Mr. HARRIS. Did you look at the inside of it?

Mr. PRESTON. I looked inside to see how they could be rigged up where a slot machine will not pay off a penny. I have looked at the very intricate mechanism.

Mr. HARRIS. And then you can rig it up where it will pay every penny that you can put in there.

Mr. PRESTON. It is completely controlled by the operator.
Mr. HARRIS. That is the vending part of it.

Mr. PRESTON. I have looked inside Coca-Cola machines, and there is one movement involved in getting a drink. Your nickel goes in, and a slight turn is made on a wheel which makes the drink available. But a slot machine is a very intricate thing, as the gentleman knows. I cannot conceive that the parts would be interchangeable.

Mr. HARRIS. The gentleman, I suggest, should look at the place the coin goes in, in both machines, and see the first turn of the mechanical device, and whether or not they are interchangeable parts.

I think it can be reached, as I understand, but I do think that to set up a broad definition here by just saying anything designed by which there might be a game of chance, we had better be just a little bit careful or we will go further than we expect. So I have got to recognize that law-enforcing officers should use good common sense in trying to carry out at least the spirit of the law.

Mr. PRPSTON. The Congress was faced with this same proposition of being disturbed about going too far when the alcohol question came up, the alcohol tax law, because when you passed the law which said you cannot sell sugar to a man who is going to manufacture liquor, the Members of Congress said, "What about a man who wants to buy 100 pounds of sugar to mix up mash to feed his hogs?" And the final result was that you have got to use common sense in the proposition, and when a man has a reputation of being a liquor dealer, and he is buying excessive sugar, we will assume he is making liquor. When it is sent to the Coca-Cola Co., we will assume it is going to be a vending machine.

Mr. HARRIS. And when they approached the narcotic problem and the liquor problem, they made that a violation of the law, did they not? Mr. PRESTON. That is right.

Mr. HARRIS. They did not have a broad definition that would cover the entire lot, but they covered alcohol and those things, beverages, and so forth. In the narcotics business they covered narcotics, did they not? Now, you say here you are trying to get slot machines. Why do you not say "slot machines"?

Mr. PRESTON. I think when you say "slot machines," that immediately you would exempt a machine known as a console, which is an electrically operated machine that does not have the same design at all, and it is entirely different when it is operated and you do not pull a lever on it; a slot machine is known as a machine in which you insert a coin and pull a level to activate the mechanism.

Mr. HARRIS. Why would you not say "similar games and devices," then?

Mr. PRESTON. I think you would come right back to where you started if you do that. I think you would be right back where we

are now.

Mr. HARRIS. Why do you not say "devices which are violations of law in the States where the shipment is made"?

Mr. PRESTON. That might be good language, I would not know. Mr. HARRIS. I am merely trying to seek an answer to this problem here that we feel is a very great problem.

Mr. HINSHAW. I would like to comment on that point, because here is the report of the Interstate Commerce Commission, which calls attention to the fact that

the bill is so broad that it would establish a criminal liability on the part of any public carrier which transported machinery with knowledge of its intended use for the playing of any game of chance or for money. While such knowledge would be an essential element of the crime, and there might be difficulty in proving that element in the prosecution of the carrier, nevertheless carriers might be put to a considerable burden in trying to avoid possible prosecution for violation of the statutes.

In other instances where Congress has prohibited movement of certain articles in interstate commerce, the acts have been made expressly inapplicable to carriers. For example, in the statute involving misbranded woolen goods, the following provision was included:

"This section shall not apply to any common carrier or contract carrier in respect to a wool product shipped or delivered for shipment in commerce in the ordinary course of business.'

We respectfully suggest that in the event your committee should desire to report H. R. 6736, the following sentence should be added:

"This shall not apply to any common carrier or contract carrier in respect to machinery shipped in commerce in the ordinary course of business."

Well, now, I do not see-and I am directing this to the gentleman from Arkansas-how we could call upon the carriers to try to find out whether the parts to a machine of this sort were going to be destined for a gambling machine or a vending machine. You just simply could not lay that on the carriers, certainly.

And then comes the question of enforcement. If the carrier is exempted from the enforcement, and I think that he should be, then who is going to enforce the law in respect to the interstate shipment? How are you going to find out? It seems to me that it is a case of having a lot of investigators around to watch people open packages. I do not understand how it can be worked, and at the same time do justice and fairness to the carriers themselves.

Mr. HARRIS. That does point up the very same problem that I have been trying to draw out here and call to the attention of the members of the committee, the very delicate problem that you have to deal with in this whole subject matter. That is the reason I say that it is not simply in saying that we want to get rid of something that everybody recognizes to be a bad situation, and I think is a deplorable condition throughout the country. The local officers do not feel that they can cope with the situation. Far be it from me to criticize any people of any locality, community, or State, to not use their own good judgment in electing the type of officials that they want. I do call attention to a situation that can really create a very serious problem with the carriers, the businessmen, the manufacturers, and so forth, and in fact you can take-and I will say this, as I recognize from my experience with people who set up these coin machines and all kinds of devices-they can make more of them than you can possibly get after as a law-enforcing officer, and you will see a new one come out every few days. They will take a slot that you can use to obtain a bottle of milk, and the first thing you know they have got a gambling device set up with it. They are pretty smart people when it comes to creating these devices that can be used in this manner.

So I am wondering, in addition to what I suggested a while ago, why would it not be advisable to get after the man who you say is responsible for these great gambling slot machines syndicates, himself, get after that man and those who are in collusion with him. there a law to reach that kind of an individual?

Mr. PRESTON. There are State laws.

Mr. HARRIS. I mean a national law.

Is

Mr. PRESTON. There are no national laws unless you get them on income-tax evasion.

Mr. HARRIS. Why should not Congress consider some legislation that would catch him, just like they did the kidnapper?

Mr. PRESTON. This will do it.

Mr. HARRIS. How much more will it catch?

Mr. PRESTON. I would like to answer the question raised by the gentleman from California, in this connection. The point is well taken, and I have an amendment here in practically the same language the gentleman read, which would exempt the common carriers, and they should not be charged with inspecting merchandise.

Now, the other question you raise about the parts, that is taken care of in section 3 of the Senate bill, prepared by the Justice Department, which requires the manufacturer to report to the Attorney General the serial number, a description of the article shipped, and he has to make an inventory filing with the Justice Department, and he may do it by sending duplicate copies of the invoices. That is the way we are striking at it, is by requiring the manufacturer to furnish the Justice Department with a description of the article, the serial number, even of a spare part, and an accurate description of it.

Mr. HINSHAW. I would like to address a question to Mr. Harris as an attorney who has had experience in this matter, and also the gentleman from Georgia, who is likewise an attorney, as to just how this law would be enforced. Is it proposed that Federal ofhcers shall enforce this law?

Mr. PRESTON. Quite naturally; yes.

Mr. HINSHAW. Do I understand that the State officers, if they catch somebody accidentally who may have violated a Federal law, will eventually turn him over for prosecution to the Federal officials, but they do not go out to search for violations of Federal law; is that correct?

Mr. HARRIS. The theory has been, in matters of other kinds, as Mr. Preston mentioned with reference to liquor violations and narcotics violations, and so forth, if it is a local situation and a violation of the law locally, sometimes the State will go ahead and handle it, and when they get through they will turn it over to the Federal; and sometimes the Federal will be with them and they will take them. A lot depends on the situation locally there. There are certain cases where some feel that because of various situations, the Federal Government should handle it, and they turn it over to them.

Mr. HINSHAW. My point is that the local law-enforcing officer ordinarily does not figure it is his duty to go out and search for violations of Federal law, does he?

Mr. HARRIS. That is true.

Mr. HINSHAW. It would be merely in the course of his business in enforcing the local law that he would discover it as a violation of this Federal law, is that not correct?

Mr. HARRIS. I think that is correct, but I believe what our colleague is trying to reach is the source itself and deal with it at the origin, and not at the exterior. I believe that is right.

Mr. PRESTON. That is right, the source of supply.

Mr. HINSHAW. I get that; but this requires a force of law-enforcement officers.

Mr. HARRIS. There is no question about it.

Mr. HINSHAW. What branch of the Government is going to supply those law-enforcement officers, and how many is it going to require?

Mr. HARRIS. No one can say how many it will require, because you would not know the extent of it. Consequently, I think that each district that is my opinion about how the courts operate each district would have responsibility in that district insofar as the local situation is concerned.

Mr. HINSHAW. Let us take a good look at this thing, because the law enforcement is very important. Let us say that somebody manufactures one of these slot machines, and he puts it in an unmarked carton or crate, and it is sent by a common carrier, and we exempt the common carrier because he cannot be made responsible for everything that goes into a box, as he would have to open all of the boxes. But at all events, it is ultimately delivered to the consignee. That is in interstate commerce. Where is your law-enforcement officer going to discover the violation of the law unless he investigates every shipment that is made that he suspects as being one of these machines?

you

Mr. PRESTON. I may say to the gentleman from California that might ask the same question about lottery tickets, and narcotics, and other types of crime. The manufacturer is taking the risk when he ships it, because there are only 10 existing today in America, and every one of them is located in one State, and he is just taking a chance, that is all.

Mr. HINSHAW. You mean they cannot set up a factory in another State if they want to?

Mr. PRESTON. They could, but I hardly think a businessman would jeopardize that much money to put up an illegal enterprise or manufacturing enterprise which of necessity must be pretty well known as to what they are making.

Mr. HINSHAW. This is a pretty profitable enterprise, and I should think they could afford to do practically anything.

Mr. PRESTON. Not to the manufacturer, because he makes a reasonable profit. The money is made out of the operating and the distributor who puts them in the juke joints and the taverns.

Mr. HINSHAW. Who owns these machines? Are they not owned by the manufacturer?

Mr. PRESTON. Not at all, sir. There are three steps-the manufacturer, a distributor, and the operator-and the operator is the man who goes to the man running the beer joint and he says, "I want to put this machine here on a 50-50 or 60-40 basis," and the profit is not made by the manufacturer nor by the distributor, but by the operator. A machine is reasonably inexpensive, and consequently a manufacturer could not take much of a chance, with a penalty involved like we have in here, to manufacture these machines. He is required to certify to the Justice Department every machine he ships in interstate commerce, giving the name of the consignee, under this legislation.

Gentlemen, I would like to say this about this bill: It was prepared by some very able lawyers of the Justice Department, and I think if you study it you will find that it has met practically every contingency except the one with reference to the common carriers.

Mr. DOLLIVER. Which one are you referring to?

Mr. PRESTON. The Senate bill, and I think we should direct our attention principally to that, because my bill that I prepared is limited in its operation because I did not have the time to make a great deal of research in preparing the actual language.

Mr. HINSHAW. I would like to point out to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia that while the State of California appreciates. his reference to the Crime Commission report which was referred to, and he has gone into it in some detail in his original statement before the committee, the mere fact that the Crime Commission did make a study of the situation in California and did so report does not indicate in any manner whatsoever that this slot-machine racket is any worse in our State than in any other State. It is simply the fact that our State did take upon itself the duty of making an examination and report, and I suggest that slot machines may exist also in places in the State of the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. PRESTON. I so acknowledged in my remarks previously.

Mr. HINSHAW. And probably in other States in the United States, and it is not a device that is used in the State of California alone.

Mr. PRESTON. I regret very much the gentleman thought that I intended to reflect upon his State, because I certainly did not. I needed to refer to the States on which data were available, and it does reveal that the State of California has been perhaps more active in trying to solve the problem than any other State in the Union.

Mr. HINSHAW. It has been diligent, I can assure the gentleman, and I hope it will become a diligent effort in every other State.

Mr. O'HARA. I would like to say that I appreciate your kind reference to Minnesota. I think probably there is no State in the United States which has had as vigorous a campaign against the operation of slot machines as Minnesota has in recent years. Prior to that we had laws, because I was a county attorney between 1934 and 1938, and I was blessed with one of the finest law-enforcement sheriffs that any prosecuting attorney ever had, and he and I would not permit the operation of slot machines; and it was a matter of pride, and in fact we are reported to be one of three counties in the State where the slot machines could not do business, as they said. The sheriff would go around and raid these places, with deputies, and bring in the slot machines, and we would confiscate and destroy them and take the money and deposit it in the county treasurer's office. Afterward, we would have to go through the same proceedings again. Amazingly, in one instance, one of the village officials came in and said, "Look, you picked up our slot machine. We were operating with this boy, and we were getting a percentage." We said, "That is just too bad. We do "We not want to have to try the village officers, but if you continue to do that, we will do it."

It does show, and the gentleman knows, of course, that many clubs and organizations used to finance themselves with the operation of slot machines, taking the money away from their members by the operation of slot machines. So, notwithstanding it has been against the law