Mr. Rankin. Yes—it should be Fort Worth, I am sorry. Thank you.
I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1019 and ask you if that is your letter of May 5 that we have just referred to.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1019 for identification.)
Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1019.
The Chairman. It may be admitted.
(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 1019, was received in evidence.)
The Chairman. Chief, I notice in the report that was made that while your inspector found that no one—no member of the Secret Service was intoxicated at the club—but that there was someone connected with the group who was intoxicated.
Mr. Rowley. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I wonder if that also wasn't a violation of that portion of the rule which says, "In interpreting the words 'excessive' and 'improper' slight evidence tending to indicate unusual or questionable conduct will be considered proof that the use of liquor has been improper or excessive. Association with others who drink to excess will be considered as an indication of using more than a moderate amount of liquor."