STATE OF LOUISIANA, Parish of Orleans, ss: Thomas Vaughn, first being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am employed by Mr. Cox on the mail contract at New Orleans, La. I was formerly employed by Mr. Gregory in the same capacity as a truck driver. My salary at the time was about $80 a month; on the 1st of May he raised my pay $10 a month because I was putting in much more time each day and the mail was getting a lot heavier. This made my extra pay for the two months of May and June $20. TOM VAUGHN. Sworn and subscribed before me at New Orleans, La., this 20th day of July 1942. J. F. WALSH, Post Office Inspector. Irvin Green, first being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am employed by Mr. Cox on the mail contract at New Orleans, La. I was formerly employed by Mr. Gregory in the same capacity as a truck driver. My salary at the time was about $80 a month; on the 1st of May he raised my pay $10 a month because I was putting in about 14 hours per day. This made my extra pay for the 2 months of May and June $20. I. GREEN. Sworn and subscribed before me at New Orleans, La., this 17th day of July 1942. C. N. BRUCE, Post Office Inspector. Felix Walker, first being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am employed by Mr. Cox on the mail contract at New Orleans, La. I was formerly employed by Mr. Gregory in the same capacity as a truck driver. My salary at the time was about $70 a month; on the 1st of May he raised my pay $10 a month because I was putting in a lot of extra hours and the mail was heavier. This made my extra pay for the 2 months of May and June $20. FELIX WALKER. Sworn and subscribed before me at New Orleans, La., this 20th day of July 1942. Mr. JOSEPH R. GREGORY, J. F. WALSH, Post Office Inspector. POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, 53 South Ann Street, Mobile, Ala. DEAR SIR: The President has referred to me your letter of August 11, 1948, relative to H. R. 5595, a private relief bill introduced in your behalf on February 26, 1948, by Congressman Boykin. At the request of the House Judiciary Committee, I submitted a report on H. R. 5595. In this report, it was pointed out to the committee that, under the terms of your contract, the Postmaster General could change the schedule, vary, decrease or increase the trips on the route without change of pay; that routes could be readvertised, under the provisions of section 1 of the act of May 31, 1940 (54 Stat. 228), for the purpose of releasing contractors and their sureties where it is found after full investigation that the compensation of such contractors is wholly inadequate; and that this Department could not allow additional compensation under the contract. However, after summarizing the background of your case in my report, I made the following statement: "The data on file indicates that former contractor Joseph R. Gregory had to perform very substantial additional mail transportation service, due to increased war activities. For this reason, this Department will interpose no objections to the enactment of this legislation." I trust that this information might clear up any misunderstanding you might have had concerning this Department's views on H. R. 5595. You may be sure that, should any further legislation be introduced in Congress in your behalf, it will receive the careful consideration of this Department. Sincerely yours. Mr. JOSEPH R. GREGORY, Care of Postmaster, New Orleans, La. MY DEAR MR. GREGORY: The receipt is acknowledged of your communication of the 24th ultimo, requesting an increase in compensation for the performance of service in connection with an order of the Second Assistant Postmaster General to divert certain steamship mails. Your request is being given consideration and you will be advised of the Department's decision at an early date. Sincerely yours, F. J. BUCKLEY, Acting Fourth Assistant Postmaster General. O CONFERRING UPON THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SUBPENA POWERS IN CASES INVOLVING THE DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF INDUSTRIAL ALCOHOL PERMITS JUNE 15, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. DOUGHTON, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted the following REPORT (To accompany H. R. 3905) The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 3905) to amend section 3121 of the Internal Revenue Code, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to confer upon the Commissioner of Internal Revenue the power to require by subpena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documentary evidence at hearings in connection with denials and revocations of industrial alcohol permits similar to that which is now vested in the Secretary of the Treasury in cases involving beverage liquor permits under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. GENERAL STATEMENT Enactment of this legislation is not only desirable from the point of view of efficient and effective administration of the industrial alcohol permit system, but it may be necessary in permit-revocation proceedings in order to conform to the provisions of section 7 (c) of the Administrative Procedure Act. This section provides, among other things, that any "oral or documentary evidence" which may be received by an agency in cases of adjudication required by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing (sec. 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act) must be supported by "reliable, probative, and substantial evidence" which is derived from the record of the hearings, in which every party has "the right to present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such crossexamination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts." Up to the present time affidavits have been used as evidence in industrial alcohol permit revocation proceedings. This practice has received the sanction of the courts. But since the advent of the Administrative Procedure Act and since judicial review of adminis trative decisions in such cases does not involve a trial de novo, but is based upon the record of the hearings, it may be that the courts will bar the use of affidavits because they do not comply with the requirements of the character of evidence as set forth in the provisions of that act stated above. If this should happen, the Bureau of Internal Revenue would be seriously hampered in the administration of the industrial alcohol permit system. Since proceedings in connection with the denial or revocation of industrial alcohol permits are so closely analogous to proceedings under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act as to beverage liquor permits, there would appear to be no reason for granting the subpena power in the one case and withholding it in the other. The enactment of this legislation is recommended by the Secretary of the Treasury, who states that the proposed legislation has been cleared by the Bureau of the Budget. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW In compliance with paragraph 2a of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as introduced, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SEC. 3121. POWERS AND DUTIES OF PERSONS ENFORCING THIS PART (d) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER LAWS.-The provisions, including penalties, of sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (U. S. C., title 15, secs. 49, 50), as now or hereafter amended, shall be applicable to the jurisdiction, powers, and duties of the Commissioner under this part, and to any person (whether or not a cor poration) subject to the provisions of this part. [(d)] (e) TRANSFER OF DUTIES.-For transfer of powers and duties of Commissioner and his agents, see section 3170. |