suggestions that might be made might prove helpful in your consideration of the measure.

Mr. WOLVERTON. That is true, and because of your reputation for good opinions and sound judgment and discretion, therefore, we are welcoming any suggestion that you may make.

Mr. HARTER. Thank you, Mr. Wolverton.

Mr. KEOGH. May I interrupt there?

Mr. HARTER. Yes.

Mr. KEOGH. As I understand what you are now suggesting is substitute language to the language you have just suggested?

Mr. HARTER. Yes, sir; as an alternate provision.

Mr. KEOGH. And that language which you have just suggested was intended to be substituted for that which appeared on page 6 of your statement?

Mr. HARTER. No; it was supplementary to that and in addition to that, so that you really have from me three definitions: The one at the top of page 6; the one we have just been discussing, delegating to the Attorney General the right of determination, provided he found that the device was primarily used for gambling; and now the final one that I would like to put in the record, which is:

As used in this act, the term "gambling device" means any so-called slot machine or similar device, or parts thereof, designed, intended, or calculated for gambling, which by mechanical means affords the user through the element of chance the opportunity to receive, directly or indirectly, something of value.

Mr. HALL. What words did you leave out of the definition in the bill?

Mr. HARTER. Well, I leave out of the bill-of course, I add first, "slot machine or similar device" instead of machine or mechanical device. Mr. HALL. Yes.

Mr. HARTER. And then instead of using the phrasing adapted for gambling or the use to be put to by the user of the mechanical device or slot machine, I say that the article must be designed, intended or calculated for gambling, which by mechanical means affords the user through the element of chance the opportunity to receive, directly or indirectly, something of value, making it much more definite and certain, as you can see, over the language which has been criticized in section 1.

I think that is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KEOGH. Are we not getting into a difficult field, technically and legally, when you seek to establish a standard of what the intent is rather than what the actual use is?

Mr. HARTER. Well, it then stems back to what the primary purposes are; what the machine is designed for; for what purpose it is designed. If you go into the use, we strenuously object to that, because, particularly with reference to these toys and games, no one can say that they were manufactured and intended and calculated to be used for gambling purposes; but they are vended all over the country; suppose that in some States a person gets some of these toys and puts them in a tavern, and allows wagering upon them. The user then would be adapting them for the purpose of gambling.

Mr. KEOGH. As determined by the actual use, use to which those machines were obviously not intended to be put. Mr. HARTER. That is true.

Mr. KEOGH. But, because a tavern owner might put one of those machines in his tavern and permit it to be used for that purpose, the Attorney General or anyone else would be able to say that all such machines fall within that definition.

Mr. HARTER. I think not. It is possible, but it is not primarily designed for gambling, and I think that would foreclose the Attorney General from ruling that, even though devices such as these could be called a gambling device; he would certainly not certify in the Federal Register that such was the case.

Mr. KEOGH. What safeguards are set up to prevent him from assuming any such authority?

Mr. HARTER. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the definition except that as I stated before. It would seem to me that public opinion and the respect of the Attorney General for his office and his official acts, which have to be published in the Federal Register under this bill, would preclude him from making a capricious and unreasonable decision.

Mr. KEOGH. But, assuming he were to, there would be no relief or method of overcoming that?

Mr. HARTER. Well, if he stepped over or went beyond his authority and designated as gambling devices items that were not used primarily for gambling, why, I doubt the ability to convict any person under such a ruling.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KEOGH. Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. I was going to comment that, if your first suggestion is enacted into law, it would mean in order to find out whether a crime had been committed you would not only have to own the Criminal Code but you would have to own the Federal Register too; is that right?

Mr. HARTER. That is right.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Well, I reiterate again today what I said yesterday, and I think I have probably said every day we have been in session: The longer we are in session, it seems the more difficult it becomes to define the thing we all recognize as one thing they are trying to declare illegal, and I still say that if the Department of Justice is anxious to do a real job in assisting the States' attorneys in enforcement of the law, if they would recommend and obtain the passage of an act that would increase the license fee that is now paid so that it would be put at a figure that it would not be profitable for individuals to have machines in their possession, subject to the tax, then you would be getting somewhere. If you have a tax of only $100 on a machine, as I understand the law now is, and the profits can be as much as $3,000 in 1 week, why, that is just playing with the problem. There is nothing serious about a tax of that kind. And, when you say that it shall be illegal to bring such a machine into the State, why, to my mind, that is only trifling with the subject, as compared to what you could effectively do if the tax or license fee that is now charged by the Internal Revenue Bureau under the Internal Revenue Code were raised to a point that made it unprofitable to have those machines in anybody's possession.

In other words, you could tax them out of existence.

It would seem, from what some are saying, we are taxing legitimate business out of business today, and I do not know why we cannot tax

I still say

illegitimate business out of existence with far more reason. that the quickest and the easiest way for the Department of Justice to strengthen the hands of States' attorneys would be to have a provision such as I have suggested, and then it would curtail this evil to such a point that the difficulties of the local officials would be immeasurably reduced.

Mr. HARTER. I think that the gentleman's suggestion has great merit. Perhaps your hard-working colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee will be willing, at the suggestion of this committee, to give consideration to such legislation.

Mr. WOLVERTON. That is the difficulty. So far as this committee is concerned we do not have jurisdiction to do what I am suggesting, if we had the desire to do it; but I am speaking now of effectual law enforcement. This proposed law is just playing with it, in my opinion; just creating a situation where you will be in court all of the time trying to get to the point of deciding whether there was criminal intent or not in designing or manufacturing or transporting the particular devices. Our experience so far has been that it is almost impossible to use language that would properly define what we are trying to do.

Mr. KEOGH. We do not pass laws that are enforced by States' attorneys: do we?

Mr. HARTER. No.

Mr. KEOGH. So that we are not actually trying to make it easy for States' attorneys, but we are rather attempting to uphold the arm of the United States' attorneys.

Mr. HARTER. Well, as I understood the purpose of the legislation as set forth in the letter sent up to this committee and to the Senate committee by the Attorney General, this legislation is designed to assist the States in overcoming the so-called slot-machine evil, and that is the purpose of the legislation; but it, of course, is a Federal enactment, if this committee sees fit to pass any legislation.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Harter, as to an amendment applying to slot machines, could you not write a definition applying to slot machines in very simple language, as we know slot machines? In other words, why have we gone so far afield? Would it not be very easy to write a definition of "slot machine"-the slot machine which has brought about this whole situation?

Mr. HARTER. Mr. Hall, it probably could be done and I think it could be done through the adoption of the language in clause (b) of the Internal Revenue Code.

The reason for broadening it out somewhat to cover slot machines and similar gambling devices was contained in the statement of the Attorney General who sent this proposed legislation up to the Congress. He said the purpose of the proposed bill is to support the basic policy of the States which outlaws slot machines and similar gambling devices, by prohibiting the interstate shipment of such machines except into States where their use is legal.

Mr. HALL. If you say "slot machines or similar devices," that definition itself is a pretty good one. Everybody knows what that means. That certainly would not cover these toys; would it?

Mr. HARTER. No. There might be some question as to what is included in "similar devices," but certainly, as far as the toys and many

other purely amusement gadgets and items are concerned, that would be entirely satisfactory to us.

Mr. KEOGH. Mr. Harter, if you include the phrase "or similar devices" immediately following "slot machines," are you not in effect extending that definition in your first suggestion where you insert the phrase "any other manner whatever"?

Mr. HARTER. I meant in the use of that to qualify the preceding language, preceding clause.

Mr. KEOGH. "Any other manner whatsoever" is not qualifying language; is it?

Mr. HARTER. Well, Mr. Chairman, that means any machine or any mechanical device or parts thereof, whether operated by means of the inserting of a coin, token, or similar object, or in any other manner whatsoever.

The reason for the inclusion of that was that, in a conversation that I had with the Justice Department, I was informed a new type of gambling machine, of the slot-machine variety but operated on a different method and through no insertion of a coin, was about to come on the market, and they wanted language that would cover that new machine. What that machine is; how it operates; I do not know. That was the reason for the inclusion of that language.

Mr. DOLLIVER. That is what is called anticipatory legislation; is it not?

Mr. HALL. Well, have we not passed anticipatory language?

Mr. KEOGH. My own observation with respect to the inclusion of that or similar broad language "any manner whatsoever" is that it would seem to lay the foundation for including such devices as you exhibited this morning.

Mr. HARTER. I do not so construe it, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly would not urge the adoption of it if there is any question that it would include nongambling devices.

Mr. KEOGH. And especially in the subsequent language are the words "may entitle the person to receive something." The word "may" is used.

Mr. HARTER. Yes, sir. I believe that is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KEOGH. Thank you very much, Mr. Harter. It is always a pleasure to have you before us.

Mr. HARTER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. The committee will be glad to hear Mr. O. D. Jennings. Is Mr. Jennings here?

STATEMENT OF 0. D. JENNINGS, PRESIDENT OF 0. D. JENNINGS & CO., CHICAGO, ILL.

Mr. JENNINGS. I can start off, gentlemen, by saying that I told my wife I was going to tell you that I was not a lawyer.

Mr. HARRIS. Would you first identify yourself and give your name and address?

Mr. JENNINGS. I am O. D. Jennings, of O. D. Jennings & Co., at 4307 to 4339 West Lake Street, Chicago.

Mr. HARRIS. You may proceed, Mr. Jennings.

Mr. JENNINGS. The first thing that I want to say is that I am a manufacturer and I have been manufacturing for 43 years and I have

been manufacturing in Chicago for 43 years, and my place of business I would like to show to the committee. My place of business is on one of the main streets in Chicago, on Lake Street, and it is just at about the center geographically of the city of Chicago. Now, if anybody has been molesting me in 43 years, there has never been any record of it. If I have been a violator of the law and if I have been associated with criminals and crooks and different people of that kind, I do not know of it. The newspapers and the records have not stated it. I want to get you acquainted a little bit with our plant.

Mr. HARRIS What do you manufacture?

Mr. JENNINGS. I manufacture different types of coin-controlled machines, including a gaming machine. I am going to show you here some of the types of the machines, and I can show these gentlemen over here that we do make a gaming machine.

Mr. HALL. When you say a "gaming machine," what do you mean Mr. JENNINGS. I mean what you would call a slot machine.

?

Mr. HALL. What proportion of your business is the gaming machine as related to the other business?

Mr. JENNINGS. The proportion of the business since the war-we were torn down since the war-probably has been 50 percent of all of the business. We went into war work, and we were fortunate enough to do maybe a little good. They gave us the E flag, and if we had not done something we would not have gotten that. I think it is on my calling card, and I am going to give you one of those. I do not know whether you can be a manufacturer and follow a line, and if you don't make the complete line I couldn't know how you can keep your people at work. There definitely is a market, a legitimate market, for not too many slot machines but for some slot machines, and we do not think about setting up a factory or doing work. We don't think about making a slot machine. All of these machines that we make have about the same principles, and they have parts about the same, and we try to keep them the same. If we were going to use a motor in a slot machine or some wiring in a slot machine, it would be the same wiring and the same lights and the same bulbs that you would have in your home.

In this motor we would not try to use a different motor for a gaming machine, but we would use the same motor we would use for another type of machine. We try to make the one motor answer just as many purposes and go into as many machines as possible. Likewise, any screw or any nail or any tag or anything else that is used, a great number of things, are used the same way. If you get around to gaming machines, you will find in the back of that folder a chart showing the mechanism of a gaming machine exposed in two different pictures. I don't know how many pieces that would be over the shelves of the hardward dealers. What I am getting at, I would like to get a clarification. I have tried to keep my cards on the table, and I have tried to do the right thing in life, and I don't want to go along here and be a bootlegger under some law. If I cannot make gaming machines in keeping with the law of my State and handle them legitimately, I am not going to be a bootlegger. That is a cinch. Mr. HALL. How many slot machines do you sell a year? Mr. JENNINGS. We sell around about 8,000 a year.