Evening star., 1935-12-07
Licenses
Continued From First Page.)

LICCIlScS
Continued From First Page)
in the prohibition era, but were never
found guilty2 Does your board feel
that these men and women, many Of
them worse and more guilty than some
of those actually convicted, are en-
titled to favorable action upon their
applications for licenses?"
Says Name Is Blind"
DR.. Ellison also said ''it is current
opinion that Maynard controls his
place of business, using the woman's
name as blind and our information
is that he does actually serve the
drinking customers. Frank Shore has
worked a long time at New York
avenue establishment and our informa-
ton is that he personally owns the
majority of the stock in this place
Of business"
DR.. Ellison also listed the names Of
three other places, stating "our in
formation is that the owners or the
managers were rather conspicuous as
bootleggers few years ago."
To this Offutt sent long reply
citing a provision Of the liquor law
requiring the board TO publish notice
of applications and give opportunity
for public protest against the granting
of permits
Offutt then stated, alluding to the
specific complaints: Il regret to say
that SO far as I know no one has
availed himself of this opportunity
to assist the board in this wise.
"Our board has felt all along that
a persistent violator of the law is
not a man Of good moral character
within the meaning Of the act, and
had any such violations been brought
to our attention and proved before
the issuance of a license the license
would not have been issued"
Oath Given on Ownership.
Chairman Offutt said the only in
formation the board had had was that
Maynard did not in fact own the
establishment but that sworn oath
was made that it was owned by the
woman. Offutt also said that from
the record" it appeared that Maynard
had not been convicted of felony
In the past 10 years or Of q miSde-
meanor under the prohibition law in
the last five years 80 that if he were
actually employed in the place, it is
doubtful whether the board would
have any control over this situation"
Offutt told Ellison the board would
investigate several other complaints as
filed.
La Roe's letter to Ofutt stressed
Killeen's police record, which follows:
1907, permitting gaming, fined $25;
1908, disorderly conduct, fined IS;
1908, vagrancy. fined SAC: 1908, va
grancy. fined $40; 1909, assault, mo
papers; 1921, fugitive from justice,
turned over to Montgomery County In
a case involving the shooting Of a
woman; 1925, permitting gaming, for
feited $50; 1929, drunkenness, for
feited $40; 1929, disorderly conduct,
forfeited $25, and, 1929, assault, for
feited $25
onutt pointed out that when it be-
came possible to license wholesalers
to distribute 80 beer. the then Permit
Board (Which went out of Office with
the appointment of the A. 3. G. Board)
received an application from Killeen
for a wholesale license, which was
issued after the Permit Board found
him to be Of good moral character.
Built Up Big Business.
When the sale Of full-strength beer
was legalized, Offutt continued. Kill
leen, having built up a $4,000 buSi-
ness, applied to the A. B. c. Board
for q wholesalers Glass B license,
which would enable him to continue
his business.
In describing the police record. he
said it indicated that since 1908 no
conviction Of any kind was had Of him
In this jurisdiction. The last charge
against him was for disorderly conduct
and assault on May 16, 1929, when he
elected to forfeit collateral, which, of
course, made no record against him"
Ofutt said the board then sum-
moned Lieut.. George M. Little Of the
police vice squad. who suggested he
had heard Killeen was q big shot
gambler in the District but that he
had no facts whatsoever to back up
this assertion or any assertion detri-
mental TO Killeen's conduct other
than the police record"
Killeen, Offutt said, testified he
had not in any wise been aflliated
with any gambling enterprise within
fiye years prior to the application for
the license.
THE board" Onutt then explained,
twas faced with o situation of de-
stroying an enterprise already started
by man who was apparently trying
to make good, or of going on the
,nly positive evidence which it had
and finding his moral character to
be good and issuing him the license
In question. While this board has q
discretion, it is judicial discretion,
as opposed to a personal one. and we
felt that to virtually cunfscate and
destroy q business already estab-
lished, IN which there was an invest
,nent of $50, 600, which had been 50
conducted that according to fair
and impartial law enforcement oficer
it was not open to criticism. some
1 thing raore. than merely heaEsay eFt-