I would like to go through a little history of a public service litigation that involves this company. The CHAIRMAN. Can we do it expeditiously? The CHAIRMAN. What is the value of it? Mr. ADLERMAN. The value is this: I would just like to show, that there is this difficulty that once this wide area service goes through, if anybody applied for it and they have some semblance of legitimacy, they could get it whether or not they were a front for a wire service or bookmaking operation or the like. I will just read this. The CHAIRMAN. Make it brief. Mr. ADLERMAN. If I am mistaken on any of this, Mr. Wise, I wish you would correct me. Mr. Wise is the attorney for Delaware Sports Service. He is not sworn, and I do not think he ought to be sworn. He is going to help us if he can. The CHAIRMAN. This is not sworn testimony, and the record may so reflect. I want to keep the record straight. Mr. ADLERMAN. Delaware Wired Music, Inc., was organized in 1949. In 1950 the attorney general of the State of Delaware challenged the legality of the service, and a criminal action was brought against Delaware Wired Music and its officers, and there was an acquittal, is that correct? Mr. WISE. That is correct. Mr. ADLERMAN. In 1952 Delaware passed a law to prohibit the dissemination of information in furtherance of gambling. Mr. WISE. In 1952, I believe it is correct. Mr. ADLERMAN. That was contained in the Laws of 1953, section 671, 677, title 2. Mr. WISE. That is right. Mr. ADLERMAN. Or is that title 11? Mr. WISE. Title 11, that is correct. Mr. ADLERMAN. In 1953, the Diamond State Telephone Co. sought to remove the telephone from the Delaware Sports Service or Delaware Wired Music on a complaint of the chief of police of Wilmington. Will you state what happened in that case? Mr. WISE. Apparently, Chief Weidman notified the Diamond State Telephone Co. that the service was being used in violation of the law. As the result of that, the telephone company advised Delaware Sports-it was either Delaware Sports or Delaware Wired Music; I forgot whether it changed names from the corporate to the partnership they advised them that they were going to discontinue the service. On behalf of Delaware Sports, I went back to the law enforcement authorities to ask them wherein they were violating the law, and as a result they withdrew the complaint and said that they had Mr. ADLERMAN. In other words, they were not able to prove that this was a bookmaking operation as such? It was merely a service to the bookmakers, and as such it did not come under the law. Is that the idea? Mr. WISE. That is right, practically, except that at that time they could not advise me of any bookmaker that was receiving the service. All of the records were made available to them at the time. Mr. ADLERMAN. On October 13, 1959, the Attorney General wrote to the Diamond State Telephone Co. asking that it discontinue service unless the Delaware Sports Service attacked the constitutionality of the statute; is that correct? Mr. WISE. That is correct. Mr. ADLERMAN. In October 21, 1959, Delaware Sports Service filed a petition in the court of chancery to enjoin the telephone company? Mr. WISE. That is correct. Mr. ADLERMAN. On September 8, 1960, the court ruled that section 675 was unconstitutional? Mr. WISE. That is correct. Mr. ADLERMAN. Could you elaborate on that just a bit? Mr. WISE. Section 675 is a section of the wire law that requires the removal of telephone service by a public utility upon notification by a law enforcement agency, acting within its jurisdiction-requires the telephone company to remove the service without affording to that person an opportunity for a hearing as to whether it is, in fact, being used in violation of the law. The court of chancery held that to permit the deprivation of property without any chance of opportunity for a hearing was unconstitutional. Mr. ADLERMAN. In other words, the fact that they did not afford a hearing made it unconstitutional? Mr. WISE. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. That was depriving of property without due process? Mr. WISE. That is right. Mr. ADLERMAN. The telephone company was enjoined on October 3, 1960? Mr. WISE. I do not recall the exact date, sir. Mr. ADLERMAN. On November 28, 1960, the telephone company notified the Delaware Sports News it would terminate service unless the Delaware Sports News filed a complaint with the public service commission; is that right? Mr. WISE. That is right. Mr. ADLERMAN. What is the status of the case at the present time? Mr. WISE. A petition was filed with the public service commission to have it determined whether this violated the public policy of the public service commission. After that was filed, the public service commission held up action for a while because of two things. First, it did not know whether it had jurisdiction in view of the fact that it was contended that this was entirely an interstate operation. Secondly, there was another case pending, involving someone else, as to the constitutionality of another section of the act. That has all been cleared out of the way. The commission is going ahead with it. The State has filed its brief, and my brief is due, I think, this Friday, the 30th of August. Mr. ADLERMAN. The purpose of this, Senator, again, is to demonstrate that here since 1950 there have been challenges and efforts to remove the telephone service from the Delaware Sports Service, an operation which is obviously only designed to help bookmakers and illegal gambling and has turned out not to be successful. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. That can just be comment. It is not a part of the sworn record. It is just comment and colloquy here for the information of the members of the committee. If we need to get testimony on it, we will do so. Mr. ADLERMAN. Now, just one more question. Do you know how long it takes to get the results of the Armstrong wire? Mr. TOLLIN. I have it approximately. Mr. ADLERMAN. Approximately? Mr. TOLLIN. Fifteen to twenty minutes. Mr. ADLERMAN. And you beat it by about 14 minutes; is that right? The CHAIRMAN. Is that Armstrong service generally regarded as a kind of official service throughout the country? Mr.TOLLIN. In my understanding, it is; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, if the bookmaker or professional gambler, as you referred to them this morning, unless he could get a service such as yours, unless such a service is provided to him by someone else other than Armstrong, he would have to wait some 14 or 15 minutes longer than he now has to wait if he was a subscriber to your service? Mr. TOLLIN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What I mean is that without your service or a similar service being provided for the professional gambler and bookies, they would turn to the next best or the next quickest way, I assume, of getting the information, and that would be Armstrong? Mr. TOLLIN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. So you actually take up a gap there. You supply information from 14 to 15 minutes quicker than anyone else? Your character of service does? Mr. TOLLIN. Yes, I would beat Armstrong by 14 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. You would beat Armstrong by 14 minutes? The CHAIRMAN. I understand. It might be 142 minutes one time and it might be 151⁄2 the next. But it is in that general neighborhood. And the fact that you are able to supply the service that much quicker is what makes your service valuable enough that they will pay you what they pay for it? Mr. TOLLIN. If I may state what I give is not what Armstrong gives, sir. I just give the unofficial winner of the race. Armstrong gives the one, two, three, and the mutuels in the race. The CHAIRMAN. That gives the full thing. But you give the vital thing first and quickest? Mr. TOLLIN. The unofficial. It is not the final. The CHAIRMAN. I understand. You cannot afford to make many mistakes? Mr. TOLLIN. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You would be out of business? Mr. TOLLIN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. So while it is unofficial it is substantially correct. It is pretty reliable what you send out? Mr. TOLLIN. I believe so. Senator CURTIS. Why would you be out of business if you made a mistake? You just testified a while ago that to the best of your knowledge people just bought it out of curiosity to find out the news of what was going at the track. How would you be out of business if you made a mistake? Mr. TOLLIN. They are paying me for this privilege of finding out. I have to be accurate. If I am not accurate they will not have faith in my service. Senator CURTIS. There is a lot of fiction sold? Mr. TOLLIN. Pardon, sir? Senator CURTIS. There is a lot of fiction published and sold as such? You have testified that as far as you know your customers just bought it from curiosity. To your knowledge they did not use it to gamble. I cannot see how a mistake would be very damaging. Mr. TOLLIN. It would give them the confidence that I am going to expense of finding out the correct winner. Senator CURTIs. As a matter of fact, you know they use it for gambling information? Mr. TOLLIN. I honestly do not, sir. I do not know any of my customers personally. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Are you through with this witness? Mr. ADLERMAN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Thank you. formation that has been requested of you. You will supply the inSupply that under your signature or over your signature for the record. It will be a part of your sworn testimony. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Call the next witness. You may stand aside. DEAR MR. ADLERMAN: We are herewith submitting the information you requested: 1955 1956 1956 1957 1957 1957 1958 1958 1958 Thomas Hawkins, Box 211, Little River Post Office, Miami, Fla. 1959 Yours very truly, Mr. ADLERMAN. Mr. Rudolph Atlas. Amount $3,000 3,400 2, 125 2, 450 5, 200 1,700 3, 570 3, 400 6, 285 2,200 2, 750 3, 450 7,730 DELAWARE SPORTS SERVICE. A. TOLLIN. The CHAIRMAN. Come forward, Mr. Atlas, please, sir. Be sworn. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Senate subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. ATLAS. I do. TESTIMONY OF RUDOLPH ATLAS, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, WILLIAM H. COLLINS The CHAIRMAN. State your name, your place of residence, and your present business or occupation. Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I appear as counsel for this witness. I am William H. Collins, attorney, Washington, D.C. Respectfully, at the outset of this particular proceeding, I desire to make of record a challenge of the authority of the committee to function The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Let the witness be sworn. You have not been sworn, have you? Mr. ATLAS. I believe I have. Mr. COLLINS. Yes, he has, Your Honor. The CHAIRMAN. Let him state his name. We will see who we are talking about, and then counsel will be recognized for any comment he wishes to make at the moment. State your name, your place of residence, and your business or occupation, or as much of that as you are willing to state before we identify your counsel and let him make a statement for you. But at least we ought to have your name so we know who he is talking about. Mr. ATLAS. Rudolph Atlas, 62 Oakwood Lane, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to state your business or occupation? Mr. ATLAS. I decline to answer because to do so might incrimi nate me. The CHAIRMAN. Very well, counsel. You may identify yourself for the record, and we will hear you for a moment. Mr. COLLINS. My name is William H. Collins. I am an attorney with offices located in the Shoreham Building, Washington, D.C. I appear in behalf of the witness. I, respectfully, at the outset desire to challenge the authority of the committee to function at this time. The CHAIRMAN. To challenge the authority of the committee on what? Mr. COLLINS. To function at this time. And in support of that, I would like to urge to the committee that under the authority of Resolution 69, and section 3, which you, Mr. Chairman, outlined at the outset of these proceedings as being the source of the authority of this committee, among other things you are authorized to investigate the aspects of syndicated or organized crime, and more particularly, insofar as I am apprised that this witness is to be interrogated on the subject matter of wire service, a full investigation with reference to the interstate use of wire service in the facilitation of gambling. I would like to point out to this committee at this time that this particular field has been preempted from this committee by the action. of the Judiciary Committee. I call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that in S. 1656, which was a bill to amend chapter 50 of title 18, United States Code, with respect to the transmission of bets, wagers, and related information, that bill has been passed by the Senate, is a most comprehensive bill. |