The Waterbury Democrat., 1942-11-21
OPA To Investigate
 New Liquor Charges
Waterbury Probe on Violations Certainty; News ol Survey Causes Reduction in Price Of Straight Drinks

I restaurants would have Co start dealing in pennies despite tlse fact that practice of the trade hes als ways been to deal In straight sums, The restaurant owner can pass on the tax only by dividing the hume Der of drinks per bottle into lha amount of tax increas per bottle. Mixed drinks are not covered hv price ceiling regulations,
 Under the increase allowed by the oPA, the average straight "shotA sold across a Waterbury bar win sell for % cents or % cents Most places which charged 2S cents prior to Nov, have since been charging 90 cents,
 Mir. uenlot, when informed of tha survey, denied that he had spoken ofiiclally for local restaurant men in his statement Of 0 few days ago. lie said that he was simply explain. ing that permittees had other tn- creased costs beside the tax. Tn many eases, he said, higher-priced liquor Is being served or larger glasses are being used. He said ha did not wish to engage In any cons troversy with the OPA,
 Following Is Mr. Beane's statev ment on the investigation here.
 We have had brought Co our at- tentlon e statement by Herman denlot, spokesman for the Waters bury restaurant and liquor associa. ton, which, in effect not only countenances but appears to advo. cate the violation of OPA regulas tions that control the price of an unmiXed drink of liquor across A bar.
 When the new federal tax on liquor became effective November I, the OpA announced that restaurant owners would be permitted to pass the tax along to customers who pur. chase unmiSed drinks by dividing the number Of straight drinks serv- ed from Q bottle by tho amount of tax assessed against the bottle.
 That regulation means this: If c restaurant is paying b0-eent tax on Q quart of i00-proof rye, it can divide the 30 cents by the number of drinks contained in the bottle and reach the amount of tho tax each unmixed drink Is allowed to carry, Tn no circumstances would this iEls crease the cost of the single ufls mixed drink more than two or threO cents. Tn advising the retailers of this regulation the OpA specifically cautioned them against using tho tax as on excuse to boost the cost of on unmixed drink a full nickel, Despite this warning a number of retailers are doing this very thing. Commenting on this practice, MT. denlot lends it verbal support and Is quoted by the press as saying: We had to raise our prices c full nickel to get by"
 The last time the OpA disagreed with Q similar statement by Mfr. denlot was during the period when Waterbury reStaurateurs made M fairly concerted effort to jump the price of Q cup of coffee from M nickel to q dime. Though the oPA has no control over the price . res- taurant can charge for Q cup of coffee we oppose the price increase on the ground that coffee. as M shortage commodity, should not be made to pay the bill for the higher operating costs of restaurants. The majority of Waterburys restaurant men saw our point and voluntarily lowered the price Of cup of coffee to e nickel again,
 But the present increase in tho cost of an unmixed drink of liquor Is another thing. Here the CPA has very definite control and very de- finite powers to enforce that con- trol. And in view of MT. 0enl0t'a statement to the press, we are now preparing to make Q survey of the situation in Waterbury in the very near future.