Слике страница

ABC Board has the right to write the too, is an unrealistic figure, and as time In view of the fact that almost all govregulations without any objection from

goes on and costs increase, may prove to ernmental agencies of the District of Cothe Board of Commissioners. Mr.

be an even more impossible figure in the lumbia are not independent, but are subject Chairman, although the “blue ribbon

future. It is suggested that the determina to the control of the Board of Commission

tion of the cost of display articles, etc. and ers, and the creditable way in which the committee” which was appointed by the the limitation thereof be left to the discre Board of Commissioners has administered Commissioners has disbanded, I asked tion of the ABC Board, who would have existing law (free of the liquor scandals Mrs. Henry Gichner, of 5160 Linnean the right to change such specification from which have arisen in other metropolitan Terrace NW., Washington, D.C., who was time to time, without having to go through areas), we see no reason to remove the Alchairman of the “blue ribbon commit the labors of having a congressional bill in coholic Beverage Control Board from its troduced for such purpose.

control. tee,” to make a review of H.R. 8920 and

I have not studied the bill carefully in In addition, we note that section 38(d) of advise me of her findings. Mrs. Gichner

all detail. However, the portions I have re the print would prohibit a licensed wholeis well known in Washington and I think

viewed seem to me to need amendment or saler or retailer who advertises or offers to everyone will admit that she has only revision. The Commissioners of the Dis sell an alcoholic beverage at a "special" or the public interest at heart but at the trict of Columbia and the Justice Depart "unusual” price from limiting the quantity same time is qualified to determine ment voiced objections to portions of the of the beverage that each customer may whether or not this is fair legislation. bill introduced last year. Some of these ob purchase. We are unaware of the need for Mr. Speaker, I herewith ask unanimous jections have been met and corrected. Others this provision which would inhibit the busiconsent to insert her letter of November

are still present in H.R. 8920, though couched ness judgments of the licensees affected.

in different language or hidden in unclear I hope that our comments will be of as1, 1963, to me in the RECORD at this terms.

sistance to you, and I apologize for our point.

If the Congress is honestly concerned with delay in responding to your request.
the welfare of the District of Columbia and

Sincerely yours,
November 1, 1963.
the enactment of legislation to help make

NICHOLAS DEB. KATZENBACH, Hon. WILLIAM L. SPRINGER, it a "model" community, then the bill to

Deputy Attorney General. House Office Building,

regulate the alcoholic beverage industry Washington, D.C.

As Mr. Katzenbach so well points out: should safeguard the interests of the entire MY DEAR MR. SPRINGER: I am writing to community: the government (the Commis Almost all governmental agencies of the you only as an interested citizen of the Dis

sioners), the public and the members of District of Columbia are not independent, trict of Columbia. I happen to be a member the industry.

but are subject to the control of the Board of the Citizens Council for the District of

Yours very truly,

of Commissioners, and the creditable way Columbia. I was also chairman of the

Mrs. HENRY GICHNER. in which the Board of Commissioners has special committee, appointed by the Com

administered existing law (free of the liquor missioners of the District in April 1962, to I feel that Mrs. Gichner does repre scandals which have arisen in other metro"conduct a cooperative study of the Alcoholic sent community sentiment. I feel sure politan areas), we see no reason to remove Beverage Control System.” The report of that if the “blue ribbon committee” were

the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board from this so-called blue-ribbon committee was in operation today that the findings

its control. submitted to the Commissioners of the Dis

which Mrs. Gichner has made of her trict of Columbia in July 1962.

FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIACertain provisions of the new bill, H.R. own accord would be unanimously rati

TIONS, OF THE DISTRICT OF CO8920, as reported in the newspapers, seem to fied by the “blue ribbon committee."

LUMBIA, ill advised and possibly dangerous. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Department

Washington, D.C., November 6, 1963. Upon study of the bill, I would like to make of Justice has been opposed to this bill

Hon. WILLIAM L. SPRINGER, the following comments: consistently. The author has tried in

House of Representatives Committee on the 1. I object strongly to the provision which

District of Columbia, Washington, D.C. sets up the ABC Board as an independent various ways to work around these ob

DEAR MR. SPRINGER: The above-entitled agency. Today, the philosophy of those injections. He has not been successful. I

District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage terested in the welfare of the District of ask unanimous consent at this point to

Control Act introduced only on October 12, Columbia has expressed itself as favoring insert in the RECORD a letter of the De

1963, is the omnibus successor, ingeniously centralization of responsibility under the partment of Justice of November 5, 1963, diluted, of several bills supported by the alBoard of Commissioners. To remove one of signed by Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, coholic beverage industry for the District the important agencies, namely the ABC Deputy Attorney General, with reference

of Columbia. Similar legislation has been Board, from their supervision and jurisdicto this legislation and especially that

considered by many citizens' associations in tion seems a bad mistake. I would also urge provision of this legislation which at

the District and by the Federation of Citithat the power to prescribe hours and/or

zens Associations and they have urged that days of sale of alcoholic beverages should be tempts to remove the Alcoholic Beverage

it not be passed. reserved to the Commissioners of the Dis Control Board from the jurisdiction of

In its present form there has been no optrict of Columbia, rather than assigning it the District of Columbia.

portunity for the associations to give deto the ABC Board.


tailed consideration to the bill and I am 2. The provision with regard to limitation


therefore obliged to rely on the past expresof advertising, (d) of section 38, is much


sions on the same subject matter. It is obtoo restrictive and should be eliminated.

Washington, D.C., November 5, 1963. vious from a reading of the present bill that This kind of restriction (supply available Hon. WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,

its basic purpose is to remove from the confor sale at a given time) is applied to no House of Representatives,

trol of the Commissioners of the District of other industry, nor is the provision that an Washington, D.C.

Columbia not only the entire wholesale and individual customer may purchase an un

DEAR CONGRESSMAN SPRINGER: This is in retail liquor business in the District, but limited amount of the same article at any

response to your request for the views of the also the control of the police, fire, welfare intime. Sellers of other goods have always Department of Justice concerning the com

spections and other members when engaged been able to "limit quantity for sale" and

mittee print dated September 11, 1963, show in any investigation or prosecution which have so stated in their advertising. This

ing subcommittee amendments to H.R. 2036, is covered by this comprehensive act. This whole paragraph is unfair to the dealers,

a bill to revise the District of Columbia is bad government. In the absence of local and seems to me an artificial restraint of Alcoholic Beverage Control Act.

suffrage it is even more imperative that the the principle of free enterprise.

Although the committee print has been responsibility for the control of this debat3. I do not understand the provision (7) drawn to meet the specific objections pre able industry must be concentrated in its of paragraph (g), section 38. How can one viously expressed by the Department of Jus basic essentials in the District Commisretailer sell to another retailer "for purposes tice to H.R. 2036, we still are not aware of sioner. of accommodation" when (5) of section 11 the need for this legislation.

However disguised, the proposed act would states that "such license shall not authorize A question has been raised concerning the utilize severe penalties and suspension or the licensee to sell other licensees for re desirability of making the Alcoholic Bever revocation of licenses for the independent, sale." Are these two statements inconsist age Control Board an independent agency competitive pricing of alcoholic beverages ent?

with the power to promulgate rules and in the District. This is price fixing no mat4. Section 18 deals with, among other regulations relating to the alcoholic bever ter how sugar coated and is devised to give things, what is understood to mean dis age trade in the District of Columbia (secs. monopolistic control to manufacturers and play articles and equipment. In the old 4 and 7). Existing law vests in the distributors of alcoholic beverages. law, the amount of such article was speci- Board of Commissioners of the District of The act proposed unrealistic and ridiculous fied at $10. This amount was unrealistic, Columbia the powers which the print would limitations on the importation of alcoholic especially since it was understood to cover give to the Alcoholic Beverage Control beverages other than through the monopoly the cost of extravagant displays, obviously Board. (Title I, appendix, D.C. Code, 1961 licensees. For example, section 34(b) makes costing much more. It has now been pro- ed., pp. 81, 103, and title 25, D.C. Code, 1961 it unlawful for a common carrier to transposed to substitute $15 for the old $10. This, ed., secs. 104 and 107.)

port into the District wine, spirits, or beer

in a quantity in excess of 1 gallon during Here is what the Washington Post, in the ways in which the welfare of the Dis1 calendar month for delivery to any one an editorial of October 29, titled “The trict can be protected is to vote this bill person in the District other than the holder Liquor Lobby Again” said:

down. of a manufacturer's, wholesaler's, or retailer's

The new bill arrives just as a commission Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield license. Such action is made a crime and of inquiry in New York has recommended myself such time as I may consume. with its enforcement would require every that the state abandon its "price maintetrucker or other common carrier to main

Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON. Mr. nance” laws for liquor because they generate Chairman, will the gentleman yield for tain a fantastic complexity of records. Sec

indefensibly high profits for the dealer at tion 37, while purporting to relate to false

a question? the consumer's expense. The bottle sold here advertising is so vague in its scope as to for $3.83 costs $4.99 in New York.

Mr. MULTER. Surely. render unlawful the publication of any pub

The bill repeats the earlier attempt to

Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON. I have lisher, radio broadcast licensee, or other ad

give the District's Alcoholic Beverage Control been rather surprised at the discussion vertising medium unless he maintains the

Board full independence of the District Com which has taken place so far by the names and addresses of every advertiser and the full text of the advertisement and first

missioners' supervision. In the past, the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle.

Board has consistently shown sympathy to reaches a conclusion as to what would be a

One of the strong cases which has been false advertisement. Particular reference is the idea of price fixing and the Commis

emphasized is the fact that this legislasioners have consistently opposed it. The made to paragraph 38(d) on page 65 of the

tion has been defeated on prior occabill in this connection.

purpose of this cry for independence is
wholly suspicious.

sions and, therefore, this is sufficient We wonder precisely the reaction of your

Those Members who do not favor turning reason not to consider it seriously. constituents when they become aware by liquor regulation over to the liquor industry

As a new Member of Congress, I can police prosecution of their violation of sec

will oppose the bill. tion 27(a) providing that “no person shall

recall about 10 or 12 years ago in the in the District of Columbia drink any alco The Evening Star, in an editorial of State of California that we had a great holic beverage in any public space with re June 15, 1963, has this to say:

liquor scandal. The way in which it spect to which a license has not been issued

One of its worst features would entirely was straightened out was to adopt the under this act; * * *” I question that any remove the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, ABC Board form of control. They took average citizen could conceivably become

with all the vast pressures which buffet that over complete authority of this imporaware of the risks which he is assuming.

agency, from any supervisory check or con tant activity. The sheer inadvisability of jamming trol by the District Commissioners. Another Is not this similar to what is done in through this legislation without thorough would prohibit retailers from selling liquor most of our States, to have a board of understanding by the Members of Congress is

below a tediously detailed formula of the so apparent that we cannot believe it will

autonomous control? retailer's costs, thereby ending not only occur, but we sincerely hope that you will be loss-leader advertising but bargains for the

Mr. MULTER. This is exactly the able to convince the Congressmen that as prudent shopper. Still another questionable

same as in every jurisdiction of the residents of the District for most of the year section would add a lot of muddy and totally United States. In each of the 34 States they can't afford such an absurd and un

unnecessary verbiage to the existing controls where they have a liquor board or a balanced act.

against false advertising. There are others. liquor authority or a commissioner, one Sincerely yours,

At an initial hearing the other day, the

person or one board or one commissioner Commissioners gave this measure a wellPresident, Federation of Citizens Associa

has the sole and complete jurisdiction. deserved lambasting. We

We trust in the ations. lamentable event hearings are resumed, that

In the monopoly States the States

have full and complete control and again Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, this leg- it will continue to receive more of the same.

under a single board or official. islation is one of self-interest for the The Washington Daily News, in an edi

May I indicate, apparently other liquor industry in the District of Co torial of October 31, 1963, entitled “Here Members may have gotten the same idea lumbia. In the 5 years that I have been We Go Again,” had this to say of the as the gentleman did, that this bill has a member of the House District Com- bill:

been before the House and has been demittee this appears to me the most fla

Once again we have before the House a feated, or before the committee and has grant bill of self-interest that I have bill to revamp the District's liquor been defeated. This bill has never been known anything about. Every disinter

laws * *
* against the best advice of the

voted down by a committee or by the ested party, including the Department of District Commissioners and to the un

House. The so-called blue ribbon comJustice, the District Board of Commis

doubted disadvantage of citizens who long sioners, the three community news- have enjoyed comparatively low prices here. mittee that was appointed did have the papers, the Federation of Citizens Asso This time it's somewhat more sedately effect of delaying action in the last Con

dressed, but it remains essentially the same ciations of the District of Columbia, and

gress until it was too late to bring the act * * * an ill-considered and unnecessary bill out. The bill has not been voted innumerable citizens who have made

move in the direction of permitting liquor down in the Committee, and it has not their views known to me by letter and

wholesalers to regulate prices to their own been before the House. telephone, have been opposed to this bill, gain.

Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON. In conPractically all of the effort to enact This bill, for instance, would set up the nection with the blue ribbon committhis bill on the House side of Congress

Alcoholic Beverage Control Board as an inhas been through the “liquor lobby.” dependent agency, its members appointed by tee, are they residents of the District or

the District Commissioners, to be sure, but For the past several weeks the Secretary

are they from the outside; does the their actions and powers removed from whatof the District Liquor Association has

gentleman know? ever supervision they now receive.

Mr. MULTER. I think it is safe to say been practically living in the Halls of

As it is, the Alcoholic Beverage Control they came from the metropolitan area Congress. If he were here any more than Board is hardly noted for a penchant to hold of Washington. Not all of them came he has been I think it would be necessary its actions up to public view. It has been from the District. for the House Administration Committee noted, however, for its past inclination to

May I say this so called blue ribbon to rent him a separate room in the build

view kindly the liquor industry's philosophy committee was supposed to represent ing. He has done almost everything ex

of price maintenance. Regardless of the
honest convictions of the Board, to permit it

the community. It came into being to cept sleep here. I know that many of to completely draw the blinds on its day-to- give us their views. Whether they had you have had him constantly on your day activities is to invite unbridled mischief any meetings or not, I do not know. doorstep. at some future date.

They did not conduct any hearings. Generally speaking, I think that the

When the bill comes up on the floor, it They did send up a report for the record

would be well to force a rollcall vote. Then which came to us over the signature of newspapers do express a certain con

everyone will know just who believes in com- the chairman of that committee and was science for the District of Columbia. I

petition and who does not. do not mean by that that the newspapers

written for her and for her committee are always right.

I believe that these editorials and news by an assistant corporation counsel unHowever, when all three of the newspapers in the District

stories from which I have quoted do re- der the direction of the District Com

flect much of the feeling about the dan- missioners. It was not the views at all of Columbia, that is the Washington gers of allowing this bill to be passed and of the so-called citizens' committee. Post, the Evening Star, and the Daily

to become law. The Members of Con- Despite that, we considered them item News are against this bill, I am sure that gress are the only ones who can guard by item, and you have not heard and most Members realize there certainly the public interest and look after the will not hear on the floor today a single must be some very questionable provi welfare of all of the citizens of the Dis- word in support of any of their recomsions in this liquor bill.

trict of Columbia. In my opinion, one of mendations not already in the bill. All

of their good recommendations are now include price fixing. I want such as the bill, I will put it into the bill. The in the bill. They were in the bill when surances as I can get on this point from newspapers try to charge that this is to we had it before the full committee in the gentleman from New York.

bring in price fixing through the back the last session. The only thing you find Is the gentleman telling the House door. It is not. them talking about is taking away from categorically that under this bill the Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the Commissioners their right to review Alcohol Beverage Control Board estab- the gentleman yield? the actions of the Board. I say the Board lished under this legislation would have Mr. MULTER. I yield to the gentleshould act in the first instance and if no power whatsoever to fix prices? man from Illinois. they do anything wrong an appeal to Mr. MULTER. I say this as un Mr. SPRINGER. I just want to read the courts should be had.

equivocally and as categorically as I can further what the post has had to say Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, will say it—the Board has no power, and about the matter: the gentleman yield? nothing in this bill will give the ABC

True, Mr. MULTER has now been constrained Mr. MULTER. I yield to the gentle- Board or the Commission the right to to somewhat veil his language. But he conman from Illinois.

fix prices on anything. Even though it tinues to define any merchandising practice Mr. SPRINGER. I think there is some was not necessary, we went so far as to "substantially lessening competition" as undispute there. I do not believe all of put a provision in the bill to permit joint fair competition, punishable by license revothe things are in the bill that were rec- advertising, because there came up the cation. In this context, of course, substanommended by the blue ribbon commit- question that under the guise of regulat- tially lessening competition means price tee. I think the letter that was written ing joint advertising they might fix ing to outlaw discounting in the District's

Mr. MULTER is still diligently tryspeaking about price control is one that prices. So we put in a provision that liquor stores. was strongly objected to in the original nothing in this bill shall prohibit joint bill. advertising.

Mr. MULTER. The answer to that is Mr. MULTER. Let me take up that Mr. DINGELL. The reason I am con- just this. This is the exact language you point.

cerned is I note on page 38 of the report will find in the Robertson-Patman Act, When the bill was first introduced in in the part dealing with changes in the the Antitrust Act, and all the other acts the last session of Congress there was a law as required to be printed under the enforceable by the Antitrust Division of price-fixing provision in it. But it is not Ramseyer rule that it says:

the Department of Justice and the Fedin there now, and it was not in it when it came before the full committee. We rected to prescribe such rules and regula- that situation.

The Board is hereby authorized and di- eral Trade Commission. This is to meet took that out. We met the objections tions as it deems necessary

Mr. DINGELL. The language in this of the Attorney General. There is no (1) relating to displays or other services bill does not mean that the Board or the price fixing of any kind whatsoever in or articles of property given or sold any re- wholesaler or the manufacturer has the this bill. There is a provision against tail licensee under this Act by any manufac- right to fix prices? false, misleading, and fraudulent adver- turer or wholesaler of alcoholic beverages,

Mr. MULTER. I once again say to the tising, and that is what the newspapers as to the cost thereof, notwithstanding sec- we intend to do and that is what this

including the establishment of limitations gentleman-he is correct. That is what are objecting to.

tion 19 of this Act; Mr. SPRINGER. I suggest the gentle

language does. If anybody can give us man read the report in full. I did not That does not confer upon the Board any better language to say it again, we put those in the record because I believe the power to fix prices.

will say it again. under the rules of the House the dis

Mr. MULTER. No, it does not.

Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentletinguished gentleman's name was men

Mr. DINGELL. Then I note on page man. tioned, so I did not include that. If you 65 of the bill on line 11, subsection (c) Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, for the will read the editorials cited, one of the it reads as follows:

guidance of those who are interested, real objections is that this is a price It is hereby declared that knowingly to the following is a summary of the bili fixing formula.

advertise, to offer to sell, or to sell any al- and what is sought to be accomplished by Mr. MULTER. That is their charge, coholic beverage, either by retailers or whole. it, and a section-by-section analysis of but it is a false charge.

salers, with the intent, effect, or the result the changes sought to be accomplished

of deceiving any purchaser or prospective by this bill: Mr. SPRINGER. I think the gentle- purchaser, substantially lessening competiman has a right to say that, but I dis- tion, unreasonably restraining trade, or

BACKGROUND OF H.R. 8920 agree with him. I believe the news- tending to create a monopoly is an unfair Extended hearings on proposed papers are reasonably correct. I do not method of competition, contrary to public

method of competition, contrary to public changes in the Alcoholic Beverage Conwish to dispute my chairman. I respect policy, and in contravention of the policy of trol Act for the District of Columbia were him, but I want to be sure there is no this section.

held in the last Congress on H.R. 8908, misunderstanding as to what is in the Does this either directly or indirectly by a subcommittee of this committee, editorials.

give the Board the power to fix prices and during this session on H.R. 684 and Mr. MULTER. Let me make this over alcoholic beverages?

H.R. 2036. The reported bill, H.R. 8920 point about the publishers: In the last Mr. MULTER. No, it does not. It is –House Report 881-embodies various session the publishers association sent not intended to. I say to the gentleman's proposals and amendments drafted and up its representatives to testify. The question categorically it is not intended incorporated therein to meet suggestions very day they were testifying the news to and it does not. Historically, this has for improvement in the law made at the papers were carrying these false and to do with discounts or so-called loss hearings and during consideration of the fraudulent advertisements.

leaders, where they take a branded item proposed legislation in executive sessions fronted them with it after they said and advertise it at a certain price, and

of the subcommittee and of the full com“We, the newspapers, have a right to when you walk in behind the man who mittee. censor these ads, and we do keep out opens the store he is all out of it, and H.R. 8920 rewrites the Alcoholic Bevthe bad advertising.” We showed them tries to tout you onto another item. erage Control Act for the District of Cothe ads some of which are in the record. Under this bill he can advertise it as a lumbia-title 25, District of Columbia This year they did not come in for ex- loss leader or any way he pleases, but he Code, sections 101–139—which it repeals, amination. They merely sent in a state- has to have it on hand and offer it at

has to have it on hand and offer it at but continues the present Alcoholic Beyment, and the very day the statement that price when you walk in and ask him erage Control Board with its present came in the newspapers again carried to sell it to you. That is what the bill members and establishes it as an indethese false, fraudulent, and misleading would do.

pendent agency of the District governadvertisements.

Mr. DINGELL. This legislation does ment. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will not confer upon the ABC Board the As an independent agency, the Board the gentleman yield?

power to establish retail prices generally under this bill succeeds to most of the Mr. MULTER. I yield to the gentle- or the power to regulate retail prices? regulatory powers now exercised by the man from Michigan.

Mr. MULTER. I say it does not. It Commissioners of the District of ColumMr. DINGELL. May I say at this time is not intended to. If anybody can come

is not intended to. If anybody can come bia, and would be free of the general suI am very much concerned this bill does up with better language to say that in pervisory powers now exercised by such

Commissioners over the Board's man Twelfth. Consumption license for a

TAXES agement of its administrative and inter- club-$100.

The bill continues the tax on every nal affairs and functions.


wine-gallon of alcohol and spirits at In addition to establishing the Board

The bill would grant a priority or pref- $1.50 per such gallon. as such an independent agency, the bill

erence to license applications received The most significant change in the bill further provides that Board members

from persons required to relocate their in this area is its provision that the may be removed by the Commissioners

licensed business establishments by rea- Commissioners may provide that the “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or

son of the exercise by the Federal or taxes imposed herein shall not apply to malfeasance in office.”. Under the code District governments, of the power of imported beverages for the personal and provisions relating to the present Board,

eminent domain, or in aid of urban re- official use of heads of foreign diplomatic there is no such specific authority of re

newal, redevelopment, highway, trans- and consular missions; and to sales to moval. Also, the bill provides that upon portation, or other governmental pro

portation, or other governmental pro- such persons by wholesale licensees if removal—for cause or otherwise-a

gram. The code contains no comparable such beverage was purchased for such member may continue to serve on the provision,

purposes and was withdrawn from a cusBoard until his successor shall have been


toms bonded warehouse under superviappointed. The code contains no such

Provisions in the code permitting sion of the Secretary of the Treasury and provision.

licensing of bottle clubs are omitted in located on the vendor licensee's premises. Although the bill rewrites entirely the

the bill and, therefore, repealed under In the absence of such a regulation, it present Alcoholic Beverage Control Act,

the provisions of section 39(4) which re- would appear that these transactions many of the features and much of the peals the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act would be fully taxable at the rates imlanguage of the repealed act are re

of 1935—title 25, District of Columbia posed by this section. tained. However, several major innoCode, section 101-139.

The code contains no similar provision. vations and changes are provided for in


IDENTIFICATION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES the bill, some of which are as follows:

Extends standup drinking privileges to The bill makes it mandatory that the APPEALS TO THE COURT

hotels and clubs and permits such drink- Board shall require that containers of The Board is vested with power to ing in restaurants, hotels, and clubs by

ing in restaurants, hotels, and clubs by alcoholic beverages carry the license issue, transfer, reissue, and revoke li assemblages of more than six persons in number of each licensee selling or offercenses. Its action on any question of a private room previously approved by ing the same for sale. fact in this regard is final and conclusive, the Board and in an enclosed area on The code provision is permissive only except that in the case of a reissuance, such premises by its patrons waiting to as to the Commissioners in this instance. revocation, or suspension of a license, be seated at public tables.

FALSE ADVERTISING AND SALES BELOW COST any party aggrieved by the Board's


The bill invests the Board with jurisaction may appeal to the District of Co

Sales on reasonable credit terms are diction and powers similar to those poslumbia Court of Appeals—formerly the permitted between licensees. In addi- sessed by the Federal Trade Commission municipal court of appeals for the District of Columbia.

tion, holders of retail licenses class C, D, and the Department of Justice in the

or E may sell alcoholic beverages on areas of false and misleading advertising This innovation substantially changes the code provisions relating to such ap- code, this privilege

was limited to holders
credit to their customers. Under the and restraint of trade.

In this regard, the bill makes it unpeals. Under the code, only revoca

of retail license, class E. tions or suspensions for more than 30

lawful for any person knowingly to disdays could be appealed to the Commis


seminate false and misleading advertissioners whose findings on such appeals

The bill limits the quantity of alco- ing of alcoholic beverages for the purpose were final and conclusive as no further holic beverages that may be imported or of directly or indirectly inducing the appeals were provided for.

brought into the District by the general purchase of such beverages in the DisMAKING AND AMENDING REGULATIONS

public to 1 gallon during any calendar trict of Columbia.

month. Under the code, the restriction A willful, knowing, violation of the The Board is vested with specific auis 1 gallon at any one time.

above by a licensee may result in the thority to make regulations concerning


suspension or revocation of his license all phases of the alcoholic beverage business. Such regulations, however, shall

Throughout the code and the bill, if such facts are shown upon a hearing not be made, altered, or revoked until there are prohibitions against one class on such violations. after a public hearing thereon. of licensees holding an interest in an

Advertising media and personnel are Under the code, broad regulatory

other class of licensees when, in the generally exempt from the application power is vested in the Commissioners,

judgment of the Board, such interest of this section unless they refuse to supwhose regulations become effective 5 would tend to influence the one class to ply the name and address of the licensee

or other person causing them to disdays after their being published in à make its principal purchases of beverages newspaper of general, daily distribution; from the other class.

seminate such false and misleading adand no public hearing is required.

In the case of corporate licensees, the vertisement. code prohibitions apply only to holders

Retailers and wholesalers advertising LICENSES

of 25 percent or more of the common special, unusual or bargain prices are In all, 12 kinds of licenses may be

stock of such licensees. In the case of required to specify the quantities of each issued under the bill, as under the code, individuals and partnerships, this inter- item available at such prices, and to as follows-annual fees also are shown: est was required to be substantial.

have same on hand; and no limitation First. Manufacturer's license, class Under the bill, the above tests are A-$5,775.

on quantity per customer may be imeliminated and the prohibitions are made posed. Second. Manufacturer's license, class

to apply to any person having any inB-$4,125.

This section does not apply, however, terest in any licensee if in the judgment to sales below a cost determined in good Third. Wholesale license, class A of the Board such interest will tend to faith to meet lawful competition; bona $2,475.

bring about an undesirable practice. Fourth. Wholesale license, class B

fide clearance sales; final liquidation

Further, with regard to hotels, clubs, sales; sales of imperfect or damaged $1,250.

and restaurants, under the code licenses Fifth. Retail license, class A-$1,250. are conditioned upon the Board's being

beverages; sales on contract to GovernSixth. Retail license, class B-$165. satisfied that the sale of alcoholic bev

ment agencies, and to charitable orgaSeventh. Retail license, class C-$825, and so forth.

erages is not the prime source of revenue nizations and relief agencies; sales under

of such establishments. Under the bill. permits specifically authorizing sales unEighth. Retail license, class D-$330. the Board must be satisfied that the sale der cost without regard to the prohibiNinth. Retail license, class E-$40.

of food is the source of a reasonable tions of this section, et cetera. Tenth. Retail license, class F-$7.50. amount of revenue to such establish Violations of this section may result

Eleventh. Solicitor's license—$100 ments as a condition to their being in the suspension or revocation of the each license. granted a license.


[ocr errors]


A section-by-section analysis of the (5) provide for the determination of the power of eminent domain, or in aid of bill follows:

Board members' salaries in accordance with any urban renewal, redevelopment, highway, SUMMARY OF CHANGES MADE BY THE BILL,

the provisions of the Classification Act of transportation, or other governmental proH.R. 8920, IN THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE

1949, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1071 et seq.). gram. CONTRACT ACT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUM

(6) give the Board authority to hire nec Section 11 provides for the issuance of BIA (TITLE 25, SECS. 101–139)

essary personnel and to define the duties and the same 12 types of licenses as does the

responsibilties of the positions established code.
SECTION 1 OF H.R. 8920
in this regard.

This section substitutes "Board” for “ComSection 1 of H.R. 8920 (pp. 1–68) is made (NOTE.—Reorganization Order No. 35: G. F. missioners" with regard to the power to forup of 39 sections which are revisions of the 25–100, C.o. 302, 853114, June 16, 1953, mulate and issue regulations under the act. Alcoholic Beverage Control Act as amended ordered that there is hereby established un This section also extends "standup" drinkby the bill. Changes in these sections will der the direction and control of the Commis- ing privileges to hotels and clubs and probe first considered:

sioners, an Alcoholic Beverage Control Board vides that such drinking may be done in Sections 1 and 2 of the ABC Act, as consisting of three persons appointed by the restaurants, hotels, and clubs by assemblages amended-no changes.

Commissioners. The members of the then of more than six persons in a private room Section 3 of the ABC Act, as amended, con- existing Board were reappointed to the new approved by the Board as well as in an entains definitions. They are the same as Board and all powers and authority author closed area, on such premises, by patrons provided in present law, with the following ized by statute or by the Commissioners to waiting to be seated at public tables. exceptions:

be exercised by the previous Board was there (NOTE.—Remaining provisions are identical

after vested in the new Board. The order with those in the code. There are no changes. (3) Wine: Same as subsection (c) of sec

abolished the preexisting Board and estab in license fees.) tion 103 of the code, except that the defini

lishes such positions with such duties and Section 12 follows the language of Code ition of “light wines" therein is deleted and

responsibilities as said Board—with the ap section 113 except that the code provisions transposed to subsection 18 herein where it proval of the Commissioners to whom as relating to 25 percent stockownership are is defined as "champagne and wines con

signed_shall from time to time determine.) deleted. In substitution thereof, the term taining 14 perecnt or less alcohol by volume.”

(7) delete authority of the Commissioners “any interest” is prescribed. to provide for the expenses of the Board, but Section 13—new matter provides that ac

continues the requirement that the Commis tions on applications shall not terminate by (5) Alcoholic beverage: Same as subsection sioners shall include in their annual esti- reason of the end of a licensing year. Fees (e) of section 103 of the code, except that mates such amounts as may be required for on such applications shall, however, be adthe separate term "beverage” is deleted.

the salaries and expenses herein authorized. justed by reason of such terminal date.

(NOTE.-The remaining provisions of this Otherwise, the proposed section is identical (7) Club: Same as subsection (g) except section are identical with current code pro with section 114 of the code. for the following: (a) subject to Board ap- visions.)

Section 14 makes the following changes in proval, space outside and adjoining the

section 115-its corresponding code probuilding-including public property-may Section 6, identical with code section 106

vision-to which it is identical in all other be used to provide reasonable and comforta

respects: except that an appeal may be taken to the ble accommodations for its members and District of Columbia Court of Appeals (for

(a) Requires the Board—not the Comguests. merly the Municipal Court of Appeals for the

missioners-to prescribe the form of ap(NOTE.—This provision will permit the District of Columbia) on any adverse find- plications for licenses. establishment of club dining or drinking fa- ing by the Board relating to the reissuance,

(b) Eliminates the obsolete provision procilities on public sidewalks and other public revocation, or suspension of a license.

hibiting issuance of a license to persons conproperty outside and adjoining such club

Section 7, transfers to the Board the pow

victed of misdemeanors under the National building.) ers presently conferred upon the Commis

Prohibition Act within 5 years immediately (b) The Board must be satisfied that the sioners in section 107 of the code, with the

preceding the date of their application. sale of food is the source of a reasonable following amendments:

(c) With the exception of a retailer's amount of revenue to such club.

(1) the Board may prohibit sales of alco license class E, no manufacturer or whole(NOTE.—This changes the test required holic beverages on such days as it determines

saler of alcoholic beverages-or its officers or by subsection (g) (2).) necessary in the public interest.

stockholders, if a corporation shall have *

(2) no regulation shall be made, altered, any interest in the license or premises of an (10) Hotel: Same as subsection (1) of the or revoked by the Board without first hold- applicant for a wholesaler or retailer license code, but adds: (a) provisions identical to ing a public hearing thereon.

if such interest-in the Board's judgment subsection 7 (a) and (b) above; (b) and (3) the Board is further empowered to

would tend to influence such licensee to deletes the requirement that only a bona prescribe rules and regulations relating to purchase alcoholic beverages from such fide business incidental to the operation of (a) displays and other services or articles wholesaler or manufacturer. a dining room may be conducted therein. of property given or sold licensees by manu (d) Substitutes "Commissioners” for “Col

facturerers, etc., including limitations as to lector of Taxes” as the party to whom license

cost. (14) Restaurant: Same as subsection (n)

fees required by the act shall be paid. of the code, plus the same additions and de

(b) the display of merchandise and the (e) Provides that license applications shall letions to the definition as are made to the

holding of fashion shows and exhibits in be verified by the individual applicant, partdefinition of "hotel," as set out in subsec

the hotel dining rooms licensed under the ners, or by a corporate officer-if a corporaact.

tion. The code requires such verification tion (10) above.

(c) the conduct of hearings.

in such instances by the president or vice

(d) the posting and availability of price- president of the corporation. (16) Tavern: Same as subsection (q) of lists in restaurants and hotels subject to the Section 15 repeats the prohibitions and the code except that the Board must be satis act.

exceptions set forth in section 116 of the code fied that the sale of food is the source of a (4) no retailer's license, class A, shall be but redefines the zoning areas involved as reasonable amount of the revenue of such issued for an operation within 500 feet of the residential, special use, or commercial distavern.

premises of another holder of such class of trict. (17) Corporation Counsel: Means the at license.

Also requires that no part of the entrance torney for the District designated by the

to such establishment shall be visible from Commissioners to perform the functions pre Section 9 reduces, substantially, the a sidewalk. scribed for the Corporation Counsel in this length of its corresponding code section 109 bill. There is no corresponding provision in but does not appear to change, substantially, the code. the intent and meaning of section 109.

Section 17 provisions are identical to code (18) Light wines: See subsection (3) The term "offer for sale” and the provision

section 118 with the exception of the followabove. making the section inapplicable to such of

ing: Section 4 amends the current code provi fers and solicitations made upon the prem

(a) All revocations and suspensions-and sions to ises of the licensee-which appear in section

not just those suspensions of 30 days or (1) establish the Alcoholic Beverage Con 109-are deleted, however.

more may be decreed only after a hearing, trol Board of three members as an independ Section 10 deletes reference in section subject to court review, rather than review ent agency of the District. 110 of the code with regard to issuance of

by the Commissioners as in present law. (2) provide for removal of Board members licenses to permit consumption of alcoholic (b) A license may be suspended or reby the Commissioners "only for inefficiency, beverages on club premises where food, non voked if any of the principal officers or direcneglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” alcoholic beverages, or entertainment is sold tors of a corporate licensee fails to meet the

(3) require Board members to be of good or provided for compensation, i.e., "bottle requirements of citizenship, age, and noncharacter and otherwise fit for the trust to clubs."

conviction of a felony. be imposed in them.

Adds a requirement that the Board shall (C) Deletes reference to misdemeanor con(4) permit each Board member to continue give priority to applications from persons victions under the National Prohibition Act. to serve as such until his successor is ap required to relocate by reason of an exercise (d) Licensees are required to furnish the pointed

by the Federal or District governments of Board information it may deem reasonably


« ПретходнаНастави »