If I may further explain, it seems to me that in the course of your total testimony, that the source of most of your action has been more your conversations with the people than it has been the regulations; is that true?

Mr. MEISEL. Yes; because the regulations were very vague.

Mr. BROWN. They may or may not be, because by and large you have dealt with people and you have resolved things through conversations with District of Columbia officials.

Mr. MEISEL. Yes.

Mr. BROWN. So probably this is one of those cases where we find that to the extent that we are governed by men rather than laws

Mr. RANDALL. I was going to say that. He took the words right out of my mouth. This is one of those cases in which they are apparently not being governed by regulations but by individuals. And I think that that is something that we are going to have to pursue.

Mr. BROWN. I think that is the whole function of this committee, to make sure that the law is properly implemented by regulations, and that the regulations are properly enforced by individuals.

Mr. RANDALL. I think we are very close here to something along the lines of government by individuals rather than government by law, and I am indebted to my colleague for saying it, although I was going to say it immediately hereafter.

The bells have signaled a rollcall vote on the House floor. We have got to answer it.

I want to ask this one question. I don't like to talk about a ping pong game, but a tennis game, or whatever we call it

Mr. BROWN. You can play ping pong in this country as well, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RANDALL. I don't want to be partisan.

What is your responsibility or your tenants' responsibility? I have just been advised that our faithful attendants here are all your tenants out there, and the market is closed today; is that correct?

Mr. MEISEL. That is right.

Mr. RANDALL. I just wanted to bring out the fact that the market is closed today. And those in attendance are your tenants out there? Mr. MEISEL. That is right.

Mr. RANDALL. Now, because of the apparent obvious failure to reach some conclusions at this point, and with the call of the House incumbent on us, and because of the lateness of the hour, I think we should put Mr. Meisel and his associates on notice that they may be called back at a subsequent date.

I am not certain whether we are ready to have you in the morning,. or not, but we will put you on notice that you may be called back to try to resolve this conflict between tenants and landlord.

It is quite apparent that there are some things out there that are not as they should be, but it is a matter of responsibility and a question of regulations, and inspectors, and trying to pin this thing down. That is what we are trying to do.

Counsel has asked that Mr. Meisel be given the opportunity to check his records and all of his files to see whether he has ever received a notice, because we are going to ask the District people whether he has ever received a notice of insufficiencies and inadequacies, whether they arose as to violations of a particular section of the code, or whether he has received notice from the District folks.

Mr. MEISEL. Fine.

Mr. RANDALL. So, will you search your files?
Mr. MEISEL. I will do that.

Mr. RANDALL. You will have to bear with us on the time. And we do have an agenda for tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. And you will be notified in ample time.

Mr. BROWN. In connection with the chairman's request for any violation notice, Mr. Meisel, would you make sure that you identify to the best of your ability the source of the regulation that you have been notified to be in violation of, if any?

Mr. MEISEL. Fine.

Mr. RANDALL. With that, then, the committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, July 22, 1971.)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOOD INSPECTION

AND LICENSING

(Part 1)

THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1971

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SPECIAL STUDIES SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wm. J. Randall (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Wm. J. Randall and John W. Wydler. Staff members present: Erskine Stewart, staff director; and Jacob N. Wasserman, counsel.

Mr. RANDALL. The Subcommittee on Special Studies of the House Committee on Government Operations will come to order.

Let the record show that the attendance at the hearing is somewhat smaller than heretofore. However, we are glad to see those consenting to come here to testify.

On our witness list this morning, the first witness to be called is Mr. Herman Price, Occidental Restaurant; is Mr. Price with us this morning? Is Mr. Price in the room?

Let the record show that there is no response from Mr. Price.

Mr. Robert H. Campbell, Assistant Corporation Counsel, could we hear from you, sir?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANDALL. You are the Assistant Corporation Counsel and Chief, Law Enforcement Division, District of Columbia government. Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir, I am; and I am very glad to be here this morning. To my left is Mr. Tom Johnson.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. CAMPBELL, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL, AND CHIEF, LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; ACCOMPANIED BY TOM JOHNSON

Mr. RANDALL. You do not have a prepared statement, but at least you have been furnished with information prior to this proceeding. I would like to make a statement, which you can respond to.

First, there is much more interest in this inquiry than we had surmised or believed could have been anticipated. I was stopped this morning while I was proceeding to the hearings, by five or six different

Mr. RANDALL. These are not very distinct.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Have I answered your question sir.

Mr. WYDLER. At first the disposition of the cases was misleading, as to how many of them were handled by your office and prosecution was carried out.

Mr. RANDALL. At this point, the Chair will offer to be considered— to accept as an exhibit, a printout appearing to be by a computer printout by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, a number of criminal cases as of July 1, 1971, and running from case numberthere is no consecutive number; consisting of three pages, showing the number, the last name of the defendant, his first name is given-his given name, the date the proceeding was filed, the date of the judgment, the date of the disposition, the day it was disposed of, and finally, the judgment, if the case was nol-prossed or if there was forfeiture of bond, or whatever the case may be. This will be processed next, No. 18. Without objection. Without hearing any objection, it will be marked as "Exhibit No. 18."

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 18" for reference and follows:)

During the year 1970, there were 33. During the year 1971, so far in the cases that have been filed, there have been 27; and during the year 1969, there were 22.

Mr. RANDALL. You have checked this with the clerk of the courts? Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANDALL. And this 3-year check by prosecution. What is the disposition of the case then, is it a fine, what is the conclusion?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I am prepared to give that. In 1969, for the calendar year, 1969 and these are the cases, there were nine guilty verdicts in 1969, there was one not guilty verdict, and there was one nol-prossed. We do not proceed with a prosecution unless we have a good casewe had a total of 11 cases. All of these cases related to adulterated meat cases. These 11 cases.

During calendar year 1970, there were 10 cases, there were four guilty verdicts, there was one bench warrant issued, there were five cases nol-prossed. These 10 cases include two adulterated meat casesin which the finding of those was guilty.

Mr. WYDLER. For what year.

Mr. CAMPBELL. 1970.

Mr. WYDLER. You told me that there were 22 cases in 1969, how were the rest disposed of?

Mr. CAMPBELL. These cases that I have listed sir, are multiplecount cases. This is the way the computer-the defendant will be charged with a series of counts, if he had five counts, the clerk's office will number these individually so this is how this total arises. Mr. RANDALL. They consider each count as a case.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. WYDLER. And they give this information to the Congress? That's why there seems to be a burden in the District courts. What a way to keep records. I remember when I was a Federal U.S. attorney, and we would dispose of 40 or 50 counts with one verdict.

Mr. CAMPBELL. This is why I have broken it down, to get the investigator to give me the number of the individually named defendants, this is what I am giving you the individual breakdown.

Mr. WYDLER. Did you say there were 22 cases in 1969 or 11 cases.
Mr. CAMPBELL. There were 11 named.

Mr. WYDLER. Some were charged with more than one count.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Some.

Mr. RANDALL. Some legal cases that you handled were involvingyou handled 11 cases?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. I would be glad to furnish copies of the computation-the clerk's office prepared those for you.

Mr. RANDALL. Could you do that for the record?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANDALL. I believe, Mr. Campbell, that I would like to see them. Mr. CAMPBELL. Let me see if I have a photostatic copy of these. I have made copies, Mr. Chairman-if you don't mind, I would like to take my figures from the original.

Mr. RANDALL. If we can offer it into evidence prior to your departure. You may make your references from it for the moment.

Mr. CAMPBELL. These are copies, but I would like to use the original which was furnished to me.

Mr. RANDALL. And you can then leave that with us?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes.