ii/Mum •r ***»»* several %ta»e control measures being Qontidered by the Congress the current controversy g T «r preventive detention provisions 'contained therein yoently caused me to intro duce a bill to attack the prob |ms caused* by delayed crim- W trials by requiring that fcrsoos charged with offenses the United States *■« fc«ve a speedy trial as y«nteed by the Sixth Amendment. > In introducing the “Speedy Trial Act of 1870,” I recognize Shat preventive detention, y»ich I abhor, is a reaction fc the steadily worsening abil. ity of our criminal justice yrtem to cope with the de *n«uls placed upon it In the »®dem era. Greater num bera of defendant*, greater rates of .crime, longer delays fa trial and appeal, assembly line justice, inadequate staff ibg of courts and supporting (Personnel, and a tragic and disgraceful corrections sys tem—these are among the serious difficulties which be set our criminal justice sys tem. i ®rr my judgment, however, detention will not eure the ills besetting our ju dicial system. What it will do Is paper over the decay of the courts, and hide ills which must be remedied. It will enable us to operate much as we have in the pest, because the fruits erf this crisis will be hidden from our eyes. .De fendants will languish unseen fir jails awaiting trials that will be ever longer in com fif if we continue our fail ure to face the true problems #nd to propose serious means solve them. If we adopt preventive detention as the panacea, I fear that we will b*ve yet another excuse to ignore the hard work that snust be done to reform our courts. All the manifestations of our failures—delayed trials,