problem. I want to impress upon you what appeared both in the message of the President and in the message of the Attorney General, and that was that the Federal Government has neither inclination nor desire to usurp in any way the responsibilities of local officials. I think I can say on behalf of all of us in this room today that all the delegates to this conference know and recognize that law enforcement is primarily a local problem; that we have the clear responsibility for improving and bettering our own police departments in every way. We are not here to dump the responsibilities of local law enforcement upon the Federal Government or Federal agencies. We recognize our responsibility. We are not here to force it off upon any other agency or any jurisdiction other than our own. Of course, we are limited to city lines, county lines, and State lines. The prevention of crime and the profession of criminal law, enforcing of the law, generally must be a cooperative problem-cooperation between the various agencies, Federal, State, and local agencies-so we must not overstep each other's responsibilities in this matter. Now may I just say a word or two about the conference? I will adjourn the present meeting to be reconvened at 11 o'clock in room 1310, the room in which you registered this morning. The meeting will be in executive session, working executive session. I am hopeful that after the statements have been made by the various organizations in attendance here today that all the delegates will feel entirely free not only to make such statements as they see fit to make, but to join in the discussion, for we are here in an attempt to make suggestions which will be helpful in our cooperative endeavor to combat syndicated crime by syndicated enforcement. This meeting is adjourned, and will be reconvened at 11 o'clock in room 1310. EXECUTIVE SESSION Room 1310-11 o'clock Mayor NEWTON. The working session of the Attorney General's Conference on Organized Crime is hereby called to order. I would like to point out that this is an executive session, and if there are any reporters present, I feel that they should wait for the press conference at 12:30 to obtain information about this session. If there are no reporters present, we will proceed. I am going to start out this morning by asking the following persons who are delegates to this conference to rise and make themselves known. I think it would be helpful if we regard the discussion to follow as a rather personal discussion, and I think it would facilitate matters if all of you would know each other. Mr. Alan H. Bible, please stand. Mr. Price Daniel ("Mr. Daniel could not come, I am here instead-McElroy.") Mr. Ralph W. Farris Mr. John P. McGrath. Miss Ann X. Alpern. Mr. Robert D. Morrison. Now, the session today will consist of two or three statements by representatives of certain organizations that have been asked to designate delegates to this conference. (Voice from the floor.) Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt just a minute? Senator Kefauver is here today. Mayor NEWTON. I would like to ask Senator Kefauver to rise, please. (Senator rises.) We are very happy to have you here today. I want it understood, of course, that there are several persons here today for observation representing several Federal agencies, and I am very hopeful that they will join in the discussion. I will ask the delegates, when they wish to join in the discussion, to rise and state your name, the organization of which you are a member, and whether you are speaking as an individual or as a representative of your organization. The first statement today will be made by Mr. Alan H. Bible, attorney general of Nevada, spokesman and President of the National Association of Attorneys General. Mr. Alan H. Bible. [Applause.] AN ADDRESS BY ALAN H. BIBLE Attorney General of Nevada Mayor Newton, ladies and gentlemen of the conference: It goes without saying, it is a pleasure for me to be representative spokesman of our National Association and to be with you in the discussion of this very vital problem. Organized gambling presents law-enforcement officers with one of the most difficult problems today. Gambling schemes operate across State lines into all parts of the country, especially in the fields of bookmaking, slot machines, and number rackets, through the use of interstate contracts, national syndicates, and telephone and telegraph facilities. Concerted campaigns to control gambling are in operation at present in many parts of the country. Many State and local enforcement officers have found and are finding, however, that their efforts to control these activities are largely ineffective because of the Nationwide scope of organized gambling, and because of statutory differences in the treatment of gambling activities. Our National Association, meeting in St. Paul, Minn., on last October, discussed the problem, and by resolution urged the cooperation of Federal, State, and local law-enforcement agencies in the investigation, prosecution, and conviction of persons involved in conspiracies operating for the purpose of violating laws which were designed to stamp out gambling. The Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Communications Commission, to which this resolution was addressed in part, have responded in a uniformly cordial and cooperative manner, but they have pointed out the practical limits to assistance they can render not so much in the light of existing Federal statutes, but rather in light of the absence of Federal law dealing specifically with this subject. Members of our Association have had occasion in the past to call on these Federal law-enforcement agencies, and I must state that the system varies in the 48 States. In a number of our States, the attorney general himself is charged with the duty of prosecuting misdemeanors and felonies, and in other States directed to assist the district or the States attorneys in that prosecution. We have found that, varying according to the status of the various States, we have received, without exception, wholehearted cooperation from these agencies, and I should certainly like to acknowledge, on behalf of our Association, our gratitude for their fine assistance, and particularly for the assistance of those men more directly charged with prosecution in the various States, either personally or in assistance with others. Gambling operations are, to a considerable extent, local in character. Local Laws and ordinances grant differing legal status to these operations. Horse racing, for example, is illegal in some States and in others, while racing is not, wagering is illegal. In some States wagering is permitted only at the tracks, and in a few, including my own State of Nevada, wagering is entirely legal. You find, too, similar differences with respect to slot machines and games of chance. In short, what some States permit, other States prohibit. These decisions, as we know, are important policy determinations by the individual States and it has been the consistent and continuing feeling of our Association that the right of the States to make these decisions are unquestioned. Therefore, it is suggested that Federal legislation in that field be directed toward assisting the States in every way to enforce their own statutes, specifically to prohibit the use of facilities in interstate commerce for gambling and other related purposes, except where local laws and ordinances permit their use. In regard to the interstate transmission of horse-racing information, there is no Federal statute, as you know. However, the Federal Communications Commission has concluded that, for the present, tariff regulations of the communication carriers provide the most effective means whereby local and State authorities can bring about a discontinuance by the communication company of its services to any persons, who, in the opinion of such authorities, are using the services for illegal purposes. You will find a number of decisions on that. The opinion is very recently confirmed by decision in McBride v. Western Union Telegraph Company, 171 F. (2d) 1, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the telegraph company was justified in refusing to restore service which had been discontinued on the basis of a tariff regulation upon the receipt of notice from State officials that the service was being used in violation of law. The Federal Communications Commission has informed the National Association of Attorneys General that Western Union and the Bell system companies have filed regulations providing that service will be refused when it is used in violation of State law. This is a partial remedy, to be sure. Definite congressional action with respect to the interstate transmission of information for gambling purposes as a basis for affirmative cooperation by the Federal lawenforcement agencies would be more effective. The interest of our National Association in the intergovernmental aspects of crime control extends back a generation. During the postWorld War I crime wave, a number of State and local crime commissions were organized to build informed public opinion concerning the growing menace. These agencies were organized, e. g., in the States of Missouri, New York, Michigan, Illinois, and several other States; in the cities of Chicago, Cleveland, and Baltimore. The Cleveland Association for Criminal Justice, it will be recalled, was formed in 1921 as an outgrowth of the first extensive report on criminal justice in the United States, conducted under the guidance of Dean Roscoe Pound and Professor Felix Frankfurter, with Prof. Raymond Moley as director. It was in 1921, also, that the Attorneys General Association appointed a committee to confer with the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws on the question of uniform methods of extradition. This move culminated 5 years later in the perfection and issuance by the National Conference of the original Uniform Extradition Act. Another committee of the Attorneys General Association reported, in 1926, on the text of the Uniform Act to secure the attendance of out-of-state witnesses in criminal cases. This act was endorsed by the Association, referred to by the Uniform Law Commissioners, and subsequently was revised by the Interstate Commission on Crime. General McGrath's calling of this particular conference and the situation which led to it are parallel, it seems to me, in some respects, with the Attorney General's Conference held in December 1934, in Washington, D. C., as a result of the violent crimes which had spread over the country, largely because of loopholes in our law-enforcement structure. That conference led to the creation of the Interstate Commission on Crime, which was established on October 12, 1935. On that date, in Trenton, N. J., appointed representatives of the States and the Federal Government, including legislators, enforcement officials, and attorneys general, met together to discuss ways and means of overcoming these loopholes, which worked to the advantage of the criminal against the interests of society. Immediate attention was first paid to that vast field which has been so aptly called "No-man's land" of crime control existing between the jurisdiction of a single State and that of the Federal law. One example of these "No-man's lands" is the case of the extradition of defendants and the removal of witnesses from State to State, where the interests of States are concerned, as distinguished from the interests of the Federal Government or those of a single State. Another example, which concerns the control of firearms, is that the acquisition of a pistol by a criminal in one State all too often results in its use in a holdup in another State. Both such separate antisocial acts are local and thus under State and not Federal control and could not be controlled by a single State insofar as they occur in different jurisdictions. The work of the Interstate Commission on Crime was based on the demonstrable assumption that the public cannot be protected properly from crime or other evils without the joint aid of all governmental agencies concerned and indeed unless the interest and support of the public itself is assured. The Interstate Commission on Crime, which was integrated with the Council of State Governments in 1942, took the lead in drafting and submitting for legislative enactment uniform laws and compacts dealing with various phases of crime control. Included among these are the following: 1. Interstate Compact for Parolee and Probationer Supervision.Forty-five States have adopted and now operate under this compact. |