Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina?

There was no objection.

Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, S. 933 (a companion bill to H.R. 5097), as amended, is to amend the District of Columbia Practical Nurses' Licensing Act (74 Stat. 803, title 2, District of Columbia Code, sec. 421, approved Sept. 6, 1960), with respect to licensing of practical nurses in the District of Columbia without written examination.

The enactment of the District of Co

lumbia Practical Nurses' Licensing Act, as set forth in House Report No. 880, was for the purpose of authorizing and regulating the licensing of practical nurses in the District of Columbia. Section 9 of this act provides that all applicants for a license to practice as a licensed practical nurse in the District must take a written examination, unless otherwise provided.

Section 10 of this act makes exception to this requirement of written examination, by providing that those practical nurses who engaged in the active care of the sick in the District of Columbia for the year immediately preceding the effective date of the act that is, the year ending July 29, 1961-and who also meet other specified professional criteria, shall be licensed without written examination. It is further stipulated that any applicant desiring to come under this special exception must have filed application for a practical nurse's license within 1 year after the effective date of the licensing act-that is, not later than July 29, 1962.

Even though the licensing board decided to accept 9 months of practice in the District during the prescribed year as satisfying this requirement for grandfather clause licensing without written examination, the administration of the Licensing Act has revealed an inequity in licensing of practical nurses in the District, caused by this language in section 10. We are informed that there are many competent, experienced practical nurses who resided in the District of Co

lumbia during the year immediately preceding the effective date of the District of Columbia Practical Nurses' Licensing Act, but who happened to be assigned to cases in the suburban areas of Maryland and Virginia during a substantial portion of the year ending July 29, 1961. Such nurses, of course, could not qualify under the present language of section 10 for licensing as practical nurses in the District of Columbia without written examination. On the other hand, nurses with far less experience, but who were fortunate enough to have spent at least 9 months of that year in caring for the

sick in the city proper, do qualify for practical nurses' licenses without written examination.

S. 933, as reported to the Senate, would have remedied this inequity as it exists in present law by amending the controversial paragraph (4) of section 10 of the Licensing Act, so as to make it possible

for applicants to be licensed as practical nurses without written examination if they resided in the District of Columbia and actively cared for the sick in the Washington metropolitan area for the year prior to the effective date of the Practical Nurses' Licensing Act. This same corrective provision exists also in the language of H.R. 5097. However, S. 933 was amended on the floor of the Senate so as to provide such licensure without examination if the applicant had resided in the District and practiced in the metropolitan area at any time during the prescribed year.

Subsequent to the Senate's action on this bill, the president of the District of Columbia Practical Nurses' Licensing Board expressed to this committe her Board expressed to this committe her serious objection to the extremely broad latitude which the above-cited provision would allow applicants for licensing without examination. We are informed that by providing for no real minimum period of residence in the city and professional experience in the area, this language would seriously weaken the language would seriously weaken the Board's authority to evaluate applications on the basis of actual professional qualifications, with the result that a great number of practical nurses whose professional competence might be subject to question would become entitled to licensure. This committee, therefore, amended this language in S. 933 so as to provide for licensing without written examination for applicants who lived in the District and cared for the sick in the metropolitan area for at least 6 months during the year prior to the effective date of the Licensing Act.

In its other provisions, S. 933 is virtually identical in substance to H.R. 5097, on which hearings were held by the committee. The bill defines the Washington metropolitan area in the usual context for the purposes of this legislation. It further provides that applicants shall be given a period of 90 days following the enactment of this amendatory act in which to make application for a practical nursing license without written examination.

The bill also authorizes the reconsideration, without additional charge to the applicant except for any refund of previous fee which may have been granted, of the application of any person who was denied, under existing law, a practical nurse's license without written examination, solely on the ground that she had not actively cared for the sick in the District of Columbia for 1 year prior to the effective date of the District of Columbia Practical Nurses' Licensing Act. The bill will preclude, however, the reconsideration of applications where a denial under existing law was based upon lack of professional competency, or any of the other qualifying criteria specified in section 10 of the act.

Except for such reconsideration of applications formerly rejected for this reason, applications considered for practison, applications considered for practical nurses' licenses without written examination under the provisions of this amending legislation will be restricted to those of persons who failed to make such application prior to July 30, 1962, which was the cutoff date for such applications established in the original act.

Public hearings on the subject of this bill were held by Subcommittee No. 3 on June 6, 1963.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. MULTER] for the purpose of calling up a bill from his subcommittee.

AMEND DISTRICT
AMEND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL

ACT

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 8920) to revise the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement of last Thursday, and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate on the bill be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between both sides.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New York.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H.R. 8920, with Mr. DELANEY in the chair.

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first reading of the bill was dispensed with.

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this bill, H.R. 8920, is the first attempt by the House to revise the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act of 1934. Up until the introduction of H.R. 9808 in the last Congress there was no attempt to review or to revise or modernize that act. We muddled along with it all through the years, getting along as best we could until that bill was introduced. We then conducted very extensive hearings on the bill and sought to revise the bill in order to do justice to all concerned in the industry, but having in mind the paramount interest of the public.

The question of whether or not we should have prohibition was not before the committee. It is not before us now. The question was and is: Will we have a law which will regulate and control the industry in all of its various segments in all of its phases, which will promote moderation and temperance and so that the liquor industry could operate as legitimate enterprise. We heard all

sides, those for and against and in addition listened to all of those who had

recommendations for amendment and improvement of the bill.

The bill did not get out of the committee in the last Congress. Another bill was introduced in this Congress after extensive hearings in this Congress before the subcommittee which I have the privilege to chair. We then reported a

bill to the full committee. Before reporting the bill we went through it itemby-item and considered every amendment that had been offered either during the course of the hearings or during the executive sessions. We then brought the matter before the full committtee and in executive session again we considered all amendments that were offered and then, by unanimous consent, agreed that a clean bill be introduced and reported. Despite the unanimous consent request, after the bill was introduced and printed as a clean bill, it came before the full committee again in executive session and was then reported to this House for its consideration.

The bill is practically the same as was introduced for the first time in January 1963. Despite anything you might have read in the newspapers and that you may be told in the course of this debate, this was not a bill that was introduced on one day and reported the next day without consideration. As I have said to you, it has received careful and complete study and attention both in the subcommittee and in the full committee.

The only objection that is now raised against the bill is that generated by the local newspapers, which are opposed to the bill, not because it is a bad bill, but because they are afraid they may lose some advertising.

The newspapers have tried to spread the idea that this is a price-fixing bill, and therefore it is against the public interest, and that it is solely in the interest of the industry. Well, to be perfectly frank, there is no segment of any of the various parts of the liquor industry, whether it be the wholesaler or distributor, or the retailer or the hotel owner or the restaurateur, that did not find some fault with some particular part of the bill. They all were heard. The fact that they are now in favor of this bill does not mean that it is a bill which is advocated by the industry. The industry did not sponsor, nor did it participate in its drafting.

Mr. Chairman, during the last session of Congress the District Commissioners appointed a so-called Citizens Committee, the alleged purpose of appointing that Citizens Committee was to review this bill, the actual purpose was to delay the enactment of the bill in the last session, and they did accomplish just that and then went out of business. Every last one of the reasonable amendments suggested by that committee has now been written into this bill. We have not heard a word since from that alleged Citizens Committee finding fault with any part of this bill.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the District Commissioners are still opposed to this bill. They are opposed to it for one reason only, and it reflects badly upon the District Commissioners, because they urge this objection.

Mr. Chairman, the bill as finally presented in the last session of Congress to the full committee had the provision, which is also in the bill introduced at this session and as now reported to the Members of the House, to make the ABC Board an autonomous, independent

agency of the District. But the District Commissioners will continue to make the appointments, the District Commissioners will continue to have the right to remove the members of the Board.

Mr. Chairman, the bill provides that the ABC Board will be, as I said, an independent, autonomous agency of the District government but will continue to be appointed by the District Commissioners, with a provision giving the District Commissioners the right to remove these members of the Board for wrongdoing, for misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance.

Mr. Chairman, the objection now is raised by the newspapers-and the members of the Committee will hear it raised on the floor today, and by the Commissioners, that this is bad. Well, there is not a State in the Union that has a liquor law-obviously in a State monopoly, those States that have a monopoly and all liquor is dispensed through a State-owned store-you do not have this problem. But in every other State, the other 34 States, where they have a law regulating the liquor industry, you have either a one-man official or a board or a either a one-man official or a board or a commission that has complete jurisdiction over the industry, to make rules and regulations, and to enforce them. Only in the District of Columbia do you have the provision that you have an ABC Board charged by law to enforce the law Board charged by law to enforce the law and to make regulations with the Commissioners sitting on the top with the right to review anything and everything they do, including revision of the regulations the Board may make.

So, Mr. Chairman, this bill conforms with the law of those 34 States and by providing that the Board which is closest providing that the Board which is closest to the matter of law enforcement, which deals with it every day, will make the deals with it every day, will make the rules and regulations and issue the permits or revoke the permits or suspend them, but only after hearings.

However, the bill has this further new provision, that instead of going from the provision, that instead of going from the Board by appeal or review to the Commissioners, anyone who is aggrieved can missioners, anyone who is aggrieved can appeal directly to the courts.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is good, American doctrine. If one does not like what a board or a commission does, one has a right of appeal to the courts. has a right of appeal to the courts. Thereby, we expedite the procedure and we save the time, expense, and the money of both those concerned in the industry of both those concerned in the industry and in government by permitting a direct appeal or review to the courts rather than going through the commission first and then to court.

In the matter of regulation, let me give you one instance of why the Board should be given the right to make the regulations rather than let them make the regulations and the Commission review them. A few weeks ago the question came up, whether or not in the District of Columbia the retail liquor stores shall be open on Christmas and New Year's eves. The Board recommended a rule or a regulation that would mended a rule or a regulation that would provide that on Christmas and New provide that on Christmas and New Year's Eves the stores would close down Year's Eves the stores would close down at midnight and remain closed at midnight and remain closed on Christmas Day and New Year's Day. InChristmas Day and New Year's Day. Incidentally, that happens to be the law in cidentally, that happens to be the law in

almost every one of the 50 States of the Union.

The Board made the regulation, it was brought before the Commissioners for review. Now, the Commission consists of three members, and it requires two votes to change a regulation. One member of the Board abstained. One member voted to permit the regulation to go into effect calling for closing of the stores on New Year's Eve and on Christmas Eve. The other member of the Board said:

This is an undue interference with the free enterprise system. Let the merchants determine for themselves whether they will be shut on New Year's Eve or on Christmas

This will apply to other holidays, too. This is a typical instance of why the Board should be given the right to make the regulations.

This is only one of many instances where the Board that is closest to the industry should make the regulations without any right of review by the Commissioners.

I want to dwell for a minute or so on the objection that if the ABC Board is made independent or autonomous it will become the tool of the industry. This is the objection that will be made today on behalf of the District Commissioners. I say if that is so it is the worst indictment that the District Commissioners have ever delivered against themselves. The District Commissioners have always appointed the members of the ABC Board, they have always had the right to remove the members, and they will have that right under this bill. If there is anything wrong with the members of the Board it is the fault of the Commissioners. I say to you there is nothing wrong and no scandal has ever developed in connection with the ABC Board. No member of the present Board and, so far as I know, of any prior Board, has ever been affiliated directly or indirectly in any way with any part of the industry, whether it be on the retail level, the wholesale level, the restaurants, or distillers in this industry. That is as it should be and that is what the law has always provided. That is what this bill continues to provide, that no member of the Board may have any interest, direct or indirect, in any part of the industry.

Mr. Chairman, I say to you this is a good bill. good bill. This argument that will be raised that this will raise prices in the District of Columbia is as phoney as the advertisements that the newspapers have insisted on carrying in their publications in the District.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I hope in these few minutes that I may generate some light, not heat, on H.R. 8920, a bill to revise the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, which is here on the floor of the House today.

H.R. 8920 is not the first attempt that has been made to get such a bill through this House. The two bills previous to this have fallen flat because of public outcry against them. A similar bill was in the committee in 1962. It was strongly opposed by the Department of Justice,

the District Board of Commissioners, and the Commissioners' "blue ribbon committee" which was appointed to go into the background of the ABC Board and its activities in the District of Columbia. The Federation of Citizens' Associations of the District of Columbia, which is made up of organizations from

the 17 original communities in Washing

ton, opposed that bill.

About the only solid support for these

bills comes from the District of Columbia Liquor Dealers Association.

The three newspapers in Washington unanimously opposed the bill editorially last year and they have opposed the present bill in somewhat stronger language

in 1963.

From this I think you could get a picture of who is for this bill and who is against it.

The real interested party in having this bill passed is the liquor interests and the strongest of these are the wholesale liquor dealers in the District of Colum

bia.

Why are the liquor dealers and especially the wholesalers so strongly for this bill? In the first place, the bill, in veiled language, will restrain price cutting. The overall effect ultimately would be to lessen competition.

The great majority of the liquor industry in the District of Columbia is controlled by 14 wholesalers. They supply the outlet for approximately 90 percent of the liquor in the District of Columbia. The remaining 10 percent are small retailers and small wholesalers who for a great part of their business handle off brands. By discounting and joint advertising, this group has been able to survive in spite of being deprived of large wholesale outlets.

It is this 10 percent that the wholesalers are trying to get at and ultimately to eliminate. Why are the wholesalers trying to eliminate this small 10 percent? These are the retailers who have kept the price of liquor at a low figure in the District. For instance, a bottle sold for $4.99 in New York is now selling for $3.83 in Washington. If the wholesalers can eliminate this 10-percent competition they can then jack their prices up to equal those in New York City.

There are millions to be made in the District of Columbia if they can boost the price of liquor here another 20 percent over the next decade.

The District Board of Commissioners

and the Department of Justice have been strongly opposed to these provisions consistently as eliminating competition and being against the public interest.

The author of this bill has mentioned what a model law they have in the State of New York. Here is what the Washington Post said about that:

The new bill arrives just as a commission of inquiry in New York has recommended that the State abandon its "price maintenance" laws for liquor because they generate indefensibly high profits for the dealer at the consumer's expense.

In following up what the Post said with reference to the New York law, I quote from the Washington Evening Star of last night, November 5, as follows:

It is the height of irony that just a day before this bill sailed through the District

Committee, a commission in New York City, whence Mr. MULTER hails, strongly urged the repeal of that city's liquor price-setting laws. In its report, the commission cited New York and Washington, holding up the the great difference between liquor prices in District's system, by implication at least, as a model to be followed.

going to happen in the District of Columbia if this law is passed.

From this I think you can see what is

sistant, George A. Cohill. They found almost 500 cases-about $20,000 worth—without stamps, they said, and they found only 10 stamps on hand, not counting the ones the boy had gotten.

Apex Liquor was charged on five counts and a hearing was finally held September 27, 1960-20 months after the liquor had been seized.

Apex's lawyer, former District Commissioner F. Joseph Donohue, entered a plea of "nolo contendre" on all five charges.

Assistant Corporation Counsel Robert Wise said, "I believe, if a plea (of nolo conto a plea of guilty."

The heart of H.R. 8920 creates the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board as an independent agency. At the present tendere) is entered, then it is tantamount time the District Commissioners supervise the activities of the ABC Board and ministered by the ABC Board. also write the regulations which are ad

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPRINGER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

"I concede it," Mr. Donohue replied. The Board accepted the plea.

From the start, the hearing was plagued with confusion and lost evidence.

First, Inspectors Darby and Cohill couldn't produce invoices for 365 of the 495 cases listed in the charge.

It was an important point, because the

city had to prove the liquor had been on the premises more than 24 hours without being stamped.

Mr. Wise changed the charge to 130 cases. But then, after lunch, Mr. Darby produced the missing invoices.

"It's just one of those things," he exthe bottom of my desk."

plained. "They were in a manila envelope in

Mr. MULTER. The statement that the gentleman read from the newspaper is an accurate quotation, but the newspaper's statement is inaccurate, because the day they wrote that editorial and made those statements there was no recommendation. As a matter of fact, it was that date the Commission in New York decided to hold hearings on that subject. They are in the midst of holdarisen. No recoming those hearings now. mendation of any kind has ever been made by that Commission in New York.

Mr. SPRINGER. I can only say in answer to my chairman that I read an article from one of the papers in the city of New York and the report of that newspaper was substantially as has been reported in these two local editorials. However, if the gentleman says that is not true, I will not dispute it.

Mr. MULTER. My statement is true. They are in the midst of holding hearings now and have made no recommendations yet, and will not until the hearings are completed.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, at this point I insert in the RECORD a series of articles from the Washington Daily articles from the Daily News of March 1, 1962, March 3, 1962, and March 5, 1962.

[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News, Nov. 5, 1963]

THE CASE OF THE REAPPEARING TAX STAMPS (By Jerry Doolittle)

On January 22, 1959, an anonymous phone call touched off the District's biggest and 'most controversial liquor case in a decade.

The caller claimed there was untaxed

liquor on the shelves of the Apex Liquor Store at 633 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., and an Alcoholic Beverage Control Board inspector, William T. Brunson, went to check.

Six bottles on the shelves did not bear the required stamp showing that liquor tax had been paid, Mr. Brunson later testified. So he checked further.

He began by opening 12 cases of a dozen bottles each in the storeroom. None bore stamps. Mr. Brunson called the ABC Board for reinforcements.

SWITCHER

In the meantime more confusion had Inspector Cohill testified he had found only ten 1/16-gallon stamps on the premises when he arrived-in addition to the 5,650 the boy had been hastily sent for.

Then, minutes later, Mr. Cohill said he'd been wrong and reversed himself. Actually, he said, there were 3,900 stamps on hand, 10 loose ones in the drawer, and 5,650 brought by the boy.

Prosecutor Wise, stunned, tried to straighten out the mixup, but Mr. Cohill stuck by his second story.

"I'm completely obfuscated" Mr. Wise said, "The witness said they first found 10 loose The chairman stamps on the premises. asked him that and the witness repeated it. Later on, we found over 3,900 stamps, enough to cover over 395 cases of liquor. I just have no evidence."

Defense lawyer Donohue got permission to change his "nolo contendere" plea to one of not guilty.

DISMISSED

The hearing limped to a close and, about a month later, the Board returned its finding: all five counts were dismissed.

"The ineptness of such evidence adduced, as well as the manner, import and inconsistency of the witnesses' testimony, were such as to render a determination based on the charges of the citation a practical impossibility," the Board noted.

Board Chairman Frank E. Weakley told the

Washington Daily News, "If the Chief Justice

of the United States read it [the transcript] he would make the same decision the Board made."

CASES CACHED

But the story had just begun. The District had 494 cases of liquor in a warehouseand it didn't want to give them back.

The Commissioners ordered the Internal Audit Division and the Finance Office to investigate the case in spite of the ABC Board's finding.

The two auditors assigned to the job spent nearly 4 weeks doing the detective work the ABC inspectors hadn't done. They found the bottles in three of the cases were properly stamped-and shouldn't have been seized.

and found, they said, that almost all of the remaining cases had been delivered earlier than 24 hours before the raid-and many had been in the store more than a month without stamps.

They checked with distillers and truckers

They reported back, unequivocally and "notwithstanding the finding of the ABC Board," that Apex had violated the District's liquor laws, and that the city should move to have the liquor confiscated.

INTO COURT

The Commissioners took this advice, and U.S. District Judge Joseph C. McGarraghy presided over the resulting condemnation hearing on June 15, 1961.

This time, Inspector Cohill testified he had been right the first time and only 10 stamps were on hand when the first ABC inspector arrived at Apex.

"Well," he confessed, "I might say that during the (ABC) hearing I became quite confused in using papers that I had." The 3,900 extra stamps he had mistakenly said were on hand, he explained, were actually not on hand but had been bought during the previous 2 months.

After the ABC Board hearing, he told the judge, he studied his list of figures all afternoon and all evening before realizing the boner he had made. Assistant Corporation Counsel George Clark questioned Mr. Cohill further:

Question. "Now, after you realized that, sir, at any time did you apprise the Board of that fact?

Answer. "I did."

Question. "Do you recall, sir, when you apprised the Board of this?

Answer. "I don't remember exactly what day it was or just how close it was, but it was

within a short time after the hearing date

that I informed the Board that I had made this error."

Then defense lawyer Donohue took up the questioning and asked Mr. Cohill, "And to whom did you make that report?"

"Mr. Weakly," the inspector answered.

WEAKLY QUIZZED

The three ABC Board members, were waiting in the hall to be called as witnesses. First on the stand was Chairman Weakly.

Mr. Donohue asked, "Were you informed by Mr. Cohill in the period between the hearing on September 27, 1960, and the decision by your Board on November 3, 1960, that his testimony before the Board was in error?"

Answer. "There was some conversation about it. My memory is not too clear. I do not recall just what he did say was the precise statement to which he wanted to adhere."

Question. If Mr. Cohill admitted he was wrong, would not Mr. Weakly have "taken some administrative step to continue the hearing?"

Answer. "Well, it was not considered at that time. It might have been done. It was not done."

(Assistant Corporation Counsel Clark asked whether Mr. Weakly had told the other two members of Board of Inspector Cohill's visit.)

Answer. "The statements that he made were in the presence of all three members of the Board."

Question. "As a result of that information?"

Answer. "We took no action."

Mr. Weakly added that Mr. Cohill's statement had been "very confusing, impossible to make any conclusive opinion." He said the statement had not figured "one iota" in the Board's decision.

The Board, Mr. Weakly explained, was required to decide cases only on the basis of the hearing record-although he conceded that in one earlier case the Board had reconvened to hear further testimony.

SULLIVAN

Then Board Member Richard Sullivan was called in. He was questioned by Assistant Corporation Counsel Clark.

Question. "You had no conversation with Mr. Cohill in which he stated to you that

his testimony before the Board at the hearing was erroneous?"

Answer. "That is right."

Judge McGarraghy: "Either stated to you or in your presence?"

Answer. "No, sir." Question. "You never heard him make such a statement?" Answer. "No, sir."

TYSON

Mr. Sullivan was excused and James G.

Tyson, the third member of the ABC Board, was called in. Mr. Tyson said the Board had called Inspector Cohill in after the hearing, and before the decision.

But he could not remember whether Mr. Cohill had changed his story before or after the Board made its decision.

Question. "Did he (Mr. Cohill) at some time tell the Board that he was confused in his testimony before the Board?"

Answer. "I think he did, Judge."

Question (Mr. Donohue). "Do you have any recollection of his saying that he was in error in his testimony with respect to the 3,900 stamps and wanted to change that testimony?"

Answer. "Oh, no."

JUDGE RULES

Mr. Tyson was excused and, as the trial ended, Judge McGarraghy ruled, "The tax had not been paid, and it [the liquor] had been in the possession of the licensee more than 24 hours.

1959, when the first inspector, Mr. Brunson, "I find, as a fact, that on January 22, went onto the premises, that the only stamps that were there in the inventory at that time were ten 16-gallon stamps."

Judge McGarraghy ruled that the huge cache of liquor should be kept by the District to be sold at auction or to be otherwise disposed of.

Defense lawyer Donohue appealed the case, but the appeal has not been heard yet. The liquor is still in the city's warehouse.

[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News, Mar. 1, 1963]

ABC BOARD DISMISSAL: CASE OF THE HAZY

DATE

(By Jerry Doolittle)

On July 27, 1960 or was it July 28-a District policeman walked into the Rendezvous Bar & Grill, 409 10th Street NW., noticed a young-looking marine drinking beer.

The marine was only 17, and on September 29, 1960, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board set a hearing on charges that Pandora P. Gogos had been responsible for serving a minor.

Pvt. David A. McPherson, the only witness, was questioned by Assistant Corporation Counsel M. Michael Cramer:

Question. "Officer McPherson, on July 28, 1960, did you have occasion to make an investigation at the Rendezvous Bar & Grill?" Answer. "Yes, I did."

Question. "Will you please tell the Board generally what you found at that time?" Answer. "About 7:30 p.m., on July 27 of this year, I entered the Rendezvous."

Nobody then noticed the discrepancy in the dates-it could even have been a typographical error in the transcript and Private McPherson went on to say that identification papers showed the marine was 17. SWITCHED

Four days later, October 3, the Board ordered the Rendezvous' license lifted for the week of October 12-19, but on October 5, Defense Lawyer James F. O'Donnell asked the Board to reconsider. So the Board postponed the penalty and set another hearing December 5.

At that hearing, Mr. O'Donnell pointed out that the charges read "July 28" and the policeman had said "July 27."

Mr. Cramer argued that this was obviously a slip of the tongue and should have no bearing on the Board's decision, and at first Chairman Frank E. Weakly seemed to agree.

"This is a technical objection," he said. "There is no question about that. There is no question in the Board's mind about the fact that a violation took place."

But then Mr. Weakly added, "The question before the Board is when did it take place. * ** Although it is very technical, it affects substantial rights."

On December 29 the Board dismissed charge against the Rendezvous.

There were 39 more dismissals and 42 warnings during the present Board's first 4 years in office-more than half of all the violation hearings it held.

Many policemen complain privately about what this does to the force's morale.

"Very frankly," one said, "you get to the point where you wonder whether it's worth the trouble to report violations to the Board.

"We have to do just as much work preparing these cases as any other kind. It takes the heart out of you to spend a couple or 3 days getting up the paperwork, then see the Board dismiss the thing."

Police handle almost all the city's cases of criminal violations of the ABC law. The District's Internal Audit Office reports that in fiscal 1961 ABC inspectors prepared only 2 out of 35 cases for violation hearings.

[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News, Mar. 3, 1963]

AUDITORS HAD TO CLAMP ON ABC: MORE BOTTLES THAN STAMPS

(By Jerry Doolittle)

Spotty and brief inspections, lack of vigorous followups in criminal charges, and ineffective controls over liquor imports.

These are some of the charges made against the District's Alcoholic Beverage Control Board over the last few years by the Internal Audit Office, which rides herd on every department of city government.

În a check of the lag-often as long as 6 months-between the time police spot a liquor law violation and the time the Board holds a hearing on it, Internal Audit Chief Frank M. Hally found last fall:

"An examination of the log of reports sent to the Corporation Counsel disclosed that the majority of reports are returned with citation (charges) within 1 to 3 months."

But Mr. Hally said his men uncovered one case that sat around the Corporation Counsel's Office for 16 months. Investigation showed that the papers in the case, which involved a liquor salesman and a retail license, had been misplaced.

During those 16 months, Mr. Hally reported, nobody from the ABC Board ever inquired to find out what had happened to the

case.

CHECK SYSTEM

He recommended that the Board set up a system of followthroughs on charges of violations sent to the Corporation Counsel to be tidied into legal form. The Board followed the recommendation.

In a report last spring, Mr. Hally said: "The procedure followed by the Board to control importation of retail licensees are not adequate to ascertain that all taxes, when due, are paid by these licensees."

This meant that the Board wasn't checking carefully enough to make sure tax stamps were bought and put on bottles by dealers who buy liquor from distilleries outside the city.

And Mr. Hally charged that the Board "has never made effective use of available records of liquor imports and stamp purchases."

DIDN'T ADD UP

As evidence, he offered the fact that his auditors had run a test check of records which disclosed "substantial discrepancies

between purchases of tax stamps and receipts of liquor by several retail licensees." The stores, in effect, were buying more liquor than stamps.

Mr. Hally made several suggestions for tightening up the Board's procedures, but they were not approved by the District Commissioners because the city had just abandoned the stamp method of collecting liquor taxes anyway.

In the same report, the Internal Audit Office claimed that "adequate administrative control is not exercised over the inspection function."

A check of the records kept by ABC inspectors, Mr. Hally said, "disclosed wide variations in the number and frequency of inspections. As an example, during a 4month period one large retail licensee had no inspections, whereas a retailer of the same class had 13 inspections."

The inspections themselves, investigators found, lasted an average of 30 minutes eachincluding travel time between stores and bars. The auditors doubted that this was enough time to make all the checks the inspectors were supposed to make.

The ABC Board told the Internal Audit Office that the apparent inequality of inspections came because troublesome establishments need frequent inspections while well

run stores or bars didn't.

But the Board promised to set up a special card file anyway, in an effort to spread the inspections around more evenly.

(The District Alcoholic Beverage Control Board's apparent laxness in judging charges against liquor dealers and bars here, compared to a previous board, has been discussed in the first four articles in this series. This

Mr. SPRINGER. I thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield so I can respond? Mr. SPRINGER. Since the name of the gentleman from New York has been mentioned, I will yield to him.

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest our distinguished colleague from New Jersey, who just addressed the House and referred to me, should read the hearings, some 241 pages in length, of last year.

1. EXISTING LEGISLATION

(a) The age limits as set forth in section 20 of the act shall be continued: 18 years of age as a minimum for sale or consumption of light wines and beer, and 21 years of age for other alcoholic beverages.

(b) Provisions for notice of applications for licenses are adequate as currently provided for.

(c) No change in the present law is recommended concerning restrictions on advertising. There are adequate safeguards in the code pertaining to false and misleading penalties prescribed. advertising and misrepresentation, with

(d) There is no provision in the present act for any kind of pricefixing, and there shall be none.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and to include extraneous matter, including certain newspaper articles and reports.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection

Respectfully submitted.

Mrs. HENRY GICHNER,
Chairman.

(Vice chairman: Oliver Gasch, Gasch, Esq.; members: Mr. J. C. Turner, Mr. George E. C.

Marsh, Mr. Herbert Blunck, Mr. Berkeley Burrell, Roy Garving, Esq., Mrs. Ernest K. Lindley, and Dr. Garnet C. Wilkinson.)

As you can see from this report, the "blue ribbon committee" suggested that there be no change in the law with reference to pricing or advertising. The

ment auditors noted another kind of appar

ent laxness.)

These articles point out the weak

nesses that have developed in the past in the activities of the ABC Board. When these articles were published the ABC

Illinois?

There was no objection.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, may

I say in response to the distinguished chairman of the subcommitee, that even though I read the record he has pointed

mediately after that report was filed. It did an excellent job and I think resulted in the squelching of a similar liquor bill

which was before our committee in 1962. But a bill similar to the one last year

was introduced earlier this year. Hear

District Commissioners promptly appointed a "blue ribbon committee" which

was made up of some of the outstanding community and civic leaders in the District of Columbia. The "blue ribbon committee" made an investigation of its own and filed its report.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPRINGER. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the arguments and the statements of the gentleman from Illinois, because they are sound and they are factual. It has always been a mystery to me why the distinguished gentleman from New York, with all his great abilities, should spend so much time working on this liquor bill here in the District of Columbia. There has been no demand for any reforms that I know of. As a matter of fact, I have discussed this matter with some of my friends in the liquor business, retail and wholesale, and I find that they are not interested in this bill at all. I cannot find anyone in my investigations who is interested in the bill. There are plenty of people who are opposed to this legislation. There has been no criticism of the administration of the liquor laws in the District of Columbia by responsible people. There has been no scandal involved, as there has been in other parts of the country. I think to disturb this situation as it is now working

from the District liquor industry. There was considerable testimony in opposi

tion by impartial people. I am talking about the Department of Justice, the Board of Commissioners, the "blue ribbon" committee, and the Federation of the 17 committees in Washington. I Citizens Committees which represents have a whole stack of individual letters and cards, and I do not know how many telephone calls, all against the bill, but I have yet to record one single letter or telephone call in favor of this bill.

I feel the "blue ribbon" committee does represent community sentiment, and I would like to put it in the RECORD Citizens' Committee dated July 25, 1962: by unanimous consent the report of the GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C., July 25, 1963. Report to: Board of Commissioners. From: Citizens' Committee To Conduct a Cooperative Study of the Alcoholic Beverage Control System.

larly since the first of May, 1962. It has The committee has been meeting reguhad the full cooperation of the ABC Board, Corporation Counsel's office, the Police Department including the Youth Aid Division, and the office of the Commissioners. The committee has studied the existing legislaBoard, administration and enforcement of tion and regulations, policies of the ABC

the existing legislation, the public interest, and proposed changes in the act.

In the study, no public hearings were held. Representatives of industry organizations, religious, and citizens groups were contacted

Commissioners and the Department of Justice testified negatively on the legislation. Both the Commissioners and the Department of Justice used very strong language in disapproving that bill. This

bill creates the ABC Board as an inde

pendent agency. Mr. Chairman, why was this particular provision inserted in bill, knowing that they could never pass this legislation? The proponents of this a bill with the provisions on price fixing and advertising in them that had been in the previous bills because of the firm opposition of the Department of Justice and the District Commissioners, now seek to accomplish the same thing by removing the ABC Board from the jurisdiction of the District Board of Commissioners.

In short, if the Board is separated from the District Commissioners and the District Commissioners no longer have any supervision or the right to make regulations, the ABC Board by its own regulations will accomplish what the advocates of the bill sought last year and earlier this year with regard to price fixing and advertising. Mr. Weakly, the Chairman of the ABC Board, testified for the bill in 1962. He had some reservations but on the whole I would say legislation which was firmly opposed by that the record showed he supported the

the District Board of Commissioners and the Department of Justice. This will give you an idea of what they intend to do on these matters as soon as the