In the Matter of the Petition by GEORGE W. SCHULTZ, Publisher, The Pequannock Township Argus Continuing, The Pequannock Township Bulletin, 206 Newark-Pompton Turnpike, Pequannock, New Jersey 07440 Proposed Revocation of "THE PEQUANNOCK TOWNSHIP ARGUS CONTINUING THE PEQUANNOCK TOWNSHIP BULLETIN" P.S. Docket No. 2/111 January 23, 1974 William A. Duvall Chief Administrative Law Judge John DeWeerdt, Esq., Law Department, United States Postal Service, Washington, D. C., for Respondent No appearance on behalf of Petitioner Before: William A. Duvall, Chief Administrative Law Judge
For an extended period of time, it seems that the Postal Service has been engaged in discussions and negotiations with Mr. George W. Schultz in regard to the second-class mailing privileges for one of Mr. Schultz' publications, that one being known as the Pequannock Township Argus, published at Pequannock, New Jersey. On October 18, 1971, a Notice of Proposed Revocation was issued and sent to Mr. Schultz in regard to that publication (R. Ex. 3). And apparently discussions, conversations and negotiations have been going on since that time until finally on June 25, 1973, Mr. Schultz was advised in a letter addressed to the Argus newspapers at 40 Main Street, Butler, New Jersey, that the second-class mailing privileges for the Pequannock Township Argus, Continuing the Pequannock Bulletin, was to be revoked. The letter advised Mr. Schultz that he could appeal from that ruling by taking an appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Practice which were sent to him with that letter of June 25, 1973.
In the letter of June 25, 1973, the Respondent in this case, the Manager of the Mail Classification Division, Finance Department, United States Postal Service, advised Mr. Schultz, in substance, that there were basically five reasons for the action which was proposed to be taken in revoking the second-class mailing privileges for that publication. These grounds for the proposed action were:
1. No known office of publication;
2. There were no adequate records which could be used as a basis for the annual verification figures and other matters that are required by Postal laws and regulations;
3. The non-advertising portion of the publication does not differ by as much as 20% from all other publications of the petitioner;
4. The publication is designed primarily for free circulation; and
5. There is no legitimate list of subscribers for the publication.
Mr. Schultz did appeal from that proposed revocation and sent in a letter dated July 10, 1973, in which he in substance generally denied the validity of each of the bases on which it was proposed to revoke the second-class mail privileges for the publication in question.
We have now come to the hearing and, as has been previously explained on the record, the Petitioner, Mr. Schultz is not present. In regard to the question of the known office of publication, I have the information that was transmitted to me this morning by phone by Mr. Schultz which indicated that he is forwarding to the Department a letter from a Real Estate agency in which it is said that Mr. Schultz has desk space in that agency and that he is designating that area as his office of publication.2/ There is serious question as to whether the occupancy of desk space in a real estate office is sufficient to constitute an office of publication for the second-class mailing of a periodical or newspaper. But, since it's possible that that type of space could be occupied in a manner sufficient to make it a known office of publication, no finding will be made in regard to that particular issue.
As to the third basis stated above on which it was proposed to revoke the existing second-class mail privileges of the publication under consideration, there were introduced into evidence Exhibits 4, 5 and 6, respectively, the July 5, 1973, newspapers of the Pequannock Township Argus, the Butler Argus and the Kinnelon Times. I have examined these publications and it is apparent from this examination that the non-advertising portions of these publications are not different by 20% from each other. This is the best evidence that we have in this proceeding. This is documentary proof of the validity of one of these charges which was used as a basis for the proposed revocation.
In regard to the inadequacy of the records maintained by the publisher, this is clearly established by the evidence which is of record in this proceeding.
With regard to the other evidence, we are confronted with a number of programs, the first of which is that Mr. Schultz is not here for this hearing. The evidence is coming in by way of letters and memoranda and the person who wrote them is not here to be cross-examined, if there were anybody here to cross-examine him, which there is not. But, nevertheless, the evidence which is crucial to this record is still sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the decision to revoke the second-class mail privileges for the publication of the Pequannock Township Argus Continuing the Pequannock Township Bulletin was correct and that decision to revoke is hereby affirmed.
____________________