salers not licensed within the District of Columbia and provided the means by which said beverages were to be legally sold and delivered to wholesalers and retailers. Under this "Permit" authority, however, there is no provision for the use of same by solicitors, for it appears to be limited to wholesalers and retailers licensed under the provisions of the act. (The Board is not in full agreement on

this point.) Insofar as issuance of "permits" is concerned, this condition was not changed under the unnumbered section of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, under date of August 27, 1935, D.C. Code 25-112 [20:1911a], granting

"The Commissioners *** in their discretion to require by regulation that no licensee holding a retailer's license, class A, B, C, D, or E, *** shall transport, or cause to be transported, in any manner whatsoever into the District of Columbia any alcoholic beverages *** and said Commissioners are also authorized to permit such importation under a special permit or permits, to be issued by the Alcoholic Beverages Control Board, upon application by a licensee and upon such terms and conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed by said Commissioners ***.”

As a result of the above authority, the said Commissioners did, in fact, issue regulations, one of which is now titled 2-109. Under such regulation, licensees A, B, C, D, and E were granted authority to purchase for resale via import permits. Apparently this new unnumbered section did not affect the right of the wholesaler to buy as previously set out in section 24 of the original act. supra.

However, solicitors were neither included in said regulation nor in that section of the act specifically granting the Commissioners the right to issue such regulation.

As a matter of fact, nor are they specifically authorized in Public Law 87-238, heretofore cited, amending section 2. Section 23(d), renumbered as "23 (e)" and amended under “(2)", as follows:

"No licensee holding a retailers license shall transport or cause to be transported into the District of Columbia any beverages subject to taxation hereunder*** unless such licensee has first obtained a permit to do so from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board ***" [Emphasis supplied.]

And, indeed, in H.R. 2036, under section 23(c)(2), page 46, practically the identical language is used, each of which specifically names only retailers while not making reference to any other type of licensee.

The question now arises, what are solicitors, what do they do, and what limitations are they guided by within the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act? To begin with, in the original act in 1934, the definition of a solicitor's license is as follows: "SOLICITOR'S LICENSE.-Such a license shall authorize the licensee to offer for sale to or solicit orders from licensees for the sale of any beverage.

"A solicitor's license shall set forth the name of the vendor whom the solicitor represents and such solicitor shall not represent any vendor whose name does not appear upon such license.

"The annual fee for such license shall be $100." [Emphasis supplied.] Under this definition, it is fairly clear that the Congress intended to mean that solicitors were, as the act indicated, licensees entitled to offer for sale to or solicit orders from licensees of alcoholic beverages. We have seen that under the permit system, there appears to be no authority granted to solicitors for use of said "permits" for importation without the District of Columbia and not licensees under this act, for we must assume that the word "licensees" used in the definition above means only persons doing business in the District of Columbia that had applied for and received a license under this act. (Again, the Board is not in full agreement on this interpretation.) Various corporation counsel opinions on this question apparently believed there was authority for solicitors representing manufacturers and wholesalers outside of the District of Columbia, despite the fact that they were not licensees under this act, presumably under the provisions and/or authority of section 9(b) of the original act, the spirit of which has not been changed, which states as follows:

"No individual shall, within the District of Columbia, offer for sale or solicit any order for the sale of any alcoholic beverage, irrespective of whether such sale is to be made within or without the District of Columbia unless such individual has first obtained a license of the character described in section 11, subsection (k)." [Emphasis supplied.]

Interestingly enough, this section does not require that unless such individual first obtained a license described in section 11, section (k), but says instead,

"of the character described in section 11, subsection (k)." Does this reference authorize something other than described in the definition in section 11, subsection (k)?

Certainly, the only definition of a solicitor's license is that set out in the precise language under section 11 (k). The corporation counsel, and, as a matter of fact, the board itself, apparently interpreted that the word "vendor" had some all-inclusive meaning, the net result being that practically from the inception of this act, solicitors have been allowed, without any question on their authority, to solicit orders for nonlicensees, or in other words from manufacturers or wholesalers without the District of Columbia, as well as from licensees described in the definition.

It may well be that that was the intention of Congress despite the language of the definition. Certainly no serious question has been raised on the point. I notice, however, under section 9(c) of H.R. 2036 on page 15, that it is proposed this provision be changed so that no person, and that apparently includes retailers or wholesalers, shall solicit any order for the sale at wholesale of any alcoholic beverage from any person not a licensee under this act (and I believe that to exclude manufacturers and wholesalers not within the District of Columbia and not licensed therein) except a person licensed as a solicitor. This apparently is in the very teeth of other proposed provisions of H.R. 2036, to wit: Section 23 (c) (2) on page 46, under which the Board could allow a licensee a "permit" to transport or cause to be transported into the District of Columbia, beverages provided the tax on said beverages shall have been paid for the alcoholic beverages for which the permit is issued. I am satisfied that this dilemma, if it be one, can and should be resolved.

In conclusion, for the very obvious reason that a major change in the classes of licensees doing business in the District of Columbia, would, in all probability. bring more confusion to the situation than good; that over the long haul, and, well knowing, that no law completely covers specifically all points in issue, that it would be better to maintain the licensees and their method of doing business as presently provided for. Many more questions have arisen that are not included in this memorandum.

The board would, therefore, recommend, despite its original notation favoring the aspect of the bill that deals with wholesaler's license, class C, that wholesaler's license, class C, be eliminated from the provisions of the proposed bill, and that the definition of a solicitor as is now defined, be maintained; and, finally, that the permit system presently in vogue, as it has been practically from the beginning of the act, be allowed to remain without change.

JAMES G. TYSON, Member, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.

Mr. MULTER. Our next witness will be Mr. Layton, Deputy Chief John B. Layton of the Metropolitan Police Department. Will you come forward, sir?

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. LAYTON, DEPUTY CHIEF, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Layton, do you have a prepared statement, sir? Mr. LAYTON. No, Mr. Chairman, I do not. I am here at the invitation of the committee to the Chief of Police to represent his position on just one single item of this piece of legislation, and that is in the section beginning on page 44 and through 48, it appears that a section 5(g) of the act of September 14, 1961, has not been included and the Chief of Police, as you probably are aware from hearings last year, and in fact on hearings in previous years on the same point, has strongly urged both on the committees that have dealt with this matter of placing the ABC stamp number on packages of whisky, his position has been strongly in favor of retaining that and there have been efforts from time to time annually the last several years to delete that.

He desires to represent to the committee as he did in a letter that is part of your record in the hearings of last year beginning on page 139

and going through page 141 that this stamp number, the ABC stamp number, has been of assistance to the Police Department in investigation of cases.

Just very briefly, so that we don't take too much of the committee's time, in all housebreaking or larceny cases from ABC establishments, that number is disseminated throughout the department, by teletype, to our various units. It is read off at rollcall so that all of our people have a record of that number.

This does furnish a positive means of identification in those cases where there is recovery of that evidence, and has been in a number of cases found to be of assistance.

There have been a number of cases which were cleared just on the establishing of a piece of evidence and identifying it with the ABC establishment.

There are a number of other things that are cited. There have been cases of thievery by employees of liquor stores. They have been not only cleared but in many cases that stamp number has been a positive means of identifying the evidence.

There have been-there is in our record from last year a list of some 31 cases which were cited both to the House committee dealing with the legislation and the Senate committee that were incorporated into the record, and I won't take the time to read you those individually.

Mr. MULTER. All of that has been made a part of this record by reference.

Mr. LAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Those cases do continue to occur in which we are able to use that stamp number either to clear a case or to positively identify evidence in connection with a theft or housebreaking, and also in some cases to eliminate a case.

There is one case that we had where several people were in an intoxicated condition in an automobile and some seven or eight bottles of whisky were found. The ABC stamp number was there. It was checked out, checked with the licensee just at his opening hour, and there had not been any theft that he was aware of. Apparently this was a purchase. So these people were quickly eliminated as being suspects in a housebreaking or theft from that establishment.

I might just take the time to cite one more recent case, and we do have several, since the making of the record last year, in which & police officer observed a man walking at a rapid pace carrying a brown paper bag in the northeast section of the city.

He stopped him and questioned him. He related that he had found this package in an alley as he was leaving a friend.

Investigation of the package showed that it did have an ABC stamp number on the whisky that was contained within the bag. This was by the records that we keep at headquarters for this purpose, it was checked out and found to be listed to the Watergate Inn. We did not have a report of theft in that case at the time, but, by checking with the manager, he said that he had had thefts over a period of time that he had not reported to the police, and when he was asked whether or not the individual who had this whisky in his possession was known to him, he said yes, he had hired him as an employee, and he was much pleased, of course, to have not only that theft of his merchandise

brought to light and the individual, but not understanding the means by which it was done, he was a little surprised that our department was able to clear that case without having to have had a report of theft originally.

So, in conclusion, I would represent to the committee in the interests of saving time that the Chief of Police urges very strongly on this committee that that particular section be retained for the aid that it would be to law enforcement.

He feels that this is awfully important because there have been other things happening in law enforcement, some court decisions that mean that we need to make cases prior to making contact or prior to interrogating a defendant or suspect over a period of time. And wherever we can have the means of positive identification of stolen property or sometimes weapons-bottles have been used as a weapon in cases-this is awfully important to good law enforcement in the District, and for that reason it is strongly urged on the committee that this be retained. Mr. MULTER. I know that the Board of Commissioners agrees with the chief of police and the views you have just stated. Is there any difference of opinion between you and the ABC Board on this question?

Mr. LAYTON. If there is, I don't happen-I am not aware of it, Mr. Chairman. Just from past experience

Mr. MULTER. Has Mr. Tyson left the room? Apparently he has. Mr. LAYTON. I don't know personally of any opposition that the Board has ever taken. I think this has generally been accepted by the Board as well as by the Commissioners as appropriate.

Mr. MULTER. Do you get any complaints from time to time that taxfree liquor is being sold in the District, or liquor that should be taxed, should have tax stamps on it?

Mr. LAYTON. I know that there have been some occasions that this has come to light. I am not aware that it is on a large scale, but there have been occasions, I know.

Mr. MULTER. Of course, the attachment to the bottle of the ABC licensee's number would help clear up any complaints of that kind.

Mr. LAYTON. It would, sir. There are other matters, too, of course, that are and can be cleared by the-that is, the evidence can be cleared by the attachment of that stamp number to the bottle.

Mr. MULTER. What is the basis, if you know, of the objection of the retail industry to having that section in the law and complying with it?

Mr. LAYTON. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that they feel that it is a chore for the individual operator of an ABC establishment to have to take the time to imprint that number, stamp that number on the bottle.

Now, there has been some change, as you probably are aware; that is, that they now are they, prior to the act of September 1961, were required to place that number on the bottle within a 24-hour period. That is no longer required by the method that has been set up under the authority of that act of September of 1961.

The Commissioners now have issued a regulation that this will be done prior to it being placed for sale or put on the shelves. Mr. MULTER. Thank you, sir.

Any questions?

Mr. SPRINGER. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Just to say this, that I am familiar with your position, Mr. Layton, and I have talked with the Chief about it on a couple of occasions, and I know how valuable this will be. And I can assure you that I will do everything I can. As I recall, last year the chairman had no objection to putting it back in, as I recall, so I think we can assure you if there is a bill this year, there will be this provision in it.

Mr. LAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Springer.

Mr. MULTER. I think we had the provision in the bill last year and there was some suggestion made that it be taken out.

Mr. SPRINGER. Maybe it was in the bill.

Mr. MULTER. And it was dropped out this year, but Mr. Springer does state accurately my view with reference to it; that is, that I had no objection to it being continued in the statute.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have one suggestion, and this comes because of the fact that people have told me that there was very little evidence of the value of this section. You say you have other evidences and other examples where this section has been helpful to the Police Department.

Mr. LAYTON. Yes, Mr. Schwengel.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. A very worthwhile thing. I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to place them in the record.

Mr. MULTER. Certainly. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. LAYTON. Yes. As I testified, there are some in the record in

last year's hearings and it could be done

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I am interested to have those.

Mr. LAYTON (continuing). Currently.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Current.

Mr. LAYTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Current experiences.

Mr. LAYTON. They will be prepared and submitted.

I might say that we have not our statistical record does not reflect this kind of thing as a general rule. We have to depend on the recollection of our supervisors, and so forth, to cite these incidents, but they do occur and these will be prepared for the benefit of the committee.

Mr. MULTER. Do the best you can.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. You may not know the answer to this question. You mentioned the tax. What is the liquor tax in the District here, a percent tax?

Mr. LAYTON. Percentage, yes. I can't cite that to you.

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Schulberg, I am sure, will be able to give it to us. Mr. SCHULBERG. $1.50 a gallon.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. $1.50 a gallon.

Mr. MULTER. If there is nothing else, thank you very much, Mr. Layton.