Mr. WOLVERTON. If I interpret your answer correctly, you would, under present conditions, be here opposing the enactment of any such law?

Mr. SCHULTZ. If such a law were before you today, my answers would be the same, whether I would be here or not, if that is what you mean. If that were a law being considered today, I would have to urge upon you the same things I am urging now.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Having in mind the different elements or qualifications that enter into the forming of your opinion with respect to the one-arm bandit machine, if there was a bill before us today that fixed a license fee recoverable by the Internal Revenue Office, in the sum of $2,000, $5,000, or any other amount, that would have the effect of diminishing the use of these machines, or maybe the elimination of them, you would oppose that legislation, would you not?

Mr. SCHULTZ. If that were the sole purpose of it, Mr. Wolverton, I would oppose it simply on the same basis that I am opposing this legislation; that is, because it is aimed at exactly the same thing, that is, the elimination of one item.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Well, do you mean to take the position that until our several States in their entirety, or our Federal Government in its sphere of jurisdiction, has eliminated all crime, or what would be considered crime, by the enactment of such a statute, that you are opposed to the enactment of any criminal statute?

Mr. SCHULTZ. No; I am not, Mr. Wolverton. I am making the same distinction that I made with Mr. Wilson; that is, when you approach one sin, if that is what you think it is, then I think you ought to be sure that you cure the whole sin.

Mr. WOLVERTON. What do you mean by the whole sin?

Mr. SCHULTZ. I do not see any comparison between the question of stealing automobiles or narcotics or the illegal transportation of women. Again, if you divide that down-if you can only cover Buick automobiles; if you only put morphine out of that one class, and if you only cover Chinese women, you would not accomplish your object. Mr. WOLVERTON. I am not speaking from the standpoint of whether we would or would not accomplish our object. I am trying to ascertain the basis of a code of morals that seems to actuate some citizens of this great country of ours in openly expressing the opinion that a statute of this kind, whereby a situation such as has been described as a crime in 43 of our States, should not be enacted, because we have not struck at all sources of crime. I cannot understand that, if I have correctly interpreted your remarks.

Mr. SCHULTZ. Well, if you have interpreted them on the basis that you would stop all 5-cent items for slot machines, but permit all items of a dollar, because the poor could not get a dollar, I would think you had not touched the moral aspect of it at all.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I probably would agree with you, but that is not what we are doing here. That is not the objective of this bill. We are directing our attention to a practice which has been declared illegal in 43 States of the Union, and the question is whether the Federal Government shall do anything to assist those 43 States in the objective that is set forth in their statutes-and you say "No." Is that because five States have not done it, or because we have not named every kind of a gambling device? What is the basis of your position? I have listened to you very intently. I listened to Mr.

Jennings, and I listened to one or two more, and I just cannot understand your viewpoint from the standpoint of what I term "good citizenship," and responsibility to recognize law, whether we like it or whether we do not like the particular law.

Mr. SCHULTZ. I think your last point, at least in my thinking, has been most prominent, Mr. Wolverton. "We should always obey a law, if it is there, no matter what it is, or how oppressive."

Let me tell you, that was the argument of King George, after the Boston Tea Party.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I still do not understand your point, I am sorry. Mr. SCHULTZ. I am sorry, too.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Do you consider gambling by means of slot machines, called by some one-arm bandits, morally wrong?

Mr. SCHULTZ. If I go in tomorrow to a place where there is a onearm bandit and I pick out that nickel and put it in and watch what comes up and walk away, I feel no disgrace.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I am asking this question, leading to another question, to determine, if I can, just what is your basic thought. I ask the question again, not whether you would consider the playing of a one-arm bandit a disgrace, I am asking you the question firstDo you consider it morally wrong?

Mr. SCHULTZ. No. I do not want to say a thing here that could be misinterpreted. If you ask me if I like sea food, I can say "Yes" or I could say "No," because there are lots of sea foods that I am very fond of and lots of them I do not like.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I never had heard of sea food coming within the description of one-arm bandits, so for that reason I do not follow you.

I am talking about one-arm bandits, not sea food. Now, answer my next question, if you will.

You have given a very direct answer to my question. You have said "No," that you did not consider it morally wrong. I assumed that you would say it. I assume that a great many people would be of that opinion. I am not expressing my own opinions, I just want to get the basis of your thought.

Now, if the State, on the theory that it considers it morally wrong, or for other reasons, passes a statute that prohibits the use of one-arm bandits, would it then be wrong for you to play the machine in violation of the State law?

Mr. SCHULTZ. It must not be, because I go to carnivals, I go to baseball games, I go to many places that have things that are, in my opinion, exactly like a one-arm bandit. Yes, I play them; and I do not feel that I am morally wrong.

Now, therefore, if you ask me whether by simply putting a nickel in the one-arm bandit, I feel morally wrong, and by playing the paddlewheel I feel morally right, the answer is "No."

Mr. WOLVERTON. What is your position, then, with respect to recognizing law?

Mr. SCHULTZ. I say that we are human beings, all of us. There is a law in every State with respect to speed, and I want to see just one man in this country who has never violated a law.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Then until somebody has never violated a speeding law, you would not favor or believe that there was any obligation.

on you to respect as a citizen of a particular State the speed laws of that State?

Mr. SCHULTZ. Exactly. I would say just what I said before. I think there ought to be a speed law as far as the protection of the individual State is concerned. But I do not think that if I went into Kentucky, which has a 60-mile speed law, that I would feel that I was doing wrong if I went 62 miles an hour, nor would I feel that way because I came from Illinois that has no such restriction.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I will not enter into a discussion with you along that line, because that is not the basis of what I have in mind. I am seeking to find out what the basis of your position is.

I ask you again the question: Do you, as a citizen of a State, recognize your obligation to observe a statute that the legislature of that State, as representatives of the people, has designated to be a crime? Mr. SCHULTZ. I will take one law, and tell you, so far as the speed law is concerned, I violate it many times, when I do, I do not think I have done anybody, including any State, any harm.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I do not suppose I would be justified in taking any further time in pressing the point, because I am talking about one-arm bandits and you are talking about speed laws. I do not see the relationship between the two. I am trying to get before your mind what I consider to be the duty of a citizen when a State legislature, because of the moral question involved, or because of the tendency to create graft in public officials at times, or because of the effect it has on families, as pointed out by Mr. Wilson, in its judgment, speaking for the people of the State, says, "You shall not operate a slot machine."

Do you take the position that because that State has not designated everything that is criminal or immoral, that, therefore, there is no obligation on your part to recognize the statute which they have passed?

Mr. SCHULTZ. No. I take the position that that law is no different than any other single law in that State, and if every violation of every law in that State were immediately prosecuted, you would even have the prosecutor in jail with you. There would be no free people left.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I do not understand what you mean by "having the prosecutor with you.'

Mr. SCHULTZ. Because I do not believe, when all of our complicated laws

Mr. WOLVERTON. The prosecutor is in office to enforce the laws of the State and that obligation is upon him. Now, assuming that you were a prosecutor and charged with the responsibility of enforcing the laws of the State, and the State has passed a statute which prohibits the operation of slot machines, would you feel obligated to enforce that statute?

Mr. SCHULTZ. Equally as I would the speed laws.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Now, if you would have that feeling of obligation as a public officer, do you not recognize that there is an equal duty on the part of a private citizen to observe the law?

Mr. SCHULTZ. No; I do not in relationship, because I do not believe that people are so constituted that they can follow every law, and when you put another one on to make it more effective, you ought to be sure that that is what happens.

Mr. WOLVERTON. In other words, the obligation that you have already said that you would observe if you were a public officer you make qualifications to as a citizen?

Mr. SCHULTZ. If that is the meaning you have given to my statement, you are correct.

Mr. WOLVERTON. That is what the meaning of your statement was to me.

Mr. SCHULTZ. All right.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I hope-and with this I conclude the day never comes when any considerable number of citizens will feel so little respect for the laws of their State that they would not feel obligated to observe them.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Are there any other questions? If not, thank you very much, Mr. Schultz.

Mr. SCHULTZ. Thank you for your patience, your time, and your consideration.

Mr. BECKWORTH. We have with us a witness, Mr. Harry J. Batt, who is president of the National Association of Amusement Parks, Pools, and Beaches, from New Orleans, La.

At this time we shall permit Mr. Batt to proceed.

STATEMENT OF HARRY J. BATT, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AMUSEMENT PARKS, POOLS, AND BEACHES, NEW ORLEANS, LA.

Mr. BATT. Mr. Chairman and members of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, my name is Harry J. Batt, representing the National Association of Amusement Parks, Pools, and Beaches as its president.

My residence is New Orleans, La.

This association, with headquarters in Chicago, represents the majority of the outdoor amusement park industry of the United States. I believe I can safely say that if the aggregate investment of all members of our association were pooled, it would be representing nearly $1,000,000,000 of invested capital.

I believe that annual payments to labor employed in our operations is $250,000,000 a year, and besides paying in a large measure to our national income taxes, our business operates on volume and caters principally to the man of the street, the everyday worker, the people who make America the great democracy that stands as a bulwark for peace in the world today.

There should be no reason for my appearance here today representing an industry that has had no ties whatsoever with the gambling element, and it is with pardonable pride I appear before you today, to protest the inaccuracy of Senate bill 3357 and H. R. 6736 which unwittingly goes beyond the bounds of the intention of that proposal. It is my understanding that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the heads of the Department of Justice, in answer to the clarion call of the great mayors of the United States, desire to deal firmly, without equivocation, with the harsh problem of so-called slot machine racketeering and syndicated gambling as such, in its effect on our great Commonwealths.

In that endeavor, we salute the sponsors of corrective legislation in dealing with such problems. But to reach the end desired, this proposed legislation as now written, and if passed, will seriously affect the outdoor amusement park business.

The amusement park business consists of furnishing wholesome and pleasant amusement and entertainment to the middle and working class of people throughout the United States. The operators of these parks, pools, and beaches are entirely independent owners scattered from east to west and north to south of our country, without holding company ownership or domination.

The merry-go-round and grabbing for the brass ring of your youth is still the keynote of good wholesome features in our parks.

Under the provisions of this proposed legislation, this catching of the ring and the receipt of value in a free ride would be a violation of the Federal law.

Do we wish to snuff out the innocent fish pond game which has delighted the hearts of children for generations? This among other similar types of games that are found in every outdoor amusement park midway as well as State and county fairs, where such amusements are offered, are certainly not participating in rackets and vice. Our amusement parks have remained a wholesome entertainment medium through the years, and are contributing in a large way to the elimination of juvenile delinquency by attracting the family as a group to our parks. Certainly, gentlemen, you would not intentionally place our industry in the same category with the elements which this Senate bill 3357 and H. R. 6736 is aimed at.

Therefore, the members of this association feel very strongly that the present proposed bill should be amended, but in order that we may be clearly understood, we approve the major objective of this bill, whereby the evils of the slot machine are entirely eliminated.

In closing, on behalf of the industry I represent, and by action of its executive committee, we respectfully request your committee to amend the Senate bill 3357 and H. R. 6736 whereby you may more carefully define the term "gambling device" as to eliminate, if found necessary, the slot machine and the transportation thereof in interstate and foreign commerce.

I thank the committee for the privilege of being heard.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Batt, the other day Mr. Bye testified here with reference to certain fairs.

It is my understanding an amendment was prepared and submitted which he feels would take care of certain of these fairs and carnivals and the problems they would face as a result of this legislation. Have you seen that amendment?

Mr. BATT. I did.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Would that take care of the kind of problem you have?

Mr. BATT. I think it would. I think it was copied after the act of 1941, is that right?

Mr. BECKWORTH. I am not exactly sure of the source.

Mr. BATT. The present act involves taxing $100 on the various machines and $50 and $10?

Mr. BECKWORTH. I think that probably is it. But it is your under