The second section of the bill was directed at one organization. The Commissioners objected to that section on the ground that it raised constitutional questions.

After the hearing the Commissioners proceeded to act against the certificate of registration issued to the Mattachine Society on the ground that some of the information contained in the application submitted by the society was not true, and on September 10, 1963, the Director of the Department of Licenses and Inspections issued a showcause letter to the Mattachine Society directing the responsible persons of that society to show cause why the certificate of registration issued to the society should not be revoked for the following reasons:

One, the application for such certificate filed with the License Branch, Department of Licenses and Inspections on July 29, 1963, contains false information; to wit, the names of the vice president, secretary, and treasurer of the Mattachine Society of Washington are not the true names of such officers.

Interpolating at that point, Mr. Chairman, that information was developed by this committee in the course of the hearing on H.R. 5990 and was reviewed by District officials preliminary to issuing this showcause letter.

Continuing-Two, the certificate dated July 26, 1963, filed in support of the application for certificate of registration under the Charitable Solicitation Act, is signed by the secretary of the Mattachine. Society by a name other than his true name.

Three, the society has failed to furnish information concerning the names and addresses of the persons to whom solicitor information cards have been issued in accordance with the requirements of section. 5.3 of the Charitable Solicitation Regulations for the District of Columbia.

Then the show-cause letter continues, saying that the hearing will be held at 10 a.m. on September 24, 1963, in the District Building, and naming the hearing officer.

After the show-cause letter was issued the organization, through its attorney, requested a continuance. That continuance was granted and the show-cause hearing was set for October 7, 1963.

Mr. Dowdy. Who was the attorney representing them?

Mr. KNEIPP. Monroe H. Freedman.

Mr. DowDY. He is the same person who appeared here as a witness, and was indefinite about whether he represented this homosexual group?

Mr. KNEIPP. Yes; he is an associate professor of law at the George Washington University Law School, I believe, and he also has some connection with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Before the hearing which was continued to October 7 could be held, Mr. Freedman wrote to Mr. Ilgenfritz, Director of Licenses and Inspections, saying that since the amount of the funds solicited by the organization was less than $1,500 in any year, that in his view the Mattachine Society was exempt from the requirement for a certificate of registration.

Reading his letter to Mr. Ilgenfritz, letter dated September 30, 1963: I have therefore advised the society that it is not required to obtain a certificate of registration in order to solicit funds with which to carry on all its activities in accordance with its constitution without limitation or qualification. Accordingly I am returning herewith the certificate dated August 1, 1963, and

100 solicitors information cards which were issued in response to an application filed by the society prior to its having received advice of counsel on this matter. The society does not intend to make any application in the future until it is advised by counsel that it is obligated to do so.

In view of the foregoing I respectfully submit that the hearing scheduled for October 7, 1963, is moot, and that it be canceled.

MONROE H. FREEDMAN, Attorney, Mattachine Society of Washington.

At that point, Mr. Chairman, the society had surrendered to the government of the District of Columbia the certificate of registration and the solicitor information cards which had been issued to it. I have them here. There is no longer any certificate of registration outstanding for the society nor are there any solicitor information cards in its possession.

That is the situation with respect to the show-cause hearing.

Mr. Dowdy. At this point, I will insert into the record letter dated October 11, 1963, from the president of the Board of Commissioners, to me, which confirms what you have just related.

(The letter referred to follows:)

Hon. JOHN DOWDY,

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Executive Office, Washington, October 11, 1963.

Chairman, Subcommittee No. 4, Committee on the District of Columbia,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR MR. DOWDY: By letter dated August 15, 1963, you requested that the Commissioners give consideration to the revocation of the certificate of registration issued to the Mattachine Society under the authority of the District of Columbia Charitable Solicitation Act. By letter dated August 20, 1963, I informed you that I had referred your letter to the Corporation Counsel for his

views.

The Corporation Counsel decided that, on the basis of the testimony before your subcommittee, there were sufficient grounds upon which to initiate revocation proceedings against the Mattachine Society. He then prepared a letter, dated September 10, 1963, signed by the Director, Department of Licenses and Inspections, District of Columbia, ordering the Mattachine Society to show cause why its certificate of registration issued under the authority of the District of Columbia Charitable Solicitation Act should not be revoked and specifying the grounds upon which the revocation proceedings were based, to wit, false information on the application. The hearing was scheduled for September 24, 1963. Prior to the hearing, Monroe H. Freedman, Esq., attorney for the Mattachine Society, requested a continuance on the basis of just having been retained in the matter. A continuance was granted until October 7, 1963. By letter dated September 30, 1963, Mr. Freedman, on behalf of the Mattachine Society, surrendered to the Department of Licenses and Inspections the certificate of registration and the solicitors information cards issued to the society. Mr. Freedman stated that he had advised the society that inasmuch as they had collected approximately $125 during calendar year 1962, approximately $135 from January 1, 1963, through September 28, 1963, and only expected to collect approximately $100 during the remainder of calendar year 1963, the society was exempt from the act by virtue of section 12.1 of the regulations promulgated thereunder, entitled "Exemptions of Small Solicitations totaling $1,500 or less." The Corporation Counsel agreed that, pursuant to section 12.1 of the regulations, the Mattachine Society was not required to have a certificate of registration nor solicitors information cards; accordingly, the certificate of registration and the solicitors information cards were accepted and the hearing was canceled as being moot.

Please be advised that the Corporation Counsel's Office is presently preparing amendments to the charitable solicitation regulations to repeal the exemption and to further amend the regulations, insofar as possible pursuant to the provisions of the act, to make it as difficult as possible for secret organizations such as the Mattachine Society to be registered under the act and the regulations.

Sincerely yours,

WALTER N. TOBRINER, President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columba.

Mr. KNEIPP. Now, going along in a somewhat parallel line was a letter written to the chairman of this committee by General Duke dated September 11 forwarding to the committee a proposed amendment of the District of Columbia Solicitation Act. For the record, I believe I will read the letter.

DEAR MR. DOWDY: Reference is made to our recent discussion concerning the pending legislative proposal and other action regarding the Mattachine Society. The Office of the Corporation Counsel has prepared the enclosed draft of a bill to amend the District of Columbia Charitable Solicitation Act, but, for reasons set forth below, the Corporation Counsel and I feel strongly that this amendment should not be presently introduced.

After consultation with our attorneys, the Department of Licenses and Inspections, under date of September 10, 1963, sent to the Mattachine Society a notice to show cause why its registration should not be revoked, giving the society the required opportunity to be heard on this question. I enclose a copy of this notice, from which it will be immediately apparent to you that the bases for revocation are akin to the subject matter of the proposed amendment and that if the amendment is pending in Congress while the license revocation is being considered, counsel for the Mattachine Society will make capital thereofperhaps with undesirable effect.

If there is any further information you desire in this matter, I shall be very happy to furnish it if I can.

Sincerely yours,

C. M. DUKE,
Brigadier General,

U.S. Army Engineer Commissioner.

I shall furnish the reporter a copy of that letter and a copy of the proposed amendment of the Charitable Solicitation Act.

Mr. Dowdy. They will be included in the record, along with a staff memorandum thereon.

(The letter referred to and amendment referred to follow :) GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Washington, September 11, 1963.

Hon. JOHN DOWDY,

U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. DOWDY: Reference is made to our recent discussion concerning the pending legislative proposal and other action regarding the Mattachine Society. The Office of the Corporation Counsel has prepared the enclosed draft of a bill to amend the District of Columbia Charitable Solicitation Act, but, for reasons set forth below, the Corporation Counsel and I feel strongly that this amendment should not be presently introduced.

After consultation with our attorneys, the Department of Licenses and Inspections, under date of September 10, 1963, sent to the Mattachine Society a notice to show cause why its registration should not be revoked, giving the society the required opportunity to be heard on this question. I enclose a copy of this notice, from which it will be immediately apparent to you that the basis for revocation are akin to the subject matter of the proposed amendment and that if the amendment is pending in Congress while the license revocation is being considered, counsel for the Mattachine Society will make capital thereof— perhaps with undesirable effect.

If there is any further information you desire in this matter, I shall be very happy to furnish it if I can.

Sincerely yours,

C. M. DUKE,

Brigadier General, U.S. Army Engineer Commissioner.

A BILL To amend the District of Columbia Charitable Solicitation Act, and for other

purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That subsection (a) of section 5 of the District of Columbia Charitable Solicitation Act approved July 10, 1957 (71

Stat. 278; sec. 2-2104, D.C. Code, 1961 edition), is amended by inserting immediately before the period at the end thereof the following: ", including, without limitation, the true names of the principal officers of each corporation and association filing any such application, and the correct address of the place of residence and place of employment of each such officer: Provided, That if any such officer be known to the general public by an assumed name, such assumed name may be employed in connection with the solicitation to be conducted by such corporation or association, if both the assumed name and the true name of such officer be stated in the application for such certificate: Provided further, That if any of the principal officers of any corporation or association filing any such application shall, within the five-year period immediately preceding such filing, have been known by any other name or names, or have used an assumed name or two or more such names, such other name or names shall be indicated on the application for such certificate, together with the true name of such officer: Provided further, That the Commissioners are authorized to require each applicant for a certificate of registration to furnish information concerning the place or places of each officer's residence with the five-year period preceding the date of filing, and the name and address of each such officer's employer during such five-year period."

SEC. 2. Section 6 of the District of Columbia Charitable Solicitation Act (sec. 2-2105, D.C. Code, 1961 edition), is amended by adding the following:

"(e) The Commissioners are authorized to require each person to whom a certificate of registration has been issued to furnish, for each individual given any solicitor information card supplied to such registrant or otherwise procured by him, full, complete and correct information as to the true name of such individual, his place of residence, and the name and address of his employer, if any."

STAFF MEMORANDUM No. 2

PRESENT LAW

As construed by the Commissioners, present law requires that all persons engaging in solicitation of funds for charitable purposes must secure sanction from the District government. However, their power is construed to be an automatic grant or approval with power to revoke where the applicant fails to meet the requirements of regulations.

Statute empowers the licensing authority to exempt applicants from registration where the solicitation will be less than $1,500. Operatively, this places the color of approval of the District government on any applicant claiming exemption unless the District takes steps to revoke a grant of authority.

PROVISIONS OF H.R. 5990

The proposed bill would require that, as a condition precedent to registration or issuance of a permit, the Commissioners make certain findings that the solicitation is in the public interest as promoting the public health, welfare, safety, and morals of the community. This would require an affirmative showing by the applicant in addition to conforming to procedural regulations.

The Commissioners would require an application in each case except that, by regulation an exemption could be made to this requirement where the amount to be solicited was nominal or in any event less than the present statutory exemption of $1,500.

In the case of a potentially exempt case, the Commissioners could require the routine application setting forth the aims and purposes of the solicitation, and deny the request where their finding was that the grant would not be in the public interest. In such case, the Commissioners would afford the applicant an appeal and public hearing.

NAMES OF APPLICANT

Included in the redraft would be the substance of the substitute draft of the Corporation Counsel regarding names, except that the first proviso clause would be omitted.

Mr. KNEIPP. This proposed amendment of the Charitable Solicitation Act would amend the act in such manner as to authorize the Commissioners to require that the true names of the principal officers of

32-775-64- 9

each corporation and association filing an application for certificate of registration be stated, and the correct address and place of residence and place of employment, but there is a proviso saying that if any such officer be known by an assumed name, and there are persons who are generally known to the public by their assumed names, much more so than their real names, that assumed name may be used in connection with the solicitation if both the assumed name and the true name are stated in the application.

Then there is the further proviso which makes the principal officer state any names they may have been known by in the past 5 years, and authorizing the Commissioners to require each applicant for a certificate of regisration to funrish information concerning the place or places of each officer's residence within the 5-year period preceding the date of filing, and name and address of each such officer and employer during such 5-year period.

Then, with respect to solicitor information cards, the proposed amendment authorizes the Commissioners to require the applicant for a certificate of registration, or one to whom such a certificate has been issued, to furnish full, complete, and correct information as to the true name of each person given a solicitor information card.

The object of this proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to place the Commissioners in the position of being able to require that the true name of persons involved in this proposed solicitation, or engaged in such a solicitation, can be made known to the public.

The Charitable Solicitation Act is a disclosure act. It is not a regulatory act in that the Commissioners can deny an application, but it is a disclosure act. The Commissioners feel that they should be in a position to require that the true names of persons involved in solicitation should be made available to the public.

The proposed amendment meets with the approval of the Departent of Licenses and Inspection which enforces this law, and I think it will have the effect of making it more likely that the information made available to the public in this matter is correct information, so I recommend that this committee consider amending the Charitable Solicitation Act so as to include this additional authority with the Commissioners.

Also, marching along with both the first matter I discussed and the second, there is a proposal that the charitable solicitation regulation be amended in certain respects. The Corporation Counsel, on October 17, 1963, forwarded to the Commissioners some proposed amendments of the charitable solicitation regulations which would require additional information from persons making application for a certificate of registration, and persons issued a solicitor information card, and would set up a change in the procedures with respect to the denial, suspension, or revocation of certificates of registration, and finally would eliminate the present $1,500 exemption which is set forth in section 12 of the regulations.

The Commissioners, on October 24, 1963, ordered a public hearing held on November 8, 1963, for the purpose of considering the proposed regulations.

I shall furnish the reporter a copy of that notice of October 24, together with a copy of the proposed amendments of the charitable solicitation regulations.