Evening Star Newspaper, March 22, 1931, Page 74

2 fyeass aforementioned cost of rackets at from $3,000,- 000,000 to $5,000,000,000 a year. About one-fifth of our entire national ineome each year goes for our annual crime bill! About one-tenth of the minimum income of each family neceSsary to maintain its American standard of living is its annual crime tax! Per- haps my former statement should be amended! ‘We lead the world in paying for crime. Crime is our most expensive luxury. Let us start with the “racket tribute” levied on New York. In a recent speech Howard W. Ameli, United States attorney for the eastern district of New York, estimated that “between $200,000,000 and $600,000,000 yearly has been " Jevied in tribute from almost every business in New York City. ‘These figures are appalling and should give concern t7 every straight- thinking eitizen. Furthermore, it is the public, in the last analysis, that pays the racketeers’ tribute.” It is true that the artichoke racket was one of the smaller rackets in foodstuffs, but it was typical. Terranova was “stabil’zing” the busi- ness. Murder in the psultry racket is too recent to have been forgotten. The laundry racket, the milk racket, trucking and stolen car rackets are of daily appearance in the news. The unsavory building trades rackets and fake in- surance rackets are constantly cropping up. If you live in a large apartment house in the city practically everythirg you buy. is, under cover, subject to a racket. If you don't believe it, just start some little business serving apart- ment house dwellers and see if you can “muscle in.” The probability is you will either quit or “take a ride.” The fact is that after look'ng over the list of rackets in New York one is inclined to accept the higher rather than the lower total. For, remember, the ordinary list does not usually include two items which alone total $200,000,000. EE hundred represcntative New York : business men, meeting recently with the police commissioner to devise ways of stamp- ing out commercial bribery, estimated the annual toll of such bribery in New York City alone at over $100,000,000 a year and at over $1,000,000,000 throughout the United States. phase, by the way, is not included in the national erime bill of $18,000,000,000 either. any racket worth mentioning it is the “blue-sky” racket. 4 I It is common to include the liquor racket. But not often does it occur to any one to think For example, one of our prominent New York gangsters, after sizing up a stranger who might THE SUNDAY STAR, WASHINGTON, D. C, MARCH 22, 1981 - “In the line-up a score or more each day are paraded e & ‘ béfore the detectives.” Al Capone, I refer to the recent estimate of Gordon L. Hostetter, executive director of the Employers’ Association of Chicago, who declares that the annual tribute paid to racketeers throughout the country is more than $13,000,« 000,000. On top of all this it recently was announced that British insurance compcnics, are under- taking to write racketeer insurance! Does that mean that rackets are to bz “standardized” and to be accepted as a cost of American produce tion and distribution passed en to us, the buy- ing public that pays the bilis? Most commonly, when th-re facts are cited, I hear people say, “We ought to have a law—" Well, recent investigations by 2 gr-up of legal authorities report that in the United States we already have some 10,000,000 Federal, State and local laws and ordinances. We are adding to them at the rate of over 100,000 a year. The present total of American statutes exceeds the combined laws of five great European nations. DOB the reader realize that if he should start merely to read the laws we already have, he would never catch up with them, even if he spent his entire life at it? We are passing new laws too fast for him to read even these if he worked at it eight hours a day. Perhaps, then, we need a commission. A recent nolable survey of commissions and such, made by the Johns Hopkins Institute of Law, found that within the year there were under way approximateiy 1,200 investigations into law, law enforcement and crime and re- lated subjects. National, State and local gov= ernments, universities and co’l<ges, foundations crime commission business. That in itself has almost become & racket. Is the truth of the matter that we are just It is not lkely that America, which has never failed to meet usly any of the gigantic problems in its national life, is going to be stumped_ by this one. Not, at least, when it realizes—as it is coming more and more to ree alize—that every unprevented crime takes away something from the safety of each one of us. More than that, rackets particularly, are hine dering that restoration of prosperity for which Americans are bending every energy. Racketeering is an economic problem. But, above all, racketeering is a moral and ethieal . My own remedy is basic and funda= unpopular in ® from whom I have quoted. Rackets will be wiped out, says he, when: Business ceases to play dirty politics. Business ceases to pay tribute rather than fight for its rights. Business recognizes the lawful right to ex- istence of an homest competitor. Labor purges itself of “criminal leeches.” The public insists on honesty and compe= tency in public office. ¢ “The Glass House Gang’— — By #Feare Holbrook N the interests of Junior, Phoebe and I always attend thé flower show every L g'&i}gir The Humorist Takes Up the Subject of Flower Shows, Telling Exactly What He Thinks of Them. “I have seen an elderly w sniff her way through an entire flower show.” E f § : it ; : 2§ i Bxp ! l s ? { : i i ; : | | | | ¥ g=E : : 5 B | i g § | llss E !lr' B ¥ ? 7 H at the same time, and there are constant alarums and excursions. Sharing a single cata- logue forms a certain bond between husband and wife, but it is a very elastic one. The routine procedure is as follows: Wife—O-oh, look at that one! What do you suppose it is? . Husband—Gosh! I dunno. ‘Wife—You're taller than I am. Can you see what the tag says? Husband (peering over shoulders of people in front and twisting head sideways)—Its &— (pause). . Husband (who mever was very good at Latin) —1I can't see from here. Wife—Well, the exhibit is No. 298. Why don’t nursery advertisements.) Husband (triumphantly, five minutes later)— Here it is! - Utter stranger (utiering)—E beg your pare ? (confused)—I—beg your pardont right.