.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, I can't either, but I asked you if your
judgment was that it would stop that kind of crimes.
Mr. DECKER. I don't think so.

Senator DANIEL. Now, Sheriff, why do you say that?
Let me put out this suggestion: Isn't it possible that even if they
had a cheap supply or free supply, the clinics, that the addicts who
really wanted to get more, wanted to get high, would go out on the
black market or rob or steal to get the additional drug they want?
Mr. DECKER. He would.
Senator DANIEL. Would he ever be satisfied with what the doctors
would give him at a clinic?
Mr. DECKER. And number two, we have found instances here
where an addict is allowed a prescription to obtain drugs, because the
doctors felt that it was a necessity, and he would take the prescription
from one doctor and from the second doctor and obtain additional
drugs, because even though he was obtaining it on this prescription
at a very nominal cost, but he would obtain more than would be
allowable to him.
Senator DANIEL. I might say in that connection that Sheriff
Kilday in Bexar County told me yesterday he used to think well of
the clinic idea, but he changed his mind when he found one man, a
filling station operator, who was selling heroin and injected it into
40 or 50 young people in San An]tonio.
He said he figured anyone who wanted to peddle the drug wouldn't
work, if we had a clinic, wouldn't work, of course, may be on some of
these people who were getting it free, but would go out and make
new addicts; and now he is a strong opponent of clinics for that
reason.
Mr. DECKER. That's right; if it is easier to obtain, it would be
easier to pass on to somebody whom they were associating with.
Senator DANIEL. Senator Eastland, do you have any further
questions?
I I IIIII
3017
Senator EASTLAND. No questions.

Mr. GASQUE. Sheriff, along the lines of the questions that the
Senator asked you about crime, do you feel that addiction leads to
crime, or do you feel that most addicts are criminals first and then
turn to the use of drugs?
In other words, which comes first, the addict or the criminal?
Mr. DECKER. Well, I am sure, being an operator of a penal institution, that some people start out as criminals that's not addicted.
Naturally, after they become criminals, their associates are of the
criminal world, and we have more addicts in the criminal world than
we do otherwise.
So naturally, they could start out as just a burglar, but by their
continual association with people in the same field-and after all,
if you are an insurance man, you go to an insurance man when you
want to talk business, and if you are a criminal, you go to a criminal
to discuss your business. Naturally, the criminal would have more
access and more encouragement to become an addict, and I think
probably he becomes an addict after his criminal operation.
Mr. GASQUE. Well, the evidence we have taken in other cities seems
to indicate that the overwhelming majority of drug addicts have

criminal records before they ever begin the use of drugs.
Mr. DECKER. I find that, yes.
Mr. GASQUE. And the majority of those who do not have criminal
records before they begin the use of drugs are young people and
juveniles, and even a large percentage of those cases seem to have at.
least juvenile delinquency records.
Mr. DECKER. That's right.
Mr. GASQUE. That's all, Mr. -Chairman.
Senator DANIEL. Well, sheriff, are you sure you have given us all
the recommendations you want us to take back to Congress?

If you think of any more, please send them in to

us at any time, and thanks again for your wonderful cooperation.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. DECKER. Thank you, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Tommy Hicks? Has Tommy Hicks returned to

the courtroom?
Now, this witness was in the courtroom this morning, and I would
like for some of the officers to assist us in being sure that he knows we
are calling for him.
The MARSHALL. He is not here.
Senator DANIEL. That being the case, I would like for some of the
officers to assist us in finding his whereabouts, because the committee
is ready for him to appear.
District Attorney Henry Wade.
I hope that some of you officers or the marshall or the sheriff will let.
us know if this witness, Tommy Hicks, comes in.
The MARSHALL. Yes, sir.
solemnly swear that the testimony you

will give to this subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee will
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
Mr. WADE. I do.
IIIIIII
3018
TESTIMONY OF HENRY WADE, CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY,

DALLAS COUNTY, TEX.
Senator
DANIEL.
You may be seated.
Now, this is another official that the chairman has had the pleasure
of working with in crime conferences in law enforcement throughout
the years, but for the record I will let you state your name.
Mr. WADE. Henry Wade.
DANIEL. And your position?

Mr. WADE. Criminal District Attorney in Dallas County, Tex.
Mr. WADE. Since January 1, 1951.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Wade, do you have a prepared statement?
Mr. WADE. I prepared a memorandum here that I think is available
Senator
to the members of the committee.

Senator DANIEL. We will make your entire statement a part of the
record, and then I suggest that you summarize the main points, so that
we might ask questions about them. (See p. 3023.)
Mr. WADE. Well, we in the district attorney's office, in my State
district attorney's office, have-this has not been a problem with us
until last year. In 1951, we didn't have a single indictment involving
narcotics. In 1952, we had one, I believe. In 1953 we had two.
And then in 1954, all of the Dallas police department started filing
narcotics cases with the State authorities, and the problem jumped up
considerably, although it is not as important a part of our office as you
might think.
I think we have 49 pending indictments now in narcotics cases.
That's of about 3,500 pending in all. You can see that in numbers, it.
is not important, but it is important as far as what it contributes to
other crime, I think.
Senator DANIEL. Do you agree with Chief Hanssen and Sheriff
Decker that much of the crime in the county is attributable to narcotic
addiction and traffic?
I think when you put a percentage
Mr. WADE. I know that it is.
on it, it is a little hard to say just what percentage is contributed to.
I know it causes-most of this prostitution is connected up with the
dope traffic. Most of your thefts, or a high percentage of your thefts,
particularly shoplifting, safe burglaries, a high percentage of those are
committed by narcotic addicts and other people. Some of our worst
crimes have been committed by people under the influence of narcotics.
Mr. Decker mentioned this Flaudell Fite and Timothy Pierce case,
where a very bad rape was committed by these two Negroes on a
17-year-old white girl.
Flaudell Fite testified that he didn't know what happened, because
he was under the influence of both marihuana and alcohol.
Mr. Decker mentioned something awhile ago that the committee
might not be familiar with. Our State laws provide for the admissibility of evidence of intoxication, or under the influence of a narcotic
drug, as a mitigating circumstance to crime. Whether it is mitigating
or not, the statute allows that, and the Jury is instructed that it is
admitted for the purpose of mitigation only.
I have always thought that probably was a bad law, and ought to be
done away with. But we have that law on the statute books.
We have a lot of cases. We recently tried a case involving a bunch
of teen-agers, the defendant named being Ted Bell. They received a
3019
20-year penalty, and I followed, during the trial, much of the evidence,
and his statement was that he was using and the others were using
barbituates pretty heavily.
Senator DANIEL. All right, sir. What crime did he commit?
Mr. WADE. Murder.
And these, Timothy Pierce and Flaudell
Fite, both got the death penalty after the trial.

Senator DANIEL. That was the rape case?
Mr. WADE. The rape case; yes, sir.
That was in September of this
year. Both of those cases were tried within the last month, or all
three of them were tried.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any other examples of violent crimes
being committed by those under the influence of narcotics?
Mr. WADE. I know of a lot of others.
We had lots of drugstore
robberies for the purpose of narcotics. We had one case that I

could think of where a man robbed a drugstore here and got about
$10,000 worth of narcotics the day after he left the penitentiary, and
was sent back on it, because he was caught.
But in that type of case, we have frequently defendants say they
were under the influence of narcotics, and of course you and I don't
know for sure whether that is so or whether they are using that as the
reason for the commission of the crime.
But I think it is a very high percentage, better than 60 percent.
Senator DANIEL. Now, you say that before 1954 all of the narcotics
cases, as a matter of policy or agreement, were taken into Federal
court? Just what has been the change of policy on that?
Mr. WADE. I don't know. All of them are filed with us now, is all
I know, or that's what I understand, that they are.
Senator DANIEL. You mean involving smuggling, or interstate
shipment? Aren't some of the narcotic cases still filed in Federal
court here?
Mr. WADE. If they are, by State authorities, I don't know. Mr.
Gannaway will know.
But I think our business has picked up considerably, and as you can
see from there, this year we have had 10 jury trials involving narcotics
or the possession of narcotics. The juries convicted all 10 of them,
and punishment ranged from 2 years to 10 years, the average punishment being between 5 and 6 years.
Senator DANIEL. Which is higher than the average punishment in
your Federal courts for narcotics cases, haven't you found that?
Mr. WADE. Well, I believe the maximum you can give a first
offender in the Federal court is 5 years, if I am not mistaken.

believe that's the maximum, isn't that right?
Mr. SPEER. That's right.
Mr. WADE. I am not too familiar with the Federal laws, but I know
the most you can give them is 5 years for a first. offense.
Senator DANIEL. And what is the maximum under our State law?
Mr. WADE. For a first offense it is 10 years, unless a juvenile is
involved; and where it is a sale to a juvenile, you can get life or 99
years; that's the maximum under the State law.
I think that the juries will give considerably more punishment than
has been the practice in the past; it is my experience, anyway.
Senator EASTLAND. Does the jury set the penalty in Texas?
71515-56--pt. 7-43
3020
Yes, sir; the jury passes on the findings of guilt oinnocence, and then sets the punishment. And in my experien(,e,
for instance, we tried a case last, week where it was a marihuana case,
Where the jury gave a man the maximum, 10 years, without nu,.li
considering it. And there wasn't a lot of marihuana involve(;
1 think it was tree cigarettes or something like that.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I will tell you what the evidence has heel)
before this committee, from experts in the field.
Mr. WADE.
They say that anywhere the courts will met(, out tough sentelice:y
heavy penalties, that they will dry up the narcotics traffic.

Now, that is what has been told to us, and we have seen some places
where it looks like that was the reason the narcotics traffic has left.
Mr. WADE. I think there is no question
but that the greatest
deterrent to crime is punishment, and heavy punishment.

Now, you will have to consider that we haven't, here, been trying
narcotics cases except since 1954. Formerly, and up until about 2
months ago, it was necessary to get a chemist out of New Orleans
before we could try one; you know, the Federal chemist had to coum
here.
But since 3 or 4 or 5 months ago, the city of Dallas employed i
chemist to analyze this. They are a necessary witness on the trial.
We have a Dallas County crime laboratory now, where we have the
witnesses available to testify in all the sheriff's and police cases.
Senator DANIEL. Now, I noticed on page 5 of your written report
to the committee, this sentence:
Our experience has shown that narcotics offenders more than any other tV-pc
offender are likely to commit offenses while out on bond awaiting trial.
Haveyou already run into that trouble here in Dallas County?

Mr..WADS.
Well, that is, to my mind, one of the worst problems
we have. This is narcotics and other crimes, too.

Our law requires that tle Judg, grant bail to anyone, other thau
in cases where he would get the death penalty, and particular narcotic
offenders are out immediately, because they usually are a little bit
better heeled thanl the ordinary criminal, and they get out quicker.
and
Senator E.\STLAND. Are the bonds fixed high enough?
Mr. WADI. It is fixed as high as the court allows it, I mean un(del
our laws.
Senator EASTLAND. What is your procedure?
Mi'. VADE. The procedure is that when a man is indicted, the
trial judge sets the bond, hut lie sets it, in line with decisions of the
higher court.
For instance, we lhave set higl bonds in some c(ases-I say "we";
the judges have and they lhave said that was a denial of their colstitutional right, the bond was too high.
So in that, they give a. little leeway, but I thinkl the bon(ls--l
doi't think thev stall(l.
are high enough.
But I am afraid they are a)o<ut
could
as
high
as
\ly t leory is tlat ill narcotic cases, of all cases, there should 1w)
some discretion ini tle trail (ourt in granting bail, not only because
tlev go out and commit. other offenses, but I think that a.time i
jail has a better effect on them, probably, than an ordinary criinimul,
as far as checking the liabit or doing some other things. And I t hik
tliat the bail bond statutes, I have always thought that they shoildl
be revised.
tI1
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
3021
Now, there is a constitutionally ainehdinent to be voted on next

November a year from now, where the judge can deny bail to secol(1
offenders, not narcotics, in all crimes.
Senator DANIEL. Now, I remember during the first crime conference we held here in Texas that you proposed legislation to take care
of illicit sales of barbituate drugs and goof balls, and I believe that
we helped prepare that bill, which passed the Texas legislature.
What have you found with reference to that bill, and with reference
to the use of barbituates and goof balls here in the county?
M*r. WADE. Well, the bill was an excellent, bill, .1d has been a lot
of help. Until that bill was prepared, it was very difficult to do mu(cl
prosecution under the old statute, on that.
There have been, probably, I don't have it exactly, but there has
been a considerable number of convictions under that bill. In 1955
it has been 58, for instance.
Now, we have a lot of these barbituates that seen to be, a! lot of the
juveniles are using, that are called goof balls or bennies and that
they are committing lots of types of crime with the use of goof balls.
Senator DANIEL. Go ahead, Mfr. Counsel.
Mr. GASQUE. The chairman has in his possession a statement
signed by Hall, the murderer, kidnapper and murderer of Bobby
Greenlease in Missouri, which slows he was using amphetamines an'd
barbiturates before and at, the time of the murder.
I think that is very interesting, and ties in with what you just,
Sai(i.
Mr. WADE. I don't think there is anY question that barbiturates
and narcotics both contribute much to othlier crime, and that, by the
w., is probably-I am more interested in that than I am in narcotics as such, because we have 10 cases involving narcotics that are
murder, rape or burglary, where you have one involving merely the
possession of the narcotics.
I don't want to leave the impression that, I am not interested in a.
narcotic case, but we just, have 54 of them---49, now; I think maybe
the committee did some good. We had five come in and plead
guilty yesterday to narcotics.
Mr. GASQUE. To being addicts, or what?
Mr. WADE. No; 4 possession of narcotics, and 1 addict.
.\l. GASQUE. Came in and pled guilty?
Mr. WADE. Pleaded guilty, and they were all sent to the pen.
Mr. GASQUE. All sent to the pen yesterday?
M'.
WADE. Yes, Sir.
Mr. GASQUE. My goodness!

Mr. WADE. I don't know whether to blame that on you all, or
Mr. GASQUE. Saturday before we got to Houston on Mondav,
thley arrested over 50 narcotic addicts and brought them in. It does
give our committee a chance to see what is going on. We had some of
those before the committee, and we will have some addicts before us
in addition to the ones we have already had here, so as to get their

story of how the traffic is operated.
Well, what did these people do? They wanted to take t-reatment,
(lid they?
Mr, WADE. No, these had been set for trial before, and some of
them tried to pass their cases, and some of them did get them passed,
because they didn't figure it was a real good time to be tried before a
jury, right at the present.
I I II I
302 2
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
But these were tried before a jury, and they did range from 2 to 5
years, I believe I have that here somewhere. Two to five years;
two 5-year terms and three 2-year terms. There is an addition
made to that report.
Mr. GASQJE. Do you have some of your State Judges that are especially tough on narcotics cases, on the sentences handed down?
I think they are-they are tough enough on
Mr. WADE. Yes.
them.
Usually, though, there is a little, some type of general agreement
worked out as to what really will be recommended to them.
Senator DANIEL. Now, I notice you have had 58 convictions during
this year, during the first 9 months of this year, under the barbiturate
statute.
Mr, WADE. That is a. misdemeanor under our present law, the first
offense of possession of barbiturates is a misdemeanor under ou'
present law.
Senator DANIEL. These barbiturate drugs not only are bad in them.
selves when they are used wrongfully and without doctors' prescriptions, but they do lead into use of heroin later on, do they not?
Mr. WADE. I am not-that is my understanding, that they start
out with those and use marihuana, and go on into heroin, generally,
or in a lot of cases.
Now, I don't know a great deal about that.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Mr. Wade, all of your recommendations in
your entire statement, and the statistics, will be made a part of the
record.
Do you have any other recommendations that you want to call our
attention to orally at this time?
Mr. WADE. Well, I might mention one that has been hinted at.
There is always a problem, in law enforcement agencies, of having
enough money to pay for informers, and also to pay for purchases.
Now, that is both on the Federal level and the State level. It is a
necessary thing. The most important element there is the possession.
We have a terrible time; they will arrest five people in a car, and one
will have a pocketfull of marihuana or heroin, and then you get the
situation where one claims it all, and it is difficult to try the others,
under our State law. Now, I don't know what the Federal law is. I
think you ought to change that law.
Senator DANIEL. Senator Eastland, do you have any questions?
Senator EASTLAND. In what respect should it be changed?
Mr. WADE. I think it ought to make it a prima facie case, as far as
possession, if you are in a room where narcotics are found, if you are
in an automobile where narcotics are found, or if you are with someone that has narcotics in his pocket, I think it ought to be a rebuttable
presumption, because a fellow-of course, you could just be talking
to someone and know nothing about it, but that is not the case that
we are talking about.
Senator DANIEL. Anything further, Mr. Counsel?
Mr. GASQUE. No.
Mr. DANIEL. Senator Eastland?
Mr. SPEER. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, we certainly do thank you, Henry, for com-
ing before the committee.
3023
Mr. WADE. Thank you, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And any other suggestions you have, we would be

glad to hear from you at any time.
(The statement of Mr. Wade follows:)
STATEMENT BY HENRY WADE,
CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
COUNTY,
DALLAS
TEX.
Narcotic cases as such have been a problem to the Dallas County district attorney's office only since 1954. During the first 3 years of my tenure in office, from
January 1, 1951 until 1954, only 5 narcotic cases were handled by the State courts
in Dallas County, and those were cases where the complaint had been refused by
the United States attorney's office, or were cases incidental to other crimes. Prior
to 1954 narcotics cases as a matter of policy or agreement among law enforcement
agencies were filed in the Federal courts and handled as a Federal problem to the
exclusion of State courts.
Commencing with 1954 a change of policy in the Federal district attorney's
office prompted by some Federal court rulings was made regarding the accepting
of complaints filed by local law enforcement agencies, resulting in the filing of all
narcotics cases in the State courts to be prosecuted by my office. From 5 cases
handled in 3 years, the caseload jumped to 31 cases in 1954, to a record of 38 convictions during the first 9 months of 1955, 9 of which were jury trials. All of
the jury trials resulted in convictions, and the average punishment meted out by
juries was a little in excess of 5 years.
While percentagewise narcotics cases constitute a small part of our caseload
(54 narcotic indictments pending of approximately 3,500 indictments on file in
the 3 criminal district courts) the prosecution problem in these cases is out
of proportion to the number involved. Narcotics offenders must be given special
attention in order to get them out of circulation as quickly as possible. Our
experience has shown that narcotics offenders are almost without exception
involved in some other criminal activity in order to support the narcotic habit.
Conversely, most of our habitual theft offenders (safe burglars, hijackers, shoplifters, pickpockets), pimps and prostitutes are hooked with the narcotics habit.
You all know the sordid pattern too well for me to take up your time giving
examples of crimes committed under the influence of narcotics, or offenses committed to get money to support a narcotics habit. Our office has noted narcotics
involved in every type of crime from vagrancy to rape and murder. Only
last month we tried two horrible rape cases committed under most aggravating
circumstances by one Flaudell Fite and Timothy Pierce, Jr., in which the evidence
showed that they were under the influence of marihuana and beer at the time of
the commission of the crime.
Both of them received the death penalty by jury verdict.
I could name many other similar crimes, and I do know that in a very high
percentage of our ordinary criminal cases, particularly those of a horrible nature,
involve the use of narcotics or barbiturates.
While my office is not an investigating agency, we have observed a striking
parallel between certain types of cases. Most of our drug store burglaries are
for the sake of narcotics. Many of our robberies are for the purpose of obtaining
narcotics and many others are committed by persons under the influence of
narcotics. Most of the prostitutes are supporting their own habit as well as a
pimp who is also a thief and narcotic addict.
We like handling narcotics cases on the local level by State courts. By intensifying our drive against the prostitution racket in Dallas, we have been able to
make narcotics cases on prostitutes and pimps, and thus rid our metropolitan
area of addicts who participate in all types of crimes. It is a saying among our
law enforcement agencies, "Show me a prostitute and I will show you that she is
Supporting a habit, a pimp who is an addict and burglar, and a narcotic peddler
who lives off the corruption of the community."
The war by law enforcement agencies against sin and corruption from narcotics
is never ending, with no truces, and the pressure must be maintained. The
special servioe bureau of our Dallas Police Department is the front line of defense
against all types of crimes, because that squad of officers is our eyes and ears in
the underworld. At no time can they rest and look back at cases made and convictions obtained. The arrest and conviction in one case is merely the starting
point for another case to be made from leads obtained in the first. Often our
officers will obtain enough information in working one case to keep busy for months
3024
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
running down leads to other criminal activity. We might liken our criminals to
a can of worms. Where one starts and another ends in crime cannot be told
by looking in the top of the container.
Knowing that a particular person is engaged in narcotics traffic and being able
to prove it in court are two entirely different things, since all of our laws, for
better or for worse, are written to protect every safeguard and rights of the
accused. Narcotics dealers are like ships that pass in the night. Two criminals
meet in a public street for a brief moment. One hands the other a package. The
contact is made and broken in an instant. Unless our officers are at the right place
at the right time, no case can be made that will stand up in court. A premature
arrest that fails to find a suspect in possession of narcotics may ruin the careful
work of months. Considering the man hours involved, narcotic cases are expensive, and for that reason our narcotics and vice officers must be the best of our
law enforcement agencies. We are fortunate in having capable officers of the
highest caliber handling the narcotic problem in Dallas at this time.
Good as our officers are, they cannot work without information from the
underworld. No proper provision has been made for money with which to make
purchases or for the paying of informers, which is absolutely necessary in this
type of police work. Therefore, narcotics officers must depend on putting pressure
in the form of constant arrest for vagrancy of known characters for information.
Often after conviction a criminal will offer to divulge information regarding other
offenders and offenses in return for being placed on a particular type of job in the
penitentiary or getting a recommendation for a lighter sentence. Constant
pressure on known or suspected criminals is the only type of enforcement that
brings results. Speedy trials and the certainty of punishment seems to be the
greatest deterrent to all type of crime, and especially narcotics offenders, in
Dallas County. With the creation of a third criminal district court and the fact
that our criminal dockets are in better shape than they have been in in recent
years, we are now able to give the defendant his constitutional right to a speedy
trial, which has resulted in his conviction in all cases tried during 1955, there
being no acquittals.
Our experience has shown that narcotics offenders more than any other type
offender are likely to commit offenses while out on bond awaiting trial. It seems
imperative that the trial judge be given some discretion in the denial of bail in
this type of offense, due to this fact, and the further fact that the narcotic habit
may be broken during the period of incarceration. This also makes it imperative
that priority be given to trial of the narcotics offenders, and this we are going in
Dallas County. This was not possible some years ago, when it was necessary to
wait for the Federal laboratory man from New Orleans to be in Dallas. Now
we have a chemist employed by the city of Dallas to make the analysis of the
drug involved and are also in the process of setting up a Dallas County crime
laboratory where the chemist will be available at any time to testify.
A problem of great concern that faces us at all times in narcotics prosecution
is that of being able to prove that a certain person is "in possession of" narcotics.
For example, where five known addicts are arrested in a house or room and narcotics are found on the floor or concealed in the house. Who is in possession?
As another example, when five people are riding in a car in which narcotics are
found, who has possession of the narcotics? As a practical matter usually one
of the persons will claim the whole quantity and all of the others will deny any
knowledge that the drug was present; the one taking the full responsibility on
himself and in the absence of other proof as to ownership and possession, make the
prosecution of the others almost impossible under our present law. This was
true in the Eddie Foy Crowell case. Ex-convict and known addict who was
arrested with four other addicts, Crowell claimed all the narcotics and pleaded
guilty and was sentenced to 10 years, the maximum penalty. Our records reflect
some 40 no-bills this year resulting from this situation, known legally as "lack of
sufficient evidence." These no-bills do not reflect a lack of police work, but
merely that the law requires that possession must be proved beyond a reasonable
doubt, the law making no provision for punishing one in company with another
who has narcotics in his possession. This is a difficult problem in law enforcement. It is apparent the law should be changed to make it a crime to be in a
house where narcotics are found or in an automobile or in company with one who
has possession of narcotics, or at least prima facie evidence of guilt the fact one iS
found present where narcotics are found. From the standpoint of statistics this
has resulted in a poor record of convictions compared to the number of cases
filed, but actually it is just a part of law enforcement, since this is not peculiar to
narcotics cases. Merely the arrest of an offender is good law enforcement. It
3025
part of the "heat" and "pressure" treatment. Having to make bond and hire
an attorney is expensive and runs up the overhead of crime. Anything that
keeps the pressure on criminals is good law enforcement, resulting in much inforiation and will lead eventually to conviction.
I feel that our situation is under control in Dallas. Bad as the picture is, we
know our problem and face it realistically. Our local vigorous enforcement
policy does not materially affect the nationwide drug traffic, but we think it at
least has kept the local area free of "big dealers." I have no evidence of a syndicate operation either in gambling, vice, or narcotics in Dallas. We feel that, our
agencies know who our criminals are, and that this knowledge is a large part of
the battle. However, at the present time our statutes provide that any person
sent to the penitentiary is eligible for parole after getting credit for one-third of
his time, and many of them, including narcotic addicts, are being released from
the penitentiary under these laws. It appears to me that the narcotic offender
is in a class apart from other criminals and that the law should be changed with
reference to his early parole, since the problem is either to cure him of his addiction or to keep him our of circulation for as long as possible.
I feel that our present narcotic law has been unjustly criticized at times, since
I know that at the time of its recent revision every effort was made to include
all of the various contingencies that might arise. For instance, under the most
recent law we have seized and confiscated five automobiles where narcotics were
found, and I feel, by and large, that. it is a good law. There is a tendency among
elected officials to blame the law for lax law enforcement and a poor record of
convictions. The same problem and difficulty of proof is presented in other
types of criminal cases as well as in narcotics. All of our laws are based on the
theory that it is more important to protect the innocent than to convict the
guilty. A good example of this is the difficulty of prosecuting a burglary case
based on recent possession of stolen property. If the jury believes that the
person came into possession of the stolen property either innocently or by purchase, a not guilty verdict results. Receiving and concealing stolen property
cases have always been a problem insofar as proving the guilty intent of the
accused. The robber presents his alibi, and difficulty of proof of identity casts
doubts in the minds of the jury.
Remember that in all cases, no matter what the law is, the State has the burden
of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Experience has
shown that juries will not impose extreme penalties on a young offender, and therefore a workable law must have a wide latitude of penalty. If the minimum
penalty is too high, juries may not convict even though guilt is proved, if the
defendant is a young first offender. This is what happend under the old "driving while intoxicated" prosecution, which was a felony. Much difficulty was experienced in getting juries to send these persons to the penitentiary. Better law
enforcement has resulted from the reduction of the minimum sentence possible.
It appears to me that our accomplices find accessories law could be written so
that one who furnishes narcotics to a criminal who commits another crime while
under the influence of the said narcotics would be hold liable as if he committed
the crime hiniself. In caes such as this, where the crime committed was that of
robbery with firearms, rape or murder, the narcotic peddler would be liable for
the death penalty.
Our recently enacted amendment to the narcotics law is unrealistic in one
particular. It provides probation for addicts conditioned on the addict receiving
treatment at a hospital. So far as I know, we have only the United States Public
Health Service hospital in Fort Worth available in this area to addicts. So far
as I know, at the present time there is no public hospital in Texas available for the
treatment of female narcotic addicts.
A growing problem in law enforcement in the Dallas area is that of goof balls
or barbiturate drugs. "Yellow jackets," "Red birds" and "Bennies" constantly
figure in our cases, probably to a much greater extent than narcotics, particularly
in cases involving juveniles and strangely enough those cases involving prostitution. We recently tried two murder cases in Dallas County involving teen-aVer
parties. The defendants, Charles Robbins and Ted Bell were both convicted-of
murder, Robbins getting 50 years and Bell 20 years in the pen. There was much
evidence of the use of barbiturate drugs and alcohol preceding the commission of
the murders. The use of this drug is complicated by the fact that one or more
disreputable doctors in Dallas furnish an unlimited source of supply of these drugs
with legal prescriptions. This situation led to the recent conviction of a doctor
for dispensing barbiturates in improperly labeled containers. The doctor was
3026
LLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
found guilty on 7 counts but was fined only $10 and costs in each count. And,
I imagine he is still operating from the same office, in the same manner, but probably is trying to label his containers properly. There is nothing in our barbiturate
law that I have been able to find that prevents doctors from giving a legal prescription for all the goof balls they want to on the spot.
Public complacency regarding goof balls is a large factor in our jury verdicts
for this type of offense. A prostitute was arrested with one of these drugs in
her possession and given a year in jail by a jury. Many good citizens were up
in arms because they did not know the background of the case, and the dangers
involved in the use of these drugs.
We recently convicted the operator of a bawdy house in Dallas County and
the jury assessed her a fine of $3,800 and 380 days in jail, and there was much
evidence concerning the use of barbiturates and narcotics among the prostitutes
who worked in this bawdy house.
During the first 9 months of 1955 my office convicted 58 persons for unlawful
possession of barbiturates for a total of $3,553 in fines and costs, and 721 days
in jail assessed. This indicates a terrific increase in the use of this drug from 1951
when we had no barbiturates cases, 1952 with 11 cases and 1953 with 14 cases
of this type. Goof pills, plus liquor, this year has caused teen-agers to commit
offenses ranging from prostitution to murder.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE COMMITTEE
1. The revision of our criminal laws so as to make any person guilty of possession of narcotics when they are present where narcotics are found, whether in a
house, in an automobile, or in company with the person in whose actual possession
it is found.
2. A revision of our laws so as to make the seller of narcotics guilty of any
crime committed by the purchaser while under their influence. This would carry
the death penalty where the crime resulted in rape, robbery or murder under our
present laws.
3. Our present law allows evidence of intoxication or use of narcotics to be
introduced as a mitigating circumstance. This law should be repealed.
4. The statutes that provide for parole eligibility after one-third of a penitentiary sentence should be taken away from the narcotic offender.
5. Judges should be allowed the right to deny bail to persons charged under
the narcotic act so as to keep them from getting out and committing other offenses
and also give them a period of time for treatment to check the narcotic habit.
6. Narcotic cases should be given priority over other cases in the State courts
because they contribute much to the commission of other crimes and should their
trials be delayed, they undoubtedly will still be committing other crimes with
reference to narcotics. In this connection it is my feeling that the certainty of
punishment is more important than the severity of punishment as a deterrent to
those who are committing crimes.
7. That some provision be made under our State or Federal laws for the providing of money for police officers to pay informers and be be used in making purchases of narcotics, which are necessary for the proper prosecution of these cases.
3027
ThLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

Narcotic Dispositions, Criminal District Court, 1955
Disposition
Name
I
Action I
Pleaded guilty before com- 3 years, Texas State Prison.

missioner.
2 years, Texas State Prison.
-- -. do .....
7331-JH....- John McMullen_
do ---------------------- ----- 3 years, suspended.
7382-IH ---- Willie Madden, Jr_
do
6663-I- ---- John Arthur Reese.......
do _
----6968-I- ---- William Franklin Burnett__
Do.
Lupe Adams ------------Jury trial -----------------7256-JI-6855-I- --- Marjorie Francis Ruh ------- Pleaded guilty before com- 3 years, suspended.
missioner.
......-- -- --- -- -- ------Harold Dean Clark ---------- .....- d
d oo --6414-HJ ---do.....................
Do.
7259-J .--- Manning O'Neal Bennett ---Quashed.
Vera Lois Daniels -----------7118-S
----736-JR ....- Alton R. Fields -------------- Pleaded guilty before com- 5 years, Texas State Prison.
missioner.
7479-JI-.. Joe Lee Madden ------------2 years, Texas State Prison.
----do ......................
Jury trial
7552-JH....-- Edwin L. LoftisPleaded guilty before com- 2 years' probation.
7569-JH ..--- Cecil Cotton ....
missioner.
do ---------------------------- Do.
7572-JH.... Tommie Jean Dawson ------- 5 years, suspended
do --- - - - - - - - - --7284-I- ---- J. C. M ize_
do ......
-----3 years' probation.
7890-1 ------ Jimmie R. Phillips .........
Quashed.
7475-JH...-- Ann L. Lilly .......
Jury trial-_
Charles L. Gouse-.
7668-JH --Cecil HousePleaded guilty before com- 3 years, Texas State Prison.
7820-HI --missioner.
3 years' probation.
----do
s004-HI --- Norman Level McKee --------d o ........ ..............--- Do.
8007-ITI --- Milton Moten_
Vera Lois Daniels_.
Jury trial.
7663- -----do
-----8 years, Texas State Prison.
8103-HJ- --- Nathaniel Farmer ----------................
-do6 years, Texas State Prison.
8078-HJ. - - Malcolm Lewis
Billie J. Pauling (Barb) ------ Pleaded guilty before com- $100 fine.
8085-HJ --missioner.
................
-do2 years, Texas State Prison.
4976-HI .... Dorothy Jean Jackson.
5 years, probation.
do ......
----8330-1 .--- Annie Pearl Winzer
Jury trial ....
8331-1 .--- Howard William Woods --7323-JH- -.- Tommy L. Harwell ---------- Pleaded guilty before com- 9 years, Texas State Prison.
missioner.
do_.
----8238-I- ---- Eddie Fay Crowell ---------do ....
7244-JHI___ Jo Ann Suggs_
8148-Hl- - - - C. Weldon Hughes ---------- Jury trial -------------8640-1 .--- Clifford Lee Stevenson------- Pleaded guilty before com- 3 years, probation.
missioner.
do ................
----- Do.
8568-1 .--- Joseph Weldon Bailey -------8169-Hl -.. Teddy Wayne Wilcher_......
do
Leonard Stanley Freeman -_- Jury trial ------------------- 2 years, Texas State Prison.
7650-V .Gee. Everitt Thomas -------- 5 years, Texas State Prison.
do --- - - - - - - - - --7008-IH- -
Alfred Sm ith ----------------
INo acquittals.
Narcotics case dispositions to Oct. 15, 1955, Dallas criminal district courts
No bills
Convictions
TSP
Years
1951 ------------------------------------------1952 ------------------------------------------1953 ------------------------------------------1954 ------------------------------------------Oct. 15, 1955------------------------------------
0
0
2
17
40
0
1
2
14
38
0
1
1
9
23
0
5
3
28
103
Total ------------------------------------
59
65
35
139
Summary
Jury trials, 1955
Years in penitentiaryAverage jury verdictIndictments pending
Complaints pending before the grand juryNot guilty--
10
51
5. 1
54
25
0
3028
Barbituratecase dispositions to Oct. 15, 1955, Dallas County Criminal Courts

Convictions
1951 .... ... ... ... .... ... ...

1952 -------------------------1953 ---------------------------1954--------------------------Oct. 1, 1955------ ---------------
Fines
Days in jail
Costs
Quashed or
dismissed
(-)(-)-)---2--(-
11
14
41
$226
360
1,285
2,237
180
245
705
721
258.50
329.00
940.00
1,316.00
1
4
12
124
4,108
1,851
2,843.50
42
-58
Total ---------------------No cases.
Has Tommy Hicks returned to the courtroom? Tommy Hicks.

The MARSHAL. Senator, he has been checked. He is not here.
They have checked the jails, to see if he is in the jails.
Senator DANIEL. All right, sir. Someone who knows him might
let him know that he is going to be held in contempt of this committee
if he isn't back here sometime this afternoon, as soon as possible.
William Lee Neiss? Is William Lee Neiss in the courtroom?
Bill Neiss?
Neal A eby.
Mr. AEBY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Are you the attorney for Mr. Aeby?
Mr. CLAYTON FOWLER. I am, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And will you give your name?
Mr. FOWLER. Clayton Fowler.

Senator DANIEL. All right. You may sit by the witness, Mr.
Fowler.
Mr. FOWLER. Thank you.
Senator DANIEL. You understand the rules of the Senate, that the
witness is permitted to counsel with you at any time?
Senator DANIEL. So long as you do not volunteer any counsel or
advice.
TESTIMONY OF NEIL AEBY
Senator
DANIEL. State your full name.

Mr. AEBY. Neil Edgar Aeby.
Senator DANIEL. And how do you spell
your name?
Mr. AEBY. A-E-B-Y.

Mr. AEBY. Seagoville, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you lived at Seagoville?
Mr. AEBY. Oh, about 3 months.

Mr. AEBY. Three months.
Senator DANIEL. And before that, where did you live?
Mr. AEBY. Mesquite.

Mr. AEBY. Mesquite, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. Are you a brother of Aubrey Aeby?
I I I I I
3029
Mr. AEBY. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. And where is Aubrey Aeby living?
Mr. AEBY. He is in the Federal penitentiary.
Senator DANIEL. Is he serving a Federal sentence on narcotics
charges?
Mr.
AEBY.
Senator
Mr.
Mr.
DANIEL.
AEBY.
Senator
I believe so.
I believe so.
DANIEL.
AEBY.
Along with his wife?

Do you know what length of sentences were given?
No, I don't.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know whether or not your brother was a

narcotic addict?
Mr. AEBY. No, I don't.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever use heroin with your brother?
Mr. AEBY. No, sir.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
AEBY.
Have you ever used heroin?
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever used marihuana?

Mr. AEBY. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever sold any heroin?
Mr.
AEBY.
Senator
No, sir.
DANIEL.
Have you ever sold any marihuana?
Mr. AEBY. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Now, I suppose your attorney has counselled
with you concerning the penalty for giving any untruthful statement
to this committee?
Mr. AEBY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. That is no insinuation that you have done that;
it is simply a reminder to you and to your attorney, who will advise
you that you would not be called before this committee if this committee did not have what it considered ample evidence that you had
some knowledge of the narcotic traffic here in Dallas.
Have you counseled with your attorney concerning the admonition
that I am giving you? I am sure that he has told you, if you talked
with him, that if you give an answer, that it be a truthful answer?
Mr.
AEBY.
Senator
heroin?
Yes, sir.
DANIEL.
Do you still say that you have never used any
Mr. AEBY. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Have you ever seen any heroin?
Mr. AEBY. Not that I remember. I might have seen it. I don't
even know what it is.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear anybody talk about heroin?
Mr. AEBY. Well, yes, sir, I heard some people talk about heroin.
Senator
DANIEL.
What did they call it?
Mr. AEBY. Heroin.

Senator DANIEL. Did they also refer to it as "stuff," and by different knicknames?
fr. AxBY. I believe they do.
Senator DANIEL. What do they call it?
Mr. AEBY. Heroin, I guess.
Senator
DANIEL.
AEBY. Not
Well, do you know anybody that uses heroin?
Mr.
just offhand.
know what they do, though.
I II I I
I know a lot of people; I don't
'3030
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, I just asked you if you know one person
who uses heroin.

Mr. AEBY. Well, I refuse to answer on the grounds it would incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Roy Sistrunk?

Mr. AEBY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you known him?
Mr.
AEBY.
Three or 4 years, I guess.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Dude Tacker?

Mr. AEBY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Were you in an automobile when a gasoline bomb
was thrown in front of a police car which was following you and those
two men recently?
Mr. AEBY. I refuse to answer.
Senator DANIEL. What's that?

Mr. AEBY. I refuse to answer on the ground it would incriminate
me.
Senator DANIEL. You claim your right under the fifth amendment?
Mr. AEBY. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. To refuse to answer on the grounds that a truthful

answer to that question might tend to incriminate you?
Mr. AEBY. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Were you in a car recently with Roy Sistrunk and
Dude Tacker?
Mr. FOWLER. May I counsel with him just a minute?
Senator DANIEL. He may counsel with you.

Mr. AEBY. All right.
Senator DANIEL. Anytime that he wants to counsel with you.
(Conference between Mr. Fowler and Mr. Aeby.)
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right.
What is the answer to that question?
Mr. AEBY. What was the last question?

Senator DANIEL. The question was whether or not you were recently
in an automobile with Roy Sistrunk and Dude Tacker.
Mr. AEBY. I refuse to answer that on the grounds that it would
tend to incriminate me, and I have got a case filed on it. I claim the
fifth amendment.
You don't need to add any further reasons. If
you want to plead the fifth amendment, that is recognized by this

committee.
Mr. AEBY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, you have told us quite freely, though, that
you never did use any heroin?
Mr. AEBY. I am not an addict, no.

Senator DANIEL. Well, you told me a minute ago you never had
used any heroin, you didn't even know what it was.

Mr. AEBY. That's what I mean. I don't know anything about it.
Senator DANIEL. You never have used any heroin, have you?
Mr. AEBY. I have never used any of it, never dealt with it, don't
know anything about it.
Senator DANIEL. You never even had any in your possession,
did you?
Mr. AEBY. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
would you?
You wouldn't even know what heroin looked like,
3031
Mr. AEBY. I imagine it is medicine, it is powder, pills.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know William Schoultze?

Mr. AEBY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. William Schoultze, do I pronounce that right?
Mr. AEBY. It is Schoultze.
Senator DAMNEL. Schoultze; weren't you recently arrested with him
in possession of heroin?
Mr. AEBY. I refuse to answer that on the ground it would tend to
incriminate me. I got that filed on me, too.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, you are relating that answer to the fact that
being arrested with him, and not to the sale of heroin, is that correct?
In other words, you are saying that you don't want to answer that
you were arrested with him, because of charges filed, because you
have already said that you were not selling any heroin?
(Conference between Mr. Fowler and Mr. Aeby.)
Mr. AEBY. This is a matter of public record, that I was arrested
with this man. Anything pertaining to the case I refuse to answer.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, the only thing about it is this, that you
have told us you didn't know what heroin was, you didn't have any
possession of heroin. You have waived any right under the fifth
amendment, or under any other grounds, in your testimony about
heroin, and I just asked you whether or not it wasn't true that you
were in possession of heroin with William Schoultze when you were
recently arrested after this bomb incident.
Mr. AEBY. You are asking me did I have possession of any narcotic?
Senator
DANIEL.
Weren't you arrested with some heroin in your
possession at that time?
Mr.
AEBY.
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did William Schoultze have it on him, the

heroin?
Mr. AEBY. I don't know. I think they filed it on him. It is a
matter of public record that he had some, I believe.
Senator DANIEL. Well, as a matter of fact, didn't you tell the chief
of the narcotics squad here, M r. Gannaway, that you had just recently
kicked the heroin habit?
Mr.
AEBY.
Senator
No, sir.
DANIEL.
You are testifying under oath that you did not
tell-do you know Lieutenant Gannaway here?

Lieutenant
GANNAWAY.
That's correct.
Senator DANIEL. This man here?

Mr. AEBY. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. And you are testifying under oath that you did
not tell him that you recently kicked the heroin habit?
Mr. AEBY. I hadn't told him that.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL. What?
AEBY. I hadn't told
Senator
DANIEL.
him that.
And you still want this record to stay as you
have made it, that you have never pushed or used any heroin?
Mr.
AEBY.
Senator
Mr.
Mr.
DANIEL.
AEBY.
Senator
You want that to stay as your answer?
Yes, sir.
DANIEL.
AEBY.
Senator
Yes, sir.
Have you ever used any other narcotic drug?
No, sir.
DANIEL.
Mr. AEBY. No.
Ever used, in your lifetime, marihuana?
3032
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever in your lifetime ever had posses-
sion of or used any type of narcotic drug?

Mr. AEBY. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Have you ever in your lifetime seen any mari-
huana?
Mr. AEBY. Well, I might have seen a picture of it, or something
like that, bp t I
Senator DANIEL. Well, have you ever in your lifetime had possession of any marihuana?
Mr. AEBY. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever in your lifetime had possession of
heroin, or any other type of narcotic drug?
Mr.
AEBY.
Senator
No, sir.
DANIEL.
Have you ever given anyone any money to buy
narcotics with?
Mr.
AEBY.
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you?

Mr. AEBY. No, sir.
Senatbi EASTLAND. Have you ever had an agent selling narcotics
for you?
Mr. AEBY. No, sir.
Senator EASTLAND. Ever got any money of any kind out of the
narcotics trade?
Mr. AEBY. No.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you want all these answers to stand as you
have given them, I suppose?

Mr. AEBY. I guess so.
Senator DANIEL. Who made the gasoline bomb that was thrown in
front of the police car recently?
Mr. AEBY. (Conference between Mr. Aeby and Mr. Fowler.) I
refuse to answer on the grounds it would incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. Does Roy Sistrunk use heroin?
Mr. AEBY. I refuse to answer. I don't know anything about his
business.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you have answered that you don't know
anything about his business. Don't refuse to answer and answer at
the same time. Now, let's do one or the other.
Mr. AEBY. Well, I couldn't---I couldn't tell you whether he is a
narcotic addict or not. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Well, that's what I wanted. That's the question;
Mr. AEBY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And you do not know whether he is a narcotic
addict or not?
Mr. AEBY. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, really, my question was whether or not you
know whether Roy Sistrunk used heroin or some narcotic.
Mr. AEBY. No, sir; I don't.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see him do it?
Mr. AEBY. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see Dude Tacker use heroin or any
other narcotic?
Mr. AEBY. No, sir.

ILLICITP NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
3033

Mr. SPEER. Did you ever see Aubrey Aeby use narcotics?
Mr. AEBY. No.
Mr. SPEER. You never lived with Aubrey Aeby?
Mr. AEBY. Did I ever live with him?
Mr. SPEER. Right.
Mr. AEBY. I am his brother. I lived with him up until I was 12
or 15 years old.
Mr. SPEER. How long ago was that?
Mr. AEBY. Fifteen years ago.
Mr. SPEER. How old are you now?
Mr. AEBY. I never lived directly with him. I rented a house one
time from him.
Mr. SPEER. You stayed with him in the same house?
Mr. AEBY. No, I rented this house from him one time.
Mr. SPEER. Did you ever stay with him in the same house?
Mr. AEBY. Well, I have stayed overnight with him, yes.
Mr. SPEER. Over how long a period of time did you ever stay with
him at one time?
Mr. AEBY. Well, I don't know.
On different occasions I have been
-to see him, I have stayed out to his house maybe a day or two, something like that. He is my brother. I have never kept track of just
exactly how many days I have stayed there; I never thought I would
have to answer that question.
Mr. SPEER. How long ago was that? How long ago was that day
or two?
Mr. AEBY. Well, I went to the penitentiary in 1951, or 1950, and
he went to the penitentiary since I got out. I haven't seen him since
1950.
Mr. SPEER. Did you see him after you got out, before he went to
the pen this last time?

Mr. AEBY. No. I went up to Leavenworth here a couple of months
.ago and visited him.
Mr. SPEER. Did you see him at home?
Mr. AEBY. Sir?
Mr. SPEER. Did you see him at home this last time, at your house
this last time?

Mr. AEBY. No, he has been in the penitentiary since I got out,
since I come home.
Mr. SPEER. Well, when was this time that you visited with him
for a day or two?
Mr.
AEBY.
Mr. SPEER.
1950.
Along in 1950?
Mr. AEBY. Yes, sir; 1949, 1950, somewhere along in there.
Mr. SPEER. Where was this place?
Mr. AEBY. Well, he owns a home out here on Ledbetter.
Mr. SPEER. How big a house is this?
Mr. ABEY. Oh, it has got a couple of bedrooms, and a living room
;and dining room and kitchen.
Mr. SPEER. And you shared-you lived in one of the bedrooms,
stayed in one of the bedrooms?
Mr. AEBY. No, I never lived in it in my life.
M'lr. SPEER. Did you ever see your brother cook up heroin?
I I I I
3034
Mr.

AEBY.
SPEER.
No.
Did you ever see him with a hypodermic meedle?

Mr.
Mr. ABBY. I think that that was his wife, that he-that was the
addict.
I don't believe that my brother was a narcotic addict.
Mr. SPEER. I didn't ask you if you believed he was a narcotic ad-
dict. I asked you if you had seen him with a needle.

Mr. AEBY. No. I never seen him shoot no narcotics.
Mr. SPEER. Did you ever see him with any heroin?
Mr. AEBY. No.
Mr. SPEER. As a matter of fact, your brother has been an.addict
ever since you can remember.

Mr. AEBY. I don't know whether he is an addict or not. I couldn't
tell one addict from another one. I don't know whether this man
over here is an addict or not.
Mr. SPEER.&hWell, why do you believe your brother is not an addict,
then?
Mr.
AEBY. I don't know.

Senator DANIEL. What did
you go tothe penitentiary for, on what
type of conviction?
Mr.
AEBY.
Burglary.

Mr. AEBY. Five years.
Senator DANIEL. How many did you serve?
Mr. AEBY. All of it.
Senator DANIEL. And you got out and got back to Dallas when?
Mr. AEBY. About 6 months ago, 7 months ago.
Senator DANIEL. Now, didn't Lieutenant Gannaway of narcotics
squad here in Dallas ask you how much heroin you were using recently?
Mr. AEBY. No. He asked me was I using some.
Senator DANIEL. He asked you that?
Mr. AEBY. He asked me up there in the office, right after he
arrested me one day. He said, "You using stuff now, Neil?"
And I told him, "No."
Senator DANIEL. What did he arrest you for?
Mr. AEBY. He arrested me for being with another boy, with another
fellow.
Senator DANIEL. Just for being with another fellow?
Mr. AEBY. No, this fellow, this Schoultze you was talking about
awhile ago, something about that. I don't know just what.
Senator DANIEL. He arrested you for being with Schoultze?
Mr.
AEBY.
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And charged you with possession of heroin, right?

Mr. AEBY. I believe it was conspiracy. He told me he was going to
file on me on something.
Senator DANIEL. You are out on bond now?
Mr. AEBY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How much bond?
Mr. AEBY. Twenty-five hundred, isn't it?
(Conference between Mr. Aeby and Mr. Fowler.)
Mr. AErtY. Fifteen hundred, I believe.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you work now?
Mr.
AEBY.
Yes, sir.
3035
Senator DANIEL. What type of work are you doing?

Mr. AEBY. I am selling soap.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been working?
Mr. AEBY. Well, since I got out of the penitentiary. I got out
about 6 months, 7 months ago.
Senator DANIEL. Have you done any other type of work since you
got'out?
Mr. AEBY. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, didn't you tell Mr. Gannaway that you had
kicked the habit, the heroin habit?
Mr. AEBY. No, sir; I didn't. I told him 1 wasn't using it.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't tell him that you had kicked the
habit?
Mr. AEBY. No.
Senator DANIEL. All right. You may stand aside, but remain
under subpena of the committee.
And the same thing is true of the rest of the witnesses who have
already been examined, and who are still in the courtroom. You
remain under this committee's subpena until we have excused you
specifically.
You may stand aside for the present time.
Lieutenant Gannaway, will you return to the witness stand?
Has this other witness returned to the courtroom, Tommy Hicks?

All right; come on over here a little closer to this chair. We will
be ready for you in just a minute.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM P. GANNAWAY, LIEUTENANT OF DETECTIVES, POLICE DEPARTMENT, DALLAS, TEX.-Continued
Senator
DANIEL.
Lieutenant Gannaway, we interrupted your testi-
mony to start putting on some other witnesses, and I guess we will be

interrupting it some more from time to time.
I want to ask you right now, the reason you are recalled, is as to
whether or not you know this young man who just left the stand,
Neil Aeby.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; I have known Neil Aeby for quite
some time.
Senator DANIEL. Since he got out of the penitentiary?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir. I have known him for many
years.
Senator
DANIEL.
And since he got out of the penitentiary, did you
talk to him about whether or not he was using heroin?

Lieutenant
Senator
GANNAWAY.
DANIEL.
Yes, sir.
Did he or not tell you that he had kicked the
heroin habit recently?

Lieutenant GANNAWAY. He told me that he was not using heroin,
that he had kicked his narcotic habit, or kicked his habit, rather.
Senator
DANIEL.
remember it.
Lieutenant
Tell us the entire conversation, the best that you
Did you write it down?

GANNAWAY.
No, sir; I didn't write it down.
I talked to him on the morning of his arrest. He was arrested out

at 1616 Baylor Street in Dallas by Detectives Stringfellow and
Frazier, in company with William Schoultze, and they had in their
Possession 16 capsules of heroin.
7 1 5 1 5-56-pt.
7-44
3036
I asked him how much he was using a day, and he said that he
wasn't using anything, that he had kicked his habit.
That was about the extent of the conversation.
Senator DANIEL. Now, who had the possession of this heroin?
LIEUTENANT GANNAWAY.
Schoultze had possession of the heroin
at the time of the arrest.

Senator DANIEL. Do you have any evidence that Neil Aeby 'had
possession of it at any time?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Neil Aeby drove an automobile that they
were driving in up to the place. And we had observed him coming
there from time to time. It was our information that he was making deliveries of heroin there.
I instructed Detectives Stringfellow and Frazier, along with J. C.
Slovak and F. M. Rose, two other narcotic officers, to go to that
address with a search warrant, and to search the place, and after they
had found the narcotic paraphernalia there, to bring all the people
that were present to the city hall.
I instructed Detectives Frazier and Stringfellow to remain there
at that location, and place a note on the front door, and I asked them
to let the note read: "I have gone to Skillern's store, and will be back
in a few minutes. The backdoor is open."
Shortly thereafter, I am told by their report, Aeby and Schoultze
came up and read the note, and went around to the backdoor and
walked in, and they were placed under arrest immediately, and
Schoultze had two finger stalls containing 16 capsules of heroin.
We went out there with the information, that is, the officers did,
went out there with the information that he would make a delivery
at that particular time.
Senator DANIEL. That who would?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. That Neil Aeby and William Schoultze.
Senator DANIEL. Would make the delivery of heroin at that time?

Senator DANIEL. Now, before that-well, let me ask you this:
On your records, do you carry Neil Aeby as a narcotic addict?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; we carry him as a user.
Senator Daniel. As a user of narcotics?
Senator DANIEL. What type of drug?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Heroin.
Senator DANIEL. And is that information compiled over the years
from your arrests and various evidence that you get?
Senator DANIEL. And what about Roy Sistrunk?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Roy Sistrunk?
Senator DANIEL. Do you carry him as an addict on your records?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; we carry Roy Sistrunk as an
addict on our records.
Senator DANIEL. Is there any question in your mind about whether
he is a narcotic addict?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. No, sir; there is no question in my mind
but what he is a narcotic addict.

Senator DANIEL. What about Dude Tacker?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Dude Tacker uses narcotics also.
3037
Senator DANIEL. Now, were these three men-Roy Sistrunk, Dude

Tacker, and Neil Aeby-recently in a chase with police here in Dallas?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; they were.
Senator DANIEL. Now, without going into any detail on it, was
that the occasion in which there was a gasoline bomb thrown in front
of the patrol wagon?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Now, I was iuader the impression that it
was a part of a nitroglycerin stick, or I'believe they call it gelatin
dynamite. Now, I could be wrong.
Senator DANIEL. Where are the officers who were in that chase?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. They are working.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I would like to have one of them come here
and give us the facts, simply for this reason: It is not important to
this congressional hearing except for this one reason, and that is to
show whether or not narcotic addicts and users can be dangerous
people or not.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you have testified you think that they
can be; right?
Senator DANIEL. All right. We will let you testify later about
quite a few others, if you will step aside again; and if, sometime this
afternoon or tomorrow, you will have one of the officers who knows
the facts concerning this bomb.
Senator DANIEL. Tommy Hicks.
truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
do.
I
HICKS.
Mr.
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS ODELL HICKS
Mr. Hics. Thomas Odell Bond Hicks.

Mr. f ICKS. I lived at-my last address was 8726 Garland Road.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you lived there?
Mr. HICKS. About a month.

Senator DANIEL. And where did you live before that?
Mr. HICKS. Before that it was 7200 Bagley.
Mr. HICKS. Yes, sir.
Senator
How long did you live there?

Mr. HICKS. Two or three weeks.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Hicks, have you been a narcotic addict?
DANIEL.
Mr. HICKS. Well, could I ask you a question before I answer that?
Senator DANIEL. Well, you may.
Mr. HICKS. The State has got a law now that if you are an addict,
they can put you in the penitentiary for it.

Does this information have anything to do with me being convicted as an addict later on?
Senator DANIEL. Well, this
information might be used against
case.
State
a
in
someone
by
you
3038
ThLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
Senator DANIEL. It might be used. However, that is not the

purpose of us getting this information.
The purpose of us being here is to try to find out how the narcotics
traffic works. We would like to have your assistance in giving us
your answers to the questions.
Mr. HICKS. I would.be gad to, but not under oath, because I don't
want to be punished for something I tried to help you out for.
Senator DA__NIEL. In other words, you feel that a truthful answer
to the question as to whether you have been a narcotic addict might
tend to incriminate you?
Mr. HICKS. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Under the new Texas law?
Senator DANIEL. And therefore, do you want to claim your right
under the fifth amendment?
Senator
DANIEL.
And refuse to answer?
Mr. HIcxs. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
You will be permitted to do that.
Now, there are some questions that I am going to ask you that I
hope you will not feel that they would incriminate you, and that you
will give truthful answers to this committee on.
I might say this to you, Mr. Hicks: It could be that truthful
answers, even though they would tend to incriminate you, are not
going to make matters any worse for you, if the evidence that this
committee has is correct. We would not have called you in here
had we not had evidence sufficient in our minds to warrant us to ask
you to come in here and give us this information.
Senator DANIEL. We wouldn't call you in and ask you if you had
ever sold heroin
Mr. HICKS. Sir?

Senator DANIEL. We wouldn't call you in and ask you had you
ever sold heroin, if we didn't have evidence that you had; and we
wouldn't ask you if you were a narcotic addict if we didn't have evidence that you were.
In other words, my point is this: This committee's idea is that
whatever you say here to us about these matters is not going to be
necessary to be used against you in any trial.
Do you see what I mean?
Senator DANIEL. You know there is evidence other than what
you say yourself that is going to bear on whether or not you are going
to be convicted under a heroin charge; don't you?
Mr. HICKS. Yes, sir. A month from now, Senator Daniel, if I
would start to being an addict, can this record be used against me?
Senator DANIEL. Yes, it could be, and therefore I don't want you
to say whether or not you are an addict or you ever have been.
But I am going to ask you some other questions I do hope you
will answer.
Mr. HIcvs. I see.
Senator DANIEL. They might be used against you, too, you see,
but you have already told the law some of the questions I will ask
you here.
Ih'.
HICKS.
All right.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS. TRAFFIC
3039
Senator DANIEL. For the purposes of the Congress, I want to ask

ou over again. I will ask you if it isn't true that you have sold
eroin here in Dallas.
Mr. HIcKs. No, sir.
Mr. HicKs. I haven't, what you called sold it; no.
Senator
DANIEL.
Just tell me what your experience has been.
Mr. HICKS. Well, I have been under a doctor's care for 2 years,
and I don't know who sent them there and I don't care, they came in
to my place sick, and I have given away more narcotics than I ever
what you would call sell.
Senator DANIEL. You have given away more than you have sold?
Mr. HICKs. Yes, sir; because they were sick.
Senator DANIEL. What kind of narcotics did you give?
Mr. HICKS. Dilaudid.
Senator DANIEL. And were you getting the dilaudid from a doctor
here in town?
Senator DANIEL. Did he know what was wrong with you?
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you tell him that you were an addict?
I had a blood transfusion for my condition
the 18th of last month, and I have proof here to show for it. A man
don't have blood transfusions unless there is something wrong with
them, do they?
Senator DANIEL. What did you have wrong?
Mr. HICKS. A blood transfusion from the loss of blood from vomiting blood, and hemorrhaging.
Senator DANIEL. And your doctor gave you dilaudid for it?
Mr. HICKS. Well, for the pain; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did the doctor know that you had been addicted
to drugs before?
Mr. IIICKS. I don't think so.
Senaitr DANIEL. Did you tell him?
Mr. HICKS. No, sir.
Senator
you not?
DANIEL.
You know that dilaudid is an addicting drug, do
Senator DANIEL. It is an opiate, one of the worst opiates when

wrongfully used?
Senator
DANIEL.
You know that?
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
HICKS.
One of the strongest?
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. How many dilaudid capsules did you use a day?
Mr. HICKS. Well, that would depend. They wasn't no certain
amount, it was just different amounts.
Senator DANIEL. You just used whatever you wanted to?
Mr. HICKS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did he prescribe it
Mr. HICKS. I just used what I figured was necessary for my con-
dition.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
HICKS.
Over a long period of time?
Well, ever since I have been sick.
3040
Senator DANIEL. How long ago was that, when you got sick?
Mr. HICKS. It's been right at 2 years now.
Senator DANIEL. This same doctor has been prescribing dilaudid
for you?
Mr. HICKS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. For
Mr. HICKS. No, sir.
2 years?
Well, how long did the first doctor give it to you?

Mr. HICKS. About a year.
Senator DANIEL. How many dilaudid tablets did he prescribe for
you?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. HICKS. Anywhere from-I don't-I just don't know how many
that I got over that period of time.

Senator DANIEL. Well, when you would go to see him, what would
you tell him you needed it for?
Mr. HICKS. I would tell him I needed my medicine.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever tell him that you had been addicted
to drugs?
Mr. HICKS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You never did?
Mr. HICKS. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Well, what did you tell him ailed you?
Mr. HICKS. I didn't tell him. He told me.
Senator DANIEL.
What?
Mr. HICKS. He told me.

Senator DANIEL. Well, what did he tell you was wrong with you?
Mr. HicKs, Well, out at the Parkland Hospital, they told me that
I-there wasn't any actual proof of what I had, but from all the
symptoms, I might have a malignant stomach and liver.
They wanted to cut a hole in me and take out part of my liver and
analyze it, and then tell me what was wrong with me.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did this doctor finally quit writing prescriptions for you for dilaudid?
Senator DANIEL. When did he quit?
Mr. HICKS. The 17th of last month, I believe it was.
Senator DANIEL. And then did you get another doctor to write them
for you?
Mr. HICKS. Not-I have got some since then; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. From how many doctors?

Mr. HICKS. Just one.
Senator DANIEL. What did you tell him was wrong?
Mr. HICKS. I just showed him what the Parkland people told me,
and what I had been told in the past.
Senator DANIEL. Now, you say that you took this dilaudid yourself?
Mr. HicKs. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And you gave away some of it?

Senator DANIEL. Well, about how many people did you give it to)"
Mr. HICKS. Oh, not over 3 or 4 or 5, something like that.
Senator DANIEL. What was their ailment?

Mr. HICKS. They was sick.
Senator DANIEL. They were drug addicts, weren't they?
3041
Mr. HICKS. I imagine they were. I couldn't prove it.

Senator DANIEL. I know; I am not asking you to prove it, but,
now, don't you know they were drug addicts?
Mr. HICKS. Well, I had the understanding that they were.
Senator DANIEL. That's what they told you?
Mr. HICKS. Sure.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't they?
Senator DANIEL. Now, this doctor that gave you dilaudid tablets
over a period of a year, didn't he know you were a drug addict?
Mr. HICKS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't you tell him?
Mr. HICKS. No, sir. I asked Mr. Heddens
Mr. HICKS. I went to the Federal officer, Mr. Heddens, and told
him my conditions, and told him that there was three different doctors that passed their opinion, and asked him if it would be all right
for me to obtain the medicine that was necessary for me.
He told me that he couldn't tell me yes and he couldn't tell me no.
So I went to the druggist, and the druggist called him and talked
to him, and told him what the doctors had told him, and what he
thought, that I was in a pretty bad shape, and so Mr. Heddens told
him to use his own judgment.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, now, I am glad you have told us about the
dilaudid, but what I really called you here for was to tell us about
the heroin.
Mr. HICKS. I can sure tell you that.
Senator DANIEL. Well, tell us what you know about it.
Mr. HICKS. Well, on the 17th day of last month, I had a brand
new Bel Air Chevrolet, and I had a $4,000 trailer; I was apaying on
it. That was the most I have ever had in these 55 years that I have
been on this earth.
I went to the drugstore and gave the druggist a prescription covering my medicine, and the doctor that was prescribing for me was
stricken with a stroke, a light stroke, to where he couldn't prescribe
any more.
So he told me: "Thomas," he said, "You better save this and make
it go as far as you can, because I cannot continue. I will probably
beat you to the grave."
So I gave it to the druggist, and the druggist prescribed, filled it,
and I left part of the medicine there, and in a 2 or 3 weeks' period I
went back to get the rest of my medicine, and Lt. Pat Gannaway
arrested me and my wife as she sat down in my car, and took a bottle
of dolophine from her and confiscated my car.
I have lost my home; I haven't even got enough to eat on right
now. That throwed me back to using heroin. I was already under
the doctor's care for medicine, so what was I to do but to try to
obtain it through illegal channels?
Senator
DANIEL.
You had used heroin previous to using dilaudid?
Mr. HICKS. When I couldn't get it; yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
How many years have you used heroin?
Mr. HICKS. Well, I couldn't answer that.

DANIEL. Well, just about how many?
Mr. HICKS. Oh, not over 3 or 4 years. During a 3- or 4-year
period, I wouldn't know.
Senator
3042
Senator
dilaudid?
DANIEL.
Three or four years before you started using
Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I am talking about between a period of 3 or 4
years when I couldn't get other medicine, I would have to fall onto
that, you know, like today, maybe next week or next month, once or
twice, you know.
Senator DANIEL. When is the last time you got any heroin; used
it for yourself?
Mr. HICKS. Well, it hasn't been very long.
Senator
heroin.
DANIEL.
About 2 or 3 weeks.
Well, what I am mainly interested in is the
Mr. HICKS. See, during the First World War, right after the First
World War, I was in the Balboa Base Hospital in San Diego, Calif.,
under treatment and became what you would call addicted to narcotics through the Federal doctors.
That's been 35 years ago, and now, then, they are trying to shoot
me or hang me or throw me in the penitentiary for the rest of my
life for something that I couldn't help.
Senator DANIEL. And you became addicted, then; did you try to
get treatment for it?
Mr. HICKS. There wasn't any treatment, no more than-not as
much then as there are now.

Senator
DANIEL. Well,
have you been addicted off and on ever
since World War II?

Mr. HICKS. World War I.
Senator DANIEL. Since World War I, I mean.

Mr. HICKS. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL. Well,
you know there are two Federal hospitals
now for narcotic treatment.

Mr. HICKS. That's true enough; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever tried to go to one of those?
Mr. HICKs. Yes, sir.
Senator.DANIEL. Which one did you go to?
Mr. HICKS. Fort Worth.
Senator DANIEL. How long did you stay there?

Mr. HICKS. Three days.
Senator Daniel.
Why did you leave?
Mvr. HICKS. Well, because if you was-if your body was craving
food, what would you do, go to it, or just stay where you was at?
Senator DANIEL. Was your body craving heroin?
I wouldn't say heroin; it was something.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what had you been on?
Mr. HICKS. No; I had been using morphine at that time.
Mr. HICKS. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
Your body was craving drugs?
Mr. HICKS. Certainly.
Senator DANIEL. So rather than stay for the treatment, you left
to get the drug?
You were in on a voluntary commitment, then?

Senator DANIEL. Well, a voluntary commitment to one of these
Federal hospitals just doesn't do an addict very much good, does it?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. HICKS. Yes, it does.

Senator DANIEL. What good did it do you?
3043
Mr. HICKS. It didn't do me any good, because I didn't stay long

enough.
Senator DANIEL. Well, the way I should put that question is, the
voluntary patient who does not stay.
Senator DANIEL. And who wants to leave.
Senator DANIEL. You know you can leave.
Mr.
HICKS.
That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Just like you did.

Senator
DANIEL.
That kind of commitment, with a person who
does not want to stay and will not stay, certainly will not help him
much, will it?
Mr. HICKS. Well no But if you really made up your mind and
went over there and stayed, it would be good.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right.
Did you ever go back to one of the
hospitals?
Mr.
HICKS.
Senator
No, sir.
DANIEL.
For treatment?
Mr. HICKS. Never did have a chance.

Senator DANIEL. Well, what do you mean, you never had a chance?
I have always-I am married, and I have a wife to
support, and I don't like to see her do a lot of things that other people
do, and under the conditions that I have to live, it taken up all of my
time looking for dope, as high as it is.
Senator DANIEL. Well, how in the world did you make enough
money to buy dope, as high as it is?
Mr. HICKS. Well, that's another question.
Senator DANIEL. Well, that's exactly what I want to get into,
because here is what this committee is interested in: We have just
been to San Antonio, we have been to Austin
Mr. HICKS. I have been down there, too.
Ir.
HICKS.
Senator
DANIEL.
Sir?
Mr. HICKS. I just come from there, too.

Senator DANIEL. I know you have, and we want to ask you about
some of the people you bought heroin from over there, especially
with reference to one person Who we found was selling dope to a minor
from Austin, a person under 21 years of age, and I am talking about a
woman in San Antonio named Samona Cavassos.
Did y9ou ever know of Samona?
Senator
Does she sell heroin?

Mr. HICKS. I don't know about that.
Senator DANIEL. Did she sell heroin?
DANIEL.
Mr. HICKS. I don't know about that.

Senator DANIEL. Well, you know that you
Mr. HICKS. I know there's more people there than Samona.
Senmtor DANIEL. Well, do you. know, Saimna?
Senator DANIEL. I want to ask you about the rest of them.
Mr. HICKS. All right.
Senator
DANIEL.
But I want to start off with Samona.
Mr. HICKS. All right.
3044
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Senator DANIEL. Because Samona Cavassos, she is in jail now, I

am glad to say, but this committee happens to have evidence that she
was selling to minors.
Now, you know that you have taken an oath to tell this committee
the truth.
Mr. HICKS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And I want to go back to her, about your buying
from her, because we have evidence that you did.
Mr. HICKS. WellSenator DANIEL. And I just want to ask you the question again,
if you didn't get some heroin from Samona Cavassos.
Mr. HICKS. No.
Mr. HICKS. Not from Samona Cavassos.
Senator DANIEL. Within the last 20 days?
Mr. HICKS. No, sir, or in the last 50 years.
Senator DANIEL. Well maybe they are mistaken about it, but
didn't you tell Mr. Heddens of the Federal-you know Mr. Heddens
of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics?
Mr. HiCKS. Yes, sir, I know him well.
Senator DANIEL. Is Mr. Heddens here in the room?
Mr.
HEDDENS.
Senator
Yes, sir.
DANIEL.
Stand up, please.
Is this the Mr. Heddens you are talking about?

Mr. HICKS. Yes, sir, that's him.
Senator
DANIEL.
And Lieutenant Gannaway; he is sitting back
here.
Mr. HICKS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't you tell them that you had been buying
heroin from Samona Cavassos?
Mr. HICKS. No. Sure didn't.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what about Samona?
Mr. HICKS. We discussed the case with her.
Senator DANIEL. All right. What did you tell them about where
you got your heroin in San Antonio?
Mr. HICKS. Well, it wasn't just brought up-they didn't ask me
exactly where I got it. They just-we were just talking, the day I
made bond, and they said-I said, "Where you got Samona, in jail?"
They said, "Yes, we found so much of this and that," and asked me
if I knew her, and I said yes.
Senator DANIEL. A little bit louder.
MAr. HICKS. They asked me if I knew her, and I told them yes, I
knew her, and I had been down there to her place. She has a beer
place.
Senator DANIEL. What is the name of her beer place?
Mr. HICKS. I never noticed that. It is just a place to go and sit
down and drink.
Senator DANIEL. All right. What did you tell him? What else
did you tell him?
Mr. HICKS. I don't know what I told him, what else. That's been
a long time ago. If it happened over yesterday, that's history, to me.
Senator DANIEL. Well, how did you know that was Samona's
place?
Mr. HicKS. Well, from all the indications,
what people told me.
3045
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever meet Samona?
Mr. HIcKs. I have seen what they said was Saniona.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did somebody tell you, "This is Samona"?
Mr. HICKS. That's right-no, I wasn't introduced to her personally.

Senator DANIEL. Well, just how did you know this person was
rSamona?
Mr. HICKS. Because the people around there, in the front of the
place and all, told me it was.

Senator DANIEL. Did they tell you she sold heroin?
Mr. HICKS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, who did you buy heroin from, then, in San
Antonio?
Mr. HICKS. Who?
Senator DANIEL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HICKS. I couldn't tell you that.

Senator DANIEL. Well, we are asking you to tell us. You said that
other people over there are selling it; you just said that a minute ago.
You volunteered that information.
Mr. HICKS. I said who was selling it?

Senator DANIEL. You said there were other people besides Samona
selling it in San Antonio.

Mr. HICKS. They are, but I don't know who all they are.
Senator DANIEL. I just want you to name one of them.
Mr. HICKS. I can't do that.
Mr. HICKS. Because I can't.
Senator DANIEL. Well, why? Have you forgotten?
Mr. HIcKs. Well, not exactly that, but I don't know that there has
,ever been any proof that I ever bought any from them.
I could have went to a friend of mine, and had him to have went
-and got it, and he could have told me who he got it from, couldn't he?
Senator DANIEL. Yes, you sure could have done it that way.
But, what I am asldng you for is to tell this committee under oath
how you did do it, how you did get your heroin from San Antonio
which you brought back to Dallas.
Mr. HICKS. Well, I am not going to sit here and just flat snitch on
somebody, if that's what you want me to do.
My life wouldn't be worth 15 cents after that.
There's people in
this courtroom that hears this, and all over this air and everywhere.
couldn't do that.
Senator DANIEL. You say some people here in the courtroom that
are hearing this case might do something to you?

Mr. HICKS. Well, I don't know. There has been things done like
that, you know.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you are the one that said there are people
here in this courtroom who might do something.

Mr. HICKS. Well, I don't know. There may be.
take any chances.
I ain't going to
Senator DANIEL. Have you had any threats on your life or on your
body?
Mr. HICKS. No.
Senator DANIEL. If you told on anybody, here before this committee?
Mr. HICKS. No.
3046
Mr. HICKS. You don't have to have a threat on you, Mr. Daniels.
They don't have to-they wouldn't warn you ahead of time.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you just don't want to name the people you
bought from?
Mr. HICKS. Well, that's right.
Mr. HIcKS. That wouldn't do me any good, or you.
Senator DANIEL. Because you feelMr. HICKS. Because you already know them.
Senator DANIEL. Because you feel it might endanger your own life?
Senator DANIEL. Well, I am not going to press you any further to
name them, then, under those circumstances.
I am going to ask you to tell us about it without the names. Is it
pretty easy to buy heroin in San Antonio?
Senator DANIEL. Well, just tell us how easy it is.
Mr. HICKS. Well, it is easy enough, if you got $25.
Senator DANIEL. How much do you have to pay for your heroin iii
San Antonio?
Mr. HICKS. Twenty-five to twenty-eight a gram.
Senator DANIEL. And how many grams would you buy on each
trip?
Mr. HICKS. All I could get at once.
Senator
DANIEL.
How much did it run at times?
Mr. HICKS. That's all 1 had.

Mr. HICKS. That's all the money I could afford, would buy 1 or 2
grams.
Senator
Well, you didn't buy it just for yourself?

Mr. HICKS. I sure did. Senator Daniels, I am a six-timedloser in
the penitentiary. I have got as bad a record as any man here. I am
not proud of it, I am embarrassed to tell you this. But on my record
you will not find where I sold one grain. I have never been convicted of selling just one grain of any kind of narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. Well, if the committee did not have evidence
which led it to believe that you had either sold or given some to someone here to sell in Dallas, I doubt that we would have had you before
the committee today.
Mr. HICKS. Well, I can't help what somebody tells you.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Bouchie?
DANIEL.
Mr. HICKS. Bouchie?
Yes, sir.

Mr. HICKS. Oh, 3 or 4 months.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever give him any heroin?
Mr. HICKS. I couldn't tell you that.
Mr. HICKS. Well, because.
Semator DANIEL. Well, you would be in contempt of this.-'mmittee if you don't tell us without any reason. We can't just take
"because."
Mr. HICKS. All right, I will give you a reason.
Mr. HICKS. The State has got a law that they will send that boy
to the penitentiary if they can prove that he is an addict.
3047
Well, I am not going to be the cause of him going down there, and
have other people jumping on me about it. That would incriminate
my life.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you are not being the cause of it, Mr.
Hicks.
Mr. HICKS. Well, that's the way I look at it.
Senator DANIEL. This committee is being the cause of it. You
didn't come in here voluntarily, did you?
Mr. HICKS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. We subpenaed you, didn't we?

Senator DANIEL. We have you here under oath, don't we?
Senator DANIEL. You are not volunteering any information on
Bouchie, are you?
Mr. HICKS. I am sure not.
Senator 'DANIEL. He is sitting here in this courtroom; he knows
you are not. He knows when I order you to answer that question,
that you are having to do so.
Therefore I am going to ask you and order you to answer the
question whether or not you ever gave any heroin or sold any heroin
to Bouchie.
I want to tell you this: I didn't ask you to name those people
when you thought your life was in danger. As far as I know, none
of them are here; they don't know how you would have happened to
have named them. But this man Bouchie is sitting here.
Mr. HICKS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. He knows I am ordering you to name him, and
it is not your fault.
So I am asking you to tell me whether you ever gave him any
heroin or not. I don't think he would do anything to you if you
gave'a truthful answer, do you?
Mr. HICKS. Yes, I do.
Senator DANIEL. You do?
Mr. HICKS. Yes. I know one thing, I would do something to him.
Mr. HICKS. I would probably do something to him, if he told that
on me.
Senator DANIEL. You mean you would do bodily harm to somebody
who told on you?
Mr. HICKS. Well, wouldn't you, to people that sent you to the
penitentiary for life?
Senator DANIEL. It was said there were about 400 thousand addicts
before the Harrison Act.
Mr. HICKS. Four thousand?
Senator DANIEL. About 400 thousand.
Mr. HICKS. All right. Would you mind looking back through
the past, from the time the act was passed backwards, and see how
many violent crimes was committed by the addict when he could
go buy a quarter's worth and that would last him for a week?
Senator
DAN IEL.
Well, according to the evidence that is before this
committee, Mr. Hicks, things were worse back there when narcotics
were easier to get.
Mr. HICKS. Well, was that violent crimes?
3048
Senator DANIEL. Things were lots worse; we had a lot, more addict,
a lot more lives were destroyedd by drug addiction before we had the
present narcotic act. We have fewer today, even though we have
too many.
Frankly, after hearing you testify, I think you can give us ibore
information about the drug traffic in this country than a lot of officers,
a dozen officer,. put togeth ,r, because you have experienced the
horrors of drugs. haven't you-?
Senator DANIEL. And you wouldn't want nniy boy of yours, or
anybody's, ever to go through what you have gone through, would
you?
Mr. HICKS. Never: never.
Senator DANIEL. You say you have taken 6 prison raps on it?
Senator DAX1 IEL. Is that right?
Mr. HICKS. Not on dope.
I did 6 times in the penitentiary obtain-
the money to purchase dope with.

Senator DANIEL. And everytime it was going out and violating th-
law?
Senator DANIEL. To go buy dope?
Mr. HICKS. And the most violent crime I ever committed was steal-
ing a car.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, you understand that, the question which tli
Chair has asked you, you cannot take the fifth amendment on and
you cannot refuse to answer?
Mr. HICKS. No, I don't understand.
Mr. GASQUE. The fifth amendment can be invoked only to protect

yourself, and not another person.
Mr. HICKS. Well, if that wouldn't be incriminating my life, I
don't know what you would call it, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, let me just tell you now why we have called
youWehere.
were told that you knew something about the heroin
traffic
between Dallas and San Antonio, and that is why you are called
before the committee.
Senator DANIEL. Tell us all that you can about that traffic.
How often did you go over to get your heroin?

Mr. HICKS. Well, I only made a trip or two down to San Antoni&
sir, in fact, because I have always been able to obtain what I use
through a doctor. ' But Senator DANIEL. Now, isn't it true that you were supplying this
group of colored people who testified today? Weren't you supplying,

them heroin through Bouchie, who was peddling it for you?
Mr. HICKS. No, I wasn't. supplying it.
Senator DAN\IEL. Well, did you give Bouchie or sell him any heroin?
Mr. HICKS. I am going to take the fifth amendment on me ther-e,
because I don't want them to do me no bodily harm.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you can't 'plead the fifth amendment for
that reason, just. because you don't want someone to do you bodily
harm.
I told you we weren't going to order you to answer a question,
but Bouchie is here in the courtroom while you are telling this, and I
want you to tell us.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
3049
TRAFFIC
Mr. HICKS. No, I never give him none.
Senator DANIEL. You never gave him any heroin?

Mr. HICKS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever sell him any?
Mr. HIcKs. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Now, those are truthful answers?

Senator DANIEL. Didn't you tell Lieutenant Gannaway that you
had sold some heroin to Bouchie?
Mr. HICKS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You realize that if you are giving us untruthful
answers, you would be liable for perjury?
Mr; HICKS. I really do.
Senator DANIEL. And therefore you say to us that you (lid not tell
Lt. Gannaway that you gave heroin to Bouchie to peddle for you?
Mr. HICKS. I sure didn't. If I had told him that, he could have
arrested me.
Sen~opr DANIEL. Mr. Counsel, do you have any questions?
Mr. GASQUE. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator
DANIEL.
You stay under subpena, though, of this committee, because we

probably will have some more questions, Mr. Hicks.
(Short recess.)
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Sellman, will you take the stand?
Mr. Counsel, swear the witness.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
Mr. SELMAN. I do.
Senator
DANIEL.
Will you be seated, sir?
TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE R. SELMAN, PATROLMAN, POLICE

DEPARTMENT, DALLAS, TEX.
Senator DANIEL. Will you state your full name.
Mr. SELMAN. Lawrence R. Selman.
Senator DANIEL. And what position do you hold?
Mr. SELMAN. Patrolman.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Neil Aeby?
Mr. SELMAN. I do.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know a boy named Sistrunk?
Mr.
SELMAN.
I do.
Senator DANIEL. Were those two together recently on a chase

that you made after them?
Mr. SELMAN. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Who else was with them?
Mr. SELMAN. There was Dude Tacker, Roy
Sistrunk, and Neil
Aeby.
Senator DANIEL. Just relate exactly how you happened to be
trying to arrest them, and what happened in the way of a chase.
3050
Mr. SELMAN. They approached the circle out on the north end of
town from the west direction, came around the circle, and headed
north on 77.
We recognized their car, pulled up alongside them, and Neil Aeby
was driving.
He looked over his shoulder at us and rolled his window up, and
increased his speed to 101-105 miles per hour, all the way up to Lewisville.
Senator DANIEL. One hundred and 105 miles an hour?
Senator
DANIEL.
And Neil Aeby was driving?
Senator
DANIEL.
And where were the other boys sitting?
Roy Sistrunk was-we didn't see him at first; he was

laying down in the back seat of the car.
Dude was up on the right-hand side, along-on the front seat with
the driver.
Mr. SELMAN.
Senator
DANIEL. All right.

Tell us just
SELMAN. Well, just before we got to
what happened.
Lewisville, I guess about
Mr.
10% miles outside of or away from the circle where we had first started
trying to apprehend them, they threw a paper sack out of the car,
and the contents of the sack went all over the car and alongside the
road, and part of it was on the windshield of the car, and the other
car.
Senator DANIEL. Your car?
Mr. SELMAN. Yes, sir. Part of it was left inside of their car as it
went out the side vent; it was on the dash of the car.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you later find out what it was?
Mr. SELMAN. Yes, sir. We went back after we apprehended them,

and that was, the paper and the contents that it was wrapped in, it
showed to be 40-60 percent jelled nitro, jelled dynamite.
Mr.
SELMAN.
60-40.
Senator DANIEL. 60-40 of jelled dynamite?

Mr. SELMAN.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did it explode?

Mr. SELMAN. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. It was an explosive, though?

Senator DANIEL. And if it had been properly thrown, it might have?
There has been testimony that these 3 boys have

been users of heroin.
Senator
DANIEL.

Senator DANIEL. Do you know them on the police records, and to bp
users of heroin?
Senator DANIEL. You were brought here simply to show what some
users of heroin will do.
Do you think, there, that if that bomb had been properly handled,
that it could have destroyed your life and that of the man who was
with you?
Mr. SELMAN. I have heard it said it could.
Senator DANIEL. Is that what the chemist told you after checking
it?
3051
Senator DANIEL. All right, that's all.
Do you have any questions, Mr. Counsel?

Senator DANIEL. That's all; you may stand aside.
Mr. Counsel, call the next witness.
Mr. GASQUE. William Francis Schoultze.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this
subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
Mr. SCHOULTZE.
Yes, sir.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM FRANCIS SCHOULTZE

Mr. GASQUE. What is your full name?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. William Francis Schoultze.
Mr. GASQUE. Where were you born?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. McGregor, Tex.
What date?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. February the 9th, 1918.
Mr. GASQUE. Where are you presently residing?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Well, I am in jail presently.
.Mr. GASQUE.
Mr. GASQUE. Where?

Mr. SCHOULTZE. Dallas County.
Mr. GASQUE. Dallas County jail?
Mr.
SCHOULTZE. Yes, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Are you serving a sentence there?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. No, I am on a charge of possessing narcotics.

Mr. GASQUE. Charge of possession of narcotics; have you ever
served a sentence for possession of narcotics previously?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. No.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, at the time the officers arrested you, who was
with you?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I think the records show that Neil Aeby was with
Me.
Mr. GASQUE. Neil Aeby was with you?

Mr. SCHOULTZE. He was registered in the house.
Mr. GASQUE. Yes. Now, have you ever had any association of
any character with the narcotics racket in Dallas?

Mr. SCHOULTZE. What do you mean?
Mr. GASQUE. Have you ever sold any heroin?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I refuse to answer that on the fifth amendment.
Mr. GASQUE. You refuse to answer that on the grounds that it may
Mr. SCHOULTZE.
Yes, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Have you ever given any heroin to anyone?

Mr. SCHOULTZE. No, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Have you ever used any heroin yourself?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Yes, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. When was the last time you used heroin?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Well, I got a 2-year probated sentence June 2d of
1954. I had to go to the hospital to be cured.
Mr.
GASQUE.
Which hospital?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Fort Worth.

71515-56--pt. 7--45
3052
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Mr. GASQUE. Were you cured?

Mr. SCHOULTZE. Well, I was withdrawn.
Mr.

Mr. SCHOULTZE. Seven months.
Senator DANIEL. Did you complete your prison sentence over there
in Fort Worth Narcotics Hospital?
Mr. SCROULTZE. No; I am still on probation.
Senator DANIEL. But you were given probation after 7 months?
Mr. SC1HOULTZE. I was given probation with the understanding I
GASQUE.
would go to Fort Worth and take a cure.

Senator DANIEL. All right; and you went to Fort Worth and stayed
7 months?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. And they pronounced me cured; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. They pronounced you cured, and then you were
allowed to come back to Dallas?

Mr. SCHOULTZE.
Senator DANIEL.
Yes.
How long ago was that, that you came back to
Dallas?
That was January lst.-January 11th of this year.

Senator Daniel. Of this. year; how long after you got back to
Mr. SCHOULTZE.
Dallas before you started using heroin again?

Mr. SCHOULTZE. Well, I've-I refuse to answer, sir.
ment.
Senator
DANIEL. On what-under
Fifth amend-
the fifth amendment?
Senator DANIEL. You think a truthful answer might tend to

incriminate you?
Mr- SCHOULTZE. It might.
'Mr. GASQUE. We are just asking about how long the period of time
which elapsed.
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I understand.
Mr. GASQUE. In order that we can determine how effective was the
cure at, Fort Worth, you see.
Mr. SCHOTTLTZ Well, I haven't-they have an addict law now too,
you see, that carries 3 years. I refuse to answer under the fifth
amendment.
Mr. GASQUE. The chairman didn't direct the question to whether
or not you were using heroin at the present time or until recently;
rather the question is how long after you left the Fort Worth hospital
was it before you used heroin again.
Mr. .SCHOULTZE. I refuse to,
Senator DANIEL. Now, wait just a minute before you answer.
Do you understand what Counsel Gasque is trying to ask you?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Yes, sir; I understand.
Senator. DANIEL. Under this new law, they have to prove you are
an addict,'or have to have evidence, you know, that you are a habitual
addict or under the influence, using it.
Mr. D. B. Naylor is sitting right back there behind you.
Is that correct, Mr. Naylor?
Mr. NAYLOR. Yes, sir; that's correct at the present time.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, under the evidence, if this man
tells you he used some heroin a year ago when he got out of the hospital, that one use of it, he couldn't be convicted of it., could he?
Mr. NAYLOR. No, sir; he cannot. He has to be an addict at the
present time.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
3053
Senator DANIEL. Now, do you u11Iest,11d, counsel is just asking
you how long it, was after you got, out?

Mr. SCHOUTLTZE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANI E L. 1 am asking you to answer the question.
Well, I did, I was out a few months, and then I

went to jail up in Indiana. I was in jail up there quite awhile.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you use any between getting out of
the hospital and then going to Indiana?
Mr. SCHOULTZE
Mr. SCHOULTZE
No, six; I did not.
Senator DANIEL. All right, go ahead, Mr. Gasque.

M[r. GASQUE. Now, have you been engaged in the narcotics racket
here, with Neil Aeby?
Mr. SCHOULTZE I have not.
Senator DANIEL. You say you went to jail in Indiana?
Senator DANIEL. How long did you stay there?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Oh, something over 4 months.

3-nator DANIEL. What were you in jail there for?
Mr. SCHOULTZE Grand larceny.
Senator DANIEL. Grand larceny?

Mr. SCHOULTZE. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Did you plead guilty?

Mr. SCHOULTZE. Yes, sir-no, sir, I fought my case.
Senator DANIEL.
And you served 4 months?
Senator DANIEL. Then you got. out?

Senator DANIEL. Then you came back to Dallas?
MNr. SCHOULTZE. Yes, sir.

Now, take it from there.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, how soon after you got back to Dallas was it
Senator DANIEL.
All right.
before you again used heroin?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. A couple of months.

Mr. GASQUE. A couple of months?
Mr. GASQUE. Where did you get the heroin you used?
MNfr. SCHOULTZE. Well, I refuse to answer that on the fifth amend-
inent.
How many peddlers (to you know here in Dallas?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I don't know any.
Mr. GASQU-E. Did you purchase heroin here in Dallas?
M.1r. SCHOITLTZE. I refuse to answer on the fifth amendment.
Mr.
GASQUE.
Mr. GASQUE. How many addicts do you know here in Dallas?

Mr. SCHOULTZE. Not many.
Mr. GASQUE. About how many, would you stay?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Five or six, seven.
Mr. GASQuE. Do you have any idea where they get the heroin
they use?
Mr. SCHOULTZE.
No, sir; I do not.
Mr. GASQUE. Do they get it in Dallas, or do they go to San Antonio?

Mr. SCHOULTZE. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Is Neil Aeby one of the addicts you know?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. To the best of my knowledge, he is no addict.
3054
Senator

DANIEL.
Did you ever see him use heroin?
Mr. SCHOULTZE.
I have not.
Senator
Did you ever use heroin in front of him?

I have not.
DANIEL.
1\1'. SCHOULTZE.
Mr. GASQUE. What about Aubrey Aeby?

Mr. SCHOULTZE. Well, I have known him casually.
GASQUE. Did you know him to
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I did not.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, when you were
Mr.
be an addict?
arrested by the police officers,

were you in possession of a quantity of heroin at that time?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I was.
Mr. GASQUE. How much?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I guess 15 caps, or something like that.
Mr. GASQUE. Where did you get that heroin?
Let me ask the question this way: Did you buy that heroin?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Well, I have a case coming up. I refuse to answer
on the fifth amendment.
Mr. GASQUF. Then would you tell us whether the heroin was given
to you?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I still stand on the fifth amendment.
Mr. GASQUE. Would you tell us whether or not you were handling
the heroin for someone else?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I was not.
Senator DANIEL. Did someone else have any interest in the heroin?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. They did not.
Senator DANIEL. It was all yours?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I don't remember offhand.
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I refuse to answer on the fifth amendment.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, for what use did you have the heroin?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Well, I was going to joy pop.
Mr. GASQUE. You were going to joy pop?
Mr. GASQUE. You were going to use it yourself?
Mr. GASQUE. Were you going to use all of it yourself?
Mr. GASQUE. How much did you say, what quantity was involved?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I don't remember offhand. Something like 15
caps, if I am not mistaken.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, before you were arrested, approximately how
much heroin did you use per day?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Well, I didn't have no habit. Just joy popping.
Mr. GASQUE. About how much a day?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Oh, I don't know. A cap or two.
Mr. GASQUE. How much does a cap cost?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I don't know. About three bucks. five.
Mr. GASQUE. About three to five dollars?
Mr. SCHOULrZE. Three to five.
Mr. GASQUE. I believe our evidence here today was it would cost
about six or seven dollars.
MI. SCHOULTZE. Well, I have been out of circulation awhile, you
know.
3055
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, wait a minute. Some of the evidence

showed that the wholesale price was about three dollars, or threv.
and a half.
Were you buying it at wholesale?
Mr. SCHOULTZE.
I don't know what you would call wholesale.
Senator
Well, did you buy it for somewhere between three
DANIEL.
and five dollars?
Three and five dollars; yes, sir.

Somewhere in the neighborhood of that?
Senator DANIEL. Well, you know heroin caps out here on the street
in Dallas cost more than that, don't you?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Well, I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. They cost as high as seven dollars, seven and a
half, don't they?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I don't klow.
Senator DANEIL. Well, did you get this from a particular friend of
yours?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. No; I don't believe
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I stand on the fifth amendment.
Senator DANIEL. Well, every time you say you stand on the fifth
amendment, do you mean by that that you honestly feel that a truthful answer to the question might tend to incriminate you?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I do.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, how long have you been using heroin?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Oh, I don't know. Six years, something like that.
Mr. GASQUE. Six years; now, where have you spent your time in
that 6 years?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Around Dallas and all over the country.
Mr. GASQUE. What other cities have you been in?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I don't know. Indianapolis-Mr. GASQUE. Have you ever been in San Antonio?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Yes; I have worked San Antonio. I have worked
there.
Mr. GASQUE. You have worked San Antonio?
Mr. GASQUE. What did you do there?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I sold soap.
Mr.
SCHOULTZE.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr.
GASQUE.
You sold soap; did you ever buy heroin in San
Antonio?
No, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you ever buy marihuana in San Antonio?
Mr. SCIOULTZE. No, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Were you using heroin at the time you were in San
Antonio?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I don't think I had a habit at the time I was in
San Antonio.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, what year was that?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Oh, I don't know; '49, '50, something like that.
Mr. SCHOULTZE.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, have you ever been in Houston?

Mr. SCHOULTZE. Not in the last 7 or 8 years.
Mr.
GASQUE. What other cities

Mr. SCHOULTZE. Indianapolis.
have you been in?
3056
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
GASQUE. What year were you in Indianapolis?

SCHOULTZE. This year.
GASQUE. Did you buy heroin in Indianapolis?
SCHOULTZE. No, sir.
GASQUE. Did you buy niarihualna in Indianapolis?
SCHOULTZE. No, sir.
GASQUE. Did you have a habit in Indianapolis?
SCHOULTZE. No, sir.
GASQUE. When did you kick your habit?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I kicked it in Fort Worth.
Mr. GASQUE. And you have not used any heroin since you left
Fort Worth?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I have joy popped some; yes, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. You have joy popped some. Well, now, ,1iat other
cities have you purchased heroin in?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I haven't.
Mr.
GASQUE.
You have only purchased heroin in Dallas?

Mr. GA.SQUE. Now, you stated you had been an addict, user, for 6
years. Now, undoubtedly there are some addicts, or rather some

peddlers, on the street whom you know?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Not offhand; no, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Not offhand?
Mr. GASQUE. How long have you been in jail now?

Mr. SCHOULTZE. Something like a month.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, are the peddlers that you bought this heroin
from, or from whom this heroin came into your possession a month
ago, now in jail?
Mr. GASQUE. They are not now in jail?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. No. sir.
Mr. GASQUE. They are on the streets of Dallas?
Mr. SCHOTLTZE. I don't know where they are.
Mr. GAsQuE. But they are not in jail?
ir. GASQUE. Do they live in Dallas?
Mr. GASQUE. Have they lived here for a number of years?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I don't know that, either.
Mr. GASQUE. Well, I want to ask you their names. Do you know
tb eir names?
Mr. GASQUE. You mean to tell me you can walk down the street
and buy heroin from a stranger?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I do not know.
Mr. GksQuE. Now, obviously, if heroin came into your possession,
if you obtained it from some person in Dallas-that was your testimony, wasn't it?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. It was.
Mr. GASQUE. Your testimony is that that person is not now in jail?
Mr. GASQUE. Is that correct?
3057
Mr. GASQUE. Now, is your testimony also that you do not know the
name of that person?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I do not know.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you know of any other peddlers in Dallas?
M'. SCHOULTZE. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever crossed the Mlexican border?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Not lately.
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Oh, 10 years ago.
Senator DANIEL. Never in the last 10 years have you crossed the
border, the Mexican border?

M\r. SCHOULTZE. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever leave this country by any other
border?
Mr. SCHOULTZE.
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Were you in the service?

Mr. SCHOULTZE. During the last war?
Senator DANIEL. Or since then?

Mr. GASQUE. Now, as a matter of fact, were you not in the peddling
business with Neil Aeby?

Mlr. SCHOULTZE. I was not.
Mr. GASQUE. Did Neil Aeby hand you the heroin which you had in
your possession when you were arrested?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. He did not.
Senator DANIEL. Who was driving the car the night that you and
Neil Aeby were arrested?

Mr. SCHOULTZE. I don't-we wasn't arrested at night.
Senator DANIEL. Well, the day you were arrested.
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I think the policeman stated Neil was.
Senator DANIEL. I didn't ask you what the policeman stated. I
asked you who was driving the automobile in which you all drove up to
the place where you were arrested.
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Mr. Aeby was.
Senator DANIEL. Who.
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Mr. Aeby, Neil.
Senator DANIEL. Neil Aeby; and who owns the automobile?
Senator DANIEL. Well, whose car is it, yours or his?

Mr. SCHOULTZE. No; it is not mine. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Have you seen him driving it a lot?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Oh, once or twice, that's all.
Senator DANIEL. And where had you been?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I had just met him.
Senator DANIEL. You never knew him before?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. No; I mean he just picked me up.
Senator DANIEL. Where did he pick you up?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. On the corner.
Senator DANIEL. Did you have the heroin on you when he picked
you up?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I did.
Senator DANIEL. How long had you had it on you?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Couple of hours, something like that.
Senator
DANIEL.
Had you just bought it 2 hours before?
3058

Senator DANIEL. Did he ask you if you had it?
tell him you had it?

Senator DANIEL. Was it a big surprise to him when the officers
found it on you?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I don't know. I imagine it was.
Senator DANIEL. You hadn't showed it to him?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I had not.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. SCttOULTZE.
Hadn't he given you some money for his part of it?
He had given me no money at no time.

Senator DANIEL. Didn't lie give you any money at any time?
Senator DANIEL. For part of that heroin?

Senator DANIEL. Well, where were you waiting for him to pick
you up?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I was just starting up to see some friends.
Senator DANIEL. And he didn't know where to meet you?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. He did not.
Senator DANIEL. He just happened to see you walking along?
Senator DANIEL. And picked you up?
Senator DANIEL. And that's all he had to do with this heroin?

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see Neil Aeby joy pop?
Senator DANIEL. Or in any other way use heroin?
Senator DANIEL. Have you told us all you know about the heroin
traffic here in Dallas?

Mr. SCHOULTZE. I have.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, what quantity of narcotics did you have in

your possession when you were arrested?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I think the records will show fifteen caps, if I am
not mistaken.
Mr. GASQUE. Fifteen caps?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I believe.
Mr. GASQUE. And how much did you use per day?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Oh, I don't know. A couple of caps, three.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you usually carry that much heroin around

with
Mr.you?
SCOULTZE. Well, I had been working.
I was buying a week's
supply.
Mr. GASQUE. You were buying a week's supply?
Mr. GASQUE. At a time?

Mr. SCHOULTZE. Yes.
Mr. GASQcE. And you were able to buy a week's supply at a time
from a person whom you did not know, is that correct?
Mr. GASQUE., Do you own the house at 1616 Baylor Street?
3059

GASQUE. Did you live there?
M.1r. GASQUE. Who lived there?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I think it is-I
Mlr.
don't know the fellow's name.
He works at
Mr. GASQUE. Were you visiting there? At the time the officers
arrested you?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I was seeing a party; yes, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. You were in a party; who all was in that party?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Well, Mr. Stringfellow and Mr. Frazier is all I saw.
Mr. GASQUE. You were alone, other than those two gentlemen?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. They were there; yes, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. You are not willing to tell this committee the names
of any peddlers on the streets in Dallas who may be operating at the
present time?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I don't know no peddlers.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you know any pushers?
Mr. GASQUE. Do you know any people in possession of narcotics?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I do not.
Senator DANIEL. Did you see any finger stalls for heroin in the
glove compartment of Neil Aeby's car that night?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever put any there?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. No, Sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know what they were doing in there?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I do not.
Senator DANIEL. You know those people who lived in this house
you were going to; didn't you?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I knew a girl, yes.
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Kathryn.
Senator DANIEL. Kathryn who?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. It was Ulster. I don't know what it is now.
Senator DANIEL. And the other people there?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I knew them casually.
Senator DANIEL. Knew them casually?
Senator DANIEL. You knew they used heroin, didn't you?
You understand that when you take an oath to give us the truth
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I understand.
Senator DANIEL. You understand if you give us untruthful answers,
you could be charged with an offense for doing that, don't you?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Yes, sir, I understand that.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, I will ask you the question again.
Did you know that those people lived there were drug addicts?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I had heard it said they was drug addicts.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know that they used heroin?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. No, I didn't know that.
Senator DANIEL. Hadn't you used heroin with one or more of them?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I will stand on the fifth amendment.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I don't know but what we might have
waived your right to claim the fifth amendment there, but I won't
be technical with you on it.
3060
I will just ask you the question another way: Haven't you used
heroin in the presence of one of the three people who were in that
house that day?
Mr. SCHOULTZE.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. SCHOULTZE.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. SCHOULTZE.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. SCHOULTZE.
Senator
DANIEL.
Not to my knowledge.
Did one of them use heroin in your presence?
Not to my knowledge.
You don't remember it if they ever did?
No, sir; I don't remember if they did.
All right. Do you know Dude Tacker?
No, sir.
Do you know Roy Sistrunk?
Casually.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever used heroin with Roy Sistrunk?
Mr. SCHOULTZE.
Or Dude Tacker?
No.
All right, Mr. Speer; any questions?
Mr. SPEER. This soap selling work, how much money did you
make per week out of that?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Oh, I don't know. Just a living.
Mr. SPEER. Well, how much would a living be?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Fifty or sixty dollars a week, something like that.
Mr. SPEER. Fifty or sixty dollars a week?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. SCHOULTZE.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. SPEER. And you were paying $112 a week for your heroin,
is that right?
Speak out. I didn't hear you.

I said I guess that's right.
How did you get the balance of the money to
buy your heroin with?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. How did I get the balance?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. It was some I had saved up.
Senator DANIEL. From what?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. SCHOULTZE.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Sir?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. SCHOULTZE.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. SCHOULTZE.
Senator DANIEL.
Saved up from what?

Well, just saved.
Well, how much money do you have saved up?
Oh, I don't know. A couple of hundred.
How much were you making a month last year,
in 1954?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. In 1954? Well, I was in jail most of 1954.

Senator DANIEL. How much were you making in 1953?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Oh, I don't recall.
Senator DANIEL. Well, were you making as much as a hundred

dollars a month?
Senator DANIEL. How much did you make?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Oh, about 500.
Senator DANIEL. Five hundred dollars for the year?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Something like that.
Senator DANIEL. How much the year before?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. About the same.
3061
You are sure you didn't make over 600?

Senator DANIEL. Did you file any income tax report?
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever filed one?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Never have.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever kept any set of books?
Senator DANIEL. On your business?
Senator DANIEL. Well, how in the world did you keep up a narcotics
habit during those years on 500 dollars a year?
Mr. SCHOULTZE. I didn't have much of a habit.
Senator DANIEL. And you want to end your testimony with this
committee with that as your statement, that you were able to buy
what narcotics you used during these years on only 500 dollars a year
income?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. SCHOULTZE. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. That
is a truthful answer?
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Any further questions?
Mr. SPEER. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right. You may stand aside.
You will remain under subpena of this committee.
Now, the next witness may not be photographed and her name will
not be used, so I would like for those who have been taking pictures
here to respect the wishes of this witness and the wishes of the
committee.
I know you will understand that there are such witnesses once in
a while, that we will have to have. This is our first today.
But there will be no pictures taken of this witness, and the witness'
name will not be used at this time. I am sure the press and photographers, TV and radio will cooperate in that respect.
May we have the witness brought in, please?
The MARSHAL. Miss X, Senator?
Senator DANIEL. Yes, we will refer to this witness as Witness B.
We had a witness X in Houston; maybe we ought not to get confused
here.
Will you ask her to come in?
This lady has a small baby, and I am not sure whether we are
going to get the lady in here or not.
Well, we will have about a 2-minute recess.
(Short recess.)
Senator DANIEL. Gentlemen, you are going to have to cut these
lights off, please. No pictures of anyone during this testimony.
Now, as I said heretofore, there will be no filming of anyone during
this interview.
You can raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
WITNESS B. I do.
Mr. SCHOULTZE.
3062
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Speer, who has interviewed you, will ask you
the questions and tell you exactly what the committee would like to
know from you, having heard about the unfortunate experience that
you have been through, and I will tell you now that I have already
told the press not to use your name. As a matter of fact, it will not
even go in this committee record, and I am sure that the press would
not in any way, or anyone in this room who might know you, would
not in any way want to attempt to identify you. So I think you can
feel perfectly free, as far as that is concerned.
Mr. Speer.
TESTIMONY OF WITNESS B
Mr. SPEER.
I believe that sometime in 1952, you were having
various kinds of trouble and began administering demarol to yourself?

WITNESS B. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Was that the first time you had used any narcotics of
that kind, other than for medical purposes?
WITNESS B. That's right.
Mr. SPEER. Now, that has only been a period of about 3 years,
but I believe you told me that it seemed like an eternity to you; is
that right?
Mr. SPEER. Why did you say that?
WITNESS B. Well, I think it is one of the awfullest things that
could ever happen to anyone. And you-you just don't know anything, really. You just exist. You lose everything you have. And
it takes a long time to get over it, even if you try.
Mr. SPEER. But you feel like you are over it at this time?
WITNESS B.
Mr. SPEER.
I know I am, sir.

At that time, how much demarol would you use at
one time?
B. Well, at that time I would only take just a normal
injection of 2 cc.
Mr. SPEER. Just 2 cc.?
Mr. SPEER. That was at first?
WITNESS
Mr. SPEER. And then, as time went on, you increased the amount
that you used?

WITNESS B. Well, it was quite a while before I began increasing it.
And then there's times that-after you take things like demarol, I
think it is the same with drinking or anything, you just-you take one
drink, you want another, and that's kind of the way it is with that.
It doesn't help; it only makes things worse, an] there is just no end
to it, unless you just-if you have seen enough to know it and can
realize it and stop it.
Mr. SPEER. I believe at that time you got up to perhaps 30 cc. of
demarol a day?
WITNESS B. No, sir, that was just-that was just in 1954.
Mr. SPEER. It was that much in 1954?
WITNESS B. It was that far.
Mr. SPEER. You got up to
B. When I first started ever taking anything. But I never

did take a full 30 cc., just half a one.
WITNESS
Mfr.
SPEER.
WITNESS
3063
You would take half of 30 cc.?
B. Yes, sir.
That would be about half an ounce a day, wouldn't it?

WITNESS B. \Well, I imagine so.
Amut that.
Mr. SPEE R. And about what time in 1954 was it that you got up to
30 cc. or however much yoii did take at the maximum?
WITNESS B. Oh, I just don't remember, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Prior to that time, you had been purchasing the demiarol on prescriptions?
.Mr. SPEET.
WITNESS
B. Yes, sir.
And consuming this rather enormous quantity, what

did you resort to doing?
WITNESS B. Forging prescriptions.
M\fr. SPEER. To obtain the deInarol? I beg your pardon?
WITNESS B. After-right around the time that I took the 30 cc.
ampules, I forged some prescriptions, because I knew that I was in
trouble, and I was too proud to go ask for any. And most doctors
are very quick about telling you no, unless they can find a very good
reason for giving you a narcotic, and I-when you try to get off of this
thing, it is terrible, I guess it is one of the worst sicknesses you could
ever have. You have chills and you feel terrible, and it is very hard
on your nerves. My nerves were very bad.
M r. SPEER. How may times did you get off of this drug in this
period of time?
WITNESS B. Oh, just on and off.
And you just have to do it
gradually, and then finally, when you make up your mind to do it,
you just have to do it altogether, and that's what I did.
Mr. SPEER. You have to really quit, you mean?
Mr. SPEER. Did you ever forge a prescription for more than 2 or
3 ampules of demarol?
WITNESS B. I think so, sir.
Mr. SPEER. You think you did?
Mr. SPEER.
WITNESS B. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. About
what was the most?

WITNESS B. I couldn't tell you how many.
I think that some of
your men have the prescriptions.
I think there was 1, maybe, for six 2 cubic centimeter ampules.
But at that time I would take, maybe 1 or 2 of the ampules in the
evenings. That is usually when I would take it, because I couldn't
rest at night. And then in the mornings, when I would wake, well, I
would just-I would feel terrible, my conscience would hurt me, and
I would know that I was doing wrong, and if I had any left-anyone
that has ever taken this drug would know that this would be the
hardest thing in the world to do, except at a moment like that when
you were feeling so bad and your conscience hurt you so, and you knew
that it didn't-it just made you feel worse, and you had work to do,
and you had children to take care of-so I just disposed of it.
And maybe the next evening, by that time I hadn't had any, maybe
the next day, the next evening, my chills would come back, and I
would get to feeling worse, and maybe I would go get 1 or 2 more.
Mr. SPEER. Did the doctor warn you you might be developing a
narcotic habit?
WITNESS
B. Yes.
3064
Mr. SPEER. He did warn you?

Mr. SPEER.
But he kept supplying you at first?
B. The druggist.
Mr. SPEER. The doctor, at first, before you started forging the
WITNESS
prescriptions?
WITNESS B. Oh, yes. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Did the doctor know that you were acquiring a narcotic
habit?
WITNESS B. Well, I don't know whether he knew it or not. He
told me that it was very dangerous, and talked to me about it.
Mr. SPEER. But he kept giving the prescriptions to you more
frequently, as time went on?
WITNESS B. No, not as frequently.
Mr. SPEER. Not as frequently?
WITNEsS B. No.
Mr. SPEER. Is that when you started forging the prescriptions?
Mr. SPEER. What was the most you ever forged a prescription for,
about six ampules?

WITNESS B. I believe so. I wouldn't say for sure, because there
is so much of that you just don't remember.
You wouldn't do a thing like that if you were in your right mind.
Mr.
SPEER.
Do you think you ever wrote 1 for, say, 10 or 12,
which would be 24 c. c.'s?

WITNESS B. I don't think so.
Mr.
SPEER.
You don't think you did.
When you would present
the usual prescription to the druggist, for 2 or 3 ampules of demarol,

did he ever give you more than the prescription called for, forged
or otherwise?
WITNESS B. Well, I remember once when I went in to get a prescription filled, it was for some 2-c. c. ampules, and I don't-he didn't
have any on hand, but he did have a 30-c. c. ampule, and he let me
have that, and we discussed something about me getting a prescription from the doctor, or something.
Mr. SPEER. Did the druggist know you were writing these prescriptions yourself?
WITNESS B. If he did, I don't know.
Mr. SPEER. Did you feel like he knew?
WITNESS B. Well, I didn't exactly think about it, because you
don't think-I wasn't thinking very clear then.
But I think that it-I think that this druggist might have been different from most of them. I know that ordinarily a druggist doesn't.
fill that many prescriptions for any narcotic.
Mr.
SPEER.
WITNESS B.
The ordinary druggist wouldn't do that, would he?

No, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Wouldn't keep increasing it?

WITNESS B. It is very unusual.
Mr. SPEER. The amount you used constantly increased, did it not?
WITNESS B. It did until I just knew that it was wrecking everything,
and I just had to stop it.
Mr.
SPEER.
Did it increase until the agents finally came out?
WITNESS B. No, sir; I had stopped on my own.

Mr. SPEER. You had already stopped on your own volition?
3065
WITNESS B.
Mr. SPEER.
sir. I hadn't taken any for months.

Did you get off the narcotic at your home, or did you
Yes,
go somewhere?
WITNESS B. In my home.
Mr. SPEER. At your home?
Mfr. SPEER. How much did the druggist charge you for each
prescription?
WITNESS B. It seems like it was 25 cents for a 2-c. c. ampule.
I don't remember for sure.

Mr. SPEER. Twenty-five cents?
WITNESS B. I don't remember for sure, on the other.
remember.
I just don't
Mr. SPEER. Do you remember how much he charged you for the
30?
WITNESS B.
Mr. SPEER.
No, sir.
But you realize it is very dangerous, that sort of
procedure, for either a doctor or a druggist to furnish narcotics without

strict control is a very dangerous procedure, is it not?
X\ITNESS B. Yes, sir; it is.
Mr. SPEER. Is that what led to your addiction?
WITNESS B. I don't understand the question, sir.
Mr. SPEER. I mean is the fact that you could get this narcotic
easily, is that what led to your addiction?

WITNESS B. Well, I believe that if-if there was a stricter control
on druggists letting out this medicine and on doctors having you
get it in their offices, that there would be less of this addiction.
Mr. SPEER. I didn't understand that last part.
On doctors-
B. If the doctors, just like-I know that druggists have

to use this narcotic in most prescriptions, like cough medicine and
things like that, and if they were only allowed to do this, and not sell
any narcotics straight, narcotic like demarol; I don't know anything
about the other narcotics, but I do know that I can't see any reason
why they should be allowed to sell demarol or any other narcotic
just for someone to come in with a doctor's prescription and buy it.
Mfr. SPEER. And probably ruin somebody's life?
WITNESS B. Yes, sir. I just don't think it is right; I don't think
that they should be allowed to do it.
Mr. SPEER. Just tell me how you first started using it.
Did you
go to a doctor?
WITNESS B. I was working for a doctor then, sir, and I just did it
on my own.
Mr. SPEER. You did it on your own?
WITNESS B. Because I was sick and unhappy.
That's no excuse for doing something like that, but when you get
sick, you do things sometimes that you wouldn't ordinarily do.
Mr. SPEER. In use
other
it?words, did you have a medical need, or did
to
want
just
you
WITNESS B. No, I was sick.
I was the scaredest thing in the world of a needle; I wouldn't
take a shot of penicillin if I thought I was going to die, because I
was scared to death of a needle. And anytime, when I had my twin
girls and they gave me shots, it just scared me to death. And I was
in such a mental shape when I took my first, shot of demarol that I
gave it to myself, and you have to be sick to do that.
WITNESS
3066
Mr.

SPEER.
Did you just take the first shot, and then wait 2 or 3
weeks?
WITNESS B. A long time.
Mr. SPEER. Or did you
WITNESS B. I waited a long time.
Mr. SPEER. And finally you decided to do it once more?

Mr. SPEER. Then finally once more?
WITNESS B.
Mr. SPEER.
Yes, sir.
And it just goes on and on, if you can get it.
Finally you had to have it; is that the way it developed?
B. Well, I don't think it really felt like I had to, until I

finally started forging these prescriptions, I mean just before that,
I think that's the only thing that ever gave me the notion to forge a
prescription.
Mr. SPEER. This first prescription you got, did you get it from a
doctor?
WITNESS B. No, I got it from the office.
WITNESS
Mr. SPEER.
You took it right from the office?
WITNESS B.
Mr. SPEER.
Yes, sir.
WITNESS B.
Mr. SPEER.
The office where you were working?
Yes, sir.
Then later on, did you get it. from the doctor who did
or did not think you had a medical need?

WITNESS
B. Well, you can do that.
A woman with the trouble I
have each month can go to individual doctors and get prescriptions.

I have done it here, and I think less doctors would get in trouble, and
everybody else, if they were not allowed to use it only except in hospitals, if it is necessary.
Mr. SPEER.
WITNESS B.
Mr. SPEER.
WITNESS B.
Mr. SPEER.
WITNESS B.
Did you ever use morphine instead of demarol?
No, sir.
Now, at. the time this happened, were you a nurse?

Yes, sir.
Were you a registered nurse at that time?
No, sir.
Mri'. SPEER. You were just a practical nurse?
WITNESS B. Just a practical nurse.
Mr. SPEER. In the doctor's office?

WITNESS B. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. Was it possible for you to use this demarol without
anyone knowing it had been used and not accounted for?
WITNESS B. Well, this-this doctor kept quite a bit there. We
did minor surgery in his office, and he would use it for different things,
and he would keep these little boxes of ampules there. He finally
found out about it.
Mr. SPEER. He finally found out you were using it?
Mr. SPEER. Did be happen to be using it, too, or not?
B. He had; he had used some.

Mr. SPEER. He had used it himself?
WITNESS B. Yes, sir. He doesn't now, I don't think.
WITNESS
Senator DANIEL. Did he furnish you with some?

continue to use it?
Senator DANIEL. For how long a period?
Did he let you
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
IVITNESS
B. For just a few months.
TRAFFIC
3067
I don't know just how long
it was, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Then did he tell you that you must quit, and
that he was not going to let you (1o it anymore, or did he get sick?
WITNESS
B. He got sick, and then lie-he quit and I quit, too, for
a long time.
Senator DANIEL. And is that wlien you started-\MITNESS B. The only time 1 ever had any, then, was just my
inedical needs, when I told him---Senator DANIEL. And is that when you started forging the pres.riptions?
WITNESS B. No. I quit, for a long time, an(d then when I-I moved
out to live with my mother, well, I started to work in Seagoville, and
that's when I started taking it again.
You just think, well, just one won't hurt a thing, just to settle my
nerves; then you go back and you get another one if you can.
Senator DANIEL. Was that when you started forging the prescriptions?
WITNEss
B. No, sir; that was just a little before I started forging
te prescriptions.
Senator DANIEL. A little before?
WITNESS B. When I started forging the prescriptions, it was when
I was trying to quit.
Senator DANIEL. Well, when you were forging these prescriptions,
do you have any reason to believe that the druggist who filled the
forged prescriptions knew at that time that they were not really a
doctor's prescriptions?
WITNESS B. I don't know, sir.
I never did talk to him.

I felt at first that he was-I can-t say kind. Of course, when you
want something and someone gives it to you, well, you-you don't
question them, and he certainly didn't question me any about them,
and he filled quite a few. You have them on hand. And I don't
know just how many, but he filled more than you could ever-than
I could have every gotten anyone else to fill.
Senator DANIEL. Well, and as a matter of fact you have since
found that he filled considerable for other people, too, under similar
circumstances, haven't you, the same druggist?
WITNESS B. Well, I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Have you since learned that?
WITNESS B. I don't know, because when I quit forging the prescriptions and just quit taking it altogether, I got worried, after I
finally got well enough to even think carefully, I got worried and I
called back over there one day to talk to him, because I was afraid
maybe the agents had been by there to see him or something, and I
was worried about those prescriptions.
I didn't worry about them before, because I didn't have sense
enough to. But I did after I got well.
Senator DANIEL. And what did you tell him about it?
WITNESS B. I just asked him if-if he had gotten-I don't even
hardly remember. I asked him something about the prescriptions,
orSenator DANIEL. Did he tell you be still had them?
WITNESS B. Well, he didn't-I didn't want to ask him too much,
but he didn't say anything to scare me about them.
7 l515-56--pt.
7-46
3068
Mr. SPEER.
When you first started, do you feel like it was being
in the office there with someone who was using it, which probably
suggested it to you, that you might do the same thing? Do you think
that sort of pushed you over?
WITNESS B. Oh, no, no, sir.
No, sir.
Mr. SPEER. You don't feel-you said the doctor was using it him-
self, in the first instance?

WITNEss B. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Do you feel like that was at least some influence on
you to begin this thing?

WITNESS B. I'll tell you the truth: When I did it the first time,
I had worried about this doctor so much, and I had worried about it
so much, and I had had so much on my mind before, 4 years before
that my home broke up, and I was upset anyway, and everything had
just gone wrong, and then when I found out what he was doing, I
thought maybe if I did, that if I would just-I had worried myself
right out of my mind, so I thought if I did that, it would scare
him into not doing it anymore.
Mr. SPEER. So you started?
WITNESS B. But I didn't do it for just the fun of it or anything,
because, to prove that, I was just too scared of a needle. I couldn't

even believe that I had done it. It is hard for me to believe I would
ever do it.
Senator DANIEL. Did that have any influence on him? Did it stop
him from using demerol?
WITNESS B. It did some, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did some good toward stopping him?
WITNESS B. Yes, sir. Because he is a very sensible man, you know.
Most doctors are. They are very well trained, and they know about
that stuff.
Senator DANIEL. All right. We will not ask you any further questions this afternoon. The druggist is under subpena of this committee, and may appear before the committee, at which time there
may be some further identity as far as the druggist is concerned.
But I believe that is all we will need from you at this time. Thank
you very much.
The committee will stand in recess till 10 a. m. tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, an adjournment was taken at 5 p. m., until 10 a. m.,
October 20, 1955.)

THURSDAY,
OCTOBER 20, 1955

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE,
Committee on the Judiciary,

Dallas, Tex.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a. m., in the
United States Post Office and Courthouse, Dallas, Tex., Senator Price
Daniel (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. William M. Steger. Come right through here, Mr. Steger.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you will give to this
Mr. STEGER. I do.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM M. STEGER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Senator
Will you please state your name?

Mr. STEGER. William M. Steger.
Senator DANIEL. And your present position?
Mr. STEGER. United States district attorney for the eastern district
of Texas.
Senator DANIEL. Roughly, what does the eastern district of Texas
cover, Mr. Steger?
Mr. STEGER. The eastern district, of course, is to the east of Dallas.
It covers, some of the towns are Sherman, Denton, Texarkana, Tyler,
Paris, and Beaumont.
Senator DANIEL. And how long have you been United States district attorney for this district?
Mr. STEGER. I went in office in July 1953.
Senator DANIEL. Have you, since taking office, given particular
attention to narcotics cases in the district?
Mr. STEGER. Yes, sir, Senator, I have.
I would like to preface that statement, however, by this; and that
is due to the lack of large metropolitan cities in the eastern district
of Texas, apparently, we have not had the volume of narcotic cases
that they have had in the northern, western, and southern districts
of Texas.
However, we have had several very important, in my opinion,
narcotic cases.
Senator DANIEL. And what kind of sentences have you been re(eiving from the court on those cases?
DANIEL.
3069
3070
ILLICIT NARCOTICS tRAFFIC
Mr. STEGER. In
two cases that I have in mind, we had one na.

cotics offender who was sentenced to 25 years, which of course is
5 years in excess of the Boggs mandatory penalty of 20 years for a

third offense.
In another case we had a sentence of 20 years which was givenl to
that defendant, which was the maximum under the Boggs Act.
Senator D.N','IEL. IS it. your opinion that. stiff sentences in narcotics
cases will pro e a means to dry up the traffic?
Mr. STEGER. Absolutely, Senator. And I would like to say this:
That the statistics for the period 1951 through 1953 reveal that, in
the eastern district of Texas, we had 25 narcotics cases, and the
statistics for the period 1943 through 1955-that is, fiscal year 1955,
which would be to July 1st.-we had one narcotic case in our district,.
Now, I have discussed the matter with the narcotics agents, and the
prevelant feeling among them is that the word gets around among
these narcotic peddlers, and they are prone to not negotiate their
illicit transactions in a district where the penalties are as stiff as they
are in the eastern district of Texas.
Senator DANIEL. Do you feel that. you as United States attorney
and the judges over there, by their actions, have served notice that
the narcotic peddlers better stay out of the eastern district of Texas?
Mr. STEGER. Well, I Wouid like to say, I think the'judges in the
eastern district of Texas have served notice; yes, sil.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you are serving notice now, pretty mitch,
yourself, too, aren't you?
Mr. STEGER. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you intend to prosecute them?
Mr. STEGER. Yes, sir, I intend to prosecute them vigorously.
Senator DANIEL. And ask for the highest sentences you cani get
under the law?
Mr. STEGER. Yes, sir; and I don't think the sentences are high
enough as it is now.
Senator DANIEL. Now, do you have any other recommendations
that you would make on how we might work toward drying up the
narcotics traffic?
Mr. STEGER. Yes, sir. As to sentences, Senator, I believe that
under the Boggs Act, I think it should be amended to provide a
penalty on a first offense of a minimum of 2 years, which is the way
it presently is, and have a maximum of 10 years, with the right of
the court to suspend the execution of that sentence.
Senator DANIEL. That would be increasing the present maximum?
Mr. STEGER. Yes, sir, from 5 to 10 years, and it would be in line
with the State penalties.
As to the second offense, I believe that the committee should consider recommending legislation to make the second offense carry a
minimum of 5 years and a maximum of at least 20 years, which would
be increasing the maximum 10 years. Now, with no right of probation

or suspension of the sentence.
Senator DANIEL. On the second offense?
Mr. STEGER. On the second offense.
As to the third offense, I think the minimum should be the same
as it presently is, 10 years, and I believe that the maximum could
well be recommended by the committee to be at least life imprisonment.
Senator
DANIEL.
3071
Well, you have heard the chairman of this com-
mittee say that in some cases he feels that the death penalty would
be justified, as long as you are going to have a death penalty for murder
in this country.
Senator DANIEL. It seems
to me that if we are going to have the

death penalty for any type of crime in the country, it should be
available as a maximum if the judge or jury at any time wanted to
give it in these cases of murder on the installment plan.
Mr11'. STEGER. I agree with you, and I think that the committee
('0uld possibly consider enacting legislation along the lines of the

Lindbergh kidnaping law, in letting the jury recommend to the
court the death penalty in certain types of narcotic cases.
Senator DANIEL. And another thing, Mr. United States Attorney,
that it seems to me might be justified, and that is to have this maximum on smuggling, the death penalty.
Naturally, the jury is not going to recommend it or the court give
it, if it were allowed under the law, in many of the cases. They are
going to do it only in extreme cases.
But the very fact that that threat would be over the head of any
foreigner who comes into this country smuggling dope, or any American
citizen, it seems to me might be a deterrent.
Mr. STEGER. I agree absolutely with you, because I believe, as we
all know, that is where our narcotics peddling begins, with the largescale importations of it into this country.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know that there are over 300 aliens in
this country, citizens of other countries, who are now being deported,
who are now subject to deportation because they have dealt in the
narcotics traffic?
Mr. STEGER. I do know the Justice Department has had a number
of them.
Senator DANIEL. There are over 300 citizens of other countries in
this country today that the Justice Department is trying to deport
because they have been convicted of dealing in narcotics. And over
200 were deported last fiscal year. Now, there are over 500 people,
citizens of other countries over here in our borders, who either had
smuggled narcotics over here or have been dealing in narcotics in our
country, and it does seem to me that we need to stiffen up in some way
in this country, to keep these foreigners from coming in here with the
narcotics.
Mr. STEGER. I agree with you.
I have another matter, Senator, which I would like to

Senator DANIEL. Yes, sir; any recommendations you have. I believe you have a written statement; we will make that a part of the
record.
Senator DANIEL. And if you wish to call attention to any other
matter there, go right ahead.
Mr.
STEGER.
I would like to call this matter to the attention of the
committee: As you will recall, recently Congress passed a law, title 18,
section 3146, making it a felony for a defendant to jump bond. Now,
that law was one which, of course, was most needed to provide for an
orderly prosecution of criminals under the Federal jurisdiction. However, the penalty on it, the maximum is 5 years, and it still, in my
3072
ILLICIT NARCOTICS' TRAFFIC
opinion, does not supply a particular need that we have with reference
to narcotic violators.
Now, I would like to illustrate it by giving you, shortly, two cases
that we have had in the eastern district of Texas.
Senator
DANIEL.
Is one of those the Hinton case?
Johnny Hinton was one of them. And I

would like to give you just a few facts relative to that case and show
you how the laws relative to bonds are inadequate.
Now, this fellow Johnny Hinton, in the summer of 1952, had been
previously convicted on at least four narcotic violations. Now, bear
in mind the dates that I am going to give you, and you will see chronologically, here, how important it is.
On July 22, 1952, Hinton was arrested at Mount Pleasant, Tex.,
and was charged with concealing 288 grains of heroin. A complaint
was filed, and Hinton was released on $1,000 bond; a four-time loser
was released on a $1,000 bond.
Now, on August 1, which was 9 days later, 1952, Hinton was
arrested in Kilgore, Tex., for selling opium to narcotic investigators.
Hinton was arrested on this charge and later released after making a
bond of $2,500.
On October 21, 1952, which was approximately 2% months later,
this same man, Johnny Hinton, was arrested in the eastern district
of Texas in Beaumont, and charged with selling 726 grains of heroin
to a narcotic agent. Now, at this time his bond was set at $20,000.
He stayed in jail for several weeks, and was unable to make his bond.
He employed an attorney, who filed a motion with the court to reduce
his bond. It was reduced to $10,000, which he was able to make.
Now, here is where the important part comes in. This man has
already been convicted four times. We have got three pending cases
against him, and he is still out on bond. Now, in 1952, as you well
know, the Boggs Act had just come into effect shortly before, I think
in 1951.
He came up to the office of the United States Attorney, my predecessor, along with his attorney, and had the Boggs Act explained to
him, and at that time he found out that if he came in and entered a
plea of guilty, that the court would have a mandatory sentence to
impose upon him, a minimum of at least 10 years. He was later
indicted, and his cases were called for trial in February of 1953 on
three different indictments, and Hinton did not answer when his
cases were called in court. We later found out that he had fled to
Mexico, and it took a considerable expense on the part of the FBI
and the Narcotics Bureau to apprehend this defendant and finally
get him transported from Mexico and brought back to stand trial.
He was gone until last October-October 1954-they finally got
him back after about 20 months. As soon as he was brought before
the court, he was sentenced to 15 years on one case, and 10 years oil
the other case, to run consecutively, which is 25 years.
Now, this man was 55 years old, and the effect of giving him that
type of sentence, 25 years, was the effect of giving him a life sentence;
and that is part of my basis for saying that the court should be give"
more freedom in the maximum sentence under the Boggs Act, because
there they exceeded the maximum sentence by 5 years, and in effect
gave him a life sentence.
Senator DANIELS. The most interesting part of this testimony to
me is that you got the fugitive back from Mexico.
Mr. STEGER.
Yes,
sir.
3073
Mr. STEGER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. This is the first of the fugitives on narcotic charges

that have been presented to this committee where he actually was
brought back for trial. According to testimony developed this week
here in Texas, across the border in Mexico there are just dozens of
fugitives on narcotics charges who are engaged in the narcotics traffic
over there. Some of them are holding positions on police forces south
of the Mexican border. So I am glad to hear about your getting one
of them back.
Didn't you have to give a $2,500 reward to get him back?
Mr. STEGER. Yes, sir; the bondsmen put up a $2,500 reward, which
aided in getting him back. From the knowledge that I have of the
facts of his apprehension, in that I was more or less a go-between, the
mediator to give the reward money, I would say that but for the $2,500
reward, we would never have gotten him back.
Senator DANIEL. Well. now, the other interesting thing about your
testimony is the same thing we are finding everywhere over the United
States, and that is that dope trafficers, when allowed to get out on
bond, simply continue to sell their dope.
Mr. STEGER. Absolutely.
Senator DANIEL. One of them, while out on an appeal bond, became the biggest wholesaler of marihuana in New York City. He
was a Dallas Negro boy, 16 years old when he left here. He was convicted of selling marihuana, and while out on appeal bond for 22
years, became the biggest wholesale dealer in marihuana in New York
City. That is George Hall, whose testimony was made public this
last Sunday. Now, it does seem to me that you and other enforcement officers who have been before this committee with facts like this
have made a good case for us being more careful about letting narcotic
offenders out on bond.
Mr. STEGER. I don't know what the answer to it is in the way
of a concrete recommendation, Senator Daniel, but it would seem to
me that there ought to be some way in which Rule 46, Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure, could be amended to give the courts some
guide to not allowing a narcotics offender too small a bond.
Now, if the penalties are increased, or if the death penalty ahould
be enacted, I think constitutionally you would probably have no
problem in denying them bail at all. But, of course, we do have a
problem with our circuit courts in setting bond too high, where they
night reverse it.
Senator DANIEL. I certainly want to thank you, Mr. Steger, for
appearing before us, and as I have said, your statement, your written
recommendations will be made a par of the record, and at any time
that you have additional recommendations, please let us hear from you.
Mr. STEGER. I will be glad to do so.
Senator DANIEL. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
The statement referred to follows:
3074
STATEMENT

OF
WILLIAM
M.
STEGER,
UNITED
EASTERN DISTRICT OF
STATES
ATTORNEY
FOR
THE
TEXAS
The eastern district of Texas, due to its geographical location and lack of large
metropolitan cities, has not had a serious law-enforcement problem with illegal
traffic in narcotics; however, during the past 3 years several large scale narcotic
offenders have been apprehended and prosecuted in the eastern district of Texas.
Statistics for the period 1951 through 1953 reveal that 25 narcotic cases were
prosecuted in this district. Statistics for the period 1954 through 1955 reveal
that only one narcotic case was prosecuted in this district. The number of narcotic cases prosecuted in the eastern district has always been small compared to
the number prosecuted in the other three districts in Texas, and during the past
2 years there has been a still further sharp decrease in the number of cases prosecuted. As a Federal prosecuting attorney, I have sought some plausible explanation for the unusually small number of narcotic cases prosecuted in this district in the past 2 years, and I am convinced that the reason is to be found in the
attitude of the Federal district judges in this district relative to the sentences
imposed in those cases prosecuted. For example, within the last 2 years Judge
Joe W. Sheehy has had before him two narcotic peddlers, both of whom had long
prior records of dealing in narcotics and in one case one defendant was sentenced
to 20 years in the penitentiary and in the other case the defendant was sentenced
to 25 years in the penitentiary. Both of these defendants were approximately
55 years old, and the effect of each sentence was comparable to a life sentence.
Narcotic agents have discussed with me the decrease in cases arising in this district, and it is their general consensus of opinion that narcotic peddlers in this
area are well aware of the long sentences imposed in the eastern district of Texas
by the judges and purposely avoid making illicit narcotic transactions in this
district.
The Boggs Act is no doubt, in part, responsible for longer sentences in narcotic cases being imposed; however, I would like to make this observation to the
committee and that is that in the two aforementioned cases the sentencing judge
in one case imposed the maximum sentence of 20 years allowed under the Boggs
Act and in the other case exceeded the maximum sentence of 20 years under the
Boggs Act by 5 years in sentencing the defendant to two consecutive sentences
totaling 25 years. This action by the court is indicative that perhaps the Boggs
Act is insufficient as to the maximum penalties assessable in narcotic cases.
I am of the opinion that the Boggs Act should be amended to provide that
second offenders could receive a minimum sentence of 5 years and a maximum
sentence of 25 years and that third offenders could receive a minimum sentence
of 10 years and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. As to first offenders,
I believe the minimum sentence of 2 years should remain the same and the maximum. sentence should be increased from 5 years to 10 years with the right of the
court to suspend the sentence. These minimum and maximum sentences as
recommended by me would be similar to the sentences as provided under the
State laws of Texas and I believe that the penalties under the Federal laws should
at least equal the penalties provided under the State law.
Recently Congress passed a law, title 18, sec. 3146, making it a felony for any
defendant to jump bond on a criminal case pending against him. This law was
one which was most needed to aid in the orderly prosecution of violations of the
Federal laws; however, I am not at all certain that this law will aid in a problem
confronting successful Federal prosecutions relative to narcotic cases primarily
brought about by the mandatory provisions of the Boggs Act. Narcotic law
violators, when apprehended, are treated just like any other defendant who has
been arrested and often are released on small bonds of $1,500 to $2,500. If a
second or third narcotic offender is confronted with having to serve a long mandatory sentence, it has been observed that this type of defendant often does not
appear when his case is called for trial or, if he is a habitual offender, often commits further narcotic violations while he is free on bond. To illustrate my point,
I would like to briefly mention to the committee two cases involving habitual
narcotic violators in this district.
The first case involved a habitual narcotic violator by the name of Johnny
4 or 5
Hinton who in the summer of 1952 had been previously convicted on
Tex.,
narcotic cases. On July 22, 1952, Hinton was arrested at Mount Pleasant,
and
filed
was
complaint
A
and charged with concealing 288 grains of heroin.
Hinton
Hinton was released on $1,000 bond. On August 1, 1952, 10 days later, Hintol
was arrested in Kilgore, Tex., for selling opium to narcotic investigators.
was arrested on this charge and later released after making a bond of $2,500.
in
On October 21, 1952, approximately 2% months later Hinton was arrested
3075
Beaumont, Tex., and charged with selling 726 grains of heroin to a narcotic agent.
As to this charge, a bond of $20,000 was set which defendant was unable to make.
Subsequently the defendant, through his attorneys, successfully got his bond
reduced to $10,000 which he was able to make. In November 1952, Hinton
was indicted by the grand jury on all 3 cases. In December 1952, Hinton, with
his attorney, held a conference with the United States attorney at which time
the mandatory provisions of the Boggs Act were explained to him. Subsequently,
in February 1953, at the regular term of court in Tyler, Tex., the cases pending
against Hinton were duly called for trial and Hinton failed to appear. It was
subsequently learned that Hinton was hiding out in Mexico and he remained a
fugitive in Mexico until October 1954, at which time he was deported to the
United States, arrested by the FBI and subsequently brought to Tyler, Tex.,
where he entered pleas of guilty in 2 of the cases pending against him.
The second case involved another habitual narcotic violator named Lee Siglar
who had been convicted 3 times for violations of narcotic laws prior to January
1953. In November 1952, Siglar was arrested and charged with violations of the
marihuana tax laws and was subsequently, in February 1953, convicted and
sentenced to serve 10 years in the penitentiary. Siglar appealed his case to the
Fifth Circuit Court of A appeals and remained free on a $1,000 bond. During the
pendency of the appeal, Siglar, on August 3, 1953, was again arrested by narcotic
agents and charged with the selling of marihuana. Siglar was subsequently
indicted for this offense to which he pled guilty and received a sentence of 20
years to serve in the penitentiary.
I believe that these 2 cases illustrate the fact that narcotic violators are dangerous to society and cannot be trusted while free on bail. Perhaps Congress could
remedy this situation by enacting legislation whereby a minimum bond of a
substantial sum would especially be applicable to narcotic laws violators, or perhaps legislation could be enacted whereby narcotic cases could be placed in a
category in which no bond is allowed such as those cases involving offenses punishable by death.
The matter pertaining to search and seizure has not been a problem in the
eastern district and, therefore, I do not have any constructive comments on this
subject to make to the committee.
With reference to enacting legislation pertaining to "wiretapping" to aid in
the prosecution of narcotic cases, I believe the Federal Government should be
allowed to tap telephone wires where there is good reason to believe that in doing
so evidence would be obtained. It is possible that legislation could be enacted
along the lines of our search warrant procedure of obtaining a court order which
would tend to prevent any abuses of such a procedure.
Lieutenant Gannaway.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM P. GANNAWAY, LIEUTENANT OF DETECTIVES, POLICE DEPARTMENT, DALLAS, TEX.-Continued
Senator DANIEL. Lieutenant Gannaway, yesterday we left you on
the stand just long enough to give us an example of how the heroin
traffic operates here in Dallas. You stepped aside in order that we
might call a girl who had been using heroin, and the man with whom
she lived had been using heroin, and then we brought in 2 or 3 others
who had been buying and using heroin here in Dallas.
We brought forth a man named Bouchie, I believe.
Lieutenant GANNA
WAY.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You said he had been selling heroin to these

citizens of Dallas; and then we brought in a man named Tommy
Hicks, who you told us had been buying heroin in San Antonio and
furnishing it to Bouchie, and Bouchie in turn selling it to these Negroes
who came before the committee.
Now, yesterday, some of these witnesses, at least Tommy Hicks, did
not give us as much as he had previously told you about the traffic,
and there was some sympathy, I believe, for the witness, because he
said he was just an old addict. Now, I would like for you just to tell
3076
the committee what evidence you have as to the operations of Tommy

Hicks here in Dallas, in the heroin business, and how it ties in to
Bouchie and into the traffic among the Negro citizens.
Mr. GASQUE. Is Tommy Hicks in the courtroom?

Lieutenant GANNAWAY. We obtained information that Tommy
Hicks was dealing in heroin from several sources, and that he was
delivering this heroin to Bouchie Wallace. Consequently, we set up a
surveillance on Bouchie Wallace, and also on Tommy Hicks. At
that time he was living over on Cornell Street.
During this surveillance, we were able to make two purchases from
Bouchie Wallace of heroin, by the use of an undercover agent. Shortly
after that, we obtained information that Tommy Hicks was living over
on South Beckley. We sent a surveillance up there, where he was
living in a trailer court, and followed him over on Jefferson where he
went in a drug store and obtained illegally one bottle, 20 c. c.'s, of
dolophine.
Senator DANIEL. Dolophine is an opiate drug?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, it is.
At that time he was arrested, he and his wife. Then later on, some
2 or 3 weeks later, we received information that he was living over on
Garland Road, at another trailer court. We set up a surveillance
there, and observed him for quite some time, several days.
We observed him one morning leaving there with a well-known
shoplifter, Allen Myden. They left there in Allen's car and left about
6 o'clock in the morning. They stayed gone all day, and returned that
night about 9:30 or 10 o'clock, at which time we observed them taking
stolen articles, shoplifted articles, apparently, from the back end of the
automobile, some $500 worth of expensive ladies suits and men's suits
that we learned later came from the city of Austin, Tex.
We executed a search warrant at that time, and found Tommy
Hicks in possession of approximately 20 grains of heroin in what is
known as a bindle of heroin or a paper of heroin, in his pocket, at
the time he was arrested. He also had a spoon sitting there in the
trailer, that he apparently was about to fix him a shot of narcotics,
as it had about 2 grains in it.
He was arrested and taken to city hall and placed in jail. Then I
asked him about his dealing in heroin. I asked him how much money
he had made. He said very little. He said that he had a little bit
of heroin. I then accused him of furnishing heroin to Bouchie
Wallace to peddle for him. He stated that he had given Bouchie
Wallace very little, and he further stated that he was still addicted
to narcotoc drugs. Now, at the time that we arrested Bouchie
Wallace, he stated that he had been in Dallas for some time, but refused to give us any information pertaining to his source of supply.
We learned from informants that Bouchie Wallace was selling this
same narcotic drug that he was obtaining from Tommy Hicks up in
the colored section, and they in turn were selling it to other colored
males and females in the Hall and Thomas area and around on Guillot
Street. These addicts run all the way from 18 years on up to 40 and
50 years old, male and female, among the colored race. Bouchie
Wallace also was selling to the white addict population here in the
city of Dallas.
Senator
DANIEL.
What ages do the white addicts run?
Lieutenant
Senator
GANNAWAY.
DANIEL.
3077
They run anywhere from about 20 on up.
I am not asking you to reveal anything that
should not be revealed in detail at this time but do you have any
evidence as to where Tommy Hicks was getting his heroin?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir, we have evidence that he was
obtaining this heroin from San Antonio, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. And bringing it back here into the Dallas market?
Lieutenant
GANN AWAY.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Anything else about this particular case that we

should have, to round out the record? Do you have some prosecutions that you intend to bring under possession of heroin or sale of
heroin against these men?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. We have 3 cases filed against Thomas
Odell Hicks, 1 for possession of heroin, 1 for possession of dolophine,
and 1 for possession of narcotic paraphernalia. I mean by that the
hyperodermic syringe and the needle. And we also have 1 case of
addiction filed against Bouchie Wallace. There are 2 cases of sale of
heroin against Bouchie Wallace that are being considered by the grand
jury at this time.
Senator DANIEL. What about Freddie Hall? His name came into
the picture as one of the intermediate sellers to the colored people
who were on the stand yesterday.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Freddie Hall was in the apartment at the
time that we raided 2616 Guillot. We arrested Blackshear and
Tommie Jean Dawson, and a girl named Mary Elizabeth Taylor, and
he ran out the back door, the kitchen door, and got away from the
house. However, he has been filed on, and there is a warrant outstanding for his arrest. We have been unable to locate him.
Senator DANIEL. I believe we have a subpena out for him for this
committee. You have been unable to locate Freddie Hall?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. We haven't been able to locate him.
Senator DANIEL. Well, we thank you for the cooperation you have
given this committee. From the evidence you have at hand, is there
any doubt that Tommy Hicks, in addition to being an addict, also
has been bringing heroin into Dallas for peddling, at least to the people
you have named here to the committee?
Lieutenant G. NNAWAY. There is no doubt in my mind that he is a
wholesaler, he is what we would term a wholesaler in heroin.
Senator DANIEL. All right, sir. Anything else, Mr. Counsel?
Mr. GASQUE. It
would appear, from what you have told the
committee, from the evidence which you have which you cannot bring
to light at this time, that Tommy Hicks, from the narcotic point of
view. may be a serious cancer in the life of this community, in spreading
addiction to other people. He is a likeable sort of fellow, so other
people won't take him as seriously as a mean addict; so in spreading
addiction to other people, he is costing the taxpayers lots of money

in terms of police work, to conduct proper surveillance, to arrest him,
and to put him through law enforcement agencies.
He is costing the citizens a great deal of money in terms of stolen
property, and in other unlawful acrs to support his addiction, at least
that is the way it seems to us.
How does it appear to you?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. I think that's correct, because the stolen
merchandise that we were able to recover the night of the raid out
3078
there was apparently stolen during that one day; it was probably in
excess of $500 worth.
Mr.
GASQUE.
Is there any idea in your mind at all that Tommy
Hicks can support his heroin habit without stealing goods and peddling
narcotics?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. I don't believe that he could.
Mr. GASQUE. And he has been an addict or a cancer in the life of
this community for 35 years?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. He has been addicted for many years.
I have known him for many years.
Mr. GASQUE. Have you known him to be addicted all of these
years?
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, on the charges that you bring, he says
that he has been to the penitentiary 6 times already, on the charges
that are brought against this man now, isn't tbere some possibility
that he can be sent to a Federal hospital for treatment and for some
type of cure for his addiction? He stayed only 3 days the only time
he has been to the hospital, and even though he has been selling drugs,
it would seem to me that the man should be given some type of
treatment at a Federal hospital and then allowed to go on and serve
out whatever prison sentence is assessed against him on the new
charges.
What is your opinion of that?
Lt. GANNAWAY. I am not familiar with that procedure, Senator.
I do know that the State doen't have a hospital where they send
addicts to be cured. Now, what provision that they make with the
Federal Government to send them to a Federal hospital, I am not
familiar with that.
Senator DANIEL. Are all these new charges State charges?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir, they are all State charges.
Senator DANIEL. Well, is there any possibility that in cases like
this, that you could go into the Federal court with this evidence and
have the man sent to a Federal penitentiary, with an intermediate time
at the narcotics hospital?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. If the Federal Narcotics Bureau would
adopt our cases, or the United States attorney would adopt the cases
and let them be prosecuted in Federal court, they could be, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think there is any hope for treatment of
confirmed narcotic addicts who have been addicts over a long period
of time?
Lieutenant
GANNAWAY.
I have -never known a narcotic addict to
cure himself permanently of his addiction.

Senator DANIEL. Where is the best place for narcotic addicts like
Tommy Hicks, in your opinion, considering not only Tommy Hicks
but society and the public in general?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. I think that they should be removed from
the public in general. I think that they should be confined somewhere,
where their addiction would not spread to the people.
Senator DANIEL. This man, in order, he says, to get enough heroin
to take care of what he feels he must have, must get out and steal.
He said that yesterday.
Senator
DANIEL.
3079
And then the evidence shows that he has also
gotton out and sold narcotics. Some of it might have gotten into the
hands of young people, juveniles.
Senator DANIEL. And older people for the first time. So, for the
good of society, addicts of that nature and traffickers of that nature
ought to be removed from the streets and from the opportunity to
spread this addiction to other people; don't you think so?
Lieutenant
GANNAWAY.
Yes, sir; I am in agreement with that.
Senator DANIEL. And, of course, I think they should be given a

chance at treatment; if there is any way in the world to treat them and
cure them in some way at the Federal hospitals or some other means,
I think we ought to try it. But regardless of whether they are treated
or not, they ought to be gotten off of the streets and not allowed to
continue to spread this addiction to other people.
What you have described here now and what we developed yesterday, is that a pretty typical organization for the distribution of heroin
at the lower level?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. That's what we would term a normal operation; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. That is the way it works, and you have seen other
operations of that nature, have you, in Dallas?
Lieutenant
GANNAWAY.
Yes, sir, I have seen other operations of
about that nature in Dallas.

Senator DANIEL. Now, then, let's go on to the other subject that
we particularly wanted to develop on these hearings, and that is this
question of how many active criminals or violent criminals you feel
are tied in, in some way or other, to the narcotics traffic.
Have you prepared a list of those for us?
Lieutenant
GANNAWAY.
Yes, sir, I have; just from memory I have
written down a number of instances where people that had formerly

lived in Dallas, and some live here in Dallas now, have been associated
with the narcotic traffic for many years and have been arrested in
other States and charged with crimes of violence.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Will you proceed, give us each one?
As we go along there, we may ask you questions about them.
Lieutenant
GANNAWAY.
All right, sir.
The first one I have here on my list is a boy named Herbie Franklin
Fairis. He is commonly known as Ducky Fairis. He is awaiting
electrocution in Oklahoma State for the murder of a city detective
in Oklahoma City. He was caught in the act of robbing a supermarket there, with a boy named Price and another one named Stringer.
In company with them was a girl named Peggy Fry. Now, Herbie
Franklin Fairis has been arrested by our office, at one time was
arrested over in Oak Cliff, where there was a girl in his apartment
arrested with several capsules of heroin.
Senator
DANIEL.
Now, wait, before you leave him, do you have
any evidence that he was tied into the narcotics racket, or that he
was himself a user of narcotics?
Lieutenant
GANNAWAY.
The purpose of the raid there at his apart-
ment that night, when he was arrested, was to catch him in possession
of heroin.
Senator DANIEL. And did you find him in possession of heroin?
3080
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. We didn't find him in possession of heroinl.

However, we found one of the occupants of the apartment there ii,
possession of heroin.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Do you have any other connection, of'
any other evidence of his connection with heroin?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Not especially with heroin. However, w,
do have information that he was a safe burglar, and at times he plit
what we would term drugstore narcotics on the market.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, he would burglarize drugstores to
get narcotics to sell?
Senator Daniel. All right. Proceed.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. The next one I have in mind is an incideilt
that happened in Louisiana several years ago, which involved one C'ecil
Green, who is now dead, and Jack Todd, Roy Sistrunk, and Nick
Cascio. They were arrested down there, and one of them was found
to be in possession of narcotic drugs.
Senator DANIEL. NOW, those are all Dallas men you are talkiiir
about?
Senator DANIEL. All right. That, is Cecil Green
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Cecil Green, Jack Todd, Roy Sistrunk and
Nick Cascio.
Senator
DANIEL. All
right.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. At which time I believe Roy Sistrunk got

sentenced for possession of narcotics, and Nick Cascio lost an automobile that they were carrying the narcotics in.
Senator DANIEL. You mean these four men together-what did
they do over there?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Apparently, from the information that [
received on it, they were stopped for some violation of some kind,
might have been a minor violation, and at that time the officers'
recognized who they were and searched their automobile, and found
the narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. And what kind of narcotics (lid they find in the
automobile?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. I don't recall tfle type of narcotic (lni,
that was found.
Senator DANIEL. Now, this man Cecil Green, was he a. narcowt('
addict?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir, )e was a narcotic addict, according to my information, and I have talked to several people that. wre
in a position to know.
Senator DANIEL. What did he use?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. It is my understanding that in addition to
cocaine, he sniffed heroin.
Senator DANIEL. You have talked to people who say that they
saw him use these drugs?
S-enat.or DANIEL. What has happened to Cecil Green?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Cecil Green has been killed. He was miurdered somewhere over, I believe, in Tarrant County.
Senator DANIEL. Was he one of the recent unsolved murder cases
in Tarrant County?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY.
3081
As far as I know, that murder has never
been solved.
Senator DANIEL. Where was he found? Do you remember the
circumstances of his death?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. I don't-I remember reading the circumstances. Tincey Eggleston and Cecil Green were ambushed by unknown persons, and Cecil Green was killed.
Senator DANIEL. Tincey Eggleston?
Lieutenant
Yes, Sir.
Is lie the one who was recently found in the bot-
GANNAWAY.
Senator DANIEL.
toin of a well?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; he was recently murdered and
found in the bottom of a well there in Tarrant County.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever obtained any evidence, concerning
Tincey Eggleston's use of narcotics drugs?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; I have obtained evidence that he
was also a user of narcotic drugs.
Senator DANIEL. What did he use?

Lieutenant GANNAWAY. It is my understanding that he used
heroin.
Sehator DANIEL. Have you talked with people that have given
you this information that he used various narcotics?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; I have.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know if Tincey Eggleston and Cecil
Green were ever connected with any burglaries of narcotics from
drugstores?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. No, sir; I don't know that they were ever
connected with any burglaries, that is, actually prosecuted for it.
I know that they were in and out of Dallas many, many times. I
have seen them associated with Dallas police characters from time
to time.
Senator DANIEL. Cecil Green and Tincey Eggleston?
Senator DANIEL. Do they have any regular associates in Dallas
County?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir. They are associates of Johnny
Miller, or were associates of Johnny Miller, and Ange Casteen, Nick
Cascio, Jetty Bass, and other well known Dallas hoodlums.
Senator DANIEL. What about Harry Huggins?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. They are an associate of Harry Huggins,
or were. I recall one time Charley Bell and Mae Vestal were living
out at one of the tourist courts on Hines Boulevard; we set up a
surveillance on that place, and Harry'Huggins and Tincey Eggleston
came out to this place, and when they left, or right after they had
left, we executed a search warrant and opened the cabin and were
inside, and shortly after we got inside the place, Harry Huggins came
into the place, and at that time he was armed with, I believe it was a
.38 automatic.
However, none of the rest returned that night.
Senator DANIEL. Is this the same Harry Huggins who was charged
with Tincey Eggleston and Cecil Green in the recent murder in Fort
Worth of a man named Clark?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; that's the same Harry Huggins.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know whether or not Harry Huggins
has been a user of narcotics?
3082
Lieutenant
GANNAWAY.
Yes, sir; Harry Huggins is a narcotic
addict, or has been.

Senator DANIEL. All right. I believe he is the only one still living
out of that particular threesome, is that correct?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; that's correct.
Senator DANIEL. Were they the only ones charged in this Clark
murder in Fort Worth?
Lieutenant GANNA-WAY. I believe that Mrs. Clark was charged, in
addition to them, as an accomplice.
Senator DANIEL. She is still living?
Senator
DANIEL.
All right.
Go ahead.
Now you have named
Cecil Green and Jack Todd, Cascio, and Sistrunk.

Now what about Jack Todd, where is he?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Jack Todd, later we arrested Jack Todd
boarding an airliner in possession of explosives. He had several
sticks of 100 percent gelatin dynamite, and several blasting caps.
What his intentions were we don't know. We have information that
it was other than what his explanation was.
Senator DANIEL. What was his explanation?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. I believe he stated that he was to take it
up to someone up in the North to go fishing with.
[Laughter.]
Senator DANIEL. What happened to him?

Lieutenant GANNAWAY. He was given the maximum sentence at
that time in Federal court of a year, I believe. Later on lie-after

he got out, he was tried, I believe, for murder, and given a sentence in
the State penitentiary.
Senator DANIEL. Is he in the penitentiary now?
He is out at the present time.

Lieutenant GANNAWAY. He is in the Dallas area; at least he was
last week.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know anything, since the matter you
testified about, concerning him and the narcotics traffic?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Do you know whether or not he uses narcotics?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. It is my understanding that he uses mari-
huana.
And where did you get that understanding, from

people you have talked to who know him?
Senator
DANIEL.

Senator DANIEL. And who have told you that he uses it?
Yes, sir.
What about Cascio?
Nick Cascio?
Senator DANIEL. Where is he?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. He is in the Dallas area.
I saw him a few
minutes ago here in the courtroom.

DANIEL. I believe lie
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes,
Senator
is under subpena here.

sir, he is under subpena here.
Senator DANIEL. All right; what do you know about him, his
activities?
Nick Cascio and
Senator DANIEL. Is Nick Cascio in the courtroom?
3083
The MARSHAL. He is out in the hall, Senator.

Senator DANIEL. All right; step forward here just a moment.
You have just come forward so that Mr. Gannaway can recognize
you.
Is this the man you are speaking of?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; that's the Cascio that I know.
Senator DANIEL. All right. You may be seated. Go ahead,
Lieutenant.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Nick Cascio and Jetty Bass and another
man named Tommy Pate were convicted, I believe, in Alabama.
They were caught in the act of burglarizing a place there, and Nick
Cascio was shot, and so was Jetty Bass. That was a few years ago.
They are-two of them are out of the penitentiary at this time, Jetty
Bass and Nick Cascio.
Senator DANIEL. What type of robbery was that?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. I believe that that was a safe burglary, if
my information was correct on it, or maybe it was an attempted safe
burglary. I don't think they actually got any money out of it; the
officers arrested them before the burglary was completed.
Senator DANIEL. Now, you say that those two men have been
associated in the years gone by with Cecil Green and others who did
use narcotics?
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any information concerning their
use of narcotics?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. As far as Nick Cascio, I have no information pertaining to his use of narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. What about Jetty Bass?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Jetty Bass, I have been told by several
people, uses cocaine. Now, the cocaine, I understand his use of
cocaine is not that of an addict.
Senator DANIEL. What type of use is it, from what you have
heard from informants?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. The informants state that he uses cocaine,
as they say, to get high on it.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Is Jetty Bass in the courtroom?
Jetty Bass?
The MARSHALL. He was here yesterday.
Senator DANIEL. Is this the man you are speaking of?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir, that's Jetty Bass that I know.
Senator DANIEL. All right; proceed. You say that Roy Sistrunk
was with Nick Cascio and Jack Todd and Cecil Green in this, when
they were arrested with heroin in Alabama? Where is Roy Sistrunk?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Well, Roy Sistrunk is in the Dallas area.
Senator DANIEL. Is he in the courtroom?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. He was here yesterday.
Senator DANIEL. Is Roy Sistrunk here? Roy Sistrunk?
Well, he is under subpena, and he was here yesterday. I am sure he
will be here later today.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Is he a narcotic addict?
71515--50--pt. 7
-47
3084
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir, Roy Sistrunk has been an addict

for several years.
Senator DANIEL. What kind of narcotics does he use?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. He is supposed to be an addict to heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Has he been in any other type of trouble or
violent crime here in the Dallas area, or has he had any further connection with narcotics other than using them?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. As far as I know, he has had no connection
with the sale of it.
Now, I remember hearing a few years ago-I helped arrest Jetty
Bass and a boy named Billy Butler, and if I remember correctly Roy
Sistrunk, as they were in preparation of leaving town. They had a
lot of clothes in their car, had two pistols in their automobile and some
explosives, and they said they weren't going to steal anything in
Dallas, they were going completely out of the State.
They were charged in State court at that time with illegal possession
of firearms, and I am not-I don't know the disposition of the case.
Senator DANIEL. Now, that's Roy SistrunkLieutenant GANNAWAY. Jetty Bass.
Senator DANIEL. Jetty Bass?

Lieutenant GAINNAWAY. And Billy Butler.
Senator DANIEL. And Billy Butler?
Senator DANIEL. Do you know anything
concerning Billy Butler's
use of narcotics?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Billy Butler is an addict. We arrested him

at one time, Lt. George Butler and I arrested him over on Commerce
Street, and he had in his possession some 50 or 75 dilaudid tablets,
which is a derivative of the opium poppy. We filed on him in State
court, and I don't know the disposition of that case, either.
Recently he was convicted-I said recently; within the past several
years-he was convicted up in Columbus, Ohio, along with one William
or Bill Noble, as we call him, and a boy that at that time was an
escapee out of the Georgia penitentiary named McCurrv, I believe
that was his name. And I think that Billy Butler is still in prison
there in Ohio.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Billy Butler is a Dallas citizen, is that
right? Or did he live here awhile?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir, he came from Dallas.
Senator DANIEL. And he was a narcotics addict?
Lieutenant
GANNAWAY.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Go ahead, sir.

Lieutenant GANNAWAY. And the next one I have in mind is R. D.
Matthews and Ange Casteen.
We executed a search warrant over on Fort Worth Avenue and

arrested R. D. Mattlews and Ange Casteen in possession of several
ounces of cocaine. R. D. Matthews stated that it all belonged to
him, and Ange Casteen didn't have anything to do with it. He went
to the penitentiary, served a sentence, and he is out now.
Senator DANIEL. R. D. Matthews?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. He is here in the Dallas area.
Anve Casteen was later on caught in Houston, Tex., with 01in
Ray Tyler, in possession of an ounce of heroin.
3085
Senator DANIEL. Wait a minute; is Olin Ray Tyler also from
Dallas?

Lieutenant GANNAWAY. At which time Ange Casteen, as they say,
took the rap for it, and was sent to the Federal penitentiary; and
Olin Tyler was released. Ange Casteen is back in the Dallas area
now. He has finished his term in the penitentiary, and is back.
Senator DANIEL. Where is Olin Ray Tyler?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. He was here yesterday.
Senator DANIEL. Does he use narcotic drugs?
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Is he well known to be a narcotic user?

Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Among the underworld, he is known as a
sniffer of heroin.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Do you have any other record of
crimes committed by these men, R. D. Matthews, Casteen, and Tyler?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. I believe Olin Tyler was a suspect in the
murder of one Patty Harman. Her body was found at the Benbrook Lake in Tarrant County, with fence wire wrapped around it.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. That was sometime within the last 2
years.
Senator DANIEL. Pat
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Patty Harman.
Senator DANIEL. Patty Harman?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Since that time, we have arrestedSenator DANIEL. Do you know whether or not Patty Harman and
Olin Ray Tyler went together?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir, they were associated together
very closely. In fact, she was what is termed his girl. She was his
prostitute.
Senator DANIEL. And did she use drugs?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir, she was an addict.
Senator DANIEL. A narcotic addict?
Senator DANIEL. And she was the girl of Olin Ray Tyler?
Yes, sir.

Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Since that time, we arrested Olin Tyler
on South Beckley, in June, I believe it was, this year, and as he
attempted to swallow a paper containing heroin, we were able to remove it from his mouth.
He stands charged in State court now for
that offense.
Senator DANIEL. Is he out on bond?

Senator
Tyler?
DANIEL.
Lieutenant
All right. Is he here in the courtroom, Olin Ray
GANNAWAY.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. He is here over at the door.

you are speaking about?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. I can't see him.
Senator
DANIEL. Well,
Is that the mar
step forward; Olin Ray Tyler, step forward
so that Lieutenant Gannaway can see you.
3086
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. I still can't see through the lights.

Senator DANIEL. Come on out a little farther, so he can see you,
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir, that is Olin Tyler.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Now, the next one I have in mind is an
offense that was committed down in Florida by Thurmond Brewer
and Clyde Clifford James. We arrested them out on Harry Hines
Boulevard with a little girl named Della Brousseau, and they were
in possession of what we would believe would be an excess of $40,000
worth of narcotics on the black market.
Senator DANIEL. Were they from Dallas?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir, they were from Dallas.
Senator DANIEL. Now, I'm sorry, but I missed the name of that
person; you are naming so many here.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Thurmond Brewer, B-r-e-w-e-r.
Senator DANIEL. Thurmond Brewer?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. He has an alias of Shanghai.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. I haven't seen him recently. He was sentenced to 10 years in the Florida State penitentiary in Pensacola,
I believe, he and James Brewer, for the LJurglary of a drugstore down
there.
Mr. Heddens of the Federal Narcotic Bureau was down there on
that case also. We work very closely with the Federal Narcotic
Bureau, and we made the case together, Mr. Heddens and the narcotics officer.
It was my understanding that Clyde James is back in the Dallas
area now; whether Brewer is still in the penitentiary or out, I don't
know.
Senator DANIEL. Now, they are the ones that had the $40,000 worth
of narcotics in Florida?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. They were arrested with that narcotic in
their possession here in the Dallas area, out here on Hines Boulevard,
and it came from Florida. From the burglary of a drugstore there,
I believe in Pensacola, and also the burglary of a hospital in Tallahassee.
Senator DANIEL. And the drugs were actually brought back to
Dallas?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; we recovered the drugs here in
Dallas.
Senator DANIEL. Now, were they convicted on that charge, both
of them?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Both of them were given 10 years in
Florida.
Senator DANIEL. In Florida.; are they already out?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Clyde Clifford James is out, to my know
edge; I don't know about Shanghai Brewer.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did they use narcotics, or do you have
any information on that?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; they both used narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. All right; go ahead.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Now, the next one is a robbery, an armed
robbery up in Madison, Wis., back a few years ago, in which we
arrested one Robert Morgan Massengill and Olin Alvey and Mack
3087
Walter Barnes. We had a suspect on that as a fourth man on it,

who was Olin Ray Tyler. However, we were never able to get him
identified enough to remove him from the State of Wisconsin.
Senator DANIEL. Now, wait a minute. These were all Dallas
people?
Senator DANIEL. Well, it would appear that a lot of these crimes
of violence that you are citing were committed in other States, away
from Dallas?
Senator DANIEL. By these Dallas people; is that right?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir. It was a common expression
around here among the Dallas hoodlums that they didn't steal in
Texas at all. They were a thief, but they didn't steal in Texas.
Senator DANIEL. Well, go ahead, now. I have lost count of those
you have named, and I have lost the names, too.
Who were involved in the Wisconsin
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Robert Morgan Massengill, Mack Walter
Barnes, and Olin Alvey.
Senator DANIEL. Was that a holdup?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. That was an armed robbery; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. An armed robbery?
Senator DANIEL. And what did they get in that robbery?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. They stole a large quantity of narcotics.
We believe that on the black market it would be in excess of $20,000
worth.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you know if any of these men used
narcotics themselves?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Olin Alvey was a narcotic addict, and as I
stated, Olin Ray Tyler, who was a suspect on that, was also a narcotic addict. Mack Barnes, as far as I know, is not an addict, and
Robert MassengiU, I understand, was addicted to heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Where they were caught with these drugs, was it
possible to know where they intended to take the drugs?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. It is my understanding that they brought
the drugs back to the Dallas area.
We later arrested a man here named Thomas Bryant, commonly
called Tommy Bryant, who is back in the State penitentiary. He
at that time was on parole. It is my understanding that a quantity
of drugs was found out at his place, where he was living, that came
out of that robbery up there. I know that we recovered one bottle
of dilaudid out at his house, and it was for the possession of this
dilaudid that he was sent back to the Texas penitentiary.
Senator DANIEL. Tommy Bryant?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Tommy Bryant; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Was he also a user of narcotics?
Senator DANIEL. Had he been tied up with any violent crime?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. He was on parole out of the Texas penitentiary for armed robbery, and he is back there, and I believe he
has more years to serve than he can live.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Go ahead, sir.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Now these three, Massengill, Alvey, and
Mack Barnes, were convicted there in Madison, Wis., and served a
3088
sentence, I believe it ran 3 to 15 years. And after some 5 years, they

were all released, and Olin Alvey returned to the Dallas area, alone
with Mack Barnes, and Massengill; and Olin Alvey became engaged
in the narcotic traffic here, and also he was engaged in robberies.
He was charged, I believe, in Longview, along with a Clarence Bryant,
with robbing a place down there in Longview. He later became engaged in a gun fight with one of his peddlers, a boy that is known as
Louis Earl Vincent, alias Buster Vincent, in which both of them were
killed, in West Dallas. I believe that was the early part of this
year.
Senator
DANIEL.
What about Vincent, the one that was killed,
did he use narcotic drugs?

LIEUTENANT
GANNAWAY.
and his wife both.
Yes,
sir; he was a narcotic addict, he
His wife is now in Federal penitentiary.

Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Her name is Margie Fay Vincent.
Senator DANIEL. And Olin Alvey, the one who killed him, was a
narcotic user?
Lieutenant
GANNAWAY.
Yes, sir; and the woman he was living
with is also in the penitentiary. Her name was Jo Ann Soames.

She is in the State penitentiary for violation of the narcotic laws.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, now, did these four that you have last
named, did they use heroin?

Lieutenant
Senator
GANNAWAY.
DANIEL.
Yes, sir; they used heroin.
Well, Lieutenant Gannaway, it would appear,
from all these examples that you are giving us, that you are not one
of those who believes that heroin users are docile persons.
Lieutenant
GANNAWAY.
No, sir.
I have in mind 2 detectives
that went with 2 deputy sheriffs out on Singleton in West Dallas,

some 2 or 3 years ago, or 4 years ago, and executed a search warrant
there at that address, and one of the detectives is working in my
particular narcotics squad. As he entered the door, he was shot
twice by one of the peddlers there, a boy known as Floyd Bentley.
This Floyd Bentley shot him one time, it hit him just under the eye
and came out his throat, and another time in his arm. Fortunately,
Detective Wharton, the man that got shot, lived over it. He is very
lucky he lived over it.
At that time he was calling out that he was a police officer, and
the girl who was married to Bentley, Marcella Green, who was
formerly married to Lois Green, who was the brother of Cecil Green,
kept hollering at Bentley, "It is the police," and he kept shooting at
him. Floyd Bentley is now serving a term in the penitentiary.
Senator DANIEL. Was he a narcotic addict?

Senator DANIEL. What kind of drug was he using?
Lieutenant
Senator
GANNAWAY.
DANIEL.
Heroin.
Now, you brought in another Green, and that is
Lois Green?

Senator DANIEL. He was a drug addict?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. It is my understanding that he used
cocaine. Everyone in the underworld, all the informants that I
knew, called him a coke hound.
Senator
DANIEL.
What about his wife?
3089
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. His wife, as far as I know, she-at that

time he was married to a girl named Betty Green, but the one I had
reference to here, Marcella
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. He was divorced from her, and she is
addicted to heroin. She is still in the Dallas area.
Senator DANIEL. What has happened to Lois Green?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Lois Green was killed out in West Dallas
several years ago. He was killed by a blast from a shotgun. His
murder is one of the unsolved murders here in Dallas.
Senator DANIEL. All right, sir. Now, proceed. Have you got
some more?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. I have a number of them that I have
written down, if you have time for them.
Senator DANIEL. Yes, sir. Well, I want to get the record complete.
I had one name I wanted to ask you about, particularly, that we have
under subpena. Do you know Gladys Harvey?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; I know Gladys Harvey.
Senator DANIEL. Does she have any connection with narcotics,
that you have ever heard about?
Lieutenant
GANNAWAY.
Gladys Harvey formerly lived with Jetty
Bass. They lived at, I believe it was 1816 Park Row. At this
time, when she lived down in that place, although we were unable to
make a case against them, we had information that they were selling
narcotics out of this house there. We never were able to make a
case against either Gladys or Jetty. As far as her use of narcotics,
it is my understanding that she uses marihauna occasionally, and
that is all.
Now, she was involved in a fight with one Ruby Russell, another
well-known prostitute here in the Dallas area, and during this fight,
she killed this Ruby Russell.
Senator DANIEL. Yes, sir
Lieutenant
GANNAWAY.
She has been a prostitute around here and
a known associate with the various police characters for many years.
Senator DANIEL. Is Gladys Harvey in the courtroom?
Lieutenant. GANNAWAY. I saw her yesterday.
Senator
IS this the person you are testifying about?

Look right behind you.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; that is Gladys Harvey, the one I
know.
Senator
DANIEL.
DANIEL.
Lieutenant
All right.
GANNAWAY.
Proceed, sir.
Now, another case that I would like to
call to the committee's attention is a case that happened up in Idabel,

Okla. That was a case of armed robbery up there, of a dentist, and
during this armed robbery, the robbers whipped this dentist with a
pistol; they whipped his wife, and they also whipped his aged mother,
trying to get the dentist to tell them where he had some hidden money.
They robbed him of what money they could, and robbed him of some
jewelry, and so forth. That offense was committed by one Jess
McIntosh, William Dan Wiseman, and Bill Wayne. All of them
were Dallas police characters.
We later arrested all of them, and they tried Jess McIntosh there
in Oklahoma, at Idabel, Olda., and he was given 50 years. He died
a short time later in Oklahoma penitentiary. Before Bill Wayne and
3090
Billy Wiseman could be brought to trial up there, they were caught

in the act of an armed robbery in Detroit, Mich., with a boy named
J. D. McMackin, who also was from Dallas, and they were given a
term of 15 to 30 years there. Now, all three of those people were
narcotic addicts, William Dan Wiseman, Bill Wayne, and Jess
McIntosh. In fact, Jess McIntosh, at the time we arrested him-we
arrested him down on Brower Street-we executed a search warrant,
and we found him in possession of heroin there.
Mr. SPEER. Were they all heroin addicts, this entire group?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir. Now, we have another case here,
a boy known as William Jefferson Fair, and also a Reggie Stewart.
They were arrested in Corpus Christi and charged with burglary.
They later went to the hospital in Rusk, Tex., and burglarized that
hospital, and brought the narcotics to the Dallas area.
While in this Dallas area, we were able to arrest them and recover
most of those narcotics that came out of that robbery in the Rusk
Hospital. Since that time, Reggie Stewart pleaded guilty and is
in the Federal penitentiary. William Jefferson Fair is, I believe,
somewhere in a penitentiary in Missouri, charged in two cases of bank
robbery.
Mr. SPEER. Were either one of these addicts?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Both of them used cocaine.
One last case I would like to call to the attention of the committee,
that was committed by narcotic addicts, was up in Columbus, Ohio,
where William Waverly Butler, commonly called Billy Butler, that
I have mentioned before and William Gus Noble-as you will recall,
I mentioned him yesterday; he is down in Laredo, I believe, awaiting
trial down there for importing heroin into the United States-along
with an escapee out of Georgia named McMurry, I believe his name
was, was caught up there in a burglary and sentenced to the penitentiary there. And I believe that's all the cases that I just recall
offhand.
Mr. SPEER. Was this Gus Noble a heroin addict?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; he is a heroin addict. We have
arrested him many times here in this Dallas area.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, is it your opinion that you have here in Dallas
at the present time, bearing in mind such people as Tommy Hicks and
some others you have mentioned, and some whom you have in your
files, that you have a hard core of narcotic addicts and peddlers here
in the Dallas area, which must be cleaned up if you are going to whip
the narcotics traffic in Dallas?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. There is no doubt but what we will have
to rid the populace of these narcotic addicts, users, and associates,
before we can curb this narcotic problem here in our area.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, I speak particularly of a hard core, people such
as a man like Hicks, who has been here for 35 years.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Mr. Speer?
Mr. SPEER. There were a few men I thought I would like to ask you
about, Lieutenant. Incidentally, you have done a remarkable job in

arresting these people; but somehow or other they are back on the
streets.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; there is a number of them back
on the street.
Mr.
SPEER.
3091
Even after all of these violent crimes they have
committed?
There is one other violator here in Dallas I call your

attention to, and that's a man who I believe was engaged in a fight with
Jetty Bass some time ago.
Lieutenant GANAWAY. Harry Pope; I failed to mention his name.
I don't know-there was no reason for omitting that.
Harry Pope and another police character from Dallas named
Harrison Short, and this Clarence Bryant, the one I told you was up
in Ohio for robbery, were arrested or were caught in Hot Springs, Ark.,
at which time they engaged the police in a gunfight, and Harrison
Short was killed. Now, later on they were given a sentence there in
Arkansas, and after that sentence was completed, they came back to
the Dallas area, and Clarence Bryant is up in Ohio now; I understand
he has either received a sentence or he is in jail up there.
Harry Pope, a few weeks ago, was in the Dallas area. He became
engaged in a fight with Jetty Bass, the man that I mentioned before,
and during this fight he cut Jetty Bass with a knife several places,
and I understand it was a pretty serious wound that he inflicted upon
him. In fact, he is very lucky to still be alive. Harry Pope has been
a known associate of various addicts and the various dealers in
narcotics for many years.
Mr. SPEER. Does he himself use narcotics?
Mr. SPEER.
Lieutenant
GANNAWAY.
It is my understanding that he is not
addicted to the use of narcotics. However, he uses occasionally

cocaine.
Mr. GASQUE. Why would you think that he uses cocaine occasionally?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. It is my understanding, among the underworld characters that they use that cocaine much like a lot of people
use whisky, and as a lot of people use whisky at times when they
need something to encourage them and kind of give them a little
boost, to make them a little braver; they say that the cocaine will
do that.
Mr. GASQUE. Well, the truth is that cocaine is much more-much
more successful in that than is whisky?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. That's what they tell me.
Senator DANIEL. You mean to say that when some underworld
character is about to pull a job that is pretty rough and terrible, that
they might need a little bolstering of the nerve?
Senator DANIEL. And that some of these characters you have
named use the drug for that purpose?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. It is my understanding that they do; yes,
sir.
Mr. SPEER. There is one other I would like to mention here, and
that's the Herbert Noble who, I believe, met a violent death in this
area.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Herbert Noble was a gambler here in the
Dallas area, and he, again, is an unsolved murder here in the-we
might call it the Dallas area; I believe it was actually in Denton
County. Actually, who murdered him I don't know. It was the
common gossip among the underworld that he had a feud, that
3092
there was a feud between Herbert Noble and another gambler that
formerly lived here, Bennie Binion, who is now in the penitentiary,
for income-tax violation I believe.
Now, whether or not actually Bennie Binion had anything to do
with Herbert Noble being killed or being shot at several times, I
don't know. Herbert Noble told ine that he did, that he was responsible for it. He also told me that the first time that he got shot,
that Lois Green and Johnny Gusafi, another well-known hoodlum
here in the Dallas area, were the ones who shot him.
Mr. SPEER. This Lois Green, that is the brother of the Cecil
Green you were talking about?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; he is the one who was shot out
here in West Dallas a few years ago and killed.
Mr. SPEER. Now, this entire group you have described here this
morning are commonly known as knob-knockers, hijackers, burglars,
addicts
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Well, with the exception of Herbert Noble;
I never knew him to do anything but run a gambling joint of some
kind, and as far as being a robber or a safe burglar or a narcotic
addict, if he was I don't know anything about it.
Senator DANIEL. I imagine the same thing might be true of several
others. You have named so many, I doubt that it would be possible
for you to classify everybody you have named in that category; isn't
that correct?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. That's true.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, you have had so many names
here this morning.
What Mr. Speer is after, I am sure, is that many of those you have
named, and so indicated as you named them, are connected with safecracking, burglaries, narcotics, and things of that kind.
Lieutenant
GANNAWAY.
Yes, sir.
Go ahead.
Mr. SPEER. During this period of time, did you have occasion to
know a Eugene McCroskey, from Kansas City?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Yes, sir; I knew Eugene McCroskey.
Mr. SPEER. Who was he associated with in this area?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. He was associated at that time with a mai
named Rudolph Trombino, I believe his name was, and Nick Cascio,
and Nick's associates. I believe that McCroskey and Trombino
were arrested out at a place where Nick was living. I believe it was
the corner of Myrtle and Pennsylvania or Myrtle and Peabody.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. SPEER.
Peabody?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. And placed in jail for general investigation.

He has a long police record that covers several places. However, w(,
were never able to pin anything on him here in the Dallas area..
There has been some mention of McCroskey operating

in this area, and some of the people you mentioned this morning operating in the Kansas City area.
Do you have any information along that line, or would that be
unusual for this type of law violator?
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. It is my understanding that it is, among
the underworld-that for instance, in the Dallas area, one of the Dallas
characters will make a reconnaissance of a place to be burglarized or
Mr. SPEER.
3093
robbed or, as they call it, case the place, and then that they notify
some out-of-State person, known safe burglars and so forth, to come
in and pull the job, and then leave.
That way, they stand a lesser risk of being caught and tied up with
a job.
Consequently, other people in other States do the same thing for
the safe burglars and the hijackers here in the Dallas area.
Mr. SPEER. That might account for your statement awhile ago
that they didn't pull any of these jobs in Texas themselves?
Mr. SPEER [handing the witness a photograph]. I would like to
show you a photograph here, and see if you can identify one or all
of these people.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. The man here [indicating] is the man I
know as McCroskey, and the man in the center is the man I know as
Cecil Green.
I don't know the other man.
Mr. SPEER. Thank you very much.
Senator DANIEL. All right. This picture will be offered in the
record as exhibit A of the Dallas hearings.
(Exhibit A of the Dallas hearings appears on p. 3094.)
Anything further?
Senator DANIEL. All right. Thank you very much, Lieutenant
Gannaway. We will be hearing from you again, I am sure.
Senator DANIEL. I appreciate this information you have brought
before the committee, and all your cooperation with the staff of this
committee in preparing for these hearings.
Lieutenant GANNAWAY. Thank you, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now we are going to have a 5-minute recess.
(Short recess.)
Mr. Warren Heddens.
Just a moment. Let me say to the press and television cameras
that this witness is with the Bureau of Narcotics, and cannot be
photographed. You will understand why, I am sure. No photographs of this witness.
Mr. Warren Heddens.
Will you be sworn, Mr. Heddens? Do you solemnly swear that the
testimony you will give to this subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
Mr. HEDDENS. I do.
3094

.................................
No. 24269
Photograph of Michael Ergovich, 36 years, 5' 8", weight: 155; Cecil Green,
No. 75952, 36 years, 5' 11", weight: 175; Eugene McCroskey, No. 21016,
35 years, 5' 7"; weight: 160.
TESTIMONY OF WARREN A. HEDDENS, BUREAU OF NARCOTICS,

DALLAS, TEX., DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Mr. HEDDENS. Warren A. Heddens.
Senator DANIEL. And your present position.
Mr. HEDDENS. Narcotic agent for the United States Treasury
Department.
Senator DANIEL. Where are you located?
Mr. HEDDENS. Dallas, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been located here?
Mr HEDDENS. Fifteen years.
3095
Senator DANIEL. I am going to let one of your former colleagues

until he was loaned to this committee, conduct this examination. Mr.
Speer.
Mr. SPEER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Heddens, you have served in this area for a number of years,
I believe, as a narcotic agent?
Mr. HEDDENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. During that period of time, have you made investigations of large-scale narcotic burglaries, hijackings, and robberies?
Mr. HEDDENS. I have.
Mr. SPEER. Would you start back with, say, 1943, and mention a
few of those; describe the method of operation and just what happened?
Mr. SPEER. Giving the affiliations of the perpetrators of these

thefts.
Mr. HEDDENS. All right, sir.
Mr. SPEER. That is, with reference to narcotics.
Mr. HEDDENS. On October 8, 1943, at about 5:30 p. m., two masked
men entered the Renfro Drug Co. No. 1 in Fort Worth.
Mr. SPEER. Was that a wholesale drugMr. HEDDENS. It was a wholesale drughouse, what we refer to as a
class 2 registrant; they had a narcotic vault. The armed men made
the manager open the vault, from which they removed about 1,000
pieces of assorted narcotics.
Mr. SPEER. You say 1,000 pieces?
Mr. SPEER. About what would that mean?

Mr. HEDDENS. Well, there was about-about 8,000 grains of assorted narcotics. These I refer to as cocaine, morphine, dilaudid, and
pantapon, which the addict, of course, would use. That was valued
at about $35,000.
The investigation, after it was reported to our Bureau, the Fort
Worth police carried on for a long time, and finally they were able to
identify Ray Sellers and James Buchanan Cavanaugh as the actual
persons who entered the wholesale house, masked and armed. The
automobile used by them at the time was licensed to Lois Green.
He was also implicated in that, as was Johnny Gusafi. There was no
prosecution. Ray Sellers was found dead, shot to death in Dallas
County, and James Buchanan Cavanaugh has never been seen or
heard of since.
Mr. SPEER. At that time, this Cavanaugh, was he out on bond or
parole?
Mr. HEDDENS. He was on parole from a 50-year sentence at Texas
State Penitentiary.
Mr. SPEER. Had he escaped, or was he on bond?
Mr. HEDDENS. He had escaped.
Mr. SPEER. He was an escapee at that time?
Mr. SPEER. This Lois Green that you mentioned, according to your
information was he a narcotics addict?
Mr. HEDDENS. He was a marihuana smoker and a cocaine sniffer.
Mr. SPEER. And this Gusafi?
Mr. REDDENS. I don't believe heused narcotics. I never heard
that he did.
3096
What ultimately happened to this large quantity of

narcotics that was burglarized?
Mr. REDDENS. It went into the illegal market around Dallas and
vicinity. We don't knowMr. SPEER.
Mr. SPEER. Under whose direction, according to your information?

Mr. HEDDENS. Lois Green.
Mr. SPEER. Lois Green; all
right.
What was the next wholesale
burglary that you recall?

Senator DANIEL. Now, is this the Lois Green that we heard
Lieutenant Gannaway testify about earlier?
Mr. HEDDENS.
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir; the same Lois Green.
Senator DANIEL. There were so many that he testified about, I

forgot about the termination, or what happened to him.
Mr. REDDENS. He was murdered at Skyview Night Club, several
years ago, in West Dallas.
Senator DANIEL. Was that one of the unsolved killings?
Mr. HEDDENS. Yes, sir; that is one of the unsolved killings.
Senator DANIEL. In this area?
Senator DANIEL. Was he
the brother of Cecil Green, who was

considered the master burglar, the teacher of burglars in committing
and actually hijacking and robbing narcotic safes?
Mr. HEDDENS. Yes, sir; he was a brother of Cecil Green.
Senator DANIEL. And what happened to Cecil Green?
Mr. HEDDENS. He was murdered in Tarrant County.
Mr. HEDDENS. Within the last 6 months.
Senator DANIEL. Is that also an unsolved murder?
Mr.
REDDENS.
Senator
cotics?
Yes, Sir.
DANIEL.
Mr. REDDENS
Did either or both of these men also use nar-
They were marihuana smokers, and cocaine snif-
fers; yes, sir.

Mr.
SPEER.
All right.
Mr. HEDDENS. The next was on the 28th of January 1947, in

Madison, Wis. Four armed men entered the Madison Drug Co.
about 5:30 p. m., after they were getting ready to close, made the
manager, a Mr. Hayden, open the vault where the narcotics were
kept-it was a class 2 registrant, had a large narcotics su ply-they
took about 1,500 pieces of narcotics, which was valued at about
$75,000 or $80,000, from the vault, entered the automobile, and
came to Dallas.
After being reported to us, we sent photographs, license numberswhen I say we, it was the police department, the Dallas Police Department and us.
Mr. SPEER. In cooperation with the police?
And we were able to identify Max Barnes, Olin Tyler-or Olin
Alvey, and Bob Massengill with that armed robbery. As they
entered Madison, Wis., they checked in at a tourist court. Bob
Massengill signed the register. They had a license on their car,
H U 9191, a Texas license, and from that list that we sent to them
they were able to identify the car as being at that tourist court, and
were able to identify Bob Massengill and Barnes.
3097
We had hearings before the then Governor of Texas, Governor

Jester, and had them removed to Madison, Wis., where they were
tried, and each of the 3 sentenced to 3 to 15 years in the Wisconsin State Penitentiary. The fourth person, who Mr. Hayden, that
managed the wholesale house that was held up, Olin Tyler, he was
unable to identify; therefore Tyler was not taken back to Wisconsin.
Mr. SPEER. That is the famous fourth-man case?
Mr. REDDENS. Yes, sir; he was the fourth man.
Mr. SPEER. All right.
What was the next hijacking burglary?
Mr. HEDDENS. Of narcotics, the next one we had was J. W. Everly

Drug Co., a registered class 2 wholesaler, at Ottumwa, Iowa. That
was burglarized August 17, 1947. It was a burglary, not an armed
robbery. They entered the place, knocked the knob from the door of
the narcotic vault, and took about 700 pieces of assorted narcotics,
with a value of about $25,000, left, and we later were able to obtain a
statement from Dave Batterton, now deceased, as to his part in the
burglary, although he did name no other of the persons with him.
Mr. SPEER. Was he a Dallas man?
Mr. HEDDENS. He was a Dallas drug addict; yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Was he associated with the Dallas knobknockers?
Mr. HEDDENS. Yes, sir; Lois Green, Cecil Green, Jack Todd,
Cascio, and the crowd, the regular crowd heretofore named by

Mr. SPEER. All right. What was the next. one?
Mr. HEDDENS. The next one we had was on September 2, 1948.
The Dallas police, headed by Lieutenant Gannaway, entered a motel
on Hines Boulevard, arrested Thurmond Brewer, Clyde James,
Della Brousseau, and Ann Denton, found a large quantity of narcotics-there was about 5 ounces of cocaine, 12,000 morphine tablets
and dilaudid tablets, and about 2,000 pantapon tablets on the person
of Della Brousseau.
Mr. SPEER. Was she a Dallas addict?
Mr. HEDDENS. A Dallas addict; yes.
In making the search, they found a railway express agency receipt..
Among with the police, we went to the railway express agency, located
the package, and it was a shipment of drugs which came from
Marianna, Fla., taken from the Moulton P. & S. drug store at
Pensacola, Fla.
Further investigation disclosed that those people, about August
18, 1948, burglarized thc Tampa Municipal Hospital at Tampa,
Fla., and after that burglary, shipped the drugs to Dallas or brought
the drugs with them to Dallas by air, and those taken from the P. &
S. Pharmacy in Pensacola, Fla., were shipped by express from
Marianna, Fla. We also seized those drugs.
Mr. SPEER. Let me ask you right here, were all those drugs you are
describing there taxpaid narcotics stolen from legal, licensed wholesalers?

Mr. HEDDENS. Yes, sir; that's correct.
Mr. SPEER. Under those circumstances, does the Bureau of
Narcotics have jurisdiction over those investigations, or is that a
police matter?
Mr. HEDDENS. It is actually a police matter, burglary of taxpaid
narcotics. However, we do assist whenever possible.
3098
Mr. SPEER.
You are continuall. being requested to assist in the
these burglaries, because of the nature of the merinvestigation of stolen?

is
that
chandise
Mr.
HEDDENS. That's
Mr. SPEER. But it is
right.
a police matter, because of the Harrison
Narcotic Act?
Mr. HEDDENS. That's right; yes, sir.
On that particular case in Florida, they had occasion to present

the case to the grand jury, the Federal grand jury in Pensacola.
We indicted Brewer and James for interstate shipment of narcotics.
They were removed to Florida and turned over to the State authorities, where Brewer and James were prosecuted, and each then got 10
years in the State court in Florida.
What was the next one?
Mr. SPEER. All right.
Mr. HEDDENS. The next one I have was the Mutual Drug Co.
Mr. SPEER. Where was that?
Mr. HEDDENS. Columbus, Ohio. On Christmas afternoon in
1948, when the store was closed for the holiday, William Wayne
Butler, or William Butler, William Gus Noble, and a boy by the name
of McMurry, who was an escapee from the Atlanta penitentiary,
entered the wholesale house, broke the knob from the narcotic vault,
stole twenty or thirty thousand dollars' worth of narcotics, and
came back to Dallas. After the burglary was reported to us, along
with the police, we were able to identify those three individuals who
committed the burglary through photographs, license numbers, and
long-distance toll calls they made from Ohio to Dallas. They were
taken back to Ohio, tried and convicted in the State court, and sentenced to the penitentiary.
Mr. SPEER. The toll calls were an important factor in solving this
particular burglary; is that right?

Mr. SPEER. This Butler and Noble, are they the same persons
mentioned by Lieutenant Gannaway this morning?
Mr. HEDDENS. Yes, sir; they are the same persons mentioned by
Mr. SPEER. All right. What is the next one?
Mr. HEDDENS. The next one we had was in April 1955, several
months ago. A drug company in Kansas was burglarized, the Archer
Drug Co. in Kansas was burglarized, and a large quantity of narcotics
taken-it was a wholesale house-of dilaudid, morphine, pantapon,
cocaine, apd various other types of narcotics.
Mr. SPEER. Where was this, Mr. Heddens?
Mr. HEDDENS. At Wichita, Kans., on the 24th of April 1955.
Two unknown men did it. At the end of our investigation, Archer
was able to identify Frank Elsworth, who was arrested in Nevada.
Mr. SPEER. Is he a Dallas man?
Mr. HEDDENS. Yes, sir; he is a Dallas man.
Mr. SPEER. Is he a knob-knocker here in Dallas?
Mr. HEDDENS. He is associated with the Greens you have mentioned, and the rest of them.
Mr. SPEER. Jetty Bass?
Mr. SPEER. All right. Go ahead.
3099
Mr. HEDDENS. He was arrested in Las Vegas, Nev., with sixtysome $1,000 bills on his person. There were no narcotics recovered.
Mr. SPEER. You mean these were all $1,000 bills?
Mr. SPEER. How long after the burglary was be arrested?
Mr. HEDDENS. Within a very short time after the burglary.
Mr. SPEER. So he had already fenced the narcotics and obtained
the cash, according to all the available evidence?

Mr. HEDDENS. That's right; yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. And there were how many of these $1,000 bills?
Mr. HEDDENS. About 61, or 60.
Mr. SPEER. All right. Do you have any more examples of this?
Mr. HEDDENS. No. This same Frank Elsworth is wanted in

Pennsylvania for robbery, the same Frank Elsworth that stuck up
this drug company in Wichita, Kans.
Mr. SPEER. He is wanted in Pennsylvania?
Mr. SPEER. You mean on a murder or robbery charge?
Mr. HEDDENS. On murder.
Mr. SPEER. You mean on a murder charge?
Mr. HEDDENS. Yes, sir; on murder. We had a stickup of a drugstore some time ago in Corpus Christi, Tex. A man by the name of
Castile is wanted for that job. A lot of narcotics were taken. He is
somewhere around Indiana, he is dangerous, he is a murderer, he is
brutal, and the Indiana authorities have put out a notice that he is
considered as a very dangerous person, and there is a warrant outstanding for his arrest.
Mr. S PEER. According to your information that you have given
here this morning, most of these people, most of these hijackers,

burglars that you have mentioned, might be so classified, is that right?
Mr. HEDDENS. That's correct, yes, sir; that's correct.
Mr. GASQUE. No; no questions.
Senator DANIEL. We thank you very much, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Can you identify any other people who have been
using narcotics with any violent crimes here in this area, other than
those that Lieutenant Gannaway has already talked about?
Mr. HEDDENS. No, I can't, Senator; no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. He has pretty well covered it?
Senator DANIEL. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Gentry.
No pictures of this witness. This is the other Bureau of Narcotics
officer, of whom there will be no pictures.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you will give to
Mr. GENTRY. I do.
71
515-56--pt. 7
-48
3100
TESTIMONY OF ERNEST M. GENTRY, DISTRICT SUPERVISOR,

BUREAU OF NARCOTICS, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Senator DANIEL. Again, I will let your former colleague conduct
the questioning, Mr. Gentry.
If you will, give us your name.
Mr. GENTRY. Ernest M. Gentry.
Mr. GENTRY. I am district supervisor of the 10th Treasury District of the Bureau of Narcotics, comprising Texas, Louisiana, and
Mississippi.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been supervisor for the district?
Mr. GENTRY. I have been supervisor in this district since February
1955. Prior to that, I was supervisor of the 14th Treasury District,
composed of the States of California, Arizona, and Nevada, for approximately 5 years.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Speer.
Mr. SPEER. Mr. Gentry, I believe you have a statement there, with
a summation of facts and figures, statistics; do you have those available?
Mr.
GENTRY. Yes, I
do.
Senator DANIEL. We will make the entire statement a part of the

record, and then you can summarize or answer the questions, which
will bring out the main points.
Mr. GENTRY. Very good, sir.
Senator DANIEL. It will be released to the press as your statement

for the record.
Mr. GENTRY. Yes, sir.
(The statement referred to follows):

STATEMENT
OF
ERNEST
M. GENTRY,
NARCOTICS,
DISTRICT SUPERVISOR,
TREASURY
BUREAU
OF
DEPARTMENT
We who are engaged in narcotic law enforcement are aware of the extent of
the committee's search for the facts related to the narcotic problem. The results
of the committee's efforts can and will be of considerable interest and assistance
not only to those of us concerned with the administration of narcotic laws, but
to every peace officer and citizen in the Nation.
The area to which my remarks relate primarily is identified as the Tenth
District of the Bureau of Narcotics, comprised of the States of Texas, Louisiana,
and Mississippi, with headquarters at Dallas, Texas.
ADDICTION
The principal drug of addiction throughout the three States is heroin. The
addiction found to morphine or other opium derivatives is considerably less than
the heroin addiction encountered, and the usage of other opium derivatives is
generally a sustaining procedure for the addict due to his inability for various
reasons to secure heroin.
Cocaine usage is uncommon and generally involves diversion by persons in the
medical or allied profession.
Addiction to synthetic narcotic drugs has increased during the past few years.
The increase of cases of addiction to these drugs has occurred principally in the
medical or allied professional groups. Addiction to synthetic narcotic drugs in
nonmedical or professional groups has been encountered frequently. These
cases result from the thefts or diversions from legitimate stocks usually when the
heroin addict's supply is eliminated.
Opiim smoking is not prevalent but is encountered periodically among Chinese.
Marihuana usage has increased considerably during the past few years.
3101
The Bureau of Narcotics maintains records showing the number and distribution by name and address of every addict encountered and reported by Federal,
State and local authorities throughout the United States. The number of addicts
reported in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi since January 1, 1953, are as follows:
TExAs
Addicts reported during 1953
Houston -------------------------------------------------------San Antonio ---------------------------------------------------Dallas --------------------------------------------------------Other ----------------------------------------------------------
37
213
43
96
Total ----------------------------------------------------
389
LOUISIANA

New Orleans ---------------------------------------------------Other ----------------------------------------------------------
28
19
Total -----------------------------------------------------
47
Mississippi

Jackson --------------------------------------------------------Other ----------------------------------------------------------
6
56
Total -----------------------------------------------------
62
TEXAS
Houston- ------------------------------------------------------San Antonio ---------------------------------------------------Dallas --------------------------------------------------------Other ---------------------------------------------------------
36
44
56
106
Total ----------------------------------------------------
242
LOUISIANA

New Orleans -----------------------------------------------------Other ---------------------------------------------------------Total -----------------------------------------------------
30
18
48
Mississippi

Jackson----------------------------------------------Other ----------------------------------------------------------
42
Total -----------------------------------------------------
56
TEXAS
Addicts reported during 1955 to Oct. 15, 1955
Houston-------------------------------------------------------39
San Antonio ---------------------------------------------------Dallas -------------------------------------------------------Fort Worth -----------------------------------------------------Other ----------------------------------------------------------
122
385
5
70
654
Total ---------------------------------------------------NoT.-38 of the total addicts reported during 1955 were under 21 years of age.
3102

LOUISIANA
Addicts reported during 1955 to Oct. 15, 1956

New Orleans ---------------------------------------------------Other ----------------------------------------------------------
74
10
Total ---------------------------------------------------- 84
NOTE.-14 of the total addicts reported during 1955 were under 21 years of age.
Mississippi
Jackson --------------------------------------------------------Other ----------------------------------------------------------
3
92
95
Total ---------------------------------------------------NOTE.-None of the total addicts reported during 1955 were under 21 years of
age.
Total addicts reported under 21 years of age in the States of Texas, Louisiana and
Mississippi
80
1953 ----------------------------------------------------------11
1954 ----------------------------------------------------------52
1955 (To Oct. 15) -----------------------------------------------The increase in the number of addicts reported for the year 1955 does not
necessarily indicate an increase in addiction during the period. The increased
total for this year is the result of efforts to encourage the reporting of addicts by
state and local authorities. For instance, the total of 385 addicts reported in
Dallas for the year 1955 does not mean that this total was encountered during
the year 1955. The increased total is the result of the excellent cooperation
received from the Dallas Police Department bringing addict reports up to date
for the period since January 1953. With the growing cooperation in this program
more accurate statistics on the extent of the problem will be compiled.
EXTENT OF THE TRAFFIC
The principal drugs encountered in the traffic in this District are heroin and
marihuana. The majority of the heroin is of Mexican origin and has been found
to range from 5 percent to 75 percent in purity. A portion of the heroin supply
is available through the interstate traffic. This is believed to have been smuggled
at Eastern ports and distributed through dealers in New York and the Middle
West to retail peddlers in this area. Practically all of the marihuana is of Mexican
origin.
The heroin market is principally retail, with dealers distributing small quantities
for consumption to addicts throughout the area. Supplies are maintained by
dealers through frequent trips to border points or through occasional deliveries
from out-of-State dealers.
Evidence of wholesale distribution from the State of Texas to other States is
being developed from time to time, and an example of this type of operation was
the case of Milton Abramson, alias Milton Bennett who, after having operated as
an interstate dealer from San Antonio for several years, was arrested on November
23, 1954, in Los Angeles, Calif., at which time 27 ounces of heroin of Mexican
origin was seized.
An example of wholesale distribution within the State of Texas was the case of
Rogelio Chapa Lozano of Hitchcock. Following two purchases of heroin of
approximately 1 ounce each, Lozano was arrested in Galveston, Tex., on April 30.
1955, and approximately 6 ounces of heroin were seized.
In Louisiana, principally the New Orleans area, heroin for the past 3 years or so
Although small quantities of
has been available in retail quantities generally.
heroin of Mexican origin have been present, the source for the majority has beef'
interstate traffickers dealing in heroin smuggled through the port of New York.
During the past 2 years approximately 20 retail peddlers of heroin have been
arrested in New Orleans, and investigation disclosed their source of supply to be
an important trafficker, J. C. Saddler of Chicago, Ill. The investigation of
Saddler's activities in Chicago resulted in the seizure on September 10, 1955, of
approximately 40 ounces of heroin and the arrest of Clotelle Saddler, his wife, and
Annie Clay, his mother. Latest reports indicate that Saddler is a fugitive.
MLLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
3103
The scope of the traffic to and from Texas in marihuana and heroin is clearly
indicated in the case of John E. Sutton and nine other convicted in United States
District Court at Houston, Tex., in May 1955. The investigation completed
in April 1955, established that this group was responsible for the interstate
trafficking of over 1,200 pounds of marihuana smuggled from Mexico to New
York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and other Eastern cities, in addition to that
distributed locally in the Houston area during the past 3 years. This same group
of dealers secured heroin supplies in New York which were returned to Houston
and distributed to dealers and addicts there during this period.
The smoking opium traffic is believed to be at a minimum throughout the
district. No large seizures have been made during the years, 1953, 1954, and 1955.
Following several purchases in ounce lots, investigators of this traffic in Houston
during 1955 culminated in the arrest of 4 persons, all Chinese, and the elimination
of 3 commercial opium smoking establishments.
Thefts and diversions of morphine and other addiction sustaining drugs from
legitimate stocks add to the supply of illicit drugs throughout the district. The
total thefts for the past 3 years and the quantities lost are as follows:
TEXAS
Thefts reportedfrom July 1 1953 to Dec. 31, 1953

Total number --------------------------------------------------ouncesMorphine ----------------------------------------------do ....
Other narcotic drugs -------------------------------------
72
10%
79%
LOUISIANA
Thefts reportedfrom July 1, 1953, to Dec. 31, 1953

Total number ---------------------------------------------------grains _
-------------------------------------------Morphine
ouncesOther narcotic drugs -----------------------------------
3
265
4%
Mississippi
Thefts reported from July 1, 1953, to Dec. 81, 1953
Total number ---------------------------------------------------ounces-..
Morphine-------------------------------------------do ....
7
2
3%
TEXAS
Thefts reported during 1954

Total number--------------------------------------------------147
32%
ounces-_
Morphine -------------------------------------------224%
do ..
Other narcotic drugs ------------------------------------LOUISIANA

Total number --------------------------------------------------ounces -_
Morphine -------------------------------------------do ....
11
2.
14%
Mississippi

-------------------------------------------------Total number
ounces- Morphine -------------------------------------------do ..
17
1%
15%
TEXAS
Thefts reported during 1955 to Sept. 30, 1955
68
-------------------------------------------------Total number
8
ounces- Morphine -------------------------------------------119
do
Other narcotic drugs ----------------------------------------
3104

LOUISIANA

Total number --------------------------------------------------Morphine -------------------------------------------ounces-_
Other narcotic drugs ------------------------------------do....
30
11 Y2
84Y
Mississippi

Total number ---------------------------------------------------Morpline -------------------------------------------ounces- Other narcotic drugs ------------------------------------do....
8
3Y
10%
Diversions constitute a sustaining supply and are not infrequent. An example

involving unusually large quantities was the recently completed case of the Speer
Drug Co., operated by George Speer, and located in Dublin, Tex., a city with a
population of 2,761 people. During the period July 1954, to July 1955, this
druggist was responsible for the filling of hundreds of genuine and forged prescriptions which diverted thousands of grains of narcotics into the illicit traffic.
The violations have been referred to the United States attorney for prosecution.
Based on the reports of total seizures by agents of this bureau and the total
arrest statistics by Federal, State and local authorities, the heaviest traffic in the
States of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi occurs in south Texas in the area
surrounding San Antonio and Houston. Total narcotic drugs and marihuana
seized in this district by agents of this bureau is as follows:
TEXAS
Narcotic and marihuanaseizures July 1, 1953, to Dec. 31, 1953

Marihuana
----------------------------------------Heroin
---------------------------------------------Opium
-----------------------------------------------Paregoric -------------------------------------------Other narcotic drugs -----------------------------------
pounds-.
ounces-_
do-...
gallons- ounces-_-
3651
11
1
32
2
LOUISIANA
Narcotic and marihuana seizures July 1, 1953, to Dec. 31, 1953

Marihuana ------------------------------------------ounces- 6
Heroin ----------------------------------------------grains -_ 355
Opium ------------------------------------------------------None
Paregoric ---------------------------------------------------None
Other narcotic drugs -----------------------------------grains_12
Mississippi
Narcotic and marihuanaseizures July 1, 1953, to Dec. 31, 1953

Marihuana --------------------------------------------------Heroin
-----------------------------------------------------Opium
-----------------------------------------------------Paregoric ---------------------------------------------------Other narcotic drugs -----------------------------------grains-.-
None
None
None
None
8
TEXAS
Narcotic and marihuana seizures during 1954

Marihuana
-----------------------------------------pounds- Heroin
---------------------------------------------ounces-.
do-....
-----------------------------------------------Opium
gallons- -------------------------------------------Paregoric
ounces-__
Other narcotic drugs -----------------------------------
211
35
5
11
6
3105

LOUISIANA
Narcotic and marihuanaseizures during 1954

11
grains_ _
------------------------------------------Marihuana
218
.--------------Heroin
None
Opium ------------------------------------------------------None
Other narcotic drugs -------------------------------------------Mississippi
Narcotic and marihuanaseizures during 1954

Marihuana -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Heroin
opium --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Paregoric
Other narcotic drugs
---------------------------------grains-_
None
None
None
None
90.5
TEXAS
Narcotic and marihuanaseizures during 1955 to Sept. 30, 1955

Marihuana
-----------------------------------------Heroin ---------------------------------------------Opium
Paregoric -------------------------------------------Other narcotic drugs ------------------------------------
pounds-_
152
ounces-38
-.--------------57
gallons- .
5
grains- 15
LOUISIANA
Narcotic and marihuana seizures during 1955 to Sept. 30, 1955

Marihuana
-----------------------------------------pounds-9
Heroin
---------------------------------------------grains_ 172
Opium
-----------------------------------------------------None
Paregoric ---------------------------------------------------None
Other narcotic drugs -----------------------------------grains-39
Mississippi
Narcotic and marihuanaseizures during 1955 to Sept. 30, 1955

Marihuana --------------------------------------------------Heroin
-----------------------------------------------------Opium
-----------------------------------------------------Paregoric ---------------------------------------------------Other narcotic drugs -----------------------------------grains__
None
None
None
None
2
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF NARCOTIC LAWS
The Bureau of Narcotics maintains five branch offices in the three-State area of
Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. With district headquarters and an enforcement office located at Dallas, other offices are located at Houston, San Antonio,
and El Paso, Tex., and New Orleans, La. There are 22 agents, including the
district supervisor, assigned to the area. These agents, consistently working overtime, are charged not only with the responsibility of enforcing the Federai laws
relating to the illicit domestic traffic in narcotic drugs and marihuana, but with
the responsibility of investigating all matters essential to the control and regulation of legitimate production and distribution of narcotic drugs through manufacturers, wholesalers, physicians, pharmacists, and hospitals.
Results of the enforcement activities of agents of this Bureau were referred to
above in the seizure statistics and are reported in the arrest and conviction statistics below:
3106

TEXAS
Total actual narcotic arrests during 1953
Marihuana
Narcotic
Total
Place
State and
local
Federal
State and
local
Federal
Houston ---------------------------------Dallas -----------------------------------San Antonio ------------------------------Fort Worth ------------------------------Other ------------------------------------
56
13
64
29
68
75
44
16
2
71
56
44
49
12
216
97
50
13
1
464
Total -------------------------------
230
208
377
625
284
151
142
44
819
1,440
Total actual narcotic arrests of persons under 21 years of age

Marihuana
Narcotic
Total
Year
and
State
local
Federal
41
26
1953 --------------------------------------
State
localand
Federal
247
124
56
LOUISIANA

Marihuana
Narcotic
Place
State and
Federal
State and
Federal
Total
local
local
New Orleans -----------------------------Other -------------------------------------
41
2
305
4
46
12
109
10
501
28
Total --------------------------------
43
309
58
119
529

Year
_ __
1953
_ __
_e___
___
30
62
---------------------------------------
and
State
local
Federal
State
localand
Federal
Total
102
Mississippi
Marihuana
Narcotic
Place
_____
State and
Federal
--
______Total
State and
Federal
local
local
Jackson ----------------------------------Other -------------------------------------
2
5
2
15
0
0
1
5
5
25
Total --------------------------------
17
30
3107

TEXAS

Narcotic
Place
State and
local
Federal
Marihuana
State and
local
Federal
Total
Houston ---------------------------------San Antonio------------------------------Dallas. ----------------------------------Fort Worth ------------------------------Other ------------------------------------
59
18
8
6
72
130
66
49
8
61
38
17
6
7
257
136
49
34
4
389
363
150
97
25
779
Total -------------------------------
163
314
325
612
1,414
Total actual narcotic arrests of persons under 21 years of age during 1954
Narcotic
Marihuana
Place
Total
State and
local
Federal
Houston ---------------------------------San Antonio .------------------------------Dallas -----------------------------------Fort Worth ------------------------------Other -----------------------------------Total -------------------------------
State and
local
Federal
6
2
1
1
3
2
13
0
0
4
2
2
0
1
36
9
9
0
0
141
19
26
1
2
184
13
19
41
159
232
LOUISIANA

Narcotic
Place
Marihuana
State and
local
Federal
Federal
State and
local
Total
New Orleans -----------------------------Other -------------------------------------
9
1
101
10
15
2
87
18
212
31
Total -------------------------------
10
111
17
105
243
Narcotic
Marihuana
Place
Total
and
State
local
Federal
State
and
local
Federal
New Orleans ------------------------------
14
25
Other -------------------------------------
Total --------------------------------
17
28
3108

Mississippi
Narcotic
Marihuana
Place
Total
State and
local
Federal
State and
local
Federal
Jackson ----------------------------------Other -------------------------------------
2
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
Total --------------------------------
3
4
7
Narcotic
Mlarlhuana
Place
Total
State and
local
Federal
State and
local
Federal
Jackson ----------------------------------Other -------------------------------------
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
Total--------------------------------
TEXAs
Total arrests by federal narcotic agents during 1955 to Sept. 30, 1955
Place
Narcotic
Houston ------------------------------------------San Antonio ---------------------------------------Dallas ---------------------------------------------Fort Worth -----------------------------------------Other ---------------------------------------------Total -----------------------------------------
Under 21
Marihuana
Under 21
11
22
9
1
21
0
1
1
0
1
9
5
17
0
9
0
0
5
64
40
LOUISIANA
Total arrests by Federal narcotic agents during 1955 to Sept. 30, 1955
Under 21
Marihuana
7
3
0
0
8
0
10
Narcotic
Place
New Orleans -----------------------------------------Other
------------------------------------------------Total -----------------------------------------
Under 21
0
Mississippi
Total arrests by Federal narcotic agents during 1955 to Sept. 30, 1955
Place
Narcotic
Jackson ---------------------------------------------
Other ------------------------------------------------Total --------------------------------------------
Under 21
Marihuana
Under 21
0
1
0
0
0
0
3109

TEXAS
Total narcotic convictions during 1953

Marihuana
Narcotic
Total
Place
Federal
Federal
State and
local
45
8
54
21
66
12
1
10
2
10
54
31
49
9
204
35
2
9
1
189
146
42
122
33
459
184
35
347
236
802
Houston ----------------------------------Dallas ------------------------------------San Antonio ------------------------------Fort Worth ------------------------------Other ------------------------------------Total --------------------------------
State and
local
Total narcotic convictions of persons under 21 years of age during 1953

Narcotic
Marihuana
Total
Federal
State and
local
Federal
State and
local
20
30
37
96
LOUISIANA

Narcotic
Marihuana
Place
N ew Orleans -----------------------------Other ....

Total

Marihuana
Narcotic
Federal
State and
local
Federal
Total
State and
local

Narcotic
Marihuana
Place
State and
local
Federal
State and
local
Federal
Total
Jackson ----------------------------------
Other
15
17
------------------------------------Total
--------------------------------
~I
III
3110

Narcotic:
Federal ----------------------------------------------------State and local ----------------------------------------------Marihuana:
Federal
--------------------------------------------------State and local -----------------------------------------------
Total
0
0
----------------------------------------------------TFxAs

Narcotic
Marihuana
Place
Houston
San Antonio .................
D allas .............
Fort Worth--O ther ------------------------------------Total_-

Narcotic
Place
Federal
Houston -------------------------------San Antonio ----------------------------Dallas --------------------------------Fort Worth -----------------------------Other -----------------------------------Total ----------------------------
Marihuana
State and
local
Federal
State and
local
Total
4
5
0
1
3
2
13
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
26
9
7
0
1
21
15
20
1
3
50
13
15
29
381
LOUISIANA

Narcotic
Marihuana
Place
Total
State and
local
Federal
State and
local
Federal
New Orleans -----------------------------
25
12
39
85
Other ------------------------------------
10
19
Total ------------------------------
10
30
15
49
104
3111

Marihuana
Narcotio
Total
Place
State and
local
Federal
State and
local
Federal
New Orleans ----------------------------Other ------------------------------------
1
0
4
2
1
0
4
1
10
3
Total ---------------------------------
13
Mississippi
Marihuana
Narcotic
Place
State and
local
Federal
Jackson ---------------------------------Other --------------------------------Total -------------------------------
State and
local
Federal
Total
0
4
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
8

Marihuana
Narcotic
Total
Place
State and
local
Federal
State and
local
Federal
Jackson ---------------------------------Other ------------------------------------
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total -----------------------------
TEXAS
Total convictions during 1955, to Sept. 80, for violations reported by Federal narcotic
agents
Place
Narcotic
Under 21
Marihuana
Under 21
Houston ---------------------------------------------San Antonio ------------------------------------Dallas ------------------------------------------------Fort Worth -------------------------------------Other -------------------------------------------------
10
24
6
0
21
0
2
0
0
0
25
4
9
1
20
0
0
1
0
0
Total -------------------------------------------
61
59
3112

LOUISIANA
agents
Under 21
Marihuana
1
0
0
0
3
1
Narcotic
Place
New Orleans -----------------------------------------Other ---------------------------------------------Total ------------------------------------------
Under 21
0
Mississippi
agents
Narcotic
Place
--------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3
Total ---------------------------------------
Jackson
Other
Under 21
0
1
Marihuana
0
0
Under 21
0
0
10
The State and local arrest and conviction totals were compiled for the years
1953 and 1954 from information furnished by State and local law enforcement
agencies and county attorneys. The total arrests and convictions for the year
1955, to September 30, are those reported by the Bureau of Narcotics only.
In the performance of their duties there has been close mutual cooperation
between agents of this Bureau, the Customs Agency Service, other Federal
investigative agencies, including the military, and State and local enforcement
officers. The States of Texas and Louisiana maintain separate narcotic enforcement units and several of the cities in the district, including Dallas, Houston,
Austin, Corpus Christi, San Antonio, and New Orleans, have narcotic squads or
officers specifically assigned who are doing commendable work. The narcotic
squads of Dallas, Corpus Christi, and New Orleans have been particularly active
and effective in their efforts to suppress the traffic.
In the regulation and control of the legitimate trade mutual cooperation exists
between this Bureau and the licensing boards that have their responsibility fixed
by the laws of each of the three States to determine eligibility to engage in
legitimate narcotic business.
CONCLUSION
The two principal factors in drug addiction and trafficking are the individual's
desire to use or traffic in narcotic drugs, and the availability of the drug. The
increase in addication and in trafficking since 1946 is a reflection of the international oversupply produced in excess of recognized legitimate medical needs
and produced in countries other than the United States. With drugs available
and trafficking but one facet of the general crime condition, the increase in addiction and trafficking are consistent with the general increase in crimes of all types
as reflected by arrest statistics for the past few years.
The statistics on addiction and narcotic arrests in this district, and particularly
in Texas, are proportionate to statistics from other sections of the United States
which reflect that there are higher percentages in those regions surrounding
centers for the sources of supply.
The seriousness of the situation requires proper and active enforcement at all
levels. There must be vigorous prosecution and stiff sentences without unnecessary delay.
The penalty provisions of the Federal law and all State laws should be amended
to provide for mandatory increased punishment of offenders having prior convictions for violations of either the Federal or State narcotic laws, or both. In
addition there should be uniform compulsory confinement of addicts with supervised control during the postrelease period following treatment.

Mr. SPEER.
3113
Mr. Gentry, are there several classes of violations in
the Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi area, that is, the regular heroin
traffic and then a diversion traffic?
Mr. GENTRY. Yes, sir. The traffic in this particular area, I believe, is a little bit different, from that ordinarily encountered in other
sections of the country.
We have, in this particular district, these three States, the threepronged source of supply. Principally the drug of addiction is heroin, heroin that originates in Mexico. We do have, however, in
Louisiana and in the Texas area, sources of supply, as a result of
smuggling through the port of New York and distributors from there
wholesaling to retail distributors in this particular area. Now, in
addition to that, we have, under the Federal narcotic law, certain
legitimate dealers, who are licensed to deal in narcotic drugs, and
through their-in some instances through their unethical and unlawful practices, a quantity of drugs are diverted to the illicit channels.
Mr. SPEER. That does constitute, of course, a small minority, but
it doesMr. GENTRY. It does add to the problem.
Mr. SPEER. It is a problem.
Mr. GENTRY. However, as you will notice in the report I prepared
there, diversions as a result of thefts and burglaries constitute a very
great portion of the drug supply in this area, probably greater than
in most other sections of the country.
Mr. SPEER. Could you break that down for us, to show the volume? Do you have that down so you could show the volume?
Mr. GENTRY. That is beginning on page 7 of the statement.
For instance, in 1953 there were a total of 72 thefts reported in the
State of Texas, involving 10% ounces of morphine and 79Y2 ounces of
other narcotic drugs.
Mr. SPEER. Well, now, do you have a rule of thumb whereby we
can convert that into, say, doses, so we would have some idea of what
it might mean?
Mr. GENTRY. Well, the therapeutic dose of morphine is one-sixth
of a grain. There are 437Y2 grains in an ounce; then we had 10%
ounces of morphine.
The other narcotic drugs totaled, there, 79Y2 ounces, which would
include codiene, pantapon, dilaudid, and other addiction forming
drugs under the jurisdiction of the Federal narcotic law.
Mr. SPEER. Certainly the average dose would not be over a
quarter of a grain; is that right?
Mr. GENTRY. That's correct.
Mr. SPEER. And there are 437 grains to the ounce?
Mr. SPEER. So you would have something like 1,700 or 1,800 doses
to the ounce?
Mr. GENTRY. There would be thousands of doses represented by
the quantity involved there, yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Go right ahead.
Mr. GENTRY. In Louisiana, for instance, in 1953, there were three
thefts, burglaries reported, and approximately 265 grains of morphine,
4 ounces of other narcotic drugs. In Mississippi, it was proportionately smaller there.
3114
However, in 1954, you will note that there were 147 such thefts
and burglaries in the State of Texas, 32y ounces of morphine involved,
and 224 ounces of other narcotic drugs.
Mr. SPEER. That 32 ounces, that represents 2 pounds of morphine,
and that is a sizable quantity of morphine, is it not?
Mr. GENTRY. Considering the fact that it would be of 99 percent
purity.
Senator DANIEL. What would that be worth on the retail market?
Mr. GENTRY. In the illicit traffic, in its pure state, it would probably
wholesale for $500 to $700 per ounce, perhaps as high as $1,000 per
ounce, wholesale. But if it were adulterated, it could be reduced to
10 times-adulterated to increase the quantity to 10 times that
amount, and increase proportionately in that value.
Mr. SPEER. It would be worth, on the retail market, from $1,000
to $10,000 per ounce?
Mr. GENTRY. Yes, sir. During 1954, however, there were 224%
ounces of other narcotic or addiction sustaining drugs.
Mr. SPEER. You mention these other drugs; there is dilaudid and
demarolMr. GENTRY. Powdered opium, and other narcotic drugs without
relation to opium.
Mr. SPEER. All of which are equally if not more addicting than
morphine?
Mr. GENTRY. Both are addiction forming and addiction sustaining.
In the event, for instance, if heroin is not available, and the addict
has to maintain his habit, which he does have to, unless he undergoes
withdrawal symptoms, why, the other narcotic drugs would sustain
his habit without any trouble whatsoever, prevent his withdrawal.
Mr. SPEER. Go right ahead, sir.
Mr. GENTRY. These thefts in 1955, to date, have involved a total of
68 thefts in the State of Texas, 8 ounces of morphine involved, 119%
ounces of other narcotic drugs. Louisiana has had 30 thefts, involving
11% ounces of morphine, 84% ounces of other narcotic drugs. And
Mississippi has had a total of 8 thefts, 33 ounces of morphine and 10%
ounces of other narcotic drugs. I might add that Mississippi does not
enjoy the prevalence of heroin traffic that the State of Texas and the
State of Louisiana do.
Senator DANIEL. We don't enjoy it, either.
Mr. GENTRY. I said enjoyed, sir, because of certain situations that
have existed in the past, that seemed to indicate to an enforcement
officer that someone enjoyed it down here.
Senator DANIEL. Yes, sir. In other words, when you said enjoyed,
you did not mean it in its literal sense?

Mr. GENTRY. No, sir, I did not.
Senator DANIEL. Mississippi just hasn't been blighted as much as
Texas in this connection, right?
Mr. GENTRY. Not from the contraband standpoint, sir. They
have from the diversion, illegal prescription and illegal using of tax
paid narcotic drugs by registrants, and the thefts of which we were
speaking.
Mr. SPEER. Now, following these thefts, I see you mention a diversion case, a diversion case here in Texas.
Would you give us a summation of that diversion?
Mr. GENTRY. Yes, sir. I would like to point out this, however,
that diversions do not constitute the major sources of supply. We
3115
have had in the State a corridor action to other areas, particularly

with respect to marihuana, such as we uncovered during the investigation of John Sutton in Houston in April of this year, which resulted
in the conviction of 10 people down there. That involved some
5,000 pounds of marihuana. The indictment alleged 12 hundred
pounds of marihuana, and also involved the returning of heroin from
the eastern part of the United States to Houston.
We have had other examples of wholesale distribution, both within
the State, of heroin, and distribution from the State to other States.
For example, in November 1954, last year, there was a man by the
name of Milton Abramson, alias Milton Bennett, who formerly operated from the west coast, the Los Angeles area, who had been convicted for conspiracy to violate the Federal narcotic laws back in the
midforties. He set up a base of operations in San Antonio, and distributed heroin and opium to wholesale dealers in other sections of the
United States.
Mr. SPEER. Where was it coming from?
Mr. GENTRY. From San Antonio.
The heroin was of Mexican
0 his man was arrested on November 23, I believe, in Los Angeles,

Calif., by agents there, and he had in his possession 27 ounces of
heroin that had come from the San Antonio area, which he had brought
there for distribution. Now, an example of the distribution within
the State was a case that developed in April this year, completed
April 30, 1955, involving a man, Rogelio Chapa Lozano, who was
arrested in Galveston as a result of sales made in and around Hitchcock, Tex., a suburb of Houston; and at the time this man was
arrested, he was found to be in possession of approximately a quarter
kilogram of Mexican heroin, or of Mexican origin, and it ranged to
about 65 percent in purity.
Mr. SPEER. IS that the usual percentage of purity of Mexican
heroin?
will range anywhere from 5 to 75 percent, I
About 69 to 70 percent is about the highest purity that we
Mr. GENTRY. It
believe.
get.
Mr. SPEER. That is about average, that is, for wholesale quantities?
Mr. SPEER. Now, this heroin in the former case you mentioned,
that was being transported from San Antonio back to the West
Coast?
Mr.
GENTRY.
Yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. That was in competition, then, to Mexican heroin from

that area, and with heroin from Red China and also from New York;
is that right?
Mr. GENTRY. That's right. Out there, we had a three-pronged
source out there; it was from Red China, from Mexico, and from distribution centers on the east coast of heroin that was imported or
smuggled into the ports on the eastern shore.
Another example-and I wanted to get this in prior to answering
jour question there-is the interstate traffic in other than Mexican
eroin, which constitutes a source of supply to dealers in this area;
that is, of the so-called white heroin, which is usually smuggled in
through the port of New York, and which emanates from European
71515-56--pt. 7-49
3116
countries. In Louisiana, the New Orleans area, during the past 2

years there have been over 20 retail distributors of heroin arrested
down there.
Mr. SPEER. That is in New Orleans?
Mr. GENTRY. In New Orleans. The investigation of these 20
peddlers' source of supply indicated that they had a common source,
a man by the name of J. C. Saddler in Chicago,Ill. Agents there were
successful in arresting him just September 10, or rather they were
successful in closing the investigation on September 10, 1955, at which
time his wife, Clotelle Saddler, was arrested, his mother-in-law, Annie
Clay, was arrested, and approximately 40 ounces of this so-called
white heroin seized. There is ample evidence to convict him of the
offense, though he was not apprehended at the time. A complaint is
outstanding; he is currently a fugitive.
Mr. SPEER. He is a fugitive at the present time?
Mr. SPEER. Would you say he was perhaps one of the main sources
of supply of heroin to New Orleans during this period of time?

Mr. GENTRY. Yes, sir. In fact, I would say he was the major
source of supply to retail distributors in the New Orleans area, yes.
Mr. SPEER. Do you happen to know what percentage of purity this
heroin was, that he was trafficking?

Mr. GENTRY. No, I do not. I haven't received the chemist's
report. However, I might add that from the circumstantial evidence
found at the time of the seizure, it would appear that the heroin was
of high alkaloid content, because there were over 32 ounces of mannite,
which is an adulterant imported from Italy, used by traffickers. This
mannite was seized, indicating that Saddler intended to adulterate
and redistribute it for retail.
Mr. SPEER. In connection with that mannite adulterant, is that
particular adulterant identified with any particular major group of

smugglers or dealers of heroin, that you know?
Mr. GENTRY. I don't know them personally, a great many of them,
from having dealt with them.
Mr. SPEER. Perhaps you have investigated them?
iMr.
GENTRY.
In the New York area, and principally among the
Italian traffickers and distributors, they use this adulterant, mannite,

for the purpose of increasing their profits through distribution of
heroin, yes.
Mr. SPEER. I believe only a year or so ago, in California, you seized
a large quantity of this mannite?

Mr. GENTRY. In San Jose, Calif., in 1953, we arrested 2 men after
several 5-ounce sales of heroin, and seized a half kilogram of pure
heroin and some 30 or 40 ounces of mannite. At that particular time,
they were Italian traffickers, and one's name was Peter Paisenta, and
the other's name was Ramondi; I don't remember his first name.
Mr. SPEER. I believe I remember those two.
Mr. GENTRY. Ramondi was an illegal entrant into the United
States.
Senator DANIEL. We are about to come to our noon recess here.
I would like to interject a question or two before Mr. Speer finishes
his interrogation. The main thing I am sitting here thinking about
is whether or not you, as supervisor for these three States, feel like
you have enough personnel to do the job to the best of your ability
in licking the traffic here in these States.
3117
Mr. GENTRY. Well, sir, I included the remarks in my statement

there that I had 22 men assigned to the district, which contains approximately 13 million people, in the 3 States. My men are consistently worlng from 12 to 17 hours per week overtime, and I myself
have worked on the streets since I have been here, which I did everywhere I have ever been assigned. I do not have, I don't believe,
sufficient men to give the proper attention to the control and regulation of the legitimate traffic, as well as to the suppression of the
illicit traffic.
Senator DANIEL. I want to pay this word of tribute to all of the
Bureau of Narcotics people with whom I have had occasion to talk

during these several months of hearings. I have never seen a more
dedicated group of men in my life, and I want to say to you that, at
least the chairman and, I am sure, the other members of this committee
will make recommendations to the Congress for more men and more
money for you. How many more men do you think the minimum
of what you should have for these three States?
Mr. GENTRY. There are a lot of factors involved there.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, can you give that to me before we leave
town?
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You think about it and submit it to us in writing,
will you?
Mr. GENTRY. Very good, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I would like to have you study just a moment
on the matter of how many men you could properly make use of to
try to help lick this traffic in these three States.
All right, Mr. Speer, do you have any further questions? Mr. Speer
wants to call you back before he presents evidence on another case
this afternoon.
Mr. Counsel, do you have any further questions?
Mr. GASQUE. Yes, sir, I have 1 or 2 questions, Mr. Chairman.
Answer them, if you will, very briefly.
Mr. GENTRY. Very well, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. First, I would like your opinion on wiretapping;
are you in favor of it in narcotics cases?
Mr. GENTRY. I believe that wiretapping would be an investigative
aid if properly controlled, which would be invaluable to any and all
law enforcement, and particularly to such a transitory interstate
traffic as the narcotics traffic.
M1[r. GASQUE. Thank you. Now, what is your greatest concern in
handling narcotics in the Dallas area? Can you put, your finger on the
thing that is of most concern to you at this time?
Mr. GENTRY. The biggest problem we have is the frequency with
which violators, addicts, and retail traffickers may acquire heroin
and marihuana for retail distribution in this area. That is our biggest
problem, the problem that causes us the most difficulty.
Mr. GASQUE. The biggest problem, then, you have is getting back
at the source from which they obtain these narcotics?
Mr. GASQUE. Now, what is your program over the next 6 months,
without divulging any of your investigations, what is your program
over the next 6 months for getting these violators, and particularly
these bigtime violators who have spread out to other States?
Mr.
GENTRY.
3118
Mr. GENTRY. Well, they are constantly given attention by referral

to the other investigating districts of this Bureau; that is, those in
the other States.
Our efforts are devoted to development of cases against retailers
and wholesalers in this area, and on back to their sources of supply,
until it reaches the point that it becomes the investigative jurisdiction
of the Bureau of Customs, which is charged with the operation of
smuggling, and we refer it to them for investigation, and aid them in
their investigation of the smuggling activities.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, do you have concrete evidence which would
lead you to believe that there are clandestine factories producing
heroin in Mexico?
Mr. GENTRY. I have reports of such, the existence of such laboratories.
Senator DANIEL. Does a majority of the heroin, in your opinion,
coming into these three States, come from Mexico?
Senator DANIEL. A great majority, or what percentage would you
say?4r. GENTRY. Percentagewise, I would break it down-it would be
considerably different from some of the press reports that I have read
on the matter, but I would say it would probably run close to 60
to 70 percent, as distinguished from about 15 to 20 percent of the
diverted stocks, legitimate stocks, and 10 or 15 percent of the eastern
heroin that is brought in here for retail distribution.
Senator DANIEL. You do not think much west coast heroin is
coming into this area?
Mr. GENTRY. I do not, sir. No; we have had no evidence of that
in the 5 years of service I had out there and 8 months I have been
here.
Senator DANIEL. Since you have had 5 years service on the west
coast, where do you think most of that heroin was coming from?
Mr. GENTRY. The majority of the heroin we had there was of
Chinese origin, smuggled principally from Hong Kong and from
Japan.
Senator DANIEL. Of Red Chinese origin?
Mr. GENTRY. Yes, sir. The second greatest source of supply was
the Mexican problem existing to the border to the south, and then we
had an eastern supply, which we were successful in knocking out one
of them about every 6 months during the 5 years I was out there, and
probably broke one of the largest cases ever made in the United States
as a result of that.
Senator DANIEL. From your experience, do you agree with Mr.
Speer that Red China is pushing the sale of heroin into our country,
not only for dollars, but to try to demoralize any of our people who
get in touch with it?
Mr. GENTRY. I believe that, sir. And I think there is ample evidence to support that belief.
Senator DANIEL. Ample evidence on the west coast?
Mr. GENTRY. Yes, sir, concrete physical evidence of that, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right. We will stand in recess until 2 o'clock
this afternoon.
(Whereupon the committee was in recess from the hour of 12 o'clock
noon until the hour of 2 p. m. the same day.)
3119

Roy Sistrunk.
Mr. SISTRUNK. Yes, sir.
TESTIMONY OF ROY SISTRUNK
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. SISTRUNK.
State your name.
Roy James Sistrunk.
Senator DANIEL. Yes, all right.

Will you identify yourself again for the record?
Mr. FOWLER. Clayton Fowler, attorney for Mr. Sistrunk.
Senator DANIEL. All right, Mr. Fowler.
Mr. FOWLER. May it please the SenatorSenator DANIEL. Yes, sir.
Mr. FOWLER. The witness about to testify here has two pending
felony cases in the State courts.
We wish to submit to this committee that any questions pertaining
to these two cases, that before they are asked, that this witness be
given ample time to talk and counsel with his attorney, if it is permitted.
Senator DANIEL. All right; that will be done, Mr. Fowler.
Mr. SISTRUNK. Roy James Sistrunk.
Mr. SISTRUNK. 9040 Chesley Lane, Dallas Tex.
Senator DANIEL. And how long have you jived here in Dallas?
Mr. SISTRUNK. About 25 years.
Senator DANIEL. Have you served time in the penitentiary for
various offenses?
Senator
DANIEL. About how many times?

Mr. SISTRUNK. Four times.
Senator DANIEL. What type of offenses?
Mr. SISTRUNK. Well, 2 of them was for violation
of the Internal
Revenue Act, on whisky, and 1 of them was for possession of narcotics,
and the other was conspiracy of narcotics; and I think the last time
was for possessing and giving away narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. When was the last time that you were convicted
for a narcotics offense?
Mr. SISTRUNK.
1946-47.
Senator DANIEL. And when did you get out of prison?

1952.
Senator DANIEL. Have
Mr. SISTRUNK.
Mr. SISTRUNK.
Senator
you lived in Dallas since 1952?
Yes, sir.
DANIEL.
Have you been using narcotics since 1952?
Mr. SISTRUNK. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you used any type of narcotic drug, such as
heroin or anything else, since you got out of prison in 1952?
3120
Senator DANIEL. You have used narcotic drugs, though, before you
went to prison, haven't you?
Mr. SISTRUNK. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Before 1952?
Senator DANIEL. What did you use?
I used heroin when I couldn't
Mr. SISTRUNK. Morphine, mostly.
get morphine, but I was mostly always using morphine.
Senator DANIEL. How long did you use heroin and morphine?
Mr. SISTRUNK. Well, I'd say about three years that I was addicted.
Senator DANIEL. And how did you happen to start?
Mr. SISTRUNK. Well, I just started.
Senator DANIEL. Did somebody give you the first dose?
Mr. SISTRUNK. Well, I don't remember.
Senator DANIEL. Did you start using morphine or heroin?
Mr. SISTRUNK. Morphine.
Senator DANIEL. You don't know why you started?
Mr. SISTRUNK. NO, sir, just
Senator DANIEL. Were some of your associates using it?
Mr. SISTRUNK. Well, we were just-at the time, well, we were just
kids, and wanted something with a kick or something, and started

-messing with it.
Senator DANIEL. How old were you when you started?
Mr. SISTRUNK. Well, the first time I ever took a shot, I imagine I
was about 20 years, 20 years old. But I messed with it off and on for
years before I ever became addicted.
Senator DANIEL. It hasn't done anything except get you in trouble,
has it?
Mr. SISTRUNK. That's all.
Senator DANIEL. And did you sell and deal in narcotics prior to
your last conviction?
Mr. SISTRUNK. I have at different times, years back. I haven't
dealt in narcotics in the last 15 years.
Senator DANIEL. But you did use to deal in them here in Dallas?
Senator DANIEL. Did you know Cecil Green?

Senator DANIEL. Were you associated with him in any type of

work here?
Mr. SISTRUNK.
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Were you associated with Cecil Green in the
narcotic traffic here?

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever sell any for him?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy any from him?
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you ever have any dealings of any kind
with Cecil Green?
Mr. SISTRUNK. Well, he and I used to run around together some.

Mr. SISTRUNK. Well, we were both in South Dallas there for
around-for years, I knew him off and on at different times. I'd say
for 5 or 6 years, maybe.
3121
Senator DANIEL. You were a friend and associate of his?

Mr. SISTRUNK. That's right, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And what about Lois Green?

Mr. SISTRUNK. Well,
I never ran with Lois or anything.
I knew
him.
Senator DANIEL. You knew that Cecil Green used heroin and
other narcotics, too, didn't you?
Senator DANIEL. You mean to say you never saw Cecil Green use
any type of narcotic drug?
Mr. SISTRUNK. I never saw Cecil Green use any kind of narcotics
in my life.
Senator DANIEL. What about Tincey Eggleston?
Mr. SISTRUNK. I never seen Tincey, either.
Senator DANIEL. Was he a friend of yours?
Senator DANIEL. Did you associate with him?
Senator DANIEL. What about Edell Evans?
Mr. SISTRUNK. I don't know him.
Senator DANIEL. Buster Vincent?
Mr. SISTRUNK. I knew Buster Vincent, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Was he a friend and associate of yours?
Mr. SISTRUNK. I know Jetty, yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
How long have you known him?
Mr. SISTRUNK. I have known him, 'I guess, 15 years.
I know
who he is; I have never been associated with him.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been in any kind of dealings with
him?
Senator DANIEL. Nick Cascio?
Mr. SISTRUNK. I know him, yes, sir.
Mr. SISTRUNK. About the same period of time.
Senator DANIEL. Have you been in any kind of dealings with him?
Senator DANIEL. Were you in a car with Neil Aeby and Dude
Tacker recently, when there was a certain amount of dynamite thrown
out in a paper sack?
Mr. SISTRUNK. I refuse to answer that, on the grounds that it
might degrade and incriminate me.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, now, as far as the word you used, degrade
you, this committee doesn't recognize that as any reason for refusal
to answer.
Mr. SISTRUNK. All right.
Senator DANIEL. The committee, of course, does recognize and
abide by the constitutional provision contained in the fifth amendment
and is that what you want to claim at this time?
Senator DANIEL. You fear that a truthful answer to that question
3122
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Dude Tacker?

Mr. SISTRUNK. Yes, sir, I do.

I haven't known him only a short period of thne.
I just know who he is when I see him.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Neil Aeby?
Mr. SISTRUNK.
Mr. SISTRUNK. I have known him off and on for, I guess, 4 or 5 years.
Senator DANIEL. Were you here when Neil Aeby testified?
Mr. SISTRUNK. I was in the hall, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you hear the officer testifying about this
dynamite that was thrown out of an automobile?

Mr. SISTRUNK. No, Sir.
Senator DANIEL. You just didn't hear that?
Senator DANIEL. IS that one of the charges you are speaking

about, Counsel?
Mr. FOWLER. It is, Senator.
May we say at this time that this man here is under felony indictment in the State courtSenator DANIEL. You have explained that. I just want to know,
is this one of the cases you are speaking of?
Mr. FOWLER. And our position here is that this man is being
pretried on this.
Senator DANIEL. I know, but I just asked you, is this one of the
cases you were speaking of?
Mr. FOWLER. It is, yes.

Now, then, you say that you never did use any heroin since 1952?
DANIEL. Have you ever possessed heroin since 1952?
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever sold any heroin since 1952?
Senator DANIEL. Have you used marihuana since 1952?
Mr. SISTRUNK. No, sir. Since 1952, sir, I have worked on
Senator
construction work every day. A man can't work on the type of work
that I do and use narcotics, because the work is too hard, and he
can't-he doesn't have time to get out and hustle the narcotics and
stuff, and work.
Senator DANIEL. Well, tell us something about the business of
hustling narcotics. When you were in the business, where did you
get the drugs?
Mr. SISTRUNK. Well, you have to buy it from wherever you can,
or get it any way-
Senator DANIEL. Well, where did you get it?
Well, I would buy it from different people, or else

burglarize drugstores and hospitals for it.
Senator DANIEL. You did do that?
Mr. SISTRUNK.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you burglarize drugstores and hospitals

for it?
Mr. SISTRUNK. Just anywhere you thought you could get it.
3123
Senator DANIEL. How many people were associated with you in

those burglaries?
most of the time by myself.

Well, tell us some of the people that used to be
Mr. SISTRUNK. Well,
Senator DANIEL.
associated with you in that activity.
Mr. SISTRUNK. Well, I don't-that's too long ago; I don't remember.
Senator DANIEL. Have you forgotten who they were?
Senator DANIEL. Are you telling the committee-you know that

you are supposed to give the committee truthful answers?
still want that answer to stand, that

you have forgotten who you used to burglarize drugstores and hospitals with?
(Conference between Mr. Sistrunk and Mr. Fowler.)
Mr. SISTRUNK. Yes, sir; I want it to stand.
Senator DANIEL. You want that answer to stand?
Senator DANIEL. Well, now,
Senator DANIEL. You never
didn't you work with Cecil Green?

committed any burglaries with Cecil
Green?
Senator
DANIEL.
How about Olin Ray Tyler?
Senator
DANIEL.
Jetty Bass?
Senator DANIEL. I am asking you the same question about each one
of them, whether you ever committed any b urglaries of any type
with any one of these men. Jetty Bass?
Mr.
SISTRUNK.
Senator
No, sir.
DANIEL.
James B. Smith?
Senator
DANIEL.
Nick Cascio?
Senator DANIEL. Well, back in the time when you were burglarizing
drugstores and hospitals to get narcotics, did you have much trouble
selling those narcotics on the market?
Mr. SISTRUNK.
Senator
Well,
DANIEL.
Mr. SISTRUNK.
I didn't get them for that purpose.
What did you get them for?
For to-for my addiction.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I thought a minute ago you said you also
engaged in selling narcotics, years ago.
Mr. SISTRUNK. I did, but that was-that was quite a few years
ago.
Senator DANIEL. Well, that is what I am asking you about. I
want to know how the traffic ran.
When you were getting narcotics for sale, did you have any trouble
disposing of them here in Dallas?
Mr. SISTRUNK.
Well,
no, sir; you did not have no trouble disposing
of them.
Senator DANIEL. Did you have some pushers that would go out
and sell them for you?
3124
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you sell them yourself?

Mr. GASQUE. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator DANIEL. Any questions, Mr. Speer?
Mr. SPEER. When did you state that you last
got out of the
penitentiary?
1952.
Mr. SPEER. 1952? Since that time, have you been on parole?
Mr. SISTRUNK. No, sir; I haven't been on parole.
Mr. SPEER. When was your time up?
Mr. SISTRUNK.
Mr. SISTRUNK.
first of 1953.
Mr. SPEER.
It was up 6 months after I got out, about the
The first?
You mean January 1953?
Mr. SISTRUNK. Yes, sir; somewhere along in there.

Mr. SPEER. Since that time, I understand from your remarks here
that you have made it a point not to associate with drug traffickers?
Mr. SISTRUNK. That's right; yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Have you associated with drug traffickers since
January 1, 1953?
Mr.
SISTRUNK.
No, sir.
Mr. SPEER. On any occasion, have you?

Mr. SISTRUNK. No, sir; I-not to my knowledge.
Mr. SPEER. Well, you would know if you associated with them,
wouldn't you?
Mr. SISTRUNK. Well, they might have been people around me
that came around or something, that were messing with it, that
I didn't know anything about. But to my knowledge I haven't.
Mr. SPEER. You mean someone that you didn't know very well
could have been around you?
Mr. SPEER. How long did you use heroin?
Mr. SISTRUNK.
I used it-I
never used heroin very much, sir.
I used morphine when I used drugs.

Mr. SPEER. How long did you use morphine?
Mr. SISTRUNK. About, I'd say, 3 years.
Mr. SPEER. And how much would you use a day of it?
Mr. SISTRUNK. Well, I wouldn't know. Three or four grains
a days
Mr. SPEER. Three or four grains of morphine?
Mr. SPEER. How many shots would that be a day?

Mr. SISTRUNK. That would be 2 or 3 shots a day.
Mr. SPEER. One in the morning and one at night?
SPEER. And about 2 or 3 grains each time?
SISTRUNK. Yes, sir.
SPEER. That was in the main line, right?
SISTRUNK. Well, I'd shoot it in the vein.
SPEER. In the vein?
Mr. SPEER. So after you were released from the
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
penitentiary in
1952, you have not had any contact with drugs; is that your statement?
Mr. SISTRUNK. No, sir; that's right.
3125
Mr. SPEER. And you have not associated with any drug traffickers?
Mr. SPEER. I want you to consider that answer, now, in the light
of what you may be asked.

with any drug traffickers?

Mr. SPEER. Do you recall
Since that time, have you associated

being stopped in an automobile in
Louisiana in 1954?
Mr. SPEER. In company with Nick Cascio?
Mr. SPEER. Were you stopped in an automobile in Louisiana in
1954?
Mr. SPEER. When you were in company with Nick Cascio?

Mr. SISTRUNK. No, sir. I was stopped in 1948, in an automobile
in Louisiana with Nick Cascio. But not in 1954.

Mr. SPEER. 1948; have you been in Louisiana since 1952?
Mr. SPEER. At that time, in 1948, when you were stopped with
Nick Cascio, what happened?

Mr. SISTRUNK. Oh, we were-I was-I was charged with possession of narcotics.
Mr. SPEER. Is that what you did time on?
Mr. SPEER. What did Nick Cascio get from that?
Mr. SISTRUNK. Nothing.
Mr. SPEER. Was he also charged?
Mr. SIMTRUNK. No, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Who was driving the automobile?
Mr. SISTRUNK. I was.
Mr. SPEER. You were driving the car?
Mr. SPEER. What kind of narcotics were those?

Mr. SISTRUNK. I don't remember.
Mr. SPEER. Well, was it heroin, or was it?
Mr. SISTRUNK. No, sir; it wasn't heroin. It was-it was either
morphine or pantapon, I don't remember which.
Mr. SPEER. It was drugstore stuff?
Mr. SPEER. Where had you obtained that?
Mr. SISTRUNK. I had obtained it here in Dallas somewhere.
Mr. SPEER. What were you doing over in Louisiana with it?
Mr.
SISTRUNK. I was going to New Orleans.

Mr. SPEER. For what purpose?
Mr. SISTRUNK. I don't remember at this time.
Mr. SPEER. Either before you went to the penitentiary
or since
you were out of the penitentiary, have you ever used cocaine?
Mr. SISTRUNK.
No, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Did you ever see any cocaine?

Mr. SPEER. How was it when you saw it?

Mr. SISTRUNK. It was in a little-flaky stuff.
3126
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
ILJLICIT
NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
SPEER. You mean in a bottle?

SISTRUNK. It is a powder, yes,
sir; it is a powder.
SPEER. What kind of a bottle did it come in?

SISTRUNK. Well, it come in ounce bottles.
Mr. SPEER. An ounce bottle?
Mr. SPEER. How big a bottle would an ounce bottle be?

Mr. SISTRUNK. Wel, it is about that big around and I guess about
that tall [indicating].

Mr. SPEER. Be kind of a big bottle, wouldn't it?
Mr. SPEER. In other words, it is flaky and light?

Mr. SPEER. Now, what occasion did you have to see an ounce bottle
of cocaine hydrochloride, flaky crystal?

Mr. SISTRUNK. Well, I don't know, sir.
Mr. SPEER. This cocaine that you saw certainly was not obtained
on a prescription, right?
Mr. SPEER. It was obtained from wholesale drug houses?

Mr. SISTRUNK. I don't know.
Mr. SPEER. Well, now, an ounce bottle of cocaine hydrochloride

is a tremendous lot of cocaine?
Mr. SPEER. And the bottle you described is a bottle that is ordinarily sold to big drugstores or hospitals with a great demand for
cocaine. Certainly no doctor or small drugstore would have an ounce
of cocaine.
So that the cocaine you are describing is of that nature; do you
recall when it was you saw this cocaine?
Mr. SISTRUNK. Well, it's been some time ago.
Mr. SPEER. As a matter of fact, those cocaine bottles were quite
common around here at one time, were they not?
Mr. SISTRUNK. Well, I wouldn't know.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what he is talking about is back during the

time you were burglarizing hospitals and drugstores; you were getting
bottles like that, wern't you?
Mr. SISTRUNK. You would get some cocaine out of them. Usually
it would be a smaller amount, you would get an eighth or something
like that.
Senator DANIEL. Well, when you were doing those burglaries, were
you using morphine?
Senator
DANIEL.
Does morphine sort of give you a little more
crutch, when you go to burglarize a place?

Mr. SISTRUNK. I wouldn't say that; no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You were just using it at the time you were performing these burglaries, is that correct?
Mr. SISTRUNK. That's right; yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
Were you using heroin also at some times when
you were performing your burglaries?

Mr. SISTRUNK. Well, when you couldn't get morphine, why, you
used other stuff.
Senator
DANIEL.
You did use heroin?
ILLIPIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
Mr.
31-27
SISTRUNK. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. At
some times, during the time that you were
committing these burglaries?

Mr. SPEER. Which was the most common bottle of cocaine that
you and some of the other safe burglars and hijackers were familiar
with in those days, the eighth ounce that you mentioned last, or the
one ounce which you mentioned previously?
Mr. SISTRUNK. Well, I imagine you would naturally find-you
would see more of the smaller bottles.
Mr. SPEER. You naturally would?
Mr. SPEER. But which did you see the most of?
Mr. SISTRUNK. Smaller.
Senator DANIEL. Now, you say since 1952 you have been working?
Senator DANIEL. What kind of business have you been in?
Mr. SISTRUNK. I work on construction work, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you been working steadily?
Senator DANIEL. You haven't had any other business on the side?
Mr. SISTRUNK. That's right; no business.
Senator DANIEL. About how much did you make in 1953?
(Mr. Sistrunk produced an income-tax return.)
Senator DANIEL. Are you reading from your income-tax return?

Mr. SISTRUNK. $6,308.74, my wife and I together made.
Senator DANIEL. And you have the copy of your income-tax return
for 1953 there?
Senator DANIEL. And your 1954 return?

Senator DANIEL. That's all right. The staff will look them over,
and we will give them back to you.
You brought those in accordance with our subpena?
Senator DANIEL. And when was the last year that you were performing these burglaries and safe cracking jobs around here?
Mr. SISTRUNK. That was at-1947, whenever I went to the penitentiary.
Senator DANIEL. Did you file an income-tax return for that year?
Mr. SISTRUNK. I don't know if I did or not, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know how much your income was when
you were engaged in these burglaries, safe cracking?

Senator DANIEL. And selling heroin and morphine?
Senator DANIEL. YOu don't remember how much you made a year?
Senator DANIEL. It ran into a lot of money didn't it?

Mr. SISTRUNK.
Well, I wouldn't say so much; no.
Senator DANIEL. And during what years did you do that? 1947;
what other years?
Mr. SISTRUNK. About 1946, 1947.
3128
Mucrr NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
Senator DANIEL. And you don't know whether you filed income
returns then or not?

Senator DANIEL. Any further questions?
Mr. GASQUE. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SPEER. I would like to add one thing.
You mentioned you would naturally see more of the smaller bottle
of cocaine. I want to ask you if this is not true: That you have never
seen such a bottle of cocaine except one that was stolen.
Mr. SISTRUNK. I don't know if it was stolen or gotten on prescriptions, or what.
Mr. SPEER. Did you ever get a bottle of cocaine on prescription?
Mr. SISTRUNK. I never did; no, sir.
Mr. SPEER. The bottle of cocaine that you are describing is the
bottle of cocaine that the druggist or doctor or dentist purchases
from the wholesaler, and is not the container which is used by drug.
stores, by pharmacists or doctors to supply cocaine to patients.
So the bottle of cocaine you are describing was not-I will ask you
again, was it a battle that you had gotten on a prescription?
Mr. SISTRUNK. I hadn't got it; no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right. I want to ask you one more time;
you know, I am sure your attorney has warned you and explained it
all to you, and I want to warn you before asking you for the last time
that if you do give untruthful answers to this committee, that you
would be subject to prosecution for perjury, and you know that?
Mr. SISTRUNK That's right.
Senator DANIEL. I think you further know this committee would
not have you before it if we did not think that you knew something
about the narcotics traffic in Dallas since 1952. I will say to you as
a fact that we would not have you before us if we did not believe that
you knew something about the traffic or use of drugs here since 1952.
Now, with that warning in mind, I want to ask you, do you know
anything whatever about the use of narcotic drugs by anyone in
Dallas since 1952?
Senator DANIEL. You have not used any type of narcotic drug
yourself since 1952?
Mr. SISTRUNK. I might have took a shot during that time, but I
haven't trafficked in it or used it to excess, or anything else. Justor

like a man that drinks, I might have took a drink of whisky
something in that time, but I didn't become an alcoholic or anything. I haven't been addicted; I haven't been associated with
them; I haven't trafficked in it or anything since that time.
Senator DANIEL. All right; you might have taken a shot of heroin?
Well, now, you know whether you did
or not, and that is the question I asked you previously, and one I
would like to see you clear up for the record, so you won't leave this
record saying that you haven't used any heroin since 1952.
How many times do you think you have used it since 1952?

Mr. SISTRUNK. Well,
I don't know.
3129
I don't know that I have used
it.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you know that you have not?

Mr. SISTRUNK. I have-while I was off -at different times, well, I
have took shots. But I haven't been addicted or anything like that,
I know that.
Senator DANIEL. While you have been off of work at different
times, you have taken shots of heroin, since 1952?
Mr. SISTRUNK. No, I don't say that I have; no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you say that you have not?
Mr. SISTRUNK: I don't think I have; no sir.
Senator DANIEL. You don't think you have taken one shot since
1952?
Mr. SISTRUNK. That's right; yes, sir, I don't.
Senator DANIEL. Have you taken any morphine since 1952?
Senator DANIEL. Well, when you said you might have taken a
shot, what did you mean?
Mr. SISTRUNK. I mean that at different times, why, I have took
shots that I don't remember, you know, where, earlier I said that I
might have, at some time or another, when I might have took a shot
during that time, but I don't remember taking one.
Senator DANIEL. Well, that is what I want to get certain, is whether
or not you have been using the drugs since you got out of the penitentiary.
Mr. SISTRUNK. I haven't been using the drug since I got out.
Senator DANIEL. Well, have you, at least one time, used morphine,
heroin, or any other narcotic drug, since you got out of the pen in
1952?
Mr. SISTRUNK. Not that I remember; no.
Senator DANIEL. You won't say positively that you have not?
Senator DANIEL. All right. Stand aside.

Mr. SISTRUNK. Senator, is it all right for me to go on back to work
now, or do you want me to stay afterSenator DANIEL. Well, I believe you had better stay here for a
little while.
Mr. SISTRUNK. All right.
Senator DANIEL. Olin Ray Tyler.
The MARSHAL. Olin Ray Tyler.
Senator DANIEL. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you

are about to give to this subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Mr. TYLER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. ChairmanSenator DANIEL. You may be seated.
Mr. SULLIVAN.
I am his counsel.
Will you identify yourself for the
record?
Mr. SULLIVAN. Colley Sullivan.
3130
TESTIMONY OF OLIN RAY TYLER

_&R. .Olin Tyler.

Senator DANIEL, Are you also known as Olin Ray Tyler?
.Mr. T

Senator DANIEL. That is your full name?
Mr. TYLER. Grand Prairie.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you lived there?
Mr. TYLER. Approximately a year and a half.
Senator DANIEL. Are you the same Olin Ray Tyler who has served
in the penitentiary on several different occasions?
Mr. TYLER. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Rave you ever served in the penitentiary?
Mr. TYLER. One time.
Senator DANIEL. On what type of charge?
Mr. TYLER. Well, to the best of my knowledge it was murder and
burglary.
Senator DANIEL. From what county?
Mr. TYLER. Freestone and Dallas County.
Senator DANIEL. Was that two separate convictions, one for murder
and one for burglary?
Mr. TYLER. One for burglary; that's true.
Mr. TYLER. That's true.
Senator DANIEL. How long did you serve in the penitentiary?
Mr. TYLER. Twenty-five years. That was all under one conviction,
I
though.
Senator DANIEL. You were given 25 years?
Mr. TYLER. That's true.
Senator DANIEL. And how long did you serve?
Mr. TYLER. Oh, I don't remember. Eight or nine years.
Mr. TYLER. Eight or 9 years, something.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been out?
Mr. TYLER. Since July the 1st, 1940, '41, something; I don't recall
exactly.
Senator DANIEL. Since about July, 1940 or '41?
Mr. TYLER. Something like that, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. The record shows July 4, 1940; do you think
that is about right?
Mr. TYLER. That's approximately right, yes, sir. It's been quite
some time ago; I don't remember.
Senator DANIEL. Before that time, were you using heroin?
Mr. TYLER. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Since that time have you ever used heroin?
Mr. TYLER. I want to make a statement, Mr. Chairman.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, I am going to ask questions.
Mr. TYLER. I have a-well, yes, sir, I understand.
Senator DANIEL. Then later on, you will have a chance.
3131
Mr. TYLER. The reason I want to do this, though, I have a case

pending against me at this time for narcotic violation, which is set
down for Monday. I don't think it is fair to me to have to be up here
on television, for one thing, going to trial for my life.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I am not going to ask you about that case.
Mr. TYLER. Well, you are asking me pertaining to narcotics, sir,
and that is what this is.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I am just asking you, without reference to
the pending case which you have before you, whether or not, before
any such incidents as might be involved in a pending case, that you
ever used heroin.
Mr. TYLER. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Really, the question I asked you was if, before
you went to the penitentiary on this charge-
Mr. TYLER. Well, I understand that, sir.

Senator DANIEL. You used heroin.
Mr. TYLER. Yes, sir, I understand that.
Senator DANIEL. Did you?

Mr.
TYLER.
No.
Senator DANIEL. You never did use heroin?

Mr. TYLER. No, Sir.
Senator DANIEL. You never in your life have injected any heroin?
Mr. TYLER. Well, now, then, you are getting back to the case I
have against me here.
DANIEL. All
TYLER. I-sir, I
Senator
right.
want to make this statement, that this case is

Mr.
pending against me, that it is set down for trial Monday.
Mr. GASQUE. Well, I wonder if you would have your attorney inform the committee as to the charge that has been filed against you at
this time.
Mr. TYLER. Yes, sir; thank you.
Mr. GASQUE. The specific charge.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, he
has a case pending in Judge Delmar Rhodes' Court Monday morning,
charged as a habitual criminal, for the violation of the State narcotic
law.
Mr. GASQUE. That was brought under the recent Texas law, the
addict law?
Mr. SULLIVAN. That is true, sir.
Mr. TYLER. No, sir, not the addict law.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Not the addict law.
Mr. TYLER. No, excuse me, sir.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Not the addict law; the State narcotic law.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, let's see if we have this straight. Now,
I want to be sure that we do, because I do not intend to ask you about
a pending case that you now have up for trial.
This committee is interested in knowing something about the narcotics traffic in Dallas County and surrounding areas, and we are not
interested, we are not prosecuting, and this is not any trial and not
intended to be, so we will stay away from that.
Now, I want to know, though, what is this offense that is coming
up, so we can stay away from it. Is it a chargeMr'. SULLIVAN. I think, Mr. Chairman71515--56-pt 7-
50
3132
Senator DANIEL. Wait just a minute, now. Is it a charge of being

a habitual addict under the new State addict law?
Mr. TYLER. No, sir.
Mr. SULLIVAN. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. No?
Mr. TYLER. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what is it?
Mr. TYLER. It is a charge, they have me charged with possession of
narcotics, indicted under the habitual criminal law.
Senator DANIEL. I see. You are charged with illegal possession of
narcotics?
Mr. TYLER. Possession of narcotics, under the habitual criminal
law, indicted under that law.
Senator DANIEL. Yes; and indicted under that, if convicted,
they
Mr. TYLER. It is a life sentence.
Senator DANIEL. The State claims that it will be your third conviction, and therefore you would be subject to a life sentence?
Mr. TYLER. The State claims that, yes.
Senator DANIEL. That's what I say.
Well, prior to this charge that they have against you for possession
of heroin on June 29th, 1955-that is what you are being tried on,
I take it?
Senator DANIEL. Prior to that time, had you used any heroin?
Mr. TYLER. Mr. Chairman, is it fair to me to discuss that up here,
when we are going to trial on Monday? Is it, in your mind, to do that

to me, me going to trial for my life as a habitual criminal on Monday,
in the State's court here?
Senator DANIEL. Well, you think that it might be in some way
prejudicial to your trial?
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Attorney, do you agree to that?
Mr. SULLIVAN. I will agree to that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you may be excused from the stand.
Mr. TYLER. Thank you, sir.

Senator DANIEL. The chair wants to make this statement for the
record, that this witness is being excused from the witness stand
because of the fact that he thinks it might in some way deny him a
fair trial if he is required to answer the questions that we would put
to him, which would necessarily involve these various things for which
he has been convicted in the past, and for which he is now being
charged. His attorney agrees that he thinks it would prejudice him
and it would not be possible for him to have a fair trial.
This committee is not going to do anything that could contribute
or would contribute toward any defendant having an unfair trial, but
more especially in this case. This chair is not going to do anything
that would hurt the prosecution of this defendant, or any other defendant in narcotics cases.
All right; next witness.
Mr. GASQUE. Jetty Bass.
The MARSHAL. Jetty Bass.
name is Robert Payne. I represent Mr. Bass here.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you
will give to this subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Mr. PAYNE. My
Senator DANIEL.
3133
will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
Mr. BASS. Yes, sir.
And your name?
Mr. PAYNE., My name is Robert Payne, of the Dallas bar.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Robert Payne of the Dallas bar; you are
counsel for Jetty Bass?
Mr. PAYNE. Yes.

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE WASHINGTON (JETTY) BASS
Mr. BASS. George Washington Bass.
Senator
DANIEL.
And you are also known as Jetty Bass?
Mr. BASS. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. J-e-t-t-i-e?
Mr.
BASS.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
BASS.
Senator
Right.
Or Y; J-e-t-t-y?
Yes, sir.
DANIEL.
And where do you live?
Mr. BASS. Irving, Tex.

Senator DANIEL. How long have you lived at Irving, Tex.?
Mr. BASS. Oh, a little better than a year.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Counsel, suppose you proceed with the
examination.
Mr. GASQUE. Mr. Bass, are you 'the same Jetty Bass who was
arrested July 13, 1933, of auto theft, in Fort Worth, Tex.?
Mr.
BASS.
I don't remember.
Mr. GASQUE. All right. Are you the same Jetty Bass who was
convicted November 25, 1933, of felony theft, and sentenced on
December 28, 1933, to 5 years?
Mr. BASS. Suspended.
Mr. GASQUE. Suspended sentence.
Now, are you the same Jetty Bass that was arrested and convicted
of burglary in September 1937, and sentenced to 3 years, 2 to 3 years
in the penitentiary?
Mr. WASS. Yes.
Mr. GASQUE. Are you the same Jetty Bass listed here as George
W. Bass, convicted on February 3, 1944-I think the actual conviction was on May 17, 1944-under the OPA Gas Ration Act, and
sentenced to 2 years and a $2,000 fine?
BASS. Yes.
Mr. GASQUE. Are
Mr.
you the same George W. Bass convicted in

Birmingham, Ala., in 1951, for burglary, and sentenced to 3 years
and 1 day, in St. Petersburg?
Mr. BASS. That was in Alabama; that's Montgomery, Ala.
Mr. GASQUE. Birmingham, Ala.; that's right.
Mr. BASS. I was convicted in Birmingham, but I didn't go to
St. Petersburg.
Mr. GASQUE. Where did you go?
Mr.
Mr.
BASS. Kilburg.
GASQUE. To Kilburg
State Penitentiary?
3134
Mr. BASS. Yes.

Mr. GASQUE. Now, are you the same G. W. Bass convicted in
Montgomery, Ala., for burglary and grand larceny in 1951, and
sentenced to 1 year and 1 day in the penitentiary?
Mr. BASS. Not in Mongomery.
Mr. GASQUE, Well, where were you convicted?
Mr. BASS. Gaston.
Mr. GASQUE. In Gaston, Ala.?
How long did you serve?
Mr. BASS. Three years.

Mr. GASQUE. Three years-I mean are you under a charge at this
time?
Mr. BASS. Well, not as I know of.
(Laughter.)
Mr. GASQUE. Now, what is your present address, Mr. Bass?
Mr. BASS. 309 Stewart Drive, Irving.
Mr. GASQUE. Have you ever used narcotic drugs of any type?
Mr. BAss. No.
Mr. GASQUE. You have never used marihuana, smoked marihuana?
Mr. BASS. Never.
Mr. GASQUE. Have you ever used opium?

Mr. BASS. Never.
Mr. GASQUE. Have you ever used heroin?

Mr. BASS. Never.
Mr. GASQUE. You have never injected heroin into your arms?
Mr. BASS. No.
Mr. GASQUE. Have you ever sniffed heroin?

Mr. BASS. No.
Mr. GASQUE. Have you ever sniffed cocaine?

Mr. BASS. No.
Mr. GASQUE. And you have never smoked marihuana?

Mr. BASS. Never have.
Senator DANIEL. Now, may I interrupt just a moment, Mr.
Counsel, to say to the witness, as I did to the previous witness, that
I am sure you know full well that we would not have you before this
committee if we did not have information which led us to believe
that you could tell us something about the narcotics traffic in this
county.
As a matter of fact, it has been testified before this committee that

you have sniffed or used cocaine, and I want to ask you the question
over again, have you ever sniffed, injected, or in any way used the
drug known as cocaine?
Mr. BASS. Never.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see any cocaine?
Mr. BAss. I don't recall it.

Senator DANIEL. You mean to say you never saw a bottle in which
cocaine was held?
Mr. BASS. I don't remember ever seeing one.
Mr. BASS. I don't think so.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see any marihuana?
Mr. BASS. No-I paid no attention to it.
Senator DANIEL. Well, can you be positive in your answers,
whether or not you ever saw any cocaine?
Mr. BASS. I am positive.
3135
Senator DANIEL. Can you be positive whether or not you ever saw
any maxihuana?
Mr. BASS. I don't recall ever seeing any.
Senator DANIEL. Well, can you be positive you never saw any
heroin?
Mr. BASS. I am positive.
Senator DANIEL. And are you positive that you never had in your
hands or in your possession any cocaine, marihuana or heroin?
Mr. BASS. Never have.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever had in your possession any
narcotic drug?
Mr. BASS. Never.
Senator DANIEL. All right, Mr. Gasque.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, are you familiar with the so-called Dallas
knob-knockers?
Mr. BASS. Well, I have kind of read about them.
Mr. GASQUE. You have read about them?
Mr. BASS. Yes, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Are you a member of the knob-knockers?
Mr. BASS. I don't think so.
Senator DANIEL. Now, what was your answer?
Mr. BASS. I said I didn't think so.
Mr. GASQUE. Who have you read were the members of the knobknockers?
Mr. BASS. Well, I don't recall right now. It was in the paper.
Mr. GASQUE. Well, when you have read them in the paper, you
don't recall any of the names?
Mr. BASS. Well, I-some things I don't remember, I can't remember, on account of I was hurt whenever-in Alabama.
Mr. GASQUE. On account of what?
Mr. BAss. Whenever I was shot in Alabama.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, when were you shot in Alabama?
Mr. BASS. Whenever I got arrested up there.
Mr. GASQUE. Who shot you?
Mr. BASS. The police.
Mr. GASQUE. Why did he shoot you?
Mr. BASS. Well, I just thought maybe he tried to kill me.
Mr. GASQUE. Had you done anything to cause him to feel that way
about you?
Mr. BASS. Well, they convicted me for burglary.
Mr. GASQUE. Were you shooting?
Mr. BASS. No.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you have a gun on you?
Mr. BASS. No.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, were you in an automobile?
Mr. BASS. No.
Mr. GASQUE. Tell us about that incident in your own words.

Mr. BASS. Well, I just got shot.
Mr. GASQUE. Well, where did it happen?
Mr. BASS. In Birmingham.
Mr. GASQUE. In a store?
Mr. BASS. No.
Mr.
GASQUE.
In a house?
Mr. BASS. No.
3136
ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC,
Mr. GASQUE. Where?
Mr. BASS. Outside.

Mr. GASQUE. Outside of what?
Mr. BASS. The store.

Mr. GASQUE. What kind of a store?
Mr. BASS. Well, it was an office.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, since that time, you have never read or heard of
any of the names of the members of the knobknockers?
Mr. BASS. No, I don't know them.
Mr. GASQUE. All right. Now, do you know anything about the
Renfro drugstore in I ort Worth?
Mr. BASS. No.
Mr. GASQUE. Are you familiar with the holdup which took place
there?
Mr. BASS. No.

Mr. GASQUE. Have you any knowledge of what happened to the
$100,000 worth of drugs and narcotics taken from the Renfrow drugstore at that time?
Mr. BASS. No.
Senator
DANIEL.
Speak out; let us have your answer.
Mr. BASS. No.
Senator
DANIEL.
The reporter is taking all of this down, and as
you know, he cannot get the nod of a head, so speak out loudly.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you know Cecil Green?

Mr. BASS. I knew him.
Mr.
GASQUE.
Do you know Lois Green?

Mr. GASQUE. Ray Searls?
Mr. GASQUE. James B. Cavanaugh?
Mr. BASS. I didn't know him.

Mr. GASQUE. You didn't know Cavanaugh?
Mr. BASS. No.
Mr. GASQUE. Did
the knob-knockers?
Mr. BASS. Well, I
Mr. GASQUE. Did
knockers?
Mr. BASS. Well, I
Mr. GASQUE. You
you know these other people to be members of

have been knowing them for a long time.
you know them to be members of the knobdidn't run around with them.
didn't associate with that group?
Mr. BASS. No. I knew them.

Mr. GASQUE. You knew that group?
Senator DANIEL. Now, he asked you, did you know them to be
members of this gang called the knob-knockers. I believe you haven't

given us a straight-out answer to that yet.
Mr. BASS. Well, there's people all over the country, I think, that's
thieves and burglars and knob-knockers.
Senator
DANIEL.
That is still not the answer.
Mr. BASS. But I have never went with them.

Senator DANIEL. Well, that isn't the answer-that isn't the
question. The question was, did you know them to be members of
a knob-knockers gang here?
Mr. BAss. I didn't know them to be a member.
Senator DANIEL. You heard about it, didn't you?
3137
Mr. BASS. Everybody has heard about it, but I didn't know them
to be a member of a gang.
Senator DANIEL. Well, didn't you ever go with them on any
burglary job?
Mr. BASS. No.
Senator DANIEL. What about the trip to Alabama?
Mr. BASS. I didn't go with them.
Senator
Who did you go with?
DANIEL.
Mr. BAss. It is a matter of record.
Senator
DANIEL.
I went with Cascio.
Who?
Mr. BASS. Cascio.

Mr. BASS. (Mr. Bass nodded hishead.)
Mr. BASS. Pate.
Senator DANIEL. Tommy Pate?
Mr. BASS. Yes.
Mr. BASS. That's all.

Senator
DANIEL.
Wasn't Gladys Harvey with you?
Mr. BASS. No.

Senator DANIEL. Was Gladys Harvey anywhere in the State of
Alabama at that time?
Mr. BASS.
I don't think so.
Senator DANIEL. Did she go part of the way?

Mr. BASS. No.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Gladys Harvey?
(Mr. Bass nodded his head.)
Mr. Bass. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you known her?
Mr. BASS. Some few years.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been associated with her in any
way?
Mr. BASS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. In what way?
Mr. BASS. Well, we lived together.
Senator Daniel. How long?
M. BASS. Oh, 2 or 3, 4 or 5 years, somewhere along in there.
Senator DANIEL. Were you ever married?
Mr. BASS. No.

Senator DANIEL. Where did you live together with her?
Mr. BASS. South Dallas.

Senator DANIEL. What business were you in at the time?
Mr. BASS. Wasn't in any business.
Senator DANIEL. What business was she in?
Mr. BASS. Well, I never asked her.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know what business she was in, without
asking?
Mr. BASS. Well, I didn't talk to her about her business, and she
didn't talk to me about mine. [Laughter.]
Senator DANIEL. Let's have order, please.
I just asked you, do you know what she was in?
Mr. BASS. I answered the best way I could.
3138
Senator DANIEL. Is that the only answer you can give us to that?
Mr. BASS. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see her smoke marihuana?
Mr. BAss. Never have.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see her use any kind of narcotic
drugs?
Mr. BASS. Never.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what business have you been in the last few
years, since you got out of the Alabama prison?
Mr. BASS. I haven't been in any.
Senator DNAIEL. What have you been doing?
Mr. BASS. Nothing.
Mr. BASS. I haven't done anything.
Mr. GASQUE. You are about the best dressed man, not to have
done anything, that I have ever seen.
Mr. BASS. These clothes was bought some few years ago, before
I went to the penitentiary.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you say you have not done anything since
you got out of the penitentiary?
Mr. BASS. No.
Mr. GASQUE. What about Cascio, was he a member of the knobknockers?
Mr. BASS. I told you I didn't know of any knob-knocker gang.
Mr. GASQUE. What about Pate, was he a member of the knobknockers?
Mr. BASS. I didn't know of any knob-knocker gang.
Senator DANIEL. Well, Pate and Cascio went with you to Alabama
when this burglary occurred over there, didn't they?
Senator DANIEL. How many other trips had they made with you on
burglary jobs?
Mr. BASS. That's the only one.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see either one of them use narcotics?
Mr. BASS. Never.
Senator DANIEL. Neither one?
Mr. BASS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what have you done for a living since
1952-wait a minute; when did you get out of the penitentiary?
Mr. BASS. 1953.
Senator DANIEL. 1953; what time?
Mr. BAss. Or 1954; I come out in 1954.

Senator DANIEL. Haven't you earned any money since then?
Mr. BASS. Well, the money that I have accumulated is people that
let me have it, because I am not able to do any work, any manual
work.
Senator DANIEL. You are not able to work?
Senator DANIEL. And other people have let you have money?
Senator DANIEL. And you have not had any type of income of your
own?
Senator DANIEL. Well, what have these other people done, loaned
you money or something?
3139
Mr. BASS. Well, just gave it to me.

Senator DANIEL. Well, who are some of them?
Mr. BAss. Well, I don't know their names. People that I would
see asked me did I need any money, and I would tell them yes.
Senator DANIEL. Just people you would meet along the street?
Mr. BASS. Well, there's people I have known from years back,
that I couldn't remember their names.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I am talking about since 1953.
Mr. BASS. I am talking about since 1953.

Senator DANIEL. Well, have you-do you remember the name of
anyone who gave you any money since 1953?
Mr.
BASS.
Senator
No.
DANIEL.
Not a single one?
Mr. BASS. (No answer.)

Senator DANIEL. Well, would it include Nick Cascio?
Mr. BASS. Well, Nick might have let me have some.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I am asking you, did he?
Mr. BASS. Well, I don't-it's been so long that I-like I told you,
that anything that happened 2 or 3, 4 weeks back, I might not remember that day, or what happened that day.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, do you mean to say people are letting you
have money without your keeping any record of it?
Mr. BASS. Well, they know that I need it.

Senator DANIEL. Are you supposed to pay it back to them?
Mr. BASS. They never ask me for it back.
Senator DANIEL. Well, just who areMr. BASS. If I would ever get it, I would give it back to them, yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, just who are. these people?
Name one of
them.
Mr. BASS. Well, just different ones. Like I told you, somebody
might let me have it, then 2 or 3, 4 days later, I might not remember
who I got it from.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know Tincey Eggleston?

Senator DANIEL. Did he ever let you have any money?
Mr. BASS. No.
Senator
DANIEL.
Were you associated with him, have any dealings
with him?
Mr.
BASS.
Senator
I never had any dealings with him.
DANIEL.
How about Cecil Green?

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have any dealings with him?
Mr. BASS. No dealings.
Senator DANIEL. How about his brother, Lois Green?
Senator DANIEL. Ever have any dealings with him?
Mr. BASS. No dealings.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have dealings with Roy Sistrunk?
Mr. BASS. No.

Mr. BASS. I know him.
Senator DANIEL. But you can't remember the name of a single
human being who has given you money so you yourself did not have to
work since 1953?
3140
Mr. BASS. No. Like I told you, anything that happened a week or
2, 3 weeks back, I don't remember it.
Senator DANIEL. You don't remember anything that happened
more than 3 weeks back?
Mr. BASS. Not much longer than that. At times.
Senator DANIEL. Well, has anybody given you any money in the
last 3 weeks?
Mr.
BASS.
I don't think so.
What?
Mr. BASS. No, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. I think you can remember things that happened
farther back than that. You remembered that you were the same
Jetty Bass who had been convicted in 1953.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
BASS.
Well, that's a record.
Mr. GASQUE. In other words, you can remember what is on the

record?
Mr. BASS. You can tell me about the record, yes.
Mr. GASQUE. All right. Now, do you know Billy Butler?
Mr. BASS. Yes.

Mr. GASQUE. Do you know Roy Sistrunk?
Mr. BASS. Yes.
Mr. GASQJE. Were you arrested with those two men?
Mr. BASS. I think Mr. Gannaway said I was, when he was on the
stand.
Mr. GASQTE. Is that a matter of record?
Mr. BASS. That's a matter of record.
Mr. GASQUE. That you were arrested with Billy Butler and Roy
Sistrunk?
Mr. BASS. Well, Mr. Gannaway testified to that on the stand.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, we are not asking you what Mr.
Gannaway testified. You know that the counsel has asked you
whether or not you were arrested with these two men.
Mr. BASS. Well, it is a matter of record that I was.
Senator DANIEL. Well, that isn't the question. Do you remember
being arrested with them?
Mr. BASS. Well, not hardly. I probably was.
Senator DANIEL. You barely remember it?
Mr.
BASS.
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Go ahead, Counsel.

Mr. GASQUE. Now, at the time you were arrested, the police found
in the car 2 pistols and 100 gelatin dynamite sticks of nitroglycerin;
is that correct?
Mr. BASS. Well, it is just like I said, I heard Mr. Gannaway's
testimony about it, and I had forgot all about it.
Mr. GASQUE. You had forgotten about the pistols and the nitroglycerin?
Mr. BASS. Yes.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you usually carry those around in your car?
Mr. BASS. No.
Mr. GASQUE. As I understand it, you stated at the time that you
were going out of the State?
Mr.
BASS.
I don't remember stating anything.
Mr. GASQUE. The evidence is that you stated that you were going
out of the State to pull a job.
3141
Mr. BASS. Well, I don't remember.

Mr. GASQUE. You don't recall that?
Mr. BAss. I don't remember making that statement.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you state at the time that you were going out of
the State to pull a job, because you were not going to steal in Dallas?
Mr. BAss. Well, I [Mr. Bass shook his head]-it might have
been something like that.
Mr. GASQUE. Why don't you steal in Dallas?
Mr. BASS. Well, I haven't stolen, in Dallas or anywhere, in a long
tine.
Senator DANIEL. How long ago has it been?
Mr. BASS. It's since I went to the penitentiary, a long time ago.
Senator DANIEL. In Alabama?
Mr. BASS. Yes, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, do you own an automobile?
(Mr. Bass shook his head.)
Mr. GASQUE. You do not own an automobile?
Mr. GASQUE. Do you drive a 1954 Pontiac?
Mr. BASS. No.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you drive a 1955 Pontiac?
Mr. BASS. No.
Mr. GASQUE. All right. Now, I believe you told the chairman
that you are not currently employed?
Mr. GASQUE. Who pays your bills by the day?
Mr. BASS. I live at home. I live in the-with my wife.
Mr. GASQUE. Does your wife support you?
Mr. BAss. And I live in my mother-in-law's home.
Mr. GASQUE. Your mother-in-law's home; does your wife work?

Mr. BASS. No.
Mr. GASQUE. Does your mother-in-law work?
Mr. GASQUE. Does she support you?
Mr. BASS. Well, she-the house and everything.
Mr. GASQUE. Who buys the food?
Mr. BASS. Like I said, that I borrow money or get money from
people, I said.
Mr. GASQUE. Does your wife own a car?
Mr. BASS. Yes.
Mr. GASQUE. What kind?
Mr. BASS. Oldsmobile.
Mr. GASQUE. What model?
Mr. BASS. A 1949 model.
Mr. GASQUE. A 1949 Oldsmobile; have you been out of the State
of Texas within the last 2 months?
Mr. BASS. No.
Mr. GASQUE. Within the last year?
Mr. BASS. Yes.
Mr.
GASQUE.
Mr.
BASS. Oklahoma.
GASQUE. What did you go to Oklahoma
BASS. I went up to the carnival.
GASQUE. Where was the carnival held?
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Where did you go?
for?
3142
Mr. BASS. In-I don't know, just right across the State line. I
can't recall the name of the town.
Mr. GASQUE. You can't recall the name of the town? Well,
all right.
Now, did you take over with you, when you went to Oklahoma,
some of this nitroglycerin?
Mr.
BASS. No.
Mr. GASQUE. And pistols?
Mr. BASS. No.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you leave them behind?
Mr. BASS. I don't carry them.
Senator DANIEL. When did you quit carrying
those?
Mr. BASS. As I stated before, I haven't carried a gun or had a gun

around me in several years or longer.
Senator
DANIEL.
Since your prison sentence in Alabama?
Mr. BASS. Since my prison sentence in Alabama.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, you did have guns with you or around you
on your trip to Alabama, did you not?
Mr.
BASS.
Senator
No.
DANIEL.
You went over there completely unarmed?
Mr. BASS. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
What?
Mr. BASS. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, since that time you have not carried a gun
at all?
Mr.
Mr.
BASS. (Shaking his head).

Never.
GASQUE. Now, do you know Harry
Pope?

Mr. GASQUE. Have you seen Harry Pope recently?
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Well, I haven't seen him since we had the fight.

GASQUE. Since the other night?
BASS. No; since-there was a little misunderstanding. I
BASS.
haven't seen him in 4 or 5 months.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
GASQUE. How did you resolve that misunderstanding?

BASS. Well, just a little-something happened, an accident.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
GASQUE. What happened?

BASS. Well, there was a fight.
GASQUE. It was a fight?
BASS. Yes.
GASQUE. Did you get hurt in the
BASS. Well, I think I did.
GASQUE. What happened?
Mr.
BASS.
Mr.
Senator
fight?
Well, I was in the hospital for a week or so over there.
DANIEL.
Did he cut you with a knife?
(Conference between Mr. Bass and Mr. Payne.)
Mr. BASS. Well, I was stuck with a knife; yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. What was that?
Mr. BASS. Yes; I was stuck with a knife.
Senator DANIEL. He stuck you with a knife?
Mr. BASS. He cut me.
Senator
DANIEL.
He cut you with a knife, where?
Mr. BASS. On my face [indicating].

Senator DANIEL. And did you fight him with a knife?
Mr.
BASS.
No.
3143
Senator DANIEL. What kind of a weapon did you use?

Mr. BASS. I didn't have no weapon at all.
Senator DANIEL. Were you fighting him?
Mr.
BASS. No.
Senator DANIEL.
Well, just tell us exactly how it happened.
Did
you hit him?

Mr. BAss. Now, what was the question?
Senator DANIEL. What was the fight over?
Mr. BASS. Well, I don't-I would rather not say what it was, on
account of he has a charge on him now, and anything I might say up
here might tend to harm him in court.
Senator DANIEL. Tend to incriminate him?
Mr. BASS. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, the committee is not going to let you
refuse to answer for that reason.
Now, wait just a minute. If you wish to consult your lawyer
again, you can, but let's go along as much as we can.
Do you want to consult him again?
Mr. BASS. Anything I might say referring to the fight might incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you mean to say if you told us what this
fight was about, it might tend to incriminate you?
Mr. BASS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. You are not worried about him, you are just
worried about yourself, is that correct?
Do you understand what the fifth amendment provides?
BASS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr.
Has your attorney explained it?
I am sure he
has.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in
the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war
or public danger; * * * nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself.
Now, you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself in

a criminal case, or before this committee, and that's the fifth amendinent, that's what it says, you understand; and you would be a witness
against yourself if you felt that a truthful answer to any of these
questions might tend to incriminate you or tie you up with some
crime for which you might be tried.
Mr. Counsel, have I explained that accurately?
Mr. PAYNE. Yes, sir; that is my understanding.
Senator DANIEL. Now, the only reason I am coming back into this
is so that we will know for sure whether or not you are in good faith in
saying to this committee that you think a truthful answer so that
question might tend to incriminate you.
After this explanation, do you truthfully believe that a truthful
answer to that question might tend to incriminate you?
Mr.
BASS.
Yes.
3144
Senator DANIEL. All right. What did you fight with in this fight?
Mr. BASS. Nothing.
Senator DANIEL. Did you hit him with an ashtray?
Mr. BASS. No.
Senator DANIEL. What did you hit the man with?
Mr. BASS. I refuse to answer that on the same grounds.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you known Harry Pope?
Mr. BASS. Oh, I have knew him for quite some time.
Senator DANIEL. Well, has he been a good friend of yours?
Mr. BASS. I think so.
Senator DANIEL. Did you all work together in any kind of business?
Mr. BASS. No.
Senator DANIEL. You know that he has used morphine, do you not?
Senator DANIEL. Isn't it true that he was using morphine the
night of this fight?
Mr. BASS. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. You don't know whether he ever used any
morphine?
Mr. BASS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You are telling this committee you never saw
him use morphine?
Mr. BASS. No; I never seen him use morphine.

Senator DANIEL. And you never used any morphine with him?
Mr. BASS. I never used any.
Senator DANIEL. Have you filed any income-tax return in recent
years?
Mr. BASS. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. For what years?
Mr. BASS. 1954.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have a copy with you?
Mr. BASS (producing an income-tax return). Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did you file an income-tax return for 1953?

Mr. BASS. I was in the penitentiary.
Senator
TNIr.
DANIEL.
BASS.
Senator
Did you fie one for 1952?
I was in the penitentiary.
DANIEL.
Did you file one for 1951?
Mr. BASS. I was in the penitentiary.

Senator DANIEL. Did you file one for 1950?
Mr. BASS. For 1950?
Yes.

Mr. BASS. No, I don't.
Senator DANIEL. You are sure you did file an income-tax return for
1950?
Mr.
BASS.
I am pretty sure.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you say you are pretty sure; are you posi.
tive, or are you just pretty sure?
Mr. BASS. I am pretty sure.
Senator DANIEL. You are not positive?
Mr. BASS. No.

Senator DANIEL. Will you pass that return up here, please?
(Mr. Bass complied with the Senator's request.)
3145
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Counsel, any further questions?
Mr. GASQUE. Let's go back to this question you were asked: Were
you and Harry Pope using cocaine?
Mr. BASS. No, I have never; no.
Mr. GASQUE. Was he using cocaine?
Mr. BASS. I don't know. I never seen him.
Mr. GASQUE. Was there any cocaine in your possession at that
time?
Mr. BASS. No.

Senator DANIEL. Now, I used the word "morphine" a minute ago.
Counsel has asked you about cocaine; you said no, you didn't see him.
Don't you know that he was hopped up on some kind of drugs at that
time, when you had this fight?
Mr. BASS. No.

Mr. BASS. No.
Senator DANIEL. You never accused him of being?

Mr. BASS. No.
Senator DANIEL. And you don't think he was?
Mr. BASS. No.

Mr. GASQUE. No further questions.
Mr. SPEER. Do you know a Eugene McCroskey, of Kansas City?
Mr. BASS. No.

Mr. SPEER. Did you ever see him?
Mr. BASS. No, sir.

Mr. SPEER.
Are you positive of that?
Mr. BASS. Pretty sure.

Mr. SPEER. Did you ever go to Kansas City?
Mr. BASS. No.
Mr. SPEER.
Never been to Kansas City?
Mr. BASS. Never been there.

Mr. SPEER. Have you ever been to Nick Cascio's house in Dallas?
Mr. BASS. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. Did you go to Nick Cascio's house in Dallas along
about 1948?
Mr. BASS. Well, I imagine I was by his house in 1948.
Mr. SPEER. You were by his house very often, were you not, in
1948?
Mr. BASS. As I said, I probably went by his house.
Mr. SPEER. Very often, I said.
Mr. BASS. Well, I wouldn't know how often.
Mr. SPEER. He was a good friend of yours?
Mr. BASS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER.
Did anyone come down from Kansas City?
Mr. BASS. I never seen anyone around.
visit him, live with him, at that time?

Mr. BASS. I never seen anyone.
Mr. SPEER. Did you see Eugene McCroskey at that time?
Mr. BASS. I don't remember.
Mr. SPEER. Living in Nick Cascio's house?
Mr. BASS. No, sir.
Mr. SPEER. To
3146
nLICrr NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
Mr. SPEER. Are you sure of that?
Mr. BASS. I am pretty sure I have never met him or seen him or
anything.
Mr. SPEER. Well, you are sure you didn't see him in 1948, at Nick
Cascio's house?
Mr. BASS. I am pretty sure.
Mr. SPEER. Well, now, just a minute ago you said you couldn't
remember over 3 weeks.

Mr. BASS. I have told you I was pretty sure I hadn't.
Mr.
SPEER. That's all.
Senator DANIEL. Now, this income-tax return for 1954 shows your
total income of yourself and wife, Dolly Bass, $4,250.
Now, what did you make that off of?
(Consultation between Mr. Bass and Mr. Payne.)
Mr. BASS. I refuse to answer that on the grounds that it might
Mr. BASS. I said I refuse to answer that on the basis that it might
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, Mr. Counsel, it would appear to the
chairman that the witness has waived any right to claim the fifth
amendment on this, because he said that he did not have any income,
it was just money that people gave him.
Let me go at it this way: Was your wife, was Dollie Bass doing any
work during that time?
Mr. BAss. No.
Senator DANIEL. Did she have any income of any kind?

Mr. BASS. What was the question?
Senator DANIEL. Did Dollie Bass have any kind of business?
Mr. BASS. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Or have any income during 1954?
Mr. BASS. No.

Senator DANIEL. All that you have reported here was income of
yours; is that right?

Senator DANIEL. All right. Where did you get the money?
Mr. BASS. It might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. BASS. I stand on the fifth amendment.

Senator DANIEL. You think that if you answered truthfully to the
question of where this $4,250 came from in 1954, it might tend to

incriminate you?
Senator DANIEL. That's all. You may stand aside.
Mr. BASS. May I take this? [Indicating the income-tax return.]
Senator DANIEL. You may take it.
Nick Cascio.
(Nick Cascio came forward, accompanied by an attorney.)
Mr. GASQUE. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
Mr. CAScIo. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
Counsel, will you identify yourself?
3147
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir; my name is Robert B. Allen.

ing attorney here in Dallas.
Senator DANIEL. What is your address?
I am a practic-
Mr. ALLEN. 608 Kane Street.

Senator DANIEL. You are appearing on behalf of the witness?
Mr. ALLEN. Nick Cascio.

sir.
You may be seated, Mr. Counsel.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, do you understand, Counsel, the procedure,
that if your client wishes to address you
Mfr. ALLEN. Yes, sir; I think I understand it perfectly.
ALLEN. Yes,
Senator DANIEL.
Mr.
TESTIMONY OF NICK CASCIO

Mr. CAscIo. Nick Cascio.

Senator DANIEL. Is that C-a-s-c-i-o?
.Mr. CAscIo. That's right.
MN1'. CASCIO. Dallas, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you lived in Dallas?
Mr. CAscIo. Off and on all my life.
Senator DANJEL. How old arc you?
Mr. CAscIo. Forty years old.
Senator DANIEL. Are you the same Nick Cascio who has served
time on several cases in the penitentiary?
Mr. CAscIo. I have.
Senator DANIEL. How many cases?

Mr. CASCIO. Offhand I don't remember.
Senator DANIEL.
Well, more than two?
Mr. CASCIO. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. What was the last sentence you served for?
Mlr. CAscIo. In Alabama.
Senator DANIEL. In Alabama?

I. CAsClo. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Was that with Jetty Bass?
Mr. CAsCoO. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. And what was the violation you were convicted
of there?
Mr. CAsCIo. Burglary.
Senator DANNIEL. Burglary with firearms?
Mr. CAsCoO. No
Senator DANIEL.
N1r. CAscoO. No
Senator DANIEL.
dlere?
firearms.
No firearms involved?
firearms.
Did you resist the officers at the time of arrest
N1r'. CAscIo. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Were you shot in the arrest?

Mr. CAseio. Yes, sir.
senator DANIEL. How long did you serve in Alabama?
Mr. CAscIo. It was 2 or 3 years. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. And then what was the offense for which you
Intrve(d before that?
741515-5--pt. 7-51
3148
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Mr. CAscIo. I beg your pardon?
Senator DANIEL. What was the off ense for which you served before ,
that?
Did you serve in Louisiana?
(Conference between N\r. Cascio and Mfr. Allen.)
Mr. CASClO. Arkansas.
Senator DANIEL. In Arkansas?
Mr. CASCIO. Yes, sir.
\4r. CAscIo. I went in in 1949.

Senator Daniel. How long did you serve?
Mr. CAscIo. How long did I serve, or what I got,?
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, what did you get?
Mr. CASCIO. Three years.
Senator
DANIEL. How
long did you serve?
Mr. CAscIo. I think around 18 or 20 months.

Senator DANIEL. And what was that charge?
What were .vou
convicted of there?
Mr. CAscio. Burglary tools.
Senator DANIEL. Possession of burglary tools?

Senator DANIEL. Did they include nitroglycerin or dynamite?
(Ir. Casteo shook his head.)
Senator
DANIEL.
What?
Mr. CA.scto. No,sir.

Senator DANIEL. Well, what did they include?
M1r. Cuscio. Well, I had a pair of pliers and a chisel and a pailr of
vise grips in my car, and two title tools, one under the back seat ati(l
one under the tool chest.
Senator DANIEL. Tlat's all you had in the car-?
Mr. C.ksci. That's all that was in my car.
Senator DANIEL. At the time they arrested you?
Nir. CASCIO.
Si'?
Senator DANIEL. At the time they arrested you?

Mr. C-scio. That's all that I remember of; yes. They got two crow bars, but I don't know where they fouid them. rhey didn't conic
out of my car.
Senator DANIIK:L. The crowbars, you are sure, did niot come otit of
your car?
Mr. CASCO. They did not come out of my car.
Senator D.ANIEL. Where (lid you serve before that, inlwhat piuoll?
Louisiana?
(Conference between Mr. Cascio aiid Mfr. Allen.)
MIr. CASCIO. Louisialla.; yes, sir.
SenaWtor D.NIEL. What were vou convicted of in Louisiana?

Mr. C.xsCIO. lIntent, 1 believe.
Senator DA NI .L. Was it simple burglary?
ir. C \scJo. Something like that; y s, sit.
Senator DAN\iF,,,. How many years were you giveii?
Mfr. C.xscio. I believe it was five.
Senator DANIEL. How many did you serve?
Mr. CASCIo. I think I served about two.
Senator DANIEL. Before and after these convictions, I will d.k

whether or not you were using any type of narcotic drugs.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
3149
TRAFFIC
Mr. CASCIO. Never.

Senator DANIEL. How is that?
Mr. CAscio. Never.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever use any type
Mr. CAscio. No,

Senator DANIEL.
Mr. CAscIo. No,
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. CAscIo. No,
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. CAscIo. No,
sir.
Of narcotic drug?
sir.
Did you ever smoke marihuana?

sir.
Did you ever sniff cocaine?

sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have in your possession any cocaine?
Mr. CASCIO. Not thatI know of.
Senator DANIEL. How about marihuana?
Mr. CAscIo. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have in your possession any heroin?
MV. CAsCoO. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have in your possession
any
morphine?
Mr. CAscIo. Not that I know of.
Senator DANIEL. Haven't you ever been inside a drugstore to get

morphine?
Mr. CAscIo. You-I beg your pardon?
Senator
DANIEL.
Haven't you ever been inside a drugstore to get
morphine?
Mr. CAScIo. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And you did not ever have in your possession
or in your hands any of these narcotic drugs I have asked you about?
Mr.CASCIO. If I have, I don't remember it.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see any morphine?
Mr. CAsCoO. I probably have.
Mr. CAscIo. In the penitentiary.
Mr. CAscIo. In the penitentiary.
Senator DANIEL. In the penitentiary?
Well, was it morphine that
people were using there in the pen, or what?

Mr. CAscio. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What was it?
Mr. CAscIo. Morphine given to the patients.

hospital.
I worked in the
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever use any morphine yourself, in the
penitentiary?
Mr. CAscIo. Did I ever
use any?
Mr. CAScIo. You mean give myself some?

-Mr. CAScIO. No.
Senator
Give it to other patients in the penitentiary?

M{r. CASCIo. Wasn't allowed to give it to them. The doctor did
that.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you every use any heroin or morphine
at any time in your life?
DANIEL.
3150

Senator DANIEL. Did you every see anybody do it?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see anybody use cocaine?
Mr. CASCIO. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, you know Roy Sistrunk, don't you?
Mr. CAscIo. Yes, sir.
Mr. CASCIO. I have known him since I met him, about 10, 15 years,
off and on.
Senator DANIEL. Haven't you worked with him on burglary jobs?

Never?
that I know of. I don't think so.
Well, you would remember it if you had ever
worked with Roy Sistrunk in performing a burglary or robbery,
wouldn't you?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. CASCIO. Not
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. CAscIo. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. Well, did you?
Mr. CASCIO. No.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever work with Jetty Bass?
Mr. CAScIo. Well, you have got it on record there.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I am asking you to put it on yourself, right
now.
Did you ever work in a holdup or robbery with Jetty Bass?
Mr. CAscIo. No; I have never robbed nobody.
Mr. CAscIo. I have never robbed nobody.
Mr. CAscIO. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. All these convictions were on what?
Mr. CAscIo. Burglary, I guess, burglary tools. I have been filed
on for robbery, but I have never robbed nobody.

Senator DANIEL. Have you ever burglarized anybody?
Mr. CAscIo. I been in the penitentiary for it.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you do it?
Mr. CAscIO. They sent me to the penitentiary for it.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you do it with Jetty Bass?
Mr. CAscIo. You got it on record there.
No; I am asking you.
Mr. ALLEN. Answer it.

Mr. CAscIo. Yes.
Mr. CAscIo. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. More than once?
Mr. CAsCIO. No.
Senator DANIEL. Only one time?
Mr. CAsCIO. One time.
Mr. CAscIo. In Alabama.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, actually, all this committee is interested in, as far as this hearing is concerned, is the narcotics traffic
and how it ties in to robberies and burglaries and things of that
kind.
3151
I want you to think back and answer without calling any names
do you know of anybody engaged in robberies or burglaries that used
anykind of dope?
Mr. CAscIO. Did I know of anybody?
Mr. CASCIO. That done what, now?
Senator DANIEL. That were engaged in any robberies or burglaries,
that used any kind of dope?
Did you ever hear of that?
Mr. CAScIo. Did I ever hear of anybody robbing anybody?

Senator DANIEL. No; did you ever hear of anybody who robbed
people or burglarized people using dope, morphine or heroin or

anything like that?
Mr. JASCIo. Well, I might have heard it. I don't know nothing
about it.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't see it yourself?
Mr. CAScIo. No, sir.
Mr. CAscIo. Slightly.
Senator DANIEL. How slightly?
Mr. CASCIO. Well, 4 or 5 months.

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever work with him?
Mr. CAScIO. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. On any kind of burglary or robbery?

Senator
drugs?
DANIEL.
Did you ever know that he used any type of
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you know Cecil Green?
Mr. CAscIO. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL. How long did you know Cecil Green?

Mr. CASCIO. About 15 years.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't you work with Cecil Green on
and robberies?
Mr. CAscoO. You have got it on the record there.
burglaries
I went to the
penitentiary for it.

Senator DANIE'L. Well, I am just asking you whether or not you did.
Mr. CASCIO. I did; yes, sir.
I am just trying to show you knew Cecil Green.

Senator DANIEL. You knew him well enough to be engaged in
burglaries and robberies with him, didn't you?
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. CASCIO. No, we went to the penitentiary for burglary, not
for robbery. I never robbed nobody.

Senator DANIEL. Well, you burglarized people, and you did that
with Cecil Green, right?
Mr. CASCIO. I did.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Now, you were closely enough associated to Cecil Green to know that and to do that with him; weren't
you closely associated enough to know that he used narcotic drugs?
Air.
CASCIo. I don't think he ever used any.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL. Well, what do you mean by using narcotic drugs?

CASCIO. I don't know what you are talking about. Narcotic
drugs, I don't think the man ever used any.

Senator DANIEL. Cecil Green?
Mr. CASCIO. No, sir-yes, sir.
3152
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever know anybody who did use them?
Mr. CAscIo. No, sir; not to my knowledge.
Senator DANIEL. You never did know anybody who used them?
Mr. CAscIo. I have never seen nobody take a shot of morphine, or
whatever you call it.
Mr. CAscIo. Heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see anybody sniff it?
Mr. CASCIO. No. sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see anybody smoke a marihuana

cigarette?
Mr. CAscoO. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And you want that to stand as your testimony to
this committee, that you never knew that Cecil Green, or never saw
him use any kind of narcotic drugs?
Mr. CASCIO. I never seen Cecil Green or nobody else use no
narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Mr. Speer?
Mr. SPEER. You say you have never known a narcotic addict?
Mr. CAsCoO. Have never known one? Now, I might have knownI might know lots of them, but I don't know that they use narcotics.
Mr. SPEER. Well, how could they be a narcotic addict and not use
narcotics?
Mr. CAsCoO. Well, I don't know. You asked me did I ever know
any.
Mr. SPEER. Well, have you known anyone that did use narcotics?
Mr. CAsCoO. No.
Mr. SPEER. Do you think you would know if one of your associates
was using narcotics?
Mr. CAscIO. I wouldn't even know nothing about narcotics. I
don't know how to answer; I don't know.
Mr.
SPEER.
Have you ever seen any heroin?
Mr. CASCIO. If I have, I don't know it.
Mr. SPEER. What color is heroin?

Mr. CAsCIO. I don't know.
Mr. SPEER. Do you know Johnny Miller?
Mr. CAscIo. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. Where is he now?
Mr. CAscIo. He is in Leavenworth.
Mr. SPEER. Where?
Mr. CAscIo. In Leavenworth, I imagine.
Mr. SPEER. How much did he get?
Mr. CAscio. Ten years.
Mr. SPEER. Ten years?
Mr. CAscIO. Yes.
Mr. SPEER. Just before he went to the penitentiary, did you see
him quite frequently?
Mr. CAsCIO. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. How often did you see him?
Mr. CASCIO. Oh, I couldn't say. I would drive by his place of
business every once in a while.
Mr. SPEER. As a matter of fact, you were making deliveries of
heroin for Johnny Miller?
Mr. CAsCIo. Oh, no, no, no, no, sir.
3153
Mr. SPEER. Is Johnny Miller an addict?

Mr. CASCIO. I don't know. I never seen him take no dope.
Mr. SPEER. Did you know George Miller?
Mr. SPEER. What happened to George Miller?
CASCIO. I don't know what happened to him.
M[r. SPEER. Is he living?
i\ Ir. CAsCIO. I don't think so.
MI. SPEER. He is dead, isn't he?
M r. CAscIo. I imagine he is.
Mlr. SPEER. He killed himself, didn't he?
MNfr. CAsCoo. I couldn't swear to it.
Mr. SPEER. It was reported he killed himself, wasn't it?
Mhr. CASeiO. I don't, know.
Mr. SPE1,R. After he killed someone else?
Mr. CASCIO. I don't know nothing about that.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you ever hear of that?
.Mlr. CASCIO. Sir?
Senator DANIEL. Is this news to you?

.Mfr. CAscIo. No, it is not news to me. I have heard he killed
hiisself.
Senator DANIEL. Yes; you have heard that is how lie
,r.
CASCIO. I wasn't there; I couldn't prove it.
Senator DANIEL. We understand; but you heard, after le killed

another man, he killed himself?
Mr. CASCIO. I didn't know he ever killed another man.
Senator DANIEL. Well, this is news to you, then?
MNr. CAsCIo. Killing another man?
.M[r. CAscIo. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. But it is not, news to you that he killed himself?
Mir. CAscIo. No, I heard that.
Senator DANIEL. It, is news to you that Johnny Miller was in the
heroin traffic?
MNr. CAscoO. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You never heard of that before?
Mr. CASCIO. I never heard that he used any narcotics.

Senator DANIEL. I didn't ask you that. I asked you, Did you ever
hear that ie was in the heroin traffic?
Mr. CAsCoO. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You never dreamt of him being in the heroin
traffic?
Mfr. CAscio. No.

Senator DANIEL. What about George Niller?
Mr. CASCIO. I don't know anything about him.
Senator DANIEL. You never heard of him being in the heroin traffic?
Mfr. CAscIo. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You never made any deliveries of heroin?

Mr. CASCIo. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. For Johnny Miller?
MNlr. CASCIO. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. During 1954?
M~r. CASeIO. No.
Senator DANIEL. What kind of business were you in, in 1954?
3154
Mr. CAscIo. I wasn't.

Senator DANIEL. Unemployed?
Senator
DANIEL.
Or where?
(Conference between Mr. Cascio and Mr. Allen.)

Mr. CASCIo. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
What?
Mr. CAscIo. I wasn't employed.

Senator DANIEL. You were not employed all during 1954?
Senator DANIEL. Well, how did you live? What income did you
have?
Mr. CAscoO. I got out of the. penitentiary in 1954.
Senator
DANIEL.
What part of the year?
Mr. CAscIo. I believe it was March.

Senator DANIEL. Let me have his record. When did he get out
of the penitentiary? Do you have an automobile?
Mr. CAsCIO. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Does your wife have an automobile?
Senator DANIEL. Who paid for it?
Mr. CAscIO. I did.
Senator DANIEL. What kind of car?
Mr. CAscIo. She has-it is a 1955 Olds.
Senator DANIEL. 1955 Oldsmobile?
Senator DANIEL. Paid for?
Senator DANIEL. The record here shows that you got out of the
penitentiary on July17, 1953.
Mr. CAscIO. 1953?
Senator DANIEL. Yes. Is that about right?
MIr. CAseiO. No, sir; I don't think so. I will say no, sir. I don't
know.
Senator DANIEL. Well, when do you think you got out?
Mr. ALLEN. Senator, may I ask you a question? Is that the
Arkansas penitentiary, now, or the Alabama penitentiary?
Senator DANIEL. Alabama.
Mr. ALLEN. The reason I asked
Senator DANIEL. Alabama.
Mr. ALLEN. His parole was revoked in Arkansas, and he went f,'om
Alabama to Arkansas.
Senator DANIEL. I see. You went back to Arkansas?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right. When did you get out of the Arkansas
penitentiary?
Mr. CAsCIO. It was in 1954.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what part of 1954?
Mr. CASCIO. I think it was in about March.
Senator DANIEL. March of 1954?
Mr. CAseiO.
I think
so. did you do any kind
Senator
DANIEL.
Well,
of work the rest of
that year?
3155
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Was your wife employed?
Mr. CASCIO. I wasn't married then.
Senator DANIEL. You what?
Mr. CAscIo. I wasn't married then.
Senator DANIEL. Were you married any time during 1954?
Mr. CAscIo.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, what did you do for a living, from March
1954 till the end of the year?

Mr. CASCIO. Sir, the money that I made in 1954, I refuse to answer
on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.

Senator DANIEL. Well, did you bring your income tax return
with you?
Senator DANIEL. Will you pass it up?
Mr. CASCIO. Did I bring the income tax on that?
Mr. ALLEN. I have it here in my pocket, I think.
(The income tax return was handed to the committee.)
Senator DANIEL. This income tax return shows that it was filed
for you yourself, individually; and an income of $4,100 from "selfemployed speculator."
Mr. CASCIo. That's right. [Laughter.]
Senator DANIEL. What did you mean by that?
Mr. CASClO. Sir?
Senator
DANIEL.
What do you mean by that?
Mr. CAscIo. Well, sir; I refuse to answer that on the grounds it
might tend to incriminate me, although-I paid taxes on it.

Senator DANIEL. You paid taxes on it?
Mr. CAsCIo. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. CASCIO. No,
Senator DANIEL.
But you were not employed by anybody?

sir.
Weren't doing any work?
Mr. CAsclo. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did anybody give you this money?

(Mr. Cascio shook his head.)
Senator DANIEL. Well, how did you make it?
Mr. CASCIO. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend
incriminate me.
,Senator DANIEL. Did you get it gambling?
Mr. CASClO. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. CAscIo. No,
Senator DANIEL.
What?
sir.
You are not a gambler?
Mr. CASClO. No, sir.
Senator
You didn't pay any gambling tax?

sir.
Stamp tax, did you?
sir.
And you just refuse to answer the question as to
where you got this $4,100?
DANIEL.
Mr. CASCIO. No,
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. CASCIO. No,
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. CASCIO (nodding his head). On the grounds
3156
Senator DANIEL. Do you understand the fifth amendment, the way

it is worded?
Mr. CAscIo. I don't know whether I do or not.
Senator DANIEL. I am sure your attorney has explained to you,
that no one should be required to testify against himself. A witness
cannot be compelled to disclose anything that would tend to incriminate himself, whether or not the answer would be an answer of one of
the elements of the crime.
Is that what you are standing on, do you honestly feel?
M'r. CAscIo. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. That a truthful answer to the question as to where
you made this money in 1954 might tend to incriminate you?
Senator DANIEL. Well, that's all. Stand aside.
'Mr. ALLEN. lay we have this income tax back?
Mr. ALLEN. Thanks.
Senator DANIEL. The committee will have a 3-minute recess.
(Short, recess.)
Senator DANIEL. Gladys Harvey.
Miss HARVEY. You wanted me'?
the whole truth, and nothing but, the truth, so help you God?
Miss HARVEY. I do.
liss HARVEY. I have an attorney here some place.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right.
What's his name?
Iiss HARVEY. -Mr. Allen.
Mfr. ALLEN. I represent her also, Your Honor.

Senator DANIEL. Yes, Mr. Allen; come in.
Let the record show that Mfr. Allen is representing GladysM r. ALLEN. Harvey.
Senator
DANIEL.
Harvey.
TESTIMONY OF GLADYS HARVEY

Miss HARVEY. Gladys Harvey.

DANIEL. And
Miss HARVEY. Irving.
Senator DANIEL. How
Senator
where do you live?
long have you lived at Irving?

MIiss HARVEY. About 12, 14 months.
Senator DANIEL. And where did you live before you moved to
Irving?
Miss HARVEY. Waco.
Senator DANIEL. How long did you live in Waco?
Miss HARVEY. About a year.
DANIEL. Then where did you live
Miss HARVEY. 1826 Park Road, Dallas.
Senator DANIEL. Park Road?
Senator
before that?
Miss HARVEY. Yes, sir; South Dallas.

Senator DANIEL. South Dallas; how long did you live in South
Dallas at that address?
3157
Miss HARVEY. 4 or 5 years.
Senator DANIEL. Where were you born?

Miss HARVEY. Cleburne, Tex., in Johnson County.
Senator DANIEL. And have you lived in Johnson County, Dallas
County, and McLennan County since that time?
Miss HARVEY. Well
Senator DANIEL. All you life?
Miss HARVEY, Yes, sir; my home all my life. Of course, my parents have been living in Cleburne.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Harry Raymond Pope?
Miss HARVEY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How long did you know him?

Miss HARVEY. I haven't known him too long.
Senator DANIEL. Is he the same person who had a fight with and
cut Jetty Bass recently?
Miss HARVEY. Senator. Daniel, I couldn't answer that and be
truthful about it. I wasn't even in Dallas when that happened.
Senator DANIEL. You just heard about it?
Senator DANIEL. He is the same man, though, that you heard was
in that fight?
Senator DANIEL. How long did you know Harry Pope?
Miss HARVEY. Oh, I haven't known him over 2-2 years, if that
long.
Senator DANIEL. Has he been to your home in Irving?
Miss HARVEY. Oh, not in the past 2 or 3 months; no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Before
Miss HARVEY. Well, now, Senator Daniels, let me go on.
I have been out of Dallas since last May, and he could have come
when I was out of town, because some of my people lived in my house
when I was on the show, and I was all up in the Western States,
ail(l lie could have been there and I not seen him.
Senator DANIEL. What kind of show?
Miss HARVEY. Carnival.
Senator DANEL. Do you travel with a caroival?
Miss HARVEY. Quite frequently.
Senator DANIEL. What type work do you do?
Miss HARVEY. Entertainment.
Senator DANIEL. What type entertainment?
Miss HARVEY. Well, in the carnival I was a dancing girl.
Senator DANIEL. Have you seen Harry Pope at your house in
Irving, when you personally visited with him?
Miss HARVEY. Since I have been home; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, at any time?
IMiss HARVEY. Oh, yes, before I left; yes, sir, I saw him.
Senator DANIEL. And he had associated there with you at, your
house for several occasions, had he not?
Senator
Miss
DANIEL.
HARVEY.
Senator
Did you ever see him use any marihuana?
No, sir.
Have you ever used marihuana?

Miss HARVEY. Never in my life.
Senator DANIEL. You have never smoked marihuana cigarettes?
Miss HARVEY. No, sir.
DANIEL.
3158
Senator DANIEL. You know that I would not ask you that question
if this committee had not been furnished evidence that it felt reliable
that you had used marihuana?
Miss HARVEY. I still have never messed with it.
Senator DANIEL. I wanted to mention that to you.
Miss HARVEY. I still give the same answer there; I still say I never
messed with it.
Senator DANIEL. You still make that answer?
Senator
DANIEL.
That you have never smoked a marihuana
cigarette?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see anyone else use it?
Senator
DANIEL.
Miss HARVEY. If
Senator DANIEL.
Did you ever see any marihuana?

I saw it, I didn't ever know what it was.
Did you ever use any heroin?
Miss HARVEY. Never in my life.

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see anyone use heroin?
Miss
HARVEY.
Senator
No, sir.
DANIEL.
Did you ever use any morphine or cocaine?

Senator
cocaine?
DANIEL.
Did you ever see anybody use morphine or

Senator DANIEL. I take it that you have never used it yourself, in
no way, shape, or form?
(Miss Harvey shook her head.)
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever know anybody that used it?
Miss HARVEY. If they used it, I didn't know it, because I don't
know anything about it, and I don't know how it affects people.
I don't know what it would look like, if they were using it.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Roy Sistrunk?

Senator DANIEL. How long have you known Roy Sistrunk?
Miss HARVEY. Oh, I have known him quite awhile, just on sight.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you have known that he used narcotics,
haven't you?
Miss HARVEY. Well, Senator Daniels, do you know anything
positive? You have got to see it, and I have never seen it. I have
never witnessed anyone take a shot of any kind.
Senator DANIEL. You heard Roy Sistrunk, here on the stand,
admit he had used heroin?
Miss HARVEY. I heard his testimony today, yes, sir; but I have
never seen it. I couldn't swear to it, myself.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, now, you knew that he used heroin, didn't
you?
Miss HARVEY. I never saw him use any in my life.

Senator DANIEL. Well, now, how well did you know Cecil Grecn?
Miss HARVEY. Just to say "Hello" to him.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever visit with him, or he ever visit with
you?
3159
Miss HARVEY. I think that I saw him once after he came back from
the penitentiary this last time, once or twice.

so well.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know Lois?
Senator DANIEL. His brother?
I didn't know Cecil

Senator DANIEL. How well did you know Lois Green?
Miss HARVEY. Well, I knew him well enough to be in his
company
several times on different occasions, at different parties, different night
clubs.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see either one of those men use any
type of narcotic drugs?
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Olin Ray Tyler?
Senator DANIEL. How long have you known Olin Ray Tyler?
Miss HARVEY. I have known him by sight for quite some time. I
just know him when I see him.
Senator DANIEL. How long-how well do you know him?
Miss HARVEY. I don't know him too well. I know him well enough
to speak to him, that's all.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever go with him?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see him use any type of narcotic
drug?
Senator DANIEL. You have heard of the knob-knocker gang here
in Dallas, have you not?
Miss HARVEY. I heard what they called the gang; I have read
about it.
Senator DANIEL. Yes; you know the members of it, do you not?
Miss HARVEY. I never knew there was really a gang around here.
I have heard of it, read in the paper about it. But truthfully, to
know the people, I have never really known the gang.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you know Jetty Bass?

Miss HARVEY. About 10 years.
Senator DANIEL. How well do you know him?
Miss HARVEY. I lived with him for a period of time.
Senator DANIEL. How long did you live with him?
Miss HARVEY. Oh, 4 or 5 years.
Senator DANIEL. Were you married to him?

Senator DANIEL. What type of work was he in when you lived with
him?
Miss
I didn't ask him.

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see him do any work?
HARVEY.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear of him doing any work?
Miss HARVEY. I read the papers, things that they accused him of
I know they sent him to the penitentiary in Alabama.
Senator DANIEL. Did you give him any money?
doing.
3160
Miss HARVEY. No.

Senator DANIEL. Were you doing some type of work then?
Miss HARVEY. Well, I have various friends that help me.
Senator DANIEL. You are-what type of work?
Miss HARVEY. Well, as I said, I am an entertainer.

Miss HARVEY. I am an entertainer.
Senator DANIEL. Entertainer?
been booked at the city %-ag,
Miss HARVEY. Yes, sir. I haveprostitution.
on
county vag, police department,
Senator DANIEL. Well, do any of these entertainers engage in
prostitution?
,\[iss HARVEY. Well, not that work for me. You know what you do
yourself.
Miss HARVEY. None that worked for me did, that I knew anything
about. Of course, they didn't know what I did either.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what did you do?
Miss HARVEY. Well, I just, like I say, I had friends to help me.
Senator DANIEL. Well, were you making any money yourself, from
any kind of work?

Miss HARVEY. Just what-well, on the carnival, I have made small
amounts. But I have had various men friends that helped me.
Senator DANIEL. Well, who else besides Jetty Bass?
[Shaking her head.] They are all just people that

I couldn't name. I don't know their names, some of them; I didn't
ask them who they were.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, did you help Jetty Bass, or did Jetty Bass
help you?
Miss HARVEY. Neither.
Mr. GASQUE. Neither?
Miss HARVEY.
Miss HARVEY. I made my own living.
Mr.
time?
GASQUE.
You made your own living during that period of
(Miss Harvey nodded her head.)

Mr. GASQUE. He never gave you any money?
Miss HARVEY. No. I didn't ask him to.

Mr. GASQUTE. And you never gave him any money?
Miss HARVEY. No.
Mr. GASQUE. How many years was that?
Miss HARVEY. Four or five years.
Mr. GASQUE. Isn't it rather unusual to live in the same house with
a man 4 or 5 years, andMiss HARVEY. It was an unusual affair.

M[r. GASQUE. It was an unusual affair?
Mr. GASQ E. Tell us about,
it.
Just what was unusual about it?
'Miss HARV,. He didn't know anything about my business, and

I didn't ask him anything about, his.
MIr. GASQULTE. Was there a telephone in the house?
M\iss HARVEY. Yes, sir.
MN[r. GASQUE. Did you ever hear him using the telephone?
Miss HAR VEY. No; I didn't pay any attention to his telephone calls.
IMr. GASQUE. Who were his associates during this period?
xMiss
3161
I don't know if his-no one came to the house,

hardly. The police came by quite often; Mr. Gannaway was by sev(ral times, and his partner, several of his friends. Policemen would
ride by.
Mr. GASQUE. Why did theY come by?
Miss HARVEY. Well, most of the time theY wotll come by just to
sit around aiid see who else came by, I tilnk. That's what theyv
would tell me.
Ir. GASQUE. Do you lhave any idea, during this period, why the
police were coming by?
\[iss HARVEY. Well, no. They put ie in jail every time tier
HARVEY. Well,
saw mec.
Mr. GASQIE. Why'?
Miss HARVEY. Well, tilev always either citv vagge(d me or county
bagged me.
Senator DANIEL. For prostitution?
Miss HARVEY. It, says o! their record for prostitution.
Senator DA \IEL. Well, have you engaged in prostitution?
Miss HARVEY. I have, yes, sir; in past times.
Miss HARVEY. Well, it's been a couple, 3 years ago.
Senator DANIEL. Over how long a period of time?
Miss HARVEY. Well, the past 10 years.
Mr. GASQUE. Well, now, let's go back a little further.
Miss HARVEY. It doesn't go back any further.
Mr. GASQUE. Over how long--
Miss HARVEY. The past 10 years.

Mr. GASQUE. Now, during this time, were there other people who
lived in the house with you and Jetty Bass?
Miss HARVEY. I made a duplex out of the house at one time, and
there were some people moved in there that, he was assistant manager
of a Safeway or a Piggly-Wiggly, one of those grocery stores over there
on Forest Avenue. But the police informed me he was with a bunch
of gangsters, and he moved out without even paying any rent. So I
didn't engage in renting the place any longer.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you have any trouble with the police about. that?
Miss
HARVEY.
Well, I didn't appreciate it, but we didn't get in no
beef about it.

Mr. GASQUE. Were there any other women living in the house with
you?
Mr. GASQUE. No other women?
Mr. GASQUE. During this period, where did you get the money to
pay your rent?

Miss HARVEY. I told you, I had friends that helped me.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you have a steady income?
Miss Harvey. Well, no. Sometimes they give me more than they
d(id other times.
MIr. GASQUE. Did you file any income tax returns?
Miss HARVEY. Well, after the police department got through with
mte, each year, I didn't have any money left to file with.
Mr. GASQUE. All right.
Senator DANIEL. Did you live with Don Varnell Jones?
3162
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Miss Harvey. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Well, did you know him very well?
Miss HARVEY. I know him, yes, sir. The boy stayed at my house,
oh, 2 or 3 different occasions, that he has come in to Dallas and
didn't have any place else to stay, and he has come by and slept oil
the divan, if I didn't have any other bed for him.
But it doesn't matter; I wasn't with him, you know.
Senator DANIEL. Were there other people living with you in your
house at the time?
Miss HARVEY. My sister-in-law lived with me for a couple of years,
shared expenses with me.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see any narcotic drugs?
Miss HARVEY. NO, sir.
Senator DANIEL. N3ver (lid?

Miss HARVEY. No, sir. I am deathly against, that, never fooled
with it; I have never been any place where such has been on display,
or exposed at all, whatsoever.
Senator DANIEL. There never were any narcotic drugs in your
house?
Senator DANIEL. Now, isn't it true that some narcotic drugs wer,
found at. your house in Irving?
Miss HARVEY. Well, I was in jail. It wasn't there when I went
to jail, and the next day when I got out of jail, it still wasn't there.
But my house was upside down, and I called the sheriff's department,
because I do live out in a little suburb of Dallas, which is Dallas
County, and my house was torn up, and I could see very plainly
,someone had been in there and shook it down, and I called them, and
they said that they had picked a boy up that they watched break in
my house, and when they came, in and found him, they took him with
the narcotics to jail.
Now, whether there was any of it there or not, I don't know. I
didn't see it.
Senator DANIEL. 'What was the boy's name? Was that Melvin
Averitt?
Miss
HARVEY.
Senator
Melvin Averitt. yes, sir.
DANIEL.
\ I elvin A-v-e-r-i-t-t?
Miss HARVEY. Yes, sir. He is in the penitentiary now.

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever know him before?
Miss HARVEY. I just knew him to say hello to him.
Senator DANIEL. Had he been in your house before this occasion?
Miss HARVEY. No, not, there, not to my house, lie had never.
Senator DANIEL. Had he been to your house in some other location?
Miss HARVEY. Well. yes, on a-I believe on a New Year's Eve
part, lie came to a party at my house at another address.
Senator
Miss
DA.NIEL.
HARVEY.
Senator
In Waco or Dallas?
No. in Dallas.
DANIEL.
Had you given him permission to go in y-o,,r
house?
Miss
HARVEY.
No, sir.
Senator DAx NIEL. Did you see the narcotic drugs after the officers
took it?
Miss HARVEY. NO sir I have never seen them. I didn't see the,
in my house, or I have never seen them at all. They just told me tiey
found them there.
3163
Senator DANIEL. You don't know what any of these drugs would
look like?
Miss HARVEY. No, sir; I don't know that. J was
Senator DANIEL. And you don't know that any of your associates
eN-er used any of these drugs?
Miss HARVEY. If they did, I don't know anything about it.
Senator D.ANIEL. That is true of Cecil Green?
Miss
HARVEY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEIL. And Roy Sistrunk?
Miss
HA VEY. Yes, sir.

MIiss HARVEY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Olin Ray Tyler?
Miss HARVEY. Yes, sir. I have never seen anyone take a shot of
aniy kind.
Senator DANIEL. And you have never taken any drugs?
Senator DANIEL. Of any kind?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. SPEER. You
Mr. Speer? You go ahead.

made some statement, I don't remember exactly
what you said, but you said your income was used up on account, of
your arrests.
You mean you paid numerous fines?
Miss HARVEY. Well, yes, sir; they used to fine us $30, and pick me
up every time they saw me.
Mr. SPEER. How many times do you estimate that happened, over
this period of time you were talking about?
Miss HARVEY. Well, I don't know. They have a record of it over
there. I don't have any idea how much it was, but I know it took all
I could get hold of to stay out of jail.
Mr. SPEER. $30 a fine?
Miss HARVEY. They use to fine us that; yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. How much do they fine you now?
Miss HARVEY. Well, they just put us in jail, and we have to get a
lawyer to get out, and then they fine us, in court.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever go to Kansas City?
Miss HARVEY. I have been through Kansas City. I used to live
iii East St. Louis; I have lived all over the country and run all over the
country. I don't-I never stopped in Kansas City; I have been
through it.
Senator DANIEL. What type of entertainment do you do in your
dances?
Miss HARVEY. Well, I am a dancer.
Senator DANIEL. What type of dancing?
Miss HARVEY. Well, this year I had a Hawaiian show, I danced in
a Hawaiian show.
Senator DANIEL. Well,
about what is your income annually?

You just get
Miss HARVEY. Well, there wasn't no special income.
part of what comes in.

Senator DANIEL. Well, just about what does it run?
M[iss HARVEY. It was very little.

so I had to quit.
7 1515-56--pt.
7-
52
Wasn't hardly enough to live,
3164
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Senator DANIEL. How much income did you pay tax on last year?
Miss HARVEY. I didn't.
Mfr. HARVEY. I didn't.

Senator DANIEL. You didn't file an income-tax return last year?
Miss HARVEY.
I didn't have any money to file it with.
No, sir.
Miss
HARVEY.
I didn't have any money to give them, so I didn't
file it.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't make over $600?

iss HARVEY. No, sir. I have never had a job.
Senator DANIEL. Do you keep books?

do you have?
I thought I had a place, blut
it turned out I don't even have a clear title to it, so I guess I don't
have any kind right now.
Senator DANIEL. I mean was it your own home?
Iiss HARVEY. I was paying for it, paid like rent. I didn't even
have a downpayment; I just paid it like rent. I just took up a fellow's
note.
Senator DANIEL. A brick home?
Senator DANIEL. What kind of home?
Miss HARVEY. It is frame, with a front of brick.
Senator DANIEL. Trimmed in brick?
Miss HARVEY. Trimmed in brick; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have a car?
Senator DANIEL. What kind of home
Miss HARVEY. Well, I live in Irving.
Senator DANIEL. What kind of car?

Miss HARVEY. A 1955 Buick.
Senator DANIEL. A 1955 Buick? Is that paid for?
Senator DANIEL. How much have you paid on that?
Miss HARVEY. I pay it like rent, too. I paid nothing down, and
monthly payments.
DANIEL. Well,
HARVEY. Well, it
Senator
Miss
about what is your income a month?

is hard to say.
Some months I don't make
anything.
Senator DANIEL. Have you got any idea about what your income
would average a month?
Miss HARVEY. No, sir; I have no idea.
Senator DANIEL. No, idea?
Senator DANIEL. Well, how much were you getting paid from these
shows you were working for?
Miss HARVEY. Very little. It is just according to what they take
in on the front. If they don't take in but $5, I don't get but i0 percent. That's 50 cents.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you do anything else on these shows,
besides
fiss
have
HARVEY.
Well, no, not on the shows, because the shows

Senator DANIEL.
3165
Well, do you do anything else on these trips with
the carnival that you make?

Miss HARVEY. Well, I just more or less had to.
MiSS HARVEY. Find somebody to help me.
Senator DANIEL. Well, how? In what way?
Miss HARVEY. Well, there's lots of lonely men who like to pay for
a girl's company.
Senator DANIEL. Is that the only other way?
Senator DANIEL. You have never had any dealing with narcotics
in any way?
Miss HARVEY. No, sir; I have never had anything to do with that,
no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. In any of these carnivals?

Miss HARVEY. Just on sight; just he was pointed out, that that's
who he was. I didn't know him.

Senator DANIEL. Did you know a man by the name of Huggins?
Miss HARVEY. No.

Senator DANIEL. Harry Huggins?
Senator DANIEL. You never
did know him?
Senator DANIEL. Were you in Alabama at the time that Jetty Bass
and Mick Cascio were shot in a robbery?
Senator DANIEL. Where were you at the time?
Miss HARVEY. I was in Irving.
Senator DANIEL. Did you go over there?
Senator DANIEL. After the shooting?
Miss HARVEY. After he was in the hospital.
Senator DANIEL. After who was?
Miss HARVEY. After Jetty was operated on. I got there after he
was already operated on.
Senator DANIEL. Were you living with him at that time?
Senator
DANIEL.
But you did not-you were not outside of the
State?
No; I leftSenator DANIEL. At any time?
Miss HARVEY'. I left Dallas after Jetty was already operated on in
the hospital, in Birmingham, Ala.
Senator DANIEL. And you were not out of the State at any time
just preceding that robbery?
Miss HARVEY.
3166
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Eugene McCrosky?

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear of a man from Kansas City
named Eugene McCrosky?
Miss
HARVEY. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. What
about Anthony Cambiano?
Miss HARVEY. No; I don't know him.

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear of a man by that name?
Senator
DANIEL.
Would you know whether or not Raymond Pope
used narcotics?
Miss HARVEY. No, sir; he doesn't.
Senator
DANIEL. You
Miss HARVEY. Well, I
know positively he does not?
have been around him, and I never have
seen him use anything.

Mr.
ALLEN.
You mean Harry Pope?
Senator DANIEL. Harry Raymond Pope.

Mr. ALLEN. Well, they know him as Harry.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you knew who I was talking about?

Senator
DANIEL.
Harry Raymond Pope?
Miss
HARVEY. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. And you
say that he has never used any narcotics?

Senator
DANIEL.
And 3 ou feel sure that he doesn't use it.?
Miss HARVEY. I do.

Senator DANIEL. That's all.
William Niess.
Mr. NEISS. Yes, sir.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM LEE NIESS

Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
NEISS.
What is your name?
William Lee Niess.
Senator DANIEL. What is the middle name?

Mr. NIEsS. Lee.
Senator DANIEL. William Lee Niess?
Mr. NIESS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Do you spell it N-e-i-s-s?
Mr. NIESS. N-i-e-s-s.
Mr. NIEsS. I am staying at 1411 Dunstan
at the present time, sir.

Mr. NIESS. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Mr. Niess, according to the records at the
Laredo Bridge you have made various trips over into Mexico during
1954 and 1955.
3167
Mr. NIESS. That's right, Your Honor.

Senator DANIEL. How long have you been making these trips over
into Mexico?
Mr. NIEss. Oh, I go down there almost every year, on and off.
Senator DANIEL. About how often do you make your trips?
Mr. NIEsS. About every 2 or 3 months, something like that, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And how many years have you been doing that?
Mr. NIESS. Ever since 1952.
Senator DANIEL. Have you had the unfortunate experience of using
heroin?
Mr. NIESS. Yes, sir, ever since 1925.
Senator DANIEL. And about how much has your habit been costing you?
Mr. NiEss. I haven't got no habit at the present, sir. When I
take any now, it is just merely a joyo.

Mr. DANIEL. Well, when you did have a habit, what was the
highest that it ran a day?
Mr. NIESS. Well, that was-during them days, Your Honor, when
I had a habit, narcotics was pretty cheap. It run around $5 a day,
is all.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, you made these trips over across the
border in 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1955?
Mr. NIESS. And 1955, that's right.
Senator
DANIEL.
And when they stopped you at the bridge, on
many occasions, they would talk to you, wouldn't they?

Mr. NIESS. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. They recognized you?
Mr. NIESS. That's right. I fell outof there in 1946.
Senator
DANIEL.
You what?
Mr. NIEss. I got time out of Laredo in 1946.

Senator DANIEL. Time for what?
Mr. NIESS. Narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. How many narcotic convictions have you had?
Mr.
NIESS.
I think 5 or 6.
Senator DANIEL. Have you served time for these narcotic cases?
Mr. NIESS. I sure have.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you got a 2-year sentence for smuggling
narcotics across at Laredo?
Senator DANIEL. In 1946, didn't you?
.Mr. NIESS. That's right, January the 1st.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you serve that 2 years?
Mr. NIESS. I sure did.

Senator DANIEL. What kind of narcotics did you bring across the
river?
Mr. NiEss. Heroin.
Senator DANIEL. How much of it?
Mr. NIESS. I don't remember the exact amount. They come hi
papers; I had 10 papers. I don't remember what-how, the amount
it contained in there. I had it for my own use, going back up to
Kansas City. At that time I had been working in Kansas City, and
I come all the way down here from Kansas City.
Senator
DANIEL.
To get the heroin?
3168
Senator
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
DANIEL.
TRAFFIC
You couldn't buy heroin in Kansas City?
Mr. NIEss. Could not.
Senator DANIEL. Couldn't you buy it in Dallas?

Mr. NIEss. Not at the time. I didn't know no-no peddlers, and
I haven't known no peddlers down here since 1946. Don't mess with
them; the only man I mess with is the blind man.
Senator DANIEL. The who?
Mr. NIEss. The blind man; he is a cousin of mine by marriage.
That's the onliest one.
Senator DANIEL. Did you try to buy heroin in San Antonio?
Mr. NIESS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You just went to Mexico to get it?
Mr. NIESS. Yes, sir. I don't care to get the time they get out of
this country. I never brought any across, didn't try to buy any over
here, and haven't shot any over here.
Senator DANIEL. You just cross the bridge over into Mexico and
buy it?
Mr. NIEsS. And use it there.
Use it over there?

iNMr. NIESS. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Well, have you brought some of it back?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. NIESS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, didn't you just tell us you brought some
back in 1946?
Mr. NIESS. 1946, yes.

1955, I thought.
But you are talking about from 1950 to
Well, I am talking about 1946; you have

brought narcotics back across the river with you in years gone by?
Mr. NIESS. Oh, in years gone by, yes.
Senator DANIEL. Now, in spite of the fact that you had been convicted several times for narcotic drugs, and in spite of the fact that
the United States officials on the bridge recognized you and knew you,
they still let you go on over there into Mexico, didn't they?
Senator DANIEL. And on several occasions during 1954 and 1955,
you told them you were an addict, didn't you?
Mr. NIESS. No, I told them I wasn't.
Senator DANIEL.
Well,
didn't you tell them, though, on some of
those occasions, that you had gotten some heroin?

Mr. NIESS. No, sir. I told them I was drinking over there at all
times.
Senator DANIEL. Well, is that
Mr. NIESS. I explained the reason that you can buy tequila for 40
cents a pint, and like that, and the room rent over there wasn't but
6 pesos, about 50 cents American money, and I stayed over there for
that simple reason.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you cross the bridge?
Mr. NIESS. At Laredo. I have crossed the bridge all along that
border, from Brownsville to Del Rio.
Senator DANIEL. Well, when you would go across at Laredo, you
would go to Nuevo Laredo, would you not?
Senator
then?
DANIEL.
You would tell them that you were not an addict,
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
3169
Mr. NiEss. That's right.

Senator DANIEL. But actually, you did get some heroin for your
own use when you got across that border, didn't you?
,Mr. NIESS. That's right. I would rather use that than to drink.
Senator DANIEL. Yes. Well, you didn't fool them this year, at
least on. some dates, because on these dates they have you listed in
their narcotic addiction files on the Laredo Bridge for crossing:
December 17th, 1954, December 24th, 1954, December 27th, 1954.
Mr. NIEsS. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Does that sound about right to you?
Mr. NIEss. That's right. I was there during Christmas.
Senator DANIEL. And then they have you listed on their narcotic
addiction files, crossing the river at Laredo, for April 22, 1955, April
23, 1955, April 24, and April 25, 1955.
Senator
DANIEL.
You were crossing there in April every day,
weren't you?
Mr. NIESS. Yes, and they-they told me that had to stop, and I
just stayed over there.
Senator DANIEL. Stayed over on the Mexican side?
Senator DANIEL. Well, you also started using another bridge, too,
didn't you?
Mr. NIEss. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. When you came back on this side?
Mr. Ni ss. No.
There isn't but one bridge, Your Honor.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you said you had been across the river all up
and down that river.

Mr. NIESS. Oh, yes, but I never bought no narcotics in Monterrey.
Senator DANIEL. What did you go to Monterrey for?
Mr. NIESS. Just during the winter, because it is warm down there.
Senator DANIEL. Well, how often would you go down to Monterrey?
Mr. NIEsS. I mean Matamoros. I haven't been in Monterrey
siInce 1945.
Senator DANIEL. Well, when is the last time you were at Matamoros?
Mr. NIEss. Matamoros? I think the last time I was there was the
first-the last, part, of last year. I think I was down there around
Thanksgiving. I have been all up and down there in the winter time;
I go down in the valley. I am fixing to leave pretty soon.
Senator DANIEL. You figuring on going again now, soon?
Mr. NIESS. Pretty soon, yes. [Laughter.]
Senator DANIEL. Now, Mr. NiessMr. NIESS. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. For this record here, I am sure that the chairman
of this committee and everybody who laughed at your statement
there realizes this is not any laughing matter.

Xfr. NIEss. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. It is the frankness with which you answer these
questions that is unusual.
Mr. NIEss. That's right; that is what I am trying to do.

Senator DANIEL. And I want to thank you for being frank about it.
Mr. NIEss. 0. K., sir; thank you.
3170
Senator DAN1IEL. Sometimes your answers really surprise those in
this room, including the chairman, and we might smile about them,
but we realize it is no laughing matter, and I know you realize that,
do you not?
NIEss. That's right. A man who has used narcotics as long
as Mr.
I have,
if he can use them and use them within reason, and give
him leeway, he is going to do it. I would sure rather be that than a
drunkard laying on the street.
Senator DANIEL. Well, the only thing about using narcotics, those
who do so often sell them to other people.

Mr. NiEss. I have never given any man his first shot.
Senator DANIEL. You have never given anybody his first shot?
Mr. NIEsS. No, sir. It's too hard.

Senator DANIEL. Well, suppose they were lying to you, telling
you it wasn't?
Mr. NIEss. Well, that could have happened to me, Your Honor.
I wouldn'tSenator DANIEL. That has happened to doctors.
Mr. NIESs. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. We had a doctor before this committee in Philadelphia who was fooled; people told him they were addicts, and he
examined them and thought they were addicts, but when they stood
in the courtroom and identified themselves as undercover men,
three of them, he realized he had been fooled. And you could be
fooled, too, couldn't you?
Mir. NIESs. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. So you could have given some of these drugs
to people for the first time, couldn't you?
Mr. NIEss. It is possible, yes.
Senator DANIEL. So it is a dangerous thing to give away or sell
narcotics.
Mr. NIEss. That's right. I wouldn't give it to my own brother,
or sell my own brother a shot, anymore. I stopped to realize what
the laws of the United States mean, and I don't-my life is short
now, and I don't think I could do 10 years and come out a man, and
that's the least I could get.
Senator DANIEL. Well, the record here shows that you have had
13 convictions.
Mr. NIEss. The record is wrong there, Your Honor.
Senator DANIEL. About 12.
Mr. NIEss. I have had 5 or 6 convictions for narcotics, and 2
convictions for bootlegging.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I am counting the fines here.
You were
fined also on narcotic charges?

Mr. NIEss. I never been fined on narcotics, Your Honor. There
is some mistake there in my record.
Senator DANIEL. Well, all right; we will put this record in and let
it speak for itself.
Mr. NIEss. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Let's take your estimate of the number of times on
narcotics charges. Five or six?
Mr. NIEss. Five or six times, right.
Senator DANIEL. You can tell
Mr. NIESS. I went to the penitentiary every time but one, and
one time I was given 90 days in the Waxahachie, Ellis County, jail.
3171
Senator DANIEL. And all the other times you went to the penitentiary?
Mr. NiEss. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. And that was either for possession or selling
narcotics?
Mr. NI~ss. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Speer, now, has counted narcotics separately,
and finds it is five times, that you were correct, sir.
Mr. NIEss. Thank you.
Senator
DANIEL.
Now, where have you been selling narcotics?
Mr. NIEss. I haven't sold none in, oh, I'll guess the last time I
sold any was in 1940. Somewhere like that.
Senator
DANIEL.
Where did you get those narcotics?
Mr. NIEss. At that time narcotics was plentiful in this country,

and got them here, but I-
Senator
Mr.
from.
DANIEL.
NIESS. Yes,
Senator
DANIEL.
Right here in Dallas?

but that's been so long, I don't remember who
Do you know Roy Sistrunk?
Mr. NIEss. I don't know the man only to speak to him.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Aubrey Aeby?

Mr. NIESS. I know him to speak to him.
Mr. NIEss. I just know the man when I see him, that's all.
Mr. NIESS. I know him when I speak-see him and speak to him.
I have seen several of them in the city jail, and one thing another like
that, and just speak to them.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you know Lois Green?
Mr. NiEss. I knew Lois when he was a little boy, going to City
Park School, him and his brother Cecil both.
Senator
DANIEL.
How well did you know Cecil?
Mr. NIEss. Well, good, when they was little boys going to school.
Later on in their years, I never even seen them, to know nothing about
them.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever know any of these men to use
narcotic drugs?
Mr.
NIESS.
No, sir, I do not.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, the main reason we called you before
this committee was to show the ease with which narcotic addicts can
cross the border, Mexican border.
Mr. NIEss. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. In sight of American officials, and even narcotic

addicts who have been convicted of smuggling before.
Mr. NIEss. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL. It is pretty easy, isn't it?

NIESS. Oh, just to go across and tend
Mr.
yes, sir.
to your own business,

I was stopped quite a few times and shook down.
Senator DANIEL. They shook you down?

Mr. NIESS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Well, sometimes didn't you figure out a way to
get your drugs back without bringing them yourself?
Mr. NIESS. No, sir, I didn't have to, while I was down there.
Senator DANIEL. Well, how did you get the drugs back?
3172
Mr. NIESS. I didn't bring none back.
time was in 1946, January 1.
It was like I told you, last
Then I just had it loose in my pocket.
As long as I wasn't known. But if you had the finger put on you,
they would carry you out there and take fluoroscopes and X-rays of
you, anyhow. So if I come across, I might as well come across with
it just in my pocket. So I had the finger put oil me, and I had it
loose in my pocket.
Senator DANIEL. Well, on these other trips, you just bought
enough heroin over across the border for yourself?
Mr. NIESS. That's right; took it over there.
Mr. NIESS. I took it over there, and didn't bring none back.
Senator DANIEL. You mean you had the shots given to you over
on the Mexican side?
Mr. NIEss. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever do that at Matamoros?
Mr. NIEss. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. The heroin at M\atamoros is not too good, is it'!
Mr. NIESS. I don't know. I never had a shot in Matamoros:
didn't
do nothing
but drink.
Senator
DANIEL. Well, what. are some of the
Mexican towns in
which you had heroin shots?
Mr. NIESS. No other towns.
Senator DANIEL. No other town except Nuevo Laredo?
Senator DANIEL. Is it pretty easy to get heroin across the river in
MIexico?
Mr. NIESS. If you know the way.
Senator DANIEL. Who did you buy your heroin from?
Mr. NIESS. I refuse to testify to that, Your Honor.

Mr. NIEss. It isn't any use in asking me.
Mr. NIESS. Because I am not that kind of people.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think your life might be in danger if you
testified as to whom you bought from?
MJr. NIESS. I don't say, but that is one question I refuse to answer.
I have answered truthfully all the way; I am not trying to lie to you.
SoSenator DANIEL. Well, if you tell me you think it might endanger

your life to name these people, I won't ask you to answer that question.
Mr. NIESS. Well, it is possible, yes. It is possible.
Senator DANIEL. But just because you don't want to name themMr. NIEss. No, it is possible.
Senator DANIEL. We are trying to find out, who they are. WC
think Mexico ought to start, drying up the heroin that is so plentiful
over on the Mexican side, just across the bridge from this country.
Mr. NIESS. That's right, Your Honor. I think that.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Pancho Trevino?
Mr. NIESS. No, I don't know him.
Senator DANIEL. Now, I would rather you refuse to answer the
question than tell me anything that is untruthful; you understand

that?
3173
Mr. NIESs. That's right. At one time I knew his cousins, or some
kin to him. That was years ago. That was back in 1945, when I
was going over there.
Senator DANIEL. You are not telling us this; we were told in Houston and San Antonio by others who have been across the bridge.
Mr. NIESS. That's right. Well, I
Senator DANIEL. That Pancho Trevino and Enrique Trevino, his
brother, were in the narcotic business in a big way in Nuevo Laredo.
Mr. NIESS. Years ago, there was 2 of them, the Trevinos, run that
Deluxe Bar back then. I knew them as Charley and Henry. But
that was back in 1945, 1946. I have been back there since then, and
have never located them, or know anything about them. I heard
later that one of them is in jail in Mexico City now, that is, while I
was there.
Senator DANIEL. But he didn't, stay in jail very long; he is back
selling heroin, according to the evidence before this committee.
Mr. NIESS. I don't know, Your Honor.
Senator DANIEL. Well, in December of last year, where did you
1)uy your heroin?
i am not going to ask you to name the people, but in view of what
you have told me about fearing for your own life, did you buy it
from the Trevinos?
Mr. NIESS. No, sir, it wasn't.
Senator DANIEL. You bought it from others?
Mr. NIESS. Others, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Several different other people, or just one other
dealer?
Mr. NIESS. I just went one other place there.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Then these trips in 1955, did you
buy from a different dealer, or from the same one you bought from in
1954?
Mr. NIESS. Same one.
Senator DANIEL. Are there several dealers in heroin across the
river at Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. NIESS. From what I understand, yes.
Senator DANIEL. How many have you bought from?
Mr. NIESS. One.
Senator DANIEL. Well, in all your lifetime, now, I am asking you,
how many have you bought from?
Mr. NIESS. Over there, orSenator DANIEL. Over there, across in Nuevo Laredo.
Mr. NIEss. I have never bought but from 3 people in my life over
there.
Senator DANIEL. Three?
Mr. NIESS. That's all.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Now, as to the heroin you handled
over on the American side, how many people did you buy from?
Mr. NIESS. I haven't bought from none that way, over here.
Senator DANIEL. Have you been across the river at Juarez?
Mr. NIESS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Where else yave you been across the river into
Mexico in recent years, besides at Nuevo Laredo and at Matamoros?

Mr. NIESS. Matamoros, Reynosa, San Pedro, Nuevo Laredo,
Piedras Negras, and Villa Acuna.
3174
Senator DANIEL. Did you cross at all those places in the last 2
years?
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you think that if this country wants to
stop the narcotics traffic, it ought to forbid addicts from leaving the
country and crossing the Mexican border, where heroin is so plentiful'?
Mr. NIESS. Well, people who have used narcotics as long as I have
your honor, they-now, I don't see why, as long as they are not
bringing it back in this country and trafficking in it, where they are
hurting anyone besides theirselves.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you know some people have brought it
back, though.
Mr. NIEss. Yes. Yes, I agree with that.
Senator DANIEL. You did, on some occasions.
Mr. NIESS. Some, one time there.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you did yourself.
Mr. NIEss. Before that, yes.
Senator DANIEL. And many other addicts; we have found there
are 40 to 50 addicts a day cross the bridges over into Mexico.
Mr. NIESS. That I understand.
Senator DANIEL. And you know many of them are bringing the
narcotics back into this country, don't you?
Mr. NIESS. Yes, I guess they are; I couldn't say for myself.
Senator DANIEL. Don't you think that would be one good way to
stop this traffic from Mexico, would be to keep known addicts or
known smugglers, or at least those who have been convicted of
smuggling, from crossing that river so easily?
Mr. NIEss. Well
Senator DANIEL. It would be a pretty good idea, wouldn't it?
Mr. NIEss. Yes, known peddlers, I guess it would.

Mr. NIESS. Known peddlers, I guess it would. But I don't see
where it would be hurting; you might as well go out and shoot somebody like me, who can't tell one shot from another.
Senator DANIEL. Well, Mr. Niess, isn't it your experience that most
narcotic addicts have to either peddle or steal to obtain enough money
to sustain the habit, don't they?
Mr. NIEss. Well, when you can buy it for 40 cents a paper over
there, I don't see why it takes so much. I go down there and live on
3 or 4 dollars a day, eat and sleep and take it easy.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what kind of work have you been doing?
Mr. NIESS. Well, at the present time I am working out here for a
man in the produce business, planting potatoes and everything, merely
for my room and board and a few dollars for cigarettes and a little
drink.
But when I was down there with this man, we was selling notions
of different kinds, needles, bobby pins, first one thing, that people
might need at their house.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, you know that it is pretty hard for most
addicts to get the money to keep up their habit unless they steal or
unless they sell drugs: isn't that right?
Mr. NiEss. Well, yes, it is that way in this-on this side, yes.
Senator DANIEL. That is true, isn't it?
Mr. NIEss. That is the reason I wouldn't-Don't even mess with
it over here.
3175
Senator DANIEL. But that is true, what I just said, isn't it?
IMr. NIEss. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Well, have you ever tried taking treatment at one
of the Federal hospitals?
Mr. NIESS. I have been to Fort Worth; I have been to Lexington.

Mr. NIESS. I have been in Lexington once, and be(,ii in Fort Worth
once.
Senator DANIEL. Were those treatments of benefit?
Did they help
youMr.
in NIEss.
any way?
Well, I couldn't really say that they do. An addict
is
just like a drunkard; it is in their mind, more-] figure it is more of a
mind disease than anything. Because you can take a man and send
him there for 5 years, and if he is an addict and it is on his mind, when
he comes out, there isn't nobody going to stop him from using it.
Senator DANIEL. How long was it after you got out of the hospital
each time before you went back to heroin?
Mr. NIESS. As soon as I could find some.
Senator DANIEL. I believe that's all.
Mr. NIESS. 0. K., sir. Thank you.
Mr. Dan Reynolds.

Mr. REYNOLDS.
I do.
TESTIMONY OF DANIEL G. REYNOLDS, MANAGING DIRECTOR,

DALLAS CRIME COMMISSION, DALLAS, TEX.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Reynolds, first I want to say that this com-
mittee appreciates the cooperation that you have given us, both
before and during the hearings. We are glad to have you before us
this afternoon.
Now, for the record, will you state your name and your present
position?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Daniel G. Reynolds, managing director of the
Dallas Crime Commission.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you served in that capacity?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Since May 1951.
Senator DANIEL. Just give a little information about the Dallas
Crime Commission, and how it operates.

Mr. REYNOLDS. The Dallas Crime Commission is what is known
as a citizens' crime commission, that is, it is a private organization;
it has no official power.
It is one of about 20 in the United States, mostly in the larger cities.
To keep it short, I would say that it is mostly a research and public
support agency; in other words, it is not in the business of doing investigative work, trying to do the work of the regular law enforcement
officers, but rather to evaluate the whole picture, and try to find out
what needs to be done to get a more efficient crime control, crime
prevention program going, and then to organize some public support
behind it, to get the necessary manpower, equipment, money and so
forth.
3176
Senator DANIEL. Had you previously worked for a crime coimmission in one of the other cities?
Mr. REYNOLDS. No, sir.
,y background is law enforcement work,
16 years in the city of Nfiami, Fla., from patrolman to director of public
safety, and 10 years for the International Association of Chiefs of
Police.
Senator DANIEL. And you came to Dallas from the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, or from Florida?
Mfr. REYNOLDS. From the International Association of Chiefs of
Police.
Senator DANIEL. NOW, have you, in your work here in Dallas,
made a particular study, along with other criminal activities, of the
natcotics traffic?
Mr.
REYNOLDS.
To a certain extent, Senator.
We have felt that the narcotic problem here in Dallas has had a
considerable impact on the whole, total crime situation here in the
Dallas area. By that I mean it has had an impact on the organized
crime phase of it; it has had an impact on the crimes situation in the
local area, and it is also having an impact on the up and coming
juvenile violator.
As you know, the United States figures and figures here in Dallas,
in this Dallas area, indicate an increasing amount of crimes committed
by juveniles, and also the fact that these crimes are of more serious
nature.
Just lately, we had a murder here at a tavern, in which some testimony was given that these young boys involved in it were indulging
in barbiturates or some kind of narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think that there is an increase in the use
of narcotics or barbiturates by juveniles in Dallas?
Mr. REYNOLDS. I can't prove it, sir. I think so.
Senator DANIEL. You have no figures by which you could prove it,
but you feel that that is true?
Mr. REYNOLDS. I think there is some reason behind the fact that
the crimes being committed by juveniles are of a more serious nature.
After hearing some of the testimony in this hearing, I am convinced
that some of these youngsters are probably dealing in barbiturates or
cocaine or something, marihuana, something to release the inhibitions
to where they get more of a brutal nature, and so forth, in the various
things that they do.
Senator DANIEL. Do you agree that some of these narcotic drugs
and barbiturates can assist persons in having the nerve that it takes
to commit terrible crimes?
Mr. REYNOLDS.
I think so.
I think the testimony already intro-
duced in this hearing is pretty conclusive that a great many of your

criminals, both young and adult, need some extra thing to give them
the courage, something to take the inhibitions away, something to
take the edge away, is the term that they use.
In other words, by taking these various narcotics, it does dull the
senses, it does dull the inhibitions, and they are much more brutal;
some of these robberies we have had around here by the Green gang,
for example, where people have been pistol whipped and brutally
beaten, I think, was due to the fact that those men had participated
in the use of narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. Now, we would like for you, just in your owl'
words, to give the committee any information which you care to give
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
3177
us concerning the situation here in Dallas, and also any recommendations that you might have that we could pass along to the Congress.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, I don't think that I could add a great deal
here, Senator; it would be an anticlimax, I think, after what I have
heard here.
I do feel, and I think that probably your committee has felt, that
there are many different aspects of this problem, some of it, of an international character, some of it of a Federal character, and a great many
parts of it of a more or less local nature.
I am not one of those that believe that the Federal Government
should be charged with everything or blamed for everything. I do
think, in this particular instance, that. they have some primary
responsibility, such as the smuggling, such as interstate commerce,
and to a very limited degree on local enforcement.
I think from there on that it falls back on some of the local people,
like your State officials, your county officials, and your city officials.
I hope that some of the collateral benefits of this hearing will be to
educate the public, so that, they will give their chiefs of police more
manpower, and the sheriff and your State police, so that they can
attack this problem, also along with the suggestions that I heard
given here that your committee would probably also recommend
additional help on the Federal level.
Senator DANIEL. Right there, now, as far as public support behind
law enforcement officers, and the effect these hearings might have,
I want to say to you that I am hopeful, too, that the hearhigs will
have that incidental effect of causing the people to know more about
the narcotics traffic, and to therefore givb greater support to their
law enforcement officers.
Of course, the primary purpose of this nationwide investigation is
to see what Congress can do. But if incidentally we can also help
law enforcement officers by letting the public see what the traffic is
all about, I think it, will serve a dual purpose. In that connection
I want to say now that I think the press, radio and television have
served a good purpose. These hearings would not, be known about
so well by the people; they would not have all the facts that you and
I have heard throughout these hearings, if it were not, for the coverage
that has been given the hearings by the press, the radio, and the
television stations.
I believe we ought to let the people see and hear and know as much
about their business in government as possible. And I certainly feel
that way about these investigations. And so 1 just, want to say a
word of thanks to all of those who have made it possible that the
publicc could know about the evidence that has come out before this
Committee, because I agree with you that that might. cause you and
the law enforcement officers to have more support.
Then there, again, in Congress, wo. will need support in order to get
piore money for the Federal officers, and in order t.o pass any needed
legislation that we might recommend. So I thank you very much for
bringing that up and stressing that point.
MIr. REYNOLDS. I had a couple of other thoughts, Senator, and one
was the International situation.
I know that probably you and your committee have thought of it,
but there are some -the framework of the United Nations, for example,
3178
which again has something working on this narcotics smuggling deal;

and I realize that there are some countries they can't reach through
that.
Senator DANIEL. Red China.
Mr. REYNOLDS. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Is about the main one.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, Italy I was thinking. I don't know whether
they are-they are not in the United Nations at the present time,
are they?
Senator DANIEL. Well, Italy is working with our people pretty
well now. There was some slowness at first but we have a narcotics
agent stationed in Rome now.
You are certainly right, that the U. N. is busy on the job, and needs
to do even more. We have our U. N. Commission on narcotics,
which is doing an excellent job in a field which has been, I suppose,
the most successful field of international cooperation throughout the
years, on the narcotics problem. It hasn't been enough, but it has
been more successful than other international work of this nature.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Another suggestion I had, and you have probably
thought of that, too, was the question of the medical profession and
the drug profession.
I am sure that if some of the people connected with the American
Medical Association could sit in some of these hearings and hear the
things that you and I have heard, that perhaps they would go back
to some of their own associations with the ideas of policing their own
industry.
The same way with the drug industries. I imagine you have
thought of those things. They ought to police their own industry,
too, which would make it a little bit simpler for other men that have
such a headache in this problem.
Senator DANIEL. Well, we thank you for those comments. We
have heard from both of those industries, and they assure us that they
are policing very diligently, and are increasing that diligence. We do
have some trouble from the medical profession and the pharmacists,
but thank goodness they are exceptional cases, only a very few when
you look at all the doctors and pharmacists of the country.
Well, now, I want you to know that although we have called you
at a time when it was more of a summary, to sum up the situation,
right at the end of the hearings, that we do appreciate what you did
for us in getting these hearings started and in organizing them, and
we appreciate your suggestions, and hope that you will send in to us
any further suggestions that you might have, before we quit our work
on January 1.
Mr.
REYNOLDS.
I want to thank you personally, in behalf of the
crime commission, for bringing this hearing here; I know it has done
a world of good already, and I am sure it will have a lot of collateral
benefits after you leave.
Senator
DANIEL.
Thank you very much, sir.
Now we will have a 3-minute recess.

(Short recess.)
Senator DANIEL. The meeting will come to order.
Ida Paul.
The MARSHALL. Ida Paul.
Senator DANIEL. Will you stand and be sworn, please? Do you

solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give to this sub-
3179
committee of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be the truth, the

Miss PAUL. Yes, sir.
Senator
You may be seated.
DANIEL.
TESTIMONY OF IDA PAUL

Senator
DANIEL.
What is your name?
Miss PAUL. Ida Paul.
Senator
DANIEL.
Where do you live?
Miss PAUL. Brownwood, Tex.

DANIEL. How long have you lived at Brownwood?
Miss PAUL. Oh, I have lived there all my life, practically.
Senator DANIEL. Are you still living in Brownwood?
Senator
Senator
DANIEL. Have you used heroin?

Miss PAUL. No, I don't use it.
Senator DANIEL. What type of drug do you use?
Miss PAUL. Morphine, mostly. I have used some
heroin, but not
so much of that.
Senator DANIEL. When did you first start using narcotic drugs?
Miss PAUL. It was about 28 years ago, I guess.
Senator DANIEL. Have you been using them off and on since then?
Senator DANIEL. Who first told you about the use of narcotic
drugs, or asked you to use them?
Miss PAUL. Well, I used to have headaches a lot, and I just took
it myself, after the doctor gave me several.shots, you know, for asthma;
I had asthma and headaches awfully bad. So that's how come me
to start on drugs, I guess.
Senator DANIEL. Did any of your associates or friends use any
kind of drugs?
Miss PAUL. Yes, sir; one of the boys that I went with at the time
did. He is dead now.
Senator DANIEL. One of the boys you went with what?
Miss PAUL. At the time.
Senator DANIEL. He used what, what type of drug?
Miss PAUL. Morphine.
Senator DANIEL. And did he give you some?
Miss PAUL. Yes; I took some of it; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And did you and he use it together?
Senator
DANIEL.
Quite a bit?
Miss PAUL. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL. How old were you at the time?

Miss PAUL. I was 17 when I started-16, going on
Miss PAUL. No, sir.
16.
Senator DANIEL. Well, had you ever used it before this boy friend
gave it to you?
Miss PAUL. No, sir; not only just when the doctor gave it to me.
Senator DANIEL. And how long did you use morphine?
Miss PAUL. Well, off and on ever since.
71515-56---pt. 7.-
53
3180
Senator
heroin?

DANIEL.
Well, now, some of the time you have used
Miss PAUL. Yes, sir; but just when I can't get morphine.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, you prefer the morphine, which

costs the most?
Miss PAUL. Well, it is very little difference.
Senator DANIEL. About how much has your habit cost you, at the
peak?
Miss PAUL. Oh, if I get it on prescriptions or anything, it costs me
about two and a half a day, I'd say.
Senator DANIEL. Well, have you been able to get it on prescriptions?
Miss PAUL. No, sir; not altogether.
Senator DANIEL. Well, part of the time?
Miss PAUL. Part of the time I have.
Senator DANIEL. How do you get it on prescriptions?
Miss PAUL. Well, I have been getting it through asthma, and then
I had the doctor to write it for cancer once or twice.
Senator DANIEL. You mean you have fooled the doctors?
Miss PAUL. That's right. I tried to; I guess I did.
Senator DANIEL. And you got them to write prescriptions for asthma
and cancer?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever write any prescriptions yourself?
Miss PAUL. I have.
Senator DANIEL. Over bow long a period of time?
Miss PAUL. Oh, not too long.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever get caught for doing it?
Miss PAUL. I am afraid so.
Senator
DANIEL. Well,
didn't it cost you pretty much to take care
of the habit, when you could not get it through doctors or through
writing prescriptions and forging them yourself?
Miss PAUL. Yes, sir; it cost quite a bit.
Didn't the heroin habit cost you several dollars a

Miss PAUL. Yes, it costs pretty high when you use it like that.
Senator
DANIEL.
About how much a day would heroin cost you?

Miss PAUL. Oh, about $20 a day.
Senator DANIEL. Twenty dollars a day; over what period of time
did you use heroin, about how many years?
Miss PAUL. Well, I use it only just when I had to, as I say.
Senator DANIEL. Well, where did you buy your heroin?
Miss PAUL. I used to go over into old Mexico and get it.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you cross the bridge?
Miss PAUL. El Paso; Juarez.
Senator DANIEL. Have you bought any heroin in Juarez in recent
years?
Miss PAUL. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you have any trouble buying it across the
river?
Miss PAUL. Not at this time I didn't. That was many years back.
Senator DANIEL. Many years back?
Senator DANIEL. Where else did you buy it in Mexico?
Miss PAUL. Over from Laredo.
Senator
DANIEL.
3181:
Senator DANIEL. At Nuevo Laredo?

Senator DANIEL. How long since you crossed at Nuevo Laredo?

Miss PAUL. I guess it's been about 10 or 12 years since I have been
over there.
Senator DANIEL. Well, where have you bought your heroin since
then?
Miss PAUL. I haven't used it. I just used morphine.
Senator DANIEL. When is the last time you used heroin?
Miss PAUL. I don't remember. But it's been years back.
Senator DANIEL. How were you able to keep up this expensive
habit?
Miss PAUL. Well, I did some work, officework, and then a friend of
mine helped me out.
Senator DANIEL. What kind of friend?
Miss PAUL. Well, a friend I was supposed to marry, but I didn't
marry him.
Senator DANIEL. Your common-law husband?
Senator
DANIEL.
For how many years?
Miss PAUL. Seven.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have to turn to anything else to get
the money to keep up this drug habit?
Miss PAUL. No.
Senator
Never had to turn to violating the law?

Miss PAUL. Well, I don't know; I violated so much.
Senator DANIEL. Well, that's what I am asking you.
DANIEL.
Miss PAUL. I don't know, hardly, when I am.

Senator DANIEL. I am not asking you to go into any details; I am
asking you if you found it necessary to violate other laws, other than
the narcotics laws, to keep up your drug habit.
Miss PAUL. No.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't have to do that?

(Miss Paul shook her head.)
Senator DANIEL. You were able to get enough money from working
and from this friend of yours?
Miss PAUL. Not exactly. I have went sick a lot, needing drugs.
All riht; if you don't have it and you don't have money to get it, you
go sick till you get it, I guess.
Senator DANIEL. And you have done that?
Miss PAUL. Sure; I have went sick a lot of times.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever tried a treatment?

Miss PAUL. Yes, sir; I have been cured several times.
now.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you get treated?
I am cured
Miss PAUL. In Kentucky.
Senator
DANIEL.
Lexington?
Senator
DANIEL.
The Federal hospital?
Senator
DANIEL.
Miss PAUL. I stayed there 9 months the last time I was there, and
then I stayed 6 months at different times.

Senator DANIEL. You have been there twice?
3182

Senator DANIEL. How long was it before you went back to drugs
after getting out of the Federal hospital?
Miss PAUL. I believe it was about 2 months.
Senator DANIEL. Why did you go back to them?
Miss PAUL. Well, I was just sick, and just felt like I had to have
something, so I just took some more drugs.
Senator DANIEL. Well, how long since you took morphine?
Miss PAUL. About 5 months now.
Senator DANIEL. What have you been taking since then?
Miss PAUL. Haven't been taking anything, only just some barbiturates for asthama, and not much of them.
Senator DANIEL. Well, are you getting your barbiturates through
a doctor or druggist?
Miss PAUL. I am getting them through the county health doctor
there at home, for asthma. It doesn't have much barbiturate in it,
not enough to call it exactly enough for a prescription, I don't think,
if he called it in.
Senator DANIEL. Is there any way that you get your drugs over in
Brownwood, other than through doctors or druggists that you are
able to fool?
Miss PAUL. I don't guess I can fool doctors and druggists. I
don't know of anyone at present that will sell me anything.
Senator DANIEL. Well, where do you get your drugs, away from
Brownwood?
Miss PAUL. Well, I don't need it any more, because I haven't been
going out, you see.
Senator DANIEL. Do you feel now that you are completely cured of
them?
Miss PAUL. I feel more like it now than I did when I come out of
the hospital.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you have any suggestion to make to
this committee, as to anything that can be done to take care of drug
addiction or the drug traffic in this country?
Miss PAUL. I don't know. I have heard so many talk, and they
suggested so many things, that they have got me out of suggestions.
Senator DANIEL. We, as one who has had a personal experience,
do you agree that the drug addicts spread the addiction to their
friends and to other people?
Miss PAUL. Well, not exactly, I don't think they do, because I
know, myself, that I have never enticed anyone or given anyone the
first shot, and I wouldn't.
Senator DANIEL. Somebody enticed you, though.
Miss PAUL. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. And it was a boy friend, wasn't it?
Senator DANIEL. When you were 16 or 17 years of age?
Miss PAUL. I was a little over 16, I think.
Senator DANIEL. And so that is how you got started, wasn't it?
people
Senator DANIEL. You do know, then, of some cases where
spread it to their friends, addicts spread it like a disease to their
friends, in some cases?
Miss PAUL. In some cases I guess they do.
Senator DANIELI.Ir.
3183
$peer?
Mr. SPEER. What is the largest quantity of morphine that you
have ever used in a day?

Miss PAUL. I believe 12 grains.
Mr. SPEER. Twelve grains?
Miss PAUL. Day and night; yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Are you sure you didn't use more than that?
Miss PAUL. I don't know. That's 48 tablets, isn't it?
Mr. SPEER. Forty-eight
tablets? Forty-eight quarter-grain
tablets?
Miss PAUL.
Mr. SPEER.
Miss PAUL.
Mr. SPEER.
Yes, sir.
Miss PAUL.
That's right.
That would be 12 grains?

That's right.
Did you shoot that just morning and night, or did you
take it every few hours?
Miss PAUL. Well, sometimes just whenever I felt like I needed it.
Mr. SPEER. Now, to get this 12 grains a day-and of course a
quarter of a grain of morphine is the usual medicinal dose for morphine-to get this 12 grains of morphine a day, what did you do?
Miss PAUL. You mean what would I have to do?
Mr. SPEER. What would you have to do?
Miss PAUL. Well, sometimes I would have to lie to doctors and
everything else, to obtain enough to get by on. Of course, I would
askMr. SPEER. You would actually have to find you a doctor or a
druggist who would cooperate with you; wouldn't you?
Miss PAUL. Sure.
Mr. SPEER. No question about that..
Mr. SPEER. And did you find such doctors and druggists?
MisS PAUL. Yes, finally, eventually, I would, maybe, or not alto-
gether that; sometimes I would have to go sick, maybe I couldn't

make them or something, I mean just for asthma alone. Sometimes
they won't give it unless I am really bad, you know, or I mean some
cases they will, some doctors; some will and some won't.
Mr. SPEER. At the time you were forging these prescriptions, that
was when you were obtaining the most morphine, is that right?
Miss PAUL. I was using more then than later; yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. More then than ever, because you could get all that
you wanted, is that right?
Miss PAUL. I guess so.
Mr. SPEER. Well, the place where you were getting this morphine,
they knew you were actually forging these prescriptions, did they not?
Miss PAUL. No, I really don't think they did, until the last. Then
they cut me off, and then they phoned this doctor one time, I think.
Mr. SPEER. Weren't you using many different names to get the
prescriptions?
Miss PAUL. Oh, I don't think over 3 or 4.
Mr. SPEER. Using 3 or 4 names; were you taking the prescriptions
in yourself every time?

Miss PAUL. Yes, sir; I would always take them in myself, you know,
most of the time.
Mr. SPEER. And you were using different doctors' names part of
the time, so the druggist who was filling these prescriptions, with you
3184
going in over a period of time with different names, of course, it was

obvious that you were writing the prescriptions; is that right?
Miss PAUL. Yes, sir; I guess it was obvious.
Senator DANIEL. Sell, did he know you wrote them? That's the
point.
Miss PAUL. Well, he found out that I did forge them, all right.
Mr. SPEER. While he was filling them, he knew you were writing
them, did he not?
Miss PAUL. Well, the only thing that he ever, statement that he
ever made, that the-I think I scratched it up a little one day, and he,
said that it didn't look like the doctor's handwriting, and he told
me not to bring any more in there looking like that.
Mr. SPEER. He said it. looked like your handwriting?
Miss PAUL. No, he said, "It doesn't look like the doctor's handwriting." In other words, he was throwing the hint that he was about
to check back on me, or something. Anyway, he put it that way.
Mr. SPEER. He wanted you to be a little bit more careful with
writing them; is that right?
Miss PAUL. Well, at least, he wanted it in shape that he could fill
it later.
Mr. SPEER. No.
Senator DANIEL. All right. We thank you very much.

ir. William F. Alexander.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about, to give to
Mr. ALEXANDER. I do.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM F. ALEXANDER, ASSISTANT DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, DALLAS COUNTY, TEX.
\r. Alexander, I want to thank you, as assistant
Senator DANIEL. M
district attorney of Dallas County, for your assistance to this coinmittee throughout the investigation, and simply ask you to first
state your name.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes, sir; William F. Alexander.
Senator DANIEL. And you are assistant district attorney of Dallas
County?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I would just like to express our appreciation to you
and to your office, to M\r. Wade again, and to ask you if you have
anything to add to what District Attorney Wade has given us in the
way of the situation here in Dallas, or any recommendations.
As I understand it, you are in charge of the narcotics prosecutions?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes; I am.
Senator
DANIEL.
In the office?
\r.
M ALEXANDER. Yes, sir.
Senator, the one recommendation I have is something that hasn't
come up before the committee yet, in Dallas, and that is that both the
Federal and the State parole law should be changed.
At the present time, it is hardly worth our trouble to send a man to
the penitentiary on a term less than 5 years. In Texas, as well as
3185
under the Federal law, they will actually be coming back from the
penitentiary, on a 2-year sentence, in about 8 to 9 months. In
Texas, a man can throw 21 years in 4 years and 15 days, if he behaves
himself.
Now, the worse the criminal, ordinarily the better prisoner he makes.
They know that their parole will come quicker by being a good
prisoner; and under our law, the man is eligible for parole when he has
done one-third of his time; that is, when he has credit for one-third
of his time. He accumulates good time at the rate of 20 days good
time for each 30 days straight time that he does.
In all narcotics cases, the parole should be eliminated, both Federal
and State. It just isn't worth the trouble of sending a man down for
2 years; they are coming back faster than we can send them down.
Senator DANIEL. You may be interested to know that the New
York probation officers appeared before us a few weeks ago, and made
the same recommendation-and their social workers and people who
like to try to make probation work. But they told us it is an absolute
failure in narcotics cases, both in addicts and traffickers.
Mr. ALEXANDER. We haven't yet seen anyone rehabilitated upon
parole.
Senator DANIEL. You are speaking of narcotics cases?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right, sir; I am glad to have this recommendation from you as a State attorney, prosecutor.
Now, also tomorrow in Fort Worth we will hear more about the
policy of filing narcotics cases in State courts exclusively when they
are made by State officers. Do you have anything to add on that?
Are you happy to have these narcotics cases in your office, or do you
feel that the Federal courts should have more of them?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Well, we feel that local narcotics cases should
be held on a local level.
Of course, if certain officers make an interstate case or a large case
out of smuggling activities, that properly belongs in Federal court.
But we feel that we know our own characters, and as long as the
Dallas Police Department and sheriff's office can stay right on them,
why, we like to prosecute our cases. It is one way of maintaining
local control; if there is something wrong with our law enforcement,
we are the ones who should be able to correct that.
Senator DANIEL. Chief Hanssen, I believe, said that he felt the
narcotics violators feared the Federal courts and the Federal laws a
little more than the State laws.
What is your viewpoint on that?
Mr. ALEXANDER. I don't agree with him. I have never yet heard
a habitual criminal or a character tell me that he would rather go to
the Texas State Penitentiary than to the Federal pen. Practically
in every case I know of, they will try to plead guilty in Federal court,
rather than risk a trial in State court.
Senator DANIEL. A lot of times, if they can plead, they are addicts,
they will be sent over to Fort Worth Narcotics Hospital or Lexington
Narcotics Hospital, to serve their time; isn't that true?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes, sir; that is true; from Federal court.
Senator DANIEL. It is a pretty convenient place to go, and we
have had evidence that some people who commit other crimes not
dealing with narcotics, have pled that they are narcotic addicts and
3186
have in some cases misrepresented the facts and fooled the officers,
in order to go to these hospitals instead of the prison.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes; I have heard of that. However, that
doesn't happen in our local cases.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you know if your State courts do hand
out heavy sentences, these violators will be just as afraid of your
State courts as the Federal courts, in my opinion.
Mr. ALEXANDER. This has been a new problem with us, Senator.
We have only handled narcotics cases in our office since the first of
1954, and our average penalty has averaged a little bit heavier than
it has in Federal courts.
Senator DANIEL. I see. All right, sir.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Now, the juries, the juries will hand down a
heavy penalty, if you will just take the case to the jury; they will
hand it out.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I appreciate your appearing before us, and
if you have any other suggestions at any time, we will be working
until the 1st of January on our report, and be glad to hear from you
further.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, sir.
Senator DANIEL. IS Mr. Brackline, the assistant United States
attorney, here in the courtroom?
The MARSHAL. Bill Brackline? Mr. Brackline is not here right
now.
Senator DANIEL. I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Brackline, and to Judge Davidson, Judge Atwell, Judge Estes, and all of
the judges and the officers of the court.
Thank you, Mr. Marshal, for taking care of us here so well. We
want your full name in the record.
The MARSHAL. Goss; E. R. Goss.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Goss.
The MARSHAL. Glad to have you, Senator, and I feel like you
have been doing a great work, and the more and the better work you
do will make our work less, maybe.
Senator DANIEL. Thank you, sir.
We want to express our appreciation again to the press and to the
television and radio, who have been here working with us in order
that the public might know about what the situation is, and to our
staff, especially to all the law-enforcement officers who have helped
us in arranging the hearings and who have been with us all the way
through these hearings.
Lieutenant Gannaway, I expected to get you back on the stand,
but I guess we have about covered the situation. To Mr. Gentry
and Mr. Heddens and to all the Federal and State officers, we express
our sincere appreciation for your help on these hearings.
Mr. Brackline?
The MARSHAL. Mr. Brackline is here now.
Senator DANIEL. I just called you to express our appreciation to
you, sir. I believe we are to hear from Mr. Floore tomorrow.
Now, tomorrow we will be in Fort Worth, and the following is the
list of official witnesses. We will hear only from witnesses whose
names will be announced.
There will be United States Attorney Heard Floore, District Attorney Howard Fender, Chief of Police Cato Hightower, Sheriff Harlan
3187
Wright, and United States Public Health Service officer in charge of

the Fort Worth Narcotics Hospital, Dr. John Trautman.
One other announcement before we adjourn these hearings, and
that is that the hearings originally set for California next week will
be postponed until November 14, beginning in Los Angeles, Calif.,
on November 14, and moving to San Francisco, Calif., on November
17.
The California hearings have been postponed in order that we

might have a time which would not conflict with some of the engagements of important witnesses at the hearings, and also in order that
there might not be a conflict with the business of other members of
the committee, who had expressed a special interest in attending the
California hearings.
We will recess this committee session until 10 o'clock tomorrow
morning, in the Federal Building at Fort Worth, Tex.
(Whereupon, at 5 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1955
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS
Fort Worth, Tex.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a. m. in the
Federal Building, Fort Worth, Tex., Senator Price Daniel (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senator Daniel.
Also present: C. Aubrey Gasque, subcommittee counsel, and W.
Lee Speer, committee investigator.
First, I want to express a word of appreciation to the law enforce-
ment officers and others who have assisted us in preparing for this
one day hearing in Forth Worth today.
This is a continuation of
our first nationwide investigation of the narcotics traffic.
We are
hearing evidence concerning the cities which rank in the highest 45

in the Nation, with respect to the narcotics traffic, based on narcotics
arrests and convictions.
I am glad to say that Fort Worth ranks very low in the top 45, but
of course, any narcotics traffic is bad, and we are here to see exactly
what the situation is, and especially to get the recommendations of
State, Federal, and city officers here as to what Congress may do to
help lick this cancer in our society.
The first witness will be Chief of Police Cato Hightower.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Senator, I have prepared a written statement.
Senator DANIEL. All right. We will take care of distributing those.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. I do.
TESTIMONY OF CATO HIGHTOWER, CHIEF OF POLICE, FORT
WORTH, TEX.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Cato S. Hightower.
Senator DANIEL. And your official position?

\,fr. HIGHTOWER. Chief of police, Fort Worth.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been chief of police?
M\r. HIGHTOWER. Since May of 1953.

Senator DANIEL. And prior to that time, were you in law-enforceMent work here?
Mr.
HIGHTOWER.
Yes, sir; for the past 19 years.

3189
3190
Senator DANIEL. Chief, have you had occasion to give special at-
tention to narcotics work here in Fort Worth?

Mr.
HIGHTOWER.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have a narcotics squad?

Mr. HIGHTOWER. Yes, sir; we do have. We have two full-timA
men working narcotics. Of course, we have other men working part
time on it.
Senator DANIEL. Do you consider narcotics a serious problem?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. I certainly do. They are serious anywhere.
Senator DANIEL. And you do consider it a serious problem here iD
Fort Worth?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Chief, do you feel that in addition to your narcotics crimes, narcotics trafficking and addiction, that also other
crimes are attributable to narcotics?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Yes, sir; there are. They are.
Senator DANIEL. What would be your estimate of the total crime
within the city of Fort Worth that is attributable to narcotic addiction
and narcotic traffic?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. I would say that directly and indirectly, approximately 20 percent.
Senator DANIEL. And directly and indirectly, you mean by that
what?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. I mean this: That the urge to get narcotics, or an

addict who wants to raise the money for narcotics for his habit, and
also a person who is-has been an addict and enters the criminal field,
and since has kicked the habit and continued in the criminal field.
Senator DANIEL. About how many narcotic addicts do you estimate that you have in Fort Worth?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. That would be merely an estimate. I would say
that between 40 and 50 addicts, and in addition to that we have a
steady stream in and out to the U. S. Public Health hospital here.
Senator DANIEL. Now, this U. S. Public Health hospital is one of
our two Federal hospitals set up to treat narcotic addiction and to take
care of narcotic prisoners in certain instances, is that correct?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Yes, sir; that's right.
Senator DANIEL. And you say there is a steady stream of addicts
to and from the hospital; do some of them linger here in Fort Worth?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Yes, sir; there are a certain amount of them
that-of volunteer patients that come here awaiting admittance to
the hospital, and then the volunteer patients may leave the hospital
at any time, they are not committed there, they can leave at any tune.
Of course, the hospital tries to get them to stay, but they are not
compelled to stay, and if they leave before their habit is cured, then
they do linger here.
hosSenator DANIEL. Does this location of the Federal narcotics
problem?
pital here in Fort Worth contribute or add to your narcotics

Mr. HIGHTOWER. I would say that it did; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And that is true, I suppose, especially with the
system of voluntary patients that the Federal hospital now has?
Senator DANIEL. As far as the involuntarily confined patients, the
mandatory patients under a certain specified sentence, do you have
any trouble with them?

Mr. HIGHTOWER.
Senator DANIEL.
3191
Very little.
They are usually brought into the hospital by
officers?
Mr. HIGHTOWER.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr.
HIGHTOWER.
Yes, sir.
And they are usually escorted away, is that true?
That's right, or they are cured before they leave.
Senator
And by cured, what do you mean?

Off the narcotic habit.
At the time they leave Forth Worth?
Mr.
Yes, sir.
DANIEL.
Mr. HIGHTOWER.
Senator DANIEL.
HIGHTOWER.
Senator DANIEL. Now, the difference, then, between these mandatory patients and the volunteer patients is that these volunteer
patients can enter the hospital when they are told that there is a bed
or place for them and then they can leave when they so desire; is that
right?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. That is the way I understand it; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What recommendation do you have, if any, to
this committee, concerning the voluntary patient policy at the
U. S. Narcotics Hospital?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. I would say this, that the-it is against the policy
or the law to give these names out to local officers, and I think that
those names of voluntary patients should be made available to local
enforcement officers. I also recommend that Federal narcotic agents
be stationed here, which they were up until the spring of 1954, when
they closed down the local office here.
Senator DANIEL. Now, in the spring of 1954, the local Federal
Narcotics Bureau Office here was closed?
Senator DANIEL. And is there an office or any personnel stationed
permanently here?
Mr.
HIGHTOWER.
No, sir, they-the officers have to come out of
Dallas. We receive 100 percent cooperation from the Federal narcotics officers, but they are not handy enough, in other words, they
are not stationed here, and they can't get joint information with our
officers, and it works a hardship on us.
Senator
DANIEL.
And so you would recommend definitely that at
least one Federal Bureau of Narcotics agent be stationed in Fort

Worth permanently?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Yes, sir, one or more.
Senator DANIEL. One or more?

Senator DANIEL. Now, back to this voluntary treatment at the

hospital, in view of the fact that it causes you trouble-and it is my
information that it also causes trouble at Lexington, Ky., the city
that has the other Federal narcotics hospital-it would seem to me
that maybe you would want to recommend that this voluntary
admission system might be done away with, or reconsidered, at least.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. No, sir; I don't think I would recommend that.
I think that's a good thing.
Senator DANIEL. You think voluntary treatment does much good,
though, where a patient can leave whenever he wants to?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Well, I think he should volunteer for a certain
period of time.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right.
3192
Mr. HIGHTOWER. I don't think he should be let out before his treat-
ment is brought to a cure.

Senator DANIEL. In other words, your point is that you think the
treatment should be given on a voluntary basis to those who want to
volunteer to go there?
Mr.
HIGHTOWER. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Without a conviction?
Senator DANIEL. But you think there should
be some binding agreement or some arrangement whereby they would stay long enough until
a doctor said that they were in shape enough to be separated from the
hospital?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. That's right; yes. sir.
Senator DANIEL. Your main trouble is with those addicts who go
out here to the hospital and leave in a few days, or before Dr. Tratitman and his men say they are in any shape to leave?
Mr. HIGHTOVER. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Now, let's go back to these home-grown addicts,
or at least home-resident addicts.
I am not going to say anything, you know, on this, to reflect on
Fort Worth any more than you are; this is my home town, too. I
finished both grammar school and high school here, and I look on Fort
Worth as at least one of my home towns, and I think it is fine that
Forth Worth does not have more drug addiction than it does have.
But, on the other hand, it is bad enough, as you say, to where it is
a serious problem here, or in any city that has as much of the traffic
as we find here. You agree with that?
Senator DANIEL. And your estimate is that you have around 50?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Forty to 50.
Senator DANIEL. Forty to 50 addicts living here, within the city
limits?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Yes, sir. That includes
all forms of addiction,
the paregoric, what we call the paregoric hounds, the morphine main
liners, and all.
Senator DANIEL. And do you report the addicts to the Federal
Bureau of Narcotics?
Mr.
HIGHTOWER.
Yes, sir, we have a file for that.
Senator DANIEL.
that come to your
Mr. HIGHTOWER.
Senator DANIEL.
And you keep copies of the names of the addicts

attention?
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. HIGHTOWER.
Senator DANIEL.
agencies concerned
And you are keeping those up to date?Yes, sir.

Do you have good cooperation with the Federal
with narcotics?
I believe you keep a copy and you send several

copies to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics?
Mr.
HIGHTOWER.
We have excellent cooperation, yes, sir.

The only thing is, you just would like to see 1 or 2
Senator DANIEL.
of them over here permanently, so you could get together quicker?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. They are a whole lot handier when they are
stationed here, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, you have prepared some statistics here,
several of which look very interesting.
3193
We will make all of your prepared statement a part of the record.

I would like to ask you if there are any particular matters that you
want to point out, in order that we might question you about them.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. In the recommendations, there are a few things
that I would like to point out there, Senator.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. If you will notice, on page 5, item 2, stricter
regulations pertaining to the issuance of narcotic permits and the

handling of narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. There you are referring to drugstores and doctors?
Senator DANIEL. Have you had any trouble in Fort Worth with
druggists or doctors giving out drugs?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. We have had quite a bit of trouble with drug
stores selling paregoric and nonexempt-I mean exempt narcotics.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. It is recommended that the class five permit be
limited to a drugstore where a registered pharmacist is on duty.

Senator DANIEL. Well, is that not now the case?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. No, sir; we have a lot of drugstores that do not
have a registered pharmacist on duty, that do sell paregoric and exempt

narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. About how many druggists have you had trouble
with in recent years, on any type of narcotics?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Offhand I can think of 4 or 5.
Senator DANIEL. What about doctors? How many doctors have
you found giving the narcotics or prescribing them to addicts?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Well, there's been 2 or 3 brought to our attention.
Senator DANIEL. In the last how many years?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. In the last 2 years.
Senator DANIEL. All right. I see that you also recommend that
all persons dispensing narcotics keep records of narcotics administered
by them in their office.
Senator DANIEL. That is not now required by Federal or State law,
is it?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. As far as I know it isn't.
Senator DANIEL. All right, sir. Do you have any further recommendations?
Mr.
HIGHTOWER.
Yes, sir.
Under item three there, I think we
went into that a little while ago, the records of volunteer patients in
the hospitals should be available to local enforcement officers.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Chief, your reason for making that recommendation is what?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. So that we may know who these people are when
they come in here, and also, in case they decide to leave, we could
get a fingerprint record of them, and mug shots of them. And if
you will notice, in some of these tables over here, we have quite a
few drugstore burglaries, hospital prowls, and all that, that we attribute to these people. If we could have a record of them, where we
could get their fingerprints, and so forth
Senator DANIEL. That is, of all of the patients that enter the
Federal hospital here for narcotics?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. The volunteer patients, yes, sir.
3194
Well, I suppose you know, chief, that other agencies are wanting that information, too. Now, under the law, this
hospital out here can't even send the list of addicts in the hospital
to the Bureau of Narcotics, a Federal bureau which is trying to
combine all the names of the drug addicts in the country. You say
you are sending in the report of all the addicts who come to your
attention, and you do not have to; under the law it is strictly a
cooperative matter with the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
But there is Dr. Trautman back there, sitting in this courtroom,
the head of the hospital here, who under the law is forbidden to send
in the names of addicts who come into his hospital to the Federal
agency which is trying to compile this list. So I will certainly say
to you that is one recommendation you have made that the chairman of this committee is going to try to follow, and that is to try to
change the law so that certain people, such as you here in this city,
and the sheriff and the Bureau of Narcotics and the agencies that
send those patients to the hospital, will know about them, when
they arrived and when they left. As I understand it now, the hospital is forbidden from giving information out even to the lawenforcement agencies that might have sent the volunteer patient to
the hospital
Mr. HIGHTOWER. That's right, yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. That is what I understand.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Now, do you have any other recommendations to make, so far as the Congress is concerned?
I see you have one here, that is a recommendation that is probably
focused more on our State laws and our State courts; your fourth
recommendation is to speed up the prosecution of narcotics cases filed
in State court.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have a delay now?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Yes, sir; those courts up there, which try all forms
of criminal cases, are overloaded, they are overtaxed, and it necessitates a delay of several months, and in those months you can lose contact with a State's witness, some of the State's witnesses can back
out, and so forth. It works a hardship.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know of any way that you can speed up
the trial of these narcotics cases?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. No, sir. The only thing is to have more courts.
Senator DANIEL. Have more State courts?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. More State courts.
Senator DANIEL. Well, Chief, have you found from your experience
that narcotics violators, when they get out on bond, either appeal bond
or their original bond awaiting trial, that they go right back into the
traffic?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Yes, sir; that is true of any form of law violation,
if they are out on bond, they go right ahead and do whatever they
did before they were arrested.
Senator DANIEL. We have heard testimony from about 10 cities in
which the officers told us that was especially true on narcotics violators, that they find their business so lucrative that while they are
out on bond, they just consider themselves to have a license to go
right back into business, and that they repeat and continue their
violations. Now, you say you have found similar cases?
3195
sir; that's right.

Senator DANIEL. Well, that is another reason why we ought to have
speedy trials, isn't it?
Senator DANIEL. And the recommendations that you make as to
the State court applies equally as to the Federal courts, over which
we have jurisdiction?
Mr.
Yes,
HIGHTOWER.
Senator DANIEL. Now, I notice your final recommendation there is

the relaxing of rules of the Federal court regarding the adoption of
narcotics cases originated by State and city officers.
Just what do you refer to there?
Mr.
HIGHTOWER.
If you make an arrest out here, for instance, on
investigation, you see a person under suspicious circumstances, and

you arrest that person, or maybe for another offense, if you arrest this
person and find untaxed narcotics on him, it is usually required or
desired by the Federal court to have a warrant or arrest before they
will adopt it.
Or suppose you are sitting on a spot, checking a house, and one of
your addicts comes up, and he has quite a bit of narcotics on him;
you don't have time to get a warrant of arrest for him, so you have to
file your case in the State courts.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, you are probably going to have to keep on
having to file your cases in the State court unless we can change the
Federal laws on searches and seizures.
Could you use that evidence in the State courts?
Senator
DANIEL.
Without a search warrant?

Senator DANIEL. In our Federal courts, the searches and seizures
law is so strict, and the interpretations of them by most of the Federal
courts, that as you say, that evidence couldn't be used in a Federal
court, and that is why the Federal officers want you to go on and file
them in the State court.
But on your local trafficking in narcotics, don't you file those in
State court anyway?
Mr.
That is your policy now, isn't it?

Mr. HIGHTOWER. Yes, sir. We filed some 20 last year in State
Senator
DANIEL.
courts.
Senator DANIEL. Twenty cases this last year?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. I believe that's right. Fifteen in 1954, in State
courts.
Senator DANIEL. Chief, is your narcotics traffic here in Fort Worth
centered in any particular locality, as is true in most of our larger
cities?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. No, sir, it doesn't show a pattern, except it is in
the-where the population is more dense.
Senator DANIEL. Well, could you-do you have a map or anything,
that shows about where yourMr. HIGHTOWER. Yes, sir; I have a map over there, if Mr. Nichols
will get it for me.
Senator DANIEL. If you will, just put it over here on the desk.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Right here?
71515-56-pt. 7-54
3196
Senator DANIEL. No, on your desk, and speak from it, then all of
us here can see it.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. These are cases filed, and in some cases there were
two or more arrests.
Senator DANIEL. Now, excuse me. The reporter here is having to
take down all of this, and when you refer to "these" or point to something, let's identify it.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. These pins on the map are where the cases
originated. In some cases, there might be two or more arrests where
each pin is in the map.
Now, the red pins indicate marihuana, the yellow pins indicate
heroin, the blue pins indicate morphine, and the green pins indicate
codeine and paregoric and the minor narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. Is this map based on arrests during the last year?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. On cases filed during the last year, in 1954 and
1955.
Now, the pins that have circles around them were arrests in 1954;
the pins without the circles around them were 1955 arrests.
Senator DANIEL. And that represents a total of how many arrests
and cases filed on those arrests for the years of 1954-is that, you say,
for 1954?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. This is for 1954 and 1955.
Senator DANIEL. And 1955?
Senator DANIEL. How many cases, total, do you have that figure?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. I don't have it on the map here, but I can get it
off of my report.
In 1954 there were 15 State cases filed, and 10 Federal cases. In
1955, to date, there were 16 State cases filed and 1 Federal case.
Senator DANIEL. That is based on arrests made by your office or
the sheriff's office?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Well, that is arrests that we figured in. In some
cases the sheriff's men figured in that, and the Federal narcotics
agents assisted us in some of them.
Senator DANIEL. I see. Well, now, these pins all seem to be, most
of them at least, centered right in the heart of the city; is that correct?
Senator DANIEL. Right around in the more thickly settled part of
the city?
Mr. HIGHTOWER.
Senator DANIEL.
Yes, sir.
Is that a business district there, or a residential
district?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. This is business, this is the heart ofSenator DANIEL. Now, you are pointing now to the thickness of
pins, where the pins almost touch each other?
Senator DANIEL. And is that the main downtown business area?

Mr. HIGHTOWER. Yes, sir, that is the main downtown business
area, or the fringe surrounding it.
Senator DANIEL. Where do you find these violators in the downtown business area, in the cafes, bars, or hotels?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Hotels, bars, or rooming houses.
Senator DANIEL. Cheaper rooming houses?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. The cheaper places, yes, sir.
3197
Senator DANIEL. All right. And then you seem to have a little
concentration to the south there; what neighborhood would that be
in?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. That would be the colored district round Rosedale and the southeastern district there.
Senator
DANIEL.
among poor people?
Do you find your narcotics traffic here mostly
HIGHTOWER.
Senator DANIEL.
I'd say the majority of them would be, yes, sir.
Mr.
No, sir, it is about 50-50 between the Negroes
Mr.
And what about as far as races are concerned? Is

it predominately in one race or the other?
HIGHTOWER.
and the whites.
Senator DANIEL. About half as many Negroes as whites?

Mr. HIGHTOWER. No, sir, about the same.
Senator DANIEL. Or about the same amount?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. About the same amount.

Senator DANIEL. I see. Well, that is a good sign, in one way, at
least. Our Negro population in this State and in the south is either
smarter or doesn't have the money or something; they are not in the
majority in narcotics violation, as they are in all the northern cities
we have been to. Do you have anything that would account for that?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. No, Sir, unless they are just better citizens down
here.
Senator DANIEL. Better citizens than some of them are in the
north?
HIGHTOWER.
Senator DANIEL.
That's right.
Well, whatever the reason is, I am glad to see it.
Senator
Thank you.
Mr.
And I think it may be a tribute to the South, or may be a tribute to

all of our people, both white and colored here, that the Negroes have
not fallen to this terrible dread disease or addiction, as they have in
the northern cities.
Now, do you have anything else of special significance relating to
this map?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. No, sir, I believe not.
Senator DANIEL. Well, if you will, pass that up here to us.
(The map was handed to the committee.)
DANIEL.
Mr. Counsel, do you have any questions?

Mr. GASQUE. Yes, sir. Now, Chief, you stated that you would
like to have more information from the Federal officials. Now, I
wonder if you have in mind preparing or building what you might
call an addict gallery?

Mr. GASQUE. Much the same as we have a rogue's gallery in other
crimes?
Mr. GASQUE. What is your view on wiretapping to be used in narcotics cases, with appropriate safeguards?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. I am for it. Anything to cure this, as Senator
Daniel says, this cancer in society.
Mr. GASQUE. You would be for wiretapping for the purposes of
obtaining corroborative type evidence?
Mr. GASQUE. And leads in narcotics cases?
3198

GASQUE. Now, do you have a problem here with barbiturates?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Yes, sir, we do.
Mr. GASQUE. I wonder if you would tell us something about that.
Mr.
What ages are they, and what type of barbiturates?

Mr. HIGHTOWER. Amytal, nembutal, and seconal, almost all forms;
yellow jackets, red jackets, and all that.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you find use of barbiturates mostly among the
young people?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. We find very little of it among the teen-agers.
I would say among the age group of between 25 and 30. around there,
use most of the barbiturates.
Mr. GASQUE. We have a great interest in these barbiturates. The
chairman has in his possession a statement signed by Hall, the mm'derer or kidnapper of Bobby Greenlease, which indicates that he was
on barbiturates before and during that murder. Along that line, we
have also heard from Chicago that a drug addict may be linked with
these murders of these three boys in Chicago. There is no indication
that it is barbiturates, however. Now, I believe in your recom-mendations, you state that you would like to speed up the prosecution
of narcotics cases in State courts?
Mr. GASQUE. What are your problems in that area?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Well, as I said before, the overloaded State court
makes it impossible to have a speedy trial, and as you know, it is much
easier to make a State bond than it is a Federal bond.
And while they are out on State bond, they may go back as Senator
Daniel said, right into their life of pushing drugs or using narcotics.
Mr. GASQUE. I see. Well, thank you very much, Chief.
Mr. SPEER.
Chief, looking at your map here, I notice that you have
quite a concentration of blue pins, which you state refers to morphine

cases, in the center, and out here and down here as well [indicating].
Does that indicate that the knob-knockers in Fort Worth are supplcmenting the regular heroin, illicit traffic in this area?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. I would think so, yes, sir. That morphine
usually comes from burglary jobs, out of drugstores.
Mr. SPEER. Has that been true in Fort Worth over a period of
years?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Well, yes, sir. We have had trouble with drugstore burglaries for years. It hasn't become alarming. I think of the
little more than 2,000 burglaries that we had last year, that was in
1954, I think 14 of them were drugstore burglaries where narcotics
were obtained. However, there are probably quite a few more burglaries pulled by these addicts in an attempt to get narcotics; but
there were only 14 where narcotics were obtained, out of 2,000 burglaries in Fort Worth.
Senator DANIEL. You say 2,000?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Two thousand burglaries.
Senator DANIEL. In Forth Worth, over what period of time?
Mr. HIGHTOWER.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
In 1 year.
You say that they wcre trying to get narcotics?
Senator DANIEL. Now, how many of those burglaries were conmitted by narcotic addicts?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. That would be hard to say.
3199
I am sure that more
than 14 of them were.

Senator DANIEL. Well, as a matter of fact, if it is anything near like
what we find in other cities, somewhere near half or a majority of
them would have been committed by narcotic addicts. I wonder if
that would be true here?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Wel, we estimate that all forms of felonies here,
that narcotics play a major part or a direct part in approximately 20

percent of them.
Senator DANIEL. Well, that is lower than in any city that we
have been to yet, if your estimate is correct. In every city we have
been to thus far, the estimates on burglaries and thefts have been
more than 50 percent attributable to narcotic addicts who were
stealing or burglarizing either for the drug or to get the money with
which to buy the drug. It costs pretty much for a narcotic addict to
keep up his habit, doesn't it?
Mr.
HIGHTOWER.
Senator
DANIEL.
Yes, sir; it does.
And no heroin addict or morphine addict can
work and hold down a job that will pay him enough money to buy the
drugs; isn't that correct?

Mr. HIGHTOWER. That's correct.
Senator DANIEL. So therefore, they participate in a lot of thefts,
burglaries, and things of that kind; has that been your observation?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Yes, sir; they do.
They have to get the money
from some source.

Senator DANIEL. As a matter of fact, right here in Fort Worth and
Dallas it would appear that you have had some pretty big underworld
characters who have either been using drugs themselves or who have
been in the narcotics racket one way or another in recent years.
Is
that true, Chief?
Mr.

Senator DANIEL. We heard
considerable evidence yesterday and

the day before in Dallas about that, and we will go into more of it here
in Fort Worth.
Mr. Speer, do you have any further questions?
Mr. SPEER. I would like to mention that perhaps one of the most
well known wholesale narcotic burglaries in the entire country was the
Renfro drugstore here in 1943, in which I believe some 1,500 packages
of narcotic drugs were stolen. Yesterday in Dallas, before this
committee, one of the knob-knockers state that the cocaine he was
familiar with came in a bottle of large dimensions, probably an ounce
of cocaine, which the average person would never see, and which
would have to come from a wholesale registered dealer in narcotics
that supplies hospitals and drugstores.
There was one other question about getting joint information with
]Federal officers and police. You mean in the actual beginning of the
investigation?
Mr. HIGITOWER. Yes, sir, that's right.
In other words, the Federal
officers and the city officers could start to work on a case from the
first.
Mr. SPEER. Well, then, you have a feeling that some of these
investigations are actually of wholesale or interstate nature in the

beginning?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Yes, sir. As I said in the report here, we have
-reason to believe, and informants tell us, that most of the narcotics
3200
obtained in Forth Worth is obtained from wholesalers outside of Fort

Worth and Tarrant County.
Senator DANIEL. Where do you think most of your narcotics are
coming from?
Mr. HIGHTOWER.
Well, we have a lot of information where some
of them came from Dallas, some of them from Denver, and some of
them from cities on the coast and border towns.
Senator DANIEL. What about San Antonio?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Quite a bit of marihuana comes through San
Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever found any heroin that came in
from New York?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. I understand that most of the white heroin does
come from the east and the west coasts.
Senator DANIEL. What about Johnny Miller, was he a trafficker
that was bringing in narcotics here from the east coast?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. I don't know where he was obtaining his narcotics,
but he was bringing in a lot to this area.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Chief, I notice here that you have only 4
narcotics cases involving people under 20 years of age in your State
and Federal courts in 1954.
Senator DANIEL. And then the next group, 20 to 25, you only have
4 violators. It would appear from that that probably you are not
having too much trouble among juveniles, in your narcotics cases.
Is that right?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. It is mostly in your barbiturates and amphetamine drugs where you find the juveniles getting in trouble, is that
correct?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. I believe that's right, yes.
Senator DANI FL. Mr. Counsel, any other questions?
Mr. GASQUE. Chief, have you had occasion to arrest any people
and sent them to court for violation of the addict law in Texas?
Senator DANIEL. You are speaking of this new addict law, Mr.
Counsel, that was just passed by the last legislature?
Mr. GASQIE. Yes, sir.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. It is pretty difficult to get evidence in that case.
I understand that Mr. Nichols and Mr. glass have made several
arrests on that, and I don't know what the outcome of the cases were,
I'm sorry. They could probably tell you.
Senator DANIEL. Chief, I thank you again for helping this committee, for bringing us this testimony, and if you think of anything else
that you would recommend to us between now and January 1, when
we hope to complete our report, we would appreciate hearing from you.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Thank you, sir. I certainly will.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Reporter, you will make his prepared statement and all the statistics a part of the record at this place.
(The document referred to follows:)
3201
21, 1955.
Subject: Statistics pertaining to the enforcement of narcotic laws by the police
department of Fort Worth, Tex., and recommendations.
OCOTBER
Hon.
PRICE DANIEL,
Member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Narcotics.

GENTLEMEN: At the request of this honorable committee I submit the following facts regarding the activities of the police department of the city of Fort
Worth pertaining to the enforcement of the narcotics laws. I am also submitting
herewith statistics on arrests and recommendations that I feel will enlighten this
committee in their investigation of narcotic conditions in this district.
Submitted below are the figures on arrests pertaining to narcotics from January
1. 1954, to January 1, 1955:
98
Total arrests ---------------------------------------------------15
Cases filed in State court ------------------------------------------10
Cases filed in Federal. court ----------------------------------------25
Total cases filed -------------------------------------------------10
Cases filed involving marihuana ------------------------------------1
Cases filed involving heroin -----------------------------------------4
Cases filed involving morphine --------------------------------------3
Cases filed involving barbiturates ------------------------------------4
Cases filed involving dilaudid ---------------------------------------2
Cases filed involving paregoric --------------------------------------Cases filed involving demerol: --------------------------------------Submitted below is information concerning cases filed in State court in 1954
and disposition of same:
Name
Age
Sex
Race
Eddie Birdsong ----------
19
Velma Carruthers -------
30
69
Ramona Gonzales ------Richard A. Hawkins ----- 21
F
M
M
N
Roger R. Kesinger ------Samuel C. Lara ----------
36
19
M
M
W
M
Fletcher M. Massey
James L. McQueen ------
49
21
M
M
W
W
Fletcher M. Massey -----
49
Andrew Perez -----------
19
Norma Jean Queen ......
24
Barbara Shockley --------
29
Earnest Saldana ---------
38
Lollie Irene Silva --------
34
Lynn Thompson --------
31
Date
Charges filed
Illegal possession of
marihuana.
Obtaining narcoticsfraud.
Illegal sale of narcotics.
Illegal possession ei
marihuana.
----- do -----------------Illegal possession of
narcotics.
----- do -----------------Illegal possession of
marihuana.
Illegal possessionbarbiturates.
narcotics.
Obtaining
narcotics--
fraud.
narcotics.
Obtaining narcoticsfraud.
Apr.
8, 1954
Disposition
Dismissed.
June 10, 1954
Pending.
Dec. 21, 1954

Feb. 3,1954
Do.
No bill.
Oct. 10, 1954

Mar. 1, 1954
Pending.
2 years suspended.
Pending.
2 years.
Nov. 12,1954
Dec. 22, 1954
Apr.
8,1954
Sept. 25, 1954

May 25, 1954
---
do----------
Dec. 21, 1954
No bill.
2 years suspended.
Dismissed.
Do.
Pending.
June 10, 1954
Do.
Oct. 25,1954
$25 fine.
3202
Submitted below is information concerning cases filed in Federal court during

1954 and disposition of same:
Name
Race
Date
Charges filed
Disposition
I.
Willy Anderson ---------Ossie Bedford -----------W. Paul Bowlin ........
Violation, Marihuana
Tax Act.
Illegal sale of narcotics-do............
-----
Sam A. Carr -------------
.....
-do
Theodore Demming .....

General Montgomery ..--Dela Mae Miller
Willy Stewart ----------George Roscoe Thomason.
Daniel Watkins --------
June 11, 1954
5 years.
do ------Mar. 20,1954
2 years.
2 years (suspend.
ed).
10 years (hospi.
talized).
2 years.
Mar. 3, 1954
narcotics.
Tax Act.
marihuana.
Tax Act.
Illegal sale-exempt
narcotic.
Tax Act.
June 14, 1954

June 11, 1954
Do.
May 11, 1954
2 years (suspend.
ed), $50.
5 years.
Dec. 10, 1954
$500 fine.
June 11, 9154
5 years.
do-------
Statistics on cases filed in State and Federal courts during the year of 1954:
Total white males ---------81
Total Negro females -------2
Total white females3
Total Mexican males -----3
Total Negro males --.....
8
Total Mexican females- - ---1
Statistics on age groups of defendants in cases filed in State and Federal courts
during the year of 1954:
Under 20 -----------------4
30 to 40 ------------------7
20 to 25 ------------------4
40 to 50------------------2
25 to 30 ------------------5
Over 50 ------------------3
Submitted below is the total number of arrests from January 1, 1954 to January
1, 1955 including defendants in cases filed, and also those arrested for investigation
of narcotics:
Race
Sex
Number Average age of arrests
Male --------------------------------------------White
Female ---------------------------------------Do
Male ---------Negro --------------------------------------------Female------Do-... . . . . . . . ..-------------------------------Male
Mexican ---------------------------------------------Female ------Do ------------------------------------------------
57
9
24
2
6
0
Total ----------------------------------------------------------
98
Under 20--------20 to 25 ---------25 to 30 ----------30 to 40 ---------40 to 50.

Over 50 ----------
5
9
30
17
23
14
98
.-----------------
NOTE.-Federal narcotic agents assisted in 10 of the above arrests.
Submitted below are the figures on arrests pertaining to narcotics from January
1, 1955 to October 1, 1955:
97
Total arrests ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------court
Cases filed in State
1
Cases filed in Federal court ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Totai cases filed
8
Cases filed involving marihuana ------------------------------------Cases filed involving heroin -----4
3
Cases filed involving morphine ---------------------------------1
Cases filed involving codeine ---------------------------------------1
Cases filed involving barbiturates --------------------------------
3203
Submitted below is information concerning cases filed in State court in 1955

and disposition of same:
Name
Age
Sex
Roosevelt Cornelius----Fred Douglas Davis----Thomas Griffith --------Edw. Lee Hooker --------
26
21
37
31
M
M
M
M
Marie Hooker ---------Wilbur Jay Hunt .-------
25
36
F
M
Clyde Jackson ---------Edw. Earl Kenney ------
43
55
M
M
Win. E. MeLemore-......
27
James Martin ----------
56
Geo. R. Murchinson ..
Luther D. Reed ---------
63
24
M
M
Benny Ervin Smith

Robt. Shelton Simmons.
24
32
M
M
Bobby Teal ------------
22
Race
Charges filed
Date
Sept.
Possession of narcotics
N
Possession of marihuana- Aug.
N
July
W ----- do ----------------N
Illegal possession of nar- Apr.
cotics.
N ----- do --------------- do
W
Illegal possession of mar- Sept.
ihuana.
Feb.
N ----- do ----------------Illegal sale of barbitur- Feb.
W
ates.
W
Illegal possession of nar- Mar.
cotics.
N
Illegal possession of mar- May
ihuana.
W
Illegal sale of narcotics_
July
N
Illegal possession of mar- July
ihuana.
N ----- do ----------------Mar.
N
Illegal posse&qion of nar- July
cotics.
W
Illegal possession of mar- Feb.
ihuana.
-
Disposition
25, 1955
14,1955
31,1955
6, 1955
Pending.
Do.
Do.
No billed.
2, 1955
Pending.
26, 1955
18,1955
Do.
Do.
5, 1955
18, 1955
Discharged
hospital.
Pending.
11, 1955
9, 1955
No billed.
5 years.
16,1955
27, 1955
2 years.
Pending.
13, 1955
Dismissed.
to
Submitted below is information concerning cases filed in Federal court during

1955 and disposition of same:
Name
Age
Sex
Race
James T. Elliott ---------
58
Thos. Richard Mooxe
47
---
Charges filed
Illegal possession of narcotics.

W ----- do --------------
Date
Disposition
Feb.
5. 1955
Pending.
Oct.
1, 1955
5 years.
Statistics on cases filed in State and Federal courts during the year of 1955:
Total white males ------------------------------------------------8
Total white females ----------------------------------------------0
Total Negro males -----------------------------------------------8
Total Negro females ----------------------------------------------1
Total Mexican males---------------------------------------------0
Total Mexican females0
Statistics on age groups of defendants in cases filed in State and Federal court
during the year of 1955:
Under 20 -------------------------------------------------------0
20 to 25 --------------------------------------------------------4
25 to 30 --------------------------------------------------------3
30 to 40 --------------------------------------------------------4
40 to 50 --------------------------------------------------------2
Over 50 --------------------------------------------------------4
Submitted below is the total number of arrests from January 1, 1955, to October
1, 1955, including defendants in cases filed and also those arrested for investigation
of narcotics:
Race
White
-----------------------------------
Neo ...-------------------------------------------
------------------------------Negro ------------------------------------------------Mexican
--------------------------------Mexican --------------------------------------------Total
Sel
Number
of
arrests
Average age of arrests
Males .....
57
Under 20-------
Males --------Females ------Males --------Females -------
34
2
0
0
25 to 30 -.--------30 to 40 -------40 to 50 --------Over 50---------
Females -------
-----------------------------------------------
NOTE.-Federal narcotic agents assisted In four of the above arrests.
97
20 to 25 ---------
16
18
23
24
14
97
3204
Until March 1954, two Federal narcotic agents were stationed in Fort Worth.
Although we receive 100-percent cooperation from Federal Narcotic Bureau in
Dallas, the removal of these two agents formerly stationed in Fort Worth has
worked a severe handicap on the police department of the city of Fort Worth.
The city of Fort Worth is in a unique position since 1 of the 2 Federal
narcotic hospitals in the United States (where addicts may volunteer as patients)
is located here. There is a steady stream of addicts to and from this hospital.
These volunteer patients may leave this hospital at any time. There are minerous addicts who come to Fort Worth to enter this hospital, and while waiting
to enter, must obtain narcotics in any way possible. Our city narcotic officers
are not permitted to obtain records from the United States Public Health hospital
regarding volunteer patients. We attribute a major percentage of our burglaries
wherein narcotics are obtained to these patients who have left the hospital against
medical advice or who are awaiting admittance.
During 1954 there were 14 burglaries wherein narcotics were obtained. To
date during 1955 there have been 5 burglaries wherein narcotics were obtained.
During 1954 the total number of burglaries amounted to a total of 2,196. To
date during 1955 we have had a total of 1,682 burglaries.
Our records fail to reveal that there is any evidence of a tie-in between prostitution and narcotic traffic in Fort Worth other than that prostitutes are a fertile
field for narcotics and any other type of violation.
Informants have told our city narcotic officers that the major portion of narcotics
are obtained from wholesalers who live outside of Fort Worth and Tarrant County.
Recommendations for more efficient handling of narcotics cases in Fort Worth
and Tarrant County:
1. Reopen the Federal narcotics office and assign resident agents to Fort
Worth. This is needed because:
(a) The Federal agents boundaries are unlimited.
(b) The location of the United States Public Health hospital is located in
Forth Worth.
(c) The metropolitan area has approximately one-half million population.
(d) The Federal and local officers would have closer cooperation because
they could compile joint information and discuss course of action taken in
each particular case.
(e) The Federal narcotics officers have more money available to make
"buys."
(f) Federal officers could adopt cases which are now filed in the overloaded
State court.
(g) The low city budget limits the number of full-time city narcotic officers
to two.
2. Stricter regulations pertaining to the issuance of narcotic permits and the
handling of narcotics.
(a) It is recommended that the class 5 permit be limited to a drug store
where a regular pharmacist is employed.
(b) Stricter regulations pertaining to the sale of exempt narcotics for
addiction purposes (paragoric, elixir of terpin hydrate, and codeine).
(c) Require all persons dispensing narcotics to keep records of narcotics
administered by them in their office.
3. Amend the rules regarding the giving of information of addicted patients in
the United States Public Health hospital to officers.
(a) Records of volunteer patients in the hospital should be available to
all local officers.
(b) Names and information regarding patients leaving the hospital against
medical advice.
(c) Stricter regulations on patients leaving the hospital against medical
advice.
4. Speed up prosecution of narcotics cases filed in State court.
(a) This is necessary to prevent losing contact with State witnesses.
(b) This will prevent informers from disappearing and attempting to back
out before the case is brought to trial.
(c) Speedier analysis of evidence. This evidence must now be sent to
Austin for analysis and the experts making said analysis must be available
to testify at the trial of the case.
(d) Thorough discussion of all narcotics cases between the prosecutor and
witnesses in all cases prior to the trial.
5. Relaxing of rules of the Federal court regarding the adoption of narcotics
cases originating by city and State officers.
3205
(a) Reduce the amount of evidence required to file a Federal case.

(b) Relaxing rules requiring warrant of arrest in order to file a Federal case.
Respectfully submiitted.
CATO S. HIGHTOWER,
Chief of Police.
The next witness, Sheriff Harlon Wright.
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help voU God?
Mr.
WRIGHT.
I do.

Mr. WRIGHT. May I pass these to the committee, sir?
(Sheriff Wright handed members of the committee a prepared
statement.)
TESTIMONY OF HARLON WRIGHT, SHERIFF, TARRANT COUNTY,
TEX.
MJr. WRIGHT. Harlon Wright.

Mr. WRIGHT. Sheriff of Tarrant, County, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been sheriff of Tarrant
County?
Mr. WRIGHT. About 3 years this past September.
Senator DANIEL. Before that, were you in law-enforcement work?
Mr. WRIGHT. No, sir; I was not.
Senator DANIEL. During this 3 years, Sheriff, have you had occasion to look into the narcotics problem here in Tarrant County?
Sheriff WRIGHT. Not too awful well. We have a small force that
we work very close with the city police department, if any narcotics
turns up in the county. We have had one case that we apprehended
and caught the person with, I believe it was two capsules of heroin,
and that party, that character is serving time in the penitentiary
today.
Senator DANIEL. Now, most of your narcotics cases ini the county
are within the city, is that right?
Mr. WRIGHT. That's correct, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And therefore you do not have occasion to work

with the traffic, or have as many cases as the city officers would have?
'Mr. WRIGHT. No, sir; I do not.
Senator DANIEL. But do you cooperate with them and have good
cooperation between them and your office?
Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir; very good cooperation. If we get on a
case in the county, we go to the city police department to get help.
Senator DANIEL. What about the cooperation with the Federal
agencies?
Mr. WRIGHT. The cooperation with the Federal narcotic agents is
very good.
Senator DANIEL. Do you agree with the chief that we ought to
have a Federal Bureau of Narcotics agent stationed here, as we used
to have?
Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, your honor; I think a population, a city or a
county of the population that we have here, of approximately 500,000
people, as estimated by our chamber of commerce, that we should
3206
have by all means a Federal narcotic agent stationed here in Fort

Worth. That certainly leaves the dope addicts and the dope pushers
and wholesalers and anyone dealing in narcotics of any kind knowing
that we don't have one here, or a State office setup, and knowing
that the police department is limited in personnel and the sheriff's
office is limited in personnel, certainly gives them a haven to house
up right here and work out of Tarrant County.
Senator DANIEL. Do you consider that the drug traffic is a serious
problem in the county?

Mr. WRIGHT.
Senator, if you have any drug traffic at all, it is serious.
To me that is one of the most serious crimes that a person can get
involved with, narcotics using and addiction or peddling it, or what
have you. It is serious; it is very serious.
Senator DANIEL. Do you feel that a considerable part of all the
crime in the county is attributable to narcotic addiction or narcotics
traffic?
Mr. WRIGHT. You say all of the crime?
Senator DANIEL. No; any considerable portion.
Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir; I do. I figure that approximately 50 per-
cent of all the crime is attributed to narcotics in some way or the

other. Now, actually, breaking that down, I'd say 5 percent for
their motive of actually obtaining narcotics for their own use, or to
sell, is about 5 percent of ourSenator DANIEL. Total crime?
Mr. WRIGHT. No, sir; that 5 percent would be drugstore burglaries.
Mr. WRIGHT. Or prescription laboratories, or things like that, that
have a good supply of narcotics.

Senator DANIEL. Well, what are the other crimes that the narcotic
addicts commit?
Mr. WRIGHT. Well, shoplifting is, and burglary of business houses
such as drygoo(ds stores, hardware stores, taking merchandise that

they can sell and get rid of pretty easily, to get money to keep up
their habit.
Senator DANIEL. Hijacking, too?
Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. I think we could class that in there with it.
Senator DANIEL. What percentage would you estimate, from your
experience, of your burglaries would be caused by addicts trying to

get money for drugs and trying to get the drugs?
Mr. WRIGHT. Well, I would say 50 percent, Senator.
Senator DANIEL. And on shoplifting?
Mr. WRIGHT. Well, that runs-that would run ahigh percent, toDANIEL. Probably higher than 50 percent?
WRIGHT. Well, I would think so; yes, sir.
Senator
Mr.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever stopped to estimate how much
the drug traffic here in Tarrant County might be costing the people
of this county, by way of these burglaries and robberies, shoplifting,
and so forth?
Mr. WRIGHT. No, Senator; I haven't. The percentage would run
high, though; I mean it would
Senator DANIEL. Run into considerable money?
Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. Yes, sir; it would.
Senator DANIEL. Because an addict has to steal property worth a
lot more than the actual money cost of his heroin?
3207
Mr. WRIGHT. That's right.
DANIEL. Or morphine; doesn't he?

Mr. WRIGHT. That's right, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Because he has to go and
Senator
fence that property off,

and he sells it, naturally, for less than what it is really worth?
Mr. WRIGHT. That's correct, sir. You take a dope addict with a
habit of $50 a day, well, anyone can see right quick how much they
gave got to steal and to fence, I mean sell that stolen merchandise;
it has got to run up there pretty high.
Senator DANIEL. Now, sheriff, you have a prepared statement, and
we will make all of your statement a part of the record, but I would
like for you to emphasize any particular points that you would like
to call to our attention, so that we might ask you a few questions
based on your statement.
(The statement of Harlon Wright, sheriff, Tarrant County, Tex.,
follows:)
Hon. PRICE DANIEL AND MEMBERS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE
OF NARCOTICS
GENTLEMEN: At the request of this honorable committee I submit the following
facts and recommendations that I feel are needed in Tan ant County in regard
to the narcotic problem.
I would like to start by stating that Tarrant County has a population in excess
of 500,000, and that 85 percent of this population is located within the corporate
city limits of Greater Fort Worth. Our next largest city is Arlington, Tex., and
Arlington and the balance of Tarrant County make up the remaining 15 percent
of our population.
Since taking office some 3 years ago I have increased my patrol cars from 1 to 4
cars, which is an increase of 300 percent, and patrol personnel from 2 to 13. These
cars have the responsibility of covering all of Tarrant County. Assigned to
my staff are four criminal investigators, the main position of their time is spent
in the investigation of the numerous crimes that normally occur in a county
of this size. These men work around the clock; therefore, it becomes necessary
for complete cooperation between my office and the city of Fort Worth police
department-the city of Fort Worth having two men assigned exclusively to the
narcotic detail.
The personnel of the Fort Worth Police Department is in excess of 425 members.
My staff has only 61 members. This figure includes all jail personnel, process
servers and bailiffs; thereby making it impossible, due to the lack of personnel,
to assign a narcotic investigator to my staff.
By way of statistics there have been 42 narcotic cases filed in Tarrant County
within the last 2 years. This figure includes both city and county filings. Of the
above figure, my office assisted in a fair percentage of these cases; however, my
department filed only two cases. Of these 42 cases filed, there were 35 convictions
(these convictions were under the old law and suspended sentences given in many
cases).
The percent of crimes committed in our county motivated for narcotics is
somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 percent. This 5 percent includes breaking
and entering of safes of medical laboratories and drugstores.
By way of comparison, our narcotic juvenile problem is rather negligible, consisting mostly of young Negro boys who have smoked a marihuana cigarette.
There are 17 officers assigned in the city of Fort Worth who are assigned to the
juvenile youth division. These officers funnel their youthful offenders to the
juvenile probation office in Tarrant County which is composed of only four
investigators.
The repetition of experienced narcotic users in connection with crimes that
they will commit time and time again for narcotics in connection with narcotics
is around 50 percent.
The easiest known narcotic to obtain in Tarrant County is the exempt preparation paregoric. Perhaps the best single way of preventing the widespread use
of narcotics is to stop the sale of paregoric to unauthorized dispensers. By this
is meant that only drugstores that have licensed registered pharmacists on duty
at all times and who are licensed in dispensing preparations containing narcotics.
3208
This would keep the small drug departments in stores which do not sell prescrip.
tions, but merely sundry drugs from having any form of narcotic in their respective
places of business.
CONCLUSION
As stated above the lack of personnel both in my office and in the police department and the nature of the narcotic user by virtue of his craving and cunning,
necessitates the need for trained narcotic investigators, especially men to work
under cover, for th- following reasons. It is necessary that in order to sustain
a conviction that the evidence obtained in a narcotic case be of such nature
that the person making the sale and the prospective purchaser be unknown to each
other in order that there will be confidence between these two so that there can
be not only a direct sale but an exchange of money or some other consideration
to show that there has actually been a sale.
Among experienced narcotic users the local law enforcement officers who are
dealing with this problem are well known to these agents and pushers, and it
therefore becomes necessary that undercover men are constantly changing locations to make these purchases and prepare cases for trial. On a great majority
of these occasions vast sums of money are needed to make these purchases of
narcotic drugs. This office regrets, and I am sure I might speak for the city police
department, to say that these funds are unavailable for us to use in such a manner.
Texas being a bordering State to a foreign country and so easily accessible by
virtue of the narrow river between our two countries it is not too difficult for
dope smugglers to bring vast narcotics to and through texas and throughout the
States.
Tarrant County is the fourth largest county in the State of Texas and yet we
are without a Federal or State narcotic investigator within our boundaries. If it
is found by this honorable committee that the situation in Tarrant County is
not too serious in that we do not need Federal investigators, then this information
within itself could be a license to the smugglers to use Fort Worth as their headquarters, since it has been shown that there is a need in Houston, San Antonio, and
Dallas for such investigators.
I cannot urge too strongly the need for Federal and State narcotic agents to be
located in Tarrant County and that sufficient personnel and finances be available
so that we might deter any organized narcotic group from using Tarrant County
as its headquarters.
Since the main purpose of law enforcement is to suppress crime let us warn these
unscrupulous characters who deal with narcotics that our county will not be their
haven.
Respectively submitted.
HARLON WRIGHT,
Sheriff, Tarrant County.
Mr. WRIGHT. Well, Senator, the main thing that I would like to
recommend
Hightower,
emphasized
voluntarily
so easy for
to this committee, and it has been brought out by Chief

was voluntary commitment t, I think that law should be
some way to make it a little stronger, so that if the)- do
commit themselves to an institution, that it wouldn't be
them to walk away from the institution.
Senator DANIEL. You are talking, now, about the Federal narcotic
hospitals?
Mr. WRIGHT. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Located here?

Senator DANIEL. In Fort Worth?
Mr. WRIGHT. That's correct.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think, as he does, that that has caused
you an additional problem in the field of the narcotics traffic?
Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir; it has, I believe so.
Senator DANIEL. And you feel if some change were made concerning
voluntary patients, that it might remedy the situation, do you?

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir; I sure do. I believe it would. They know,
when they go olit there to the institution or hospital, that they call
3209
leave, that it is just-anybody that wants to break himself of the

habit bad enough will stay, and it takes that old will power that they
don't have; and I think it would work much better to make it a little
stronger in the law, even though they do volunteer themselves, it
wouldn't be so easy for them to walk away.
Senator DANIEL. Have you known of any of these addicts coming
in here for treatment who have committed crimes here in Fort Worth,
either on their way in, waiting for admission, or after they get out?
We can't seem to pinMr. WRIGHT. Nothing definite, Senator.
point it down, to have any evidence to stick any of them.
Senator DANIEL. I am speaking, now, about crimes other than getting heroin or some other type of drug, buying that or selling it.
Mr. WRIGHT. No, sir; not at the time, I don't believe that we could
bring any one particular case that could
Senator DANIEL. Now, I note that you say in your statement that,
the easiest known narcotic to obtain in Tarrant County is the exempt
preparation, paregoric. Will you develop that a little for us?
Mr. WRIGHT. Senator, that was brought out by our Chief. That
the drugstores, the sundry drugstores that do not have to have a registered pharmacist, that has the privilege of handling paregoric, it makes
it so much-very easy for a person that is just a paregoric addict to
just go in and buy it and sign their name or somebody else's name in a
little ledger book they can buy at the 5- and 10-cent store, is about
the only record kept of it; and if that law was a little bit stricter, I
think it would help our narcotic situation considerably.
Senator DANIEL. Is there a lot of this going on in Tarrant County?
Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir; there is quite a bit of it going on.
Senator DANIEL. And is that leading.some people into worse drugs,
heroin and other drugs?
Mr. WRIGHT. Naturally, I think a person on narcotics of any kind
could start out on paregoric, and they will crave something a little
bit stronger, and that just leads right on and right on. Of course, I
have been informed that marijuana is not-you can't be addicted to
it. I don't know, myself, personally, but if they take here a cigarette,
yesterday a cigarette, and then finally they will have to have something stronger than that, that is my personal opinion on it.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you feel like, anyway, that this paregoric
problem itself is one of your worst here in the county?
Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir; I sure do, Senator, sure do.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you feel that you have enough personnel in
your office to look after the narcotics problem in the county?

Mr. WRIGHT. No, sir; I do not.
What about the chief, Chief Hightower?
Do you
think that he has sufficient personnel, with two full-time narcotic

men?
Mr. WRIGHT. No, sir; he does not.
Senator
DANIEL.
And you have already said you think the Federal
officers are short-handed?
Mr.
WRIGHT.
They are.
They are short-handed.
I think, my
Personal opinion is that the Federal narcotics officers are short-handed.

Senator DANIEL. In addition to increasing our personnel for handling of narcotics cases, what else do you think that we can do in
any of our agencies of government, either at the State level or at the
Federal level, to help lick this problem?
3210
Well, I think we could lick the traffic problem much

better, do a much better job than we are doing now, if all agencies
had more personnel whereby they could move them around to different
parts of the State and different parts of the United States, and where
the addicts themselves, or the pushers, wouldn't be-know them too
well, after they had been stationed in a place so long, and that it
was where you could move them around, and had the personnel.
There is one thing about in breaking-in getting evidence in a
narcotic case, it takes money to do that; you have got to make buys,
I mean sure enough to have a good case, where you can go to court
and convict them. That is one thing, though, that I can say, that
the Federal Government has always supplied money enough to their
narcotic agents to make these buys. That costs a lot of money, to
do that.
Senator DANIEL. Sheriff, one of the reasons that we came to Fort
Worth for this day's hearing was not only because Fort Worth is in
the top 45 cities in narcotics arrests and convictions, but also because
of the location of the Federal narcotics hospital here, and the information that we had been receiving that the hospital was contributing
to your problem here in Fort Worth. I am particularly interested in
whether or not you have any further recommendations to make to us
concerning laws that we should pass with relation to this Federal
narcotics hospital and its patients. Have you about covered that?
Mr. WRIGHT.
Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. If you think of anything else before we make our

recommendations to Congress in January, we would appreciate hearing
from you, because we do see that you have a problem and the hospital
has a problem.
Mr. WRIGHT.
That's right, sir.
Senator DANIEL. The taxpayers also have a problem. Frankly, I

think these voluntary patients who go in and can leave any minute
they want to leave, are just burdening down otherwise useful hospital
facilities.
Mr. WRIGHT. I
agree with you, sir. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. They ought to come in under some kind of a law

or arrangement where they have to stay until the doctor is ready to
let them leave. Otherwise, I think that they shouldn't be admitted.
Mr. Counsel, do you have any questions?
Mr. GASQUE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Now, Sheriff, what would you think of establishing in Texas a pool
of narcotics investigators, with the Federal Government furnishing
2 or 3 men, or whatever number is required, the State furnishing 2 or
3 or 4 men, and ths counties and the cities furnishing 2 or 3 or 4 men,
in order that they can be shifted around the State, and avoid this
problem of identity, and serve as effective undercover agents?
Mr. WRIGHT. I think that would be a wonderful plan.
Mr. GASQUE. Would you be willing to contribute to that?
Mr. WRIGHT. What do you mean by contribute? Personnel?
Mr. GASQUE. By contributing, say, a man, yes.
Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, I would be glad-I could do that.
Mr. GASQUE. And in return, you might get a man from Houston
up here, who could serve as undercover agent, and after a person is
known, he could move on to some other city, and you could get a man
from another county, and your man would be moving around at the
same time, doing undercover work.
3211
If that plan could be worked out, I think it would

be a wonderful plan, and I will make this statement, to furnish the
pool one man.
Mr. GASQuE. Thankyou, Senator.
Senator DANIEL. Well, we have found that undercover agents can
really do a job. In Philadelphia this year already over 340 narcotics
pushers have been arrested and 240 some odd have been convicted.
just the other day they made their third raid of the year, and arrested
over a hundred more, and they are having speedy trials. Most of
the defendants are pleading guilty, because these undercover men have
the goods on them so clearly. They had enough undercover men to
get several buys from them, and they seem to really be cleaning them
all up in Philadelphia. So the counsel's suggestion might be something for you to think about there.
Mr. WRIGHT. I think it is a wonderful idea, I sure do.
Mr. WRIGHT.
Mr. SPEER.
I just wonder if you have had any trouble with the
addicts in your jail?

Mr. WRIGHT. No, I haven't, Mr. Speer.
Mr. SPEER.
I was thinking about San Antonio, where a narcotic
addict there led a riot, Jose Escobado led a riot in the county jail
there, and also he had led a riot when he was in Cook County jail,
lending further support to the fact that these people are dangerous
law violators.
Mr. VRIGHT. No, sir, we haven't had that trouble.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, you have had violent crimes here, and
that is the other, second reason that we are particularly interested in

this hearing in Fort Worth, because of the fact that this county has
evidence that some of those who have been involved in these unsolved
murders, safe crackings, and burglaries have been users of narcotics;
and you have found that to be true, have you not, Sheriff?
WRIGHT. That's correct.
Senator DANIEL. You know, this committee was interested in developing the evidence which we developed in Dallas the last 2 days,
and which we expect to supplement here today on some of these
violent crimes being committed by narcotics users.
Now, we had heard that some of these worst gangsters and hoodlums that our State has ever known actually used heroin, and they
used it at times to sort of quiet their nerves. I think we already
have enough in this record to show that some users of heroin and
morphine commit very violent crimes. And that has been your
experience, has it not?
Senator DANIEL. Without any personal knowledge of your own as
to who might be users, I will ask you if, in the underworld here in
Fort Worth, you have heard that some of those engaged in violent
crimes have been users of drugs?
Mr. WRIGHT. Well, we have heard that, through the-just through
the underworld, the grapevine, as we refer to it, in talking among
ourselves, not actual evidence where we could prove it or anything
like that.
Senator DANIEL. But you have heard that people such as Tincey
Eggleston used dope?
Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir, we have heard that.
Mr.
7 5 15-56-pt.
7-55
3212
Senator
DANIEL. And who are some

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Who were the ones
of the others?
Cecil Green?
involved in this Clark murder
here this year?

Mr. WRIGHT. Well,
it was Tincey Eggleston, Cecil Green, and
Harry Huggins.
However, I didn't work on that case none whatsoever. It was in
the city limits, and the city police department and our criminal
departments that worked that case up. I worked on it none whatsoever.
Senator DANIEL. All right; we will ask them about those cases.
But you have, through different grapevines in the underworld, understood that some of these characters who committed violent crimes
here in Tarrant County were users of various types of drugs?
Mr. WRIGHT. That's correct, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, Sheriff, we thank you very much for appearing before us, and be sure to send us any other recommendations
you might have.
Harry Wood.
Mr. Wood, you may come right over here. Will you stand and be
sworn, please, sir?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.
TESTIMONY OF HARRY WOOD

DANIEL. What is your
Mr. WOOD. Harry Wood, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Where do you
Senator
full name?
live?
Mr. WooD. 1 live in the Mayfair Hotel, at 1115/ Main Street.
Senator DANIEL. Here in Fort Worth?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. That address is 1115% Main Street?
Mr. WOOD. Main Street, that's right.
DANIEL. At
WOOD. Mayfair
Senator
what hotel?
Hotel.
Mr.
Senator DANIEL. And what business are you engaged in?
Mr. WOOD. Well, I am an entertainer, I-a musician.
Senator DANIEL. Musician?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And entertainer?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been in the entertainlmelnt
field?
Mr. WOOD.
About 25 years.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Mr. Wood, I believe you have had the
unfortunate experience of having been addicted to drugs?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir; I was.
Senator
DANIEL.
What type of drugs?
Mr. WOOD. I used morphine and heroin, and I smoked opium.

Senator DANIEL. Have you also smoked marihuana?
Mr. WooD. I did when I was a youngster; yes, sir.
Senator
huana?
DANIEL.
3213
What type of drug did you first start on, mari-
Mr. WooD. Marihuana; yes, sir.
DANIEL. And where was this?

Mr. WOOD. That was in San Francisco.
Senator DANIEL. At what age?
Mr. WOOD. I was about 16, 17.
Senator
Senator DANIEL. And were you in school at the time?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Were quite a few of your associates using marihuana?
Mr. WOOD. Not too many of them, just-yes; there was a few boys
that we used to go out and play, and we would smoke marihuana.
Thought it was a smart thing to do. It wasn't, but we thought that.
Senator DANIEL. Now, when did you start smoking opium, how
long after you started marihuana?
Mr. WOOD. About-after I got through with school, about 20 years
old, I guess I was.
Senator DANIEL. About how old were you?
Mr. WOOD. I was about 20 or 21, when I first started smoking.

Senator DANIEL. Were you playing in an orchestra?
Mr. WooD. Yes, sir; then. Just a little school band; just a little
pickup band, at that time.
Senator DANIEL. What do you play, now?
Mr. WOOD. Piano.
Senator
opium?
DANIEL.
Now, about how many years did you smoke
Mr. WOOD. About 7 or 8 years.
Senator DANIEL. Did many musicians use opium at that time?

Mr. WOOD. No, sir; not opium. They-well, marihuana seems
to have an effect on you, that you-to me it does; I don't know how it
does other people, but it seemed like I could play better, or I imagined
I could, and I know now better, but at that time I thought it helped
me play.
Senator DANIEL. You say you know now better?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. That the use of marihuana does not help you
play any better music?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. But back there when you were youngMr. WOOD. I thought I was smart.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. WOOD. Yes.
Senator DANIEL.
You thought you were smart?

Well, now, did quite a few of the musicians that
you knew use marihuana?

Mr. WOOD. Not too many of them, sir, not that I knew of.
Senator DANIEL. How about smoking opium, did you feel that that
made you play better or worse?
Mr. WOOD. Well, when you smoke opium, you just-it just seems
like-the way I can explain it, it would seem like if you smoked
Opium, you-you just didn't care.
I mean, you know, everything was pleasant, I mean at first, when

you first get to smoking it, you seem like nothing bothers you. Then
after you are once addicted to it, then you have to keep smoking it to
keep going.
3214
Senator

DANIEL.
And can you do good work?
Mr. WooD. No, sir.
In your field of music?

Mr. WOOD. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You say that you cannot do proper work in your
entertainment field?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. WooD. No, sir; you can't.
Senator DANIEL. Can a person smoking opium or using any of the

opiate derivities actually do their work right in any kind of field?
Mr. WooD. Not when they are under the influence of narcotics;
no. It just keeps them going; after they are once addicted, they can't
keep going then, and if they don't get it, they can't do nothing.
But with it, it only makes them normal, after they once get addicted
to the drug, it only makes them normal.
Senator DANIEL. You say that after they once get addicted to it,
it only makes them normal?
Mr. WooD. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. But actually, if they are a drug addict, they are
not in a position to do a good job in the music field, are they?
Mr. WOOD. No, sir; nothing.
Senator
DANIEL.
Or any other field?
Mr. WOOD. No, sir.
Dope wrecks them.
Senator
DANIEL. Sir?
Mr. WOOD. Dope ruins anyone.
Senator DANIEL. And your advice,
after having had the experience

with it for many years, is that dope ruins anyone?
Mr. WOOD. That's right. I don't care who you are, it will ruin
you; anyone.
Senator DANIEL. Did you play in most of the entertainment spots
in California?
Mr. WooD. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What about over the rest of the country?
Mr. WooD. China, and I mean in the-2 or 3 places over there I

played at, and then I came back to this country, and I've played all
my life; that is, when I wasn't in prison.
Senator DANIEL. Did you also write some music?
Mr. WooD. Yes, sir; years ago.
Senator DANIEL. Any particular songs that come to your mind?

Mr. WooD. Do I have to answer that? I would rather not.
Senator DANIEL. Well, is there any particular reason?
Mr. WooD. Yes, sir. I got some folks, and I think a little of them;
I don't want even this to be known.
Senator DANIEL. You have written songs?
Mr. WooD. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Popular songs?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir; years ago.
Senator DANIEL. In addition to your playing in orchestras?
Mr. WOOD. That's right, sir.
I am kind of blacklisted now, I guess, and I don't know what I Will

be after this.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I don't think that your being blackhsted
will come from this; you say you are already blacklisted among the
musicians?
Mr. WooD. Yes, I am, sir; among people--

DANIEL. And the song writers?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have any of them tried
Mr. WOOD. Many times.
Senator DANIEL. Many times?
3215
Senator
to help you?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You have also had to go and serve several sentences in prison?
Senator DANIEL. How many times were you sent to prison on account of your narcotics habit?
Mr. WOOD. Four times.
Senator DANIEL. Were you ever able to break the habit?

Mr. WOOD. I broke it, and then I-I would get out of prison, and
then I would make, well, I just didn't seem right, I didn't seem normal
or something. Then I would get to drinking, and I would think, well,
I would just drink, and I would drink, and that is the worst thing an
addict can do if he is trying to fight the drug.
They think if they drink, that will help them. It don't; it just
puts them back right where they started from. But I don't know;
I was foolish enough to do it.
Senator DANIEL. One time you had an 8-year sentence, didn't you?
Senator DANIEL. And after getting out from that 8-year sentence,
you went back to the drug?
Mr. WooD. After about 3 years I did. I got to drinking and having
a good time, and like I told you, I thought it was a smart thing-at
that time I didn't know how deadly it was.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Wood, you know the reason we asked you
if you would be willing to come here
Mr. WooD. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Was so that the testimony yo, give might help
some young person keep from making the mistake you did.
Mr. WOOD. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. And you have voluntarily come before us to give

us this information?
Mr. WooD. Yes, sir.

Mr. WooD. That's true. There's boys and girls right now that, a
lot of times they have asked me, "Get me this; I want to get high."
And I-I could prove, if you only had them up here, I could prove
that I talked to them 15 or 20 minutes, of my own time, during interaission, telling them what it did to me, why the heck did they want
to do it, they were crazy. And some of them were just joking, you
know, butSenator DANIEL. Your advice to any boy or man would be never
to touch that type of drug?
Mr. WOOD. N one whatsoever.
Senator DANIEL. Marihuana?
Senator
DANIEL.
You have tried marihuana?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.

Senator
DANIEL.
Opium?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.
3216
Senator

DANIEL.
For several years?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.

Mr. WooD. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How long were you addicted to heroin?
Mr. WOOD. Off and on for 20 years.
Senator DANIEL. Is that the worst of all drugs?
Mr. WOOD. I would say-no, I think marihuana is, because maria.
huana-morphine and heroin, you never heard it, maybe you have
heard it, but you won't find very many addicts that use heroin or
morphine ever burglarize a place where there are women and children,
or ever commits a crime against a woman, or anything like that.
Marihuana is the other way; marihuana they will.
Senator DANIEL. Now, you
Mr. WooD. Now, I mean marihuana doesn't kill your passions.

Opiates do, and a man has no business-doesn't even think about a
woman or anything like that, under the influence of narcotics, that
is, opium, derivatives of opium; they don't have any passion. If I
can speak plain, that's what I mean.
Senator DANIEL. Yes. What you meanMr. WooD. And marihuana is the other way.
Senator DANIEL. What yoa mean is that you think marihuana is

worse as far as sex crimes?
Senator
cerned?
DANIEL.
Where crimes on women and children are con-
Mr. WooD. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Because a person smoking marihuana will do all

of those types of crimes?
But a
Senator DANIEL. But the person on heroin or morphine or an opiate

is not likely to commit sex crimes?
Mr. WOOD. That is right, sir. If you will investigate it, you will
find out I am right.
Senator DANIEL. Now, do you find, though, that people who are on
heroin and other opiates will commit other crimes, m order to keep
up their habits, such as stealing and burglaries?
Mr. WOOD. That's right. They have to.
Senator DANIEL. They have to?
Mr. WOOD. And the reason why they have to, once-if I was
working for you, and you find out I am an addict, you would fire
me, naturally. Well, then, if I am hooked on stuff, I have got to get
the money to get it; there is no other out but to steal.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever have to do that?
Mr. WOOD. I did at one time.
I don't now; no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I mean you did when you were on heroin?
Mr. WooD. Yes, sir; I did. I paid four different times, went to the
penitentiary for that.
Senator DANIEL. Did you go to the penitentiary all four times for
burglaries or thefts?
Mr. WooD. Thefts, narcotics.
Senator
DANIEL.
Thefts of narcotics?
3217
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Where did you get the narcotics?
Mr. WOOD. Drugstore.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you steal them from drugstores?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir; I sure did.
Senator DANIEL. A total of how many years have you spent in the
penitentiary on account of your drug habit?
Mr. WOOD. Oh, it was so long I can't even-I would have to figure
it out. It is actually on account of drugs; I never was in jail in my
life till I got on dope; I mean I never was put in prison excepting on
account of dope.
Senator DANIEL. In 1931, I believe that you went to prison for
about the second time, and that was at the Spadra Narcotic Farm?
Mr. WOOD. Spadra Narcotic Farm.
Senator
DANIEL.
S-p-a-d-r-a?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir; the State narcotic farm in California.
Senator
DANIEL.
I believe on that occasion you stole three
microscopes?
Mr. WOOD. That's right, sir. I don't know how you found that out,
but that's right.
Senator DANIEL. And you traded them for 5% grains of morphine?
Senator
DANIEL. While you

WOOD. That's right.
were at that farm, Spadra.
Mr.
Senator DANIEL. Was there a movie star committed also?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.
Mr. WOOD. Alma Reubens.
Senator DANIEL. Did you have some experience with her there at
the narcotic farm?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir. She got up on a water tower, and she got
full of cocaine, and I was the only one thatSenator DANIEL. You say she got full of cocaine?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. While at the narcotic farm?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir. But it wasn't theSenator DANIEL. How did she get the cocaine at the narcotic farm?
Mr. WOOD. It wasn't the officials' fault, but she got it.
Senator DANIEL. Who brought it in?
Mr. WOOD. I couldn't tell you, sir.
Senator
DANIEL. Wasn't it
WOOD. I couldn't say.
her chauffeur?
Mr.
I didn't know it, and I couldn't tell
you.
Senator DANIEL. Well, anyway, she got somebody to bring her an
ounce of cocaine while there on the farm, and what did she do?
Mr. WOOD. Well, she got what is called the bull horrors, that is
what they called it; she got scared, she got up on the tank, and I am
the only one who could bring her down.
Senator
DANIEL.
On a water tower?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir. They were afraid she would jump off, so the
doctors sent me up after her.
Senator DANIEL. The doctor was afraid she would jump off, and
sent you up for her?
Mr. WooD. Yes, sir.
3218
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. WOOD. Yes.
And you talked her into coming down?

I used to wait on her; I was a waiter in the place.
That's the program there; they give you a little job. So I was a
waiter, and the doctor told me to wait on her.
Senator DANIEL. In that instance, was that morphine or cocaine?
Mr. WOOD. Cocaine; almost caused this person to commit'sui~ide,
and it finally did kill her.

Senator DANIEL. Did kill Alma Reubens?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.
She got caught at Tijuana coming across
the line with some, and they put her in jail, and she was supposed to
have died with pneumonia, and that was what it was; she had so
much money she just got an overdose of that stuff, and it killed her.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know some of the famous people in the
movie business who have used narcotics?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir; Wallace Reid and them; all of you people
know that, I guess.

Senator DANIEL. Lila Leeds?
Mr. GASQUE. Wallace Reid.
Senator
Leeds.
DANIEL.
Yes; he said Wallace Reid.
And then I said Lila
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir; that's right.
Senator
DANIEL.
A young girl who had all kinds of chances?

Senator DANIEL. Until she got on dope?
Senator DANIEL. Of course, some of them have been arrested under

marihuana, and still seem to be doing all right in the movies, I am
sorry to say.
Mr. WOOD. Well, they used to could buy marihuana in the drugstore, called it India Cannabis, like aspirins at that time; and the
Government put a law against it, couldn't get it no more. So I
guess they started raising it then.
Senator DANIEL. We had a person who had become an addict in
New York, who came before the committee, who said if he could
help in any way, he wanted to do it; Barney Ross.
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.
Senator
world.
DANIEL.
Former welterweight boxing champion of the
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And he gave us the story as to how he became

addicted, and what a terrible thing it was.
Mr. WooD. It is terrible.
Senator DANIEL. I think it helped a lot.
He had the idea we

ought to recommend a death penalty for anybody who would start
a person off with their initial shot of heroin, or anybody who would
smuggle drugs into this country. Not a death penalty, you understand, in every case, but a maximum would be the death penalty.
In other words, he felt it might be a threat over the heads of those
who have been commtting these crimes.
Mr. WooD. Yes, sir.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL. What
WOOD. I think this
do you think about that?
way: I wouldn't want to advocate a death
penalty; a death penalty is awful, I don't believe in capital punish-
3219
meant. But I do, if someone would take my daughter or son, my

loved ones, and get them on it, I would carry out the death penalty
myself, if I possibly could get away with it.
Senator DANIEL. If you possibly could get away with it?
Mr. WOOD. That's the way I would feel.
Senator DANIEL. You would carry out the death penalty yourself?
Mr. WooD. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. If someone started your daughter or son on
narcotic drugs?
Mr. WOOD. That's right, even if I had to pay the penalty.
Senator DANIEL. I don't suppose, then, you would mind the State
or Federal Government doing it?
Mr. WOOD. No. I won't advocate that, though.
Senator DANIEL. You won't advocate that to the committee?
Mr. WooD. No; but I am just telling you my own personal feeling.
Anyone that would get anyone on that stuff-I don't know what to
say about it. It ruined my whole life. I mean I did it myself, nobody
did it but myself. I never harmed nobody excepting myself.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you say you did it all yourself?
Mr. WOOD. I did.
Senator DANIEL. Actually, didn't you get in association, as a young
boy, with boys using marihuana?
Mr. WooD. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. WooD. Yes,
Senator DANIEL.
And then opium?

sir.
But they didn't twist my arm to take it.
They didn't twist your arm to take it, but if

some of your friends and associates hadn't been using it, it may be
you wouldn't have known about it?
Senator DANIEL. Do you agree that addicts spread their addiction
like a disease to their friends and associates?
Mr. WOOD. I don't think, actually, old time addicts do it, because
they know their life is ruined. I don't think the oldtime addicts will
get anyone on it. I think it is the men that are not on it; actually,
they are the ones that get you on it.
Senator DANIEL. You mean someone wanting to sell it would?
When a man has ruined his life, he
hasn't got the nerve or heart to get some other person, to ruin their
life.
Senator DANIEL. On the other hand, friends and associates got
you started, didn't they?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir. I mean I just thought I was smart; I was
a young kid, and didn't know more better.
Senator DANIEL. And today we hear on every hand that there axe
addicts who are spreading the disease through members of their
families. In New York, we had three young people before us; one
a young man 23 years of age, who started on heroin, talked his wife
into using it while she was pregnant-she came before us with a baby
in her arms-she is 20 years old, and she spread it on to her 17-yearold brother. All three of them sat before us and told us their story.
So you see, there are many instances like that.
Senator DANIEL. And you have heard of them, haven't you?
3220
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir; I have.
But it is so terrible, it is unbelievable

to me, with as much experience as I have had, it is unbelievable why
they would do that. I don't know what it is.
But you must have heard of the poem that De Quincey wrote:
"You won't go down with a hard, hard fall,
You will just sort of shuffle along.
It will weaken your load with the moral code
And you won't know right from wrong."
That's the most truest thing that was ever put, that you go along
till you don't know right from wrong.
Senator DANIFL. Well, I hope the reporter will get it all down, so
the record will show it.
Senator DANIEL. NOW, the author of the poem you quoted for the
record here, you said you thought that when he wrote that, he must
have been on the drug, a while ago?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir; he sure did.
De Quincey in England.
Senator DANIEL. Now, I believe that while you were serving in

Folsom Prison for 8 years, that actually narcotic drugs were being
slipped into the prison, were they?
Mr. WooD. I might have told them-I wouldn't want to say that,
sir. I don't know that. I don't-actually, I didn't look for it in

there; I had a good job and I had a good record, and I didn't look for
drugs in there, although I have had shots in there, but where they
came from I don't know, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, we won't ask you to tell us where they
came from. There was narcotics available?
Mr. WOOD. Oh, yes. There is in any prison, I suppose.
Senator DANIEL. In Folsom Prison; right?
Mr. WOOD. Yes. There probably is in every prison.
Senator
DANIEL.
They were probably smuggled in?
Mr. WOOD. Probably was, but I couldn't say.

Senator DANIEL. That also was true of the Spadra Narcotic Farm,
at least Alma Reubens got some in there?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, I suppose so, sir. But when you don't see a thing,
you can't say it happened.
Senator
DANIEL.
How about the San Quentin prison, when you
were there?
Mr. WOOD. Well, you know that they did have a big scandal in
San Quentin at one time; I mean they had plenty of drugs in there
at one time; it was in all the papers, and they stopped it.
It's just like the counterfeit money they had in there. They made
some of the best money that was ever turned out; you remember
reading about that. It was very good.
But as far as me actually knowing that, I actually don't, excepting
like you, I read about it. I was an inmate in San Quentin, and also
an inmate in Folsom Prison.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Wood, after you got out of San Quentin,
how long was it before you went back to heroin?
Mr. WOOD. About 3 years. I actually went to work-Mister,
Warden Duffle was a very good warden, one of the best that ever
came into the United States, I suppose. He was what you would call a
humanitarian.
3221
During the war, they couldn't get men to work, and he told them
that he would train men and send them to the shipyards. He did,
and I was one of those men.
That is why I got my parole out of there. He trained us to be
sheet-metal workers, sheet-metal men, to go to work at the shipyards
right across the bay, and he sent 200 of us over there.
Senator DANIEL. And you got a parole out of Folsom?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.
DANIEL. To work in sheet-metal
Mr. WOOD. No; out of San Quentin.
Senator DANIEL. San Quentin?
Senator
work over there?
Mr. WOOD. Warden Duffle, yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you keep the parole, or did you violate it?
Mr. WOOD. I violated it.
I made so much money, I had never made no money like that;

I got to drinking, and I couldn't keep on the job without drugs, and
I had a connection, and so I started using drugs again.
Senator DANIEL. Isn't it true that most addicts who are paroled go
back to drugs?
Mr. WooD. I can't say, sir.
I did.
Senator DANIEL. Have you seen friends do the same thing?

you seen others do the same thing?
Mr. WOOD. Oh, yes.
Have
I have met my old buddies back in the place,
you know, when I did go back in there, and they would be waiting
for me, and I would be the same way with them, sometimes I would
be waiting for them. That's the way-it was that way for years.
That's why I said I hate drugs.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever tried to take a cure at either of the
Federal hospitals?
Mr. WooD. Yes, sir, I did, and I went under voluntary treatment,
and one day I got disgusted, and somebody told me, "All you have to
do is go. You have got the keys in your pocket."
I said, "I know it."
"Well, why not go, if you don't like it?"
Well, I thought for 2 or 3 days and nights, and I thought of goingSenator DANIEL. And you left?
Mr. WooD. I left, but I stayed well. I was well; they cured me.
Senator DANIEL. What hospital did you go to?
Mr. WOOD. Out here to the Fort Worth hospital.
I had the finest
treatment I ever had in my life; why I left, I don't know.

beenSenator DANIEL. How long did you stay?
Must have
Mr. WOOD. Thirteen days.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't the doctor tell you that wasn't long enough
to do any good?
Mr. WOOD. They begged me, the doctor-I used to play the piano
for the doctors. They come in-they had some fine doctors-the
doctors and nurses used to come in, and I have even begged them for
my medicine, my 10 o'clock medicine, I would tell them I could play
better if they would give me my 10 o'clock medicine, and they would
say, "See how you can play without it."
Well, I would play, and then I would get my 10 o'clock medicine,
but I wouldn't get it until 10 o'clock. I had the finest treatment I
ever had in my life.
111111
3222
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. WOOD. Yes,
Senator DANIEL.
Mr.
WOOD.
Senator
I wanted to, but I-
DANIEL.
Mr. WooD.
They begged you to stay?

sir.
And you wouldn't stay beyond 13 days?
Why not?
That's a question I have asked myself. That's the $64
question, why I did not.

If I have another chance, I'll bet I'll stay.
Senator DANIEL. If you had another chance, you bet you would
stay?
Mr. WooD. I would have then, if I would have went back 2 days
later, I would have been back in there, and got fat and well again.
Senator DANIEL. You went out after 13 days and went back to
heroin, didn't you?
Mr. WooD. No, sir, I didn't go back to it.
I don't use no more
stuff. I had to fight it out, but it was hard on me; I could have
stayed there and got fat and cured.
Senator DANIEL. Well, how long before you went back to some
form of opiate?
Mr.
WooD.
Well, I did, but I haven't.
I have been fighting ever
since.
Senator DANIEL. You have been having a little help with paregoric,
haven't you?
Mr. WOOD. A little help, sir?
Senator DANIEL. With a little paregoric, haven't you?
What
kind of drug?
Mr. WOOD. Well, sometimes a little paregoric
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. WOOD. No.
Senator
Now, you have been using paregoric?

My boss told me I if used it, that's all.
DANIEL. I mean you did.

Mr. WooD. Oh, yes, when I came out of
Senator DANIEL. I will withdraw the use
the hospital.
of the word "now".

You did when you got out of the hospital?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir, I did.
Senator Daniel. You started using paregoric?

Mr. WOOD. Occasionally I would, sir, because I was sick, nervous,
sick, and I couldn't-couldn't work. That's why I wanted to go

back to the hospital. But the doctors wouldn't let me come back.
Senator DANIEL. Well, don't you think your experience with
voluntary treatment at the Federal narcotics hospital is a pretty
good argument for having any voluntary patients agree to stay
until the doctor says they can leave?
Mr. WooD. I think that they should leave it up to the doctor.
Senator DANIEL. Letting these patients get up and leave at the

end of 13 days, 2 days, or whenever they want to, really doesn't do
much good, does it?
Mr. WooD. No, sir, I'll tell you, you are right, because if you get
it in your mind, "Oh, I am going to go home," and some little thing,

while you are still under treatment, some little thing will come up,
and you will say, "Oh, to heck with this, I am going to leave this
place, I ain't going to stay here."
It don't matter what, even if they was giving you four shots a day,
you might get disgusted at some little old thing that don't matter, it
gets on your mind.
3223
Some addicts, you can give them a shot as high as every 3 hours,
5 shots of morphine, and it won't satisfy them. They are that way.
After you once get on that addiction, you know what I mean, something is wrong up here [indicating forehead], I guess.
Senator DANIELS. IS something wrong with the minds of those
who get addicted?
Mr. WOOD. Must have been mine.
I won't say the other ones,
but must have been with mine, as silly as I was. I have had some
wonderful chances, and I have got some wonderful friends, right even
today.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Wood, I suppose, since you feel that a person
is worse off when he is on the drug, that you wouldn't recommend
these free clinics, would you?
Mr. WOOD. I couldn't recommend them, because I would go right
back, I guess.
Senator DANIEL. If you had a free clinic here, where you could
get the drug, you are afraid you would go back on the drug?
Mr. WOOD. I wouldn't know.
I haven't had that experience.
But I
Senator DANIEL. Well, you would be afraid of it, wouldn't you?

Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir. You could do more-as long as you can't get
it, you won't use it, I mean as long as you got a little bit of will power
left. Like me; I can't get it, I don't look for it. I have my friends,
I love my music, I have a lot of friends that don't use it, and hate for
me to use it. All my friends fight for me every day, pray for me,
I mean my real friends, and whether I am going to do it or else,
I don't like to say that.
Senator DANIEL. Well, are you afraid these free clinics would keep
other addicts, make them either go back to the habit or keep them
sustained, and therefore, through the rest of their life, it would just
be a hopeless proposition?
Mr. WOOD. Well, sir, this is one thing, I could say this, if we had
free clinics for the oldtimers like me, now, I wouldn't get nobody
on that stuff, but if those fellows could be pensioned off, I don't mean
to run the streets, if they were somewhere where they could work and
produce, they will work if they get their amount of drugs; they can
work, not good, not as good as they could if they was men without
the addiction, and they would not-I don't think then, if the Government was nice enough to pension them off till they die, well, all the
oldtimers would finally die off; then the young ones wouldn't have
that; they wouldn't be nobody to get them on it.
Senator DANIEL. You are talking about if they were all like that,
and would do what you say you would do? But isn't it true that a
lot of addicts, if they got free drugs at a clinic, they would want more?
Mr. WooD. Yes, sir, you are right.
Senator DANIEL. And would go out and buy them on the black
market?
Mr. WOOD. You are right.
Senator
DANIEL.
That's right.
Mr. WOOD. I can't say you are wrong; you are right.
Senator DANIEL. Isn't it also true that the black market would
advance, because those men who are dirty enought to go out and sell
drugs, they would go to the young people and make new addicts out
of them, wouldn't they?
3224
Let me give you a case: Sheriff Warren Kilday used to be for the
free drug clinic. He is the sheriff of Bexar County. He told us the
other day he used to be for it, until he found 1 man in San Antonio
who started off some 40 to 50 young people on drugs.
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And he said that convinced him that free clinics
wouldn't be the thing, because if the old addicts got theirs at free
clinics, the narcotic dealer who wants to make money is going to start
off young people.
Mr. WOOD. They would get them on it, just like they got me on it.
Senator DANIEL. Well, thank you very much for appearing before
US.
Mr. GASQUE. Mr. Chairman, I understood the witness to say the
old time addict should not be allowed to roam the streets, but should
be pensioned off somewhere and given his drugs until he dies out.
Now it occurs to me that he may be talking about a narcotic farm
or some other establishment where they would be removed from
society. I wonder if he would care to clear that point up.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Wood, did you have in mind some kind of
farm or something, to send any of the old time addicts, as you call
them, who cannot stay off of the drug?
Senator
that what you had in mind?
Mr.
they had a farm, just like me, I am off of the
DANIEL. Is
WooD. Well, if
drugs now, and I am not going on it; if I do-well, I won't say. But
I don't want on it. I fought it and I am fighting it now, and I will
fight it.
But if the oldtimers were put somewhere, they will be happy,
you can give them their little 2 grains or 3 grains, and let a doctor
be there to look after them and watch after them, and finally they
are all going to die off; then, if you catch somebody peddling it to the
young ones again, that is up to you people; you know what to do.
Senator DANIEL. Let me ask you this: If you were put anywhere
on 2 or 3 shots of heroin or morphine or any kind of drug a day,
wouldn't you be worse off than if you didn't have the drug?
Mr. WOOD. I would this way, because I still want to go back to
my folks and be somebody again; I want to be something.

Mr. WOOD. And maybe all of them wouldn't be that way.
Maybe
they would be satisfied.

Senator DANIEL. And every human being you put on one of those
farms or in any way continue to give them drugs, you would be
telling them goodbye.
Mr. WOOD. That's right, yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
You wouldn't be saving them at all.
Mr. WOOD. That's right, wouldn't be saving them.
Senator
DANIEL.
Wouldn't be treating them.
Mr. WOOD. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Just giving it all up as a hopeless proposition;
you don't think we ought to be doing that to anybody?
Mr. WOOD. Well, China has a way.
Senator DANIEL. And Singapore; are you thinking of Singapore?
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
3225
Have you ever heard of an organization patterned
after Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous?

Mr. WOOD. If I could get in one of those
Senator DANIEL. You wish you could get in one?
Mr. WOOD. I believe I could help, anyway.
Senator DANIEL. Both organizations stress very strongly the value
of prayer.
Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.
Senator
th I.
DANIEL.
WOOD.
And calling on God to help you through this
Warden Duffle wanted to start one of them, and nobody
ever backed him in it.

Senator
DANIEL.
Do you think that that would help?
Mr. WOOD. Sure it would. If I can go to a guy, and know him,

and he is worth something, and he is worth saving, and if I tell him,
"Now, look what we have been through; we don't want to go through
that same thing again. If you get in trouble, talk to me, and we will
help each other."
Senator
DANIEL.
And all of you try to get help from the source
above us all?
Mr. WooD. Have a little entertainment. Here is the trouble with
most addicts: Once we are branded as an addict, nobody wants to
have nothing to do witb us, we are an outcast. It makes it hard on us;
then you say, "Oh, what the heck is the use? What's the use, nobody
will give us a job."
You see what I am getting at?
Senator
DANIEL.
WOOD. We
Yes, I do.
are outcasts, we are leprous, like leprosy. They

Mr.
are scared of us, and you can't blame us; nobody will trust an
addict. I have stolen from my own mother, my own sister. I wouldn't
now.
Senator DANIEL. You have stolen from your mother and sister?
Mr. WOOD. I had to. I did steal my brother's suit of clothes.
They had me in pajamas, had me chained to the bed, and everything
else, under a doctor's care. That was when I was young.
Now,'I have stolen my brother's pocket book; yes, I would say that,
and jumped out the window and go away and have a hell of a time,
and end up in the penitentiary. That's why I don't go home now.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Now, Mr. Wood, the fact that you have come
here and given all this information to this committee will show a lot
of young people they ought to stay away from drugs. We appreciate
it, and thank you very much.
Mr. WOOD. Thank you.
(Short recess.)
Dr. Trautman.
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. I do.
3226
36LICIT
NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN A. TRAUTMAN, MEDICAL OFFICER IN

CHARGE, UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE HOSPITAL,
FORT WORTH, TEX.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. My name is Dr. John A. Trautman.
I am the
medical officer in charge of the U. S. Public Health Service hospital
in Fort Worth, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. Dr. Trautman, you have heard of the criticism
that has been given here this morning by the sheriff and chief of
police of the way in which the Federal laws permit volunteer patients
to come and go from the Federal hospital which you supervise here
in Fort Worth?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You were sitting here in the courtroom?
Senator DANIEL. I just want to know what your reaction is to
that criticism, and whether or not you feel that there should be a
change made in our present laws with respect to the voluntary admission of patients.
Dr. TR&UTMAN. Well, I feel very much that we need a change
in the law which will permit us to have a detention of patients at the
hospital for a period of time which will be sufficient to bring these
patients back to a situation whereby they would be able to return to
their communities.
Senator DANIEL. How would you estimate that your volunteer
patients compare with your regular committals under the law?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. In what regard, Senator Daniel?
Senator DANIEL. In percentage of each.
Well, in, let's say during the last 2 fiscal years, we

had 1,133 voluntary admissions to our hospital.
Dr.
TRAUTMAN.
Senator DANIEL. During the past year?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. The past 2 fiscal years.
Senator DANIEL. Two fiscal years?

Dr. TRAUTMAN. Yes. And during that same time, we had, I think,
338 Federal prisoners. In addition, I think there were about 17
Federal probationers who were admitted to our hospital during this
period of time.
Senator DANIEL. You had over three times as many voluntary
patients as you had prisoners?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Yes, sir. However, the interesting thing about the
situation is that these patients actually take up about 10 percent of our
hospital days, which would indicate that they stay a rather short period
of time.
Senator DANIEL. Now, you mean the voluntary patients?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. The voluntary patients; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Three times as many?

Senator DANIEL. Take up only about 10 percent of your hospital
time?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Our beds; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Which means that they stay very short periods of
time?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. For instance, in fiscal year 1954, if my memory
serves me correct, our average daily hospital load of voluntary patients
3227
was on the order of about 73, and in fiscal year 1955, the year that
ended on June 30, I think our average hospital day or average hospital
load per day of voluntary addicts was about 83. And at that same
time, we were running on the order of a little bit more than 200
prisoners. Our average daily patient load of prisoners in 1954 was
on the order of 222, and this past fiscal year it was on the order of
about 196 or 198.
Senator DANIEL. Now, on these voluntary patients, are there a lot
of them repeaters who come back for the second, third, fourth, or
fifth time?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, going through these past two fiscal years, of
these 1,133 admissions, there were about 60 percent of the patients
who came to our hospital once. There were about 19 percent who came
on a second admission, or about 7% percent that came on a third
admission, or about 4 percent who came on a fourth admission; and I
think that there were about 4 percent who came on more than a fifth
admission.
Now, during the year, or during those 2 years, we had one patient
who showed up for his 19th time, we had another who showed up for
his 13th time, a couple who showed up for their 12th time, and it
gradually went on down to the group of about the 6th time committers, who were about 20 in number during these 2 fiscal years.
Senator DANIEL. Do you happen to have any breakdown showing
how long these voluntary patients stayed, how many stayed for a
certain length of time, and how many were there a shorter period of
time?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Yes, sir; I have that.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have those figures?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Yes, sir; I do.
Senator DANIEL. Would you bring those figures after lunch?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. I will.
Senator DANIEL. That means, then, that during the last 2 years,
1,133 addicts have passed through Fort Worth to the hospital?
Dr. TRATMA.N. There have been that many admissions; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Then they have left the hospital?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. They have; yes, sir.
Senator D ANIEL. Either when they wanted to leave, or when you

would let them leave?
Senator DANIEL. Most of them, I suppose, when they wanted to
leave?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, more than a majority; yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Left when they wanted to?
Senator DANIEL. So, then, you realize that these officers may have
something in their complaint that this country, the Congress, leaves
Fort Worth in a peculiarly bad situation because of this traffic in
addicts?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, we are not happy about the situation, I want
to emphasize, too, because I think that we have a very excellent staff;
we have a number of people who have dedicated their lives, actually,
to the care of our patients out here. They have been here a long time
as employees, and we have one of the finest staffs of employees any
71515-56---pt. 7-56
3228
uLCIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
place in the country, and it is quite frustrating and quite discouraging

to spend a lot of time examining a patient, doing a lot of work with
him, and then all of a sudden his leaving without our ability to see any
more of him. That is only one phase of our difficulty, and there are
some others which I hope we can touch on later on.
Senator DANIEL. We certainly will, but while it was fresh before the
committee, I wanted to put these questions to you aboutthe voluntary
system of admissions that the local officers had complained about.
Now, do you think that Congress should work out some type of laws
so that on voluntary admissions, the patients would be bound to stay
at least for the time that the supervisor of the hospital decided was
necessary?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Yes, sir; and I think most of the patients who come
to our institution feel that way, at one time or another, at least early,
and we actually have received letters addressed to us in which they say,
"Now, I am coming to your hospital right at the first day I can. Now,
when I get ready to go, Doctor, let me go."
But you come to the day that he wants to go, you show him the
letter, and he says, "Well, that was a few days ago, that is not now.
My position has changed, and I do not want to be held to the words
that I have in my letter."
Senator DANIEL. So, therefore, there is no law under which you
can hold them?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. No, sir. I think our physicians and all of our staff
spend a great deal of time attempting to convince these people that it
is to their best interest to remain for treatment. I know that we
spend a tremendous amount of time on this, in this area.
Senator DANIEL. Thank you very much, Doctor. We will ask you
to come back after lunch.
The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock, this afternoon.
(Whereupon the committee was in recess from the hour of 12 noon
until the hour of 2 o'clock p. m. the same day.)
Dr. Trautman.
Doctor, I suppose we had better have your prepared statements
now, and we will place a copy of your statement in the record.
(The statement referred to follows:)
STATEMENT
BY
DR. JOHN A. TRAUTMAN, MEDICAL OFFICER

P.
H.
S.
HOSPITAL, FORT WORTH,
IN CHARGE,
U. S.
TEX.
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee:

I appreciate the opportunity to review for you briefly the operations of the
United States Public Health Service Hospital of Fort Worth and to present some
of the essential elements with which we are concerned in the treatment of narcotic
addiction.
In 1929 Congress authorized the construction of two Federal hospitals for the
care and treatment of narcotic addict Federal prisoners and the care and treat-
ment of addicts to be admitted on a voluntary basis to the extent that facilities

were available. The first of these hospitals was opened in 1935 at Lexington, Ky.,
and the second, our hospital in Fort Worth, was opened in 1938.
The Fort Worth hospital is located on a 1,350-acre tract of land at the southeastern city limits approximately 5% miles from downtown Fort Worth. There
are five main buildings which are used for treatment purposes as they relate to
housing facilities for patients, direct hospital care and administration. In addition, there are 51 other structures of varying size on the hospital grounds including the heating plant and other service functions, farm buildings, etc. All
buildings used in the care and treatment of patients, the service areas and seven
residences for employees are of fireproof construction, finished in light tan brick
3229
with tile roof. The arthitectural style lends itself to the atmosphere of the Southwest. The total area of all structures amounts to 700,600 square feet of space.
Approximately 150 acres of the hospital grounds contain buildings for direct treatment of patients and for service functions and provide ample recreational areas
such as baseball diamonds, parks, tennis courts, etc. The remaining 1,200 acres
are utilized in the operation of an agricultural activity offering vocational and
therapeutic opportunities for patients as a part of the treatment program. At
the present time there are 985 beds available for the treatment of patients.
The Fort Worth Hospital is 1 of 16 hospitals provided by the Public Health
Service for the care and treatment of beneficiaries (other than Indians) of the
United States Government. The percent organization is the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, with general management and policy authorities
vested in the Public Health Service.

Local administration of the hospital is fixed with the medical officer in charge,
acting under authorities delegated to him by the Surgeon General, through the
Bureau of Medical Services and the Division of Hospitals, which is one of the
principal divisions of that Bureau.
During fiscal year 1955 there was an average of 423.4 employees paid from
appropriated funds; 81 percent of the positions were in the clinical division and
19 percent of the positions were in the administrative division. In addition, there
are 6 employees assigned to operate the patients' commissary, 8 who work with
patients in the farm activity and 3 instructor-supervisors in the garment shop.
These positions are supported from revolving funds.
Dr. James L. Baker, who is with me here today is the clinical director of our
hospital and as such is in charge of the clinical division. Mr. John Turner, is in
charge of the administrative division.
Following is a list of the several divisions, services, units, etc. which carry on
the work of our hospital:
1. Office of the medical officer in charge.
2. Clinical division:
Neuropsychiatric service.
Addict service.
Rehabilitation service:
Educational therapy.
Vocational training.
Occupational therapy.
Recreation and athletics.
Library.
Social service.
Clinical psychology.
Medical service.
Surgical service.
Dental service.
Nursing service.
Dietetic service.
Medical records.
Security.
Pharmacy.
8. Administrative division:
Maintenance.
Personnel office.
Finance office.
Service operations.
Property management-purchase and supply.
Farm.
Garment shop.
Patients' commissary.
Laundry.
Service section including transportation, communications, mail service
for patients, etc.
Between the period of October 28, 1938, and June 30, 1955, 26,060 patients
have been admitted to our hospital. During the fiscal years 1939, 1940, and 1941
all patients admitted to the hospital were narcotic addicts and were for the most
part, sent to us through the Federal courts. Early in 1942, however, our hospital
facilities at Fort Worth were utilized for the medical care of combat casualties occurring as a result of World War II. This period of care for active duty military
personnel extended through fiscal year 1949. These admissions totaled 15,105.
During the war years a relatively small number of narcotic addict patients were
3230
LICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
admitted to the hospital. Shortly after the conclusion of active military operations
of World War II, the admission rate of drug addicts increased. As an example,
admissions of such cases increased from 40 in fiscal year 1946 to 376 in 1947, and
to 768 in 1948. The majority of these patients came to us on a voluntary basis.
From the time of the opening of the hospital until June 30, 1955, there have been
8,727 admissions for the treatment of drug addiction. Of the addicts admitted,
56.4 percent were voluntary admissions and the remainder were sent here through
Federal courts. About two-thirds of our admissions during the last three fiscal
years have been patients who entered the hospital for drug addiction.
Specifically the admissions for fiscal years 1954 and 1955 were as follows:
Fiscal year
1954
Fiscal year
1955
Total 2
years
Federal prisoners (addict) -------------------------------------
174
164
338
Voluntary (addict) -------------------------------------------
519
614
1,133
Federal probationary (addict) -------------------------------Psychiatric patients ----------------------------------------Total --------------------------------------------------
12
17
288
294
582
986
1,084
2 070
(Table 1. Total admissions U. S. Public Health Service Hospital, Fort Worth,

Tex., fiscal years 1939-55).
At the present time we have available bed capacity of 985 of which 356 are
assigned to addict treatment and the remainder to psychiatric patients. For the
fiscal year 1954 our average daily total patient load was 815. The population
consisted of the following daily averages: 222 prisoners (addict); 2 Federal
probationers (addict); 73 voluntary (addict); and 518 psychiatric patients of which
268 were Veterans' Administration beneficiaries the remainder being merchant
seamen, United States Coast guardsmen, United States Coast and Geodetic Survey
personnel, Public Health Service officers and several small groups of other beneficiaries. For the fiscal year 1955 the average daily total patient load was 809.
This population consisted of the following daily average for the several groups of
patients: Federal prisoners (addict), 198; Federal probationers (addict), 6;
voluntary patients (addict), 81; and 524 psychiatric patients of which 268 were
Veterans' Administration beneficiaries and the remainder being other legal beneficiaries as listed above. (Table 2. Average daily patient load U S. Public
Health Service Hospital, Fort Worth, Tex. Fiscal years 1939-55.
With regard to the number of times that addicts were voluntarily admitted to
our hospital, during fiscal years 1954 and 1955, 61 percent of the patients were
admitted once, 19 percent had 2 admissions; 7+ percent, 3 admissions; 4+
percent, 4 admissions; 2 + percent, 5 admissions; and 4+ percent had more than 5
admissions. Of those patients who had several admissions one had 19, one 13,
two 12, three 10, three 9, eleven 8, twelve 7, and twenty had 6 admissions. The
admissions of this latter group of multiple admissions in most instances involved
periods greater than 2 fiscal years. For example, the patient who had 19 admissions was first admitted to the hospital in 1939.
The principal drugs to which patients were addicted according to their history
were as follows for the fiscal years 1954 and 1955:
1,438
Total addicting drugs -----------------------------------------741
Heroin (about 52 percent) ----------------------------------------238
Morphine (about 17 percent) -------------------------------------104
Dilaudid (about 7.3 percent) --------------------------------------The remaining 24 percent were scattered over a number of other opiates, synthetics and marihuana. (Table No. 3. Drug of choice, addicts discharged from
Fort Worth, Tex., fiscal years 1953, 1954, and 1955.)
The age of patients who were in the hospital during fiscal years 1954 and 1955
were as follows: Under 21, 8 percent; age 21 to 29: 36 percent.
Percentage of other age groups are listed in accompanying Table No. 4. (Table
No. 4. Age addicts, Fort Worth, Tex., fiscal years 1953-54-55.)
The occupations at which our patients who were treated in fiscal years 1954
and 1955 had been employed were in the following order of greatest frequency:
First, service workers; second, skilled workers; third, unskilled workers; fourth,
semiskilled workers, fifth, salesmen; sixth, managerial and white collar workers;
and seventh, entertainers. There were other groups with smaller numbers including physicians who constitute about 2 percent of our patients. (Table No. 5.
Occupation, addicts discharged from Fort Worth, Tex., fiscal years 1953, 1954,
and 1955.)
1ILLCrr NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
3231
Addict patients from 40 States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, were admitted during
the fiscal years 1954 and 1955. The States with the greatest numbers were:
Texas, 557; California, 344; Oklahoma, 65; Missouri, 65; Louisiana, 64; Arkansas,
39; and New York, 29. (Table 6. State of Residence-Addicts, fiscal years
1953-54-55.)
With regard to admission of Federal prisoners during fiscal years 1954 and 1955
76-plus percent had sentences of under 5 years and 23-plus percent had sentences of
5 years or more. The admission of these prisoner addicts by length of sentence
was as follows:
Sentence
Sentence
Sentence
Sentence
Sentence
Sentence
Sentence
Sentence
Sentence
Sentence
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
1 year -----------------------------------------------1 to 2 years -----------------------------------------2 to 3 years ------------------------------------------3 to 4 years ------------------------------------------4 to 5 years ------------------------------------------5 to 6 years -------------------------------------------6 to 7 years -------------------------------------------7 to 8 years -------------------------------------------8 to 10 years ------------------------------------------10 to 12 years ------------------------------------------
Total ----------------------------------------------------
25
139
71
25
56
8
2
2
9
1
338
The length of hospital stay of prisoner patients is not completely and accurately
reflected by the length of sentence in that prisoners are discharged from further
hospitalization by parole consideration, conditional release, and transfer to penal
institutions. As contrasted to the above length of sentence of prisoner patients
admitted during the fiscal years 1954 and 1955, is the actual length of hospitalization of patients who are now in the hospital and under treatment. A recent
review of this length of hospitalization of the 202 prisoner patients who are in
the hospital revealed that 122 had been here for less than 1 year, 58 less than 2
years, 15 less than 3 years, and 7 less than 4 years. There are no prisoner patients
hospitalized over the 4-year period.
There is no single cause for drug addiction and consequently no universal
applicable method of treatment. Our treatment of the addict patient encompasses withdrawal treatment, rehabilitation, and psychiatric treatment. Physical dependence, i. e., withdrawal treatment, is readily accomplished and rarely
necessitates longer than a 10-day period until the patient can be managed off
narcotics with minimal residual discomfort. Specifically, our withdrawal treatment involves substituting methadone, a synthetic narcotic, for the narcotic
being used by the patient and then rap idly reducing the dosage of the methadone
over the drug withdrawal period. AUl patients receive an initial physical examination and evaluation and are followed medically as well as psychiatrically
throughout the withdrawal period. Rehabilitation therapy, both physical and
social, is initiated during the withdrawal treatment by having the patient enter
into ward group activities and by interviews by the staff.
Out staff treatment team consists of not only our psychiatrists and psychologists but social workers, nurses, psychiatric aides, and the staff of the ancillary
services, which include vocational, occupational, recreation and athletic therapies,
plus educational and work supervisors.
After actual withdrawal from the drug, an intermediate convalescent period of
approximately two weeks is usually necessary for the patient to attain a physical
and emotional state that will permit him to enter into further therapy on a more
active basis. After this intermediate convalescent period the patient enters
another ward environment and is given an actual work assignment.
The initial work assignment is a tentative one, a period during which the patient
is counseled by a vocational therapist with the object of a subsequent assignment
which will meet the ]patient's desires and goals, as well as his other individual
therapy needs. In view of the oft repeated histories of poor or unstable work
adjustments in our patients, the staff feels that our vocational-work therapy is
an important rehabilitative measure. Upwards of 90 percent of our patients
have no physical limitations that prevent general vocational assignments. The
remaining less than 10 percent group present varying degrees of physical handicaps and limitations and require a more individualized type of vocational assignInent in keeping with their physical limitations as well as their social and psychiatric needs. The general vocational therapy program includes "on-the-job"
training programs developed by work supervisors in the following areas: The
farm area consisting of a dairy, greenhouse and general farm activities; shoe
3232
repair, utility sewing machine operators, cutter and tailor, X-ray technician,
barbering, watch repair, radio and television technician, bookkeeping, accounting,
typing, salesmanship, and commercial art. Many of these training programs
include formal classroom instruction as well as on the job training. Our educational program includes not only the formal classroom instruction associated with
the vocational area but also elementary school and language education ul to
and including courses at the college level through Texas Christian University.
We have tailored our work therapy assignments to be realistic ones approaching
as near as possible the working situations which will confront our patients after
leaving the hospital. We further attempt to limit the training and formal education to the patient's capabilities and the practical possibilities of future application.
Concomitant with the work therapy as outlined above, the patient is offered
psychiatric therapy as well as social rehabilitative therapies in other than the
vocational field. Our main emphasis here in psychiatric therapy is with group
therapy and group therapeutic activities. A limited number of patients are seen
in individual therapy by the psychiatrists and psychologists. Other social rehabilitative services, such as our programs in occupational therapy, recreation, athletics,
music, and bibliotherapy, provide further opportunities for socialization and
development of healthy interests, attitudes and goals. For example, occupational
therapy classes are conducted daily on the admission-withdrawal wards. Shop
therapy classes in the arts and crafts are conducted for our other addict patients
in the hours that they are not on vocational assignment.
Our social service department plays an active part in our treatment program
interviewing patients individually. They provide patient counseling, and relate
our treatment program within the hospital to community resources and patient
needs. Whenever possible the families of the patients are likewise interviewed so
that insofar as possible interpersonal difficulties within the family situation can
be considered in our definition of the patient's therapy problem; and whenever
possible appropriate referral to local agencies within the patient's community
is made both for the family and for the patient. However, our present law governing the release of information on voluntary patients markedly limits us in providing such information even if the information would be beneficial to the patient.
Social service also conducts for our patients a group activity on postdischarge
planning.
During the fiscal years 1954 and 1955, there were 1,438 discharges of addict
patients, representing 15 Federal probationers, 351 prisoner patients, and 1,072
voluntary addict patients. (See table 7. Length of stay by class of beneficiary,
fiscal years 1953, 1954, 1955.)
Of the 15 probationers, 87 percent were considered as having received sufficient
emotional and social rehabilitation and therapy, and to have benefited sufficiently
from our treatment resources, to be ready for reentering community life; 13
percent were withdrawn from drugs but after more complete evaluation were
considered to be unlikely to benefit from our treatment resources and were transferred to other institutions.
Of the 351 prisoners discharged, 70 percent were considered to have benefited
from our rehabilitation therapy and other treatment resources to the extent that
they were ready to reenter community life; 30 percent were withdrawn from
drugs but after complete evaluation and trial therapy efforts were considered to
be the type of patients who were unlikely to benefit significantly from our treatment resources, and therefore were transferred to penal institutions.
Of 1,072 volunteer addict discharges in the fiscal years 1954 and 1955, 77
percent were benefited by their hospital treatment in varying degrees of improvement. A little over half of the 77 percent received significant emotional and
social rehabilitation in addition to actual drug withdrawal therapy. Of the
group, the following was their condition at the time of discharge:
Twenty-three percent demanded their release from the hospital before withdrawal from drugs could be completed.
Thirty-eight percent remained hospitalized until withdrawal was completed
but demanded release before any significant degree of rehabilitation could be
accomplished.
Twenty-three percent remained under treatment for longer periods, accomplishing withdrawal from drugs and receiving significant emotional and social rehabilitation. They insisted, however, on leaving the hospital before the staff felt they
should leave and before they had fully benefited from our treatment resources.
Sixteen percent remained under treatment until the staff felt that they were
ready to reenter their community, and that with further assistance and rehabilitation efforts from, the community, had a reasonably good prognosis for refraining from the further use of narcotics.
3233
The degree of therapy and rehabilitation that can be accomplished by the

atient is dependent upon the period that the patient remains here for therapy,
ut in some cases we also are limited by the patient's lack of motivation to enter
into and thereby benefit. We do not feel that the treatment provided at the
hospital is alone sufficient. We feel that we cn only offer therapy to the patient
to a certain point and this point is in providing basic psychiatric therapy and
Preparation for treatment and rehabilitation in the patient's home community.
consider a patient as being ready for discharge from further hospitalization
treatment when we have provided therapy to the extent that the patient is now
ready to reenter the community and that with rehabilitation assistance from the
community he has a reasonable chance of solving his emotional-social problems
that were the basis for his psychological use and dependence on narcotics.
The following are some brief case histories on a few types of addict patients
seen at the hospital. The case histories are not representative of all types
admitted.
1.
HISTORY
OF PATIENT ADMITTED
ON MULTIPLE
OCCASIONS
This 50-year-old white male was readmitted to the hospital for the sixth time
with a history of the episodic use of opiates since 1926 and the chronic use of
alcohol. The patient related conflicting facts surrounding his addiction, at one
time stating that he had used narcotics in order to recover from alcoholic hangovers and at other times stating that he had begun to use narcotics many years
ago simply for "kicks."
He has a criminal record dating back to 1920, including
several jail sentences, one State prison sentence, a parole violation, probationary
sentence and a number of fines. In 1928 he served a 2-year sentence at the Fort
Leavenworth penitentiary for illegal possession and sale of narcotics and in 1932
a 3-year sentence in the Michigan State penitentiary for burglary. He had
served a year and a day sentence at the Texarkana Federal penitentiary for
forgery in 1946 and in 1948 was given a 5-year sentence for possession and sale
of narcotics and hospitalized at the Fort Worth Public Health Service Hospital.
He stated that his habit cost him about $8 a day and that he supported it by
petty thievery and very seldom was employed. He stated he preferred dilaudid
but that his second choice was heroin. He had never married, by his own admission had never been without drugs outside an institution for more than 2 or 3
days at a time. Within an institution patient always made a good adjustment,
conforming to the institutional rules and doing his prescribed work assignment
in an adequate manner.
2.
HISTORY
OF TEEN-AGE
ADDICT
This 17-year-old single Negro male was admitted to the Fort Worth hospital
on February 9, 1954, having received a 2-year sentence on a commitment as a
juvenile delinquent. The patient had never been hospitalized before for treatment of drug addiction and never had previously been incarcerated. Three years
prior to his admission he had been placed on probation on the charge of stealing
a Treasury check, and this probation was later violated after the pateient was
arrested on the charge of possession of heroin.
This patient stated that he began to use heroin and marihuana around the age
of 13. He said he wanted to see what it was like, that he wanted to be like the
older boys that he was going with. He said that he got a "good feeling" from
the use of the drug but when he was admitted to the hospital he said that he
would never use it again, because he felt it would wreck his life and that he would
lose his older friends, who are nonusers. He also stated that he had not used
drugs regularly and denied that he had ever stolen in order to support his addiction.
This patient was a product of New Orleans, La., and soon after his birth his
mother and father separated and both remarried. The patient had lived with
his mother and grandmother until he was 4 and then had lived with his father
for about a year. There apparently had been several changes of homes for the
patient. It would appear that the patient had "been a good boy" up to the age
of 9, at which time a penny arcade was opened across the street from his home.
At this time he began to stay away from home longer than his father desired,
began to have difficulty in school, and began to go around with an older group
who were getting into minor delinquent difficulty. This eventually led to the
use of marihuana through these associates and to the use of heroin. The patient
left school in the 9th grade, had held no steady job, had worked erratically
washing cars.
When he was interviewed he looked several years older than his stated age
was passive but this passivity appeared to be a facade. Basically he appeared
3234
to be quite impulsive, restless and felt in great need of approval from his own
group. On the other hand when he was admitted to the hospital he expressed
interest in furthering his education, learning a vocation, and entering the group
therapy program.
3. CASE HISTORY OF TEEN-AGE ADDICT
This 17-year-old white male machinist assistant was admitted to the Fort
Worth Public Health Service Hospital in February 1953 as a voluntary patient
who was advised to seek admission to the hospital by the' California Youth
Authority. The patient had been placed on probation by the youth authority
after having been adjudged a juvenile delinquent.
The patient stated that he was first introduced to the use of marihuana and
heroin about 4 years ago when he was 13. He states he was first offered drugs
by a friend and that in view of the fact that they were very expensive he did not
use them very often. He stated however that he likes its sensation and did
not feel that it was wrong for him to use drugs. He added that he did not
actually become addicted to drugs until about 8 months before his admission
to the hospital when again the same friend who had introduced him to drugs
began giving him large quantities of morphine and dilaudid, which he had obtained
by robbing drugstores. With this supply of drugs the patient quickly became
addicted and in the 6 months prior to the admission to the hospital was afraid to
attempt to "kick his habit."
Past history
The patient was born in Arizona and was the fourth of four sons. The patient's
parents were divorced when he was 8 years old and for 4 years he lived alternately
with the two parents and their new spouses. Finally about 5 years ago his mother
and her husband settled in a town in California and he went to live with them.
Here he completed the 10th grade of school and at the age of 16 left school to
take a job in a machine shop.
The patient's mother was interviewd by youth authority personnel and she
described a difficult life. that she had had an unhappy marriage and was the only
parent to care for her children. She stated that her first husband, a construction
worker, wandered from job to job and much of the time she did not know where
he was. A year after their divorce when the patient was 9, the mother married
an alcoholic who did not support the family regularly and who was abusive to
the mother. At that time the mother also was drinking to excess and she described much dissension in the home with both parents having the other sent to
jail occasionally. The mother married a third time when the patient was almost
15 and this stepfather was described as a passive man who took no part in the
discipline of the children and for whom the children had no respect.
Of significance is the fact that the patient gave the history of a birth injury
which resulted in the tearing loose of several of the muscles of the right eye. He
had had several operations of a corrective nature on this eye, the pupil has
remained dilated and the patient has strabismus at the present time. He denied
that his surgery had anything to do with his addiction, which appeared to be
accurate.
Psychological testing revealed that the patient had an I. Q. of 118 which
placed him in the high average range. Testing also revealed that he was a withdrawn, somewhat suspicious person who tended to feel that other people were
going to harm him. Testing also revealed that he had very strong feelings of
being inadequate and that he was going to be harmed by people who represented
parents to him. It was also evidenced that his eye deformity was a source of
anxiety to him. When he was interviewed he showed real interest in improving
himself educationally but had little concept about psychiatric treatment or his
need for it.
Diagnosis
The diagnosis was that of drug addiction to heroin and an immature personality.
4.
HISTORY OF PATIENT WITH MULTIPLE ADMISSIONS
This 60-year old white male was readmitted to the hospital in March 1952
having received a 10-year sentence on the charge of unlawfully receiving ana
concealing narcotics. He has an extremely long and extensive history of narcotic uses and criminality extending back to 1917. He had been given four State
penitentiary sentences for violation of the narcotic laws and five Federal penitentiary sentences for violation of Federal narcotic laws. He had been hospitalized
3235
with a 2-year Federal sentence at the USPHS hospital in 1945 for unlawfully
importing narcotic drugs and again at the same institution in 1949 on a similar
charge.
Throughout the past 30 years the patient had used narcotics, he had never been
able to get along without narcotics except when incarcerated and it appeared that
much of his criminal behavior had been directly related to and a consequence to
his need for narcotics. It is noted however that prior to his initial use of narcotics
there had been several entries in his criminal record. He related his early criminal
activity to disturbed relationships in his family after the death of his mother and
after he had left home at a relatively early age to wander and drift around on his
own. He was an individual of superior intelligence who, although he expressed
some resentment about receiving a 10-year sentence, feeling that it was comparable
to receiving a life sentence and felt that the hospital was "home" and that it was
really a relief for him to be admitted to the hospital. Although it was felt that
the prognosis was poor, it was expected that the patient would make a very good
adjustment in the hospital although it was unlikely that anything could be accomplished in terms of rehabilitation.
5.
HISTORY OF PHYSICIAN NARCOTIC USER
This 30-year old married white male physician was admitted to the hospital
in order to serve a 3-year sentence on the charge of forging narcotic prescriptions.
This man had no previous criminal record but had been previously hospitalized
at the USPHS hospital in Lexington, Ky., as a voluntary patient in 1949 for a
4-month period, and also had voluntarily entered a State hospital in Oregon in
1951 for a 5-month period for treatment of drug addiction.
This patient stated that he first began to use narcotics when he was interning
in 1946, but claimed that he did not become addicted until around June 1947.
He said that he felt he talked himself into believing he was under a great strain,
was fatigued and that he needed the added lift that narcotics gave him. Actually,
however, it was not until he was in private practice for about 6 months at a time
when his practice was "booming" that he began to use narcotics steadily. He
obtained his narcotics primarily by falsifying prescriptions. After his hospitalization at the Lexington, Ky. hospital in 1949, he did not return to the use of
narcotics for about a year, but it was again while he was in private practice where
he was quite successful in a financial way that he began to return to the use of
narcotics. After his hospitalization in the State hospital in June 1951, he apparently again did not return to the use of narcotics for several months.
This man was the oldest of three children, his younger sister and brother had
never used narcotics. His father was an agricultural agent who spent most of his
time when the patient was a child traveling around the State pursuing his work.
He was apparently a very busy preoccupied man with little time to be with his
children. The patient expressed some resentment because his father was not at
home. He also described his mother as a person the children could not talk with
because she tended to be "emotional."
It is interesting to note that in view of the patient's difficulty in using narcotics
at the point when he was becoming successful, that he was first in his class in high
school, graduated at the top of his class from medical school, and although he was
considered to be the best student of the three children, he was also, he felt, the
greatest disappointment to his family. He also expressed some guilt that he was
not called up for military service because of a cyst which was later repaired.
The patient married in 1944 to a nurse he felt was a very understanding person.
His wife had had several miscarriages and both he and his wife had sought medical
advice in the hope that they might have children, but to no avail.
When interviewed, this physician appeared to be a person who was struggling
for success and social recognition, but on the other hand he yearned to be dependent upon other people. He appeared to be depressed but the depression was
related to his incarceration. He expressed interest in rehabilitating himself in the
hospital and in receiving psychiatric treatment.
3236
TABLE
1.-Total admissions to U. S. Public Health Service Hospital, Fort Worth,

Texas, fiscal years 1939-55
Addicts
Year
Total
Total
Prisoner
432
839
1941 ---------------757
1942 .........
1,275
1943
1,083
1944
2,045
1945 _
2, 748
1946 ---------------- 2, 518
1947_
1,939
1948 ---------------- 2, 565
1949 ---------------- 2, 157
1950 ---------------- 2,304
1951
1,332
1952 ---------------- 1,053
1953 ---------------963
1954 ---------------986
1955 ---------------- 1,084
432
839
757
772
382
134
46
40
376
768
459
552
636
513
533
698
790
311
26,060
8, 727
3,611
1939
---------------1940
Total --------
Other Patients
ProbaVoluntionary teers
11
23
14
21
11
590
424
362
158
2
4
13
14
23
24
8
11
5
12
132
192
190
377
249
175
174
164
194
Total
VA
110
226
319
389
213
132
46
40
261
623
253
339
235
256
347
519
614
1503
1 701
1,911
2, 702
2, 478
1,563
1,797
1,698
1,752
696
540
430
288
294
413
563
1,094
1, 528
508
287
278
152
159
4,922
17, 353
4,982
De-
sense
21, 832
22,511
22,304
2964
90
425
1
1
15
1
8,954
pHs
8 66
3 179
3169
2 158
268
150
203
165
218
145
128
129
1,977
Other
1503
1701
4 13
415
12
428
'66
'29
420
22
20
6
8
7
1,440
I More detailed breakdown is not available.

2 Includes Army and Navy personnel eligible for care under Executive Order 9079.
3 Includes American Seamen and Coast Guard personnel eligible for care under Executive Order 9079.
4 Includes Immigration and Naturalization Ser. patients, U. S. Prisoners, Canadian Insane and Indians
eligible for care under Executive Order 9079.
TABLE 2-Average daily load U. S. Public Health Service Hospital, Fort Worth, Tex.,
fiscal years 1939-55
Addicts
Year
Total
Total
1939 -
1940'
19411
19421
19431
1944 .......
1945
1946
1947
1948 ---------------1949
1950-----------1951
1952
1953 ---------------1954 ---------------1955
180
409
714
588
848
874
906
886
675
878
888
915
951
776
815
815
809
Other Patients
I
180
409
714
549
230
46
9
8
53
158
174
193
230
338
308
297
285
Prisoner
Proba- Voluntionary teer
Total
13
6
6
22
36
26
34
25
32
45
73
81
618
828
897
878
622
720
714
722
721
438
507
518
524
Defense
PHS
39
33
3
2
30
118
145
150
193
301
259
222
198
4
3
9
12
5
4
2
6
77
230
366
554
553
234
268
268
268
2 703
2 780
2772
2 444
373
218
5
5
10
18
15
14
'81
'93
389
'84
98
110
149
159
187
218
232
238
Other
39
618
444
424
417
417
4 19
420
414
4
7
3
3
4

2 Includes Army and Navy personnel eligible for care under Executive Order 9079.
3 Includes American seamen and Coast Guard personnel eligible for care under Executive Order 9079.
4 Includes Immigration and Naturalization Service patients, U. S. prisoners, Canadian insane and
Indians eligible for care under Executive Order 9079.
3237

TABLE 3.-Drug of choice addicts discharged from Fort Worth, Tex.,
fiscal years 1953-55
Fiscal year
Type of drug
1954
1953
1955
Total, all drugs ----------------------------------------------
539
686
752
-------------------------------------
475
629
705
10
70
345
105
47
1
22
11
7
91
396
133
57
3
27
18
19
52
31
30
37
16
15
16
14
22
15
26
0
7
15
I
5
0
5
Opiates
242
-----------------------------------Heroin
M
orphine
--------------.....
......................
102
Dilaudid_
38
Pantopon.......................................
Diaudid --------------------------------------Paregoric...
9
C
odeinee------..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..---------------------------------. . . . .
Opium
4
Unspecified derivatives.
Synthetics ...............................................
Demerol_
Dolophine..
Other
.....................................
M arihuana ------------------------------------Cocaine group ------------------------------------------U nspecified -----------------------------------------------
11
TABLE 4.-Age addicts dischargedfrom Fort Worth, Tex., fiscal years 1953-55
1953
1954
1955
Age
Number
All ages ----------------------Under 21 ---------------21 to 24- ------------------25 to 29 -----------------30 to 34 ------------------35 to 39 ------------------40 to 4445 to 54- ------------------55 to 64 ------------------65 and over --------------Median age
TABLE
Cumulative
percentage
Number
Cumulative
percentage
Number
Cumnlative
percentage
539 -------------
686 -------------
752
- 34
6.3
84
21.9
93
39.1
70
52.1
68
64.7
,------------------58
75.5
89
92.0
38
99.1
5
100.0
54
114
130
61
62
71
118
63
13
)1
135
136
80
66
78
122
64
10
------------------
34.1
7.9
24.5
43.4
52.3
61.4
71.7
88.9
98.1
100.0
33.7
8.1
26.1
44.1
54.8
63.6
73.9
90.2
98.7
100.0
32.8
5.-Occupation addicts discharged from Fort Worth, Tex., fiscal years 1953,
19547, 1955
Fiscal year
Fiscal year
Occupation
Occupation
1953
Total -------------Doctor ------------------Nurse -------------------Dentist-----------------Other health workers - Other professionals ------Entertainer -------------Salesman ................
Service worker_-98
539
1954
686
1955
752
15
21
8
1
2 --------2-------- -------9
12
23
11
7
22
29
23
29
34
53
68
123
128
1953
Proprietary, managerial,
and white collar ------Agricultural ------------Skilled -----------------Semiskilled -------------Unskilled ---------------Housewife ........................
None -------------------Other and unspecified..--
1954
1955
38
14
111
62
57
47
13
111
98
99
55
16
137
89
113
12
46
13
64
10
54
3238
TABLE 6.-State of residence, addicts dischargedfrom Fort Worth, Tex., fiscal year
1953, 1954, 1955
Fiscal year
Fiscal year
State
State
1953
Total --------------
539
1954
686
1955
752
5
14
4
Alabama ----------------11
14
11
Arizona -----------------18
28
12
Arkansas ---------------170
174
114
California ---------------3
9
8
Colorado ---------------Connecticut -------------------------------Delaware ----------------------------------1
6
7
District of Columbia ----2
2
3
Florida -----------------3
1
4
Georgia -----------------2
1
2
Idaho-------------------16
9
7
Illinois ------------------2
4
Indiana ..-----------------------I
--1
------------- Iowa .14
9
10
Kansas -----------------1 --------1
Rentucky --------------24
40
39
Louisiana ---------------Maine ------------------------------------2 ---------------Maryland --------------2 ---------------Massachusetts ----------1
3 -Michigan --------------1
2
4
Minnesota --------------7
10
4
Mississippi -------------40
25
33
Missouri -----------------
1953
1954
1951
3
1
1
Montana ---------------2
5
Nebraska ---------------4
5
4
Nevada.-----------------New Hampshire --------.----------------------1
1
3
New Jersey -------------4
4
New Mexico ------------6
23
17
New York --------------2
1
1
North Carolina ---------I
North Dakota --------------------------1
6
6
Ohio --------------------18
27
20
Oklahoma --------------3
6
3
Oregon -----------------2
I
Pennsylvania -----------Rhode Island ......................................
4
2 -------South Carolina ----------1
South Dakota ------------------8
2
1
Tennessee --------------294
263
189
Texas -----------------2
1
1
Utah ----------------------------------------Vermont ------3
2
Virginia ------------------------6
8
3
Washington -------------1 ------------West Virginia -----------1
2
Wisconsin ----------------------1 -------2
Wyoming ---------------i2
15
7
Outside United States...
TABLE 7.--Length of stay by class of beneficiary addicts dischargedfrom Fort Worth, Tem., fiscal years 1953, 1954, 1955
1953
Length of stay
Total ----------------------------------------
,|..
1954
All
Volun-
Proba-
patients
tary
ionary
Ppatients
209
539
321
All
686
1955
Voluntary
Probationary
Prisoners
All
patients
485
195
752
Under 3 months
295
262
1
32
416
379
37
3 months-under 4 months --------------------------10
8 2
16
15
1
43
8
6
89
78
5
6
2 _5
9
4
65
6 months-under 12 months -------------------------53
5 _48
50
8
1
41
1 year-under 2 years -----------------------------91
1
._.
90
58 ---------- ----------58
2 years-under 3 years ----------------------------25 ---------- ---------25
41
------- ---------41
3 years-under
4 years ------------------------------1-------------------1
6 ---------- ----------6
years-under 65 years
4 years-under
years---------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -----6 years-under 7 years ....... -------------------------------------------------7 years and over--------------------------------------------------
-----
Voluntary
587
Probationary
9
520
400
2
29
25
1
33
29
2
19
11
1
55
31
3
68 ---------- ----------21
1 - .
6 ---------- ---------1---1 ---------- ----------
158
28
3
2
7
21
68
20
-6
1
1...............-------.----------,------..........................
C43
C43
3240
TABLE

7A.-Hospital days per admission at D. S. Public Health Hospital, Fort
Worth, Tex., fiscal years 1939-55
Addicts
Year
Other patients
Total
1939 --------------1940 1---------------
1941 --------------1942'1-------1943 --------------1944 ---------------1945 ---------------1946 ---------------1947 ---------------1948 ---------------1949 ---------------1950 ---------------1951 ---------------1952---------------1953 ---------------1954---------------1955----------------
152
178
Total
Prisoner
152
178
........
........
Proba- Voluntionary tary
Total
........ ........ ........

........ ........ ........
344
168
286
344 -------- ------260--------- -------- -------220 -------- ----------------
156
120
128
127
125
150
145
261
270
309
302
272
125
69
73
51
75
139
128
132
241
211
155
132
6,064
76
1,091 -------730 ------97
93
326
125
276
77
288
147
186
180
442
243
541
114
465
147
440
190

2 Includes Army and Navy personnel eligible
34
45
54
31
21
37
36
39
45
47
51
48
VA
Defense
........ ........
........ ........
PHS
........
........-- .......
28 -------------- -------322---- -------- -------159----------2140

3447
121--------129 --------145
63
149
147
153
122
150
132
378
397
297
298
430
352
656
644
650
615
2113
122
2168
151
187
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(5)
Other
'190
3192
3195
133
263
268
351
314
548
661
678
3
'1,258
731
d 1,301
'227
4 110
4247
4256
91
128
189
109
195
for care under Executive Order 9079.
3 Includes American Seamen and Coast Guard personnel eligible for care under Executive Order 9079.
4 Includes Immigration and Naturalization Service patients, U. S. prisoners, Canadian insane and Indians
eligible for care under Executive Order 9079.

6 Not computed-number of admissions too small.
U. S. Public Health Service Hospital, Fort Worth, Tex.
3241
RI5"I
..
),
U. S. Public Health Service Hospital, Fort Worth, Tex.
Dr. Trautman, what is th3 bed capacity of your Federal Narcotics

Hospital here in Fort Worth?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. At the present time it is 985.
Senator DANIEL. And how many patients do you have now?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. As of today, we have 827.
Senator DANIEL. Now, how many of these 985 beds are available
for the treatment of drug addicts?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Three hundred fifty-six, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Was this hospital built primarily for treatment
of drug addicts?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Yes, sir. The original authorization in 1929 so
specified.
Senator DANIEL. Has Congress ever changed the law in any way
concerning the purpose of this hospital?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. I am not certain of the law, sir, but during the
beginning of the war, in 1942, the military casualties were sent in here
at that time, and from 1942 through 1949, about 15,000 admissions,
mental disease cases, military cases, were brought to this hospital.
Following the war, through the offices of the surgeon general, the
bed allocation became that for psychiatric patients and for addicts.
Of the psychiatric patients, 268 average daily load were given to the
care of Veterans Administration beneficiaries.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, I can understand why the hospital
had to be used for a temporary period there during the war, and
probably for a short period after the war, for some purpose other than
the original authorization for drug addicts; but why does it continue?
Do you know why the hospital now must continue to use so niany beds
for Veterans Administration cases?
3242
Dr. TRAUTMAN. I can't answer that question, because that deter.

mination is made in Washington, through the office of the Surgeon
General, the Bureau of the Budget, and the Veterans Administration.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know of any shortage of Veterans Administration hospitals?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, I think that in general there are not a sufficient number of beds for the care of mental patients throughout the
country, and I believe that shortage exists in the Veterans Administration, although I am not prepared
Senator DANIEL. You are not sure of that?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Not prepared to give the Veterans' Administra.
tion's version of that.
I assume, though, that in this area that they need these beds, and
I know that they have quite a little waiting list from time to time.
Senator DANIEL. What type of hospital is the Veterans' Administration Hospital at McKinney, Tex.?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. I am not sure, but I know that there is a mental
hospital down at Waco, and I know that at Lisbon they were planning
to have some few beds for mental patients.
But here again, I am not completely sure of the Veterans' Administration situation. The only thing that I know is that the Surgeon
General, who has delegated the responsibility to me of operating the
hospital locally and through the transfer of funds from the Veterans'
Administration to the Public Health Service, has indicated that we
should be carrying an average daily load of 268 Veterans' Administration beneficiaries.
Senator DANIEL. Have you heard talk of the McKinney Veterans'
Administration Hospital being closed?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. No, sir, I know nothing about that-being closed?
Senator DANIEL. Yes, being closed.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. I actually don't know what the disposition of the
hospital was. I know that they have the new hospital at Lisbon, but
frankly I do not know what the disposition is going to be. I have
never been over there, actually.
Senator DANIEL. Well, we don't know what the disposition is going
to be either. We have complained about it, and they say that there
is no definite decision to move or close the hospital at McKinney.
But I am just thinking that if there are any hospitals, Veterans hospitals in which the veterans now receiving treatment in your hospital
could be treated in the future, that it would open up more beds for the
treatment of drug addicts.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Senator Daniel, might I mention one other point
I think you would be interested in?
Senator DANIEL. Yes
Dr. TRAUTMAN. And I think I have mentioned it before.
We are in the process, now, of planning some addition of beds for
drug addicts. This number will be on the order of somewhere near
100 additional beds.
Senator DANIEL. One hundred additional beds?
Senator DANIEL. In the present facilities?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. In the present facilities; and this is brought about
by a rearrangement of space, which has been studied ever since I have
been here, which isn't too long, and
3243
Senator DANIEL. Has this been announced before?

Dr. TRAUTMAN. I think it was mentioned to you at the New York
hearings, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, it escaped me if it was.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. This is the first I have known about it, or the
first I have realized the effect of what was said there.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, I think that is correct. I think I was there.
Senator DANIEL. I certainly hope that it is, because we have had a
waiting list of people who have been wanting to get in the narcotics
hospital; that list has been running about 500 for a good period of time,
up until just recently, isn't that true?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. That is true, Senator Daniel, and as a matter of
fact Dr. Lowery, who is the medical officer in charge up at Lexington,
and I worked very closely together on trying to keep this waiting list
reduced; and many times the applications that Dr. Lowery may have
which are in excess of what he can handle will be sent down; we contact the patient to see whether or not he would like to come to Fort
Worth, and during the past fiscal year, as a matter of fact, we took a
sizable number of such admissions, and that helped balance out some
of the problems that they were having with regard to that large
waiting list.
Senator DANIEL. Well, Dr. Trautman, I believe that there was a
waiting list of about 500 addicts when we wrote to Undersecretary
Rose and asked that something be done to try to admit these people.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. I see.
Senator DANIEL. And I think within a very short time you all were
able to cut that waiting list down to where it is almost on a current
basis; is that right?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. That's right. At the present time, we actually,
I think, with very few exceptions-I don't know as of this morning,
but as of yesterday, with very few exceptions we had scheduled
practically everyone who had made an application for admission.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I think that you have done an excellent job
on that, and I am certainly glad to get this news that there will be
another 100 beds made available in the Fort Worth Hospital soon.
Of course, I have my doubts about the value of the treatment for
many of these patients, as long as they can leave whenever they
desire.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. That's right, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And I know that we all hope that we will be able
to do something in Congress about that soon after the first of the year.

Senator D&NIEL. Now, have you given your average daily patient
load already?
Dr.
TRAUTMAN.
For the past fiscal year it was 809, and as a matter
of fact thus far this year we are running a little bit in excess of that.
Our actual volunteers in the hospital as of this moment, or for the
past 3 months, has been running at about the rate of 99 or a 100
average daily load, and which was practically 19 more than we carrieJ
as an average daily load last year.
Senator DANIEL. You are carrying around 100 voluntary patients
today, now?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Yes, as an average daily load.
151&--5(;--pt. 7-57
3244
Senator DANIEL. Now, on this average daily load, you say, of 809,
how many patients are addicts, narcotic addicts?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Of that number, about three-eighths are, sir, in
round numbers five-eighths are neuro-psychiatric patients, and about
three-eighths will run on the order of the addicts.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, this hospital, originally authorized
to treat narcotic drug addicts, is actually using about five-eighths of its
space for the treatment of psychiatric cases?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. That is correct, sir.
Senator DANIEL. That do not involve drug addiction?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. That is correct, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, what are the principal addicting drugs for
which patients are treated in your hospital?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, the principal ones are heroin, which is about
52 percent, and morphine, vhich is about 17 to 18 percent, and
dilaudid at about 7Y2 percent.
I have a table in the file which lists all of the primary addicting
drugs. In other words, that is the principal drug that the man said he
came to the hospital for; and in some instances there may be others
ill say, morphine and heroin off and on,
where they have used, we N%
and they are not listed on this.
I have also submitted a couple of photographs there for you,
Senator.
Senator DANIEL. Now, we have included in this record your
written statement, all of your exhibits, and the two photographs of
the hospital. I certainly appreciate the way in which you have
compiled this information.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Senator, if I may add, on table 3 is the one that
contains the drug of choice. I am sorry I don't have those tables
marked with a tab, so that you can locate them easily.
Senator DANIEL. Yes, this table shows the percentages.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. That you were giving us a moment ago.
Dr. Trautman. Yes, sir; and it includes 3 fiscal years, the last 3
fiscal years.
Senator DANIEL. So heroin is the drug that is giving us the most
trouble?
Dr. Trautman. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. And is the most dangerous of the drugs?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, it is-it is a drug that the addict likes best.
And the one that gets the greatest amount of trade, certainly.
Senator DANIEL. And it is the most illicit, if you could express a
comparative choice there. In other words, hasn't nearly every
country in the world today outlawed heroin?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Yes; morphine takes care of the medical purposes.
Senator DANIEL. Yes. In other words, you don't need heroin for
any legitimate medical purpose any more, do you?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. No. No, we get along with the others very well.
Senator DANIEL. And as I recall it, most of the countries of the
world-today have outlawed heroin?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. I think there has been a really fine effort, from an
international standpoint.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. And that is extremely significant.
3245

Dr. TRAUTMAN. Prevention of addiction is one of the really big
things. It is easy, much easier, maybe, to prevent a disease, and it
is certainly easier on the individual if a disease is prevented than to
have it get.going and then try to do something about it.
Senator DANIEL. Now, then, do you have information here on the
percentages of admissions in the various age groups?

Dr. TRAUTMAN. Yes, I do. I have a table to that effect, and
under
Senator DANIEL. Is that table 4?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Yes, sir. You will see there that in those various
years, that those under 21 have run 6.3 percent in 1953, 7.9 percent
in 1954, and 8.1 percent in 1955.
Senator DANIEL. And in number, let's read those into the record,
too.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. The number in 1953 was 34.
Senator DANIEL. Under 21?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Yes, sir, and in 1954 they were 54, and in 1955 they
were 61.
You might be interested, too, if I may add this, Senator: I took a
look the other day, I think it was the first week in October, to see
how many youngsters we had of this age group in the hospital, compared with a year ago.
We had 14 in the hospital on that particular week, and that same
week a year ago we had 31. I don't know that that is of any particular significance, because these things do vary as we go along through
the year.
Senator DANIEL. Well, it would look as if your admissions have been
increasing each year since 1953. You had 34 in 1953, 54 in 1954, and
61 in 1955.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Yes, as far as total numbers are concerned, that's

true.
(enator DANIEL. On total numbers?
Senator DANIEL. What would you say that might indicate?

Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, I-I
am not completely sure what that
indicates, because of this, Senator Daniel: There are-not all of the
addicts who come to the Federal Service for hospitalization, or go to

prison, of course, come to us. There are a sizable number of addicts
in the Federal hospitals, and to get a true picture, I expect we would
have to have the age group comparisons of all of these folks, to get a
percentage situation. I am not completely sure just what this does
signify
There is one thing, I believe, that we might say, and I am not completely sure of this because I haven't examined that part of the record
completely, but there is a possibility that some of this addiction may
be through the Mexican-American population.
Senator DANIEL. Have you had an increase on Latin-American
patients?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, we are running about-oh, I guess about 17

percent of our total applications for admissions.
Senator DANIEL. Are among Latin-American citizens?

Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, among the ones we have classified as Mexican-.
Americans.
3246

Dr. TRAUTMAN. We run about 6 percent Negro, and the remainder
axe white, with a few Chinese, not very many, and that is about the
picture with regard to race and nationality, and so on.
Senator DANIEL. Let's get those percentages again, to be sure that
we have them correctly.
Dr.
TRAUTMAN.
Senator DANIEL.
There are about 6 percent, were Negro.

Negro.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Seventeen percent were Mexican-American, and

of the remainder of the whites, they were practically all, in the big
percentage.
Senator DANIEL. Now, what States do your patients come from,
mostly?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, the States are represented--40 States are
represented, together with Puerto Rico and Hawaii.
The largest number come from Texas, 557 in the past 2 fiscal years,
that is, and 344 from California, 65 from Oldahoma and Missouri,
64 from Louisiana, 39 from Arkansas, 29 from New York, and the
other States with lesser numbers. I have a table in here which shows
that.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. For 3 fiscal years, as a matter of fact.
Senator DANIEL. Now, then, I suppose that the hospital at Lexington, Ky., gets most of the patients from the north and east?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. They do, sir. We get most of them from west
of the Mississippi, but we do take patients, as you see, from practically all over the United States.
Senator DANIEL. We have more beds available for narcotics addicts
at Lexington than we do at Fort Worth?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. That is true. There are about 1,328 beds up at
Lexington, and I think that last year Lexington had an average
daily load of something on the order of 1,079 or 1,080. I am not
completely sure, but I think it is within 1 or 2.
Senator DANIEL. You have Federal prisoners who are convicted
of various crimes who, if they are narcotic addicts, can be sent by
the court to your hospital for treatment before they go on to serve
in a prison; is that correct?
Dr.
TRAUTMAN.
Well, they are-their troubles, apparently, are
principally on a narcotic basis. As I said before, we only receive a

certain number of the individuals who are convicted for narcotic
reasons.
Senator DANIEL. Now, who determines whether or not they are
sent to your hospital?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. That is determined through the attorney general's
office and the Bureau of Prisons?
Senator DANIEL. And they send only the prisoners who might be
helped by treatment?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. I think they do a reasonably good screening job.
Senator DANIEL. Do they ever send any of them to your hospital
to receive the entire sentence?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. They may or may not. That determination is,
I think, mostly ours.
Here is actually what happened, we will say the last 2 years:
During the last 2 years, 30 percent of our prisoners were transferred to Federal prisons. They were the types of individuals who
I I IL
3247
we felt were not doing well, or for whom we could not do very much
in our setting. So that, of that original number, 30 percent have
been transferred, and each one of these individuals has had a reasonably good trial and treatment; so that we, after they come here, we
do send some back.
Now, of those who remain, we feel that they are doing very well,
and a number of those people may be paroled, Senator; they become
eligible for parole. They have indicated in every way that they
appear to be ready to go back into society, and some pretty good plans
are being made for these folks to get back and get a job and get to
work.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you have pretty good follow up programs
in most states, or is it true that there is just not much being done in
the way of follow up, after the patient leaves your hospital?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Senator, as far as we are concerned, our followup is not good.
Senator DANIEL. That is one of the worst handicaps, isn't it?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Yes, sir. We feel that the treatment that is
given at our hospital is only a part of the total matter of this man's,
and individual man's treatment.
Now, within our facilities, we can go only so far. You always
eventually get to the place where an individual must gey back into
society.
At that point, there must be proper community facilities which
will help this man to keep him going. It is not only a matter of
medical rehabilitation, but it is a matter of job rehabilitation and
all of those things.
So we feel that the mental health resources the country certainly
are the best possible ways for these folks to be followed up, and I
think that is extremely important to stress, that our hospital cannot
possibly do the total job, and, the same as any other disease, all
treatment is not carried on in the hospital. Some of it must be carried out in the community, and this is no different.
Senator DANIEL. Doctor, you have heard of this proposal that we
have free narcotic drugs, or drugs at a small cost, at clinics. You
were at the New York hearing when that was proposed?
Doctor TRAUTMAN. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you expressed yourself on it there. For
this record, though, since it has been brought up at this hearing, too,
I would like to ask you whether or not you think that would be a
proper way of solving the problem of drug addiction.
Doctor TRAUTMAN. AS I said then, and as I say now, I do not
think that it would.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, I believe we have the reasons already
in the record, from the New York hearing.

Doctor
TRAUTMAN.
We will refer to that.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I Just wanted to make it plain that we did not

miss that question with you.
Doctor TRAUTMAN. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And that the record of the New York hearing
will contain all of your reasons on that.
Now, doctor, do you have any recommendations, other than what
are contained in your statement here, concerning what the Congress
might do to help in the treatment of addicts?
3248
Doctor TRAUTMAN. Well, Senator Daniel, I think that I may not
have any additional ones, but I would just like to emphasize very
strongly the way I feel about some of them.
I certainly believe it is desirable to have a commitment procedure
where, by voluntary admission, narcotic addict patients could be
detained in the hospital for a sufficient length of time to accomplish
the treatment.
I think that every effort should be made to improve community
health facilities, especially mental health facilities, with the viewpoint
to following through on the treatment that we are accomplishing,
and to get into the business of prevention of illness.
Now, there may be a lot of problems that addicts are getting into
which, if we knew more about them or if the individual was seen
through some of these mental health resources, might keep him out
of this narcotic traffic and prevent him from becoming an addict.
And thirdly-which is actually a part of the first part of it that I
mentioned-it would serve, possibly, as a strong element in preventing
a relapse into addiction.
And another thing is that I think we should remove this current
statutory restriction which now prevents us from revealing the presence of a voluntary patient undergoing treatment in our hospital.
That is a pretty hard law, and it just says no.
Senator DANIEL. I am glad to hear you make that recommendation.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. And my staff and I personally feel very, very
strongly that we could do a much better job if we even had the normal
communication that we have with regard to other illnesses.
I don't think we need a whole lot more than that, and that if we
could do it, it certainly would be a wonderful thing.
It is rather difficult for us to say no to some very fine people, when
ordinarily we would say yes and we would cooperate in handling this
proposition, with a physician or with most anyone.
Senator DANIEL. Well, is it true that anyone, a physician or a
public official, who now sends a patient to your hospital, a voluntary

patient, could not get the information, under this law, as to when his
patient leaves the hospital?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. That is essentially true. I wonder if I have a
copy of that, Senator? It might be interesting if I can find it.

Senator DANIEL. We have already placed that in the record; we
will put it in again at this point, so that it will be readily available to
Members of Congress reading this record.
(See 260 (d) of title 42 United States Code Annotated which
follows:)
United States Code Annotated, Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, 260:
Addicts admitted to hospitals as voluntary patients; examination; payment of
charges; length of confinement; forfeiture of civil rights:
(a) Any addict, whether or not he shall have been convicted of an offense
against the United States, may apply to the Surgeon General for admission to a
hospital of the Service especially equipped for the accommodation of addicts.
(b) Any applicant shall be examined by the Surgeon General who shall determine whether the applicant is an addict, whether by treatment in a hospital of
the Service he may probably be cured of his addiction, and the estimated length
of time necessary to effect his cure. The Surgeon General may, in his discretion,
admit the applicant to a Service hospital. No such addict shall be admitted
unless he agrees to submit to treatment for the maximum amount of time estimated by the Surgeon General to be necessary to effect a cure, and unless suitable
accommodations are available after all eligible addicts convicted of offenses
against the United States have been admitted. Any such addict may be re-
3249
quired to pay for his subsistence, care, and treatment at rates fixed by the Surgeon
General and amounts so paid shall be covered into the Treasury of the United
States to the credit of the appropriation from which the expenditure for his
subsistence, care, and treatment was made. Appropriations available tor the care
and treatment of addicts admitted to a hospital of the Service under this
section shall be available, subject to regulations, for paying the cost of transportation to any place within the continental United States, including subsistence
allowance while traveling, for any indigent addict who is discharged as cured.
(c) Any addict admitted for treatment under this section, including any addict,
not convicted of an offense, who voluntarily submits himself for treatment, may
be confined in a hospital of the Service for a period not exceeding the maximum
amount of time estimated by the Surgeon General as necessary to effect a cure
of the addiction or until such time as he ceases to be an addict.
(d) Any addict admitted for treatment under this section shall not thereby
forfeit or abridge any of his rights as a citizen of the United States; nor shall
such admission or treatment be used against him in any proceeding in any court;
and the record of his voluntary commitment shall be confidential and shall not
be divulged. (July 1, 1944, c. 373, title III, 344, 58 Stat. 701; June 25, 1948,
c. 654, 5, 62 Stat. 1018.)
HISTORICAL NOTE
Amendment, 1948.-Subsection (b) amended by act June 25, 1948, cited to

text, which added last sentence to continue authority to provide transportation
for indigent addicts who are discharged as cured.
Legislative history.-For legislative history and purpose of act June 25, 1948,
cited to text, see 1948 United States Code Congressional Service, p. 2063.
Dr. TRAUTMAN.
This part that affects us reads like this:
Any addict admitted for treatment under this section shall not thereby forfeit
or abridge any of his rights as a citizen of the United States, nor shall such admission or treatment be used against him in any proceeding in any court: and the
record of his voluntary commitment shall be confidential and shall not be
divulged.
Senator DANIEL. That is pretty tough.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. That closes the door pretty-that's shut, I think.

Senator DANIEL. Well, now, doctor, what is the average length of
stay of prisoners?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, the average length of stay in fiscal year
1954 was about 440 days.
A short time ago I tabulated the-I
think I have that figure here.
I'm sorry, I can't remember all of
them, Senator.
Senator DANIEL. Well, that's all right. The approximate number

is sufficient. We will refer to your charts.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Let's see: Here it is.
Of the 202 patients we had in the hospital just a short time ago,
122 had been here for less than 1 year; 58 were here from 1 to 2 years;
15 for less than 3 years; and 7 less than 4 years.
Now, not too long ago, just a little bit before that, we had a patient
who had been here a little bit longer than 4 years, and he was discharged.
Senator DANIEL. Well, doctor, what is the average length of stay
of your voluntary patients?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. The average length of stay last year was 48 days.
Senator DANIEL. Forty-eight days for voluntary patients, as compared with 440 days for your prisoner patients, right?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Yes, sir. There is another interesting angle, if I
might take the liberty of mentioning that.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Awhile back, we had a law in Texas which made
it possible for a man to go to the court and plead guilty, and then
that went out, and another new law has been passed.
3250
During that time when this Texas commitment was on, we had
110 such patients come in the hospital, and of that number 89 percent
were considered to have remained for a period of time which was
reasonably good, and about half were in such a situation that they
could go back to the community and, with proper help, stood a reasonable chance of remaining well.
Now, under that law, those patients stayed an average of 104 days,
approximately 104 days.
Mr. Counsel,
do you have any
questions.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, Doctor Trautman, could you tell us, could
you give us an estimation of how many people you think are cured
when they go through your hospital?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, I can give you this kind of a figure: We
felt that there were 16Y2 percent of our total group during this past
2 years who were completely ready to go back to the community, and
with help and rehabilitation continued, could get along.
Now, of the Texas group, in other words this 110 that I was talking
about, there were 48 percent of such we felt could do a good job.
Now, in our total group we had 23 percent, about 246 patients,
who did not stay longer than 10 days and were not actually withdrawn
from the drug.
Mr. GASQUE. They only stayed, 16 and-what is that percentage?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, that 16% percent.
Mr. GASQUE. 16y percent?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. They were the active, I mean this is what we
were looking for, and we did have another group of 23 percent that
did a pretty good job and were certainly by no means a total loss as
far as their treatment; we felt that there was a fairly good chance
that, with assistance, they could get along in the community.
However, there were about 60 percent whose results were very,
very questionable.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, 60 percent, you say, the results were very,
very questionable?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. These were of the voluntary admission patients.
Mr. GASQUE. And 23 percent, you think, could go along pretty
well if they were given some help in the community?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, a portion; a portion of those. I won't say
the 23 percent, but in that 23 percent maybe half of them. It is one
of the things that we don't have any followup on.
Mr. GASQUE. Then, you have got 83 percent there, then, that would
need some community help if they were going to get over drug addiction?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Let's see, now, whether-well, it is more thanthere are about 77 percent of this total group who had some benefit,
I mean they had withdrawal of the drug and they had a little of the
rehabilitation and psychiatric work up, through what we considered
our best possible end result.
Mr. GASQUE. But if they go back to the community and don't
get some support from social agencies, from job agencies, and don't
get some type of probationary assistance, the possibility of their
getting off drugs is very remote, isn't it?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, that is a hard question for me to really
answer, from a scientific standpoint, because I really don't know what
would happen out there.
I I I --
rLICIrr NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
3251
I think we have conceded or we have contended that in order to do

the best job, that you must have these things followed.
But, turning this around, I would have to say yes, there is certainly
some doubt about some of these folks getting well; I think that's true.
Mr. GASQUE. And the truth of the matter is that in the communities, these. days, there are no such facilities?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, there are some. For drug addicts specifically
I don't know the extent of them, but there are some pretty good
mental-health programs developed in many communities, and I
think that through the broader mental-health programs, there is a
good possibility.
But actually, you see, we don't know ourselves what kind of contacts this individual makes.
Mr. GASQUE. That is true.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. And for that reason, if we had the bridge which
would link us over to this thing, we could very well have a better
knowledge of what our end results in this area are.
Mr. GASQUE. Yes. Now, while you say there are some social
agencies or some psychiatric groups that might help them, you have
no knowledge that these addicts who are discharged from your hospital,
the large, 83 percent, I think it is, ever get to those agencies?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. No, I don't know that, unless occasionally a man
will write back and tell us he has done very well. But this is entirely
up to the individual, and in some instances groups do send letters
back to us and tell us that they have contacted the organization. It
isn't completely true.
Mr. GASQUE. No.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. And I know that down in some of the cities, in
other words I think Houston and San Antonio, they have given a good
deal of thought to what they can do with these people in these areas.
Mr. GASQUE. But, for the most part, when the addicts leave your
hospital to go back on the community, you are not permitted to tell
the police they are there, so they can watch their activities?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Oh, no.
Mr. GASQUE. You are not permitted to tell the social agencies, so
that they can give them any sort of assistance or welfare or help them
get a job, or help them get located, so that they might try to repair
their lives?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, that is our understanding of the law as
written.
Mr. GASQUE. It is your understanding of the law, and I believe
you comply with that understanding?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Pretty well, yes, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. And so consequently, when an addict returns to his
community, he has in effect little or no assistance in trying to repair
his life?
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, that-that is true, and it is certainly true
of the people who move out very quickly, I mean there is absolutely
no time, even if you had time with those folks, you couldn't arrange
something.
But there is this about the Federal prisoners, as I mentioned, on the
parole, that a good many of those do have situations worked out for
them, job situations worked out. As a matter of fact, the parole
board wouldn't consider parole, I don't believe, unless they had a
pretty goxd situation worked out.
I I I
3252
S2ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
Now, I think, regarding the commitment procedure, it is perfectly

possible that some of these folks who will come to us will say they
don't want to stay. Now, that is perfectly possible. In that instance, it would seem that the court or whoever made this decision
then the individual would have to go back, and we should be able to
let that court or whoever it is know that this was the end result.
I think that that type of communication is the type of community.
tion that would be very helpful.
Mr.
SPEER.
No questions, Senator.
Senator DANIEL. Thank you very much, Doctor. We will be

visiting with you some more, and any future suggestions that you
have, we will appreciate it.
We are especially looking forward to seeing the hospital here on

this trip.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. We would like very much for you to come out.
Senator DANIEL. Or certainly before the report is written to the
Congress, we would like to make an inspection there with you on the
ground.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Senator Daniel, may I make one further statement
here? I think it is a very important one.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. I would like to just mention this to you: We have
in this community about the finest support that any Federal institution could possibly have. We have excellent support from the
physicians; 25 of our consultants are from Tarrant County, about 5
from Dallas.
We have about 56 local organizations that help us in a voluntary
way, and a number of private individuals that have a great interest
in our institution, and I just would like to mention it to you, that we
are very proud of this kind support from this community.
Senator DANIEL. I am glad you did mention that. I think it is a
fine thing, the way that the people of Fort Worth support all of their
institutions.
Senator DANIEL. Football teams, baseball, and everything else.
I learned how to do that when I lived here, and I am sure they are
proud to have this Federal institution here, and that they will continue
to support it, provided that we in the Congress make some changes in
the laws that you and the local officers have recommended.
We certainly appreciate your coming before us today.
Dr. TRAUTMAN. Well, thank you very much, and I appreciate the
privilege of being here.
Roosevelt Cornelius.
Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes, sir.
TESTIMONY OF ROOSEVELT CORNELIUS
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
CORNELIUS.
State your name.

Roosevelt Cornelius, Jr.
Sea&r
DANIEL.
3253
That is Roosevelt C-o-r-n-e-l-i-u-s?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. Junior?
Senator DANIEL. Where do you live, Roosevelt?

Mr. CORNELIUS. 1315 Drury Street.
Senator DANIEL. Here in Fort Worth?
Senator DANIEL. How long have you lived here?

Mr. CORNELIUS. I have lived here ever since 1939.
Senator
DANIEL.
I believe that you had the unfortunate experience
of becoming addicted to drugs?

Mr. CORNELIUS.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. CORNELIUS.
-Senator DANIEL.
Yes, sir.
What drug did you use?
Heroin.
How long ago did you start using heroin?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, it was approximately 8 or 9 months ago,

about June of last year.

Mr. CORNELIUS. I was 24-25, rather.
Senator
DANIEL.
Had you ever used marihuana or any other drug
before starting the use of heroin?

Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes, sir, I used marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. How long had you used marihuana?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Oh, I'd say about a year or so.
Senator DANIEL. Who gave you your first marihuana cigarette?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, I don't recall just how it came about. You
know, a bunch of young fellows together, and somehow I come about
it through some of the fellows that had it, and I just tried it, and
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Was it somebody selling you 1, or giving you 1?

No, it was gave to me.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, you started using marihuana

because some of your friends were using it, and one of them gave you a
cigarette?
Mr. CORNELIUS. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. H&~d you been warned against it?
Mr. CORNELIUS. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Had your family, church, school or anybody
mentioned marihuana or any of these narcotic drugs to you?

Mr. CORNELIuS. No, sir, I had never known anything about it
before then.
Senator DANIEL. And you just started smoking marihuana because
your friends were using it?
Senator
DANIEL.
Did it get you into any trouble?
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Yes, sir, it did.
Senator
What kind of trouble did it get you into?
DANIEL.
Well, the first trouble that I got into was 1951,

down in El Paso, myself and a couple of more fellows, we were arrested
for possession of marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. Were you in the army then?
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Mr. CORNELIUS. No, sir, I wasn't in the service.

Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been in the service?
Mr. CORNELIUS. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
What were you doing in El Paso?
3254
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Well, we were passing through there.
We were
on our way to California.

Senator DANIEL. How many fellows with you?
Mr. CORNELIUS. There was two more besides myself.
Senator DANIEL. And where were you all going-what were you
going to California for?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, we went-I had been staying out there in
California for about a year then, and I had been here to visit my
people, and we were on our way back.
Senator DANIEL. And where did you get the marihuana.
Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, we got it from over in Juarez.
Senator DANIEL. You crossed the bridge there from El Paso to
Juarez?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. How much marihuana did you get?
Mr. CORNELIUS. We had five sticks.
Senator DANIEL. Five cigarettes?
Mr.
CORNELIUS.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
CORNELIUS.
Yes.
Was it easy to buy marihuana across the border?

Yes, sir, it was. We didn't have any trouble.
Did you ever buy any heroin over there?
No, sir. At that time I wasn't
You weren't using heroin then?
Using heroin, no, sir.
At that time I was 23, I believe, when that
happened.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever crossed the Mexican border
anywhere else?
Mr. CORNELIUS. No, sir; I haven't.
Senator DANIEL. That's your only time?
Senator DANIEL. After you started using heroin, where were you
living then, in California or Fort Worth?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, I was living in Fork Worth when I started
using heroin.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you say it was this year?
Mr. CORNELIUS. It was last year when I started using heroin, yes,
sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
CORNELIUS.
How did you happen to start using heroin?

Well, I was with some fellows, and I-we were all
Mr.
at his house, and they were using it, and so they asked me did I
want to try it, and so I tried it.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. CORNELIUS.
How many fellows were there?

It was 4 or 5.
Senator DANIEL. Were they wanting to sell it to you?

Mr. CORNELIUS. No, they didn't offer to sell it to me at that time;
they just offered to give it to me.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. CORNELIUS.
quite awhile.
Senator
And that was some of your friends?

Well, associates, fellows that I knew, you know.
Had you known them a pretty good while?
Well, some of them, 1 or 2 1 had been knowing for
The others I had just been seeing around.
DANIEL.
And where was this, that you first used heroin,
what part of town, what street?
3255
Mr. CORNELIU8. It was over on the south side, on Evans.

Senator DANIEL. Your house, or one of your friend's house?
Mr. CORNELIUS. No, it was at another fellow's house.
Senator
heroin?
Did anyone there at that time later on sell you
DANIEL.
Mr. CORNELIUS. Well,

Senator DANIEL. How
later, yes, later.
much later?
Oh, about 2 or 3 weeks after I first started.
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Senator DANIEL. Did anyone there give you heroin after the first
time?
Mr. CORNELIUS. No. I could, when I-after that, I could go there
and get it, and he would let me have it and I would pay him
later, and like that.
Senator DANIEL. You started buying the heroin from one of these
boys that told you how to use it?
Senator
DANIELS.
Started you off on it?
Senator DANIEL.
it in your veins, or
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Senator DANIEL.
vein?
How did you use it?

what?
Did you sniff it or shoot
No, we would shoot it in my vein.

You shot it with a hypodermic needle in your
Senator
Who showed you how to do it?

Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, the fellows there at the house, I just watched
DANIEL.
how they did it, and saw how it went, and then I did it myself.
Senator DANIEL. Did this fellow that later sold you some of the
heroin help show you how to shoot it?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, I-
Senator DANIEL. Well, wait just a minute. What did you start
to say about it? Before you call his name, say whatever you were
going to say.
Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, I was going to say that I would rather not
call his name, because I wouldn't want to-you know, I have got to
be among these people again, and you can understand that.
Senator DANIEL. You have a charge filed against you now in connection with narcotics, don't you?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator
Without goi ng into any of the details, of that

charge, do you mean to say that if you should be convicted and serve
time, or if you should beat that charge, you would be going back into
the same neighborhood?
DANIEL.
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Yes, sir; that's right.
Senator
Do you feel that it might endanger your life
DANIEL.
or your well-being if you tell who sold you this drug?

Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes, sir, I do believe it would.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I believe Mr. Speer has just told me that
he had an understanding with you that we would not order you to
name the person that you bought the drug from.
3256
Senator DANIEL. Because, of course, as you know, you could claim
the fifth amendment, as so many people do before these committees,

and not give us any of this information, couldn't you?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes, sir; that's right.
Senator DANIEL. But you have agreed not to do that, and to give
us all of the information except the name of the people you bought
from?
Senator
DANIEL.
Is that right?
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, without any names, I want to know

whether or not you ever bought from more than one person here in
Fort Worth.
Mr. CORNELIUS. I have.
Senator DANIEL. I am talking, now, about heroin.
Senator
DANIEL.
How many people have you bought heroin from
here in Fort Worth?

Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, I'd say approximately 7 or 8 different
people.
Senator
Mr.
know.
DANIEL.
CORNELIUS.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Senator DANIEL.
Are they all out, now, on the streets?

Well, I couldn't say for sure, because I wouldn't
How many days since you bought heroin?
I have been in jail about a month.
Well, how long before you went to jail did you
buy your last heroin?

Mr. CORNELIUS. Oh, about-it was the same day that I got arrested, I had bought some.
Senator
DANIEL. And what had it cost you?

Mr. CORNELIUS. It is-it sells for $7 for a capsule.
Senator DANIEL. How many capsules a day were you taking?
Mr. CORNELIUS. About three.
Senator DANIEL. You mean your habit was costing you $21 a day?
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Yes, sir.
Senator
How in the world could you get enough money to
DANIEL.
pay $21 a day for the heroin?

Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, as you know, I have other charges against
me down there, and the fellows that are on the stuff-
Senator
DANIEL.
CORNELIUS.
I don't want you
Mr.
Most of them are boosters. In other words,
boosters are shoplifters, and that is how we get our money, mostly.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, like other people who are on
heroin, you shoplift. And what else?
Mr. CORNELIUS. And the guys-well, just any number of things,
you know, to acquire the money to buy it.
Senator DANIEL. Do you also have a charge filed against you for
shoplifting or theft, or anything like that?
Mr. CORNELIUS. I have a theft charge.
Senator DANIEL. Filed against you?
Senator DANIEL. In addition
Mr. CORNELIIS. Yes, sir.
to a narcotics charge?
Senator DANIEL. Well, I am not asking you about any details of a

pending case, you understand; I am not asking you about anything
3257
concerning your case on which charges have been filed against you,
and nothing that I have asked you thus far is intended to relate to
those charges, you understand.
Now, with reference to any acts for which you now stand charged,
did you, before that time, engage in shoplifting and things of that
kind, in order to satisfy your habit?
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Yes, sir; I have.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, you have violated various and

sundry laws?
Senator DANIEL. This heroin habit has led you into a lot of
trouble?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes, sir; it has.
Senator DANIEL. Would you like to try to break the habit?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes, sir; I would.
In fact, I did make an attempt to. My mother, she found out
about it, I'd say approximately a week before I was arrested, and
together with my family doctor, he called out here to the United
States Public Health Service hospital, and he talked to Mr. McConnell
for me. And they mailed me an application from out there, and I
filled this application out and I sent it back, and they sent me an
answer and told me when to report out there. But unfortunately,
before the time came I was arrested.
Senator DANIEL. How long did the reply say that you had to wait
before you got in the hospital?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, when I got the reply back, I think it was
about a week before I could be admitted. They didn't tell me they
would admit me; they just told me to come out for an interview.
Senator DANIEL. In a week?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes, sir; in a week's time.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Senator
DANIEL.
But during that week, you were arrested?

Yes, sir.
And you were using heroin during that week?
Senator
DANIEL.
Buying it, still, here in Fort Worth?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes, sir; I was.
Senator
DANIEL.
Now, as of the date you were arrested, how many
people did you know in Fort Worth that you could have bought
heroin from, and that you had bought from?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Oh, I'd say approximately 4 or 5.
Senator
DANIEL.
Four or five were still out at the time you were
arrested a month ago?

Mr. CORNELIUS.
Senator
DANIEL.
Yes.
Were they carrying on a pretty good-sized heroin
business here?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, I wouldn't say too big. None of themnone of them was dealing too big. In other words, the highest I have
known any of them to have at one time was what they call a $50
paper, and you get approximately 35 or 40 capsules out of that.
Senator
DANIEL.
Where did this heroin come from?

Well, I wouldn't know exactly where it came from.
Mr. CORNELIUS.
I only heard that some of the guys were getting it out of San Antonio
and Houston and Dallas.
Senator
DANIEL.
selling the heroin?
You heard that from some of those who were
3258
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Yes, sir.
Did you buy white heroin or yellow heroin?
Well, some of it was white and some of it was
yellow.
Senator DANIEL. Did you have to pay the same price for the white
heroin as you did for the yellow heroin?
Mr. CORNELIUS.Yes, sir; I did.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know where the yellow heroin is supposed
to be coming from?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, no, I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear it called Mexican heroin?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes, sir; I have heard it.
Senator DANIEL. And where do they say the white heroin here in
Fort Worth comes from?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, I didn't know that, either.
Senator DANIEL. Is there any difference in the way it feels to you

when you shoot white heroin?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, yes, sir; there is a difference.
Senator DANIEL. What is the difference?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, the brown heroin, the Mexican heroin, it
is usually stronger. In other words, it has more power to it than the
white.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, did you hear the names of any of
these people who were selling heroin to the Fort Worth dealers, either
in San Antonio, Houston, or Dallas?

Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, I have heard names, but mostly they are
nicknames, you know. They never hardly tell you a guy's narne;
they usually all have a nickname.
Mr. CORNELIUS. In San Antonio, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy any heroin in San Antonio?
Mr. CORNELIUS. No, sir, I never have bought any heroin in
San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever bought heroin anywhere outside
of Fort Worth?
Mr. CORNELIUS. I have bought it in Dallas.
Mr. CORNELIUS. Oh, the same week that I was arrested.
Senator DANIEL. How much did it cost in Dallas?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Seven dollars for a capsule.
Senator DANIEL. How many dealers in heroin do you know in
Dallas?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, I only know 2 or 3 guys over there. I'd
say about three.
Senator DANIEL. Were they selling, all three of them, before you
were arrested?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes, sir; they were.
Senator DANIEL. Are they colored or white?
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Senator DANIEL.
They were colored.
How about the sellers here in Fort Worth; were

they all colored or some of them white?
Mr. CORNELIUS. They are all colored; the ones that I know.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever bought from any white people
in Dallas or Fort Worth?
3259
No, sir; I haven't.

Mr. CORNELIUS.
Now, did any of the 4 or 5 people you were with originally, who
taught you to use these drugs, ever attempt to sell you any drugs
at a later time?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes, sir; they did.
Mr. GASQUE. They did?
Mr. GASQUE. Do you believe that they helped you get on drugs
in order to develop a customer?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, I don't know, sir. I couldn't say, because
no one forced me to do it. I did it on my own.
Mr. GASQUE. But they weren't your usual friends?
Air. CORNELIUS. No, they wasn't just what I'd say close friends;
they were just some fellows that I knew and associated with sometimes.
Mr. GASQUE. I see. Now, about the goods you get in your-in
the boosting activities, which I believe you spoke of, where do you
send these goods, or where do you sell them, how do you get rid of
them? Do you get rid of them in Fort Worth or some other city?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, usually we get rid of them here.
MNr. GASQUE. In Fort Worth?
Mr. GASQUE. To individuals, or shop owners, orMr. CORNELIUS. To the individuals or shop owners, either one.
Mr. GASQUE. I see. That's all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SPEER. The people you bought from in Dallas, perhaps if I
asked you some of their names you wouldn't mind answering that, if
I tell you they are people we have already had identified as selling
heroin, and who have admitted selling heroin.
Would you still be reluctant to admit that?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, yes, I would be, I believe, for the simple
reason because I don't know. And then, just, like I explained at
first, you see, however it goes, well, I am going to have to meet these
people sometime or another in the future.
Mr. SPEER. Well, would you say these-the distribution system here
in Fort Worth and in Dallas is made up of small groups that supply,
say, maybe twenty people in each group, through one or the other?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes, sir; that, I would say so.
Mr. SPEER. Is that the general system?
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Mr.
SPEER.
Yes, sir.
In both Fort Worth and Dallas?
AMr. CORNELIUS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. And you say there are about five dealers that you know?
Mr.
CORNELIUS.
That's right.
Mr. SPEER. I believe that's all.

Senator DANIEL. How many addicts, approximately, do you think
you would know here in Fort Worth? Without calling any names,
just about how many?
Mr. CORNELIUS. I'd say I know approximately 75, or maybe 100.
Senator DANIEL. You know between 75 and 100 who use heroin?
Senator DANIEL. Do they mostly live in your neighborhood?

71515--5---pt. 7-58
3260
Mr.

CORNELIUS.
Senator
Well,
no, they are from all sides of town.
Are any of them white?

I do know some white, yes, sir.
About how many white people do you know in
Fort Worth who are users of heroin?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Oh, I would say I know at least 12, or maybe 15.
Senator DANIEL. And then you say you know about how many
DANIEL.
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Senator DANIEL.
colored people who are using heroin?

Mr.
CORNELIUS.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
CORNELIUS.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Senator
DANIEL.
anywhere from 75 to 100.

Do you know some users of heroin in Dallas?
Yes, sir; I do.
Do you visit over in Dallas pretty much?
Yes, sir; I have.
About how many heroin users do you know in
Oh,
Dallas?
Mr. CORNELIUS.
Senator DANIEL.
Well, I'd say over a hundred over there.
You know personally, by name, over a hundred

heroin users in Dallas?
Mr.
CORNELIUS. Well, I wouldn't say I know them personally,
no, not by name.
Senator DANIEL. But have you seen over a hundred different people
in Dallas use heroin?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Through association, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And do you get into some pretty big parties at
sometimes, in using this heroin?
Mr. CORNELIUS. Yes, sir; I have been in them.
Senator DANIEL. Tell us just about how large a party you have
ever been in, where they were using heroin.
Mr. CORNELIUS. Well, I have been in parties where there were
around 9 or 10 there, all in one-in some other fellow's house, and
most of the time there would be someone there that was dealing,
and that's the way the parties usually take place.
Senator DANIEL. The parties are usually in the houses where the
men are selling the heroin?
Mr.
CORNELIUS. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Is that true in both Fort Worth and Dallas?
Senator DANIEL. I believe that's all. You may stand aside.
We will take a 5 minute recess.
(Short recess.)
Senator DANIEL. The committee will come to order. Harry
Huggins.
whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. HUGGINS. Yes, sir.
TESTIMONY OF HARRY J. HUGGINS
Senator
DANIEL
State your name.
Mr. HUGGINS. Harry Huggins.

Senator DANIEL. Do you have a middle name or initial?
Mr.
HUGGINS.
Yes, sir; J., Harry J. Huggins.
3261
Senator DANIEL. Where do you live, Mr. Huggins?

Mr. HUGGINS. Denton, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you lived at Denton?
Ir. HUGGINS. I was born and raised there.
Senator DANIEL. I'm sorry, but you are going to have to speak out
just a little louder.
Mr. HUGGINS. I was born and raised there.
Senator DANIEL. Are you the same Harry Huggins who served a 15.ear sentence for murder?
-'Jr.HUGGINS. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you also serve other sentences, Mr. Huggins?
A/fr. HUGGINS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Have you had the unfortunate experience of
having used narcotic drugs?

Mr. HUGGINS. I don't believe I would answer that, Senator.
It
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, I am going to tell you this, that I am
not asking you whether or not you are an addict now, or anything else
that could incriminate you if you gave a truthful answer to that
question.
In other words, I am not asking you what you are doing now, or
about any specific event. I just want to know whether or not you
have, at various times in your life, used narcotic drugs.
Mr. HUGGINS. Occasionally, yes.
Senator DANIEL. Do they include cocaine?
Mr. HUGGINS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And morphine?
Mr. HUGGINS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Have those drugs led to your getting into trouble?
MNr. HUGGINS. I wasn't using them when I got into trouble; no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I mean have they caused you any worry or
trouble in your life?
Mr. HUGGINS. I imagine they have; yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Did you associate with people who also used
cocaine and morphine?
Mr. HUGGINS. Yes, sir; some of them.

Mr. HUGGINS. Yes, sir; some of them.
Senator DANIEL. About how many people do you know that used
cocaine and morphine in Fort Worth and Dallas?
Mr. HUGGINS. I don't know, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, quite a few?
Mr. HUGGINS. Quite a few; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I am not asking you to name them at this particular time, but I just asked you, did you know some people who
engaged in violent crimes, such as burglary, hijacking, murder, and
things like that, of that kind, who at various times used cocaine and
morphine?
Mr. HUGGINS. I believe they did, yes, sir; some of them.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I am just asking you if it isn't true that
you know they did.
Mr. HUGGINS. Some of them; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You used cocaine and morphine with some of

them, did you not?
Mr. HUGGINS. Occasionally, yes.
3262
Senator DANIEL. Would you name some of these people who used
cocaine and morphine, and who also engaged in hijacking, burglaries,

and murders?
Mr. HUGGINS. No, sir; I wouldn't name them.
Senator DANIEL. Why would you not name them?
Mr. HUGGINS. I just wouldn't care to, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you fear that it might endanger you own
security or life if you did name them?
Mr. HUGGINS. It might; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Is that the reason you decline to name them?
Senator DANIEL. Under those circumstances, the chair is not going
to ask you to name them; I will ask you simply about 2 or 3 people
who are no longer living.
Did you know Tincey Eggleston?
Mr. HUGGINS. Yes, sir; I did.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know him to be a user of cocaine?
Mr. HUGGINS. Just occasionally he did, yes.
Mr. HUGGINS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know him to be a user of cocaine?
Mr. HUGGINS. Very seldom he did.
Mr. HUGGINS. Very seldom; he did very seldom.
Senator DANIEL. You did know him, though, to be a user of cocaine
at times?
Mr. HUGGINS. At times, yes sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know Tincey Eggleston also to use some
other drug?
Mr. HUGGINS. No, I don't believe so.
Senator DANIEL. What about morphine?
Mr. HUGGINS. I don't believe I ever seen him use morphine.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you did see him use marihuana, though?
Mr. HUGGINS. I don't recall if I did.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see Cecil Green use marihuana?
Mr. HUGGINS. Once or twice.
Senator DANIEL. Once or twice?
Senator DANIEL. And you saw both of them use cocaine?
Senator DANIEL. And you have used cocaine with them, have you
not?
Senator DANIEL. Now, the three of you were associated together,
I believe in a murder case here in this county of a Mr. William Clark,
is that correct?
Mr. HUGGINS. Yes, sir; I was indicted for it.
Senator DANIEL. You are under indictment for that?
Mr. HUGGINS. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. I believe that both Eggleston and Cecil Green are
dead, is that correct?
Mr. HUGGINS. Yes, sir; I believe so.
Senator DANIEL. Were they associated with you in this murder?
Mr. HUGGINS. Yes, sir; they were indicted for it.
IrCIT NAIRCOTI
TAFTIC3263
3263
Senator DANIEL. What did they tell you they wanted you to help
them do?
Mr. HUGGINS. Senator, I am under indictment for that case myself,
and have a trial coming up. I would rather not answer that; it might
incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you have already given all the information
concerning this matter to the district attorney, have you not?
Mr. HUGGINS. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. I am not going to ask you to go into any details,
but did they tell you they wanted you to come and help them murder
Mr. Clark?
Mr. HUGGINS. No.
Senator DANIEL. What did they tell you they wanted you to do?
Mr. HUGGINS. I would rather not answer it, Senator, because I
am under indictment myself.
Senator DANIEL. Well, didn't they tell you they wanted-that
they had a woman who wanted her husband robbed, and wanted you
to help them do it?
Mr. HUGGINS. I would rather not answer, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you decline to answer on the grounds
that it might tend to incriminate you?
Mr. HUGGINS. Yes, sir; I am under indictment, and I have a trial
coming up myself.
Senator
DANIEL.
And you decline-you want to claim the fifth
amendment?
Senator DANIEL. You feel that a truthful answer to the question

HUGGINS. Yes, sir.
Mr.
Without reference to you or any part

that you might have had in it, which one of these men was it that
pulled the trigger that killed Clark?
Mr.
HUGGINS.
I would rather not answer that, sir, for the same
reason.
Senator DANIEL. You would rather not answer; do you decline to
answer on the grounds that a truthful answer to the question might

Senator DANIEL. Did you know Nelson Harris?
Senator DANIEL. How long did you know Nelson Harris?
Mr. HUGGINS. Several years.

Senator DANIEL. What happened to him?
Mr. HUGGINS. He got killed.
Senator DANIEL. How did he get killed?
Mr. HUGGINS. He got in his car and it blowed up.
Mr. HUGGINS. He got in his car and it blowed up.
Senator DANIEL. Was his wife in the car with him?
Senator DANIEL. Nelson Harris was engaged in the drug traffic
here in Fort Worth, was he not?
Mr. HUGGINS. I think he was convicted of it; I don't know.
3264
MLICrr- NAeo'CS TRAFFIC
Senator DANIEL. Well, he was not only convicted of it, but you
know from what you saw and heard that he was engaged in the drug
traffic, don't you?
Mr. HUGGINS. No, sir; I don't know it.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you know he was convicted.
Senator DANIEL. For being in the drug traffic?

Senator DANIEL. And you know that Tincey Eggleston associated
with him?
Mr. HUGGINS. Yes, sir; they were associated, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How long were they associated together?
Mr. HUGGINS. I really don't know, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Well, over a pretty good period of time?
Mr. HUGGINS. Yes, sir; it was over a period of years, sir, I would
say.
Senator DANIEL. Over the same period of time that Tincey Eggles-
ton was using cocaine?

Mr. HUGGINS. I don't know whether he was using it then or not.
Tincey was no addict.
Mr. HUGGINS. Tincey, I say, was no addict.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I didn't ask you whether Tincey was any
addict; I asked you whether or not he was using cocaine, and if it
was during that time that he was using cocaine that he was associated
with Nelson Harris.
Mr. HUGGINS. Yes, sir; I imagine he did during that time.
Mr. SPEER. The drugs that Tincey Eggleston sold, were those
burglarized drugs, Harry?
Mr. HUGGINS. I don't know, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Was that your information?
Mr. HUGGINS. No, sir; I just don't know where they come from.
I don't know that he sold any. I never saw him sell any.
Mr. SPEER. But it was your information that he did sell burglarized
drugs?
Mr. HUGGINS. No, sir; it wasn't my information. I just don't
know, sir.
Mr. SPEER. The cocaine that you spoke of using and using with
these other violators was in glass bottles, was it not, and was from
glass bottles?
Mr. SPEER. These glass bottles were bottles which bore the label
"Flaky Cocaine Hydrochloride"?

Mr. SPEER. In other words, this cocaine had been stolen, because
you cannot buy cocaine in that form from a drugstore?
Mr. HUGGINS. Yes, sir, I imagine it was taken out of some safe.
Mr. SPEER. Taken out of some safe?
Mr. HUGGINS. I imagine, yes. sir.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Clark was shot through the head, was he
not? I'm not asking you to testify about what you know and saw
about it, but that is what you heard about it?
3265
Mr. HUGGI. S. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. You did see the body, didn't you?
Senator DANIEL. And you saw that he was shot through the head?
Senator
DANIEL.
You did not shoot him yourself?
Mr. HUGGINS. No.

Mr. HUGGINS. I
account--
would rather not answer that, Senator,
on
Senator DANIEL. Do you know who did?

Senator
DANIEL.
You would rather not answer; do you claim your
rights under the fifth amendment, not to answer on the grounds that
it might tend to incriminate you?
Senator DANIEL. I just want to leave this record clear, though, up

to this point, that you did not do it.
Mr. HUGGINS. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
And the only two other people who were there
and involved in it were Tincey Eggleston and Cecil Green, is that

correct?
Senator DANIEL. Did you see the rifle after it was over, that he
was shot with?
Mr. HUGGINS. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. You have known, then, of certain people to com-
mit violent crimes who also had been users or were users of cocaine
and other narcotic drugs, have you not?
Mr.
HUGGINS. Yes, sir;

Senator DANIEL. There
I have seen them.

is no doubt about that in your mind, is
there?
Mr.
HUGGINS.
No, sir; no doubt.
Senator DANIEL. There is no doubt in your mind that some drug

users will commit violent crimes, is there?
Mr.
HUGGINS.
No, there is no doubt in my mind, no.
DANIEL. That's all.

Stand aside.
Mr. Reporter, let the record show that we have both the United
States attorney for this district, Mr. Heard Floore, sitting with us
today, and also the State district attorney, Mr. Fender, sitting with
our chief counsel, Mr. Aubrey Gasque, to my right, and Mr. Lee
Speer, our chief investigator, to my left.
Now, let's see which 1 of these 2 district attorneys we will put
on first.
Since both of you are going to sit with us all the way through, let's
hear from Mr. Floore first, and then you.
Mr. FENDER. Fine.
Mr. FLOORE. Do you want to swear me in, Senator?
Senator DANIEL. Yes, sir; just in case you testify about something
other than opinions.
Senator
Mr. FLOOR.
I do.
3266
TESTIMONY OF HEARD L. FLOORE, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Mr. FLOORE. Heard L. Floor.
Mr. FLOORE. United States attorney, northern district of Texas.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you held that position, Mr.
Floore?
Mr. FLOORE. Approximately 2 years and 1 month.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Floore, since becoming United States district

attorney for the northern district of Texas, have you had occasion to
give particular attention to the narcotics traffic in this district?
Mr. FLOORE. Yes, sir; I have. I have prosecuted several cases.
Senator DANIEL. How big is your district?
Mr. FLOORE. The north 99 counties of the State of Texas. We
have seven divisions where we hold court.
Senator DANIEL. Now, what type of cooperation do you have with
local officers on narcotics cases?
Mr. FLOORE. Excellent. The Dallas police department has a very
efficient narcotics squad; the Fort Worth police department and the
Lubbock police department have cooperated very well with me in
certain cases.
Senator DANIEL. You know, every time I hear Commissioner
Anslinger testify about narcotics sentences, he uses Lubbock, Tex. and
he said: "Now, there was a jadge out at Lubbock, Tex., that stuck
really heavy sentences on them, and we got to where we could take our
bureau agent away from Lubbock."
Mr. FLOORE. Well, those were the cases I prosecuted.
Senator DANIEL. And who was the judge that stuck those heavy
sentences out there at Lubbock?
Mr. FLOORE. Judge Joseph B. Dooley.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think that it really did dry up the traffic
out there?
Mr. FLOORE. Temporarily.
Senator DANIEL. Has it come back?
Mr. FLOORE. I am not certain whether or not it has; but the traffic
ordinarily will tend to return.
Senator DANIEL. Now, what has been your observation as to the
effectiveness of local officers in dealing with the narcotics problem?
Mr. FLOORE. They are effective within their sphere; however, their
sphere is very limited.
A police officer for the city of Fort Worth, for example, is limited
of Fort Worth, for example. The
in his operations to the city lits
sheriff of Tarrant County is limited; a State officer is limited to the
State of Texas.
Further, they do not have the period of training, the long period
of training given to a United States narcotics officer; and further,
they do not have available to them the funds with which to purchase
large amounts of evidence.
With the limitations they have on them, I think they all do a very
fine job.
Senator DANIEL. Would these limitations lead you to recommend

that we should have more Federal narcotics agents in your district?
Mr. FLOORE. Absolutely. I found myself in a position, approxi-
3267
mately 1 year ago, of having only 4 narcotics agents to cover the

whole northern half of Texas and the western part of the northern
half of the State of Louisiana. That is spreading it way too thin.
Senator DANIEL. You had how many agents?
Mr. FLOORE. Four.

Senator DANIEL. How many do you have now?
Mr. FLOORE. I think there are approximately eight at this time I
am not certain. Mr. Heddens is in the room, and can give you the
exact answer to that.
Senator DANIEL. But you feel that there should be an increase in
Bureau of Narcotics personnel?
Mr. FLOORE. Yes, sir; and I would like to have some here in Fort
Worth.
Fort Worth is the main office of the United States attorney, and
has been for the past 42 years. We handle the business of six divisions
from Fort Worth. Yet we have no narcotics personnel available for
consultations; we must ask them to come over from Dallas when we
need consultation on these problems.
Senator
DANIEL.
How do you look upon the division of respon-
sibilities between the Federal Government and local agencies of

government, in fighting the narcotics problem?
Mr. FLOORE. Senator, you understand that my views that I express
are my own views, and not necessarily those of the Department of
Justice.
Senator DANIEL. Yes; we do.
Mr. FLOORE. It is my view that the function of the United States
Government in suppressing the narcotics problem is to seek out, find,
and convict sources of supply and large peddlers.
The mere addict and the local pusher is a problem for the State and
local officers, and they are capable of handling him. The State and
local officers do not have the facilities necessary to seek out, try, and
convict the large peddlers and the sources of supply.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, what are some of the problems with respect to
obtaining evidence which you run into?
Mr. FLOORE. That's the hardest part of any narcotics case, is to get
the evidence. The source of supply, the man who actually organizes
the whole thing, is extremely well hidden. He is known only to a very
few trusted lieutenants, sometimes only to one lieutenant. Quite
often, he will never himself touch narcotics; he will leave that for those
subordinates under him.
Therefore, in orderMr. GASQUE. I believe you have a case here that you mentioned
some time ago which bears that point out?
Mr. FLOORE. That's right.
Mr.
GASQUE.
I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about that
FLOORE.
Do you speak of the case wherein a certain man
case?
Mr.
organized himself a clique of users of narcotics?
Mr.
GASQUE.
That's the one.
Mr. FLOORE. All right. This is a case wherein a man found a

source of supply-without naming names, because we could not
prove this-we felt reasonably satisfied ourselves that this man was a
master burglar, and that his source of supply came from drugstore
robberies.
3268
We found reasonable evidence to show that he gathered together

a group of people and made addicts out of them by furnishing them
free narcotics, in the beginning. After they were "hooked", the exression is used, they were forced to buy these narcotics. In the
beginning, the cost was some $2 per pill; the pills retail over the drugstore counter for approximately 6 cents.
He charged these people in the beginning $2, he went up to $4,
and before we finally caught him he was charging them as much as
$8 per pill. We found these people using from 1 to 4 pills per day.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, why was it difficult to get up to him, to catch
him? Why was it so difficult?
Mr. FLOORE. Because he wouldn't hand the narcotics to anybody
except to one person, and never in the presence of anybody else. He
would hand the narcotics to that one person; he would always call him
off to one side, where he did not believe that they could be seen, and
hand him the narcotics. Then the dealing, actual dealing, would be
through this one lieutenant.
This one lieutenant absolutely refused, of course, to testify against
him.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, was he a white person?
Mr. FLOORE. He was a white person.
NowYou are speaking of the source of supply, now?

Mr. GASQ17E. Yes.
Mr. FLOORE. He was the source of supply.
Mr. GASQUE. Well, now, who did he sell his narcotics to?
Mr. FLOORE. Primarily to colored people.
Mr. GASQUE. What ages?
Mr. FLOORE. The ages that we were able to locate ranged between
20 and 30.
Mr. GASQUE. Between 20 and 30? Well, excuse me
Mr.
Mr.
GASQUE.
FLOORE.
Mr. FLOORE. He is under subpena.
Senator DANIEL. He is under subpena?

Mr. FLOORE. In view of the statements that I have made, that I
do not have direct evidence of, I would prefer not to name him.
Senator DANIEL. That's all right. Go ahead, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Will you continue with your statement?
Mr. FLOORE. Well, this man was tried and convicted. The conviction was reversed and came back down, he was retried, and is again
appealing his conviction.
Senator DANIEL. Is this the man you failed to name?
Senator DANIEL. Could you identify that case in some way we
might follow it up with direct evidence?
Mr. FLOORE. Senator, in view of the fact that I have made statements that are not supported by legal evidence
Senator DANIEL. I see, all right. I understand the reason now.
Go ahead, sir.
Mr. FLOORE. All right. What questions do you desire that I
respond to at this time?
Mr. GASQUE. Just continue on with the problems with reference
to obtaining evidence.
3269
Mr. FLOORE. All right. The next problem with reference to obtaining evidence in these cases is the people through whom we must
deal, that is, the class of people.
You cannot get evidence of a narcotic violation from the president
of the First National Bank; you can't get evidence of a narcotic
violation from a preacher; you must go to a user of narcotics. In
other words, you must go to a man that can actually purchase narcotics. Such a person ordinarily has a criminal record.
Now, it is difficult to protect those people. They subject themselves, when they become Government informers, to all the dangers
of the underworld. We can prosecute anybody who goes after these
people for interfering with a Government witness, but that is of very
little aid and assistance to a Government witness who has been assaulted, injured, or killed.
Now, there is one way that we go about protecting them, and it is
kind of hard on our witnesses; we put them in jail. They receive pay
of $1 a day while they are in jail. I have had to hold a witness in
jail as long as 120 days before the trial of a case, to insure that that
man would be alive when the case was tried.
That meant that he was completely out of society, and it further
meant that while he was in jail, he was frequently very close to the
actual people that he was intended to testify against.
Then, after they finish testifying for the Government, you lave an
additional problem, because they are marked characters after they
testify. It is not safe for those people to stay around in the same
vicinity; yet the Government has no provision to take care of them.
Mr. GASQUE. Well, now, I understand that the one thing an
addict informer dreads most of all is getting a hot shot when he goes
back on the streets.
Have you had any experience with that?
Mr. FLOORE. No, sir; I have had no experience with that.
Senator DANIEL. Do you understand what a "hot shot" is?
Mr. FLOORE. No, I don't believe I understand it, Senator.
Senator DANIE L. I understand it to be an overdose of heroin or
something else like that; is that right?
Mr. GASQUE. That's right, or poison.
Mr. FLOORE. Well, I can tell you, we had some pretty close experience with that.
There was one of our informers whom an underworld suspect was
about to inform, and the narcotics were delivered to him, that is, purported narcotics. But when those narcotics were analyzed, it was a
very deadly poison.
Mr. GASQUE. Well, what about wiretapping in obtaining evidence?
Mr. FLOORE. I feel that wiretapping in obtaining evidence with
reference to narcotics should be absolutely permissible.

Now, there is a legal question as to whether or not wiretapping isn't
actually permissible. In a majority of the State courts, wiretapping

is permissible. There is a conflict of decisions among the circuit
courts of the United States as to whether or not the Federal Communications Act forbids the use of evidence obtained by wiretapping.
Some hold that you can't use that evidence; others hold that you can.
The Supreme Court has not passed on this question as to whether

or not the constitutional provisions prohibit the use of wiretapping.
3270
In 1927, the Supreme Court, by a 5 to 4 decision, decided that they

did not. The makeup of the court has materially changed; there is a
complete change since that time.
In 1953, in the On Lee case, a very similar problem came up, whether
or not evidence obtained by a bug, that is, a device which was fastened
to the informer's body, it was introduced, and again by a 5 to 4 split,
the Supreme Court confirmed the use of that evidence.
The makeup of the court has changed since the 1953 decision.
There is no way of knowing what the decision today, by the present
Supreme Court, would be upon either one of those questions.
Mr. GASQuE. Now, I wonder if you could tell us something about
the problems which you are confronted with with reference to actual
prosecution.
Mr. FLOORE. The narcotics case is the easiest case that the Federal
prosecutor has to prosecute, after the evidence has been obtained.
We find that juries will readily convict, if there is a reasonable
amount of evidence which ties up the alleged violator to the narcotic
itself. Our problem is to carefully screen these cases, to be sure that
there is enough evidence to sustain the conviction.
Our effort is directed, not toward convincing the jury, as you usually have to do in a criminal case, but toward convincing the trial
court and then the appellate court that there is sufficient evidence to
sustain the finding.
Sometimes a jury goes against this tendency; but it is an extremely
rare thing. Our problem is to avoid the prejudice that we do have
against these narcotics violators, to keep from taking them into
court on what is actually too little evidence.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, what do you feel about penalties? Are they
too high, too low, or do you have any recommendations?
Mr. FLOORE. I have decided thoughts upon the subject of penalties.
Under the Boggs Act, on a first offender, the minimum penalty is
2 years, the maximum 5. Probation may be granted.
For a second offender, the minimum period is 5 years and the
maximum 10; no probation can be granted.
For a third offender, the minimum is 10 and the maximum 20.
No probation can be granted.
In each and every instance, the fine maximum is $2,000.
Two thousand dollars, to a large narcotic violator, is merely a slap
on the wrist, and no deterrent in any way, shape or form.
On the other hand, the maximum prescribed for a mere user and a
small pusher, on the third time that he has been caught, to put him
away for a minimum of 10 years, which the court must do, often
works a complete injustice.
Further, the maximum period that is set up for your first offender is
not nearly enough, when you actually are able to uncover a source of
supply.
For example, a man was arrested in the northern district of Texas
by the United States narcotics agents, and found with some 35 pounds
of marihuana in his possession. Marihuana sells in Mexico for $10
a pound, in Lubbock and Amarillo, for approximately $75 to $100 a
pound in Fort Worth for approximately $100 per pound, in New York
City for approximately $1,000 per pound.
This man could be classed as a large dealer, if not an actual source
of supply. It was his first offense. In view of the fact that the maximum penalty which could be imposed upon him under the terms of
3271
the law was 5 years, and even though the United States Government
had worked this case in its entirety, we declined to prosecute in
favor of State prosecution, so that a more adequate penalty could be
imposed upon the offender.
Senator DANIEL. Was he prosecuted m the State court?
Mr. FLOORE. Yes, sir; it is my understanding that he has been so
prosecuted.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know how much of a sentence was given?
Mr.
FLOORE.
No, sir; I do not.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know what the maximum State sentence

is?
Mr. FLOORE. I think it would be 15 years, but Mr. Fender is better
qualified than I to speak on that subject.
Mr. FENDER. Fifteen years.
Senator
DANIEL.
We will ask him about that.
Now, in other words, you would recommend that the Boggs Act,
which sets up the sentences on narcotics cases, should have the maximum penalty raised on first offenses?
Mr. FLOORE. Yes, sir. And on second or third offenses, I would
give more discretion to trial judges, and pin more faith upon selecting
and obtaining good trial judges who would administer justice.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I agree with you, and in fact I will go
you one better. On some cases, I think in smuggling cases and in

certain sales, let's say sales to juveniles, there would be nothing
wrong with having the maximum penalty a death sentence, so that,
in any aggravated case of either smuggling or sales to juveniles, the
jury or the judge could assess the maximum penalty, at least. Whether
it is used much or not, it would certainly be a deterrent to hold over
the heads of people who cross our borders, smuggling narcotics
in here, and who sell the narcotics to juveniles.
Mr. FLOORE. If that were properly safeguarded and were not
made a mandatory penalty, then it would be my belief that I would
concur in your feeling.
Senator DANIEL. Well, of course it wouldn't be mandatory; it
would simply be the maximum. In other words, you would go from,
let's say from 5 years to the death penalty, and anything in between
could be assessed.
Mr. FLOORE. Would your thought be, then, in line with the kidnapping law, wherein being the only place in the Federal law where
the jury has a voice in the punishment, and under the kidnapping
law the jury must recommend the death penalty before the death
penalty can be assessed? Would that be your thought?
Senator
DANIEL.
That is exactly what I have in mind.
A dis-
tinguished Federal judge, the other day when I told him that I was
thinking along those lines, said, "Price, don't be an extremist." He
said, "We just give capital punishment in murder cases and rape
cases, and kidnapping and things of that kind."
Well, I told him my view was that this selling of narcotics and
smuggling of narcotics is murder on the installment plan, because
these people that start using them, are like the living dead, in my
opinion, and their lives are destroyed, and they destroy the lives of
other people.
Mr. FLOORE. That is the whole point; they destroy their families'
lives, and those that they come in contact with.
3272
Senator DANIEL. Go ahead, sir, excuse me. I believe that you

were telling us about your recommendations on sentences; do you
have any other recommendations on the sentences?
Mr. FLOORE. I don't believe so, Senator. I think the maximum
should be higher, the minimum should be low, with faith imposed in
your trial courts over the country to decide what justice requires in
the individual circumstances.
Senator DANIEL. NOW, you have a prepared statement; have you
given copies of that statement to the committee and the reporter and
the press?
Mr. FLOORE. Yes, sir. Yes, sir; I have.
Senator DANIEL. We will make this statement, the entire statenient
in full, a part of the record.
(A list of narcotic cases indicted during 1954 in the northern district
of Texas, their last known addresses, sentences received, or final
disposition of their cases will be found in the appendix at p. 3551.)
Mr. FLOORE. Al right, sir.
(The statement referred to follows:)
STATEMENT
OF HEARD
L.
FLOORE,
UNITED
STATES
ATTORNEY,
NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Before commencing my statement, I want. to make it clear that all views I

shall express are my own views. I neither purport nor intend to express the
views of the Department of Justice.
In my opinion, the narcotics problem, including marihuana, is a problem which
must be worked on by the national Government. the State governments, the
county governments and the various municipalities. The effectiveness of muiiicipal officers and of county officers is limited by their jurisdiction. A city policeman can do little about someone who may be responsible for narcotics withiH the
city, but who is not himself physically within the city. The jurisdiction of the
county officer ordinarily ends at the county line. In this State, it is only recently
that State authorities assigned a small force specifically to narcotics. These
State agents are very limited in number. Likewise, their jurisdiction ends at
State lines. It would, therefore, seem that the most effective instrumentality
to combat the pernicious narcotics trade is the Federal Narcotics Bureau. Tlis-0
narcotics agents have specialized training, and to some extent have the funds
available which are essential to obtain evidence in narcotics cases. In the
northern district of Texas, it is my belief that the addict is largely a problem for
the State, county and city. My concept of my function is that my efforts should
be directed as much as possible toward locating and convicting those who are
sources of supply. Following this policy, the Federal Narcotics Bureau has
refused to make or to adopt cases involving extremely small amounts of marihuala
or narcotics. The United States narcotics agents are constantly directing their
efforts toward obtaining evidence which may be used to convict those who are
the sources of supply and who are the large peddlers. The conviction of an addict
or of a small peddler accomplishes little toward disturbing this evil trade. It
seems to be easy for those who are sources of supply to find as many minor pushers
or peddlers as they can supply. However, when a source of supply is eradicated,
then a step has been taken toward the end of curbing and eliminating the narcotic
problem.
The enforcement of the narcotic laws can be subdivided into three categories,
such categories being:
1. Obtaining and preserving the evidence necessary to convict;
2. The prosecution of the defendant in court; and
3. The imposition of sentence after conviction.
Obtaining evidence in a narcotic case is an extremely difficult, and in many
instances a very hazardous, task. This is particularly true when the prospective
defendant is a source of supply. These sources of supply stay well clear from the
addicts themselves. Often the source of supply himself will never touch the
narcotics or marihuana. He will deal only through extremely trusted lieutenants,
who will in turn deal only with trusted agents, the process continuing until the
supply reaches the local peddler level. It is often true that only those very high
up in this complex organization are able to actually name the source of supply.
3273
Almost uniformly they are unwilling to do so and cannot be forced to do so.

Ordinarily, the only type case which the Government is able to make on such a
source of supply is a conspiracy case. There are many pitfalls in a conspiracy case.
Of necessity, the Government must frequently obtain narcotic evidence through
undercover informers. These undercover informers are often characters with
unsavory reputations. Further, they are subjected to underworld dangers with
the United States Government being in the position of being unable to offer them
much protection. It is of very little comfort to a special employee when the
United States Attorney assures him that if the defendant in any way molests him
the defendant will be vigorously prosecuted for this act. I have found that the
only way I can protect some special employees is to confine them in jail as a
material witness, such employees being unable to make the required bond. It
does not help the morale of such an employee to keep him in jail for from 3 to 5
months before the case can come to trial paying him only at the rate of $1 per day.
There then arises the problem of protecting him after the case is completed. Often
a protective subpoena is served upon such special employee when he is released.
While the obstruction of justice statute gives us ample neans to prosecute those
who molest our witnesses, it does little to restore the life or health of a witness
who has been maliciously assaulted by underworld characters as a result of his
testimony.
In view of the careful conceahnent of the source of supply, all possible means
must be used to obtain evidence against him. In obtaining evidence against such
characters it must be borne in mind that law enforcement officers are not engaged
in a game or sport. They are doing all in their power to stamp out a deadly
menace and should be given as much help as possible. Their efforts should not
be hampered by theoretical abstractions. In this connection, it is submitted
that the enactment of a statute allowing restricted wire tapping in narcotic cases
and making admissible in evidence all material thus obtained might be of material
benefit in some cases. I am informed that much of the narcotic business with
actual source of supply is transacted only by telephone. There is a conflict of
decisions among the circuit courts as to whether or not evidence obtained by wire
tapping is admissible. A recent Sixth Circuit case holds that evidence so obtained
is legally admissible, and is not obtained in violation of the Federal Communications Act. Other circuit courts have handed down contrary opinions. It should
be pointed out that in a majority of the State courts evidence obtained by wiretapping is admissible. It should be further pointed out that in or about the year
1927 the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, ruled that obtaining evidence by
wiretapping was not a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. And in
the On Lee case decided in or about the year 1953 the Supreme Court, by another
5-4 decision, ruled that evidence obtained by means of a broadcasting device
attached to the person of an agent is admissible. The principle involved is quite
similar to that involved in wiretapping. The makeup of the Court has completely
changed since the 1927 decision, and has materially changed since the On Lee case
was decided. Since both decisions were by a 5-4 divided court, there i,' no
certainty as to what the present Supreme Court would do if faced with a similar
question.
In a Texas State court a defendant cannot be convicted upon the uncorroborated
testimony of an accomplice. While this is not the law in the United States courts,
it is nevertheless true that our judges will correctly charge the juries that the
testimony of an accomplice is suspect and that the juries should carefully search
for corroborative evidence, and should be slow to accept the uncorroborated
testimony of an accomplice. The result is that a conscientious prosecutor will
require as much corroborative evidence as can be possibly obtained before
submitting a case to a grand jury.
In obtaining evidence, the investigators must carefully avoid running afoul of
the law of entrapment. Further, otherwise good cases have been lost on appeal
by virtue of failure of the investigating officers to obtain proper search warrants.
When the evidence is presented to the United States attorney with a view of
prosecution, the United States attorney must carefully weight and evaluate such
evidence and the source thereof. Further, the evidence must be carefully preserved and its identity maintained. A problem which sometimes arises in the
prosecution of these cases is the proper venue therefor. A further problem which
frequently arises is the defense that the defendant was in fact acting as an agent
of the buyer, and was neither a seller nor an agent for the seller. While these
defenses present problems in particular cases, it does not appear that legislation
is necessary. Such individual problems must be met as they arise.
On the whole, it has been our experience that in narcotic cases the juries are
ready to return guilty verdicts on less evidence than is required in other cases.
3274
If the defendant is linked with the narcotic trade in any reasonable manner by the
evidence, the jury is likely to return a guilty verdict. Ordinarily the prosecutor's
biggest trial problem is not with the jury; it is to convince the trial court, then the
appellate court, that the evidence introduced by the Government is sufficient to
discharge the burden of proof imposed upon the Government by law.
It would seem that in the actual prosecution of these cases no legislative assistance is needed. The prosecutor, with his abhorrence of the narcotic traffic,
must fight a tendency to go into court with insufficient evidence to sustain a jury
verdict. Knowing the damage done to the public by narcotic peddlers, it is
difficult for a prosecutor to decline prosecution when there is any reasonable
evidence even though such evidence may be extremely thin.
The third phase of handling the narcotic case is the imposition of sentence.
This duty devolves upon the judge. The mandatory provisions of the Boggs
Act are well known to this subcommittee. In this connection, I express my
view that such mandatory provisions might defeat justice in many cases. Recently, my office declined prosecution with reference to an incident involving a
sale to a Federal narcotic agent of some 35 pounds of marihuana. The peddler
had no prior convictions, and under the Boggs Act the maximum penalty which
could have been imposed was a fine of $2,000.00 and a term of 5 years in jail.
Feeling that the penalty was entirely inadequate in this case we declined prosecution in favor of State prosecution. There was no such limitation upon the
power to impose sentence in the State law. Yet this was a case made and developed by United States narcotic agents. Likewise, the mandatory minimum
provisions made in many instances work injustice. Addicts may have been
convicted of acquiring narcotics at times when the United States Government's
policy was to prosecute all in any way connected with narcotics, without making
the slightest distinction between sources of supply, their lieutenants, peddlers,
pushers, or addicts. A small time peddler may have been convicted twice before
his prior offenses being limited to merely having acquired narcotics or marihuana.
Catching such a person with narcotics improperly on their person a third time
results in a mandatory 10-year sentence, which seems out of proportion to the
crime they have actually committed. Likewise, the maximum 20-year sentence
for those convicted a third time or more may in many instances be insufficient.
A man who is actually proven to be a source of supply of narcotics or marihuana,
whether or not he may have had any prior convictions, should receive such a
sentence as to permanently from society such a menace. It is respectfully
recommended that this committee carefully consider allowing the trial judges
more discretion with respect to minimum sentences and further carefully consider
substantially raising maximum sentences. Further, a $2,000 fine is merely a
slap on the wrist in the case of a source of supply; the maximum fine should be
materially increased.
With reference to narcotic and marihuana cases handled by my office since I
have been United States attorney I submit the following information, to wit:
At the time I took office (Sept. 5, 1953), there were 28 narcotic cases on the
docket involving a total of 38 defendants. Since I took office, a total of 144
narcotic cases have been filed involving 178 defendants. Thus the total number
of cases for me to handle were 172 and the total number of defendants to be
handled were 216. At this time, there are only five narcotic cases pending on the
dockets of the northern district of Texas. There of these cases are cases which
we tried, obtaining convictions which were reversed by the Fifth Circuit and
which are merely awaiting retrial. Of the remaining two cases which have not
been tried, the Government announced ready for trial in one of these cases in
February and in June and in each case the defendant obtained a continuance.
The defendant has been incarcerated in jail awaiting trial some 10 months. The
other case which we have not tried is a case wherein there is simply not enough
evidence to sustain a conviction and we have authority from the Attorney General
to dismiss this case. It can thus be seen that some 214 defendants have been
tried. At least 5 of these have been tried and convicted 2 times. The disposition of these 214 defendants is as follows, to wit:
Disposition:
101
Number of pleas of guilty ------------------------------------71
Number of contests (conviction, 63; acquittals, 8) ------------------3
Number of nolo pleas -----------------------------------------2
Number of transfers-Rule 20 ----------------------------------36
Number of dismissals ----------------------------------------1
Number of removals ------------------------------------------214
3275
The statistics hereinabove given pertain to both narcotic cases and marihiiana
eases, and are given as of October 1, 1955. In addition, six of the cases wherein
convictions were obtained are now on appeal.
With reference to sentences imposed, the longest sentence was a 10-year term
and the shortest sentence was a 15-months term. (I am aware of the fact that
this is shorter than the minimum term imposed by the Boggs Act and so adivsed
the court.) The average sentence was 3.49 years. A total of $6,904 has been
imposed in fines, and I believe that all of these fines have been collected.
Before concluding my statement, I would like to call to the attention of the
committee a further need. While the local police of Fort Worth, Dallas, Lubbock
and other cities within the northern district of Texas, the various sheriffs, and
the State officers have very willingly cooperated with my office in narcotic cases
and in other cases, it is nevertheless our experience that by far the best cases are
roade by the United States narcotic agents. The only cases wherein large suppliers have actually been reached were cases wherein the investigation was directed
by United States narcotic agents. For too long a period of time I found myself
in the position of having only four narcotic agents in the entire northern half of
Texas. These same agents also had to cover the western part of the northern
half of Louisiana. While the situation is better at this time, we still do not have
enough United States narcotic agents to do as good a job of making cases as can
be done. For example, the narcotic office in Fort Worth was closed in 1954,
and the 2 agents formerly stationed here were removed. Since Fort Worth is
my headquarters, and has been the headquarters of the United States attorney
for approximately 42 years, it is felt that there should be some narcotic agents
stationed in Fort Worth. Further, the number covering the territory above
described should be substantially increased. United States narcotic agents make
the best cases, preserve the evidence more carefully, and are not limited by
extremely confining territorial bounds within which they can operate.
I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way criticize the work of the various
local officers. On the contrary I compliment highly the work of the Dallas
Police Department in the field of narcotics, and I have received very efficient
help from the Fort Worth Police Department and from the Lubbock Police
Department in this field.
Senator DANIEL. Now, do you have any of your recommendations
in the statement that you have not called particular attention to,
that you would want to emphasize, so that we might discuss them
with you or question you about them?
Mr. FLOORE. I would like to reemphasize the fact that we badly
need another narcotics office in Fort Worth. I have asked the
Commissioner of Narcotics, in his discretion, to exercise due discretion
by returning to us the agents that he took away from us, and I have
repeated that request several times, and I now repeat it to you.
Senator DANIEL. You began your testimony with that recommendation, and now you conclude your testimony with that recommendation?
Mr. FLOORE. I certainly do.
Senator DANIEL. I certainly will show my cooperation in every
way. I will recommend it to the Commissioner of Narcotics, and I
hope this committee will follow in that recommendation.
Thank you very much for all of your assistance, and especially for
sitting in with us through these proceedings.
Mr. FLOORE. Thank you for the opportunity to do so, Senator.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Mr. Fender.

Mr. FENDER. I do.
7151-.56--pt. 7-59
3276
TESTIMONY OF HOWARD M. FENDER, CRIMINAL DISTRICT

ATTORNEY, TARRANT COUNTY, TEX.
Mr. FENDER. Howard M. Fender.

Mr. FENDER. Criminal district attorney, Tarrant County, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you served in that position?
Mr. FENDER. Since January 1, 1953.
Senator DANIEL. Have you, since becoming criminal district
attorney in Tarrant County, had occasion to give special attention
to narcotics violations?
Mr. FENDER. In its general aspects, yes. As far as the prosecution
of individual cases, no. I have left that more to my assistants.
Senator
DANIEL.
And what assistant or assistants have handled
that type of case in your office?

Mr. FENDER. The work has been spread around among several of
the members of the staff. We do not have a sufficient volume of
narcotic cases to justify the appointment of an individual to do
nothing other than handle narcotics cases.
Senator DANIEL. About how many cases have you had during the
past year?
Mr. FENDER. There have been filed since the 1st-of January of this
year some 20 State narcotics violations in Tarrant County. There
were approximately 32 during the entire year preceding this one.
Senator DANIEL. Have you been very successful in the prosecution
of your cases here?
Mr. FENDER. The average, on the narcotics cases, is probably a
little below the general average on cases going through the office.
Senator
DANIEL.
That is on convictions?
Mr. FENDER. That's correct, sir. Insofar as no bills before the

grand jury, convictions, dismissals, pleas of guilty, and so forth, you
might say our degree of success, taking all those factors into consideration, is a little low in narcotics cases.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what about the sentences which are imposed
when you do have convictions?
Mr.
FENDER.
They are, by and large, much too small.
As you know, having been a practicing lawyer in this State, the

sentences are imposed entirely by the jury; and the information concerning the background of the individual who is on trial is never given
to the jury to take into consideration.
Consequently, they know only about the case at hand, and they
consider the punishment, perhaps, adequate for the trial that they
have before them, whereas if they had the entire picture, knew the
background of the individual with whom they were dealing, they would
very probably assess considerably larger penalties.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, are you able to keep them in jail once you get,
them there?
Mr. FENDER. You mean between the time they are arrested and
the time they go to trial? No.
Mr. GASQUE. Well, we would like to have some information on that,
and also, after they are convicted, about periods of paroles.
Mr. FENDER. Well, in order to answer that, I will delve a little bit
into the question' of the general law of Texas.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
3277
It was drawn up, essentially, in 1835, between 1835 and 1837, when
the Republic of Texas was established.
Senator DANIEL. You are speaking now of the criminal code?
Mir. FENDER. The criminal code of the State was drawn up first for
the Republic of Texas, and with minor variations to include a few
things like automobiles and radios, which didn't exist then, we are
still operating under the same code drawn up under that, Republic.
It was probably a very fine thing in those days; I don't question
that. But the system that was applicable in the days of the stagecoach and the horse and buggy, the pony express, is not applicable to
a modern age of television, in communications your telegraph, your
telephone and TWX.
We are therefore handicapped by a bonding procedure established
in those days, which remains virtually unchanged today, that anybody who will go out here and get him a vacant lot which he can
swear is worth $10,000 is in a position to make all the $5,000 bonds
he wants to, and the only indemnity the State of Texas has is that one
vacant lot.
We have professional bondsmen carrying bonds that I would say
are worth in the aggregate a hundred times the property they own
which is subject to execution, but each individual bond is less than
the security that he puts up in the form of a vacant lot.
Mr. GASQUE. You mean that a man who owns a $10,000 lot might
be able to put up bonds of $1 million?
Mr. FENDER. Conceivably, yes.
Senator
DANiEL. Bonds totaling that much.

FENDER. Because if no individual bond
Mr.
exceeded the amount
of $5,000 that is possible.
Now, of course, that is the law on the subject. As a practical
matter, the sheriff does everything he can to discourage any of them
from becoming too overloaded, with too little security. But if he
carries that too far, he has got the right to go into court, and the judge
will then order the sheriff to accept the bond, in which case he has no
recourse.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, in these narcotics cases, do you find
that some of your defendants go to selling narcotics again after they
get out on bond?
Mr. FENDER. Oh, immediately; immediately.
In the narcotics field, you have people who are dealing on short
time. You see, a burglar or a robber, after he is arrested, he can
usually afford to wait a little while before he goes back into business.
But a dope peddler or a pusher must retain his clients if he is going
to keep his business up, so the minute he gets his feet back on the
groun, he goes right back into business, so that he won't lose his
clientele; and as a consequence, they get right back in and stay with
it as long as they can, and make as much as they can out of it.
In addition to that, he has a particular incentive, because he needs
to make a legal fee. So he goes right out and stays in business right
lip until he goes to trial.
Senator DANIEL. Of course, you have trouble with the State
bonds; we have the same trouble with the Federal bonds. Some of
the biggest narcotic traffickers in this country have been trafficking
while out on bond, between arrest and trial or conviction and determnination of their appeal.
3278
I think I mentioned to you the George Hall case, this Dallas Negro
who became the biggest marihuana trafficker in New York; he built
up his business between his conviction and the determination of his
appeal, while he was out on bond.
Mr. FENDER. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. That is when he really built up his business in
the biggest marihuana business in New York.

Now, what do you think; what can we do about it?
Mr. FENDER. Well, of course we must at all times keep in mind the
great American principle of not denying a man bail within reason.
At the same time, I believe within the framework of our Constitution it would be possible to devise statutes which would make it
increasingly difficult for repeating offenders to make bond, because
they have by their past acts and convictions shown on their record,
forfeited some of the rights that the individual citizen has the first
time he is picked up walking down the street.
Senator DANIEL. You know, some people who hear you say that
may get the impression that you and the chairman of this committee
andothers who say that are all excited over these narcotics violations,
and that we ought not to be trying to keep these prisoners from getting
bail, these narcotics violators.
Now, I think we ought to make it plain that some of these violators
get out and sell juveniles narcotics, and get them started down the
road to destruction of their lives, while they are out on these bonds.
Have you known of that kind of cases?
Mr. FENDER. Certainly. But my answer to that is very simple,
Senator: I have my own three small children who must grow up in
this community; I have a responsibility to provide for them the
safest possible place in which they can grow up, and I would be remiss
in my duty to my own children and those of all the people of this
community if I didn't take the stand that we should do everything
to stamp out this evil menace which could, if permitted to grow
unchecked, destroy the ones we hold so dear.
Senator DANIEL. So that no one here will think that you and I
are too excessive on this matter, the Houston chief of police, Jack
Heard, said that he considered the bail bond procedure in effect now
in this State and in the Federal courts was simply a license to go back
out and steal and sell marihuana, heroin or whatever the drug might
be. That is how bitter he is over seeing people arrested and making
bail immediately and getting back and continuing in the traffic.
Now, we had one of those women before us, put her on the stand,
and it showed that when she was out on Federal bond, she started
selling heroin again. Then the State arrested her on sales, and she
made a State bond, and then she was picked up and found selling
heroin again, as soon as she got out on the State bond. She was
brought before our committee, and we had the evidence on her case,
and on many of them like that all over the country, that we have
heard evidence on.
Mr. FENDER. Well, I can tell you something else, Senator: She will
probably end up getting concurrent sentences in the whole thing, because our judicial setup is so overworked and understaffed, and our
entire law enforcement setup, that it will be more expeditious for the
court to accept guilty pleas after the first conviction, and she would
be given concurrent sentences, and clear the court so that the docket
can be worked on.
3279
It is something in which I take no pride, but it is a matter of expediency to which we must turn in order to get our dockets cleared
up.
My recommendation to you, Senator, is one which may not be
palatable to a few hundred people, those folks who have to run for
election every few years, but I think our legislature of this State has
the definite obligation to revamp our criminal laws, just as you in the
Congress are attempting in this hearing to revamp the Federal laws,
so that we may have the tools in this community to do our share of
the job in stopping the dope traffic.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I certainly agree with you.
Now, both the chief of police and the sheriff testified that they
thought that the location of the public health hospital here in Fort
Worth and the voluntary system of treating patients, letting them
come and go as they desire, was a detriment to you here in your
narcotics enforcement.
Mr. FENDER. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you agree with that?

Mr. FENDER. I believe that it provides a focal point around which
the addicts, in coming and going to the hospital, they get out of the
hospital and they are on their uppers; they didn't have anything
when they got here; they get out of the hospital, they migrate, of
course, to the nearest population center, which is Fort Worth, and
then we have got them on our hands.
They have no money with which to feed themselves, no way to get
themselves a room to stay in, and the chances are a lot of them have
to turn to petty thievery or burglary or something of that sort in
order to sustain themselves.
And certainly, if they have left that hospital because they couldn't
stand the urge any longer, they are going to make immediate provisions to get some dope to answer that urge. So we do have a problem that is created by that.
But I would like to point out something that hasn't come up as
yet in this committee hearing, and that is that there is now a State
law which can go a long ways toward replacing this voluntary proposition, but in which we will probably need some help from the Federal
Government.
We now have a penalty provision-it is article 725 (C) of the penal
code, which says that a habitual user of narcotics is committing a
felony, and he may be sentenced to a period up to 3 years, but that
the judge may, in his own wisdom, probate that sentence; or one of
the conditions of probation may be that he proceed to a hospital
designated by the court and receive a course of treatment which,
if he successfully completes it, he may then be released on probation
for the remainder of the 3 years.
We have just today completed that process on the first individual
case that we have put in under the new law. He is right now out at the
United States Public Health Service hospital, starting in on his
withdrawal period. He was indicted and taken before the court, and
he pled guilty.
That is available and can be used, and if he refuses to cooperate
with the United States Public Health Service hospital, he may then
be sent to the penitentiary, to Huntsville.
The drawback to that system is this: We had it in the misdemeanor
codes before, and we got people from California clear over to Florida,
3280
and this community was bearing the expense on a prosecution that

they could ill afford to meet. So long as the Federal Government
finds it necessary to maintain our national defense and all the other
things so high, and the burden of taxation is so great, communities
alone cannot increase their taxes sufficiently to meet these problems.
We have just about reached the saturation point, and the local governments being more directly responsible to the electorate, must be the
ones to back off and refuse to increase that load further, and
exclusive-
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, wait a minute. Why is that?

Mr. FENDER. Because they are the ones closest to the voters.
Somebody has got to do it. The Federal Government is responsible
for the maintenance of national defense and other projects which appear to be necessary at the present time; and if somebody has got to
back off, it must be the local governments who do it. They are therefore the ones who must, during that period, resist expansion of taxation. Therefore they are working with short staffs and short budgets,
and we can't take on a project like the one I have just outlined to you.
If, however, the mere court costs alone could be paid, if a bill could
be passed providing that those court costs here in this county could
be paid without resorting to the people of this county to pay them,
then we could handle the work put that felony law into effect, and get
the addicts who walk out of the hospital to where they wouldn't dare
walk out of the place, because when they get out of there they would
be walking right into the penitentiary.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, wouldn't it be a real bargain to the
county if you could get these addicts off the streets? Because, as I
understand, their burglaries and other crimes are costing the people
a lot more money than might be involved in these court costs.
Mr. FENDER. Well, but, Senator, when word gets out that this law
is into effect again, the chances are that you are going to have an awful
lot more people coming in from all over the country. We used to have
letters from people in States other than this one, asking when they
should report to this office, where they could plead guilty so they could
report out here to the hospital. We had to finally write letters saying
that we had more than we could say grace over, and that they would
have to wait 6 months here before we could take them in the court.
But if we had an orderly way to finance it, we would be able to
handle virtually all of them as they came in here, in an orderly process,
without strain, and be able to accomplish a great deal.
Mr. GASQUE. In other words, in the absence of a Federal law requiring mandatory treatment, these addicts who want to be confined
to be cured must resort to your State courts?
Mr. FENDER. That's correct.
Mr. GASQUE. And with this law, you are afraid they may flock to
Texas from the surrounding States?
Mr. FENDER. They were doing that under the misdemeanor law
that was in effect before; and when that law became unconstitutional,
the traffic ceased; the remedy no longer was available.
We have a felony law now, which we feel pretty sure is constitutional; it hasn't been passed on; we just processed our first one today.
We have a means whereby we will be processing 10 to 15 men a week.
But that process builds up to the point where it is quite a burden
to this community, that is, taking care of people from Wyoming,
3281
California, Arizona, New Mexico, all over your western area of the
United States; and it does seem a little unfair to me to require the
people of Tarrant County to bear the financial burden of a system
serving the entire western half of the United States of America.
Senator DANIEL. You don't mind bearing the expense of Tarrant
County addicts; you just don't want to bear the expense of others
coming in here?
Mr. FENDER. That's the idea, Senator.
Senator DANIEL. I understand you now on that; and if we change
the law, as I certainly hope we will, on these voluntary patients, and
provide that States may send patients in on certain types of commitments, provided that they will pay the expenses of the patients at
the Federal hospital-that is what has been proposed by the National
Association of Attorneys General-then also, in that, we should provide that the States pay the court costs of commitments, or should
make their own commitments.
Mr.
FENDER.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Then you wouldn't have to process them here.

Mr. FENDER. That would be fine, if they could be handled any other
way than right here in our court.
But under our present law, the way we are operating, all we have got
is the State law, and we must pay the expense of that ourselves.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any other suggestions as to how
this committee might assist, in our recommendations to the Congress?
Mr. FENDER. I think the matter has been pretty well covered today, Senator. I think that I have expressed my views thoroughly on
the matter.
Senator DANIEL. We certainly appreciate your appearance and the
excellent assistance that you have given this committee throughout
our hearings.
Mr. FENDER. Thank you for the opportunity to be here, sir.
(Short recess.)
Johnny Lott.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you will give to
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. LOTT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Be seated, Mr. Counsel. Do you wish to identify

yourself for the record?
Mr. GREEN. Senator, Mr. Chairman, I am R. C. Green, attorney
of the Fort Worth bar and of this court in which we are now standing,
and I am representing Mr. Lott for this hearing.
TESTIMONY OF JOHNNY LOTT
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL. Will
LOTT. J. T. Lott.
Senator
you state your name?
DANIEL. Are you also known as Johnny

Mr. LOTT. Sometimes, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And John Thomas Lott?
Mr. LOTT. Yes, sir.
Thomas Lott?
3282
Mr. LOTT. Fort Worth.

Senator DANIEL. How long have you lived in Fort Worth?
Mr. LoTr. Thirty-two years.
Senator DANIEL. Is that all your life?
Mr. Lor. All my life, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever sold any narcotic drugs?
Mr. LOTT. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL. Have you ever used any narcotic drugs?

Mr. LOTT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Are you now under conviction for conspiracy
to
sell narcotic drugs?

(Conference between Mr. Lott and Mr. Green.)
Mr. LOTT. Ask the question over, please, sir?
Senator
DANIEL.
Are you now under a conviction for having con-
spired to sell narcotic drugs?

Mr. LOTT. I am under a conviction on conspiracy, but it is on
appeal.
Senator DANIEL. That's what I say.
Mr. LOTT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. It is not a final judgment, it is now on appeal?
Mr. LOTT. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever conspire to sell narcotic drugs in
this country?
Mr. LOTT. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL. Have
Mr. LOTT. No, sir.
you ever seen any heroin?

you ever used any heroin?
Mr. LOTT. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Have you ever seen any marihuana?
Mr. LoTT. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Have you ever used any marihuana?
Mr. LOTT. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL. Have you ever seen

Mr. LOTT. Not that I know of.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever had
any type of narcotic drug?

in your possession any type
of narcotic drug?
Mr. LOTT. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Have you ever bought any narcotic drug?
Mr. LoTr. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Have you ever asked anyone to buy narcotic drugs
for you?
Mr. LOTT. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Have you ever had anyone deliver any narcotic
drugs to other people for you?

Mr. LOTT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been to Mexico?
Mr. LOTT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been outside the State?
Mr. LOTT. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been in a foreign country?

Mr. LOTT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, of course, you understand that if this
committee did not have information before it alleging that you had
3283
been engaged in the narcotics traffic, we would not have called you
before us; you understand that?
Mr. LOTT.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And you further know that, having testifiedhaving sworn to give this committee the truth, that if you should give
an untruthful answer, that you would be subject to a charge of perjury?
Mr. LOTT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And in view of that reminder, do you still want
the answers to stand?
Mr. LOTT. I do.
Senator DANIEL. That you have given?
Mr. LOTT. I do.
Senator DANIEL. What type of business have you been engaged in
during the past 2 years?
Mr. LOTT. Switchman for the Texas and Pacific Railroad.
Senator DANIEL. Continuously?
Mr. LOTT. Continuously.
Senator DANIEL. Over the past 2 years?
Mr. LOTT. Over the past 13 years.
Senator DANIEL. And what is your annual income?

Mr. LOTT. Around $5,000.
Senator DANIEL. Is that all from the job that you hold?
Mr. LOTT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Is that the only income you have had during the
last 2 years?
Mr. LOTT. Yes, sir.
Mr. LOTT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have your income tax returns, a copy
that we asked for, for last year?
Mr. LOTT (conference between Mr. Lott and Mr. Green). I refuse
to discuss that, because it might tend to incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. Well, we have served a subpena on'you, asking
for the copy of your income tax return for last year.
Mr. LOTT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And the chair is going to order you to produce
that. Have you brought it with you?
Mr. LOTT. I was served this subpena at 3 p. m. today, the 21st,
and I haven't had time to get anything that was asked in it, any of
the information.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Counsel, you understand, under the rules of
the Senate and these committees, that your client may counsel with
you anytime he wishes to do so, so long as you do not interrupt him.
All right; did you file a 1954 income tax return?
Mr. LOTT. I did, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have a copy of it with you or at home?
Mr. LOTT. I do know that I filed a income tax, but I do not

know where my return is right now. The Government has their
copy of it.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know where your copy of your return is?
Mr. LOTT. I don't know where my copy is, but the Government
has a copy of that 1954 return, yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Well, do you have the copies of any of your income tax returns here with you today?
3284
Mr. LOTT. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Well, did you bring your account books or any-
thing that the subpena called for today?

Mr. LOTT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What are these papers you continue to look at

here?
Mr. LOTT. That's my attorney's papers.
Senator DANIEL. Well, have you turned over to your attorney any
of the account books or the copies of income tax returns thatJust a minute. Now, you gentlemen may confer at any time except
when I am asking you a question.
I want him to understand the
question; he may not want to confer with you on this question.

Have you turned over to your attorney any of the income tax
return copies or any account books or any other papers that we
called for in the subpena that was served on you today?
Mr. LOTT. The only thing I have turned over to my attorney is the
subpena which I received at 3 p. m. this evening.

Senator DANIEL. No other papers of yours have you turned over
to your attorney, with relation to your income tax or your actual
income since 1951?
Mr. LOTT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, where do you have these papers?
Mr. LOTT. That I couldn't say right now.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what was your income for these years?
Mr. LOTT. Well, I can't remember, I mean, each year, what my
income is. I have to look on the tax form myself.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you know that you have the copies of
those tax forms at home?
Mr. LOTT. I do.
Senator DANIEL. Where are they at home?
Mr. LOTT. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. How long since you have seen them?
Mr. LOTT. Which one?
Senator DANIEL. 1954.
Mr. LOTT. When I filled it out this year.
Senator DANIEL. How long since you have seen the 1953 income
tax return?
Mr. LOTT. I can't remember that.
Senator DANIEL. Do you keep them all together?
Mr. LOTT. Not necessarily, no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what was it I asked you about on the income
tax return that you refuse to answer on the grounds it might tend to
incriminate you, do you remember?
Mr. LOTT. No, I don't remember just exactly what you might have
asked.
Mr. GASQUE. The Chairman asked you your income for the year
1954.
Mr. LOTT. I believe I did repeat awhile ago that it was around
$5,000.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't I ask you whether or not that was the
only income you had for that year?
3285
Mr. LOTT. I believe you did.

Mr. GASQUE. And what was your answer to that question?
Mr. LOTT. Which question?

Senator DANIEL. What is your answer now as to whether or not
that is the only income you had for that year?

Mr. LOTT. That's all I made.
Senator DANIEL. That is all the money you made?
Mr. LOTT. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. You are sure, though, that you filed income tax
returns for 1954, 1953 and 1952?
Mr. LOTT. I am positive.
Senator DANIEL. For each of those years?
Mr. LOTT. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. What about 1951?
Mr. LOTT. Yes, sir; I filed one for 1951.
Senator DANIEL. And you just haven't had tune to get those copies
here to the committee today? *
Mr. LOTT. No, sir; not when I was served at, 3 p. m. with this, and
it is just a little after 4 p. m. now. It just give me an hour or hour
and a half.
Senator DANIEL. All right. You will remain under subpena of this
committee and appear before this committee at its next meeting at
San Antonio, Tex., December 14, of this year, unless we notify you or
your attorney of another date. It may be that we will hold one more
session closer to Fort Worth than San Antonio, and we will be in touch
with you as to the exact date.
In the meantime, you will remain under subpena of this committee.
To facilitate matters, it might save time if you want, to send us the
copies of your income tax returns and the other papers we have asked
for. However, you need not do that, if you would rather produce
them in open session.
Mr. Warren Heddens.
I am sorry, but this witness cannot be photographed. He is an
agent of the Bureau of Narcotics. Because of the type of work that he
isin, he cannot be photographed, so the television and the photographers will please remember that.
You may record his voice or anything else, but do not photograph
the witness. Now, if any of you made any pictures, please do not
show them.
All right, Mr. Heddens. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony
you are about to give to this subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
Mr. HEDDENS. I do.
TESTIMONY OF WARREN A. HEDDENS, NARCOTICS AGENT, BUREAU OF NARCOTICS, DALLAS, TEX., DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY-Resumed
Mr. HEDDENS. Warren Heddens.
Senator DANIEL. And your position.
Mr. HEDDENS. Narcotic agent for the Bureau of Narcotics, United
States Treasury Department.
3286

Mr. HEDDENS. Fifteen years.
Senator DANIEL. Where are you located?
HEDDENS. Dallas, Tex.

Senator DANIEL. Do you have jurisdiction over this area?
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Heddens, do you agree with these gentlemen
Mr.
that seem to think that there ought to be a narcotics'agent stationed

in Fort Worth, if the United States Government can spare the men?
Mr. HEDDENS. Yes, sir; I do, Senator, and providing the city can
also put some men on that work, the city of Forth Worth, increase
their force of two men.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, you agree with all of their testimony that they need more men, and the Federal office needs more men,
too?
Mr. HEDDENS. That's right, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And you feel that if both of you increase your
forces, that you will be able to do a better enforcement job here?
Mr. HEDDENS. I do.
Senator DANIEL. State whether or not you agree with the recommendations made that our voluntary commitment law on the Federal
hospital should be changed, so that patients cannot come and go at
will.
Mr. HEDDENS. I do agree to that, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you agree with these local officers and with
Dr. Trautman that it does make a difficult situation here, and for the
hospital itself, when these patients who come in voluntarily can leave
any time they want to?
Mr. HEDDENS. Yes, sir; I do agree with them. It should be
changed.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Mr. Heddens, do you know the witness who
just left the stand, Johnny Lott?
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever dealt with any of his activities in
the narcotics traffic?
Mr. HEDDENS. I personally have not, Senator, but the 2 agents
stationed in Fort Worth about 2 years ago developed a case against
Johnny Lott.
DANIEL. Is that
Senator
the one that is now on appeal?
Senator DANIEL. Now, I would like to ask you if, in your experience
here, you have noticed that narcotic addicts spread their addiction to
their friends and families.
Mr. HEDDENS. They do.
Senator DANIEL. In some instances, do they also spread their
business of pushing narcotics to friends and family?
es, sir.
Mr. HEDDENS.
have any such case that you could indicate
to the committee, wherein that happened here in Fort Worth or in

your area?
Mr. HEDDENS. I do, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Would you outline it to us?
So often we are told that the only people who do the spreading of
addiction are those, who are traffickers, and we know, of course, that
traffickers do start people at some times on narcotics.
3287

Senator DANIEL. But it would appear to this committee, during our
sessions, that it has been pretty well developed that also addiction is
spread by members of fainilies to other members of their family, and to
their friends, even before they start selling; and you have experienced
that?
Mr. HEDDENS. Yes, sir; I have.
Senator DANIEL. Will you give us an example, any outstanding
example that you have in mind?
Mr. HEDDENS. Well, being in Fort Worth, we have a family here
known as the Beland family.
Mr. HEDDENS. B-e-l-a-n-d who for years have been associated with
the narcotic traffic.
The mother, Lucy Beland, a good many years ago, was using narcotics and peddling narcotics. She had three daughters, Willie
Beland, Anise, any Jacqueline Beland who became addicted to
narcotics, peddling narcotics.
She had two sons, Charlie Beland and Joe Beland. Both became
addicted to narcotics, they peddled narcotics, they served penitentiary
sentences for narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. All members of the family, served
Mr. HEDDENS. All members of the same family, served penitentiary
sentences, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. For peddling narcotics?
Mr. HEDDENS. For peddling narcotics and using narcotics.
One of the daughters married a boy by the name of Dago Hamilton,
who also was a drug addict and served penitentiai-y sentences.
Another daughter married Leslie James, who also peddled, sold,
and used narcotics, and served penitentiary sentences for the same
thing, peddling heroin, mostly heroin.
Just as recently as 1950, Charles Beland was convicted or arrested
by us, on heroin, after selling it to a special employee. He pled
guilty in Dallas and was sentenced to 5 years in the penitentiary.
Senator DANIEL. Is he in the penitentiary now?
Mr. HEDDENS. No, sir; he is out now. He has been out about a
year. And his wife, Esta, was addicted to narcotics, had served a
penitentiary sentence for narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. Now, I believe that we have under subpena
Charles Beland, was it?
Senator DANIEL. To this committee, but we have a doctor's certificate here showing why he cannot appear before the committee.
Do you have any evidence as to any dealings in narcotics since he
got out of the penitentiary the last time?
Mr. HEDDENS. No, sir, I haven't as far as Charlie Beland is
concerned, no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Or his wife?
Mr. HEDDENS. The only thing I have on the wife is information.
Senator DANIEL. And that does not involve anything of recent
date, is that correct, or how long ago?
Mr.
HEDDENS.
Within the last year.
Senator DANIEL. Within the last year?

3288
Senator
DANIEL. Did
Mr. HEDDENS. What
it involve selling of narcotics?

we would say, stashing narcotics, yes, sir.
From information.
Senator DANIEL. Only from information?
Mr.
HEDDENS. Yes,
sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, of course, we will not consider that. as

evidence in this case as to any present activities of either Charles
Be and or his wife. Their attorney has said to this committee that
the wife at least, he hopes, is staying out of the traffic, and I want to
say that we have no evidence to the contrary thus far, and I hope
none will be found.
Senator DANIEL. But they
are members of this family, and they

did at one time in the past engage in this widespread traffic of heroin
here in Fort Worth?
Senator DANIEL. All the members of the family seemed to be engaged in it?
Mr. HEDDENS. All the members of the family, the mother, sonsin-law, daughters, sisters-in-law.
Senator DANIEL. And all were convicted at one time or another?
Yes, sir, all have been in the penitentiary at one
time or another. Sometimes there would be 3 or 4 of the same
family in the penitentiary.
Mr.
HEDDENS.
Senator DANIEL. At the same time?

Senator DANIEL. All right. Of course, I suppose that is an unusually large number in a family to become addicted and to be using
and spreading the narcotics traffic; but do you find other instances
like that in your experience over the country?
Mr. HEDDENS. Some few, Senator Daniel, but nothing in comparison to the number as this one.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
HEDDENS.
Senator
That's what I mean.
No, sir.
DANIEL.
But do you find, in families, that one addict will
spread it to other members of the family?

Senator DANIEL. And that they spread it to their friends?

Senator
Mr.
DANIEL. And neighbors?

HEDDENS. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, one other thing I would like to ask you
about: Have you had some other violations of the narcotics laws with
respect to legal drugs, that is, otherwise legal drugs which were held
by drugstores or by doctors?
Senator
DANIEL.
How many doctors?
I think we should point out the very first thing, and that is that
only a few doctors, a few exceptions, engage in the illicit distribution
of narcotic drugs, and only a few druggists; would you say that's right?
Mr. HEDDENS. That is correct, a very small minority.
Senator
DANIEL.
About how many in your area have you had
recently, of doctors and druggists?

Mr. HEDDENS. Well, in the territory worked by this district, that
is, district 10, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, I will say for this
3289
year we haven't had more than 12 doctors involved one way or

another, either by prosecution or the surrender of their narcotic tax
stamp to avoid prosecution, involved in the narcotic traffic, and maybe a half dozen druggists.
Senator DANIEL. Now, that is in the 3-State area?
Mr.
HEDDENS.
That is the 3-State area; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, have you had a recent case, without calling
the name involved, have you had a recent case of a druggist who
apparently was selling narcotics to known addicts?
Senator DANIEL. Have you checked that druggist's records?

Mr. HEDDENS. Yes, sir; we have.
Senator DANIEL. Did you find forged prescriptions?
Senator DANIEL. Was that a west Texas druggist?
Mr. HEDDENS. It is a west Texas or you might call it central Texas
druggist.
Senator DANIEL. Central west Texas?
Senator DANIEL. And this druggist, will you give us the figures
you found on his prescriptions as to the quantities of drugs that he
was selling?
Mr. HEDDENS. Yes, sir; dilaudid tablets, X16-grain, he sold 9,096this is over a period of 13 months, from June 1954 to July 1955-he
sold 9,096 X-dilaudid tablets.
Senator DANIEL. Now, what is dilaudid?
Mr. HEDDENS. Dilaudid is an opium derivative. A X-dilaudid
tablet is equal to Y grain of morphine.
Senator DANIEL. It is a very powerful opiate?
Mr. HEDDENS. It is a very powerful opiate, yes, sir. And h-grain
morphine, he sold 5,927 tablets, Y4-grain morphine. That is this
same period, 13 months.
Senator DANIEL. How did that compare, in a town the size he was
in, how did that compare with other druggists?
Mr. HEDDENS. That is an exceptionally large amount of drugs.
The town he was in was a population of 2,761 people.
Senator DANIE L. How many morphine tablets?
Mr. HEDDENS. He had 5,927 h-grain morphine tablets, and 1,607
%-grainmorphine tablets.
Senator DANIEL. That is two morphine tablets for every person in
the town?
Mr. HEDDENS. That's correct, yes, sir; over a period of a year.
Mr. HEDDENS. Methadon, which is a synthetic drug, however, it
comes under the Harrison Act, he sold 43,200 tablets on prescription,
forged prescriptions and prescriptions under fictitious names. That
was methadon.
Senator DANIEL. Now, wait a minute. You say that many he has
sold under forged prescriptions and prescriptions under fictitious
names?
Mr. HEDDENS. Yes, sir; 43,200 tablets.
DANIEL. Now, those were all on bad prescriptions?
Mr. HEDDENS. Bad prescriptions, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How about these other figures you have
Senator
are they on total sales, on both good and bad prescriptions?
given,
3290
Mr. HEDDENS. Good prescriptions; what I mean, if an addict would

go to a doctor, Senator, and give the doctor some name other than
their own, and the doctor would prescribe narcotics for them by issuing
a prescription, they would get, maybe, 4 or 5 prescriptions at 1 visit,

which isn't a good practice, and they would take them to this drugstore, and the druggist would fill them by maybe adding a date or
increasing the amount on the prescription, that was whatever it
called for.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have evidence that this druggist did that?
Senator DANIEL. In many instances?
Mr. HEDDENS. A good many instances, yes, sir; he raised the
amount of the drugs called for on the original prescriptions.
Senator DANIEL. Now, I wanted to ask, on your figures on morphine, were all those figures on just prescriptions that you found to
be invalid prescriptions or bad prescriptions, or did that include also
the prescriptions which are apparently good on their face?
Mr. HEDDENS. Well, they were apparently good on their face,
Senator Daniel, but on investigation they were bad.
Senator DANIEL. All of those you have listed?
Mr. HEDDENS. All I have listed, yes, sir.
Mr. HEDDENS. And then methadon, which comes in 30-cc. vials,
that is equivalent to an ounce; he sold 520 vials of methadon.
Now, dolophine, which is the same as methadon, of 20-cc. vials he
sold 598, which is equivalent to about 3 gallons of dolophine.
On demarol tablets, 50-milligram tablets, he sold 623 such tablets,
which is over av ounce. And the way I figure, taken from the medical
journal as the dosage, he sold, the amount of dilaudid he sold amounted
to 9,098 doses.
Senator DANIEL. Of dilaudid alone?
Mr. HEDDENS. Of dilaudid alone.
Of the morphine, both the Y4 and X grain, the % grain figures 5,927
doses, the %grain is 1,607 doses. The methadon, the 10-milligram
methadon tablets, was 4,320 doses. The methadon bottles of 30
bottles there figured 2 cc.'s to a dose would be 15 doses, was
cc.'s,
doses.
7,800 the
The demarol, of 50-milligrams tablets,
was 623 doses.
The dolophine, 1 cc. per dose, and there was 20 cc. bottles, or 20
cc.'s to a bottle, and 598 bottles totals 11,960 doses.
Or a total of 41,335 doses, over a period of 1 year, in a town of
2,761 people, just 1 drugstore.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, how many doses did that amount to, you say,
for those people?
Mr. HEDDENS. The way I figured, 41,335 doses of dilaudid, morphine, methadon, dolophine, and demarol.
Senator DANIEL. In how many months?
Mr. HEDDENS. 13 months.
Senator DANIEL. What population?
Mr. HEDDENS. 2,761 people.
Senator DANIEL. How many drugstores in town?
Mr. HEDDENS. Three.
Senator DANIEL. Was this the same druggist from which the lady
we, called Miss B, without any further identification, testified about

in Dallas during these hearings?
1111
3291
Mr. HEDDENS. Yes, sir; same drugstore.

Senator DANIEL. Have charges yet been filed in the case?
Mr.
HEDDENS. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. The charges have been filed?

Mr. HEDDENS. Yes, sir; they are in the hands of the United States
attorney in Fort Worth.
Mr. HEDDENS. A report has been written.
Mr. HEDDENS. A report on the case has been written, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right, sir. Now, Mr. Heddens, I believe you
gave us some recommendations yesterday in Dallas. Have you
covered the field, as far as anything that you would leave with this
committee?
Mr. HEDDENS. I have, yes, sir; Senator, I have.
Senator DANIEL. Well, we appreciate your excellent assistance
throughout these hearings, and the fine work that you are doing, sir.
Thank you very much for it.
Mr. HEDDENS. Thank you.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Heard Floore.
TESTIMONY OF HEARD FLOORE, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS-Continued
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Floore, I want to call you back just for 1
minute, in order that we might make just a little more of a record
concerning the witness Johnny Lott.
Mr. FLOORE. All right, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Who appeared here. Do you know him by some
nickname or something, as far as the drug traffic is concerned?
Mr. FLOORE. Johnny Lott is the way we heard him referred to.
Senator DANIEL. Have you tried him under Federal charges?
Mr. FLOORE. Perhaps you mean the Great White Father.
Senator DANIEL. Well
Mr. FLOORE. Some of the witnesses in the case did testify that
Johnny Lott was known as the Great White Father.
Senator DANIEL. Some of the witnesses in a case that you tried
against him?
Mr. FLOORE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Referred to him as what?
Mr. FLOORE. The Great White Father.
Senator DANIEL. And what type of case did you have against this
witness?
Mr. FLOORE. Originally it was a conspiracy case and a possession
case or an acquisition case, on marihuana.
The circuit court knocked out the acquisition count on the basis
that the agents had failed to obtain a search warrant, and that therefore the pound of marihuana found in his garage was illegally obtained evidence, and could not be admitted.
As to the conspiracy count, he was reconvicted when we tried him
recently on that count.
Would you like me to briefly summarize the type evidence we had

to use in this case?
71515-56-Dt. 7-60
3292
Senator DANIEL. Just summarize the type of evidence that, was
adduced in that case very briefly.

r. FLOORE. All right, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I just wanted to make it clear, the reason why
the witness was called before this committee.

Mr. FLOORE. A Negro informer, Floyd Luke Watkins, was used.
Watkins was a friend and an acquaintance of another Negro, namely
Johnnv Yank Reed.
Those three had used-I say those two and other Negroes had used
narcotics since April 1951.
Watkins testified that Johnny Lott came in in 1951 and gave several
of them some narcotics. No charge was made therefor, and lie told
them to shoot it as a treat on him. Thereafter
Senator DANIEL. That is Johnny Lott, now, who appeared before
the committee?
That was the testimony of the witness Floyd Luke Watkins.

Thereafter, and in 1953, we started a case on himn-this was 1952,
this case was started-and it took almost a year to develop a case.
It was impossible for the informer that we used then, or any other
informer, to make a buy direct from Lott, but we were able to establish through numerous cases that Floyd Luke Watkins would come
to Yank Reed, that. Yank Reed would telephone, and that when he
talked on the telephone, he would ask for a man by the name of
Johnny.
We had our city policemen and we had our Federal narcotics agents
stationed in the area, watching. We were able to show that Johnny
Lott, shortly after those telephone calls, would come right into the
nrea, and that Yank Reed left the place where Watldns and the
others were, and came and met Johnny Lott.
We caught them together in a number of instances immediately
after Watkins had ordered the morphine or narcotic, whatever form
was being used. Then Watkins' further testimony would be that
Yank would return, and that he would administer the narcotic.
We were able to bolster up the witness Watkins' testimony, who
was a confirmed addict and who did have a criminal record, by the
testimony of 2 city policemen and 2 Federal narcotics agents, who
covered this man thoroughly at all times, and who were carefully
covering the vicinity, and in a number of instances were able to establish that Johnny Lott did come into that vicinity and did transfer
something to Yank Reed.
The jury unhesitatingly and in a very short period of time did
convict Johnny Lott of a conspiracy to evade the narcotics law. In
view of the fact that we had no direct evidence of a specific sale, we
had to go the conspiracy route; we could not go a direct violation
route.
Senator DANNIEL. How many years did the jury assess?
Mr. FLOOR. The jury, sir, had nothing to do with the assessment.
As you will recall
Senator DANIEL. I mean the judge, yes.
Mr. FLOORE. The maximum penalty was 5 years, and there again
I say the Boggs Act has defeated justice instead of aiding justice.
The penalty should have been 15 or 20 years, and it would have
been higher, I am sure, had the judge been able to impose a higher
penalty.
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
3293
Senator DANIEI,. The judge imposed the highest penalty, which

was 5 years?
Mr. FLoow,. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Thank you very iruch, Mr. Floore.

Mr. FLOORE. All right, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Howerton.
Mr. IHowerton, do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are
about to give this subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
Mr. HOWERTON. I do.
Senator DANIEL. You may l)e
seat(,.
TESTIMONY OF ROLAND R. HOWERTON, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF

POLICE, POLICE DEPARTMENT, FORT WORTH, TEX.; PRESIDENT, TEXAS POLICE ASSOCIATION
Mr. HOWERTON. Roland R. Howerton.
Senator DANIEL. And what is your present position?
Mr. HOWERTON. I am assistant chief of police in charge of training
for the Fort Worth Police Department.

Senator DANIEL. And what position (to you hold with the Texas
Police Association?
Mr. HOWERTON. I am president, of the Texas Police Association
for this ear.
Mr. GASQUE. Mr. Howerton, I believe you have a prepared state-
ment.
The press would like copies of it.
Senator DANIEL. If you will, give the press copies of your state-
ment, and we will place the statement in the record in full. (See p.
3294.)
Now, Mr. Howerton, your appearance today is as president of the
Texas Police Association?
Mr. HOWERTON. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. We appreciate your appearing before the com-
mittee, and as I have said, your statement will be p aced in the record
in full, and if you would care to emphasize any particular portion of
your statement, or call any particular matter to our attention orally,
we would be glad to hear from you.
Mr. HOWERTON. Well, at this one point, Senator Daniel, I would
like to stress the fact that in our report, we did not have time to
have an executive committee meeting, at, which time we plan on
presenting to you some recommendations from the Texas Police
Association. (See p. 3295.)
We will have that executive meeting before you open Congress
again in January, and we hope to have some copies of it before you
then.
With this one thought in mind: We do deplore the fact that we do
not have enough Federal narcotic agents working in this northern
part of Texas, particularly to assist in this problem. 'We realize
that where 1 addict or where 1 salesman or pusher, as they might
call him, exists, that that is too much narcotics. That is the way
we feel about it in the Texas Police Association, and we are doing
everything that we possibly can.
3294
Now, in the Texas Police Association, we publish monthly a Texas

police journal, and in this Texas police journal we print items from
various people who are experts in the field of narcotics.
And on page 3 there, I believe, you will see a story relating to
a conference that we held in Odessa and Brownsville and Plainview
last year; we had three quarterly conferences. The first subject
and topic in those conferences was narcotics, and we had Mr. Drumheller with us at that time, and we were trying to bring to the police
officers of Texas the knowledge that we do have a problem in narcotics, and that it does face us locally, particularly since the Federal
Government has pulled away their narcotic agents.
Senator DANIEL. You feel that the narcotics problem in Texas is
a serious problem?
Senator DANIEL. And that we must increase our Federal forces,

and what about our local forces also, dealing with narcotics?
Senator DANIEL. Do you feel they should be increased?
Mr. HOWERTON. Yes, sir; and close cooperation. And in that

light, I would like to say this: All the way through we have received
wonderful cooperation from the Federal narcotics agents, and of Mr.
Garrison in Austin with his newly organized unit; they have worked
hand in crlove with us, and it is wonderful to have that type cooperation. We do need more or it.
Senator DANIEL. We certainly appreciate your appearance, and
we will look forward to the official recommendations of your organization before January the 1st.
Mr. HOWERTON. Thank you, sir.
(The statement presented to the subcommittee at the Fort Worth

hearing, October 21, 1955, and the recommendations on proposed
narcotic legislation of the Texas Police Association submitted December 23, 1955, follows:)
Senator Daniel and members of the committee, it affords me a great deal of
pleasure to have this opportunity to appear before this committee and extend
to you gentlemen the best wishes of the police officers of Texas who comprise the
Texas Police Association and to offer you our cooperation in your work here.
I wish to thank you, Senator, and all of you gentlemen for inviting me to appear
before ou. As its president, I represent the Texas Police Association.
The Texas Police Association, now in its 57th year, is the oldest police association in Texas. This association has as its objective the improvement of the
police profession. It operates under a policy of giving to the people of Texas
the best possible law enforcement. Believing that better service to the people
will automatically bring better pay and better working conditions for the police
officers of the State, it strives to bring about better training and higher standards
for personnel selection. Unlike many other associations it does not endorse
legislation designed for purely selfish purposes nor does it permit such objectives as
pay or working conditions to become a part of its program. The objectives
instead are to improve cooperation between law enforcement agencies, to support
legislation designed to curb all types of criminal activity, to support improved
police training and to conduct a public relations program tending to bring closer
cooperation between the police and the people.
All types of law enforcement officers are eligible for membership in the Texas
Police Association. We number among out members most of the chiefs of police
of Texas, hundreds of the rank and file of police officers, including State as well
as municipal police, a few sheriffs and their deputies, officers of Federal law
enforcement agencies, and certain other special police officers such as railroad
special agents and security personnel with our large plants.
3295
In line with the objectives set out above, we have a training committee, a
legislative committee, a major crime committee, and a public relations committee
among others. These are all active committees. Under the major crimes committee we have a narcotics subcommittee. Through regional conferences and our
publication, the Texas Police Journal this committee as kept the membership
informed of the narcotics situation in Wlexas and steps being taken to combat it.
Many Federal officers are members of our association, including Federal
narcotics officers, and through our annual and regional meetings we insure cooperation with these agencies. Federal, State and city narcotics officers appear on our
programs regularly and the pages of our official publication are open to all of them.
Tbrouiout the years members of our association have cooperated fully with the
Federal narcotics agents, in many cases working paired off with them in narcotics
I
investigations, one city officer and one narcotics officer.
We have had every cooperation from the Federal narcotics officers assigned to
Texas, and as president of the Texas Police Association, I wish to commend this
bureau highly for the cooperation extended our members. It is regrettable and a
matter of extreme concern to all of us that shortage of personnel in the Narcotics
Bureau has curtailed their activities to such a degree that we feel it to be impossible
that they fulfill their mission properly.
The new State bureau under Col. Homer Garrison, Jr., is also to be commended
for the start they have made, their activity, and their cooperation. Chief W. E.
Naylor of this bureau is an active member of our association and last year appeared as principal speaker at tree of our regional conferences.
Chief Naylor, who heads our narcotics committee, is well informed on the
narcotics situation throughout the State, the enforcement problem, the weaknesses
in our State laws, and the methods of handling violations in various jurisdictions.
I have here a copy of the Texas Police Journal for November 1954, and I refer
you to page 3, "Huge Texas Narcotic Problem Cited." This is only one of many
articles in our police journal, which has a distribution of approximately 3,200
copies in Texas, which discusses the narcotics problem. I have a copy of this
magazine for each of you and I offer it to be used as an exhibit for your information, as you choose.
We are making progress in curbing the narcotics evil in Texas. We of the Texas
Police Association are proud that we have been taking a leading role in curbing
violations of the law and pointing out the dangers inherent in the illegal distribution of narcotics.
We hope that your efforts are successful and know that your hearings will bring
to the people of Texas information about narcotics conditions and will help to
awaken the average citizen to this great evil.
Best wishes and my sincere thanks for this opportunity.
ROLAND R. HOWERTON, President,
Texas Police Association.

TEXAS POLICE ASSOCIATION,
Dallas Tex., December 23, 1955.

Subject: Recommendations for proposed narcotics legislation
Hon. PRICE DANIEL,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee of Narcotics, and Members of the

Committee,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
GENTLEMEN: In behalf of the Texas Police Association I send you our recommendations for steps to be taken to curb our growing narcotics problem. As the
narcotics problem is mastered, other crimes will likewise be checked to some
extent. In the Dallas-Fort Worth area a list of 78 active, white shoplifters, all
with police records, was complied. A casual check of this list by a city narcotics
officer showed that of the 78, 72 were known addicts.
Our recommendations follow:
PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION
1. Make a change in the law, or procedure (or both if necessary) which now
permits addicts who volunteer for treatment in public health hospitals, to leave
at will, to allow them to leave only when discharged by the hospital staff.
The system of accepting patients from far and near for treatment of the
narcotics habit and then when they wish, permitting them, uncured, to walk out
3296
at will to pursue their life of crime, cannot be defended. The people of the
entire Dallas-Fort Worth area are the victims of this unwise and incomprehensible
procedure. In effect, it invites to Fort Worth the addicts, most of whom are
thieves, from everywhere. An example:
Some time ago one of the prescription laboratories in Dallas was held up and
narcotics taken in the robbery. The perpetrator, when arrested, proved to be a
walkaway from the hospital at Fort Worth, and was identified as an out-of-State
hoodlum.
2. Records of addicts in the United States public health hospitals to be made
available to law enforcement officers; addicts to be finger printed and a copy of
such prints, in the case of the Fort Worth hospital, be sent to the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Escapes and
releases should be reported, as soon as they occur, to each of the above law
enforc&nent organizations.
3. Reopening of narcotics offices in Texas which have recently been closed and
new offices opened to permit the reduction in the size of districts.
It is not possible for Federal authorities to do much in curbing narcotics violations under the present setup. A district from the Louisiana border to Amarillo
is a large district and when you put Dallas and Fort Worth in the middle of such a
district and expect a couple of agents to handle it you have given them a task of
such magnitude that the results obtained in comparison to the size of the problem
are negligible.
4. That judges and United States Commissioners be allowed the right to deny
bail to persons charged under the narcotics acts.
5. That the statutes which provide for parole eligibility after one-third of a
penitentiary sentence should be taken away from the narcotic offender.
6. That a special law covering heroin only be enacted with a penalty of 10 years
for first offense and 10 years to life for any subsequent offense. Heroin is the
principal source of our narcotics troubles. Unlike other narcotics there is no
way in which it can be possessed legally. It is all smuggled in. The profits
from heroin are fabulous. Heroin should be given special consideration and a
special law passed covering the offense of smuggling, transporting, selling, or
possessing heroin.
7. A law prohibiting any person to buy more than 1 ounce of paregoric in any
24-hour period, 'or having more than 1 ounce of paregoric in his possession and
prohibiting the druggist from selling more than 1 ounce in any 24-hour period.
STATE
LAW
8. The seizure law insofar as it refers to lien holders be changed. At present,

if there is a lien against the auto greater than the value of the auto, the court
gives the car to the lien holder, or if the lien is less than the value of the car, the
car is sold and the lien paid off and the court retains the balance; or, if there is no
lien, the amount realized from the car reverts to the Government.
This law to be changed so as not to continue to protect the lien holder in this
manner. The law should give the seized vehicle to the State to be used by the
Department of Public Safety or sold and the proceeds revert to the State.
9. The law on paregorics should be changed so as to require dispensers of
paregoric and exempt drugs to maintain a record which would conform with the
record as required by Federal law.
10. The enactment of a paregoric law, making it a violation for any person to
have in his possession any amount of the exempt preparation, not in the original
container with label affixed thereto, or in excess of 1 fluid ounce except that
obtained by an official written order or prescription from a licensed physician.
11. To make it impossible for a person out on bond on a narcotics violation to
make bond for a subsequent violation.
12. To prohibit parole for any person confined in the penitentiary for a narcotics
violation.
13. We recommend that the recent law on paraphernalia be changed-The
law now reads in part "at anytime to have or possess a hypodermic syringe or
needle or any instrument adapted for the use of narcotic drugs by subcutaneous
injection in a human being and which is possessed for that purpose unless such
possession is for the purpose of subcutaneous injection of a drug or drugs or
medicines, the use of which is authorized by the direction of a licensed physician."
We believe that the law should be amended to cover the possession of the
instrument, the possession of the instrument as well as the medicine to be authorized by direction or prescription of a licensed physician.
3297

PROSECUTION
POLICY
1. Law enforcement has been dealt a crippling blow by the present policy
regarding the adoption of cases by the Federal Government. We recommend
that the Attorney General of the United States instruct United States attorneys
in a policy of vigorous prosecution of all Federal narcotics violations. The
policy, now in effect, should be thoroughly reviewed. At present there actually
exists a situation where the Government adopts the big cases from city, county,
and State officers, but refuses to adopt the small ones. The police officer then
must go to State courts for prosecution and the result is overcrowded dockets
and less certainty of punishment. The peace officers of Texas believe that a
violation of Federal narcotics laws should be prosecuted and the amount involved
should not be the determining factor.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We recommend that the State Department, through its Mexican contacts,

attempt to secure a more vigorous prosecution of narcotics cases in the Mexican
border area.
2. We recommend that a study be made of the problem along the Mexican
border and that such steps as are necessary to stop the smuggling of narcotics
across the international border be taken. At present, from all available information the legislation necessary to control the situation is lacking, as well as the
necessary personnel and equipment. A study should be made to determine
whether legislation will help and what personnel and equipment are needed and
these provided. Federal law enforcement is suffering a serious loss of prestige
by the ineffectual efforts being made at present.
3. The amount of penalty possible is not necessarily the best deterrent factor.
The quickness and the certainty of punishment will have a much more favorable
effect as a deterrent factor. Speed cannot be attained unless the Federal courts
are given a large share of the load. Certainty of punishment depends upon
apprehension. The violator must be caught and then be brought to trial.
We have no quarrel with Texas juries in narcotics cases. The cases which are
tried in our State courts are receiving vigorous prosecution from our district
attorneys and good sentences from our juries.
We attribute much of this to you gentlemen of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Narcotics. You have informed and aroused the people of Texas
to the danger in the illicit traffic in narcotics.
The Texas Police Association has been in this fight a long time. We support
your committee 100 percent. Please be assured of our desire to assist you in
every way possible.
Respectfully submitted.
ROLAND
R.
HOwVERTON,
President, Texas Police Association.
Mr. Howerton.
Now, this about brings to a close, not only the Fort Worth hearing
but our hearings in the State of Texas, except possibly 1 day in San
Antonio before January 1.
Senator DANIEL. Thank you very much,
I want to express my appreciation again to all the law enforcement
officers who have appeared here and who have helped in organizing
these hearings, to my staff, to the reporter-this court reporter over
here had to take every word of this; we have certainly kept him busy
throughout this week.
I want to express my appreciation also to the members of the press
and to the radio and television stations, especially to WBAP television

and radio, for having carried these hearings right from this courtroom.
I am not sure that everything ought to be televised in the way of
congressional committee hearings, but I certainly think that wherever
the national security of this country is not involved and secrecy is not
required, the people ought to have an opportunity to know about their
business, and there is no more important business, in my opinion, that
we have in this country today, than to lick the narcotics problem and
3298
stop it before it hurts more of our young people and more of our adult
citizens, and destroys more of our property and lives in this country.
I think that the radio and television have certainly served a good public
service, not only to this committee and to the law-enforcement officers,
but to the public in general.
I believe when the public knows about this narcotics problem, they
will help the law-enforcement officers and those of us in the legislative
halls in shaping laws, and seeing that those laws are properly enforced.
So I express my appreciation to all of you who have made these
hearings possible, and especially to those who have made it possible
for the public to know about this problem, and thereby to help us in
licking it.
The committee will stand adjourned.
(Thereupon, at the hour of 5 p. m., the hearing was adjourned.)

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1955
E ON IM PROVEMENTS
SUBcOxx1r
CoMMTTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
San Antonio, Tex.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 10 a. M., in the district
Price Daniel (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: C. Aubrey Gasque, of South Carolina, subcommittee counsel; and Wayland Lee Speer, of Afharillo, Tex., committee investigator.
Senator DANIEL. The purpose of this hearing today is to continue
and, we hope, complete the hearings which werebegun in San Antonio
in October. We had several witnesses who were not called at that time
because we ran out of time. We will call some of those witnesses and
in addition we have other witnesses concerning the Mexican border
situation with respect to narcotic drugs.
Because we intended to go back into the Mexican border situation
fully and because of the fact that after our last Texas hearing certain
consuls representing Mexico here in the United States felt that some
of the testimony before this committee was not correct and left the
wrong impression, we again invited the attorney general of Mexico
and Mexico's representative on the United Nations to sit in this hearing if they could. I have not heard from them yet. I hope one of
these gentlemen will be in attendance.
We also invited the local consul general in San Antonio. The
consul-general representative in Los Angeles sat in on our hearing
there. The local consul representing our neighbor to the south has
been cooperative in every way with this committee, but I regret that
the Ambassador from Mexico thought that he should not sit in with
the committee in its hearings, and I now include in the record the telegram from a very distinguished gentleman the Ambassador from
Mexico, Hon. Manuel Tello. saying why he felt the consul here at San
Antonio should not sit in with us.
I regret the decision because of the fact that in Los Angeles the
Mexican representative did sit with us, just as a representative of the
Canadian Senate sat with us in the first hearing we held of this investigation. We found there was utmost cooperation and good understanding in both instances. We're not trying to blame the people of
any one country. As I said in San Antonio before, if there were not
Americans on this side of the border buying heroin there would be
no smuggling. It is a mutual problem. We ought to work the problem out together. Neither of us is doing enough today to stop this
3299
3300
menace to society. We are not trying to criticize Mexico because we

are seeking the truth of the facts concerning this border situation.
(The telegram referred to is as follows:)
[Western Union telegram]
WASHINGTON, D.
C., December13, 1955.
C. AUBREY GASQUE,
General Coun8el, Committee on the Judiciary,

United State8 Courthou8e,San Antonio, Tex.:
Have received yours 12th November kindly inviting a Mexican Government
representative, especially Consul General Lauro Izaguirre, to attend with President and members, Judiciary Subcommittee hearings to be held at United States
Courthouse, San Antonio, beginning tomorrow 10 a. m., at which illicit narcotics
traffic will be further investigated.
In thanking you for this invitation I wish to state that since the committee
is an organ of the United States legislative branch made up exclusively of
members of the Senate I believe that the presence of an official foreign representative could bring up certain problems of an international nature. This
does not in the least mean that the Government of Mexico is not most anxious
to continue studying, in conjunction with Unted States Government, procedures
which could be most adequate to combat with the greatest possible vigor the
criminal traffic of drugs.
As you know duly accredited representatives of both our countries collaborate
actively within the United Nations Narcotic Commission to attack a problem
of world scope. Furthermore this collaboration is ont limited to United Nations activities but also includes exchanges of information and impressions,
which are constant and direct, between Mexican and American officials.
I am convinced that any suggestions the Government of the Untied States
may desire to present to my government, through normal channels, to improve
this collaboration to our mutual benefit will be studied with the greatest attention since my government harbors the decided purpose of combating with all
means at its disposal a crime that it condemns and punishes with the greatest
severity.
Truly yours,
MANUEL TELO, Ambassador.
Senator DANIFL. The first witness is Mr. Charles Herring.
Go
to the witness stand and be sworn, please.

(Mr. Charles Herring was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANML. Will you state your name and your present oc-
cupation?
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES HERRING, ATTORNEY, AUSTIN, TEX.,
Mr. HERRING. My name is Oharles Herring.
I am an attorney,
practicing law in Austin, Tex. at the present time.
Senator DANIEL. What occupation or position did you hold prior
to your present practice in law?
Mr. HERRING. Prior to my practice of law I was United States
district attorney for the western district of Texas from about the
middle of 1951 until about the 1st of February of 1955.
Senator DANIEL. During that period of time, about 4 years, when
you served as United States attorney for the western district of

Texas, did you have occasion to make a special study of the narcotics
problem that exists in this State?
Mr. HERRIW G. The narcotics problem was one in which I had a
great deal of interest. I was alarmed when I first took office to learn
of the extent of the narcotics traffic in Texas. I spent a lot of my
time trying to determine the reasons why and what could be done
about it. In going back over the records of the Treasury Department
for a number of years I found that from about 1950 on through 1953,
3301
the narcotics traffic in Texas seemed to be the greatest in any State

in the Union.
Senator DANIEL. Now, when you say the narcotic traffic in Texas
seemed to be greater than any State, do you mean the traffic moving
through Texas?
Mr. HERMNG. The traffic moving through Texas from the Mexican border.
Senator DANIEL. You don't mean that all the narcotics stop in
Texas?
Mr. HEMING. No, as a matter of fact, it is my judgment that most
of it was intended for out-of-State consumption. Back in about 1951
we ran into a rather large case here in San Antonio, for example, a
negro by the name of Noral Williams was apprehended with 3 negro
women from New York with 3 suitcase full of marijuana, I believe
250 or 248 pounds. We found from this one defendant he had been
carrying on this sort of traffic for a number of years and that the
consumption of the marihuana was primarily through the night
clubs up in the Harlem district of New York.
The violations records released, those reported to the Treasury Department at least, revealed that Texas commenced having more
reported violations in about 1950 than even the State of New York.
New York before that had had by far the greatest number of narcotics
arrests in the Union.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Mr. Herring, before you go along too far on
that I want to ask you why you think so mich of the narcotics coming
into Texas is moving through Texas?
Mr. HERRING. Well, the reason I think it moves through Texas is
because it is so easy to come from Mexico. From the information I
could gather from the investigating agents along the border and
other sources, there seemed to me very little effort made on the other
side of the border to stop the flow of narcotics into this country. Our
agencies, of course, along the border were and have been undermanned
for a long time, in my judgment. They couldn't do the job along the
border, particularly when anyone can go across the border at any
time and buy almost any narcotics they want.
Senator DANIEL. While you were United States District Attorney
for the western district of Texas did you find many cases where you
had evidence this could be done, easy purchases of marihuana and
heroin ?
Mr. HERRING. Well, we found many cases of that sort, particularly
those cases in Del Rio, Eagle Pass.
Senator DANIEL. What about. in Laredo?
Mr. HERRING. Laredo was outside of my district. The information I have and know about it, is that all the border towns are the
same all the wav down to Brownsville.
Senator DANIEL. I want to say now for the record the interest of
the chairman in this problem began with the report of a grand jury
from the Houston and Galveston District from Texas, tnat is, the
southern district, and from this hearing as to the traffic through our
State' I doubt that I would be here as chairman of this subcommittee, not only do I doubt that the chairman would be here in this
capacity, but I doubt that there would be an investigating committee
of the Congress making a nationwide study of this matter if it had
not been for the witness now on the stand andfor the grand jury report
3302
that we received from Texas. I know that your information that you
gave the Congress, gave Congressman Thornberry from Austin, and
the information you gave to me is what caused us to introduce resolutions for this investigation.
Now, we found, after we started and got along in this investigation,
that it is a nationwide problem, and not a problem just in Texas. We
do appreciate the fact that you did something about it as United
States District Attorney.
Now, how do you hink that we can do something in the Congress
toward stopping this traffic?
Mr. HERRING. Of course, about the only way we can stop it is first
to adequately man your customs agencies and narcotic agencies, give
them proper personnel and enough money to operate on.
Senator DANIEL. From your experience do you think that they are
properly manned now or not?
Mr. HERRING. I do not think so.
Senator DANIEL. You think both the narcotics agents and the customs agents are too few?
Mr. HERRING, I think they are decidedly undermanned on the narcotic investigation side. I also think that it might do some good to
strengthen the penalties which are now provided by law particularly
for the sale and trafficking in narcotic drugs. When I say narcotic
drugs, I include marihuana; I think that may not be technically correct, but I think it is one of the drugs or one of the things that is very
detrimental.
Senator DANIEL. Actually marijuana can cause as much damage,
as much crime as any drug?
Mr. HERRING. I think so, maybe more so even.
Senator DANIEL. Now, do you think penalties should be increased,
minimum penalties as well as the maximum penalties?
Mr. HERRING. Yes, I think both of them should be increased.
If we
had judges such as we had in this district I served, I would say do not
have a minimum penalty for the first offense. Unfortunately, I don't
think the country is that blessed. I believe the only solution to have
uniformity throughout the country, is to have a substantial minimum
penaly for even the first offense.
Senator DANIEL. If the judges are not awake to the seriousness of the
narcotic traffic, what it has done in this country, if they are not awake
to the fact, that we have 60,000 addicts and Great Britain has only 500
addicts, if they are not awake to the fact that drug addicts are causing
a third of the crime in the country, if they treat the smugglers anR
peddlers with leniency and do not assess any penalties, how are we
going to stop it?
Mr. HERRING. I don't think we can.
Senator DANIEL. We happen to be sitting in the courtroom of Judge
Ben Rice. I want to thank you for loaning us the courtroom for these
hearings and all your kindnesses. As I understand it, he really gives
heavy penalties in narcotic cases ?
Mr. HERRING. He understands the problem.
Senator DANIEL. Now, do you find that true of other State and Federal judges in Texas? I know you wouldn't want to criticize them
and neither do I, for failing to understand the problem. What has
been your experience with respect to other court sentences ?
3303
Mr. HERRING. The information I have is that the sentences are not
such as I would have given had I been on the bench. I think probably
the reason is because they do not understand the problem, and the
seriousness of it, as you say.
Senator DANIEL. I had a Federal judge tell me not so long ago, "Do
not go out on a limb and be an extremist and advocate the death penalty
for smuggling narcotics." I thought there should be a maximum, not
to be the only penalty, but, say, from 5 years to death; in the extreme
case the death penalty could be meted out. He said, "Don't be an extremist on it because," he said, "you wouldn't have many cases where
the death penalty would be justified." I told him about a case in San
Antonio where one man started 40 to 50 high school students on heroin.
I said that man is as guilty of murder as the man who goes out and
shoots those boys. It is murder on the installment plan. We have
witnesses today who will testify it has killed some people after taking a
shot. So I think we ought to classify this crime of smuggling narcotics a little nearer to murder, don't you?
Mr. HERRING. I think that is the only way you will ever stop it.
Senator DANIEL. And we should have maximum penalties that are
really high enough to frighten these smugglers out of our country. Do
you know about 370 aliens today who are in deportation proceedings
because they violated our narcotics laws?
Mr. -IERRING. I didn't realize there were that many.
Senator DANIEL. And there were over 300 deported last year. So
they are not afraid of our laws, not afraid of the sentences they get
over here if they bring in narcotics.
Mr. IERING. I think that is evident from the number of repeaters
we have in the narcotic traffic business. You will find a lot of people
tried over and over again for narcotic violations. They don't fear
it a lot and some of them, bigtime operators, feel like it is a small price
to pay for the returns they can get from the trade.
Senator DANIEL. Well, can you take the profit out of the business,
such a lucrative business, with a 2-or 3-year sentence?
Mr. HEmNG. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. IS that why you recommend the sentences be
higher, say 10 years or 25-year sentences, would that do it?
Mr. HERRING. They would be out of circulation, I think they would
find it unprofitable, because in the penitentiary they couldn't spend the
money they had made.
Senator DANIEL. Now, do you have any other recommendations to
make to this committee?
Mr. HEING. I recommend the Congress, members like you of the
Senate, keep your eye on the problem and see whether or not the
recommendations you do make are carried out and, if they are carried
out whether or not they do the job. It is a serious problem and one
that the country has been fighting a long time.
Whether the things that you recommend will actually accomplish
the purpose, I don't know and, of course, no one knows. I think
Congress should be alert at all times until the matter is under control.
I think you could do something probably through negotiations with
the government of Mexico in an effort to urge them, more strongly
than has been done before to cooperate in helping clean up the border
situation. I think that would get to the real meat of the coconut right
there.
3304
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC

Mr. GASQUE. I would like to ask Mr. Herrring about the possibility
of a wiretapping law for apprehending these narcotic violators?
Mr. HERRING. I see no objection to it. I see no objection to using
almost any means you can to apprehend people in this business.
Mr. GASQUE. And do you think it would be possible to establish ,t
bail bond procedure that would keep them in jail once they were
there?
Mr. HERRING. I don't know how practical that would be. It sounds
like it might have possibilities, I will say that.

Mr. GASQUE. You certainly would agree there's a need for itMr. HERRING. I think there's a need for it, a need to urge all con-.
missioners, United States commissioners who make most of the bonds,
to urge them to be rather liberal in setting the amounts, and the
United States Attorneys, of course, can help along that line, too.
DANIEL. Mr. Speer, do you have anything?
Mr. SrEER. No questions, Senator.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Herring, I certainly want to
Senator
thank you on
behalf of the committee for your assistance to us in getting our work
started. I will say this, I offered the place of General Counsel on this
committee to you. I have a good counsel but I want the record to show
I would have been pleased for you to work with us all the way. Thank
you for all you have done and for your testimony today.
Mr. HERRING. I want to express my persona] appreciation as a citizen to you for what you are doing. I think it is going to do a lot of
good. I also would like to pay tribute, if I may, to a man who helped
me get started, helped me bring to the attention of the public the
problem you are dealing in, Mr. Bill Joines of the American Statesman. I tried to get people interested, and he finally became interested
and helped me get it on the road.
Senator DANIEL. That is fine, I want to pay tribute to your successor, Mr. Russell Wine. We have already heard from him. He is
in the courtroom today and after being in office a short while after
you left, he certainly understands the things you have said about this
problem, the seriousness of it. While you are paying tribute to a newspaperman, I want to pay tribute to all the press and radio and television who have been covering these hearings in San Antonio. They
have furnished, I think, the best coverage in the entire nation. We
have now been through about a dozen cities, and nearly that many
states, and I think that wherever we have the media of reaching the
people of the country, really putting this problem to the people, they
will help law enforcement and legislators to do something about it.
The next witness I am going to call is a newspaperman. Thank you
very much.
Mr. HERRING. Thank you.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Ruben Salazar.
(Mr. Ruben Salazar duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator
DANIEL.
Will you state your name and present occupation ?
TESTIMONY OF RUBEN SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR.
Senator
My name is Ruben Salazar. I am a reporter.
DANIEL.
Will you spell that?
Mr.
SALAZAR.
R-u-b-e-n S-a-l-a-z-a-r.
3305
I am a reporter for the El
Paso Herald-Post.
Senator DANIEL. And you live in El Paso, Tex.?
Mr. SALAZAR. Yes, I do.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Salazar, we had the privilege of reading an

article that you wrote in August of this year, concerning the narcotic
traffic from Juarez into El Paso and especially some of the operators in
the traffic in El Paso that caused us to contact you to see what other
information you could give us.
Mr. SALAZAR. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And the committee appreciates your cooperation.

I would like at this time to insert in the record the article that you
wrote on August 16, 1 believe, in the El Paso Herald-Post concerning
purchases of narcotics by you and by an addict who went over across
the border with you. Now, I would like to ask you whether or not, in
your duties as a newspaperman, you made a thorough study of the
sources of narcotics in Juarez, Mexico?
Mr. SALAZAR. I am not an expert on the subject, Senator, but I
have studied it pretty closely since August.
Senator DANIEL. In August of this year?
Mr. SALAZAR. Right, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Your article, that I spoke about a moment ago
was actually dated August 17, 1955, entitled "La Nacha sells dirty
dope $5 a paper." Just exactly how did you go about trying to find out
where heroin and other narcotics were being sold across the border
from El Paso?
Mr. SALAZAR. Well, sir, I heard about La Nacha.
Senator DANIEL. Who is La Nacha?
Mr. SALAZAR. Ignacia Jasso.
Mr. SALAZAR. I-g-n-a-c-i-a J-a-s-s-o. It is common knowledge in
El Paso and Juarez that she has been selling heroin or has been
responsible for selling heroin and marihuana for at least 23 years.
Senator DANIEL. So that our record will be clear, so that everybody
on the committee and those in the courtroom may know, Juarez is
simply across the bridge from the city limits of El Paso?
Mr. SALAZAR. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. The city limits of Juarez begin right immediately,
at the center of the bridge, I suppose?
Mr. SALAZAR. Right.
Senator DANIEL. It is just a matter of crossing a short bridge from
El Paso Tex , to Juarez, Mexico?
Mr. 9ALAZAR. Right.
Senator DANIEL. And you say this woman
Mr. SALAZAR. La, L-a ;Nacha, N-a-c-h-a.
Senator DANIEL. Has been selling dope over in Juarez how long?
Mr. SALAZAR. At least 23 years.
Senator DANIEL. All right, tell us something about her operations,
what you did to see how she was dispensing the dope.
Mr. SALAZAR. Well, as I said, I had heard she was selling a long
time and the problem never really interested me until I became a newspaperman, and I started when I heard they were smuggling dope into
the El Paso city jail. I had myself arrested so I could go in there and
see if it were true. I was in there in the city jail, I witnessed a dope
3306
arty, mostly "goof balls" that were smuggled in. Then I got to
now some heroin addicts in there who talked about La Nacha to me.
I had heard La Nacha was not selling any more because during the
war, World War II, the Mexican Government sent her to a penal
colony because the United States pressured them to take her out of
the border because we feared she would sell narcotics to our soldiers.
Senator DANITEL. Our soldiers across the bridge?
Mr. SALAZAR. At Fort Bliss.
Senator DANIEL. The testimony in San Antonio indicated that some
of them had been buying dope across the border. During the war
you say she was in prison?
Senator DANIEL. I see you call her the dope queen of the border.
Is she known as that along the border?

Mr. SALAZAR. Yes, sir; she is. I believe our paper called her that
about 20 years ago. One of our reporters, Marshall Haile, I think,
was the one that tagged her the dope queen.
Senator DANIEL. What did you do after you got yourself out of jail?
Mr. SALAZAR. Well, I got interested in La Nacha. I thought she was
just a fable being, as I had heard about her all my life. Then I met an
addict who said he would take me to her house and we could buy
heroin. I couldn't believe my ears. Anyway, I went with him twice.
First I bought a $5 paper, I bought it myself. She handed it to me
with her own hand and I gave her $5 for it. I went back a few days
later and bought a $10 paper. We went to a cheap hotel in Juarez
and I saw this boy injectlh imself with La Nacha's heroin.
Senator DANIEL. He is an addict living in El Paso?
Senator DANIEL. I see in your article about that investigation, you
say," She's as casual about it as if she were selling tortillas."
Senator DANIEL. Did she have any hesitancy about selling you, a
new man, heroin?
Mr. SALAZAR. Well, it was easy, in this way. She knew this heroin
addict and he told La Nacha he had brought me over because I was
from Los Angeles and wanted to make a contact. She "kinda" glanced
at my arms to see probably if I had any needle marks and my informer
told her, "Well, no, he's not a mainliner, he just sniffs it."
Senator DANIEL. "Not a mainliner." Let the reporter get these for
the record, she has to take down everything you say.
Mr. SALAZAR. My informer told La Nacha I was not a mainliner but
I only sniffed the heroin.

Senator DANIEL. Now, you have both sniffers and mainliners,
mainliners meaning those who inject heroin in the veins, and those
who are simply smellers are sniffers?
Mr. SALAZAR. I assume that is the way they start, they eventually
become mainliners, I support.

Senator DANIEL. Did La Nacha sell you that heroin herself ?
Senator DANIEL. At what price?
Mr. SALAZAR. Five dollars.
Senator DANIEL. Five dollars a paper?
3307

Senator DANIEL. Do you know how much is included in a paper?
MI'. SALAZAR. No, sir; I sure don't.

Senator DANIEL. Do you have a picture of her house, where her house
is?
Mr. SALAZAR. I have a picture of the street leading to her house, it
shows part of her house, right here in the corner.
Senator DANIEL. Identify that as "Exhibit No. 2" of the San Antonio hearing of December 14.
Mr. SALAZAR. It is at the corner ofSenator DANIEL. Will you identify on this picture some object that
can go in the record to show exactly where her house is?
Mr. SALAZAR. Yes sir.
DANIEL. The street
Senator
in front of her house ?
Senator DANIEL. Now, on the iighthand side of the street a man is

standing at a door?
Mr. SALZAR. Right, sir.
DANIEL. In the background,

Mr.SALAZAR. No, it is a little farther
Senator
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
SALAZAR.
is that the door to her house?

down.
Beyond the man standing there in the picture?
Right in front of that truck is her entrance.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you know what street that is?
Mr. SALAZAR. Yes, sir; that is VioletasSenator DANIEL. Spell that out loud so that everyone can get it.
1.[r. SALAZAR. V-i-o-l-e-t-a-s. M-e-r-c-u-r-i-o.
Senator DANIEL. You made two purchases before you wrote this
story about La Nacha ?
Senator
DANTEL.
Do you have a picture of La Nacha there with
you ?
Yes, sir, the one that appeared in the newspaper.
Senator DANIEL. That has already been made a part of the record.
Mr. SALAZAR.
M1r. SALAZAR. That is the same one.

Senator DANIEL. Now, when your newspaper story came out about
this woman dealing in narcotics, selling to people across the border,

did you have any official of Mexico to deny it?
Mr. SALAZAR. Yes, sir; after my story came out the chief of police
in Juarez, then Pablo Cano Martinez, said that as far as he knew
La Nacha did not sell dope any more.
Senator DANIEL. Now, you hold in your hand an article, do you,
from the Mexican press and American press?
Air. SALAZAR. This is from the Mexican paper in Juarez.
Senator D.ANiEL. I'll say this to the reporter, exhibit No. 1 was the
El Paso Herald-Post article; exhibit No. 2, the picture of La Nacha's
house; exhibit No. 3, the articles just referred to, the denial from the
chief of police about La Nacha selling heroin.
7151ti--50--pt. 7-61
3308
(Exhibit No. 1 follows:)

[From the El Paso Herald-Post, August 17, 1955]
EXHIBIT No. 1
LA NACHA SELLS DIRTY DOPE AT $5
A "PAPEL" HERALD-POST REPORTER MARES

'QUEEN"
PURCHASE FROM BORDER
By Ruben Salazar
La Nacha is the dope queen of the border. She's big stuff. But she will sell
you one "papel" (paper) of heroin just like any "pusher" on a street corner.
I bought one from her for $5.
If you aren't too far gone, the dirty looking stuff in the folded paper is good
for two shots. But that's true only for those who are beginning.
A dope addict, whom I will call Hypo, buys the $10 size. It has more than two
of the $5 papers, Hypo said. One lasts him a day-most days.
HE MET THE QUEEN
La Nacha-right name Ignacia Jasso-lives in a good house in a bad neighborhood. She's fat, dark, cynical, and around 60. She deals out misery from her
comfortable home.
She sells usually what is called a "dirty load," which is one that is not white
as heroin should be, but a dirty, dusty color.
Her prices are in American money. She does business with many American
addicts. She's as casual about it as if she were selling tortillas.
Hypo took me to La Nacha's home and introduced me to the dope queen. I
visited her twice. The first time, Hypo and I bought a $5 paper of heroin. The
second time we bought the large economy $10 size.
The papers contained dope all right. I saw Hypo, an El Paso married man of
24 whose 19-year-old wife has a 3 months old baby, inject himself with the
"carga" (load).
HEE'S GOT
TO HAVE IT
Hypo, who says he wants to be cured, cannot now live without heroin. It
costs him about $10 a day-or hours of excruciating pain. Hypo prefers heroin
to pain and gets the $10 a day any way he can. He sold all his furniture for
heroin. He was evicted from his apartment for not paying rent. He has
stolen, borrowed, and now has given me his story for $15 which he spent on heroin.
Hypo and I went to visit La Nacha in the afternoon. We parked the car a
few blocks from her house. She lives in Bellavista district, which means beautiful view. It is far from beautiful. The streets are unpaved and most of the
houses are adobe. Naked kids were running about the streets.
We turned on Mercniro alley and walked toward La Nacha's house, which is
on the corner of the alley and Violetax (Violets) Street. Hers is the only (ecent-looking house in the neighborhood. It is yellow and has fancy iron grillework on the windows.
SHE HAS A TV SET
Hypo and I walked in through the nicely kept green patio. Inside, the house
has all the conveniences of a modern home; gas stove, nice living room furniture,
TV, and a saint's statue on the wall.
I had been to Hypo's El Paso apartment and couldn't help thinking about his
bare rooms after he had sold the furniture for heroin. The last time I had been
in Hypo's apartment, I had seen the baby on the floor on a blanket and HypO'S
wife sitting in a corner watching the baby. There was a sad, vacant look in
her eyes.
Once inside the house, which Hypo knows so well that he doesn't even bother
to knock, we met Nacha's daughter. She was sitting on a bed talking to another
woman. Hypo told her he was going away and wanted to introduce me So I
could buy the stuff myself.
"You'll have to ask Mother," Nacha's daughter said.
Then I was introduced to Nacha's son. He is heavy set, wears a mustache
and had on an expensive watch.
I noticed a stool nearby which had white strips of paper neatly arranged on top.
3309
SHE LOOKED HIM OVER
Then La Nacha came in. I remembered Hypo's advice that I should be polite
to her. She gave me the once over, I was introduced. She sat in front of the
stool and started working the strips. They were the heroin papers.
Hypo told La Nacha that I was a musician working in a dancehall in El Paso
and wanted to start buying "loads."
La Nacha glanced at my arms. Hypo explained that I wasn't a "mainliner."
That I just liked to "jornear"-breathe the heroin. A "mainliner" is one who
injects himself with a hypodermic needle.
La Nacha said, "All right, any time."
"At night we sell it across the street," La Nachas' daughter said. Hypo asked
La Nacha for "a nickel's worth." She handed me a paper of heroin. (She
wanted to know if I would handle the stuff, Hypo told me later.) Hypo gave
her $5 and we left.
QUICKER AND BETTER
After we bought the load we went to a cheap hotel in Juarez. There I saw
Hypo, who is a "mainliner," inject himself with heroin. "You feel better quicker
that way," Hypo said.
"Mainliners" need a cup of water, a syringe with a needle, an eye dropper,
a bottle cap and the expensive heroin to make them feel, in Hypo's word,
"normal."
"A man who is hooked (that Is, one who has the habit bad) never feels "normal"
unless he's had at least two shots a day," Hypo said.
I watched Hypo go through the process of injecting himself with heroin.
First be carefully placed half a paper of heroin in the bottle cap with a knife.
Then with an eye dropper he placed a few drops of water in the cap. He took
a match and placed it underneath the cap while holding it with the other hand.
After it was heated Hypo dropped a tiny ball of cotton in the cap. "This is so
the hypodermic can suck all the heroin out of the cap," Hypo explained. The
cotton works like a filter.
WILD EYES GLEAM
Hypo then placed the hypodermic syringe in the cap and the brownish substance
could be seen running up into the syringe.
Hypo's wild eyes gleamed with excitement.
Hypo crouched on the floor balanced on the front of his shoes. He injected the
heroin in his vein. His vein was swollen from so many punctures.
Almost as soon as the heroin had gone into his vein he started rocking back
and forth. I asked him how he felt.
"Muy suave, ese," he said. "Real good."
Before long he passed out. His stomach sounded like a washing machine.
He snored loudly and uncomfortably. I tried to wake him. I couldn't, so I
went home.
TOOK AN OVERDOSE
Later he explained that he had taken an overdose. "The load was real clean
and I misjudged the amount I should have taken," Hypo said. "I could have
died."
The second time I saw Hypo we must have bought a load not as clean or he
judged the right amount. For the reaction was much different.
Before he injected himself he looked worse than I had ever seen him. His
eyes looked like two huge dull buttons. He complained of pains all over his
body. Hypo couldn't even hold a cigarette because of his shaking hands.
We went to La Nacha's and bought some heroin. We only stayed a minute.
Hypo needed to be "cured" quick.
After he injected himself this time he actually looked better than before,
talked better and acted better. He was only half dead-instead of three quarters.
He stopped shaking. He smoked almost calmly and was talkative. "I've got
to quit this habit," he said, "For my little daughter's sake. I love her very
much. God, I wish I could stop it."
I, too, hope he can.
3310

ExHIBrr No. 2
V
F.
..
....
W1
I.
,:"
..
V~
Photograph of house of "La Nacha," Juarez, Mexico.

ExHiim
No. 3
"LA NACHA" YA NO VENDE DROGAS, DICE EL INSPECTOR DE POLICfA
"La Nacha" siempre ha estado vigilada por la policia local y hasta el momento
no se ha tenido conocimiento de que se dedique al trdfico de drogas, como asegura
un reporter de El Paso." Tal declaraci6n nos fu6 hecha ayer por el Gen. Pablo
Cano Martinez, inspector de policia, quien agrego que ninguna denuncia al
respecto le ha sido presentada.
Un peri6dico de El Paso public en dias pasados una alarmante informaci~f
en la que se aseguraba que la celebdrrima traficante de drogas heroicas, que una
ocasi6n estuvo internada en el penal de las Islas Marfas, sigue dedicfindose al
nefasto negocio en su casa que tiene en la esquina de las calles Violetas y Mercurio
de esta ciudad.
Sin embargo, como asentamos al principio, el general Cano Martfnez nos dijo
que no sabe nada al respecto.
[El Continental-El Paso, Tex.-Miercoles 17 de Agoste de 1955]
MOVILIZA A LA POLICfA DE JUAREZ UN
REPORTAGE
SOBRE
LA NACHA-AL FIN
CONSIGNARON A PATRICIA ARTHUR AL JUZOADO TERCERO PENAL
10 Dias Estuvo el Caso en Investigaciones Previas

Por fin despuds de diez dfas el departamento de Investigaciones Previas de
Jufirez consign a Patricia Arthur, la homicida del patrullero paseiio Alberto
Arreola, a la Agehcia del Ministerio Pfiblico del Estado, la que a su vez turn6
inmediatamente el expediente al juzgado Tercero de lo Penal.
, ,.
v.
I '
3311
Sin duda los cambios de jefes de oficina que recientemente hizo el Gobernador,
Dr. Jesfis Lozoya Solls, obligaron a esa dependencia a hacer la consignacifn del
sonado caso, pero con el antecedente de que esper6 el acta notarial del C6nsul
General de Mexico, Ernesto Lavega que certifica el acta de nacimiento de Patricia,
para comprobar su minorla de edad.
Todo hace sospechar que el departamento de Investigaciones Previas estaba
fraguando un nuevo trinquete en el caso de la norteamericana, que constituiria el
postrer bofet6n a la ya desprestigiada administracifn de justicia.
Se sospecha que la lentitud con que Previas estuvo ventilh1ndo el procedimiento,
estaba encaminada a ver que ventaja sacaban por filtimo, porque ya vefan la
escritura en la pared.
Previas dispone de un tdrmino constitucional de 72 horas para consignar sus
actuaciones en cual quier expediente ante el Agente del Ministerio Piblico del
Estado; sin embargo, transcurrieron diez dfas desde que la Inspeccifn de Policia
puso en sus manos el asunto relativo al homicidio cometido por la norteamericana
en la persona del patrullero Roberto Arreola, y en las diligenclas realizadas pudo
entreverse una serie de manio bras ilegales en convivencia con los encargaUos ae la
defensa.
Investigaciones Previas tenia la obligacl6n de haber hecho la consignaci6n
dentro del tdrmino constitucional, sin esperar la aportaci6n de pruebas en favor
de Patricia Arthur.
La prueba documental relativa a la minorfa de edad de la acusada tendria que
haber sido presentada por los defensores ante el juez penal y ningfin precepto
legal faculta al departamento de Investigaciones Previas para excederse en el
tdrmino de que dispone para reci bir evidencia.
Desde el momento en que Previas recibi6 el certificado de autopsia rendido por
el Hospital General de El Paso y ratificado por los Mddicos legistas de Ciudad
Jufirez, dedi hacer la consignacifn inmediata.
SE ASEGURA QUE CONTINUE TRAFICANDO ABIERTAMENTE
La Inspecifn General de Policia de Ciudad Juqrez entr6 immediatamente en

accifn hoy en la tarde al enterarse de un reportage de un colega de El Paso
que en el que se asegura que La Nacha est, vendiendo narc6ticos abiertamente
en su propia casa en el barrio de Bellavista, y por las noches enfrente de ella.
A continuaci6n damos un resumen del reportaje en cuesti6n.
La Nacha, a menudo llamada la "Reina del Trfiflco de Drogas en la Frontera,"
vende "prpiros" de heroina como cualquier traficantillo en las esquinas, segfin
el reportero Ruben Salazar de un colega de El Paso quien asegura que compr6
uno de estos "p~piros" por 5 d6lares a La Nacha en su propia casa.
Segdn su version, Salazar se hizo acompafiar de un adicto a las drogas y
cliente asiduo de La Nacha para que to presentara como la persona que se iba
a quedar encargada de hacer las compras durante una supuesta ausencia del
adicto.
La Nacha-Ignacia Jasso-vive en una buena casa en un barrio malo, en la
esquina del callej6n Mercurio y calle Violetas, dice Salazar.
Como el adicto es tan bien conocido en casa de La Nacha que ni siquiera se
detiene a tocar la puerta, el acceso fu6 bien sencillo.
En la sala estaba una hija de La Nacha platicando con otra mujer Junto a un
banquillo sobre el que descansaban varias tiras de papel blanco bien restirado,
not6 el coleg.
Luego sali6 de los cuartos interiores el esposo de la hija de La Nacha, descrito
como fornido, de bigote y llevando un costoso reloj de pulso.
En seguida sali6, La Nacha, se sent frente al banquillo y empez6 a envolver
los papeles con destreza y naturalidad.
El adicto dijo a la Nacha que su amigo era un mfisico que trabajaba en un
salfn de baile de El Paso, y que queria encargarse de hacer las compras.
La Nacha dirigi6 la vista a los brazos del periodista. Se le explic6 que no
se inyectaba todavfa; que apenas era de los que se conforman con aspirar la
herofna.
Satisfecha de la explicacifn, La Nacha dijo: "EstA bien a la hora que quiera."
"En la noche la vendemos enfrente de la casa," terci6 la hija.
La Nacha entreg6 uno de los papeles y recibi6 a cambio un billete de cinco
d6lares.
Los dos volvieron a la casa de La Nacha al dfa siguiente y en esta vez le
compraron un "p~piro" de a 10 d6lares.
3312
Senator DANIL. Now, what has happened to that chief of police

since then?
Mr. SALAZAR. He was fired, sir. I don't know whether directly be.
cause of this but he was. Change of government in Mexico.
Senator DANIEL: Did you go over to Juarez to see if there were
other places that would sell to Americans across the border, back
in August?
Mr. SALAZAR. In August? No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. When did you do that?
Mr. SALAZAR. Just recently I did it again.
Senator DANIEL. I mean, I think you prepared a list of other places
where heroin is sold. When did you do that?
Mr. SALAZAR. Around September, sir.
Senator DANIEL. September of this year?

Mr.
SALAZAR.
Right, sir.
Senator DANIEL. o you have a map of Juarez on which you have

spotted the other places where heroin is sold?
Mr. SALAZAR. Y es, sir; I do.
Senator DANIEL. This map will be made a part of this record,

exhibit No. 4.
(Exhibit No. 4, map of city of Juarez, Mexico, faces this page.)
Senator DANIEL. Will you open it, please? Tell us how you have
marked the different locations in Juarez you found to be selling heroin
in September this year.
Mr. SALAZAR. Yes, sir; I have marked it with black spots here and
most of the places visited are in the Bellavista District. That is the
same district that La Nacha lives in.
Senator DANIEL. What type of district is that?
Mr. SALAZAR. Slum area, sir. It is very close to the river, on the
northwest side of Juarez.
Senator DANIEL. Now then did you go to all of these places in
person ?
Mr. SAIAZAR. No, sir; I did not.
Senator DANIEL. Did you have addicts go and give you information concerning all the places?
Mr. SALAZAR. Not all the places, no, sir. I have gone to or sent
addicts to about, to 14 places.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have a list of those 14 places with the
addresses?
Senator DANIEL. That will be made a part of the record, exhibit
No. 5, list of places.
EXHIBIT No. 5
F-11% : Calle Francisco I Madero y Bordo del Rio Bravo Felipe (A) El Pato
Expendio de marihuana
Expendio de marihuana.
F-11: Ramon Cornona y Bordo del Rio Bravo. Tanilo. Expendio de marilana.
D-1-5/ 2 : Dalias y Niquel. Jose (A) El Cucho-Expendio de marihuana.
D-E--6: Estano y Bordo del Rio Bravo Guadalupe Zapata Corredor de marihuanfl.
F-6: Bronce 1352 Expendio de marihuana, papiros y case de asignacion cla-
destina.
EXHIJJIT
67
IQUL.R
IA
No. 4
16
16
17
17
18w
20
20
21
21
26
25
______
25
26
27
wmmwmmwmaua
EL PASO, TEXAS
CORTE DE
CORDOVA
- MEXICO m
A7
24
23-M. 24
22
22
8
:1
A
1
AUTOTRANSPOTES URBANOS
.0
LAZ
"I/
O
* ARN-6
00
'D
AA.'O
A
pLI '
- DAAWIUI
(lQCVWAL*CIO~l
(fnLOWAOS'.8VI'
(r O.IA cftcIoo
caOVA OWCOA
CSCIL
"rULIVUACt0#
fAAUVI LIONC
SAW,ou P~A~Oe
*
*~*.
L:.
44,A'
~T"T~2
3f
t&UIADOOUCS
OIL *WTI
144S
'(IIt
SIMBOLOS0
!0
p19m)CAORILES11
3.4*5 0ORA&fOOWQs *34403
&C-A S
0',
Q("ftA Comills
VOA''6S
*IS of 10
DE
_______INDICE
I P6
Lit
v
L '..4AC
LI
IP
6OPL.Wo.'
22
I
-1
26
DE
INDICE
CALLES
-
25
24
,fAS*IA
CALLED
LA
U 66
UP?,tATO
0
t
U1 ua3(.A
up30~iA
alP9f
i AU(LI44
6?
360is
30
.0
AGPA
Is
0s
1AWAI.
f. f*. 4
1&
VVI
on
,-
4 6 044
10-
.~pgss
a"bo
c-1,
l.hAj
44
.1
e*468OA
,
-1
7-,-
0A
6 00
LA
PAZ
A:A *Maf
613A
1AL
!) ;.,e
0KP 44
'*
0-09
VCAsA
OIAOALU,1
Va! 1?A
4',..0VIAL.
80
669.10
so
6P ,
6 to,du
1
N CA
A. %'A
&-A..E
28
v"
is
&AONC&LO
*
27
-. 1
It
-OPTar~fts'as.
-b,
W'0 1.ohm$PV
w
L
,.(Po.
AA 4!A
1503 0f%4fZaOlAS
OA
AZL
'[.4s
6.13
ISAA K
3.
' I Ma.3 04
DIR cremo iRIO
Q.,
fS
&PACo.kIAtAV
AA
51934 *
Jo.6W
'
Z~ 5041W6
"IAA
(O7 '
1 0DTIRLAD1S
4-
0A
w4'.
4h16AX A.00
i. I
s
;A
Pot o,'A
N44
'OW
41
Of GOADA4'~34f5ftM
't4'A.
,
4,
c
.,t
v oj0
, 1
aat,
IA~
IAA.MIA%
foo(
0^.h
A.
CM
uts
,~
ILW.:
'%
Ps, LIT
.
(414.414.0
w Lettr3Q
f L
WC$4COVINA3*4vA093i.9
.cSIIALIU AMOAW
wN
44VA4'A AL1.
;RAFIAoo
WOW
A:4
'.4 , 444
C. &,(atIAA ftde
6utSA06.1
0.4*35(40
ooVAIN&TI
CAN
(*8CC.
(4T
'I*IC
* 0s00
FEDlAS0JAM
i
)w tmAIysAIowoofts Ia~..i
CUMP'.Cb'
El.01
3-4
-CIP~jAS
aftCoast
'4
.. PIN
'jtw
&
c s 6vt.0s
-34900C
I-
'JCI*4
t04.14
HO
(1CP.6OfC11
4A
C A
. MZ A3
I.MEu*"
Adew
'h4
Q.coo.
34SAN
C44
PA1A 3
t.t,
NoI
'C
-4
CASOIT4j1.A.C.44L00
RPa 4
4WI
3.6o'(
A*l
o.aA.,AilodoI
IA
WA L a
DEAM4o&4344011
I
5171
1,4
(A.A 1
woo. at IoA7
is '
CAfP4gv1AA
SjAA
;Av
1 ic
( 40,
MA~5
53*(640i
3W
ku"a.*.
2f L
614
buAt A14.
SOLVIS$RN
OACALOL
.
___owI~J
ml @*Itaulu
mm-
mopowdom"Nomom
10
14'50
-I
20~
21
EDICIONN
DIC. 1954
I -
3313
E-F--5: Begonias y Cromo #766 Expendio de marihuana "Casa del Perro".

E-F-4y2: Alumnion y Acacias Jerry Rosales Picadero (He's gone).
11-I-4%: Calle Fierro Nro. 250 Sur Expendio de marihuana.
j'-71/2: Mina y Ocampo Pink Lady Expendio de marihuana, Picadero y casa de
asignacion.
M-6Y2: Emiliano Zapata y Otumba Casa "Irmas" Picadero y casa de asignacion.
1-8: Mariscal y Ugarte "Chitos Place" Expendio de marihuana.
G-H-8: Ocampo y Canal Casa O'Brien Picadero y casa de asignacion.
N-O 9Y2: General Maclovio Herrera y Calle 57 Expendio de marihuana, carteristas y bodega de lo rabado.
p-10: Calle 12 y 28 Tienda "La Rosita" venden la mariuhuana adentro del
chorizo.
Senator DANIEL. I suppose that includes La Nacha's place?

Mr. SALAZAR. It is not listed here, but, of course
Senator DANIEL. There would be 14 in addition to La Nacha that
you found in September, this year?
Senator DANIEL. Now, since you wrote your article in the newspaper and since this committee held its Texas hearings, have you noticed any change in the situation over at Juarez?
Mr. SALAZAR. Yes, sir, I certainly have.
Senator DANIEL. In what way?

Mr. SALAZAR. When Mr. Speer called me and asked me to testify,
naturally I wanted to recheck to see how accurate my information

was. I found out it has tightened up quite a bit.
Senator DANIML. When did you recheck?
Mr. SALAZAR. Last week, sir.

Senator DANIEL. And what did you find the situation to be?
Mr. SALAZAR. Well, for one thing, I couldn't find a shooting gallery
open. It is very hard now, it seems, for an addict to go to Juarez and
get a shot in a place.
Senator DANIEL. A "shooting gallery" means one can go hi and get
the shot administered to you?
Mr. SALAZAR. Right, sir. I believe, as far as I know, it is pretty
hard td get a shot in a place nowadays. That is the result of many
Senator DANIEL. Do you find any place where you could buy heroin
now in Juarez?
Mr. SALAZAR. Oh, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Will you identify that place?
Mr. SALAZAR. Yes, sir, I have a picture of it here. I did not go in

this place because it is run by La Nacha's son and daughter.
Senator DANIEL. Now, will you name that place, what is the name
of the place .
Mr. SALAZAR. Bafios Jordan. J-o-r-d-a-n Baths, B-a-t-h-s.
Senator DANIEL. We all want to get that, in addition to the reporters.
Mr. SALAZAR. It is a bath house, Senator.

Senator DANIEL. Run by La Nacha's son?

Mr. SALAZAR. Nativadad, N-a-t-i-v-a-d-a-d.
Senator DANIEL. It that his last name?
Mr. SALAZAR. No, sir, first name. The last name is Jasso, J-a-s-s-o.
I have a picture of him, too.
3314
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, we will have the picture of his place
there, the baths, make that exhibit No. 6. And then the picture of
Nativadad as exhibit No. 7.
EXHIBIT NO. 6
-<- ..
'
Photograph of "Bafios Jordan," run by the son of La Nacha, Juarez, Mexico.

EXHIBIT No. 7
Photograph of Natividad Jasso.
3315
Senator DANIEL. Will you exhibit that picture to us? The picture
you now have in your hand is exhibit No. 6 and shows the picture of
the place where you bought heroin?
Mr. SALAZAR. I did not buy it, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You had someone buy it?

Mr. SALAZAR. I had someone buy it.
Senator DANIEL. This week?
Mr. SALAZAR. Right, sir, Monday.
Senator DANIEL. Day before yesterday?
Mr. SALAZAR. Right, sir. I could not go in there, of course, because

this man knows me.
Senator DANIEL. Tell us axactly how you got it, who did buy the
heroin?
Mr. SALAZAR. I took a woman, sir, an informer of mine, a mother of
several children who has become a prostitute in order to have the
money to buy the heroin.
Senator DANIEL. She is a drug addict?

Mr. SALAZAR. Right.
Senator DANIEL. In El Paso?
Mr. SALAZAR. Right, sir. I took her, let her out, then parked my car.
She went in, We couldn't get it, had to go to a bar to get it from a
pusher. You can't get it directly, you have to get it through pushers.
The pusher brought us back to this place and he went inside and got it
and gave it to her.
Senator DANIEL. Where did he give it to her?
Mr. SALAZAR. In the corner, sir.
I was sitting in my parked car and
she was on the corner.
Senator DANIEL. On the corner of the street?

Senator DANIEL. Did you see the pusher go into this establishment
that you identify?
Senator DANIEL. Was Monday the only time you did this or did you
make another purchase?
Mr. SALAZAR. No, sir, it was Sunday, what I have said happened
Sunday.
What you have testified about happened Sunday?

Senator DANIEL. You went back?
Mr. SALAZAR. We did it again Monday. I wanted to know if we
Senator
DANIEL.
could get it without a pusher. We couldn't do it, we had to go buy

through the pusher.
senator DANIEL. Where did you find the pusher?
Mr. SALAZAR. At a bar.
Senator DANIEL. What is the name of the bar?
Mr. SALAZAR. Well, I don't want to say, sir. I don't know whether
the man who owns the bar knows about this.
Senator DANIEL. I understand. Anyway, the pusher was located
there?
Senator DANIEL. And Sunday he took you and the woman down to
the corner and she went in and got this heroin?
Mr. SALAZAR. No, sir, the pusher did.
Senator DANIEL. The pusher?
3316
Senator DANIEL. And he came back and delivered it to her for how
much?
Mr. SALAZAR. Ten dollars.

Mr. SALAZAR. Per paper.
Senator DANIEL. Has the price doubled in the last few months?
Mr. SALAZAR. It seems it has tightened up so much they only sell
$10 papers.
Senator DANIEL. Was the amount larger than you had bought in
a paper for $5?
Mr. SALAZAR. I think so, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you feel it was twice the amount?
In other
words, has the price gone up over there since August and September?
Mr. SALAZAR. I don't think it has gone up. It is just that they don't
sell cheap papers, they even used to have a two dollar and a half one,
they don't do it any more, they don't want to risk such a small amount.
Senator DANIEL. Did you go back on Monday?
Senator
DANIEL. With the same woman addict?

Senator DANIEL. You say this woman is the mother
of several children who turned to prostitution to take care of her drugs, to buy them?
Senator DANIEL. Did you take her back over there Monday night
and contact the same pusher or how did you do that?
Mr. SALAZAR. Well, we went to the La Baflos again. I told her to
try to get it without the pusher. She tried and couldn't do it, so we
had to go back to the bar I mentioned before and get a pusher.
Senator DANIEL. Was the pusher at this same bar?
Senator DANIEL. Well, in view of the fact this pusher hangs
out at the bar would you mind putting in the record or do you still
want to insist on not giving that location?
Mr. SALAZAR. Yes, sir, I would because it is not a dump, it is not
one of the honky-tonks. It is a pretty good bar.
Senator DANIELL. It is not the type of place where a pusher would
hang out generally?

Senator DANIL. Do you think you just happened to find a pusher

in this particular bar twice?
Senator DANIEL. All right, then do you have any evidence that this
bar has any connection with the narcotics business, that is the main
question?
Mr. SALAZAR. No, sir, I certainly do not.
Senator DANIEL. All right, did the pusher go in and get the heroin
again the same way?

Mr. SALAZAR. Yes.
The place was closed, by the way, it is open
only during the day, the baths, that is, but apparently somebody lives
there, probably La Nacha's son or daughter lives there.
Senator DANIEL. And somebody opened the door and let the man
go in?
3317
Senator DAnIeL. He brought it back out just as before?

Senator DANIEL. Now, do you know of any other places that are
in operation today, other than La Nacha's son? What about her, is she
operating today ?
Mr. SALAZAR. No, sir; as a matter of fact Saturday my informer
went to La Nacha's house, since this, and La Nacha told her, according
to my informer, I did not hear this, but La Nacha told her she would
not sell any more at her house and apparently she is not.
Senator DANIEL. Did she say anything else as to when she was going
to get back in business?
Mr. SALAZAR. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
What have you heard in El Paso; have you heard
anything from a statement concerning her to the effect that she wasn't
going to open up again until January 1; have you heard anything
in that regard?
Mr. SALAZAR. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. This La Nacha has been queen of the border so

long, has she ever had any aid from the officials to your knowledge,
any type of official documents that assisted her?
Mr. SALAZAR. Well, I understand she had gotten an embargo which
is an injunction. This I cannot prove but I understand at one time
she could buy this protection from Federal judges.
Senator DANIEL. Now, you mean by the injunction, that she has had
injunctions issued restraining officers from arresting her?
Mr.
SALAZAR.
Right, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Is it common knowledge around there in Juarez

that has been the situation in the past?
Mr. SALAZAR. Yes, it is.
Senator DANIEL. She has had court orders enjoining officers from.
arresting her ?
Mr. SALAZAR. That is what I understand. I have never seen them,
sir. It is common knowledge.
Senator DANIEL. Have you talked to the district attorney across the
border of Juarez ?
Mr. SALAZAR. Yes, sir, I talked to him Tuesday afternoon.
Senator DANIEL. Did he assure you that she was not under such a
court restraining order at this time?
Mr. SALAZAR. Right sir. He says he has been district attorney a
year and a half. She has not had an embargo during that time.
Senator DANIEL. Now then, I believe you have some very interesting information concerning the activity of the Federal Government in
Mexico in Juarez which you were permitted to release today; is that
correct?
Senator DANIEL. Will you give us that information?
Mr. SALAZAR. All right, sir. HumbertoSenator DANIEL. Spell it, not just for the reporter who is our official reporter but for all.
Mr. SALAZAR. First name, H-u-m-b-e-r-t-o; next, P-o-n-c-i-n-o-n;
and the last name, S-o-l-a-r-a-n-z-o.

Mr. GAsQuE. I wonder when you speak of Federal judges and Fed-
eral attorneys, if you would indicate if they are Mexican or American

in order that we might not be confused?
3318
Mr. SALAZAR.
iLLIcrr NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

Yes, sir. This is the Mexican Federal district at-
torney in Juarez. And he told me when I told him what I was going
to do, he told me he would like to release something to me, he says
through the President of Mexico, orders of the President of Mexico,
he is conducting an investigation of his own, that agents have been
sent from Mexico City to help this district attorney investigate the
narcotics situation in Juarez.
Senator DANIEL. Did he authorize you to make that known today?
Senator DANIEL. I am sure this has probably been going on in
secrecy before this time?

Mr. SALAZAR. Yes sir, he said it was.
Senator DANIEL. i am pleased to learn for the the first time this
morning, that the President of Mexico has ordered this investigation
of the narcotics traffic in Mexico. I hope it will mean some o these
places will be closed now, once and for all.
Senator DANIEL. You think they will be able to close down La
Nacha's soon?
Mr. SALAZAR. I certainly hope so, but I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have any idea what they were afraid of
then f These people were able to operate 23 years just across the
bridge except during wartime. Didn't our officials threaten to take
Juarez off limits and not let American soldiers cross that bridge if they
didn't shut up their dope dives?
Mr. SALAzA . That's right, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know any other way we can stop this
thing?
Mr. SAZAR. Well, sir, I have discovered
that dope addicts are

very easy to buy. It seems to me if the law enforcement officers had
enough money to buy these informers they could easily know exactly
where it is bought and from whom.
ut I know a couple of city detectives, for one thing, who know where the stuff is probably being
sold but they don't have the money to go and investigate. And you
can't go, you can't find out whether dope is really sold' unless you are
willing to buy.
Senator DANIEL. Now, I have just been handed an article here
appearing in the San Antonio News this afternoon which says, dated
Mexico City, "Mexico asks dope protest." The Foreign Minister was
asked Tuesday to protest to the United States about articles appearing
in Texas newspapers. The Attorney General's office asked Foreign
Minister Louis Padello to protest what it called defamatory articles
appearing in San Antonio and Houston. The request said the stories
implied that Mexico was a violator of world narcotics laws. He did
not name the newspaper. That is the very reason that I asked if
officials of the Mexican Government would sit in with us at these
hearings so they could hear what is being brought out and not get
the wrong impression.
Senator DANIEL. I would like for them to hear the next question I
am going to ask, and I certainly wish they had done like Canada and
like the Mexican officials in Los Angeles, be present and hear. This is a
mutual problem and we are trying to solve it together and not put all
the blame on Mexico.
3319

Senator DAN-ML. We are
going to have evidence of violations on our

side. As a matter of fact everything you have testified about has been
about Americans crossing that border to buy the drug.
Mr. SALAZAR. That's right, sir.
Senator DANIEL. So it isn't just a one-sided proposition. I wish
they would be here to hear this question and that is, you were born in
Juarez weren't you?
Senator DANIEL. You know the people over there pretty well?
Mr. SALAZAR. I certainly do.
Senator DANIEL. Are the majority of the people in Juarez against
this thing, like you are?
Mr. SALAZAR. Of course they are. I would like to say, as an Ameri-
can Mexican, we are much more concerned probably than anybody

else, because we do not like what the people say about the Mexicans, you
know, that all Mexicans are dope addicts and all that stuff. I know
a lot of good people in Juarez who are just as concerned as we are on
this side about the narcotic situation. That is why I have gotten so
interested.
Senator DANIEL. The truth about the matter is, over on the Juarez
side you have just as many good people who are for law enforcement,
wanting to stamp this thing out, as you have in American cities who
want to stamp it out?
Mr. SALAZAR. Of course.
Senator DANIEL. And these people are operating in violation of
the laws of Mexico, operating in violation of treaties of Mexico?
Mr. SALAZAR. Right.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I simply wanted to bring that out because
I knew that to be the situation. You are an American citizen now?
Senator DANIEL. You say the people of Latin American descent, the
majority of them, along this border want to stop this thing as much as
anybody else?
Mr. SALAZAR. They certainly do.
Senator DANIEL. I certainly want to agree with you on that. This
committee has not received any finer cooperation or more wholehearted support from any group of people in this country than it has
from the Mexican people along the border and the California border.
They want to see it stopped. One group in San Antonio said we had
too many witnesses of Latin American descent who were violators
and addicts. We were just starting through in the San Antonio area,
because the population of that particular group might be a little bit
higher there than in other places, and probably we had more witnesse.from that group. I don't know, I have no idea, I paid no attention to race, color, creed, heritage, descent or anything else in
calling witnesses before this committee, none whatever. I do lmow
one thing, the count on violators and on addicts in other racial groups
is high, here, like in other places. They are not all in one group. We
will have witnesses today from various groups. I want to bear out
what you say, I find that Mexican citizens and those of Mexican
descent in our own country are strong against this thing, and the
Foreign Minister of Mexico would understand, and the Attorney
General of Mexico would understand if he would come and sit with us
and send a representative to these hearings.
3320
Senator DAIFEL. He would also hear time and again we have said
of Mexico, that there wouldn't be any smuggling into America if you
didn't have Americans who were violating our laws and going over
there.
Mr. SALAZAR. At $10 a paper very few Mexicans on the Mexican
side can afford that; some have to come from El Paso.

Senator DANIEL. All right, now then, no one infers I thought these
people were getting the wrong impression regarding what was reported in the newspapers, when I said I wish they were here in person.
From what I can see both sides have been reported. Of course I
wanted them personally to help ask questions. In Los Angeles the
Mexican Consul sat by our sides, gave us questions to ask these people
in order to get addresses of the violators because he wanted to send
them to the Federal authorities. I want to say this, we are told the
Federal authorities, including this attorney general, are really trying
to enforce the laws of Mexico.
Mr. SALAZAR. I think so.
Senator DANIEL. And also the representative on the United Nations Commission on narcotic drugs. There are people in Mexico in
their Government trying to do the job. On the other hand, we might
just as well bring out the fact that there are people in the lower levels
in our Government and Mexico's Government who are not doing as
good a job as they should for one reason or another. Isn't that right?
Senator DANIEL. Do you think of anything else we should bring
into the situation, into the report from Juarez at this time?
Mr. SALAZAR. Well, sir, yes; there is one thing, as I said the situation
has tightened up somewhat in Juarez. I think it is a result of your

investigations, perhaps my story, but mostly because an American
citizen, an exparatrooper, died of an overdose of heroin in a shooting
gallery.
Senator DANIEL. When?
Mr. SALAZAR. This was September 3, 1955.
And I think this proves
that Juarez officials are trying to do something about it. They arrested the man who ran the shooting gallery, he's now held in jail
without bond.
Senator DANIEL. It is too bad that an American citizen, an exparatrooper of our country, had to die to get this done. Let's put these
articles in the record as Exhibit No. 8.
EXHIBIT No. 8
[From the El Paso Herald-Post, September 1, 1955]
Two ARRESTED IN MYSTERY DEATH OF EL PASOAN. PRISONER SAYS MAN WAS
SLASHED AFTR TAKING DOPE.
Juarez police today arrested a dope peddler and a known woman dope addict
in the death of David Mares Barrera, 22, of 3914 Kemp Street, El Paso.
Barrera, an ex-paratrooper, was found dead in a dried-up Irrigation canalli
across the Rio Grande from Ysleta, August 25.
Antonio Tavares, Juarez dope pusher, told Juarez police that Barrera died
at his (Tavares') home from an overdose of heroin.
Tavares told police: "On August 23, Barrera and two women who are known
drug addicts, came to my house, I sold them a $10 paper of heroin. The three
injected themselves with the heroin In my home." Tavares said that Barrera
had been drinking excessively before taking the shot and became extremely 1l
MLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFC
3321
following the injection. "Barrera passed out," Tavares said. "His women
companions and I thought that he had just passed out and let him sleep."
Tavares said he discovered that Barrera was dead the following morning when
he failed to awaken. "I was scared that police would find out that Barrera
died from an overdose of heroin, so I decided to do something," Tavares told
police. "I hired a cab driver and another man to take Barrera to the canal
area where they were instructed to cut his throat and his arms." Tavares explained that he wanted the arms cut so that fresh needle marks would not
be detected on them. Chief of Detectives Salvador Navarro Gardea was credited
with breaking the case. He said that there was not enough blood in the area
where Barrera was found to justify murder. "I suspected that Barrera was a
dope addict and contacted one of his brothers," Navarro said. "His brother
confirmed that David was an addict."
During the investigation, Tavares and one of the women who entered the
house with Barrera were arrested. They are being held for investigation. A
woman, 20, of Juarez is also being detained by Juarez police. She went to
Tavares' house to get a shot and saw Barrera dead in the house. She told police
she left after that. Tavares, when arrested, had five $10 papers of heroin in
his possession.
FIVE HELD IN DEATH INQUIRY
A dope peddler, 2 chauffeurs and 2 women are being held in the Juarez jail
in the death of David Mares Barrera, who Juarez police say died of an overdose
of heroin on August 23.
An El Paso woman dope addict was questioned by El Paso Detective Lieutenant
Art Islas. She told him Barrera was a dope addict and that she was with
Barrera when he took the overdose. Islas said the woman's statement helped
break the case.
Those held in the Juarez jail are: Antonio Tavarez Rodriguez, known drug
pusher, who told Juarez police he sold heroin to Barrera. Tavarez also said
he decided to dump Barrera's body in the dried-up irrigation ditch, where it
was found, and slit Barrera's throat and arms so police would not suspect he
died of an overdose of heroin.
Antonio Garcia Aguilar and Jose Fernandez Corral, Juarez taxi drivers, who
told Juarez police they helped Tavarez get rid of Barrera's body after he died
in Tavarez' home.
Flora Ruiz, El Paso dope addict, who went to Tavarez' home with Barrera
and saw him inject his arm with heroin.
Elena Mireles Gonzalez, Juarez woman, who was at Tavarez' home getting
a shot at the same time Barrera was there.

FIVE
HELD IN DEATH OF BARRERA
Two women dope addicts, a narcotic peddler and two taxi drivers, were being
held in the Juarez jail Friday on charges of attempting to cover up the death
of David M. Barrera of El Paso.
The 22-year-old ex-Army paratrooper died in a dope den reportedly from an
overdose of heroin. At first police believed he had been murdered.
The dope pusher and operator of the dope den (known as a shooting gallery)
identified by Gen. Jose Ruiz, Juarez police inspector, as Antonio Tavarez, may
be charged with injecting the fatal overdose of the heroin.
Barrera's body was found in a farm ditch east of Juarez August 25. His throat
had been cut, and his arms slashed with a sharp knife.
A break in the case resulted with the arrest of an El Paso woman dope addict
who told police she and 1 of the 2 women in the Juarez jail accompanied
Barrera to Juarez Sunday night to "get a shot."
Acting on the woman's information, chief of detectives Salvador Navarro
arrested Tavarez in his Bellavista home and later took into custody the two
taxi drivers. A third taxi driver is being sought. The women declared
Barrera died in Tavarez' place the night of August 22.
3322
MLICIT NARCOTICS TRATiC
In a statement to the officers, one of the women, identified as Flora Ruiz

Castillo, alias Flora Mayogoitia Ruiz, said that Tavarez discovered Barrera
dead at 6 a. m. August 23.
Fearing that the body would be found in his place, police said Tavarez hired
the three taxi drivers to remove Barrera's body and dump it in the farm ditch.
The two cab drivers denied they cut Barrera's throat or arms.
Antonio Tabares Rodriguez, Juarez dope peddler, was indicted today in the
death of David Mares Barrera, El Paso ex-paratrooper, who died of an overdose
of heroin in Tabares' home where Barrera bought the heroin.
Antonio Garcia Aguilar and Jose Fernandez, Juarez taxi drivers, who admitted
helping Tabares throw Barrera's body in a dried-up irrigation canal, also were
indicted as accomplices.
TWO RELEASED
Flora Ruiz Castello and Elena Mirelas,- dope addicts, who were with Barrera
at the time of his death, were released from jail.
Tabares told Judge Jesus Maria Frias Espinosa de los Monteros yesterday
that he sold Barrera heroin, but denied that he slit Barrera's throat and arms.
Barrera's body was found with large knife cuts on its throat and arms.
Tabares contradicted his testimony to Judge Espinosa de los Monteros when
he said he wasn't sure whether Barrera was dead at the time Tabares and the
two taxi drivers threw the body in the canal. Previously Tabares had said
Barrera died in his (Tabares) house.
CAN'T THINK STRAIGHT
When asked why he changed his story Tabares said, "I haven't had a shot of
heroin for days and I can't think straight without it."
Tabares' contradiction might force Judge Espinosa to order an autopsy for
dope on Barrera's body now buried in Evergreen Cemetery.
Antonio Garcia Aguilar told the judge that he thinks Barrera was alive when
they threw Barrera in the canal. He said there were no knife wounds oi
Barrera's body when he last saw.
Jose Fernandez Corral, the other taxi driver, told the judge he knows nothing
about the knife wounds on Barrera's body.
Juarez police think Tabares and the two taxi drivers cut Barrera's throat and
arms after he died of an overdose of heroin so police would think he was murdered
by other persons near the dried-up canal.
While evidence in the Barrera case was being taken by Judge Espinosa, the
slain man's sister, Mrs. Maria Jesus Torres of 2250 East San Antonio Street,
stood just outside the judge's room and tearfully read and re-read a letter
written by the exparatrooper's chaplain in Japan.
The letter was addressed to Mrs. Jesuete Barrera, David's mother, who lives
at 3914 Kemp Avenue. It was signed by Father J. Rowan, a chaplain of the
11th Airborne Division, at Beppeo, Japan.
"David Barrera is a good man, a devoted Catholic," Chaplain Rowan wrote
under date of last October 13. "He attended services regularly, rain or shine.
He is held in the highest esteem by those who know him."
The Chaplain went on to cite examples of David's devotion to duty. He said
he wrote the letter so David's mother could know or her son's exemplary conduct
while on foreign military duty.
"Everyone who knew David knew him as a young man of excellent character,"
Mrs. Torres said, "I never heard of his being interested in narcotics of any kind.
These reports that he was a dope user are entirely false. David was murdered,
robbed.
"He did not have much money with him. He bought $25 of groceries for
mother, then gave her $80, and took $20 with him when he went across the
river-to his death."
Mrs. Torres sobbed silently as she declared that "unjustified reports in the
case have done an injustice to David and to all of us." She said the reports
from Juarez saying David used heroin are false and wholly without foundation."
3323

JUDGE WANTs DEAD EL PASOAN's BODY EXHUMED-HOPES To DETERMINE
WHETHER DOPE K.ILLD FORMER PARATROOPER
Judge Jesus Maria Frias Espinosa de los Monteros, of the Juarez third penal
court, said today he will try to have the body of David Mares Barrera exhumed
if it will help clear up the mystery death of the El Paso ex-paratrooper who is
said to have died either from an overdose of heroin or from a large cut at the
throat.
The official autopsy report, made by Juarez physicians, reads that Barrera
died from a hemorrhage caused by the cuts on Barrera's throat.
Antonio Taberes Rodriguez, dope peddler and 1 of 4 held for investigation
in the death, said that Barrera died from an overdose of heroin which Barrera
took in Taberes' house. Barrera was found dead in a dried-up irrigation canal.
Taberes still admits selling Barrera heroin and throwing him in the canal. He
now denies that Barrera was dead at the time Taberes and two other men threw
the ex-paratrooper in the canal. All four prisoners deny that they knifed
Barrera.
"Barrera's body is buried in Evergreen Cemetery in El Paso. I have no authority to order Barrera's body exhumed in a foreign cemetery," Judge Espinosa de
los Monteros said, "but I will ask for the cooperation of El Paso authorities."
Senator DANIEL. Will you identify this ex-paratrooper; what is
his name?
Mr. SALAZAR. David Barrera.
Senator DANIELS. B-a-r-r-e-r-a?
Senator DANrIEL. And he was an American citizen and ar ex-para-
trooper in World War II?
Mr. SALAZAR. Right.

Senator DANIEL. His death was caused by an overdose of heroin in
one of the Juarez shooting galleries?

Senator DANIEL. All right; do you have anything else that might
be helpful to the committee, as far as the situation across the border at
Juarez is concerned?
Mr. SALAZAR. Well, sir, I do have a suggestion. I wish the commit-
tee would come down to El Paso and perhaps consult with this district
attorney I told you about, to see how his investigation is progressing.
At any rate, I would like to see you in El Paso.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I appreciate that. Our Juvenile Delinquency Committee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am
also a member, held a hearing in El Paso last year in which they went
into the narcotic problem, and we had hoped we could use that plus
what we are developing here in San Antonio, but we will see. And we
appreciate your wanting us to be there. I certainly want to thank you
for the actual assistance you have given to this committee.
Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, I want to call three 17-year-old boys that
have been reported to this committee to have gone to Mexico for heroin
across the bridge at Nuevo Laredo, and if any one of these people
wants his name called separately and objects to coming forward together, simply say so. In the first place, the three witnesses we have
called from Houston, 17-year-old witnesses; will you stand? All
right; I'll call you by name; I will call these witnesses by name: Edward Keith Love. Is Edward Keith Love in the courtroom? Please
stand up and answer out. Julian Ray Madeley, James E. Parrott,
James Edward Parrott. Mr. Marshal, will you see if you can locate
7
1515-56--pt. 7-62
3324
these witnesses? Chester Scott. Is Chester Scott in the courtroom?

Will you be sworn?
(Mr. Chester Scott was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. Will you state your name and your address?
TESTIMONY OF CHESTER SCOTT
Mr. Scorr. Chester Scott, 5920 Avenue Q, Galveston, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Scott, I believe you have had the unfortunate
experience of having been an addict of heroin; is that right?
Mr. Scorr. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been addicted to heroin?
Mr. ScoTT. About 15 years.
Senator
DANIEL.
How old are you now?
Mr. Scorr. Thirty-eight.
Senator
DANIEL.
You were how old when you started using heroin ?
Mr. ScoTr. About 25; 24.

Senator DANIEL. Where did you start?
Mr. ScoTt. In Galveston, Tex.

Mr. ScoTT. I don't know that.
Senator DANIEL. Somebody started you, sold it to you, some of your

friends who were using it?
Mr. ScoTr. Yes, sir; some of my friends were using it.
Senator DANIEL. Some of your friends sold it to you?

Senator DANIEL. Have you, in recent years, gone across the Mexican
border to get your heroin?
Senator DANIEL. How recently have you crossed the border to get
heroin in Mexico?
Mr. ScoTT. About a week ago.
Senator DANIEL. And where did you cross?

Mr. Scorr. Laredo, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been crossing at Laredo to buy
heroin?
Mr. Scorr. About 3 months.
Senator DANIEL. How often would you cross?
Mr. ScoTr. Every day.
Senator DANIEL. You mean you were going across the border at
the bridge at Laredo to Nuevo every day for 3 months?
Senator
DANIEL.
Where were you living .
Mr. ScoTT. Well, I was living over on the Mexican side.

Senator DANIEL. Well, why were you crossing back and forth?
Mr. ScoTT. Well, to get hold of my money over on this side.
Seantor DANIEL. What were you doing to get the money?

Mr. ScOr. Well, just any way I could; odd jobs; just any way I
could get hold of it.
Senator DANIEL. Now, the truth about it-you had to violate some
laws to get the money, too; didn't you?
Senator DANIEL. In other words, you were staying in Mexico these
3 months, in Nuevo Laredo, and coming back on the American side in
3325
Laxedo and other towns on the Mexican side to violate some laws, to
vet some odd jobs to buy your heroin back on the Mexican side; is
Nat right?
Mr. ScoT. Yes, sir.
Seantor DANIEL. All right; what kind of law violations did you do
in order to yet your money for the heroin ?
Mr. ScoTT. Well, do you have to answer everything up here?
Senator DANIEL. Well, yes, sir, unless you want to claim the fifth
amendment. If you fear any answer, any truthful answer, to a question might tend to incriminate you, you can say that, you will not have
to answer.
Mr. ScoTT. Well, I am not very well educated, sir, I don't know how
to match my wits up here, you know, like I say, I can't explain myself,
Senator DANIEL. It isn't a question of matching your wits against
us. We will help you to explain. You asked whether or not you
have to answer every question, and I have explained to you that you
do have to give a truthful answer to the questions, unless you honestly
believe a truthful answer to one of these questions might tend to incriminate you, cause you to be prosecuted for some other offense.
Mr. ScoTT. Naturally, that's what I'm saying.
Senator DANIEL. You wish to refuse to answer. Let me put it this

way. Without naming the offenses you have committed would you
be willing?
Mr. ScoTT. All right, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Without naming them?

Senator DANIEL. Can you say what type of law violations?
Mr. ScoTT. Well, shoplifting.
Senator
DANIEL.
Where?
Mr. ScoTT. Just anywhere I lived, practically.

Senator DANIEL. During these 3 months you were staying on the
Mexican side, coming back on the American side, where did you
shoplift?
Mr. ScoTT. In Laredo, Tex.
Senator DANIELS. Anywhere besides Laredo?

Mr. ScoTT. Yes, I ~o to Freer, Tex.
Senator
DANIEL. You
went as far as Freer shoplifting?
Mr. SCoTT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been shoplifting to pay for
your heroin?
Mr. Scor'r. Oh, 10 years, 8 years, 8 years I guess.
Senator
DANIEL.
How much does your heroin habit cost you?
Mr. ScoTT. Well, I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. How high has it run a day?

Mr. Scorr. Here recently it cost me about $2 a day while I was
in Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. What is the highest it has run?
Mr ScoTT. Oh, $50 a day.
Senator DANIEL. You mean to say you were spending as high as

$50 a day for heroin?
Mr. SCoTT. Yes, when I first started, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And did you have to steal enough goods to pay
for that?
3326
Mr. ScoTr. Well, I wasn't stealing, I was working at that time.
I am referring back to when I first started, about 10 or 12 years ago.

Senator DANIEL. Even then you didn't make $50 a day on the job,
did you I
Mr. ScoTT. Well, I made pretty good money.
Senator DANmELS. When your habit was as high as $50 a day, did
you have to supplement your job with stealing or some kind of law
violation to pay for it?
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been convicted of any of those
violations?
Mr. ScoTT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You have never been to prison?
Senator DANIEL. On what type of violation?
Mr. SCOTT. You mean what I did go to the penitentiary for?
Mr. ScoTT. I went for robbery, for passing counterfeit money.
Senator
DANIEL.
How many times have you been in prison?
Mr. ScoTT. Twice.

Senator DANIEL. Once for robbery?
Senator
DANIEL.
And once for passing counterfeit money?
Senator
drugs?
DANIEL.
Were you doing that in order to help buy your
Mr. ScoTT. No, sir, I wasn't on drug then.
Senator DANIEL. You mean you started a career of crime before you
got on heroin?
Senator DANIEL. Have you found a lot of other people who do the
same?
Mr. SCoTT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, actually, in your case you were running with
the wrong people and getting into a career of crime that got you into
the heroin habit, weren't you?
Senator DANIEL. That got you into the use of it?
Senator DANIEL. Then after you once got hooked you had to keep
on using heroin you thought, then you fad to keep on committing

crimes to pay for it?
Senator DANIEL. Well, I guess you could give young people pretty
good advice on this thing?

Mr. ScoTT. Sure could.
Senator DANIEL. What would you say to young people if they were
ever offered goof balls or marihuana or heroin?
Mr. ScoTT. The only thing I can say, what few youngsters I see
using dope, if they knew what I knew they sure wouldn't do it.
Senator DANIEL. It has ruined your life, hasn't it?
Mr. ScoTT. Yes, si r.
3327
Senator DANIL. You were picked up when you crossed the border
and subpenaed to come before this committee. What had you been
over there for, when was the last time you were over in Laredo?
Mr. ScoTT. I went last Wednesday.
Senator
DANIEL.
A week ago today?
Senator DANIEL. What had you been over there for?

Mr. ScoT.
Senator
In Mexico?
DANIEL.
Yes.
Mr. ScoTT. Like I say, I was living over there.

Wednesday morning.
Senator
ell,
DANIEL.
I was over there
were you actually staying over there to get
your heroin easily?

Senator
DANIEL.
In what place were you staying?
Mr. ScoTT. Well, I don't know the address, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
It was a private house?
Mr. ScoTT. No, it was just a small one-room affair.
Senator DANIEL. When is the last shot of heroin you have had?
Mr. ScoT. About 8 days ago.
Senator DANIEL. You have been in jail since then?
Senator
DANIEL.
Now, while you were over there in Mexico to get
your heroin, did you have any trouble finding it?

Mr. ScoTT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Would you say it is pretty plentiful in Laredo?
Mr. ScoTw. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What was the main place you bought it from?
Mr. ScoTT. Well, I don't know the address there either, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
What was the name of some of the places?
Mr. ScoTT. Well, it was just a private house, sort of a farm like a
farmer. This woman had pigs and chickens and things like tlat.
Senator
DANIEL.
Out from town a little or in the city limits?
Mr. ScoTT. Lived over in the part of town called La Zona.

Mr. GASQUE. How do you spell that?
Mr. ScoT. I don't know, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Let's have it one more time.
Mr. ScowT. La Zona.

Senator DANIEL. La Zona?
Senator DANIEL. What did you say that name refers to?
Mr. ScoTT. It is a part of the town in Laredo, Tex., I mean Laredo,
-Mexico.
Senator
DANIEL.
Who did you buy your drugs from, a man or
woman?
Mr. ScoTw. A woman.
Senator DA NIEL. What was her name?
Mr. ScoTT. I don't know her name. I aways called her Sefora,
that's all.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you buy from her every day?
Mr. ScoT. Yes, sir, her or her son.
Senator
DANIEL.
What did you call her son?
Mr. ScoTT. I never, I don't think I ever called him anything.

wasn't there too many times.
ie
3328
Senator DANIEL. He actually sold to you as well as the motherI

Mr. ScoT. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did anybody else sell to you at that house?
Mr. ScoT. Yes, sir, there was always somebody there, always some-
body home, in other words.

Senator DANIEL. If the Mexican officials wish for you to point out
thsplace and these people, could you do so?
Mr. ScoTT. Yes, I guess so, I would know them.
Senator DANIEL. You know them?

Mr. Scor-r. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You could take them back there?
Senator
DANIEL.
How much did you pay for your heroin there?
Mr. ScoTr. I was only paying 41 cents for a little, a little deck.
Senator
DANIEL.
For a small what?
Mr. ScoTT. Just a small deck.
Senator
DANIEL.
About one shot?
Senator DANIEL. Did you take the shot there or go back to your
room?
Mr. Scorr. No, I took it right there.
Senator DANIEL. Was it what you call a shooting gallery?
Mr. ScOr. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did they help you?
Mr. ScoTT. No, sir, they don't help you.
Senator DANIEL. They have a place you can take the shot yourself?
Mr. ScOrr. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do they furnish the needle?
Senator
DANIEL.
What else, a spoon?
Mr. ScoTT. Yes, sir, furnished everything.
Senator
thing?
DANIEL.
In other words, they furnished heroin and every-

Senator DANIEL. For forty-one cents a shot?
Mr. ScoT. Guaranteed you wouldn't get in no trouble as long as
you didn't leave the house.

Senator DANIEL. They guaranteed as long as you didn't leave the
house with it you wouldn't get in any trouble. All right, did they
tell you why they could give you that guarantee?
Mr. Scorr. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, this is a woman and her son. Is there anybody else living there at that place?
Mr. Scorr. Yes, two or three daughters, I don't know, quite a few
live there. I don't know them all.

Senator DANIEL. Young daughters?
Senator DANIEL. About what age?
Mr. ScoTT. Oh, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three years
old.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did any of the daughters sell any heroin to you?
Mr. ScoTT. No, sir, they never did.
Senator DANIEL. You do not know the names of these people, is

that right?
3329
Mr. SCOTT. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Do you know of other addicts who were buying
from there?
Mr. SCOTT. I seen other addicts coming there but I didn't know
them.
Senator DANIEL. How many other addicts did you see go there?
Mr. SCOTT. Oh, several.
Senator DANIEL. How would you identify this, so we can find out
if some of the addicts are going there, to the same place? Could you
give us something that would really bring it to mind, in addition to
the facts she had pigs and chickens?
Mr. SCOTT. Like I say, old mud street, I know when it rained you
had to walk in mud to get up there.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what nicknames did you call the mother
and son by?
Mr. ScoTT. That's all I called her, Sefiora, what everybody called
her.
Senator DANIEL. What did you call the son?
Mr. Scorr. I never did call him anything I don't believe.
Senator DANIEL. All right, who else did you buy from in Nuevo
Laredo?
Mr. SCOTT. That's all.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Mr. Scott, stop and think a moment, because you are under oath. I am not intimating you are giving any
false information, but if you do give false answers you would be subject to prosecution.
Mr. ScoTT. Yes, sir, I will retract that, it slipped my mind. I
scored one other time, too.
Senator DANIEL. I wanted to remind you.
Mr. SCOTT. But I don't know much about this part.
Senator DANIEL. Tell us about the other time, where did you buy it
the other time?
Mr. Scor. Well, I bought in Laredo, Tex.
Mr. Scorr. Laredo, Tex.
Senator
DANIEL.
On the American side?
Mr. Score. I mean Laredo, Mexico.
Senator
DANIEL.
In Nuevo Laredo?
Senator
Describe as best you can that place.

Mr. SCOTT. You mean where I bought the stuff ?
DANInL.
Mr. ScoTT. Well, it was, it was a beer joint and hotel, I believe, combined.
Senator DANIEL. Beer joint and hotel?
Mr. SooTT. Hotel is back, had some kind of little rooms in the back.
Senator DANIEL. What was the name of that place?
Mr. ScoTT. I don't know the name of it, I don't remember the name
of it.
Senator
DANIEL.
Could you take Mexican officials there and show
them this place?

Senator DANIEL. Who sold to you there, man or woman?
Mr. ScoTT. A man.
3330
Senator

DANIEL.
How did you get acquainted, was it easy to buy?
Senator
DANIEL.
How long ago was this?
Mr. ScoTT. It has been about 2 or 3 years ago.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know whether that place is still operating, did you go by there during your recent trips?
Mr. ScoTr. Yes, sir, I went by there and asked somebody. He said
he wasn't dealing in it any more.

Senator DANIEL. Have you bought from anybody else in Nuevo
Laredo during this three months' period recently?
Mr. Scorr. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, you have crossed the river with some other
addicts here when you were arrested?
Mr. ScoTT. Recently?
Mr. ScOTr. No, sir.
Mr. GASQuE. Could you tell the chairman how you happened to
make contact with the place where you had been buying your heroin
recently?
Mr. ScoTr. Well, I met these people about 4 or 5 years ago.
Mr. GASQUE. You were buying from them in Mexico 4 or 5 years
ago ?
Mr. ScOT. Yes, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. And you continued buying all through the intervening years ?
Mr. GASQUF. What are some of the other cities in Mexico where you
have bought heroin?
Mr. Scorr. That is the only city I have been to.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, you must know a number of other places there,
other than this house where narcotics have been sold at that time?
Mr. ScoTT. No, sir; that's the only place I know.
Mr. GASQLE. You said a moment ago you bought only heroin at this
place 3 months?
Mr. ScoTT. What's that?
Mr. GASQUE. Didn't you say a moment ago you bought from this last
woman and her son only the last 3 months .
Mr. GASQUE. From whom did you buy before that?

Mr. ScOTT. That was the same party I was buying from 4 or 5
years ago.
Mr. Gi ASQUE. You have been buying from this same party 4 or 5
years?
Mr. Sco'r. Yes, sir; not steady, on or off.
Mr. GASQUE. When you first bought had you understood that they
had been selling narcotics some time prior to that?

Mr. Scorr. No, I don't know. I don't know how long they had
been selling narcotics.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, did they give you to understand you wouldn't
get in any trouble as long as you stayed in the house, they had some
protection from the law or local officials or from some other source
to keep the house from being invaded by officers ?
Mr. ScoTT. Well, that's the idea I got. They didn't tell me that.
They didn't tell me that but that's what I figured for myself.
3331
Mr. GASQUE. Now, when you were in that house were customers generally coming and going?
Mr. ScoTT. No, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Weren't there other addicts at times?
Mr. Scour. Occasionally, yes; it wasn't just like a grocery store or
something.
Mr. GASQUE. NOW, would you consider the price you paid for the
heroin in this shooting gallery or filling station over there in Mexico
much cheaper than you buy it here in the United States?
Mr. SCOTT. Definitely.
Mr. GASQUE. How much cheaper would you say?
Mr. Scorr. Well, 40 cents to $7, that's quite a difference.
Mr. GASQUE. Over here the same amount would cost you $7?
Mr. ScoTT. Well, I would say pretty close, some cities like Houston.
Mr. GASQTE. Some $6.60 diference in saving, if you want to put it
that w ay, that you can get heroin in Mexico?

Mr. Sco'r. That's right.
Mr. GASQUE. Isn't there generally a relationship between the price
of heroin and the supply available?
Mr. Scorr. Beg your pardon?
Mr. GASQUE. Generally heroin is plentiful, you can buy it rather
cheaply, can't you?
Mr. GASQTE. If it is $6.60, the same quantity in the United States,
that would indicate that it is rather scarce, wouldn't it?
Mr.
GASQUE.
If you can buy it for 41 cents a shot in Mexico, that
would indicate the supply is rather plentiful, wouldn't it?

Mr. SoTT. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANrEL.
Isn't that why you have been going to Mexico so
often to buy heroin at the cheaper price?

Senator DANIEL. As a matter of fact, you even stayed there three
months recently ?
Senator DANEL. You came over to the United States' side to do the
stealing to pay for it, right?
Mr. Scorr. Yes, Sir.
Mr. GASQuE. What about the quality of the heroin in Mexico, how
did it compare with the heroin in the United States?
Mr. ScoTt. It is better.
Mr. GASQuE. Better heroin?
Mr. GAsQuE. So you get it cheaper and you get a better quality?
Mr. ScoTT. That's right.
Mr. GASQuE. Now, do you know of other American addicts who are
living in Mexico at the present time and who are crossing the border
for te purpose of getting their money, working, stealing, and returnin to Mexico for their supply of heroin?
Vr. ScoTr. No, sir, I am the only one that I know of.
Mr. GASQuM. Now, how many addicts do you know in Nuevo Laredo,
recalling the fact that you have been buying drugs over there for 4
or 5 years?
3332
Mr. Scorr. The only ones I know are Mexican drug addicts. Mexican citizens.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, do you know any taxicab drivers over there
you could go to and who would refer you to a source of heroin?

Mr. ScoTT. Well, no, sir, I don't, no, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. Do you know if there could be any?
Mr. ScoTT. Oh, I'm pretty sure there could be.
Mr. GASQUE. Have you heard that there are?

Mr. ScoTT. Yes, sir. Well, they know where everything is, cab
drivers do.
Mr. GASQUE. Mr. Chairman, that's all the questions I have.
Senator DANIEL Any questions, Mr. Speer?

Mr. SPEER. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know any other dealers in heroin in Nuevo
Laredo now?
Mr. ScoTT. No, sir, that's the only one.
Senator DANIEL. You do know some by reputation, you have heard

about them? You don't know about them personally, is that right?
Mr. ScoT-r. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You may stand aside.
Jeanine Kucker.
(Mrs. Jeanine Kucker was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. You may be seated. Will you state your name
and address?
TESTIMONY OF JEANINE KUCKER
Mrs. KucKER. Jeanine Kucker.
Senator DANIEL. Jeanine Kucker. And you spell that J-e-a-n-i-n-e?

Mrs. KUCKER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. K-u-c-k-e-r?

Mrs. KUCKER. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. And you live here in San Antonio .
Mrs. KUCKER. I live in Fort Forth.

Senator DANIEL. How long have you been living in San Antonio?
Mrs. KUCKER. I have been down here about 6 weeks.
Senator DANIEL. And what business are you following here in San
Antonio?
Mrs. KUCKER. I am not in business down here.
Senator DANIEL. Have you engaged in anything at all in San

Antonio?
Mrs. KUCKER. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Any kind of work?

Mirs. KUCKER. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What kind of work did you engage in, in Fort
Worth?
Mrs. KUCKER.
I wasn't, I am a housewife.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you had the unfortunate experience of

having used narcotic drugs in the past?
Mrs. KUCKER. A long time ago.
Senator DANIEL. Now, you were arrested this month for possession
of marihuana, is that right?
Senator DANIEL. What kind of drugs
did you start using?
3333
Mrs. KOucKER. I have never used either one that I knew exactly
what it was.
Senator DANIEL. Well, how do you know you used any?

Mrs. KUCKER. Well, they told me I did.
Senator DANIEL. How old were you when you first smoked
marihuana or took a shot of heroin?
Mrs. KUCKER. I have never smoked any marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. How old were you when you first used marihuana?
Mrs. KucKFm. I have never used any.
Senator DANIEL. Why were you in possession of this marihuana
this month?
Mrs. KUCKER. Why was I in possession?
It was in a room in a
hotel I was in.

Senator DANIEL. Did you know the marihauna was in the room?
Mrs. KUCKER. I didn't.
Senator DANIEL. Was it here in San Antonio?
Mrs. KUCKER. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How long had you been using that room?
Mrs. KUCKER. 3 or 4 days, I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Did you have it rented?
Mrs. KUCKE R. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did anybody else have it rented with you?
Mrs. KUCKER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Who else was staying with you?
Mrs. KUCKER. Robert Kennedy.
Senator DANIEL. Robert who?
Mrs. KUCKER. Kennedy.
Senator DANIEL. K-e-n-n-e-d-y?
Senator DANIEL. How long had he been living in that room with
you?
Mrs. KTJCKER. Same length of time.

Senator DANIEL. How long was that?
Mrs. KUCKER. 3 or 4 days, I don't know exactly.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't know the marihuana was there in the
room?
Senator DANIEL. Do you want to say under oath to this committee
that you never smoked a marihuana cigarette?
Senator DANIEL. You understand if you think any answer, any
truthful answer, might tend to incriminate you, you can stand on your
rights under the Constitution and not answer?
Mrs. KUCKER. Sure do.
Senator DANIEL. At the same time, do you understand that your
answers to this committee, if sworn, must be truthful answers or you
could be prosecuted for giving an untruthful answer. Do you understand those two things ?
Senator DAN1EL. Well,
with that reminder in mind, I just want to
put the question to you once more, whether or not you ever smoked
a marihuana cigarette?
-t.---a_
-__
o-
3334
..
Senator DANIEL. And did you know the marihuana was in your
room?
Mrs. K-uCKER. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Who was renting that room?
Mrs. KUCKER. Robert Kennedy and myself.

Senator DANIEL. Did you pay part of the rent?
Mrs. KUCKER. Yes, we both did.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what part of the rent did you pay?
Mrs. KUCKER. Well, I don't know, both had some money and we
spent it.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well now both of you didn't pay for the room,
you didn't pay double for it. Tell us exactly, you say both of you
paid for the room you were renting here in San Antonio, tell us
whether he paid it one day and you paid the next, just how was it?
Mrs. KucKEa. Golly, I don't remember. We paid it. I don't know
which one of us paid it.
Senator DANIEL. How long had you been living together?

Mrs. KICKER. Huh?
Senator DANIEL. How long had you been living together?
Mrs. KUCKER. About 3 months.

Senator DANIEL. You met him here?
Worth?
You mean here or in Fort
Mrs. KUCKER. Fort Worth.
Senator DANIEL. Is he in jail now?
Mrs. KUCKER. Yes, he is.

Senator DANIEL. For possession of marihuana ?
Mrs. KUCKE11. I don't know what the charge is, I know he is in jail.
You were arrested, you are out on bond?

Senator
DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. For possession of marihuana and also for possession of narcotic paraphernalia and also possession of barbituates?
Mrs. KUCKER. All I know, I was filed on for possession of marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you are out on how many bonds?
Mrs. KUCKER. One.
Senator DANTEL. For how much?

Mrs. KucK=. $2,000, I think.
Senator
DANIEL.
And Robert Kennedy is not out on bond?
Mrs. Kucc . No. [Indicated by shaking her head.]

Senator DANIEL. Did you know that Robert Kennedy was engaged
in narcotics traffic?
Mrs. KUCKER. No.
Senator DANIEL. When did you find out that he had some marihuana in the room?
Mrs. KUCKER. He didn't have any marihuana in the room. I don't
know that he did.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you just told us you didn't know about the
marihuana being there, what do you mean?
Mrs. KUCKER. I didn't know it was there.
Senator DANIEL. Never?

Mrs. KUCKER. Never.
Senator DANIEL. Even to this day?

Mrs. KUCKER. To this day I don't know.
3335
Senator DANIEL. You have never seen the marihuana in the room?
Mrs. KUCKER. Yes, sir, the police officers showed it to me. I didn't
know it was there.
Senator DANIEL. You saw it after the officers came in and found it,
is that right?
Mrs. KICKER. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Had you ever seen any marihuana before?
Mrs. KUCKER. Not to my knowledge.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see Robert Kennedy smoke, use
marihuana, or sell it?
Senator DANIEL. Who had possession of this narcotic needle para-
phernalia?
Mrs. KUCKER. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you have used heroin, haven't you?
Mrs. KUCKER. Not to my knowledge; 1 haven't used any heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you said a long time ago you used some kind
of narcotics?
Mrs. KuCKFER. Yes.
Mrs. KUCKER. I don't know, a doctor gave it to me.
Senator DANIEL. You mean to tell this committee you never have
used any type of narcotic drugs except what a doctor gave you?
Senator DANIEL. Whose narcotics paraphernalia was it that the
officer picked up in your room?
Senator DANIEL. Did you see it?
Mrs. KUCKER. They picked up something and showed it to me,
whether narcoticsSenator DANIELS. Just describe to the committee what it was.
Mrs. KUCKER. All they did, they picked up something behind the
heater, and said, what is this- that's all I saw, had something in their
hands.
Senator DANIEL. What was it?
Mrs. KUCKER. Looked like a washcloth to me.
Senator DANIEL. Did you see anything else?

Mrs. KUCKER. That's all.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever in that room see any needle with
which you shoot heroin, a hypodermic?
Senator DANIEL. Did you have any barbiturates in that room?
Mrs. KUCKER. They found some.
Senator DANIEL. Where did they find them?
Mrs. KUCKER. Same place, behind the heater.
Senator DANIEL. How much barbiturates?
Senator DANIEL. Did you know they were there?

Senator DANIEL. You just didn't know anything about any of it?
Senator DANIEL. You have never used any narcotic drugs, that
you can remember what they were except what the doctor gave to you?
3336
Senator DANIEL. The doctor gave them to you for some illness?
Mrs. KucKER. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been across the Mexican border?
Mrs. KUCKER. Oh, I think I was a long time ago but I don't, I was
across in Juarez with my husband a long time ago.
Senator
DANIEL.
Are you married now?
Mrs. KucKFR. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Is Robert Kennedy your husband?

Mrs. KucKER. No.
Senator DANIEL. Where is your husband?

Mrs. KuciKru. Fort Worth.
Senator DANIE L. What business is he in?

Mrs. KucKiER. Moving and storage business.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever buy any drugs across the border?
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, now, the information you have given this
committee concerning these drugs found in your room here in San

Antonio is not exactly the information that this committee had when
it called you as a witness. I would like for you, during the noon
recess, to think the matter over and see if you wish to, in any way give
this committee further information concerning the marihuana, the
narcotics paraphernalia, or the barbiturates found in your room here
in San Antonio, and I will call you back either during the recess, say
about 1: 30 or after we meet back here at 2 o'clock. 'You may stand
aside for the time being.
I want to call these witnesses again from Houston, Julian Ray
Madeley; Julian Ray Madeley, stand up and answer, please.
The marshal informs me this witness hasn't come in from Houston.
Edward Keith Love. All right, will you come forwardI
James Edward Parrott.
(Mr. Edward Keith Love was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator
DANIEL.
Will you state your name and residence?
TESTIMONY OF EDWARD KEITH LOVE

Mr. LovE. Edward Keith Love, 526 Maplewood.
Senator
DANIEL.
Houston, Tex.?
Mr. LovE. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
And how old are you?
Mr. LovE. Seventeen.

Senator DANIEL. Do you go to school?
Mr. IOVE. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How long has it been since you have been in school?
Mr. LoVE. Been about half a year. I went about 3 weeks in this
semester.
And you quit school this year?

Mr. LoVE. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
What school did you go to?
Mr. 1OVE. Johnson Junior High.

Senator DANIEL. I understand that you have had the unfortunate
experience of having fallen to the use of some narcotic drugs?
Mr. LoVE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. When was it that you first took any narcotics?
Mr. LoVE. It was a pretty good while ago.
3337
Senator DANIEL. About how long ago?

Mr. LovE. About a year and a half.
Senator DANIEL. When you were 16?
Mr. LovE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you get the drugs, what kind were
they ?
Mr. LovE. A bunch of kids, these boys had some morphine, I
believe.
Senator
DANIEL.
A bunch of high-school boys?
Mr. LOVE. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL. At this same high school?

Mr. LOVE. No, sir; I just seen them around.
Senator DANIEL. Well, were the boys going
Mr. LOVE. Yes, sir.

Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. LOVE. It was
Senator DANIEL.
to school?
At the same high school that you were?

a junior high school.
What was the name of that school?
Mr. LovE. Johnson High School.
Senator
DANIEL.
And did these boys sell you the drugs?
Mr. LovE. No, sir, they found them somewhere and give it to me.
Senator
DANIEL.
You understood it was morphine?
Mr. LovE. Yes, sir, I believe that is what it was.
Senator
DANIEL.
Are your parents living?
Mr. LovE. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did they or anyone else ever warn you against
narcotics?
Mr. LovE. Yes, sir.
Senator DAN]EL. What have they told you?
Mr. LovE. Told me it was habit forming, I better leave it alone.

Senator DANIEL. These friends of your jiuiior high school offered
you some morphine, you took it?
Mr. Lov. Yes. sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Can you explain to the committee why you would
do that when you had been warned not to?

Mr. LovE. Just trying to act smart, I don't know.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
You are a fine looking boy. I am just wondering
against that kind of advice why in the world you would try morphine
at the age of sixteen. Were you on the football team?
Mr. LovE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Were you doing good on the team?
Mr. LovE. Pretty good.
Senator DANIE,. Were you interested in school at the time?
Mr. LovE. Pretty well.
Did you go to church?
Mr. LovE. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Were you sort of running with this gang of boys
or was it anything like that?
Mr. LoVE. Just seen them around, you know. I had just seen them
around, I didn't run with them.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, were there some of your other companions who took the morphine with you?
Mr. Lovw. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Just you took it by yourself?
3338
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Mr. LovE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And how many other friends have you that you
have seen around?
Mr. LovE. I haven't seen any of them since I quit school.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I mean, at the time you first took a shot of
morphine, was it by needle?

Mr. LovE. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
The time you took your first shot, where was it?
Mr. LovE. In a filling station rest room.

Senator DANIEL. And how many of you were in the rest room?
Mr. LovE. Three.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did all of you take morphine shots then?
Mr. LovE. No, sir, just two of us.

Senator DANIEL. Well, what did the third boy do?
Mr. LovE. He didn't take any.

Senator DANIEL. He wouldn't take it?
Mr. LoVE. No, sir.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL. Had he
LoVE. No, sir, he was
been using it?

scared, I guess.
Well, this other boy then gave it to you, is he here
Senator DANIEL.
today?
Mr. LovE. No, sir, the boy that give it to us, he didn't even know
what it was, some boy told him it was morphine, so we tried it to
experiment.
Senator DANIEL. You all experimented. Where did you get the
needle you used?
Mr. LovE. Bought it at the drug store.
Senator DANIEL. Did the druggist hesitate at all about selling you
a hypodermic needle?
Mr. LovE. No, sir.
Senator DANIIEL. What drug store did you buy it from?
Mr. LOvE. I don't rember, they went and got it.
Mr. LovE. No, sir, one boy went to his drug store and bought the
hypodermic and another bought an eyedropper to dip it.

Senator DANIEL. The young man who gave you these drugs didn't
use it, is that right?
Mr. LoVE. No. (Indicated by shaking his head.)
Senator DANIEL. Later did he come around to sell you?
Mr. LoVE. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did anybody else?

Mr. LovE. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How much morphine did you use after that?
Mr. LoE. Only time I ever shot morphine.
Senator DANIEL. How did you happen to start out on heroin.

Mr. LovE,. Didn't start on it really. I went over to Mexico one
time and I. I just went and bought some and shot it.
Senator DAXNEL. You heard that over across the border in Mexico
you could buy heroin pretty easily?
Mr. Lov. Yes, sir, but it's not all that easy.
Senator DANIEL. Have you tried to buy it in Houston?
Mr. LoE. No, sir, never did. I didn't go over there for the purpose
of purchasing heroin.
Senator DANrEL. What did you go for?
3339
Mr. LovE. Went over there to go to boys' town.

Senator DANIEL. That is the red light district?
Mr. LovE. Yes. (Indicated by nodding his head)
Senator DANIEL. Who had told you a out the red light district?
Mr. LoVE. Everybody talks about it.
Senator DANIEL. You mean that at your junior high school everybody talks about the red light district in Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. LovE. Just old people I know.
Senator DANIEL. Older people?
Mr. LovE. Yes, sir. My uncle tells me when he goes to Juarez or
places like that.

Senator DANIEL. Your uncle?
11r. LovE. Yes, sir, he goes over there.
Senator DANIEL. Does he go to Juarez pretty often?
Mr. LovE. No, sir, he goes over, him and his wife and kids on vacation, that's the only time he goes.
Senator DANIEL. He didn't tell you about the red light district,
,lid he?
MJr. LovE. Yes, sir, he said it was pretty rough over there.
Mfr. LovE. He told me it was pretty rough, ought not to go over

there.
Senator DANIEL. He warned you against going?
M[r. LovE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, how did you happen to go over?
Mr. LoVE. Well, I had some money saved up. I decided I was going
to take me a vacation so I went over there.
Senator DANIEL. With whom did you go?
Mfr. LovE. James Parrott and Ray Madeley.

Senator DANIEL. That is James P-a-r-r-o-t-t?
fr. LovE. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. And Ray M-a-d-e-l-e-y?
Mr. LovE. Yes, sir.

Senator DANrEL. Now, had you ever used heroin on this side of the
border before going to Mexico?
MAr. LovE. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. The only thing you had taken was morphine?
M.r. LovE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Had you ever smoked marihuana?
LovE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. When did you start smoking marihuana?
Hr.
VMr. Lov.
When I went over to Mexico.

Have you only been across to Mexico once?
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. LovE. Yes, sir.

Senator DAtNIEL. Now, when you came back across the border from
Niievo Laredo, the officers searched you and examined you?

Mir. LOVE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And you told them you had taken three shots of
heroin in Nuevo Laredo?*
[r. LovE. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. That was on October 22, 1955?
Mfr. LOVE. Yes, sir.

7
1515-56-pt. 7-63
3340
Senator DANIEL. And you also told them that you had taken one
shot today, the day that you crossed the border?
Mr. LovE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And that you paid 75 cents for each shot?
Mr. LovE-. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Is that all true?
That is the truth.
Mr. Lov.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you find this heroin?

Mr. LovE. Well, this woman across the bridge-when we went
over there this guy was standing there, in Mexico, he was standing
there, kind of, he could speak English, he hit us up for 15 cents for
something.to get something to drink. We gave him the 15 cents, he
ke!t on going with us, he kept on talking.
Senator DANIEL. Who got to talking about what ?
Mr. LovE. He got to hinting around, you know, he could get some
stuff.
Senator DANIEL. You mean the first Mexican citizen you talked to
over there?
Mr. LOVE.
First one.
Senator DANIEL. You think he saw you

Mr. LOVE. I don't know; I guess he did.
Senator DANIEL. Just across the bridge,
coming?
the first Mexican you talked

to, the, first Mexican citizen you talked to hit you up for a little money
and wanted to know if you were interested in stuff?
Mr. LOVE. He didn't come out and say it like that.
Senator DANIEL. He just hinted at it?
Mr. LOVE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Just tell us then what happened from there on?
Mr. LovE. Well, he said he could get some. We gave him the money,
and he went and got it. We waited in a cafe. He said his name was
Johnnie or something; he said his name was Johnnie. We waited at
this cafe for him. We didn't thirtk he was coming back; finally he
come back.
Senator DANIEL. 'What did he come back with?
Mr. Lov. Had it wrapped up in a little piece of paper.
Mr. LovE. Heroin.
Senator DANIEL. How much money did you give this Johnnie?
Mr.
LOVE.
I think a. dollar and a half apiece, something like that.
Senator DANIEL. And was it the first heroin you had ever bought?
Mr. LOVE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you have your needles with you?

Mr. LOVE. No, sir.
Senator I)ANIEL. Where did you buy your needles?

Mr. LovE. This guy had one somewhere; I don't know where he had
it.
Senator DANIEL. Johnnie?
Mr. LOVE. Yes, sir.
Senator DA\NIEL. Did he loan, you the needle or give it?
Mr. LovE. Loaned it to us.
Senator
DANIEL.
Where did you all take your shots of heroin?
Mr. LovE. Down on the river.

Senator DANIEL. Were these other boys 17 years old, too?
Mr. LOVE. Yes, sir.
3341
Senator DANIEL. Are they both here?
Mr. LovE. One of them is.

Senator DANIEL. Which one is that?
Mr. LovE. Parrott.
Senator DANIEL. That is James Edward Parrott?
Mr. Lo-E. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Ray Madeley, where is he?
Mr. LOVE. The city has got him; the city police got him.
Senator
He has been arrested and has gone to jail for
DANIEL.
violating the law since he came back from Mexico?

Mr. LovE. I think so.
Senator DANIEL. I mean for doing other things than using drugs; is
that right?
Mr. LOVE. I believe so. I don't know what they got him on; that
guy told me this morning.
Senator DANIEL. IS Ray Madeley here in the courtroom yet? I
have been informed he is on the way. This other young man who is
here with you, James Edward Parrott, how long had you Iniown him?
Mr. LOVE. Been knowing him about a year.
Senator
How long had you known Ray Madeley?
DANIEL.
Mr. LovE. I been knowing him about 3 years.

Senator DANIEL. Did this man seem to hesitate at all about selling
to young people like you all?
Mr. LOVE. No, sir.
Senator
Were you dressed about like you are now?

Mr. LovE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. He asked you your age?
DANIEL.
Mr. LovE. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Where did you say you took these shots?
Mr. LovE. Down on the river.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you all rent a room over there?
Mr. LovE. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Did you use river water in heating the heroin;
dipping it out of the Rio Grande ?
Mr. LovE. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you put it in a little spoon or cap?
Mr. LovE. Little old soda water bottle cap.

Senator
DANIEL.
Who boiled it?
Mr. LovE. Who what?
Senator DANIEL. Who boiled it?
Mr. LovE. Who boiled it, this guy held a match under it.
Senator
Johnnie held a match under it?

Mr. LovE. No, sir, this buddy of mine.
Senator DANIEL. Which one?
DANIEL.
Mr. LOVE. James

Senator DANIEL.
Parrott.
Did you know that river water could have been a
pretty dangerous thing shooting that into your veins?

Mr. LovE. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did this seem to be a regular thing for Johnnie
to be doing, meeting the young people across the border?

Mr. LovE. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Could you identify Johnnie if you saw his picture,
saw him in person?
I I I I
3342
Mr. LovE. I don't believe I could. I don't believe I could remember
him.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you all get your next shot of heroin?
Mr. LovE. Bought it all at one time.
Senator DANIEL. Three shots apiece?
Mr. LovE. Yes, sir. No, sir, two shots apiece.
Senator DANIEL. All right, that is just this last Monday?
Mr. LovE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And then you said you bought some marihuaiia
over there, too ?

Mr. LovE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you buy that?
Mr. LovE. This guy, same guy.
He got it all at one time.
le
brought us a big bunch, I think a dollar and a half.

Senator DANIEL. Brought you a big bunch of marihuana for a dollar
and a half ?
Mr. LovE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. About how many?
Mr. LovE. About 6 or 7.
Senator DANIEL. About what?
Mr. LovE. 6or7.
Senator DANIEL. Cigarettes?
Mr. LovE. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Where did you all smoke the cigarettes?
Mr. LOVE. Just anywhere, down on the river mostly.
Senator DANIEL. Had you ever smoked marihuana before you went
to Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. LovE. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You never used heroin-you understand you are
under oath?
Mr. LovE. No, yes sir.
Senator DANIEL. And that, by all means, you must either tell the
truth or claim any rights you have, if you think any of this tends to
incriminate you, claim your rights under the constitution not to
testify?
Mr. LoVE. I am telling the truth.
Senator DANIEL. That's fine. I think it is even more serious, as far
as I am concerned, when 17-year-old boys can cross that bridge ald

get heroin and marihuana this easily and have them waiting for them.
I think it is even more serious than if you had been using it over on
the other side, when you are met and welcomed at the other end of the
bridge. You don't think you can recognize this man?
Mr. LovE. I don't think I could.
Senator DANIEL. Did you buy from anyone else over there?
Mr. LovE. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you buy any heroin from anyone else?
Mr. LovE. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Then when you came back across the bridge, oh.
I want to ask you about how you took your second shot, who gave you
the needle?
Mr. Love. I did.
Mr. LOVE. I did myself.
I I I
II
3343
Senator DANIEL. Well, I know, but where did you get the needle?
Mr. LovE. He gave it to us.
Senator DANIEL. He left the needle with you?

Mr. LovE. Told us to leave it at a certain place.
Senator DANIEL. Oh, he left the needle while you were in Nuevo
Laredo?
Mr. LOVE. Yes, sir.
Senator
Where did he tell you to leave the needle.
DANIEL.
Mr. LoVE. Under a tin can on the bayou near the river.
Senator DANIEL. Did you leave it there?

Mr. LoVE. Yes, sir.
Senator
day?
You all stayed over there in Nuevo Laredo just 1
DANIEL.
Mr. LOVE. One day and that night and come back the next morning.
Senator
DANIEL. Did you stay there 1 day and 1 night?

Mr. LOVE. About half of a day and a night.
Senator DANIEL. A half a day and then you spent the night there?
Mr. LOVE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And then you went back to Laredo on the Ameri-
can side?
Mr. LOVE. Yes, sir.
Senator
hone.
And made a trip back to Mexico before going
DANIEL.
Mr. LoVE. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't make two crossings?

Mr. LoVE. No, sir.
Senator
driving?
When you came back whose car was it you were
DANIEL.
Mr. fjovE. Mine.
Senator
DANIEL.
A 1949 Plymouth?
Mr. LOVE. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Have you gotten in the habit of it?
Mr. LovE. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think that you are going to be able to stay
off of heroin and marihuana?
Mr. LOVE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think you will be able to keep other boys
off of it?
Mr. LOVE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I certainly hope so.
All right, James Edward Parrott.
(James Edward Parrott was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. You may be seated. You have heard the testimony
of your friend, Edward Keith Love?
TESTIMONY OF JAMES EDWARD PARROTT

Mr. PARROTT. Yes, sir I heard it.
Senator DANIEL. And you did go with him over into Mexico on
October 22 of this year?

Mr. PARROTT. Yes, sir, I went with him when he went.
Senator DANIEL. Had you been over there before?
3344
Senator DANIEL. How many times had you been to Mexico before?
Mr. PARROTT. Once before that.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you cross the river?
Mr. PARROTT. At Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. Were you dressed about like you are now?
Mr. PARRO-1T. Yes, sir; I believe so.
Senator
DANIEL. How old

Mr. PARROTT. Seventeen.
are you?
Senator DANIEL. Did you buy any heroin the first time you went
over there?
Mr. PARROTT. No, sir.
Senator DANTEL. Any marihuana?
Senator
there?
DANIEL.
Did you smoke any or use any kind of drug over
Mr. PARROTr. The first

time?

Seantor DANIEL. Did you see it done when you were over there
the first time?
Senator DANIEL. But on this second trip you did use heroin and
marihuana?
Mr. PARRuOTT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, had you ever smoked any marihuana in
Houston or anywhere else besides in Mexico?
Mr. PAVROTT. No, sir, I hadn't.
Senator DANIEL. And before we go any further, I want to say the

same as I did to the previous witness, you realize you are under oath,
if you do give any testimony that is untruthful you would be subject
to perjury indictment, you understand that, you know that?
Senator DANIEL. I want to caution you so that you will give us

the full truth, but if you think anything might tend to incriminate
you, you can claim your right under the fifth amendment and not be
required to answer. Do you understand that?
Mr. P-mmoTT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. If you want to ask any question like that, you do it.
As I understand it, though, you are willing to give the whole story
and all the truth about it, since you have been subpenaed?
Mr. PARRoiTr. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You did not ever smoke marihuana on this side
of the border before?
Mr. PARRoT. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
And had you ever used any heroin on this side
of the border?
Mr. PARROTT. A couple of times, twice before.
Senator DANIEL. Twice before?
Senator DANIEL. Were you going to school at the time?
Mr. PARROTT. No, sir, I don't believe I was.
Senator DANIEL. Had you used morphine or any other type of
narcotic drug-here in our own country?
3345
Mr. PARROIr. No, sir; just heroin.
Senator DANIEL. How old were you when you had your first shot
of heroin?
Mr. PAROTT. Sixteen, I believe.
And where were you going to school'

Mr. PARROrir. I wasn't, I don't think.
Senator DANIEL. Where had you been going to school last?
Air. PARROTT. Jackson Junior High in Houston.
Senator DANIEL. How did you happen to take this first shot of
heroin?
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. PARRO',T. Well, I knew this boy a couple of weeks, his name
was Sonny, I don't know his last name, just Sonny, and he give it to
me, you know, both of them.
Senator DANIEL. Was Sonny using heroin, too?
Mr. PARROTT. I don't know, I never seen him.
Senator DANIEL. Did he ever come back and give you any heroin?
Mr. PA oTT. No, sir, not after the first two times.
Senator DANIEL. The first two times, did he ever sell you any
heroin ?
Sentaor DANIEL. Did you know there are some people going around
over the country today giving away heroin, trying to get young people
started on it so that other people can go around and sell it to them.

did you know that?
Mr. PARROTr. No sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did anyone ever warn you against narcotics
drugs?
Mr.PARROTT. Different people, my parents.
Senator DANIEL. Are your parents living?
Mr. PARROr. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. They warned you to stay away from "goof balls,"
marihuana, any kind of narcotics?
Mr. PARROrr. Yes, sir.
Senator DANiEL. Did you go to church?
Senator DANIEL. You never have?
Mr. PARROTr. I have, not recent. I did when I was little.
Senator DANIEL. But not in recent years?
Senator DANIEL. Did you have any other warning against narcotics except from your parents?
Mr. PARROTT. Yes, sir, different people, you know, friends and
stuff like that warned me.
Senator DANIEL. And you had only known Sonny 2 weeks?
Mr. PARROTT. Well, it wasn't very lono, I don't know exactly how
long it was, maybe a week or maybe 2 weels, wasn't very long,though,
"'hen I knew him.

Senator DANIEL. This fellow you just got acquainted with was
able to talk you into trying it?
Senator DANIEL. You say he gave you these two shots free?
sir.
M1r. PARROTT. Yes,
Senator DANIEL. He didn't charge you a. thing?
3346
Senator DANIEL. Why did he do it, do you think?

Mr. PARROTT. I just thought, you know, that he was just like somebody giving you a drink, something, then, I didn't know it was so
bad and everything for you.
Senator DANIEL. Did he tell you he was using it?
Mr. PARROTT. Yes, I believe he said he was.
Senator
DANIEL. Did you see him take a shot with

Mr. PARROTT. No, sir, he didn't.
Senator DANIEL. Did anybody else take a shot?
you at any time?
Mr. PARROTT. No, sir, just me and him at the time.

Senator DANIEL. Well, did he ever use it in your presence?
Mr. PA ROTT. No, sir- he didn't.
Senator DANIEL. How old a boy was he?

Mr. PARROTT. He was 19 or 20, 21, something like that.
Senator DANIEL. And his last name, did you ever know?
Mr. PARROT. I never knew. I knew him by Sonny. I had seeni
him before, you know, I actually started running around with him
or something, you know.
Senator DANIEL. What does he do, where does he live?
Mr. PARROTT. I don't know.
He left, you know.
where he went, might have went to jail or prison.

him since then.
Senator DANIEL. Since how long ?
Mr. PARROT.
I don't know
I haven't seen
Well, I just met him about 4 months ago.
Thlt's
when he give me the shots. I haven't seen him since.

Senator DANIEL. You haven't seen him since he gave you a couple
of shots ?
Mr. PARROTT. I seen him a couple of days later, you know, I just
never seen him around any more.

Senator DANIEL. Would you recognize him if you saw him again?
Mr. PARROTT. I probably would, I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did he have a needle?
Mr. PARROTT. Yes, sir; he had the needle.
Senator DANIEL. Both times?
Senator
DANIEL. He gave vou the shots but didn't take any himself?
Mr. PARROTT. No, sir, he didn't. He just give them to me.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you use any more heroin before you went
to Mexico?
Mr. PARROTT. No, sir; I didn't.
Senator DANIEL. How did you happen to get with these other t wo
17-year-old boys and go to Mexico and get heroin and have a good
time, did you call it a good time?
Mr. PARROTT. Yes, that's what we went down there for.
DANIEL. It didn't
Senator
prove to be a good time; did it.?
Senator DANrr,. Do you think you ever want another trip like that?
Mr. PAR]Rorr. No, sir. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did anyone other than you three 17-year-old boys
suggest that you make the trip?
Mr. PARROTT. No, sir. we just started up between us.
Senator DANIEL. You just decided to go down and have a tri) to
Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. PARROTT. Yes. sir.
3347
Senator DANIEL. Has your friend told about the situation about as
you remember it, the first Mexican citizen you talked to fixed you up
with marihuana and heroin?
Mr. PARROTT. Well, yes, sir; I guess that's the way it was. You
know, we seen some more but, see, he just started talking to us for 20
or 30 minutes, 15, just telling us about the town and then, you know,
we somehow got to talking to him about the heroin. That's how it
happened.
Senator DANIEL. He came up to you?
Senator DANIEL. How long had you been across the bridge before
he came up and started talking?
Mr. PARROTTI. Just a few minutes, we just walked across.
Senator DANIEL. Just a few minutes?
Senator DANIEL. Have you bought any heroin since you have been
Mr. PARROTT1. No, sir; I haven't.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know where you can buy it in Houston?
Mr. PARROTT. No, sir; I don't know any place.
Senator DANIEL. What kind of work are you doing ?
Mr. PARROTT. I am out of a job right now, I'm not working.
Senator DANIEL. You have not bought any kind of drug since you
came back from Mexico, October 22?
Senator DANIEL. Have you used any marihuana or heroin?

Mr. PARROTT. No, sir, I haven't.
Senator DANIEL. Do you think you are going to stay off of it from
now on?
Mr. PARROTT. Yes, sir,
I am certain of it, that I am.
Senator DANIEL. Now, one of your friends has gotten in another

kind of trouble, hasn't he?
Mr. PARROTT. Yes, sir, I believe so. I don't know, that's what I
was told.
Senator D.NIrE. Weren't you picked up with him at the same time?
Senator DANIEL. Well,
anyway, he is in trouble and under a crim-
inal charge now for violating other laws?

Mr. PARROTT. I believe he is.
Senator DANIEL. He is 17 years old, too?
Mr. PARR r. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I hope you will be able to stay away from it, be
able to get a job. I wonder if there is anything in tle world that
this committee can do to keep other 17-year-old people from starting
,narcotics over in Mexico? You didn't, of course, you started over
here, didn't you?
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you try to buy heroin in Houston?
Why did you go to Mexico?
Mr. PARROTT. We just went down there just to have fun, you know,
just do anything, you know, just went down there to have fun.
Senator DANIEL. Could you have bought heroin in Houston if you
wanted to buy it?
3348
Mr. PARROrr. No, sir, I don't know no place where you can buy it.
Senator
DANIEL.
You didn't know of any?

Senator DANIEL. Is it pretty hard for young people who look as
young as you all to buy it in Houston?
Mr. PARROTT. I don t know, I have never tried to.

Senator DANIEL. Any questions, Mr. Counsel?
Mr. SPER. No questions.
Let me call the names ofa few witnesses here before we recess. Has
Julian Ray Madeley come in the courtroom yet? Is Charles Nathan
Hubbard in the courtroom? Stand up and answer "Present," just
stand up and answer "Present." Charles Nathan Hubbard?
Mr. HUBBARD. Present.
Senator DANIEL. Gloria Jene Kerley.
Mr. KERiEY. She's present, outside in the restroom.
Senator DANIEL. And Harry Kerley?
Mr. KERLEY. Present.
Senator
DANIEL.
Vandeburg Griffin.
Mr. GPFFIN. Here.
Senator DANIEL. Horace Grice.

Mr. GRICE. Here.
Senator DANIEL. John Bonnee.
Mr. BONN F. Present.
Senator DANIEL. Jessie Garcia?
Mr. GARCIA. Present.
Senator DANIEL. Remiro Lopez.
Mr. LoPEZ. Present.
Senator DANIEL. Frank L. Baca.
Mr. BACA. Present.
Senator DANIEL. Felix Escobar.
Mr. ESCOBAR. Present.
Senator
Shirley Orlowski?
Mrs. ORLowsKi. Present.
Senator DANIEL. Maria Moreno, Maria Moreno, Rudy Moreno,
Rudy Moreno. Felix Ortiz.
Mr. ORTIZ. Here.
Senator DANIEL. Gilbert Litterio.
Mr. LrrTERo. Here.
Senator DANIEL. Simona Cavazos, Simona Cavazos.
Mrs. CAVAZOS. Present.
Senator DANIEL. Leo Bustamente. All right, did another witness
come in whose name I called? Maria Moreno.
Mr.
DANIEL.
VILLAREALL.
She is here.
Senator DANIEL. Joan Look.

Mrs. Loox. Present.
Senator DANIEL. Arturo Castillo, Arturo Castillo.
We have several officer witnesses we will be ready for after lunch. I see-Mr.
Dub Naylor is here, and the officer witnesses, Mr. Richards of ElPaso,
customs agent, Mr. Fleishman. The officer witnesses we had planned
to use this morning we will try to use after a few of these other witnesses who have been across the border this afternoon.
3349
We will stand recessed until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

(Whereupon at 12 noon the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at
2 p. m. the same day.)
ArEARNooN SESSION

Mr. Dub Naylor.
Mr. Walter (Dub) Naylor was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. Will you state your name and official position?
TESTIMONY OF WALTER (DUB) NAYLOR, CHIEF, NARCOTIC
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY-Resumed
Mr. NAYLOR. My name is Walter Naylor, chief of the narcotics
division of the department of public safety.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Naylor, will you step up here just a minute?
The committee would like to confer with you just a minute.
SOff-record conference between the committee and Mr. Naylor.)
enator DANIEL. How long have you held that position?
Mr. NAYLOR. I started in narcotics work in 1931.
Senator DANIEL. And have you been in narcotics work since that
time?
Mr. NAYLOR. Off and on, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You have testified before this committee in the
past. I suppose you have noticed some of your testimony and that of
Colonel Garrison of the department of public safety have been criticized
being
far as Mexico
is concerned.
am have
just wonderingasif,
sinceunjust,
the lastashearing
before this
committee, Iyou
done
anything toward rechecking on your information as to the availability of heroin and marijuana across the Mexican border?
Mr. NAYLOR. Yes, sir, we have. We have made a check on it, more
or less a spot check. I would like to go back a couple of months, if you
will, and explain something of why we went into Mexico and made
this investigation.
In February at the Attorney General's Law Enforcement Conference we charged 90 percent of the narcotics coming to and through
Texas originated in Mexico. On March 3 a protest was made in
Colonel Garrison's office by Mr. Castillo, who is the Mexican Consul
in Austin, stating those charges were not true. In AprilSenator DANIEL. Now, that was 90 percent of the marihuana or
heroin?
Mr. NAYLOR. The heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Yes, I believe those are the same figures you gave
our committee?

Senator DANIEL. You think 90 percent of the heroin coming intoMr. NAYLOR. Into and through Texas.
Senator DANIEL. Comes from Mexico?
Mr. NAYLOR. Originates in Mexico. We had that information and
we based that on information from confidential informers. We asked
Mr. Castillo to arrange a joint conference between members of his
Government and Colonel Garrison for us to try to work this problem
out, and they stated they would do so. The meeting was tentatively
3350
set for the 11th of April, and we were informed on or about that date
that they would have to postpone the meeting and might be able to
get to it around the 22d of April. And at that time Mr. Castillo advised us-I believe that is his name, he was the Mexican Consul in
Austin-advised us that the members who were going to attend the
conference were on their way to Washington and would not have time
to meet with Colonel and us at that time. We have heard nothing
since.
When we testified before your committee a newspaper article was
printed stating more or less that our figures might be wrong. So I
called my boys together, and we talked this thing over. We decided
just to go down there and see ourselves just what that situation was in
the border towns across the Rio Grande. We did; we took a special
employee and put him across the border. I would like not to use
his name or put him before television cameras, for we will continue to
use him. We took an agent of the narcotics division of the department of public safety who has some information for the committee,
and he will testify. You may use television on him, but we would
prefer that you don't. I, myself, went to El Paso and, although I am
a little out of training on undercover work, I went over into Juarez.
The second man I approached sold me two decks of it.
Mr. NAYLOR. That was last Sunday.
Senator DANIEL. This past Sunday?
Senator DANIEL. What was the purpose of your sending men over
to Mexico, to see whether or not the charges you had previously made
still stood, whether or not you could still buy heroin readily across
the border?
Mr. NAYLOR. That's right, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You sent men across in Laredo?
Senator DANIEL. You went over yourself at El Paso; to Juarez?
Senator DANIEL. Just explain exactly how you got this heroin from
the second man you saw.
Mr. NAYLOR. Well, the first man I approached didn't know too much
about what I was talking about, he evidently didn't want to do business. The second man I approached, I told him I was sick. He wanted
to know if he could help me with anything, came up to him.
Senator DANIEL. Did you approach him or did he approach youl
Mr. NAYLOR. I approached him. You can tell a character pretty
well. I judged him to be a character, so I approached him. As I
walked up we spoke. He said, "What are you hunting for?" I said,
"I'm sick, I need some heroin." He said, "Well, wait here." He went
around the corner. When he came back he sold me two decks.
Senator DANIEL. For how much?
Mr. NAYT.OR. Five dollars a deck.
Senator DANIEL. What did you do with it?
Mr. NAYLOR. I disposed of it in Mexico.
Senator DANIFL. How much was it, $5 a pack?
Mr. NAYLOR. Five dollars a deck, it takes about three of the so-called
decks to make a capsule.
3351
Senator DANIEL. Well, then, that is higher than it is in Nuevo
Laredo?
Mr. NAYLOR. Yes, sir, it is quite a bit higher, it is a dollar a deck
in Nuevo Laredo.
Senator DANIELS. A dollar a deck compared to $5 a deck in Juarez?
Mr. NAYLOR. Dope is higher in El Paso than it is in San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. Higher in Juarez?
Mr. NAYLOR. No, sir, cheaper, I mean it is higher in Juarez than it
is in San Antonio and a little bit cheaper in Laredo, in Nuevo Laredo
than it is in San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. Well, as far as El Paso is concerned, this increase
in price has been in the last few months, hasn't it?

Mr. NAYLOR. That's right, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Previously the price at Juarez was beneath that
for which one can buy heroin in San Antonio?
Mr. NAYLOR. Yes,.sir. An informer, a policeman on the police de-
partment at Juarez who is an informer of mine, tells me that the price

increase is because of the investigation being conducted by your committee, or has something to do with it. Another factor is that there
is going to be a change in administration, I believe on January 1 in
Juarez and in that State, and the main sources of supply are more
or less waiting to see what the new administration is going to do.
Senator DANIEL. Well, the fact that the price of heroin has gone
up as much as it has in Juarez the last 6 months would indicate that

it is scarcer and that something has been done toward cutting down
the amount of supply in Juarez?
Mr. NAYLOR. Yes, sir, what we refer to in underworld language as
a panic on, which means
Senator DANIEL. And, of course, we were just told this morning,
I'm sure it probably is as new to you as it was to us, the President of
Mexico ordered an investigation of the dope situation. It may be
that that has been conducted in secrecy for a while, maybe that has
contributed to it. Whatever it is, something has happened that the
dope available has tightened up in Juarez?
Mr. NAYLOR. I would think so, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. On the other hand, it still seems easy enough,
you cross the bridge and the second man you talk to sells the heroin?
Mr. NAYLOR. But the price is high.
Senator DANIEL. It costs more?
Senator DANIEL. And how long were you over across the bridge
in Juarez before you got yourself some heroin?
Mr. NAYLOR. About 30 minutes.
Senator DANIEL. Now then, I guess your men will give their reports on what they found in Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. NAYLOR. Yes, sir, I would rather they give it to you first hand.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have anything else up to date to bring us
since your last testimony?
Mr. NAYLOR. No, other than I would like to say the department of
public safety, Colonel Garrison and my division stand ready to work
with the Mexican Government and are glad to furnish the information
we have in the files, if they want to use our manpower we will be glad
to help any way we can.
3352
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever had this meeting that you and
Colonel Garrison asked for with the Mexican officials?
Mr. NAYLOR. No, sir, we told them we would be glad to come to
Monterrey or Mexico City or for them to come to Austin, we left it
to them to set the time, place, and date.
Senator DANIEL. What do you think about cooperating and exchanging information, each agency south across the border, your
agents and the Federal agents of the United States and the Mexican
local officers in Mexico? Do you think you would be able to do a lot
more toward licking this problem?
Mr. NAYLOR. I think it should be a joint undertaking between the
two agencies.
Senator DANIEL. All right, sir. Well, I certainly thank you, Mr.
Naylor, for your continued help and assistance to this committee,
and especially I want to commend you for having made a recheck
on the situation since the committee was here last.
Mr. NAYLOR. Yes, sir, would you like to talk to the special employees?
Senator DANrM. We would like to hear from your special employees. Please do not show the picture over television on this next
man who is working undercover still. Refer to this witness as witness A of this date.
(Witness
A of the hearing of December 14, 1955, was duly sworn by
Senator
Daniel.)
Senator DAnieL. Now without giving
your name or any other
identification, without your picture being taken, I will simply ask
you if you have been doing certain work for Mr. Naylor and the department of public safety?
TESTIMONY OF WITNESS A
Witness A. I have.
Senator DANIEL. Here in Texas?
Witness A: Yes. [Indicated by nodding his head.]

Senator DANIEL. I believe that you have in the past had the unfortunate experience of having used heroin, is that right?
Witness A: That's correct.
Senator D4NIPL. You are now trying to help the officers in any way
you can to get rid of it?
Witness A: Yes.
Senator DANtEL. Were you asked by Mr. Naylor to make a check
to see whether or not the sources in Nuevo Laredo were still available
recently?
Witness A: That's right.
Witness A: Well, I was asked Wednesday night. I was asked
Wednesday night to go over there to Nuevo Laredo to see if I could
buy any heroin. We arrived there Thursday morning at Laredo, Tex.,
and Thursday night we went over to Nuevo Laredo and I bought some
heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Had you previously been over there in the past
to Nuevo Laredo?
3353
Witness A: No, it had been about 3 years since the last time I was
over there prior to Thursday night.
Senator DANIEL. Not calling any names, did some narcotic addicts
accompany you?
Witness A: Yes, there were two.
Senator DANIEL. Mlan and woman?
Witness A: Yes.
Senator DANIEL. All right, how long were you finding whether or
not you could buy heroin?
Witness A: Well, they went over there before I d id apl)roxinmately
30 minutes, and I followed behind them ini a cab ad they were wandering around town up there so I told them the place that I knew where
they might be able to buy soime. So they joined me and we went up
there and were there approximately 10 minutes waiting on this cabdriver and when lie caine up we got in his cab, went and bought the
heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know that cabdriver before?
Witness A: No, I didn't.
Senator DANIEL. How long did it take you to find this man who
could take you to the heroin?
Witness A: After we arrived at the cabstand, it only took about
10 minutes.
Senator D.ANIEL. Did you know for whom to ask?
Witness A : Well, actually we were just questioning around different

cabdrivers, I mean you can look at those guys and just about tell,
like Mr. Naylor says, just about pick your character out of people
who are actually honest and on the square.
Senator I)ANIEL. How many cabdrivers did you talk to before you
found the one you said took you?
Witness A: I think he was the third man.
Senator DANIEL. Did you find out his name?
Witness A: Yes, we did.
Witness A: His name is Juan Alvarez, A-l-v-a-r-e-z.
Senator DANIEL. A-l-v-a-r-e-z?
Witness A: Yes, 'sir.
Senator DANIEL. And was he driving the cab himself?
Witness A: Yes, lie was.
Senator DANIEL. Did he take you to a house, where did he take you?
Witness A. He took us to a house, I think of his first wife, I think
it was. He didn't live there himself. See, lie's remarried and he left
us there at this house, took our money and was gone approximately 5
minutes and came back with the amount of dope that we had bought.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have a picture of his house?
Witness A. Yes, we do.
Senator
DANIEL.
I will ask you to identify which one of these houses
happens to be the house you went to? I'll send it down to you.
Witness A. This is it.
Senator DANIEL. All right, now the picture, that will be exhibit No.
9 of today's hearing.
3354

EXHIBIT NO. 9
*-
A'
A ' .
- '~
4S
-'S
R~I
-.
'4W
Photograph of house where Witness A bought dope, Nuevo Laredo, Mexico
Senator DANIEL. Now, will you hold that picture up, just exactly
which house is it? Is that two pictures of the same place?
Witness A. Same place, different angle.

Senator DANIEL. All right, they will be exhibits Nos. 9 and 10.
They are just two different views of the same house?
Witness A. Correct.
Senator DANIEL. And you say he said that was the house of his first
wife?
Witness A. That's right, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And he had you all wait there while he went to get
some heroin?
Witness A. Yes, sir, he did.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know whether he got it from his own house
or another place?
Witness A. Well, he's remarried and he lives approximately six
blocks from this house here, so it could be he went to this other house
and got the heroin and came back. This is what he calls his second
home.
Senator DANIEL. He calls that his second home?
Witness A. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEIL. And it is the house of his first wife, is that right?
Senator DANIEL. Is she there?
Witness A. Yes, sir, she is.
Senator DANIEL. Did she talk to you while you were waiting.
Senator DANIEL. How long did it take him to get the heroin?
Witness A. About 5 minutes.
3355

EXHIBIT No. 10
.4
.
. .,
Auother view of the house where Witness A bought dope in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.

Witness A. A dollar a deck.
Senator DANIEL. What else did you do?
Witness A. Well, shot the dope there. We came on back, came on
back across over to Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. Now, was that this past Sunday?

Witness A. It was this past Thursday.
Senator DANIEL. Past Thursday, a week ago tomorrow?
'Witness A. It was April, I mean the 8th of this month.
Senator DANIEL. The 8th of December?
Witness A. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. All right; proceed now and tell us what else.
Witness A. Well, we came back across the bridge; the customs
agents gave us what they call a shakedown, you know. It is to look
over our person and through our clothing and such as that, you know,
to see if we had any heroin or anything on us. And we didn't have
mid I guess the reason why they did that was because of the condition
that we were in.
Senator DANIEL. All right; did you do anything about purchasing

my more heroin from this one man, Juan Alvarez?
Witness A. Yes, sir; we did.
71515-56--pt. 7-
64
3356
Witness A. Well, when he came back with this heroin, this boy and
girl that were there with me were over there busy cooking this dope up
and fixing it and, while they were doing so, I was over there holding
a little conference with this Juan, this man who went and got this
heroin for us.
Senator
DANIEL.
Holding a conference with whom?
IWitness A. With Juan Alvarez, the cabdriver, and he told me if I

wanted to take and buy a large amount of dope he could take and get
it delivered over to Laredo for me; no; it was 65 miles past Laredo.
Senator
DANIEL.
On the Texas side?
Witness A. On the Texas side.
Senator
DANIEL.
If you wanted to buy a large amount of dope?
Witness A. That's right.

Senator DANIEL. And did you report that to Mr. Naylor?
Witness A. I did. I came back that night and reported it, and that
following Friday night we went over there, which was the next night.
Senator DANIEL. That was to make the arrangements to buy this
large amount of dope?
Senator DANIEL. And, without naming him, was one of the agents,
undercover agents of the department of public safety, sent back with
you this time?
Witness A. He was; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right; you may stand aside. Now the next
witness will be referred to as witness B. The undercover agent with
the department of public safety will come forward and there will be
no pictures of this witness.
Mr. NAYLOR. I would like to make one point.
When we first went
down we contacted Mr. Richards, of the United States Customs Agency

Service, and worked with him throughout this investigation.
Senator DANIEL. Yes; Mr. Richards is here and will testify later
in this record. You were working in cooperation with him, and
certainly not in violation of any law or with any disrespect to any
Federal officer on the border.
All right, sir; will you be sworn?
(Witness B was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. You may be seated. Did you get the report flat
a person by the name of Juan Alvarez in Nuevo Laredo was selling
heroin, was ready to sell some large lots of it?
TESTIMONY OF WITNESS B
Witness B. Yes, sir; yes, sir, I did.
Senator DANIEL. Were you assigned as an undercover agent of the
department of public safety to see just exactly how this man who had
proposed to deliver it over on the Texas side was carrying out his
operations?
Witness B. Yes, sir.
Senator DA-.\-EL. All right, when did you go down to Nuevo Laredo?
First. When you went to see Juan Alvarez, were you dressed like
you are now?
Witness B. No, sir. No, sir, I wasn't.
Senator DANIEL. How did you pose?
Witness B. I believe at that time I only had on a sport shirt and
sport coat and slacks.
3357
Senator DANIEL. Did you go with the special employee who just
left the stand, Witness A?
Senator DANIEL. Witness A, having made the contact with Juan
Alvarez, who had told him he would deliver large lots and deliver to
the Texas side; is that correct?
Witness B. That's correct.
Senator DANIEL. Tell us what you did, not in great detail, simply
the basic facts about how you made the contact to purchase.
Witness B. When we first got over there, got in the same cab we
had been in the night before and we were taken to Juan Alvarez'
home; at this home we met Juan and there was some conversation
there as to how long it would be before he would be ready to make a
deal, and he told us it would be about an hour.
Senator DANIEL. Was it the same house that has been identified by
these pictures ?
Witness B. No, sir; it was not.
Senator
DANIEL.
It was the second house?

Senator DANIEL. Mr. Naylor, do you have the pictures of the other
house? Go ahead.
Witness B. In an hour or 2 hours and 15 minutes later he came to a
hotel downtown where we had registered by his instructions. From
that point on we went around to several places.
Senator DANIEL. Name the hotel.
Witness B. The Regis Hotel.
Senator
DANIEL.
The San R-e-g-i-s Hotel?
Witness B. The Regis Hotel.

Senator DANIEL. Who runs that hotel?
Witness B. Enrique Triveno.
Senator
DANIEL.
E-n-r-i-q-u-e T-r-i-v-e-n-o?
Senator
DANIEL.
Is he known to you to be an operator of heroin?

Senator DANIEL. He is known to this committee, according to all the
sworn testimony we have had here in Texas on him. Go ahead.
Witness B. When we met him, then he took us around to a large
restaurant and we had dinner that night and while we were having
dinner we made most of our deal for the amount of narcotics that we
wanted to buy, and we were to wait until a later time to set the details
for the delivery. While we were having this conversation there, there
were several names brought up of Texas dealers who were doing business with this same man.
Senator DANIEL. We would like to have that; the Texas dealers.
Did Alvarez tell you he had been selling to them?
Witness B. Yes, sir; he did tell me that.
Senator
DANIEL.
Give us the names.
Witness B. Juan Alvarez told me most of these are from Houston

and Dallas, due to the fact that we were supposed to have been from
Houston and he thought we might know them.
Senator
DANIEL.
Before you give us the names of those Juan
Alvarez had been dealing with I want to ask you-we don't want to
get ahead of your story-Did this Juan Alvarez deliver heroin over
to the United States side?
3358
Witness B. Yes, sir, he caused it to be delivered to me.

Senator DANIEL. All right, give us the names then of those others
he said he had been delivering to on the Texas side.
Witness B. All right. Hazel Hardy from Houston; George and
Bill Drury from Houston.
Senator DANIEL. Wait a minute.
Witness B. George and Bill Drury.
Senator DANIEL. Isn't George Drury in the penitentiary now?
Witness B. Yes, sir, he's in the penitentiary.
Senator DANIEL. And is his wife the one who testified before our
committee in Houston?
Witness B. Yes, sir: I understand that's right.
Senator DANIML. She testified she and George Drury were bringing
back a thousand dollars' worth a week?
Witness B. Yes, sir; he specifically told me he made the deal with
him at Freer and he would make his deliveries to him at Freer.
Senator DANIEL. Freer, Tex.?
lWitness B. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did he tell you George and his wife also smuggled
some across themselves?
Witness B. No, sir, he didn't mention that at all.
Senator DANIEL. His wife testified that before this committee.
Senator DANIEL. All right, you got George and Bill Drury; whG
else?
Witness B. Wanda Guy from Dallas.
Witness B. W-a-n-d-a. Guy, G-u-y. Reginald Sharpe from Dallas; Eugene Traunsley from Dallas; Johnnie Rays from Houston;
Fred Haynes from Houston who is now dead, I believe; Luther Messer from Houston. There were several other names that he mentioned
that I didn't recognize. I didn't really try to remember all of them.
And also during this conversation he told me, we were talking about
the police situation down there in the event we might get arrested and
all that sort of thing, he said that everything was all right down there,
that the policemen down there were selling dope themselves.
Senator DANIEL. I beg your pardon?
Witness B. He told me, sir, the policemen down there were selling
narcotics themselves.
Witness B. Yes, sir; and he also said, they, he didn't say who, they
were waiting for an American customs agent to come across the river,
that they were going to do him in, I believe the way he put it. I later
learned this was because the agent was involved in the killing of the
son of a Mexican customs agent. This son, as I understand it, was
delivering some marihuana to the American side and upon arrest he
tried to escape and was killed.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, the son of the Mexican customs official
wasWitness B. 'Was delivering marihuana in the United States.
Senator DAkNIEL. And was caught?
Witness B. And was caught.

killed.
He attempted to escape and waH
3359
Senator DANIEL. You say Juan Alvarez said lie was going to do
something?
Witness B. Going to do him in. What he had in mind was to kill
him if they could get him on that side of the river.
Witness B. It is Mr. Richards, sir, Mr. A. D. Richards.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Albert D. Richards sitting here?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever talk any more to him about that
threat to kill Mr. Richards?
Witness B. No, sir. No, sir, he just mentioned it that one time.
Later on, right after that we left, drove around in his taxicab. He
took us where we could view the truck that was going to deliver the
dope to us. We didn't get to talk to the man, but he showed us the
truck. He instructed us to wait in our hotel room until about 7 o'clock
and he would come and get us, make the plans of where the delivery
was to be made. We did that. At 7: 15 in the morning he woke us up,
told us a cab was waiting outside, the delivery would be between
Encinal and Cotulla on United States Highway No. 81, to go right
then, cross and get our car, go straight out, our load would be there.
Senator DANIEL. In the meantime you had been shown the truck
your heroin would be delivered in?
Senator DANIEL. How much heroin?
Witness B. Ten grams the first time.
Witness B. It was $200 worth of heroin and $60 for the delivery,
all to be paid to Juan.
Senator DANIEL. All to be paid to Juan Alvarez?
Senator DANIEL. Was anything said about guaranteeing delivery?
Witness B. Actually there wasn't anything said about any guaranty
at all. We believed he would come through. We paid him the money
ahead of time.
Senator DANIEL. You paid all the money to Juan Alvarez?
Senator DANIEL. All right, at the appointed time did you meet the
truck?
Witness B. Yes, sir, we did.
Senator DANIEL. What happened?
Witness B. An unknown Mexican male got out of the truck, walked
over to us, handed me the heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Did you get his license, the number?
Witness B. 2B3750.
Senator DANIEL. Have you checked to see whose car that is?
Witness B. That is in the process, sir. Also this same Mexican
transporter has two more trucks. They are actually pick-ups. This
one was a bob-tailed truck. I was told by Juan he uses all three in his
business.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have the numbers of those trucks?
Witness B. No, sir, I don't, I have never seen them. Then later, in
fact Monday night we went back over there.
Senator DANIEL. This past Monday night?
3360
Witness B. The past Monday night, we went back over there, bought
15 grams of heroin and made a similar agreement to have it delivered
in a similar manner. Only this time we got the heroin about a quarter
to five in the morning, got us out about 4 o'clock so we could cross
the river. This time delivered by Raul Velasquez.
Senator DANIEL. Now, wait just a minute before you get ahead of
this story. Was this Witness A still with you?
Senator DANIEL. This was all part of the arrangements when Alvarez was proposing to sell larger lots of heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Did you pay Juan Alvarez for this latest delivery,
this Monday night delivery?
Witness B. Yes, sir, paid him on Monday night.
Senator DANIEL. How much did you pay him?
Witness B. $360, 300 for the narcotics, 60 for the delivery.
Senator DANIEL. Did he tell you where to meet the man delivering
to you?
Witness B. Yes, sir, along a similar place, between Encinal and
Cotulla, he was in a black and white 1952 Ford with Illinois license
plates and we were to drive up behind him, pass him and honk the
horn twice pull off the road and stop and he would deliver the narcotics to us.
Senator DANIEL. Did you do that?
Witness B. Somehow we got ahead of him, we made our meeting,
we came back he had the narcotics "stashed" in the ditch. He was
parked. When I identified myself by honking my horn like I was
instructed he went over to the ditch, got the narcotics and brought it
to me. We then arrested this man, impounded his car, and filed charges
against him in State court in La Salle County.
Senator DANIEL. What is the name of this man who delivered the
heroin?
Witness B. Raul Velasquez.
Senator DANiEL. Was a subpena served on him later to appear before this committee?
Witness B. Yes, sir, it was.
Senator DANIEL. Is he here in this courtroom?
Witness B. Yes, sir, he is.
Senator DANIEL. Is Raul Velasquez in the courtroom? Will you

step forward and see if this is the man, is this the man you are referring
to ?
Witness B. Yes, sir, that is. After that delivery we attempted,
we also filed charges against Juan Alvarez and the unknown Mexican
male who was driving the truck. We have now two cases filed on
Juan. He I understand, is still in Mexico. He has a crossing pass
and I don't know how the Mexican Government feels about extradiction.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, you don't know whether the Government will extradite him or not?
Witness B. No, sir; I do not. I understand that is very rare.
Senator DANIEL. Well you have two cases now filed on Juan Alvarez
as a result of this checking on the situation?
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
3361
Senator DANIEL. And as a result of his offer to sell in larger
quantities?
Witness B. He told me he could supply any amount of narcotics
that I could get money enough to buy.
Senator DANIEL. Have you later found out in talking with Federal
agents he is one of the big operators on the Mexican side?
Witness B. When I first got his'name I contacted Mr. Richards,
agent in charge of customs. He advised us the man was a fairly
notorious person and they had been trying to catch him.
Senator DANIEL. All right, sir. Anything else in connection with
Juan Alvarez in this particular purchase? Let me ask you, about
how many hours did you stay over there?
Witness B. All together almost one complete afternoon and night;
the other time probably all night.
Senator DANIEL. During that time did you make any effort to determine from Juan or anyone else as to where else they were selling
heroin
Witness B. I have a small list of bars and clubs and things where
it can be obtained. I don't know what quantity, but they do push out
of these places.
Senator DANIEL. Will you give us a list of those places?
Witness B. Yes, sir. The One, Two, Three Bar; the Regis Bar and
Hotel; the Rhumba Casino.
Senator DANIEL. The R-h-u-m-b-a?
Witness B. Yes, sir, I think that's it. Ophelia's Place; Plaza Hotel.
There is a bar just across the street from the One, Two, Three Bar.
The agent observed a bartender there who had a capsule, appeared
to be a capsule of heroin carrying it over his ear like somebody would
carry a pencil. We don't know ifit was heroin but a capsule similar to
what heroin is dispensed in.
Senator DANIEL. Have you finished your list?
Witness B. Yes, sir; that's all.
Senator DANIEL. What leads you to believe they are selling?
Witness B. From the conversation from narcotic addicts and Juan
Alvarez.
Senator DANIEL. From the seller, Juan, and narcotic addicts who
had been to these places and bought heroin?
Witness B. Yes, sir. I understand there are a lot more but this is
all I can testify of my own knowledge.
Senator DANIEL. What about the Trevino brothers, did you check
on them ?
Witness B. I was told one of them, Enrique Trevino, was doing 4
months in jail, is still doing business. He gets to come home on weekends.
Senator DANIEL. He is still in business?
Senator DANIEL. What business?
Witness B. In the narcotic smuggling business, still boss of his business, even though in jail. Hie gets to come home every weekend.
Senator DANIEL. All right, thank you very much.
11r. Richards.
(Mr. Albert D. Richards was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. You have been before this committee before. I
will ask you to restate your name and position and title.
3362
TESTIMONY OF ALBERT D. RICHARDS, CUSTOMS AGENT IN

CHARGE, LAREDO, TEX.-Resumed
Mr. RIciiADS. Albert D. Richards, customs agent in charge, at
Laredo, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Richards, is this the first you have ever heard
about the threat to take care of you if you crossed the Mexican border
Mr. RIcII\RDS. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What else have you heard?
Mr. Ricii.RDS. Shortly after the time that this boy was killed iii
Laredo I had a call from a confidential informant who advised me that
there was a price on my head and that they were going to try to take
care of me.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know the person who called, this informant ?
Mr. RICHARDS. No, sir, I did not.
Senator D.ANIL. What?
Mr. RICHARDS. It was an
anonymous call and he said it was a con-
fidential informant of mine. He advised me he did not wish to ive

his name.
Senator D.AN-rL. What part did you play in this case against the
Mexican customs agent's son?
Mr. RICHARDS. I was present at the time the arrest was made and
at the time he attempted to escape and was shot attempting to escape.
Senator DkNIF.L. You made the arrest?
Mr. RICIARDS. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And did
you have a man from San Antonio assist
you on that case?

Mr. RICH.ARDS. I did, a police detective.
Senator DANEL. What is his name?
Mr. RICHARDS. William Weilbacher.
Senator DANIEL. How do you spell it,?
A[r. RICHARDS. W-e-i-l-b-a-c-h-e-r, I believe.
Senator D.NrEL. Is he the one who actually shot the man who was
fleeing?
Mr. RIHARDS. That's correct; yes, sir.
Senator D.NrEL. Now, Mr. Richards, have you at our request
checked to see how many known narcotic addicts have crossed the
bridge at Laredo since we held our last hearing?
Mr. RICHARDS. I have, yes, sir; and since the last hearing we have
logged 51 new addicts that we did not have on the previous list at the
time of the last hearing.
Senator DANIEL. In order that the record might be clear right. here
at this very point, you keep cards, that is, the collector of customs keeps
cards at the bridge on all addicts that are known to them, whom they
see cross the bridge ?
Mr. RICiI.\RDS. Any person that they pick as an addict and search
and when it is disclosed he is actually an addict a log is kept on them;
yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. In the testimony given a whole box of cards were

brought up here last time and I think, oh, I suppose it ran over a
hundred.
Mr. RICItA\RDS. I believe 135 in that list.
3363
Senator J)ANIFr,. Known narcotic addicts who had crossed the

border into Laredo?
Mr. RICHARDS. That's correct; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And you say that since our hearings here about 2
months ago that 51 new names have been added to that list?
Mr. RICHAiDs. Fifty-one new iames have been added to that list;
yes, sir.
Senator D,\1EIu. You mean by that 51 addicts, whose names you
didn't Lreviously have, have crossed that border ?
Mr. RICHARDs. That's correct. yes. sir. Tlhat is. the ones that we
have logged, I don't know how minany more.
Senator I)AN1EI.. That is, the ones you have logged !
Mr. RICHARDS. YeS, Sir1.
Senator DANIEL. Froin your experience yoi get hlowv many who cross
that border you weren't able to log?
Mr. RICHARDS. If we get 1 out of 10, I would say that would be a
good
average.
Senator
DARkNIL. You would figure there is a posibility
that since
we were here 2 months ago there might have been 500 a(ldicts cross
there ?
Mr. RiciDuus. They may be repeaters. We have a number. We
have logged them 10 and 12 times crossing the river. Now, the 51 that
I named, Senator, are 51 new names that were not in the previous list.
Senator DANIEL. No repetition there, in the 51 new names?
Mr. RIcIARDS. That's correct; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. In the last 2 months

Senator DANIEL. In order that nobody will blame you for this, let's
make it (clear in the record that there is no law now on the books that
would keep these addicts, known addicts, from crossing o the bridge and
going over and getting the narcotics in Nuevo Laredo F
Mr. RICHARDS. There is absolutely no law to prevent them from going to Mexico and obtaining narcotics.
Senator DANIFL. Has it been your experience, as long as addicts are
allowed to do that, they are going to smuggle some back?
Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, sir, they are going to try to bring back enough
to take care of their habit and enough to sell for their next shot.
Senator DANIEL. Are you able to catch all of them?
Mr. RICHARDS. No, sir.
Senator Daniel. Why?
Mr. RICHARDS. We do not have the personnel. for one thing.
It
would take a continuous tailing job of all these addicts. It would just
be, an impossibility. The narcotics may be smuggrled by the addict,
may be smuggled by another carrier. As Mr. Naylor's undercover
agent testified, we kow maybe the character is going to buy it, to be
delivered at Cotulla, Freer, or somewhere else. IWe have no idea who
is bringing it.
Senator DANiEL. In the case just talked about, the delivery was actNally made way up 60 miles north of the border.
Mr. RICHARDS. In addition, we kept Mr. Naylor's undercover man
covered until after the narcotics got across, even though it may have
been suspicioned he might be a narcotics man. the narcotics woul-d be in

the United States before the man got out of the hotel so he couldn't
tell us about it before time.
3364
Senator

DANIEL.
The State men who te-stified were working with
you, in cooperation with you on this matter?

Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, sir, they reported when they arrived in Laredo
and we have been working together ever since.

Senator DANIEL. How else can addicts smuggle it over without you
getting it?
Mr. RICHARDS. We have made a number of arrests and seizures,
where they have it concealed in person. We have a doctor bill in
Laredo, it probably runs I would estimate it costs us $150 a month
for taking these addicts to doctors for search by a doctor, internal
cavities.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, the addicts, they put in a rubber
finger stall, rubber containers, a great amount of heroin in a small
rubber container? Is that right
Senator DANIEL. And then they put that in a body cavity and you
are not allowed to make that kind of a search?
Mr. RICHARDS. We have to take them to a doctor for that kind of
search. They put it in rubber finger stalls. They will swallow it, after
they pass the customs barrier they take salt water and
Senator DANIEL. Do we have one of these 51 addicts or one of the
addicts who crossed recently who actually swallowed the heroin? I

mean do we have him subpenaed?
Mr. RICHARDS. I don't know if we have him under subpena, we think
we do but we haven't been able
Senator DANIEL. We have, I think the witness so testified. We'll
see in just a little while. Do you recember George Drury's wife, I
think by the name of Mary Ann Scofield, down at Houston?
Mr. RICHARDS. I wasn't present at that hearing.
Senator DANIEL. At that time she testified she brought a thousand
dollars' worth of heroin a week across the bridge there right by you
all in the female body cavity.
Mr. RICHARDS. That is very possible.
We have made a number
of seizures.
Senator DANIEL. You say your doctor bill is about $150 a month
for these searches?

Senator DANIEL. What does the doctor charge you to make personal
searches ?
Mr. RICHARDS. $5. If it calls for a fluoroscope it is $10.
Senator DANIEL. Well, that runs from 15 to 30 examinations a
month?
Mr. RICHARDS. I would say we will have an average of 20 to 25 examinations a month.
Senator DANIEL. Have you noticed any letting off of the traffic in
Nuevo Laredo since we were here?
Mr. RICHARDS. I believe there has been a slight decrease of addicts
going across the border since the last hearing. However, as far as
arrests for smuggling, that hasn't dropped off at all. I believe since
the last hearing we have had 22 arrests. We have seized close to a
hundred pounds of marihuana and probably an ounce of heroin since
the last hearing.
Senator
DANIEL.
Since the last hearing?
3365
Mr. RICHARDS. That doesn't include the 23 ounces that Mr. Naylor's
undercover agent, we made Saturday and yesterday morning.

Senator DANIEL. You mean 23 grams?
Mr. RICHARDS. Well, that would be close
to an ounce, the ounce does
not include that.

Senator DANIEL. You mean 23 grams?
Yes, 23 gTams.
Senator DANIEL. What is an ounce of heroin worth on the retail
Mr.
RICHARDS.
market in San Antonio? So we won't be minimizing such a small

quantity. Do you know?
Mr. RICHARDS. I don't know what the retail price is. It would
be quite high.
Senator DANIEL. Did you figure up how many crossings of addicts
there were, both new and old, since we were last here?
Mr. RICHARDS. I picked out some of the main crossers that we have
been searching, one I believe had 13 crossings.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what I mean is, have you attempted to total
all of the crossings by known addicts that are shown on your records
since we were last here in San Antonio in October?
Mr. RICHARDS. No, sir; I did not.
Senator DANIEL. You have the records that will show that?
Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Speer has the records, yes, sir, of all those
logged.
Senator DANIEL. Of all these crossings?
Senator DANIEL. I would like to get in the record at this place the
total number of crossings, assuming we can total it up, will they run
into a hundred or more ?
Mr. RICHARDS. I believe they will probably run close to a hundred.
We have 2 witnesses, I heard you call their names under subpena, one
of them, I have him logged for 12 times in the lastSenator DANIEL. What is his name?
Mr. RICHARDS. Kerley.
Senator DANIEL. Kerley who?
Mr. RICHARDS. That is his last name. K-e-r-l-e-y.

Senator DANIEL. Harry Kerley?
Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, sir. Hubbard, I have him logged for 14
crossings.
Senator DANIFL. Is he subpenaed ?
Mr. RICHARDS. I believe he is also subpenaed.
Griffin, I have him

logged for four separate crossings. I believe he is also subpenaed.
Senator DANIEL. Are all these American citizens?
Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, sir; from Corpus Christi.
Senator DANIEL. It seems to me that we can't blame Mexico for all
this. It may be that if the Texas officials do a better job of drying
up the source along at Laredo, Nuevo Laredo, as it seems has been
done temporarily at least in Juarez, after all, we have heard evidence
that a majority of these smugglers that have come before our committee are American citizens.
Mr.
RICHARDS.
That's correct.
Senator DANIEL. They go over and get it or arrange for it?

Mr. RICHARDS. That's correct. You can arrange for anyone to
smuggle across, pick up anyone on the streets of Nuevo Laredo for a
price, it's not very high. We are not getting a great deal when we
catch a crosser, just getting someone trying to make a dollar.
3366
Senator DANIEL. Or 60?

Mr. RICHARDS. They don't pay them 60. We have a witness, a man
picked up yesterday morning. They charged Mr. Naylor's undercover

man $5 a gram for delivering. That man testified he hasn't received a
nickel, if he did probably receive $5 it would be the most, the seller is
going to have the rest of that money.
Senator DANIEL. You think the seller is making the money, not
only on the heroin but a good price for the delivery?
Senator DANIEL. Aren't there just as many Americans going over
and smuggling the heroin back as are Mexicans bringing it over?
Mr. RICHARDS. I don't think there is any doubt about it.
Senator DANIEL. I wish you would tell us since that is your main
job, I wish you would tell us, think back over this, if that is true, the
majority of the smugglers you are catching and know about, are
they American citizens or Mexicans?
Mr. RICHARDS. Let me put it this way. On the large seizures of
marihuana, too large to conceal under the hood of a car, that are
smuggled across are being smuggled by Mexican nationalists and delivered to the American citizens on the United States side. I believe
the great majority of the heroin that is coming into the United States
is being smuggled by American citizens.
Senator DANIEL. You think the Mexicans are smuggling the marihuana?
Mr. RICHARDS. The large quantities.
Senator DANIEL. And the American citizens the heroin?
Mr. RICHARDS. That's correct, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, do you have anything else to add to this particular phase of the hearing right now ?
Mr. RICHARDS. I don't believe I have, no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right, you may stand aside, sir.
Raul Velasquez.
(Mr. Raul Velasquez was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. Will you state your name and residence?
TESTIMONY OF RAUL VELASQUEZ
Mr. VELASQUEZ. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mr. VELASQUEZ.
As loud as you can speak.

I can't speak very good English.
Senator DANIEL. Well, after having talked with investigators of the

State and Federal officials I am told your English is all right for the
committee. If you will sit up a little closer to the microphone and
speak out as loud as you can I am sure we will undersand you. What
is your name?
Mr. VELASQUE Z. Raul Velasquez.
Mr. VELASQUEZ. Well, I live in Chicago, Ill.
Chicago, Ill.?
Near Chicago.
Mr.
Senator DANIEL. Near Chicago, at what place?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. Argo.
Senator DANEL. A-r-g-o?
Senator
DANIEL.
VELASQUEZ.
3367

Did you go to school up there?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. Yes.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL.
VELASQUEZ.
No.
DANIEL. Where have you been to

Mr. VELASQUEZ. Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. And where did you live
Senator
school?
in Mexico before moving
to Argo, Ill.?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. Nuevo Laredo.

DANIEL. When did you move away from Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. In 1953.
Senator DANIEL. When did you go back to Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. The last time?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. About a month ago.
Senator
Senator
DANIEL.
While you were in Nuevo Laredo during this past
month did you smuggle some heroin across the border?

Mr. VELASQUEZ. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, let's see if you understand my question.
Without any pictures of this man will the two special employees and
undercover aoent of the department of public safety please stand
up? Do youlnow these two men?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. I know this man and that one.
Senator DANIEL. You have seen them before, haven't you?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. I seen them Monday, I mean Tuesday, yesterday
morning.
Senator DANIEL. Yesterday morning?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. Yes.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you deliver some heroin to them yesterday
or night before?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. Yesterday morning from Johnnie.
DANIEL. Where did you deliver the heroin to them?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. Was delivered to Encinal.
Senator DANIEL. Delivered to Encinal, just on the highway there
Mr. VELASQUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Who gave you that heroin?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. Johnnie Alvarez, Juan Alvarez.
Senator
Senator DANIEL. Juan Alvarez.

testified about a few minutes ago?
He is the same man these men
Mr. VELASQU-EZ. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Had you ever smuggled heroin across for this
ran before?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Just tell us how Juan happened to get you to
bring the heroin across the border?

Mr. VELASQUEZ. Well, I saw Juan Sunday, at a little parkSenator DANIEL. Just a little bit louder.
Mr. VELASQUEZ. I saw Juan Sunday, Sunday night, the same place
where he works. He talked to me, you know, I never see, one time-
Senator DANIEL. You need to speak out loud.

Mr. VELASQUEZ. I can't, my English
Senator DANIEL. Your English is all right if you will speak out a
little louder. Just go right ahead.
Mr. VELASQUEZ. go Johnnie
Senator DANIEL. What did he tell you Sunday night?
3368
Mr.
VELASQUEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
He didn't tell me nothing.

You happened to see him?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. That's all.
Monday he went down to my house, a
couple of times, but I wasn't there. I wasn't in town and he find me,
I think about 1 o'clock in the morning. He says want to make a
favor, little job with him. I said, I don't know, what kind of job you
want to give me. He said, I tell you later, wait for me in Laredo, Tex..
I meet you. So I came on to Laredo, Tex. After 3 o'clock when
AlbertSenator DANIEL. You went on over to Laredo, Tex.
Mr. VELASQUEZ. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. At what time in the morning?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. A little after 3. I don't remember exactly.
Senator DANIEL. Was that yesterday morning?
Yes, yesterday morning.

Senator DANIEL. Where did Juan Alvarez tell you to meet him ?
Mrl'. VELASQUEZ. About, Santa Agostino, the name of the church,
about two blocks from the bridge.
Senator DANIEL. You will have to give that over a little slower and
a little louder.
Mr. VELASQUEZ. A church, little park, a church in the front of the
park.
Mr. VELASQUEZ.
Senator DANIEL. Was it at the plaza?
No, we were in Laredo, Tex.

What about the plaza there in Laredo, Tex.
About a block away from the bridge.
Anyway, he told you exactly where to meet him at
3 o'clock in the morning?
Mr. VELASQUEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. VELASQUEZ.
Senator DANIEL.
Mr. VELASQUEZ.
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did he give you the heroin on the Mexican side or
American side?
Mr. VELSQUEZ. Oh, he give me on the American side.

Senator DANMEL. After telling you where to meet him over on the
American side, tell us just what Juan told you to do.
Mr. VEI\.ASQUEZ. He said, take this package to Encinal, somebody
Waiting for you up there. So he put it in my car and I bring it on.

That's all.
Senator DANIE,. You delivered to these two men?
Mr. VLASQUEZ. Yes.
What did Juan say he would pay you?

Mr. VELASQuEZ. He didn't tell me nothing about paying me.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know what was in the package?

Mr. VELASQu-EZ. First time, I don't know.
Senator
DANIEL.
Didn't you have an idea there was something
in that package being smuggled?

Mr. VFJJASQuEZ. No. [Indicated by shaking his head.]
Speak out, don't shake your head.

Mr. VELASQUEZ. No; no, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't have any idea that there might be
some dope in there?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. No, because I never do it before, I don't even know
what it is.
3369
Senator DANIEL. You never did. How long had you known Juan?
Mr. VFLASQUEZ. The first time I know him, in 1952, since I was
driving a bus in Nuevo Laredo. So I met him, so he never made his

purposes known at the time.
Senator DANIE:L. He never made you a proposition up to this time?
Mr. VELASQU.Z. No, I don't know he was selling this stuff or not,
never been all together with him, never stayed around with him no
place.
Senator DANIEL. You understand that you are under oath, you
understand you are under oath to testify the truth?

Mr. VELAISQUEZ. Yes, I am telling the truth, the truth.
Senator DANIEL. You understanN that if you do not give us the
truth you will be subject to prosecution, do you understand that?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Do you also understand that if you fear that any
answer that you have given or that you might give might tend to
incriminate you, you have a right to claim the fifth amendment and
not answer, you understand that?
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Are you an American citizen?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. Not yet.
Senator DANIEL. You are not yet an American citizen, do you
Mr.
VELASQUEZ.
realize smuggling this across the border might keep you from being
an American citizen?
Mr. GAsQuE. Do you realize smuggling this across might keep you
from becoming an American citizen?
Senator DANIEL. Whether you realize or not-let me explain this
to you. Under our laws, no person can become an American citizen who has violated our narcotics laws, if I am correct. I know
an addict, an alien who is an addict, is subject to deportation; the

same way with an agent who violates the narcotic laws. You are
subject to deportation for having smuggled this across, if you are convicted, you understand?
Mr. VELAkSQUEZ. Yes, I didn't cross the river with it.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't cross the river with it?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. No. [Indicated by shaking his head.]
Senator DANIEL. You understand you and Juan together performed
a smuggling act, any violation of that law that comes up from that
may cause you to be deported. I wanted you to know that and any
others that might be hearing these proceedings or reading that to
know that. The only thing that bothers me about the testimony,
you say the man didn't agree to pay you anything for bringing the
package across the border, what about that? All right, we will let
someone who speaks English talk with you about these last questions.
Mr. Salazar, if you will explain the question to him, tell him the committee is concerned over his answer that he was not told he would
get some money, that he said he didn't know what he was doing, and
that there was no agreement about being paid. It just doesn't make
sense. It may be he would like to clarify that for the record. If you
would talk to him, let him leave the stand. If you will take him,
you all talk back there about the situation, explain what the chairman
is concerned about.
Mr. Richards, will you come back to the stand?
3370
TESTIMONY OF ALBERT D. RICHARDS, CUSTOMS AGENT IN CHARGE,

LAREDO, TEX.-Resumed
Mr.
RICHARDS. Yes,
sir.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Richards, I just wanted to ask you if this

man, Juan Alvarez, is known to you to be a large operator in heroin
across the border?
Mr. RICHARDS. He has been known to our office for the past 5 years
as a big operator both in heroin and marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. Is this the first time that you have gotten this typ(,
of evidence on which you felt like filing a case .
Mr. RICHARDS. This is the first time we have sufficient evidence to
convict.
Senator DANIEL. You think you do have now?
RICHAIMS. Yes, sir;
Senator DANIEL. I just
Mr.
we do.
want to ask you one other thing, someone

said he had a travel card providing that he could take that taxi back
and forth across the Mexico-United States border. Just explain what
that is.
Mr. RICHARDS. The Immigration allows these people to operate in
Laredo, come across on a crossing, what is known as a crossing card.
Those taxicabs operate both from Laredo and Nuevo Laredo, back and
forth across the bridge and are not stopped.
Senator DANIEL. An excellent setup for smuggling, would yoi
say
Mr. RICHARDS. Perfect.
Senator DANIEL. And this Juan Alvarez, known to you to be in the
business all the time, has been crossing that border daily in his taxicab,
hasn't he?
Mr. RICHARDS. That's correct. In fact he crossed the border att
a. m. on the morning we picked up Raul Velasquez.
Senator DANIEL. TDid you all see Juan cross the border?
Senator D.A.NIEL. The morning that Raul says he delivered him the
narcotics ?
Mr.
RICIHARDS.
That is, he crossed at 3 a. m. and returned at
1,5
a. M.
Why didn't you all arrest him at that time?

Mr. RICHARDS. We did not know whether he would be carrying the
Senator
DANIEL.
contraband, the deal had been set up, the delivery to be made in
La Salle County, above Encinal. Had we attempted and he not had
the narcotic, he probably would have gone back and stopped.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know any others, whose places have not
been identified or whose names have not been identified in tliis
hearing?
Mr. RICIARDS. There are a number.
Senator DANIEL. Others?
Senator DANIEL. Would you name them?
Mr. RICHARDS. Some I would rather not. There are 1 or 2 famous
places, one is the Bailey Hotel; the other is the Dos Laredos.
Mr. RICHARDS. D-o-s, meaning two, Laredos. The Bailey Hotel has
been operated by the Trevinos ?or years; you could go and buy aIii
narcotics vou wanted.
3371
Senator DANIEL. Well, are the Trevinos still selling drugs?

understand that they are. He is in jail at the
Mr. RICHARDS. I
present time. We have received information, as was testified to here,

that he gets his weekends at home.
the courtSenator DANIEL. Now, this gentleman who just walked inthis fleeing
shot
room, is he the officer who was assigned to you and who
fugitive who had the marihuana?
Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, sir, Mr. William Weilbacher.
you
Senator DANIEL. Let's have him come forward a minute. Are
undercover?
Mr. WEILBACHER. No, sir.
(Mr. William Weilbacher was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.) Mr.
Senator DANIEL. Have you heard the testimony concerning
Richards, the threat to Mr. Richards' life if he should cross the Mexican
border ?
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM WEILBACHER, POLICE DEPARTMENT,
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEX.
Mr. WEILBACHER. Yes, sir I have.
Senator DANIEL. You understand the threat grew out of the arrest
of the customs agent's son and his death?
Mr. WEILBACHER. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you were the one who had the unfortunate
experience of having shot this boy?
Ir. WEILBACHER. Yes, sir; that's right.
Senator DANIEL. How did it happen?
Mr. WEILBACHER. We were trying to rearrest the man. He escaped
after delivering a pound of marihuana to me on the American side.
Senator DANIEL. Were you working with the Federal customs
agents?
Mr. WEILBACHER. I was, sir.
Senator
partient?
DANIEL.
You are now with the San Antonio Police De-
Mr. WEILBACHER. I was at that time assigned to work with Mr.
Richards and Mr. Cummings of the customs office.

Senator DANIEL. I see. You were loaned to the customs agents?
Senator DANIEL. Tell us just what did you do, did you go over to
Mexico and see about where the sales were being made?
Yes, sir; we had an informer who is a teenager.
.Mr. WEILBACHER. Sir?
DANIEL.
Senator
Mr. WEILBACHER. We had an informer, Lieutenant Hutton and myself, we planned on taking the boy over into Mexico; he explained
to us about buying and all the juveniles were buying narcotics, San
Antonio juveniles, in Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. You mean the boy tipped you off, he was a juvenile?
Mr. WEILBACHER. Just reached the age of 17, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Had he been getting heroin in Mexico?
M1r. WEIIBACHER. He had been connecting for marihuana.
been with some juveniles that had connected for heroin.

Senator DANIEL. He told you about it?
71515-56-pt. 7-65
He had
3372
Senator DANIEL. The police wanted to see what could be done to

break it up?
Mr. WEILBACHER. That's right.
Senator
DANIEL.
You were working with the Federal customs agent
on it?
Mr. WEILBACHER. That's right, sir.
Senator
Tell us exactly what happened.

Mr. WEILBACHER. Mr. Cummings, the informer, and myself conDANIEL.
tacted Mr. Richards in Laredo and worked out a plan for the informer
to go over and make the contact with the peddler known as Black
Angel or Indian. His name is Angel Ramon.
Senator
DANIEL. Angel
Mr. WEILBACHER. Angel Ramon.
Senator DANIEL. R-a-m-o-n?
That's right.
Mr. WEILBACHER.
Senator
DANIEL.
And his nicknames were Black-
Black Angel and Indian. The informer went

across early in the afternoon of April 22 and contacted this peddler.
Mr. WEILBACHER.
Senator
LANrEL.
Was that this year?
Yes, sir. And the peddler who is interested in

selling marihuana to me had me come across with the informer. We
went out into the red-light district and I was introduced to the
peddler who was this Black Angel and tried to make a buy from him.
We couldn't get together on the price and the amount, so he decided to
deliver, have 1 pound of marihuana delivered to me in Laredo, Tex.,
by the customs agent's son who he said was his trusted assistant.
Mr.
WEILBACHER.
Senator
Mr.
DANIEL. He said what?

WEILBACHER. He was his trusted
assistant.
He was the man
he trusted most to do the delivering.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did he tell you then that the one who was to de-
liver it was the customs agent's son?
sir.
He told you he was going to make delivery by
Mr. WEILBACHER. No,
Senator
DANIEL.
one of his trusted assistants?

Mr. WEILBACHTER. That's right, and he introduced me there at the
connection.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you know he was the son of a Mexican customs
agent until after you had your shooting?

Mr. WEILBACHER. Noq sir, I didn't.
Senator
All right, go ahead.

Mr. IVEILBACHER. After we were introduced, made arrangements
DANIEL.
for the delivery, we went back to the United States and contacted
Mr. Richards; well, I contacted Mr. Cummings and Mr. Richards.
We set up a trap to try and catch the boys when they came over to
deliver the marihuana to me. There is something I would like to
say about the situation over in Mexico, though. While I was there
the connection that we were at is a 2-room shack. It had a bed in
each room and under the mattress in the front room this fellow had
many, many rolls of marihuana cigarettes, all wrapped in white
paper, rolled in white paper, and under the bed in the backroom I
was sitting on most of the time, he had grass sacks of marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. He had what?
Mr. WEILBACTIER. He had grass sacks.
Senator
DANIEL.
You mean croaker sacks?

Mr. WEIBACHER.
3373
Big grass sacks.
Senator DANIEL. They call them feed sacks when buying feed for
cattle, is that what you mean?
Mr. WEILBACHER. That's right, sir. On the table he had a small
red jar, more or less a vase, which was filled with papers of heroin.
I assumed that it was heroin, it looked like it.
Senator DANIEL. But you asked if they sold heroin?
Mr. NVEILBACHER. Yes, sir.
They told you what?

Mr. WrEILBACHER. He told me I could buy any amount, wanted to
sell me 500 pounds of fine marihuana and he said he could deliver in
a day.
Senator DANIEL. All right, go ahead. Was this the Black Angel
doing all this talking?
Senator
DANiEL.
Has he ever been arrested, been tried?

Mr. WEILBACHER. Not that I know of.
Senator DANIEL. Is he still selling?
Mr. WEILBACHER. I don't know, sir; I haven't been back to Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. The evidence here and other evidence adduced
before this committee, it seems to me would be sufficient for him to
be tried in Mexico, by Mexican officials, wouldn't you think?
Mr. WEILBACHER. Think so, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you know of anybody who has talked to
Mexican officials, given them all this evidence?
Mr. WEILBACHER. No, I don't know whether they have or not.
Senator DANIEL. Go ahead, tell us just what happened.
Mr. WEILBACHER. Well, the informer and I were in the connection,
there was two men who came to the door. He had a booming business,
people coming in and out constantly, scoring for marihuana and heroin.
There was 1 uniformed police officer, 2 men, I couldn't see the second
one who came up in Mexican police uniform, and he went under the
mattress. That is how I knew the roll of cigarettes were there, he got
a handful of cigarettes, handed them to one man, they were talking in
Spanish, went back and got another handful for the second man whom
I didn't see. They turned around and walked off.
Senator DANIEL. All right, then-what was this customs agent's
Senator
DANIEL.
son's name?
Mr. WEILBACHER. Felix. F-e-l-i-x. De Ando Lindares.
Senator DANIEL. Would you spell that out loud, please, sir?
Mr. VEILBACHER. Felix. F-e-l-i-x, Capital D-e. Capital A-n-d-o.
Capital L-i-n-d-a-r-e-s.
Mr. RICHARDS. He was the customs inspector's son rather than the
agent's son.
Did you know he was any relation to the Mexican

customs inspector at the time, before he was arrested?
Mr. WEILBACHER. No, sir; I had never seen him before.
Senator DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. And did you know he was any relation of the
Alexican customs agent?

[r. WEILBACHER. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I mean customs inspector?
Mr. WFIVILBACIiER. No, sir, I didn't.
3374
Senator DANIEL. You didn't know Black Angel's trusted smuggler

was any relation to any official?
Mr. WEILBACHER. No, sir, I didn't.
Senator DANIEL. When you tried to arrest this man then what did
you do?
Mr. WEILBACHER. We arrested him. Agent Richards came up and
assisted me. There were 2 men instead of 1, 2 men who made the delivery. Agent Richards took one of the men to his automobile while
I struggled with the boy to get him to Agent Richards' automobile
which was parked about three-quarters of a block away at St. Augustine Plaza in Laredo, Tex. As we got to the automobile Agent
Richards put his man in the car, and I released the hold on this Lindares boy to put in the automobile. At that time he struck me and
knocked me against the automobile and ran. I gave chase, couldn't
catch the man, called to him several times to stop. He wouldn't stop.
Senator
DANIEL.
WEILBACHER.
You called to him to stop?

Yes, sir. So I fired a warning shot down toward
Mr.
the ground. The man fell. He was about, I would say about 90 feet
away from me at the time.
Senator
DANIEL.
You know this man that was shot, you knew he
had been the man who had smuggled marihuana across the border,
that he did actually do it?
Senator
DANIEL.
And then he was fleeing from you after you had
him under arrest?

Mr. WEILBACHER. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. That is what caused this threat against Mr. Richards which has just been reiterated again this week, is that right?
Mr. WEILBACHER. Yes, sir; that's right.
Senator
DANIEL.
That's all. Thank you.
We will have about a 2-minute recess for everybody except on this

side of the rail, let's stay where we are. A 2-minute recess.
(Committee recessed 2 minutes.)
Senator
DANIEL.
Is Ray Madeley in the courtroom? Ray Madeley,
answer out if he is in the courtroom. Julian Ray Madeley. Mr. Marshal, do you know whether or not he has been out there?
The MALSHAL. He hasn't answered yet.
Senator
DANIEL.
Hope Baca.
(Mrs. Hope Baca was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator
DANIEL.
You may be seated. Mr. Speer.
Mr. SPEER. Will you identify yourself by giving your name and
address?
TESTIMONY OF HOPE BACA
Mrs.
BACA.
Mr. SPEER.
Mrs. BACA.
Mr. SPEER.
Mrs. BACA.
Hope Baca, 6030 Florida, El Paso.

How lona have you been living in El Paso?
All my life.
And how old are you?
31.
I believe you have had the unfortunate experience of

being an addict of heroin?
Mrs. BACA. Yes. [Indicated by nodding her head.]
Mr. SPEER. Would you answer "Yes"?
Mrs. BACA.' Yes.
Mr. SPEER.
3375
Mr. SPEER. How long have you been an addict?

Mrs. BACA. 8 to 9 years.
Mr. SPEER. During this 8 or 9 years about how much did your habit
cost you?
Mrs. BACA. About 10, $10. Between me and my husband.

Mr. SPEER. Between you and your husband. What is your husband's
name?
Mrs. BACA. Frank Baca.

Mr. SPER. Is he an addict also?
Yes.
And together your habit costs you $10?
Yes.
Where did you get this heroin?
Juarez, Mexico.
Mr. SPEER. Have you always gotten it in Juarez, Mexico?
Mr. SPEER. You yourself go over and pick up the heroin or how do
Mrs. BACA.
Mr. SPEER.
Mrs. BACA.
Mr. SPEER.
Mrs. BACA.
you get it?

Mrs. BACA. We go over there and get fixed.
Mr. SPEER. By getting fixed you mean you get the injections over
there?
Mrs. BACA. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER.
Mrs. BACA.
Mr. SPERM.
Mrs. BACA.
Mr. SPEER.
Mrs. BACA.
Mr. SPEEi.
Mrs. BACA.
Mr. SPEER.
Mrs. BACA.
Mr. SPEER.
How much does it cost you for an injection?

$5 a paper.
You just use one paper?
One paper between us.
And how many times a day?
Twice.
So that means you cross the bridge twice every day?
Yes. [Indicated by nodding her head.]
Do you ever bring any back?
Never.
Sometimes does your husband go rather than you
do you always go with him?

Mrs. BACA. NO, he goes by himself most of the time.
Mr. SPEER. How can you get an injection over there if he goes by
himself ?
Mrs. BACA. How's that?
Mr. SPEEu. If he goes by himself how can you get an injection?

Mrs. BACA. Oh, you mean across the border?
Mr. SPEER. Yes.
Mrs. BACA. Oh, no, I always go with him.
Mr. SPEER. You always go with him?
Mr. SPEER. Where did you first get your heroin habit, acquire it?
Mrs. BACA. California..
Mr. SPEER. How did that come about?
Mrs. BACA. Girl friend of mine.
Mr. SPEER. What did the girl friend have to do with it?
Mrs. BACA. Well, she offered me a shot, so I took it.
Mr. SPEER. One shot or how many shots did she offer you?
Mrs. BACA. For about a week.
Mr. SPEER. And then what happened?
3376
Mrs. BACA. Well, then I found out I couldn't be without it so I told

my husband. So then he went to the same girl and he started getting
some for me. So then he got hooked.
Mr. SPEER. When you were hooked he went to the same girl?
Mrs. BACA. To get some medicine for me.

Mr. SPEER. For you?
Mr. SPEER. Did he get it?
Mrs. BACA. He got it from her.
Mr. SPEER. Did he buy it?
Mrs. BACA. He bought it.
Mr. SPEER. First she gave it to you and then she sold it to you ?
Mr. SPEER. Are you the same Hope Baca who was convicted for
smuggling heroin across the Mexican border?

Mrs. BACA.
Mr. SPEER.
Mrs. BACA.
Mr. SPEER.
Mrs. BACA.
Mr. SPEER.
Mrs. BACA.
Yes.
When was that?
It was in 1951.
And where was that?
It was in Calexico.
How much did you smuggle at that time?
It was about a gram.

Mr. SPEER. And how long has it been since you returned to El Paso?
Mrs. BACA. I returned in 1950-I think it was 1952.
Mr. SPEER. Now, when you go across the border into Juarez how
many Anglo girls do you know over there who are

Mrs. BACA. Across the border you mean?
Mr. SPEER.
Who are working the streets there in Juarez, how many
do you know?
Mrs. BACA. I don't know too many.
Didn't you tell me last night you knew about five?

Mrs. BACA. No, that was in El Paso.
Mr. SPEER. In El Paso, they are in El Paso?
Mr. SPEER.

Mr. SPEER. Of those five girls how many use heroin?
Mrs. BACA. I'll say about two.
Mr. SPEER. Two or three I believe you said last night?
Mrs. BACA. I said two.
Mr. SPEER.
What places in Juarez do you know where you can buy
heroin?
Mrs. BACA. Well, one 'of them is Mi Ranchito Bar.
Mrs. BACA. M-i R-a-n-c-h-i-t-o.
Mr. SPEER. All right, what others?
Senator DANIEL. Is that a bar?
Mrs. BACA. That is a bar. And the other one is the Legal Tender.
Senator DANIEL. Legal Tender Bar?
Mr. SPEER. When you say you can buy heroin what do you mean?
Mrs. BACA. Well, they usually hang around the bars.
Mr. SPEER. How long does it usually take you to make a connection?
Mrs. BACA. Sometimes it takes us from 4 to 6 or 8 hours, sometimes
we connect right away.
3377
Mr. SPEER. If it took you from 4 to 8 hours you spend all your time
in Juarez ?
Mrs. BACA. We have to wait.
Mr. SPEER. How many addicts do you know going over to Juarez
to get fixed?
Mrs. BACA. Oh, I'll say about, about 15 to 20.
Mr. SPEER. Fifteen to twenty. How often do they go?
Mrs. BACA. Huh?
Mr. SPEER. How often do they go over?
Mrs. BACA. I don't know. All depends on how hooked they are.
Mr. SPEER. You mean how much they have to have?
Mr. SPEER. Some of them bring some back or manage to get it back
across the border, do they not?
Mrs. BACA. I couldn't tell you that. With the majority of them I
guess they get fixed over there.
Mr. SPEER. Are you familiar with the Can-Can Bar in Juarez?
Mrs. BACA. I have never been in there.
Mr. SPEER. You know where it is?
Mrs. BACA. I have got an idea.
Senator DANIEL. Do you call these places shooting galleries where
you go over across the bridge in Juarez?
Mrs. BACA. I wouldn't say that.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you get the injection given by the person
who sells you?

Mrs. BACA. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do they furnish you the syringe, the hypodermic
needle?
Mrs. BACA. No, they don't.
Senator DANIEL. Do you take your own needle across?
Mrs. BACA. You mean across the border?

Mrs. BACA. No, we buy the needle across.
Senator DANIEL. You don't buy a new needle every time you cross,
do you?
Mrs. BACA. No.
Senator DANIEL. Where do you get them?
Mrs. BACA. The drug store.
Senator DANIEL. You rent it?
Airs. BACA. We buy it.
Senator DANIEL. Now, about how often would you say you all have
been across the border for your heroin?
Mrs. BACA. Twice a day.
Senator DANIEL. For how long?
Mrs. BACA. Since 1951.
Senator
DANIEL.
What business are you all in?
Mrs. BACA. You mean me?

Mrs. BACA. I am a housewife.
Senator DANIEL. Housewife?
Senator DANIEL. What business is your husband in?

Mrs. BACA. He is a taxi driver.
3378
Senator DANIEL. And your habit has been costing you ten dollars
a day between you?
Senator DANIE. Where have you been getting the money to pay
for this heroin?
Mrs. BACA. Well, my husband works.
Senator DANIEL. Well, that wouldn't pay enough to take care of
your habit. Do ou have any children?
Mrs. BACA. My husband has three from his first wife.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you all take care of them?
Mrs. BACA. Well, my mother-in-law has got them. My husband

helps, too.
Senator DANIEL. From the money you are making off running a
taxicab, is that alone enough to buy the heroin and take care of all
of your other needs?
Mrs. BACA. I get a little income, too.
Senator DANIEL. From what?
Mrs. BACA. From my mother.

Senator DANIEL. Is that the only way you get money?
Mrs. BACA. Yes, besides my husband.
Senator DANIEL. That is the only source of income you have?
Mrs. BACA. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Well, that must run about $10 a day, just your
narcotic habit runs you about three hundred a month.
Mrs. BACA. Oh, I manage to get ahold of some money now and
then.
Senator
DANIEL.
That's what I'm asking you, from what other
sources?
Mrs. BACA. I didn't understand what you meant.

Senator DANIEL. That's what I mean. Where else do you get
money? The narcotics alone have been costing you and your husband
$300 a month for many years?
Mrs. BACA. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. All right, your food and clothing, what he contributes to the children, probably runs your total cost up to $400 or
$500 a month; doesn't it?
Mrs. BACA. Just about.

Senator DANIEL. How about your house rent?
Mrs. BACA. How's that?
Senator DANIEL. How about your house rent?
Mrs. BACA. We stay with my mother.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you stay with her, you don't pay any rent?
Mrs. BACA. No, I don't pay any rent.

Senator DANIEL. Who pays for the food?
Mrs. BACA. My mother.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, just about how much does your husband
make a month?
Mrs. BACA. I couldn't answer that.
Senator
DANML.
You and your husband together you say you and
your husband together have been averaging over $400 a month for
the last few years ?
Mrs. BACA. 'Does that average to four hundred?
3379

Mrs. BACA. Well, I guess that's right.
Senator DANIEL. Did you bring copies of your income tax return
for lastsear ?
Mrs. BACA. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you file an income tax return last year?
Mrs. BACA. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you file one for the year before?
Mrs. BACA. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever filed an income tax return?
Mrs. BACA. I have never worked.
Senator DANIEL. Has your husband ever filed one?
Mrs. BACA. Yes, he has.
Senator DANIEL. Now, I would just like for you to tell us any other
kind of work you do or your husband does through which you get
money enough to buy this heroin.
Mrs. BACA. Well, like I say, I can always get ahold of some money,
a few friends.
Senator DANIEL. Well, how do you get ahold of it?
Mrs.
BACA.
How do I get ahold of them?
Mrs. BACA. Well, I go and look them up.

Senator DANIEL. You know what I am trying to drive at?
Mrs. BACA. Yes, I know.
Senator
DANIEL.
Whether or not this terrible heroin habit has
caused you to violate other laws besides using heroin. In other

words, this heroin destroys people, don't you think so, ma'am?
Senator DANIEL. Hasn't it caused you a lot of pain and grief?

Mrs. BACA. It has.
Senator DANIEL. It takes practically all the money you can rake
and scrape, doesn't it?
Mrs. IACA. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. It got you into trouble once, you were convicted
once for smuggling; weren t you?
Mrs. BACA. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Well, hasn't it caused you to violate other laws,

too, in order to buy this heroin?
Mrs. BACA. Well, I haven't stole if that's what you mean.
Senator DANIEL. I am not asking you specifically what violations.
Has it caused you to violate other laws and commit other law violations to get enough money to buy heroin?
Mrs. BACA. I don't know what you mean by that.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I mean have you stolen, have you done
other things to violate the law, ever committed any kind of acts of
violation of the law because of the vast amount of money it is costing
you to take care of the 'heroin habit of yourself and your husband.
Mrs. BACA. No. [Indicated by shaking her head.]
Senator DANIEL. Speak out, the reporter can't get a headshake.
Mrs. BACA. You mean like stealing?

Senator DANIEL. Prostitution
Mrs. BACA. Prostitution?
Senator DANIEL. And robbing, burglary, anything?
3380
Mrs. BACA. Well, if you call prostitution going out with a friend
of yours and he gives you, you know, $5 or $6 or $7 or $10, well, I
have done it.

Senator DANIEL. Well, of course, prostitution is a violation of the
law. You say you have done that?

Mrs. BACA. I didn't say I have committed any prostitution.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what did you say?
Mrs. BACA. Well, I say if you call that prostitution.
Senator DANIEL. Well, is that the way you have made money from
time to time?
Mrs. BACA. No.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever done that?
Mrs. BACA. I have been picked up for that.

Senator DANIEL. Well, let me make this clear to you. I just named,
I was just asking you generally, did you find that heroin led you to
commit other crimes, other acts against the law and I said, such
as prostitution, burglary, robbery, stealing, shoplifting, anything
like that?
Mrs. BACA. Yes, I have.
Senator DANIEL. All right, that's what I wanted to know, and you
know that it also leads other people to do that, don't you?
Mrs. BACA. I imagine so.
Senator DANIEL. How many people do you know, how many women
do you know that are having to prostitute their bodies or go out with
Lhe illustraboy friends as you call it, for how much did you say?
tion you gave.
Mrs. BACA. Oh, I get $5, $6. $7 or $10.
Senator DANIEL. $5, $6, $7 or $10; they go out with boy friends
and charge that amount, or boy friends give them that amount. Do
you know other girls who are addicted to heroin who do that?
Mrs. BACA. Yes, I do.
Senator DANIEL. Isn't it true that prostitution and drug addiction
go hand in hand, you have seen it, haven't you?
Mrs. BACA. Well, not exactly. I have seen a lot of girls.
Senator DANIEL. Who were addicts?

Mrs. BACA. No, weren't addicts.
Senator DANIEL. Well, how many have you seen that were addicts?
Mrs. BACA. About one out of five.

Senator DANIEL. How many?
Mrs. BACA. One out of five.
Senator DANIEL. One out of five?
Senator DANIEL. I believe you told Mr. Speer a minute ago two
out of five?
Mrs. BACA. That wasn't the same question you asked me.
Senator DANIEL. He asked you how many prostitutes you knew.
Mrs. BACA. Is that the same question you asked me before?

Senator DANIEL. Yes, how many prostitutes do you know who are
also heroin addicts?

Mrs. BACA. Two out of five.
Senator DANIEL. Two out of five?
Senator DANIEL. I believe that's all for the moment. Do you have
any questions, Mr. Counsel?
3381

Mr. SPEER. No, sir.
Frank Baca.
(Mr. Frank Baca was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. You may be seated. Are you the husband of the
witness who just left the stand?
TESTIMONY OF FRANK BACA
Mr. BACA. I am.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been married?
Mr. BACA. Well, been together for the past 10 years.
Mr. BACA. No, she is my common-law wife.
Senator DANIEL. You have been living together?

Mr. BACA. Yes. [Indicated by nodding his head.]
Senator DANIEL. You just live together as common-law man and
wife, for how long?
Mr. BACA. Since 1946.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Speer, suppose you go ahead.
Mr. SPEER. What is your address?
Mr. BACA. 6030 Florida.
In El Paso?
Mr. BACA. In El Paso.
Mr. SPEER.
Mr. SPEER. What is your full name?

Mr. BACA. Frank Lee Baca.
Mr. SPEER. How long have you been addicted to the use of heroin?
Mr. BACA. For about 8 or 9 years.
Mr. SPEER. Will you tell us just how you did become addicted to
heroin, did your wife send you over to get some narcotics for her and
you started yourself, or how did that happen?
Mr. BACA. I got addicted to heroin back in California when they
started giving her some heroin, then I started taking it myself.
Mr. SPEER. Why did you do that?
Mr.
I don't know.
Mr.
Mr.
I was about 24.
Mr. SPEER. Did your wife ask you to do it?
BACA.
SPEER.
BACA.
Mr. BACA. No, she didn't ask me, nobody asked me to do it. I done
it on my own will.
Mr. ZSPEER. Did she ask you not to do it?
Mr. BACA. She didn't say a thing about it.
Mr. SPEER. Are you still using heroin right up to this time?
Mr. BACA. I am.
Mr. SPEER. How many children do you have?
Mr. BACA. I have three of them by my first wife.
Mr. SPEER. What are the ages?
Mr. BACA. Seven, 11 and 14.

Mr. SPEER. Do they live with you?
Mr. BACA. They don't live with me.

Mr. SPEER. Do they live in the same house with you?
Mr. BACA. No.
3382
Mr. SPEER. How often do you see these children?

Mr. BACA. About twice a week.
Mr. SPEER. Where do you get the heroin?
Mr. BACA. Where do I get what?

Mr. SPEER. The heroin.
Mr. BACA. Over in Juarez.
Mr. SPEER. How often do you go to Juarez for heroin ?

Mr. BACA. Oh about twice a week, twice a day.
Mr. SPEERR. I believe you told me last night that most of the time
you go, rather than your wife, isn't that true?
Mr. BACA. I go pick up from the pusher; she stays in the car.
Mr. SPEER. Does she go across?
Mr. BACA. Yes, she goes across.
Mr. SPEER. Now, what places do you know where you can go to
pick up heroin?
Mr. BACA. Not the places that I know, it is the places where the men
hang around.
What places?
Mr. BACA. Oh, about 4 or 5 places, 4 or 5 bars.
Mr. SFrER.
Mr. SPER.
What street is that on?
Mr. BACA. Mariscal.

Mr. SPER. Spell that.
Mr. BACA. I couldn't, don't know how to spell it.

Mr. WEILBACHER. M-a-r-i-s-c-a-1.
Mr. SPER. On this street would you name the places where you can
get heroin?
Mr. BACA. Like I said before, it is not the places, it is where you can
find the fellow in the places.
Mr. SPEER. Where would you look?
Mr. BACA. Might find at the Legal Tender or Mi Ranchita or Two
X's or down at the Gold Palace or someplace around there, quite a
few of them up there.
Mr. SPEER. Two X's one of the places?
Mr. BACA. Yes, one of the places.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been to a shooting gallery where
you would get the shot over there?
Mr. BACA. Years back I did.
Senator DANIEL. Your wife a minute ago was testifying about going over twice a day and not carrying any needles over.
Mr. BACA. We got our needle stashed out someplace.
Senator DANIEL. That's what I failed to clear up with her, I knew
I missed something before she left.
Mr. BACA. We got our needle someplace up there.
Senator DANIEL. That's right, we'll give her an opportunity to explain it so there's no question of perjury involved. Tell us exactly
how you make these trips twice a day without
Mr. BACA. We got our needle some place up there.
Senator DANIEL. You have it hidden?
Mr. BACA. We have it hid.
Senator DANIEL. I want to know exactly where you keep these
needles.
Mr. BACA. We might keep itSenator DANIEL. No, I want to know where the needle is now.
3383
Mr. BACA. The needle is now under the sink in the toilet in the
men's bar room.
Senator DANIEL. What bar?

Mr. BACA. It's the New Mexico Bar.
Senator DANIEL. In Juarez, Mexico?
Mr. BACA. In Juarez, Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been keeping your needle
there?
Well, I change it around places.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been keeping your needle
there?
Mr.
BACA.
Mr. BACA. For the past 4 or 5 days.

Senator DANIEL. All right, where did you keep your needle just
before this last time?
Mr. BACA. In another bar.

Mr. BACA. I think it's the El Paso Bar.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, you think; are you pretty sure?
Mr. BACA. I'm sure that is it.
Senator DANIEL. How long did you keep it at the El Paso Bar?
Mr. BACA. Oh, about another 4 or 5 days.
Senator DANIEL. Did the owner know or anybody else?
Mr. BACA. No, they don't know about it.
I can't find it, they already find it.
Sometimes I go back and
Senator DANIEL. Then you ask them?

Mr. BACA. No, I don't, I go buy me a new one.
Senator DANIEL. And so you and your wife go over and pick up your
needle at the bar wherever you had it hid?
Mr.
BACA.
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you have it hid in the El Paso Bar?
Mr. BACA. In the toilet.

Senator DANIEL. What part of the toilet?
Mr. BACA. Well, I couldn't explain it to you.
Senator DANIEL. You did pretty good on the other one, where?
Mr. BACA. Let's say under the urinal.
Senator DANIEL. How did you have it where it would stay under
there?
Mr. BACA. Wrap in a piece of paper and put it up there, like that.
Senator DANIEL. Between the wall and the urinal?

Mr. BACA. That's right.
Mr. SPEER. Do you consider the price of heroin rather high in
Juarez?
Mr. BACA. I think it is one of the highest places any place you can
get it.
Mr. SPEER. How much do you have to pay?
Mr. BACA. About $10, about $5 a shot.

Mr. SPEER. Right, now how much do you have to pay?
Mr. BACA. Well, you mean by the gram?
Mr. SPEER. No, by the paper.
Mr. BACA. By the paper. We can get for $5 a paper.
Mr. SPEER. Has that price been uniform over a period of time or has
it gone up in the last few months?
Mr. BACA. Been that way quite a while.
3384
Mr. SPEER. Since about July or August has the price gone up some?
Mr. BACA. No, just the same.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
SPER.
What do you think keeps the price high in Juarez?

BACA. Not too much competition.
SPEER. Somebody controls that traffic?
BACA. Very few.
SPEER. Who controls the traffic?
Mr. BACA. Well, some big shots that control the traffic.
Mr. SPEER. Who are the%i shots?
Mr. BACA. I don't know wo they are, but I heard, what I heard
the paper-they say La Nacha is. I never got in contact. I seen her
on the paper, seen her on the street, but I can't get in contact with her.
Mr. SPEER. Too big?
Mr. BACA. She's too big a dealer for me.
Mr. SPEER. Now, have you ever been to a Federal hospital to try
to get a cure for addiction?

Mr. BACA. I was in Fort Worth.
Mr. SPEER. When was that?
Mr. BACA. Oh, I think it was in 1953.
Mr. SPEER. How long did you stay?
Mr.
BACA.
About 21 days.
Mr. SPEER. You think it helped you any?

Mr. BACA. No. [Indicated by shaking his head.]
Mr. SPEER. Why did you leave? Why didn't you stay the 135 days?
Mr. BACA. I just got out, that's all; made up my mind.
Mr. SPEER. Did they tell you
Mr. BACA. They told me I wasn't cured; I thought I was.

Mr. SPEER. How long before you took another shot of heroin after
you left there?

Mir. BACA. Oh, about a week.
Mr. SPEER. Where did you take that?
Mr. BACA. Over in Juarez.
Mr. SPEER. You came right back to Juarez on the first shot?
Mr. BACA. Yes. [Indicated by ilodding his head.]
Mr. SPEER. Do you know the man who owns the Can-Can Bar in
Juarez?
Mr. BACA. I don't know him personally.
Mr. SPEER. Who does own that bar?
MNr. BACA. They say his name is Nacha.
Mr. SPEER. Who is that?
Mr. BACA. He is the son of La Nacha.
Mr. SPEER. Son of La Nacha. Did you ever see any addicts in that
place?
Mr. BACA. There is no addicts go in there.
Mr. SPEER. He keeps addicts out.
Mr. BACA. He keeps addicts out.
Mr. SPEER. How do you think he operates?
Mr.
BACA.
Operates in what?
Mr. SPEER. Heroin.

Mr. BACA. I don't know the way he operates.
Mr. SPEER. Didn't you tell me last night if he operates he must have
professional runners in there, you wouldn't know?
MAr. BACA. I didn't say they were his runners.
Mr. SPEER. You said you heard that?
3385
Mr.
BACA.
Mr. SPEER.
Mr. BACA.
Mr. SPEER.
Mr. BACA.
Mr. SPEER.
I heard that.
Do you know many young addicts going over to Juarez?
I don't know many young addicts going up there.
You know more old ones than young?

More old ones than young ones.
How many do you know?
Mr. BACA. Oh, about 10 or 12.

Mr. SPEER. How many young ones do you know?
Mr.
BACA. I don't contact with the

SPEER. I'm talking about not
Mr.
BACA.
young ones.
only what you call addicts, I'm

Mr.
talking about what you call joy poppers, you know more of those
young than old?
I don't know them.
Do you know of them?

Mr. BACA. Sir?
Mr.
SPEER.
Mr. SPEER. Do you know of them? Do you know that there are a
goodly number of young addicts who are going to Juarez?
Mr. BACA. That's what they say, quite a few of them young kids
getting started on that.
Mr. SPEER. I didn't hear you.
Mr. BACA. Quite Wfew young kids getting started on it joy popping.
Mr. SPEER. Young kids joy popping, going over to Juarez?
Mr. BACA. I guess going up there, no heroin in El Paso.
Mr. SPEER. Is that the common information in Juarez?
Mr. BACA. AVhat's that?
ir.
SPEER.
There are quite a few young joy poppers going over
there?
Mr. BACA. I don't know about the information, just what I think
myself.
Mir.
Mr.
SPEER.
BACA.
Your information?
My way of thinking.
Senator DANIEL. Where do you get the money to take care of this
habit? I believe you figure the habit of yourself and your wife costs
more than $10 a day?
Mr. BACA. Just about $10 a day.

Senator DANIEL. All right, where do you get the money for that?
Mr. BACA. I work.
Senator DANIEL. How much do you get paid?
Mr. BACA. I work on commission.
Senator DANIEL. About how much do you average?
Mr. BACA. I wouldn't know.
Senator
DANIEL.
Well, do you average as much as $400 a month ?
Mr. BACA. On the tips that I get and commission besides, I think I
average about that much.
Senator
DANIEL.
Have you been averaging that much for several
years?
Air. BACA. I have.

Senator DANIEL. Well, now, do you know about your wife's having
gone out and done other work in order to get enough money to pa;
for the heroin ?
Mr. BACA. Not that. I permitted her to do it.
Senator
DANIEL. You do know about it?

Mr. BACA. Sometimes, sometimes she comes up
Senator DANIEL. Does she tell you where she gets
with money.
it?
3386
Mr. BACA. She don't tell me.

Senator DANIEL. She does have to do some things to get enough
money for heroin?
Mr. BACA. Sometimes she helps me.
Senator DANIEL. And do you have a copy of your income tax return
for last year?
Mr. BACA. No.
Senator DANIEL. Did you file one?
Mr. BACA. No; I didn't file one.
Senator DANIEL. Well, if you all together are averaging $400 a
month, that makes $4,800 a year?

Mr. BACA. I wouldn't know.
Senator DANIEL You didn't file an income tax?
Mr. BACA. They got a tax, where I work, got a meter on the cab,
register everything that goes in, whatever my percent is they put it
in the office and they kept my income out of there.
Senator DANIEL. Are you a cab driver?
Mr. BACA. I am a cab driver.
Senator DANIEL. You drive across the bridge to Juarez?
Mr. BACA. I do.
Senator DANIEL. Have you carried people over there that wanted
to go?
Mr. BACA. Not for dope.
Senator DANIEL. I mean carried them over and after they get there
you find out they want dope?
Mr. BACA. The minute they tell me they want dope I won't have
nothing to do with them.
Senator DANIEL. You go over twice a day?
Mr. BACA. Because they might be what you call undercover agent.
Senator DANIEL. You don't help anybody else find it?
Mr. BACA. Yes, sir, me.

Senator DANIEL. And your wife?
Mr. BACA. And my wife.
Senator DANIEL. Did you file an income tax return for 1953?
Mr. BACA. Down at the office, the cab stand, he never tell me about
it I had to pay.
Senator DANIEL. You know on your subpena you were asked to
bring your copies of income tax returns since 1951, didn't you?
Mr. BACA. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you bring any?
Mr. BACA. No; I didn't bring any.

Senator DANmL. Did you go down to the cab stand and ask if any
were filed?
Mr. BACA. They told me on my average up there I didn't make
enough to file an income tax return.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, you didn't make over $600 a year
according to that, did you, or $1,200, you and your wife?
Mr. BACA. I got some kids to support on it.
Mr. BACA. I got some kids to support.
Senator DANIEL. I know, you didn't make in the taxi driving job,
you didn't make over $1,200 last year?

Mr. BACA. I averaged up there about $200 a month.
Senator DANIEL. $200 a month?
3387
Mr. BACA. Average.

Senator DANIEL. That would be $2,400, you certainly have to file
an income tax return if you made that much. You're sure you didn't
file any income tax return any year that you know about, ever?
Mr. BACA. I didn't work the whole year through.
Senator DANIEL. I didn't ask you that. I said, did you ever file
an income tax return?
Mr. BACA. Yes, I did.
Senator DANIEL. When?
Mr. BACA. I think it was in 1951.
Senator DANIEL. Did you bring a copy of that along?
Mr. BACA. No.
Senator DANIEL. But you haven't filed any since?

Mr. BACA. I haven't filed any since.
Senator DANIEL. How in the world have you been making enough
money to buy this heroin? You know if you average $200 a month,
that's $2,400 a year. It has cost you more than that the heroin by
itself, that would cost you $3,600, according to your figures, without
any food, without helping your children. Where have you been
getting the rest of the money? I'm not asking you to come here
and give any testimony that would incriminate you, if you want to
claim the fifth amendment, I just want to know whether or not you
have been violating the laws in order to get enough money, you don't
have to tell me what you have been doing. I want to show by this
that addicts who get on heroin, they are law violators, isn't that right?
Mr. BACA. In my work I don't have to violate the laws to make that
kind of money because there is a lot of people that go over to Juarez
and we take them over and get a commission on what they spend up
there.
Senator DANIEL. Oh, I see. You get commissions in Juarez on
what the people spend?
Mr. BACA. We keep for ourselves as a tip.
Senator DANIEL. That doesn't go to the taxicab company?
Mr. BACA. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You don't keep any books on that for income tax
purposes ?
Mr. BACA. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You heard your wife say she had to violate some
laws in order to help?
Mr. BACA. I did.
Senator DANIEL. You know that's true, don't you?
Mr. BACA. I claim myself under the fifth amendment.
Senator DANIEL. You mean you want to refuse to answer that because it might incriminate you?
Mr. BACA. That's right.
Mr. GASQUE. Are you an American citizen?
Mr. BACA. I am an American citizen.

Mr. GASQUE. Do you have a card permitting you to cross the border?
Mr. BACA. I took one back when I was a kid.
Mr. GASQUE. You still have one f
Mr. BACA. No I ain't got one now.
Mr. GASQJE. N4OW, you and your wife are still using heroin, I
believe?
7
1515-5
-pt.
7-
66
3388
Mr. BACA. Yes.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, how much do you usually buy over in Mexico?
Mr. BACA. About $10 a day.
Mr. GASQUE. In what quantity?
Mr. BACA. I wouldn't know the quantity.
Mr. GASQUE. Is it an ounce?
Mr. BACA. We call that a quarter of a gram.
Mr. GASQUE. All right, when were you last over in Mexico?
Mr. BACA. About a couple of hours before I boarded the plane.
Mr. GASQUEZ. You were over in Mexico about a couple of hours
before you boarded the plane?
Mr. GASQUE. To come to this committee hearing?
Mr. GASQUE. Was that because of the fact you wanted to get a
supply of heroin to tide you over?
Mr. BACA. I didn't get any with me.
Mr. GASQUE. Did you take a shot?
Mr. BACA. I took a shot up there.
Mr. GASQUE. A bior shot?
Mr. BACA. Yes. rIndicated by nodding his head.]
Mr. BACA. I took abig shot.
Senator DANIEL. Your wife took a big shot?
Mr. BACA. She took one, too.

Senator DANIEL. Have you suffered any pains?
Mr. BACA. I am a little sick right now.
Senator DANIEL. You are a little sick? Are you getting sick for
withdrawal of heroin?
Senator DANIEL. About what hours every day do you all go over?
Mr. BACA. Oh, in the morning and night.
Senator DANIEL. And it is a daily affair?
Senator DANIEL. And do you get sick whenever you are away from
it for as long as a day?
Mr. BACA. Oh, I say for about 24 hours.
Senator DANIEL. Twenty-four hours?

Mr. BACA. [Indicated by nodding his head.]
Senator DANIEL. As soon as you get back home, are you going back
and buy some more heroin?
Mr. BACA. There is no way I can get to a place where they can cure
me and do something about it, have so many go in the room, kick
around, I need about $100 to keep me out for about a month.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you have tried to kick the habit, you
haven't been able to do it, you went to the hospital at Fort Worth
and left after 21 days when they tried to get you to stay?
Mr. BACA. I did.
Senator DANIEL. When you get back to El Paso from this committee
hearing are you going to Mexico?
Mr. BACA. I am going to try to go in a hospital.
Senator DANIEL. You are going to try to get in the Federal hospital
again?
3389
Senator DANIEL. I hope you can. I like the frankness that you have
used here on most of your answers and I just wish you could get some
kind of help to get off of it. It seems a shame for people to be addicted
as long as you and your wife have been.
Mr. Gasque, excuse me, go ahead.
Mr. GAsQuE,. Mr. Chairman, there are no other questions other than
to observe that 2 trips a day to Mexico to buy heroin does not seem to
be in line with his testimony that it only cost him $10 a day.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I agree with that. I say you have been
quite frank in some of your testimony, but on some of it I don't think
you have been frank.
Mr. BACA. I have been true as I can, as far as I remember.
Senator DANIEL. You know it cost you more than $10 a day, don't
you?
Mr. BACA. Do I know it's costing more than $10 a day?
Senator DANIEL. You and your wife together.
Mr. BACA. No. [Indicated by shaking his head.]
Mr. SPEER. Didn't you tell me $15 a day?
Mr. BACA. Maybe 15, not all the time.
Senator DANIEL. How much do you shoot at a time?

Mr. BACA. About a $5 paper between both of us.
Senator DANIEL. Per day?
Mr. BACA. Per day, no.
Senator DANIEL. You mean twice a day?
Mr. BACA. Twice a day.
Senator DANIEL. Sometimes you shoot more than that?
Mr. BACA. Yes, when you can get the money you shoot more. Sometimes you don't shoot that much; you have to go without it maybe 2 or
3 days, maybe there's a panic on, a panic up there.
Senator DANIEL. Is there a panic on in Juarez now?
Mr. BACA. Well, not what you call too much of it, have to try a little
hard to get it, can't get it right away.

Senator DA NIEL. All right, you may stand aside.
Joan Look.
(Mrs. Joan Look was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator
DANIEL. You may be seated.

Mrs. LOOK. I don't want my picture taken.
TESTIMONY OF MRS. JOAN LOOK

Mr. SPEER.
Will you state your name and address for the record?
Joan Look, Stanton Hotel in El Paso.

Mr. SPEER. And I believe you have had the unfortunate experience
of being a heroin addict for a number of years?
Mrs. LOOK.
Mrs. LOOK. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. About how many years?

Mrs. LooK. About, almost 10, between 8 and 10.
Mr. SPEER. How much does your heroin habit cost you a day?
Mrs. LooK. Well, about all I can get.

Mr. SPEER. How much does it cost you a paper in Juarez?
Mrs. LOOK. Well, I get a $3 paper and a $5 paper, according to what
I have.
Mr. SPEER. Three or $5 paper, according to what you have?
Mrs. LooI. Yes, sir.
3390
Mr. SPEER. That is in Juarez, Mex.
Mrs. LooK. Well, I don't bring it from over there. I don't go over
there very much. It comes from Juarez, yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. It comes from Juarez, that is what you pay for it?
Mrs. LooK. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. And how many of these papers do you use?
Mrs. LooK. Well, not under two and more if I can get it.
Mr. SPEER. It costs you anywhere from $6 to $15 a day?
Mrs. LooK. Well, something like that, about $9 or $10.
Mr. SPEER. Now, do you have any trouble in Juarez buying heroin?
Mrs. LooK. Well, they have had lately since they have had that new
administration over there.
Mr. SPEER. About how many months ago?
Mrs. LOOK. Oh, it has been going on for about 3 months now.
Mr. SPEER. Since that time, if you go over with money, have you been
able to buy all the heroin you could finance?
Mrs. LooK. Yes, sir, you can get all you want on either side.
Mr. SPEER. For all the money you have, you can obtain it in Juarez?
Senator DANIEL. No, she said on either side. Wasn't that your
answer?
Mrs. LOOK. Yes.
(Photographers took picture of the witness.)

Mrs. LooK. They said they wouldn't do that.
Mr. SPEER. Did you ever go to these shooting galleries in Juarez?

Mrs. LooK. I used to when my husband was living but I haven't
been over there in practically a year to a shooting gallery.
Mr. SPEER. Beg pardon?
Mrs. LooK. I haven't been over since my husband passed away in

July to a shooting gallery.
Mr. SPEER. When you did go over to the shooting gallery tell us
how it works.
Mrs. LooK. Yes, sir. You buy your medicine and they usually have
a roundtable with water and you have your own hypodermic needle
and your dropper or whatever you use, you kmow, and you fix your own
and take it.
Mr. SPEER. Fix it right there in the place?
Mr. SPEER. What is the most number of people you have ever been
with in one of the places at the same time?
Mrs. LooK. I'm sorry, sir, I never counted them but I imagine there
have been as high as 12 or 14 at a time.
Mr. SPEER. Did you ever lose any money in one of the places?
Mrs. LoOK. I certainly have, lots of it.
Mr. SPEER. How did that happen?
Mrs. LOOK. Well, sometimes you go in and there will be maybe I
or 2 men sitting looking like they need a shave, sometimes clean shaven.
sometimes their clothes are clean, sometimes dirty. They sit and the
person who sells it doesn't say anything. Whenever you ask, show
that they are the law and then they talk among themselves a while
and then they ask you how much money you got. And then they
usually take your pocketbook and look and see what you got.
Mr. SPEER. Did that ever happen to you?
Mrs. LooK. Yes, sir, quite a number of times.

Mr. SPRa.
How much money did you lose?
3391
Mrs. LOOK. I have lost up to $50.

Senator DANIEL. Would you say those are the people who claimed
to be Mexican officers ?
Senator DANIEL. Would they show you a badge?
Senator DANIEL. And what would they ask you for the money for?
Mrs. LOOK. To keep from taking me to jail.
Senator DANIEL. How many times has that happened
Mrs. LOOK. Well, about four times.

Senator DANIEL. While you were in a heroin shooting gallery?
Senator DANIEL. Dope parlors?

Senator DANIEL. How long ago has this been, the last time?
Mrs. LOOK. The last time it happened was about a year ago, in
September.
Did you know these people by any particular name or

what kind of people were they?
Mrs. LoOK. Well, they were plainclothes men, that's all I know.
I never did have one with a uniform on to do that.
Mr. SPEEI.
Mr. SPEER.
Mrs. LOOK.
Mr. SPEER.
Mrs. LOOK.
Mr. SPEER.
Mrs. LOOK.
Mr. SPEER.
Do you know these La Nacha's in Juarez?

Slightly, yes, sir.
Have you ever used any of their heroin?
Yes, sir.
Well, how is it?

It's good; it's the cleanest and best that was over there.
Who sells the heroin? How many in the family sell
the heroin?
Mrs. LOOK. All of them, I guess.
Mr. SPEER. How many do you know?
Mrs. LOOK. Well, I just know the son and daughter and her.
Mr. SPEER. The mother, son, and daughter?
Have you bought from all three?

Mrs. LOOK. I can't truthfully say that I have, sir. I don't know
Mr. SPEER.
who delivers it to us, you know, when we go over.
They have been,
they fix it, made papers, you give the money, they hand you the
papers. Most of the time you are in a hurry, want to get out as fast
as you can, so you don't really pay much attention.
Mr. SPEER. Do you know any other name of a shooting gallery over
there?
Mrs. LOOK. Not at this particular time. I think they are pretty
hot over there.
Mr. SPEER. What was that last?
Mrs. LOOK. I said not right now; I don't think they have any, unless
awful small places.
Mr. SPEER. What was the last one you know about ?
Mrs. LOOK. Empira.
Mr. SPEER. Where was that?
Senator DANIEL. What was the name of that?

Mrs. LOOK. Her name was Empira, all I know.
Senator DANIEL. E-m-p-i-r-r-a?

Mrs. LOOK. I imagine.
3392
Mr. SPEER.
Where was this operator?
Mrs. LOOK. It wasn't too far; about four blocks from town.
Mr. SPEER. In a place of business?
Mrs. LOOK. No; she owned her own home.
Mr. SPEER. Did members of her family work there, too?
Mrs. LOOK. I imagine so.
Mr. SPEER. Do you know any of the members of her family?
Mrs. LooK. I knew her husband and her son.
Mr. SPEER. Her son?
Mrs. LOOK. Yes.

Mr. SPEER. Did he sell it on the streets?
Mrs. LOOK. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. SPEER. How much is the most money you ever spent for heroin
in a period of time?
Mrs. LooK. Beg pardon?
Mr. SPEER. How much over a short period of time; how much is the
most money you spent for heroin, say, over a 3- or 4-month period?
Mrs. LooK. Around eight or nine thousand dollars.
Mr. SPEER. Around eight or nine thousand dollars?

Mr. SPEER. How long ago was that?
Mrs. LooK. About a year.
Mr. SPEER. That was all spent in Juarez?
Mr. SPEER. How many sellers of heroin do you know, or did you
know, say 3 months ago in Juarez?
Mrs. LOOK. Well, you know they have got what they call the boot
and shoe; the little kids run around on the streets and sell papers;
got lots of them. I really and truly wouldn't know.
Mr. SPEER. Would you estimate about how many of them there are?
Mrs. LOK. There's plenty.
Mr. SPEER. Would you say there's a hundred or two hundred?
Mrs. LOOK. Well, there might be; yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Do you have any plans for getting off the habit?
Mrs. LOK. I am going to Kentucky from here.
Mr. SPEER. You are on your way to a Federal hospital?
Mr. SPEER. Have you ever been there before?
Mrs. LOOK. No, sir; I took my husband.
Mr. SPEER. He was also an addict?
Mrs. LooK. Yes, sir; 40 years.
Mr. SPEER. Was he cured of the heroin habit?
Mrs. LooK. He can't be cured; he couldn't be. He was a habitual;
is that what you call it? Mr. Anslinger said he couldn't be cured.
Senator
DANIEL.
How much was your husband, his habit, costing
before he died?
Mrs. LooK. On the last, sir, he was terribly-see, we have property;
we get money from Mexico, and then my husband had lots of money
at one time and my brother helped, too, on the last.
Senator
DANIEL.
About what was it costing?
Mrs. LOOK. Well, you see, I was getting prescriptions on the last.
Senator DANIEL. I'm talking about before his last illness; buying
on the illicit market, what did it cost?
Mrs. LOOK. Cost us around, around $20 a day.
3393
Senator
Mrs.
DANIEL.
LOOK.
And how much did yours cost?
Well, I took when he did, half of his.
DANIEL. You mean to say $20 a day between you?

Mrs. LOOK. Yes, sir. We have taken lots more than that, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You said you spent eight or nine thousand dollars?
Mrs. LOOK. I know; you asked what we did on the last; wasn't that
Senator
what you asked?

Mrs. LoOK. Well, we didn't have any money then.
We had sold our
home, car, rings, and everything we had. We didn't have anything

left.
Senator DANIEL. Did you lose all your property?
Mrs. LooK. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. I want to get it straight in the record. I think it

is important what drug addiction will do. It has really ruined your
life; hasn't it?
Senator DANIEL. It shortened your husband's life?
Mrs. LOOK. Well, he was buried on his 60th birthday.
He had can-
cer of the lung.

Senator DANIEL. You think it shortened his life?
Mrs. LooK. I think if he had had all he wanted he would still be

here.
Senator DANIEL. Still be here?
Mrs. LooK. Yes; I think it has shortened mine.
Senator DANIEL. You think it has shortened your life?
Mrs. LooK. Yes [indicated by nodding her head].

Senator DANIEL. Caused you to sell your car, rings, and all your
property; is that right?
Mrs. LooK. Yes, sir; rooming house, home, hotel, and everything
else.
Senator DANIEL. Tell us what all you have lost because of your
heroin habit?
a large hotel. We have lost
lost this?
Mrs. LooK. Well, we havewas
Where
DANIEL.
Senator
Mrs. LOOK. Two or three Buicks. The Fisher Hotel.
Senator DANIEL. Where is this; in El Paso?
Mrs. LooK. Across from the Del Norte Hotel.

Senator DANIEL. Did you own all that?
Mrs. LooK. Yes, sir; we owned the property, too.
Senator DANIEL. You owned the property ?
Mrs. LooK. At one time.
Senator DANIEL. What else did you lose?

Mrs. LooK. We lost an eleven-thousand-dollar home on Waco Street
for income tax because we got to buying junk instead of paying it.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, instead of paying income tax; is
that right?
Mrs. LOOK. That's right.
Senator DANIEL. Lost your home to the Federal Government for
income tax; is that right?
Mrs. LooK. I guess so; we lost it. Then I sold my home on Louisville Street.
Senator DANIEL. What did you do with the money on that home?
Mrs. LooK. Bought medicine with it.
3394
Mrs. LOOK. Bought medicine with it.

Senator DANIEL. You mean heroin?
Mrs. LOOK. Yes. It's still medicine, though.
Senator DANIEL. But it is illicit medicine. Few if any countries
in the world call that medicine, it is outlawed, it is black market stuff,
one of the worst drugs ever known to man. You know that, too, don't
you?
Mrs. Loox.. Yes, sir. I still think it's better than the coal tar stuff
they've got, where they're talking about the miners take one or two
barbiturates and a glass of wine, they don't know what they do. You
never heard of morphine doing that. Can't drink and take morphine
and heroin.
Senator DANIEL. You wouldn't want to say to the committee, though,
either one ought to be taken by anybody?
Mrs. LooK. I think-
Senator DANIEL. Would you?

Mrs. LooK. No; it's all bad.
Senator DANIEL. And it has caused you to lose about how much
property would you say in all, in value, in money, how much property
would you think it has caused you to lose?
Mrs. LOK. Oh, around $250,000, something like that. You can
find out in El Paso there.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I am willing to take your word. You think
at least $250,000 ?
Senator DANIEL. With the lot and hotel you are talking aboutMrs. LooK. Well, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL.
I would think you certainly might be right.
Well, let me ask you this, doesn't it cause a lot of human misery
and pain, this heroin addiction?
Mrs. LooK. It is the worst thing in the world.
Senator DANIEL. When you are without it or try to stop it, doesn't
it make you deathly sick?
Mrs. LooK. It's the worst thing in the world that could happen
to a person.
Senator DANIEL. What does it do to you? Could you tell this
committee what it does to you when you are a heroin addict and you
are without it?
Mrs. LooK. Well, you begin to get weak. It is according, it affects, I think each individual is affected differently. Some of them
take it what is called in the skin; some take it in the vein, intravenously, and it is according to how your health is and how old you
are, I think. But it don't make any difference, never was a Hades
in the world like it. You get the cold sweats and you can't sit up, you
can't lay down, every nerve in your body is jumping at the same time.
Senator
Mrs.
worst.
DANIEL. Does it
LOOK. Oh, all over,
Senator
DANIEL.
make you sick at your stomach?

sir.
You don't know where you hurt the
What about diarrhea?
Mrs. LooK. The worst in the world and you vomit at the same time.
Senator DANIEL. How long does it take before you can eat anything
or hold anything on your stomach?
Mrs. LOOK. About 25 or 30 days.
3395
Mrs. LOOK. About 25 or 30 days, they say. I never have taken the
cure.
Senator DAIFL. You never have gotten out long enough?
Mrs. LooK. I've been off long enough to get awfully sick.
Senator DANIEL. You have been off long enough to get awfully sick,
but you have always been able to get some to pull you back?
Mrs. LOOK. Yes, sir, my husband always managed to get a doctor
to me some way.
Senator DANIEL. Have any doctors ever sold you drugs for yourself,
knowing you were a drug addict?
Mrs. LOOK. Yes, sir, but they knew I was a sick woman also.
Senator DANIEL. Any other sickness other than withdrawal?
Senator DANIEL. Has any doctor ever given you drugs when you
didn't have any sickness other than withdrawal of dope?
Mrs. LOOK. No, sir-yes, sir, that one Japanese doctor did, the one
that gave me the tablet.
SENATOR DANIEL. Gave you what?
Mrs. LOOK. Gave me tablets through the mouth.
Senator DANIEL. He knew he was giving them to you as a dope
addict?
Mrs. LOOK. I wasn't, that's when I first started.
Senator DANIEL. You mean a Japanese doctor gave you some and
that started you on your habit?
Senator DANIEL. What was he treating you for?
Mrs. LOOK. For asthma and heart trouble. I have X-rays showing
I have an awful bad heart.
Senator DANIEL. Well, we appreciate your coming here and giving
us this information. You say you are going to Lexington trying to
take the cure, have you ever been there before?
Mrs. LooK. I took my husband there.
Senator DANIEL. I hope your cure will be successful. As you
know, only about 15 percent are. The doctors at the hospitals tell us
that it all depends on the individual.
Mrs. LOOK. I think so, too, sir.
Senatro DANIEL. We certainly hope you will have the strength that
will help you after all these many years.
Mrs. LOOK. Thank you, sir.
Senator DANIEL. The main thing in calling you was to find out
about the traffic. Let's not have any more pictures in the witness'
face, please. We want to know about the trafficking in drugs out of
Juarez. You told us. You say you can also buy it in El Paso. How
do you get it in El Paso?
Mrs. UmOK. Well, if you know the people like in Juarez, if you
know the people, I don't, I have always, I don't know them so, therefore, I don't have to tell a story.
Senator DANIEL. You buy from Juarez?
Senator DANIEL. And do you ever send someone to get it in Juarez?
Mrs. LooK. I always do, that's why I don't get in trouble over it,
I have never gone.
Senator DANIEL. You have just heard you can buy it in El Paso?
3396
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Senator
DANIEL.
You have not bought any there?
Mrs. LOOK. No.
Senator DANIEL. All right, thank you very much.

Now, Mr. Salazar, I want to thank you for acting as interpreter
for this committee.
Mr. SALAZAR. You are welcome.
Senator DANIEL. The witness we are recalling is Raul Velasquez.
Do you understand now the question I was trying to ask you, Mr.
Velasquez, when you left the witness stand a minute ago as to the
warning that the Chairman gave you, that you should tell the truth,
you might be subject to a charge of perjury if you did not, do you
imderstand?
FURTHER TESTIMONY OF RAUL VELASQUEZ
Yes. [Indicated by nodding his head.]
Senator DANIEL. Do you also understand that if a truthful answer
riniht tend to incriminate you that you could decline to answer, you
understand that ?
Mr.
VELASQUEZ.
Mr.
VELASQUEZ.
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Now, the thing that I was worried about was your
saying that you agreed to smuggle this heroin or this package across
the border, you were going to meet this Juan Alvarez at 3 o'clock in
the morning, take a package 60 miles up the road deliver it without
him agreeing how much he would pay you. I want to ask you again.
I want to ask you again how much did he agree to pay you for taking
that package, delivering it?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. He didn't pay me nothing. He didn't promise he
was going to pay me.
Senator DANIEL. He didn't pay you anything?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. You never got back to him, did you? You never
got back to see?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. I hope you will see him in jail. But the thing
is, what did he agree to pay?
Mr. SALAZAR. Do you want me to tell his story, the one he told
me? I don't think he understands you, what you are asking.
Senator DANIEL. Well, that's all right. If _you have talked with
him. and you think you can explain what he says about that, the
arrangements, that will be all right. I want you, Mr. Velasquez, to
listen, be sure you understand the explanation. Go ahead.
Mr. SALAZAR. He says he did not smuggle the package, sir, from
Nuevo Laredo to Laredo, he did not, that he has been in Argo,
Ill., since 1952, 1954 in Illinois, and the reason for returning is because he is going to marry a girl from Nuevo Laredo and he has
known this Juan Alvarez since 1952. Now, he came to Nuevo Laredo
to arrange for his wedding and he went, he went to a bar and had
a couple of drinks-well, le got drunk. Just feeling good, got to
feeling good, sir. He met this old friend, Juan Alvarez, and after
Juan Alvarez had been looking for him at his girl's home twice,
then you met him in a tavern, in a bar and then you accepted, right?
And then you met him again on the other side. And that is when
3397
be got the package, he said. When he met him again on this side,
on the American side.
Senator DANIEL. Is that right, Juan Alvarez took the heroin across
himself, he brought it to you, didn't he?
Mr.
VELASQUEZ.
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. He smuggled it over there but at some point it

would seem logical that he agreed to pay this man money for taking
it from Laredo, Tex., up to Encinal.
Mr. SALAZAR. He says he just did it as a favor to his old friend
and Juan Alvarez told him he may see him later after he made it.
Senator DANIEL. Did Juan Alvarez ever agree to pay you any
money?
Mr. VELASQUrEz. No.
Senator DANIEL. Did he agree to do anything else for making this
delivery?
Mr. SALAZAR. Never promised him any money or anything else, he
says.
Senator DANIEL. Had you ever known Juan Alvarez was dealing
in dope?
Mr. SALAZAR.. In the first place, he says, I have not been in Laredo
since 1954, just twice to come and visit his girl.
Senator DANIEL. Until the last 2 months?
Mr. SALAZAR. Right.
Senator DANIEL. Before that, had you ever delivered any package
of any kind across at any place for Juan Alvarez?
Senator DANIEL. Your answer is no?
Mr. VELASQUEZ. No.
Senator DANIEL. All right, you may stand aside. Thank you.
Shirley Orlowski.
(Mrs. Shirley Orlowski Reese was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Mr. GILLESPIm. I am representing this young lady.
Senator DANIEL. Will you identify yourself ?
Mr. GILLESPIE. My name is James R. Gillespie, attorney in this
State.
Senator DANEL. In the San Antonio bar?
Mr. GILLESPIE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right, you may sit by your client and she may
advise with you or counsel with you at any time.
State your name, please.
TESTIMONY OF SHIRLEY ANN ORLOWSKI REESE
Mrs. REESE. Shirley Ann Orlowski.
Senator DANIEL. That is S-h-i-r-l-e-y?
Mrs. REESE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And your last name?
Mrs. REESE. O-r-l-o-w-s-k-i. That was my maiden name.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been married?
Senator DANIEL. And what was your married name?
Mrs. REESE. Reese.
3398
Senator

DANIEL.
R-e-e?
Mrs. REE SE. S-e.
Senator
DANIEL. S-e?
Senator DANIEL. What is your husband's full
Mrs. REESE. Marion Odell Reese.
Senator DANIEL. M-a-r-i-o-n Odell Reese?
name?
Mrs. REESE. He is in the penitentiary right now.
Senator DANIEL. In the penitentiary, where?

Mrs. REESE. In the State penitentiary.
Senator DANIEL. In Texas?
Senator DANIEL. How long has he been in the penitentiary?

Mrs. REESE. About a year.
Senator DANIEL. For what violation?
Mrs. REESE. May I consult my attorney?
(Witness consulted her counsel.)
Mrs. REESE. He is up there for narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. What type of narcotics, smuggling or selling
narcotics ?
Mrs. REESE. Well, he was accused of giving dope to a minor.
Senator DANIEL. To what age child?
Mrs. REESE. I think it was a 16- or 17-year-old boy. I'm not sure.
Senator DANIEL. Will you speak just a little louder?
Mrs. REESE. I said I think it was a 16- or 17-year-old boy. I'm not
sure. I just read about it in the paper.

Senator DANIL. Where was it
Mrs. REESE-. It was here in San Antonio.

Mrs. REESE. Last December.
Senator DANIEL. How many years did he get in the penitentiary?
Mrs. REESE. Seven.
Senator DANIEL. DO you have any children?
Mrs. REESE. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
How long were you married to him?
Mrs. REESE. Since January, 1952.

Senator DANIEL. I believe that you have used narcotics in the past?
Senator
DAmEL.
You may.
(Witness consulted her counsel.)

Mrs. REESE. I refuse to answer that on the grounds it might tend to
incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. Now, you understand the question I am asking you
is not whether or not you are a drug addict or ever have been. I am
not asking you that question. I am asking you strictly as to whether
or not you used, ever used narcotics, and I would like for you to understand that you may consult your attorney again. I am not going to ask
you a question that would prove up any case against you at tlis time under our new drug and addict law. With that understanding, this
committee has information that at an early age you started using
drugs and we are asking about the past, not so much the present, to
see whether or not you might not give the committee the answer.
3399
(Witness consulted her attorney.)

Mrs. RFE~S. I have used narcotics. I don't know what it was. It
was when I was 15 years old, is when I started out.
Senator DANIEL. Is that the first time you ever used any narcotic
drugs, when you were 15?

Mrs. REESE. In San Antonio.
irs. REEs.. No, sir, I had just quit-wait, I quit school about 6 or
7 months before that and got married and I left my husband and
started going with another boy and that is how I got started.
Senator DANIEL. Was that a previous husband? Have you been
married more than once?
Senator DANIEL. You quit school, you left your husband and started
going with another man?
Senator DANIEL. And that is when you started using narcotics?
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. That was at the age of 15?
Mrs. REESE.

Senator DANIEL. How old were you when you married?
Mrs. REESE. Fifteen.
Senator DANIEL. And what started you off on narcotics?
Mrs.
REESE.
May I consult by attorney?
Senator DANIEL. Before you do that, I am not asking so much the
name as just the description of the person. You may consult the
attorney.
Mrs. REEsE. Senator, I will describe him to you but I prefer not to
use his name. Is that all right?
Senator DANIEL. You describe him and depending on how much

yom cooperate with the committee we will decide as to what we might
insist on your answering. Go head and describe him. That may be
sufficient. Was he just a boy friend?
MAirs.
REESE.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And a boy friend you started going with after you
separated temporarily from your husband?
irs. REESE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right, what did he start you off on? Did he
smoke marihuana?
Senator DANIEL. Had you smoked marihuana before that?
Mrs. REESE. No, sir, I didn't know anything about it. I didn't even
know such things existed.
Senator DANIEL. You started going with this boy here in San
Antonio. How old was he.
Mrs. REESE. I think he was around, I don't know how old he was,
around 25, about 24 now, I guess he was about 21 or 22, something like
that.
Senator DANIEL. Considerably older than you?
Senator
DANIEL. Was
he married?
3400
Senator DANIEL. And just tell us how you first decided to try
marihuana?
Mrs. REESE. Well, it wasn't my idea.
Senator DANIEL. Whose idea was it?
Mrs. REESE. It was his.
Senator DANIEL. All right, where was it?
Mrs. REESE. It was in San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. I mean in what place, his home, your home, or
where?
Mrs. RFESE. No, we were at a night club dancing. He asked me
to come outside with him and he just insisted that I get high.
Senator DANIEL. He called it getting high?
Mrs.
REESE.
Yes.
Senator DANIEL. And did you then continue to smoke marihuana

with him for a while?
Mrs. REESE.
May I consult my attorney?

Mrs. REESE. Senator, after that first night, it made me sick and I
didn't care for it and I tried it again about 3 or 4 days after that
and then I did just occasionally, you know. I didn't, not every
night or every day, just every now and then when I would go out
with him.
Senator DANIEL. When with this boy?
Mrs. REESE. Not every time I went out, just certain nights.
Senator DANIEL. Did you all meet with other young people doing
that?
Mrs. REESE. Well, no, we mostly stayed by ourselves.
Senator DANIEL. And how long would you stay out at night?
Mrs. REESE. You mean how late?
Mrs. REESE. Oh, 12, 1, sometimes 2.
Senator DANTEL. Where were you living at the time?
Mrs. REESE. I was living with my mother.
Senator DANIEL. Flow long was it after that before you tried heroin ?
Senator DANIEL. You may.
Mrs. REESE. I refuse to answer that on the grounds it might tend
to incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you did start to use heroin, didn't you?
Mrs. REESE.
May I consult my attorney?
Senator DANIEL. Yes, I want you to tell your attorney this, I am

going to respect your right to refuse to answer any question that might
tend to incriminate you and I would like your cooperation to this
extent, on just giving us the fact that the use of marihuana did lead
on to your use of heroin back some time ago and only that you used it,
and not trying to prove you became addicted to it.
Mrs. REESE. Senator, after that, well, I don't know how long it was,
I guess it was about 4 months, I don't really know how long it was,
it has been so long ago.
Senator DANEL. A few months?
3401
One night we were at his

house and he had some stuff, I don't know what it was. He didn't tell
me what it was. All I knew it was dope. I don't known if it was heroin
or cocaine or what. But he fixed it and he wanted me to and I didn't
want to, I told him I was scared to because I always heard if you get
an air bubble in your vein it will kill you.
Senator DANIEL. You were afraid of an air bubble shot in your arm
and it would kill you?
Mrs. REESE. That is what I have read in books.
Senator DANIEL. That and other things in shooting heroin can kill
people. It is obvious now we are going to have to go on tomorrow
morning, but we do want to have an announcement in a few minutes
on that score. All right, so you didn't want to take it. Go ahead and
tell us how it affected you, the first shot.
Mrs. REESE. Well, he just kept insisting, and insisting, and insisting, so finally I just gave up and I didn't feed anything. So it might
not have been anything.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't this boy friend inject the heroin in your
arm or did you do it?
Mrs. REESE. No, he did it.
Senator DANIEL. He took the hypodermic needle and stuck it in your
vein?
Mrs. REESE. Yes, it was a few months.
Senator DANIEL. And that is how you started?

Senator
DANIEL.
Over your own protest at first?
Senator
DANIEL.
Later on did you agree to take it with him?
Mrs. REESE. Well, I was always scared of it.

Senator DANIEL. Well, but did you agree to take it later on, did you
finally get to where you wanted the shots?
Mrs. REESE. Well, during that year I messed with it off and on.
Senator DANIEL. That has been how long a.go?
Mrs.
REESE.
That was when I was 15, in 1952.
Senator DANIEL. When you were 16?

Mrs. REESE. Fifteen.
Senator DANIEL. It has caused you a lot of misery, hasn't it?
Mrs. REESE. Yes, sir, it has.
Senator
DANIEL.
You wouldn't advise any girl to ever try mari-
huana or heroin, would you?

Mrs. REESE. Well, I wouldn't advise anybody to. No matter what
anybody tells them, it's no good.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you know Charlie Flint?
Senator
Mrs.
DANIEL.
REESE.
Senator
Is he the one who started you on heroin?
No, sir.
DANIEL.
Is he the one who started you on marihuana?

Senator DANIEL. What is your relation with Charlie Flint now?
Mrs.
REESE.
Senator
He is just a good friend.
You are living with him, are you not?

DANIEL.
3402
Senator DANIEL. Has Charlie Flint made any threats against you?
He has made threats against this committee which I will read in a
moment. Has he made any threat against your life if you tell anything to this committee?
Mrs. REEBSE. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
I'll make this announcement, we have just been
advised by the local office that they have arrested Charlie Flint on a
charge of having made threats against this committee and its staff or
the person responsible for issuing a subpena for you to appear before
this committee. The clerk in the narcotics office, Mr. H. A. Gray, advises the committee as follows: About 1: 30 p. m. Tuesday, December
13-that is yesterday-I, Narcotics Clerk H. A. Gray, answered the
'phone Capitol-51692 identifying the office as the Bureau of Narcotics.
Immediately a person who later identified himself as Charlie Flint
started talking to the effect he wanted to know what they had on his
wife, Shirley Orlowski, also known as Reese, that he, Charlie Flint,
had instructed her to say nothing when she got on the stand and she,
Shirley Orlowski, didn't know anything about the stuff. I, Narcotics
Clerk Gray, asked if he would like to speak to the agent serving the
subpena. He, Charlie Flint, wanted to know who sent those things,
meaning the subpenas, down here. Flint then stating, I'll kill that
,and about that time hung up on me.
I have just been sent that with the notation that this man has been
arrested for making threats against those responsible for serving this
subpena. We have also subpenaed Charlie Flint and will hear from
him in the morning.
Now, do you know anything about this?
Mrs. REESE. No, sir, I don't. I have heard about it.
Senator
DANIEL.
What did you hear about it?
Mrs. REESE. Well, I have heard about it down here and he has told
me about it.
Senator
DANIEL. He has told you

REESE. Well, I know that he
Mrs.
what it was all about.
about it?
called down here, wanted to know
Senator DANMEL. That he called the Narcotics Office?

Senator DANIEL. Did you know he threatened to kill anyone responsible for serving the subpena on you to appear before this
committee?
Mrs. REESE. No, I didn't hear him say nothing like that.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you show him your subpena?
Mrs. REESE. Yes, sir; he was, one of the officers knocked on the door.
I said, 'Who is it?" They said, "Federal officers." He asked if they
had a warrant. They said, "No." And so they said, "We don't want
to take anybody to jail." Said, "We want to give this to Shirley."
He let him inside the door and handed it to me. I didn't even know
what it was all about. So this officer explained to me and he left.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. REESE. Yes,
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs. REESE. Yes,
Senator DANIEL.
You say it was signed with my name?

sir.
As chairman of this committee?
sir.
And the Federal officer explained it was issued by
this committee?
3403
Senator DANIEL. As a part of our hearing?

Mrs. REESE. Yes. (Indicated by nodding her head.)
Senator DANIEL. And did your husband then make any threats
at that time? Not your husband but this man, Charlie Flint?
Mrs. REESE. No, he didn't make--I don't understand. He didn't
make any threats, he didn't say anything. He was just mad.
,Senator DANIEL. Did you hear him call up the Narcotics Bureau
arid give this information?
Mrs. REESE. Yes, sir, I heard him call.
Senator DANIEL. Did you hear him say that I will kill that s. o. b.
who is responsible for sending these things out?
Mrs. REESE. No, sir, I didn't hear nothing like that.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't you tell him not to make threats like that?
Mrs. REESE. No, I just explained to him not to call, I just told him,
Charlie, don't call, just leave it alone.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't you tell Mr. Speer you told Charlie not to
make threats?

Senator DANIEL. All right, is it true you did tell Charlie not to make
threats?
A.1rs. REESE. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Threats against whom?

Senator DANIEL. You may
Mrs. REESE. Senator, I didn't hear him say he was going to kill anybody. All I heard, he was arguing, but I mean I didn t hear this about
the killing business and that.
Senator DANIEL. Did you hear him make any threats against you?
Mrs. REESE. No, sir, he didn't make any threats against me. I mean,
it wasn't my fault I was brought up here, you know.
Senator DANIEL. I understand, did he make any threats against you
if y2ou told this committee anything?
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, think a minute, think a minute. Were
threats made against you if you told this committee certain things?
Mrs. REESE. No, sir, there was no threats made against me if I told
this committee anything.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been living with Charlie Flint?
Mrs. REESE. Since March.
Senator DANIEL. Of this year?

Senator DANIEL. Does he use any kind of narcotics?

Mrs. REESE. I refuse to answer on the grounds it might tend to
incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. Now, not casting doubt on you, are you truthfully
refusing to answer that question because you fear it might tend to
incriminate you or might tend to incriminate Charlie Flint? If you
really think it might tend to incriminate you to say whether or not
Charlie Flint uses heroin you certainly have the right to claim the
71515-56-pt. 7-67
3404
fifth amendment and not answer. If you think it might tend to incriminate him you do not have that right, so think that over again and talk
with your attorney again.
Mrs. REEsE. Senator, now would you explain that question to me
again?
Senator DANIEL. The question is if you truthfully think a truthful
answer to this question might tend to incriminate you, you have a right
to decline to answer. If you think it might tend to incriminate
Charlie Flint you do not have that right, you see. So the question is
whether or not he uses heroin or marihuana.
Mrs. REESE. Well, now, I tell you truthfully I don't know if he uses
heroin or marihuana.
Senator DANIEL. You know he uses some kind of dope?
Mrs. REEsE. But I don't know what it is. That is the truth.
Senator DANIEL You know he uses some kind of dope?
Mrs. REEsE. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
And is he?
Mrs. RF E. He doesn't at the present time.

Senator DANIEL. But he has been using it?
Mrs. RFSE. He has in the past.
Senator DANIEL. Up until when? Well, let me just ask you this
Is he selling dope in San Antonio?
Mrs. RE:EsE. o, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Has he been selling dope in San Antonio?
Mrs. RE:ESE. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Let's return in the morning at 10 o'clock, recess
until 10 in the morning.
(Whereupon at 5 p. m. the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at
10 a. m., December 15, 1955.)

:THURSDAY,
,
DECEMBER 15, 1955

SUBCOMMrrI
E ON IMPROVEMENTS

San Antonio, Tem.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a. m. in the district
Price Daniel chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present: d. Aubrey Gasque, of South Carolina, subcommittee
counsel; and Wayland Lee Speer, of Amarillo, Tex., committee
investigator.
I will ask the witness who was on the stand yesterday afternoon to
return.
Mr. GmL SPiE. Senator, I will see if she is here.
right now.
I don't see her
Senator DANIEL. All right, that is Shirley Orlowski.

Mr. GILLESPIE. I believe she will be here, but I don't see her yet.
Senator DANIEL. All right. Mr. Attorney, you let us know just as
soon as she arrives, will you please, sir?
Mr. GmrasPIE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Jeanine Kucker. Jeanine K-u-c-k-e-r.
Rudy Moreno. Is Rudy Moreno in the courtroom? Now, Rudy
Moreno is the witness that was here at the hearing in San Antonio
in October. He was among those who were told to be back at this
hearing on December 14; he is still under subpena of the committee.
I would like to ask if any of the officers know anything about the
whereabouts of Rudy Moreno, as soon as possible, anyone in the courtroom?
Mr. VILLAREALL.
Mr. Moreno will be here shortly. He is on his way.
Senator DANIEL. I am sorry, I didn't mention you a minute ago.
I had forgotten whom you represent.

Mr. riLLAREALL. All right, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, Iave the other witnesses come to the courtroom, the other two I called? We have several witnesses here from
Corpus Christi.
Lieutenant Jackson, will you come forward, sir?

(Lt. W. T. Jackson was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. Please state your name and your present position?
3405
3406
TESTIMONY OF W. T. JACKSON, NARCOTICS DIVISION, POLICE

FORCE, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEX.
Lieutenant JACKSON. Lieutenant W. T. Jackson, Narcotics Division,
Corpus Christi, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been with the Corpus Christi
police force?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Approximately 10 years.
Senator DANIEL. And how long have you been assigned to the
narcotics work?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Since the squad was originated 2 years ago.
I worked off and on for about 10 years.
Senator DANIEL. And how many men do you have now designated
to narcotics work alone?
Lieutenant JACKSON. There's only two of us.
Senator DANIEL. I understand about a year or so ago you had an
increase in drug traffic in Corpus Christi but that recently you have
been able to get it much improved; is that correct?
Lieutenant
JACKSON.
That's true, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What do you say is the present situation as far

as the drug activity in Corpus Christi is concerned?
Lieutenant JACKSON. It is at a minimum. It is lower than it has
been since I entered the police force.
Senator DANIEL. In your investigations have you talked with drug
addicts and peddlers about where the traffic was coming from?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Yes, sir, many times.
Senator DANIEL. Where is the main traffic in marihuana and heroin
coming from?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Most of it comes from Nuevo Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know who is the largest seller of the heroin
and marihuana that comes into Corpus Christi ?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Who is it?
Lieutenant JACKSON. It is a man by the name of Salvadore de Hoyas.

Senator DANML. S-a-l-v-a-d-o-r-e?
Lieutenant
JACKSON. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. d-e H-o-y-a-s?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Yes sir.

Lieutenant JACKSON. He lives at Nuevo Laredo.
He owns the
Corpus Christi bar in Nuevo Laredo.

Senator DANIEL. And do you know if he owns any other property?
Lieutenant JACKSON. I understand he is worth about three million
pesos.
Senator DANiEL, How much is that in American money? Well,
we'll let somebody else figure that, you might not know the correct
rate of exchange. Now, this Salvadore de Hoyas, what does he sell?
Lieutenant JACKSON. He sells heroin and marihuana.
Senator DANTaL. Ahd in making arrests and talking with various
smugglers, addicts and peddlers have you been able to determine this
that you are now telling the committee for a fact?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Yes, sir. Every addict and peddler that I have
talked to with the exception of one peddler has told me that the
3407
heroin originally came from Salvadore de Hoyas but is brought to

them by a runner or Salvadore de Hoyas' man.
Lieutenant JACKSON. Joe Rodriguez.
Lieutenant JACKSON. He lives in San Diego.
Senator DANIEL. San Diego what?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Texas.
Senator DANIEL. What else is he known by?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Chico Patos.
Senator DANIEL. Will you spell that?
Lieutenant JACKSON. C-h-i-c-o-s P-a-t-o-s.
Senator DANIEL. Chicos Patos?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Yes sir
Senator DANIEL. Is he called by both names?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Usually referred to as Chicos Patos.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever seen Joe Rodriguez?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Yes, sir; in fact I have searched him.
Senator DANIEL. Where have you seen him?
Lieutenant JACKSON. In Corpus Christi.
Senator DANIMEL. Can you give us any other information about
him ? Has he ever been arrested and served any narcotics time?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Yes, sir, arrested and convicted on one narcotic violatiQn and he was sentenced to the penitentiary and I am not
familiar with other records except for gambling. I think that is his
only record.
Senator DANIEL. All right, is there anything else about him you
know anything about?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Well, I know that practically all of this heroin
that has come through Corpus Christi was brought in by Chicos Patos,
all that I had any information on was brought through by Chicos
Patos.
Senator DANIEL. Is this the man that had held a position in Duval
County?
Lieutenant JACKSON. He was formerly a deputy sheriff in Duval.
Senator DANIEL. Under whom?
Lieutenant JACKSON. I am not sure but I think under George Parr.
Senator DANIEL. You are not positive?
Lieutenant JACKSON. No, sir. I do know he was a deputy sheriff.
Senator DANIEL. Was he convicted on this narcotic charge after he
served or while serving?
Lieutenant JACKSON. I think after he had served as deputy sheriff.
Senator DANIEL. How long ago was he deputy sheriff of Duval
County
Lieutenant JACKSON. It has been probably around 10 years.
Senator DANIEL. Was he an active deputy sheriff or one of the
dollar-a-year men?
Lieutenant JACKSON. He was an active deputy.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know that to be true?
Lieutenant JACKSON. I was told that by the United States Customs
Agent.
Senator DANrEL. And did you ever work with him as a law enforcement officer?
Lieutenant
JACKSON.
No, sir.
3408
Senator DANIEL. You do know this man who, according to your

information once held a commission as a deputy sheriff in Duval
County?

Senator DANIEL. He has been convicted of a narcotics charge in
more recent years?
Senator
DANIEL.
And he is connected with Salvadore de Hoyas
of Nuevo Laredo?
Senator DANIEL. What did you term him, his right-hand man?
Senator DANIEL. Have you recently picked up anyone who bought
heroin through this connection?
Senator DANIEL. Who?
Lieutenant JACKSON. A man by the name of Jessie Garcia.
Senator
DANIEL.
Is he here today?
Senator
DANIEL.
Is Jessie Garcia in the courtroom?
Mr. GcIA. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right. Jessie Garcia, and what did you arrest
him for?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Possession of 10 grams of heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you arrest him I
Lieutenant
JACKSON.
Christi.
Senator
DANIEL.
At the Agnes Street autoport in Corpus
Did he give you information after you put him
under arrest where he got the heroin?

Senator DANIEL. Did he make a statement to you?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Verbal statement.
Senator
DANIEL.
In the presence of others?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Yes sir.

Senator DANIEL. Where Id he say he got it?
Lieutenant JACKSON. He said he got it from Chicos Patos.
Senator
DANIEL.
Is that the same as Joe Rodriguez?
The same
man in San Diego, in Duval County?

Lieutentant JACKSON. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Not only from what this man, Jessie Garcia, told
you but from what others you have arrested for heroin have told you,
what type of operation does Salvadore de Hoyas and Chicos Patos
carry on, how do they get it across the border?
Lieutenant JACKSON. I don't know how they get it across but Salvadore de Hoyas seldom brings it himself. It is usually brought over,
delivered by Chicos Patos and on many occasions I have known that
deals have been made in Corpus Christi, in 1953 to the latter part of
1954, that arrangements would be made to buy a quantity of heroin and
Salvadore de Ioyas himself, if it were a large amount, would personally appear and stand around and then contact the buyer and tell
him he would have it in a few minutes, leave the place and then again
come back and give the buyer the impression that he had the heroin
on him. In that way if there was any information that leaked out
and the officers had hit him he wouldn't have anything, sit around the
3409
place probably 30 minutes and collect half the money and leave, then
a short time later a girl from Mexico who is employed by Salvadore de Hoyas would appear, deliver the heroin and collect the balance of the money, then Salvadore and the girl would leave together.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been able to arrest Salvadore
de
Hoyas?
Lieutenant JACKSON. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What about Chicos Patos?
Lieutenant JACKSON. I have searched him but never caught him with
anything.
Senator
him?
DANIEL.
You do have a pending case that might involve
Senator
DANIEL.
Is he under arrest now for that case?
Senator DANIEL. You may stand aside. Oh, why do you think there
was an increase in the narcotic traffic in Corpus Christi a while and
more recently a decrease?
Lieutenant JACKSON. We started a narcotics squad in December of
1953 and at that time we didn't have anyone working narcotics and we
made our cases without any effort. Since that time we have made
a lot of cases and most of the peddlers have been sent to the hospital or
have left town and the addicts have all left. When the source of
supply dried up most of the addicts left. Up to now it's small
operations.
Mr. SPEER. Are these people, the narcotic violators you arrest, tried
in the State court or Federal court.
Lieutenant JACKSON. All of my cases I file in the State court.
Mr. SPEER. Do you ever file any in Federal court?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Yes, sir, I used to.
Mr. SPEER. When did you quit and why did you quit ?
Lieutenant JACKSON. The reason I quit, the Federal laws are not
sufficient. I couldn't get enough time on the convicted peddlers, so
in the State court, the State laws are much better and our sentences
run from 2 to 10 years where in the Federal court most of them were
suspensions, and I don't approve of a neddler being put on suspended
sentence or probation.
Senator DANIEL. You are saying something very interesting to the
committee. You say the Federal laws are not sufficient?
Senator DANIEL. We have Federal laws that could allow on first
offense, 5 years on sale, isn't it?
What happened in those cases?
Lieutenant JACKSON. The State law is 10 years, 2 to 10 years.
Senator
DANIEL.
That is a new law, isn't it?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Relatively new; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What about under the Federal law we've had all
these years, you say in the cases you took to the Federal court most of
them received suspended or light sentences?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Yes, Sir.
Senator DANIEL. In other words, the judges just didn't give them
as much as they could give them, isn't that right ?

Li euten ant JACKSON. That's true.
3410
Senator DANIEL. I'll agree with you that the laws are too light on
first sentence, I agree with you. We need to have higher sentences, but
as long as you have'Federal laws that would permit higher penalties
and the judges give the lesser sentences, that is not the fault of the law
but of the judge, isn't it?
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, is it commonly true in your district
there, in your Federal court that lighter sentences are given for narcotic peddlers than the State courts give?
Lieutenant JACKSON. Very much lighter, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Very much lighter?

Senator DANIEL. Do you know very many peddlers of narcotics who
have been given suspended sentences in the Federal court down there ?
Senator DANIEL. Many?
Lieutenant JACKSON. I wouldn't say many but the ones that I had
ag dealings with were.
enator DANIEL. Well, I'm not going to ask you to name them. I
would like for you to send it in to this committee, we'll put ii right at.
this point in the record, the cases you know about, all of them you
can think about, wherein you have smugglers of narcotics in which
they have gotten suspended sentences or other sentences that you now
complain of, which you say caused you not to file any more cases or
turn any more over to the Federal authorities.
Lieutenant JACKSON. I will.

Senator DANIEL. Will you give those to us?
Lieutenant JACKSON. I will.
Senator DANIEL. I know you don't want to criticize the courts. I'm
not criticizing either. But if there are any facts that I, as a Senator,
failed to do my part or you, as an officer, or a Federal judge or anybody
else, I think we all ought to know about it. It is a vicious thing, it, is
a cancer in our society. We have to do something to stop this drug
traffic if we want to save our boys and girls and communities and
country. It is tied into subversion. Red China, is pushing this
heroin in here.
Lieutenant JACKSON. That's true.
Senator
DANIEL.
I don't know of any way that they can destroy a
country more quietly, more cunningly than to get thousands of people

on heroin, do you?
Lieutenant
JACKSON.
business.
Senator
DANIEL.
No, sir, that's the quickest way.
It's big
We already have more heroin users in the United
States than any nation in the world. I think if you will send a list
of those cases in, I'll appreciate it. Evidently you must really feel
like the Federal courts let you down in the cases you brought there.
Lieutenant
JACKSON.
That's true. I didn't mean to criticize the
courts or the laws. It's just that I have had much better luck by filing
in the State courts. We have a State district attorney and his assistants, they are very conscientious and we have got a vigorous law
enforcement and had vigorous prosecution in the past 2 years. We
have only lost two cases in the State court.
Senator DANIEL. Well, won't the Federal attorney for your district
prosecute?
3411
Lieutenant JACKSON. We have had good prosecution, Im not com-
plaining on the prosecution.
Senator DANIEL. What are you complaining about?

Lieutenant JACKSon. It's just, it seems like most of the persons who
are filed on that I have had anything to do with are given suspended
sentences.
Senator DANIEL. In the Federal court?
lieutenant JACKSON. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. That is the Southern District of Texas?
Lieuenant JACKSON. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. All right, if you will send us in a list we will

appreciate it. All right, you may stand aside.
(The following list was submitted by Lt. W. T. Jackson, narcotic
section, police department, Corpus Christi, Tex.:)
List of defendants who received light or suspetnded sentence for narcotic
riolqtions8 in. the Federal courts'
Defendant
Datentenced
Fred Montoya ------------Ysidro M. Sauceda --------Mariano Torrn ------------
Nov. 6, 1953
Nov. 3, 1953
April 15, 1955
Tarlton Pearson -----------SLxto M. Carplo ------------
April 15, 1955

April 14, 1955
Roberto Ayala ------------Wade D. Turner ----------Frank C. Rodriguez ---------
Nov. 21, 1952

April 13,1955
Feb. 4,1955
Daniel Saldana ------------
Sept. 5, 1954
Amount sentenced
2 years; suspended for 5 years.
2 years; suspended for 3 years.
5 years; 2 previous narcotid convictions; 1 conviction for
burglary.
5 years; 1 previous narcotic conviction.
5 years, I pteviou's narcotic conviction; 1 conviction manslaughter; 1 conviction assault with intent.
3 years; 3 years to rUn concurrent with Laredo case; 1 State
case pending.
3 years suspended sentence.
I This list does not include the 11 defendants who were tried in the spring of 19M3 in Victoria, who were
brought to trial with the following rbultt: 7 defendants received suspended sentences and of the remaining
4, 2 of them reeiVed 5-year Sentences under the mandatory floggs Act schedule of 1 previous conviction
for narcotic violation; 1 received a 3-year sentence although he had 2 prpvious felony convictions; and 1
received a 2-year sentence even though he was a previous State narcoti, offender.
(The Laredo (Tex.) Bar Association and tihe Cameron County

(Tex.) Bar Association submitted resolutions at a later date, deplor-
ing the reported criticism of indictments and sentences for narcotic

violations in the Federal Courts of the Southern District of Texas.
These resolutions follow:)
RESOLUTION, BOARD OF DIRECToRS OF ('AMERON COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
Whereas for the past few days, newspapers in San Antonio, Corpus Christi, the
Rio Grande Valley, and elsewhere in Texas, have published reports of a Senate
subcommittee hearing being conducted by the junior Senator from Texas, at San
Antonio, Tex., which said hearings have also been televised by San Antonio
stations; and,
Whereas in particular, it was reported in the newspapers of December 15 and
16, 1955, that a local lieutenant of police of Corpus Christi, Tex., had criticized
ion. James V. Allred, United States District Judge for the Southern District of
Texas, in connection with sentences imposed upon defendants in narcotics cases in

the said Federal court; and in which hearing the said local enforcement officer
testified, in substance, that because heavy sentences were not there imposed, he
was no longer filing cases in the Federal district court, but preferred to file them
in the State court; and,
Whereas the Constitution and laws of the United States require a United States
district Judge to have the highest qualifications as to legal training, experience,
and character, and that he be appointed by the President of the Unitedl States and
3412
confirmed by the United States Senate; while, on the other hand, in most iustanees
local enforcement officers are not learned in the law, and in many instances lack
extensive investigative training; and,
Whereas it is the feeling of members of the bar and the public generally that
defendants in all cases are entitled to be judged by a fair and Impartial judge,
uninfluenced by what some local enforcement officer might consider to be a correct
sentence; and,
Whereas it is the feeling of this board of directors that the testimony and hearing above referred to constitute an unjust criticism and an unwarranted and
unfounded attack on the United States )istrict Court for the Southern District of
Texas and the judge thereof; and,
Whereas the canons of ethics of the State bar of Texas provide, in part, as
follows: "Judges shall receive the support of inembers against unjust criticism
and clamor."
Now, therefore, be it resolved:
(1) That proceedings and testimony of the type hereinabove mentioned, in
which local enforcement officers take the view that their judgment is superior
to that of a United States district judge, are to be deplored and censured.
(2) That our Constitution and laws properly place in the United States district judge, lawful discretion as to cases pending in the United States district
court, and that our system of justice, our freedom and liberties will be better
preserved by continuing to entrust to our Federal judges the decisions of cases
and the sentences to be imposed; rather than entrusting such matters to enforcement officers, investigative officers, or to congressional committees.
(3) That the record of Hon. James V. Allred, United States district judge
for the southern district of Texas, is outstanding in law enforcement, and at the
same time for the understanding and fairness displayed by him toward all law.
enforcement agencies, defendants, and the public; that we here and now reaffirm
our trust and confidence in our judicial system and in the law enforcement
policies, judgment and fairness of Hon. James V. Allred and the United States
district court for the Southern District of Texas.
(4) That this resolution be spread upon the minutes of this bar association,
and that copies thereof be sent to the following persons:
Hon. Maurice R. Bullock, president, State Bar of Texas, Fort Stockton, Tex.
Hon. Newton Gresham, vice president, State Bar of Texas, Houston, Tex.
Hon. William R. Pool, secretary, State Bar of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Hon. James V. Allred, United States district judge, Corpus Christi, Tex.
Hon. T. M. Kennerly, United States district judge, Houston, Tex.
Hon. Allen B. Hannay, United States district judge, Houston, Tex.
Hon. Ben Connally, United States district judge, Houston, Tex.
Hon. Joe McDonald Ingraham, United States district Judge, Houston, Tex.
Hon. Malcolm R. Wilkey, United States attorney, southern district of Texas,
Houston, Tex.
Hon. Price Daniel, United States Senator, Liberty, Tex.
Hon. James S. Graham, judge, 103d district court, Brownsville, Tex.
Hon. Hawthorne Phillips, judge, 107th district court, Brownsville, Tex.
Hon. H. A. Garcia, judge, 138th district court, Brownsville, Tex.
Hon.. Clarence S. Bennett, judge, Cameron County Court at Law, Brownsville,
Tex.
Hon. S. N. McWhorter, judge, 92d district court, Edinburg, Tex.
Hon. W. R. Blalock, judge, 93d district court, Mission, Tex.
Hon. Fidencio Guerra, judge, 139th district court, McAllen, Tex.
Hon. Tom L. Hartley, judge, Hidalgo County Court at Law, Pharr, Tex.
Hon. F. T. Graham, criminal district attorney, Cameron County, Brownsville,
Tex.
Hon. Jim Bates, district attorney, Hidalgo County, Edinburg, Tex.
Hon. Carl 0. Conley, district attorney, Willacy County, Raymondville, Tex.
Hon. Felix McDonald, president, Hildalgo County Bar Association, Edinburg, Tex.
, president, Nueces County Bar Association, Corpus Christi,
Hon.
Tex.
W. T. Jackson, police department, Corpus Christi, Tex.
Unanimously approved this 17th day of December 1955:
E. Wayne Wilson, director, Cameron County Bar Association, Brownsville, Tex.
Marshall Graham, director, Cameron County Bar Association, Harlingen, Tex.
Arthur A. Klein, director, Cameron County Bar Association, Harlingen, Tex.
Gene McCullough, director, Cameron County Bar Association, Harlingen, Tex.
3413
T. Gilbert Sharpe, president, Cameron County Bar Association, Brownsville, Tex.

Jack Skaggs, vice president, Cameron County Bar Association, Harlingen, Tex.
John W. Bartram, secretary, Cameron County Bar Association, Brownsville, Tex.
BasCom Cox, director, Cameron County Bar Association, Harlingen, Tex.
RESOLUTION, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, LAREDO BAR ASSOCIATION
DECEMBER
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
22, 1955.
County of Webb, ss:

We, the undersigned, Bismark Pope, Horace C. Hall, and John E. Fitzgibbon,
members of the Laredo Bar Association, present and sponsor for adoption by the
Laredo Bar Association the following:
"A RESOLUTION
"Whereas for the past few days, newspapers in San Antonio, Corpus Christi,
the Rio Grande Valley, and elsewhere in Texas, have published reports of a
Senate subcommittee hearing being conducted by the junior Senator from Texas,
at San Antonio, Tex., which said hearings have also been televised by San
Antonio stations; and,
"Whereas in particular, it was reported in the newspapers of December 15 and
16, 1955, that a local lieutenant of police of Corpus Christi, Tex., had criticized
Hon. James V. Allred, United States district judge for the southern district of
Texas, in connection with sentences imposed upon defendants in narcotics cases
in the said Federal court; and in which hearing the said local enforcement officer
testified, in substance, that because heavy sentences were not there imposed, he
was no longer filing cases in the Federal district court, but preferred to file
them in the State court: and.
"Whereas the Constitution and laws of the United States require a United
States district judge to have the highest qualifications as to legal training,
experience, and character, and that he be appointed by the President of the
United States and confirmed by the United States Senate; while, on the other
hand, in most instances local enforcement officers are not learned in the law,
and in many instances lack extensive investigative training; and,
"Whereas it is the feeling of members of the bar and the public generally that
defendants in all cases are entitled to be judged by a fair and impartial judge,
uninfluenced by what some local enforcement officer might consider to be a correct
sentence; and
"Whereas it is the feeling of this association that the testimony and hearing
above referred to constitute an unjust criticism and an unwarranted and unfounded attack on the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas and the judge thereof ; and
"Whereas the Canons of Ethics of the State Bar of Texas provide, in part, as
follows: 'Judges shall receive the support of members against unjust criticism
and clamor'; and
"Whereas the Cameron County Bar Association, of the State of Texas, has
heretofore adopted a resolution similar to this, and it is the feeling of the members of this association that the position of the members of the Cameron County
Bar Association is correct and should be approved and followed by the bar
throughout Texas.
"Now, therefore, be it resolved"(1) That proceedings and testimony of the type hereinabove mentioned, in
which local enforcement officers take the view that their judgment is superior
to that of a United States district judge, are to be deplored and censured.
"(2) That our Constitution and laws properly place in the United States district judge, lawful discretion as to cases pending in the United States district
court, and that our system of justice, our freedom and liberties will be better
lPreserved by continuing to entrust to our Federal judges the decisions of cases
and the sentences to be imposed; rather than entrusting such matters to enforcement officers, investigative officers, or to congressional committees.
"(3) That the record of Hon. James V. Allred, United States district judge
for the southern district of Texas, is outstanding in law enforcement, and at
the same time for the understanding and fairness displayed by him toward all
law-enforcement agencies, defendants, and the public; that we here and now
reaffirm our trust and confidence in our judicial system and in the law-enforce-
3414
ment policies, judgment, and fairness of Hon. James V. Allred and the United
States district court for the southern district of Texas.
"(4) That this resolution be spread upon the minutes of this bar association,
and that copies thereof be sent to the following:
Hon. Maurice R. Bullock, president, State Bar of Texas, Fort Stockton, Tex.
Hon. Newton Gresham, vice president, State Bar of Texas, Houston, Tex.
Hon. William R. Pool, secretary, State Bar of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Hon. James V. Allred, United States district judge, Corpus Christi, Tex.
Hon. T. M. Kennerly, United States district judge, Houston, Tex.
Hon. Allen B. Hannay, United States district judge, Houston, Tex.
Hon. Ben Connally, United States district judge, Houston, Tex.
Hon. Joe McDonald Ingraham, United States district judge, Houston, Tex.
Hon. Malcolm R. Wilkey, United States attorney, southern district of Texas,
Houston, Tex.
HEon. R. E. Thomasson, United States district Judge, El Paso, Tex.
Hon. Ben H. Rice, Jr., United States district judge, Waco, Tex.
Hon. Russell B. Wine, United States district attorney, San Antonio, Tex.
Hon. Price Daniel, United States Senator, Liberty, Tex.
Hon. president, Nueces County Bar Association, Corpus Christi, Tex.
W. T. Jackson, police department, Corpus Christi, Tex.
Laredo Daily Times, Laredo, Tex.
Hon. R. D. Wright, judge, 49th Judicial District Court, Laredo, Tex.
Hon. E. D. Salinas, judge, 111th Judicial District Court, Laredo, Tex.
Hon. Roger Thurmond, judge, 68d Judicial District Court, Del Rio, Tex.
Hon. Ross Doughty, judge, 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde, Tex.
Hon. H. D. Barrow, judge, 81st Judicial District Court, Jourdanton, Tex.
Hon. C. Woodrow Laughlin, 79th Judicial District Court, Alice, Tex.
Hon. E. James Kazen, district attorney, Laredo, Tex.
Heon. John F. May, district attorney, Karnes City, Tex.
Hon. Francis C. Richter, district attorney, Hondo, Tex.
Hon. D. A. Newton, district attorney, Del Rio, Tex."
Presented to the Laredo Bar Association for action on this the 12th day of
January, A. D. 1956.
BISMARK POPE,
HORACE C. HALL,
JOHN E. FrTZGBRnON.
The foregoing resolution having been presented to the Laredo Bar Association
for action by Bismark Pope, Horace C. Hall, and John U. Fitzgibbon, members
of the association as sponsors at a regular meeting of the association held on the
12th day of January, A. D. 1956, and having been submitted to a board of the
members of the association, the same was forthwith adopted.
C. H. KAZEN,
President, Laredo Bar Associatan.

Attest:
H. C. HALI III,
Secretary, Laredo Bar Association.
Senator DANIEL. Jessie Garcia.

(Mr. Jessie Garcia was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Mr. LoPEz. I have been retained by Mr. Garcia. My name is
Manuel B. Lopez. I practice law here in San Antonio.
Senator DANIEL. You know the rules of the committee?
Mr. LoPEz. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You may be seated. Your client may advise with
you at any time that he feels it is necessary.
State your name and residence.
TESTIMONY OF JESSIE GARCIA
Mr. GARCIA. My name is Jessie Garcia, live at Corpus Christi arid
am working on wrecker yard business.
Senator DANrEL. How long 'have you lived in Corpus Christi?

Mr. GARCIA. I have been living there since 1934.
3415
Senator DANIEL. What kind of work have you been engaged in
recently?
Mr. GARCIA. Welding and body shop.
Senator DANIEL. Have you been doing any other kind of work?
Mr. GARCIA. Well, truck driver once in a while, my own.
Senator DANIEL. Anything else?
Mr. GARCIA. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you been selling any heroin?
(Witness consulted his lawyer.)
Mr. GARCIA. I refuse to answer the question.
Senator DANIEL. On what grounds?
Mr. GARCIA. I refuse to answer-I can't hardly talk good English.
Senator DANIEL. I think you're doing quite well. Vou refuse to
answer on the grounds that a truthful answer to that question might

Senator DANIEL. Do you want to withdraw the answer to the
question you just answered a minute ago?
Just a minute, let me get
the question out, then you can talk with your lawyer if you want to,
when you feel like you need to counsel with him. Do you want to withdraw the previous answer when I asked you what other work you
had been doing, you said nothing, you want to withdraw that? In
other words, you have waived any right in this chairman's opinion
to claim the fifth amendment to the question when I asked if you
had been selling heroin, the question before, you said you weren't
doing anything else, any other kind of work other than what you had
described. Now, let me ask you that question over again. Have you
recently been engaged in any other kind of work or business, other
than what you named here to us?
Mr. GARCIA. No sir.
Senator DANIEL. Your answer is no?
Senator DANUe. All right, now then I am going to ask you have
you been engaged in selling heroin or delivering heroin for anybody?

(Witness consulted his attorney.)
Mr. GARCIA. I refuse to answer the question.
Senator DANIEL. Well, the Chair feels that twice you have waived
your right to refuse to answer that question, because of the answer

you gave, that you had not been engaged in any other type of work
than what you have named, therefore, the Chair orders you to answer.
Mr. LoPEz. Senator, I advised him
Senator DANIEL. He may counsel with you.
Mr. LoPEz. May I explain the reason why he is answering your
question, had he done any delivering or handling, not whether he

had done any kind of work, he has waived his right as to it if he
has worked, if he has made any money. It seems to me a different
question. He hasn't waived that right.
Senator DANIEL. The Chair may be in error, if so there will certainly be no penalty against your client for refusing to answer but
I believe I am not in error. I order you to answer the question.
Mr. GARCIA. I refuse to answer, like what you said, I can't talk
very good English, just words, what I mean, I refuse to answer the
questions.
3416
Senator

DANIEL.
On the grounds it might tend to incriminate you?

Senator DANIEL. Do you understand you were ordered to answer
the question?
Senator DANIEL. Do you understand after you once claim the Fifth
Amendment and the chair orders you to answer, thinks you have
waived the fifth amendment; then if the Chair is right about it and
you refuse to answer a second time you would be subject to contempt
of the Senate, do you understand that? Let your lawyer explain that
to you. He understands. He will explain it to you. I want to be
sure you understand it.
Mr. GARCIA. I still refuse to answer.
Senator DANI:L. All right,. you understand what the result might
be, what the conditions are in case the Chair is correct about you
having waived the fifth amendment. All right. How long have
you known Salvadore de Hoyas ?
Mr. GARCIA. I refuse to answer the question, you say the rest.
Senator DANIEL. Just read it there, the attorney has written it out.
Mr. GARCIA. I couldn't read very good, I tell the truth.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I'll tell you what we'll do, make it short,
you claim the fifth amendment, you understand every time you say
that you refuse to answer under the fifth amendment, it will be understood just as much as if you said the whole thing, is it that you fear a
truthful answer might tend to incriminate you, is that it?
Senator DANIEL. Now, you heard Lieutenant Jackson of the police
force of Corpus Christi talk about arresting you with some heroin
recently, you heard him testify, didn't you?
Senator DANIEL. Now wait, Mr. Counsel, don't punch your client.
If he wants to ask you for any kind of advice, you are a guest of this
committee, he is entitled to do it, but don't interrupt him, let him
seek the advice. That is no reprimand. I know you unconsciously
did it but let's not do it again. Do you want to advise with your
lawyer?
Mr. LoPEz. Senator, could we have the question repeated?
Senator DANIEL. Let me give it to save time, I'll restate the question.
You heard Lieutenant Jackson testify, you said, about arresting you
with some heroin in your possession. I asked you if that is true.
Mr. GARCIA. Yes, sir, I was arrested but I refuse to answer the rest
of the question.
Senator DANIEL Well, you have already answered the q uestion,
whether you were arrested with the heroin, that is the question, that
is the only question, is that what your answer is?
Mr. GARcIA. I only answered the facts.
IIIII III
3417
Senator DANIEL. Well, everybody knows you were arrested, every-
body knows that. I want to know if you were arrested with some
heroin on you.
Mr. GARCIA. I refuse to answer that part.
Senator DANIEL. Do a little more than refuse, at least say "fifth
amendment" or something. I'm not going to let you refuse to answer,
after explaining to you an easy way to do it. Do you want to claim
the fifth amendment?
Senator DANIEL. Just say so.
Senator DANIEL. You heard Lieutenant Jackson testify you told him
you got this heroin from Chicos Patos, also known as Joe Rodriguez,
is that true?
Mr. GARCIA. I refuse to answer.
Senator DANIEL. On what grounds? You fear it might tend to
incriminate you if you gave a truthful answer?
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Chicos Patos?
Mr. GARCIA. I refuse to answer on fifth amendment.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Joe Rodriguez?
Senator DANIEL. Now, wait a minute, you counsel with your counsel
and claim the fifth amendment on everything you told Lieutenant
Jackson here and everything you told our investigator, Mr. Speer, concerning this, are you going to claim the fifth amendment and not tell
the facts you told these two men, is that your intention?
Mr. GARCIA. Yes, sir, I am under indictment and I couldn't answer
them questions.
Senator DANIEL. Under indictment for what?
Mr. GARCIA. Narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. All right, you step aside.
Mr. Speer, take the stand.
(Mr. Wayland Lee Speer had previously been sworn by Senator
Daniel.)
TESTIMONY OF WAYLAND LEE SPEER, INVESTIGATOR FOR THE
SUBCOMMITTEE-Resumed
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Speer, while serving as investigator for this
committee yesterday did you interview the witness who just left the
stand, Jessie Garcia?
Mr. SPEER. Yes, sir, I did.
Senator DANIEL. Did you go over with him the case about which
he just testified, the instance in which he was arrested by Corpus

Christi police for possession of heroin?
Senator DANIEL. How much heroin did he tell you he had on him?
111111111
3418
Mr. SPEER. I
don't recall the quantity, Senator.
A substantial
quantity.
Senator DANIEL. It was a substantial quantity of heroin?
Senator DANIEL. He admitted he had it in his possession?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ask from whom he got it?
Mr. SPEER. He said it came from Chicos Patos, Joe Rodriguez.
Senator DANIEL. Did he tell you the name as Joe Rodriguez?
Senator DANIEL. Did he tell you where he lives?
Mr. SPEER. San Diego, and he spends a lot of time in Alice, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. And did he tell you where Chicos Patos got the
heroin?
Mr. SPEER. He said the heroin and marihuana comes from Salvadoire
de Hoyas in Nuevo Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. Did he tell you about the same thing that Lieutenant Jackson said the witness testified to him about?
Mr. SPEER. Yes, Sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you also go into the case with him of Manuel
Cantu which happened several years ago?
Mr. SrEE1I. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ask him whether or not Manuel Cantu,
C-a-n-t-u, had delivered any marihuana to Garcia?
Mr. SPEER. He said that he had talked to the brother of Manuel
Cantu, and this brother is known as Pete Cantu and has a bar at
Roma, Tex. and through this connection set up a process by which
Jessie Garcia received 96 pounds of the marihuana from Manuel (1 antu
to take to the oil fields.
Senator DANIEL. Here in Texas?
Mr. SIEER. He didn't say which oilfield.
Senator
DANIEL.
And did Jessie Garcia say whether or not Manuel
Cantu was an official in Mexico back at that time, I believe about 3 years
ago when this happened?
Mr. SPEER. lie said he was a police detective in Monterrey.
Senator DANIEL. Did he say this Manuel Cantu had set up the deal
for marihuana ?
Now, Shirley Orlowski, the witness who was on the stand yesterday,
will she return, please.
You may be seated.
FURTHER TESTIMONY OF SHIRLEY ORLOWSKI REESE
Senator DANIEL. Now, in your testimony yesterday I believe you said
that your husband is in prison serving a narcotics charge, is that
correct ?

Senator DANIEL. And that the charge involved the sale of heroin to a
minor, is that right?
Mrs. REESE. That is what it was supposed to have been.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know that your husband was engaged in
selling heroin here in San Antonio?
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
Mrs.
TRAFFIC
3419
No, sir, I didn't.

DANMEL. Did you ever see any heroin in your husband's pos-
REESE.
Senator
session?
NO, sir,
I didn't.
Mrs.
SeiialREESE.
or 1).INEL.
And
will you identify his name again?
1Mr'S. RESE. Marion Odell Reese.
Senator DANiEL. I believe you say more recently you have been
living witi Clarence Flint, is that right?

Mrs. REESE. I didn't say that.
Senator
Well, I thought you did.
1 feel sure you did but

I'll ask it over. With whom are you now living?
Mrs. 1i'SE. I am living with Clarence Flint.
Senator DANIEL. All right, what is his full name?
Mrs. REESE. Clarence Cecil Flint.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been living with Clarence
Flint?
I).NIEL.
M[rs. REESE. Since March.
Senator DANIEL. March of this year?

Mrs. REESE. Yes,
Senator DANIEL.
Mrs. REESE.
sir.
And where have you been living with him?
102 Quinn.
Senator DANIEL. All during this time?

M111S. REESE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Isn't there any other address where you all have
stayed together?
Senator DANIEL. And is he a married man?
.Mrs.REESE. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Does lie have any children?
IMrs. REESE. I don't know that.
Senator DANIEL. He hasn't told you whether he does or not?
Senator DANIEL. During this time you all have been living together,
have you ever seen any marihuana or heroin in his possession?
.Mrs. REESE. No, sir, I haven't.
Senator DANIEL. With the caution I gave you yesterday about, the
seriousness of any failure by mistake or otherwise to give us a truthful
answer, just with that caution I want to put the question to you again.
have you ever seen Clarence Flint with any marihuana or heroin in
hiis 1)ossession?
Mrs. REESE. No, sir, I haven't.

Senator DANIEL. Have you during that time ever had any marihuana or heroin in your possession?
Mrs. REESE. No, sir, I haven't.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever had heroin in your possession?
Mrs.
REESE.
No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever used heroin?

Senator DANIEL. Well, you may consult your attorney.
When you
do so, though, remember you said you had never had heroin in your
possession.
71515-56-pt. 7-68
3420
Mrs. REESE. No, sir, I haven't ever used it-look, yesterday you all
asked me if I had used narcotics. I told you yes. But I didn't say
that it was heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Well, have you ever used any heroin to your
knowledge?
Senator DANIEL. Has anybody ever shot heroin in your veins to

your knowledge? Didn't you tell us yesterday that had been done?
Mrs. REESE. No, sir, I told you I didn't know what it was. You are
speaking of when I was 15?
Senator DANIEL. When you were 15, didn't you tell us yesterday
someone took a needle, your boy friend, after you married and started
going with some other boy friend, that he shot with a needle heroin
in your arm?
Senator DANIEL. Well, did that happen?
Mrs. REESE. I didn't say it was heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what was it?
Mrs. REESE. I don't know what it was.
Senator DANIEL. Some kind of narcotic, wasn't it?
Senator DANrEL. What did he say it was?
Mrs. REESE. He didn't say.
Senator DANIEL. Well, the truth is that people, like this boy friend
of yours who started you at 15 on heroin, called it stuff?

Senator DANIEL. And that is what he called it?
Senator DANIEL. That is the common name for heroin, isn't it?
Mrs. REEsE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever had stuff in your possession?
Senator DANIEL. You never had any in your possession other than
what somebody shot in your arm?
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever seen Clarence Flint with any stuff?
Mrs. REESE. No, I haven't.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever seen Clarence Flint have any type
of narcotic drug with him?
Mrs. REEsE. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, doesn't he use narcotic drugs?
Mrs. REESE. Well, if he does I haven't ever seen any.
Senator DANIEL. Well, during the time you have lived with him
haven't you used some type of narcotic drug?

Mrs. REESE. No, sir; not this time.
Senator DANIEL. Not during this time?
Senator DANIEL. In other words, since March of this year you
have not been using narcotic drugs?
Senator DANIEL. When did you stop?
Mrs. REESE. Well, I never was on it all the time.
Senator DANIEL. Well, just when did you stop using it?
Mrs. REESE. Well, just like I told you yesterday, I used it when
1 was 15, before I went to Gainesville and after I came back from
3421
Gainesville I did just a couple of times after that, since then I haven't.
Senator DANIEL. Is that the Girls' School there ?
Senator DANIEL. And what offense were you convicted of?

Mrs. REESE. They sent me for nothing at all.
Senator DANIEML. What's that?
Mrs. REESE. They sent me up there for nothing at all.
Senator
DANIEL.
Mrs. REESE. Yes,
Senator DANIEL.
For nothing at all?

sir.
Didn't they tell you they were sending you for
something?
Mrs. REESE. No, they wouldn't tell me nothing.
Senator DANIEL. I beg your pardon?
Mrs. REESE. They didn't tell me anything.
Senator DANIEL. Were your parents living?

Senator DANIEL. Were you living with them?
Senator DANIEL. At home?
Senator DANIEL. Well, did they take you away from your parents?
Senator DANIEL. What did they say the reasons were they were
sending you up there?
Mrs. REESE. They didn't say.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did they tell you they knew about your using
the druos 2
Mrs. 'EESE.
me anything.
No, they didn't tell me that. They just wouldn't tell
Senator DANIEL. Well, you had been using the drug before they
sent you up there, hadn't you?
Mrs. REESE. Yes, a couple of times.
Senator DANIEL. And you had smoked marihuana, too?

Senator DANIEL. When did you start smoking marijuana?
Mrs. REESE. When I was 15.
Senator DANIEL. Did you start that before you started using heroin?
Senator DANIEL. Well, don't you have any idea why they sent you
to Girls' School at Gainesville?

Mfrs. REESE. I guess because I was going with this boy I was going
with.
Senator DANIEL. You were going with a boy?
Mrs. REESE. The one I was speaking of yesterday.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't start going with him until after you
married did you?

Mrs. REESE. No.
married.
See, they sent me to Gainesville after I was
Senator DANIEL. They did?

Senator DANIEL. And why did they send you? You say they sent
you to Gainesville after you started going with this boy other than
your husband?
3422
Senator DANIEL. After you started smoking marihuana, and heroin,

and using stuff, is that right?
Mrs. REESE. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. With all that in mind, can't you think back of
anything that they told you as to why they sent you to Gainesville
Mrs. REESE. They didn't tell me anything.
Senator DANIIL." Well, had you been violating any other laws?
Mrs. REESE. NO.
Senator DAN ,EL. Have you ever bought narcotics from a doctor
here in town?
Mrs.
REESE. No,
sir.
Senator DANIEL. Think about the question clearly; Have you ever
bought any kind of drugs, either morphine or any other drugs used
as a substitute for heroin, from any doctor here in town?
Senator DANIEL. Did a doctor ever give you any type of narcotic
drugs here in San Antonio'?
Senator DANIEL. A doctor never has?
'rS. REESE. Never has.
Senator DANIELs.S.hat
kind of narcotic drugs has Clarence Flint
been using?
MUrs. REESE. I don't know that he uses any.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever crossed the Mexican border?
Mrs. REESE. Yes, I have.
Mrs. REESE. Laredo.
Senator DANIEL. When was the last time?
lhen my brother got married. He went over there
Mrs. REESE.
for his honeymoon. I went with him.
M[rs. REESE. I can't remember what month it was.
Senator DANIEL. Well, have you crossed the border there at Laredo
more than once?
Senator DANIEL. About how many times would you say that you
have crossed the border in the last 5 or 10 years?
Mrs. REESE. Just about 3 times, 3 or 4 times.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been stopped and searched?
Mrs. REEsE. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever bought any type of narcotic drugs
across the border?

Senator
DANIEL. Did you ever smoke marihuana over there?
Mrs. REESE.
NO, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever use any kind of stuff over there?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever cross the border with Clarence Flint?
Senator DANIEL. All right, how much is the most that your drug
habit has cost you?
Mrs. REESE. I haven't ever had a habit.
Senator DA NIEL. It has always been given to you by boy friends?

Senator
DANIEL.
3423
Yes.

:Senator DANIEL. All right.
Mrs. REESE. Would you ask me the question again?
Senator DANIEL. Will the reporter read the question?
The REPORTER. It has always been given to you by boy friends?
Mrs. REEsE. Yes, sir; itias.
Senator DANIEL. A boy friend started you off, gave you your first
injection of stuff, right?
Senator DAN1EL. And all the way through it has been boy friends
wlo kept you up on any shot that you took, is that right?
Senator DANIEL. Now, have you done anything to make money for
these boy friends?
Mrs. R FSE. May I consult my attorney?

Mrs. REEsE. I refuse to answer that on the grounds it might tend
to incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. In my opinion one of the most despicable uses
of narcotics is on the part of any man who gives to women, especially

young girls, 15 years of age-you are still a young girl even nowalthough every use is despicable. I simply wanted to say that in the
record-since you have refused to answer that question-since we have
information here from our investigation which led me to ask you that
question. Do you know Billy Hanson?
Mrs. REESE. Yes, sir, I know him.
Senator DANIEL. You know him?
Senator
,ou?
DANIEL.
When did you first know him?
How old were

Senator DANIEL. Yes, you may, but let's try to consult him on
everything in connection with Billy Hanson, if possible.

Mrs. REESE. When I was 15.
Senator DANIEL. Is he the one who started you on marihuana and
heroin?
to incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. You actually feel a truthful answer to that question might tend to incriminate you rather than someone else?
Senator
DANIEL.
Yes.

Senator DANIEL. All right. Let's proceed, please, Mr. Counsel.
3424
Mr. NAMI. May I say a word for the record?

Go ahead.
Mr. NAMI. I have been employed in this case.
Senator DANIEL. Oh, if you are employedMr. NAMI. I stood up wanting you to give me a chance for the
statement before it was started.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Nami, if attorney in this case you certainly
may sit over there by the witness and she may consult you. I certainly
wasn't aware of that.
Mr. NAMI. Senator, I stood up awhile ago, wanted to make a statement before you started. You wouldn't recognize me.
Senator DANIEL. Well, Mr. Nami, we have known each other all
these years
Mr. NAxI. That's why I don't feel any offense.
Senator DANIEL. You know had I seen you stand I would certainly
have asked for what purpose. I did not see you stand before. I did
not know you were employed as counsel in this case. You may sit
over here by the witness and she may consult you if she so desires.
All right.
(Witness consults her attorneys.)
Mrs. REESE. Now, what was that question again ?
Senator DANIEL. Now I'll tell you we are going to slow down the
proceedings a lot if after asking the question you have to ask back
every time. I was under the impression you had consulted your attorney on the question.
Mrs. REESE. I'll say yes, he is the one. That's what you asked me?
Senator DANIEL. Yes, that's what I asked, whether or not Billy
Hanson was the one who started you on marihuana and heroin ,
Senator DANIEL. No, sir.

(Witness consulted her attorneys.)
Mrs. REESE. I don't know where he's at.

Senator DANIEL. You don't know where he is. How long since you
have seen him?
Mrs. REESE. It was a long time ago, Senator, I don't know exactly
how long.
Senator DANIEL. All right, has Clarence Flint ever given you any
marihuana or stuff, any type of injection in your arm?
DANIEL. Did you ever see him do that to himself?
Senator
Just come back to the witness stand just a moment. You may be
seated there. Do you know Paul Ellis?
Mrs. REESE. Yes, sir, I know him.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever live with him or work with him?
Senator DANiEL. Well, did you ever receive any money from Paul
Ellis? Have you ever received any money from Paul Ellis?
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
3425
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever received any type of narcotic drug
from Paul Ellis?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever give him any money?
Mrs. REESE. May I consult my attorneys?
Senator DANIEL. Yes, ma'am.

to incriminate me.
Senator DANIEL. Now, to the question I asked, whether you had ever
given Paul Ellis any money you refuse to answer on the grounds it
Senator DANIEL. Well, have you ever given any money to Clarence
Flint?
Mrs. REESE. May I consult my attorneys?

Mrs. REESE. No, sir- I don't give him any money.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever given him any money? That is
what I asked you.
Mrs. REESE. Oh, I guess I have given him money for cigarettes,
something like that.
Senator DANIEIr. You have given him some money at different times,
what business is he engaged in?
Mrs. REESE. He is a professional boxer.
Senator DAN-rEL. Is that the way he makes his living?

Mrs. REESE. Yes, sir, that is the way he makes his money.
Senator D.FEL. All right, you can stand aside.

Clarence Flint.
(Mr. Clarence Flint was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Mr. NAMI. Senator, I have been retained to represent this young
man.
Senator DANIEL. Right, I saw you this time. Let the record show
that Mr. Herman G. Nami and the counsel, Mr. Gillespie, are sitting
with the witness.
Now, Mr. Flint, you understand you have the right to consult your
counsel at any time you feel you need to?
TESTIMONY OF CLARENCE CECIL FLINT
Mr. FLINr. Yes. sir, I (10.
Senator DANIBL. Will you state your name and residence?
MAr. NAMI. Just a moment, please, sir.
(Witness consulting with his attorneys.)
Mr. FLINT. My name is Clarence Cecil Flint. I live at 102 Quinn

Street.
Senator I)ANIEL. How long have you lived there?
Mr. FLINT. The last 8 or 9 months.

Senator DANIEL. And who lives with you?
Mr. FLINT. Shirley.
3426
Senator
DANIEL.
The witness who just left the stand?
Mr. FLINT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Are you all married?

Fr. FLINT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Are you married to someone else?
Senator DANIEL. Is she married to someone else?
Senator DANIEL. YOU know that to be true?
Senator DANIEL. Have you been selling any marihuana or heroin

Mr. FLINr. I didn't hear that question.
Senator DANIEL. Have you every sold any marihuana or heroin

Mr. FLINT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever sold marihuana or heroin anywhere?
Mr. FLINT. May I consult my attorneys ?
(Witness consulted his attorneys.)

Mr. FLINT. Well, when I was in the service in 1950 in Japan, I got
an undesirable discharge for selling stuff in Japan.

Senator DANIEL. For selling what in Japan?
Mr. FLINT. Marihuana. It wasn't named "H4" over there, Senator,
it was named "neopone, sipone, hypone, and phetapone."
Senator DANIEL. I'll let Mr. Speer examine you since he spent 10
years in the Orient and set up the Japanese narcotic control system
after World War II. Suppose you take the witness.
Mr. SPER. When were you in Japan?
Mr. FLINT. I was in Japan from 1948 to 1950.
Mr. SPEER. What unit?
Mr. FLINT. I was with the Naval 29322, I believe, something, it wzis
29322, I believe it was, in Yokosuka, the naval barracks. I was in the
Marine barracks on the naval station at. Yokosuka, Japan. I was
stationed there as a guard.
Mr. SPEER.
Were you in the Marine Corps?

Mfr. SPEER. What was your serial number?
Mr.
Mr.
FLINT.
SPEER.
1083816.
You say you were convicted of selling narcotics in
Japan?
Mr. SPEER. While you were in the service?

Mr. SPF.R. Were you convicted by military court at the post?
Mr. SPEER. And how much marihuana did you sell?
Mr. FLINT. Well; I got 4 pounds of marihuana from these boys,
these colored boys at Yokosuka. I had harbor patrol. They were
all knocked out on marihuana. I said, "Look, I hear you all got something, why don't you sell me something?"
Mr. SPEER. You bought from them?
3427
ILIACIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
iN'-r.
FLINT.
SPEER.
Yes; Sr; they brought it from the Panama Canal Zone.

Are they in the service?
Mr.
Mr. FLIxr. No, they were in merchant marines, come into our
base.
Mr. SPEER.
They were on the merchant ship?
Mr. SPEER. They were also tried and convicted?

Mr. FLINT. I think 2 convicted, 4 of them, 2 of them convicted.
Mr. SPEER. Were you selling that in the NCO bar?
Mr. FLINT. I was selling in EM club.
Mr. SPEER. EM club?
Mr. FLINT. Yes, ma'am; yes sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Selling marihuaua at the enlisted men's club?

Mr. SPEER. Did you also sell heroin there in the club?
Mr.
FLINT.
SPEER.
No, sir.
Did you sell what the Japanese sell?
Mr.
Mr. FLINT. No, sir, I didn't. The way I got messed up with stuff
over there, I was going down the street one evening, you know, and
I was just walking down the street. I didn't know anything about
anything really, you know, and I was 18 years old and I stopped by a
shine boy and this shine boy shined my shoes and he stopped and while
he was shining my shoes, he stopped and he fixed.
Mr. SPEER. What do you mean, the shine boy?
Mr. FLINT. He got a shot of dope right there, you know.
Mr. SPEER. On the street he fixed?
Mr. FLINT.
Mr. SPEER.
Mr. FLINT.
Mr. SPEER.
Mr. FLINT.
Yes, sir, right on the street, yes, sir.
In Yokosuka?
Yes, sir.
Is that a fairly busy street there?

Yes, sir, it was on the main street of Yokosuka.
know if you know-
I don't
Mr. SPEER. How does the traffic on that street compare to the traffic
out here?
Mr. FLINT. Different kind of traffic, have rickshaws, as many people
as on this street. Yokosuka is almost as big in population as San
Antonio and a lot smaller in area. So I would say as many people
went down that street as this. In fact, it was called black market alley
where all the soldiers and everybody went, you know.
Mr. SPEER. I am familiar with the fact.
Mr. SPEER. Now, this other drug, did you say you used this ahen
yourself ?
Mr. FLINT. No, I never used ahen.
Mr. SPEER. A-h-e-n, the name of the drug.
Mr. FLINT. I mean if I had used it I would recognize the name.
don't recognize the name.
Mr. SPEER. Did you ever smoke any powder or any cigarettes?
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
1mean,
111111111
Yes, sir.
Was that ahen?
Yes, sir, I guess it was.
It was heroin?
No, it wasn't in no white powder, it was in a black ball,
you know, the 'gooey' brown ball.
FLINT.
SPEER.
FLINT.
SPEER.
FLINT.
3428
Mr. SPEER. How long did you use these narcotics?
Mr. FLINT. Well, I mean, I didn't use them too much, you know, I
just got to messing with this guy and that night he was fixing this
stuff, I forget, 'phetopone,' I believe.
Mr. SPEER. Amphetamine? That keeps you awake.
Mr. FLINT. Well, it might have been 'neotole' or something like that.
Mr. SPEER. They have about a dozen different names for it.
Mr. FLINT. Yes, I know they do. Well, the first one, when they
got a-hold of me that morning, you know they had 25 witnesses against
me. They went upstairs and looked in my locker and they found a
syringe and had some stuff that was used just like benzedrine except
it wasn't quite as strong as benzedrine.
Mr. SPER. When did you come back to the United States?
Mr. FLINT. June, oh, around June 1 of 1950.
Mr. SPER. Were you in custody?
Mr. SPEER. How long were you in custody?
Mr. FLINT. Well, I had been in custody for a year almost.
Mr. SPEER. You got back in June, 1950; when -we-te you relea te
Mr. FLINT. June 22.

Mr. SPFxR. Oh, you got in on June
Mr.
FLINT. I
went to YVI, I was on the Boxer, at the time that I
come in and
Mr. SPEER. You transferred to YVI, what is that?
Mr. FLINT. That is an institution in military prison, I guess, in San
Francisco, right off of Treasure Island.
Mr. SPEER. Upon your release did you come directly to San
Antonio?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir, I didn't come to San Antonio at all.
Mr. SPEFR. How long have you been in San Antonio?
Mr. FLINT. Well, I have been here several times.
Mr SPEFR. This last time how long?
Mr. FLINT. Since January of 1955.
Mr. SPEER. During this time, since your release in June of 1950 how
long were you on narcotics?
Mr. FLINT. Well, when I got out of the service I wasn't on narcotics
and I didn't use narcotics.

Mr. SPiER. When did you first begin using them?
Mr. FLINT. May I consult my attorney?
Mr. SPEER. Yes.

Mr. FLINT. Sir, I have never been hooked since I have been out of
the Marine Corps on heroin or anything. I have just took, you know,
a joy pop, I guess, what you were calling it yesterday.
Mr. SpcmEp. When was the last time you took a joy pop?
Mr.
FLINT.
Well, may I consult my attorneys.
Mr. SPEER. Yes.

Mr. FLINT. I don't even know when it was, it has been so long ago.
Mr. SPEER. Say within the last month or two?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir.
Mr. SPEER. Were you able to take a joy pop occasionally
acquire a habit after once being addicted?
and still not
11111119
3429
Mr. FLINT. Yes, sir, I didn't mess with it for quite some time since I
got out of the service.
Mr. Spmi. Since the first of this year have you supplied heroin to
anybody in San Antonio, either for money or otherwise'.
Mr. FLINT. No, sir.
Mr. SP=R. What is your business?
Mr. FLINT. I am a professional boxer and I work out here. I have
worked at the Barn this year, I own half of the Barn out here, the first
of the ear and
Mr. SPmR. What is this Barn?
Mr. FLINT. A place of business out here on the Austin Highway, I
mean the Seguin Highway.
Mr. SPEAR. What sort of place is that?
Mr. FLINT. Night club.
Mr. SPF.R. You own half of a night club?
Senator DANIEL. Where did you make your money with which to
invest in the Barn?
Mr. FLINT. Beg pardon?
Senator DANIEL. Where did you get the money?
Mr. FLINT. I boxed and I worked for my father.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever sell any heroin anywhere?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir.
Senator DAmN.
In this country?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever sell any marihuana anywhere in this
country?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever sell any other narcotic drug in this
country?
Mr -"LInT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever give any narcotic drugs, heroin, stuff,
or anything else to any person in this country?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see any heroin in this country?
Mr. FLINT. Yes, sir; I have seen it.
Mr. FLINT. Well

Mr. FLINT. I have seen it.
Mr. FLINT. At different places. I have been all over the country
since 1950.
Senator DANIEL. Well, have you seen heroin in a lot of places over
the country since 1950?
Mr. FLINT. Yes; I guess every place I've been almost.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know a lot of young people like yourself
and Shirley, about your ages, who use heroin?
Mr. FLINT. Well, I don't know any of them. Personally, I don't
know any of them that took it. They look like they might take it; I
don't know.
3430
Senator DANIEL. Don't you have some friends who use heroin here
in San Antonio?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Now, since you have come back to the United
States you have used heroin, as you told Mr. Speer?

Senator DANIEL. In various ways, off and on; is that right?
Senator DANIEL. And it has gotten you into trouble and given you
misery; hasn't it?
DANIEL. You wouldn't
FLINT. No, sir; I think it is
Senator
Mr.
earth.
advise anyone to use any?

the worst thing in this God's green
Senator DANIEL. You know what it will do to other people?

Senator DANIEL. You know what it has done to you?
Senator DANIEL. And you are a young man. How old are you?
Mr. FLINT. Twenty-four.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever use heroin before you went into
the Army ?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir.

Senator DANIAL. Or any marihuana?
Mr. FLINT. Nor, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you see the first of it after you got to Japan
Mr. FLINT. Well, one time I ran away from home when I was 13
years old. They gave me a pill, a red bird, barbiturate, nembutal.
Senator
DANIEL.
You used some?
Mr. FLINT. That was the only time I ever did it. I run away from
I was 13 years old.
home. That was the only time I ever did it,
Senator DAWNIL. Now, your use of heroin or whatever use of druo's
you used after you got back home, caused you to be arrested, at
least ].guess it has lea to it, 21 times, is that about right?
Mr. FLINT. Well, I imagine I have been more times than that.
Senator DANML. More than 21 times?
Mr. FLINT. But not through narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. Well, wouldn't you say that your use of narcotics
contributed to your getting into these arrests?
Mr. FLINT. I guess some of them but in Houston, Tex., they put
for anything.
you
in jail DANIEL.
Senator
That's
what I'm getting at, you say you have
been arrested more than 21 times?

Mr. FLINT. I have been arrested that many times in Houston. Tex.
DANIEL. What's that?
FLINT. I have been arrested
Senator
that many times in Houston, Tex.

Mr.
Senator DANIEL. Twenty-one times since you got out of the service?
Mr. FLINT. Well, I was going to jail every time they saw me.
Senator DANIEL. For what?

Mr. FLINT. For nothing.
Senator DANIEL. What did they say?
Mr. FLINT. See me, pick me up for vagrancy.

charged me, never filed on me.
Well they never
3431
Senator DANIEL. You were arrested for aggravated assault on a

female, weren't you?
Mr, FLINT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And you were arrested for other things, associating with a common prostitute?
Senator DANIEL. Have you done that?
Mr. FLINT. Yes, sir, I guess she was.
Senator DANIEL. You have been associating with the wrong kind
of people ever since you got out of the service, haven't you?
Mr.
FLINT. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. And
you have been associating with some girls

who are prostitutes haven't you?
Mr.
FLINT. Not lately.

Senator DANMEL. I say, have
you since you got out of the service?

Mr. FLINT. I guess I have, I don't know.

Senator DANIEL. Well, only you could know. Have you ever received money from any girl who is a prostitute?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Have you ever lived with them or helped them
with their business or anything else?

Mr. FLINT. We just went around to have a good time, you know.
I mean sometimes they pay for it, sometimes I pay for it, you know,
whoever had the money, you know.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever helped any prostitutes along with
their business ?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever refer anybody to them, help somebody ?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir; I never got out on the street and asked if they
wanted to go see a girl or anything like that.
Senator DANIEL. I said, did you ever help in their business any way,
anywhere?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir; no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. rhis call you made up to the narcotics bureau
Tuesday afternoon at 1: 30, it has been reported to us here and I
think you are under arrest for it now ?
Senator
DANIEL.
That you called up and asked who subpenaed
Shirley Orlowski?
Mr. NAMI. May I make a statement that he has requested me to
make, sir, in this meeting?
Senator DANIAL. All statements come from the witness. You may
counsel with him, he may counsel with you and make any statements
he wishes to make.
Mr. NAMI. I can't have him make this statement to you at this time.
Senator DANIEL. That is something all the congressional committees have found in allowing counsel to be here. If you let the counsel
do the talking we will be forever in the committee room. We have a
rule against it which we can't violate. This counsel happens to be a
counsel I would be very happy to have make it, if it wasn't for the rule.
Mr. NAMI. Senator, this is outside of the import of your meeting,
3432
what you are inquiring about and that is why I thought under the circumstances I might be permitted to make the statement.
Senator DANIEL. Well, we will see as soon as I finish the examination.
Did you make this call to the narcotics office Tuesday afternoon?
Senator DANIEL. Did you ask them in a loud, excited voice, were you
pretty excited?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir; I wasn't excited.
Senator DANIEL. Pretty mad?
Mr. FLINT. I might have been pretty mad. I wasn't excited.
Senator DANIEL. Did you'ask who subpenaed your wife, or Shirley?
Senator DANIEL. And did you tell them you would like to speak to
the agent serving the subpena?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir; I told them I had already spoke to the agent that
served the subpena.
Senator DANIEL. Did you say you wanted to know who sent those
things, meaning the subpena?
Mr. FLINT. Mr. MacDaniel, there was, the way I looked at it I just
wanted to find out who was sending it, I figured some stool pigeon
sent it, I wanted to know who it was, not any point to the committee
or the hearing or anything like that. I made noSenator DANIEL. Well, did you go on and say anything about a
stool pigeon to this narcotics agent?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir; I hung the phone up.
Senator DANIAL. Didn't you before hanging up, didn't you say, I'll
kill that s. o. b., what those initials stand for?
Mr. FLINT. I did not make that statement.
Senator DANIAL. Are you positive?
Mr. FLINT. I am positive.
Senator DANIEL. Are you positively swearing under oath that you
did not say to the man on the other end of the telephone, who happened to be Mr. H. H. Gray, that and I quote, I'll kill that so. b., the
only thing different is using the full words that s. o. b. stand for?
Mr. FLINT. If I did I don't remember it.
Senator DANIEL. Well, a minute ago you said you did not say that.

Mr. FLINT. I am positive I didn't say it but, I know I didn't say it,
but I was a little upset and I might have said something but nothing on
a matter I would kill, the word killSenator DANIEL. Did you ever threaten to kill anybody?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Never?
Mr. FLnqr. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Are you positive you did not threaten to kill whoever sent-those responsible for sending those subpenas to you Tuesday?
Mr. FLINT. I thought it was Monday.
I I I it
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
3433
Senator DANIEL. Well, I believe, you may be right, it might have

been Monday.
Mr. FLI '. Yes, sir; it was Monday.
Senator DANIEL. Whatever day you called the narcotics office?
Mr. FLINT. Monday afternoon.
Senator DANIEL. You did call?
Mr. FLiNT. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You did talk to a man. Did he tell you his name
was Gray ?
Mr. FuNT. Didn't tell me his name. I wanted to talk to Mr. Speer,
that's who I asked him for.

Senator DANIEL. Did you know Mr. Speer?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir; his name was on it, the thing, and I wanted to
talk to him. I had already called Lt. Jack Hutton and asked, you can
ask Lt. Jack Hutton if I made any threats, I asked what to do about it
when I called him. I called him before I called the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, you know.
Senator DANIEL. You called up the city officers first and what did
you ask them?
Mr. FLINT. I asked him
Senator DANIEL. You didn't do any fussing there?
Mr. FLINI. No, sir; I just asked him, I wondered why they got her,
you know.
Senator DANIEL. That's all you asked?
Mr.FLINT. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right, now are you saying positively you did
not tell the Federal Bureau of Narcotics man on the telephone you
wanted to know who sent those things and Ill kill the s. o. b.?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir; I did not make that statement.
Senator DANIeL. And you are positive, you say under oath you never
threatened to kill anyone?
Mr. FLN' [standing]. If I did anything wrong, Senator MacDaniel, I'm sorry but I made no accusations in any way or said I was
going to kill anybody. If I have done anything wrong I apologize to
you.
Senator DANIEL. I appreciate your apology and the only question
now,,you see, is down to telling the truth. When you get under oath
to te tify before a committee, it is very important that you tell the
truth.
Mr. FLINT. Yes, sir; I understand.
Senator DANIEL. The only reason I go into this, the officers say you
said one thing, you say another thing, that's the only reason I am going
over it. As a matter of fact, there are two complaints in here you
threatened to kill someone else. I'll ask you if on December 2 ol this
year-you better listen to the question.
Mr. FLINT. I am listening.
Senator DANIEL. Then you can talk to your attorneys. If on December 2 of this year that you broke in the glass of a rear door of a house
with the butt of a .257-caliber rifle, entered that house, stating you
were going to kill a woman there?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir; I did not, I did not enter the house.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know Charlotte Taylor?

3434
Senator DANIEL. Gentlemen, this might be a funny matter to you

but it is serious to me. Let's go along. I'll ask you if you know
Charlotte Taylor?
Mr. FLINT. Not by that name. I know her by another.
Senator DANIEL. Did you know a girl at that house on December 2,
415 Fair Avenue, San Antonio?
Mr. FLINT. Yes. sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
At 415 Fair Avenue, of San Antonio.
Did you
see a girl there on that day when you went in the back door of that
house.
Mr. FLINT. 415 Fair Avenue?
Senator DANIEL. No; that's your address, I didn't mean that. I
mean 1005 Avenue B?
Mr. FLINT. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it may
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever threaten to kill John Frost?

Mr. FLINT. I refuse to answer because it might tend to incriminate
me.
Senator DANIEL. The rule is, counsel, he may counsel with you any
time he desires, and let's follow that rule and only communicate in
that fashion.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you know John Frost?

me.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever threaten to kill John Frost?

Mr. FLINT. Same answer.
Senator DANIEL. You waived that right, you said you never threatened to kill anybody. I order you to answer the question.
me.
Senator DANIEL. You understand?

Senator DANIEL. You had a chance of refusing, the second time,
the second time you waived the right to answer, you would be subject
to contempt of the Senate and prosecution for it, you understand?
Mr. FLINT. Yes, sir; I understand it fully.
Senator DA IEL. In spite of that you refuse. the second. time?
Mr. FLINr. Yes, sir.
Senator DANrEL. Did you threaten to kill another girl at 1005
Avenue B on December 2 this year at John Frost's place .
me.I
Senator DA IEL. Well, I order you to answer the question.
me.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you ever threaten to kill Paul Ellis?

me.
Senator DANIEL. I order you to answer.
3435

me.
Senator DANIEL. Did you file an income-tax return last year?
Mr. FLINT. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. FLINT. No, sir; Igot my subpena yesterday at 1 o'clock and I
was in jail all night long so I couldn't very well, have it at home.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have it at home?
Mr. FLINT. My mother has it at her home.
Senator DANIEL. Didyou file an income-tax return in 1953?
Mr. FLINT. Yes, sir; I did.
Senator DANIEL. Will you furnish copies of those?
Mr. FLINT. I have them all the way from 1947.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know any peddlers of narcotics here in
San Antonio?
me.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know any sellers of narcotic drugs across
the Mexican border?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir.
Mr. FLINT. Well, I don't know if I know any sellers. You named
one a while ago, I don't know if I know him or not.
Senator DANIEL. Why did you say no?
Mr. FLINT. I don't know, I just didn't think of it until now.
Senator DANIEL. I'll ask you again, do you know any sellers of narcatic drugs across the Mexican border?
Mr. FLINT. I don't know if this is the same boy or not, used to be
a good friend. The de Hoyas boy, they are twins.
Senator DANIEL. Do you mean the de Hoyas we talked about a
moment ago, Salvadore de Hoyas?
Senator DANIEL. You say you know his brother in Houston?
Mr. FLINT. They are both in Mexico, they were both deported.
Senator DANIEL. They were both deported?
Senator DANIEL. They had been living over on this side but were
deported?
Mr.
FLINT.
Senator
Yes, sir.
DANIEL.
On account of violating the narcotics laws?
Mr. FLINT. Both professional fighters. I think one in San Antonio

got caught for marihuana and did time. The brother got caught,
twin brother, at the same time in New Orleans for stealing a car,
both went to the Federal penitentiary.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been across the border to see them?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir.
Mr.
FLINT.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Frequently or just(Witness consulted his attorneys.)

715-15-56--pt. 7-69
3436
Mr. FLINT. Well, I go across, I went across the border at least 10
times in the last 5 years, if not more.

Senator DANIEL. Well, have you ever seen any heroin over there?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir; I have never bought any heroin in Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. I didn't ask you that. Have you ever seen any
heroin in Mexico?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever talked about buying any ?
Mr. FuiNr. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, you have been a user of it during this time
and you mean to say you never even asked whether it was available in
Mexico, if it was cheaper than in San Antonio?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir; I wasn't trying to buy any.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't you even ask about it?
Mr. F i T. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, where did you go over in Mexico?
Mr. FLINT. Tiajuana, Juarez, Piedras Negras, Monterrey, Villa

Acuna. I boxed in most all those towns.
Senator DANIAL. All right, did you ever use any kind of marihuana
over there?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see any marihuana when you were
over there?
Mr. FLINT. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever see any marihuana here in San
Antonio?
me.
Senator DANIEL. Isn't it the truth you have sold marihuana here in
San Antonio?
me.
Senator DANIEL. Haven't you sold heroin here in San Antonio ?
me.
Senator DANIEL. You may stand aside.
Mr. Gray.
Mr. NAMI. Senator, may I ask a question? This young man is merely
being detained, no charges have been filed against him and I think that
if you feel that his explanation is satisfactory, possibly if you say the
word he would be released from custody.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Nami, we will have to hear the evidence. I
certainly will consider anything, but I assure you that he was arrested
before I had any information concerning what had happened or at
least, in the making of his arrest before I ever knew what had happened.
(Mr. Hershall H. Gray was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Mr. GRAY. Senator, sirSenator DANIEL. No pictures of this witness. I'm sorry.
State your name and occupation?
1111111
3437
TESTIMONY OF HERSHALL H. GRAY, NARCOTIC CLERK, BUREAU

OF NARCOTICS, SAN ANTONIO, TEX.
Mr. GRAY. Hershall H. Gray, narcotic clerk.

Senator DANIEL. Were you on duty either Monday or Tuesday
when this man, Clarence Flint, called to the narcotics office?
Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir; that was Monday.
Senator DANIEL. That was Monday of this week?
Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. About what time?
Mr. GAY. 1: 30 or 2 o'clock. About an hour or hour and half after

the subpena was served on Shirley Flint, 102 Quinn.
Senator DANIEL. About how long after?

Mr. GRAY. About an hour or hour and half.
Senator DANIEL. And did he identify himself to you?
Mr. GRAY. No, sir. He did after he talked for about half a minute.
Senator DANIEL. And what did he say his name was?
Mr. GRAY. Charlie Flint.

Senator DANIEL. Now, did you write down the conversation on
this yellow piece of paper?

Mr. GRAY. I wrote that down yesterday, hurriedly, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You typed this out yourself ?
Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you type down as accurately as you could
what the man said?

Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir; in a hurried manner.
Senator DANIEL. Did he tell you, reading now from your statement
here that he, Charlie Flint, went on to say he wanted to know who sent
those things ?
Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Had he been talking about the subpenas before
that?
Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir, he started off saying he wanted to know who
sent those things, what they had on his wife, and that he had instructed
her to tell us nothing on the grounds it might incriminate her and that
she did not know nothing about that stuff.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did he use any curse words in his talk?
Mr. GRAY. At the end of the conversation; yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Did he go on to say he wanted to know who sent
those things?
Mr. GRAY. That's right, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And then you have written down here, Flint then
stated that I will kill that so and so.
Mr. GRAY. That's what he said.

Senator DANIEL. In quotation marks?
Mr. GRAY. S-O-B.
Senator DANIEL. Is that what he told you except for so and so?
Mr. GRAY. He said S-O-B.
Senator DANIEL. Did he say S-O-B or did he say those words out in
full?
Mr. GRAY. Out in full.
Senator DANIEL. You know what those letters stand for, don't you
Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir.
'II
III
3438
Senator DANIEL. And did he say what is commonly understood those
letters stand for?

Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And you are sure he said what you have in quotation marks here, that I will kill that blank?
Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. But he didn't say blank, he said what S-O-B

stands for; is that right?
Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir.
Lieutenant Porter, Captain Murray, both of you.
Captain MURRAY. I will testify.
(Capt. Frank Murray was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. Will you state your name and position?
TESTIMONY OF FRANK MURRAY, CAPTAIN OF HOMICIDE DIVISION,
POLICE DEPARTMENT, HOUSTON, TEX.
Mr. MURRAY. Frank Murray, captain of the homicide division,
Police Department, Houston, Tex.

Senator DANIEL. How long, Captain Murray, have you been on the
police force?
Mr. MURRAY. Twenty-seven and a half years.
Senator DANIEL. This committee was interested in a certain report

at Houston which we did not get to develop at our last hearing and, as
a matter of fact, a little more time has shown an even worse situation?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I have here a newspaper story which says that
within 1 month 5 persons were found dead in Houston from doses of
heroin.
Mr. MURRAY. That was from October 1, the last one occurred on
October 8-Just a minute, I believe

Senator DANIEL. I believe the last one is November 1.
Mr. MURRAY. I may be mistaken about those dates. The first one
occurred on October 1, the second one on October 4, the third one, the
fourth one on October 27.
Senator DANIEL. Two on one day?
Mr. MURRAY. Did I miss the third one?
Senator DANIEL. Let's see, the first you said was on October 1.
Let's take them separately, the first, Victor G. Morgan?
Mr. MURRAY. I was wrong, that was the second. We have had
six altogether and the first was in January.
Senator DANIEL. January 17th?
Mr. MURRAY. That's correct.
Senator DANIEL. That was Leon Marion Oliver?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes, sir, and the other five through the month of
October.
Senator DANIEL. The other 5, the most recent, 5 dead people you
found with heroin in their urine or in the tests that were made?
Senator DANIEL. All 5 died in 1 month?
Mr. MURRAY. That's true.
Senator DANIEL. That is the month of October?
3439
Senator
year?
DANImEL.
From October 1 to November 1, inclusive, this
Mr. MuRRAY. That's true.
Senator DANIEL. Now, did you in your official duties examine the
bodies of these people or paraphernalia found on the bodies?
Mr. MURRAY. I believe not personally.
Senator
DANIEL.
Under your supervision?
Mr. MURRAY. The officers that work under my command did.
Senator DANIEL. Do you have the written report summarizing all

six cases, including the one that happened in January, this year?
Senator DANIEL. That will be made a part of the record at this
point as exhibit No. 11.
EXHIBIT NO. 11
NARCOTIC
DEATHS
UNDER
INVESTIGATION BY HOMICIDE DIVISION,

POLICE DEPARTMENT
HOUSTON
1. Offense: Death (accidental)

Complainant: Leon Marion Oliver (HPD No. 58873) Win, 23, 306 W. Clay,
Apt. No. 8.
Location: 306 W. Clay, Apt. No. 8.
Date and time: Between January 17, 1955, and January 18, 1955.
Summary: The deceased's wife, Carolyn Oliver, WF, 23, 2010 LaMonte Lane
(See Carolyn Paul as complainant case No. L-38151) stated that on the night
of January 17, 1955, she and her husband, Leon Oliver, went to Clifford Billy
Holbrook, WM, 20, 530 Bennington, house and spent the remainder of the
night. That Leon was not able to get up in the morning and that they were
afraid to call a doctor to that address. That they were unable to get anyone
with a car to help them take her husband to their apartment until her stepfather got off work, that the four of them took her husband (who was dead
at that time) to the above apartment and left him in bed. Stating further
that she saw Clifford Billy Holbrook give her husband a shot of heroin and
she thought this shot of heroin caused his death.
Coroner: Judge Ragan, stated that the pathology test in the autopsy revealed
large amounts of heroin in the liver causing heroin poisoning and the contributing
factor to the aspiration of vomit into the respiratory organs. Due to the above
Judge Ragan ruled death (accidental) in this case.
2. Offen8e: Death (accidental)
Complainant: Victor G. Morgan (Houston Police Department No. 50659) white
male, 36, 1346 Harvard.
Location: 9504 Hempstead Road (Yale Tourist Courts).
Date and time: October 1, 1955. Approximately 10 p. m.
Summary: The complainant checked into the Yale Courts and was accompanied by a woman and a man. He registered as V. G. Morgan and wife, and
told the manager that the man with them was his brother-in-law. The manager
stated that the 3 of them were together for about 30 minutes in the cabin and
then the brother-in-law and woman left, leaving Morgan in the cabin. Then at
approximately 10 p. m., these people returned to the cabin and Mrs. Wiggins,
manager, walked to the cabin, looked in and saw all three people there. She
stated that it looked like Morgan had some towels on his neck. Thinking Morgan
was drunk she told them to leave as she did not allow drunks at her place. The
man and woman left leaving Morgan in the cabin. In a few minutes an ambulance
arrived and the driver found Morgan dead. A "Joint and cooking spoon" was
found in the cabin.
Chemist and toxicologist: Examination of the spoon, eyedropper (joint), and
hypo needle revealed that they contained a trace quantity of diacetylmorphine
commonly known as heroin. Toxicologist. Robert F. Crawford.
Coroner: Judge Ragan stated that the results of the autopsy performed on
the deceased by Dr. Coulter revealed his death was due to an overdose of
narcotics. Due to the above Judge Ragan ruled death (accidental) in this case.
3440
S. Offense: Death (acirdenta)

Complainant: Wilburn Mundine (Houston Police Department No. 57951),
white male, 23, 2416Y2 Avenue E, Galveston, Tex.
Location: 1627 McCarty (Mayflower Motel cabin No. 16).
Date and time: October 4, 1955, approximately 1 a. m.
Summary: The complainant registered into the above motel, with another man
and woman as Mr. and Mrs. Bill Mitchell and brother, 23d Street, Galveston,
Tex. The manager of the motel stated that the complainant signed the card and
paid for the cabin. Then about noon the maid reported that the people were
still in cabin No. 16 and as customary, Mr. Gardner, manager, stated he went to
check to see if these people were going to stay over another night Upon getting
no answer he pushed the door open and found the complainant dead. The other
man and woman were gone. Found in the room: Syringe, spoon, and paper of
white powder.
Chemist and toxicologist: The syringe, spoon, and paper containing powder
contained diacetylmorphine, commonly known as heroin. The spoon contained
only a trace residue of heroin and the cellophane paper contained approximately
0.2 gram of heroin. Toxicologist: Robert F. Crawford.
Coroner: Judge Thompson, rendered a verdict of death (accidental) as the
autopsy showed suffocation from aspiration of foreign material into lungs.
.4. Offense: Death (accidental)
Complainant: Carolyn Paul (Houston Police Department No. 50557), white

female, 23, 2010 LaMonte Lane.
Location: 326 Jensen Drive (Cozy cabin No. 30).
Date and time: October 27 1955, approximately 8 a. m.
Summary: The complainant came to the Cozy Courts on October 27, 1955, at
approximately 12: 30 a. m. with a Mexican man, who registered them in under
the name of G. Flores. The clerk of the courts stated that they appeared sober
and normal. Shortly after 1 p. m. the day manager started checking to see who
all was staying overnight and didn't receive an answer to his knock on the door
of cabin No. 30. He pushed the door open and saw the complainant on the bed
dead. Found in the room: One Falstaff paper cup.
Chemist and toxicologist: One paper cup and stomach contents from Carolyn
Paul; no barbiturates were detected in either the paper cup or stomach contents.
Coroner: Judge Thompson stated that the autopsy showed that a test run on
kidneys of deceased showed traces of heroin and that death was caused by an
overdose of heroin. Due to these facts Judge Thompson ruled death (accidental)
in this case.
Complainant: Shirley Ann McKoy (Houston Police Department No. 49657),
white female, 22, 4307 Feagan.
Location: 6400 Washington (Cookies Cafe).
Date and time: November 1, 1955,2: 30 p. m.
Summary: The complainant was taken to the Heights Hospital by her husband
and she was dead. The husband, Pat Dan McKoy (also well known to this
department) stated that he left his wife around 10 a. m. and did not see her
until about 2: 30 p. m., when she drove up to the Cookies Cafe, as he walked up
there about the same time. She told him she was going to faint. He asked her
if she wanted some coffee and she started talking in a broken speech. He then
thought she had been overfixed and he started walking her. Then when she
couldn't walk any more he got in the car and went to Heights Hospital.
Coroner: Judge Ragan rendered a verdict of death (accidental) in this case,
as the autopsy report showed death was due to an overdose of opium derivatives.
Complainant: Edward Bryan Riley (Houston Police Department No. 51081),
white male, 25, 518 Sampson, apartment 2.
Location: 518 Sampson, apartment 2.
Date and time: October 8, 1955, approximately 11: 40 a, m.
Summary: The complainant was found at the above address by his girl friend,
Jody Ann Edwards, white female, 16, who stated that at 6: 30 a. m. her mother
woke her up and told her that Eddie was on the front porch, asleep. She went
to the porch and tried to wake him up but could not and as he was a heavy
drinker she thought him to be drunk so her brother helped her and they took
him in the house. After some time had elapsed she noticed that Eddie was not
breathing.
3441
Coroner: Judge Thompson rendered a verdict of death (accidential) in this

case, as the autopsy report showed death was due to an overdose of barbiturates.
Senator DANIEL. Also the article from the Houston paper concerning these deaths will be made a part of the record as exhibit No. 12.
EXHIBIT No.
12
[Article from the Houston Press, Wednesday, November 2, 1955]

DOPE BLAMED FOR DEATH OF
YOUNG
WIFE
The tragic story of Shirley Ann McKoy's schoolgirl romance and the bitter
lesson she learned from a dope addict husband unfolded today in the impersonal
files of a homicide investigation.
She learned the lesson at the cost of her life.
TELLTALE MARKS
Brown-haired, 22-year-old Mrs. McKoy died late yesterday in Heights Hospital.

minutes after she was taken there by Pat Dan McKoy, the husband who admits
she learned the dope habit from him.
On her arms doctors found the telltale marks of the needle.
"I don't know where she got it," her husband said. "But I have to find out
** * to live with myself. If it had not been for me. * * *"
.Mrs. McKoy's death was the fifth in Houston this year laid to an overdose of
narcotics. It was the fourth since October 1.
HUSBAND
JAILED
Police took Pat Dan McKoy, a 22-year-old carpenter, of 4307 Feagan, and 39year-old Ruth Harris, of 6412 Calder, into custody for questioning, but no charge
has been filed against them.
In jail this morning, the husband told this tragic story:
"I am to blame for everything. Shirley Ann came from a nice family, not rich
but respectable. Her father is a painter and she has five sisters and brothers.
"Shirley and I met when we were in high school. Both of us were 17. She
had paid her way through school by working in the afternoons as a salesgirl at a
downtown store.
BEGS FOR A FIX
"She didn't know I was on dope until after we were married. She was terribly
upset the first time she saw me all pilled up. But she loved me * * * and that
wrecked her life.
"I took her to a party once and she begged me to give her a fix. I was so high
I did it, and then she was hooked."
McKoy said Shirley Ann was sent to prison in 1953 on a charge of possessing
dope, and he went up a few months later on the same charge. Both were released
last summer.
In a written statement to homicide detectives. McKoy denied he knew where
his wife got the dope that claimed her life yesterday.
"She told me to meet her at a Washington Avenue cafe about 2 p. m.," he said.
"When I got there she was sitting in her car and she was sick. I knew from the
way she talked she had an overfix.
"I dragged her out of the car and tried to make her walk. That was the only
thing to do. Her shoes came off, but I kept dragging her.
"Then a man drove by that I knew and I asked him to take us to Joe Dick
harris' house. I thought we might do something for Shirley there."
Mrs. Harris said the young woman was unconscious when she was carried into
the house at 6412 Calder. Mrs. Harris applied cold towels, but the girl did not
revive.
"I felt she was dying." McKoy said. "We got her to the hospital as fast as we
could."
Homicide Capt. Frank Murray said he is convinced that Mrs. McKoy's deathand probably the other four similar deaths this year-are the result of heroin
fixing by dope pushers who don't know how to cut the narcotic with milk sugar.
11111111
3442
"Addicts accustomed to 10 or 15 percent fixes suddenly get a fix of 80 to 85

percent by mistake." Captain Murray said. "It'slike taking a dose of poison."
Senator DANIEL. Now, do you have-will you tell us briefly, without going into each of the cases, tell us the general things that applied to each of these cases which show that the same type of heroin
must be involved and that it was heroin that killed these people?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes, sir; according to the pathologist's report.
Senator DANIEL. In each case the pathologist reported findings that
caused you to believe that?
Senator DANIEL. In addition you found most of the people in tourist courts, motels, or cheap hotels; didn't you?
Mr. MURRAY. Would you repeat that?
Senator DANIEL. Did you find most of these bodies in tourist courts,
motels, or cheap hotels?
Senator DANIEL. And did you, beside the bodies, findieither needles
or cooking spoons or paraphernalia used for administering heroin?
Mr. MURRAY. Not beside all of them but a part of them. In some
instances that evidence had been either carried away with whoever
registered in with them or had been destroyed in some manner before we found out about it. We do have some pictures here for this
committee.
Senator DANIEL. Yes, sir. I would like you to identify the pictures and let us make them a part of the record. What is the first
picture you have?
Mr. MURRAY. The first one I have here on the complainant or victim, you might call it, Victor G. Morgan, a white male, 36 years of
age, found dead in a tourist court on October 1, 1955. I have here a
photo of him. Then I have
Senator DANIEL. That will be exhibit No. 13.
Mr. MURRAY. Sir?
Senator DANIEL. This will be exhibit No. 13.

(Exhibit No. 13 appears on p. 3443.)
Mr. MURRAY. And I also have a picture of the syringe and spoon,
the paraphernalia that was used.
Senator DANIEL. That will be exhibit No. 14.
(Exhibit No. 14 appears on p. 3443.)

Mr. MURRAY. Well, look at this before you mark them, I rather you
would look before they go on television, if you think they should.
Senator DANIEL. Exhibit No. 13 is the body of the deceased man
and exhibit No. 14 seems to be a needle and a cooking spoon found in

the room with him?
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
3443
EXHIBIT No. 13
Dead man (narcotics) Victor G. Morgan (win), 36, Houston, Tex. Found dead
in tourist court, Houston, Tex., October 1, 1955. As shown in photos, usual
cooking spoon and improvised syringe (medicine-dropper type) was found on
the dresser. (Chemist report heroin.)
EXHIBIT No.
14
Accidental death (narcotics) -Victor G. Morgan, age 36; found dead, tourist
court, Houston, Tex., October 1, 1955. Note cooking spoon and medicine droptype syringe.
3444
Senator DANIEL. Now then, identify your next picture.

Mr. Mummy. The next picture is the dead body of Wilburn Mundine, white male, 23 years o1d, found dead in a tourst court on October
4 as shown in the picture.
Senator DANIEL. Now, that will be exhibit No. 15.
EXHIBIT No. 15
4,A
.,
,0"<
1,-
,.2N
....
. ..
,"
,,.
. .
...,,.
. ,. , .
i,',
,".
'"' "" ' ...
..
*'o'
4~~~~~..
... * . ..
"'2
t",""
.:
'"."...
.'
Dead man (narcotics)-Wilburn Mundine, age 23, Houston, Tex. Found dead
in tourist court, Houston, Tex., October 4, 1955. As shown in photos, the
improvised syringe and cooking spoon found on the dresser, also one cap of
white powder in green cellophane wrapper. (Chemist reported 0.2 gram
heroin.)
Senator
DANIEL. What
is the next picture?
Mr. Mumuy. The next picture is of the hypodermic needle, the

spoon, the billfold, personal identification papers and theSenator DANIEL. The main thing I am interested in, you did fida~
cooking spoon?
Mr. Mumuy. We did.
Senator DANIEL. Where he cooked up the dose of heroin that killed
him?
Mr. Mtuxii.y. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. A-nd also I see a needle here, is that correct?
Senator DANIEL. This will be exhibit No. 16.
I I
3445
EXHIBIT No. 16
Accidental death (narcotics) -Wilburn Mundine, age 23, found dead at 1617
McCarty (tourist court). Note cooking spoon and improvised syringe (joint)
on dresser.
Senator DANIEL. And your next picture is what?

Mr. MURRAY. The next picture is taken from the righthand side of
the bed. It is the same as exhibit No. 15 you have there.
Senator DANIEL. We won't need that one.
Mr. MURRAY. 0. K., Senator.
Senator DANIEL. Now then, do you have any exhibits on any others?
I think that is sufficient. You had practically the same situation with
respect to them?
Mr. MURRAY. In most every case. Now here in this one, we have the
needle and we have the spoon and the same-no, that is the same as
the one you have here.

Mr. MtRAY. Now, I have some others here if you want them, of
the bodies however. I don't think in the balance of them it will show
any of the equipment.
Senator
DANIEL.
I think that is sufficient. The main thing that this
committee was interested in developing was that in Houston, Tex.,

during 1 month there were 5 deaths caused by heroin.
Senator
DANIEL.
And it is possible, therefore, for heroin to cause
some deaths immediately?

Senator
DANIEL.
As a matter of fact, don't you think that by using
heroin, any heroin users or addicts are bringing about their death,
3446
shortening their normal life. It is murder on the installment plan

at the longest, is it not?
Senator DANIEL. Also, it results in murder and death quite promptly
after some of the heroin is used?

Senator DANIEL. And you work on them from that angle?
Mr. MURRAY. Of course, the justice of the peace rules on them and
we follow from there. However, that is merely an opinion, it can be

changed at any time.
Senator DANIEL. Doesn't it show in most of these cases, that a man
and woman brought those people into the tourist court?
Senator DANIEL. I wanted to ask you whether or not you agree with
me that our maximum penalties on narcotic laws ought to be higher,

do you see any reason why in extreme cases like that we shouldn' have
maximum penalties just as high as for murder?
Mr. MURRAY. Senator I agree with you wholeheartedly that the
narcotic laws are not sufficient. It proves it in these cases that there's
something wrong somewhere; there should be something done about it
and I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Senator DANIEL. The only thing I want to ask you, these cases bring
it home, these people died in a hurry after taking the heroin shots?
Mr. MURRAY. That's what the pathologist's report shows.
Senator DANIEL. But also whenever they take shots of heroin which
is not quite so pure?
Senator DANIEL. Or when
they take heroin loaded with something

else which these addicts have been telling us about?
Senator DANIEL. That is slow death, too, isn't it?
Mr. MURRAY. Sir?
Senator DANIEL. It is a living death and it destroys the mind and the
soul and all moral inhibitions?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes, sir, that's correct.
Senator DANIEL. So, either way you take it, you would agree that
the statutes dealing with narcotic drugs ought to deal with the
smuggling and selling as more like murder offenses and offenses
of that kind?
Senator DANIEL. You agree with me they are selling murder?
Senator DANIEL. Thank you very much for appearing before our
committee.
Charles Hubbard. Let me see if any witnesses have an objection
to being sworn together.
We want to bring the hearing to a close at 12 if we can.
Charles Hubbard, Gloria Jene Kerley, and Vandeburg Griffin,
Horace Grice, John Bonnee, and Harry Kerley. Do any of you
object to being sworn together? Those who do not object come on
and I will swear you together.
(All of the foregoing named witnesses were duly sworn by Senator
Daniel.)
3447
Senator DANIEL. Now, will you identify yourselves so we will be sure,

I'll ask you as you testify. Now, the first witness I called was Charles
Hubbard.
Mr. HUBBARD. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You may be seated. The rest of you-there are
three chairs, you can sit close by.
What is your name and address?
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES NATHAN HUBBARD
Mr. HUBBARD. Charles Nathan Hubbard, 1505 Sam Rankin Street,
Corpus Christi, Texas.
Senator DANIEL. I believe you have used narcotic drugs?
Mr. HUBBARD.
Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. For how many years?

Mr. HUBBARD. First started about 1950.
Senator DANIEL. How old were you?
Mr. HUBBARD. Well in 1950 1 was about 21.
Senator DANIEL. Well, about how much did your habit get to
costing you?
Mr. HUBBARD. Well, my habit never did cost too much at one time
because I never did have too much money.
Senator DANIEL. About how much did it cost?

Mr. HUBBARD. Sometimes I might spend as much as four or five dol-
lars, on the average I didn't spend over two or three.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you get the money to buy heroin?
Mr. HUBBARD. Worked.
Senator DANIEL. Now, did you get enough money to buy it or did
you get in any other trouble?
Mr. HUBBARD. Well, I did get in a little other trouble while using it.
Senator DANIEL. Did you do a little stealing?

Mr. HUBBARD. I did some; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know a lot of addicts in Corpus Christi?
Mr.
HUBBARD.
No, sir; I don't know any in Corpus Christi.
When
I got in trouble I was living in California.

Seantor DANIEL. You got in trouble trying to steal to buy heroin?

Senator DANIEL. And it leads a lot of people into doing that,
doesn't it?
Mr. HUBBARD. Leads everybody I know.

Senator DANIEL. Do you know anybody with a real heroin habit
that can make enough money legitimately to buy that heroin?
Mr. HUBBARD. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. What do they do?

Mr. HUBBARD. Do most anything to get it.
Senator DANIEL. People addicted with heroin do most anything to

get the money to buy it?
Mr. HUBBARD. That's right, anything.

Senator DANIEL. When did you have your last shot?
Mr. HUBBARD. Well, I haven't had a shot in about 3 weeks now.
Senator DANIEL. You have been going to Mexico to get yours,
haven't you?
Senator
DANIEL.
Have you ever been across the border?
3448
Mr. HUBBARD. Yes, sir; I have been across.

Senator DANIEL. When is the last time?
Mr. HUBBARD. About 2 weeks ago.

Senator DANIEL. On November 24 the record at the international
bridge shows that you crossed, arriving on foot, alone, that you were
searched and that you told them that you had gotten a shot the last
time you were over there, is that right?
Mr. HUBBARD. Well, I didn't always get a shot when I was over
there. I imagine I said that, I don't remember saying it.
Senator DANIEL. You don't remember?
Senator DANIEL. You do remember getting shots of heroin on the
Mexican side?
Mr. HUBBARD. I have got some over there.
Senator DANIEL. Is it pretty easy to get?
Mr. HUBBARD. Wasn't too easy for me.
Senator DANIEL. Was it cheaper than buying it in Corpus Christi?

Mr. HUBBARD. I haven't never bought any there.
Senator DANIEL. When is the lastMr.
HUBBARD.
When I was in California, I haven't, I don't have
the habit any more.

Senator DANIEL. How long have you lived in Corpus Christi?
Mr. HUBBARD. First moved in 1943 and left there in 1949 and went
to California, stayed there from 1949 to 1953, come back to Corpus

Christi, stayed 6 weeks, went to Houston, stayed about a year.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever bought any heroin in Houston?
Senator DANIEL. Is it pretty easy to get there?

Mr. HUBBARD. It was at that time.
Senator DANIEL. Was it higher than at Corpus?
Mr. HUBBARD. I haven't ever bought at Corpus.
Senator DANIEL. Where have you bought in this State besides
Houston?
Mr. HUBBARD. That's the only place.
Senator DANIEL. The rest in Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. HUBBARD. I bought some in Nuevo Laredo and Houston.
Senator DANIEL. You didn't have any trouble finding it in Nuevo
Laredo here during the last month, did you?
Mr. HUBBARD. Last month?
Mr. HUBBARD. I don't think I went over to find none last month.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't you go over there with an airman, E. H.

Kennedy, on October 23, this year?
Mr. HUBBARD. I didn't go over with him, I came back.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know E. H. Kennedy?

Mr. HUBBARD. I saw him.
Senator DANIEL. E. H. Kennedy, stationed on Matagorda Island?
Mr.
HUBBARD.
I don't know him, got a ride, he told me he was
coming back through Corpus Christi going to Matagorda Island. I

told him I would ride with him.
Senator DANIEL. And was Howard Butler with you?

Mr. HUBBARD. I think so.
Senator DANIEL. Is Howard Butler a narcotic addict?
Mr. HUBBARD. I don't know.
I I
3449
Senator DANIEL. Didn't you ever see him use the drugI
Mr. HUBBARD. I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. Anyway, you all crossed the bridge on October 23
coming from Mexico?
Mr. HUBBARD. I guess that was the date; I don't know.
Senator DANIEL. You had gotten some heroin?
Mr. HUBBARD. I don't always get heroin.
Senator DANIEL. All this committee wants to prove, not wanting
to quibble about what trip you got, what bridge, but that you have
crossed the bridge and gotten heroin?
Mr. HUBBARD. Yes; I have gotten some.
Senator DANIEL. And you know others who have?
Mr. HUBBARD. I don't now for sure.

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever go to a shooting gallery where the
people shoot it in your veins or give it to you?
Mr. HUBBARD. No, sir; I never went to a place like that.
Senator DANWnL. Can you name any place in Nuevo Lodero where
you bought it?
Mr. HUBBARD. I can't name a place. I can name a part of town
where I got it, I don't know about the place, I wasn't in no place.
Senator DANIEL. Could you take the Mexican officials, if they heard
about this testimony, if they wanted to know the information, could
you take them and show where you bought heroin in Nuevo Loredo?
Mr. HUBBARD. I bought it from a fellow driving a buggy.
Senator DANIEL. Could you take them and show them the man,
would you know the man?
Mr. HUBBARD. If you see him, I probably could identify him.
Senator DANIEL. You bought from several places?
Mr. HUBBARD. That is the only place I ever did that I can remember.
Vandeburg Griffin. All right, have you been sworn?
TESTIMONY OF VANDEBURG GRIFFIN
Mr. GmwF.N. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. State your name and address.
Mr. GRurFIN. My name is Vandeburg Griffin. I live at 1106 Coke
Street, Corpus Christi, Tex.
Senator DANIEL. Now, I believe you have made about 15 crossings
into Mexico this year, haven't you?
Mr. GRFFIN. No, sir, not 15, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, we have a count here by the customs col-
lectors, they checked you each time.

Mr. G~i FIN. Fifteen times, sir?
Senator DANIEL. I say, they checked each time you came back
across from Mexico?
Mr. GRIFFIn. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. On the bridge at Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. GRFNw. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And you are a narcotic addict, aren't you, you
have been ?
Mr. GRIFFIN. No, sir; I am not, I never have been. I just used it
off and on.
Senator DANIEL. Off and on I-
3450
Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been doing that?

Mr. GRIFFIN. For about a year now.
Senator DANIEL. And during this year you have been going over
to Nuevo Laredo to buy your heroin, haven't you?
Mr. GRIFFIN. If I am not mistaken, sir, I think I've only been going
over to Laredo, I think I only made about 4 or 5 trips over there.
Senator DANIEL. You are mistaken, according to the customs records.
Forget the number for a minute. You have been going over to buy
some heroin, haven't you?
Senator DANIEL. And you got some shots over there from a doctor,
didn't you?
Mr. GRIFFIN. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you get them from?
Senator DANIEL. Where did you get them from?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I can't, I can't just describe, I just can't name the
places, it's not but one source over there that I was, that is the boys
around the pool hall, some of them over there and
Senator DANIEL. Well, how many places, how many people have
you bought heroin from in nuevo Laredo?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I imagine, I imagine just one social club.
Senator DANIEL. I don't want any imaginings. Have you bought
from more than one source?
Senator DANIEL. Well, who is the source then?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I don't know, sir.
Senator DANIEL. How did you find him each time you go over?
Mr. GRIFFIN. The boy be hanging around the pool hall.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I don't know that.
Senator DANIEL. Would you know him if you saw him again?
Senator DANIEL. When is the last time you went across the border
to get heroin?
Mr. GRIFFIN. The last time I was over there, sir, was last, last Saturday a week ago, I believe, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, wait a minute. Are you using heroin now?
Senator DANIEL. How long has it been since you had a shot of
heroin? You understand you are supposed to tell the committee the
truth. I am not implying you haven't, but I am concerned about the
difference between some of your testimony and what is down here
from this investigation. I am just wondering if you know you are
liable to be prosecuted if you don't tell us the truth. Do you understand that you could be prosecuted if you tell this committee an untruthful statement under oath, do you understand that?
Senator DANIEL. Well, now with that in mind I just want to ask you
about how long was it since you were across the border at Laredo to
buy heroin?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I went across last Saturday a week ago.

Senator DANIEL. Saturday a week ago?
3451

Senator DANIEL. You didn't cross this last week?
Mr. GRIFFIN. That's what I mean, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You mean this last Saturday?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes sir, last Saturday.
Senator DANIEL. That's what I thought. That is when you were
served with the subpena to come up here?
Mr. GRIFFIN. That's what I mean.
Senator DANIEL. All right, we've got that clear. Another thing
to clear up, how long since you had your last shot of heroin?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Oh, it has been, oh, I think, maybe about a month.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, you know I am just asking when you
had your last shot, you said you were not an addict?
Senator DANIEL. Didn't you get some heroin when you were over
in Mexico last trip ?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Oh, yes, I bought a paper over there.
Senator DANIEL. Well, that's what I am getting at, that was last
Saturday, wasn't it?
Senator DANIEL. And you shot that in your arm over there, didn't
you?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes sir.

Senator DANIEL. SO your last shot was last Saturday?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir, but that was the first, though, in about a
month, though.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I was asking about your last shot, that was
last Saturday?
Senator DANIEL. Think real well, you haven't had a shot anywhere
since last Saturday?

Senator DANIEL. Now, the crossing records down there show that
when they inspected you, you had needle marks on your arms, you
have those, don't you?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, sir, not new needle marks, they are old marks.
Senator DANIEL. Well, they are needle marks?

Senator DANIEL. From heroin shots?
Senator DANIEL. And the records show 15 crossings this year, that's
what they show. Do you think that is about the right number?

Senator DANIEL. Well, anyway, you wouldn't say it is not the right
number, you won't challenge the record they have of how many times
you crossed, to their knowledge. Have they searched you every time
you came back from Nuevo Laredo?
Senator DANIEL. Every time?

Senator DANIEL. They have got a record of every time you crossed
this year?
71515-56--pt. 7-
70
3452
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever bring any heroin back with you?
Mr. G FIwN. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Except in your veins?

Senator DANIEL. You never brought any back except in your veins?

Senator DANIEL. Did you have some delivered on this side of the
border to you?
Senator DANIEL. You just go over to get it yourself. Where do you
get the money to buy this heroin? Do you have a job?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I had a job up until September, this year.
Senator DANIEL. Well, what have you been doing since September?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, I haven't been doing anything then, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Hasn't your heroin gotten you in trouble, by causing you to violate the law just like others?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, sir, I haven't been in trouble before.

Senator DANIEL. I wanted to know, hasn't your heroin habit gotten
you in trouble with the law?

Senator DANIEL. Hasn't it caused you to violate other laws besides
the narcotics laws?
Senator
DANIEL.
Or did you start violating the law before you
started using heroin?
Which came first?
Mr. GRIFFIN. The heroin.

Senator DANIEL. At what age did you start using heroin?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I think I was about, I think I was about 25.
Senator DANIEL. About 25 ?
Mr. GRIFIN. About 25; 24.
Senator
DANIEL.
Do you know any peddlers of heroin in Corpus
Christi?
Mr. GRirI N. No, sir; I don't, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Just in Nuevo Laredo?

Senator DANIEL. Did you ever sell any heroin in Corpus Christi
or deliver it to anybody?
Will you state your name and address?
TESTIMONY OF GLORIA 3ENE KERLEY
Mrs. KEILY. Gloria Jene Kerley, 1012 Chipito Street, Corpus
Christi, Tex.
Senator
DANIEL.
And is this your husband?
Mrs. KERLEY. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Is your husband here with you?

Mrs. KERIXY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Come sit up beside her. Now, have you been
sworn?
Mrs. IRLEY. Yes, sir.
Senator
border?
DANIEL.
Have you been buying heroin across the Mexican
IIIIIII
3453
Mrs. KIRLEY. No sir

Senator DANIEL. kave you ever taken a shot of heroin?
Mrs. KERLEY. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Do you remember coming back from Nuevo

Laredo on November 23 this year?
Mrs. KURLY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You were with your husband, were you not?
Mrs. KERLEY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And you gave your husband's occupation as a
waiter at the Country Club in Corpus Christi?
Mrs. KERLEY. Yes, sir. He works there part time.
Senator DANIEL. You talked there at that time with the customs
officers, didn't you?
Mrs. KIERLEY. Yes, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
How often have you all been going to Nuevo
Laredo?
Mrs. KEiRuY. Well, I have been approximately 3 or 4 times, might
have been 5.
Senator
DANIEL.
This year you mean?
Mrs. I amY.
E
Yes, sir.
Corpus.
Senator
DANIEL.
During the whole time I have been in
When did you first use heroin?
Mrs. KERLEY. I have used heroin but once, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Was that in Corpus or Mexico?
Mrs. KERLEY. It wasn't in either, it was in Chicago.
Senator DANIEL. Chicago?
Mrs. KERLEY. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. You went with your husband over there to get
heroin on November 23 this last time?
Mrs. KERLEY. No, sir; didn't go to get heroin.
Senator DANIEL. Did you see him get any heroin there?
Mrs. KERLEY . No, sir; I didn't.
Senator DANIEL. Did you carry any money for him?
Mrs. KERLEY. Not for him.
Senator
DANIEL.
Didn't you tell the customs agents you did?
Mrs. KIERLEY. No, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Well, I'll ask your husband.
sworn?
Have you been
TESTIMONY OF HARRY F. KERLEY
Mr. KERLEY. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. State your name and address.
Mr. KERLEY. Harry F. Kerley, Corpus Christi, Tex., 1012 Chipito
Street.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Kerley, the record on the international bridge
shows you made ten crossings over into Nuevo Laredo during the last
week, is that correct?
Mr. KERLEY. How many?
Senator
DANIEL. Ter crossings during the last

Mr. KERLEY. No, sir; uncorrect.
Senator DANIEL. How many crossings?
Mr. KERLEY. Haven't made any the last week.
IIIIIII
week.
3454
Senator DANIEL. Of what week are you speaking of ? Let's be sure

we are speaking of the same one, we are not talking about this one but
last week.
Mr. KERLY. I haven't made one in practically about a month, outside of Laredo there.
Senator DANIEL. Did you cross some other place?
Mr. KFi
Y. We went to some place there in Kingsville there to a
party there, friend of mine and we went, stayed at a party there till
after the place closed so we decided to go over and get some whisky.
Senator
Where?
Over, what was it, Matamoros, from Kingsville.
Senator DANIEL. Did you get any heroin?
Mr.
DANIEL.
KERLEY.
Mr. KERLEY. No, sir; went right to a liquor store and come right
back.
Senator DANIEL. Well, I have down here these days, that between
November 18 and 23 that you made 10 crossings. I am sorry, I stated
that wrong, that you went across to Nuevo Laredo on November 18
and on November 23; is that right?
Mr. KERLEY. I can't recall the exact date but it could be right.
Senator
DANIEL
And I have here that you made 10 crossings in the
the last week, in about a week's time?

Mr. KERLIEY. That's uncorrect.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you make more than one a week?
Mr. KERLEY. Well, sometimes some weeks.

Senator DANIEL. Please go ahead.
Mr. KER:EY. Well, sometimes some weeks I made one the first of
the week and the end of the week, all depends on when I might be able
to &et a ride over there.
Senator DANIEL. You have been going over more than once a week ?
Mr. KERLEY. Some weeks. Like I said, all depends on how many
rides I can get over there.
Senator
DANIEL.
Have the customs inspectors checked you every
time you came back or missed you?

Mr. KERLEY. Every time they see me in the car, anybody there
stops me there.
Senator DANIEL. I didn't ask you that.
Mr. KE LEY. Every time I come down.
Senator DANIEL. I said had they checked your body?

Mr. KERLEY. Oh, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. 'O see if you had any heroin?
Mr. KERLEY. Every time.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever skipped by?
Mr. KERLEY. I have gotten by once or twice, never bothered me,
maybe some new fellow didn't know me.
Senator
DANIEL.
They know you are a user of drugs?
Mr. KERLEY. Well, sometimes; yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. And they have got you reported there, therefore,
every time you go over they watch for you when you come back and
they shake you down; don't they?
Senator DANIEL. This year, of course, you have gotten by them

sometimes and somebody missed you?
3455
Senator DANIEL. I am going to read into this record how many
times these records from the customs international bridge show you
having crossed back from Nuevo Laredo since June of this year. On
June 13, 1955, accompanied by your wife, has tattoo mark over needle
marks, drug addict. On August 5, 1955, August 11, 1955, September
13, 1955, October 11, 1955, October 19, 1955, October 3, 1955, October
11, 1955-I mean November 11, 1955-November 18, 1955, November
23, 1955. Do those sound about right, is that about the usual frequency
of your crossings?
Mr. KERLEY. I can't deny that, deny the customs there because I
never keep up with the dates at the time I was crossing. They could
be right, I know I was over there quite a number of times.
Senator DANIEL. Do you buy heroin every time you go?
Mr. KERLEY. No, sir; I don't buy heroin every time I go over.
Senator DANIEL. Most of the time?
Mr. KERLEY. At times I get knocked out. I haven't bothered with
it yet.
Senator DANIEL. Tell us what places you bought in Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. KERLEY. There's a little restaurant, supposed to be a jive spot.
Senator DANIEL. I didn't understand you.
Mr. KERLEY. A jive spot, I don't know how to tell you how to get
to the place, anything like that, have American music, American
bop, and you could just about make a contact just about any time you
want to.
Senator DANIEL. What is the name?
Mr. KERLEY. I don't know, I don't know the name of the place.
Senator DANIEL. You go to this American bop place, find somebody there to sell to you?
Mr. KERLEY. Practically every time that you would want it.
Senator DANIEL. Do you take your own needle across?
Mr. KERLEY. No, sir; they furnish the needle and everything.
Senator DANIEL. Sort of a shooting gallery?

Mr. KERLEY. I wouldn't say, I never seen anybody, the places they
have taken me, I mean he give, he had a needle for me, have it for
anybody else, might be part of a shooting gallery, whatever you want
to call it.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been to a shooting gallery, places
where they sell to you, give you a needle, help you shoot yourself ?
Mr. KERLEY. I have been to the place; presented with the needle.
Senator DANIEL. How many years have you been using heroin?
Mr. KERLEY. I first started smoking heroin in Japan.
Senator DANIEL. Were you in the service?
Mr. KERLEY. I was there in service 6 years, from 1947, April 1954
1 was just out of service here, and I started in Japan smoking heroin.
Senator DANIEL. From whom did you buy it?
M[r. KERLEY. Well, some of the fellows on the Post there, you know,
fast crowd, so forth and so on, would bring it from town. I didn't
know anything about it. I heard about marihuana, so forth and so
on, knock the top off the cigarette there.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever used heroin or marihana before
you got in the Army?
Mr. KERLEY. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, when you got in the Army did they
warn you against marihuana and heroin?
3456
Mr. KERLEY. No, sir, never give a lecture.
Senator DANIEL. How did you miss that? When I went in-you
went in as a GI?
Mr. KERLEY. I went in as a volunteer GI.
Senator DANIEL. That is the way I went in. They gave us pictures
and lectures on a lot of different things. You didn't get any of that?
Mr. KERLEY. No, sir, I didn't. Only thing, when I went in the
service, asked if you are a narcotic addict, have you ever used drugs,
that was in Corpus Christi they asked, only thing they quizzed me
about.
Senator DANIEL. You said you were not?
Mr. KERLEY. I wasn't at that time.
Senator DANIEL. Hadn't you used marihuana a little bit before

you got in the service?
Mr. KERLEY. No, sir; I hadn't used anything.
Senator DANIEL. When did you first arrive in Japan?
Mr. KERLEY. The early part of 1949.
Senator DANIEL. Where did you find this heroin being sold over
there?
Mr. KERLEY. Quite a number of places there.
Senator DANIEL. Was anybody close around the military camps
selling it?
Mr. KERLEY. Like I say, Gifu, Japan, there, what you call prostitutino, house.
Senator DANIEL. They tell me it is the worst place in Japan.
Mr. KERLEY. I think you're talking about Kobe.
Senator DANIEL. I think it is the worst place where he was stationed
in Japan, all of us have a different opinion about that matter. He

says as far as narcotics are concerned that for sale to the military
forces of this country that is one of the worst places in Japan and this
man, my investigator, helped set up the narcotics control system
over there after the war. Now, you found it pretty readily available
right around the military posts?
Mr. KxLEtY. It was; it was.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't they lecture and tell you all that Red China
or India was trying to get the heroin over into Japan to our forces and
the Japanese people and trying to demoralize our forces?
Mr. KERLEY. I didn't hear anything until after I came back from
Korea, Tokyo hospital there.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Speer made lectures in 1949. I don't know
if you ever heard him, but all of the Army put out that word. You
never got it?
Mr. KERLEY. No, sir; we didn't.
Senator DANIEL. You never heard about it till you came back home?
Mr. KERLEY. No, sir; I heard about it in Tokyo, Japan, Tokyo Gen-
eral Hospital.
Senator DANIEL. What was that year ?
Mr. KELEY. 1951, 1952.
Senator DANIEL. Two years after you started using heroin?
Mr. KERLEY. I wasn't exactly a user, smoke me a cigarette of heroin
and after I got hit and got some shots of morphine and felt all right.
Senator DANIEL. Then you got shot with heroin?
Mr. KrnmzY. After I got back to Tokyo Hospital I got a shot of
morphine and heroin.
3457
Senator DANIEL. What was your assignment of duty?

Mr. KxRLEy. I was in the heavy mortar company there.
Senator DANwL. Were there very many of the boys over there using
heroin and marihuana?

I'll say this, every mortar company was a pretty clean
Mr. Kay.
company. I never fooled around with many fellows. I was a squad
leader. My platoon sergeant, he said if I was going to train them it
was best not to fool around with the fellows I was going to have to be
training, so forth and so on. I never fooled around with any fellows.
Senator DANIEL. You were the leader of the squad?
Mr. KERLEY. Squad leader.
Senator DANIEL. Your platoon sergeant knew you were using the
drug?
Mr. KERLEY. No, sir; I didn't say that.

Senator DANIEL. What did you say?
Mr. KERLEY. He told me the best way to get along, not to fool with
them at all, if you want a man to -obey you, can't run around and play
with him.
Senator DANIEL. You fooled around with other servicemen of other
outfits ?
Mr. KIERLEY. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you see many of them?

Mr. KERLEY. No, sir, I didn't.
Senator DANIEL. How about it in Korea?
Mr. KERLEY. Quite a number in Korea.
Senator DANIEL. How many would you say, servicemen you saw
using heroin?
Mr. KERLEY. You mean, how many that actually used it, you mean
that I have seen use it, I mean I couldn't state, but just about look at
a man and tell if he is using it or not.
Senator
DANIEL.
How many are you sure were using it?
Mr. KERLEY. Quite a number I'll say that.
Senator DANIEL. At least a dozen?

Mr. KERLJEY. Well, probably.
Senator DANIEL. More than a dozen, you know that, don't you?
Mr. KERLEY. Could be, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And then you kept on using it after you came
home?
Mr. KERLEY. No, sir, I didn't.
Senator DANIEL. I mean, you have used it off and on, haven't you?

Senator DANIEL. Let's understand each other, I didn't mean using
it every day, you have been using it since you came home?
Senator
DANIEL.
You have been buying it in Mexico?
Senator DANIEL. You have been bringing some of it back?

Mr. KERLEY. I haven't.
Senator DANIEL. Do you want to tell this committee you haven't

except in your own veins?
Mr. KERLEY. I will.

Senator DANIEL. Have you ever bought any heroin in Corpus
Christi?
Mr.
KERLEY.
No, sir.
3458
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever bought any heroin anywhere in

Texas?
Mr. KERLEY. No, sir. I take that back, I bought some in Houston
once.
Senator DANIEL. Was it pretty easy to get there?
Mr. KERLEY. No, sir, it wasn't.
Senator DANIEL. So then your buying has all been on these trips
over to Mexico; has your wife been going with you on some trips?
Mr. KERLEY. The majority of the times. I get quite a few clothes
made over there.
Mr. KERLEY. I get quite a few clothes over there.

Senator DANIEL. Clothes?
Senator DANIEL. You mean you have your tailoring done over
there?
Mr. KERLEY. I can get a suit made over there for $24, probably pay
$6 customs tax.
Senator DANIEL. You know also the heroin is cheaper there, too?
Mr. KERLEY. Yes, sir, it is.
Senator DANIEL. So you kill two birds with one stone?
Mr. KERLEY. I wouldn't say that, sir.
Senator
DANIEL.
Where do you get all this money to buy heroin
and clothes?
Mr.
KERLEY.
Like I say, I work part time at the country club and
different hotels, so forth and so on, also receive a disability from the
Government.
Senator DANIEL. What kind of disability?
Mr. KERLEY. I got wounded in Korea there, disabled, disabled
veteran.
Senator
DANIEL.
And you use some of this pension money to buy
heroin with?
Mr. KERLEY. No, sir; I have too many bills to pay to get heroin at
the present.
Senator DANIEL. Where do you get your heroin money?

Mr. KERLEY. Sir, I mean, I don't know how long, been off about 2
months.
Senator
DANIEL.
I didn't ask you that, I said, where are you getting
your heroin money?
Mr. KERLEY. Heroin money, I play "chunk" and dominoes and shoot
quite a bit of dice.
Senator DANIEL. You gamble?

Senator DANIEL. Isn't it true that in order to get enough money to
take care of your habit and all your fine clothes and all your other
obligations you have to violate some laws other than gambling laws?
Mr. KERLEY. I tell you, sir, I never have violated any laws, but I
felt sometimes like doing it, and if I had enough nerve to do it I would
have, but I have never violated any other law to get narcotics. I have
always managed enough, gambled to get it.
Senator DANIEL. You don't always win, do you?
Mr.
KERLEY.
I don't always win. Like I say, if you don't have a
habit you don't have to get it at the present time.
Senator
DANIEL.
Haven't you ever stolen anything?
I I I I
3459
Mr. KRLEY. No, sir, I haven't.

Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been convicted of any offense?
Mr. KERLEY. What, sirI
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been convicted for anything?
Mr. KERLEY. No more than investigation of a narcotic addict.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been tried?
Mr. KERLEY. Not for narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been tried for anything?
Mr. KERLEY. Well, one time in, it was way before I went to the
Army there, about 16 years old, a merchant seaman in Pennsylvania

there, I was about 16 and I was coming off of the boat, a fellow give
me a package, said "Take this package ashore." It was some boots and
a ham, I think, and when we got to the gate the fellow said, "Let me
see what's in there." I said, "It's some boots and a ham." I think he
took us down to Broad Meadows, that's in Pennsylvania. The fellow
who brought the charges, he dropped the case, said he would think we
had enough punishment, and so on.
Senator DANIEL. That was a charge of smuggling, wasn't it, theft
or what?
Mr. KERLEY. No, sir; wasn't any charges, dropped the case.
Senator DANIEL. Well, the reason you all were called in here was
simply to show how a known addict at least with respect to you, could
cross the border without any trouble to buy heroin over in Nuevo
Laredo. Do you think that is right?
Senator DANIEL. That is easy; isn't it?
Mr. KERLEY. What's that?
Senator DANIEL. You can go over to Laredo, cross the bridge right
in front of American officials, go over there and buy your heroin in
Nuevo Laredo; that is pretty easy to do, isn't it?
Mr. KERLEY. Yes, sir; it is.
Senator DANIEL. You don't
have any trouble about it, and you

have had some delivered back on this side, too, haven't you?
Mr. KERLEY. No, sir; I haven't, never had enough money to have
any thing, I joy pop, that's all.
Senator DANIEL. Now wait a minute, you mean you never shot any
heroin in your veins?
Mr. KERLEY. I call that joy pop, too, in the vein, too.
Senator DANIEL. You are the first addict who ever called that joy
popping. You put it in your veins?
Mr. KERLEY. Yes, sir; whether main liners or joy .poppers.
Senator DANIEL. How many addicts do you know in Corpus?
Mr. KERLEY. I think, I don't know, I think Jackson done a tremendous job of cleaning it up.
Senator DANIEL. I know Mr. Jackson appreciates your complimentary remarks. You don't know of any?
Mr. KERLEY. I don't know of any at the present time.
Senator DANIEL. All right, stand aside.

Now, what is your name?
TESTIMONY OF HORACE GRICE
Mr. GRICE. Horace Grice.
Mr. GRICE. 920 Parker.
11111
3460
Senator DANIEL. Corpus Christi?

Mr. GRICE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you take someone over to Nuevo Laredo to

get a connection of narcotics?
Mr. G~icE. Well, I took a boy over across the river with me.
Senator DANIEL. That's what I mean.

Mr. GRICE. And naturally he's going to make a connection when he
gets across. You see first time I went over in Nuevo Laredo, a guy run
right up to me, run ri htSenator DANIEL,. Upeak out louder.
Mr. GacE. The first day I went across the river a Mexican ran up
to me, asked what I want, "What you looking for, you want anything,
you like marihauana, you like heroin?" I don't want nothing the first
time.
Senator DANIEL. Was that this year?
Mr. GRICE. This year, aboutSenator DANIEL. In other words, you didn't have to look or anything?
Mr. GRICE. I didn't have to look for anything.
Senator DANIEL. A Mexican citizen came up to you?
Mr. G(iucE. Come up to me.
Senator DANIEL. Was that in Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. (ricE. That was the 1-2-3 Bar.
Senator
DANIEL.
Where was that?
That was the 1-2-3 Bar?
Mr. G~i E. And, anyway, the next time I went over there
Senator
DANIEL.
Did you say that is the 1-2-3 Bar?
Mr. GRICE. It's one, two something; it's a bar.
Senator
DANIEL.
Somebody else said the name.
Mr. GRICE. It is a high-priced bar, real high priced.
The next
time I didn't go to that bar, I went to another bar. I was over there
three times and
Senator DANIEL. All that was this year?
Mr. GRICE. All that been this year, three times. And he asked
me, another one asked me did I want anything. I said, yes, give
me a shot of "coke."
Mr. GltiCE. "Coke."
Senator 1)ANMi. Cocaine?
Mr. GricE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. The last trip did you buy a shot of cocaine?
Mr. GrcE. The last time I got a shot of it.
Senator DAML. How much did it cost you?
Mr. GRicF. A dollar and a half..
Senator DANIEL. And the last time you were over there you really
went to Nuevo Laredo to take a man who wanted to make a connection?
Mr. GirE. You would say that. Another man.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't he agree to give you a hundred dollars

to do it ?
Mr. GRTCE. No, well, not for me, not for me to make him no connection.
Senator DANIEL. What did he agree to give you a hundred dollars
for ?
Mr. GrucE. Well, you would say-
111111111
3461
To take him over to Nuevo Laredo?

Mr. GRIcE. If I get him delivered; get somebody to deliver.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator DANIEL. What is this man's name?

sitting by you, John-what is your name?
Mr. BoNNrE. John Bonnee.
He's not the man
Senator DANIEL. Is he the man?

Mr. GRICE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. He brought some back in his stomach?
Mr. GRICE. I don't know; yes, sir; I don't know, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Did you come back together?
Mr. GRIOE. We come back together, I don't know if any
Senator DANIEL. John Bonnee, have you been sworn?
Mr. BONNEE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I'll turn to you now. State your name and address.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN BONNEE
Mr. BONNEE. My name is John Bonnee.
Street, New Orleans, La.
I live at 2310 Garden
Senator DANIEL. What is your business?

Mr. BONNEE. I am a merchant seaman.
Senator DANIEL. Did you contact this man here sitting by you,
Mr. Grice, about taking you to Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. BONNEE. We met in Corpus Christi on Sunday.

Senator DANIEL. This last Sunday?
Mr. BONNEE. This past Sunday, and he has aSenator DANIEL.
He has what?
Mr. BONNEE. A 1951 Cadillac. I asked him to drive me over to

Laredo, to drive over with me and he said he would. I told him as
long as I was over there anything he ate or drink I would pay for it
and we went over there. We ate and drink while we were over there
and that's the only money that I paid him.
Senator DANIEL. Did that amount to a hundred dollars?
Mr. BONNEE. No, sir, I didn't have a hundred dollars to give to him.
I had a hundred dollars but if I give him a hundred dollars I wouldn't
have any.
Senator DANIEL. You had a hundred dollars with you?
Mr BONNEE. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You have used drugs, have you?

Mr BONNXEE. Heroin.
Senator DANIEL. You wanted to go over and make a connection,
didn't you?
Mr. BONNEE. Well, not exactly, I wanted to go over and get a fix.
Senator DANIEL. Wanted to get a fix?
Senator DANIEL. How long did it take to buy heroin after you got
across the border at Nuevo Laredo last Sunday?
Mr. BONNEE. Oh, about 15 minutes.
Senator DANIEL. And did you make arrangements where you could
buy it at any time you wanted it?
Mr. BONNEE. No, sir.
111111111
3462
Senator DANIEL. Well, now, didn't you put some in a finger stall,
rubber finger stall and swallow in your stomach?

Senator DANIEL. You know if you do give this committee any false
testimony you would be subject to being tried on perjury charge?
Mr. BONNEB. That I know, sir.
Senator DANIEL. So don't take any chance on that because there are
witnesses who told this committee or at least people told this committee you did do that, that you brought some back by putting it in a rubber finger stall and swallowing it. At least you tried to do that, didn't
you?
Senator DANIEL. You didn't do that?
Mr. BONNEE. I didn't do that.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever done that?
Senator DANIEL. You do know of some who have brought it back
that way, don't you?
Mr. BONNEE. No, sir, to be frank, sir, it's the first time I was ever
familiar with any narcotics being brought across any border.
Senator DANIEL. Didn't you buy four grams to be brought with
you?
Senator DANIEL. Did you have any delivered back to you?
Senator DANIEL. Now, referring back to you, Horace Grice, didn't
you tell the officers Bonnee swallowed 4 grams of heroin?
Mr. GRICE. No, sir; no, sir. I didn't tell him about any 4 grams.
Senator DANIEL. You say that under oath?

Mr. GRICE. Under oath. I didn't tell any officer that Bonnee swallowed 4 grams of heroin. No, sir, I did not.
Senator DA iEL. Before crossing the bridge back to the American
side, did you tell them he swallowed anything ?
Mr. GRICE. I didn't tell them anything. They asked did I know he
had some heroin in his stomach. I say I don't know what he have in his
stomach, all I went across for, I got what I went after, that was a pop
of cocaine and I got that. And I didn't tell anyone that Bonnee had
swallowed anything.
Senator DANIEL. You know of some addicts that do bring it back
that way?
Mr. GRicE. No, sir, I don't.
Senator DANIEL. All right, you can stand aside.

Jeanine Kucker.
You may step aside, Mr. Bonnee. Bonnee, wait just 1 minute.
Have you bought heroin in any foreign country?
Mr. BONNEE. No, sir, only Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. Only Mexico?
Mr. BoNNmE.
And that was this past Sunday.
Senator DANIEL. All right, you may step aside.

You may be seated. Now, Mrs. Kucker, we asked you to think over
the questions we had asked when you came to the stand yesterday.
Mr. Oasque will follow up.
3463
FURTHER TESTIMONY OF JEANINE KUCKER

Mr. GASQuE. There are some conflicting statements we have before
the committee of what you stated yesterday and I should like to clarify
them. You know that at the time you were arrested, a one-half Ben:zedrine tablet, wrapped in Kleenex, was in your coat pocket?
Mrs. KUCKER. They showed it to me, I didn't know it was there.
Mr. GASQUE. You had no knowledge of it?
Mrs. KUCKER. I asked what it was.
Mr. GAsQuE. Who could have access to your coat pocket other than
yourself?
Mrs. KuCKER. No one, but I asked what it was.
Mr. GASQUE. Could the man in the room with you have access to the
coat pocket?
Mrs. KUCKER. The coat was in the closet but it was in a Kleenex, I
don't have any idea how it got there.
Mr. GASQuE. Did anyone else have access to the closet other than
yourself ?
Mrs. KUCKER. Me and the maid.

Mr. GASQuE. And the man who lived with you?
Mrs. KucKER. Yes.
Mr. GASQUE. Don't you think that it is rather odd the police officer
should find this Benzedrine tablet in your pocket if you didn't put it
there?
Mrs. KUCKER. Well, I don't remember putting it there. I don't
remember putting it there or I wouldn't have asked the man what it
was.
Mr. GASQtuE. All right, now you stated to the committee yesterday
you never used heroin or other narcotic drugs is that correct?
Mrs. KUCKER. I told you I had never used heroin to my knowledge.
Mr.
GASQUE.
To your knowledge.
Have you ever used any kind of
drugs?
Mrs.
KUCKER. A long time ago.

GASQUE. Isn't it true now on
Mr.
your arm, about the top of your
arm down to your fingertips you have needle marks?
Mrs. KUCKER. Not down to my fingertips, I would say no.

Mr. GASQUE. How far down?
Mrs. KUCKFR. Oh, around here.
(Witness indicated to a point just above her wrist).
Mr. GASQUE. What are they for?
Mrs. KuCKR. They are old scars.
Mr. GASQUE. From what?

I told you I used narcotics a long time ago and they
are old scars from them.
Mr. GASQUR. What kind of narcotics did you use?
Mrs. KUOKER. A doctor gave me a prescription for it, I don't have
any idea what it was.
Mr. GASQUE. Over how long a period of time did he give you a prescription?
Mrs. KUCKER.
Mrs. KuCKER. Oh, 5 or 6 months.

Mr. GASQIE. Where was this?
Mrs. KUCKER. Texas, Fort Worth.
Mr. GASQUD Was this for a medical ailment?

3464
Mr. GASQUE. What is the name of the doctor?

Mrs. KuCKER. He isn't there now. Dr. Glass.
Mr. GASQuE. Where is he now?
Mrs. KuCKUI. I don't know.
Mr. GASQUE. Well, what about the side of your feet, don't you have
some needle marks on the side of your feet?
Mrs. KUCKER. I certainly do not.
Mr. GASQUE. All right, now the paraphernalia found in your room
at the time, was found behind a hot radiator. To the best of your
knowledge was there any narcotics in the eye-dropper and the needle
at the time?
Mrs. KUcKER. Not to my knowledge, no, sir.
Mr. GASQUE. The police officer reported it was about one-eighth
full. Did he show the eye-dropper at the time to you?
Mrs. KUCKER. No, sir, he didn't show the eye-dropper. Had something in his hand.
Mr. GASQUE. You did not notice it was one-eighth full?
Mrs. KucKER. No, sir.
Mr. GAsQuE. The police officer stated that it was one-eighth full,
behind the radiator, it would have evaporated had it been there any
length of time. Who else had access to that room?
Mrs. K-ucKF. Robert Kennedy and I were there. All the maids and
housekeepers in the hotel had access to the room.
Mr. GASQUE. What about the barbiturates found in your room?
Mrs. KUCKER. They were like everything else, I did not know they
were there. It is a transient hotel room. I had no idea they were
there.
Mr. GASQUE. You know that eight, what is called so-called redbird
capsules were found?
Mrs. KUcKF. The officers showed them to me.
Mr. GASQUE. Now, on Friday, December 9, at the county jail did you
have a conversation with the detectives, Phil Baker and Buckaloo?
Mrs.
KUCKER.
Yes, sir.
Mr. GASQUIE. What occurred during that conversation, what did you
talk about?
Mrs. KUCKER. I asked them if, in the event they were going to prosecute this case, if I could take the charge off the boy with me and take it
myself.
Mr. GASQUE. You told the officers you were willing to plead guilty?
Mr. GASQUE. To possession of narcotics found in your room if they

would drop the case against your boy friend?
Mr. GAsQuEn. That's all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator
DANIEL.
All right, you may stand aside.
You were sworn at the last hearing?

Mr. HUTTON. No, sir, I was out of the city.
(Mr. Jack Hutton was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator
DANIML.
State your name and present position.
TESTIMONY OF ACK HUTTON, NARCOTICS DIVISION, SAN ANTONIO

POLICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. HuTTON. Jack Hutton, lieutenant in charge of the narcotics
detail, San Antonib Police Department.
3465
Senator DANIEL. How long have you been in charge of the narcotics detail?
Mr. -IUTTON. For the past year, sir.
Senator DANnEL. How many men do you have on the detail ?
Mr. HUTTON. We have 10 men.
Senator DANIEL. I wonder if you could bring us up to date on the
testimony of Captain Bichsel, who testified last time. I wonder if
you could bring us up to date on what has happened in San Antonio
since our committee was here about 60 days ago. The committee has
heard some things through newspapers. Would you give us some
idea as to arrests or whatever has occurred, to bring us up to date?
Mr. HUTTON. All right, sir. At that time we were conducting an
undercover investigation with Mr. Naylor of the department of public
safety and Mr. Tom Bromley of the Federal Narcotics Agency.
Through the result of that we were able to make a total of 78 arrests
on 54 different individuals and seize large quantities of drugs.
Senator DANIEL. That is within the last 60 days?
Mr. HUTTON. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. I believe that we heard you had made the largest
seizure of heroin that has ever been made in San Antonio during that
time.
Mr. HUTTON. That was shortly after the raid, sir, approximately
a week after.
Senator DANIEL. Was that part of the same raids or separate?
Mr. HUTTON. That was a separate investigation that Mr. Bromley
initiated.
Senator
DANIEL.
That is the Federal agent?
Senator
DANIEL.
Did the Federal agent, Mr. Tom Bromley, and
those men make that seizure?

Mr. HUTTON. In conjunction with Detective Saenz and myself.
Senator
DANIEL.
You all were working together?
Senator
DANIEL.
You seized Edward Barrendez; is that right?

Senator DANIEL. With how many ounces of heroin?
Mr. HUTTON. Approximately 10 ounces.
Senator
DANIEL.
Where had it come from?
Mr. HUTTON. Mexico.

Senator DANIEL. And what would it be worth, a minimum, on the
street, peddling it out on the street?
Mr. HUTTON. That would be hard to say, Senator, but roughly
around a hundred thousand or more.
Senator DANIEL. At least a hundred thousand dollars, wouldn't it?
Senator
DANIEL. By the time

Senator DANIEL. Now, I saw
it was peddled out to the addicts?

also a report that you had arrested
someone who had been selling barbiturates at junior high school since
we were here last. Has there been quite a few sales to students at the
high schools?
Mr.
HUTTON.
Yes, sir. The undercover officer of Mr. Naylor wit-
nessed approximately 20 in 2 days' time.
Senator
DANIEL.
Sales to different high schools?
3466
Mr. HUTroN. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Was this man arrested?
Mr. HUTrON. Yes, sir, he was.
Senator DANIEL. Is his case now being considered by the grand
jury?
Mr. HuTroN. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And then there's one other thing that we went
into when we were here last that I wanted to ask about. That is Lita
Demos. She was spoken of as a major narcotics peddler here in San
Antonio. Has she been tried?
Mr. HUTTON. Yes, sir, she was tried in this court and is serving 5
years. I believe it is, in West Virginia this time.
Senator
DAN IEL.
She is serving that time, actually in jail?

Senator DANIEL. We have had some report to the contrary, that
she was still operating, somebody living at 514 Ashby Street here in
San Antonio. Have you had any investigation there to see if any
drugs are still being sold in her place?
Mr. HuTTON. We conducted approximately a 2-week investigation
there and we were able to find nothing to support those charges.
Senator
DANIEL.
Who lives at that address?
Mr. HUTTON. Mr. Veagas has lived there several years.

Senator DANIL. Is he any relation?
Mr. HUTTON. Not that we can find out, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And in that particular neighborhood have you
been carefully searching and trying to see whether or not any narcotic
sales are being made?
Mr. HUTTON. Yes, sir, we have.
Senator DANIEL. For some time?
Senator DANIEL. Are you still continuing your watch over that
area?
Mr. HUtrON. Yes, sir. We will until we fail to receive any further
reports.
Senator DANIEL. But you have been receiving reports from that
area?
Mr. HurroIN. Yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, I want to ask you about Rudy Moreno who
was on the stand here before. Have there been any charges filed on
him?
Mr. HUTTON. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Any type of charges that you know of?
Mr. HUTTON. He has served time in the Federal penitentiary to my
knowledge, but since
Senator DANIEL. There is nothing filed since this committee was
here?
Mr. HUTTON. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And let me ask you, I see here from the paper
yesterday that you have quite an organization in the narcotics education committee, that quite a few organizations in San Antonio have
banded themselves together to work on this problem?
Mr. HUTTON. Yes, sir; that was initiated by our State district
attorney, Mr. Hubert Green, and is just getting started. I think it
should obtain excellent results.
3467
Senator DANIEL. We'll put a copy of this article in the record. It

speaks for itself.
EXHIBIT No. 17
SAN ANTONIO NARCOTIcs FIGHT ORGANIZED
Plans were laid Wednesday for the organization of the Narcotics Education
Committee of San Antonio, which seeks to wipe out dope traffic through education
of youth and adults.
High school student leaders, school officials, youth workers, and representatives
of women's civic and religious groups expressed their views on narcotics.
COMMITTEES
NAMED
Ten committees were named to deal with various aspects of the narcotics prob-
lem in an executive committee at San Antonio independent school district

headquarters.
Ben Singleton, executive director of the Boys Clubs of San Antonio is president
of the new group. Mrs. Hayden Miller is vice president; Mrs. Harvey Durham,
secretary, and Mrs. H. R. Gilsdorf, treasurer.
Need for immediate action was stressed by Singleton, who declared education
on narcotics must be direct and to the point.
Rev. Erwin Juraschek, Catholic youth leader, pointed out that much literature
readily available to Juveniles plays up the thrill of narcotics use with little
reference to its moral aspects.
JUVENILE OFFICER
Police Juvenile officer Capt. G. E. Matheny said he and other officers had been
giving talks on narcotics to high school students through physiology and physical
education departments.
He declared:
"The response of the students really has been something to hear. They have
partial knowledge of the narcotics situation. We must be sure they have the
right knowledge and not just that found on the streets."
Direct questions were put to students present.
When asked where they had obtained knowledge of how heroin is used most
of them said they had learned from Matheny's talks. Several said they had
read it in the newspapers.
FULL STORY
The young people emphasized importance of their knowing the full story, not
Just a partial one. They said merely partial knowledge tends to incite curiosity
and do a lot more harm than a presentation of all the facts.
Several students told how Matheny had illustrated his talks with actual
apparatus used to give narcotics injections.
This satisfied normal curiosity and enabled young people to recognize the
apparatus, they said.
Asked when in what grade it was desirable to begin narcotics instruction,
several said it should be initiated in the seventh grade, when students first enter
junior school.
Next executive committee meeting will be held February 7.
Senator DANiEL. Do you have any other observation on anything

that has transpired since our committee last met in bringing the record up to date?
Mr. HUTTON. I would like to say this, Senator, we are obtaining a
lot more and a lot better cooperation from the various church, civic
groups, and what not. Through the informers, the underworld them selves, they are more or less volunteering information where before
they had to be ferreted and dug out.
Senator DANrEL. You are receiving better information and cooperation since our hearings about 2 months ago?
71515-56-pt. 7-71
3468
Mr. HUTTON. Yes, sir; we are.

Senator DANIEL. Well, don't you think that is an incidental byprod-
uct of these hearings where the local press, radio and television let
the people know what is going on?
Senator DANIEL. The purpose of these hearings is: we want to
get evidence so we can recommend to Congress.
Senator DANIEL. But do you feel that the byproduct of these hearinos has been to interest people and get support from people in the
fight against narcotics?
Mr. HUTTON. Yes, sir, it has, that has been mentioned several times
by the various parties contacting this office.
Senator DANIEL. I'll say this, we can hold these hearings week after
week and the public would never know about it, this court room only
holds a limited number of people, the public would never have become awakened to the subject as much as they have been here in San
Antonio, I agree with you, had it not been for the newspapers of San
Antonio, radio stations and television stations like WOAI which
has carried every minute of our hearings and KENS having rebroadcasts, and I want to commend as a public service the work that they
have done in making this evidence, these hearings available to the
people of San Antonio and this area of the State of Texas. I think
it is a splendid public service. I am glad to hear you say that you
have seen results from it.
You know when the people in our country really know that something like this is wrong and wake up to it, we can get something done
about it, in my opinion. And I want to express this word of appreciation to those that have made it possible for the people in this community to know about the seriousness of the narcotics problem. I
want to thank you for all of your cooperation with this committee.
Now, at the end of Lieutenant Hutton's testimony this report from
the San Antonio Police Department concerning the arrests on narcotic
cases will be included.
EXHIBIT No. 20
SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT
The following represents arrests for possession and/or sale of narcotics by

the San Antonio Police Department narcotics detail from January 1, 1953, to
December 12, 1955.
1
Age group
17 to 20
-----------------
21 to30 -------------------
31 to 40 ---------------------41 to 50 ---------------------Total ----------------Percentage -------------------
Marihuana
33
68
18
10
129
68.04
Colored
White
Latin
Heroin
Marihuana
Heroin
Marihuana
Heroin
35
110
29
10
2
9
8
5
2
11
5
3
7
42
20
8
2
16
6
1
184
24
9+
21
77
22+
25
(Grand total, 460.)
Results of the following listed raids which were conducted on November 26,
1955, in cooperation with the State, Federal, and local narcotics division; are
included in the above figures.
Is
3469

Latin
Marlhuana
White
Heroin
Marlhuana
Colored
Heroin
Marihuana
17 to 20----------------------------------5
21 to 30 ----------------------------------7
31 to 40 ------------------------------------------41 to 50 ----------------------------------------------
6 ------------1
17 ------------1
-------------------11.
2
6
1
1
2
2
Total ------------------------------Percentage --------------------------------
26 ------------3.7
9
25.74
(Grand total, 54.)
12
70.37
1
Possession and/or sale arrests for 1953 -------------------------------Possession and/or sale arrests for 1954-------------------------------Possession and/or sale arrests for 1955 (to Dec. 12) --------------------
Mr. HuTroN. Thank you.
138
138
206
Lt. JACK HUTTON.
Seantor DANIEL. Mr. Fleishman. I know you were sworn before

this committee?
TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE FLEISHMAN, SUPERVISING CUSTOMS
AGENT, 10TH CUSTOMS AGENCY DISTRICT-Resumed
Senator
DANIEL.
And will you restate your name and official
position ?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Lawrence Fleishman, supervising customs agent
of the 10th Customs Agency District. That comprises all of the State
of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and a small portion of the State of
Louisiana.
Senator DANIEL. Mr. Flieshman, since we are going to set a final
deadline on this hearing at this time, 1 o'clock, and we have several
other witnesses, in a few minutes will you sum up any additional information that has occurred, any change in the situation since our
last hearing here about 60 days ago?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Yes, sir. Within recent weeks, since the last hearing that was held here in San Antonio, I was visited in my office in
El Paso, which is the headquarters office of this district, by two Mexican officials. They were Federal officers from Mexico City. They
told me that they had been sent to Juarez to work on narcotic problems,
among other things, and I understood from them that other Federal
police had been sent, I believe by the Attorney General's office in
Mexico City to other points along the border. They requested our
cooperation and assistance, and I assured them it would be forthcoming at any time. I also told them that if they run into any difficulties
in any kind of a narcotic smuggling or marihuana smuggling case
that if we could develop for them we would be glad to do so, even to
the point of paying informers.
Senator DANIEL. Now, have you noticed any results from this work
or any recent work on the part of the Mexican officials? Several
things have been said in this hearing, where it looked as if some of the
local Mexican officials at least weren't fighting this problem in accordance with their own laws. I understand you have some instances in
which the Mexican Government has been doing certain things?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Yes, sir; I think I have.
Senator DANIEL. Would you cite those?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. I would say at the present
time, in the State of
Chihuahua in which Juarez is located, that things are about as tight
3470
as they have ever been. I don't think there's a so-called shooting gallery in actual operation at the present time. We can't get an informer
to point out one actually operating at the present time.
Senator DANML. When were things tightened up?
Mr. FLEISHmAN. I would say within the past 2 or 3 months. Also
there's been a change in state administration brought about by the

National Government. When I say state administration I mean the
State of Chihuahua. The former mayor of Juarez was removed from
office, as was the former chief of police in Juarez removed from office.
Senator DANIEL. Do you know whether or not anything concerning
law enforcement was involved in these removals of the administration
in that Mexican state and in the city?
Mr. FLEIS-HAN. According to the newspapers, yes. And according
to what I have heard from people on the Mexican side, yes, but not from
my own personal knowledge.
Now, there have been two cases recently in the western part of my
district in which we were interested, one of which we knew nothing
about until we heard about it. This occurred between San Luis, Ariz.,
on the Mexican side of course, and Mexicali. There was a seizure made
down there by Mexican officials of a truckload of marihuana, hidden
under some bags of rice. It was either sixteen-hundred-and some-odd
kilos or nineteen-hundred-and-some-odd kilos of marihuana. A kilo,
of course, 2.1 pounds-would have between three and four thousand
pounds of marihuana, seized in one load by Mexican officials.
I have another case in which we had a definite interest and which I
did know about, in fact we had $200 invested in our part of the case.
We were working on a 41-can opium deal. It was 41 cans of six
ounces apiece, that would be 246 ounces of smoking opium. We had
anticipated it would be smuggled in the United States in the vicinity of
San Luis, Ariz. We feel that our efforts in getting into the case and
getting them to move it down from Mexicali to the vicinity of San
Luis was knocked off either in San Luis or en route to San Luis by
Mexican officials, but we feel that our activity in smoking the case
out is what finally enabled the Mexican officials to do it, although it is
not a case of cooperation on either side. But we anticipated it was
going to be smuggled into the United States and we did expect to
knock it off at San Luis just south of Yuma.
Senator DANIEL. Thank you for giving these instances. Now just
one further question: have you noticed any change in the situation of
Nuevo Laredo yet?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. No, sir; I can't say I have.
Senator DANIEL. From the testimony here today it would appear
there has been no change.
Mr. FLEISHMAN. From the testimony there has been no change. I
would like to say this, from the testimony given here one gets the impression it is very easy to go out and make the narcotic cases and narcotic smuggling cases. Such is not the case. It requires a good deal
of hard work.
Senator DANIEL. Could you use more men?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Always could use more, yes, sir.
Rudy Flores.
(Mr. Rudy Flores duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)
Senator DANIEL. I want to thank our court reporter for all her fine
work during the hearing, Judge Rice for his court room as well as
3471
all the local officers and Federal officers who have assisted us throughout these hearings.
Now, what is your name?
TESTIMONY OF RUDY FLORES
Mr. FLORES. Rudy G. Flores.
Senator DANIEL. F-l-o-r-e-s ?
Mr. FLORES. Yes.
Senator DANIEL. Did you live in San AntonioI

Mr. FLORES. Yes; I did.
Senator DANIEL. Were you a member of one of the narcotic rings?
Mr. FLORES. I was, sir.
Senator DANIEL. During what year?
Mr. FLORES. 1954.
Senator DANIEL. What ring, what was it known by ?
Mr. FLORES. The people involved in it were George Georges.

Senator DANIEL. Will you spell that?
Mr. FLORES. Mike Georges.
Senator DANIEL. George Georges, I'll send a picture down there,

see if you can identify this as George Georges?
Mr. FLORES. Yes, sir.
Senator DANiEL. All right, who else, you have Mike Georges, he
is his brother?
Mr. FLORES. Yes, sir, brother of George Georges.

Mr. FLOEIuS. Simon Rodriguez.
Senator DANIEL. Simon Rodriguez?
Senator DANIEL. He appeared
sion.
before this committee at its last ses-
I will send you his picture and see if you can identify it.
picture of George Georges will be the next exhibit, Exhibit No. 18.
EXHIBIT No.
18
George Georges
The
3472
Senator DANIEL. Exhibit No. 19 will be the picture of Simon Rodriguez.

-

EXHIBIT No.
19
Simon Rodriguez
Senator DANIEL. Before you go ahead, is Simon Rodriguez in the

courtroom? Simon Rodriguez, stand up, speak out if you are in the
courtroom.
Mr. FLORES. And Gregorio de Luna.
Senator DANIEL. Who was the last one?
Mr. FLORES. de Luna.
Senator DANIEL. Gregorio de Luna?

Mr. FLORES. And Frank Bazan.
Senator DANIEL. B-a-z-a-n?

Senator DANIEL. Is he in the courtroom? All right, look back

here, see if that is the man you are talking about.
Mr. FLORES. That's him.
Mr. FLoms. Well, that is about all here in San Antonio, I believe.
Senator DAN]EL. All right, what was your position with this ring
of narcotic dealers?
Mr. FLorPs. Well, my position was, I was working as a bartender
for them.
Mr. FLORES. At the Embassy Bar.
Senator DANIEL. Who owned that?
Mr. FLORES. George Georges. They come up to me with a proposition, see if I could get rid of some dope. I told them I might, I
wouldn't know. Then they gave me some names to go see where
maybe I could make a sale for them or something, and they askedSenator DANIEL. When you say they, how many of these men were
talking to you about selling dope?
1111111111
3473
Mr. FLORES. George Georges, Mike Georges, and Simon Rodriguez.

Senator DANIEL. All three?
Mr. FLORES. Yes, sir. And they wanted me to see if I could sell
some dope for them. So I told I didn't know at the time, but they
said, "well, I tell you what you do, you stick around and work for us
and we will tell you what do do." I was out of a job at the time, I
took the job. Made a, contact in Laredo, Mexico, known as-what is
his name, known as Julio Almarez.
Senator DANIEL. J-u-l-i-o A-l-m-a-r-e-z?
Mr. FLORES. Yes, sir, from the Rhumba Casino.
Senator DANIEL. Also known as Bazan?

Mr. FLORES. I think Julio Bazan Almarez.
Senator DANIEL. Julio Almarez Bazan, B-a-z-a-n?
Senator DANIEL. You don't know which comes first?

Mr. FLORES. I think Bazan is the last name.
Mr. FLORES. Rhumba Casino in Laredo, Mexico.
Senator DANIEL. Is that where he stays?
Senator DANIEL. Do you know who owns the Rhumba Casino in
Nuevo Laredo?
Mr. FLORES. I think it is his nephew, I believe they work together.
Senator DANIEL. I don't want anything you are just thinking, tell
us what you know, tell us why you believe someone owns it, not
just what you think.
Mr. FLORES. Well, all, I know that.
Senator DANIEL. Did you ever hear this nephew say anything about
owning it?
Mr. FLORES. Well, Julio said that this was his nephew's place.
Senator DANIEL. When you were over there in Mexico?
Senator
DANIEL.
Julio told you the Rhumba Bar belonged
Mr. FLORrS. To his nephew.

Senator DANIEL. What is this nephew's name?
Mr. FLORES. I forgot. I think Ruben, something like that, been

quite a while.
Senator DANIEL. All right o ahead.
Mr. FLORES. And George Georges making his contact from him,
and Simon Rodriguez and Mike Georges.
Senator DANIEL. Was all of this in 1954?
Mr. FLORES. In 1954, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Were they getting heroin or both marihuana and
heroin ?
Mr. FLOmS. Heroin.
Senator DANIEL. How was it being smuggled back here in San
Antonio?
Mr. FLORES. Either taxicab driven across the border or by people
unknown to the customs agents, Julio's friends, and people from here
Unknown also to the customs agents, sent out by Simon Rodriguez
who has been over there several times for heroin which he has
brought back himself.
Senator DANIEL. Well, did you ever see any of this smuggling take
place or did you ever help bring any of it back?
1111111111
3474
Mr. FLORES. No, sir, I never did go but one time, that was with Mike
Georges.
Senator DANIEL. Did you see him make arrangements ?
Mr. FLORES. He made arrangements.
Senator DANIEL. Did you see the heroin after it was brought back
over?
Mr. FLORES. Yes, sir; I did.
Senator DANIEL. Did you help sell it?
Mr. FLORES. Yes, Idid sell some.
Senator DANIEL. You sold for him?
Mr. FLORES. I sold to an agent of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. You were arrested?
Senator DANIEL. You have been convicted; is that true?
Senator DANIEL. How many of these men have not been convicted
in this narcotic ring who were operating in 1954?
Mr. FLORES. George Georges was acquitted, and Simon Rodriguez
has not been arrested, Frank Bazan.
Senator DANIEL. They are still here in San Antonio?
Mr. FILoREs. Yes, sir.
Senator DANTEm. They have not been convicted?

Mr. FLORES. As far as I know.
Senator DANIEL. You say one was acquitted; did you testify against
him?
Mr. FLORES. Well, I was afraid at that time because I thought it
might endanger the lives of my family as well as myself.

Senator DANIEL. So, therefore, you have never told this story to a
court?
Mr. FLORES. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Or to a committee before?
Mr. FLORES. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And you say that two of the men are under subpena.
Is Simon Rodriguez in the courtroom? Will he stand up?
Well, I thank you for this testimony. I may want to talk with you
again in a moment, but this committee will stand in recess subject to
the call of the chair.
(Committee recessed for a few minutes.)
Senator DANIEL. The committee will come back to order. Mr.
Speer, do you have any further questions of the witness?
Mr. SPEER. Did you actually make deliveries of heroin for indi-
vidual members of this group orMr. FLORES. Repeat the question, I did not hear you.
Mr. SPREER. Did you make deliveries of heroin, did you sell heroin
for individual members of this group ?

Mr. FLORES. I sold at the time, i sold to the agent, Agent Ligon,
first small quantities like three grams, up to about an ounce.
Mr. SPEER. Where were you getting the heroin?
Mr. FLORES. George Georges, see at that time Simon Rodriguez
was bringing to George Georges and George Georges giving it to me
there at the Embassy Bar. I have seen it delivered.
Mr. SPEER. You saw him bring it to him?
Mr. FLORES. Also been up to my house, taken to my house, taken to
me.
3475
Mr SPEER. How about the money you received, who got it?
Mr. FLORES. The money I received I turned that over to George
Georges.
Mr. SPEER. Did you ever see them divide any money?
Mr. FLORES. Well, with Simon Rodriguez.

Mr. SPEER. You saw George Georges divide with Simon Rodriguez?
Mr. FLoRE s. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPEER. Did you ever get any other heroin from any other people
than those you named?
Mr. FLORES. Simon Rodriguez and Frank Bazan and Mike Georges.
Mr. SPEER. You got heroin fTom each of those individuals?
Mr. SPEER. Did you always turn the money over to the man who
gave you the heroin?
Mr. FLORES. George Georges.
Mr. SiPER. In each case?
Mr. FLOR.ES. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPEER. How did you happen to know the connection at Laredo,
who furnished, who introduced you so you could take-George
Georges?
Mr. FLORES. Well, the man, let me remember, been quite a while ago,
I don't quite remember, I think I know, I was taken over by Mike

Georges and introduced to this man known as Mr. Almarez at the
Rhumba Casino, had a talk about the narcotics, how much the price,
how much it could be cut and how much it could be sold for, and so
after they got that straightened out we came back to San Antonio, followed a few days or he would come after it. So Mike says at that
time be best for you to send it over the first time, then if we need
any more, if it's cut, don't have to cut so much, if it sells, I'll come
back, 2 or 3 or 4 ounces, get as much as you have, that's what happened, went back and bought 2 ounces.
Mr. SPEER. You feel like this was their source of supply?
Mr. FLORES. Large quantities, anything you wanted.

Senator DANIEL. Now, we have had evidence before the committee
that that place is still operating, that individual is still there. Now,
we came back to clear up this matter, one or two other little items,
then to recess this hearing for good, except for one or two things we
want to place in the record. I think, yes, this witness may be excused.
I want to say I appreciated your coming before this committee even
though there is, or at least was, a fear in your mind about testifying
when one of these men was tried, there have been some threats around
here in San Antonio. I am glad to say it is the only place where any
have come to our knowledge and where something might be done to
witnesses. I just want you to know this: If anything should happen
to you or any member of your family we are going to have the whole
weight of the whole force of this Nation, as well as locally, on the
lookout for those who might be responsible for it.
Mr. FLORES. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Senator DANIEL. We want it to be where people can come and testify before committees and courts freely and without intimidation or
fear, so that we might do our duty without any fear of such thing
as that. I assure you the worst thing that could happen to anybody
whose names you have called here would be for something to happen
to you or some of your family. Thank you very much.
3476
Is Rudy Moreno here?

Also to be included in the record is a doctor's certificate concerning
Arturo Castillo.
(The doctor's certificate mentioned follows:)
EXHIBIT
No. 21
MEDICAL CENTER BuILDING
El Paso, Tea., December 14, 1955.
Mr. PRICE DANIEI,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Improvement of Federal Code,
District Court House, United States Post Office and Courthouse,

San Antonio, Tex.
DEAR. SIR: This is to certify that Arturo Goytia Castillo of 1117 S. Tays Street
at present is under my care. He presented himself for hospital admission on
December 13 for treatment of drug heroin addiction. He was hospitalized in
St. Joseph's Sanatorium.
His physical condition was such, that he could not make his appearance in
San Antonio on December 14 in accordance with your subpena. It would have
been inhuman to expect him to make this trip without being furnished narcotics.
Furnishing him narcotics would have been unwise and contrary to sound medical
Judgment.
I am anticipating that he will recover from his drug addiction. He will be
able to appear before your committee at some later date.
I will be happy to cooperate with your committee in any way possible.
Sincerely,
ARLIN B. CooPER, M. D.
(Mr. Rudy Moreno was duly sworn by Senator Daniel.)

Senator DANIEL. Mr. Attorney, if you will identify yourself again
for the record?
Mr. VILLAREALL. Raul Villareall.
Senator DANIEL. Now, you appeared before this committee in San
Antonio last time when we were here and there's just one question I
wanted to ask you. Do you have the copies of your income tax returns we asked for in your subpena?
TESTIMONY OF RUDY MORENO-Resumed
Mr. MORENO. No, sir; I do not have any copies at all.
Senator DANIEL. Did you file an income tax return for 1954?
Mr. MORENO. Is it necessary to have the television cameras?
Senator DANIEL. No, it isn't necessary to keep them. I asked if you
filed an income tax return for 1954.
Mr. MORENO. I would like to have them focused off me because I
can't hardly talk.
Senator DANIEL. What did you say?
Mr. MORENO. I said television cameras make me nervous, I can't
hardly talk.
Senator DANIEL. I don't believe any television camera is on. I
asked if you filed a 1954 income tax return.

Mr. MoRENO. No, sir; I haven't filed because I have no income.
Senator DANIEL. You had no income in 1954?
Mr. MORENO. 1954?

Mr. MORENO. I like to consult the attorney a minute.
II 1
3477
Mr. MORENO. No, sir, I did not have a sufficient income to file income
tax.
Senator DANIEL. All right, did you file one in 1953?
Mr. MORENO. In 1953, it was the same way.
Senator DANIEL. Well, have you brought us copies of any income
tax return called for in your subpena?
M[r. MoRENo. I have no copies at all.
Senator DANIEL. That is because you haven't filed any?

Mr. MOREiTO. No, sir; I have no copies at all.
Senator DANIEL. Aren't you coowner of a bar in San Antonio?

Mr. MORENO. No, sir, I have no interest in no bars at all.
Senator
DANIEL,.
You don't have any interest. How about your
wife or any member of your family?
Mr. MORENO. No, sir, I don't, do not have an interest.

Senator DANIEL. At what bar do you work?
Mr. MORENO. At the Diamond Horseshoe.

Senator DANIEL. Do you still work there?
Mr. MORENTO. Well, no, sir. I haven't been working hardly since
last television performance here.
DANIEL. You have been
Mr. MORENO. Well, not much, I
Senator
hardly.
Senator
DANIEL.
Horseshoe.
Mr.
MORENO.
working some there, haven't you?

haven't even been around the place
You have no interest whatever in the Diamond
No interest whatever.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever seen juveniles hanging out there,
young people under 21?
Mr. MORENO. Like to consult the attorney.
Senator DANIEL. The question is whether you have ever seen juveniles, young people hanging out around that bar?
Mr. MORENO. No, sir, not to my knowledge I haven't seen juveniles.
Senator
DANIEL.
Senator
DANIEL.
Have you ever sold beer, liquor, or anything else
to young people under 18 in that bar?

Mr. MoRENo. Not to my knowledge.
Have you ever been charged?
Mr. MORENO. I have never been charged; no, sir.
Senator DANrEL. Well, has anybody else at the bar been charged
with that to your knowledge?
Mr. MORENO. The bartender.
Senator DANIEL. The bartender?

Mr. MORENO. Her name is Ramona Castro.

Senator DANIEL. Ramona C-a-s-t-r-o?
Mr. MORENO. C-a-s-t-r-o, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Now, you told us when we were here last, you had
not sold any heroin recently here in San Antonio. How long ago
since you sold heroin here in San Antonio?
Mr. MORENO. I like to consult the attorney on this question.

Mr. MORENO. No, sir; I have never sold any heroin to anybody.
I I I
3478

Mr. MO ENO. I have never sold any heroin to anybody.
Senator DANIEL. You mean to say you never in your life ever sold
any heroin to anybody ?
Mr. MoRENo. Yes, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Anywhere?
Mr. Momu.No. Anywhere, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever in your life sold marihuana to

anybody?
Mr. MoRENo. I would like to consult the attorney on this.
Mr. Vn A
.
I didn't hear the question, Senator.
Senator DANIEL. I asked had he ever in his life sold marihuana to
anybody.
Mr. MORENO. Not since I have been out of prison.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you were once convicted for selling mari-
huana, weren't you?

I was convicted for possession of marihuana, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. That was what year, when did you get out of
Mr. MORENO.
prison?
Mr. MORENO. In, I think in 1952,1 think it was.
Senator DANIEL. How many times have you been convicted of selling
Mr. MORENO. I haven't been convicted of selling.
Senator DANIEL. Possession?

Mr. MoRENo. Possession, yes, sir, been convicted, must be twice.
Senator DANIEL. At least twice?
Mr. MomNO. At least twice; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. And since you got out the last time in 1952 you are
telling this committee you never sold any marihuana or heroin, is that
right.
you ever delivered any marihuana or heroin
since 1952?
Mr. MORENO. Since 1952, no, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Have you ever seen any heroin or marihuana

since 1952?
Mr. Mo"ENo. Not to my knowledge I haven't seen it; no.
Senator DANIEL. You know what it looks like, both of them, don't
you?
Mr. MORENO. Oh, yes, I know what it looks like but I never have
seen it since
Senator DANIEL. But you haven't seen it since 1952?
Mr. MoRNOO. 1952, yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. You haven't been making any money since?

Mr. MoRENO. No, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Well, how many are there in your family?
Mr. MORENO. I would like to consult the attorney.
Senator DANIEL. You mean on that question?
Mr. MORENO. Well, I don't understand why you consider the family.
Senator DANIEL. Well, you better ask me why I consider the family.
Are you married?
3479
Senator DANIEL. And who is your wife?

Mr. MORENO. I have a wife and a baby.
Senator DANIEL. And a baby?
Senator DANIEL. That is her baby?
Senator DANIEL. Did she have a baby by someone else ?

Mr. MORENO. No, sir; it is my baby.
Senator DANIEL. Does she have another child?
Senator DANIEL. Only one child?
Mr. MORENO. Only one child; yes, sir.
Senator DANIEL. Does anybody else live with you all in the house?
Mr. MORENO. My sister lives in the house.
Senator DANIEL. And who else?
Mr. MoR.ENo. Nobody else lives there.
Senator DANIEL. Well, do you rent the house on own it?
Mr. MORENO. No, I do not rent nor own the house.
The house is
partly my sister's.
Senator DANIEL. Do you pay her any rent?
Senator DANIEL. Do you live there free?
Mr. MORENO. Well, I have never had a job since I have been here.
Senator DANIEL. Since 1952 you never had a job?
Mr. MORENO. With the exception of the time I went to work at
Todd Shipyards in Galveston.
Senator DANIEL. How long did you work there?

Mr. MoRENo. I only stayed there, say around a month or two.
Senator DANIEL. Haven't you made anything from working around

the Horse Shoe Bar, the Diamond Horse Shoe.
Mr. MORENO. We had all our groceries at home and didn't pay any
rent at home.
Senator DANIEL. I say were you paid anything?
Mr. MORENO. Salary, no, sir; no salary.
Senator DANIEL. What did you get?
Mr. MORENO. Well, I have a home to share.
Senator DANIEL. No, no, why would you work down at the Horse
Shoe, you own no interest?
Mr. MORENO. Because the place belongs to my sister and she has
been losing a lot of money at the place. I figured if anybody could
take care of her interest I could do it.
Senator DANIEL. You have been working free?
Mr. MORENO. Not exactly free, because f live with her and share her
home.
Senator DANIEL. She gives you a home and something to eat?
Senator DANIEL. Has she cut you off since the hearings?
Mr. MoRENO. It's not she has cut me off, people been coming there
and telling all the time about the television performance an a lot
of people didn't know about my background. Now they know, they
gIo me a cold shoulder. I feel I am not wanted around, therefore I
don't like to stay around.
Senator DANIEL. You think it hurts you to be down around the
Horse Shoe?
I iI
3480
Senator DANML. On account of the hearing?

Senator DANmL. Because the hearing made your record known to
more people?
Senator
DANEL.
You don't think we called you up here to tell about
your past record, do you?
Don't you know in all good faith, that
this committe has had reported to it indications, evidence that would

lead us to believe you might be engaging in the narcotic traffic since
1952 or we would not have called you?
Mr. MORENO. I am not engaged in narcotic traffic since I have been
out of prison.
Senator DANIEL. I want you to know we wouldn't have called for
you to testify before 1952, you know that, don't you, you know some
officers and people think you have been engaged in narcotic traffic since
1952?
Mr. MORENO. Well, naturally that is, it would be that way, if a man
once known to be dealing in narcotics.

Senator DANIEL. Didn't you tell someone after the hearings you
were .oing to jail?

Mr.ioRENO. That I was what?
Senator DANIEL. That you were going to jail and you knew it?
Mr. MORENO. No, sir; I haven't told anybody that I was going to
jail; no, sir.

Senator DANIEL. Well, do you still want that answer to stand that
you have not, what about delivering narcotics, have you ever delivered
any marihuana or heroin?
Mr. MoRENO. No, sir; I have not delivered any narcotics.
Senator DANIEL. All right, stand aside.
This committee meeting is adjourned. All witnesses dismissed.

(All witnesses excused.)
(Wh-ereupon, it being 1 :25 p. in., the subcommittee meeting
adjourned.)
1 0-
APPENDIX
Contents: Exhibits 1-7, inclusive
EXHIBIT No. 1
(The following laws were enacted at the Regular Session of the 54th Legislature in 1955 and are taken from the General Laws as published under the
authority of the State of Texas:)
CONTRABAND
NARCOTICS--TRANSPORTATION
OR POSSESSION
CHAPTER 300
[H. B. No. 308]

AN ACT Prohibiting certain uses of vessels, vehicles, and aircraft in connection with the
possession, transportation, or disposition of contraband narcotics; defining contraband
narcotics; providing for seizure and forfeiture of vessels, vehicles, and aircraft used in
violation of this Act, subject to certain conditions ; providing the procedure for forfeiture and sale; providing for disposition of proceeds of sale; providing for issuance
of certificates of title to purchasers of forfeited vehicles, etc., when required ; providing
for severability ; and declaring an emergency
Be It Enacted By the Legislature of the State of Texas:

SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful within this State:
(a) To transport, carry, or convey any contraband narcotic in, upon, or by
means of any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft or any occupants thereof;
(b) To conceal or possess any contraband narcotics in or upon any vessel,
vehicle, or aircraft or occupants thereof;
(c) To use any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft or occupants thereof to facilitate
the transportation, carriage, conveyance, concealment, receipt, possession, purhase, sale, barter, exchange or gift of any contraband narcotic.
For purposes of this Act, "any contraband narcotic" shall mean any narcotic
or drug, the use, manufacture, possession, control, sale, prescription, administering, dispensing or compounding of which is made illegal by the provisions of
Acts of 1937, Chapter 169 as last amended by Acts of 1953, Chapter 328, compiled
as Article 725b of the Penal Code; or of Acts of 1953, Chapter 237, compiled
as Article 725c of the Penal Code; or of Acts of 1949, Chapter 490, compiled as
Article 726b of the Penal Code; or of any subsequently enacted law defining
or prescribing illegal activities with narcotics or drugs.
SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE
SEC. 2. Any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft which is being used in violation of

Section 1 of this Act shall be seized and forfeited to the Texas Department
of Public Safety, Narcotics Section, under the provisions of this Act; provided,
no vessel, vehicle, or aircraft used by a common carrier in such business shall
I)e forfeited unless it be shown that the owner, master, pilot, conductor, driver,
operator or other person in charge thereof was at the time of the alleged illegal
act a consenting party or privity thereto; and provided further, no vessel, vehicle,
or aircraft shall be forfeited where it is shown that the illegal act has been
Committed by some person other than the owner thereof while such vessel, vehicle,
or aircraft was in the possession of any person who acquired or retained such
l)Ossession in violation of any law of this State or of the United States.
ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 3. Any officer authorized by the provisions of the Acts enumerated in

Section 1 of this Act to enforce such acts may seize any vessel, vehicle or aircraft violating the provisions of this Act.
"7Vernon's Ann. P. C. art. 725d.
3481
3482

NOTICE
SEC. 4. The seizing officer shall immediately file in the name of the State of
Texas with the Clerk of the District Court of the county in which the seizure
is made a notice of said seizure and intended forfeiture. Certified copies of
such notice shall be served upon the following persons as provided for the
serving of process by citation as in other civil cases:
(a) The owner of said vessel, vehicle or aircraft, if address is known.
(b) Upon any registered lienholder as provided by law.
(c) If the subject matter sought to be forfeited in such suit is a motor vehicle
susceptible of registration under the motor vehicle registration laws of this
State and if there is any reasonable cause to believe that such motor vehicle has
been registered under the laws of this State, the officer in charge of flUng suit
for forfeiture thereof shall first make inquiry of the Highway Department of
this State as to what the records of such Department show as to who is the
record owner of such motor vehicle and who, if any holds any lien or liens against
such vehicle, such inquiry to be answered in writing by the Highway Department. In the event such answer states that the record owner of such motor
vehicle is any person other than the person who was in possession of it when
seized or states that any person or persons holds any lien or liens against such
vehicle, the officer in charge of filing such suit shall cause such record owner
and also any such record lien holders to be named as parties defendant in such
suit and to be served with citation of the pendency thereof in accordance with
Rule 108 or Rule 109, as the applicable rule may be, of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure as same now read or as hereafter amended. If the automobile or
motor vehicle shall not be registered in Texas, then said Attorney General, District Attorney and County Attorney, or any of them, shall ascertain the name
and address of the person in whom said vehicle is licensed, and if said vehicle
is licensed in a state which has in effect a certificate of title law, he shall also
ascertain the registered owner and any leinholder of record who shall be made
parties to the suit and shall be served with process as provided for in other
civil suits.
(d) If a person was in possession of the subject matter sought to be forfeited
at the time that it was seized, such person shall likewise be made a party defendant to such suit. If no person was in possession of the subject matter sought to
be forfeited at the time that it was seized and if the owner thereof is unknown,
the officer in charge of filing such suit shall file with the Clerk of the Court In
which such suit is filed an affidavit to such effect, whereupon the Clerk of such
Court shall issue a citation for service by publication addressed to "the Unknown
Owner of --------- ," filling in the indicated blank space with a reasonably
detailed description of the subject matter sought to be forfeited and shall contain
the other requisites prescribed in Rules 114 and 115 and shall be served as provided by Rule 116 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure as same now provide
or as same may be hereafter amended.
(e) No suit instituted pursuant to the provisions of this section of this Act
shall proceed to trial unless the judge hearing said suit shall be satisfied that
all of the foregoing provisions of subsections (c) and (d) of this section have
been complied with, and the officer in charge of such suit shall first introduce
into evidence at the trial thereof the answer received from the Highway Department in compliance with subsection (c) of this section or prove to the satisfaction
of the judge hearing such suit that such subsection (c) is not applicable.
ANSWER
SEC. 5. An owner of a seized vessel, vehicle or aircraft may file a verified
answer within twenty (20 ) days of the mailing or publication of notice of seizure.
If no such answer is filed, the court shall hear evidence of violation of this
Act and shall upon motion forfeit such vessel, vehicle, or aircraft to the Texas
Department of Public Safety, Narcotics Section. If such answer is filed, a time
for hearing on forfeiture shall be set within thirty (30) days of the date of filing
the answer and notice of such hearing shall be sent to all owners as prescribed
in Section 4 of this Act.
HEARING
6. If it shall appear that the owner of the vessel, vehicle, or aircraft

has filed a verified answer denying the use of such vessel, vehicle, or aircraft
in violation of this Act, then the burden shall rest upon the State, represented
by the District Attprney to prove as in other penal cases, the violation of the
provisions of this Act. Provided, however, that in the event no answer has
SEC.
3483
been filed by the owner of said vessel, vehicle, or aircraft, the notice of seizure
may be introduced into evidence and shall be prima facie evidence of said
violation.
At the hearing, any claimant of any right, title, or interest in the vessel,
vehicle, or aircraft may prove his lien, mortgage, or conditional sales contract,
to be bona fide and created without knowledge that the vessel, vehicle, or
aircraft was to be used in violation of this Act.
RELEASE OR FORFEITURE
proof at the hearing shall disclose that the interest of any bona
fide lien holder, mortgagee, or conditional vendor is greater than the present
value of the vessel, vehicle, or aircraft, the court shall order such vessel, vehicle,
or aircraft released to him. If such interest is less than the present value,
and upon proof of violation of this Act, the court shall order the vessel, vehicle,
or aircraft forfeited to the State.
SEC. 7. If
SALE
SEC. 8. All forfeited vessels, vehicles, or aircraft shall be sold at a public

auction under the direction of the County Sheriff after notice of sale as provided
by law for other sheriff's sales. The proceeds of such sale shall be delivered
to the District Clerk and shall be disposed of as follows:
(1) To the bona fide lien holder, mortgagee, or conditional vendor to the
extent of his interest;
(2) The balance, if any, after deduction of all storage and court costs shall
be forwarded by the District Clerk to the State treasury for deposit in the
General Revenue Fund.
SEC. 9. The State Highway Department is hereby directed to issue a certificate
of title to any person, purchasing a vessel, vehicle, or aircraft under the provisions of this Act, when said certificate of title is required under the laws of
this State.
SEVERABIMTY
SEC. 10. If a portion of provision of this Act be held unconstitutional, the

validity of the remaining provision shall not be affected thereby and for this
purpose the Legislature declares this Act to be severable.
SEC. 11. The fact that certain vessels, vehicles, and aircraft are being used
to facilitate and expand the traffic and trade in illegal narcotics, which is a
danger to health, safety, and morals of this State, creates a grave emergency and
public necessity that the Constitutional Rule requiring bills to be read on three
several days in each House be and the same is hereby suspended, and this Act
shall take effect from and after the date of passage, and it is so enacted.
Passed the House, March 28, 1955, by a viva-voce vote; House concurred in
Senate amendments, May 5, 1955: Yeas 128, Nays 0; Passed the Senate, as
amended, May 4, 1955: Yeas 28, Nays 0.
Approved May 21, 1955.
Effective May 21, 1955.
UNIFORM NARCOTIC DRUG ACT-PENALTIES
CHAPTER 354
[H. B. No. 204]

AN ACT Amending the Uniform, Narcotic Drug Act, Chapter 169, Acts of the Forty-fifth
Legislature, Regular Session, as amended, by amending Section 23 providing penalties
for violation of this Act; and declaring an emergency.
Be It Enacted by the Legislatureof the State of Texas:

SECTION 1. Section 23 of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, Chapter 169, Acts
of the Forty-fifth Legislature, Regular Session, as amended by Chapter 328,
Acts of the Fifty-third Legislature, Regular Session, 1953, is hereby amended
so as to hereafter read as follows:
"SECTION 23. (1) Any person violating any provision of this Act shall, upon
conviction be punished by confinement in the State penitentiary for not less
than two (2) years nor more than life, and upon the second or any subsequent
conviction therefor shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for
0 Vernon's Ann. P. C. art. 725b, Sec. 23.
71515-56-pt. 7-72
3484
life or for any terms of years not less than ten (10), and the benefits of the
suspended sentence law shall not be available to a defendant convicted for a violation of the provisions of this Act shall be entitled to the benefits of probation
under the Adult Probation and Parole Law, as provided therein.
"(2) Any adult person who hires, employs, or uses a minor under nineteen
(19) years of age in unlawfully transporting, carrying, selling, giving away,
preparing for sale, or peddling any narcotic drug, or who unlawfully sells,
gives, furnishes, administers, or offers to sell, furnish, give, administer any
narcotic drug to a minor under nineteen (19) years of age shall, upon conviction, be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than five (5)
years nor more than life, and upon the second conviction therefor shall be
punished by confinement in the penitentiary for life or for any term of years
not less than ten (10), and the benefits of the suspended sentence law shall iiot
be available to a defendant convicted for a violation of the provisions of this
Act."
SEC. 2. The fact that violators of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act are not
sufficiently punished, thus allowing Texas to be termed "the drug gateway for
the United States," and the fact that the protection of the welfare, health,
peace, and safety of the people of Texas requires the Texas Legislature to provide more exacting punishments for the commission of such a heinous erinle as
dope peddling, creates an emergency and an imperative public necessity that
the Constitutional Rule requiring Bills to be read on three several days in each
House be suspended, and this Rule is hereby suspended, and that this Act take
effect and be in force from and after its passage, and it is so enacted.
Passed the House, March 28, 1955, by a viva-voce vote; passed the Senate
May 11, 1955, by a viva-voce vote.
Approved May 25, 1955.
Effective 90 days after June 7, 1955, date of adjournment.
NARCOTIC
DRUGS AND BARBITURATES-PENALTIES

CHAPTER
385
[H. B. No. 651
AN ACT Relating to narcotic drugs and barbiturates; amending Sections 3 and 4 of

Chapter 237, Acts of the Fifty-third Legislature, Regular Session, 1953 (Sections 3 and
4 of Article 725c, Vernon's Texas Penal Code), relating to the penalty for narcotic
addiction and permitting probation; amending Section 13 of Chapter 413, Acts of the
Fifty-second Legislature, Regular Session, 1951 (Section 13 of Article 726c, Vernon's
Texas Penal Code), relating to the penalties therefor; amending Section 2 of Chapter
490, Acts of the Fifty-first Legislature, Regular Session, 1949 (Section 2 of Article 726b,
Vernon's Texas Penal Code). relating to the penalties therefor; providing for severa-
bility ; and declaring an emergency
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas:

SECTION 1. Sections 3 and 4 of Chapter 237, Acts of the Fifty-third Legislature,
Regular Session, 1953 (codified under Article 725c in Vernon's Texas Penal Code)
are amended ' to read respectively as follows:
"SEc. 3. Any person violating any provision of this Act shall be guilty of a
felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary
for a period of not more than three (3) years. The benefits of the suspended
sentence law shall not be available to a person convicted of violating any provision
of this Act.
"SEC. 4. Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, of Chapter 452, Acts of the Fiftieth Legislature, 1947 (codified as art. 781b of Vernon's Texas Code of Criminal Procedure),
relating to adult probation are applicable to cases where a defendant has been
convicted or has entered a plea of guilty to a violation of this Act, except that in
cases charging a violation of this Act, probation may be granted notwithstanding
that the defendant may have previously been convicted of a felony. The court
may include among the conditions of the probation that the probationer shall
enter a hospital approved by the court and remain there until discharged by
the medical authorities of such hospital as cured."
SEC. 2. Section 13 of Chapter 413, Acts of the Fifty-second Legislature, 1951
(sec. 13 of art. 726c, Vernon's Texas Penal Code), is amended 2 to read as follows:
"SEC. 13. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of
this Act shall be fined any amount not exceeding Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000)
21 Vernon's Ann. P. C.. art. 725c, sees. 3, 4.
22Vernon's Ann. P. C., art. 726c, sec. 13.
3485
or confined in Jail for a period of not less than thirty (30) days nor more than
two (2) years, or by such fine and imprisonment. For any second or subsequent
violation of this Act, any person so violating the same shall be confined in the
penitentiary not less than two (2) years nor more than ten (10) years; provided
that upon any second or subsequent conviction the benefits of the suspended
sentence law shall not be available to a defendant convicted for a violation of
the provisions of this Act; provided further that any person convicted of any
second or subsequent violation of this Act shall be entitled to the benefits of probation under the Adult Probation and Parole Law, as provided therein."
SEC. 3. Section 2, of Chapter 490, Acts of the Fifty-first Legislature, 1949 (sec.
2 of art. 726b, Vernon's Texas Penal Code), is amended 21 to read as follows:
"SEc. 2. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this
Act shall be fined any amount not exceeding Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000) or
confined in jail for a period of not less than thirty (30) days nor more than two
(2) years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. For any second or subsequent
violation of this Act, any person so violating the same shall be confined in the
penitentiary not less than two (2) years nor more than ten (10) years; provided
that upon any second or subsequent conviction the benefits of the suspended
sentence law shall not be available to a defendant convicted for a violation of the
provisions of this Act; provided further that any person convicted of any second
or subsequent violation of this Act shall be entitled to the benefits of probation
under the Adult Probation and Parole Law, as provided therein."
SEC. 4. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or
applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are declared to be severable.
SEC. 5. The fact that the unlawful sale and distribution of narcotics and barbiturates is a menace to society and is undermining the youth of this State creates
an emergency and an imperative public necessity that the Constitutional Rule
requiring bills to be read on three several days in each House be suspended, and
said Rule is hereby suspended, and that this Act shall take effect and be in force
from and after its passage, and it is so enacted.
Passed the House, April 29, 1955: Yeas 137, Nays 1; House concurred in Senate
amendments, May 17, 1955: Yeas 131, Nays 0; passed the Senate, as amended,
May 11, 1955: Yeas 28, Nays 0.
Approved June 1, 1955.
Effective June 1, 1955.
NARCOTIC DRUGS-PARAPHERNALIA
CHAPTER 386
[H. B. No. 647]
AN ACT Amending Sections 2 and 2A of Chapter 169 of the Acts of the Forty-fifth Legis-
lature, 1937, being Sections 2 and 2A of Article 725b of Vernon's Penal Code, to define
additional offenses to possess paraphernalia for smoking narcotic drugs, or possess certain paraphernalia for using narcotic drugs ; providing certain exceptions ; and declaring
an emergency
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas:

SECTION 1. That Sections 2 and 2A of Chapter 169 of the Acts of the Fortyfifth Legislature, 1937, being Sections 2 and 2A of Article 725b of Vernon's Penal
Code, be and the same are hereby amended 24 so as hereafter to read as follows:
"SEc. 2 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, possess, have
under his control, sell, prescribe, administer, dispense, or compound any narcotic
drug.
"(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess an opium pipe, instrument,
or contrivance used in smoking a narcotic drug.
"(c) It shall be unlawful for any person except a physician, dentist, veterinarian, nurse, pharmacist, dealer in surgical instruments, or an attendant or
intern of a hospital, sanatorium, or institution in which persons are treated for
disability or disease, at any time to have, or possess a hypodermic syringe or
needle or any instrument adapted for the use of narcotic drugs by subcutaneous
injections in a human being and which is possessed for that purpose, unless such
obsessionn is for the purpose of subcutaneous injection of a drug or drugs, or
2 Vernon's Ann. P. C., art. 726b, see. 2.
51Vernon's Ann. P. C., art. 725b, sees. 2, 2A.
3486
medicines, the use of which is authorized by the direction of a licensed physician.

"(d) Nothing in this Act shall apply to any hypodermic syringe or needle, or
other instrument or paraphernalia used for the purpose of vaccinating or otherwise treating livestock.
"SEC. 2A. It shall not be unlawful to manufacture, possess, have, control, sell,
prescribe, administer, dispense, or compound any narcotic drug or any hypodermic
syringe, needle, or other instrument adapted to the use of narcotic drugs where
same is authorized under the terms of this Act."
SEC. 2. The fact that there is an urgent need for an effective law dealing
with paraphernalia used in violation of present narcotic laws, and the fact
that many violators are dangerous addicts who are found in possession of
these "tools of their trade" but are not subject to prosection under existing
statutes for such possession create an emergency and an imperative public
necessity that the Constitutional Rule requiring bills to be read on three several days in each House be suspended, and this Rule is hereby suspended,
and that this Act take effect and be in force from and after its passage, and
it is so enacted.
Passed the House, April 4, 1955: Yeas 132, Nays 3; House concurred in Senate
amendments, May 17, 1955; Yeas 130, Nays 0; passed the Senate, as amended,
May 11, 1955: Yeas 25, Nays 1.
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND BARBITURATES
CHAPTER 4 86
[S. B. No. 143]

AN ACT Relating to narcotic drugs and barbiturates; amending the Uniform Narcotic
Drug Act (Article 725b, Vernons Penal Code) and the Texas Barbiturate Law, Chapter
413, Acts of the 52nd Legislature (Article 726c, Vernon's Penal Code), by making
further provisions relative to drugs administered or dispensed and the maintenance of
permanent records thereof ; amending provisions of the foregoing statutes; providing
for severability; and declaring an emergency
Be It Enacted By the Legislatureof the State of Tewas:

SECTION 1. Subsection 1 of Section 6 of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act (page
169 Acts of the 45th Legislature, Regular Session, 1937, as amended; codified
as Article 725b in Vernon's Texas Penal Code) is amended ' to read as follows:
"(1) An apothecary in good faith may sell and dispense narcotic drugs to
any person upon written prescription, or an oral prescription in pursuance to
regulations promulgated by the U. S. Commissioner of Narcotics under Federal narcotic laws, of a physician, dentist, or veterinarian, dated and signed
by the person prescribing, on the second day after the same is issued and bearing in full, name and address of the patient for whom, or of the owner of the
animal for which, the drug is dispensed, and the full name, address, and registry number under the Federal narcotic laws of the person prescribing, if he
is required by those laws to be so registered. If the prescription be for an
animal, it shall state the species of the animal for which the drug is prescribed.
The person filling the prescription shall write the date of the filling and his
own signature on the face of the prescription. The prescription shall be retained on file by the proprietor of the pharmacy in which it is filled for a period
of two years so as to be readily accessible for inspection by any public official or employee engaged in the enforcement of this Act. The prescription
shall not be refilled."
SEC. 2. Section 2, paragraph (g) of Chapter 413, Acts of the 52nd Legislature, 1951, (codified under art. 726c in Vernon's Penal Code) is amended "' to
read as follows:
"The term 'prescription' means a written order, and in cases of emergency,
a telephonic order, by a practitioner to a pharmacist for a barbiturate for a
particular patient, which specifies the date of Its issue, the name and address
of the patient (and, if such barbiturate is prescribed for an animal, the species
of such animal), the name and quantity of the barbiturate prescribed, the directions for use of such drug."
6 Vernon's Ann. P. C.. art., 725b, sec. 6 (1).
v7 Vernon's Ann. P. C., art. 726c, sec. 2 (g).
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
3487
TRAFFIC
SEC. 3. Section 3, paragraph (2), Subsection (b) of Chapter 413, Acts of the
52nd Legislature, 1951, (codified under art. 726c, Vernon's Penal Code) is
amended " to read as follows:
"The refilling of any prescription for a barbiturate, unless and as designated
on the prescription by the practitioner, or through authorization by the practitioner at the time of refilling."
SEC. 4. That Section 3, paragraph (2), Subsection (d), Acts of the 52nd Legislature, 1951, (codified under art. 726c, Vernon's Penal Code), be, and the
same is hereby repealed,"9
SEC. 5. Section 6, paragraph (a), of Chapter 413, Acts of the 52d Legislature,
1951, (codified under art. 726c, Vernon's Penal Code), is amended d to read as
follows:
"Persons (other than carriers) to whom the provisions of Section 5 are applicable shall: (1) make a complete record of all stocks of barbiturates on hand
on the effective date of this Act and retain such record for not less than two
calendar years immediately following such date; and
(2)
retain each com-
mercial or other record relating to barbiturates maintained by them in the usual

course of their business or occupation for not less than two calendar years immediately following the date of such record, to create and maintain a perpetual
record of the purchases of barbiturates."
SEC. 6. Section 6, paragraph (b), of Chapter 413, Acts of the 52d Legislature,
1951, (codified under art. 726c, Vernon's Penal Code), is amended 6 ' to read as
follows:
"Pharmacists shall, in addition to complying with the provisions of subsection (a), retain each prescription for a barbiturate received by them for not
less than two calendar years immediately following the date of the filling or
the date of the last refilling of such prescription, whichever is the later date,
to create and maintain a perpetual record of the sales of barbiturates."
SEC. 7. If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person
or circumstance, is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions
or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application; and to this end the provisions of this Act are declared
to be severable.
SEC. 8. All amendments made by this Act shall become operative upon its
effective date.
SEC. 9. The fact that there should be no impediment to the lawful sale and
professional distribution of narcotics and barbiturates to the citizens of this
State in need of such medication for reasons of health, creates an emergency,
and an imperative public necessity that the Constitutional Rule requiring bills
to be read on three several days in each House be suspended; and said Rule
is hereby suspended, and this Act shall take effect and be in force from and
after its passage, and it is so enacted.
Passed the Senate, April 5, 1955: Yeas 27, Nays 0; passed the House, May 26,
1955: Yeas 131, Nays 2.
EXHIBIT No. 2
TESTImONY OF LAWRENCE FLEISHMAN, SUPERVISING CUSTOMS AGENT, 10TH CUSTOMS AGENCY DISTRICT, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN J. GIVENS, ASSISTANT SUPERVISING CusToMs AGENT
(Before the Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 83d Cong. 2d sess., pursuant to
S. Res. 89, September 17, 1954;)

Mr. FLEISHMAN. I am the supervising customs agent of the 10th Customs
Agency District. That comprises the States of Arizona, New Mexico, and all of
Texas, with the exception of the northern section.
That give me jurisdiction over the Mexican border from the California line to
the Gulf of Mexico.
In that area I have 10 officers. El Paso, Tex., is the headquarters office for
that district.
8 Vernon's
"Vernon's
6 Vernon's
61Vernon's
Ann.
Ann.
Ann.
Ann.
P.C., art. 726c, sec. 3, par. 2 (b).

P.C., art. 726c, sec. 6.
P. C., art. 726c, sec. 6.
P. C., art. 726c. sec. 6.
3488
My background, I have little better than 37 years of Government service, including 9 active years of military service.
I was originally a customs inspection agent in 1938. Prior to that time I had
been in the collectors force in Rochester, N. Y.
I have been in a supervisory capacity since 1936. I have been in the Bureau
of Customs in a supervisory capacity and I have been a supervising customs
agent in 4 out of 9 customs agency districts.
Mr. BOBo. Mr. Givens, would you give your address, name, and background
and your position, also?
Mr. GIVENS. My name is John J. Givens, assistant supervising customs agent.
I entered the customs in Tampa, Fla., in 1938, as a clerk; 2 years later I went to
Miami as inspector for 6Y2 years.
I was made a customs agent and in 1942 was transferred to Savannah, Ga., as
agent in charge.
In October 1946, I was transferred to Laredo, Tex., as agent in charge there and
remained there until August of 1952, when I was made assistant supervising customs agent in El Paso and have been here since.
Mr. BoBo. Your agency is charged with the enforcement?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. With the enforcement and investigation of any violation of
customs laws and other laws enforced by customs, of which there are a great
many.
Mr. BoBO. Would you go through some of the various laws which you are responsible for?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. We assist in the enforcement of the Gold Reserve Act, various
public health laws. One of those is the prevention of the introduction in the
United States of psittacean birds; the embargoes that might be placed from time
to time, such as the hoof-and-mouth disease, which is presently being applied
along the Mexican border.
Incidentally, that so-called Charlie Cattle case originated in this office here.
It has been investigated by an agent out of this office.
Smuggling of all sort; any frauds upon the customs revenue; many technical
investigations which we also make, such as drawback, under valuation, foreign
market value; personnel investigations and character investigations; security investigations, and one thing or another. I could go through maybe a hundred of
them.
Mr. BoBo. What percentage of your investigations would you say were concerned directly with narcotics, the smuggling of narcotics and marihuana?
Mr.
FLEISHMAN.
Along the Mexican border I would say a very high percentage
of our enforcement activities involve the smuggling of marihuana and opium and
other forms of narcotic drugs.
The biggest problem in volume in the handling of marihuana is in the eastern
end of this district. That would be in the area surrounding Laredo and Brownsville, although we do have some marihuana here around El Paso and some to
the west of it.
Chairman LANGE& I wonder, Judge Ford, you being a judge of the Customs
Court, if you would mind sitting up here and possibly interrogating the customs
men.
Is Judge Ford here?

(No response.)
Chairman LANGE. You may proceed; go ahead.
Mr. FLEISHMAN. A peculiar thing about the narcotic traffic, especially the
smuggling traffic: A violator will go wherever he has a good connection, or where
he thinks he may have a good connection.
An unusual case of that kind took place here during the past year. I received
a long distance telephone call about 2 o'clock in the morning from 2 agents in
Arizona who had a car that they were following in and wanted us to meet it.
So I got a couple of agents together and we went out on the highway and knocked
it off as they came in from El Paso. They were 2 men from Dallas who had
gone all the way from Dallas to Douglas, Ariz., to pick up 6 pounds of marihuana
to take back to Dallas which normally would have taken up around the valley
around Laredo or Brownsville.
It is an indication that there are quantities that go out west and are picked
up there.
In the marihuana trade, or traffic, they refer to marihuana that comes around
from Brownsville and Laredo areas as "that good Laredo marihuana." It is
supposed to have a higher potency. There are supposed to be better climatic
conditions in the area to grow it.
3489
I understand it is the resinous sap that gives it the desired strength for
marihuana smokers.
In certain areas of the country, or in northern Mexico, the climatic conditions or soil are ideal for growing what they call good marihuana. A good
marihuana smoker can probably tell good marihuana from bad, the same way a
whisky drinker can tell bonded whisky from poor-grade whisky.
Mr. BoBo. Do you have any figures there as to the seizures your office might
have made in the district?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Yes, sir. During the fiscal year-I would like to give you
these on a comparative basis-during the fiscal year 1952 within the district we
seized 1,156.9 pounds of bulk marihuana.
In the fiscal year 1953, we only got 282.6 pounds. That went up in the fiscal
year 1954 to 612.67 pounds.
On semiprepared marihuana, in fiscal year 1952 and 1953, our agents didn't
seize any, but in 1954 we got 131.8 pounds, of semiprepared marihuana.
In fiscal year 1952 we seized prepared marihuana, 226.4 pounds.
In 1953, 703.1 pounds, and in 1954, 428.7 pounds.
I might add that bulk marihuana reduced to seiniprepared would probably
be a pound and three-quarters to make a pound of semiprepared, and to get down
to your prepared marihuana I would say the figures would vary from 214 pounds
to 21/ pounds of bulk to make a pound of prepared.
By prepared, I mean screened, or so-called manicured marihuana, which is
ready for rolling in cigarettes.
Mr. BOBO. Do you have any estimates offhand as to the number of cigarettes
that might be in your seizures?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. No, sir. I believe 5 to 6 grains of marihuana in a cigarette
would be a very potent cigarette. These weights that I am giving you, by the
way, are in avoirdupois points.
Mr. BOBO. That would account for many thousands of cigarettes, the seizures
that you made there, if it had gone through it would be many thousands?
Mr. FLEISIMAN. Hundreds of thousands. We don't encounter too many cigarettes actually being smuggled, but I have a few figures here on it.
In fiscal year 1952 there were only 962 seized actually crossing the border or
seized for having been smuggled.
In 1953 we got 1,199.
In 1954, 1,734.
In other words, it is consistently increasing.
Now, when we come into opium or crude opium, in the fiscal year 1952 we
didn't get any, but in fiscal year 1953 we had a total of 13 major seizures.
We got 130.2 avoirdupois pounds of crude opium.
In the fiscal year 1954 we got 3 pounds and 10 ounces.
Mr. BoBo. Now, this crude opium is not for smoking; it needs to be manufactured in some other form before it can be used?
Mr.
FLEISHMAN.
Yes, sir.
However, it can be used in that form by eating it and making it up in a solution,

and some people have been known to drink it and others have prepared it in a
solution when they are desperate for a shot and actually injected it. It is not
a good form of injection, and in addition to the other undesirable features from
a social point of view, it is dangerous from a health point of view.
Mr. BoBo. I believe you have a board here that I think would be interesting
to us in showing various types of these drugs as you are talking.
Could we have the one on the different types of drugs?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. We put this together more or less for instructive purposes.
These are nmarihuana seeds. These the dried flowering tops of marihuana. That
is crude marihuana.
Sometimes we find that highly compressed in a bale or bag form. Recently
I have heard of bricks being pressed and offered for sale, 2-kilo bricks in the
lower valley. That is semiprepared marihuana. That is the same type here
from which certain of the stems and dirt have been removed. That is screened
or so-called manicured marihuana. It is ready for rolling in cigarettes.
These are marihuana cigarettes.
These, by the way, have nothing to do with marihuana, but I put them on
there as a matter of interest.
The so-called Pyote buttons certain tribes of Indians use, in effect similar to a
narcotic; they are illegal in the State of Texas.
Mr. BOBO. As a personal observation, or do you know, in fact, whether most
of that marihuana is destined for use by teen-agers and minors?
3490
Mr. FLEISHMAN. No, sir; I would say that the seizures In the cases that we
make, we try to concentrate on major cases, and that is major distributors,
and a great deal, if not all of our stuff, is consigned to the larger cities.
We try to stop it here on the border, but a great deal of the seizures that we
make, and we have made seizures, single seizures, by the way, in years gone by,
running up into hundreds of pounds-I think the largest seizure we made was 379
pounds of manicured marihuana. That was all destined for the northern
markets.
You will find in the eastern end of this district around Laredo and Browns.
ville, that the traffic comes down from bigger cities, such as Houston, Dallas,
Fi ort Worth, San Antonio, even New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore,
Washington.
In fact, we have chased cases right into New York. I would say that our
seizures definitely are not consigned over here for the purpose of use by teenagers, especially along this border.
Mr. BoBo. Teen-agers would be more likely to be the ultimate consumer of
marihuana than adults would.
I was asking that merely as a matter of opinion.
Mr. FLEISHMAN. If you want an opinion, I would say I don't believe so. I
believe, however, where marihuana is available there is certainly going to be a
certain percentage of it come into the hands of teen-agers.
I don't think anybody can successfully deny that.
This is a picture of various marihuana leaves and flowering tops.
These are opium poppy seeds.
These are opium poppies.
That is smaller, a smaller part of the growth, and there is an exceptionally
large one.
This was smoking opium originally, but it is hardened now. It looks like a
gum opium.
This is so-called Mexican brown heroin, cocaine, morphine.
This is morphine in tubes.
This board here was put out by the California State Board of Pharmacy. It
was for the purpose of acquainting enforcement agencies with the so-called
goof balls, various forms of barbiturates that are used, I would say there,
almost exclusively by teenagers.
Mr. BOBO. Thank you very much, Mr. Fleishman, for that board.
Mr. GEORGE DENTON (citizen of El Paso, Tex., retired). Is that the same as
loco weed?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. No, sir.
Chairman LANGER. Does anybody else want to ask any questions?
How about you, Father? Do you want to ask any questions?
Father RAHM. NO, sir.
Chairman LANGER. We expect you to testify later on, but if there are any
questions you want to ask any witness, you may do so.
Father RAHM. I am in a rough district of town and I can't say that I have
ever had 1 day pass that I haven't seen 4 or 5 boys under the influence of
marihuana in our parish. It is no compliment to us at all. Maybe I am not up
on it enough to know the percentage of adults.
Mr. FLEISHMAN. I have no doubt what you say is absolutely correct. I have
no doubt as to what the source of marihuana might be.
But quite some time ago, with the assistance of the E1 Paso Police Department,
we worked together on it. We had a peddler here, we knew he was a consistent
smuggler, and it was his practice to roll them and carry them around in an
ordinary tin lunchbox. He was peddling them out in small quantities to anybody
he could sell them to.
We believe that most of his customers were teen-agers.
Now, when we finally took him into custody, we got, I think, a couple hundred
or a little more of marihuana cigarettes he was carting around in that bucket.
We tried, of course, to get his supply. He claimed he had no supply. He
explained that by saying, "Why put a lot of food in an icebox when I can go to
the corner grocer ?" He meant that he was having it smuggled over as he needed
it, because in that way he didn't have a lot of money involved, and if he got
caught he only had a small supply.
In spite of the fact that he only had a couple hundred cigarettes, we considered
it important to take him and put him out of circulation because of the persistent
manner in which he had been violating.
3491
While we only had a small quantity and we like to get volume if we can get
it, in his case over a period of years you can imagine the volume he got rid of.
I have no doubt practically all of his customers might have been teen-agers.
Chairman LANGER. Is the United States attorney here?
Mr. BOBO. I don't think he is now. He is in Federal court now.
Now, will you go ahead with your other seizures, Mr. Fleishman?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Now, in 1953 we had 130.2 pounds avoirdupois of crude
opium. That included, I believe, 13 major seizures. One of those was 48 pounds
of opium which we took at Moffett, Tex. There is probably not a more likely
place in the United States to make an opium case than Moffett, Tex. We know
it came through or near the border of Presidio, Tex.
We had anticipated making several arrests in that case, but because of weather
conditions, when the case was finally made, we only got one man, and he was
the man that had it in his truck; he was the delivery man. He was a Chihuahua
police officer of some sort.
There are a couple other indictments we have in that case, but we have never
had the defendants. They are still in Mexico so far as we know.
Mr. BoBO. Do you know the particular territory where that gum opium was
going?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Well, the seller of the opium who ran afoul of a customs undercover agent thought it was going to Los Angeles; we were pretty sure it was
going into the hands of the Government all the time.
Mr. BOBO. He really thought he was sending it to Los Angeles?
Prepared or smoking opium, in the fiscal year 1952 we didn't do so good. We

only got 6.66 pounds, but in fiscal year 1953 we got 21.73 pounds.
In 1954, the fiscal year just closed, we go 20 pounds and 3 ounces.
Heroin, in fiscal year 1952-I will give you this figure in grams-we had 157.1
grams.
In fiscal year 1953, we had 107.1 grams.
In fiscal year 1954, we had 2 pounds and 3 ounces.
That is apothecary weight.
Now, incidentally, in the fiscal year 1955, that is since July 1 of this year, we
have been doing consistently better than we did last year. We have seized more
heroin the first 2 months of this year than we did in the previous 2 years
combined.
Mr. BOBO. That is since July of this year?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Since July 1 of this year.
A thousand grams is a kilo, and we had just under a kilo in one seizure at
Brownsville, Tex.
Mr. BOBO. Is that any indication that the traffic is increasing?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. I wouldn't want to say that at this time of the year, because
it may be an indication that we are having a little more luck, or that we weren't
quite as good in the past years as we should have been.
Chairman LANGER. Or more efficient now than you were before.
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Senator, I would like to say that, but I am under oath and
I don't know whether we are or not.
Morphine, as such, we don't run into too much of it. In fiscal year 1952 we
got none.
Fiscal year 1953 we got seven-tenths of a gram.
In 1954 we had 74 grams.
Codeine, fiscal year 1952, we had 34 grams.
Fiscal year 1953, 21 grams.
And in fiscal year 1954, 213.11 grams.
Our arrest record in this district, despite the gradual decline in the number
of available agents, and I think I have lost over the 4 years in which I have been
supervising agent here, I believe we have lost approximately 20 percent of our
available agents.
Mr. BoBo. How many agents do you have now?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Thirty-eight, including Mr. Givens and myself.
Mr. BoBo. That police the whole border from Arizona to Brownsville, Tex.?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. No, sir; I wouldn't say it polices the border. We try to use
them for investigative purposes.
Mr. BoBo. They are not the border patrol?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. It would be impossible, sir. Some of the distances we travel
are tremendous.
For example, between here and Eagle Pass, Tex., we don't have an agent.
We try to cover into that way from El Paso or from Eagle Pass, both ways. Of
3492
course, that is strictly wide-open spaces and we don't have any agents, but, of
course, we have customs officers, customs inspectors. We have a very good immigration patrol, and the BAI men and other agents working.
We are very fortunate in getting excellent cooperation from any police de.
partment we have ever called upon from sheriffs' offices-in fact, from all enforcement agencies. That is one thing in this entire district we are very
fortunate in because we have excellent cooperation from all enforcement agencies.
I would say that probably because I know them better, but in Tucson, Ariz.,
the police department and sheriffs' offices are just like our own. I could say
the same thing about the detective offices here in El Paso. We can walk in and
out of there any time and they give us anything and everything they have. I
think it is a wonderful organization.
Mr. BoBo. The recruiting of your agents is a rather difficult thing. It requires
a rather specialized person to handle this type of case, would you say?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Mr. Bobo, you can't take a clerk out of an office and pin
a badge on him and make him an agent and expect him to go out here and
develop informers, which is one of the prime assets of a good agent in this
district, and develop the type of cases that I am speaking about.
You have to have a man in the first place who likes the work, and why
anybody would like it is a mystery to me because it is hard, arduous work,
requiring very long hours.
You have to be able to get along with people. You have to inspire confidence in people, especially in other law-enforcement officers. You have to have
a man who at all costs will keep his word. If he promises anything, he
has to come through with it; if it is to an informer or another officer, he has
to establish a reputation for being absolutely scrupulous in his dealings.
Mr. BOBO. It is rather difficult to pick men like that off the civil-service list,
I imagine.
Mr.
FLEISHMAN.
Mr.
FLEISHMAN.
Yes, sir; I would say it is.
I would say the best way to
recruit them is by trial and error.

We can bring men in on an assignment basis or we have seen men in other
Government agencies who have assisted us or cooperated with us, and when we
find out that they are able to do the work, why, I think that is the type of
man we can use.
Mr. BOBO. Do you have the figures there on the arrests you have made?
Yes, sir.
I was going to state that despite the declining
number of agents we have had during the past 4 years since I have been here,
and I think we have approximately 20 percent less on a gradually declining
basis over that time I would like to give you the figures from fiscal 1948 to
date. These are for the entire district.
In fiscal year 1948 we had 276 arrests.
In fiscal year 1949, 293.
Fiscal year 1950, 194.
I came here in 1951. In fiscal year 1951 we had 283.
And in fiscal year 1954, we had 388.
In other words, in the past 4 fiscal years we averaged well in excess of
100 arrests a year more than we had in previous fiscal years, despite the declining number of agents we had doing the work.
In the current fiscal year, the first 2 months of this year we have had 86
arrests.
Mr. Bono. You have 10 months to go in this year.
Mr.
FLEISHMAN.
Yes, sir.
Mr.
FLESH MAN.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Bono. All these figures represent by and large major movers of narcotics?
Mr. BoBo. Every once in a while you would pick up a minor mover?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. We pick up minor mover cases, but the majority of our
cases are important ones. I can cite you three here we made in El Paso within
recent months.
We seized-it was 2 weeks ago this past Saturday-a Mexican doctor from
Juarez who operated a so-called alcoholic clinic, with 10 ounces which he
was in the act of delivering to an undercover customs agent. He had his scales
all set up when we cracked him and took him.
Prior to that, a couple months, we had 43 pounds of semiprepared marihuana
we took out here from 2 Mexican drivers. One, by the way, was the former heavyweight champion of Mexico.
3493
Not too long before that we had another case involving about 17 pounds of
mnarihuana, a small quantity of heroin, and a small quantity of opium, which was
being used for sample purposes.
We got two defendants in that case. I would say in each of these they can be
definitely termed major cases and major violators, because of the quantities
which they were pushing and in the case of this doctor he even suggested that
our agent, who was posing as a buyer, might want to hold off until he got hold of an
additional 22 ounces which he expected very shortly.
But we decided we had better not wait because something might go wrong.
So we took him.
Mr. BOBO. Do you know the retail value of 10 ounces of heroin?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. No, sir. Of course, the press likes the big figures, but I know
that this doctor wanted, he was selling it for $700, the quantity he had. He was
selling it for $700 for an apothecary ounce. They figure a gram as a level teaspoonful.
In the narcotic traffic they take a teaspoonful and level it off with a knife but
they like to get a curved blade so that they can scoop a little extra out of it.
Another thing in that narcotic traffic, as you can well imagine, everybody in
it is trying to trim everybody else. They cut it every time it is turned over;
they expect to double their money or more.
By the time it gets out to the poor addict it is cut and reduced until the percentage of actual heroin in the deck that he is buying is comparatively small. It
might start out as pure, but every time anybody touches it it is cut 50 percent or
more.
Mr. BoBo. Would you have any opinion as to what you think the extent of
the narcotic traffic or marihuana traffic in the United States is?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. No, sir; I have not, but I can tell you this: that consistently
In this customs agency district we account for, on a conservative figure, at least
50 percent of all customs arrests made in the United States.
Mr. Bono. That includes New York ports, San Francisco?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Yes, sir. We have 9 customs agency districts and in this
agency district we account for over 50 percent of all customs arrests and convictions.
Mr. BoBo. Would you say that is true of seizures?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. I would say it is true of volume, and I would say it is probably
true of the number of seizures, especially narcotics because the greatest, the
biggest percentage of arrests are narcotic smuggling cases.
Mr. BoBo. Is it Mexican heroin, or heroin produced in Europe or the Far East?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. I believe it is Mexican heroin because they grow opium in the
western part of the country. Of course, it is a clandestine operation.
I do believe that the Mexican Government is making a sincere effort to eliminate the traffic, to eradicate it entirely.
As far as the national administration is concerned, and their Attorney General's Office and their Department of Public Health and Welfare, and on the
higher levels, I am absolutely convinced of their sincerity in an effort to eradicate
the traffic, but I do believe that there are clandestine heroin plants in Mexico.
As a matter of fact, I am confident that that is where this doctor got his supply, this Dr. Cedillo.
Incidentally, he attempted a jail break the other day.
Mr. BoBo. In the enforcement of your particular narcotic and customs laws,
would the legalizing of wiretrapping evidence aid you in any way?
Mr. FL,,IsHMAN. Yes, sir; it would. I wouldn't care to see-I would like to be
able to use it for evidence, of course. Even if we were only permitted to tap for
the purpose of gaining information, it would be of untold benefit to us.
As it is, we don't do any tapping; that I can assure you.
Mr. Bono. I would help you to get leads into the big pushers and peddlers of
narcotics?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Yes, sir; it would.
There is one thing more I would like to state here.
We have this so-called Boggs account. That law, I believe, is a little bit faulty
in one respect. That section 3230 (a) title 26, United States Code Annotated
provides:
"LIABILITY AND TIME FOR PAYMENT OF TAX
"Every person who imports, manufactures, produces, compounds, sells, deals

in, dispenses, prescribes, administers, or gives away marihuana shall:
"1. Before engaging in any of the above-mentioned activities, and
3494
"2. Thereafter, on or before July 1 of each year, pay the following special taxes,
respectively."
It has been held faulty in connection with just the smuggling of marihuana.
I think an attorney might look into that thing better than we have been able
to do so because we have not been able to get certain of our cases within the
meaning of the Boggs Act. We have discussed this with Washington.
Chairman LANGER. Have you taken that up with Attorney General Brownell?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. I am sure they have this in the Department of Justice.
Chairman LANGER. Section 3230 (a), title 26, United States Code Annotated,
and section 3234 (a) (1), will be placed in the record at this point.
Sec. 3230 (a), title 26, United States Code Annotated, and sec. 3234 (a) (1), are
as follows:)
"Section 3230 (a), title 26, United States Code Annotated provides:
"'Liability and time for payment of tax: Every person who imports, manufactures, produces, compounds, sells, deals in, dispenses, prescribes, administers,
or gives away marihuana shall (1) before engaging in any of the above-mentioned
activities and (2) thereafter, on or before July 1 of each year, pay the following
special taxes, respectively.'
"Sectiou 3234 (a) (1) of title 26 United States Code Annotated provides:
" 'It shall be unlawful for any person required to register and pay the special
tax under the provisions of section 3230 and 3231 to import, manufacture, produce, compound, sell, deal in, dispense, distribute, prescribe, administer or
give away marihuana without having so registered and paid such tax.'
"Penalties for such violations are prescribed in section 2557 (b) of title 26
United States Code Annotated (Boggs bill).
"Following United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, U. S. v. Horton
(190 F. 2d 427), it has been ruled that sections 3230 and 3234 of title 26 did not
contemplate single importations."
Mr. FLEISHMAN. With regard to minors, there is another thing that occurred
to me after talking to you. They move at will back and forth across this border ;
that is, civilian juveniles and minors, as well as military. There is nothing in
the law to prevent a Juvenile from taking advantage of the liquor exemption,
for example. He can bring his quart of liquor back just the same as anybody
else under the law and under the law there is nothing to permit a customs officer
to preventMr. BoBo. You are speaking of the Federal law now?
Mr. FILEISHMAN. Yes, sir.
However, under the State law where they are supposed to go in and pay their
tax, I imagine there is a restriction there.
Now, whether there are minors that come over and bring a quart of
liquor-even a gallon if they claim out-of-State residence, I have never gone into
it because insofar as we are concerned there is nothing illegal about it.
But I know I wouldn't want my son carting quarts of liquor over from Juarez,
or any other place, or from Canada, for that matter, if he was a minor.
Mr. BOBO. Do you have any figures as to the amount of traffic back and forth
across that bridge per day?
Mr. FLEisHMAN. No, sir; but the collector of customs would. I know it is
tremendous.
Mr. Bono. It would be almost impossible to enforce anything, if they went
over to buy five marihuana cigarettes, without a tip?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. We have found that our method of investigation and our use
of informants to be the best way of enforcing the law insofar as marihuana
smuggling and narcotic smuggling.
Mr. BoBo. How about traffic in barbiturate drugs and benzedrines?
Mr. FLuSHMAN. Occasionally, you will get someone coming over with a quantity of those, but not to a great extent. You don't find any volume in that type
of traffic.
Mr. Bono. How about the importation of this so-called Spanish fly?
Mr. FLETRHUMAN. There have been some importations of that or some yohimbine tablets.
Occasionally you will find some jerk bringing that sort of thing over. That is a
comparatively minor traffic, too.
Mr. BORO. Would you have any recommendation, based on your years of experience, to deal with the narcotic traffic, either through more laws, or stricter
laws, or more personnel, or anything along that line?
Mr. FrFISHMAN. Years ago I made a survey in the Philippine Islands. The
first thin, everybody told us was that we need more men and we need more
money. I suppose you people run Into that same thing.
3495
I don't know if we had more men if we would make more cases. Money,
while it is tight and has been for a long time, yet with the exercise of care in
the spending of it and the economies, I don't believe we need too much more
money.
We have never been held down. I have never had any trouble getting any
money I needed for the purchase of information, for example, and they have
given me an allotment and 1 have never yet had to go over that allotment for
that purpose.
In fact, each year I have always turned some back. I have been told by my
bureau that if the time ever arises when we need a little more for that purpose,
that is available.
I think that If we did have more agents, I think if they were the right type of
men, I think possibly we would make more cases. We don't think we get everybody by any means.
Of course, every time we get a violator, if he has never been caught before, to
us he always screams that is the first time, but we do believe if they keep at it
Iong enough we will get them.
Mr. Bono. Mr. Givens, you cited some figures to me the other day as to your
estimate of what you think the narcotic traffic is in the United States.
Mr. GIVENs. There are two angles to it. One is the traffic in marihuana, and
the other is traffic in derivatives of opium, the principal of which is heroin.
I have no way of knowing, and I have not been able to find anybody that does
know, or has a reasonable estimate of the number of narcotic addicts in the
United States.
But if you took the figure of 50,000 for the entire United States and figured
that each 1 of them used 2 grains of heroin per day, 365 days out of the year,
which they do. that would amount to about 5,000 pounds of heroin to be consumned by those 50,000 narcotic addicts.
Judging by the average price paid for a deck in the larger cities, it is about
$3 a deck, that runs into $100 million a year.
However, when it comes to marihuana, that is an entirely different problem.
To my waiy of thinking. marihuana is the more serious problem. It is more
serious for this reason:
A juvenile will start on marihuana and move from marihuana into the derivatives of opium. One idea of the volume of marihuana traffic on this border,
during the past 6 years customs agency service has accounted for 9,298 pounds
of marilhnan.
That is crude and prepared as well.
Perhaps 40 percent of that is prepared. That is about 9 million cigarettes.
Now. that is quite a lot of marihuana to take out of the illegal traffic, but it does
not seem to have affected the price or the availability of cigarettes in the big
cities.
Mr. BOBO. The price and availability is still the same now as it was prior to
seizure?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes. sir.
Mr. BoBo. Meaning that we have quite a bit of marihuana in this country?
Mr. GIVENS. The law of supply and demand governs price in everything unless
it is controlled, and this not controlled. There is no evidence whatsoever to
indicate that there is any controlling organization in the traffic of marihuana,
or any national controlling organization in the traffic of heroin; none that I
know of.
Mr. Bono. By taking 5 tons of marihuana out of the traffic, you have found in
making your purchases and so forth the price of marihuana has not increased
at all?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir; it varies according to the availability below; in Meico,
the price does.
I have been on the border 8 years in an administrative capacity. I have been
in charge in Laredo for 6 years, which is the center of this marihuana traffic.
The price in Mexico to a smart dealer is just about the same, around $10 or $12
a pound today, as it was in 1946.
Mr. BoBo. I think you mentioned u case the other day of a smuggler that you
picked up that you knew had been operating and he bragged about operating
for 15 years. Is that right?
Mr. GTVENS. Yes, sir; that is true. We arrested in Laredo a man by the name
of Sam Paredo with 329 pounds of marihuana.
After he knew that his jig was up and he had to go to the penitentiary, he
came to me to try to make some sort of a deal and confided in me that he had
been in the business 15 years.
3496
Mr. BOBO. And had been making regular movements across? What was his
city?
Mr. GIVENS. He was taking it into the northern cities. He took stuff into
New Orleans, St. Louis, Chicago, and Detroit.
Mr. Bono. I think you also made a recent case involving someone in New York
City?
Mr. GIvENS. Yes, sir; we (lid.
Mr. FLEISHMAN. That was a case that originated in Laredo by a customs
agent by the name of 1)ave Ellis. We knew of this movement and it was going
into New York City. There was a man by the name of Stanley Halperin an
Stanley Halperin-you may recall the Micky Jelke case in New
Marty Snyder.
York; Halperin got some publicity in that case. They were coming down to
Laredo to get their loads and were shipping it out railway express, a truckload
at a time.
We missed one load. The second time we were able to keep a surveillance
on the truck and Ellis was able to follow it right into New York City, where
we were able to witness delivery and take it right in and pick up Halperin and
Snyder and work the case back into Laredo where we brought in a man by the
name of Gomero, which Mr. Givens had arrested before on another case and a
man by the name of Taureene.
That certainly is evidence that it is moving into New York.
Just recently we had the so-called Norrell Williams and Rebecca Young case.
We had five defendants in that.
Mr. Givens was agent in charge from Laredo when that case was made and
that case went right up to the Supreme Court.
The Government was sustained all along the line, so we didn't have any difficulty there.
At Laredo, and I have no doubt that the same condition exists here In El Paso,
especially addicts coming down from nearby cities, going over to get a small
personal supply of narcotics, for example, heroin. The problem there is both
men and women in bringing it back concealing it in their purses, and in body
cavities.
We occasionally make a case that way. We have to have them taken to a
doctor and have them examined and so far we have had no difficulty with those
cases in Laredo, but it does not take much imagination to realize the trouble
we would be in if we ever made a mistake.
Mr. Bono. False arrest?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. False arrest and everything else.
However, we do have the right of search on everybody coming across the border, when necessary.
Chairman LANGER. Judge Ford, do you want to come up here? Are there any
questions you want to ask? You are welcome to ask them.
Let the record show that Mr. Ford is a Federal judge in a Court of Customs
in New York City.
You may proceed, Mr. Bobo.
Mr. BoBo. If an addict comes back across the bridge under the influence of
narcotics, there is nothing that a customs agent can do with him; is there?
Mr.
FLEISHMAN.
No sir; not as such.
Mr. BOBO. As far as power of arrest?

Mr. FLEISHMAN. No, sir.
As a matter of fact, I don't know of any customs agents who would be qualified to tell when the man is under the influence of narcotics. I know very few
other people unless he is a medical man.
1 . BoBo. In San Diego, on the border there, they have 1 or 2 agents that are
pretty close at examining. Sometimes they make a mistake; he is drunk; especially among juveniles.
The county has enacted an ordinance requiring a penalty for anyone under
the influence of narcotics and you will find these agents pulling them out of the
car on occasion, and turning them over to the sheriff's office; pulling them out
for the search of marihuana and notifying the sheriff's office and notifying
them of their condition.
They have found it does suppress that traffic going back and forth across the
border.
I agree with you that no one can tell every addict.
Mr.
FLEISHMAN.
Well, we can tell an addict and be reasonably certain that he
is an addict if we find needle marks in his arm or other parts of his body, or
certain little pus sores that certain types of injections may give him. You are
reasonably sure you have an addict, but on the other hand it might be some diabetic taking insulin.
3497
Judge FORD. Where are those marks found?

Mr. FLEISHMAN. In the arm and with women sometimes in the thigh.
Mr. BOBO. I think you have an idea that a central file system that the FBI
keeps on addicts and pushers would be very helpful to you in your line of work
down here. Do you have any ideas along that line?
Mr. GIVENS. The State of Texas in the past year has installed a system among
all law-enforcement agencies in the State of Texas whereby they report to
Austin the names of all persons that are arrested who are known to be addicted
to the use of narcotics.
In time that would be most valuable to all law-enforcement agencies in Texas
and I believe a similar arrangement on a national scale would eventually be
of considerable value to all enforcement agencies concerned with the narcotic
problem.
Mr. BoBO. That means if a man is picked up for robbbery he is examined and
questioned. If it is found that he is an addict, that is reported. I think New
York City is one of the few places where that is done and their survey shows
that many have been accounted for in the last year.
Mr. GIVENS. Those figures, if released, give us an idea of whether we are getting the job (lone, or whether they are getting ahead of us.
Mr. BoBo. I think it can be safely stated, and from your viewpoint would you
say that probably no one in the country knows the extent of the use of narcotics
or the amount of narcotics in the country?
Mr. GIVENS. No one that I have found.
Mr. ]Bono. It is a rather difficult thing to put your finger on?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir; it is. The only thing we can go by is the volume we
capture.
Mr. BOBO. Would you have any personal recommendation, Mr. Givens, that
you think might aid the subcommittee in studying this problem of narcotic
addiction?
Mr. GIVENS. Not particularly, except what Mr. Fleishman mentioned on the
Boggs bill.
The Boggs bill has been very valuable. These mandatory sentences have had
a very deterrent effect.
However, it has led to another thing we have noticed, that more violators
we run into are carrying guns than ever before and we have no way in the
world to forfeit those guns such as the Internal Revenue has, unless the gun
is used in the threat of force or violence, or the crime is perpetrated in whole
or in part by the use of firearms.
I believe that section of the law should be amended.
Chairman LANGER. Would you make a note of that, Mr. Bobo?
Mr. GIVENS. I have that section of the law for your records.
(Sec. 3611, title 18, and sec. 3173 (c), title 26, are as fololws:)
"FORFEITURE
OF FIREARM MS IN
POSSESSION OF CUSTOMS AND
NARcOTIC
LAW VIOLATORS
"Section 3611, title 18, contemplates use of threats, force, or violence or crime
perpetrated in whole or in part by the use of firearms--forfeiture.
"Section 3173 (c), title 26, provides for possession or control when violating
Internal Revenue laws-forfeiture."
Mr. GIVENS. We would like to have a law where the mere possession or control of a gun on a violator, I mean near a violator-for instance, we find a lot
of them in glove compartments, or lying on the seat of the car. We can't forfeit
those. If they reach for the gun we can put it under that law.
Mr. BoBo. I think that is all.
Chairman LANGER. Are there any questions, Judge Ford?
Judge FORD. No.
Mr. FLEISH-rMAN. I have a couple more things.
A couple of years ago the Texas State police chiefs and, I believe, the Texas
State Sheriffs Association, each in their conventions, passed a motion, they
were going to request the Customs to check out every car leaving the State of
Texas in an effort to stop stolen cars going out of the country.
That would have required an investigation at the point of exit from the United
States, which would have been impossible, particularly under the present State
law which does not require anyone in the State of Texas to carry their car
registration with them in the vehicle they are driving.
Now, if they ever wanted to stop that it would seem to me that there is a
suggestion for the State of Texas, which is out of my province, and probably
3498
out of yours, but it is one of the few, if not the only State in the country, that
does not require the carrying of the car's registration while it Is being driven.
Mr. BoBo. I think that is interesting from everyone's viewpoint, mainly as
the Dyer Act violations come under the Federal Government.
I think in the National Training School in Washington, 85 percent of the
Juveniles there are in there for Dyer Act violations, and in Inglewood, 80 percent of the juveniles are there for Dyer Act violations.
Mr. FLEISHMAN. In that case we had to decline Investigating cars leaving
the country. There was nothing we could do about it, especially because of
that lack of requirement for the registration.
Of course, he has to have a driver's license.
Chairman LANGER. Texas is the only State that does not have it?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. So far as I know.
Judge FORD. Is there any reason for that, within your knowledge?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. I don't know why. It may be something that has not been
enacted into law. I think it even applies in the State of Texas for out-of-State
cars because of lack of the law they would not be required to carry their own
registrations in the car.
I would like to give you a few figures on El Paso here. I have them readily
available here for fiscal year 1954. The number of arrests, going into the fiscal
year 1954, we had awaiting, or under indictment, 18 arrest cases. We made 67
arrest cases in El Paso in this general area during that fiscal year, 67.
However, we had 70 convictions. That was a carryover of some from the
previous year, plus the ones we got that year.
At the end of the year we only had 9 cases awaiting Indictment and during
the whole year we only had 6 defendants not indicted.
Judge FORD. What area does this involve?
Mr. FLEISHMAN, I would say the immediate area around El Paso.
FORD. What does that include?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. In the western judicial district of Texas, west of the Pecos
Judge
River. Probably all of these are in the general area either in El Paso or immediately surrounding El Paso.
The number of our arrests is when you get outside of El Paso and east of
the Pecos River, we wouldn't have very many of them.
I would say practically all of them are local.
A great many of our cases when we pick up 4 or 5 or 6 people all in 1 car, if it
is a bridge case, when you work it down sometimes, why, you have to dismiss a
couple of them because they are women or 1 thing or another.
In this particular year we didn't lose many of them.
I would also say that probably our greatest asset is a very vigorous and
competent United States attorney. In fact, that is your best asset any place you
work. And we have that.
Mr. BOBO. You have obtained a great number of convictions of those you
picked up?
Mr. FLEISHMAN. Yes, sir. I would say when you balance this thing out, we
dismissed only four. One was released to city authorities. One was released to
county authorities.
Now, there are a number in there who don't appear that we may have picked
up and merely turned over to military authorities. We have a number of those
each year.
Obviously we have had several cases, particularly in the eastern end of this
district. We had one case recently at Brownsville where there were 5 juvenile
sailors from 1 of the naval bases nearby. We released all of them to military
authorities.
We had another case, there were 5 juvenile soldiers at Laredo; we released
them to military authorities.
We had another case in which there were 5 juvenile civilians down from
Houston to Laredo to do a little bit of carousing on the other side. They came
back and I believe the figure was 144 marihuana cigarettes they had hidden in
one of the hub caps of the car.
The boy who was driving the car took all the blame in that case, so we do have
some juveniles, but not an appreciable amount.
Now, here in El Paso some time ago, for a 5-calendar-year period, we had to
make up a summary and, for that 5-calendar-year period, 359 arrests of which 89
were Juveniles under the age of 21. We don't have it broken down below that
figure, but 89 of them were below the age of 21, and practically all of them for
smuggling, either mariliuana or forms of narcotic goods.
3499
Mr. GIVENS. Mr. Bobo, Mr. Fleishman mentioned a man's name a while ago that
might be of some interest to the Senator. He mentioned Norrell Williams that
we arrested in San Antonio with 140 pounds of prepared marihuana.
Williams was in Mexico City about 4 weeks that we had him under surveillance
down there through an informer. He purchased on that trip 810 pounds of prepared marihuana and when we caught him he had 140. The rest of it he hid in
Nuevo Laredo.
After his arrest someone stole that 670 pounds and it got back in the traffic. I
questioned Williams at length on three different occasions. He told me during
the period of 5 years he had smuggled in from Mexico and transported to New
York 5,000 pounds of screened marihuana.
Mr. BOBO. It was very heavy traffic.
Mr. GIVENS. The largest I have ever experienced.
Mr. BOBO. Over a period of 5 years?
Mr. GIVENS. Over a period of 5 years.
Chairman LANGER. Thank you very much, gentleman.
EXHIBIT No. 3
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT,
INSPECTION SERVICE,
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR,
San Antonio 6, Tex., October 13, 1955.

Mr. LEE SPEER,
Chairman,Investigating Committee,
Senate Subcommittee on Improvement of Federal Criminal Code,
San Antonio, Tem.
DEAR MR. SPEER: At your request, I am furnishing the following statistics and
personal observations concerning the relationship between thefts of mail, particularly letters containing checks, and the use of narcotics by the persons responsible
for these thefts. Statistics for the city of San Antonio for the years 1953, 1954,
and 1955 follow:
Mail thieves
Year
1953 ---------------------------------------------------------1954 ----------------------------------------------------1955 -----------------------------------------------------
apprehended
and
convicted
Percentage
of addicts
Number
addicted
8
6
7
17
12
14
47
50
50
In many instances we have found the addict-mail thief has a long record
of arrests and is frequently well known to the local police. He usually is
arrested after having repeated his thefts several times, largely due to the lapse
of time in our Service receiving reports of the loss of the mail, and invariably
uses the proceeds of his thefts to purchase narcotics. There have been several
instances where, upon being released from prison, the addict immediately resumed his thefts of mail.
Frequently, two or more of these addict-thieves operated as a semiorganized
gang. On several occasions one or two of the members of such a gang accepted
full responsibility for the thefts in order that other members, particularly those
with previous records, would be able to avoid prosecution due to lack of evidence. Had it been possible to make cases against these members of the gangs
during the 3 years in question, the percentage of users of narcotics among convicted mail thieves would be considerably higher.
There is a definite relationship between the use of narcotics and the theft of
mail, as those areas of San Antonio in which addicts are known to live are the
principal areas of the city in which mail thefts occur.
If I can be of further assistance to you in this matter, please feel free to call
on me.
Sincerely yours,.
J. H.
OSBORN,
Postal Inspector.
71515--56--pt. 7-73
3500

EXHIBIT No. 4
(Additional list of known addicts and their associates who crossed the bridge at
Laredo, Tex., into or from Mexico, submitted by Bureau of Customs, Laredo,
Tex.:)
LAREDO, TEX.,
November 8, 1955.
To All Port8and Customs Agents in 23d Customs District:

The original list together with this additional list completely covers all addicts
and suspects given personal searches at this port from October 1954, through
November 5, 1955:
Bowzcr, Benjamin F., MatagordaIsland, Tcx., October 23, 1955
Arrived from Mexico by car in the company of Charles Nathan Hubbard (an
addict), Howard Butler (suspected addict), Ida Mae Butler, and E. H. Kennedy (not known to be addicts). Given personal search by Customs Inspector
Chamberlain, witnessed by H. H. Munoz. No contraband found. Age: 37.
Chatman, Louis, San Antonio, Tex., October 27, 1955
Arrived from Mexico by car, accompanied by Nathaniel Duncan and John
Willie Crawford (not addicts). Was given personal search by Immigration
Inspector D. L. Jurecka, witnessed by Inspector H. H. Munoz. Nothing found.
Occupation: truckdriver. Age: 33. He is a marihuana smoker.
Crawford,John Willie, San Antonio, Tex., October 27, 1955
Arrived from Mexico by car, accompanied by Louis Chatiman (marihuana
smoker) and Nathaniel Duncan. Given personal search by Immigration Inspector D. L. Jurecka, witnessed by Inspector H. H. Munoz. No contraband
found. O&upation: bar owner. Age 42. Not an addict, but in the company of
a marihuana smoker.
Duncan, Nathaniel,San Antonio, Tex., October 27, 1955
Arrived from Mexico by car, accompanied by John Willie Crawford (not an
addict), and Louis Chatham (marihuana smoker). Given personal search by
Immigration Insp. D. L. Jurecka, witnessed by Insp. H. H. Munoz. No contraband found. Occupation: bartender. Age: 35. Not an addict but in the company of a marihuana smoker.
Dutton, Carolyn nee Jackson, 2818 Ref ugio, Fort Worth, Tex., October 22, 1955
Arrived from Mexico in a taxi, accompanied by Naomi Roznoski (Nikki).
Given personal search by Customs Insp. Maedell J. Pearson. No contraband
found. Had needle mark in one arm, claimed it was from shots given in Fort
Worth when she got her health card. Occupation: car hop. Marital status:
Separated from R. P. Dutton, USAF, Palm Beach, Fla., not divorced. Age: 26,
born at Corsicana, Tex., on July 29, 1929. Came to the border with Morris
Stevens and a man named Tucker, both of Graham, Tex. Suspected of being an
addict.
Henry, Robert E., 215 W1estmorcland, Waukegan, Ill., October 27, 1955
Arrived from Mexico on foot alone. Given personal search by Customs Insp.
L. A. Marks, witnessed by Insp. G. E. Reuthinger. Nothing found. Age: 21.
Occupation: laborer (Kalur Corp., Waukegan, Ill.). Seemed to be under the
influence of drugs. Very disorderly, threatening to kill inspectors, arrested.
Hygh, Gillis, 710 South,Hopp, Temple Tex., October 26, 1955
Arrived from Mexico by car, accompanied by Samuel Lee Roberts (not an
addict). Given personal search by Customs Insp. L. A. Marks, witnessed by
BEPQ Inspector Reuthinger. Nothing found on person. Occupation: Runs a
shoeshine parlor. Age: 30 years. Not an addict, but in the company or Enmnett
Thomas (possibly an addict, and he is a transporter of heroin-see seizure No.
11;-L for 7,2 packets heroin found in cab). Race: Negro. Emmett Thomas
arrived in a taxi after these two men, Hygh and Roberts, had been given personal
searches and while they were being investigated by Customs Agent Abe Palacios.
Jones, James, 140 Canton St., San Antonio, Tex., Novenber 2, 1955
Arrived from Mexico by car, a 1950 Pontiac Sedan, two-tone cream and blue,
apparently alone. Was given personal search by Immigration Insp. D. L. Jurecka,
witnessed by PL-O Insp. H. H. Munoz. Nothing found on his person. Apparently
he smoked marihuana while in Mexico this trip. He admits previously smoking
I I I I I I
3501
it. Occupation: Porter at Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Tex. Race: Negro;
height: 5 feet 10 inches; weight: 176 pounds; eyes: brown; hair: black; has
an initial tattoo mark on left forearm "Jack/SMJ." Has served 10 months for
marihuana charges. Arrested 1945 in San Antonio, Tex. (on airbase). Had
$125. He is not a heroin addict, but admits smoking marihuana.
Kennedy, E. H., 4004 Airbase Squadron, MatagordaIsland, Tew., October 23, 1955
Arrived from Mexico by car in company of Charles Nathan Hubbard (addict),
and Howard Butler (suspected addict), Ida Mae Butler, and Benjamin F. Bowzer
(not known to be addicts). Given personal search by Customs PPO Inspector
H. H. Munoz, witnessed by Customs Inspector F. Chamberlain. Nothing found on
person. Age: 35. Occupation: Staff sergeant Matagorda Island Airbase.
Love, Edward Keith, 526 Maple Wood, Houston, Tex., October 23, 1955
Arrived from Mexico by car, accompanied by James Edward Parrott, and Julian
Ray Madeley (addicts). Given personal search by Customs Inspector A. C.
Munoz, witnessed by Inspector C. T. Stone. No contraband found. Occupation:
Floor finisher; Age: 17; height: 5 feet 10 inches; weight: 155 lbs; Hair: brown.
Had fresh fix marks. Admits took fix in Houston for first time 2 weeks ago.
Took 3 shots in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, October 22, 1955, and 1 shot today. Paid
75 cents for each shot. Been arrested for burglary and theft (7 months ago,
Houston). Bought a 1948 Plymouth, license N/H-7714, last Friday, October 21,
1955. Gave $75 down, cost him $195. Car parked one block from bridge, searched
by Inspector Munoz, nothing found. He is an addict.
Madclcy, JulianRay, 526 Maple Wood, Houston, Tex., October 23, 1955
Arrived from Mexico by car, accompanied by Edward Keith Love (addict).
Given personal search by Customs Inspector A. C. Munoz, witnessed by Inspector
C. T. Stone, no contraband found. Occupation: Floor finisher; age 17; height:
5 feet 91/, inches; weight: 140 pounds; eyes: blue; hair: brown. Had first shot
about a month ago-had about 10 shots so far. Had three shots yesterday at
Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. Paid $1 for each.
Mon es, Francisco (did not give any address; stated he had none), October 31,
1955
Arrived from Mexico walking and alone. He stated that he had been living
in Mexico for about 2 months, that he had no address anywhere, as he just went
from place to place. Admitted that he had smoked a couple of cigarettes everyday. (Marihuana user.) Born in New York City, N. Y., on April 13, 1922, is a
United States citizen; race: Negro (Cuban) ; height: 6 feet 1 inch; weight: 190
pounds; eyes: black; hair: black. Has curly hair and a mustache. Occupation:
Millwright and part-time musician, at present he is unemployed. Had 60 cents
in his pocket, and had a bus ticket to Fort Worth, Tex. Was given personal
search by Customs Inspector Fierros, witnessed by Inspector Botello. Nothing
found on person. Customs Agent Richards was notified, as this man admits he
is a marihuana smoker.
Parrott,James Edward,403 Threkeld, Houston, Tex., October 23, 1955
Arrived from Mexico on foot alone. Given personal search by Immigration
Inspector C. T. Stone, witnessed by Inspector Chamberlain. No contraband
found. Had a knife. Occupation: Helper in oil wells; age: 17. Keith Love
and Ray Madeley (addicts) are traveling with him but stayed in Mexico. Has
been an addict since age of 15. Later, this same day arrived from Mexico by car,
accompanied by Edward Keith Love and Julian R. M:Ldeley (addicts). Given
personal search by Customs Inspector F. W. Robinson, witnessed by Inspector
A. C. Munoz. Had pocketknife about 3 inches long. Stated he had a shot in
Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, last night, paid 75 cents for it. Is 6 feet in height, 145
Pounds weight, blond hair, hazel eyes. Has tattoo on right arm, hearts and
diamonds tattooed on knees. Makes $1.30 an hour (5 days a week).
Roberts, Samuel Lee, 1510 East 21st Street, Austin, Tex., October 26, 1955
Arrived from Mexico in car, accompanied by Gillis Hygh (not an addict).
Later, Emmett Thomas (who claims he is not an addict and has not had a shot
since 1953) arrived in a taxi, investigation revealed that he is a friend and
traveling companion of Roberts and Gillis Hygh. (See seizure No. 116-L for
71/2 packets of heroin found in this cab that Emmett Thomas was traveling in).
Roberts given personal search by Customs Inspector L. A. Marks, witnessed by
IBEPQ Inspector Reuthinger, nothing found on this person. Not an addict, but
in the company of a possible addict and a transporter of heroin.
I1I
III
3502
Occupation: laborer; age: 30 years, had a pocketknife (seized). Had been

arrested for gambling.
Customs Agent Abe Palacios called and made the investigation. This man
with his two companions were placed in the county Jail, pending hearing before
the United States Commissioner.
Rodriguez, Lupe, 1705 Comanche, Corpus Christi, Tem., October 22, 1955
Arrived from Mexico alone on foot. Given personal search by Inspector
Maedell J. Pearson. Nothing found on person. Had needle mark on arm,
claimed it was from shots given her for her health. Suspected that she is an
addict.
Occupation: helps father in bakery; age: 26; born at Woodsburg, Tex., on
October 26, 1929, is a United States citizen. Has tattoo on right leg above knee:
"Lie. Juarez."
Roznosky Naomi nee Dunegan, 2318 Refugio, Fort Worth, Tex., October 22, 195.5
Arrived from Mexico in a taxi, accompanied by Carolyn Dutton. Given a
personal search by Inspectress Maedell J. Pearson, nothing found. Had needle
Mark on one arm, claimed it was from shot given when she got her health
card. Suspected of being a narcotic user. Occupation: Carhop at Triple X;
tage 19; height: 5 feet 1 inch; eyes: blue; weight: 104 pounds; hair: light
brown; married, separated; born: Roosevelt, Okla. Came to the border with
two oilmen, Morris Stevens and Tucker, night clubs all night in Nuevo Laredo,
Mlexico.
Ramos, Santos, 304 San Carlos,Laredo, Tem., November 1, 1955
Arrived from Mexico (8 p. m.) walking and alone. Given personal search by
Customs Inspector D. V. Fierros, witnessed by Inspector Murphy. Nothing
found on person. He is a laborer, presently employed at T. B. Ranch, Lubbock, Tex. He has been in the pen for robbery on two occasions. He was born
at Laredo, Tex., on November 6, 1908, is a United States citizen; race: white;
height: 5 feet 6 inches; weight: 165 pounds; eyes: brown; hair: black; marital
status: married; has tattoo on left arm "Pepa". He is a marihuana smoker.
Thomas, Emmett, 1315 Ramirez, Corpus Christi,Tem., November 26,1955
Arrived from Mexico in cab and alone. (Later, identified as a friend and
companion of Gillis Hygh and Samuel Lee Roberts.) Given personal search
by Customs Inspector L. A. Marks, witnessed by BEPQ Inspector Reuthinger,
nothing found on his person. Seven and one-half packets heroin were found
in the cab in which he was traveling. He is a student at Houston-Tillston,
Austin, Tex.; Negro race; 25 years age; claims he is not an addict, has two
scars, 1 on each arm, states he has not had a shot since 1953. Customs Agent
Abe Palacios called and made the investigation. This man and his two companions, Gillis Hygh and Samuel Lee Roberts, were placed in the county jail,
pending hearing before the United States commissioner. (Seizure No. 116-L.)
Vasquez, Miguel (omitted from original list), 3207 Vera Cruz, San Antonio, Tcx.,
August 24, 1955
Arrived from Mexico on foot alone. Given personal search by Customs Inspectors Botello and Fierros. Nothing found on his person. Stated he had
served 4 years in 1951 for narcotics. Tattoo "Mike" on left hand. Needle marks
on both arms. Is 35 years of age, 5 feet 11 inches, 160 pounds, dark hair, and fair
complexion, and is a common laborer. He is an addict.
West, Frank, 120 Allen Street, Trenton, N. J., November 1, 1955
Arrived from Mexico at 10: 40 p. m., walking and alone. Given a personal
search by Immigration Inspector Parker, witnessed by Customs Inspector
Worley, nothing found on his person. Believed to be an addict, admits that he
smokes marihuana. Born at Natchez, Miss., on February 16, 1922, is a United
States citizen; race: Negro; height: 5 feet 6 inches; weight: 135 pounds, brown
eyes and black kinky hair; has a 3-inch cut scar one-half inch wide on left upper
part of chest. Occupation: Merchant seaman, card No. Z-369383. Criminal
record: 1 year for burglary at Riker, N. Y. He was allowed to go without
calling an agent.
H. P. BARNES,
Chief Inspector o1 Custaom.

LAREDO,
3503
TEx., December 5, 1955.
To All Ports and Customs Agents in 23d Customs District:

Listed below are narcotic addicts and suspected addicts or transporters of
narcotics who have been searched at the port of Laredo from November 28 to
December 5:
Bryan, Cecil J., Bender Hotel, Laredo, Tex., December 1, 1955
He arrived on foot alone. Searched by Customs Inspector Scherr, witnessed by
Inspector Villarreal. No contraband found on person. Has needle marks on his
arms, possibly is an addict. Claims that he does not use narcotics now but
used to under doctor's orders. Born September 18, 1925, at Glen St. Mary,
Fla. United States citizen, white, 5 feet 6 inches, 143 pounds, brown hair, grayblack eyes, single, has scar on left cheek, mustache, has brace on right leg, right
leg short, uses crutches. Claims he has no criminal record. Agents were not
called, man released.
December 2, 1955: Arrived from Mexico in a car, accompanied by four other
men, one man, Bernardo Rivera, suspected of being a marihuana smoker. Given
personal search by Customs Inspector Worley, witnessed by Inspector Murphy.
No contraband found on person.
Hubbard, Charles, 1805 Sam Rankin, Corpus Christi, Tex., November 30, 1955
He arrived on foot alone. Searched by Customs Inspector Ramirez, witnessed
by Inspector Botello. No contraband found. He is an addict. Full reports
have been submitted on prior reports.
Rirera, Bernardo, 519 Ran Augustine, Laredo, Tex., 718 San Jose, Laredo, Tex.,
December 2, 1955
Arrived from Mexico in a car, accompanied by Cecil J. Bryan (possible addict)
and three other men who had given him a ride from Nuevo Laredo. Given personal search by Customs Inspector Worley, witnessed by Inspector Murphy.
No contraband found. It is believed that he is a marihuana smoker.
H. P. BARNES,
Chief Inspector of Customs.
LAREDO, TEX., December 12, 1955.
To All Ports and Customs Agents in 23d Custom.s District:

Listed below are narcotic addicts, suspected addicts, and/or transporters of
narcotics who have been searched at the port of Laredo from December 5
through December 11, inclusive:
Bonnee, John, Jr., 2810 Gordon, New Orleans, La., December 11, 1955
Arrived from Mexico as a pedestrian, accompanied by Horace Grice (an
addict) and Arthur Johnson. Given personal search by Inspectod J. E. Biggio,
witnessed by Inspector F. R. Pena. No contraband found. He is an addict.
Stated he had his last shot in New York last week; however, appearance,
behavior, and fresh needle marks show that he took a shot in Nuevo Laredo,
lexico, on this date. Born in New Orleans, La., June 21, 1927, United States
citizen, Negro race, five feet 8 inches, height; 150 pounds, weight; brown eyes;
black hair; marital status, single. Occupation: Seaman for Sinclair Refining
Co. Seaman's card No. Z-983231. Criminal record: 6 months served in county
jail for narcotic violation in New Orleans in 1949. Customs Agent Kenney was
called, and he in turn called State narcotic agents who came to the bridge and
took this man into custody.
Cannon, Frank, Jr., 1523 Madero, Corpus Christi, Tex., December 11, 1955
Arrived from Mexico in 1952 Buick, two-tone green, Texas license HF-9271,
accompanied by Vandeburg Griffin (an addict) and Charles L. Green. Given
personal search by Inspector G. E. Dabdoub, witnessed by State Narcotic Agent
R. E. Scholl. No contraband found. He is not an addict but is traveling with
an addict. Born in New Orleans, La., September 2, 1923, United States citizen,
Negro race, 5 feet 4% inches height, 160 pounds weight, brown eyes, black hair,
married to Johnnie May Turner. Has tattoo on right arm, "Cement poison."
Occupation: Cement finisher, employed by A. B. Duncan.
Green, Charles L., 4601 Elvira, Corpus Christi, Tem., December 11, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico in 1952 Buick, two-tone green, Texas license HF-9271,
accompanied by Vandeburg Griffin (an addict) and Frank Cannon, Jr. Given
3504
ILLICIT NAR bTICS TRAFFIC
personal search by Inspector G. E. Dabdoub, witnessed by State Narcotic Agent

R. E. Scholl. No contraband found. He is not an addict but is traveling with
an addict. Born at Cuero, Tex., September 17, 1928, United States citizen,
Negro race, 6 feet 1 inch height, 159 pounds weight, brown eyes, black hair,
married to Genevive Williams. Occupation: Janitor at naval air station.
Grice, Horace, 535 Fontaine, Browunsville, Tex., December 11, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico as a pedestrian, accompanied by Arthur Johnson and
John Bonnee, Jr. (an addict). Given personal search by Inspector J. E. Biggio,
witnessed by Inspector F. R. Pena. No contraband found. lie is an addict.
Stated he had his last shot in Brownsville about 1 month ago on 17th Street from
Lupe (last name unknown), stated he pays $1.50 a shot in Matamoros, Mexico,
and $2.50 a shot in Brownsville, Tex. Born in Hamilton, Tex., December 25,
1927, United States citizen, Negro race, 5 feet 8 inch height, 155 pounds weight,
brown eyes, black hair, single. Occupation: Construction worker, unemployed
at present. Has left arm amputated just above wrist, accident happened on
July 1955. Customs Agent Kenney was called, and he in turn called State
narcotic agents who came to the bridge and took this man in custody.
G-riffin, Vandeberg, 1106 Coke Street, Corpus Christi, Tcr., December 7, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico as a pedestrian and alone. Given personal search by
Inspector M. C. Culliman, witnessed by Air Policeman Remias. No contraband
found, no new data obtained since last report made on this person. He is an
addict.
December 11, 1955 arrived from Mexico in 1952 Buick, two-tone green, Texas
license HF-9271, accompanied by Charles L. Green and Frank Cannon, Jr.
Given personal search by Inspector G. E. Dabdoub, witnessed by State Narcotic
Agent R. E. Scholl. No contraband found. State Narcotic Agent Scholl sent
sample of urine to Austin lab and placed this man in jail pending report.
Harris,John Thomas, 616 East 17th Street, Houston, Tex., December 8, 1955
Arrived from Mexico as a pedestrian, accompanied by Lois Murphy and
Charles Murphy (both addicts). Given personal search by Inspector J. T.
Gonzales, witnessed by Inspector J. E. Biggio. No contraband found. He is
an addict on whom a lookout had been posted by State narcotic agents. Born
in Meridian, Miss., February 18, 1925, United States citizen, white race, 5 feet 11
inches height, 175 pounds weight, brown eyes, brown hair, divorced, had
tatooed word "sour" over right breast and word "sweet" over left breast.
Occupation: Sheet-rock worker, employed by English contractors, Houston,
Tex. Criminal record: Sentenced 3 years for burglary in 1945, served 1 year,
various minor offenses, arrested in 1951 for possession of narcotics. Drafted
in 1950 to Army, dishornorably discharged in 1952. Admitted that he had his
last shot on this date in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. Also, uses the name Thomas R.
Murphy, Jr, information furnished by Lois Murphy on this date.
Johnson, Arthur, 1204 Winnebago, Corpas Christi, Tex., December 11, 1955
Arrived from Mexico as a pedestrian, accompanied by John Bonnee, Jr. (an
addict) and Horace Grice (an addict). Given personal search by Customs
Inspector J. E. Biggio, witnessed by Inspector F. R. Pena. No contrabrand
found. He is not an addict but is traveling in the company of two addicts.
Born at Marlin, Tex., April 10, 1921, United States citizen, Negro race, 5 feet,
11 inches height, 145 pounds weight, brown eyes, black hair, married to Henry
Mae Milton. Employed as mechanic helper at Kilgore Nash, Corpus Christi,
Tex. Customs Agent Kenney was called, he in turn called State narcotic agents
who came to the bridge and took this man and his companions in custody.
Martinez, Hermina Moreno, 2007 South San Jacinto, San Antonio, Tex., December 9, 1955
Arrived from Mexico as a pedestrian, accompanied by her husband, Tomas
Mata, sometimes uses the name Juan Martinez (an addict) and her small son.
She is an addict, was recognized by State Narcotic Agent Hendricks who brought
her in for a personal search. She was given a personal search by Insp. Maedell
J. Pearson, and was given a medical examination by Dr. Mauck, United States
Public Health Service. No contraband found on her person other than a syringe,
needle, and bottle top wrapped in paper and concealed in her bra. She was
born in Ponnee, Tex., July 15, 1931, United States citizen, white race, 5 feet 5
inches in height, 110 pounds weight, brown eyes, brown hair, married April 3,
1955, to Tomas Sanchez Mata (sometimes known as Juan Martinez). Has "R"
tattooed on left hand between thumb and index finger, "T. M." on right leg, large
3505
tattoo on upper right arm. Many needle marks on both arms. Took shot this
morning. Taken in custody by State Narcotic Agent Hendricks.
Martivez, Marcclino General Delivery, Cotuila, Tex., December 7, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico as a pedestrian, alone. Given personal search by Insp.
G. Eo. Villarreal, witnessed by Insp. J. E. Cisneros. No contraband found. He
is not an addict but is suspected of being a transporter. Customs Agent Richards
was notified.
Martinez was born in Cotulla, Tex., November 11, 1936, United States citizen,
white race, 5 feet 6 inches in height, 136 pounds weight, brown eyes, black hair,
single, has tattoo, "M. M. I love you with heart" left hand. Had $536.55 in cash on
his person. He drives a 1955 Chevrolet pickup, blue color. Occupation: laborer,
at present unemployed.
Nata, Tomas (sometirncs known as Tomas Sanchez Mata or Juan Martinez),
1707 South Jacinto, San Antonio, Tcx., Decenibcr 9, 1955
Arrived from Mexico as a pdestrian, accompanied by Hermina Martinez
(an addict) claimed by Tonms 1lata as his common-law wife, and her small son.
lie was recognized by State Narcotic Agent Hlendricks, was given personal search
by Insp. J. E. Worley, witnessed by Insp. G. E. Villarreal. No contraband found
on person. Born in San Antonio, Tex., January 12, 1929, United States citizen,
white race, 5 feet 6 inches in height, 115 pounds weight, brown hair, brown and
black hair. Marital status: single, has common-law wiet.
Has long needle
marks left underarm and right underarm, right-hand tattoo-eagle, dagger, and
flower; left hand-dagger and flower, Indian head; chest-wolf and crown, cross
and devil. Criminal record: two times in State pen for narcotics. Was taken
in custody by State Narcotic Agent Hendricks.
,IMurphy, Charles, 1628 Corpus Christi, lhouston, Tex., December 8, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico as a pedestrain. Given personal search by Insp. J. T.
Gonzalez, witnessed by Insp. J. E. Biggio. He is an addict on whom a lookout
had been posted by State narcotic agents. He is an unemployed sheet metal
worker. Born in Dallas, Tex., November 9, 1931, United States citizen, white
race, 5 feet 10 inches in height, 155 pounds weight, blue eyes, brown hair, single,
tattoos-"P" on right hand between thumb and finger, letter "M" on left hand
same location. Criminal record: Served 9 months in Huntsville for burglary,
arrested for petty offenses and suspicion, 9 possessions of narcotics. Was in
the Army for 6 months, received a minority discharge. Had a shot on this date.
Murphy, Lois Gene Bloomberg, 10202 Rumar Lane, Houston 15, Tex., December
8, 1955
Arrived from Mexico as a pedestrian, accompanied by John Thomas Harris
(sometimes known as Thomas It. Murphy, Jr., according to the above-named),
her husband (an addict), and Charles Murphy (an addict), brother-in-law of
Lois. Given personal search by Customs Insp. Maedell J. Pearson. No contraband
found. Born in Houston, Tex., October 10, 1930, United States citizen, white
race, 5 feet 4 inches in height, 114 pounds weight, green eyes, brown hair, married
to Thomas R. Murphy, Jr., "Tommie" tattooed on left leg, "T. M." on left third
limger, and a crow's foot between thumb and index finger. Criminal record:
Has had numerous arrests for narcotics and thefts. She and her two companions
turned over to State Narcotic Captain Naylor.
H. P.
BARNES,

LAREDO, TEX., November 28, 1955.
To All Ports and Customs Agents in 28d Customs District:

narcotics who have been searched at the port of Laredo from November 21 through
November 27, inclusive:
Aldaco, Abel, C0 Fourth Street, Austin, Tex., November 26, 1955
He arrived on foot alone. Searched by Inspectors Medillin and Chamberlain.
Nothing found. Had many hypodermic needle marks on his arms. Denied he
was an addict and said the marks were from blood transfusions. Born Carrizo
Springs, Tex., white, 5 feet 6 inches height, 125 pounds weight, eyes brown, hair
black, single. Employed as a laborer for Cole Manufacturing Co. He has tattoo
cross 2 inches on his chest. Had $40.
3506
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
Altis, Norman, Regis Hotel, Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas,Memico, Novomber 28,1955

Arrived on foot alone. Searched by Inspectress M. J. Pearson at request to
search by Inspector Scherr, to whom she stated that all she had was marihuana.
He appearance reflected she could easily have indulged in marihuana. Born Sep.
tember 14, 1934, at Kansas City, Mo., United States citizen, white, height, 5 feet 3
inches, weigh'-, 162 pounds, eyes blue; hair light brown. Married to Tom Altis
3 or 4 months ago at Temple, Tex. He is in the Army in Louisiana. She has
diagonal scar on forehead. Had $6 in her possession. Stated her husband is
to pick her up on December 3 when he returns from Army maneuvers in Louisiana.
Presently employed at Bala Raza Tavern, 20 San Carlos Street, Nuevo Laredo,
Mexico.
Cruz, Amador, 717 Lane Street, Laredo, Tex. November 16, 1955.
Arrived on foot alone. Searched by Inspectors W. E. Jones and F. A. Dunham.
covered by previous reports, and no additional information obtained. Nothing
found on him.
Fernandez, Guadalupe,1317 North Water Street, Corpus Christi, Tex., November
21, 1955
Arrived by automobile accompanied by Jose Vallejo (transporter of narcotics)
in 1949 Dodge, gray color, Texas license HF-9848, Tudor sedan, from which
6 pounds of manicured marihuana was seized under seizure No. 135-L. Born at
Villaldama, N. L., Mexico, on February 4, 1921, Mexican citizen, white race
5 feet 6 inches height, 167 pounds weight, brown eyes, black hair, married to
Antonia Degaldo, occupation, laborer for the Aransas Compress, Corpus Christi,
Tex. Given personal search by Inspector Villarreal, witnessed by Immigration
Inspector Wanless. Nothing found. Agents called and conducted investigation.
Arrested pending hearing before United States commissioner.
Hubbard, Charles Nathan, 1505 Sam Rankin, Corpus Christi, Tex., November 24,
1955
Arrived on foot alone. Search by Inspectors Dabdoub and Jones. Stated that
he had not gotten a shot of paregoric this time, but had gotten one last week.
Previously reported, and no additional information obtained.
Kerley, Harry F., 1012 Chipito Street, Corpus Christi, Tex., November 23, 1955.
Arrived on foot accompanied by his wife, Gloria Jean Kerley, (previously
reported). Gave his present occupation as waiter at country club in Corpus
Christi. Previously reported. Nothing found. Kerley stated that his car turned
over about 18 miles on Highway 59 before they got to Laredo. Kerley had a cut
on his right hand and his wife's shoulder and right foot were hurt in the
accident. Kerley stated that his wife and he had gone across the river to get a
coat that is being made for him. It is believed that both parties went across
the river to get a shot because their actions were not normal. Kerley was given a
personal search by Inspector Dabdoub. It appears that le had a fresh needle
mark over the old marks. Kerley stated he had $10 when he arrived in Laredo.
but an examination of his person and personal effects revealed that he returned
from Mexico with only $1.20.
Kerley, Gloria Jean (see above report), November 23, 1955
Scott, Chester, 5920 Avenue Q',, Galveston, Tem., November 22, 1955
Arrived on foot alone. Search by E. Botello and H. Valdez, inspectors of customs. Nothing found. He had had a shot the same morning. Stated he was
not employed and is staying in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. See previous reports.
Nothing additional to report. November 24, 1955, arrived on foot from Mexico.
Search by Inspector Worley and Inspector Leyendecker. Nothing found.
Vallejo, Jose, 1713 North Water Street, Corpus Christi, Te'., November 21, 1955
Arrived by automobile, 1949 Dodge, gray color, Texas license HF-9848, Tudor
sedan, accompanied by Guadalupe Fernandez (covered In this report). Not
known to be addict, but was transporting about 6 pounds marihuana seized under
seizure No. 135-L. Born in Corsicana, Tex., on October 13, 1919, United States
citizen, white race, 5 feet 8 inches height, 140 pounds weight, green eyes, dark
brown hair, married to Hortensia Cuellar, has "3. U. E." tattooed left arm (fore)
and another tattoo on left forearm, "J. V. L."; hand base index finger, stated was
arrested on Freer Highway in 1951 for transporting marihuana, given 19 months
at Seagoville, Tex. Occupation: laborer at Aransas Compress Co., Corpus Christi,
Tex. Personal search by Inspector Villarreal, witness Immigration Inspector
3507
Wanless. Nothing found. Agents called, conducted investigation, and Vallejo

remanded to jail with his companion pending hearing before United States commissioner. His car was seized.
H. P. BARNES, Chief Inspector.
LAREmDo, TEx., November 21, 1955.
District:
Customs
23d
in
Agents
Customs
and
To All Ports
narcotics who have been searched at the Port of Laredo from November 13
through November 20, inclusive:
Agu ilar, Adolf o Mercada, 1112 Vera Cruz, San Antonio, Tex., November 20, 1955
Arrived from Mexico in a 1949 Ford, club coupe, gray, Texas license F/A-4026,
accompanied by Maria Luna Castillo, Cruz Tijerina and Melicio M. Villarreal,
Jr. Searched by Customs Inspector Botello, witnessed by Inspector Valdez.
Nothing found on person, 1/4 pound marihuana found in car. He is a parttime employee for Market Square, selling fruits. Not known to be an addict.
Customs Agents Richards and Kenney made investigation, placed Aguilar in
county jail pending hearing before United States commissioner. Car seizedseizure No. 136-L.
Arrcola, Edward, 624 North Western, Austin, Te.x., November 19, 1955
Arrived from Mexico in 1951 Mercury, dark blue, Texas license A/H-6496,
accompanied by Eusebio Cruz Guerra (known to have served time on marihuana charges), and Felix M. Ochoa. Given personal search by Customs Inspector Worley, witnessed by Inspector A. C. Munoz. No contraband found. Arrested three times for drunkenness. Occupation: dishwasher, unemployed at
present.
Castillo, Maria Luna, 510 Durango, San Antonio, Tex., November 20, 1955
Arrived from Mexico in a 1949 Ford, club coupe, gray, Texas license F/A-4026,
accompanied by Adolfo Mercada (Rudy) Aguilar, Cruz Tijerina, and Melicio
M. Villarreal, Jr. Searched by Customs Inspectress Pearson. Nothing found
on person, /4. pound marihuana found in car. She is a housewife. Not known
to be an addict. Customs Agents Richards and Kenney made investigation,
placed Castillo in county jail pending hearing before United 'States commissioner. Car seized-seizure No. 136-L. She was born at San Marcos, Tex.,
September 9, 1917, United States citizen, white race, 5 feet 1 inch height, 190
pounds weight, brown eyes, dark brown hair, widow with 5 children; has scar
on left breast and left side of mouth. Has been in Jail several times for fighting and drunkenness.
Crux, Amador E., 717 Lane, Laredo, Tc., November 14, 1955
Arrived from Mexico on foot and alone. Addict recognized by Customs

Inspector A. C. Munoz, who gave personal search, witnessed by Inspector
Winters. No contraband found on person. Born at Laredo, Tex., September 4,
1906, United States citizen, white race, 5 feet 6 Inches height, 135 pounds weight,
brown eyes, black hair, single, has scar on left cheek, tattoo on right arm,
handclasp 5 stars with L. S. Arrested three or four times for fightinff, and
drunkenness. States that he hasn't used narcotics since before World War II.
Davis, Lee, 317 Railey, Houston, Tex., November 18, 1955
Arrived from Mexico in 1953 Ford, red and ivory color, Texas license (?)3031.
Given personal search by Customs Inspector Gunnoe, witnessed by Inspector
h1aley. No contraband found on person. Not an addict, suspected of dealing
With narcotics, as wife, Ollie Mae Davis was indicted with Isaac Johnson for
narcotic charges on January 3, 1955. Born at Houston, Tex., November 26, 1921,
United States citizen, Negro race, 5 feet 11 inches height, 222 pounds weight,
brown eyes, brown hair, married to Ollie Mae Jones, has scar on left forearm.
Occupation: plumber for D. Davis Co. (self).
Griffin, Van (Negro), 906 North Alameda, Corpus Christi, Tea'., November 18,
1955
Arrived from Mexico in 1955 Plymouth, green two-tone, Texas license R/S1585, acompanied by Hubbard, Kerley (addicts) and Stevens. Given personal
search by Customs Inspector Botello, witnessed by Air Police Taylor, no contraband found, released. He is an addict.
3508
ILLICrr NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
November 19, 1955 arrived from Mexico in 1951 Ford, blue, Texas license H/D)
6693, accompanied by Hamilton Butler Williams (addict) and Albert Kellough,
Jr. Given personal search by Customs Inspector Botello witnessed by Air Police
Reimas, no contraband found, released. Sometimes gives his name as Grifain
Vendenburg.
Guerra, Eusebio, 1820 East 6th Street, Austin, Tem., November 19, 1955
accompanied by Felix M. Ocha and Eduardo Arreola. Given personal search by
Customs Inspector A. C. Munoz, witnessed by Inspector Worley, no contraband
found. Has been in the pen for 4 months for possession of 18 marihuana cig.
arettes. Is believed that he is not an addict, given search because appeared to be
questionable. Born at Liftensprings, Tex., December 16, 1926, United States
citizen, White race, 5 feet 6 inches height, 135 pounds weight, Brown eyes, black
hair, married to Lorenza Ocha, has tattoo left arm of woman's face. Occupation:
truck driver.
Hubbard, Charles (Negro), 1505 Sam Rankin, Corpus Christi, Tex., November
18, 1955
Arrived from Mexico in 1955 Plymouth, green two-tone, Texas license R/S-1585,
accompanied by Kerley, Griffin (addicts) and Stevens. Given personal search
by Customs Inspector Botello, witnessed by Air Police Taylor, no contraband
found, released. Is an addict, previous reports give full information on this
party.
Kellough, Jr., Albert (Negro), 1921 Xavier, Corpus Christi, Tew., November
19, 1955
Arrived from Mexico in 1951 Ford, blue, Texas license H/D-6693, accompanied by Van Griffin and Hamilton Butler Williams (addicts). Given personal search because he was traveling with recognized addicts. No contraband
found, released. Search was made by Customs Inspector Botello, witnessed by
Air Police Remias. Is not known to be an addict. Had a small knife. Born
at Bastrop, Tex., November 20, 1925, United States citizen, Negro race, 5 feet
6 inches height, 135 pounds, black eyes, brown hair, married to Adella Kellough,
has scar over right eye. Occupation: Soda jerk for Lichtensteins'. Is a merchant seaman with card No. Z-829 253.
Kerley, Harry,1012 Chipito Street, Corpus Christi,Tex., November 18, 1955
Arrived from Mexico in 1955 Plymouth, green two-tone, Texas license R/S1585, accompanied by Hubbard, Van Griffin (addicts) and Stevens. Given personal search by Customs Inspector Botello, nothing found on person, released.
Full report given on previous list, as he is a regular crosser. Is an addict.
November 20, 1955 arrived from Mexico in 1950 Chevrolet, green, accompanied
by his wife, Gloria Jean Kerley (an addict). Given personal search by Customs Inspector W. C. Pena, witnessed by Inspector Sanders. No contraband
found. Customs Agent Richards came to the bridge and took these persons in
custody. No new information obtained. See previous reports.
Ochoa, Felix M., 806 Nile, Austin, Tex., November 19, 1955
accompanied by Edward Arreola (who has served time for marihuana) and
Eusebio Cruz Guerra. Personal search by Customs Inspector Worley and A. C.
Munoz. Nothing found. Not an addict. Occupation: Plumber for city of Austin,
Texas.
Picazzo,Juan M., 524 Josephine, Corpus Christi,Tex., November 17, 1955
Arrived from Mexico in 1947 Pontiac, black, Texas license No. H/F-2013, accompanied by his brother, Seferrino Picazzo. Given personal search by Customs
Inspector Botello, witnessed by Air Police Renke, no contraband found on his
person. Among some medicines in his suitcase a paper was found, containing
a white powder which when given the acid test turned purple. Customs Agent
Richards was called, after investigation, released this man. He is a laborer for a
furniture company. Born at Camaron, Tamps., Mexico, May 23, 1934; Mexican
citizen, apparently an addict, white race; 5 feet 6 inches height; 180 pounds; black
eyes, black hair; married to Maria Eulalin de la Garza.
Picazzo, Seferino, 524 Josephine, Corpus Christi,Tex., November 17, 1955
acArrived from Mexico in 1947 Pontiac, black, Texas license No. H/F-2013,perGiven
addict).
an
(apparently
companied by his brother, Juan M. Picazzo
Renke, no
sonal search by Customs Inspector Botello, witnessed by Air Police
3509
contraband found on his person. Among some medicines in his suitcase a paper
was found, containing a white powder which when given the acid test turned
purple. Customs Agent Richards was called, after investigation, released this
man. He is a dishwasher at Chen-Chen Restaurant. Was born in Corpus Christi,
Tex., November 17, 1926; United States citizen; suspected of being an addict;
white race; 5 feet 6 inches height; 150 pounds weight; black eyes, black hair,
single, wears a mustache, and has wavy hair.
Shelman, Lewis Thomas, 514 21st St., Corpus Christi, Tex., November 17, 1955
Arrived from Mexico in 1954 Oldsmobile, tan, Texas license F/T-3470, accompanied by his brother, Tom Shelman (sentenced 1 year and 1 day, served
sentence at Texarkana, selling marihuana to Federal agent), searched by Customs Inspector Winters because this man and his brother appeared questionable,
witnessed by Inspector Jones. No contraband found on person.
November 18, 1955, arrived from Mexico in above-described car, accompanied
by his brother, Tom Shelman. Given personal search because of lookout posted
for 1951 Oldsmobile, tan, Texas license F/T-3470. Searched by Customs Inspector Scherr, witnessed by Inspector Cisneros, no contraband found on person.
Occupation: Masonery helper, Jones Masonery Co., Corpus Christi, Tex. Born
at Hempstead, Tex., May 25, 1925; United States citizen; Negro race; 5 feet 9
inches height; 159 pounds; brown eyes, black hair, single; left cheekbone small
scar. Has several arrests for drunkenness, disturbing peace, and concealed
weapons. Customs Agent Kenney was called. After investigation man released.
Shelman, Tom, 514, 21st Street, Corpss Christi, Tex., November 17, 1955
Arrived from Mexico in car described above, accompanied by his brother,
Lewis Thomas Shelman, not known to be an addict or transporter of narcotics,
suspicion. Searched by Customs Inspector Winters because this man and his
brother appeared questionable, witnessed by Inspector Jones. No contraband
found on person.
November 18, 1955, arrived from Mexico in above-described car, accompanied
by his brother, Lewis Thomas Shelman, not known to be an addict or transporter
or narcotics, suspicion. Has been sentenced 1 year and 1 day, served sentence
at Texarkana, selling marihuana to Federal agents. Born at Hempstead, Tex.,
July 7, 1907; United States citizen: Negro race; 5 feet 7 inches height; 157
pounds weight; brown eyes, gray hair; married to Florence Davis, has wound
scar on left arm made with shot gun and knife cuts, shot on right cheek. Customs Agent Kenny called, after investigation, man released. Personal search
made by Customs Inspector Scherr, witnessed by Inspector Cisneros.
Spark, Thernban E., 204 Lenox, Houston, Tem., November 17, 1955
Arrived from Mexico on foot and alone. Given personal search by Customs
Inspector Botello, witnessed by Air Police Ranke, on suspicion. Is not an addict,
but had 369 benzedrine tablets on his person. 791 benzedrine tablets in his suitcase, 19 yohimbina tablets, and 2 obscene books. (See seizure #131-L.)
Had
$250 on his person. Occupation: Washateria operator, owns establishment.
Born in Pike County, Ark., February 16, 1910; United States citizen; white race;
5 foot 7 inches height: 145 pounds weight; blue eyes, brown hair, married to
Pearl L. Spark. States that he has no criminal record. Was held for
investigation.
Stevens, Aaron, 1218 North Staples, Corpus Christi, Tem., November 18, 1955
Arrived from Mexico in 1955 Plymouth, green two-tone, Texas license R/S1585, accompanied by Kerley, Hubbard, and Van Griffin (all known addicts and
regular crossers at this port). Personal search given as he was in the company
of these known addicts. Given by Customs Inspector Botello, witnessed by Air
Police Taylor. No contraband found on person, released. Born at Cuero, Tex.,
August 15, 1919: United States citizen; Negro race, 5 foot 8 inches height; 158
pounds weight: black eyes, black hair; married to Prudence Stevens. Suspected
of being an addict.
Tijerina, Cruz, 1222 Tampico, San Antonio, Texc., November 20, 1955
Arrived from Mexico in 1949 Ford, club coupe, gray, Texas license F/A-4026T,
accompanied by Maria Luna Castillo, Adolfo Mercada (Rudy) Auguilar, and
Melicio M. Villerreal, Jr. Given personal search by Customs Inspector Botello,
witnessed by Inspector Valdez. No contraband found on person. Approximately
one-quarter pound marihuana was found in this car, owned by Cruz Tijerina.
(See seizure #136-L.)
Customs Agents Richards and Kenney came to the foot-
3510
bridge and conducted the investigation, and this man and his companions were
taken to the county jail, pending hearing before the United States Commissioner.
Had lookout.
Vilarreal, Jr., Melicto M., 230 South San Joaquin, San Antonio, Tem., November
20,1955
Arrived from Mexico in 1949 Ford, club coupe, gray, Texas license F/A-4026,
accompanied by Maria Luna Castillo, Adolfo Mercada (Rudy) Aguilar, and
Cruz Tijerina. Given personal search (on lookout posted) by Customs Inspector
Botello, witnessed by Inspector Valdez, no contraband found on person. Approximately one-quarter pound marihuana was found in this car. (Seizure No. 136-L.)
Customs Agents Richards and Kenney came to the footbridge and conducted the
investigation, and this man and his companions were taken to the county jail,
pending hearing before the United States Commissioner. Occupation: bone
buyer and seller, self-employed.
Williams, Hamilton Butler, 1781 Tenor, Corpus Christi, Tex., November 19, 1955
Arrived from Mexico in 1951 Ford, blue, Texas license H/D-6693, accompanied
by Van Griffin (an addict) and Albert Kellough, Jr. (not known to be an addict).
Given personal search by Customs Inspector Botello, witnessed by Air Police
Remias, not anything found on person. He is an addict. Born at Tivola, Tex.,
August 21, 1921, United States citizen; Negro race; 5 feet 9 inches height;
Has scar on right leg. Arrested three times for gambling. Occupation: Cook
at Tips Cafe.
H. P. BARNES.
Chief Inspectorof Customs.
LAREDO, TEX., November 15, 1955.
To All Parts and Customs Agents in 23d Customs District:

Listed below are narcotic addicts and suspected addicts who have been searched
at the port of Laredo from November 6 through November 12, inclusive:
Cuellar, Cleojar,Jr., 411 Washington, Laredo, Tex., November 10, 1955
Arrived from Mexico by car in the company of Ramiro Lopez (addict) whom
Cuellar stated he picked up on the bridge when Lopez asked for a ride. Was
traveling in Ford 2-door, black, license HU 8334, Texas license. Employed by
Dandy Bakery, Laredo.
Harris,Walter Albert (Buddy), 8I22 Commercial, San Antonio, Tex., November
10, 1955
Arrived by car accompanied by Rudy B. Zamora, Joe F. Zamora, Tommie R.
Lynch, all suspected of being peddlers of narcotics according to information
furnished by customs agency. Harris is owner and operator of Midway Tavern,
San Antonio. Born, San Antonio, Tex.; United States citizen; height, 5 feet
11 inches; weight, 155 pounds; eyes, gray; hair, brown, wavy; married, wife's
maiden name, Hazel Newton. Had $10. Driving a Lincoln 1949, blue, license
ET 7085, Texas license. Arrested 8 years ago in San Antonio for aggravated
assault. Fined $50 then.
Harris, Warren (colored), 1211 Winnebago, Corpus Christi, Tex., November 11,
1955
Arrived by car accompanied by Harry F. Kerley (addict), and Thomas Jefferson, owner of the car, a Buick 1948, 2-door, black and orange, license HF 7593.
He was born in Temple, Tex., June 8, 1931; height, 5 feet 11 inches; weight, 160
pounds. The agents were called. Not an addict but traveling with an addict.
Hubbard, Charles Nathen (colored), 1505 Sam Rankin, Corpus Christi, Tex.
(alreadylisted in file), November 6,1955
Arrived on foot alone. Search by Gonzalez and Dunham. Nothing found.
Birthplace given as Port Lavaca, Tex., born October 28, 1929. Height, 5 feet 10
inches; weight, 160 pounds; eyes, brown; hair, black; not married. Has scar
on right eye. Had $1. Agents notified. He has a card showing membership
in Master Stevedores Association of Texas, card No. 1569. Social security No.
452-34-5641. Belongs to International Longshoremen's Union. Is a stevedore.
Jefferson, Thomas (colored), 1728 Nueces, Corpus Christi, Tem., November 11,
1955
Arrived by car accompanied by Harry F. Kerley (addict) and Warren Harris.
Driving his own car, a Buick 1948, black and orange, license, HF-7593, Texas.
3511
Agents called. Born Stockton, Calif., August 30, 1930. Height, 6 feet; weight,
145 pounds; married. Not an addict but traveling with an addict.
Kerley, Harry F. (colored) (already in our files), November 11, 1955
Arrived by car accompanied by Thomas Jefferson and Warren Harris.
Searched but nothing found. No additional data obtained on this person.
Lopez, Ramiro, 4010 El Paso, San Antonio, Tea., November 10, 1955
Arrived by car accompanied by Cleofas Cuellar, Jr., who had picked him up
in Cuellar's car, a Ford 2-door, black, license HU-8334, Texas, on the bridge
when Lopez asked for a ride. Lopez has served 20 months in prison at Reno,
Okla., in 1954 and has been an addict since he was 14 years old. Agents were
notified. Lopez was given medical examination by United States Public Health
doctor. He is a broommaker by occupation, born in San Antonio, Tex., August
6, 1934. Height, 5 feet 9 inches; weight, 135 pounds; eyes, brown; hair, black;
married. Wife's maiden name: Irene Campos Lopez. Has tattoos on left hand
("Amor Deo") on back of hand, "Lopez" in between thumb and forefinger.
'oR.L." on right hand.
Lynch, Tommie R. (Mrs.), 2404 Commercial Avenue, San Antonio, Tea., November 10, 1955
Arrived by car accompanied by Joe Felix Zamora, Rudy Benito Zamora, and
Walter Albert Harris, all suspected of being peddlars of narcotics according to
information from customs agency. One bottle of benzedrine with 25 tablets found
on the person of Mrs. Lynch. She is employed as a waitress at Midway Tavern,
San Antonio. She was searched by Public Health Service doctor. She has cut
1 inch long above left eye. Had bruises over all of her body. Needle mark noted
on arms. Said she had blood tests taken. Arrived in car, Lincoln, 1949, blue,
license, Tex., ET-7085, owned by Walter Albert Harris. She was born In San
Antonio, Tex., July 9, 1931. Height 5'2" ; weight, 120 pounds; eyes, hazel; hair,
blond. She is divorced. Husband was Robert R. Lynch.
Zamora, Joe Felia, Route 7 Box 231, San Antonio, Tea., November 10, 1955
Arrived by car accompanied by Mrs. Tommie R. Lynch, Rudy B. Zamora, and
Walter A. Harris, all believed to be peddlars of narcotics according to information obtained from customs agents. Found 2 bottles with 25 tablets of benzedrine
on Joe Felix Zamora. He has been sentenced to 304 days in October 1955, for
aggravated assault In San Antonio, Tex. Was in car of W. A. Harris, Lincoln,
1949, blue, Tex., License ET-7085. Has cut across left cheek about 6 inches long.
He is a bartender. Unemployed at present. Had $40 on person.
Zamora, Rudy Benito, 814 Chalmers Street, San Antonio, Tea,., November 10, 1955
Arrived by car accompanied by Walter A. Harris, Mrs. Tommie R. Lynch, and
Joe F. Zamora, all suspected of being peddlars of narcotics according to information from customs agency. Searched by Inspector Villarreal and Worley. Rudy
B. Zamora was accompanying Miss Dorothy Holley November 13, 1954 (see
seizure 3024-L). He works at State TB hospital as mess attendant. Born in
San Antonio, Tex., March. 21, 1925; height 5'6" ; weight, 160 pounds; eyes, brown;
hair, brown. Married. Wife's maiden name: Mary Louis Rodriguez. Was in
Harris' car, a Lincoln, 1949, blue, License ET-7085, Tex. Arrested for drunkenness, fighting, etc. Served 3 months for drivng while drunk. Has a cut 11/
inches long upper lip.
H. P. BARNES,
LIST OF ADDICTS AND SUSPECTED ADDICTS WHO HAVE BEEN SEARCHED AND OF
WHOM A RECORD HAS BEEN KEPT AT THE PORT OF LOREDO, TEX.
Abalos, Miguel, 506 Avenue Garagoza,North Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico
Personal search May 11, 1955.
Inspectors Villarreal and Medellin. Nothing found. Occupation: Laborer. He
Is an addict.
Adams, Jerry James, 18
North Hutcheson, Houston, Tea,.
Personal search August 21, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico February 5, 1955, on foot, accompanied by Glen Hathorn.
Given personal search by Inspector McManus, witnessed by Inspector F. C.
.3512
I LLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
Averill of the Department of Agriculture. Nothing found. Arrived March 19,

1955, alone. Searched by F. Chamberlain and W. E. Jones. Had tattoo on back
of right arm. Had served 2 years for burglary. Occupation: Asbestos worker.
Arrived May 5, 1955, accompanied by James Broussard (addict). Personal search
by Inspector J. T. Gonzales, Jr., witnessed by Inspector W. E. Jones. Nothing
found. Age 27 years. Occupation: Insulator. Got a shot yesterday. Sister
owns Truckers Hotel, 50812 Buena Vista, San Antonio, Tex. Arrived from
Mexico on foot accompanied by Richard Clinton Brown (addict). Given personal search. Customs Agent Richards called and said they would no doubt
be with females in Manor Lincoln. Arrived August 21, 1955, on the bus. Personal
search by Inspector Leyendecker and Jackson. Agent Yates called and Adams
taken to the doctor but nothing was found. He was in possession of a quick
opening knife. He is an addict.
Aguilar, Joe Isabel Nicholas, 1410 San Francisco,Laredo Tex.
Arrived from Mexico alone on foot. Given personal search by Inspector F. A.
Dunham, witnessed by Inspector E. Botello. Nothing found. Occupation:
Welder. Says he is a welder in Chicago. Has been caught with marihuana.
Has bad reputation. Has been in jail for knife fighting, etc. Says he would
bring marihuana across river, not across bridge, etc.
Aguilar, Willie Juarez, 2737 Lawton Street, Corpus Christi, Tea.
Personal seach, October 28, 1954.
Arrived from Mexico in car, accompanied by Vidal Eleazir Encinas (marihuana addict). Given personal search by Inspector L. A. Marks, witnessed by
Sergeant Remias, air police. Nothing found. Four undeclared artifical wreaths
were found in the trunk of the car and were seized (seizure report. No. 3006-L).
Driver of the car, Plymouth, 1954, Texas license P/B 5101. Car is owned by
Corpus Christi caller, Supervisor Clayton Genut. Occupation: Truck driver.
Not an addict.
Alfaro, Avgie, 319 South Santa Rosa, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico by car, accompanied by Rudy G. Loza, 1310 Ruiz, San
Antonio, and Robert Flores, Washington, D. C.; given personal search at the
request of Inspector Haley by Mrs. Phillips of United States Immigration Service.
Nothing found on her person. She had two shot marks on left arm, claimed to be
blood test and anesthetic shots, about 5 months old. Age 22. Occupation:
Waitress. Mother, Victoria Lunna, works at Perez Cafe, South Flores, San
Antonio, Tex.
Arriga, Serapio, 1116 South Comaal Street, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in car accompanied by Roland Litterio and Martina
Litterio. He was given personal search by Inspector Villarreal, witnessed by
Inspector Haley. Nothing found. Said lie had been arrested many ti-mes. Has
the following tattoos on his left arm: "EL," "LAPO," "SVA" (?) ; on left hand,
"Love."
(See seizure report No. 3141-L.) Not an addict. In company of
Martina Litterio, a transporter of heroin on her person.
Bailey, Don, 2711 Park Road, Dallas, Tc.r.
Arrived from Mexico accompanied by two friends, and they were walking.
Given a personal search by Customs Inspectors Jones and Medellin. Nothing
found. Occupation: He is an addict.
Barbee, Neal Hedron, 200 Super Street, Houston, Teax.
Arrived from. Mexico in a car accompanied by Richard C. Brown. Given a
personal search by Customs Inspector S. J. Leyendecker and Inspector Jackson.
Nothing found on his person. Seeds found in car in which he was a passenger.
Car belonged to Richard C. Brown. Brown was placed in the county jail and
Barbee was released. (See seizure No. 48-L.) Occupation: Truckdriver. Age:
22. Not an addict.
3513
Barrett,John Orvis, 14121 West Sixth Street, Corsicana,Tex.

Arrived from Mexico by automobile accompanied by Morris P. Mullenix.
Was given personal search by Inspector G. E. Villarreal, witnessed by Inspector
p. Medellin. Nothing found. Has tatoos on both arms. Name "Jean" on right
arm. Occupation: Salesman. Age 33. Not an addict. Accompanied by an
addict.
Bartley, Bobby Joe, 105 West Annie Street, Austin, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico, accompanied by Dudley Bryant and wife and his wife,
Jean Bartley, in a car. He was given a personal search by Customs Inspector
Joe E. Worley, witnessed by Inspector L. A. Marks. Nothing found on his
person. He had about $500 (pesos). There had been a lookout placed at the
footbridge by Customs Agent Wagner. They were suspected of bringing in
load of heroin. Occupation: Rancher for Olrich, New Braunfels. Not an addict.
Bartley, Jean,Route 5, Box' 181, Austin, Tea.
She arrived from Mexico, accompanied by her husband, Bobby Joe Bartley, and
Mr. and Mrs. Dudley H. Bryant, in a car. Given a personal search by Inspector
J. L. Devine. Nothing found. She was very indignant. A lookout had been
posted at the footbridge by Customs Agent Wagner. They were suspected of
bringing a load of heroin. Occupation: Housewife. Not an addict.
Bazar, Charles, 101 South Vine, Victoria, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico alone on foot. Was given a personal search by Inspector E. L. Haley, witnessed by Customs Agent Kenney. Nothing found. Occupation: Hospital attendant. Magee Rest Home, age 32. San Antonio, Tex. Has
been arrested many times in San Antonio, and Victoria, Tex. Has tattoos all
over his body. He is an addict.
Beckett, Ruth S., (professional model, 630 South Mansfield, 25 years of age), Los
Angeles, 86, Calif.
Given personal search at the request of Customs Agent Ellis. No contraband
found. Lookout had been posted about 7 p. m. by Customs Agent Yates. Husband, Scott H. Beckett, movie actor, 24 years of age, was given personal search
by Customs Agent Ellis, Inspectors Dabdoub and Haley. No contraband found.
Released by Ellis about 8: 45 p. m.
Bell, Andrew, 1006 Dakota, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico by automobile accompanied by three friends, Elroy Lee
(addict), Rhodes (addict), and Johnson (addict). Was given personal search
by Inspector L. A. Marks, witnessed by Sgt. J. R. Fichtel, LAFB-AP. No contraband was found. Occupation: Unemployed.
Berry, Jimmie Louis, 611 Howard, Box 1771, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico by automobile accompanied by Alice Stanteen and Le
Roy Dacy. Was given personal search by Inspector J. E. Worley, witnessed
by Inspector J. E. Cisneros. Nothing found. Occupation: Meter tester. Age
28. City public service. (His companion, Le Roy Dacy, stated he deals in
narcotics.) Arrived on September 24, 1955, search by Inspector M. E. Winters,
witnessed by Inspector F. C. Averill. Nothing found.
Bius, Fayette B., Tower Motel, Dallas, Tea.
Arrived from Mexico in 1955 Ford Customline sedan, Texas license RA-7707,
accompanied by Gus Williams and Charlotte Harris. Given personal search by
Customs Inspectors Botello and Inspector Baker of the Department of Agriculture. Three grams of heroin were found on the person of Charlotte Harris by
Dr. John Lowry (seizure No. 3174-L). Stated he had served time in the penitentiary for robbery. He was owner of the car. Occupation: (2) Not an
addict.
3514
Bled8oe, Robert Ewing, 132 Dim-mitt Street, San Antonio, Tee.

Arrived from Mexico by automobile accompanied by Walter Ray Kool (addict)
and Bruce Cherry (not addict). Given personal search by Inspectors Pena and
Worley. Nothing found. Occupation: Bill poster. Not an addict.
Bowie, Willie E. 2714 Napoleun, Hous8ton, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a taxi, accompanied by Louis Weaver. Given per.
sonal search by Customs Inspector J. E. Worley, witnessed by Customs Inspector
Haley. Four grams heroin found on floor of taxi (seizure report No. 3100). Had
no needle marks. Believed to be a "sniffer." Occupation: Porter at hospital.
Believed to be an addict.
Boyd, Lilia (Mrs.), Three Point intersectionn of Market and Guadalupe Streets),
Laredo, Tex.
Given personal search at request of Inspector in Charge Walter Seawell for
narcotics. Nothing found. Information had been furnished by her husband
that she was bringing some white powder substance from Mexico. She had been
bringing it in small quantities and her husband was of the opinion that it was
narcotics. She resented being searched.
Broussard,James Fernand,12 Sidney Street, Houston, Tea.
Arrived from Mexico on foot accompanied by Jerry Adams (addict). Was
given personal search by Inspector J. T. Gonzale, Jr., witnessed by Inspector
W. E. Jones. No contraband was found. Occupation: Insulator. Got a shot
last night going with Adams to Truckers Hotel in San Antonio. Has tattoos
on both arms. Zapata on left arm. He is an addict.
Arrived from Mexico May 8, 1955, accompany by Charles Mikeska. Given
search by Inspector W. E. Jones, witnessed by Inspector J. U. Cisneros. Gave
occupation as painter. No new marks.
Brown, Ernest,219 Center,San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico by car, accompanied by De Calvin, 1134 Mencheca, San
Antonio, Tex. Given personal search by Inspector Botello, witnessed by Haley.
Nothing found on person. Occupation: Pool hall operator. Is not an addict
of heroin. Served time in pententiary; 3 years for possession of marihuana,
released on March 14, 1955. Previous arrival May 5, 1955, accompanied by Mr.
Purdy. Searched by Inspector E. Botello, witnessed by Inspector R. W. Baker.
Nothing found. Had served 5 years (in 1935) for burglary, in addition to above
marihuana offense.
Brown, Frank J., 229 Dehmar Street, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico, accompanied by John R. Wright, in a taxi. Given search
by Inspector H. Scherr, witnessed by Inspector J. E. Worley. No contraband
found. He had needle marks but claimed they were from blood tests. Occupation: Carpenter apprentice. Arrived April 21, 1955 in taxi alone. Searched by
Inspectors Valdez and Dunham. Nothing found. He stated that he had been
in Jail at one time for the possession of marihuana.
Brown, Richard Clinton, 7306 Fir Street, Houston, Tem.
Arrived from Mexico on foot accompanied by Jerry James Adams (addict).
Was given personal search by Inspector G. E. Villarreal, witnessed by BEPQ
Inspector Jackson. Nothing found. Occupation: Painter. Age 21. He is an
addict.
August 21, 1955, arrived in car accompanied by Neal H. Barbee. Search
by Inspector S. J. Leyendecker, and Inspector E. W. Jackson. Nothing found.
He was recognized by Inspector Jackson as having been searched last week (under influence of narcotics).
1949 Mercury sedan lic. MZ-4445 thoroughly
searched and 32 seeds (marihuana) 6 hulls, and foreign matter found by Inspector Jackson. Agent Yates called and conducted investigation. Seeds and
hulls placed in an envelope and initialed by all concerned. Envelope containing seeds placed in vault. Witnesses: Jackson, Leyendecker, and Aderhold
(highway patrol).. (See seizure 48-L).
3515
Bryant,Dudley H., 519 East Live Oak, Austin, Tem.

Arrived from Mexico accompanied by his wife, Peggy, and Mr. and Mrs.
Bobby Joe Bartley in a car. He was given personal search by Inspector J. E.
Worley, witnessed by Inspector L. A. Marks; nothing found. He admitted that
he had been arrested for burglary when he was 15 and given a suspended sentence. He had $2,387 pesos. There had been a lookout posted at the footbridge
by Customs Agent Wagiier. They were suspected of bringing a load of heroin.
Occupation: Real estate broker. Not an addict.
Bryant, Peggy, 519 East Live Oak, Austin, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico with her husband, Dudley H. Bryant, and Mr. and Mrs.
Bobby Joe Bartley. She was given personal search by Insp. Jennie L. Devine.
Nothing found. There had been a lookout posted at the footbridge by Customs
Agent Wagner. They were suspected of bringing a load of heroin. Occupation:
Housewife. Not an addict.
Buffin, Gus, 1326 Sherman Street, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico by auto, accompanied by Elroy Lee (addict), Wardell
Morris, and Robert Hollie. Was given personal search by Inspectors Worley and
Herring. Nothing found. Occupation: Used car salesman. Not an addict.
Busey, James Price,923 North Staples, Corpus Christi, Tem.
Arrived from Mexico in car accompanied by Charles N. Hubbard, Clifford L.
Jones, and J. Cartwright, given personal search by Inspector Winters and Immigration Inspector Peter Parker. Nothing found. Occupation: Reynolds Metal
Co. Height 5 feet 8 inches and weight 142 pounds. (Not an addict but accompanied by an addict) (Hubbard).
Bustamante,Leo, 214 South Pine (also 1831 South Comal), San Antonio, Tem.
Arrived from Mexico accompanied by Silvester G. Sanchez in a car. Given a
personal search by Customs Inspectors Scherr and Haley. Nothing found. Occupation: Rubber stamp maker. He is an addict.
Butler,Howard, 821 Parkland,Corpus Christi,Tem.
Personal search, July 1, 1955.
Taxi driver, age unknown, alone, came in bus from Mexico, was given personal search by Inspectors Botello and Villarreal. Nothing found. Is an addict. Needle marks on both arms and hands.
Cabrera,Raul, 815 Hogan, Houston, Tex.; 306 South Leona, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico on foot and alone. Given personal search by Inspector
F. Chamberlain, witnessed by Inspector G. E. Reuthinger. A marihuana cigarette and a knife were found concealed (seizure report No. 3031). Occupation:
Printer. Not an addict.
Calvin,De, 1184 Menchaca, San Antonio, Tex.
Personal search June 16, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico by car, accompanied by Ernest Brown, 219 Center, San
Antonio, Tex., a pool-hall operator. Given personal search by Customs Inspector Botello, witnessed by Inspector Haley. Nothing found on person. Occupation: Chauffeur. It not an addict of heroin. Served 14 months' time for
possession of marihuana.
Campos, Antonio F., Jr., 2505 Tampico, San Antonio, Tea.
Personal search April 2,1955.
Compos, accompanied by Anastacio S. Slera, Lupe Morna, Juan Orta, and
Rudy T. Silva, all of San Antonio, arrived from Mexico in a car. They were
given a personal search by Customs Inspector E. Botello, witnessed by Customs Inspector J. E. Cisneros. No contraband was found but a broken cigarette
and a small quantity of marihuana was found under the bench in the baggage
room where they had been seated. All disclaimed any knowledge of it (seizure
report No. 3148-L). Occupation: Laborer. Not an addict.
71515-56--pt. 7-
74
3516
Canova, Jacob (Jake), 1402 Mandeville, N7ew Orleans, La.

Arrived from Mexico by auto, accompanied by Horace J. Guidry. Was given
personal search by Inspector J. E. Worley, witnessed by Inspector D. V. Fierros.
Nothing found. Occupation: Contractor, all trades. Age 35. He is an addict.
(Became addicted under doctor's care.)
Cantu, Seferina, Cementrille, Tex.
Age 56, married, given personal search at the request of Station Inspector
Herring on a lookout posted by Customs Agent Dan Yates. No contraband
found. Accompanied by Maria R. Pena, age 24, Cementville, Tex., who was given
a personal search with no contraband found.
Carpenter, Dolores, 14196 Dyer Street, San Fernando, Calif. (Home)
(For last 6 months has been living at 1209 North Rampart, New Orleans, La.,
with Annette Lognion and her mother.) Given personal search at request of
Station Inspector Dunham because of lookout posted at 1: 15 p. m. this date by
Customs Agent Palacios. No contraband found. Traveling in cream-colored
Studebaker, Mississippi license 379-556, Hinds County, and accompanied by
Annette Lognion, 1200 North Rampart. New Orleans, La.; Paul Achille Lampiosi,
1220 Marais, New Orleans, La.; and Murray Thompson, 1030 North Congress,
Jackson, Miss. Works for W. Q. Smith Co., Jackson, Miss. Have been staying
at Nuevo Laredo Motel since last Saturday.
Carreon,Jr., Ignacio R., 311 Millard Street, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico as pedestrian, accompanied by Epifanio G. Ruiz and
Damacino Ramirez. He was given personal search by Customs Inspector Hyman
Scherr, assisted by Inspector G. E. Dabdoub. Three marihuana cigarettes were
found on his person (seizure report No. 3054-L). Occupation: Dishwasher. He
is an addict.
Carrol,Johnny, 2316 South Irby Street, Dallas,Tem.
Arrived from Mexico by taxi, accompanied by Lewis F. Runck, 4719 Cole
Avenue, Dallas, Tex. Given personal search by Customs Inspector Dabdoub,
witnessed by Inspector Chamberlain. Nothing found on person. Said he served
time in penitentiary from 1936 to 1953 for robbery. Customs Agent Yates and
Inspector Chamberlain took Carrol to the doctor. Occupation: Baker. He is an
addict.
Cartwright,J., 1941 Log Street, Corpus Christi, Tem.
Personal search August 23, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico in car, accompanied by Clifford L. Jones, James Price
Busby, and Charles N. Hubbard. Given personal search by Customs Inspectors
Winters and Parker. Nothing found. Owner of 1953 two-door Ford in which
they were riding. Occupations: Reynolds Metal Co. Age 27. Not an addict but
accompanied by one (Hubbard).
Castillo,Guadalupe,2308, Grant,Laredo, Tem.
Arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by Jesus Lara. Given personal
search by Customs Inspector D. V. Fierros, witnessed by Customs Inspector Haley,
nothing found on person, but approximately 4 ounces marihuana was found under
seat of car (seizure No. 3136-L). Occupation: Civil-service truckdriver. Not
an addict.
Castillo,Juan, 210 Ness Avenue, San Antonio, Tem.
Personal search August 20,1955.
Inspectors Chamberlain and Adkins. Nothing found. Occupation: Cafe worker.
He is an addict.
Castillo,Moises, 1248 Beech Street, Detroit,Mich.
Arrived from Mexico by automobile, accompanied by Roberto Zavala and
Octavio Garcia. Was given personal search by Inspector G. E. Villarreal, wit-
nessed by Inspector P. Medellin.
3517
Nothing found. Occupation spot welder. Age
28. Not an addict. (Marihuana seeds found in car.)

Cavazos, Roberto, 1203 Bervene Street, Corpus Christi,Tem.
Personal search, October 19, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico by automobile, accompanied by Harry F. Kerley (addict)
and Roberto Garcia. Given personal search by Inspector 0. L. Ramirez, witnessed by Immigration Inspector Trees. Nothing found. Occupation: Laborer,
Coles Construction Co. Age 21. Not an addict. (In company of addict.)
Chapman, DiccralosG., 1300 E. Terrel, Fort Worth, Tea.
Personal search October 8, 1954.
Given personal search by Customs Inspector Joe E. Cisneros, witnessed by
Customs Inspector G. E. Villarreal. Nothing found. Had marks on arms. Served
4 years for robbery. Jailed for Mann Act, Oklahoma. He is an addict.
Chapman, Lonnie Ray, 1105 Ramirez Street, Corpus Christi,Tem.
Personal search September 21, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico by auto, accompanied by Charles Nathen Hubbard
(addict). Had knife on person. Searched by Inspector J. E. Worley, witness,
Inspector R. W. Baker. Occupation: Waiter, wiper-seaman. Age 31. Believed
to be an addict. Has needle marks. Claims to have been operated on for rupture.
Data submitted to Senator Butler October 18, 1955.
Chapman, MarionH., Holland Hotel, Orange, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in his car, accompanied by no one. He was given a
personal search by Inspector E. L. Haley, witness, Inspector R. D. Garcia. Nothing found, but it is noted that his wife, Nora Mae Thompson (name before marriage) was an addict. Occupation: Electrician and car salesman. 49 years,
5 feet 11 inches; 175 pounds. (Wife was with him on previous trip.)
Cherry,Bruce, Highway 181, Hilltop, 10 Williams Street, San Antonio, Tem.
Arrived from Mexico by automobile accompanied by Robert Ewing Bledsoe
(not an addict) and Walter Ray Kool (an addict). Was given personal search by
Inspectors Worley and Pena. Nothing found. Occupation: Mechanic. Not an
addict.
Cluck, James D., 1903 W. 30th Street, Austin, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico by car, accompanied by Herschel James. Given personal
search by R. E. Zimmerman, witnessed by Station Inspector Herring. No contraband found on person. Lookout was from Agent Palacios. Occupation: Nightclub owner. Car license AE-3229. Not believed to be an addict.
Coronado,Edward Aguilera, 528 Torreon, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico by automobile accompanied by Tomas Ortega Soto. Was
given personal search by Inspector F. Chamberlain, witnessed by Inspector M. E.
Winters.
Nothing found. Occupation: Painter.
Age 27; height, 5 feet 6
inches; hair, dark; wears mustache. Used narcotics once, but states he is not
using same now. Soto is his half brother.
Cruz, Armador A., 717 Lane, Laredo, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico on foot and alone. He was given personal search by
Inspector Jones, witness L. A. Marks. Nothing found. Occupation: No work;
lives on Government pension. He is an addict. Arrived February 17, 1955 alone.
Search by Inspector Villarreal, witness Inspector H. Valdez. Nothing found.
Dacy, Le Roy, 2103 San Pedro, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico by auto accompanied by Alice Stanteen and Jimmy Louis
Berry. Was given personal search by Inspector J. E. Worley, witnessed by Inspector J. E. Cisneros. Nothing found. Occupation: bartender, Stansteen's Service Station and Bar. Age 26. Noth an addict. Arrived from Mexico by auto September 24, 1955, searched by Inspector M. E. Winters, witness Inspector F. C.
Averill. Says he deals in narcotics.
3518
Davila, Antonio, 411 McMillan Drive, San Antonio, Tex.

Arrived from Mexico on foot accompanied by his daughter Rosita Davila.
He was given personal search by Inspector Cisneros, witnessed by Haley. Noth.
ing found on him. Occupation: Bartender. 30 years old. 160 pounds. 5 feet
9 Inches. Tattoos right arm Tony-Rosita-Dagger-Love Ad. He is an addict.
Arrived October 1, 1954 (previous arrival) acompanied by Amado Terrasas
(addict). Married to Hortensia Davila. Served 3 years in San Antonio. Oc.
cupation: Truckdriver. Santos Oil Co. 3-6021; 2-1262. Addict.
Davila, Rosita, 411 McMillan Drive, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico accompanied by her father Tony (addict) Davila, was
given personal search by Ada J. Jones. Nothing found on her. Occupation:
None. Age 9 years.
Davis, Ronald Kent, 5609 Ross Avenue, Dallas,Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in taxi. Given personal search by Inspectors Worley and
Munoz. Had a celluloid centainer with 3 tablets. States unknown person gave
him them at the base while he was playing. States he does not know what they
are, that he asked for something for a headache. The tablets were Yohimbina
which he destroyed. He was accompanied by Frederick Clinton Scott maria .
huana smoker), Jesse Robert Hudson, and Woodrow Wilson Dill (possible addict). Occupation: Musician. Age 23. Not an addict.
Dickson, Dorothy (colored) (also konwn as MargaretJones) 2219 Wilson, Corpus
Christi, Tem.
Arrived from Mexico in taxi, accompanied by Roy Taylor (addict). Given
personal search by Inspector J. L. Devine. Nothing found. She was formerly
a user of narcotics but says she is off it and has been for about 1 year. Occupation: Maid. Was formerly an addict.
Dill, Woodrow Wilson, 1312 South Irving-AmbassadorHotel, Dallas,Tea.
Arrived from Mexico in taxi accompanied by Jesse Robert Hudson, Federick
Clinton Scott, and Ronald Kent Davis. Personal search by Inspectors Worley
and Munoz. Had 2 tablets (Yohimbina) in his hand and was trying to hide them
as he was sitting on the bench. Has been arrested for assault and battery.
Occupation: Musician-manager of band, age 35. Says he Is not an addict but
has some indications.
Dixon, Helen, 1818 Capital,Houston, Tea.
Arrived from Mexico in a taxi accompanied by Robert Jones and Jack Mitchell.
Was given search by Insp. F. Chamberlain, witnessed by Insp. W. C. Pena, as
well as doctor's examination by the Public Health Service. Nothing found.
Agent Gallagher was called. Had $20 on person. Occupation: Not shown.
Age 39. She is an addict.
Donaldson,Earl C., 1308 Cleburne, Apartment 5, Houston, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a taxi acompanied by Jerry James Adams (addict).
Given personal search by Customs Inspectors Chamberlain and Jones. Nothing
found. Had scar on left arm, and served 2 years for burglary. Occupation:
Construction worker. Not an addict.
Drouet (Drovet). John J., Austin State Hospital,Box 96, Austin, Tex.
Arrived by car alone. Personal search by Insp. J. E. Cisneros, nothing found.
He had just been released from jail after serving 3 years out of 5 sentences.
Occupation: Taxicab driver. He iq an addict. September 28, 1955 arrived alone
on foot from Mexico. Given search by Insp. 0. L. Ramirez, witness Insp. F. A.
Dunham. Nothing found. Works in treatment ward, hospital attendant. Age 31.
Has served time in 1947 (the last time). Claimed it has been 7 months since
last in Laredo. Height 5 feet 10 inches: weight 208 pounds; dark hair, streaked
with gray. Had a shot in Nuevo Laredo today. Tattoo "Rocky" on left arm.
Tattoo "Good morning, Capt." across back. Several indistinguishable tattoos
lines on right arm. He is an addict.
3519
Du Pas,Malcolm, 128 Kerney, San Antonio, Tem.

Arrived from Mexico as a pedestrian. Was given a personal search by Insp.
H. Scherr, witness, Insp. A. P. Sanders. Approximately 6 ounces of prepared
marihuana was found on his person, and seized under seizure No. 3026-L. Appeared to have been smoking marihuana. Stated that he smokes and has been
smoking marihuana. Served 3 years on marihuana charges (1944-1947). Was
arrested. Occupation: Painter. He Is an addict.
Egeria,B8ter, 1225 El Pa8o St., San Antonio, Tem.
Age 24, 5 feet 2 inches, weight 110 pounds, brown hair tied back in horsetail
knot. Married to Efrain Egeria who works for her father in grocery store (she
states), "Manuel's Food Store" on Zarzamora Street, San Antonio, Tex. She
was accompanied by her husband and Salvador Gonzalez, 1011 Big Foot Street,
San Antonio, Tex. She was given a personal search at request of Customs Agent
A. D. Richards, as known to have been a riember of big narcotic ring in San
Antonio. She shows no sign of taking "shots"; however, her husband is an
addict. No contraband found on this person. Taken to Dr. John Lowry for
examination, no contraband found. Accompanied by Customs Agents Richard
and Palacios. There was a lookout posted by the customs agents at the footbridge
for these people. They were driving a 1953 Chevrolet Bellaire, yellow bottom
with gray top, Texas license EW-8535. Their car and personal belongings were
inspected and searched by Customs Insps. E. L. Haley and J. E. Worley. No
(ontraband was found.
Ellison, GeorgiaRuth Adcock, 6017 Norhill, Houston, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a red Lincoln, License MZ-1118, accompanied by
Lucile Rivera. Given personal search by Customs Inspector Maedell J. Pearson
and no contraband was found. Customs Agent Yates was looking for her so he
took her and Lucile Rivera to Dr. John Lawry. She stated that she was an addict
4 years ago but is cured now. She had several needle marks. 36 years of age.
Occupation: Housewife.
Encinas, Vidal Eleazar, 801 King Street, Corpus Christi, Tcx.
Arrived from Mexico in a car, accompanied by Willie Juarez Aguilar. He was
given a personal search by Insp. Lester A. Marks, witnessed by Sergeant Remias,
Air Police. Nothing found. Released from Huntsville on October 26, 1954, after
3 years imprisonment for possession of marihuana. Arrested in Brownsville
December 28, 1952, by city police. Occupation: Bartender, 803, Agnes, Corpus
Christi. Marihuana addict.
Eugene, Robert, 1165 Turk, San Francisco,Calif
Arrived from Mexico by automobile accompanied by Harry F. Kerley (addict)
and Tom Hall (colored) not addict. Was given personal search by Inspector G. E.
Villarreal, witnessed by Customs Agent T. Wagner. No contraband found.
Occupation: Merchant seaman (cook). Age 24. He is an addict. Data submitted to Senator Butler October 18, 1955.
Farrier,Walter, 22 Kendall Street, Boston, Mass., (Also: Perrin Airforce Base,
Sherman, Tex.)
Arrived from Mexico in car accompanied by Ellis Porter and Tessie Polk.
Given personal search by Insps. I. W. Duke and J. E. Worley. Nothing found.
Suspected of having marihuana. Stated he had been a. w. o. 1. and spent time
in the guardhouse while in the service. They were stopped 1 mile north of
Laredo and 2 pounds prepared marihuana was found concealed under the hood.
(Seizure No. 71-L). Occupation: Discharged from the Air Force September
3, 1955. Age 25. Not an addict.
Fields, Gordon B., 2604 Albany, Houston, Tew.
Arrived from Mexico by automobile accompanied by Bill Jenkins (addict).
Was given personal search by Inspector A. C. Munoz. No contraband was found.
Occupation: cab driver.
3520
Piro,Alfredo, 550 Cheyenne, Corpus Christi,Tem.

Arrived in automobile accompanied by Joe Garza (addict) and Martin Ramirez
(not an addict). Showed hypodermic needle marks and has served time. Occupation: Laborer. He was given personal search by Customs Inspector Frank
Chamberlain and questioned by Customs Agent T. Wagner. He is an addict.
November 9, 1954, arrived from Mexico in auto accompanied by Joe Garza and
Martin Ramirez. Searched by F. Chamberlain. Nothing found. February 27,
1955, arrived from Mexico in 1947 two-tone Chrysler, license HD-3098, accompanied by Benito S. Firo (addict). Given personal search by Inspector V. D.
Gannoe, witnessed by Inspector G. E. Villarreal, nothing found. Occupation:
construction worker. March 19, 1955, arrived from Mexico in truck alone.
Given search by Inspector Botello, witnessed by Inspector Babb of the Department of Agriculture. No contraband found. Has served 2 years in the
penitentiary for marihuana. Occupation: Highway construction.
Firo,Alice, 405 Shawnee, Corpus Christi,Tem.
Arrived from Mexico on foot accompanied by her husband, Benito Firo (addict). Was given personal search by Inspectress Jennie L. Devine. Nothing
found. Occupation: Housewife. Not an addict. Previously she arrived from
Mexico on November 14, 1954, and was given search at request of Customs
Agent Ellis. Her two small daughters, Linda and Sandy, were also checked.
No contraband found on either of these persons. Her husband, Benny Firo, a
carpenter, had been picked up earlier (had a shot of heroin) and was in company with Frank Rodriguez, an addict who had heroin with him. Alice stated
that she had not been to Mexico, but that she had just ridden over from Corpus
to Laredo with her husband and two children, and they had brought Andrea
(not addict) and Frank Rodriguez (addict) with them. February 27, 1955,
Elida Firo (Alice Firo?) arrived from Mexico. Accompanied by husband, Benito
Firo (addict) and Alfredo Saenz Firo ( addict).
Firo, Benito Saenz', 552 Cheyenne St., Corpus Christi, Tea.
Personal search, October .4, 1954.
Arrived in taxi, accompanied by addict Francisco Rodriguez. Showed
marks of hypodermic needle. Vomited, and it is believed that he had had a
shot of heroin, but he would not admit that he had. (See seizure report No.
2976-L.)
Occupation: Carpenter
Seizing officer, P. D. Parker, immigrant
inspector. Witness: Customs Inspector J. E. Worley. February 27, 1955, arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by Alfredo Firo. Given personal search
by Customs Inspector V. D. Gunnoe, witnessed by Customs Inspector Villarreal.
Nothing found. Occupation: Painter. March 19, 1955, arrived from Mexico
in a truck accompanied by Alfredo Firo. Given personal search by Inspector
Botello and Inspector Babb of' the Departure of Agriculture. Nothing found.
May 25. 1955. arrived from Mexico on foot accompanied by his wife, Alice Firo.
Was given personal search by Inspector V. D. Gunnoe, witnessed by Inspector
E. L. Haley. Nothing found. He is an addict.
Flores, Eugenio, 56221San Fernando, San Antonio, Tem.
Inspector Cisneros; witness, Inspector Medellin. Nothing was found. He had
marks on his right arm and pachuco marks on his right hand. Occupation: Car
repairman. He is an addict.
Flores, Robert, U. S. S. "Duxbury" (Aup-38), care of Radio, Washington, D. C.
Arrived from Mexico by car, accompanied by Rudy G. Loza, grocery-store
owner of San Antonio, Tex., and Angie Alfaro, waitress of San Antonio, Tex.
(both of these persons had needle marks on arms, which they claimed were
from blood tests). Given personal search by Inspector Gonzalez; witness,
Inspector Haley. No contraband found on person. Had no marks of needle.
Had tattoo on both arms (Navy man). Occupation: BM 3, United States
Navy. Age 28 years.
Foots, Joseph (colored), 618 West 18th Street, Port Arthur, Tea.
Merchant seamap accompanied by Henry F. Kerley, 1012 Chipito, Corpus
Christi, Tex. (addict). Given personal search. No contraband found on person.
3521
I an addict. Seached by Inspector J. E. Worley, witnessed by Inspector D. D.

McManus. Data submitted to Senator Butler October 18, 1955.
Foo, Vernon E., 1608 East Bluff, Fort Worth, Teo.
Inspectors Biggio and W. C. Pena. No contraband found. Stated that he was
working with the agents and talked with Customs Agent Wagner. Occupation:
Painter. Age 47. He is an addict.
Frierson, William Baxter, 8011 West Walnut, Chicago,Ill.
Given personal search by Inspector P. Parker; witness, A. C. Munoz. Found
1 gram of heroin on person. Addict. Customs Agent Ellis investigated (seizure
8038-L).
Gaitan, Charlie,603 South Frio,San Antonio, Teo.
Arrived from Mexico in a car, accompanied by Jose M. Perales. He was given
a personal search by Customs Inspector H. Scherr, witnessed by F. C. Averill,
BEPQ Inspector. Nothing found. Has served 23 months in jail for marihuana
charges. Occupation: cab driver. Not an addict.
Galluzzo, Carlos, 301 Mayflower, Pittsburgh,Pa.
Arrived from Mexico on foot accompanied by Richard Robertson (addict).
Given a personal search by Customs Inspector Gunnoe and McManus. Nothing
found. Occupation: Musician. Not an addict.
Garcia,Antonio, 1203 Bervene Street, Corpus Christi, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico by auto accompanied by Harry F. Kerley (addict) and
Roberto Cavazos. Was given personal search by Inspector 0. L. Ramirez, witnessed by Immigration Inspector Trees. Nothing found. Occupation: Laborer
(Coles Construction Co.), housebuilding. Age 26. Not an addict (in company
of addict).
Garcia, Octavio, 54159 West Fort,Detroit, Mich.
Arrived from Mexico by auto accompanied by Moises Castillo, and Roberto
Zavala. Was given personal search by Inspector G. E. Villarreal, witnessed by
Inspector F. Medellin. Nothing found. Occupation: Trimmer. Age 26. Not an
addict. (Marihuana seeds found in car.)
Garcia, Tony F., 1425 Avenue F, Galveston, Tcx.
Arrived from Mexico in a car, accompanied by W. C. Morris. He was given a
personal search by Station Inspector Herring, witnessed by Customer Inspector F.
Chamberlain. Nothing found. Believed to be good prospects for dope smuggling.
Occupation: Shipyard mechanic, merchant marine. Not known if he is an addict.
Garza, Joe, 810 Wacost, Corpus Christi, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in car accompanied by Martin Ramirez and Alfredo Firo.
Given personal search by Inspector F. Chamberlain; witness Customs Agent T.
Wagner. Nothing found. Had hypodermic needle marks and has served time.
Age 26. Occupation: Tailor. He is an addict. July 2, 1955, arrived from Mexico
alone. Came from Corpus Christi with brother-in-law, Tony Reyna on July 1,
1955. They had $21. Searched by Inspectors Scherr and Chamberlain. Nothing found. Occupation: Presser. Arrived July 29, 1955 by bus. Searched by
Inspectors Worley and Botello. Considered an addict and has served a sentence
for carrying narcotics.
Garza, Ray 406 Zacatecas,San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico on foot alone. Given personal search by Inspector F.
Chamberlain; witness, Inspector H. K. Adkins. Nothing found. Occupation:
Sheet-metal worker. He is an addict.
3522
Gonzalez, Joe, 708 Linden, San Antonio, Tea.

Arrived from Mexico in car accompanied by Gomes. Given personal search
by Customs Inspector Haley and Botello. Nothing found. Has smoked maria.
huana once but does not use it now. Has been arrested twice for drunkenness.
Had tattoos on both arms. Occupation: carpenter. Not an addict.
Gonzalez, gatividad, San Antonio, Tex.
Inspector P. Medellin called Inspectress M. J. Pearson at her home and asked
her to go to the customs garage to assist the customs agents in checking some
narcotics suspects. Above named stated she would not submit to a personal
search, and Mrs. Ada Jones and Inspector M. J. Pearson started in the door of
the garage, when Mrs. Gonzalez made a run for the door. She was stopped by
Customs Agents Ellis, Yates, and Kenney and handcuffed. She kicked so
violently and tried to bite, so could not be given a personal search-even with
assistance of Mrs. Lozano and Miss Sandoval from the agents office. She was
then taken to Dr. Lowry's office, where she was given a personal search by
Dr. Lowry in the presence of Mrs. Jones and Inspector M. J. Pearson. She
was accompanied by her mother, her two daughters, and a man. All were given
personal searches but no contraband was found. The car was searched but
no contraband found. They were suspected of being carriers of narcotics.
Gonzalez, Pedro, Indcpenidcncia 1932, North Laredo, Tamatulipas, Mexico.
Personal search October 18, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico alone on foot. Given personal search by Inspector
H. Scherr: witness, Inspector H. Valdez. Nothing found. Occupation: Laborer.
Suspected to be an addict. Had needle marks on arm.
Grant,Marilyn (Negro), 14 East Second St., New York, N. Y.
Arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by her sister-in-law, Tonia, and
Mr. and Mrs. Mallory of Chicago, Ill. She was given personal search by Inspectress M. J. Pearson and three packages of marihuana were found. Two small
cellophane packages were found in her bra and one large package in a white
sock was worn as a sanitary pad. She stated she and her sister had been in
Monterey about 2 weeks, that they had met the Mallorys in Monterey about 4
days previously and that she had smoked marihuana for the first time about 4
days ago in Monterrey. Occupation: Registered nurse. Marihuana smoker.
Grant, Tonia (white), 14 East Second St., New York, N. Y.
Personal search, Feb. 12, 1955.
She arrived from Mexico in a car, accompanied by her sister-in-law, Marilyn,
and Mr. and Mrs. Henry Mallory. She was given a personal search by Customs
Inspectress Pearson and three packages of marihuana were found. Two small
packages (cellophane) were found in her bra, and one large package was in
a white sock worn as a sanitary pad. She also had three cigarettes in her
coat in a paper sack. She stated she had known the Mallorys about 4 days, and
that she and her sister-in-law had been in Monterey 2 weeks. (See seizure report
No. 3104.) Occupation: Laboratorv technician. Smokes marihuana.
Griffin, Vandeburg, 1106 Coke Street, Corpus Christi, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico by auto accompanied by Harry F. Kerley (addict) and
Kerley's wife, Gloria. Given personal search by Inspector 0. L. Ramirez, witnessed by Inspector W. E. Jones. Customs Agent Yates was notified. Nothing
found on his person. Inspector Ramirez found a fingerstall under the front
seat of the car. Occupation: Janitor, work at C. P. & L. Co., Corpus Christi,
Tex. Age 26. He is an addict. Drives 1955 Plymouth, green, license R/S 1585
(claims auto belongs to his aunt).
Grociano,Jose Gonzalo, 1225 San Carlos,San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in 1941 Dodge sedan, gun metal, license E/J-9826, accoinpanied by Ramona and Jose Martinez Mendoza (addict) and Anita and Abelardo
Luna (addict). Given a personal search by Inspector Gonzalez; witness, Inspector Cisneros. Nothing found. Stated he had a shot last night. Occupation:
Produce man. He Is an addict.
3523
Guerra,Elojio, 442 Oakland Street, San Antonio, Tex.

Arrived from Mexico in car alone. Given personal search by Station Inspector Herring; witness, Inspector Valdez. Is user of heroin and a needle was
found in his car. Occupation: Painter. He is an addict.
Guidry, Horace J., 4401 Tchoupitoulas Street, New Orleans,La.
Arrived from Mexico by automobile accompanied by Jacob (Jake) Canova.
Was given personal search by Inspector J. E. Worley, witnessed by Inspector
D. V. Fierros. Nothing found. Occupation: Truckdriver. Age: 46. He is an
addict. Became addicted under doctor's care.
Gutierrez, Moises, 1527 San Bernardo, Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico.
Said he had a shot of heroin yesterday. Was coming to Laredo to see his girl
friend. Works as a bartender at Rumba Casino in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. Given
personal search by Customs Inspector W. E. Jones; witness, Inspector Cisneros.
No contraband found. He is an addict.
Hall, Tom, Corpus Christi, Tex.
Arrived from Meiico by auto accompanied by Robert Eugene (addict)
(colored) and Harry F. Kerley (addict) (colored). Given personal search by
Inspector G. E. Villarreal; witness, Customs Agent T. Wagner. No contraband
found. Occupation: Works for Bell Telephone Co. Colored, age 44. Not an
addict.
Harding,Ann, 111 Avenue A, San Antonio, Tex.
Given personal search at the request of Inspector-in-Charge Seawell, suspected
of having heroin, as she is reported to be a user. She had been in Nuevo Laredo
visiting Marie Austin, former customs inspectress in Nuevo Laredo. Staying at
the Plaza Hotel. Information furnished to Customs Agent Ellis by Inspector
Haley. No contraband found.
Harris,Charlotte, Tower Hotel, Dallas, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico May 6, 1955, in company of Fayette B. Bins, of above
address, and Gus Williams (addict). Was given personal search by Dr. John
Lowry and 3 grams of heroin found on person (seizure No. 3174-L). Information
not furnished as to whether she is an addict. Customs Agent Wagner made the
investigation and took these three people to Dr. Lowry.
Hathorn, Glen, 4004 Lovejoy, Houston, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico on foot, accompanied by Jerry Adams (addict). Given
personal search by Insl)ector McManus; witness, F. Averill of Department of
Agriculture. Nothing found. Occupation: Laborer. He is an addict. February 16, 1955, arrived from Mexico in car and accompanied by Earl Donaldson
(not addict). Search by Inspector Ramirez; witness McManus. He had needle
marks on his arms. Occupation: Truckdriver. May 19, 1955, arrived from
Mlexico on foot accompanied by Charles A. Mikiski (or Mikeski). Search by
Inspector Botello; witness, Inspector Cisneros. Hathorn is an addict, but
nothing was found on him. Occupation: Truckdriver. Addict.
Hayes, Jack Lee (alias, Jack Smith), 4230 University Way, Seattle, Wash.
Arrived from Mexico on bus alone. Given personal search by Inspector
Cisneros; witness. Inspector Haley. Nothing found. Admitted he smoked
marihuana about 5 years ago. Occupation: Student. Says he is not an addict.
Hcad, C. B., 1418 Hill Street, Houston, Tex.
Personal search, December 30, 1955
Arrived from Mexico in taxi alone. Given personal search by Inspector Villarreal; witness, Inspector Haley, which revealed 6 grams of heroin (seizure
report No. 3090). Occupation: Welder. He is an addict.
3524
Heidtmann, Henry J., 8433 Liberty Avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. (also 823 North
St. Mary's Street, San Antonio, T'ex.)
Personal search, March 2, 1955
Arrived from Mexico on foot alone. Given personal search by Inspector Haley,
witnessed by Immigration Inspector Jurecka. Nothing found. He stated he had
been arrested in almost every big city and has smoked marihuana. Occupation:
Deckhand, merchant marine. He is an addict. Data submitted to Senator
Butler, October 18, 1955.
Hemby, Mrs. Loma, 1001 Porter,San Antonio, Tex.
Personal search, 7:50 a. m. (no date).
Given personal search at request of Inspector J. E. Worley for narcotics.
Nothing found. She was accompanied by her husband who is an addict. She had
marks in the bend of her arm but stated they were caused by thyroid injections.
She was overweight, very nervous and stated she had had a nervous breakdown.
She gave her age as 25. They arrived at the footbridge in a taxi.
Herrera, Sophia Moreno, 4118 West Commerce, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico by auto accompanied by Maria Rodriguez, sometimes
known as Trina. Given personal search by Inspectress M. J. Pearson. No contraband found. Occupation: Housewife. Went to Mexico this date. Ate at Alma
Latina. Name taken from driver's license. (See seizure report No. 3164-L,
April 27, 1955.) Previous arrival on April 27, 1955, in car accompanied by Carmen Saldana and Tina or Maria Rodriguez. Given personal search by Inspectoress M. J. Pearson. Nothing found. (See seizure No. 3164-L.) Has commonlaw husband, Raymond Cadena, and he works for the Budget Food Store in San
Antonio. Stated she went to North Laredo shopping about 10 a. m. She and her
companions are waitresses and work at various bars. Occupation: waitress.
Apparently not an addict.
Holbrook, Clifford Billy, 530 Bennington, Houston, Tex.
Personal search. April 21, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico alone on foot. Given personal search by Immigration
Inspector P. D. Parker, witness, E. L. Haley. Occupation: Shop helper; weight
155 pounds; height 5 feet 11 inches. Has been arrested 4 or 5 times. Served
time in county jail 7 months on theft, sentence reduced to misdemeanor. Left
Houston April 20 at 8 p. m.; arrived Laredo 6 or 7 a. m. Went to Nuevo Laredo.
Had only small change. Stated he was going to wire to Houston for money so
he could return there. His companion, Charles Adams, 20 years old, owner of
1952 green Ford car had remained in Nuevo Laredo. A slip of paper was found
on Holbrook showing name and address of a guide from Monterrey named Rutelio F. Lara, 5 de Febrero Ote. 513, Monterrey, Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. A hypodermic needle was found on Holbrook's person. He is an addict.
Holley, Dorothy, 511 South Presa Street, San Antonio, Tem.
Arrived from Mexico in car, accompanied by Rudy Benito Zamora. She was
given personal search by Inspector M. J. Pearson. Appeared dopey, gave evasive
answers. One cigarette found in her pocket and one in her brassiere. Stated
she had smoked three of these marihuana cigarettes. Marihuana seized under
seizure No. 3024-L Arrested. Occupation: Unemployed beauty operator. She
is an addict.
Hollie, Robert, 8912 Marina Avenue, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in car accompanied by Elroy Lee (addict) Waedell
Morris and Gus Buffin. Given personal search by Inspector J. E. Worley, witness, Inspector E. Herring, trace of marihuana found in his coat pocket. Occupation: Caddy. It is possible that he is an addict.
Hood, Joe, 3 North Swan, Albany N. Y.
Arrived from Mexico by auto accompanied by Louis Pulos, New York, N. Y.
Was given personal search by Inspector J. E. Worley; witness, Inspector J. T.
Gonzales, Jr. Marihuana seeds were found in pants cuffs. Also in suitcase.
(See seizure report No. 39-L.) Occupation: Boxer and stevedore. He is a
marihuana addict.
3525
Hood, Leslie R., 517 Blake Street, Killeen, Tex.

personal search, April 6, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico in car and alone. Given personal search by Inspectors
Huber and and Medellin. Nothing found. He had $313 United States currency.
A lookout had been placed at the footbridge on his car because he had been asking
questions in Nuevo Laredo as to where he could buy heroin and counterfeit
money. Occupation: Rodeo Performer. Not an addict.
Hubbard, Charles Nathan (colored), 1505 Sam Rankin Street, Corpus Christi,
Tcx.
Personal search, Februay 25, 1955 or April 25, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico by car accompanied by Williams. Given search by Customs Inspector H. Scherr; witness, Inspector W. C. Pena, and needle marks
were found on both arms. Occupation: waiter. He is a heroin addict. April
26, 1955 arrived on foot alone. Search by Inspectors Haley and Scherr. Nothing found. Had needle marks on both arm.z.
Had served 8 months in county jail at Corpus Christi on narcotics charge.
Description: 25 years old, 5 feet 10 inches, weight 150 pounds. Not married.
Waiter, Driscoll Hotel. On April 26, 1955, acompanied by John Bell and
Henry Johnson, service-station employees, Corpus Christi, but were not with
him when he was searched, as they had crossed earlier. Waiter, Driscoll Hotel.
Arrived June 8, 1955 on foot and alone. Searched by Inspector Parker, witness
Gonzales. Had shot of heroin 2 days ago. Has been addict since 1951. Nothing found on person. August 9, 1955 arrived on foot alone. Searched by G. E.
Villarreal, witnesses Inspectors Worley and C. Stone. Nothing found. Called
Cuctoms Agents Richards and Yates. Advised to let man go. Occupation:
Longshoreman. August 23, 1955 arrived in car accompanied by James Price
Busby, Clifford L. Jones and J. Cartwright. Searched by Inspectors Winters
and Parker. Nothing found. Weight 160 l)ounds, sharp features. August 27,
1955 arrived on foot alone. Searched by Inspector W. E. Jones. Nothing found.
Received narcotic shot on previous day. September 2, 1955 arrived on foot
alone. Search by Inspector R. D. Garcia, witness Inspector R. W. Baker. Nothing found. Had been in Nuevo Laredo 3 days. I-lad no money. Occupation:
Stevedore. September 4, 1955 arrived on foot alone. Search by Inspectors
Worley and Leyendecker. Nothing found. Uses paregoric, shoots himself in
arms. Gave weight as 135 pounds. Occupation: Longshoreman. September
21, 1955 arrived by auto acompanied by Lonnie Ray Chapman. Given search by
Inspector Worley, witness Inspector R. W. Baker. Nothing found, September
30, 1955 arived on foot accompanied by John Riley. Search by Inspectod J. E.
Worley, witness Inspector G. E. Villarreal. Nothing found. Gave occupation
as working on shrimp boat. Had a shot in Mexico.
Hudson, Jesse Robert, 2500 Burnett, Waco, Tcx.
Arrived from Mexico in taxi accompanied by Woodrow Wilson Dill (possible
addict), Ronald Kent Davis, and Frederick Clinton Scott (marihuana smoker).
Given personal search by Inspectors Worley and Munoz. Nothing found. Occupation: Shipping clerk, Sylvania Electric Co., Dallas, Tex. Not an addict.
Age 25.
James, Hershel (on customs agency lookout), 4203 Guadalupe, Austin, Tem.
Personal search, October 28 1954,
Arrived from Mexico by car, accompanied by James D. Cluck. Given personal search by Inspector R. E. Zimmerman; witness, Inspector Herring. No
contraband found on person. Lookout from Agent Palacios. Occupation:
Garage owner. Car license: AE-3229. Not an addict.
Jenkins, Bill, 4416 Earline, Houston, Tex.
Arrived in car accompanied by man named Fields. Given personal search
by Inspector Chamberlain; witness, Inspector A. C. Munoz. Nothing found.
Had marks on his arms but claimed not an addict. Occupation: Oilfield worker.
He is an addict.
Johnson, Arthur M., 1018 Lombrano Street, San Antonio, Tex.
Personal search November 3, 1954.
Arrived from Mexico in a car, accompanied by Harold T. Rhodes (addict) and
Andrew Bell (information not given as to whether he is an addict). Johnson
was given personal search by Inspector L. A. Marks; witness, Sgt. J. &.
3526
I I
Filatel, air police. Nothing found. Suspected of smuggling narcotics. Customs Agents Richards and Wagner conducted an investigation. Occupation:
Waiter, Kelly Field. He is an addict. December 23, 1954 arrived in car accompanied by Shelby Williams. Given search by Inspector Botello, witness,
Inspector McManus, which revealed that he had recently had a shot in the arm.
January 22, 1955 arrived in car accompanied by Willie G. Smith (not an addict).
Given search by Inspector A. C. Munoz; witness, G. E. Dabdoud. Nothing found,
Suspicious. He is an addict.
Johnson, Carl, 4011 Wayne Street (Wyane Street), Houston, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico by car accompanied by man named Ward. Given per.
sonal search by Inspector Botello; witness, Inspector Winters. One vial of
Spanish fly was found on his person. Is not an addict.
Johnson, Robert Carmel,811 East Main Street, Shawnee, Okla.
Arrived from Mexico by auto accompanied by Mrs. Yvonne Johnson (not an
addict) and Hazel Meyers (not an addict). Was given personal search by
Inspector A. C. Munoz; witness, Inspector L. A. Marks. 5 obscene pictures in
brief case. Nothing found on person. Occupation: Leather craftsman. Age 41.
Not an addict. Remarks: Arrested in 1934 with 3 other boys 19 to 26 years of
age for robbery-Negro crap game-given 5 years in Oklahoma State Prison.
Released after 9 months and paroled in 1947. Was carrying makings of marihuana for approximately 1 cigarettes, claims belonged to M. L. Peters. Given
6 months and returned to State prison for breaking parole. Served an additional
22
months for first offense (robbery). Now operates and owns leathercraft
shop in Oklahoma-Vinter 1-2-3-Club. Was released after his car was searched.
Johnson, Yvonne, 811 East Main Street, Shawnee, Okla.
Arrived from Mexico by auto accompanied by her husband, Robert Carmel
Johnson, and Hazel Meyers. Was given personal search by Inspector J. L. Devine.
Nothing found. Occupation: Housewife. Not an addict.
Jones, Clifford L., 1123 Sam Rankin, Corpus Christi, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico accompanied by Charles N. Hubbard (addict), James
Price Busby (not an addict), and J. Cartwright (not an addict). Given personal
search by Inspectors Winters and Parker. Nothing found. Occupation, laborer.
Age, 23. Not an addict but accompanied by an addict (Hubbard).
Jones, Margaret (colored), (also known as Dorothy Dickson), 2219 Wilson, Coplus Christi, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in taxi, accompanied by Roy Taylor (addict). Given
personal search by Inspector J. L. Devine. Nothing found. She was formerly
a user of narcotics but says she is off it and has been for about 1 year. Occupation, maid. Was formerly an addict.
Jones, Robert A., 1818 Capitol, Houston, Tex.
Personal search September 26, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico by taxi accompanied by ack Mitchell (addict) and Helen
Dixon (addict). Was given personal search by Inspector F. Chamberlain; witness, Inspector W. C. Pena. Had $45 on his person. Agent Gallagher was called.
A doctor's examination found nothing. Occupation, truckdriver. Age, 45. He
is an addict.
Joniec, Thadeus, 3797 Alabama St., Gary, Ind.
Arrived from Mexico by taxi accompanied only by the taxi driver. Was given
personal search by Inspector G. E. Dabdoub; witness, Air Police Shehan. Two
marihuana cigarettes found on his clothing (see seizure Report No. 100-L).
Occupation, laborer. Age, 28. He is an addict.
Judge, Louis, 122 Branch Village, Camden, N. J.
Arrived from Mexico in a car and alone. Given a personal search by Inspector
Haley; witness, Inspector Chamberlain. Nothing found on his person but about
4 pounds marihuana found in car (seizure report No. 3137). Says he has never
I I
3527
been arrested. Stopped in West Virginia, San Antonio, Tex., and other cities
trying to book work. Married and has three children. Was here in January and
stayed at Hollywood Hotel. Occupation, musician. Not an addict
Kerley, Harry Franklin (colored), 1012 Chipito Street, Corpus Christi, Tex.
Merchant seaman, accompanied by friend, Joseph Foots, 618 West 18th Street,
Port Arthur, Tex. (an addict). Given personal search by Inspector G. E. Villarreal; witness, J. E. Biggio. Nohting found. Description: 24 years age, 6 feet,
159 pounds, gold tooth in front. He is an addict. Stated had last shot in 1950.
Searched again on June 8, 1955, by Customs Agent Kenney and Inspector McBeth.
June 13, 1955, searched by Inspectors Adkins and Botello. Accompanied by wife,
Gloria Kerley, searched by Inspector M. J. Pearson. Taken to Mercy Hospital
for examination. Nothing found. June 13, 1955, has tattoo mark over needle
mark. Accompanied by wife, Gloria Kerley (an addict). Given search. August
5, 1955, arrived by auto accompanied by R. E. King (addict) and R. S. Roberson
(addict). Given personal search by Inspector L. A. Marks; witness, E. L. Haley.
Nothing found. Has been arrested for drunkenness. August 11, 1955, arrived
from Mexico by auto accompanied by Robert Eugene (addict), colored, and Tom
Hall (not addict), colored. Given search by Inspector Villarreal; witness, Customs Agent T. Wagner. No contraband found. Occupation: waiter. September
30, 1955, arrived by auto accompanied by Albert "Moose." Given personal search
by Inspector Villarreal. Witnessed by Inspector J. E. Worley. Nothing found.
Looked like he was "hopped up." Driving car, Plymouth 1955, green, license No.
R/S 1585. September 11, 1955, arrived from Mexico by auto accompanied by a
man and woman. Given personal search by Inspector 0. L. Ramirez, witnessed
by Inspector W. E. Jones. Nothing found. He claims he was checked 2
weeks ago in this search room. Works part time at country club. October
19, 1955, arrived from Mexico by automobile accompanied by Antonio Garcia (Herrera) (not an addict) and Roberto Cavazos (not an addict). Searched by 0. L.
Ramirez; witness, Inspector Trees, of Immigration Service. Nothing found. Released without medical test. Customs agent trying to work out some way to trap
him. Frequent crosser.
Garcia and Cavazos claim they gave Kerley assistance on the Corpus Christi
Highway since he had a flat tire. Kerley claims he just met Cavazos and Garcia
last night. Evidence shows they were together since they left Corpus Christi.
October 3, 1955, arrived from Mexico on foot alone. Search by Worley; witness
Villarreal. Nothing found. Examined by Dr. Lowry; also X-rayed. Accompanied to doctor by Inspector Worley and Customs Agent Gallagher. Wagner
said to let him go. He is an addict.
Kerley, Gloria (Yegro), 1012 Chipito Street, Corpus Christi, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico accompanied by her husband, Harry F. Kerley (addict).
Given personal search by Inspector M. J. Pearson; called to the bridge by Inspector Adkins. No contraband found. Taken to Mercy Hospital; Dr. Joaquin G. Cigarroa made examination. Nothing found. This woman's husband
has been given personal searches on June 4, 1955, and June 8, 1955. Nothing
found. July 26, 1955, arrived from Mexico by bus and given a personal search
by Inspector J. L. Devine but nothing was found. Search requested by Inspector
Tones. Occupation, waitress. October 11, 1955, arrived from Mexico by auto
accompanied by Harry F. Kerley, her husband, and Van Griffin (C. P. & L.
worker). Given personal search by Inspector M. J. Pearson, who found that
Mrs. Kerely has long broken veins on arm---claimed it was from shots given by
doctors named below to administer vitamins: Dr. Mary Gorman, Clifford Street,
Corpus Christi, and Dr. Williams, Sam Rankin Street, Corpus Christi. She has
been married 3 years and 4 months. Age 21. Occupation, works in the kitchen
of the cafeteria, Robert Wilson School. (Her husband is an addict.)
Kinder, Leonas, A2/c, Serial No. 13489251,Laredo Air Force Base, Laredo, Tem.
Personal search November 22, 1954.
Arrived from Mexico in car, accompanied by Samuel L. Pascul. Given personal
search by Inspector D. D. McManus, witness; Inspector A. C. Munoz. Nothing
found. A lookout from Nuevo Laredo showed this man had bought $10 worth
of weed. Occupation, Air Force. Not an addict.
3528
King, Robert E., 16112 35th Street, Galveston, Tem.

Arrived from Mexico in car accompanied by Albert Marshall (not addict).
Given a personal search by Inspector L. A. Marks, witnesses, Inspector C. D. Babb
of Department of Agriculture and Sergeant Remias, an AP. Nothing found. He
admitted he had been arrested for draft evasion in San Francisco. Occupa.
tion: Messman (merchant marine). He is an addict. August 5, 1955, arrived
by car accompanied by Harry Franklin Kerley (addict) and R. S. Roberson.
Given personal search by Inspector Haley, witness, Inspector L. A. Marks. Noth.
ing found. Occupation: Merchant seaman. Age 24. Has been arrested twice
for vagrancy. Used narcotics around 6 months ago. Has been a user of
narcotics.
Kool, Walter Ray, 850 Barrett,San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in car, accompanied by Robert Ewing Bledsoe and Bruce
Cherry. Given personal search by Inspectors Pena and Worley. Nothing found.
Stated he had smoked marihuana in San Antonio, Tex. Occupation, book salseman. He is an addict.
Koron, Raymond, 791 East 41st Street, Hialeah,Fla.
Occupation: Jockey agent. Not an addict. Arrived from Mexico by car alone.
Given personal search by Inspector Scherr, witnessed by Haley. Nothing found.
27 lbs. 4 oz. marihuana found under hood of car (seizure report 3102-L).
Lamar, Edgar, 8035 West Drive, Houston, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico by taxi accompanied by the taxi driver. Given personal
search by Inspector W. C. Pena. Nothing found. Occupation, merchant seaman.
Has been arrested for "weed" in New Orelans. Data submitted to Senator Butler, October 18, 1955.
Lara, Jesus Maria, 607 San Leonardo (also 810 Hidalgo Street), Laredo, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a car, accompanied by Guadalupe Castillo (not addict).
Given personal search by Inspector Fierros, witness, Inspector Haley. Nothing
was found on person but approximately 4 ounces marihuana found under seat of
car (seizure 3136-L). Occupation, laborer. Not believed to be an addict.
Lee, Elroy, 1006 Dakota, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in car accompanied by Wardell Morris, Gus Buffin, and
Robert Hollie (possibly an addict). Given personal search by Inspector J. E.
Worley, witnessed by State Inspector Ed. Herring. Had needle marks on both
..rms. Stated he has been smoking marihuana and taking shots for several years
ut is now trying to stop. He said he was unable to obtain any shots in Mexico
today. Occupation, service station attendant. He is an addict. November 3,
1954, previous arrival from Mexico by automobile, accompanied by friends, Mr.
Bell, Harold T. Rhodes, and Arthur Al. Johnson (the latter two men are addicts).
Was given personal search by Inspector L. A. Marks, witness, Sergeant J. R.
Fichtel of LAFB Air Police. No contraband was found. Occupation, gasstation attendant.
Litterio, Gilberto, 1919 Guadalupe (rear), San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico as a pedestrian, accompanied by his brother, Rolando
Litterio, and was givcn search by Inspector Botello, witness Haley. No contraband found. It was noted he had hypodermic needle marks on each arm,
covered by tattoos. He had a tattoo cross between his thumb and forefinger.
Occupation, laborer. He is an addict. When this man was searched on this
date he had no money. He was searched again on the 15th of December and he
had $650 in his pockets. Customs Agent Abe Palacios was notified both times.
Litterio, Martina, 1703 Colima Street, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived at footbridge, accompanied by her husband, Rolando Litterio, Seraplo
Arriga, Lazaro Ledesma Gonzalez, and Customs Agent Ellis. Mr. Ellis had
returned to the bridge from out on Highway 81. She was given personal search
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
3529
by Inspector M. J. Pearson, witnessed by Inspector J. L. Devine, and four fingerstalls with heroin were found concealed in her brassiere (seizure 3141-L). Occupation, housewife. Apparently not an addict. Previous arrival on same day.
Given search by Inspector J. L. Devine. Nothing found.
LItterio, Rolando, 1703 Colima Street, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a car, accompanied by his wife, Martina Litterio and
Serapio Arriga (not an addict). Given personal search by Customs Inspector
Villarreal, witness, Inspector Haley. Nothing found. Has tattoo 13 on left arm
(see seizure rept. No. 3141-L). Occupation, bartender. Not an addict. December 13, 1954, arrived previously as a pedestrian, accompanied by his brother,
Gilberto Litterio (addict) and was given personal search by Inspector E. Botello,
witness, E. L. Haley. Nothing found.
Loftus, Francis D., 4920 Yale Street, Houston, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in car, accompanied by his wife. Given personal search
by Customs Inspector Villarreal, witness, Inspector Haley. Nothing found.
Came from Houston yesterday, stayed in Laredo last night and went over at
10 a. m. today. Had new needle marks. Occupation, painter. He is an addict.
Loftus, Billie Ruth, 14920 Yale, Houston, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a car, accompanied by her husband. She was given
personal search by Customs Inspector J. L. Devine. Nothing found. At one time
was an addict but states she has given it up but took a shot about a week ago.
Occupation: Housewife. Sbe is or was an addict.
Lognion, Annette, 1209 North Rampart, New Orleans, La.
Given personal search at request of Station Inspector Dunham because of
lookout posted by Customs Agent Palacios at 1: 15 p. m. Nothing found. Traveling in cream-colored Studebaker, Mississippi license 379-556, Hinds County,
and accompanied by Dolores Carpenter, 1419( Dyer Street, San Fernando, Calif.,
P'aul Achille Lampiosi, 1220 Marais, New Orleans, La., and Murray Thompson,
1030 North Congress, Jackson, Miss. Have been staying at Nuevo Laredo Motel
shice last Saturday.
Lopatio, Milton, 84121 Belden Street, Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.
Arrived from Mexico on foot and alone. He was given personal search by
Customs Inspector L. A. Marks. Nothing found. Lookout issued on him by custonis agents sometime back. Occupation: Coin machine service. Not an addict.
Lopez, Alfredo, 3400 West Martin, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico on foot, accompanied by Roy Dominguez. Given personal
search by Customs Inspector Haley, witness, Inspector Gonzalez. Nothing found.
Occupation: Dishwasher. Had the appearance of having smoked marihuana.
Lopcz, Rodolfo, 122 Mlathews Arenue, Nan Antonio, Tex.
Personal search; April 6, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico in a taxi and alone. Given personal search by (ustoms
Inspeclor Medellin, Ininiigration Inspector Parker, and BEPQ Inspector Pearson. No contraband found. Had needle marks all over his hit arm. Had just
(Note:
1h11d a shot ; has to take one each day. Youn_- fellow, 20-22 years of age.
If tlhis character shows up, l)ease call Dan Yates, customs agent-gets deliveries
in (Cotulla). He is an addict. Arrived June 7, 1955, as pedestrian traveling
alone. Given personal search by Customs Inspector V. D. Gunnoe: witness, InSpector A. C. Munoz. He had a needle and eye dropper in his possession. He is
an addict. Customs Agents Wagner, Yates, and Palicios were phoned, but no
answer. Customs Agent Kenney was contacted at 9:57 p. m. Came to the footbridge and conducted investigation.
Lopez, Roberto Torres, 56.27 St. Fernando,San Antonio, Tex.
Personal search. April 9, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico alone and on foot. Given personal search by Customs Inspectors Gonzalez and Herring. Nothing found. Had tattoos on both hands andi
3530
needle marks on both arms. He had a shot about 2 days ago. Occupation, de.
livery boy (20 years of age). He is an addict.
Loza, Rudy G., 1310 Ruiz, San Antonio, Tem.
Arrived from Mexico by car, accompanied by Angie Alfaro, waitress from San
Antonio, Tex., and Robert Flores, radio operator with United States Navy, Wash.
ington, D. C. Given personal search by Customs Inspector Gonzalez; witness,
Inspector Haley. Nothing found on person. Had needle marks on arm, claimed
to be from blood test. Occupation, grocery store owner; age 27.
LUuna, Abelardo Coronado,3318 Colima, San Antonio, Teiv.
Arrived from Mexico in a car with Jose Gonzalo Graciano (addict), Ramona
and Jose Martinez Mendoza (addict) and his wife, Anita. Given personal search
by Customs Inspector Gonzalez, witness, Inspector Cisneros. Nothing foul.
Stated he had a shot last night. Occupation: Laborer. He is an addict.
Luna, Eduardo, 614 Bruni Ct., Laredo, Tex.
Inspectors Gonzalez and Medellin. He had shot marks on right arm but claimed
he got them at the Mercy Hospital under doctors orders. Had fungus sores all
over top of head and had his hair shaved. Occupation: Mold setter. Do not
know if he is an addict.
Lyl, Jackie Lee, Box 812, Cotulla, Tea.
Age 34 years. Given a personal search at request of Customs Agent Ellis for
narcotics. Nothing found. She was accompanied by Gloria Smith of San
Antonio, Tex., and two colored men.
Mallory, Henry Leon, 1929 South Harding,Chicago, Ill.
Arrived from Mexico in his car, accompanied by his wife, Juanita, and Marilyn
and Tonia Grant. He was given personal search by Customs Inspectors E.
Botello and J. E. Biggio. He had four marihuana cigarettes in a case which
he gave to Inspector Biggio. (See seizure report No. 3104-L). Occupation:
House maintenance. Marihuana smoker.
Mallory, Juanita,1929 South Harding, Chicago, Ill.
Arrived from Mexico in car accompanied by her husband, Henry Mallory, and
two women they had picked up in Monterrey, Marilyn and and Tonia Grant
She was given personal search by Customs Inspector M. J. Pearson. Nothing
found on her person. They had been in Monterrey 5 or 6 days and met the
two women at the California Courts. Marihuana was found on the other two
women (seizure report No. 3104-L). Occupation: Demonstrates cooking utensils. She apparently had smoked some marihuana cigarettes.
Marley, Harvey A., Jr. (Buster) 1423 Kayton, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a car and alone. He was given a personal search by
Customs Inspector Villarreal, witnessed by Customs Inspector J. E. Worley, ,nd
nothing found. He stated he had been in jail for several things, including peddling of narcotics, which he said he does not use. He has served 5 years in the
penitentiary. Occupation: Automobile salesman. States he is not an addict
but it is believed that he is.
Marshall, Albert, 5427 Avenue K, Galveston, Tea.
Arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by Robert E. King (addict).
Given a personal search by Customs Inspector Marks, Inspector Babb, of the
Department of Agriculture, and Sergeant Remias. Nothing found. Occupation:
Chief cook. Not an addict (but in company of addict).
May, Sam Vernon, 1500 South Buckhan, Amarillo, Tem.
Arrived from Mexico by automobile (Ford V-8, 1939) accompanied by Reginald
Sharp. Was given personal search by Inspector H. Scherr; witness, Inspector
3531
W. C. Penn. No contraband found. Occupation: Runs a produce stand. Age,

56. Served time in penitentiary on narcotics charge in 1938-39. Has been hospitalized for cure of his narcotics condition. He is an addict.
1cLaughliv, Win. R., Apt. 2, 17.11 North Water Street, Corpus Christi, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico on foot accompanied by Robert Newell. Given personal
search by Customs Inspector Herring and Inspector Anderson, of the Department
of Public Health. Nothing found. He stated he had served two terms for
assault and battery in Harrisburg, Pa. Works with circus at times as handyman. 30 years of age. Occupation: Baker (unemployed). Not an addict (in
company of Robert Newell, convicted in the past of narcotic offense).
Medint, Hilario, 833 IHoff-nan, Houston, Tcxr.
Arrived fromn Mexico on foot and alone. Given personal search by Customs
Inspector R. D. Garcia, witnessed by Inspector Gonzalez. Nothing found. Has
taken the cure in a hospital and was discharged in December 1954. Occupation:
Cement finisher. He is an addict.
Medina, Hilario, 315 South Leona, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by Marcelino Medina (addict).
Given a personal search by Customs Inspectors Villarreal and Cullinan. Nothing
found. Age, 22. Occupation: Vegetable market. Not an addict.
Mernine, Roscoe, General Delivery, Elgin, Teo.
Inspectors Scherr and Worley. Nothing found. Once was with a man who had
narcotics in El Paso, Tex., but found not guilty and turned loose. Occupation:
Carpenter. Not an addict.
Medina, Marcelino, 607 Colima Street, San Antonio, Teo.
Arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by his uncle, Hilarlo Medina. He
was given a personal search by Customs Inspector Villarreal, witnessed by
Customs Inspector Cullinan. Nothing found. Occupation: Market helper. He
is an addict. Arrived March 16, 1955, on foot and alone. Given personal search
by Inspector Biggio, witnessed by Inspector Volle, of the Department of Agriculture. Nothing found. Says he uses dope about twice a week. His veins are
scarred. Had $350 cash on person. Twenty years of age. Occupation: Works
for his father. He Is an addict.
Mendoza, Jose Martinez, 2116 Vera Cruz, San Antonio, Tex.
Personal search March. 6, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico In a car with his wife, Ramona, and Anita and Abelardo
Luna (addict) and Jose Gonzalo Grociano (addict). He was given personal
search by Customs Inspector Gonzalez; witness, Inspector Cisneros. Nothing
found. Had last shot about 2 days ago. Had $98 with him. Occupation:
Painter. He is an addict.
Mendoza, Ramona, 2116 Vera Cruz, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by her husband, Jose Martinez
Mendoza (addict), and Anita and Abelardo Luna (addict) and Jose Gonzalo
Grociano (addict). Given a personal search by Customs Inspectress M. J.
Pearson. Nothing found. Occupation: Housewife: Not an addict.
Mesa, Edward, 653 West Berry Street, Chicago, Ill.
Inspectors Scherr and Medellin. Nothing found. Stated he is going back to
Mexico and will be gone 2 or 3 weeks. Has plenty of money and is a good
prospect. Occupation: Laborer for Nachnan Corp. Not an addict.
Meyers, Hazel, 482 North Roosevelt, Shawitee, Okla,
Arrived from Mexico City by automobile accompanied by Robert and Yvonne
Johnson (not addicts) but Robert was carrying makings of 1% marijuana
71515,-56-pt. 775
3532
MLICI
NARCOTICS TRAFFIC
cigarettes). Was given personal search by Inspector J. L. Devine. Nothing

found. Occupation: Drugstore clerk. Not an addict.
Mike8ka, Charles (Mikiski), 6805 Lozier, Houston, Tem.
Arrived from Mexico City by automobile accompanied by James Broussard
(addict). Was given personal search by Inspector W. E. Jones; witness, J. E.
Cisneros. No contraband was found. Occupation: Air-conditioning man. He
Is an addict. Arrived May 19, 1955, on foot accompanied by Glen Hawthorne.
Was given personal search by Inspector Botello; witness, J. E. Cisnercs. Nothing
found. Mikiski Is a dope addict.
Minor, Lawrence Harlan,834 HarrimanPlace, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a taxi and alone. Given a personal search by Customs
Inspector V. D. Gunnoe; witness, Inspector J. E. Biggio. Nothing found. He
admitted that he smokes marihuana. Occupation: Merchant seaman. He is an
addict. Data submitted to Senator Butler October 18, 1955.
Mitchell, Jack, 1818 Capital,Houston, Tem.
Arrived from Mexico by taxi accompanied by Robert Jones (addict) and
Helen Dixon (addict). Was given personal search by Inspector F. Chamberlain, witnessed by Inspector W. C. Pena. Agent Gallagher was called. A doctor's
examination found nothing. Occupation: Truckdriver. Age 48. He is an addict
Mora, Frank,1016 Stonewall, San Antonio, Tem.
Inspector Chamberlain; witness, Inspector L. A. Marks. Nothing found. Occupation: No regular Job. He is an addict.
Mora, Iona McIntyre, Smith Ranch, McCoy, Tem.
Arrived from Mexico in a car, accompanied by her husband, Alfonso Mora.
She was given personal search by Inspectress M. J. Pearson at request of
Inspector W. E. Jones. He requested search because a lookout on this couple
had been posted on the street. No contraband was found. She had needle marks
on her arm but claimed they were from B-1 shots.
Morna, Lupe G., 2708 Chihuahua, San Antonio, Tex,.
Morna, accompanied by Antonio F. Campos, Anastacio S. Siera, Juan Orta, and
given a personal search by Inspector Eudaro Botello, witnessed by Inspector J. E.
Cisneros. No contraband was found but a broken marihuana cigarette and a
small quantity of marihuana were found under the bench in the baggage room
where they had been seated. All disclaimed any knowledge of it. (Seizure report No. 3148-L.) Occupation: Truckdriver. Not an addict.
Morris, Wardell, 416 South Hackberry Street, San Antonio, Teo.
Arrived from Mexico in a car with Elroy Lee (addict), Gus Buffin, and Robert
Hollie. They were given a personal search by Station Inspector Herring and
Inspector Worley. Nothing was found. Occupation: Part-time salesman. Not
an addict.
Mullenix, Morris Phillip, 615 West First Avenue, Corsicana,Tea.
Arrived from Mexico by auto accompanied by John 0. Barrett. Given personal
search by Inspector G. E. Villarreal; witness, P. Medellin, inspector. Nothing
found. Has scars on left arm where he was burned. Dope scars on both arms
and left hand. Occupation: Pipeline worker. Age 34. Black wavy hair.
Weight, 145 or 150 pounds; olive complexion; dark brown eyes; height, 5 feet
9 inches. He is an addict.
Newell, Robert, Apartment 3, 1713 North Water, Corpus Christi, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico on foot accompanied by William R. McLaughlin. Given
personal search by Inspector Herring and Inspector Anderson, of the Public
3533
Health. Nothing found. He was caught here with marihuana on August 7,

1952, and served 3 years. He stated that he Is a former dealer In narcotics,
that he has smoked marihuana but denies that he is using it at present. Says
he comes to Laredo every 2 or 3 weeks. Thirty years of age. Occupation: Cook
(unemployed at present). Not an addict.
Niess, William Lee, 317 Dicama Street, Dallas,Tex.
Arrived from Mexico as a pedestrian, and was given a personal search by Inspector J. T. Gonzalez, Jr., witness, Inspector E. L. Haley. No contraband found.
Last time he was here was 2 years ago. Had been in the penitentiary four times
on narcotic charges. Occupation: In the produce business. He is an addict.
Arrived December 24, 1954, on foot, accompanied by Ernest Sweatt. Personal
search by Inspector L. A. Marks: witness, Inspector Sanders. He had no new
scars and claimed to be giving up use of narcotics. His last shot was 4 months
ago. (See statement he made on December 27.) Occupation: Painter and produce worker. Arrived December 27, 1954, on foot alone. Search by Inspector
Scherr; witness, Inspector Jones. Nothing found. He claims he has not used narcotic for 2 years and used to use heroin. (See his card made on December 24
where he made a different statement.) Occupation: Laborer. Arrived April 22,
1955, alone on foot. Search by Inspectors Haley and Cisneros. Nothing found.
Unemployed. Arrived April 23, 1955, alone on foot. Search by Inspectors Meade
and Ramirez. Nothing found. Arrived April 24, 1955, alone on foot. Given
personal search by Inspectors Herring and Biggio. Nothing found. Has served
time on narcotics charge. Stays at Hidalgo Hotel, North Laredo. Usually
accompanied a blind man named Smith who takes shots (heroin) in Neuvo Laredo.
Unemployed. Arrived April 25, 1955, alone on foot. Search by Inspector Villarreal. Nothing found. Arrived September 10, 1955, alone on foot. Search by
Inspectors Meade and Worley. Nothing found. Says he does not use any
narcotics any more. No sign that he uses them. Occupation: Grader of produce.
Age, 50. He is an addict.
NToble Gus Ray (alias Gus Ray Williams), 811 Graham,Dallas, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico alone on foot. Given personal search by Inspector E.
Botello, witnessed by Inspector F. Chamberlain. Tattoos on both arms. Found
one hypodermic needle on person. Occupation: Construction worker. Age, 34.
He is an addict. Look out for narcotics placed on this man on September 20, 1955.
Morris, W. C., 4071/2' 21st Street, Galveston, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in car, accompanied by Tony Garcia, 1425 Avenue F, Galveston, Tex. He was given personal search by Inspector E. D. Herring, witness,
Inspector F. Chamberlain. Nothing found. Believed to be a good prospect for
dope smuggling. Occupation: Merchant marine. Not know if he is an addict.
Ochoa, Robert Arturo, 101 Madrid, San Antonio, Tea.
Arrived from Mexico in car accompanied by his sister, Eusebia Paleo Ochoa,
and sister-in-law, Elisa Gutierrez de Ochoa. Given a personal search by Customs Inspectors Gonzalez and R. D. Garcia. Nothing found. Age, 23. Had shot
less than week ago. Occupation: Delivery boy for flower shop. He is an addict.
Sister: Same address. Sister-in-law: 3710 Davis Avenue, Laredo, Tex. Her husband, Manuel Ochoa, has the Consolidated Employment Agency in Laredo. The
two women were not searched. No customs inspectress available. Also no
agent (Customs Agency) available.
O'Reilly, Pat (O'Rielly), 1628 B Street, Galveston, Tex.
Given personal search at request of Customs Agent Ellis and Customs Inspector G. E. Villarreal. This person had been in the company of a known addict
during the past 2 days. Personal search revealed no contraband. She was
taken in charge by Customs Agents Ellis and Kilman. She stated that she worked
as a bartender. Last place of employment was Crystal Club, 2400 Market
Street, Galveston, Tex. Stated she was going to work for the 219 Club In
Galveston, Tex., when she returned from this trip. Married and separated
from James O'Rielly.
3534
Orta,Juan,2801 Chihuahua,San Antonio, Tee.

Orta, accompanied by Lupe G. Morna (not addict), Anastacio S. Siera (not
addict), Antonio F. Campos (not addict), and Rudy T. Silva (not addict), all
of San Antonio, arrived from Mexico in a car. They were given personal search
by Inspectors Botello and Cisneros. No contraband found but a broken marlhuana cigarette and a small quantity of marihuana were found under the bench
in the baggage room where they had been seated. All disclaimed any knowledge of it (seizure report 3148-L). Occuptation: Cement finisher. Not an
addict.
Orosco, Ignacio,Jr., 1022 South Pinto, San Antonio, Tex.
This man is a janitor for school board at Burbank High School, San Antonio,
Tex. He is an addict, takes joy pops about once a week, and had a shot on
December 1, 1954. He has been to jail for sale of narcotics. Given personal
search by Inspector Gonzalez; witness, Inspector Murphy. No contraband found
on his person. His wife, Mary Gloria Orosco, was also given personal search
by Inspectress M. J. Pearson, and no contraband found on her person, apparently
not an addict. Customs Agents Ellis and Richards called.
Ortiz, Charles Selaya (alias Candclurio 0. Cclaya and Charles C. Artiz), 2830
Rabbit Run Road, Corpus Christi,Tex.
Inspectors Scherr and Haley. Four packages crude niarihuana were foundthree packages in an inside coat pocket and the other pa-ckage in his back pants
pocket. He is 23 years of age, single, 5 feet 7 inches in height, weight 145 pounds,
and has black hair. Has a tattoo on right arm, cross with heart on top and the
letters BLI. Had been arrested in Corpus for being drunk. He lives with a friend
and is unemployed. Had only 13 pesos with him (seizure 3181-L). He is an
addict.
Ovalle, GaadalupeArnold, 420 Panuco, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico on foot, accompanied by his brother, Lionel Ovalle. Given
a personal search by Inspector Worley; witness, Inspector Jones. Nothing found.
Needle marks on both arms. Occupation: Bricklayer. He is an addict.
Ovalle, Lionel de Leon, 420 Panuco, San Antonio, Tea.
Arrived from Mexico on foot, accompanied by his brother, Guadalupe Arnold
Ovalle. Given personal search by Inspector Worley; witness, Inspector Jones.
Nothing found. Needle marks on both arms. Occupation: Bricklayer. He is an
addict. Arrived February 5, 1955, in taxi alone. Given search by Inspector
Dabdoub, witnessed by Inspector Peter Parker of the Immigration Service. Had
a shot last Sunday in San Antonio. Took the 2 a. m. bus to San Antonio. He had
$62. Acted very nervous.
Owczarak, Edward Joseph, 80 Cooper Street, San Antonio, Tex.
Personal Search, February 25, 1955.
Inspector Ramirez; witness, Inspector Munoz. Nothing found. Had marks on
his arms but stated that he had donated blood. Good prospect. Occupation: Is
going to work for Permastone, San Antonio. Believed to be an addict.
Owens, Joseph TV., 519 Hiland Boulevard, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico on foot and alone. Given search by Inspector Haley;
witness, Inspector Herring. Nothing found. He admitted that he has a police
record for vagrancy in San Antonio. He was 18 years old. Occupation: Electrician helper. He is an addict.
Pascul, Samuel L., ASc, service No. AF-18-4 52-240, LAFB, Laredo, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in car accompanied by Leonas Kinder (not an addict).
Given personal search by Inspector D. D. McManus; witness, Inspector A. C.
Munoz. Nothing found. Lookout from Nuevo Laredo showed this man bought
marihuana. Occupation: Air Force. Not an addict.
3535
Perrale8,Joe, 419 South Peco8, San Antonio, Tex.

Arrived from Mexico in car accompanied by Charlie Galtan (not an addict
but served a term for dealing in marihuana). Given personal search by Inspector Scherr and BEPQ Inspector Averill. Nothing found. Occupation: cab
driver. Not an addict.
Pena, Maria R., Ccmentville, Tex.
Age 24: Works for Haggard Biscuit Co., San Antonio, Tex., single, given
personal search at request of Inspector Herring on a lookout posted by Customs
Agent Dan Yates. No contraband found on person. Accompanied by Seferina
Cantu, age 56, of Cementville, Tex., given personal search also--no contraband
found.
Perkins, Elbert Howard, .3306 Broadway, 2507 North Fitzhugh, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico accompanied by E. C. Stone in a car. Given personal
search by Inspectors F. Chamberlain and A. P. Reamis, air police. Nothing
found. Occupation: Makes hats. He is an addict.
P'erkins, Nat, Freer, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico by walking. Given personal search by Inspector F. R.
Pena; witness, R. D. Garcia. Nothing found. Occupation: Laborer. He is an
addict.
Polk, Tressie, 1212 North Craycroft, Sherman, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by Walter Farrier and Ellie E.
Porter. Given personal search by Inspector M. J. Pearson. Nothing found.
Suspected of having marihuana. They were stopped 1 mile north of Laredo and
2 pounds of prepared marihuana was found concealed under the hood (seizure
No. 71-L). Stated she, Farrier, and Porter went to Monterrey September 3,
1955, and stayed at the Monterrey Hotel. She was born and reared in Sherman.
Occupation: Wilson & Jones Hospital serving trays. Age 26, single. Not an
addict.
Ponok, Belmont B., 2211 Indiana Street, Houston, Tex.
Plumbing business, Houston, accompanied by Mrs. Tina Poncik (wife) automobile, was given personal search by Inspectors Scherr and Munzo. Is not an
addict. Nothing found.
Poncik, Tina, 2211 Indiana,Glcndale Courts, Houston 19, Tex.
A doctor, bone specialist; age 33; got her training at St. Anne's, Houston,
and John Sealy, Galveston. Accompanied by her husband, Belmont B. Ponick,
in automobile from Mexico; married, October 1946. Given a personal search
by Inspector M. J. Pearson. Nothing found. Lookout posted by Customs Agent
Abe Palacios, given description of Mrs. Poncik, make and license of automobile.
Porter,Ellie E., Perrin Airforce Base, Sherman, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in car accompanied by Tressie Polk and Walter Farrier.
Given a personal search by Inspectors Duke and Worley. Nothing found. Suspected of having marihuana. They were stopped 1 mile north of Laredo and
2 pounds prepared marihuana was found concealed under the hood (seizure No.
71-L). Occupation: Airman, 3d class. Age 22. Not an addict.
P11,o, Louis, 34th&Street and 8th Avenue, Manhattan, New York, N. Y.
Arrived from Mexico by auto accompanied by Joe Hood of Albany, N. Y. Was
given personal search by Inspector J. E. Worley; witness, Inspector Gonzalez.
Found obscene articles on his person. Fined under seizure No. 38-L. Marihuana seeds found in pants cuffs, also 16 pounds marihuana in the car doors,
seized under seizure No. 39-L. Occupation: cook. Age 54. He is not an addict.
3536
Pummill, Walter HaroZ, 2335 29th Street, Astoria,N. Y.

Personal search, May 14,1944.
Arrived from Mexico in a car and given personal search by Inspector Gon.
zales, witnessed by Worley. Found on person one .22-caliber pistol which was
seized under seizure No. 3183. Occupation: Horse trainer. Not an addict.
Purdy, Allen, 613 East Crockett Street, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico by 'auto accompanied by Ernest Brown. Was given
personal search by Inspector E. Botello, witnessed by BEPQ Inspector R. W.
Baker. No contraband was found. Occupation: Cook. Has served time, 3
years in penitentiary for marihuana offense, and burglary, fighting.
Ramirez, Angel, 309 McAlpine, Houston, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a two-tone green 1951 Chevrolet, accompanied by
Gilberto Lopez. Given personal search by Inspector Villarreal and A. C. Munoz.
Nothing found. Had tatoos on both arms, a dragon on the left arm, and had
just had a shot. Occunation: Pipefitter. He is an addict.
Ramirez, Damacino, 217 Melrose Place, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico on foot accompanied by Epifanlo G. Ruiz (not an addict)
and Ignacio R. Carreon, Jr. (addict). Was given personal search by Inspector
H. Scherr, witnessed by Inspector G. E. Dabdoub. Nothing found. Occupation:
Unemployed. Not an addict, traveling with an addict (Ignacio R. Carreon, Jr.),
seizure No. 3054-L.
Ramirez, Martin, 3606 Braniff Street, Corpus Christi, Tex.
Given personal search by Inspector Chamberlain and Customs Agent T.
Wagner. Arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by Joe Garza (addict)
and Alfredo Firo (addict). Nothing found. He was given a personal search
because he was traveling with two addicts. Occupation: Laborer. Not an
addict.
Rea, Alejandro Martinez, 315 Nayer Street, Alice, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico on foot accompanied by his brother, Merced Martinez
Rea. He was given a personal search by Inspector Gonzalez; witness, Inspector
Garcia. Approximately one-quarter pound marihuana and three bundles heroin
were found in his leather jacket which was at the bus station (seizure report No.
3106-L). Occupation: Laborer. Not an addict. Nothing found on his person
in the search room.
Regis, Mario (Detournet), 257 Lerma Street, Mexico, D. F., Mexico.
Arrived from Mexico by taxi alone. Given personal search by Inspector
0. L. Ramirez; witness, Immigration Inspector V. A. Gaudette. Found one
marihuana cigarette. The above party was turned over to Agent Wagner and
was placed in county jail. Occupation: Manager of Arthur Murray dance studio.
Age 29. See seizure No. 83-L of September 22, 1955 (claimed by Regis, not an
addict).
Reyes, Dionicio, Jr., 916 San Carlos, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a car alone. Given personal search by Inspector
Botello, witnessed by Leal, air police from LAFB. Nothing found. Occupation:
Presser. He is an addict.
Reyna, Alejandro, 20061, Kane, Houston, Tex.
Aroved from Mexico in a two-door sedan, 1951 model. He was accompanied
by Alex Vega (marihuana smoker). He was given a personal search by Inspector Villarreal and Gunnoe. Customs Agent in Charge Richards was called
as some marihuana seeds were found under the floor mats in the automobile.
Age 21 years. Occupation: Laborer. Not an addict.
3537
Repa, Eugenio Ramos, 1820 Chalmers Avenue, San Antonio, Tea.

Arrived from Mexico on bus, alone. Given a personal search by Inspector
0. L. Ramirez; witness, Inspector V. L. Pearson of Department of Agriculture.
Nothing found. Has fresh needle marks. Occupation: Laborer. He is an addict.
Reyna, Francisco,8515 Juarez Avenue, Laredo, Tex.
personal search, November 21, 1954.
Arrived from Mexico in a car and alone. Given personal search by Customs
Inspector McManus; witness, Inspector Ragsdale of the Department of Agriculture. Nothing found. Said by agents to be carrying weed. Occupation:
Laborer. Not an addict.
Rhodes, Harold T., 218 Douglass Way, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a car, accompanied by Arthur Johnson (addict) and
Andrew Bell. He was given personal search by Inspector L. A. Marks, witnessed by Sergeant J. R. Filatel, air police. Nothing found. Suspected of narcotic smuggling. Investigated and questioned by agents Richards and Wagner.
Driving a yellow Cadillac convertible, license No. E/Z 8266. Occupation: Waiter
and disabled veteran. He is an addict.
Rivera, Lucile, 2106 West 26th, Houston, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by Mrs. R. J. Ellison (Georgia
Ruth Adcock Ellison, an addict). Given personal search by Inspector M. J.
Pearson. Nothing found. She had operation scars under her arm, left breast
removed, and a large scar on abdomen. Stated she had cancer. Her husband is
Gabriel Rivera, 1309 Sabine, Houston, Tex. They were in a red Lincoln, license
M2-1118. Occupation: Housewife and babysitter. Apparently not an addict.
No marks.
R eberson, R. S., 1718 Wheatley, Corpus Christi,Tex.
Arrived from Mexico by automobile, accompanied by Robert E. King (addict)
and Harry Franklin Kerley (addict). Was given personal search by Inspector
L. A. Marks; witness, Inspector E. L. Haley. Nothing found. Occupation:
Pot tender, Reynolds Aluminum Co. Age 28. Not an addict.
Robertson, Richard, 7640 Gloucester, Norfolk, Va.
Arrived from Mexico on foot accompanied by Carlos Galluzzo. Given a personal search by Customs Inspector Gunnoe and D. D. McManus. Nothing found.
Says he smokes marihuana. Occupation: Musician. He is an addict.
Robinson, Walter C., 321 North Cherry, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico on foot and alone. Given a personal search by Inspector
McBeth and Haley. Nothing found. Had tattoo of heart on right arm and scar
on left cheek. Said he had been arrested in New York. Age 24, weight 140
pounds, height 5 feet 71/2 inches (colored). Occupation: Theater usher. He is
an addict.
Rodriguez, Andrea, 1401 Sam Rankin, Corpus Christi,Tex.
Given personal search at request of Customs Agent Ellis, as her husband, Frank
Rodriguez (addict) had been picked up earlier with heroin. Apparently not an
addict, no contraband found on her person. She stated that she had not been
to Mexico, that she and her husband had come to Laredo about an hour earlier
with Benny (addict) and Alice Firo of 550 Cheyenne, Corpus Christi, Tex., and
their two children. Dark, heavy-set girl, about 30 years of age, married 7 years,
prior to her marriage she worked for Jose Club, Corpus Christi, Tex. This girl
has a small tattoo on the right leg just above the knee AJ/SQ.
Rodriguez, Ernesto (de Hoyos), 5428 Drive Mier, Nuevo Laredo, Mexico
Arrived from Mexico in his taxi with his two passengers, Willie E. Bowie
(believed to be a narcotic sniffer) and Louis Q. Weaver (same). Given personal
search by Customs Inspector Worley; witness, Inspector Garcia. Nothing
found; 4 grams heroin were found on the floor of his taxi (seizure report 3100)
but they belonged to his passengers. Occupation: Taxi driver. Not an addict.
3538
Rodriquez, Francisco (alias:Frank Rodriguez), 1401 Sam Rankin Street, corpue

Christi, Tem.
Personal Search, October 14, 1954.
Arrived in taxi, accompanied by Benito S. Firo (addict). Showed signs of
hypodermic needle injection. Stated he had a shot of heroin in Nuevo Laredo
at about 5 p. m. same date. Arrested by Customs Agent D. Ellis and taken to
the county jail; 6 papers believed to contain heroin were seized, found concealed
in taxi. Occupation: Seaman, laborer. (See seizure report No. 2976-L.) Seizing officer: P. D. Parker, immigration inspector; witness Customs Inspector J. E.
Worley. Data submitted to Senator Butler October 18, 1955.
Rodriguez, Mary (Trina), 3221 Hardy Street, Houston, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico by automobile (Oldsmobile LX-6114), accompanied by
Sophia H-rrera. Was given personal search by Inspector M. J. Pearson. No
contraband was found. Occupation: Salesgirl, Vogue, Houston, Tex. Arrived
at home of mother, Guadalupe Flores, 3409 West Morton Street, San Antonio,
Tex., on May 4, 1955. Arrived Nuevo Laredo this date. Father: Pete Rodriguez,
separated from her mother. 22 years of age; son 5 years of age. Grandmother,
Manuela Robles, 617 North Culebra, San Antonio, Tex. April 27, 1955 arrived
previously in car accompanied by Carmen Saldana and Sofia Herrera. Personal
search by Inspector M. J. Pearson. Nothing found. She had a tattoo RLR
on left leg. Stated she went to Nuevo Laredo shopping this morning. (See
seizure report No. 3164-L.) Occupation: Nurses aide and waitress. Apparently
not an addict. Possibly a carrier. Marihuana cigarette found in wastepaper
basket, she denied any knowledge of it.
Riuiz, Epifanio G., 804 Odell Street, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico on foot accompanied by Ignacio R. Carreon, Jr. (addict)
and Damacino Ramirez (not addict). Was given personal search by Inspector
H. Scherr; witnessed by Inspector G. E. Dabdoub. Nothing found. Occupation:
Dishwasher. Not an addict. (Traveling with addict Ignacio R. Carreon, Jr.)
Seizure No. 3054-L. (Traveling in Buick, license Michigan BB-49--86).
Runco, Lewis Frederick, 4719 Cole Avenue, Dallas, Tea.
Arrived from Mexico by taxi, accompanied by Johnny Carrol, an admitted
addict, 2316 South Irby Street, Dallas, Tex. Givern personal search by Inspector
Dabdoub; witnessed by Inspector Chamberlain. Nothing found on person.
Served time in penitentiary for theft and robbery. Customs Agent Yates and
Inspector Chamberlain took Runck to the doctor for further examination.
Occupation: Sheet metal helper. Stated that he was not an addict. Has what
looks like needle scars on his arms. Probably an addict.
Saldana, Carmen, 826 Haefgen-, San Antonio, Tea.
Arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by Sofia Herrera and Trina
Rodriguez. Given personal search by Customs Inspector Maedell J. Pearson.
Nothing found. (See seizure report 3164-L.) She stated she went to New
Laredo about 10 a. m. this morning. Occupation: waitress. Apparently not
an addict.
Sanchez, Silvester Garcia, 3139 West Popular,San Antonio, Tea.
Personal search March 12, 1955.
was given
Arrived from Mexico accompanied by Leo Bustamante in car. He
Tatfound.
personal search by Custom Inspectors Scherr and Haley. Nothing
on
Tex.
toos on both arms. La Chiva on left knee, Love SS RK San Antonio,
back. Occupation: Knitter. He is an addict.
Sauls, Willie B., 2003 Rosewood, Austin, Tex.
Personal search July 3, 1955.
Arrived by auto alone from Mexico. Given personal search by Inspectors
McManus and Fierros, but nothing found. He was reported to have brought
25 pounds weed. Age 22; not an addict. Occupation: Porter.
I
V
3539
Scqimidt, William Albert, 720 Broadway, Corpus Chriati, Tex.

personal search, June 25, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by Chester Scott (addict). Given
a personal search by Customs Inspectors M. E. Winters and F. R. Pena. Nothing
found. Occupation: Roofer. He is an addict.
Schwartz, Henry, 3684 Upperline, New Orleans, La.
Personal search April 27, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico in a taxi accompanied only by the driver. Given a
personal search by Customs Inspectors Haley and Scherr. He had two needle
marks but he said they were from shots the doctor had given him when he
cut his hand on some glass. He was 17 years old and had $11.75 cash. Occupation: Unemployed at present. Had been delivery boy. He is an addict.
,cott, Betty Jcan, 16th Street, Waco, Texl.
Given personal search at request of Inspector Seawell. No contraband found.
Dr. J. H. Powell, Jr. examined her, no contraband found. 5 feet 5 inches in
height, dyed red hair (appears that she has natural light brown hair), weighs
about 120 pounds, states that she is 24 years of age, married to James Travis
Scott, whose mother lives at the above address. Before her marriage she was
a waitress. Name before this marriage was Betty Jean Schmitt, born at Fort
Worth, Tex. Searched by J. E. Cisneros and G. E. Villarreal. Apparently not
on addict. October 10, 1954 given personal search and taken to Dr. John Lowry.
No narcotics were found. Apparently she had had a shot. Search (preliminary)
by Dunham and Villarreal.
Scott, Chester,509 Duncan, Corpus Christi,Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by William Albert Schmidt (addict). Given a personal search by Inspectors M. E. Wthters and F. R. Pena.
Has been arrested for theft, vagrancy, drunkenness. Did 3 years for robbery
in Galveston County. He is a merchant seaman and goes to foreign countries
on Esso tankers. He is an addict. July 2, 1955 (address given at 3616 Morgan
Street, Corpus Christi), age 36. Arrived alone as pedestrian. Search by
Inspectors Worley and Chamberlain. Nothing found. Denied being an addict
till card on him was found in file-had no money with him. Lost seaman's
(ard. October 13, 1955 (address given as 6920 Avenue QY2, Galveston, Tex.) ;
arrived alone on foot. Search by Inspectors Botello and Robinson. Served 4
years for robbery. Has tattoo of dagger on right arm, tattoo of cross and rope
on left arm, neede marks on both arms. Came over about 5 months ago with
a fellow named Bill Smith. Age 37. October 18, 1955 arrived from Mexico
alone on foot. Given search by Inspectors Dabdoub and Worley. Nothing found.
Occupation: Laborer (formerly merchant seaman). Born in San Antonio, Tex.
Has needle marks on arms--had shot yesterday. Paid 40 cents for it. He uses
heroin. Did time in Huntsville, Tex., for robbery in 1939. Height 5 feet, 6
inches; wavy hair. Data submitted to Senator Butler October 18, 1955. October
21, 1955 arrived on foot alone. Search by Inspectors Worley and Medellin. No
contraband found. Tattoo-left arm (2), skull-dagger-heart. Right arm (3)
a cross, Navy anchor (name).
Scott, Frederick Clinton, 2903 Kilburn Avenue, Dallas, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in taxi accompanied by Jesse Robert Hudson, Woodrow
Wilson Dill, and Ronald Kent Davis. Given search by Inspectors Worley and
Munoz. The only thing found was some traffic tickets. He stated that he has
s'noked marihuana. Occupation: Musician; age 30. Not known if he is addicted
to marihuana but he has smoked it.
8harp, Reginal Bert, 8221 Gunter, Dallas, Tex'.
Arrived from Mexico as pedestrian accompanied by his wife, Wanda Guy Sharp
(addict). Given personal search by Inspector H. Scherr; witness, J. E. Worley.
Nothing found. Occupation: Service station operator; age 46. Got out of
prison last week, Huntsville, Tex., and has been up for burglary three times.
Has been In Leavenworth five time on narcotic charges. Was given physical
examination by United States Public Health. (Lookout on wife and warrant
for arrest for Jumping bond.) He is an addict.
3540
Sharp, Wanda Guy, 5219 Colonial, Dal8,Tex.

Arrived from Mexico by taxi, alone. Given personal search by Inspector
M. J. Pearson. No contraband found on person. Occupation: Housewife.
Married about 2 weeks ago to a man by the name of Sharp who works for the
Ford assembly plant, Dallas, Tex. She is an addict. Stated she had been for
35 years. Found 18 papers heroin in taxi under floor mat (seizure No. 3225-L).
Stated that she had served 3 years for transporting heroin, 1950. September
16, 1955 (gave address as 3221 Gunter, Dallas, Tex.). Arrived as pedestrian
accompanied by her husband, Reginald B. Sharpe, a filling-station operator.
Was given personal search by Inspector M. J. Pearson. Nothing found. Occupation: Housewife; age 47. Stated she had not had shot this a. m. Could
find no new marks. Needle found in suitcase. Warrant for arrest for jumping
bond by United States deputy marshal, turned over to Joe Davis. Given
physical examination by the United States Public Health Service. She is an
addict.
Siera, Anastacio S., 1914 Hidalgo, San Antonio, Tem.
Siera, accompanied by Lupe G. Morna, Antonio F. Campos, Juan Orta, and
given personal search by Customs Inspectors Botello and Cisneros. No contra.
band was found but a broken marihuana cigarette and a small quantity of
marihuana were found under the bench in the baggage room where they had
been seated. All disclaimed any knowledge of It. (Seizure report No. 3148-L).
Occupation; laborer. Not an addict.
Silva, Rudy T. 2402 Veracruz, San Antonio, Tem.
Silva, accompanied by Juan Orta, Lupe G. Morna, Anastaclo S. Siera, and
Antonio F. Campos, all of San Antonio, arrived from Mexico in a car. They
were given personal search by Inspectors Botello and Cisneros. No contraband
found, but a broken marihuana cigarette and a small quantity of marihuana
were found under the bench in the baggage room where they had been seated.
All disclaimed any knowledge of it. (seizure report No. 3148-L). Occupation;
Steel tyer. Not an addict.
Smith, Gloria,111 West Laurel, San Antonio, Tex.
Age, 26 years. Given personal search, at request of Customs Agent Ellis, for
narcotics. Nothing found. She was accompanied by Jackie Lee Lyle, of Cotulla,
Tex., and two colored men.
Smith, Willie G., 1734th Air Transport Squadron, Brooks AFB, San Anton4o, Tem.
Arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by Arthur Johnson (addict). Given
personal search by Inspectors Munoz and Dabdoub. Nothing found. Occupation,
armed services. Not an addict (traveling with an addict).
Soto, Tomas Ortega, 2210 Castroville,San Antonio, Tem.
Arrived from Mexico by auto accompanied by Edward Aguilera Coronado.
Was given personal search by Inspector F. Chamberlain; witness, M. E. Winters.
Nothing found. Occupation, tailor. Age 28; height 5 feet, 8 inches; black
hair, bushy, wears mustache. Was driving Oldsmobile 1951, four-door sedan.
License, New Jersey 4977. He is an addict.
Stansteen, Alice, 1601 North Hackberry,San Antonio, Tem.
Arrived from Mexico by automobile accompanied by a friend, LeRoy Dacy.
Was given personal search by Customs Inspector J. L. Devine. Nothing found.
Occupation, owner, service station. Not an addict (her companion stated that he
deals In narcotics).
Stawchansky, Yankel, 810 Panama,Monterrey, Nuevo Le6n, Mexico
Arrived from Mexico on bus alone. Given a personal search by Customs Inspec.
tor E. L. Haley; witness, Inspector Gunnoe. Nothing found. En route to Brooklyn, N. Y. Immigration had lookout. Suspected of smuggling narcotics and dla.
monds. Not an addict.
3541
Stone, E. 0., 8306 Capital Street, 1911 Cincinnati Street, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by Elbert H. Perkins. Given a
personal search by Customs Inspectors Chamberlain and A. P. Remas. Nothing
found. Searched because he was with Perkins who is an addict. Occupation,
none. Not an addict.
Sweat, Ernest, 317 Dicawma Street, Dallas, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico as pedestrian. Given personal search by Inspector
Gonzalez; witness, Inspector Haley. He arrived in company of ' illiam Lee
Niess, same address, who was also given a search. Last time he was at Laredo
was 2 years ago. No contraband found. Occupation, receives pension for the
blind. He is an addict. December 24, 1954, arrived on foot, accompanied by
William Niess. Search by Inspector Marks; witness, Inspector Sanders. He
had fresh scars and claimed last shot received in Dallas (E. C. Brand, ear and
eye doctor) on Maple Avenue, across from Stove and Court. Occupation, salesman. He is an addict. January 8, 1955, arrived on foot, accompanied by William Lee Niess. He was given personal search by Worley and Gunuoe. Nothing
found. Occupation, peddler of needles. Addict.
Taylor, Edward, 3235 Montana, San Antonio, Tem.
Personal search January 20, 1955.
Arrived from Mexico on foot and alone. Given personal search by Inspector
E. Botello; witness, Inspector F. R. Pena. Nothing found. He had been caught
with marihuana in 1941 in Laredo. Occupation, waiter. Not an addict.
Taylor, William L., 509 C Avenue NW., Ardmore, Okla.
Arrived from Mexico in taxi, alone. Given a personal search by Inspectors
Villarreal and Worley. Had needle marks on right wrist and right foot. No
contraband found. Driving a 1954 Cadillac, Oklahoma license 1-39291 (1955).
Stayed in Shamrock Hotel, Houston, February 10, 1955, and February 11, 1955.
Paid $11 per day. Address shown on the bill from Shamrock Hotel: 5201
Benton Boulevard, Kansas City, Mo. The following names and addresses were
in a little black book in his possesion: Lauro Lopez Gonzalez, of San Antonio
and Nuevo Laredo, Mexico; Matt Tinsley, San Antonio, Tex. The taxi driver
stated he had a companion who stayed in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. Occupation,
oilfield worker. He is an addict.
Taylor, Roy (colored), 3605 Cobb Street, Houston, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in taxi, accompanied by Margaret Jones, also known as
Dorothy Dickson. Given personal search by Inspectors D. D. McManus and
Cisneros. Nothing found. He has served 13 months in El Reno for possessing
marihuana at El Paso. Occupation, accountant. He is an addict.
Terrasas, Amado
Accompanied by Antonio C. Davila (an addict). Married to Patsy Terrasas.
Occupation, Pearl Distributing Co. He is an addict.
Terry, John Prescott, 2031 North Kansas, El Paso, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a taxi, alone. Given a personal search by Inspectors
0. L. Ramirez and E. Botello, and some Yohimbina tablets were found in the
pocket of his trousers (seizure 3157). Said, at first, that he did not know his
address because he had been staying in a trailer. Two other boys, Carlos
Calluzzo and Richard Robertson (addict) stayed in Nuevo Laredo. He admitted
smoking a marihuana cigarette. Occupation, musician. He is not an addict
(stated this was the only marihuana cigarette he had smoked).
Toambs, Roy C., 3340 Baker Street, Dallas, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a car with Harman L. Toambs. A personal search
was given by Inspectors McManus and W. C. Pena, but nothing was found.
There was a lookout posted on the above-mentioned by Customs Agent Wagner.
Not an addict. Occupation, truckdriver.
3542
Tovar, Manuel Martinez, 1110 South San Jacinto, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico on foot and alone (he had arrived from San Antonio by
bus). Given personal search by Immigration Inspector P. D. Parker; witness,
BEPQ Inspector Reuthinger. An eye dropper and needle together with 4 cello.
phane packs found in pocket sewed on undershorts; 4 cellophane packs contained
heroin (seizure report No. 3108-L). Occupation, unemployed. He is an addict,
Trejo, Frank Peter, 241 Earl Street (also, Route 2), St. Paul, Minn.
Inspector F. Chamberlain and E. L. Haley. He had a tattoo on the left arm
"E. V."; had two new needle marks. Said he had not been on it very long. He
is 21 years old, 5 feet 6 inches tall and weight is 125 pounds. Says he has never
been arrested; came down on February 21; had $11, 3 pesos, and some change.
Occupation, laborer. He is an addict.
Tucker, Henry, PerrinAirforce Base, Shermann, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a car accompanied by Tressie Polk, Walter Farrier,
and Ellie E. Porter. Given a personal search by Inspectors Duke and Worley,
Nothing found. Suspected of having marihuana. They were stopped 1 mile
north of Laredo and 2 pounds prepared marihuana was found concealed under
the hood (seizure No. 71-L). Occupation, airman, 1st class. Age, 23. Not an
addict.
Vasquez, Miguec, 2307 Vera Cruz, San Antonio, Tem.
Arrived from Mexico on foot and alone. Given a personal search by Inspectors
Botello and Fierros. Nothing found. Stated he had served 4 years in 1951 for
narcotics. Tattoo "Mike" on left hand. Needle marks on both arms. Has dark
hair and fair complexion, is 35 years of age, 5 feet 11 inches in height and weighs
160 pounds. Occupation, laborer. He is an addict.
Vega, Alex, 2006 Decater, Houston, Ter.
Arrived from Mexico in car with Alejandro Reyna and was given personal
search by Inspectors Villarreal and Gunnoe. Marihuana seeds were found
under the floor mats of the car which he was traveling in. Customs agent in
charge was notified. Age 21. Occupation: Jewelry repair. Smokes marihuana.
Vasquez, Carlos R., 536 Tampico, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a car alone. Given personal search by Inspector
Valdez, witness, Inspector Herring. He is a user of narcotics and had several
recent needle marks on his arms from shots of heroin. Occupation: Furniture
mover. He is an addict.
Watkins, Harold, 759 Entcrprise (Inte'pise) Street, Houston, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico by automobile accompanied by Booker T. Young. Was
given a personal search by Inspector Cisneros, witness, Inspector Gonzales. No
contraband found. Has been heroin user since 1950. Took two shots this morning. Agents notified. Wagner tailed him. Occupation: Truckdriver (gambler).
Age 24. He is an addict. $680 found on person, also address 119 Himan Street,
San Antonio, Tex.
Watson, Raehel William, 1,450 Kilgore Street, Corpws Christi,Tex.
Inspector Worley, witness, Poteet, Air Police. Nothing found. He had been
caught with marihuana in Corpus Christi and had been on probation for a year
ending in November 1954. Occupation: Blueprint processor. He is an addict.
Weaver, Louis Q. (colored), 2219/2 Lockwood Drive, Houston Tem.
Arrived from Mexico in a taxi, accompanied by Willie E. Bowie (believed to
be a sniffer of narcotics). Given personal search by Inspector J. E. Worley, witness, E. L. Haley; 4 grams heroin found on floor of taxi (seizure Report No.
3543
3100). He smoked marihuana in Korea. Had no needle marks. Believed to be

a "sniffer." Occupation: Discharged from service. February 25, 1955, arrived
on foot alone. Searched by Inspector Scherr, witness, Worley. Nothing found.
Occupation: Student. Believed to be a sniffer.
(See Seizure Rept. 3100-L.)
Whittaker, Robert L., 935 West Page, Dallas, Tea.
Arrived from Mexico in taxi alone. Given personal search by Inspectors Herring and Biggio. Nothing found. He works in Chicago. His home town is
Dallas. Used to work in Laredo at the Greybound Cafe as a waiter. Occupation: Laborer. He is an addict. (So says the "lookout.")
Seached by Inspectors Jones and Dunham, 5:30 p. m. same day.
Williams, Johnnie Seawall, 3835 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, Tea.
Arrived from Mexico in a car with a Mr. Hubbard and was given personal
search by Inspectors H. Scherr and W. C. Pena but nothing was found. Not
an addict (traveling with addict, Charles Nathen Hubbard).
Williams, Ray Gus (alias Noble, Gus Ray), 811 Graham, Dallas, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a 1955 Ford Customline sedan. Texas license RA-7707,
accompanied by Fayette B. Bius and Charlotte Harris. Given personal search
by Inspector Botello and Baker of Agriculture Department. Had needle marks
on both arms and admitted being an addict. Three grams of heroin were found
on the person of Charlotte Harris by Dr. John Lowry (seizure No. 3174-L).
Occupation: Construction worker. He is an addict.
Williams, Shelby C. E., 6406 Monterrey Street., San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico by auto accompanied by Arthur Johnson (addict). Given
personal search by Inspector Botello, witness, Insp. D. D. McManus. Nothing
found. Occupation: Cook. Not an addict. (Traveling with an addict.)
Wright, John R., 381 Carolina,San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico, accompanied by Frank J. Brown, in a taxi. He was
given personal search by Inspector H. Scherr and J. E. Worley. No contraband
found. He had needle marks and admits that he is a user. Occupation: Alamo
Beauty College. He is an addict.
Young, Booker T., 1620 26th Street, Denver, Colo.
Arrived from Mexico by auto accompanied by Harold Watkins (addict). Given
personal search by Inspector J. E. Cisneros, witness, J. T. Gonzalez, Jr. Nothing
found on person. Had needle marks on left arm. Claims they are from diabetes
shots. Agents notified. Wagner tailed him. Was driving Cadillac car with
Colorado license U/I 539. Occupation: Bartender (gambler).
Age 26. He
is not an addict. (Traveling with an addict.)
Zamora, Rudy Benito, 209 School Street, San Antonio, Tex.
Arrived from Mexico in a car with Dorothy Holley (addict). Given a personal search by Customs Inspectors Scherr and Dabdoub. Nothing found. Occupation: Produce salesman. Not an addict. (See seizure No. 3024-L.)
Zavala, Roberto,1050 West Fort Street, Detroit,Mich.
Arrived from Mexico by auto accompanied by friends, Moses Castillo (not
an addict), and Octavio Garcia (not an addict). Was given personal search by
Inspector G. E. Villarreal, witness, Inspector P. Medellin. Nothing found.
(Marihuana seeds found in car.) Occupation: Laborer (Fisher Body, Detroit).
Age 23. Not an addict.
3544
No. 5
EXHIBIT
Police records of narcotic violator, Luther Spurgeon Messer, submitted by the

Dpartment of Police, Bureau of Criminal Identification, Houston, Tex.
Ii 0 M
DIPARTSM OF POUCIR
DURAU OF. CniD~ibEID3NTEIA1ION
Homaton. Ta
Data and Th
A~M:
1or~
0
W 01ZO 16
.
]-.
-,,
- *-")
ar
19
31 W
...
--
Now-
Ln
....
1&
*2SI
Addrew
Ha
, ll,
_t!,- n--
ask'
._
Hair
Date and
Pla.e .1 Binh
IMEut
Al'...--
TezA
2l./7"
A...,
*-h
341-MB
W
stL
Bearknd N.
hI .
USIA
__
__
__
__
"___ "__
__
_,.
Last Place
-e
Emlyd
,00.--_
"O~d
Jwore
m--ma
50611 NNW
Moth-
--A
,,_ 4amA rW
,le
1&li
..
Wife-Hupso.... IM
Broter
"
______________________
F.P. and Pbotou

rweradlto-
Place of Panate
, Tn
irt.
,.
,,,
Arrmtlug
Charger
Crime
Mo. operandi
and
DAnce
u wo__,
--
~~~AI
Ms
c~it
BoJY7967.
I-
Printed by ,
D(.
P*'
~~~sj..
w
.'
"
..
+t
,
_.T
U;,-:(.
,,.,., ,, - -,
.
I.;
Stan ipbot.
RAW
Photo by-
attoo,,U"
pemai"
T
qa&.-
'8!f7IN @*An t6 bs W~pxb-nd in th J C-.
J01=ea
11
Am TOeMV2
C9x
04a
UMarb, Be
_t: ~~pl
Aft. in comwetln with- ban. of kwU4111mf at MW V00-
As-
p. 4
Teoot god, wwW6 3 MUG

n11.
U.
Clh,,g'.
ale A sor mth dt~mdl to awt1r of ablu
1
It,
',.
Ark:.
;We

2b49-A6: Houston P.O., M,
4306 LIllian,
Invest.
3545
Arr._f!!315 Shepperd-AlienwV.yo
Ho. P.O., i,:volved ih fliht.
M.0. Wit. Ju. DobbinP. Ho. P.O. ad Irnest Canor,

at Yale-
Washngton.
V4S8, 1teArr.1rFZER,43Ce -. llal ng nvet,Arr72l3&06 Vaahington,, Bfllnitzsr-Zoe .Iv7

'
.O. Ar. after he tiw down 4 marijuanm eol
ettes.
DISPj had to US- Marshall 3-2-48 10 AM Lt.Martl
".;
ederkl .tefty ElReno,Okla from Houston 15 Vancs Unlavfully aeqhdrlng Kgrij.

# 15250-SW
3-30-4?:
3-23-49:
he0
I
-T%.
76,
Ra rr MRSSM: 1346.Jan 'e1j0 C te bmostSO0 Snove. Arr
W lftfo 0ok h7306V Reuben Stokei77)I 5491(son-Smith
_M.0. Arrested V
Bobby Blckburn "417JO& Mp. n~othng3o7964
Bd bwur'lg
tools In theta
oab-'Crowbar, Bro 6 It
I wae
o
tsm
Ra O
-ahd
Six Marfri ra
01 geettes amng then.

Martin
an -*.2
Riad
DISPI
5-8-49 RoArr: Warp, 2346pSain Felipe Cto. Ineute 700 Texas. Arr#15414oK/MoVoore
MoO. Hanging around nero daneo at Auditorinm.
DISP:
flle 5-9-49 9.15 am Lt.Martin
6-2349 ReAr l WB88,

1346 San Felipe Cts. Invest. 1900 La.Arr#2081.Mouseri-Renol
M.O. With Pate Lopes
Rmero Rivera 3439054o Goee. -veuto
DISP:
M odiri 6-2249 9015 am
8-11-49:ReArr:MSSE :1346 San Felipe 0 ts.Iwvest tAr#25972 Same. Perry-oodnlght.
M.0. 0n-lnvestl involved in oVttlng at W Dallas-Taft where Tomny MoDon.ali
(16) (WM) and Ralph Sadler (17'(WV) were o4te UPB has Info.
DIS: Chg. Ag.Anaj%Rqm
Ot. t/s/ a&Ue- -9 2 in
9-20-49 RoAn: MUM

1346 Sam Foipe Obo. los
300 Gans. Ar#30033Poehlo
Robbins. M.O. Aro with Louis Oliva' Henersm W34669 sd #We Vsanm
DISh
l.d 9-1-49 4.55. M
aptelWrAe
I-29-50tReArr
tMESsl346 San Folipe:Ipvests Aw.3QOI 1600 Main.
Ball, oke
V.. With Jack iaoona 043007j and "ou49
ones
08olav
1.00
....
to have
been to a show*
DISPs
Rlsd 1-29-50 12.10 pa Sizine
A-.26 .5CeArrtMES3U:1346 Sanrelipesln,-est:1300 Dart:Arf2659:Davidson-Bilnit70eT
X.^.: With sev. other thugs on oorner. Has over1300 in his pooketb.
Fourd 30 stibkq of ie-g. on ground under their reet. Needs oheok.
DISP:
:lld 4-27-t "11 a"eartin
5-9-50:ReArnrId
SRt1346 SanFellpotesNlreotoes401 Caroline Arz#l84 sflI
V.0,: Is to be fijed on for Posmession of Naeotics.
(Oapt. Davldson)
Subject ran trm -ark Patrol offleers wbn they jumped him a park. Stated
he ran. and hid in tree and waited for'offler to leave, 2 Xtm'Tarda forFE.
MSP8 Rlsd to Sylvester USX 5-2.-50
X 1.25 FM L~genfelter
'-.0 %:PeAzr
:M9SS
:1346 S.F. C ts tInve ttGArr#19610 Silver-Wash. Biggs-Oreenwoo1
M.0. ViolatIng traffiepin 40 Ford o. KR 723, had needle In glove oompt.

In car were Jack Glaocna #43007,Jams Park 1larrm I
.
and 4breaha
GrIa: #.
6 Chg.V g.A No llghts;no Oper Lio.Corp. Ct. Bond 7-3-5D 2 pa.
... ".. ReArri IMERss 1251 San lipss Ct., Investssbahgta & Houston, Arr#1685 Baker-autr'gi"
Mo0.1 - arrested at the abwft address with Andry Le Hanley, prostitute.. Trying
)% ea.,
inw- the Pimpizg field.
DISN 5-7-51 iti2 P.M. Chg. Vag# Made boa4.
G~me
*hd
%w-
3546
NAM
MSE R,
t ther
Spir ton
SIMET No. 1
%-0%'erMSRl5
-San Felipe Cte.Arzrf1Y66.4O0S Polkc Ave. SeifeVer-THo3] 11a'.
V.0. Stole a radio at ponk% & nni
a t 4006 Polk Will be filed cr.
T)TqP? 5-9-51 1u4 P.M. ft. Ma. Soeft (agm 0t) ?/be. 4U1
-1451:
co Ct Cn #93-120 Vied Theft PG fined 1 day jail and
$10.00 end costs;
PD H-37270 .Whopliftlog)
f-94-5l9 1ARR.MUS3B&lg1 Spo Felipe O e-m
mftSGO-oisdellgienwok,Trrell1.
V.0. Arr: Offiezm. zrolwd emil that a em was down on the -C(o~lenneld.
~ 9Had ocard frmi Courtesy oab so0. Cu 09 9witty In pooato
DSt7-25-51 46 P.M. lelad. by ye=4.
J7..27...81RoArrM~VSM:1a1 S.F.: AmWst U-I96S5 404 San Felipe BoelVahldisk.
woos VW tht 3ote wel
oefetezu at abv lopatiou Grouting a dist,
Atimy ~OrlieI.....p~l.I
#-.i
amour 01j
1abei
#
DISP,?-2SW MU~T'WRled, b y Lt. Dtvidson.
~ 30)S-Ueaer-1251 San rellpe Cts-Invoit-hahics-Kennedy
~.0. Arrested at 68O03WashinCtoh *ith Edwin Po Higby3 1Bsrt I 21"kir
t
-'~-!~:br
a ne A-.' rey Hsqndloyel'beser was In posse of 17 capsules of heroin

Mocp: 94-A120 Paoi WA3.S&i 1W &1nhat
to 3*wK* Of 5.8.5
194-58u Pas
. eat b~
no"
fte %onP
1Mfthv tams 4 Y"g
N.0.s Mith 6 alqg sp of be,.Sa.Wi1 be thu a o

=I Pass Uwwa, M-- I1.SS.W a"(..eu~
Pet
fto
S-1t-55 mA - C' Noet Cl #3

Of'SC
(13.
?..I&55&ftoArrWM3ER&1216 Dirdzsefl;MiNstuLl6 i~1iiI3
~m.(se-hlo-~r
M.O.t Arr on nero. search warrnt out af 11gan Ctpfam out bak-doompdrapped two papers -.1
heroiln.PbuM inside house 6 mor amse of herolmob out an bmd this tins for ftse.of %roi10-2- 5- Rs~ar MJsE 3216 Diriml
bmst$ 600 -b. IM-h SterhODOOs Bid RL699
M.tArr. aby loc. driyig JA Dodge 5-W60, b-eo U 9Sd.IS Bousis, On f1MWe St.11
foudd an ht. person. ae $112. InpU SMin P1.0 In sliver, oMs Galveston & On
Houston bks ToIha
DIShI
19--4-55
W.11T
by Wk. Frost of Feahn1 Nweaotig
10-14#-55 upmwxft1s
bIesip
106o, owen ocuantmr to Ye r
beluevbuwmqviU tiedji
10-14-55dksrdMMdaoa6 1-, -lW

~m u06j1.i
H.0ot Air fw posee here.iqUk kaly brsoD
6hSu mmbJ.1.
but ovt
by Offleft M
3. MI.MIuti Wis M Off ft)
DI
inatteMA to r,
3547
90S1
DDVNE'7.WOF
IM
opa
&A
DtJ.1I
1911
Uubft~a
.Wh
12U. a[
1113 OW 2820 Li.11.
5
D&Wwmd1-30-52
==?~&~ -hag
3607
AMt No
r*01
CvhztJL.
00NMD:
DPAL
WAMYN
I=-
-.
No
IWIN
2402 Pennington St
AddeM'W
Blue
K d.
_no
Har.
Rudd.
0pr.
Ls.
win
ale Center T&;ms
Di.nbsd,2=
17-52
165
6-0.
Amer*
1,.12,- 35
UL
Keyatoe
L ,tPt,,
'oOL
Co.
adlail..
L B Conner.
Jae
'L.
n
M,
Peogy :oan Conner.
Dpq
F.P. and Pbdm

Furward lt
-"-
. 8am.
FBI
Place
Pmrtau
Birth. ofIift.
ArrM"
Of'lf
ice m.-
II
- ..
R,mund-Chandler,
Char" or
Gen-novest;has been headed before for oar theft .Stole oar In Atisit
arrosteoe In Uldding,.
xam
-and
owpojn__Le_, by Lt. 1'rt ln 1-30-52, 1:05 PK
moduOpemar"and
Ammur*
Printed by:
Poto by,
New Photo and
Descripton: z.kt.
Lad
&
0.-
Mark Sww.
Tatt-4m Tuook
1d~-
UtIag_.b
_jia 1rd.
55
am fm
1S "%lankll "at Jerry, up out*
11: Clom elbow jt in.
71515--60--pt. 7-76
111
~A
1118 Teeth Pair.

Ill Pace bumpy
Drs~sss Rough, ,sploehs Soft.
.-
hp
3548

-n;-ReAr,,1=0jtFRjP402Pennington: invest-. Ai"it3o3~ano N siper.
az sIY.C, Arr with .L? R. Rooney I;had
a Mrs Marilyn Befeld IL bac
~ar ar.1 her daughter also. 11adWnIn minor aedident,Re opened M.r
pftnts and threatened her daughter if she did not play with hisroi~
.1O-28-Y.-,a-ReAr:CUN~lt2.O2 Penningtona, et
O Jenson; Arx3729e. Rice-Johsn
M.O.t Walking down the street drinkring Beer out of a bottle.
l-52:ReArrCONEmR:lO6l7 Strickland Invest :2800 Luell ;Arr#.1786;
Clark -H1k,i&n.
M*.. Arr with Artmar Ortl:,#9966 and Paul Davis,#334i3 prowling
buiding3 in thaa 2800 Blk. Laaell.
CEO:
DISP:
2-6-53 :R *rr: COMM:R 10617 Strickland: Invest :682 Jmaz: Arr#5249 : lrrelson- Conley
M1.076: Involed In fight at hsngout, for charmotore.
(Johzzfor-Bullock)
CHO:
DZSP:
Z-.e.1A-:ReArr:CONNER :10617 Strickland;Tnvpst :6202 Jeneen;Arr#6939; Romund-TRobhir.:.
5iOtWith Don Smith,# ....
Z
nd Alfred Reymn,#58000. Had In his porser:-...
3 sticks of Marij. In his left shirt pooketCIgs turned ov-r to Blllnltz-r.
CI{0:.
DIOOP:
3-19-53 :RpArr:CONNER:4L02 Pennington;Invest.-700 Famnnin;Arr#11359; Smith.
M.O.: Appeared-to be under Influence of dope.Had 3 sticks of Parij. In HNs
poss.Hnd a~dress book containing names & addresoes,phone nots * et c,
CHG:
DISP&
4-18-533 Rekrr: CONNER::10617 Strioiland; Invest::820 Jensen: Arr# %8* : Kenrnedy -Bulboc k..
P,0.: Arr at Gordon's Underpass Inn, well known hangout (Rieh-Carlnon)
for thieves & dope heads. AU~ pilled up. Was In ladies rest room with twu
juxenile girls,
CIII:
DISP:
IJ-2L&-53:ReArr:CPN1IER: 10W'~ Striokland:Invent: Ar #16347 890b Jensen Chardler.
"1.0. Is wanted by Officer W C Rommd for Fun- & Theft !2n Humble Rd diet.
CHO:Q
C8w ufl-S9
4-5-5!eArr:CON1[R :10617 Strickl'nd ; nvest :12e'0 Prairie ;Arr#17077;Tu.oker.
M.O.--With Jiummy-Do~y,#____....t. above lo;eeInvolved
ian g of Pin-up
Lounge At. 3721 N.Mil'nA Picture w~p tisken while In ant. Casoij-0898
CliG:
DISP:
99.4:ReArr:C0NNER:10617 Strioklarad:Inveat:8700 Fulton irr#32171:Johnnon-Lott
M1.0.: Arr with two white boys, there they were Involved In a non-c6llisioi
accident. Seem to be high on dope. Property was found In car at time of
arrest. Car belong to Come. Co. which Is putting in sewage at this
Location. Boss of company will be down to file charges.
CHO:
DI~i?:
1-9-55:ReArr:CONNER:2523 LyzmnfieldtInvest:2700 Lyons:Arr#1269:Tlichols-Tyler
M.O.: Subj & Arthur O.Luecb#60277, said they were looking fvm negro prostitutes.Both out on bond nor for matijuana.
CHO:
DISP:
5-5ReArrCQXNN~s2523 Linfield ;Invest: 7806 HottmaArrf5O79; Jenkins,
M.0: Wi~th Art hur Lueckp#6o277 at negro drive in,have info sel1iqg -M.-rLi
by aL negro man to white men this loco.Unkinown wm ran and escaped.
CHG:
ISp
.. shst #2
3549
ILLICIT NARCOTICS -TRAFFIC

SHEET No.
Ing
'US
O
No.53PA2
Rber-Vwneher
.r,)'ONN!..R:2523 Lynnfled;inveet;5700 Jensen Arr#55)38
ith .me*t L. Ivey,WKl,19 abv 13c.,aaw officers a" ducked into Zervite
X ,).r.-
"i
Tucker-Frec
14-551 RPA.-rCONN.Rs2523 Lynfiledinvoet:5006 Jensen;*rt,6534
'..O Art. with Bobt' R.BarrWK, Kelly C. Gf'acona, i, Ernest L. Ivey, and ?ry L, !k.t
after officers executed a Fel. Warrant on Jerry Comer, have Info that characters %.-.
buying narcotics at this location. (The foaloing caes were cleared by this arr"-..
j'(.- i1*Tul #2':"9 -2-18-55i K-?3781., X-64.33,K-55008;X-56979k;
K-55932:K-625l;K-5- tL;
F-522;K:~g281O;K 54850;K-60810; K-62I427;X-619l&;K- 53906;K-62922 ;K- 58155 ;K- 5511.;
.-5762;IC-57271;K-58335;K-58352;K-59211;K-58158;
CE3:
DISP
t-..-* FeArr-"
:2523 Lynnfie.d:Invest:8800 Ccpton:ArrA.#0675. Rhode@-Peterson.
Y..3.: Dropped serow driver ad crow bar vhen stopped by officers.
CHG:
DISP
".A ZIA .3t #3 WnM AM'S CT (1r).
-J
Invenst
Ipnfiold,
a.-:,r-C0IN=
!,,eckJews
060
Ar 0.0120
with Arth'
arrested
:'.%.
lc t2523
jD.,
Katth Box whioh contained One Yettruanm Cigarrette.

ill be filed onfor Possves'Dn.
s pcsket.
lis-p,.
Rce rt In*'.Az?1240,
HMd Inthlmo.
a :d-.
1har s ub.e:1 !
Extra Car& -A,(# f:
8-2S-55:R~,AzT3O~s2523 LdUfelds bfaout Arr#33956 Ioodleed Pk*

X.O.. Vlt& seveml bm
oaraere In abv peak.
Om
ory.
.. 'WX3'OI(W.z21523
1 nfeld; Thveet zZ303 Canal ;Ar-r#3'2C;Wooioy-.i-r.
Z-!-55 I*JT8CoOEND .2523l Zmntold Inveot .1006 hrrtngtmshlrrd!92

agor -f
,.
)?Cl-cr
Ceo
Hoo. With Bonnie UftJithpf
$Calvin RalineysI
90se"l
(Chawes...
..,."
wyatt.#
,at dope oonn.whor. seaLrch we =de.Found 9 mia of heroic and d:pe Jztr"
on Connere
CHG 1
Y)SPI
William R. Scelles alias Billy

This subject has criminal record dating back several years and on December
20, 1948 was sent to the pen for 5 years for murder. He was also under a suspended sentence for burglary. Was charged with safe burglary on December
13, 1953 and remained on bond until February 17, 1955 at which time he received
7 years for burglary and felony theft and forgery. Subject was continually on
narcotics during time he was under bond and cleared many cases of safe burglary
that he committed while under bond.
Donald D. Owens alias Rooster
This subject sent to the United States narcotic farm on October 25, 1946 for
unlawful use of narcotics. Sent to Texas prison on November 14, 1947 for
4 years for burglary and felony theft from Harris County. Went back to Texas
pen on July 27, 1950 for 3 years for burglar from Harris County. Discharged on
August 6, 1951. Was sent back to the Texas pen on April 11, 1955 for 8 years
on convictions from Harris and Washington counties for a series of safe burglaries.
Is a constant user of narcotics. He confessed to a series of safe burglaries on his
last escapade with the officers.
Floyd Carl Davis
Subject sent to Texas prison on February 2, 1953 for 3 years for 5 cases of
burglary and 2 cases of felony theft. Granted a conditional pardon on March
28, 1954. On February 1, 1955 was charged with safe burglary in which $7,400
was taken and made bond and, was recently convicted as a second offender and
received 12- years but case will be appealed. While under this bond subject
made several trips to Mexican border evidently to obtain narcotics. Subject
received $1,400 for his share of burglary loot and in less than 24 hours was
broke. Attorney and bondsman were 'very interested in subject although
he was broke and unemployed.
35
Johnny Parul Wright alias Jake

Subject involved in above case with Davis was arrested less than 18 hours
after crime was committed. He had $166 of his share of $1,400 of the loot.
Was under a 10 years' probationary sentence for safe burglary from Fort Bend
County in which Ann Scelles (wife of Billy Scelles), was involved. This subject
made several trips to Mexico while under bond and is now confined in Texas pen
for 15 years for burglary and felony theft from Harris and Fort Bend counties.
Terry Brewsaugh
Subject received suspended sentence of 5 years for robbery on September 6,
1939 and was sent to Texas prison on April 9, 1940 as TSP No. 94234 on Qonviction of Marihuana and the suspended sentence was put into force. Granted
pardon on July 30, 1942. Was sent back to Texas prison on November 26, 1947
for burglary and possession of narcotics from Hunt-Fannin and Titus counties.
Received 3 years and discharged on May 26, 1949. On September 13, 1949 caught
in car with three others within 15 minutes after drug store was held up by 2 of
the other 3 men. Not identified but guilty as sin. On March 11 1952 received
at Texas pen as TSP No. 122.115 on burglary conviction from c rimes County
for 5 years. On June 13, 1955 charged with safe burglary in Harris County.
made prompt bond and has later been charged in Brazoria County with.burglary
of drugstore. Is now at large under bond. Subject Brewsaugh has two brothers,
Johnny and Jack, and is also related to the Kennedy family, all are known users
of narcotics and are very active thieves.
Glen Hathorne
This subject sent to Texas Prison on May 15, 1952 on charge of- burglary,
having been caught in a building seeking narcotics. His sentence was 3 years
and discharged on June 9, 1953. Subject was charged at Waco, Tex. with
burglary and made bond and on July 6, 1955 caught on a safe burglary charge.
Is now under a 12-year conviction for safe burglary and the present investigation
connects him with a series of safe burglaries.
Robert C. Harvey
Subject sent to Englewood Colo. on November 18, 1952 for sale and possession
of marihuana. Harvey is now under 10-year sentence for burglary, having been
arrested in building on Lyons Avenue with two others as they were in the act
of hauling off the safe. This arrest on December 18, 1954 and subject made
bond and was at large for several months. Was implicated in a series of safe
robberies.
Donald D. Parsons
Is now under conviction of series of safe burKlaries and was in crime with
Harvey. Charged with narcotic violation on November 14, 1952. Evidently
sent to narcotic farm on this charge. Subject admitted several large safe burglaries
and the loss of property was heavy. One case involved several thousands of
dollars in electrical appliances and jewelry which he stated was traded to narcotic
seller for narcotics.
Robert L. O'Quinn
Subject received at Texas prison as TSP No. 118276 on December 18, 1950 to
serve 5 years for burglary and felony theft from Harris County. Discharged on
April 16, 1953 on pardon. Was caught with above two men on December 18
1954 and made bond. Was sent back to Texas pen on May 17, 1955 to serve 3
years for burglary. Subject considered one of the better safe burglars.
James Milton Hall
First arrest for suspected burglary on November 27, 1949. No charges. On
October 10, 1951 sent to Texas pen as TSP No. 120844 for 2 years for 4 cases of
burglary and 3 cases felony theft. Discharged November 3, 1952. November
9, 1953 charged burglary, made bond. On January 19, 1954 charged with burglary and felony theft and made bond. On August 28, 1954 was arrested at 226
Brace Street as he was trying to get a 17-year old girl to leave her uncle's house
with him. Evidently had prostitution in mind. On November 17, 1954 arrested
with 7 other characters in house of prostitution that was located at 1602 Colquitt
in a good neighborhood. On August 9, 1955 subject finally brought to trial and
received 12 years as second offender for burglary. Subject s record reveals names
of characters who have been arrested with him over the years that would fill a page.
EximititaN.#Ii
~'
- ..4
'4
A'
(7
..
0
'
w WI'
Ox
'I
p
Cl
-V
A 0of. *-
o UN
..1~
ao
Sp/
I.
r
'-4
C-
.4
4,
:4
1~.
44
h.
~:~'-
49
s,:rt;,1kv
-4-,,,
V.4.
1:
-1-
V.".
J
,/4
'44.
441
74'.
1~
N
I-
A'
-- ''C
tl
I'd
-S
TI
34
I,1.
I
F
,4~
kIT"
a:
4
4 '
?.
IC,,F
-.
-.
:.- .'
*1*.
I
4-,-, -
II'
4''
A.
A.
RXIIIIIT
No,
f0
'4~ I'
4?
-I
)jt,
(~A
4
()
()
T
r
t
(ore,
B
1,
4^1
40r
4>
I.
r
'00
44
__
-~
41t
-~
~
I.
II'
'-V.
~?(
ItI
Ism.4-,'
K~91
~go
\
IN
i~
-4
I ,a
~I
,~/I
~Y
*
4,
'4
44/
.4.,
N'
-7
~I
4~\ .4$4,
*
'
t~4
.41
'4
4*
4,4
1*.
44~4-4
'V
Iit_
p.
4',.
~
'~
'4
I,
(F-I
4,.,.
Ep W_
4',
3,
''4'
~'
4.
ro
t'
"4
A.
4-'
kh, - - i - -
"V..
4..
-Voq L t- ns,
qpw"m-
4*.
-.
'NL
ob..i
~44'
I~tf
lb~
4'
4*
,4*,
~'
4
"1
imp'
I',
'p.
40'4
41
Alw
I Mid,
'V.
I
A*
oc
w4
41
IL
4'
-s
41,
VA
j.-
~F'~'
'~st
.2
.4.S.
//
'1
',
4~4
"15
.1
'1
t014
4*~'>
.21>
7,422.'
4,'
'
''i'
.4
*
'~
'iI;;K
/
V
;>"
if:
4'
,-t*.
'
I.
'(4,
MI.4.&cI'ik AO
44,
44.
-,
-,
hkLAI4&)
h,
t~'
AVE
.i
'I
*.4,
4'
rky
F.
*
4.4
".
;v $9<iQ~k'
}'
44\
'~
4/,
.4
'1:
r
;r
~tJ
4 ~
4'
'
~~"~"'
'.~
'
:t''4<%
A.
44/
'4
V.
Ap
K""
V!
toe
AN
'.4
~
'<47
#''~,
(4(4..4
.4'
4-
.4
".1
4:4
'N
A
>9A
%.A.
sixV Ltit
'.
'V.
,j/~4
-.
'~.
':14
t~
,jf444J~
4yk~J4
t.
JCA
A ~- 1'
7)
*t-
'S.
4"
V.A
.4.
.4f.
4.'
"4
'
44'
It
*44
4jt,9~H'4
4.
'K
4%
"
4..
K\
94
.1.,.
I,,.
*>
...s
I'
4,,
''44%.
N
"1443"...,
/7
C;
-~
y4i}'
I,?
#4
,,11
~I!
If
~"'
~'1'
'4
.4
44
r~e-.
A
(F'~
>~
'I
4,,
#
.4.'
.4
t.
a'.
*,
.4(4'
'474.4
(V
.44
*4
so,,'
I.
I
00~g
'4
.1<>
'ft
K
4
"p
4.
3-
9)
7<.4
VI
"f4
tv"
'14<
'
4.7'
.AWAW
.4"
4'
.J
IS
444'4'~'
.44
44
.;,
4t,'
~
~94
4.AJLVLN
,4.4
'W
.44
4
y44
''p
S'S.'
I'
/
'4.
4.
'.4,
>44.4
*.t'
.A 1
-.
"4
.~
p
4~4
.4.4
'f~/3.4
444
40
>$ZN
.4944 44'44 -.
(4
.4'.
.4
'4'5 '4
77
'4'
*Gomm6
~'
V1'
P.A.
-,
4.
4.
'74
'ti'
.4
'N
4
34'
4'
44'
444
"
4,
/
~
.4 tt.
44"
4
A.
4<
44~
'4'
4'
0<'
.1
.4,,
ft
.4
44
0"'
I . , -11
4y4
1fT4
p
4'
Ilk
44
444 '
'.fi
low
t:,
j,4t
-Z
'N
NI>
N
-~
N
V
I
I
I
-9
'p
17
1
12*
j4
#'
(2
Cs
*flsawm~Zuesmuug
inn.nw.
amf~~
-~
oe,
1--1111
1 ". I"I,,
qo-,
1-
14-
4 N
21
~>.N
N.
'It,
,1*
I.
\r~
I
it->
t.
jr
10000
a.2
~tAL.AI.~
4
-
N-I
4.
'I.
*1*
......
tar"
Ar,-.
.1
',.
9.
Is
rr~
~1.
:i
It
1
~
~L ~
I,
7'
4,
Li.
'
14"'.
low
-~
-Ma
K -,
.0i"
"
NI
;l
. 1
IN.
~1
24
II.irr~
sJ~-
J. C. Brock
Houston No. 40968, 24 years of age. He is an ex-inmate of Gatesville Refornatory; ex-convict from the Texas Penetentiary, well known dope addict and has 22
arrests to his credit. He is now under bond on grand jury indictment No. 75336
for burglary and felony theft. His present bond $2,500.
Jack Broussard
Houston No. 43727, 23 who has just recently been no-billed for burglary and
._lony theft by Harris County grand jury is now in jail in Wharton, Tex., for
burglary and felony theft and is wanted for burglary and felony theft at Richmond, Fort Bend County and Liberty, Tex. and is wanted in Houston at present
time on 2 cases of burglary and 2 cases of felony theft. Charges filed in Judge
Maes court today in these cases. Broussard has been arrested 29 times in Harris
County. He is a dope head and well-known thief.
Danny Edward Bayly
Houston No. 53257 has been a dope addict since 1952. He has 30 arrests to
his credit in Harris County for dope and associating with dope heads, burglary,
and felony theft. He is at present under grand jury indictment No. 75266 and
75267 and is out on $3,000 bond from Harris County. Is now in jail in Wharton,
Tex., for burglary and felony theft and is wanted for burglary and felony theft in
Richmond, Tex. and Liberty County. Bayly is now 25 years of age.
Oren Edward Newton
Alias ParbyNewton, Houston No. 19760 has been arrested in Houston 28 tilnes
He is under indictment 75912 and 75916, both for felony theft and is
since 1 P.
under $4,000 bond in Harris County at present time and is under $10,000 appeal
bond from Jefferson County.
EXHIBIT No.
Map of Dallas, Tex., showing the areas where narcotic violations have occurred
as reflected by the testimony of Lt. W. P. Gannaway. Police Department,
Dallas, Tex., faces this page.
EXHIBIT No. 7
List of narcotic cases indicted in the northern district of Texas, their last known
address, sentence received or final disposition, of 'their cases, fiscal year 1954.
(1) List of names (with aliases) and last known address of all persons who have
been indicted in the fiscal year 1954 in the northern district of Texas for violation
of the Federal narcotic marihuana, or synthetic drug laws, together with the
,entence they received or the final disposition of their cases.
Offense
record
Criminal No.
I--
Name, alias, address, court action, disposition
_________-I-
Fort Worth
2d ----------
3d ..........
lst_
335 -----------
1st ----------
.347-----------
1st ----------
1354 ----------355 ...........
Ist ---------1st.
Osborne, Charles, 1215k Evans, Fort Worth, Tex. Indictment filed on

July 9, 1953; plead guilty. One count, acquisition of marihuana. Sentence-2 years.
Allen, Johnny C., address unknown, charging four counts unlawful sale of
narcotic drugs.
Lum, Robert S., 3205 Byers, Fort Worth, Tex., charging four counts
unlawful sale of narcotics; each waived indictment and plead guilty on
July 14, 1953, to an information filed.
Sentence-Allen, 10 years to serve, hospitalization recommended.
Lum, 2 years to serve, hospitalization recommended.
Holmes, Jesse Lee, 3324 Thannisch, Fort Worth, Tex. Indictment filed
on Sept. 22, 1953; Nov..23, 1953, plead guilty to an indictment charging
forgery and passing ,-narcotic prescriptions, two couts. Sentenced
'te, 6 months, probated 1 year.
safid
Evans, Moses, Jr., 1174 Mansfield Road, Fort Worth, Tex. Indictment
filed on Nov. 4, 1953; Nov. 30, 1953, plead guilty to the indictment
charging four counts, unlawful transfer of marihuana. Sentence2 years on first count and 2 years on the other 3 counts to run concurrently.
Cross, Andrew Leon, 950 Stella St., Fort Worth, Tex. Indictment filed
on Nov. 5, 1953; Dec. 2, 1953, plead guilty to 2 counts charging transfer
of marihuana. Sentence-2 years.
Daggett, Melvin Lee, alias Long John, 1651 Harding St., Fort Worth,
Tax. Indictment filed on Nov. 5,1953; Mar. 3,1954, plead guilty to one
count charging sale of marihuana. Sentence-2 years, probated 3 years.
Mar. 25, 1955, probation revoked, and defendant sentenced to serve 2
years.
3552
Criminal No.
Offense
record
Fort Worth-Con.
9356 -
1st ---------
9357 -------------
1st .........
935-1
lst_
9359-----------
1st-
3d ----------1st --------
2d-- - - - -
1st ----------
1st.
9360---------
2d-- - - - -
9362 ...........
1st------1st.
9363 ------------
1st --------Ist --------1st ---------
9365---------
Ist ---------
9378 -----------
1st--------
9379 -----------
1st-------1st - - - - -
Hall, Willie, 612 Missouri St., Fort Worth, Tex. Indictment flied on
Nov. 5, 1953; Nov. 30, 1953, defendant entered plea of not guilty to -J
1-count indictment charging unlawful possession of narcotics. There;
was a jury trial, verdict of guilty rendered. Sentence-3 years.
Henderson, Bert C., 1119 E. Oleander St., Fort Worth, Tex. Indictment
filed on Nov. 5, 1953; case dismissed on authority of the Attorney Gen.
eral on Feb. 26, 1954 (insufficient evidence).
White, Bennie Elton, alias James Earl Jackson, 1875 Harding St., Fort
Worth, Tex. Indictment filed on Nov. 5, 1953; charging four counts,
sale of narcotics; Feb. 26, 1954, defendant entered plea of not guilty; set
for trial Mar. 3, 1954; changed plea to guilty. Sentence-2 years generally on all counts.
Lott, John Thomas, alias J. T. Edward, alias Johnny, 1701 South Jonnings St., Fort Worth, Tex.
Reed, Johnnie Lee, alias "Yank," 2200 West Terrell St., Fort Worth, Te.
Pierce, Larry, 1002 East Second St., Fort Worth, Tex.
Miller, Doris Jean, 315 East Tucker St., Fort Worth, Tex.
Shaw, Joe Melvin, alias Joe Melvin, 1507 Conklin St., Dallas, Tex.
Nov. 6, 1953, a 5-count indictment filed, charging sale of narcotics, conspiracy, transfer of marihuana, purchase of narcotics, receiving and concealing narcotics. Nov. 23, 1953, all defendants arraigned; each entered
plea of not guilty. Dec. 3, 1953, tried before jury; Dec. 7, 1953, verdict of
guilty as to all counts and as to all defendants.
Sentence-Lott on count 1, 5 years to serve; count 4, 5 years to run consecutively with count 1; Reed-10 years generally; Shaw-10 years
generally; Miller-5 years generally; Pierce-5 years generadlv.
Dec. 11, 1953, motion for new trial filed as to all defendants; overruled by
the court. Jan. 23, 1954, notice of appeal filed. Mar. 16, 1954, defendant Doris Jean Miller filed motion to set aside appeal. Sept. 30, 1954,
brief of appellee filed with clerk of Appeals Court. Nov. 5, 1954, c:lse
argued before Fifth Circuit. Jan. 20, 1955, Court of Appeals handed
down its opinion whereby judgments of the District Court of convict ion
on all counts reversed as to Lott, Reed, Pierce. and Shaw, with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal as to Lott on count 4. (Appeal
of Doris Jean Miller was dismissed.) Feb. 15, 1955, Attorney General
advised that the Solicitor General decided that no petition for a writ
of certiorari should be filed to review the judgment of the United St Ites
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Mar. 25, 1955, each defendant
entered plea of guilty; jury trial; verdict-guilty as to all defendants.
Sontences-Lott-5 years, Reed-10 years, Shaw-5 years, Pierce-3 ye; rs.
Apr. 1, 1955, notice of appeal given by John Thomas Lott. Apr. 11,
1955, notice of appeal given by Johnnie Lee Reed. Pending.
Pruitt, John, alias "Jiggs," 401 Crawford St., Fort Worth, Tei. Indictme t filed on Nov. 5, 1953, charging one count, sale of marihuana.
Nov. 29, 1954, indictment dismissed upon authority of the Attorney
General, inasmuch as defendant was sentenced in State court to serve
a 30-year term for robbery.
RUnnels. R. T. (I. 0.), 1510 West Peter Smith St., Fort Worth, Tex.
Sowers, Thomas Lowe, alias "Red," 3007 Nichols St., Fort Worth, Tex.
Indictment filed on Nov. 5, 1953, charging three counts, sale of narcotics.
Dee. 1, 1953, both defendants plead not guilty; jury trial; verdict of
guilty as to all counts rendered.
Sentence-Dec. 2, 1953, Sowers-2 years on count 2; $1 fine prob.ti, 1
day on count 1: Runnels-2 years on count 1.
White, Harmen Nathaniel, 1005 Tucker St., Fort Worth, Tex.
Maxwell, Roberta Jo, 1609 Elm St., Fort Worth, Tex.
Miller, Charles Etta.
Indictment filed on Nov. 5, 1953. charging four counts, sale of nar.otic
White and Maxwell entered pleas of guilty.
Sentence-White sentenced to 2 years on each count to run concurrD
Maxwell pleaded guilty and sentenced to 2 years on each count to
concurrent. Mar. 25, 1955, indictment as to Miller dismissed on autlity of the Attorney General, since defendant was serving a 3-year
sentence in the State penitentiary.
Averitt, Mrs. Myrtle Mildred, 412 Wimberly, Fort Worth. Tex. Indictment waived on Nov. 23. 1953; information charging one coutt,
)efendant
uttering and passing falsely made narcotic prescriptions.
enteredplea of guilty. Sentence-6 months, probated 1 year.
Hannah, Vernon, 5628 Truman Dr., Fort Worth, Tex. Indictment filed
on Dec. 8, 1954, charging four counts of unlawful sale of narcotics;
2 .yearson
Feb.:25r4954, defendant,ehtered plea of guilty." Szneft
each count to run concurrent.
Scocos, William Nicholas, Frazier Hotel Fort Worth, Tex.
Kithas, Angeles Bill, 2200 West Lotus. Fort Worth, Tex.
Indictment filed Jan. 28, 1954; charging failure to keep records on1 paregoric prescriptions (I count) and 4 counts charging unlawful sale of
paregoric; Mar. 1, 1954 Scocos entered plea of guilty. Sentence Scocos was sentenced to pay $500 fine. June 18, 1954, indictment as
to Kithas was dismissed upon authority of the Attorney General due
to lack of sufficient evidence.
Criminal No.
Offense
record
3553
Name, alia, address, court action, disposition
Fort Worth-Con.
9418 ----------
3rd
M423 -----------
1st ---------
9427 -------------
1st ----------
9429 -----------
1st ----------
9430 ............
1st.........
Lubbock
845 -------------
1st .......
Carr, Sam Alexander, 216 East Gregg St., San Antonio, Tex. March 12,
1954, waived indictment and an information filed, charging one count,
sale of narcotics. Entered plea of guilty. Sentenced-10 years,
hospitalization recommended.
Ross, Red Edmund, 5923 Tuxedo, Dallas, Tex. Mar. 26, 1954, 26, 1954,
indictment waived and an information filed, charging two counts,
transfer of marihuana. Entered plea of guilty. Sentence-2 years,
probated for 2 years.
Coleman Charles Stafford, 3528 West Vickery, Fort Worth, Tex. Indictment flied on Apr. 15, 1954, charging failure to keep records of narcotics
sales; entered plea of guilty on June 14, 1954. Sentence-2 years,
probated for 1 year.
Arnold, Johnnie Welch, 4035 Boyd St., Fort Worth, Tex. Indictment
filed on Apr. 13, 1954, charging one count unlawful sale of paregoric.
June 14, 1954, entered plea of guilty. Sentence-2 years, probated for 1
year and imposed a fine of $1,000. On same date fine was paid June 14,
1954.
Bowlin William Paul, alias Doc Bowlin, 4927 West Rosedale, Fort
Worth, Tex. Indictment filed on Apr. 13, 1954, charging three counts
of unlawful sale of narcotics. June 14, 1954, defendant entered a plea of
guilty. Sentence-2 years, probated for I year.
Powell, Mitchel Emmit, alias "Mitch," 409 South Tom Green St.,
Odessa, Tex.
1st ---------- Watson, Gilbert, Park Hotel, Lubbock, Tex.
1st........
Patterson, Sterling, address unknown.
Indictment filed on Sept. 25, 1953, charging one count, transfer of marlhuana. Oct. 28 1953, Patterson entered plea of not guilty; Powell
and Watson each entered plea of guilty; Oct. 29, 1953 jury trial as to
Patterson, verdict resulted in a hung jury and court declared a mistrial
as to Patterson. Oct. 30, 1953, sentence as to Watson 5 years to serve;
Powell sentenced to 2 years to serve and imposed a $100 fine, this
sentence shall run concurrently with sentence imposed in Cr. 848.
Jan. 28 1954, Patterson entered plea of not guilty; jury trial; verdict,
not guilty.
0 ............
-46
2d .........
Bowles, Clifford, 1705 East 24th St. and 103 East 22d St. in Lubbock,
Tex. Indictment filed Sept. 22, 1953, charging unlawful acquisition of
marihuana, two counts. Oct. 28, 1953, entered plea of guilty. Sentence-5 years on each of counts and each shall run concurrently and
also fined $200.
347--------1st ........
Garcia, Faustino DeLeon, alias Frank Garcia, Idalou, Tex.
1st .......Garcia, Consuelo Dumas, alias Connie Garcia, Idalou, Tex.
2d ----------- Rowlan, Foster, alias "Pete," El Paso Tex
Indictment filed on Sept 22 1953, charging two counts, transfer and
acquisition of marihuana. 6 ct 26, 1953, Faustino and Consuelo Garcia
each entered plea of not guilty; Rowlan entered plea of guilty; jury
trial, as to the Garcias, verdict of guilty on all counts. Sentence-Oct. 30, 1953, Faustino, 5 years, to serve on 1st count; 5 years to serve
on 2d count and fined $1,000 on each count, sentences respectively on
the counts shall run consecutively and cumulatively; Connie, 5 years
to serve on 1st count and fined $200; 5 years on 2d count, probated for
5 years, the probation to begin after serving of 5 years on 1st count;
Rowlan 5 years to serve and fined $500.
S48 ............
2d .........
Rowlan, Foster, alias "Pete," El Paso, Tex.
1st --------- Chavez, Gilbert Ramirez, 118 Norther Avenue North, Lubbock, Tex.
1st --------Powell, Mitchel Emmit, alias "Mitch," 409 South Tom Green St.,
(See Cr 845)
Odessa, Tex.
Indictment filed on Sept. 22 1953, charging two counts, transfer of marihuana. Powell entered plea of guilty; Chavez entered plea of guilty
and Rowlan entered plea of not guilty. Sentence-Chavez, 3 years to
serve on 1st count and 3 years to serve on 2d count, these sentences to
run consecutively with one another and further a fine of $200 imposed.
Oct. 29, 1953, jury trial as to Rowlan; Oct. 30, 1953, court declared a
mistrial as to Rowlan since it was a hung jury; case continued as to
defendant. Oct. 31, 1953, court passed sentence as to Powell on 1st
count, 3 years to serve and fined $100; on 2d count, 2 years to serve
and $100 fine, the sentences to run consecutively with each other. Jan.
7, 1954, Rowlan entered plea of not guilty; jury trial, verdict of guilty.
Sentence-3 years consecutively to previous sentence -imposed and
fined $200.
' 5 ......
........ 1st ---------- Hereford, Clifton 2008 Date St., Lubbock, Tex.
(See above) Powell, Mitchel Emmit, alias "Mitch," Odessa, Tex.
Indictment filed on Sept. 22 1953, charging one count, transfer of marlhuana. Oct. 31, 1955, both defendants entered plea of guilty. Sentence-Powell, 2 years to serve and fined $100, this sentence to run
concurrently with any other sentence under other indictments. Oct. 31,
1953, sentence as to Hereford, 3 years to serve and fined $200.
3554
ILLICIT NARCOTICS
TRAFFIC
(1) List of names (with aliases) and last known address of all persons who have
been indicted in the past year in the northern district of Texas for violation of
the Federal narcotic marihuana, or synthetic drug laws, together with the sentence
they received or the final disposition of their cases.
Offense
Criminal No.
record
2d ----------
James T. Elliott, alias Jim, alias George White, Reliance Hotel, Fort
Worth. indictment filed on July 7, 1955, charging one count, purchase
of narcotics. Case pending.
Daniel Watkins, alias Dan, 4929 Harlem St., Fort Worth, Tex.
Willie Anderson, alias "Bodilly", 1131 Morgan St., Fort Worth, Tex.
Indictment filed Sept. 9, 1954; charge of 2 counts, transfer of narcotics,
but Government made motion to dismiss 1 count and same was granted.
On Nov. 30, 1954, each defendant entered plea of not guilty; jury trial;
verdict guilty.
Sentence-Anderson, 5 years; Watkins, 5 years.
Ossie Bedford, Jr., alias Sonny, 2204 Wenneca St., Fort Worth, Tex. Indictment filed Sept. 9, 1954; on Nov. 30, 1954, defendant entered plea
of guilty. Sentence-2 years, hospitalization recommended.
Theodore Demming, Jr., 2016 Wenneca St., Fort Worth, Tex. Indictment filed Sept. 9, 1954, charging unlawful sale of narcotics. On Nov.
29, 1954, defendant entered plea of guilty. Sentence-2 years.
Della Mae Miller, 1610 Elm St., Fort Worth, Tex. Indictment filed
Sept. 9, 1954, charging two counts, unlawful acquisition of marihuana.
Defendant plead guilty on Nov. 29, 1954. Sentence-2 years generally
and a fine of $50, the 2 years was probated upon payment of fine made
on November 30, 1954, said probation for 2 years.
Robert Lee Phillips, alias James Brown, 932 East Annie, Fort Worth, Tex.
Willie Anderson, 1131 Morgan St., Fort Worth, Tex.
Indictment filed Sept. 9, 1954, charging one count, transfer of marihuana.
Anderson entered plea of guilty on Nov. 30, 1954, and was sentenced to
serve 2 years, same to run concurrent with sentence in Cr. No. 9466.
Phillips plead guilty on Mar. 25, 1955, and was sentenced to serve 2
years and same to run concurrent with sentence in Cr. No. 9465.
Willie Richard Steward, Jr., alias Willie Mitchell, 1205 East Presidio,
Fort Worth, Tex.
Robert Lee Phillips, alias James Brown, 932 East Annie, Fort Worth, Tex.
Indictment filed Sept. 10, 1954, charging one count, transfer of marihuana.
On Nov. 29, 1954, defendant Steward entered plea of guilty and was
sentenced to serve 5 years and probation in Cr. 9232 was revoked, said
sentence to run concurrent with sentence in No. 9232. On Mar. 25,
1955, defendant Phillips entered plea of guilty and was sentenced to
serve 2 years, sentence to run concurrent with sentence in Cr. 9464.
Commie Campbell, Jr., alias "Pie," 812 Southwest First St., Mineral
Wells, Tex. Indictment filed on May 9, 1954, charging two counts,
unlawful transfer of marihuana. On May 31, 1955, defendant entered
ea of guilty; on June 1, 1955, defendant was sentenced to serve 2 years.
John Earnest Miller, alias Johnny Miller, 1400 North Beckley, Dallas
Tex. Indictment filed on May 11, 1955, charging four counts, unlawful
sale of heroin. On May 30, 1955, defendant entered plea of guilty and
was sentenced to serve 10 years.
James Thomas Elliott, alias Jim, alias George White, Reliance Hotel
Fort Worth, Tex. Indictment was filed on May 11, 1955; case dismissed
on May 31, 1955, because of the variance in chemists report and charge
in indictment.
Thomas Richard Moore, alias Tommy Moore, Dallas, Tex. Indictment
filed on July 7, 1955. On August 4, 1955, defendant waived venue and
entered plea of guilty. Sentence was 5 years to serve.
John B. Noble alias unknown 4408 Sycamore, Dallas, Tex. Indictment
waived and information filed Aug. 4, 1955, charging one count, receiving
and concealing heroin. Defendant entered plea of guilty on Aug. 5,
1955, and was fined $500 and sentenced to serve 10 years.
I.
Fort Worth
9566 _
9466 ------------ I ------------
9451 _
- -.
1st ----------
9456---------
Ist ----------
9462 -------------
Ist ----------
9464 -------------
2d -----------
2d -----------
9545 -----------
1st ----------
9550---------
3d -----------
9551 --------
3d ..........
9568 ---------
2d ..........
9575---------
2dt
San Angdo
882 ----------
Ist - - - - - Faustino Ramirez Gonzales, 15 West Avenue P, San Angelo, Tex. Indictment filed Sept. 10, 1954; plea of guilty entered on Oct. 18, 1954, and
sentenced to serve 15 months.
3555
(1) List of names (with alimes); and last know addresses of all persons who
have been indicted in the past year in Dallas Division of northern district of
Texas for violation of Federal narcotic, marihuana, or synthetic drug laws, together with the sentence they received or the final disposition of their cases.
Criminal
No.
13,695
13,600
13,602
13, 607
13,611
13,615
13,620
13, 621
13, 622
13,623
13, 626
13, 627
13,628
13, 629
13, 630
13, 631
13,632
13,633
13, 635
13,640
Offense record
1st-----------
Henry L. Leonard, alias Ervin Allurs, alias Slim Kinler; 2756 Metal St.,
Shreveport, La. Information in one count filed Jan. 18, 1954, charging
sale of maxguvaa. Transferred under rule 20 to WD Louisiana.
Kenneth Ray McKinney, 3219 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Tex. One count
2d
indictment filed Jan. 19, 1954, charging sale of opium. Two-year
sentence probated 1 year. (P. G.)
Ist ---------------- Robert Lee Barrow, Apt. 203, 5506 Miller, Dallas, Tex. Two-count
indictment filed Jan. 19, 1954, charging possession of cocaine and marihuana. Sentenced to 2 years at Texarkana, Tex. (P. G.)
Roy Carlton Campbell, 7403 Ireland, Dallas, Tex. One-count indict12d-_.
ment filed Jan. 19, 1954, charging passing of forged prescription for
narcotics (cocaine). Two years in Leavenworth. (P. G.)
1st----------Charles Eugene Hamilton, 5111 Live Oak, Dallas, Tex. At time of
offense, resided at 6628 Hillcrest, Dallas. Four-count indictment filed
Jan. 19, 1954, charging sale of marihuana. Two years on counts 2, 3,
and 4 to run consecutively. Appealed. Reversed and remanded by
CCA. Sentence modified to 2 years, probated 2 years. (Also see
13,631 CR.) (P. N. G. Court)
Eddie Stern, address unknown. Charged in count 2 of indictment filed
2d
Jan. 19, 1954. Verdict of acquittal.
1st --------------Joseph Son Hill, 1820 Hawes St., Dallas, Tex. Three-count indictment
filed Jan. 19; 1954 charging sale of marihuana. Three years probated
2 years. (P. N. 0. Jiiry)
1st ---------------- Leon Nicholson, 2350 Balleycastle, Dallas, Tex. One-count indictment
filed Jan. 19, 1954, charging possession dilaudid. Two years and $500
fine, 2 years probated 1 year. (P. G.)
1st ................ Dixie Jay Roach, alias Dixie Batterton, Phillis Hudson, Dixie Ewert;
(Was No.
617 NE 33d, Grand PrIirie, Tex. One-count indictment filed Jan. 19,
billed in 1950).
1954, charging possession dolophine. Two years, Lexington, Ky.
(P. 0.)
3d-.
Sam Shores, 719 W. Jefferson, Dallas, Tex. One-count indictment filed
Jan. 19, 1954, charging possession morphine. Dismissed May 19, 1954.
2d
Forest Wilburn Whidby, 3526 Campbell, Dallas, Tex. Two-count
indictment filed Jan. 19, 1954, charging possession of dilaudid and
marihuana. Two years probated I year. (P. N. 0. Court)
Ist ---------------- Mildred Juanita Adams, alias Peggy Allen, Peggy Vaughn, Mildred J.
Vaughn, 1505 Houston Street, Vernon, Tex. Two-count indictment
filed Jan. 21, 1954, charging sale of heroin. Five-year sentence. Case
appealed. Reversed by CCA; USD0 directed to enter verdict of
acquittal. (P. N. G. Jury)
2d - - - - - - - - Nick, Cammarata, 1554 E. Vermont, Dallas, Tex. One-count indictment filed Jan. 21, 1954, charging possession of marihuana. (Previous
narcotic conviction.) 5-year sentence and fined $500. (Leavenworth)
(P. N. G. Court)
2d
Herman J. L. Griffin, 201 Monaghan Court, Dallas, Tex. One-count
indictment filed Jan. 21, 1954, charging possession marihuana. (Previous conviction.) 5-year sentence, FCI, Seagoville, Tex. (P. G.)
Luke Gross, Jr., 2312 Stoneman, Dallas, Tex. One-count indictment
4th .......
filed Jan. 21, 1954, charging possession of marihuana. (Previous convictions.) 10-year, Leavenworth. (P. N. G. Jury)
1st --------------James Samuel Hall, alias Jimmy Hall. alias Red; 4936 Live Oak, Dallas,
Tex. Two-count indictment filed Jan. 21, 1954, charging sale of heroin.
Two years to run concunently. Appealed. Dismissed Feb. 21, 1955,
by CCA. (P. N. 0. Jury)
2d ---------------- Charles Eugene Hamilton, 5111 Live Oak, Dallas, Tex. (Also see 13,611.).
2d .....
Joseph Manuel Rodriguez, 2305 North Fitzhugh, Dallas, Tex.
Ist ....
- - Gene Hobel, Ambassador Hotel, Dallas, Tex. One-count indictment
filed Jan. 21, 1954, charging possession of Marihuana; dismissed July
17 1954.
2d --------------Darlene Fern Hauer, alias Mickey Myers; 2504 Whitmore Street, Fort
Worth, Tex. One-count indictment filed Jan. 21, 1954, charging
(Ist dismissed
possession of cocaine and morphine; 2 years, Lexington, Ky. (P. G.)
without prosecution)
Wilbur Sidney Howard alias Buster; Carlton Hotel, Dallas, Tex. Two2d --------------count indictment filed Jan. 21, 1954, charging sale of codeine and marihuana. (Previous conviction.) Five years, U. S. P. H. S. H., Fort
Worth, Tex., (P; 0.)
1st ---------------- Earlie Chester'Peterson, 2902 Bethurum Street, Dallas, Tex. Four-count
indictment f1iiJU. 21, 1954, charging sale of marihuana. Two years,
FCr,SeMvfll, Tex. (P. N. G.)
2d ......
Woodie Revis Wade, 3107 Tuskegee Street, Dallas, Tex. Two-count
indictment charging sale of marihuana. (Previous conviction.) Five
years, El Reno, Okla. (P. G.)
3556
*Criminal
No.
IfILI.IT,: NARCQT.CS.: TRAFFIC
Offense
record
Name, alias, address, court action, disposition:
1st............
Leonard Leroy Moore and Betty Joyce Hamilton, 601 East Second,
Irving Tex. One-count indictment filed Jan. 21, 1954, charging possession of morphine. Dismissed as to Hamilton Feb. 12, 1954; dismissed
as to Moore 'May 19, 1954. (P. N. 0. Court)
13,680 1st ---------------- Reggie Robert Stewart, Fair Park Hotel, Dallas, Tex. One count
information filed Apr. 3, 1954, charging possession dilaudid. Two years,
Leavenworth. (P. G.)
13,682 1st ---------------- Buster Brown James, 1727 Forest, Dallas, Tex. One count information
filed Apr. 3, 1954. Two years probated 2 years. Deft. to enter
U. S. P. H. S. H., Fort Worth, and remain until cured, or until 2 y\,erz
expire, or until transferred to another institution. (P. G.)
13,694 1st ------- ---------Charles Washington Baxter, alias Charles Washington Burgess, alias
James Charles Reed, alias Rex Lawrence; Homestead St., Dallas, rTe\.
One-count indictment filed Apr. 23, 1954, charging sale of marihuana.
Transferred to District of Minnesota at St. Paul where on Mar. 28, 1055
he was sentenced to 2 years and fined $200.
13, 695 1st.
Balto Castro, alias Joe Castro; 1208 Sullivan Dr., Dallas, Tex. Three.
count indictment filed Apr. 23, 1954, charging sale and possession of
marihuana. Two years, FCI, Seagoville. (P. 0.)
13,698 1st-------------Danny Allen Davis. 1327 Plymouth Rd., Apt. B, Dallas, Tex. One.
count indictment filed Apr. 23, 1954, charging possession liquid demerol.
Two years, U. S. P. H. S. H., Fort Worth. (P. 0.)
Charles Edwin Harris, alias Eddie; Hamilton Hotel. Two-count indict13, 702 1st --------------ment filed Apr. 23, 1954, charging sale of morphine, sulphate and
dilaudid. Two years U. S. P. H. S. H., Fort Worth. (P. G.)
John L. Johnson. alias Poor Boy; 1309 East Seventh St., Corsicana, Tk.\.
13,705 1st-.
One-count indictment filed Apr. 23, 1954, charging sale of marihuana.
Two years probated 2 years. (P. G.)
13, 707 1st ............... Donovan Michael Kellctt, Liberal, Kans. One-count Indictment filed
Apr. 23, 1954, charging possession codeine. Dismissed Sept. 16, 1954.
Also see 13,804 CR.
2d --------------- Thomas Grady Malone, Fair Park Hotel Dallas Tex. One-count
13,710
indictment filed Apr. 23, 1954, charging possession dilaudid. (Previous
conviction.) Five years, U. S. P. H. S. H. Fort Worth. (P. G.)
13, 715 2d
Thomas Willard Eugene Moore, alias Eugene Willard Moore; 613 2d Ave.,
Dallas, Tex. One-count indictment filed Apr. 23, 1954, charging
possession dilaudid. (Previous conviction.) Five years, Leavenworth
(P. G.)
Henry Burnice Norwood, 2212 Allen, Dallas, Tex. One-count Indict13,716 3d-------------ment filed Apr. 23, 1954 charging possession marihuana. (Previous
conviction.) Ten years, Leavenworth. (P. N. G. Jury.)
Harry Young Noble, 6254 Lakeshore Dr., Dallas, Tex. One-count
13, 717
4th ..............
indictment filed Apr. 23, 1954, charging possession dilaudid. (Previous
conviction.) Ten years, Leavenworth. (P. N. 0. Jury.)
Benjamin Montgomery Sumner, 1715 Eugene St., Dallas, Tex. One13, 722 1st ..............
count indictment filed Apr. 23 1954, charging possession heroin. Two
years, FCI, Texarkana. (P. 6.)
Wendell Odell Stephens, 907 North Justin, Arcadia Park (Dallas), Tex.
13, 724 1st -------------Two-count indictment filed Apr. 23, 1954, charging possession codeine
and marihuana. Two years, U. S. P. H. S. H., Fort Worth. (P. 0.)
13,728 Ist -------------- Hudgen Thomas, alias Boo; 2913 Homestead St., Dallas, Tex. Twocount indictment filed Apr. 23, 1954, charging sale of marihuana; to be
dismissed.
Ralph Hammack, Greenville, Tex.; Homer Whitaker, Route 5 Green13, 729 1st --------------ville, Tex. and Willie McGee, Greenville, Tex. Two count indictment
filed Apr. 23, 1954, charging unlawful production of marihuana and
conspiracy to produce same. Dismissed as to Whitaker and Mcee
May 26,1954. Hammack sentenced to 3 years and $100 fite on count 2;
count 1 dismissed, sentence probated 2 years on condition fine paid
within 30 days. Paid. (P. N. 0. Jury.)
Wendell Hollis Oler Room 607, Ambassador Hotel, Dallas, Tex. One
13, 751 Ist --------------count indictment Aled June 24, 1954, charging possession heroin. Two
years and $100 fine, U. S. P. H. S. H., Fort Worth. (P. G.)
Leonard J. Abernathy, 2810 Troy St., Dallas, Tex. Three-count informia13, 761 1st --------------tion, charging sale of marihuana. Two years, Leavenworth. (P. 0.)
13, 804 2d ---------------- Donovan Michael Kellett, Liberal, Kans. One-count indictment filed
Sept. 8, 1954, charging purchase codeine. Two years. Filed appeal.
Appeal bond forfeited and bench warrant issued to arrest and deliver
to any penitentiary to serve sentence. (P. N. G.)
Carroll Stone, alias Gene; 1911 Cincinnatti St., San Antonio, 'ex.
Eugene
--------------1st
i3,805
(P. N. G. Jury.)
Antonio Cisneros Ayala, alias Tony; 230 Givens, San Antonio, Tex. Two
2d-------------count indictment filed Sept. 8, 1954. Stone sentenced to 2 yearS;
appealed Sept. 14, 1954; case reversed by CCA and remanded July 23,
1955. Ayala sentenced to 2 years, FCI, Seagdvlle, Tex. (Acquisition
of marihuana.) (P. N. G. Jury.)
Tim Smith, alias T. S. Smith; 2101 Clark, Dallas, Tex. Two-count in13,806 Ist.------------dictment filed Sept. 8, 1954, charging sale of paregoric. Two years and
$200 fine; 2 years probated 1 year if fine paid. Paid.
Crawford, alias Bug Eye, Jr., 2404 Clark, Dallas, Tex. Two-count
Archie
--------------Ist
13,807
indictment filed Sept. 8 1954, charging sale of marihuana. Two years,
13, 643
Ist ----------------
(As to each)
Ed1, Seagoville.
13,808 1 1st --------------
(P.
-.
)
Marcus Lee Brown, 500 South Fitzhugh, Dallas, Tex. Two-count indictment filed Sept. 8, 1954, charging sale of paregoric. Two years and
$200 fine, 2 years probated 1 year if fine paid. Paid. (P. G.)
3557

George Wheeler, 2511 Warren, Dallas, Tex. 0 ie count indictment filed
Sept. 8, 1954, charging possession marihuana. Three years, FC,
Seagoville. (P. N. G. July.)
Sylvester Lloyd, 218 North Cliff St., Dallas, Tex. One-count indictment
13,811 1st --------------filed Sept. 8, 1954, charging sale of marihuana. Two years, FCI, Seagoville. (P. N. G. July.)
13,812 3 d -------- -------- Robert Bedford Green, 4715 Reiger Ave., Dallas, Tex. One-count indictment filed Sept. 8, 1954, charging possession heroin. (Previous con(2d was dismissviction.) Five years, U. S. P. H. S. I., Fort Worth. (P. G.)
ed)
Johnie Green, 721 Fairmount, Dallas, Tex. Two-count indictment filed
13,813 1st----------Sept. 8, 104, charging production and possession of marihuana. Two
years probated 1 year condition he does not break lawot: have anything to do with marihuana. (P. N. G. Jury.)
Ennis Randall, 2X39 Ashworth, Dallas, Tex. One-count indictment filed
13,814 1st --------------Sept. 8, 1954, charging possession marihuana. Two years, FCI, Seagoville. (P. N. G. Jury.)
13, 850 4th --------------- Louis Earl Vinson, alias Buster. (Deceased.) Formerly lived at 5329
Ross, Apt. 8, Dallas, Tex. One-count indictment filed Nov. 20, 1954,
charging possession heroin. Dismissed Dec. 22, 1954.
13,851 1st ---------------- Doris Jean Wheeler, alias Pokie. 820 West Tenth, Dallas, Tex. Onecount indictment filed Nov. 20, 1954, charging possession marihuana.
Pending.
William Cicero Wheeler, alias Dub. 705 North Bishop, Dallas, Tex.
13,852 1st --------------One-count indictment filed Nov. 20, 1954, charging possession marihuana. Two years, Leavenworth. Sentenced Jan. 19, 1955. (P. G.)
William Howard Babbitt, alias Bill. 4441 Main, Kansas City, Mo.
13,854 1st
One-count indictment filed Nov. 20, 1954 charging posession marihuana. Sentenced Jan. 11, 1955, to 2 years probated on condition he
reside with his wife at Kansas City. (P. G.)
13, 864 1st ---------------- Sylvester Martin, 3008 Thomas, Dallas, Tex. One count indictment
filed Nov. 20, 1954, charging possession marthuana. Found not guilty
Jan. 11, 1955. (P. N. G. Court.)
13, 881 1st----------Nettle Chadwick Foote, 3017 NW. 21st, Fort Worth, Tex. One-count
indictment filed Jan. 10, 1955, charging possession marihuana. Two
years, Shelby County Penal Farm, Memphis, Tenn. (P. G.)
13,883 2d..............
Robert Leo Parks, alias Nappie. 3215 Hatcher, Dallas, Tex. One count
indictment filed Jan. 10, 1955, charging forging prescription for narcotics
(dilaudid). Eighteen months, FCI, Texarkana. (P. 0.)
13, 884 1st --------------Catherine.Sadler, alias Ann Browning, 2414 Felter, Dallas, Tex. One
count in4ictment filed Jan. 10, 1955, charging forging prescription for
narcotics (dilaudid). Six months probated 1 year. (P. G.)
13,885 1st ---------------- Solomon Letheridge, 1319 Valley, Dallas, Tex. One count indictment
filed Jan. 10, 1955, charging possession marihauna. Two years FCI,
Seagoville. (P. G.)
13,895 1st ............... Preston Adolphus Stephens, 2842 Singleton Blvd, Dallas, Tex. One
count indictment filed Jan. 10, 1955, charging purchase, sale, dispense
narcotics (morphine). Two years U. S. P. H. S. H., Fort Worth.
(P. N. G. Jury)
13,897 2d ---------------- Margie Fay Vinson, 5329 Ross, Apt. 8, Dallas, Tex. One count indictment filed Jan. 10, 1955, charging possession of heroin. (Previous
conviction.)
Five years. Appealed. Appeal dismissed May 19,
1955. U.S. P. H. S. H., Lexington, Ky. (P. N. G. Jury)
13,900 1st ---------------- Thomas Humphrey Marshall, alias Harry 6107 Victor, Dallas, Tex.
One count indictment filed Jan. 11, 1955 charging forging prescription
for narcotics (dolophine hydrochloride). $50 fine and 6 months.
Sentence suspended on condition fine paid and defendant stops drinking. Fine paid. (P. G.)
13,911
George Roscoe Thomasson, alias Doec. 1244 East Marian, Fort Worth.
One count information filed Jan. 28, 1955, charging sale of paregoric.
Two years and $750 fine. Two years probated 1 year on condition
fine paid. Paid. (P. G.)
13,949 1st ...............
Roberto Hernandez, 2205 Wycliff, Dallas, Tex. Four count indictment
filed May 18, 1955 charging sale and possession of heroin. Two years
and $50 fine on each count, Medical Center, Springfield, Mo. (P. 0.)
13, 950 2d_
John Antonio Rodriguez, alias Johnny, alias La Larga. 3508 Howell St.,
Dallas, Tex. Five count indictment filed May 18, 1955, charging sale
of marihuana. (Previous conviction.) Case continued June 13, 1955.
13, 951 2d - - - - - - - - Richard Silva, alias Rip, alias Manuel Flores. 2203 Lovedale, Dallas
Tex. Two count indictment filed May 18 1955, charging sale and
possession heroin. (Previous conviction.) Pending.
13, 955 1st ..............
Harvey Louis Scott, alias Scotty. 5805 Pilgrim Dr., Dallas, Tex. One
count indictment filed May 18, 1955, charging possession marihuana.
Two years-and $100 fine, 2 years probated 1 year. (P. 0.)
13, 961 2dRance, Blackburn, Jr., alias Billy Rance, alias Rance Jackson. 2043
North Prairie, Dallas, Tex. Two count indictment filed May 18, 1955,
charging"sale and possession of marihuana. (Previous conviction.)
P end ing. -13, 964, 4th ..............
John E. Miller, ,address unknown. Eight-count indictment filed May
18, 1955, charging sale and possession of heroin. Dismissed June 15, 1955.
13, 968 4th ..............
Julian Castro, alias Rabbit. 2728 Peabody, Dallas, Tex. One count
indictment charging- possession. of heroin. (Previous conviction.)
Ten years and $1 fine, Leavenworth. (P. G.)
13,809
1st ---------------

1955 Senate Illict Drug Trafficking Texas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1955 Senate Illict Drug Trafficking Texas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

(AUSTIN, DALLAS, FORT WORTH, HOUSTON, AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENTS IN THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin

THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL

PRICE DANIEL, Texas, Chairman

Adams, Jerry James, Houston, Tex -----------------------2796, 2810

Howerton, Roland R., assistant chief of police, Fort Worth, Tex.;

Reese, Shirley Orlowski, San Antonio, Tex., accompanied by James

Photograph and description of Alfonso Cavazos, prepared by Austin

Supplemental Summary of Narcotics and Marihuana Cases, Laredo

Statement of Heard L. Floore, United States attorney, Northern District

Recommendations on proposed narcotic legislation of the Texas Police

ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

OCTOBER 12, 1955

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOM ITTEE ON IMPROVE3ENTS

IN THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE OF THE

ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

I would not say that Austin is a city which is confronted with an

ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

Senator DANIEL. Thank you, Congressman Thornberry. Sit with

ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

Colonel GARRISON. It is extremely gratifying to note the obvious

I would like to emphasize that of the 1,800 narcotic addicts revealed

every law enforcement officer appearing in the New York hearing

Colonel GARRISON. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. That is the absolute minimum ?

simply the age-old spoils of crime-profit. Perhaps you would be

Colonel GARRISON. Very inadequate.

ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

Colonel GARRISON. That is correct, absolutely correct.

operation from the officials in Mexico in stopping this traffic?

spirit and relationship in everything, to work together on this. We

Dr. OSCAR RABASA,

ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

Pi icx DANIEL, Chairman.

MEXICO CITY, MEXICO,

October 11, 1955.

Senator PRICE )ANIEL,

PROCURADOR GENERAL DE LA REPUBLICA,

Mexico, D. F.. a 4 de Octubre de 1955.

United States Senate,

ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

en la campafia permanente que reliza y seguirA realizando para combatir el

MEXICO CITY, October 4, 1955.

Senator DarneL. Now, do you have anything else to suggest to the

ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

Senator DANIEL. Now, I believe you have in your organization Mr.

Senator DANIEL. Senator Butler, do you have any other questions?

Mr. TURNER. In Austin, Tex., 640 Tillery.

Senator DANIEL. To what form of narcotics were you addicted?

Mr. TURNER. Both of them.

ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

Senator DANIEL. You have been to the Lexington Hospital and to

Senator DANIEL. How many times?