imprisonment, death at sunrise-all these forms of punishment have their advocates. We listen, of course, to all suggestions.

What is your attitude toward the control of firearms?

Since the end of the World War we have imported into the United States more than a million pistols. Almost half that number, of domestic manufacture, are sold annually. Should any restriction be placed on the sale of firearms?

Eighty-seven submachine guns made in New York have been found in private hands in Chicago. Why should their manufacture and transportation be permitted except for use by military and other authorities under strict supervision?

Statistics show that of the homicides in the United States, firearms are responsible for 71 percent. In England they are used in 10 percent of slayings; in Australia, 17 percent; in Japan, 1 percent. Do these figures mean anything in forming an opinion as to what we should do about the weapons of crime? We welcome your comments on this subject.

We are particularly anxious to know why the protective and other rackets continue to exist and apparently to grow in numbers and strength.

Is it because you have not men enough on the police forces of States and localities? Do you need more money for personnel and equipment?

I should like to have you state frankly what part an aroused public opinion might play in giving the police better support. If perchance some courts are not now sympathetic to your efforts, would these courts be responsive to public opinion?

The courts are the cornerstone of our liberties. It is alleged that some of them fail to function in such manner as to guarantee those liberties. Nobody more than the police can possibly know what the courts are doing or not doing in the control of racketeering. Unless they uphold the hands of our peace officers, the police morale is sure to suffer.

Unless there are adequate sentences and which are made effective, arrests will hold no terror. There can be no doubt that celerity in the apprehension of the criminal and certainty of immediate court action, will make many an evildoer pause.

The police have every opportunity to observe the jury system. Have you found anything painfully defective in it? Are juries properly chosen and are jurors protected against intimidation or other improper approach?

We are particularly anxious to know how much the courts and prosecuting attorneys may be responsible for the failures of conviction. It is assumed that the cases are worked up by the police and turned over to the prosecuting officers and the courts with every expectation of successful termination. Are you thwarted frequently by faulty presentation or an unsympathetic court?

Needless to say I am not so naive as to believe these questions will be answered in just the way the committee might wish. I ask them, however, in the hope that some ex-police officials may answer them fully and freely. It will be interesting to get at the bottom of the facts.

I have left for the last, the question that is most important to the committee. I refer to the larger part the Federal Government may have in the apprehension and trial of racketeers and kidnapers.

Let us assume that some constitutional way might be found to establish an institution of the general nature of Scotland Yard in its relation to the crimes under discussion. Would that be desirable and would the assistance of the Federal Government be welcomed by the local or State police?

State lines are frequently a barrier against effective police action. The criminal himself or material witnesses to the crime may escape into a neighboring State. Is that a frequent experience?

If there were intimate cooperation between Federal and local police officials would not that effect greater certainty of speedy solution of certain crimes?

Let us consider kidnaping for example: Who can know until the crime is actually solved whether or not State lines have been crossed? We are living in an age of hard-surfaced roads and high-powered automobiles. The sky is filled with aircraft, some of which may be operated by criminals. Distance is annihilated. Who knows where the victim may be or who took him there, until there is final completion of the case?

I regret to say that many thinking persons believe State peace officials and State courts fail to get results because of the limitations upon their powers and jurisdiction. Our committee must decide what, if anything, along this line it shall recommend to a Congress determined to end racketeering. You can help us by giving pages out of the book of your experiences.

If there are matters that you prefer to give to the committee privately, we would be glad to have your views. We hope that you will give freely to the committee the information that you possess. You may consult with members of the committee or with Colonel Hutchinson, counsel of the committee.

This is what we have to say in introducing this particular problem today. Now, it is my pleasure to introduce to you the Assistant Attorney General, who has entered upon his office determined to do what he can in the case of the Government against the racketeer. Our friend has made a great start already, and we know that he is going forward in his noble undertaking. I am very happy indeed to introduce Mr. Keenan, Assistant Attorney General of the United States.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH B. KEENAN

Mr. KEENAN. Senator Copeland, I deem it a great pleasure to have the opportunity to cooperate with your committee which begins its studies and its hearings at this time. In the spirit of the new administration we shall, I am sure, cooperate shoulder to shoulder with other branches of our Government in our attempt to provide opportunities for individuals to earn a living. We will do our best to see that the members of our community may be kept free from crimes of violence. This work is called an attack upon racketeering. Mr. Schuette, president of the National Association of Broadcasters, recently expressed as a definition for racketeering the following:

It is the organized use of threats, coercion, intimidation, and use of violence to compel the payment for actual or alleged services of arbitrary or excessive charges under the guise of membership dues, protection fees, royalties, or service rates, the cloak of blackmail and extortion.

If this broad definition were accepted, any attempt to eradicate vils would undoubtedly lead us into every branch of business conducted in this country today.

One of the most serious problems with which this great Nation is faced is the necessity of organizing its resources in an earnest effort, first, to make this country safe for its inhabitants, and, also, in the spirit of the new administration, so often denominated as the "new deal," to see that all branches of our Government exercise their powers to the extent that those who are willing to work for their living may do so without the necessity of gratuitously supporting that group of people who demand a share of the profits and who decline to play any part in creating them.

Naturally, the first requirement is to protect human life, and for such reason an outraged public from one end of the country to the other demands that their duly constituted authorities see to it that by one method or another organized bands will not be permitted to prey on flesh and blood and the strongest of human emotions-the love of parents for their children—as a means of earning their living and obtaining riches.

It is to be hoped that there is some exaggeration in the public understanding of organized crime in this Nation. However that may be, it is our first duty to ascertain the facts, so that thereafter the problem can be studied. Then when the full extent of the problem has been ascertained with some degree of accuracy proper steps can be planned to cope with the problem. It is for this reason that the work of this committee, headed by the distinguished and experienced Senator from New York, Royal S. Copeland, is of vital importance. It will have some opportunity to take testimony and with the advice of some of the most prominent students of crime conditions, like Prof. Raymond Moley and several others with whom he has been associated in this work for several years, it will be in a position to study the problem and recommend remedies through legislation and otherwise.

It will, of course, be the duty of the Federal Government to see that all of its law-enforcement agencies are so coordinated as to bring about the most effective cooperative action. In meeting this fundamental problem, principles cannot be ignored, and due consideration must be given to the further fact that our Government is composed of 48 sovereign States. In working out this problem there should be no clash of jurisdiction. Basically the problem of law enforcement is and should be the task of each single local community. If it happens that some local community for the time being has delegated the duty of enforcing the law to those who are either incompetent or corrupt, surely it is not an impossible task for the members of such community to rectify these conditions. The matter o such correction is not and should not constitute a Federal problem. History affords ample proof of the fact that any effort by a centralized authority situated at a substantial distance from a community to be so protected to enforce such laws has never worked out successfully. With this thought in mind, even a preliminary study of the situation discloses the fact that the citizens of the various sovereign States are also citizens of the United States; and with the great changes in communication and transportation, wherein one can safely travel from the Atlantic to the Pacific within a 24-hour period and the inhabitants of the Atlantic seaboard can communicate with one end of the Pacific coast in a matter of a few moments, when one considers these changed conditions it must be realized that now there is required

coordination of law-enforcement agencies in the various communities in a manner never before dreamed of by the founders of our country. I believe it is well recognized by the members of the various communities that some central clearing-house agency of law enforcement is becoming an absolute necessity in our country. It would seem entirely logical that the Federal Government should supply this little push that it needs. Such a body, at least in embryonic form, is in the form of the Division of Investigation of the Department of Justice. It has the authority, by Federal law, of investigating violations of any Federal statute. In the course of its work it has established the Division of Identification and a crime laboratory that has already proved of great assistance to the local authorities.

It would be interesting if you could observe the operations of this Department by a personal visit. Within a few moments after a set of fingerprints have been received from some distant community the identification of the individual is established without recourse to the name he has taken, and in a few moments more a fairly complete record of his previous criminal actions can be located; and in such manner thousands of cases yearly, where local communities have picked up apparently harmless suspects who have been apprehended by chance, turn out to be in reality hardened habitual criminals.

In the year 1932 approximately 4,000 criminals were apprehended through the work of this Bureau. That such a bureau has progressed to its present state of efficiency without systematic cooperation from the various local communities is amazing. Practically all of this has been done by the voluntary forwarding of fingerprints and other information of identification by the various police departments of the United States. I am glad to state that New York State is one of the very few-I think there are approximately 12 out of the 48 Statesthat requires this information to be sent on first to Albany and then to Washington.

If every State in the Union required the members of the police department or its subdivisions to forward fingerprints and identification data in a methodical and uniform manner, it is quite obvious that the efficiency of the Department and its usefulness would be greatly enhanced.

In performing this function this agency of the Federal Government is in no manner usurping the authority of any of the law-enforcement agencies of the various cities and States inasmuch as it is acting and desires to act only as a member of one great family in offering assistance to other branches thereof. Whether or not it is a wise thing to extend these functions, like some other foreign agencies now do, or, at least, are thought to do, to the extent of sending its agents, upon request, to certain communities to follow up some purely local crime is a much more difficult question to answer. But that matter can be studied.

But the basis of the enforcement of the law is the willingness of the great mass of the people to obey it, and I am certain that despite the gravity of the situation and the depth of the problem the public may feel assured that not alone the Federal Government and its resources but the legislatures of the various States of the Union are in deadly earnest in this effort to concentrate upon this form of coordination of their agencies to bring about the necessary change, to the end that the government of the underworld will shortly come to

an end and that local authorities will assert themselves in bringing about fruitful and lasting results.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Keenan. You have presented this matter in a very impressive and constructive manner. We appreciate it.

I should like to say to the ladies and gentlemen present that the committee has received splendid aid from the Federal Bar Association of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. I have not hesitated to call upon this able committee for opinions regarding the various questions which might be presented ultimately for conclusion by the Senate committee. I asked the committee of the association to formulate a proposed amendment to the Constitution, if that is deemed necessary, to be submitted-an amendment that would cover certain types of crimes. That will be presented some time. tomorrow.

And then other matters have been given over to this committee, and one of them-one of the "jobs", if I may call it that-assigned to the Federal Bar Association was the formulation of a definition of racketeering or of the particular crimes with which we are dealing here, and at this stage of the proceedings I am going to ask Mr. Robert Daru, the chairman of the committee for the repression of racketeering, if he will present his definition or make other suggestions regarding it. Mr. Daru.

Mr. DARU. Senator Copeland, on behalf of the committee for the repression of racketeering of the Federal Bar Association, I bring to you a message of confidence of our association and of this committee which has been engaged in this work. We are confident that you and your committee are going to make great headway in the suppression of racketeering.

The average man on the street refers to every kind of swindle and every new swindle as a racket. We know that your committee is not going to concern itself at this time with the ordinary crimes, but is going to limit its activities to what is referred to as racketeering. We therefore suggest that for the purposes of this committee a provisional definition of racketeering be considered, so that when the police officers and attorneys are called and make their suggestions in referring to racketeering you and others here may know the type of crime to which they are referring.

Before introducing Prof. Franklin F. Russell, who is the vice chairman of our committee and who has prepared a provisional definition of racketeering, I want to say this to you, Senator Copeland:

We are an association, a bar association of lawyers. Ordinarily this type of investigation falls into the hands of a member of the bar. We are glad that in this instance you, as the head of this committee, are not a lawyer. And I will explain the reason why. If you were a member of the bar, the first thing that would be taken up for consideration would be reform in criminal procedure, reform in penal laws. You, however, with the proper slant, have seen fit to take up other matters first and the matter of criminal procedure second.

In other words, we feel that not only are there changes necessary in criminal procedure, in the penal laws, but that there is a great deal which must be done by laymen and by the public and by the police and by others in addition to what the organized bar can do to end racketeering in this country, and we may even desire to have