Exchange Club: First Street and the Legalization of Gambling

Before the new law

Local histories place an Exchange Club in operation by the later 1920s. A 1926 directory lists an Exchange Pool Hall at 133 South First, but that nearby address is not proof of the same room or company.

Like Boulder, Northern and Las Vegas Club, Exchange received local permission before the state legalized wide-open gambling. The Nevada Supreme Court later held that those earlier municipal gaming licenses lacked legal authority. Local tolerance was not equivalent to lawful statewide casino licensing.

McCarter's 1931 license

After March 1931 legalization, city minutes record approval for A. T. McCarter at Exchange Club. The April meeting also shows officials attempting to limit further licenses while considering a gambling district.

The minutes preserve discriminatory exceptions and categories as well as ordinary administrative language. Early regulation was not only about controlling games; it also helped determine where different customers and businesses were permitted to operate.

The licensed club offered card and dice games, roulette and slots in later descriptions. It remained a compact downtown room rather than a hotel resort.

Dealers and changing labels

Clarence Ray remembered working the Exchange's card games and identified McCarthy brothers as owners. Other historical accounts connect Peter Peccole and bartender Andrew Petitti. These may describe different phases, but the evidence does not justify silently harmonizing every name.

Directories list Exchange Club and Exchange Bar at 123 South First into the later 1930s and 1941. A separate Exchange Gaming Club appears at 120 South First in 1934. These contemporary addresses argue against treating every Exchange reference as one building.

They also caution against merging Exchange with Northern or Rainbow merely because later histories connect their operators or names.

A working downtown place

Visitors came to gamble and drink among other First Street businesses. The available evidence does not establish hotel rooms, a major entertainment program, a signature meal or exact table limits. Its historical value does not depend on supplying those missing resort features.

Exchange shows how legalization formalized existing activity and how names could persist after gaming arrangements changed. A bar continuing at an address does not prove continuous casino operation. Following the permits and directories separately produces a more accurate picture of early downtown Las Vegas.