Appellants were convicted, on strong evidence, of housebreaking, defined in 22 D.C.Code § 1801, and were sentenced under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5010(c) (1958). The only contention for reversal which we need discuss is that at their preliminary hearing before the United States Commissioner appellants were without counsel or adequate advice with respect to counsel. It is the Commissioner’s duty and in some circumstances it may be essential to the validity of a subsequent conviction, to afford indigent accused who are without counsel the assistance of counsel at the preliminary hearing, if desired, and to advise of the availability of counsel. 1 The absence of such assistance and adviee, however, does not necessarily invalidate a subsequent conviction *348 at trial after indictment. 2 3 In these cases no evidence in the nature of a confession or of any other character was adduced at the preliminary hearing and used at the trial. And we can find no basis in the record for an informed speculation that the trial itself was in any way prejudicially affected by the absence of counsel at the preliminary hearing.

Affirmed.