Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

134 FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Later that morning Lesco produced three chamcter witnesses 1 the
operator ofa messenser service who had known Mr Bethell for II period
of 12 to 15 years 2 the secretary of Mr BetheU s social lodge who had
known him for 32 yoars and 3 a lawyer who had known Mr Bethell for
about 20 years AU three witnesses testified favorably concerning Mr
Bethell s personal honesty and truthfulness but were uninformed con
cerning his reputation in the business community did not know others
who had professlonlll dealings with Mr Bethell and had only minor
business contacts with Mr Bethell themselves
Hearing Counsel conceded that Mr Bethell possessed both the ability
and willingness to perform as an independent ocean freight forwarder but
argued for denial of Loseo s license application because Mr Bethell s
past violations oflaw lmd administrative regulations represent a course of
conduct which raise serious doubts as to his present fitness to as operate
alicensed forwarder
Mr Bethell replied that his mistakes were things of the past that he
paid for his actions over and over again and bas changed his mode of
life He contended that a refusal to license Lesco would serve no
purpose except to deprive Mr Bethell of his livelihood because ocean
freight forwarding is the only business he really knows 6
In denying Lesco s license application the Presiding Officer concluded
that
1While the matter of past violatlllns is germane to the question of fitness alld is not
singularly determinative thereof tlloy are evidence in the record of past law violations
by the applicant which supports rOMonable doubt about the applicant s good character
and fitness for licensing as an indell ndent ocean frelaht forwarder
2 On the whole record a reasol1ll1 lle man could fairly find that there Were substantial
doubts about the s applicant good Qlllacter fitness and respect for the rlahts of others
and for the laws of the regulatory oOmlllissions and of the nation
3 Under the circumstances of this llllse the applicant lias failed to meet his burden of
proof as to his fitness properly to clY on the business of forwarding under section 44
of the Act Footnote omitted
4 The application should be deniQi
Conclusions two through fQUf were based not only on the evidence of
past law violations by applicant and doubts about Mr Bethell s ability
to avoid the sort of indiscretions which have plagued his operations for
the past 16 years but also on Lesco s disregard for what the Presiding
S The Presidina Officer was unimpressed wit Mr BetbeU s character witntuollnpart au e they testified only
as to their personal knowledJO of Mr Bethell ahancter inatead of discullina hi on ral reputation inthe oenn
frelshtlndu try Althoush tho Initial Declalon I phraaed In 1 whioh could be under th clrc m tanc i tho record rev al lUI of tho wit
criticized a ovarly technical
vl I08 upport for at1ndlO8 of
800d character Richard Cotoaono testified tlW Mr BetheU was always hon t with him and that Mr Bethell tdes
very hard to do a ood job but admitted ht he had DO tnawledl of what others tboulht of Mr Beth lI
truthfuln s or honesty Murray Birnbaok te ft tbat within Mr BotheU anoolation with the Free SODa 011 101
he was loyal industrious and honest Mr lUmltAck had no bUllDesl contract with Mr Bethell or the ocean frtiaht
forwardlq industry In I neral Jacob S SQltulman statod that Mr BothoD If jO ed a alnerally lood reputation far
intearity and honesty except for bla19 9 conVIGtloD However Mr SchQlman alto stated be was unawthat Mr
BetbeU s firm was denied export p villl s in 1964 or that tbe Commi ionfound him to have operated uan unlicensed forwarder durlna 1969 1970
6No evidence was introduced to support this ft8lortlon nor is there reason to believe that an individual skilled In
the businessof forward1na cannot Ond employm Rl in related seaments of the ocean freiJht industry
19 F M C