Mr, Fuurex. I don't think that pomt has come before ow courts.
Senator Hexnincs. lor example, if an embezzlement is depicted m a crime comic, a bank teller, let us say. taking money from his employer, or invohintary manslaughter, would, in your judgment, that sort of thing depicted tn a conic book constitute a crime within the meaning and | purview of your statute?
Me. Fuuron. 1 would not care io express an opinion on that, © think that weanld be a matter of individual interpretation by the courts. Tomy knowledge the point has not arisen,
T think i¢ may be a very important point. I would have to say this, that in ary mind in drafting and submitting the original legislation I had in contemplation the crime of violence, what you pright eull ihe crime of violence, but taking it over to amend it and amending it, the Government deleted the reference to that type of definition and I had no objection whatever. ‘hey had consulted with the law- enforcement officers and the law-enforcement officers felt that a too narrow definition might create obstacles which might create ditli- culties in the way of its enforcement and no substantial representations against the br eadening of the definition were made and so it went through i in that form.
I would not care at the moment to express an opinion as to whether ihe court, looking al it, would say, “Well, tl he intention of the legis- lature was to conline il to crimes of violenc é,” or not,
Senaiar Hexxcxcs. We would have a most interesting sitnation, would we not, bearmg in mind that the crime of carrying a concealed Werpon is a felony i in most of our States, having portray ed in a comic a representation indicating that someoue was carrying a concealed weapon by verbiage, but the we: apon could not be seen.
That wonld still be e arrying it along the fine. [ certainly do not want to be ae or to attempt to make bight of part of it but to attempt te present the diflicnlty this field presents.
My. Furtox. I would express this prvely as an offhand opinion, that the wording of the statute is wide enough to cover anything which is made a crime by our criminal cade. “Anything covered in there whether fraud or embezzlement is covered in the criminal cade then on the face of it an illustration of a crime of that nature is included in section 207,
It might be an interesting point for defense counsel to raise that as defense the section didn't contemplate that type of crime. Then the court would have to decide what was the intent of the legislature as gathered from the words they used.
So far that point has not come before our courts.
I was mentioning that when it came before our Senate it was re- ferred to a standing ecammittee and the representatives of the trade appeared and made 1 representations against the bill.
Dr. Wertham has an interesting passage in his book in which he records it as having been the opinion expressed that they appeared to he making progress until they made the mistake of producing to the Senators some examples of their 1 rares, that when that was done their case was ont of court.
I can’t read the minds of onr Senators. All T know its that in the result the standing committee reported the bill back to the Senate without amendment and it passed the Senate as a whole by 2 vote of 92 to 4.
