Mr. HUDDLESTON. I would appreciate it if you would furnish those for the record. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MULTER. All right, sir. Mr. SCHWARTZ. Do you want me to finish reading this? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Let me ask further, has the bar association generally ever voted on the position you reveal here, generally? Mr. SCHWARTZ. To my knowledge, they have not. The board of directors of the bar association approved the report of the committee on relations with the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. Mr. SCHWENGEL. But they have not specifically endorsed any piece of legislation, to your knowledge; the directors have not? Mr. SCHWARTZ. The board of directors have endorsed H.R. 2036; let me say this. Mr. SCHWENGEL. They have endorsed the report? Mr. SCHWARTZ. They have approved the report of the committee, which has recommended H.R. 2036 insofar as it includes the provisions of S. 852, and certain suggested changes which are on page 2, which I will be glad to discuss with the committee, if you wish. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Well, I am not insisting on it at all. I just wanted to make sure that the bar has actually endorsed this as a whole. I thought I understood Mr. SCHWARTZ. The board of directors Mr. SCHWENGEL. The board of directors. Mr. SCHWARTZ. Has approved the report. Mr. SCHWENGEL. But they have not endorsed any specific piece of legislation? Mr. SCHWARTZ. Well, as I read the report, they approve the report of the committee on relations with the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which committee, in turn, recommended H.R. 2036. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Right. Mr. SCHWARTZ. With some changes about which I would like to discuss. Mr. SCHWENGEL. But this bill has not been presented in its final form to the board of directors for their approval, is that right? Mr. SCHWARTZ. No, sir; I cannot say that. Mr. SCHWENGEL. You said that they approved the report which led to the writing, as I understood it, of H.R. 2036. Mr. SCHWARTZ. No. H.R. 2036 was introduced Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. Mr. SCHWARTZ. It was referred to the committee on relations with the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board of the bar association, by whoever is in authority to do that. The committee on relations with the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board of the bar association considered S. 852 and H.R. 2036. They made recommendations to the directors of the bar association with regard to both bills. The directors of the bar association approved the report of the committee on relations with the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and directed that a representative of the committee and I was designated; why I was designated I cannot frankly say, but I was designated to appear to testify and to report to this committee solely with regard to H.R. 2036. Now, in reporting on H.R. 2036 I had to mention in my report S. 852, because the report of the committee on relations with the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board said that insofar as the Multer bill contains similar provisions as those in the Senate bill heretofore referred to, the committee approves. Now, in the report they mention certain provisions of S. 852 which I have set forth in this statement. Now, I then go on to say that the-in reporting verbatim from the report of the committee on relations with the municipal Board: The committee also recommends amendments or changes as followsand that is of H.R. 2036. Section 6, pages 9 and 10: That this section be rewritten to authorize a direct appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and that the administrative appeal to the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia be eliminated. It is also recommended that there be an appeal from the refusal to grant a license on an original application or an application for transfer. Now, with regard to section 6, lines 11 to 13, still on the Multer bill, this section provides, among other things, that: The license shall stand suspended pending an appeal. This should be eliminated and a positive declaration that the license should not stand suspended pending an appeal should be inserted in lieu thereof. And section 38, page 64: The committee feels that some form of price stabilization is desirable and would be in the best interest of the public and the industry. The question of price stabilization, however, is one which has caused considerable controversy in the past, and it is, accordingly, recommended that the method by which this would be accomplished should be deferred until the termination of the public hearings on the bill by the appropriate congressional committee. Section 1, page 17 Mr. SCHWENGEL. Let me ask at this point: Then they have really made no endorsement on the price-fixing feature of this bill? And that is the part you call "price stabilization," which is not the same thing, is it? Mr. SCHWARTZ. Well, I do not think so; no, sir. Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. Schwartz, I would like to ask you a couple questions, too. Will you appear at a later time in these hearings as a representative of the Wholesale Liquor Dealers Association? Mr. SCHWARTZ. No, sir. Mr. HUDDLESTON. Do the Wholesale Liquor Dealers Association plan to make an appearance before the committee? Mr. SCHWARTZ. To my knowledge, they do not; no, sir. Mr. HUDDLESTON. Well, would you say that you were appearing in sort of a joint capacity in connection with your testimony this morning? Mr. SCHWARTZ. No, sir; I am not; because I was unable to appear in both capacities. I was unwilling to appear in both capacities. I made it clear to my client that I could not follow the mandate of the bar association and at the same time appear in their behalf. Mr. HUDDLESTON. Fine. Thank you. Mr. SCHWARTZ. Section 1, page 17: This section now provides in part: Such a license shall authorize the holder thereof *** I am referring to the rectification section of the act *** to operate a rectifying plant for the manufacture of the products of rectification by purifying or combining alcohol, spirits, wine, or beer. The committee recommends that this section be amended to conform with the Federal law which defines a rectifier as follows: Every person who rectifies, purifies, or refines distilled spirits or wines by any process (other than by original and continuous distillation, or original and continuous processing, from mash, wort, wash, or any other substance, through continuous closed vessels and pipes, until the production thereof is complete), and every person who, without rectifying, purifying, or refining distilled spirits, shall by mixing such spirits, wine or other liquor with any material, manufacture any spurious, imitation, or compound liquors for sale, under the name of whisky, brandy, rum, gin, wine, spirits, cordials, or wine bitters, or any other name, shall be regarded as a rectifier, and as being engaged in the business of rectifying. Mr. MULTER. To what extent, if at all, would that require present licensees in the District of Columbia also to obtain rectifier's licenses? Mr. SCHWARTZ. You mean the change? Mr. MULTER. Yes. Mr. SCHWARTZ. I do not think it would make any change. It merely, Mr. Chairman, suggests that the language of the two sections be the same; that is, that the language of our section follow the language of the Federal section, which very carefully controls and supervises the process of rectification. Mr. MULTER. So far as you know, it would not require any change of the persons presently operating under licenses to obtain an additional license or to give up a license thev now have? Mr. SCHWARTZ. In my opinion it would not; no, sir. Mr. MULTER. Just one other thing. And Mr. SCHWENGEL. Under the present law, does the Commission insist that the name of the seller or retailer be on the bottle? that this law would take that off, as I understand it, as I read it; or this bill would. Mr. SCHWARTZ. You mean the Federal law? Mr. MULTER. This amendment. Mr. SCHWENGEL. No, no; the local law, providing that the retailer's name be put on the bottle for identification. Mr. SCHWARTZ. And this would require that it be taken off? In my opinion, it would not; no, sir. Mr. SCHWENGEL. You do not endorse the proposition at least that it would be taken off? Mr. SCHWARTZ. No, sir. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Counsel indicated that it would, according to the terms of this bill, it would be taken off. Mr. MULTER. Are you referring to H.R. 2036 about the provision as to which Mr. Kneipp addressed himself? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. Mr. MULTER. Would you mind addressing the witness' attention to the specific provision? Mr. SCHWARTZ. Is this with regard to 2036, Mr. Chairman? Mr. MULTER. This is with regard to H.R. 2036. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. Mr. Kneipp testified on it. That is the reason I bring the question up. I believe it was in section 4, was it not? Mr. SCHWARTZ. I think it is section 1 on page 17, is it not? Mr. MULTER. That would be on page 19. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. I read from a letter, addressed to Mr. McMillan and signed by the Board of Commissioners, this statement and ask for your comment: The Commissioners note that in section 23, beginning in line 8 of page 44 and generally extending through line 16 on page 48, the proposed new act includes the alcoholic beverage taxing provision contained in section 4 of the act approved September 14, 1961 (Public Law 87-238; 75 Stat. 510). The Commissioners also note, however, that while section 4 of the act of September 14, 1961, has been incorporated in its entirety, section 5 of such act of September 14, 1961, has not been so included. This section added to section 23 of existing law the following subsection and maybe it would be easier for you to read that subsection. I ask if this change would not make it more difficult to enforce some liquor laws or maybe, under certain circumstances, to gain prosecution because of violations? Chief Murray has a position on this, and he insists that this would make it more difficult. Mr. SCHWARTZ. Well, I will attempt to answer your question. But you are not asking-I assume that you are not asking me this question in connection with my statement with regard to the rectifications? Mr. SCHWENGEL. No. Mr. MULTER. No, Mr. Schwartz; he is going to an entirely new subject. It does not deal with rectification at all. It deals with the proposal in H.R. 2036 which omits subdivision (g) of section 5 of the present statute. Mr. SCHWARTZ. Now, your question of me, sir? I am sorry, but may I have it again? Because I was following you from a rectification point of view. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. Does the bar association endorse the deletion of the provision that I referred to; that is, the identification of the retailer? Mr. SCHWARTZ. I have no instructions from the bar association on that. My mandate says that in Mr. SCHWENGEL. Does this do what counsel, Mr. Kneipp, testified to? Do you agree with his testimony in this regard, that it does delete Mr. MULTER. I think the record may show that H.R. 2036 does delete from the act by not incorporating it. H.R. 2036 is intended to be a complete revision of the ABC Act of the District of Columbia. Mr. SCHWARTZ. That is correct. Mr. MULTER. Therefore, anything it omits from the existing statute is deleted by the adoption or enactment of H.R. 2036. If subsection (g) of section 5 is not in H.R. 2036 and if it should be enacted in this form, subsection (g) of section 5 would be deleted from the existing statute and there would no longer be a requirement that licensee numbers of retailers appear on the bottle. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Then it follows that, if the bar association endorses this bill, they endorsed the deletion. Mr. SCHWARTZ. Well, the bar association has said that insofar as the Multer bill contains similar provisions as those in the Senate bill heretofore referred to, the committee approved. And that report of the committee was approved by the board of directors of the bar association. Mr. HUDDLESTON. In other words, Mr. Schwartz, what the bar association is doing is approving S. 852 rather than H.R. 2036? Mr. SCHWARTZ. Well, they approved H.R. 2036-wait a minute, I am sorry, sir-that, insofar as the Multer bill contains similar provisions as those in the Senate bill heretofore referred to, the committee approves. Mr. HUDDLESTON. That seems to indicate to me that they are, in fact, approving S. 852 and, insofar as H.R. 2036 is similar legislation, they approve that also, but that they do not approve anything necessarily in addition to what appears in S. 852 in the Multer bill. Mr. MULTER. Except, of course, they are offering amendments- Mr. MULTER (continuing). To 2036, and I think it is implicit that they are approving H.R. 2036 providing it has provisions of S. 852 and amendments as recommended. Mr. SCHWARTZ. The changes suggested by them. Mr. MULTER. Yes. Mr. HUDDLESTON. I am just trying to clarify just what action the bar association has taken on this legislation. Mr. MULTER. Is that not it? Mr. SCHWARTZ. That is correct, sir. Mr. MULTER. What we are trying to convey, that, if H.R. 2036 contains the provisions of S. 852 and also your suggested amendments, then you go along with the enactment Mr. SCHWARTZ. They recommend the amendments. Mr. MULTER (continuing). With the enactment of H.R. 2036? Mr. SCHWARTZ. That insofar as 2036 contains the provisions in S. 852 plus the amendments which I have suggested, they recommend it. Mr. HUDDLESTON. And of course one of those amendments is not to delete this subsection (g)? Mr. SCHWARTZ. Yes, sir. Mr. HUDDLESTON. But that is deleted in H.R. 2036. Mr. SCHWARTZ. Wait a minute, now. Excuse me just a minute. Mr. HUDDLESTON. But subsection (g) is eliminated in 2036, since it is a codification of the ABC law, but the bar association does not necessarily recommend that that subsection (g) be deleted. Mr. MULTER. Well, is it not fair to put it the other way: If they go along with H.R. 2036 with the amendments of the Senate bill and your proposed amendments, and since you do not recommend that subsection (g) of section 5 be inserted in H.R. 2036, that you are going along with its deletion from the act? Mr. SCHWARTZ. That is correct. Mr. HUDDLESTON. Well, of course this is all semantics, and we could spend an awful lot of time on this. But S. 852 does not delete subsection (g). The bar association endorses S. 852 insofar-and also the Multer bill insofar as the provisions of S. 852 are included in the Multer bill. |