except to indicate that by dress or superficial actions the bar in question was a "resort for sexual perverts." After gathering such hearsay evidence the hearing officer would recommend a revocation and then the Director would in most cases "rubber stamp" his approval.

Attorney Lowenthal told how Mr. Feinberg's office had cleverly sent some very bad cases through the courts to "test" the statute before sending some very mild, inoffensive cases through. He cited the Nicola and Kershaw cases which were clearly in violation of all laws, past or present, regarding "disorderly houses" and which had permitted gratification of sexual desires to occur on the promises. Then came the inoffensive cases of which the Vallerga cases (better known as "Mary's First and Last Chance" case) was one. Mr. Lowenthal and others were the Amioi Curiae on the case and helped fight it clear up to the California Supremo Court. Justice White stated that the decision of the Court was 6-0, that the 1955 statute was clearly unconstitutional, but in the "obiter dicta" the State Supreme Court put a different interpretation on the behavior of the patronage than had the Appellate Court. (This decision occurred in December, 1959 and was reported in February, 1960 issue of THE LADDER.)

Mr. Lowenthal denied that the methods used by the ABC gave the liquor licensee "due process" of the law and went into detail as to some of the methods used in "gotting the goods" on a place, which Lowenthal felt were quasi-legal at bost. He went on to say that wherever any law agency attempted to regulate people's privato morals in any way the danger of blackmail, payoff and corruption among public officials rose accordingly.

FEINBERG DEMANDS REBUTTAL TIME

Mr. Feinberg, who had been crouched over the table all this time, obviously fuming, erupted with a demand that he be allowed rebuttal time at the end of Mr. Lowenthal's discourse. He said he felt that such innuendoes ill-befitted an attorney of Mr. Lowenthal's stature. Miss Martin rearranged the schedule so that Mr. Lowenthal would have equal time and Mr. Feinberg sufficient robuttal time. Lowenthal wound up his case for bar own-