depended upon accessibility to large numbers of persons. Bets could be placed in most corner grocery stores, candy shops, and cigar counters; payoff pinball machines were placed in most clubs and firehalls, as well as in bars and restaurants. Apart from knowing that these things were openly available, and thus not subject to police interference, there was no way for the average citizen to know specifically that Irv Stern was paying to protect these gambling interests until Police Chief Phillips began to testify-again after the election of reformer Whitton. Public awareness of wrongdoing was probably least widespread in regard to corruption-kickbacks on contracts, extortion, etc. Direct involvement was generally Direct involvement was generally limited to officials and businessmen, and probably few of them knew anything other than that they personally had been asked to pay. Either from shame or from fear of being prosecuted on bribery charges or out of unwillingness to jeopardize a profitable contract, those who did pay did not want to talk. Those who refused to pay usually were unable to substantiate charges made against bribes so that exposure of the attempt led only to libel suits or official harassment. As we have and the newspapers one garage with a towing contract did talk about what was going on. The garageman lost his franchise and suffered a series of "accidents"; the newspapers found a reporter in jail and their trucks harassed by the police. Peter French, the district attorney under Walasek and Donnelly, won a libel suit (since reversed on appeal and dismissed) against the papers after they stated that he was protecting gamblers. Except for an unsuccessful citizen suit in the mid-1950's seeking to void the purchase of fire trucks (for the purchase of which Donnelly received a $2,000 "political contribution") and a newspaper article in the early 1960's implying that Donnelly and his council had received $500 on the sale of a city crane, no evidence no specific facts of corruption was available to the public until Phillips was indicted several years later for perjury in connection with the towing contracts.

seen,

Returning then to the three categories of public knowledge, we can say that even at the lowest level—general perception of some form of wrongdoing-awareness was quite limited (except among the businessmen, most of whom, as we noted in the "Introduction," live and vote in the suburbs). Specific knowledge—this official received this much to approve that contract was only available after legislative hearings in the early 1950's and the indictment of Phillips in the early 1960's; on both occasions the voters turned to reform candidates.

If, therefore, it is unlikely that many residents of Wincanton had the second or third type of knowledge about local gambling or corruption (while many more had the first type) during the time it was taking place, how much do they know now-after several years of reform and a series of trials-all well-covered in the newspapers revealing the nature of Stern-Donnelly-Walasek operations? To test the extent of specific knowledge about local officials and events, respondents in a recent survey were asked to identify past and present officials and racketeers and to compare the Walasek and Whitton administrations on a number of points.

Earlier, we noted that 90 percent of the 183 respondents recognized the name of the present mayor, 63 percent knew their Congressman (who had been in office more than 10 years), and 36 percent knew the district attorney. How many members of the Stern organization were known to the public? Seventy percent recognized Stern's name, 63 percent knew the head of the numbers bank, 40 percent identified the "bagman" or collector for Stern, and 31 percent knew the operator of the largest horsebook in town. With regard to many of these questions, it must be kept in mind that since many respondents may subconsciously have felt that to admit recognition of a name would have implied personal contact with or sympathy for a criminal or a criminal act, these results probably understate the extent of public knowledge. When 100 of the respondents were asked "What things did Mr. Walasek do that were illegal?", 59 mentioned extortion regarding vice and gambling, 2 mentioned extortion on city contracts, 7 stated that he stole from the city, 8 that he fixed parking and speeding tickets, 4 that he was "controlled by rackets," and 20 simply stated that Walasek was corrupt, not listing specific acts.

Even if Wincantonites do not remember too many specific misdeeds, they clearly perceive that the present

Whitton administration has run a cleaner town than did Walasek or Donnelly. When asked to comment on the statement, "Some people say that the present city administration under Mayor Whitton is about the same as when Mayor Walasek was in office," 10 percent said it was the same, 74 percent said it was different, and 14 percent didn't know. When asked why, 75 respondents cited "better law enforcement" and the end of corruption; only 7 of 183 felt that the city had been better run by Walasek. Fifty-eight percent felt the police force was better now, 22 percent thought that it was about the same as when Walasek controlled the force, and only 7 percent thought it was worse now. Those who felt that the police department was better run now stressed "honesty" and "better law enforcement," or thought that it was valuable to have an outsider as commissioner. Those who thought it was worse now cited "inefficiency," "loafing," or "unfriendliIt was impossible to tell whether the comments of "unfriendliness" refer simply to the present refusal to tolerate gambling or whether they signify a more remote police-public contact resulting from the "professionalism" of the commissioner. (In this regard, we might note that a number of policemen and lawyers felt that it had been easier to secure information regarding major crimes when prostitution and gambling were tolerated. As one former captain put it, “If I found out that some gangster was in town that I didn't know about, I raised hell with the prostitutes for not telling me.")

ness.

Comparing perceptions of the present and former district attorneys, we also find a clear preference for the present man, Thomas Hendricks, over Peter French, but there is a surprising increase in "Don't knows." Thirtyfive percent felt the district attorney's office is run "differently" now, 13 said it is run in the same way, percent but 50 percent did not know. Paralleling this lack of attitudes toward the office, we can recall that only 36 percent

of the respondents were able to identify the present incumbent's name, while 55 percent knew his more flamboyant predecessor. Of those respondents who saw a difference between the two men, 51 percent cited "better law enforcement" and "no more rackets control over law enforcement."

In addition to recognizing these differences between past and present officials, the respondents in the recent survey felt that there were clear differences in the extent of corruption and gambling. Sixty-nine percent disagreed with the statement, "Underworld elements and racketeers had very little say in what the Wincanton city government did when Mr. Walasek was mayor;" only 13 percent disagreed with the same statement as applied to reform Mayor Whitton. When asked, "As compared with 5 years ago, do you think it's easier now, about the same, or harder to find a dice game in Wincanton?"; only one respondent felt it was easier, 8 percent felt it. was about the same, 56 percent felt it was harder, and 34 percent didn't know. The respondents were almost as sure that Whitton had closed down horse betting; 51 percent felt it was harder to bet on horses now than it was 5 years ago, 11 percent felt it was about the same, and three respondents thought it was easier now than before. Again, 34 percent did not know.

PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

Earlier, we asked whether Wincanton's long history of gambling and corruption was based on a few bad officials and formal, structural defects such as the absence of civil service or low pay scales, or whether it was rooted in the values of the populace. The evidence on "public awareness" indicates that most Wincantonites probably knew of the existence of widespread gambling, but they probably had little idea of the payoffs involved. When we turn to public attitudes, we find a similar split-many citizens wanted to consume the services offered by Irv Stern, but they were against official corruption; few residents think that one produces the other. But in thinking about "public attitudes," several problems of definition arise. For one thing, "attitudes" depend on the way in which a question is phrased—a respondent would be likely to answer "no" if he were asked, "Are you in favor of gambling?", but he might also answer "yes" if he were asked whether it was all right to flip a coin to see who would buy the next round of drinks. As we will shortly see, it is very difficult to conclude that because a Wincantonite voted for candidate X, he was voting "for corruption”— in his mind, he might have been voting for a fellow Pole, or a workingman, or an athletic hero, etc., and the decision did not involve "corruption" or "reform."

Second, we have to ask whether "attitude," in the sense of a conscious preference for X over Y, is an appropriate concept. We must keep in mind that for Wincantonites, "reform" has been the exception rather than the rule. The vast majority of local citizens have lived with wide-open gambling all their lives, and the reform administrations of Craig and Whitton add up to only 7 of the last 40 years. As one lawyer said, "When I was

a little kid, my dad would lift me up so I could put a dime in the slot machine at his club. We never saw anything wrong in it." In addition to knowing about gambling in Wincanton, the residents knew of other cities in the State in which gambling was equally wide open, and they believe that Wincanton is similar to most cities in the country. Fifty-four percent of the respondents in the survey agreed with the statement, "There is not much difference between politics in Wincanton and politics in other American cities." (Nineteen percent were undecided and only 25 percent disagreed.) Because of this specific history of gambling and this general perception that Wincanton is like other cities, it may be more accurate to speak of latent acceptance of gambling and petty corruption as "facts of life" rather than thinking of conscious choices, e.g., "I prefer gambling and corrup tion to a clean city and honest officials." Under most circumstances, the question has not come up.

In a series of questions included in the recent attitude survey, Wincantonites indicated a general approval or tolerance of gambling, but they frequently distinguished between organized and unorganized operations. Eighty percent felt that the State legislature should legalize bingo. Fifty-eight percent felt that a State-operated lottery would be a good idea. Fifty-four percent agreed with the general statement, "The State should legalize gambling." When asked why the State should legalize gambling, 42 percent of those favoring the idea felt that gambling was harmless or that people would gamble anyway; 44 percent thought that the State should control it and receive the profits; 8 percent felt that legalization would keep out racketeers. Forty-nine percent agreed that "gambling is all right so long as local people, not outsiders, run the game;" 35 percent disagreed; and 11 percent were uncertain. Forty-six percent felt that "the police should not break up a friendly poker game, even if there is betting." Here, 37 percent disagreed and 14 percent were uncertain.

If Wincanton residents are tolerant of gambling, they show little tolerance of official corruption: 72 percent of the respondents disagreed with a statement that, “A city official who receives $10 in cash from a company that does business with the city should not be prosecuted;" only 13 percent agreed. Sixty-one percent were unwilling to agree that, "It's all right for the mayor of a city to make a profit when the city buys some land so long as only a fair price is charged." Thirty-four percent agreed that, "It's all right for a city official to accept presents from companies so long as the taxpayers don't suffer," but 47 percent disagreed and 13 percent were undecided. Fiftyfour percent did not believe that, "The mayor and police chief should be able to cancel parking and speeding tickets in some cases," but 36 percent thought it might be a good idea.

The intensity of feelings against corruption was brought out most strongly when the respondents were asked about the 30-day jail sentences imposed on Irv Stern and Bob Walasek for extorting $10,500 on city purchases of parking meters. Eighty-six percent felt that the sentences were too light; seven respondents felt that they were too severe,

generally feeling that publicity arising from the trial had hurt Walasek's family. When asked why they felt as they did, 32 percent felt that Walasek had "betrayed a public trust;" 18 percent gave an answer such as, "If it had been a little guy like me instead of a guy with pull like Walasek, I'd still be in jail.'

In light of the mixed feelings about gambling and corruption, we might wonder whether Wincantonites are hostile toward the police department's present antigambling policy. This does not appear to be the case: 55 percent of the respondents disagreed with the statement, "The Wincanton police today are concentrating on gambling too much"; only 17 percent agreed, and 21 percent were undecided. Further support for the local police was indicated by the respondents when asked to comment on the statement, "If there is any gambling going on in Wincanton, it should be handled by the local police rather than the FBI"; 57 percent agreed and 19 percent disagreed. The preference for local action was slightly stronger-58 percent-when the question stated "* * * the local police rather than State Police."

We have frequently mentioned that Walasek and Stern were convicted on the basis of testimony given by former Police Chief Dave Phillips. Phillips was given immunity from Federal prosecution, and perjury charges against him were dropped. What was the public response to Phillips having testified? Was he regarded as a "fink" or a hero? Fifty-nine percent of the respondents felt that it was right for Phillips to testify. Only 15 percent felt that he should have received immunity, 40 percent felt the grant of immunity was wrong, and 40 percent did not know whether it was right or wrong. The most common reaction was that Phillips was as guilty as the others, or "he only testified to save his own skin."

Finally, to ascertain how much citizens know about law enforcement agencies, the survey respondents were asked, first, "As you remember it, who was it who decided that bingo should not be played in Wincanton?". Five percent attributed the ban to the legislature. Forty-three percent correctly stated that a joint decision of Mayor Whitton and District Attorney Hendricks (declaring that the State gambling law included bingo) had led to the current crackdown. Thirty-four percent didn't know. Ironically, 13 respondents believed that Walasek, Donnelly, Police Chief Phillips, or District Attorney French had ended bingo (all had been out of office for at least 6 months and opposed the ban)!

8

Second, respondents were asked, "Which of the Federal investigative agencies would you say was primarily responsible for most of the prosecutions of Wincanton people in the past 10 years?". Thirty-one percent correctly cited the Internal Revenue Service, 20 percent mentioned the Federal Bureau of Investigation (whose only major involvement had been in raiding the dice game), and 46 percent did not know.

The Politics of Reform. In every local election in Wincanton, it seems that some candidates are running on "reform" platforms, charging their opponents with corruption or at least tolerating gamblers and prostitutes.

8 This question was inserted in the schedule after the survey was underway; only 87 respondents were asked this question.

Usually, we see Republicans attacking Democratic corruption. But Democratic primary candidates also attack the records of Democratic incumbents, and in 1955, Democrats promised the voters that they would rid the town of the prostitutes and bookies that "pearl gray" Hal Craig had tolerated. Frequently, officials have become corrupt after they were elected, but Wincanton voters have never returned a known criminal to office. Following legislative investigations in the early 1950's, Mayor Watts lost the general election, receiving only 39 percent of the vote. After the Federal indictment of Police Chief Phillips in the early 1960's, Bob Walasek was defeated in the Democratic primary, running a poor third, with only 19 percent of the vote. Even with Walasek out of the running, the voters selected Republican Whitton over his Democratic opponent, a councilman in the Walasek administration. While the Republicans were able to elect councilmen in two elections, they were unable to make inroads in the off-year council elections despite wholesale Federal gambling raids in the months just prior to the elections in these years.

Looking at these voting figures, two questions arisewhy corruption and why reform? As we have seen, Wincantonites have never voted for corruption, although they may have voted for men tolerant of the gambling citizens demanded. While the newspapers and the reformers have warned of the necessary connection between gambling and corruption, their impact has been deadened by repetition-Wincanton voters have acquired a "ho-hum" attitude, saying to themselves, "That's just the Gazette sounding off again." or "The Republicans are 'crying wolf' just like they did 4 years ago." As Lord Bryce said of Americans 80 years ago:

The people see little and they believe less. True, the party newspapers accuse their opponents of such offenses, but the newspapers are always reviling somebody; and it is because the words are so strong that the tale has little meaning ***.

The habit of hearing charges promiscuously bandied to and fro, but seldom probed to the bottom, makes men heedless.9

If the Democrats have dominated Wincanton elections so consistently, why did they lose in two important elections? Those years were different because official corruption was being documented by Federal investigators; in other years investigations were only showing widespread gambling, and only newspaper inferences suggested that officials were being paid off. It is equally, perhaps more, significant to note that Federal investigations attracted national attention-instead of seeing allusions of corruption in the Wincanton Gazette, city voters were beginning to read about themselves and their city in The New York Times and the papers of the larger cities within the State. Just as national media coverage of the "War on the Press" may have forced Mayor Donnelly to back down, so the national interest during the two elections may have shamed local voters into deserting the Democratic Party. The years when the Republicans

9 James Bryce, "The American Commonwealth," vol. II (London: MacMillan, 1889), p. 204.

"10

won were different because the voters were forced to recognize the conflict between their norms (honesty in government, no corruption, etc.) and the actions of local Democratic officials. Their "active sense of outrage" produced a crisis leading to a readjustment of their normal patterns of behavior. Furthermore, even though the voters had been willing to tolerate petty corruption on the part of past officials, the national investigations indicated that officials were now going too far. As Irv Stern had predicted, Bob Walasek, unlike his predecessor, got "greedy," and pushed the voters too far, tolerating too much vice and gambling and demanding kickbacks on too many contracts and licenses. For the voters, the "price" of Democratic control had gotten too high.11

A city where the government has for its subjects acquaintances, whose interests and passions it knows and can at pleasure thwart or forward, can hardly expect a neutral government.

-Sir Ernest Barker,

"Greek Political Theory" 12

THE FUTURE OF REFORM IN WINCANTON

When Wincantonites are asked what kind of law enforcement they want, they are likely to say that it is all right to tolerate petty gambling and prostitution, but that "you've got to keep out racketeers and corrupt politicians." Whenever they come to feel that the city is being controlled by these racketeers, they "throw the rascals out." This policy of "throwing the rascals out," however, illustrates the dilemma facing reformers in Wincanton. Irv Stern, recently released from Federal prison, has probably, in fact, retired from the rackets; he is ill and plans to move to Arizona. Bob Walasek, having been twice convicted on extortion charges, is finished politically. Therefore? Therefore, the people of Wincanton firmly believe that "the problem" has been solved "the rascals" have been thrown out. When asked, recently, what issues would be important in the next local elections, only 9 of 183 respondents felt that clean government or keeping out vice and gambling might be an issue. (Fifty-five percent had no opinion, 15 percent felt that the ban on bingo might be an issue, and 12 percent cited urban renewal, a subject frequently mentioned in the papers preceding the survey.) Since, under Ed Whitton, the city is being honestly run and is free from gambling and prostitution, there is no problem to worry about.

On balance, it seems far more likely to conclude that gambling and corruption will soon return to Wincanton (although possibly in less blatant forms) for two reasonsfirst, a significant number of people want to be able to gamble or make improper deals with the city government. (This assumes, of course, that racketeers will be available to provide gambling if a complacent city administration permits it.) Second, and numerically far more important, most voters think that the problem has been perma

10 Arnold A. Rogow and Harold D. Lasswell, "Power, Corruption, and Rectitude" (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963), p. 72.

11 Cf. Eric L. McKitrick, "The Study of Corruption," 72 Political Science Quarterly 507 (December 1957).

12 Sir Ernest Barker, "Greek Political Theory" (London: Methuen, 1918), p. 13. 13 Joel Margolis, a graduate student in the Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin, performed the research upon which this review of the literature is based.

14 Ironically, there has been a strong interest in corruption in the years since

nently solved, and thus they will not be choosing candidates based on these issues, in future elections.

Throughout this report, a number of specific recommendations have been made to minimize opportunities for wide-open gambling and corruption-active State Police intervention in city affairs, modification of the city's contract bidding policies, extending civil service protection to police officers, etc. On balance, we could probably also state that the commission form of government has been a hindrance to progressive government; a "strong mayor" form of government would probably handle the city's affairs more efficiently. Fundamentally, however, all of these suggestions are irrelevant. When the voters have called for clean government, they have gotten it, in spite of loose bidding laws, limited civil service, etc. ice, etc. The critical factor has been voter preference. Until the voters of Wincanton come to believe that illegal gambling produces the corruption they have known, the type of government we have documented will continue. Four-year periods of reform do little to change the habits instilled over 40 years of gambling and corruption.

RESEARCH ON THE POLITICS OF CORRUPTION 13

Reviewing the literature on the politics of corruption, one is tempted to conclude that while everyone is writing about it, no one is saying very much about it. Most of the material in the field can be classified as simple reports of wrongdoing or official investigations. Both tend to come in waves coinciding with popular interest in reform,1 and are written with a strongly moralistic bias. The classic exposés of municipal corruption are, of course, the works of the muckrakers-Steffans, Sinclair, Tarbell, etc.-written at the turn of the century.15 More recently, issues of the "National Civic Review" (known as the "National Municipal Review" until 1958), have presented reports of specific cases of corruption, graft, or bribery; titles such as "Indianapolis Mayor Faces Jail Sentence,' "Election Frauds in Philadelphia," and "Eliminating California Bosses" indicate the specific and reforming quality of most "Review" articles. Their authors generally view the world in black and white terms-a conflict between the good guys (the average, basically honest but put-upon citizenry) and the bad guys ("politicans" and "bosses"). The typical "Review" solution to the problem of corruption calls for both structural changesnonpartisan elections, city manager government, etc.and citizen action-the uprising of an alert, informed, and indignant public against evil machines. Local politics is represented as a morality play; an example is the story of municipal reform in Des Moines in the 1920's:

A remarkable story one in which taxpayers were arrayed against politicians, prosecuting attorneys against slick lawyers, and municipal graft against good government. It is the story of how an

World War II, even though ethics in government have probably been at a higher level than at most other periods in our history. For a brief overview of American corruption which puts recent misdeeds in their proper historical perspective, see Sidney Warren, "Corruption in Politics," 22 Current History 65-69, 211-215, 285-289, and 348-354 (1952).

15 The ideas and work of the major muckrakers are summarized in David Mark Chalmers, "The Social and Political Ideas of the Muckrakers" (New York: Citadel Press, 1964).

American city cleaned house, lodged a number of public servants *** in the State's penal institutions *** placed an increased value on its tax dollar, and put its public affairs on a plane of decency and efficiency all in the last two years * * *

The people *** who have been looted see the dawn of a new day in popular self-government.16

The official investigations of political corruption display a similar degree of specificity and simplicity. Both Federal (e.g., the Wickersham Commission and the Kefauver and McClellan committee hearings) and State (e.g., the Massachusetts Crime Commission and the Illinois Crime Investigating Commission reports) agencies hold hearings, report that crime and corruption were found in city X or department Y, and then call for prosecutions and new legislation to correct these situations. Little time or space is devoted to analysis of the social or political causes of the events portrayed.

17

In contrast with these numerous but superficial journalistic and official investigations and reports, social scientists have had an infrequent but somewhat more analytical interest in corruption. Corruption has seldom been the direct focus of their work, but has often been discussed in connection with other phenomena. Generally using the "functional" approach 17 applied earlier in this report, students of political parties, for example, have argued that corruption can serve as an important supplement to legal patronage 18 as a means of financing and holding together a political machine.19 More broadly, it has been argued that corrupt practices may be necessary to overcome the decentralization of government brought about by the separation of executive, legislative, and judicial processes, the creation of independent boards and commissions, etc.20 Finally, corrupt distribution of governmental jobs and services has been viewed as a mechanism for instilling a feeling of national identity in new immigrant populations, as well as providing for their social welfare. 21

From another point of view, political corruption has been considered functional to the business community in offering protection against aggressive competition, speed

16 Merze Marvin, "Des Moines Cleans House," 14 National Municipal Review 539 (September, 1925).

17 See Robert K. Merton, "Social Theory and Social Structure," revised edition (New York: Free Press, 1957), pp. 19-87; Eric L. McKitrick, "The Study of Corruption," 72 Political Science Quarterly 502-514 (December, 1957); Don Martindale, editor, "Functionalism in the Social Sciences" (Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 1965).

18 On the role of patronage in the party system, see V. O. Key, Jr., "Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups," 4th ed. (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1958), ch. 13; and James Q. Wilson, "The Economy of Patronage," 69 Journal of Political Economy 369-380 (August, 1961).

19 For a general description of city machines, see Edward C. Banfield and James Q. Wilson, "City Politics" (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), ch. 9. Literature on some of our more famous city bosses is listed in Charles R. Adrian, "Governing Urban America" (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961) pp. 498-499. 20 Henry Jones Ford, "Municipal Corruption," 19 Political Science Quarterly 673-686 (1904).

1 V. O. Key, Jr., "The Techniques of Political Graft in the United States,"

in finalizing contracts with government, and freedom from cumbersome codes and regulations.22 In underdeveloped nations, Nathaniel Leff feels that corruption can be a vital catalyst in inclining political leaders toward economic development, mobilizing the state bureaucracy to aid entrepreneurs, and paying off the existing "power elite" to tolerate economic and social change.23 The benefits that corruption offers to legitimate businessmen accrue also to illegitimate enterprises; as we have seen in Wincanton, corruptly procured protection allowed Irv Stern to stabilize the gambling industry and assign contracts with the city, while landowners and businessmen were able to buy immunity from building and zoning regulations.

A third group of studies has served to break down any false notions that corruption and criminality are sharply distinct from the values and way of life of "law-abiding" members of society. A number of studies have shown that to a certain extent criminal careers mirror the approved values of seeking social advancement, prestige, and having one's own business; furthermore, gamblers and racketeers are frequently respected and emulated members of immigrant and lower class social groups. Finally, as law enforcement officers know all too well, some members of all social classes condone or approve gambling and corruption, although many citizens may also, either ambivalently or hypocritically, demand strict law enforcement.25 Because of these conflicts between legal norms and actual popular attitudes, several political scientists have concluded that corruption can perform the valuable function of permitting the continued existence of the society. Instead of a direct confrontation between the norm and the fact, corrupt enforcement of the laws can permit quiet fulfillment of both sets of values, e.g., through a territorial arrangement in which "good neighborhoods" are kept free of gambling and prostitution while other areas of the city or metropolitan area are “wide open.' Until legal norms coincide with popular values, these corruptly induced adjustments allow the society to run smoothly.27

9 26

more

unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of Chicago, 1934.

22 Ibid.; McKitrick, op. cit. supra, n. 5.

23 Nathaniel H. Leff, "Economic Development through Bureaucratic Corrup. tion," 8 American Behavioral Scientist 8-14 (November, 1964).

24 Daniel Bell, "Crime as an American Way of Life," in "The End of Ideology" (New York: Free Press, 1960); William Foote Whyte, "Street Corner Society" (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943), pp. 111-193; David Matza, "Delinquency and Drift" (New York: John Wiley, 1964); Donald R. Cressey, "The Functions and Structure of Criminal Syndicates," a report to the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, 1966.

25 Charles E. Merriam, "Chicago: A More Intimate View of Urban Politics" (New York: MacMillan, 1929), pp. 54-60; Virgil W. Peterson, "Obstacles to Enforcement of Gambling Laws," 269 Annals 9-20 (May, 1950).