The CHAIRMAN. I understand that, that your contention is basically that you do that, for him to be required to submit his signature, would be to require him to do an act that might constitute self-incrimination. Mr. WEINTRAUB. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Therefore, he has taken that position and so stated that that is why he would not do it.

Mr. WEINTRAUB. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. That raises every issue that could in my judgment be presented to a court later. It encompasses every reason that is associated with the right to take the fifth amendment.

Very well.

Senator MUNDT. The attorney said that he had

The CHAIRMAN. I don't regard this like trying a lawsuit where you have to save every minute exception or otherwise you waive it. I do not think that is the situation at all. I think as a lawyer you would agree that it is not.

Mr. WEINTRAUB. Of course, a lawyer always tries to bend over backward to foresee any eventuality or possibility.

The CHAIRMAN. If I thought your client's right was being prejudiced in the least by this ruling, I would broaden it out. I do not want to take any advantage of him. I think the court would be governed somewhat by what I am saying here, that I understand that your objection is on the grounds of the fifth amendment, including every right that he may have under the fifth amendment.

Very well.

Senator MUNDT. Mr. Chairman, I was trying to ask a question when I was interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Senator MUNDT. I think the counsel said this, that he wanted to give some specific reasons why this specific witness should not respond to the questions. This may be a reason that the committee in the past has honored.

Is this because your witness, Mr. Busker, is under indictment some place, somewhere, involved in other litigation?

Mr. WEINTRAUB. If the Senator would like, I can give my general

reasons.

Senator MUNDT. I would like an answer to that question.

Mr. WEINTRAUB. I think they would be given by the general reasons that I would give without giving a specific answer.

Senator MUNDT. I just wanted an answer without an explanation

Mr. WEINTRAUB. I cannot answer that question directly.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the question?

Senator MUNDT. Whether or not the witness is under indictment in a court of law someplace where we might be impinging on his legal rights.

Can you not answer that question?

Mr. WEINTRAUB. That may be one of the reasons, and there may be other reasons which, if the Senator wants, I can give him the general reasons for the refusals.

Senator MUNDT. I just want to know whether or not that is included. We have honored that in the past. We could save some time. The CHAIRMAN. It has been the practice before the committee in

the course of the many hearings we have held, where a witness is under indictment, and that fact is known by the committee or is made known to the committee at the time the witness is interrogated, we try to stay away from interrogating the witness about anything actually pertaining to that alleged offense.

Mr. WEINTRAUB. Both of the witnesses are under indictment in the Campbell circuit court in Newport, Ky., and under investigation by the Campbell County grand jury now sitting, as well as everybody else engaged in this operation.

Senator MUNDT. You answered my second question, which was going to be "if not, why not," but that I already know.

Mr. WEINTRAUB. That I don't know. I am not an investigator nor on any investigating committee.

The CHAIRMAN. If they are under indictment, let the record so show.

Do we have any information on that?

Again, I think your general objection and the ruling of the Chair protects your clients with respect to any rights they may have under the fifth amendment.

Senator MUNDT. Mr. Chairman, in order that we can deal with both these witnesses the same and so that the proceedings will not get thrown out of court because we discriminated in favor of one instead of the other, and because I have a feeling we are going to ask the Senate to cite these folks for contempt because they obviously are not cooperative, they are taking recourse in actions and answers which it seems to me are clearly violating their rights under the fifth amendment, I have to ask the same question of Mr. Schomaker.

Mr. Stanley Schomaker, I now send you what purports to be your application to the U.S. Treasury Department, for special tax return and application for registry for wagering, dated June-it looks as though it is 6 or 16. It is, perhaps, June 30, 1961. I ask you whether or not this is, in fact, your signature, whether this is an honest and valid application, or whether it is an attempt to deceive and defraud the Federal Government into giving a wagering tax stamp to some fictitious character rather than the Stanley Schomaker who purports to be the signatory to this document.

I ask that it be made an exhibit and that we give the witness the chance to answer the question or the opportunity to challenge the authority of an investigating committee of Congress, by refusing to

answer.

Mr. SCHOMAKER. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me.

The CHAIRMAN. On behalf of the committee, the Chair orders and directs the witness to answer the question.

Mr. WEINTRAUB. At this time, note my objection.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the record show the same objection is made by counsel at this stage of the proceedings with respect to this witness that he has made for Witness Busker.

Very well, the record will so reflect.

Senator MUNDT. Now, I ask the Chair to order and direct Mr. Schomaker, as he did Mr. Busker, to supply his signature for the record. Then the record will be complete.

The CHAIRMAN. On behalf of the committee, the Chair has the clerk lay before you a blank sheet of paper on which you are ordered and directed to sign your name and send it up to the committee. Will you comply with the order and direction of the committee? (The witness conferred with his counsel.)

Mr. SCHOMAKER. I respectfully decline to do so on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, the order and direction of the Chair on behalf of the committee will remain with and attend you throughout the remainder of these hearings and during your presence here as a witness. At any time either of you witnesses desire to change your mind about it, you will so advise either the chief counsel to the committee or a member of the committee, so that you may be given an opportunity to comply before you depart from the jurisdiction of the committee.

Senator MUNDT. I might say briefly for the record, and for the benefit of counsel and the witnesses, the purpose I have had in mind in asking these questions and in making these requests.

I think the time is here when the U.S. Congress and the country should find out just what authority the Congress of the United States has in this investigative field and just what rights and privileges witnesses have under the fifth amendment. I just do not happen to believe that the constitutional forefathers and the general public feels that the fifth amendment is some pagan formula that anybody can use willynilly, anytime, anywhere, without any regard as to the validity of the fact that it is self-incriminatory.

It seems to me that a blind man in a cellar at midnight could tap out with a cane the fact that there is no possibility of self-incrimination in admitting that your signature on an application to the U.S. Government is yours, if it is yours. Obviously, if it is not, there is a chance for some incrimination.

I shall insist, as one member of this committee, upon asking the committee to ask the Congress to cite these men for contempt, to have a trial in Federal court, and to let us find out whether or not the fifth amendment in the 20th century is designed so that anybody can use it, without regard to any possible self-incrimination, but to use it by denying their name, by refusing to sign their name, and by refusing to admit known facts in utter contempt of the Congress of the United States and its legislative authority.

If we are going to permit characters engaged in different kinds of rackets to set up some supergovernment above and beyond the Congress and above and beyond the courts and above and beyond the Constitution, then the public should find it out, because there are still ways in the legislative body that we can propose changes and, if necessary, constitutional amendments, so that decency has some chance to triumph over indecency and corruption in America.

The CHAIRMAN. Very good.

Are there any further questions, Mr. Counsel ?

Mr. ADLERMAN. One or two. I will try to make it very brief and perhaps cut it short a little.

A tabulation has been made of those returns, which, again, I say is in the public domain, because that wagering law is one which does reveal to the public and to the local law enforcement authorities everyone who holds the wagering stamp.

The CHAIRMAN. I will ask counsel to suspend a moment until the Chair makes this document presented to Mr. Schomaker by Senator Mundt exhibit No. 46.

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 46" for reference and may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)

The CHAIRMAN. At the same time, before counsel proceeds, I would like to present to the witnesses, both of them, two other applications comparable to those that have been presented to them, and ask each of them to examine it and state if they identify those as photostatic copies of the originals and can tell us what they are.

(The documents were handed to the witnesses.)

Mr. WEINTRAUB. Has there been a question asked in relation to these?

The CHAIRMAN. I asked them to examine them and state whether they identify them as photostatic copies of the originals and can tell us what they are. The question is asked to each.

Mr. BUSKER. I respect fully decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.

Mr. SCHOMAKER. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.

The CHAIRMAN. Those documents may be made exhibit No. 47. (The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 47" for reference and may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)

Senator MUNDT. Are those documents the applications?
The CHAIRMAN. Comparable to the others.

Senator MUNDT. I simply want to point out for the consideration of the judge or the jury or whoever reviews this case, that these are facsimiles, photostatic copies, of Government documents, and that there is no possible ground for the witness denying to identify it on the basis of self-incrimination, unless you can prove in court that they are not actual and honest and faithful reproductions.

Should it develop in court that those are your applications and those are your signatures, then you sit there simply defying Congress and you are in contempt. If in fact they are not, it is all right, you can take the "fifth." But I want that in the record so that when this is heard in court it will all be there.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. I was just trying to make the record complete because we had two or three more here that had not been presented to them.

All right, Counsel.

TESTIMONY OF JEROME S. ADLERMAN-Resumed

Mr. ADLERMAN. A tabulation has been made of the returns. There are no returns that I have available for January to June 1960, but from January 1959 to April 1961, excluding that 6-month period of January to June 1960, it shows a total of $1,165,002 as the amount of handle that was subject to the wagering tax.

The CHAIRMAN. Handled by these two or by either of them?

Mr. ADLERMAN. By the partnership and by Mr. Busker.

The CHAIRMAN. Where did we get these figures?

Mr. ADLERMAN. I made that computation from the tax returns that were filed.

75477-61-pt. 2——13

The CHAIRMAN. You made the compilation yourself?

Mr. ADLERMAN. Under my direction.

The CHAIRMAN. Made under your direction by a member of the staff?

Mr. ADLERMAN. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, this may be inserted in the record, since you have been sworn, Mr. Counsel, as part of your testimony, this document showing the return.

What was the sum?

Mr. ADLERMAN. $1,165,002.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the amount of wagers they received?

Mr. ADLERMAN. That is the amount of handle on which they have to pay a 10-percent tax.

The CHAIRMAN. That much you know, that you found a record of. Mr. ADLERMAN. That is the amount that they reported as the amount of money that they took in on bets.

(The tabulation referred to is as follows:)

Amounts subject to wagering tax

1 There are no returns for January through June of 1960. NOTE.-Combined grand total does not include January 1959 for Busker or January through June 1960 for partnership or Busker.

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD BUSKER AND STANLEY W. SCHOMAKER, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, MORRIS S. WEINTRAUB-Resumed

The CHAIRMAN. That is one of the issues, one of the problems, that the Government is confronted with. When we passed this law some 8 or 10 years ago, the Treasury Department estimated that it would produce some $400 million in revenue annually, and because of the apparent difficulty in enforcement or the lack of compliance, instead of it producing that much revenue it is only producing about $7 million annually, or about one-fiftieth, I think we could say, of what it was anticipated it would produce.

We are concerned about the Government losing revenues that it is entitled to. Many citizens pay their taxes to support the Government and do not try to evade them. If we are going to have tax laws