Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525509
label
Ford Press Releases - Assassination of the President Legislation, 1965
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525509
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Assassination of the President Legislation, 1965
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Legislation
Presidential assassinations
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525509
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1965-05-31
month
5
year
1965
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1965-05-01
month
5
year
1965
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
3f8abf03522bbfde
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D6, folder "Ford Press Releases - Assassination
of the President Legislation, 1965" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and
Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D6 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Rep. Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich.), House Minority Leader, will
testify at a Judiciary subcommittee hearing Wednesday, May 26,
in Room 2141 Rayburn Building on proposed legislation that would
make the assassination, or attempted assassination, of the Pres-
ident and Vice President a federal crime.
Ford is scheduled to begin his testimony at approximately
10:15 a.m.
STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE GERALD R FORD
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
Re: Legislation to make the
assassination of the President
a Federal crime
May 26, 1965
Mr. Chairman,
The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy,
on which the previous witness, my good friend Representative Hale Boggs,
and I were privileged to serve, found that "there was no Federal criminal
jurisdiction over the assassination of President Kennedy." (Report, p. 454.)
This fact was dramatically demonstrated to the Commission when we
heard testimony concerning activities at the hospital following the President's
death. When it was proposed to transfer his body to Washington, local
officials insisted that certain papers be filled out and that an autopsy
be performed within the State in which the death occurred.
This would have meant a delay of hours or possibly days at a time
when the Presidential party was trying to return as quickly as possible
to Washington, both for the safety of President Johnson and for the
comfort of Mrs. Kennedy.
Presidential staff members who were present decided that they would
proceed to remove the body from the hospital without permission of local
or State officials. We were told that as the casket was being wheeled
through the hall one of the local officials shouted very loudly, "You
can't do that; you can't leave here now." Notwithstanding this insistence,
the casket was hurried into an ambulance and driven to the airfield.
This embarrassing and disagreeable scene could have been avoided had
the legislation which we are considering today been in effect. It seems to
me that this is one, but only one, of the reasons why the assassination, or
the attempted assassination, of the President should be made a Federal crime.
In the course of my participation and the extensive investigation by
the Warren Commission into the assassination of President Kennedy, it became
clear that such legislation was long overdue and would produce several
significant advantages.
PRESENT LAW
Under present law, it is a Federal offense to deposit in the mails any
letter or other document containing a threat, or otherwise to make any
threat, against the President, the Vice-President, or other officer next
-2-
in order of succession to the office of the President, the President-elect,
or the Vice-President-elect. (18 U.S.C. 871.) It is also a Federal crime
to conspire to injure any Federal officer, on account of, or while he is
engaged in, the lawful discharge of the duties of his office. (18 U.S.C. 372.)
In addition, to advocate the overthrow of the Government by the assassination
of its officers is a Federal offense. (18 U.S.C. 2385.) But a direct attack
upon the President, or even his murder, has never been as such a crime under
Federal law. That is to say, unless there has been a conspiracy, or
an advocacy of the overthrow of the Government, there is no Federal
jurisdiction, so that, as the Warren Report concluded, once it
became reasonably clear that the killing was the act of a single person,
the State of Texas had exclusive jurisdiction." (Report, p. 454.)
The murder of numerous other Federal officials has long been a
Federal crime. Section 1114 of Title 18 of the United States Code makes
it a Federal offense to kill Federal Judges, U.S. Attorneys and Marshals,
and many other specifically designated officials, while engaged in, or on
account of, the performance of their official duties.
It should be noted that in all these cases, there is a Federal offense
only if the official has been killed while engaged in, or on account of,
the performance of his official duties. This "line of duty" requirement is
probably necessary for the exercise of Federal jurisdiction as to such
officials, but the courts have been fairly liberal in interpreting what
conduct falls within this provision of the statute. There have also been
several cases under this and a parallel statue, holding that it is not
even necessary for the offender to know that the victim was a Federal
officer engaged in the performance of his official duties, but the
majority rule and the sounder view, seems to be that such knowledge is
essential to show a Federal offense.
BASIS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION
The basic reason for making the assassination of the President a
Federal crime is that essentially it is an offense against the United States
Government, in two important respects. First, grave injury is done to the
functioning of the Government, which may threaten the welfare of the
entire country. As Senator George F.Hoar put it over 60 years ago in
Congressional debate on a similar bill:
"
What this bill means to punish is the crime of interruption
of the Government of the United States and the destruction of its
-3-
security by striking down the life of the person who is actually in
the exercise of the executive power, or of such persons as have been
constitutionally and lawfully provided to succeed thereto in case of
a vacancy. It is important to this country that the interruption
shall not take place for an hour " (35 Cong. Rec. 2431 (1902),
quoted in Report, pp. 455-56.)
That such interruption may cause grave anxiety is amply demonstrated by
the tense hours the nation experienced in November of 1963, and also by
the concern over the health of President Johnson and Speaker McCormack
until the office of Vice-President was filled again.
Secondly, in most cases, the reason for such attacks is anger at the
manner in which the President performs his official functions, or hostility
toward the office of President or the United States Government or the
American system of democracy. It is certainly the concern of the Federal
Government to try to prevent, to guard against, and to punish criminal conduct
performed out of such motivation.
ADVANTAGES
The change in the present law that would be affected by the proposed
legislation would produce several significant advantages.
Primary responsibility and final authority for the investigation
and prosecution of any attacks on the life of the President would be
placed in the hands of Federal authorities. The actual investigation of
offenses covered by the statute would be conducted by Federal law enforcement
officials; particularly the FBI, with the assistance of the Secret Service.
Where the assistance of State or local agencies proved necessary or
desirable, it would be under the direction of the Federal agencies involved.
This would ensure that resources and facilities of the Federal agencies
would be immediately available for a complete and thorough investigation.
"At present, Federal agencies participate only upon the sufference of the
local authorities." (Report, P. 456.) In addition, clear Federal jurisdiction
would minimize the possibility of embarrassment or conflict in dealing with
local authorities, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover testified before the Warren
Commission that, at the time of President Kennedy's assassination, "
the
failure to have jurisdiction was extremely embarrassing," (V Hearings, 115)
and lead to confusion in the subsequent investigation by Federal and
local authorities. (Report, P. 546.) In addition, the Commission
itself experienced some difficulty in its work, for example, the
-4-
unauthorized and premature release of documents and information, which
might have been prevented, had Federal authorities been in control.
The threat to the national security of the United States, when the
President has been assassinated, may be very serious, The careful
assessment of this danger, and taking of whatever steps may be necessary,
will be greatly facilitated by allowing the Federal Government to
supervise all stages of the investigation and handling of the case.
In particular, as Secret Service Chief James J. Rowley pointed out (Comm.
Ex. 1030; vol. XVIII, PP. 830-31), the possibility of a conspiracy and
any further threat to the President should be explored and eliminated as
quickly as possible. This is the particular concern of the Federal
agencies which have general responsibility for the President's protection.
If it should ever become necessary, the Federal Government could
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the entire investigation, so that
information obtained could be kept confidential until its reliability
and significance could be fully determined, thus preventing unfcunded
rumors and unnecessary public confusion.
The detention and protection of any suspects would, under the proposed
legislation, be the responsibility of Federal law enforcement officers.
Mr. Hoover testified before the Commission that "If we had had jurisdiction,
we would have taken custody of him (Oswald) and I do not believe he would
have been killed by Rubenstein." (V Hearings, 115.) As he stated,
"
the killing of Oswald has created a great fog of speculation that will
go on for years, because of the things that Oswald might have been able
to tell which would have been of assistance in pinning down various
phases of this matter." As one of our most capable law enforcement agencies,
the FBI could do much to ensure the safety of possible defendants.
Furthermore, the fact of Federal custody would ensure that the
questioning of the suspect would be under the direction of Federal
authorities. In Dallas, FBI and Secret Service agents did not have
control over the questioning of Oswald, and at times were merely observers;
they were not even present when the interrogation of Oswald began. As
Chief Curry admitted, the conditions in the Dallas jail were hardly
conducive to effective questioning. (Report, p. 200.) In addition,
J. Edgar Hoover pointed out that if some of the evidence had been kept
secret and Oswald had been confronted with it in his intermogation, he
might have broken and confessed. (V Hearings, 116.) Finally, the
-5-
facilities of the FBI would have made it more likely that recordings or
transcripts of the interrogation sessions would have been made.
The procedures and practice of the Federal agencies would also be
well calculated to protect the legal rights of any suspect. It is the
practice of the FBI, Mr. Hoover testified, to inform every prisoner of
his right to remain silent and to have an attorney; he is also examined
by a reputable local physician both before and after his questioning.
(V Hearings, 116.) Federal law requires that when a person is arrested
he be brought before a commissioner promptly; " in a case like Oswald's,
(this) would probably have been done within 4 or 5 hours." (V Hearings, 116.)
In addition, it is highly unlikely under Federal procedures that a suspect's
right to a fair trial would be prejudiced by the release of incorrect or
inadmissible information. Last April, the Attorney General issued a
statement of policy concerning the release of information by personnel
of the Department of Justice relating to criminal proceedings. (28 C.F.R. 50.2.)
Under the guidelines there established, much of the information which might
have unfairly prejudiced a jury against Oswald would never have been released.
As it was, much unreliable and actually false information was announced
by local officials in frequent press conferences. Mr. Hoover testified that
he was so concerned that he asked his agent in charge in Dallas to personally
go to Chief Curry and insist that he not go on the air any more until
the case was resolved. (V Hearings, 115.) As he explained, "We have
always adopted the policy in the Bureau of no comment until we have the
warrant and make the arrest. Then a release is prepared briefly stating
what the facts are, what the written complaint says
and that ends it."
(Ibid.) Finally, the Federal courts may take measures to protect the
defendant from undue publicity. Under Rule 21 (a) of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure, "if the court is satisfied that there exists in
the district or division where the prosecution is pending so great a
prejudice against the defendant that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial
trial in that district or division," the court must transfer the proceeding
to another district or division. The court is also empowered, within its
discretion, to grant a continuance of the trial or to impanel a new set of
jurors.
SUPPORT FOR THE LEGISLATION
The Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of
President Kennedy recommended that Congress adopt legislation which would
-6-
make the assassination of the President, the Vice-President or other person
next in order of succession, the President-elect, or the Vice-President-elect,
a Federal crime. (Report, p. 26; cf. p. 455.) The Director of the FBI,
J. Edgar Hoover, strongly supports such legislation. (Report, p.456;
V Hearings 115; Comm. Ex. 866, vol. XVII, p. 860.) The Chief of the
Secret Service, James J. Rowley, equally favors this recommendation.
(V Hearings, P. 483; Comm. Ex. 1030, vol. XVIII, p. 830.)
FORM OF THE LEGISLATION
Without going into the particular provisions of the bills before the
committee, I would like to indicate the areas I think the legislation
should cover. The precise form of the final bill will depend on the extent
to which these purposes require modification of the existing laws.
The bill should cover the President, Vice-President or other person
next in order of succession, the President-elect, the Vice-President-elect,
and any person lawfully acting as President. This would eliminate the
need for any "line of duty" restriction, since "the activities of the
victim at the time an assassination occurs and the motive for the assassination
bear no relationship to the injury to the United States which follows
from the act." (Report, p. 455.) (In the Senate-House conference on
the 1902 bill, which was not passed, it was agreed no such restriction was
needed for the President or Vice-President. (36 Cong. Rec. 2407 (1902),
cited in Report, P. 852, n. 222.) The same reasoning should eliminate
any requirement that the offender know that his victim is one of the
officers within the bill: the harm to the United States is the same;
also, it may be impossible to tell for some time whether the attacker
knew the identity of his victim, and Federal jurisdiction should not be
questioned because of this uncertainty.
The legislation should cover not only premeditated murder, but
also any killing or assault or kidnaping, or any attempt or conspiracy
to commit any of these acts, since they also present serious danger to
the functioning of the Government and the welfare of the country.
The punishment provided for offenses under this statute should be
modeled on the general Federal murder and manslaughter penalties (18 U.S.C.
1111, 1112), which are also applicable to the present statute protecting
Federal officers (18 U.S.C. 1114). For kidnaping, it would be desirable
to provide an optional death penalty if the victim is not returned alive.
For assault, of course, the penalty need not be so severe; it could be
-7-
modeled on the general statute against assault on Federal officers (18 U.S.C.
111), and should provide a more serious penalty for the use of a dangerous
weapon, as does that statute.
There is already a general provision whereby the Attorney General may
grant rewards of up to $25,000 for information leading to the arrest or
conviction (or death in course of apprehension) of persons violating
the laws of the United States or any State. (18 U.S.C. 3059.) The
committee may wish to authorize larger rewards for the present legislation,
but it seems unnecessary to make the Attorney General's discretion in
this matter unreviewable. It may also be advisable to make local, State
and Federal officers and employees eligible for such rewards, so that
they may be compensated in appropriate cases.
The legislation should also provide authority for the Federal Government
to exercise exclusive jurisdiction for offenses under this statute, wherever
it decides this is advisable, at the discretion of the President or his
successor, or the Attorney General.
STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE GERALD R FORD
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
Re: Legislation to make the
assassination of the President
a Federal crime
May 26, 1965
Mr. Chairman,
The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy,
on which the previous witness, my good friend Representative Hale Boggs,
and I were privileged to serve, found that "there was no Federal criminal
jurisdiction over the assassination of President Kennedy." (Report, P. 454.)
This fact was dramatically demonstrated to the Commission when we
heard testimony concerning activities at the hospital following the President's
death. When it was proposed to transfer his body to Washington, local
officials insisted that certain papers be filled out and that an autopsy
be performed within the State in which the death occurred.
This would have meant a delay of hours or possibly days at a time
when the Presidential party was trying to return as quickly as possible
to Washington, both for the safety of President Johnson and for the
comfort of Mrs. Kennedy.
Presidential staff members who were present decided that they would
proceed to remove the body from the hospital without permission of local
or State officials. We wer Told that as the casket was being wheeled
through the hall one of the local officials shouted very loudly, "You
can't do that; you can't leave here now." Notwithstanding this insistence,
the casket was hurried into an ambulance and driven to the airfield.
This embarrascing and disagreeable scene could have been avoided had
the legislation which we are considering today been in effect. It seems to
me that this is one, but only one, of the reasons why the assassination, or
the attempted assassination, of the President should be made a Federal crime.
In the course of my participation and the extensive investigation by
the Warren Commission into the assassination of President Kennedy, it became
clear that such legislation was long overdue and would produce several
significant advantages.
PRESENT LAW
Under present law, it is a Federal offense to deposit in the mails any
letter or other document containing a threat, or otherwise to make any
threat, against the President, the Vice-President, or other officer next
GERALD FORD LIBRAR,
-2-
in order of succession to the office of the President, the President-elect,
or the Vice-President-elect. (18 U.S.C. 871.) It is also a Federal crime
to conspire to injure any Federal officer, on account of, or while he is
engaged in, the lawful discharge of the duties of his office. (18 U.S.C. 372.)
In addition, to advocate the overthrow of the Government by the assassination
of its officers is a Federal offense. (18 U.S.C. 2385.) But a direct attack
upon the President, or even his murder, has never been as such a crime under
Federal law. That is to say, unless there has been a conspiracy, or
an advocacy of the overthrow of the Government, there is no Federal
jurisdiction, so that, as the Warren Report concluded, "...once it
became reasonably clear that the killing was the act of a single person,
the State of Texas had exclusive jurisdiction." (Report, p. 454.)
The murder of numerous other Federal officials has long been a
Federal crime. Section 1114 of Title 18 of the United States Code makes
it a Federal offense to kill Federal Judges, U.S. Attorneys and Marshals,
and many other specifically designated officials, while engaged in, or on
account of, the performance of their official duties.
It should be noted that in all these cases, there is a Federal offense
only if the official has been killed while engaged in, or on account of,
the performance of his official duties. This "line of duty" requirement is
probably necessary for the exercise of Federal jurisdiction as to such
officials, but the courts have been fairly liberal in interpreting what
conduct falls within this provision of the statute. There have also been
several cases under this and a parallel statue, holding that it is not
even necessary for the offender to know that the victim was a Federal
officer engaged in the performance of his official duties, but the
majority rule and the sounder view, seems to be that such knowledge is
essential to show a Federal offense.
BASIS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION
The basic reason for making the assassination of the President a
Federal crime is that essentially it is an offense against the United States
Government, in two important respects. First, grave injury is done to the
functioning of the Government, which may threaten the welfare of the
entire country. As Senator George F.Hoar put it over 60 years ago in
Congressional debate on a similar bill:
" What this bill means to punish is the crime of interruption
of the Government of the United States and the destruction of its
-3-
security by striking down the life of the person who is actually in
the exercise of the executive power, or of such persons as have been
constitutionally and lawfully provided to succeed thereto in case of
a vacancy. It is important to this country that the interruption
shall not take place for an hour...."
(35 Cong. Rec. 2431 (1902),
quoted in Report, pp. 455-56.)
That such interruption may cause grave anxiety is amply demonstrated by
the tense hours the nation experienced in November of 1963, and also by
the concern over the health of President Johnson and Speaker McCormack
until the office of Vice-President was filled again.
Secondly, in most cases, the reason for such attacks is anger at the
manner in which the President performs his official functions, or hostility
toward the office of President or the United States Government or the
American system of democracy. It is certainly the concern of the Federal
Government to try to prevent, to guard against, and to punish criminal conduct
performed out of such motivation.
ADVANTAGES
The change in the present law that would be affected by the proposed
legislation would produce several significant advantages.
Primary responsibility and final authority for the investigation
and prosecution of any attacks on the life of the President would be
placed in the hands of Federal authorities. The actual investigation of
offenses covered by the statute would be conducted by Federal law enforcement
officials; particularly the FBI, with the assistance of the Secret Service.
Where the assistance of State or local agencies proved necessary or
desirable, it would be under the direction of the Federal agencies involved.
This would ensure that resources and facilities of the Federal agencies
would be immediately available for a complete and thorough investigation.
"At present, Federal agencies participate only upon the sufference of the
local authorities.' (Report, p. 456.) In addition, clear Federal jurisdiction
would minimize the possibility of embarrassment or conflict in dealing with
local authorities, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover testified before the Warren
Commission that, at the time of President Kennedy's assassination, " the
failure to have jurisdiction was extremely embarrassing," (V Hearings, 115)
and le to confusion in the subsequent investigation by Federal and
local authorities. (Report, p. 546.) In addition, the Commission
itself experienced some difficulty in its work, for example, the
-4-
unauthorized and premature release of documents and information, which
might have been prevented, had Federal authorities been in control.
The threat to the national security of the United States, when the
President has been assassinated, may be very serious. The careful
assessment of this danger, and taking of whatever steps may be necessary,
will be greatly facilitated by allowing the Federal Government to
supervise all stages of the investigation and handling of the case.
In particular, as Secret Service Chief James J. Rowley pointed out (Comm.
Ex. 1030; vol. XVIII, PP. 830-31), the possibility of a conspiracy and
any further threat to the President should be explored and eliminated as
quickly as possible. This is the particular concern of the Federal
agencies which have general responsibility for the President's protection.
If it should ever become necessary, the Federal Government could
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the entire investigation, so that
information obtained could be kept confidential until its reliability
and significance could be fully determined, thus preventing unfcunded
rumors and unnecessary public confusion.
The detention and protection of any suspects would, under the proposed
legislation, be the responsibility of Federal law enforcement officers.
Mr. Hoover testified before the Commission that "If we had had jurisdiction,
we would have taken custody of him (Oswald) and I do not believe he would
have been killed by Rubenstein." (V Hearings, 115.) As he stated,
"
the killing of Oswald has created a great fog of speculation that will
go on for years, because of the things that Oswald might have been able
to tell which would have been of assistance in pinning down various
phases of this matter." As one of our most capable law enforcement agencies,
the FBI could do much to ensure the safety of possible defendants.
Furthermore, the fact of Federal custody would ensure that the
questioning of the suspect would be under the direction of Federal
authorities. In Dallas, FBI and Secret Service agents did not have
control over the questioning of Oswald, and at times were merely observers;
they were not even present when the interrogation of Oswald began. As
Chief Curry admitted, the conditions in the Dallas jail were hardly
conducive to effective questioning. (Report, p. 200.) In addition,
J. Edgar Hoover pointed out that if some of the evidence had been kept
secret and Oswald had been confronted with it in his intermogation, he
might have broken and confessed. (V Hearings, 116.) Finally, the
-5-
facilities of the FBI would have made it more likely that recordings or
transcripts of the interrogation sessions would have been made.
The procedures and practice of the Federal agencies would also be
well calculated to protect the legal rights of any suspect. It is the
practice of the FBI, Mr. Hoover testified, to inform every prisoner of
his right to remain silent and to have an attorney; he is also examined
by a reputable local physician both before and after his questioning.
(V Hearings, 116.) Federal law requires that when a person is arrested
he be brought before a commissioner promptly; in a case like Oswald's,
(this) would probably have been done within 4 or 5 hours." (V Hearings, 116.)
In addition, it is highly unlikely under Federal procedures that a suspect's
right to a fair trial would be prejudiced by the release of incorrect or
inadmissible information. Last April, the Attorney General issued a
statement of policy concerning the release of information by personnel
of the Department of Justice relating to criminal proceedings. (28 C.F.R. 50.2.)
Under the guidelines there established, much of the information which might
have unfairly prejudiced a jury against Oswald would never have been released.
As it was, much unreliable and actually false information was announced
by local officials in frequent press conferences. Mr. Hoover testified that
he was so concerned that he asked his agent in charge in Dallas to personally
go to Chief Curry and insist that he not go on the air any more until
the case was resolved. (V Hearings, 115.) As he explained, "We have
always adopted the policy in the Bureau of no comment until we have the
warrant and make the arrest. Then a release is prepared briefly stating
what the facts are, what the written complaint says, and that ends it."
(Ibid.) Finally, the Federal courts may take measures to protect the
defendant from undue publicity. Under Rule 21 (a) of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure, "if the court is satisfied that there exists in
the district or division where the prosecution is pending so great a
prejudice against the defendant that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial
trial in that district or division," the court must transfer the proceeding
to another district or division. The court is also empowered, within its
discretion, to grant a continuance of the trial or to impanel a new set of
jurors.
SUPPORT FOR THE LEGISLATION
The Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of
President Kennedy recommended that Congress adopt legislation which would
-6-
make the assassination of the President, the Vice-President or other person
next in order of succession, the President-elect, or the Vice-President-elect,
a Federal crime. (Report, P. 26; cf. p. 455.) The Director of the FBI,
J. Edgar Hoover, strongly supports such legislation. (Report, p.456;
V Hearings 115; Comm. Ex. 866, vol. XVII, p. 860.) The Chief of the
Secret Service, James J. Rowley, equally favors this recommendation.
(V Hearings, p. 483; Comm. Ex. 1030, vol. XVIII, p. 830.)
FORM OF THE LEGISLATION
Without going into the particular provisions of the bills before the
committee, I would like to indicate the areas I think the legislation
should cover. The precise form of the final bill will depend on the extent
to which these purposes require modification of the existing laws.
The bill should cover the President, Vice-President or other person
next in order of succession, the President-elect, the Vice-President-elect,
and any person lawfully acting as President. This would eliminate the
need for any "line of duty" restriction, since "the activities of the
victim at the time an assassination occurs and the motive for the assassination
bear no relationship to the injury to the United States which follows
from the act." (Report, P. 455.) (In the Senate-House conference on
the 1902 bill, which was not passed, it was agreed no such restriction was
needed for the President or Vice-President. (36 Cong. Rec. 2407 (1902),
cited in Report, P. 852, n. 222.) The same reasoning should eliminate
any requirement that the offender know that his victim is one of the
officers within the bill: the harm to the United States is the same;
also, it may be impossible to tell for some time whether the attacker
knew the identity of his victim, and Federal jurisdiction should not be
questioned because of this uncertainty.
The legislation should cover not only premeditated murder, but
also any killing or assault or kidnaping, or any attempt or conspiracy
to commit any of these acts, since they also present serious danger to
the functioning of the Government and the welfare of the country.
The punishment provided for offenses under this statute should be
modeled on the general Federal murder and manslaughter penalties (18 U.S.C.
1111, 1112), which are also applicable to the present statute protecting
Federal officers (18 U.S.C. 1114). For kidnaping, it would be desirable
to provide an optional death penalty if the victim is not returned alive.
For assault, of course, the penalty need not be so severe; it could be
-7-
modeled on the general statute against assault on Federal officers (18 U.S.C.
111), and should provide a more serious penalty for the use of a dangerous
weapon, as does that statute.
There is already a general provision whereby the Attorney General may
grant rewards of up to $25,000 for information leading to the arrest or
conviction (or death in course of apprehension) of persons violating
the laws of the United States or any State. (18 U.S.C. 3059.) The
committee may wish to authorize larger rewards for the present legislation,
but it seems unnecessary to make the Attorney General's discretion in
this matter unreviewable. It may also be advisable to make local, State
and Federal officers and employees eligible for such rewards, so that
they may be compensated in appropriate cases.
The legislation should also provide authority for the Federal Government
to exercise exclusive jurisdiction for offenses under this statute, wherever
it decides this is advisable, at the discretion of the President or his
successor, or the Attorney General.
##########