ginia—and that uniformity is a justifiable end in itself. On this basis it is proposed that Section 25–121 of the District of Columbia Code be deleted. We would like to point out to the Committee that the adjacent states have legislated in this area for city, town, rural communities or areas, seashore resorts, and the like. In the State of Maryland, County option is granted and this brings about a great variety of laws on this subject within that State. In the State of Virginia, Off-sale of liquor is State controlled and operated, and such is also the case in some of the Maryland Counties. There is a great variance in hours of sale, both On and Off, between the varying jurisdictions. In other words, Mr. Chairman, there does not appear to be any other aspect of uniformity between the States of Maryland and Virginia, and the District of Columbia-other than the proposed drinking age being increased from 18 to 21 years for light wines and beer. In 1934 the Congress of the United States enacted this legislation for the District of Columbia, a strictly urban and transient city, where the complexities and anxieties of enforcement differ substantially from those of the adjacent States mentioned. Second–The proposed Amendment contained in this Bill would appear now to have taken on the aspect of a “cure-all" of the highly publicized stretch of M Street, Northwest-Popularly known as the “Georgetown Strip." No one can deny that the proximate residential areas in Georgetown are adversely affected by the current popularity and abundance of establishments in the few blocks between Rock Creek and Key Bridge. We feel that this matter can be corrected through available means far short of an amendment to a law which has over thirty years of successful operation. There has been no showing of any higher incident of offense within the age group of 18 to 21-as distinguished from any other age grouping. As a matter of fact, there does not appear to be any analysis to justify pointing a finger at this particular category other than its identity with the under-graduate school years. However, one cannot help but note that Georgetown University has been right where it now stands since the year 1789, and from this one could conclude that it is not the age group-but rather the number of establishments and their current popularity that is the offender. Others have touched on the sociological studies made throughout the Country, and the conclusion reached by the Commissioner's Blue Ribbon Committee here in the District of Columbia. These would appear to conclude that the age of 18 years is a proper one for the purchase and consumption of light wines and beer. Others have also pointed to the determination of New York State in maintaining its own minimum drinking age of 18 years; and others have also pointed out the terrific complexities of enforcement which would result from this proposed basic change in our Law. I will conclude by saying that our Association believes that where a law has been satisfactory for over thirty years it should not be lightly changed for the mere purpose of conformity or uniformity-and certainly should not be changed in the futile hope that it will cure a current and local sore spot. One does not cut off the patient's head to cure a headachenor reach for a sledgehammer to drive a tack! We respectfully urge that this Committee reject this proposed Bill or others seeking the same end. Thank you very much for the opportunity to present our views on this subject. [From the Washington Post, Wednesday, June 1, 1966) CAR GOING OVER 100 MPH CRASHES ; 3 KILLED, 2 HURT Three young people died and two others were injured when their car went out of control and crashed on Telegraph Road near Wilton Road early yesterday, Fairfax County police reported. Dead on the scene were the driver, Donnie Dean Breeden, 20, an automobile mechanic, listed at 565 E. Nelson ave.. Alexandria, and Georgia Gale Grisith, 16, a student at Falls Church High School, listed at 3213 Allen Street, Fairfax County. The third fatality was Walter E. Cook, 21, of 302 Raymond ave., Alexandria. He was admitted to Alexandria Hospital in critical condition and died about 5:45 p.m. yesterday. Police quoted George W. Herndon, 19, of 1204 Prince Street, Alexandria, the only occupant of the car to escape uninjured, as saying all six had been drinking beer and that moments before the 1:15 a.m. crash the speedometer was indicating a speed of 110 miles an hour. Ā wrecker was need to lift the demolished 1956 convertible so that police could remove Breeden's body and free Bernice Smith, 17, of 101 Mt. Vernon ave., Alexandria, who escaped serious injury. Linda Hendrick, 17, of 6926 Jefferson ave., Falls Church, was admitted to the hospital with multiple injuries and was listed in fair condition, All six were thrown through the closed convertible top or out the doors when the car hurtled 60 feet through the air after striking a culvert, police said. The car left the road at a curve. One of the survivors told police the six “had just been riding around" had been drinking beer and were about to take the girls home. A number of beer cans were found in and around the wreckage, police said. CAPITOL HILL SOUTHEAST CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, INC., July 27, 1966, Mr. McWILLIAM. Mr. Dowdy, Chairman, Subcommittee Number of Committee. The Capitol Hill Southeast Citizens Association notes that a hearing will be held on raising the age of drinking from eighteen to twenty-one and thanks you for this opportunity to appear. For the past five years the Capitol Hill Southeast Citizens Association has been in favor of raising the drinking age to twenty-one and has so recorded its views. This includes beer and wine drinking as well as stronger liquors. The judgment of many young drivers is not mature or wise; to deteriorate further the judgment of youthful car drivers by allowing them to drink is a serious matter and a menace to traffic safety. Many young people become reckless after drinking only beer and cause trouble. The recent incident of stoning the Vice-President's car is an instance. Many commit crimes after drinking; in an effort to control crime, the drinking age should be twenty-one. The out-of-town tourist trade should be protected on the streets and in public buildings by the licensed places of business refusing to sell liquor including beer to young people under twenty-one. Even young out-of-town visitors should not be drinking or they cannot protect themselves on the streets and may find themselves in serious difficulty. Many young people become noisy after drinking, and this organization desires to submit copies of a statement recently presented at a public hearing concerning noise created by young drinkers in public establishments. Please include it with this statement. Because a returning soldier from overseas fighting finally reaches Washington, D.C. is no reason to allow young civilians under twenty-one drinking privileges. Some adjustment can be made for returning soldiers under twenty-one of whom there will be relatively few. LEONARD P. OUSLEY, Representative, Capitol Hill Southeast Citizens Association, THE CAPITOL HILL SOUTHEAST CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. STATEMENT FOR PRESENTATION AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, JUNE 2, 1966, ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT (2–153 NOISE FROM LICENSED PREMISES) TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL REGULATIONS With respect to this proposed amendment, the Capitol Hill Southeast Citizens Association wishes to present its views as follows: 1. The Association believes, as a general principle, that any disturbing noise created carelessly, indifferently, or, many times even down-right contemp tuously—and inflicted on an unwilling and non-participating captive public falls definitely within the category of disorderly conduct. As such, there is every right-indeed, rather, every civic obligation—that such noise be prohibited or suppressed through legislation and/or regulation; and when necessary in cases of overt disregard of such prohibitions, it is a flagrant disregard of duty if the disturbance is not handled forcibly and directly by the police. A recent-even though considerably belated—recognition of the public's right to be protected in this way, has been the banning of transistor-radio playing in public buses. 2. The Association wishes to register its conviction that action with respect to the subject of this proposed amendment, namely, more effective regulation of noise originating in licensed premises, is similarly long over-due. The Association recommends and asks that the wording of this proposed amendment be revised to change the last sentence which reads as follows: (Provided that the provisions of the amendment, among other things, shall not apply) "to such sound, noise or music occasioned by normal opening of entrance and exit doors for the purpose only of ingress and egress". The Association suggests and asks, rather, that a suitable wording be substituted bearing directly on the control of any noise immediately outside the premises at these entrances or egresses, or indeed, in any degree at all anywhere in the immediate vicinity. It is precisely at this point-in the vicinity outside that the noise and disorderliness, commonly a by-product of the activities within the premises is imposed on the outside public. This is almost to be expected as a logical consequence from “businesses" whose major stock-in-trade (apart from the dispensing of liquor itself) lies in catering to a class of patrons attracted by loudness, whether occasioned by music or rowdy physical activity encouraged by other forms of stimulation. And because it is at this point where or at which these noises are inflicted on the public that there is justification for an appeal for relief. The public has no defense against this kind of invasion of its right to live as quiet undisturbed citizens, unless such defense is provided by enforced law or regulation. It is the common experience of the outside public that the patrons of these "entertainment" spots-after an evening of drinking and under the influence of the riotous programming designed by the management to excite and stimulate the habitués to more unrestrained, boisterous and "good-time” activity withinare all too often, to say the least-not quietly behaved on leaving. Many times, also, this situation is similarly as bad on entrance with the patrons noisily anticipating the kind of evening ahead. Therefore, in the public interest, some kind of restraining provision is legitimate and necessary, which will keep any noises induced by the character of these places entirely and completely within the premises so that the people who revel in this sort of thing can have the full quota to themselves. 3. The noise in these licensed places is just one more facet in the tendency to guide individuals and groups into more and more riotous, hysterical and out-ofcontrol behavior as a way of life, and many times is deliberately induced for some ulterior motive of personal gain on the part of the "guiders”. If, in the case of licensed places, this noise and unruly behavior is confined to the originating premises and originating group that is one thing; but when it spills out to inconvenience and disturb an innocent and non-participating public, this is entirely a different thing and a matter that should be subject to rigid public control. The opportunity for "business" profits to be made by the holders of licenses to operate these places should not be afforded to any proprietor who is indifferent to or cannot control the spill-over cost in outside disturbance of the public. In respect to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board's responsibility in this matter, promulgating and enforcing effective regulations for control of these nuisances is its public obligation. This obligation extends as well into the area of reducing to an absolute minimum practices that would tend to increase or widen noise-originating opportunities. Such practices, for instance, include encouragement of or soliciting younger-age drinking patronage. Over-late closing tending to create sources of noise in the middle of the night is another instance. The sections in the liquor control bill recently passed by the House of Representatives and now before the Senate raising the drinking age limitation to persons of 21 years and granting city power to lift the licenses of places misusing licensing should give the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board sufficient powercertainly more than apparently exists now-to control abuses that have been becoming more and more a civic disgrace. Finally, in the context of all the foregoing, the Association asks that the Board but also undertake a comprehensive review of all of its existing regulations and policies to the following additional ends : 1. That the current noise abuses and disorderly conduct arising from the misuse of licensing privileges will be eliminated by such further amendments as may be necessary to accomplish this. 2. That suitable means of follow-up inspection be established to keep a running check on whether licensed places once having been granted licenses—are operating their premises with full observance of the regulations, making an acceptable quiet atmosphere a definite contingent for the retention of the license. FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS, July 12, 1966. DEAR MR. McJILLAN : It was with surprise that I noted that your Committee planned to hold hearings on a House bill which would raise the age for those to whom liquor may be served or sold to twenty-one in the District of Columbia ; I knew that the House had already approved such legislation as an amendment to another bill. The Federation of Citizens Assoications has more than once requested such legislation and endorsed pending bills and desires to have the record show that this is the case. We should like this letter made a part of the record of hearing and also the enclosed resolution on the subject, adopted after the House's previous action on the subject. So long as Maryland and Virginia are unlikely to lower the age in those jurisdictions, we believe that the only solution to the problem of teen-age drinking which plagues this city is for the Distirct to be brought into conformity with its suburbs. Not only residents near M Street in Georgetown but residents in other sections of the city as well are being harrassed by noise, obscene language, and litter from non-District youth who frequent District taverns. Very sincerely yours, MABEL E. MORRIS Secretary. FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. RESOLUTION Subject : S. 2480 (and applicable to House bills). WHEREAS, there is pending before the Senate of the United States S. 2480 entitled “A bill to amend the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Act to prohibit the sales of alcoholic beverages to persons under twenty-one years of age,” which was introduced by Senator Hugh Sectt and referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, and WHEREAS, the said District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Act at present provides that the minimum age for the purchase of beer and light wines shall be eighteen years while the Maryland and Virginia communities which surround the District of Columbia have established a minimum age of twenty-one for such purchases, and WHEREAS, the right of eighteen-year-old youth to purchase beer and light wines in the District of Columbia has (1) resulted in an infiux of such young people into the said District from Maryland and Virginia to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages; (2) provided them with a means of flaunting and frustrating the considered public policy of their home communities: (3) disturbed the pease and quiet and aggravated the parking and traffic problems of residential neighborhaads located near establishments which dispense alcoholic beverages; and (4) contributed significantly to the work of the police depariment; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Executive Board of the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia in meeting on June 20, 1966 that it recommends prompt enactment of S. 2480 into law in order to conform the laws governing the minimum age for purchase of alcholic beverages in the District of Columbia with those of its surrounding Maryland and Virginia communities, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, the Senate and House Committees on the District of Columbia, Senator Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the D.C. Alcholic Beverage Control Board, and the D.C Board of Commissioners. Timothy V. A. Dillon. Chairman, Special Committee on Revision of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. John R. Immer, President. Approved by the Executive Board for the Federation: MABEL E. MORRIS Secretary. VIRGINIA CONFERENCE BOARD OF THE METHODIST CHURCH, Reston, Va., July 14, 1966. Hon. Joun L. MCMILLAN, House Office Building, Washington 2.7, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN: We wish to have inserted in the record of the hearings on drinking by those 18 to 21 which has been considered by the subcommittee of the House District Committee, the following statement. My name is Robert Regan, Jr., I am President of the Board of Christian Social Concerns of the Virginia Annual Conference of the Methodist Church, and pastor of the Methodist Church in Reston, Virginia. I am presenting this statement at the direction of the Annual Conference of the Methodist Church in Virginia, representing 3625,000 Methodists. At its recent meeting in Norfolk, in June, 1966, the 1500 delegates adopted unanimously a resolution urging the Congress to adopt measures that would raise the legal age for the sale of all alcoholic beverages in the District of Columbia to 21 years, the legal age in Maryland and Virginia. We hope the Congress will with-stand the economic pressure brought to bear by the liquor industry and brewing trade to continue this practice of sale at the expense of our finest young people. The relationship of drinking with traffic accidents alone among young adults (18 to 21) is sufficient reason to make the legal age in the District consonant with that in Maryland and Virginia. Since a bill has already been paseed by the House of Representatives, we trust the District Committee will recognize that this action represents the best interests of the nation. Cordially, ROBERT REGAN, Jr. CATHEDRAL HEIGHTS/CLEVELAND PARK CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, Washington, D.C., July 14, 1966. Hon. John L. McMillan, Chairman, House Committee of the District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The Cathedral Heights/Cleveland Park Citizens Association of the District of Columbia, as voted at a regular meeting, wishes to go on record with your Committee as endorsing the proposal to raise the minimum drinking age from 18 to 21 years in the District. Georgetown is not the only neighborhood beset with the problems resulting from overindulgence in liquor by young people. The members of this Associa |