a special hearing, as you suggested, at which laymen can be heard upon this problem.

I now take pleasure in introducing to you and to the committee, Prof. Franklin F. Russell, and I am going to ask him to present for your consideration the provisional definition of racketeering. The CHAIRMAN. We are very happy to hear Professor Russell.

STATEMENT OF PROF. FRANKLIN F. RUSSELL

Professor RUSSELL. Senator Copeland, I would like to emphasize the fact that this is a provisional definition only and that as the result of the information obtained from these hearings this definition may be altered or supplemented. Our provisional definition is the following:

Racketeering is an organized conspiracy to commit the crimes of extortion or coercion, or attempts to commit extortion or coercion, within the definition of these crimes found in the penal law of the State of New York and other jurisdictions. Racketeering, from the standpoint of extortion, is the obtaining of money or property from another, with his consent, induced by the wrongful use of force or fear.

The fear which constitutes the legally necessary element in extortion is induced by oral or written threats to do an unlawful injury to the property of the threatened person by means of explosives, fire, or otherwise; and to kill, kidnap, or injure him or a relative of his or some member of his family. Racketeering, from the standpoint of coercion, usually takes the form of compelling by use of similar threats to person or property a person to do or abstain from doing an act which such other person has the legal right to do or abstain from doing, such as joining a so-called "protective association to protect his right to conduct a business or trade." Coercion as such does not necessarily involve the payment of money, but frequently both extortion and coercion are involved in racketeering.

In a bill introduced in the New York Legislature last year by Senator Dunnigan, which defined "racketeers" and "racketeering", elements of both extortion and coercion were included in the definition.

From the standpoint of the journalist rather than of the lawyer racketeering has been defined by one of our leading criminologists as "strong-arm blackmailing." Apart from the social and moral evils involved, the economic effect of racketeering is a huge, unlawful sales tax upon practically all of the necessities of life for the benefit of the criminal classes.

The CHAIRMAN. I am very much obliged to you, Professor Russell. We have invited the police officials, the ranking officials of the city of New York and of the State of New York and of the States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut. We have acceptances from most of the persons invited, but whether or not they happen to be in the room now I am not advised, but I think Commissioner Mulrooney is here.

Are you here, Commissioner?

Commissioner MULROONEY. Yes.

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER EDWARD P. MULROONEY OF

NEW YORK

The CHAIRMAN. We have invited all of the ex-commissioners of police of the city of New York who are still alive, and also the present commissioner, who is very much alive. May I at this time ask Commissioner Mulrooney if he will not address the conference? I am particularly asking, Commissioner Mulrooney, that in your remarks, if you will, to give some attention to the question of the control of firearms. I know how interested you are in that subject, and I know it would be of great interest to the conference to hear

your opinions. Speak from the heart, Commissioner, and say what you have in your mind.

Commissioner MULROONEY. Senator Copeland, on the matter of control of firearms it is needless to say that the State of New York has experienced considerable difficulty in the last number of years in trying to have proper laws enacted and to retain them on the statute books.

We have had down through the years a great deal of trouble with the ordinary firearms which are concealed upon the person. Three years ago I succeeded in having a bill passed which prohibited the issuance of licenses to persons to carry firearms unless the applicant was fingerprinted. That provision met with considerable opposition. Ultimately the bill was passed, but in each succeeding session of the legislature that law has been attacked. Two years ago it passed both houses, and only through the support of the then Governor Roosevelt was it retained upon the statute books.

We in New York are constantly coming upon a condition where we would arrest a known criminal, a man who had been many times convicted, who would be found with a firearm on his person, and he presented and flaunted on us a permit issued to him to carry a revolver and usually issued by a judge of a court of record in some remote county of the State. I have no particular criticism to make of the particular judge in most instances for issuing the permit, for the reason that he did not insist upon the applicant being fingerprinted, and therefore did not know that the man had a criminal record.

If this provision is adhered to it will at least prevent a known criminal from going about armed.

As it appears to us in New York, the whole problem of the manufacture, sale, and carrying of firearms is very loose. Despite the fact that some of the Eastern States have enacted such legislation in the past 2 years, we find as an actual fact that 25 percent of all the firearms which are confiscated by the New York Police Department are either manufactured abroad or brought in from other States. In other words, they are bootlegged into the State of New York.

I have no hope for the control of this situation unless it be national. I did speak to Senator Copeland 2 years ago, I think, when such legislation was introduced in the Congress. Its fate I do not recall, but it did not pass. But I would like to say to this committee that if they introduce helpful national legislation in that respect they are going to be beset with very great opposition and a very strong lobby, a lobby consisting of the firearms manufacturers and the munition manufacturers of the Nation.

I think that if a person wants to carry firearms he should be permitted to do so if he is of good character, and he should be permitted to do so under the provisions of the laws of the State in which he resides, and I think the fingerprinting of an honest man should not be rebelled against by citizens of the proper type, and I think that objection is used as a subterfuge by whose who wish to defeat such legislation.

it is a most ridiculous thing that any man who may occupy the position of police commissioner of the city of New York should annually have to go to Albany and defend and fight for laws which are for the good of the citizens. But that is the situation, and from present indications it will continue so.

"

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask you, Commissioner, whether you found in your check-up that a great many submachine guns were found in Western States?

Commissioner MULROONEY. If I recall the figures accurately, one wholesale concern in New York on a check-up had sold 28 machine guns. Of those 28 I think we found 11 that were sold through firms or individuals under fictitious names, and of those 11, 8 of them showed in crimes of violence in Midwestern States.

up

The CHAIRMAN. There is no possible reason for the manufacture or possession of such machine guns, is there?

Commissioner MULROONEY. I believe they have no place in organized society except for use by the police or military officials.

The CHAIRMAN. I should like to confirm what the commissioner has stated about laws relating to the possession of firearms. I introduced, at the request of Chief Magistrate McAdoo, 10 years ago, a bill for the control of firearms, and it was defeated by such a lobby as Commissioner Mulrooney suggested. This bill has been presented from time to time, but I find this, if I may add, that there is a weak ening in the opposition. I feel hopeful that this year we may pass some sort of firearms bill, but, of course, we need the support of citizens generally to put that over.

May I ask, Commissioner, what is your attitude toward Federal cooperation or assistance in the apprehension of criminals where the crime so far as is known at the time was purely a State crime?

Commissioner MULROONEY. I have long been an advocate of such a system. I think what this country needs is a national organization, call it a detective bureau or an investigation bureau. I think we are sadly in need of it.

I am familiar with the organization and the operation of many of our Federal bureaus and always enjoyed splendid cooperation from them, and I think in many instances they are undermanned and underpaid. I think that they could be increased, that many of the bureaus could be consolidated, that the personnel should be increased many, many times, and that they could work and work very satisfactorily without coming into conflict with any of the provisions which have to do with States rights. I think that is a bug-a-boo that has hampered us a great deal. I know it is a very discouraging position to apprehend a criminal in some distant State and then, through subterfuge and delay, he remains in that State sometimes for months awaiting extradition. All the time the case is getting weaker through the witnesses refusing to testify and for other reasons. When a man commits a crime in one State the more speedily he is returned and convicted the more salutary the effect.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you in mind, Commissioner, when you speak about the creation of a detective bureau or an investigation bureau something like Scotland Yard?

Commissioner MULROONEY. Many of our crimes today are not local; I mean as far as the violation of State laws is concerned. We find that the outstanding criminal today- that is, the criminal with money, who has had money placed in his possession is in a position where he operates country wide, with connections in many different cities. in the United States. We have had repeated cases where, for example, a gang in New York was induced to go to another city, there to be assassinated.

The CHAIRMAN. How about your embarrassment over the disappearance of witnesses? When they disappear there is really no method of bringing them back, is there?

Commissioner MULROONEY. There is not. They openly defy us. The CHAIRMAN. There should be some way in your opinion whereby those witnesses could be brought back into the jurisdiction?

Commissioner MULROONEY. There certainly should be, and I am very much in favor of it.

Professor RUSSELL. May I ask the Commissioner a question? The CHAIRMAN. Professor Russell wishes to ask you a question, Commissioner.

Professor RUSSELL. Commissioner, you mentioned fingerprinting. Have you any definite suggestions as to whether this legislation should be accomplished by the State or Federal authorities or both? Do you know at the present time what occupations require fingerprinting under the law in New York?

Commissioner MULROONEY. The Civil Service law requires it for all applicants for civil-service positions; the Army and Navy use it; many of our banking institutions have used it.

Professor RUSSELL. Have you ever tried to have any legislation introduced in Albany for the greater extension of fingerprinting? Commissioner MULROONEY. No; I have not; I never did, for the reason that there seems to be resentment against it, and the resentment seems to be based wholly on the fact that if you are fingerprinted your prints become part of the criminal files, which is not so. In New York there are something more than 60,000 licenses issued to taxicab drivers. Those men are fingerprinted, but those files are separate and distinct from the criminal files.

Professor RUSSELL. To what extent would the fact of everybody around being fingerprinted assist the police in protecting us against certain crimes of violence?

Commissioner MULROONEY. Fingerprinting at the outset would prevent and I may not be quite accurate on my figures-the burial on an average of 300 people in New York in Potter's Field as unidentified dead. Now, you might multiply that by all the municipalities in the country and see what result you get.

At the time of the Lindbergh kidnaping we had in New York many requests from parents to fingerprint their children, and I think it is a very splendid thing. There never could be any doubt as to the identity of the child should anything happen to it.

The CHAIRMAN. Fingerprint them at birth when the birth certificate is filed. If the fingerprints were included in the record that would ultimately solve the problem?

Commissioner MULROONEY. Well, I think they take a better print a month after.

Mr. KEENAN. Commissioner, how much of your problem centers around the premature release of hardened criminals from prisons and other institutions?

Commissioner MULROONEY. You mean on bail?

Mr. KEENAN. No; I mean those that have been sentenced.
Commissioner MULROONEY. On parole?

Mr. KEENAN. Yes.

Commissioner MULROONEY. Well, I think the parole system, while it has much to be said in its favor, frequently works in the opposite

direction and does have a very baneful effect on criminal conditions generally. You must evaluate parole, however, by considering the individual cases.

Mr. KEENAN. Well, do you meet certain individuals, or have you met them, where you felt very well satisfied that nothing would deter them from committing crime, however the speed or certainty or severity of the punishment? They are just nonsocially minded and they go out and commit crimes as long as they live.

Commissioner MULROONEY. If you have tried to talk to the young criminal of today-and, after all, your crime problem is a problem of youth, and I don't think it has been illustrated in a better way-that is, based upon the experience of the New York police department or the organization of the Crime Prevention Bureau, which attempts to prevent delinquency-but my opinion would be as to your questionwill you repeat that again?

Mr. KEENAN. I want to know whether you have encountered any great number of criminals in your work that would be deterred from committing crime either by the severity or the certainty of punishment or the speed of punishment? In other words, there isn't anything that you could do that would stop those individuals from committing crime as long as they lived.

Commissioner MULROONEY. The average young criminal today has adopted that calling as a career. He is very candid and tells you that. He doesn't want to work, and he wants money, and he is going to obtain that money by direct action and, if necessary, is going to kill. He never evidences any remorse after he commits the most brutal crime. When you send him to prison you feed him and you clothe him, and you entertain him, and he is not convinced when he goes there that he is going to remain there a great length of time.

Your criminal of today-I mean the very hardened young criminal-believes that the law of the land is the dollar. If you talk with him he will tell you that if he can get sufficient money he can continue to commit crime, that he is going to be able, with money, to evade arrest, to escape prosecution, and, if he is sent to prison, that his money will enable him to possibly get out sooner than he should get out or that he is going to get a little better treatment through having money while he is there. That is the way he looks upon conditions today.

Mr. KEENAN. Suppose the Federal and State Governments were not in conflict with each other, would that have a strong deterrent influence upon these racketeers and kidnapers?

Commissioner MULROONEY. Yes, it would; it would be a very splendid thing for law and order. But when you speak of kidnapers, I have been very much interested in what I have read and in things that I have heard, and, at the expense possibly of being called "hardboiled," I think that a worth-while remedy for you to consider-and, candidly, I don't think that you will think so, as far as introducing it into legislative form is concerned-but I think the State of New York, if you amended your penal law and cut your penalty for kidnaping down to 20 years and substituted 30 or 40 lashes in addition to the 20 years, and specified that so many lashes would be applied at the time of the reception of the criminal at the prison and so many every 6 months thereafter, I think it would have a very salutary effect.