Evening star., 1947-12-01
-f-&-f -ftf
C66nfieSWatch.
Vote on Legality
0fS|ot Machines
st. Moys Verdict
Moy Result in More
Referendum Demands
(Second OF a series)
By Alex pre<fon
By Alex R. Preston
Sfor Sioff Correspondent

Outcome Of referendum here De-
cember 9 which may pave the way
to legalize slot machines in ST..
MaryS County is being watched with
interest because Of its significance
to the State as whole.
With all of Southern Maryland
having taken recent action against
organized gambling - except for
horse racing-the question con-
fronting st. Marys voters is whether
playing and operating slot machines
is crime.
Except for Anne Arundel County,
where the State capitol is located
and where a special act makes them
legal, slot machines have been held
by the courts to be illegal in Mary
land. Old timers say, however, the
machines have been here for A
years.
Operation Still Continues.
Despite a grand jury breakdown
In June and charges pending against
20 defendants, slot machines still
continue to operate in some public
places in st. Marys.
Indictments were returned only
after the court, which had instruct
ed the jury TO investigate gambling,
refused to discharge the group when
its members at first failed to bring
charges. In all, % persons were in
dieted.
OF these, one was convicted and
has appealed and two were freed
after their trials resulted in hung
juries.
States Attorney C. Henry Cana
Her, who is outspokenly in favor of
legalizing the machines so they can
be taxed, asked for a change in
venue for the remaining 20 defend
arts because of the widespread
acceptance of slot machines here.
The cases now are docketed for
trial in Montgomery County Circuit
Court.
Since the attitude of ST. Mary's
residents extends to neighboring
Calvert, Charles and Prince Georges
Counties, it is believed legislators
from those areas and elsewhere in
the State may take similar steps at
the next session of the General
Assembly to permit voters to decide
the issue.
In Anne Arundel County, slot
machines were legalized by out
right authorize tion from the Cen
eral Assembly and did not involve
a referendum.
Legalization Laws Vetoed.
Repeated attempts have been
made to legalize the devices in st.
Marys County. Each time the Leg
islature passed the bill, the Gov
ernor vetoed it. At%the regular 1947
session, State Senator Paul j. Bailey,
Republican, of st. Marys County,
introduced a special act almost
identical with that previously passed
for Anne Arundel County. Gov.
Lane vetoed the bill, however.
At the special session last month,
Senator Bailey again introduced
his bill but with the added provi-
sion for a referendum. This the
Governor signed. In approving it,
the Governor declared:
ut will be recalled that vetoed
somewhat similar measures for st.
Marys and other counties after the
regular session of the 1947 General
Assembly.
Lane Accepted Referendum.
"The bill is in effect an appeal
from my previous decision since it
submits to referendum December
the question of whether the county
commissioners of st. Marys County
shall, by resolution, designate the
type of coin operated machines
upon which a gross receipts tax
has been imposed by the county
and charge a license fee thereon.
II do not believe it would be
proper exercise of my veto power
If I withheld from the voters of
st. Marys County the right granted
by action of the General Assembly
to determine this question
Some observers have regarded as
significant the fact that the
Governors action came after Chief
Judge william NJ ,Loker of the
Circuit Court castigated the jury
for failing to indict and the subse-
quent transferral of the cases to
Montgomery County.
Having set a precedent, the Gov
ernor could not justify withholding
his signature for similar referendum
bills for other counties at the next
legislative session, observers main
tain.