« ПретходнаНастави »
Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask for applicants to be licensed as practical Public hearings on the subject of this unanimous consent to extend my remarks nurses without written examination if bill were held by Subcommittee No. 3 on at this point in the RECORD.
they resided in the District of Columbia June 6, 1963. The SPEAKER. Is there objection and actively cared for the sick in the Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman to the request of the gentleman from Washington metropolitan area for the from New York [Mr. MULTER) for the South Carolina?
year prior to the effective date of the purpose of calling up a bill from his subThere was no objection.
Practical Nurses' Licensing Act. This committee. Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Speaker, the
same corrective provision exists also in purpose of this bill, S. 933 (a companion
the language of H.R. 5097. However, S. bill to H.R. 5097), as amended, is to
933 was amended on the floor of the Sen- AMEND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA amend the District of Columbia Prac ate so as to provide such licensure with
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL tical Nurses' Licensing Act (74 Stat. 803, out examination if the applicant had
ACT title 2, District of Columbia Code, sec. 421, resided in the District and practiced in approved Sept. 6, 1960), with respect to the metropolitan area at any time during Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, I move licensing of practical nurses in the Disthe prescribed year.
that the House resolve itself into the trict of Columbia without written exami Subsequent to the Senate's action on Committee of the Whole House on the nation.
this bill, the president of the District of State of the Union for the consideration The enactment of the District of Co
Columbia Practical Nurses' Licensing of the bill (H.R. 8920) to revise the Dislumbia Practical Nurses' Licensing Act, Board expressed to this committe her trict of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage as set forth in House Report No. 880, was serious objection to the extremely broad Control Act, pursuant to the unanimous for the purpose of authorizing and regu
latitude which the above-cited provision consent agreement of last Thursday, and lating the licensing of practical nurses
would allow applicants for licensing pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask in the District of Columbia Section 9 without examination. We are informed unanimous consent that general debate
on the bill be limited to 1 hour, to be of this act provides that all applicants that by providing for no real minimum for a license to practice as a licensed period of residence in the city and pro- equally divided between both sides. practical nurse in the District must take fessional experience in the area, this
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to a written examination, unless otherwise
language would seriously weaken the the request of the gentleman from New provided.
Board's authority to evaluate applica- York? Section 10 of this act makes exception
tions on the basis of actual professional There was no objection. to this requirement of written examina
qualifications, with the result that a The SPEAKER. The question is on tion, by providing that those practical great number of practical nurses whose the motion offered by the gentleman nurses who engaged in the active care of professional competence might be sub from New York. the sick in the District of Columbia for
ject to question would become entitled The motion was agreed to. the year immediately preceding the ef
to licensure. This committee, therefore, Accordingly, the House resolved itself fective date of the act that is, the year amended this language in S. 933 so as into the Committee of the Whole House ending July 29, 1961_and who also to provide for licensing without written on the State of the Union for the considmeet other specified professional cri examination for applicants who lived in eration of the bill H.R. 8920, with Mr. teria, shall be licensed without written
the District and cared for the sick in the DELANEY in the chair. examination. It is further stipulated metropolitan area for at least 6 months
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE that any applicant desiring to come unduring the year prior to the effective date
The Clerk read the title of the bill. der this special exception must have of the Licensing Act. filed application for a practical nurse's In its other provisions, s. 933 is vir
By unanimous consent, the first readlicense within 1 year after the effective tually identical in substance to H.R. 5097, ing of the bill was dispensed with. date of the licensing act that is, not on which hearings were held by the com Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, I later than July 29, 1962.
mittee. The bill defines the Washington yield myself 10 minutes. Even though the licensing board de- metropolitan area in the usual context Mr. Chairman, this bill, H.R. 8920, is cided to accept 9 months of practice in for the purposes of this legislation. It the first attempt by the House to revise the District during the prescribed year as further provides that applicants shall be the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act of satisfying this requirement for grand- given a period of 90 days following the 1934. Up until the introduction of H.R. father clause licensing without written enactment of this amendatory act in 9808 in the last Congress there was no examination, the administration of the which to make application for a practical attempt to review or to revise or modLicensing Act has revealed an inequity in nursing license without written exam ernize that act. We muddled along with licensing of practical nurses in the Dis- ination.
it all through the years, getting along trict, caused by this language in section
The bill also authorizes the reconsid- as best we could until that bill was in10. We are informed that there are eration, without additional charge to the troduced. We then conducted very exmany competent, experienced practical applicant except for any refund of pre- tensive hearings on the bill and sought nurses who resided in the District of Co- vious fee which may have been granted, to revise the bill in order to do justice lumbia during the year immediately pre- of the application of any person who was to all concerned in the industry, but ceding the effective date of the District denied, under existing law, a practical having in mind the paramount interest of Columbia Practical Nurses' Licensing nurse's license without written exami- of the public. Act, but who happened to be assigned to nation, solely on the ground that she
had The question of whether or not we cases in the suburban areas of Maryland not actively cared for the sick in the Dis- should have prohibition was not before and Virginia during a substantial por- trict of Columbia for 1 year prior to the the committee. It is not before us now. tion of the year ending July 29, 1961. effective date of the District of Colum- The question was and is: Will we have a Such nurses, of course, could not qualify bia Practical Nurses' Licensing Act. The law which will regulate and control the under the present language of section 10 bill will preclude, however, the reconsid- industry in all of its various segments for licensing as practical nurses in the eration of applications where a denial in all of its phases, which will promote District of Columbia without written ex
under existing law was based upon lack moderation and temperance and so that amination. On the other hand, nurses of professional competency, or any of the the liquor industry could operate as with far less experience, but who were other qualifying criteria specified in sec- legitimate enterprise. We heard all fortunate enough to have spent at least tion 10 of the act.
sides, those for and against and in addi9 months of that year in caring for the
Except for such reconsideration of ap- tion listened to all of those who had sick in the city proper, do qualify for plications formerly rejected for this rea
recommendations for amendment and practical nurses' licenses without written son, applications considered for practiexamination.
cal nurses' licenses without written improvement of the bill.
The bill did not get out of the comS. 933, as reported to the Senate, would amending legislation will be restricted mittee in the last Congress
. Another bill have remedied this inequity as it exists to those of persons who
failed to make was introduced in this Congress after in present law by amending the contro- such application prior to July 30, 1962, extensive hearings in this Congress beversial paragraph (4) of section 10 of the which was the cutoff date for such appli- fore the subcommittee which I have the Licensing Act, so as to make it possible cations established in the original act. privilege to chair. We then reported a
bill to the full committee. Before re agency of the District. But the District almost every one of the 50 States of the porting the bill we went through it item Commissioners will continue to make the Union. by-item and considered every" amend appointments, the District Commission The Board made the regulation, it was ment that had been offered either dur ers will continue to have the right to re- brought before the Commissioners for ing the course of the hearings or during move the members of the Board.
review. Now, the Commission consists the executive sessions. We then brought Mr. Chairman, the bill provides that of three members, and it requires two the matter before the full committtee the ABC Board will be, as I said, an inde- votes to change a regulation. One memand in executive session again we con pendent, autonomous agency of the Dis- ber of the Board abstained. One memsidered all amendments that were offered trict government but will continue to ber voted to permit the regulation to go and then, by unanimous consent, agreed be appointed by the District Commis- into effect calling for closing of the that a clean bill be introduced and re sioners, with a provision giving the Dis- stores on New Year's Eve and on Christported. Despite the unanimous consent trict Commissioners the right to remove mas Eve. The other member of the request, after the bill was introduced these members of the Board for wrong- Board said: and printed as a clean bill, it came be doing, for misfeasance, malfeasance, or This is an undue interference with the fore the full committee again in execu nonfeasance.
free enterprise system. Let the merchants tive session and was then reported to Mr. Chairman, the objection now is determine for themselves whether they will this House for its consideration. raised by the newspapers—and the mem
be shut on New Year's Eve or on Christmas The bill is practically the same as was bers of the Committee will hear it raised
Eve. introduced for the first time in January on the floor today, and by the Commis This will apply to other holidays, too. 1963. Despite anything you might have sioners, that this is bad. Well, there is This is a typical instance of why the read in the newspapers and that you not a State in the Union that has a Board should be given the right to make may be told in the course of this debate, liquor law-obviously in a State monop the regulations. this was not a bill that was introduced oly, those states that have a monopoly This is only one of many instances on one day and reported the next day and all liquor is dispensed through a where the Board that is closest to the inwithout consideration. As I have said State-owned store-you do not have this dustry should make the regulations withto you, it has received careful and com problem. But in every other State, the out any right of review by the Commisplete study and attention both in the other 34 States, where they have a law sioners. subcommittee and in the full committee. regulating the liquor industry, you have I want to dwell for a minute or so on
The only objection that is now raised either a one-man official or a board or a the objection that if the ABC Board is against the bill is that generated by the commission that has complete jurisdic- made independent or autonomous it will local newspapers, which are opposed to tion over the industry, to make rules become the tool of the industry. This the bill, not because it is a bad bill, but and regulations, and to enforce them. is the objection that will be made today because they are afraid they may lose Only in the District of Columbia do you on behalf of the District Commissioners. some advertising.
have the provision that you have an ABC I say if that is so it is the worst indictThe newspapers have tried to spread Board charged by law to enforce the law ment that the District Commissioners the idea that this is a price-fixing bill, and to make regulations with the Com- have ever delivered against themselves. and therefore it is against the public in- missioners sitting on the top with the The District Commissioners have always terest, and that it is solely in the interest right to review anything and everything appointed the members of the ABC of the industry. Well, to be perfectly they do, including revision of the regula- Board, they have always had the right frank, there is no segment of any of the tions the Board may make.
to remove the members, and they will various parts of the liquor industry, So, Mr. Chairman, this bill conforms have that right under this bill. If there whether it be the wholesaler or distribu- with the law of those 34 States and by is anything wrong with the members of tor, or the retailer or the hotel owner providing that the Board which is closest the Board it is the fault of the Commisor the restaurateur, that did not find to the matter of law enforcement, which sioners. I say to you there is nothing some fault with some particular part of deals with it every day, will make the wrong and no scandal has ever developed the bill. They all were heard. The fact rules and regulations and issue the per- in connection with the ABC Board. No that they are now in favor of this bill mits or revoke the permits or suspend member of the present Board and, so far does not mean that it is a bill which is them, but only after hearings.
as I know, of any prior Board, has ever advocated by the industry. The indus However, the bill has this further new been affiliated directly or indirectly in try did not sponsor, nor did it participate provision, that instead of going from the any way with any part of the industry, in its drafting.
Board by appeal or review to the Com- whether it be on the retail level, the Mr. Chairman, during the last session missioners, anyone who is aggrieved can wholesale level, the restaurants, or disof Congress the District Commissioners appeal directly to the courts.
tillers in this industry. That is as it appointed a so-called Citizens Commit Mr. Chairman, I think this is good, should be and that is what the law has tee, the alleged purpose of appointing American doctrine. If one does not like always provided. That is what this bill that Citizens Committee was to review what a board or a commission does, one continues to provide, that no member of this bill, the actual purpose was to delay has a right of appeal to the courts. the Board may have any interest, direct the enactment of the bill in the last ses Thereby, we expedite the procedure and or indirect, in any part of the industry. sion, and they did accomplish just that we save the time, expense, and the money
Mr. Chairman, I say to you this is a and then went out of business. Every of both those concerned in the industry good bill. This argument that will be last one of the reasonable amendments and in government by permitting a di- raised that this will raise prices in the suggested by that committee has now rect appeal or review to the courts rather District of Columbia is as phoney as the been written into this bill. We have not than going through the commission first advertisements that the newspapers have heard a word since from that alleged and then to court.
insisted on carrying in their publications Citizens Committee finding fault with In the matter of regulation, let me give in the District. any part of this bill.
you one instance of why the Board Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield Now, Mr. Chairman, the District Com, should be given the right to make the myself 15 minutes. missioners are still opposed to this bill. regulations rather than let them make Mr. Chairman, I hope in these few They are opposed to it for one reason
the regulations and the Commission re minutes that I may generate some light, only, and it reflects badly upon the Dis
view them. A few weeks ago the ques- not heat, on H.R. 8920, a bill to revise the trict Commissioners, because they urge
tion came up, whether or not in the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage this objection.
District of Columbia the retail liquor Control Act, which is here on the floor
stores shall be open on Christmas and of the House today. Mr. Chairman, the bill as finally pre
New Year's eves. The Board recom H.R. 8920 is not the first attempt that sented in the last session of Congress to mended a rule or a regulation that would has been made to get such a bill through the full committee had the provision, provide that on Christmas and New this House. The two bills previous to which is also in the bill introduced at Year's Eves the stores would close down this have fallen flat because of public this session and as now reported to the at midnight and remain closed on outcry against them. A similar bill was Members of the House, to make the ABC Christmas Day and New Year's Day. In- in the committee in 1962. It was strongly Board an autonomous, autonomous, independent cidentally, that happens to be the law in
cidentally, that happens to be the law in opposed by the Department of Justice,
the District Board of Commissioners, Committee, a commission in New York City, sistant, George A. Cohill. They found almost and the Commissioners' “blue ribbon whence Mr. MULTER hails, strongly urged 500 cases—about $20,000 worth-without committee” which was appointed to go
the repeal of that city's liquor price-setting stamps, they said, and they found only 10 into the background of the ABC Board
laws. In its report, the commission cited stamps on hand, not counting the ones the and its activities in the District of New York and Washington, holding up the the great difference between liquor prices in boy had gotten.
Apex Liquor was charged on five counts Columbia. The Federation of Citizens' District's system, by implication at least, and a hearing was finally held September 27, Associations of the District of Columbia, as a model to be followed.
1960—20 months after the liquor had been which is made up of organizations from
seized. the 17 original communities in Washing- going to happen in the District of Co
From this I think you can see what is
Apex's lawyer, former District Commiston, opposed that bill.
sioner F. Joseph Donohue, entered a plea of About the only solid support for these lumbia if this law is passed.
“nolo contendre" on all five charges. bills comes from the District of Columbia
The heart of H.R. 8920 creates the Assistant Corporation Counsel Robert
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board as Wise said, “I believe, if a plea (of nolo conLiquor Dealers Association. The three newspapers in Washington an independent agency. At the present tendere) is entered, then it is tantamount
to a plea of guilty.” time the District Commissioners superunanimously opposed the bill editorially
"I concede it,” Mr. Donohue replied. The last year and they have opposed the pres- vise the activities of the ABC Board and
Board accepted the plea. ent bill in somewhat stronger language ministered by the ABC Board. also write the regulations which are ad
From the start, the hearing was plagued in 1963.
with confusion and lost evidence. From this I think you could get a pic
Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, will the First, Inspectors Darby and Cohill couldn't
produce invoices for 365 of the 495 cases ture of who is for this bill and who is gentleman yield? against it.
Mr. SPRINGER. I yield to the gentle- listed in the charge. man from New York.
It was an important point, because the The real interested party in having this bill passed is the liquor interests and
Mr. MULTER. The statement that city had to prove the liquor had been on the
premises more than 24 hours without being the strongest of these are the wholesale the gentleman read from the newspaper stamped. liquor dealers in the District of Colum
is an accurate quotation, but the news Mr. Wise changed the charge to 130 cases. bia.
paper's statement is inaccurate, because But then, after lunch, Mr. Darby produced Why are the liquor dealers and esthe day they wrote that editorial and the missing invoices.
"It's just one of those things,” he expecially the wholesalers so strongly for made those statements there was no recthis bill? In the first place, the bill, in ommendation. As a matter of fact, it plained. “They were in a manila envelope in was that date the Commission in New
the bottom of my desk.” veiled language, will restrain price cut
SWITCHER ting. The overall effect ultimately would York decided to hold hearings on that be to lessen competition.
In the meantime more confusion had subject. They are in the midst of hold
arisen. Inspector Cohill testified he had The great majority of the liquor in- ing those hearings now.
found only ten 1/16-gallon stamps on the dustry in the District of Columbia is mendation of any kind has ever been made by that Commission in New York. the 5,650 the boy had been hastily sent for.
premises when he arrived-in addition to controlled by 14 wholesalers. They supply the outlet for approximately 90 per
Mr. SPRINGER. I can only say in
Then, minutes later, Mr. Cohill said he'd cent of the liquor in the District of
answer to my chairman that I read an been wrong and reversed himself. Actually, Columbia. The remaining 10 percent are article from one of the papers in the he said, there were 3,900 stamps on hand, 10
loose ones in the drawer, and 5,650 brought small retailers and small wholesalers city of New York and the report of that
by the boy. who for a great part of their business newspaper was substantially as has been
Prosecutor Wise, stunned, tried to handle off brands. By discounting and reported in these two local editorials.
straighten out the mixup, but Mr. Cohill joint advertising, this group has been However, if the gentleman says that is
stuck by his second story. able to survive in spite of being deprived not true, I will not dispute it.
"I'm completely obfuscated” Mr. Wise said, of large wholesale outlets.
Mr. MULTER. My statement is true.
My statement is true. “The witness said they first found 10 loose It is this 10 percent that the whole. They are in the midst of holding hear- stamps on the premises. The chairman
asked him that and the witness repeated it. salers are trying to get at and ultimately ings now and have made no recommen
Later on, we found over 3,900 stamps, enough to eliminate. Why are the wholesalers dations yet, and will not until the hear
to cover over 395 cases of liquor. I just have trying to eliminate this small 10 percent? ings are completed.
no evidence." These are the retailers who have kept
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, at this Defense lawyer Donohue got permission to the price of liquor at a low figure in the point I insert in the RECORD a series of change his “nolo contendere” plea to one of District. For instance, a bottle sold for articles from the Washington Daily
Daily not guilty. $4.99 in New York is now selling for $3.83 News of March 1, 1962, March 3, 1962,
DISMISSED in Washington. If the wholesalers can and March 5, 1962.
The hearing limped to a close and, about eliminate this 10-percent competition (From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
a month later, the Board returned its findthey can then jack their prices up to
Nov. 5, 1963]
ing: all five counts were dismissed.
“The ineptness of such evidence adduced, equal those in New York City.
THE CASE OF THE REAPPEARING TAX STAMPS
as well as the manner, import and inconThere are millions to be made in the
(By Jerry Doolittle)
sistency of the witnesses' testimony, were District of Columbia if they can boost On January 22, 1959, an anonymous phone such as to render a determination based on the price of liquor here another 20 per- call touched off the District's biggest and
the charges of the citation a practical imcent over the next decade.
possibility," the Board noted.
Board Chairman Frank E. Weakley told the and the Department of Justice have liquor on the shelves of the Apex Liquor Washington Daily News, “If the Chief Justice
of the United States read it [the transcript] been strongly opposed to these provisions Store at 633 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., and an Alcoholic Beverage Control Board inspec
he would make the same decision the Board consistently as eliminating competition tor, William T. Brunson, went to check.
made.” and being against the public interest.
Six bottles on the shelves did not bear the The author of this bill has mentioned required stamp showing that liquor tax had
But the story had just begun. The Diswhat a model law they have in the State been paid, Mr. Brunson later testified. So he trict had 494 cases of liquor in a warehouseof New York. Here is what the Wash- checked further.
and it didn't want to give them back. ington Post said about that:
He began by opening 12 cases of a dozen
The Commissioners ordered the Internal The new bill arrives just as a commission bottles each in the storeroom. None bore
Audit Division and the Finance Office to of inquiry in New York has recommended stamps. Mr. Brunson called the ABC Board investigate the case in spite of the ABC that the State abandon its "price maintefor reinforcements.
The two auditors assigned to the job spent nance" laws for liquor because they generate
nearly 4 weeks doing the detective work the indefensibly high profits for the dealer at
Before they arrived, Mr. Brunson testified, ABC inspectors hadn't done. They found the consumer's expense.
the manager sent a boy out with money to the bottles in three of the cases were properly In following up what the Post said buy 5,650 stamps from the District. When stamped—and shouldn't have been seized. with reference to the New York law, I spector if he could start putting the newly and found, they said, that almost all of the
he came back, the manager asked the in They checked with distillers and truckers quote from the Washington Evening Star bought stamps on the bottles. Mr. Brunson remaining cases had been delivered earlier of last night, November 5, as follows: said it was "too late.”
than 24 hours before the raid—and many had It is the height of irony that just a day The reinforcements were the Board's late been in the store more than a month withbefore this bill sailed through the District chief inspector, James L. Darby, and his as out stamps.
They reported back, unequivocally and his testimony before the Board at the hear Mr. Cramer argued that this was obvious"notwithstanding the finding of the ABC ing was erroneous?"
ly a slip of the tongue and should have no Board," that Apex had violated the District's Answer. “That is right."
bearing on the Board's decision, and at first liquor laws, and that the city should move Judge McGarraghy: “Either stated to you Chairman Frank E. Weakly seemed to agree. to have the liquor confiscated. or in your presence?"
“This is a technical objection,” he said. Answer. “No, sir." INTO COURT
“There is no question about that. There is
Question. “You never heard him make The Commissioners took this advice, and such a statement?”
no question in the Board's mind about the
fact that a violation took place.” U.S. District Judge Joseph C. McGarraghy
Answer. "No, sir.”
But then Mr. Weakly added, "The question presided over the resulting condemnation
before the Board is when did it take place. hearing on June 15, 1961. This time, Inspector Cohill testified he had Mr. Sullivan was excused and James G.
* * * Although it is very technical, it afbeen right the first time and only 10 stamps Tyson, the third member of the ABC Board,
fects substantial rights.”
On December 29 the Board dismissed were on hand when the first ABC inspector was called in. Mr. Tyson said the Board had arrived at Apex. called Inspector Cohill in after the hearing,
charge against the Rendezvous. “Well,” he confessed, "I might say that and before the decision.
There were 39 more dismissals and 42 during the (ABC) hearing I became quite But he could not remember whether Mr.
warnings during the present Board's first confused in using papers that I had.” The Cohill had changed his story before or after
4 years in office—more than half of all the the Board made its decision. 3,900 extra stamps he had mistakenly said
violation hearings it held. were on hand, he explained, were actually Question. “Did he (Mr. Cohill) at some
Many policemen complain privately about
what this does to the force's morale. not on hand but had been bought during time tell the Board that he was confused in his testimony before the Board?”
“Very frankly," one said, “you get to the the previous 2 months. After the ABC Board hearing, he told the Answer. “I think he did, Judge.”
point where you wonder whether it's worth
the trouble to report violations to the Board. judge, he studied his list of figures all after Question (Mr. Donohue). "Do you have
“We have to do just as much work prenoon and all evening before realizing the any recollection of his saying that he was
paring these cases as any other kind. It boner he had made. Assistant Corporation in error in his testimony with respect to
takes the heart out of you to spend a couple Counsel George Clark questioned Mr. Cohill the 3,900 stamps and wanted to change that further: testimony?”
or 3 days getting up the paperwork, then see
the Board dismiss the thing." Question. “Now, after you realized that, Answer. “Oh, no."
Police handle almost all the city's cases of sir, at any time did you apprise the Board of
criminal violations of the ABC law. The that fact? Answer. "I did.”
Mr. Tyson was excused and, as the trial District's Internal Audit Office reports that in Question. “Do you recall, sir, when you ap
fiscal 1961 ABC inspectors prepared only 2 ended, Judge McGarraghy ruled, "The tax prised the Board of this?
had not been paid, and it (the liquor] had out of 35 cases for violation hearings.
been in the possession of the licensee more Answer. “I don't remember exactly what than 24 hours.
[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News, day it was or just how close it was, but it was within a short time after the hearing date "I find, as a fact, that on January 22,
Mar. 3, 1963) that I informed the Board that I had made
AUDITORS HAD TO CLAMP ON ABC: MORE 1959, when the first inspector, Mr. Brunson, this error."
BOTTLES THAN STAMPS went onto the premises, that the only stamps
that were there in the inventory at that time Then defense lawyer Donohue took up the
(By Jerry Doolittle) were ten 116-gallon stamps." questioning and asked Mr. Cohill, “And to
Spotty and brief inspections, lack of vig
Judge McGarraghy ruled that the huge whom did you make that report?”
orous followups in criminal charges, and in"Mr. Weakly," the inspector answered. cache of liquor should be kept by the Dis
effective controls over liquor imports. trict to be sold at auction or to be otherWEAKLY QUIZZED
These are some of the charges made against wise disposed of.
the District's Alcoholic Beverage Control The three ABC Board members, were wait Defense lawyer Donohue appealed the
Board over the last few years by the Intering in the hall to be called as witnesses. case, but the appeal has not been heard yet.
nal Audit Office, which rides herd on every First on the stand was Chairman Weakly. The liquor is still in the city's warehouse.
department of city government. Mr. Donohue asked, "Were you informed
In a check of the lag-often as long as 6 by Mr. Cohill in the period between the hear [From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
months—between the time police spot a ing on September 27, 1960, and the decision
Mar. 1, 1963)
liquor law violation and the time the Board by your Board on November 3, 1960, that his ABC BOARD DISMISSAL: CASE OF THE HAZY holds a hearing on it, Internal Audit Chief testimony before the Board was in error?"
Frank M. Hally found last fall: Answer. “There was some conversation
(By Jerry Doolittle)
“An examination of the log of reports sent about it. My memory is not too clear. I do not recall just what he did say was the
On July 27, 1960—or was it July 28%a
to the Corporation Counsel disclosed that
the majority of reports are returned with precise statement to which he wanted to District policeman walked into the Rendezadhere." vous Bar & Grill, 409 10th Street NW., noticed
citation (charges) within 1 to 3 months.”
But Mr. Hally said his men uncovered one Question. If Mr. Cohill admitted he was a young-looking marine drinking beer.
case that sat around the Corporation Counwrong, would not Mr. Weakly have "taken
The marine was only 17, and on Septem
sel's Office for 16 months. Investigation some administrative step to continue the ber 29, 1960, the Alcoholic Beverage Control
showed that the papers in the case, which hearing?" Board set a hearing on charges that Pandora
involved a liquor salesman and a retail liAnswer. "Well, it was not considered at P. Gogos had been responsible for serving
cense, had been misplaced. that time. It might have been done. It a minor.
During those 16 months, Mr. Hally rewas not done."
Pvt. David A. McPherson, the only wit
ported, nobody from the ABC Board ever in(Assistant Corporation Counsel Clark ness, was questioned by Assistant Corporation
quired to find out what had happened to the asked whether Mr. Weakly had told the Counsel M. Michael Cramer:
case. other two members of Board of Inspector Question. "Officer McPherson, on July 28,
CHECK SYSTEM Cohill's visit.)
1960, did you have occasion to make an inAnswer. “The statements that he made
He recommended that the Board set up a vestigation at the Rendezvous Bar & Grill?"
system of followthroughs on charges of were in the presence of all three members of Answer. “Yes, I did.”
violations sent to the Corporation Counsel the Board."
Question. "Will you please tell the Board
to be tidied into legal form. The Board folQuestion. “As a result of that informa generally what you found at that time?"
lowed the recommendation. tion?"
Answer. "About 7:30 p.m., on July 27 of
In a report last spring, Mr. Hally said: Answer. “We took no action." this year, I entered the Rendezvous."
“The procedure followed by the Board to Mr. Weakly added that Mr. Cohill's state Nobody then noticed the discrepancy in ment had been "very confusing, impossible
control importation of retail licensees are the dates—it could even have been a typo
not adequate to ascertain that all taxes, when to make any conclusive opinion.” He said graphical error in the transcript—and Private
due, are paid by these licensees.” the statement had not figured "one iota” in McPherson went on to say that identification
This meant that the Board wasn't checking the Board's decision. papers showed the marine was 17.
carefully enough to make sure tax stamps The Board, Mr. Weakly explained, was re
were bought and put on bottles by dealers quired to decide cases only on the basis of the hearing record-although he conceded
Four days later, October 3, the Board
who buy liquor from distilleries outside the that in one earlier case the Board had reconordered the Rendezvous' license lifted for
city. the vened to hear further testimony.
veek of October 12-19, but on October
And Mr. Hally charged that the Board 5, Defense Lawyer James F. O'Donnell asked
“has never made effective use of available SULLIVAN the Board to reconsider. So the Board post
records of liquor imports and stamp purThen Board Member Richard Sullivan was poned the penalty and set another hearing
chases." called in. He was questioned by Assistant December 5.
DIDN'T ADD UP Corporation Counsel Clark.
At that hearing, Mr. O'Donnell pointed out As evidence, he offered the fact that his Question. “You had no conversation with that the charges read “July 28" and the auditors had run a test check of records Mr. Cohill in which he stated to you that policeman had said "July 27.”
which disclosed "substantial discrepancies
between purchases of tax stamps and receipts along the way it does would be a great and invited to submit statements in writof liquor by several retail licensees.” The mistake on the part of the Congress.
ing. The committee did not concern itself stores, in effect, were buying more liquor
with individual complaints on specific cases,
I thank the gentleman for yielding than stamps.
but rather with the general situation in all to me.
its aspects. Mr. Hally made several suggestions for Mr. SPRINGER. I thank the distin
The following tightening up the Board's procedures, but
recommendations and they were not approved by the District Com- guished gentleman from New Jersey.
statements have been adopted by the commissioners because the city had just abanMr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, will mittee:
1. EXISTING LEGISLATION doned the stamp method of collecting liquor the gentleman yield so I can respond? taxes anyway.
Mr. SPRINGER. Since the name of (a) The age limits as set forth in section In the same report, the Internal Audit the gentleman from New York has been 20 of the act shall be continued: 18 years of Office claimed that “adequate administra- mentioned, I will yield to him.
age as a minimum for sale or consumption tive control is not exercised over the inspec
Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, I would
of light wines and beer, and 21 years of age tion function.”
for other alcoholic beverages. A check of the records kept by ABC in- suggest our distinguished colleague from
(b) Provisions for notice of applications spectors, Mr. Hally said, "disclosed wide New Jersey, who just addressed the
for licenses are adequate as currently pro
vided for. variations in the number and frequency of House and referred to me, should read inspections. As an example, during a 4. the hearings, some 241 pages in length, (C) No change in the present law is recmonth period one large retail licensee had of last year.
ommended concerning restrictions on adno inspections, whereas a retailer of the same Also I wish he would read the hear
vertising. There are adequate safeguards in class had 13 inspections." ings, 147 pages in length, which were tak
the code pertaining to false and misleading The inspections themselves, investigators en this year. It is too bad the gentle
advertising and misrepresentation, found, lasted an average of 30 minutes each
penalties prescribed. man from New Jersey did not find the including travel time between stores and
(d) There is no provision in the present time to attend some of these hearings bars. The auditors doubted that this was
act for any kind of pricefixing, and there enough time to make all the checks the as many of the subcommittee members shall be none. inspectors were supposed to make.
did. If he had, he would find that there Respectfully submitted. The ABC Board told the Internal Audit was sufficient support, and the enact
Mrs. HENRY GICHNER, Office that the apparent inequality of inspec. ing of this bill will prevent any scandals
Chairman. tions came because troublesome establishcoming into the District of Columbia in
(Vice chairman: Oliver Gasch, Esq.; ments need frequent inspections while well the operation of the ABC Act, as it has
members: Mr. J. C. Turner, Mr. George E. C. run stores or bars didn't.
Hayes, Mr. Howland Shaw, Mrs. Harold N. But the Board promised to set up a special in so many other jurisdictions.
Marsh, Mr. Herbert Blunck, Mr. Berkeley card file anyway, in an effort to spread the
I thank the gentleman for yielding. Burrell, Roy Garving, Esq., Mrs. Ernest K. inspections around more evenly.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I ask Lindley, and Dr. Garnet C. Wilkinson.) (The District Alcoholic Beverage Control unanimous consent to revise and extend
As you can see from this report, the Board's apparent laxness in judging charges my remarks and to include extraneous
"blue ribbon committee" suggested that against liquor dealers and bars here, com- matter, including certain newspaper arpared to a previous board, has been discussed ticles and reports.
there be no change in the law with refin the first four articles in this series. This
erence to pricing or advertising. The
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection fifth article shows how the District govern- to the request of the gentleman from
“blue ribbon committee" disbanded imment auditors noted another kind of apparIllinois ?
mediately after that report was filed. It ent laxness.)
There was no objection.
did an excellent job and I think resulted These articles point out the weak
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, may
in the squelching of a similar liquor bill nesses that have developed in the past I say in response to the distinguished
which was before our committee in 1962. in the activities of the ABC Board. When chairman of the subcommitee, that even
But a bill similar to the one last year these articles were published the ABC though I read the record he has pointed
was introduced earlier this year. HearBoard was on the edge of a scandal. The out, I find no support for the bill except
ings were held at which the District District Commissioners promptly ap- from the District liquor industry.
Commissioners and the Department of
There pointed a "blue ribbon committee” which
Justice testified negatively on the legiswas considerable testimony in opposiwas made up of some of the outstanding tion by impartial people. I am talking
lation. Both the Commissioners and the community and civic leaders in the Dis- about the Department of Justice, the
Department of Justice used very strong trict of Columbia. The “blue ribbon
language in disapproving that bill. This Board of Commissioners, the "blue ribcommittee” made an investigation of its bon” committee, and the Federation of
bill creates the ABC Board as an indeown and filed its report. Citizens Committees which represents
pendent agency. Mr. Chairman, why Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Chairman, the 17 committees in Washington. I
was this particular provision inserted in would the gentleman yield? have a whole stack of individual letters
this legislation? The proponents of this Mr. SPRINGER. I will be glad to yield and
cards, and I do not know how many
bill, knowing that they could never pass to the gentleman from New Jersey. telephone calls, all against the bill, but
a bill with the provisions on price fixing Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Chairman, I I have yet to record one single letter or
and advertising in them that had been want to associate myself with the argu- telephone call in favor of this bill.
in the previous bills because of the firm ments and the statements of the gentle
I feel the “blue ribbon” committee
opposition of the Department of Justice man from Illinois, because they are
and the District Commissioners, now does represent community sentiment, sound and they are factual. It has alIt has al- and I would like to put it in the RECORD
seek to accomplish the same thing by ways been a mystery to me why the disby unanimous consent the report of the
removing the ABC Board from the juristinguished gentleman from New York, Citizens' Committee dated July 25, 1962:
diction of the District Board of Comwith all his great abilities, should spend
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT so much time working on this liquor bill
In short, if the Board is separated here in the District of Columbia. There
Washington, D.C., July 25, 1963.
from the District Commissioners and the has been no demand for any reforms Report to: Board of Commissioners.
District Commissioners no longer have that I know of. As a matter of fact, I From: Citizens' Committee To Conduct a Co any supervision or the right to make reghave discussed this matter with some of operative Study of the Alcoholic Bever ulations, the ABC Board by its own my friends in the liquor business, retail
age Control System.
regulations will accomplish what the adand wholesale, and I find that they are
The committee has been meeting regu
vocates of the bill sought last year and larly since the first of May, 1962. It has not interested in this bill at all. I canhad the full cooperation of the ABC Board,
earlier this year with regard to price not find anyone in my investigations who Corporation Counsel's office, the Police De
fixing and advertising. Mr. Weakly, the is interested in the bill. There are plen partment including the Youth Aid Division,
Chairman of the ABC Board, testified ty of people who are opposed to this leg
and the office of the Commissioners. The for the bill in 1962. He had some reserislation. There has been no criticism of
committee has studied the existing legisla vations but on the whole I would say the administration of the liquor laws tion and regulations, policies of the ABC
that the record showed he supported the in the District of Columbia by respon
Board, administration and enforcement of
legislation which was firmly opposed by sible people. There has been no scandal and proposed changes in the act.
the District Board of Commissioners and involved, as there has been in other
In the study, no public hearings were held.
the Department of Justice. This will parts of the country. I think to dis- Representatives of industry organizations,
give you an idea of what they intend turb this situation as it is now working religious, and citizens groups were contacted to do on these matters as soon as the