Cadell

1947-1950

Starting in 1947, Wiley “Buck” H. Cadell used his governmental position to build a statewide system of protection for illegal gambling operations in California, the first such concerted effort of this kind in the state. At the time Cadell worked as a gambling investigator, and previously an undercover agent, for California Attorney General Frederick N. Howser. Prior to that, he worked for 20 years as an officer for the Los Angeles Police Department.

Howser

Howser was in on (and perhaps the mastermind of) the conspiracy. His role was covering it up and shielding Cadell and his other agents — Charles Hoy and Walter Lentz — from external investigation and prosecution.

Hoy

Lentz

How It Worked

One part of setting up the protection racket involved getting all of the gamblers in a county to pay a monthly fee or close shop. In exchange, law enforcement wouldn’t interfere with their illegal business.

From gambling house owners, the colluding agents demanded anywhere from 20 to 50 percent of their enterprise’s gross earnings. For slot machine operators, the fee was $4 apiece. For punchboard users, it was $2. (A different group of men was involved in organizing a punchboard monopoly and protection system in The Golden State. They, too, did this with Howser’s blessing.)

For the protection scheme to work, the conspirators also had to get the police chief or sheriff in the same county on board. This meant the officers of the law had to agree to ignore the commercial gambling happening in their jurisdiction. For doing so, they’d receive a portion of the collected payoff monies. Another part of the graft went to Howser.

To sway these law enforcement heads, Howser’s representatives emphasized they had powerful friends in Sacramento. They even often outrightly stated they “had the approval and the authority of the attorney general’s office,” the California Crime Commission reported in its Final Report (Nov. 15, 1950).

Progress Made

Howser’s agents worked on expanding the scheme for over a year. During that time, they approached many of California’s counties. The crime commission knew of at least 16, including Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo and San Bernardino. There may have been more.

Unraveling Begins

Cadell’s involvement ended in June 1948 when he was indicted for related activity (and thus, quit working for Howser). The ensuing charges were for organizing a slot machine protection racket and for plotting to bribe Mendocino County Sheriff Beverly Broaddus.

Howser publicly announced he fully supported Cadell. The elected official also claimed the charges against the agent had been trumped up to frame him.

Despite the AG’s position, a jury convicted Cadell (and two others, a former police officer and a resident, both of Los Angeles), each on five counts of bribery and gambling conspiracy. The judge sentenced Cadell, whom he identified as the “arch conspirator,” to three consecutive prison terms (The Modesto Bee and News-Herald, Dec. 18, 1948). They were 1 to 14 years followed by another 1 to 14 years and, lastly, 1 to 3 years.

“This was not a case of operation of an isolated slot machine,” the judge told the defendants, “but the crimes with which you are charged are more serious, about as dastardly as any crimes that are committed” (The Modesto Bee, Dec. 18, 1948).

As for Howser, no irrefutable evidence linked him to the payoffs. However, “he was tainted by the association,” author Ed Cray wrote in Chief Justice.

Impact Of The Unwilling

Not every person Howser’s men approached on both sides, law enforcement and gambling, was keen on the scheme. Some rejected the proposal outright.

One gambler, Tiny Heller, an Alameda County bookmaker, refused to pay any graft. He was told by a member of the protection racket, Mobster-gambler Dave Kessel, that he could keep operating through the end of the football season but not afterwards. Heller continued taking bets. Soon after, before the deadline to close that Kessel cited, Heller’s business was raided, and Hoy arrested him.

Many other targets filed complaints or informed the crime commissioners about various people having tried to recruit them into the scheme. The crime agency detailed and published all such reported events in its 1950 report.

That exposure, combined with Cadell’s conviction and Howser’s failure to get re-elected in 1950, caused the system to crumble.

Sources

Bill Pechart, left, and Dave Kessel

1950-1953

During the 1950 federal hearings on organized crime, two Northern California gamblers — Walter “Big Bill” Melburn Pechart and David “Dave” Nathan Kessel — were uncooperative, according to the questioners.

They were Senators Estes Kefauver (D-Tenn.), Charles Tobey (R-N.H.) and Alexander Wiley (R-Wisc.), congressmen who comprised the Kefauver Committee, or the United States Senate Special Committee to Investigate Crime in Interstate Commerce. During its two-year probe, the group conducted inquiries in 14 major cities across the nation, during which more than 600 individuals testified.

In San Francisco, the committee subpoenaed Bill Pechart and Dave Kessel to testify because they were “big wheels” in illegal gambling along with bookmaking and slot machine enterprises in Contra Costa County, or the East Bay, as described in California Crime Commission reports.

During the 1930s and 1940s the partners owned and operated numerous illegal gambling clubs — including The Wagon Wheel, the 21, the Rancho San Pablo and the Hollywood — in the then-unincorporated area between El Cerrito and Richmond dubbed “No Man’s Land.” They also were former associates of Elmer “Bones” F. Remmer, co-owning at least one gambling house and allegedly bribing politicians to let them operate outside the law.

During those decades, California prohibited all types of gambling except draw poker (legalized in 1911) and horse racing (legalized in 1933).

One-Sided Sessions

At the start of questioning, Kessel, 56, read a statement indicating he wouldn’t answer questions because of potential self-incrimination. He claimed he’d written the verbiage but when asked the meaning of some of the included legal terms, he admitted his lawyer had penned it. Thus, the committee charged him with perjury. Subsequently, he answered nary a question, including whether or not he knew Pechart.

Kefauver described Kessel as “one of the most sinister characters” the committee had interviewed (Oakland Tribune, Nov. 22, 1950). “Very substantial charges as to his operations in Contra Costa County have been made by citizens of that area. He appears from these charges to be a nuisance and a very bad influence.”

Pechart, 57, responded to some queries but invoked his Fifth Amendment right on others, particularly those about the duo’s businesses, income and taxes.

Consequently, the committee cited both men for contempt of Congress, which the Senate subsequently officially affirmed. Kessel was indicted for refusing to answer 32 questions, Pechart for 38.

If convicted, each gambler faced a maximum of one year in prison plus a $1,000 fine for each question they refused to answer: $32,000 for Kessel, $38,000 for Pechart (about $328,000 and $389,000 today, respectively).

Ruling On Contempt

After having pleaded innocent in 1951, the two gamblers went to trial in January 1952.

They were acquitted.

“Taking the whole record and the setting and circumstances in which the questions were asked, there was a right to claim the privilege,” said Federal Judge Louis E. Goodman. Yes, Pechart and Kessel were engaged in illegal gambling and racketeering, but no one can be forced into being a witness against himself.

Goodman also found Senator Tobey to be hostile at times during questioning, which could’ve  contributed to Pechart and Kessel fearing possible prosecution based on any information they might’ve provided.

In one instance, Tobey had asked: “Why in hell didn’t you come clean? When we get through with you, you will wish you had” (Oakland Tribune, Jan. 31, 1952). Another time, the senator had said, “You realize the penalty of breaking faith with this committee. It means a prison sentence.”

“There can’t be the faintest doubt that there was a reality of danger,” Goodman said about the hearing atmosphere, which lacked “impartiality” (Reno Evening Gazette, Jan. 30, 1952).

Kefauver, however, stated there was “no possible excuse” for the gamblers, “two of the most contemptuous witnesses who appeared before our committee,” not having answered questions (Oakland Tribune, Jan. 31, 1952). “It is a great disappointment and very discouraging that they were acquitted of the contempt charge.”

How About Nevada?

Six months after winning their contempt case, Pechart and Kessel tried to enter gaming in Reno, when they applied for a gambling license to run the Palace Club. They claimed to have given up all of their Northern California clubs in 1950. The Nevada Tax Commission, which then granted such permits, denied the men one due to their criminal background.

Sources