| Show ES arc aro the slot lot tw mil Hy n hilt authority chines running In SnIt Salt o nt pres present ent This question ft n highly rt citi citizen I zen of City a has Iu tha tho to answer It City ba unlawful for l UIl tHI l lop tn op rati or maintain II slot alot machine without 11 license and nud that no shall be hf for tor operation or f III m which Is III fr fur r of or gaming used for fol the tho purpose Tills Is IH ex other lither property mOl or 01 thin ordinance enough under nance the slot machines wore were ut it one onetime demon demonstrated time It was nR then d that an nn order from Crom the Chief of Police was all 1111 wan needed to lo end form torm of or gambling CD oli li 1306 1906 n 11 case vs John Smith camo up tot fot decision In C U court The fhe defendant accused e of ot u II and lind the tho matter maUer win 1111 upon an agreed statement of or facts und and a 1 brief was wu also ul o Assistant City ell Attorney ney IW P 1 J Dilly Daly hull hod the prosecution pro In hand hund while the II defense was wall represent represented ed by h Attorney Sorell X latter I contended that I tl th slot machine ma mu chine run by hr the tho defendant ns not a IL gambling device He lie argued un under der the th statutes s It was necessary for tor I tho City Cily to prove proe that the in n question lR operated for tor money or money InOn Judge gc took the tho under rendered a Il decision 10 to tho effect that the tho particular slot machine was not lIot a II gambling device delce for to I the reason that tho winner was paid either lu In chocks checks or merchandise At the time this decision was ren Ien rendered dered delell mono money slot machines run un In this City had the operator of oC ono one of ot them been tried for rol maintain maintaining IllS ing n 1 gambling device the de decision d would probably have dlf Celent Shortly after the case was dis disposed posed of here hn n Il similar one was tried Ir Ogden Judg Murphy Horn ai special counsel for tOI the thc City and an prosecuted tho case vigorously I Tho samo sino question Involved as In th Salt Uiko case and Murphy uno red the same decision us banded down by a movement was waH started by present administration to 10 make a alevy ale levy le of ot 3 per lier month upon each cuch machine operated In tho City Under tho ordinance If Ir Judge decision lon lonIs Is correct this city elly has tho power to tn license tax and control machines mR that the American of hut but H It seems sc do till not want to do this In spite of tho decision rendered the thu powers that be he Justly justl we believe bellee Insist that slot machines lire arc devices I and I now no levy lev a 1 U Unite or ori 01 n i line IIno of M 3 per month from flom each ellch on that ground Thi scheme Is one for to I rev revenues only It is iH taxation of ot a II business by b the City ordinance Vo 0 havo been Informed however Judge l Ins s mo his hili opinion mi tho thu legality of or running slot machines If tr this Is I true another test made mutI There Is little bo ht e ought to doubt that they th would bo be condemned If It another hearing wore for Tho Chlof Chlor of Police CUll can older artier them removed as 1111 Illegal gambling devices Var tho filet fuet that the tho operators lire lined 8 3 u II month prove that they the arc aro considered Illegal Or 01 tho Mayor Ium can take the If It no Is III Ill disposed There Is II no ex for tolerating thorn them longer They are operated against a tho law thu tho party dictators who have usurped tho right o 0 rule rille tho City are In thu tho I nut hUll Instance for their operation |
