eating and drinking establishments in our area that cater particularly to the "juveniles." For several blocks on each side of Wisconsin Avenue, the residents are plagued almost nightly, and especially on weekend nights, by intoxicated young men who are rowdy in their actions, loud in their talk, obscene in their language, destructive to property (particularly shrubbery, tree limbs and automobiles), who use our fence posts and front lawns as public urinals, who indecently expose themselves, and who drive off in a hazardous manner. For example, at Christmastime, one group invaded a nearby apartment house lobby and destroyed their Christmas tree. On another occasion, a young man was thrown into a plate glass window of one of the drinking estblishments, severely injuring him. When residents have attempted to protect their properties, they have often been insulted, threatened and abused. On a recent evening, one of the nearby residents found it necessary to call the police seven times to complain of objectionable behavior on the part of young patrons. The police tell us that most of the trouble makers are between 18 and 21 years of age. Many of those frequenting our neighborhood establishments are from a nearby university. Automobiles involved invariably bear Maryland license plates. We understand that areas adjacent to other District places of business on Wisconsin Avenue catering to young people are similarly bothered. We have not observed any great noise from the eating and drinking places themselves. The disturbance comes from the customers upon their emergence therefrom. As to servicemen, we have no objection to making them an exception to the age law. They are subject to the discipline of their own commands and the Military Police. Perhaps it would be a good idea to ave some special privileges for our servicemen. In closing, we must mention that we have observed the newspaper reports of the recent hearing in which you apparently stated that you don't believe such a law can be enforced. We respectfully ask, “If you can't enforce a 21-year requirement, how can you enforce an 18-year one?" May we not presume that the 18-year old patron is now required to establish his age? Then why is it any more difficult for the retailer to ascertain that he is 21? These laws are enforced in other states-why not in the District? Very truly yours, ELIZABETH F. PETERS, Corresponding Secretary. (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.) (Subsequently, the following statements and letters were received for the record :) WASHINGTON, 1).C., July 28, 1966. Hon. John MCMILLAN, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN: I wish to register my opposition to changing the present liquor regulations for the District. I have brought up three children in the District who are now adults and can buy and drink anything "hard" or "soft" as they are all over 25. I feel deeply that a legally sanctioned break in period is good preparation for the universal custom of social drinking which these young men and women encounter when they go away from home. Unreasonable prohibition breeds contempt of law and anti-social attitudes, as you and I well know from our youthful experience with the Volstead Act. Let Maryland and Virginia take care of their own regulations. Why should the District help them with their problems; they do not help us maintain the streets, roads and services which we provide for them daily and hourly. I have been taken to some of the young folks beer places in Georgetown by my young friends and children. They are well lighted and decorous and fun. They are closely supervised by the proprietors and the police. Some are noisy because the record player is turned too high but no one of them is anywhere near as noisy as the debut parties that Georgetown parents give for their daughters. Very truly yours, BERNICE CURRY MYERS. JULY 28, 1966. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: I note by the press that a hearing is going on concerning a bill to raise the age limit from 18 to 21 for young people for drinking beer. I won't be able to attend the hearings but I should like to voice my opposition to any such bill. I have two sons who are over 18 and below 21 and I think it much better for them to drink a beer now and then than to have to develop habits much worse. We all know that beer drinking is a safety valve and diverts young people from drinking hard liquor. I certainly hope that you can prevent this unwise legislation from reaching the House floor. Thank you. Yours truly, L. E. MORANDA. STATEMENT OF BREWERY & BEVERAGE DRIVERS, INSIDE WORKERS, VENDING MACHINE SERVICEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 67, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, JULY 13, 1966 (H.R. 2101, H.R. 6702, H.R. 7007, H.R. 11286, H.R. 5418) Mr. Chairman and Members of the Sub-Committee, I am Thomas A. Caton, Sr. I appear as Secretary-Treasurer and Business Representative of the Brewery and Beverage Drivers, Inside Workers, Vending Machine Servicemen and Helpers, Local No. 67, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Our Local opposes strenuously all Bills now pending before this Committee which would change the provision enacted Thirty-two years ago, in 1934 making the new minimum age for legal service of beer in the District of Columbia twenty-one years. We are informed by the report appearing in the local press that when the House recently passed H.R. 10744 and tacked on a 21-years of age beer amendment about 400 members of the House were not present and not voting (approximately 30 were present according to the Washington Post) ; there had been no previous committee hearings in the House on the merits of the change in the amendment; and in the abbreviated discussion of the 21-year amendment on the House floor, not a single mention was made of those in military service, those eligible for Selective Service, those eligible to be tried as adults in our courtsall in the 18 to 21-year age bracket. The very limited discussion on the House floor centered on complaints of parking congestion, noise, etc., by a handful of Congressmen residing in Georgetown. Today's hearing is indeed welcome as is this first opportunity for us to express our views. Qur general opposition to this backward step starts with a basic observation that a Congress that entrusts a hand grenade in Saigon, a Flame-thrower in Danang, a bomb load and a B-52 over Haiphong, to men 18 to 21 defending the policies of the President and the Congress, is in no position to take away from the 18 to 21 year olds their present right to have a beer in the Capital City if they so choose. We have given them grave responsibilities and assignments of danger ; let us guard their civil rights. This reason is so compelling that on proper reflection by this Committee and the Congress it should be necessary to cite no others, though there are others indeed. Today between the ages of 18 and 21 many young people marry, enter the work force, the Peace Corps, religious life, college, select careers for life, become fathers, mothers, and heads of households. When they transgress the law they are tried as adults in our Federal District Courts, not as juveniles. Today, as never before, these young adults have an ever-increasing influence and impact on our economy. They open businesses, bank accounts, serve with dedication in progressive social programs, join a union. With their recent indoctrination in the "new math” they take over key-man jobs in the coming fields of computers and data processing. The young people in this age group are recognized by our economists as consumers with a capital “C”. They establish credit, buy new housing units, remodel old ones, they borrow for education and repay their loans; and yes, in this City and in others, they are consumers of beer, a wholesome product dispensed to them legally in licensed establishments These young adults have been legal consumers of legal beer here for the past 32 years. You will understand that if the Congress now precludes them from this legal role as beer consumers, the loss of their patronage will be felt by our local, its members, by musicians, carpenters, etc., just as would the loss be felt by the local automobile industry if the age for a driving permit were raised to 21. To our Local this 21-year old beer age change poses a real threat of the loss of the wage gains for which we have fought so hard over the years and will be accompanied by probable layoffs, affecting pension benefits, etc. This year, in 1966, we negotiated a collective bargaining agreement on wages and working conditions for our drivers and beer delivery employee members. This contract, which became effective May 1, 1966, among other provisions provides that “case-beer drivers" shall be compensated at the rate of Fiftynine Dollars per week plus twelve cents commission per case delivered. Driv. ers delivering keg beer also receive a set basic salary plus a set commission from each keg delivered. Even the most conservative estimates indicate that under a 21-year-old law case and keg deliveries would drop considerably, with a corresponding reduction in the take-home pay of our member-drivers. The gains, for which we have fought so hard and awaited so patiently while acting in good faith at the bargaining table, would be wiped out by the needless en. actment of this "grudge legislation". The only alternative to substantial reductions in weekly pay would be layoffs. Here the rule of "last hired, first fired" would be a cutting blow to minority groups who have recently entered the employ of the brewing industry. As restaurants whose format have at: tracted the 18 to 21 failed, the economic impact would be felt also by the vending machine serviceman, by drivers delivering dairy products, bread, soft drinks, etc. IS THIS NECESSARY? IS THIS WISE? On the contrary, the District of Columbia, for a city of its size, has as clean if not the cleanest restaurant and public entertainment industries of any comparable cities in the country. Let us keep it that way. We have a vigorous A.B.C. Board and Police Department. The “status quo" has proved effective and satisfactory up to now. Let us all strive together to keep it that way. Respectfully yours, THOMAS A. Caroy, Sr., Brewery & Beverage Drivers, Local 67. TESTIMONY OF THE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION OF GEORGETOWN BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE We deeply appreciate this opportunity to testify concerning the proposed changes in the Alcoholiv Beverage Control Act of the District of Columbia, The proposed legislation under consideration today by this Subcommittee concerns a problem that confronts the entire District of Columbia and is not necessarily restricted to a single section of the city. It is our position that the increasing problems surrounding teen-age drinking in the District of Columbia can best be met by bringing the drinking age limit into substantial compliance with that of the surrounding states of Maryland and Virginia. We are not opposed to an individual between the ages of 18 and 21 consuming beer or light wine. Ideally, it would be advisable for young people to learn the sensible use of alcoholic beverages in a closely controlled family environment. Unfortunately, this is not the case today in the District of Columbia. Youths from as far away as Baltimore and Richmond swarm into the District of Columbia on weekenus because this is "where the action is.” The effect of this weekiy hegira is most keenly felt by those residents infortunate enough to live near the main arteries leading into the District of Columbia. In these areas there have sprung up taverns anxious to cater to these teenagers seeking reiease from their inhibitions. This problem has become particularly acute in the far Southeast part of Washington near the District line; on upper Wisconsin Avenue in the Northwest section ; in the areas adjacent to Silver Spring, Maryland ; and of course, in Georgetown, which has become known as "the first stop over the bridge." Much has been said to the effect that should the drinking age in the District of Columbia be raised to 21, that all manner of law enforcement problems would suddenly be foisted upon the authorities—that a "junior prohibition era” would be created. The fact is, that a serious and growing law enforcement problem already exists that can be at least partially attributed to the present drinking age limit in the District of Columbia. Although this problem is widespread throughout the city, we would like to cite as examples some of the experiences we have had in Georgetown. In the months of June and July, arrests along a five block stretch of M Street for disorderly conduct, drunkenness, drinking in public and urinating in public were 139 in 1965 versus 88 in 1964, an increase of 57.8%. The comparative figures were reported for the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. Traffic problems have been such to cause police to testify that "you can't even find an illegal place to park" in the M Street area. A long time businessman and resident in Georgetown offered sworn testimony before the A.B.C. Board that he witnessed a fight in front of one of the popular". establishments catering to the “younger crowd". One of the participants in this altercation was armed with a pistol. A policeman was able to disarm him before serious harm was done. The same citizen, upon returning home with his wife one evening was subjected to the sight of four young men urinating against his garage door. A woman living with her fifteen year old daughter near M Street testified that she had her purse stolen from her bedroom while she was asleep. Again, an alert policeman apprehended the guilty party in the alley behind her house. The young man later confessed that he had been drinking in an M Street club. This same woman testified to the A.B.C. Board that she witnessed a fight in front of her house in which bricks were used as weapons. The police arrived and dispersed the fight. As they were leaving, one of the participants in the fight suddenly reappeared and attacked her with a brick. Luckily, the police were nearby and prevented serious injury. It was necessary however, for the police to draw their guns to disarm the subject, who was intoxicated. The president of a Georgetown University fraternity testified that a group of intoxicated young men attempted to crash a party given at his fraternity house for foreign student delegates to a NATO conference at the University. When they were refused admittance, a fight ensued in which a foreign student was beaten, In addition to these examples of some of the more serious incidents in the vicinity of M Street, citizens testified that such incidents as the use of private property for toilet purposes, obscene, vulgar and profane language, immoral acts in parked cars, fights and assaults on citizens have become commonplace occurrences. Mr. Chairman, these are not the complaints of a few so-called bluenoses who object to progress or rock and roll or even youth. These are the objections of citizens who are being denied the peaceful enjoyment of their property. We might re-emphasize that such probiems are not restricted to Georgetown. They can be found whereever similar establishments are concentrated. We also hear from those whose financial interests would be affected by a change in the minimum drinking age that if a young man is old enough to serve in the military, he is old enough to drink. Indeed we see no objection to allowing young men and women in the Armed Services to consume alcoholic beverages on installations where they are subject to military discipline. This is the practice in Virginia, where 3.2% beer is available on military posts to servicemen between 18 and 21 years of age. Congress, in its wisdom, has generally committed the District of Columbia to the desirable policy of "neutrality" between the laws of the surrounding jurisdictions so that, for example, the District of Columbia tax laws would not be altered so as to lure industry away from Maryland and Virginia. The divergence in the drinking age is a notable exception to this practice of “neutrality". expressed themselves in favor of raising the minimum drinking age to 21 in the District of Columbia. Maryland and Virginia parents are rightfully disturbed that their teenagers are driving home after being “tanked-up" with beer in Washington. These neighboring jurisdictions have asked the District to raise the minimum drinking age, and they are entitled to our cooperation in this matter. The citizens of the District of Columbia also want the minimum age for purchasing alcoholic beverages to be raised. Such an action received overwhelming support at a hearing before the Citizens Council of the District of Columbia. Among the supporting witnesses were the District of Columbia Federation of Civic Associations, the Federation of Citizens Associations, the Chief of Police, the Medical Director of Howard University, eleven church groups and individuals of all ages and all walks of life. The members of this Subcommittee are aware that the vast majority of the states require that the minimum drinking age be 21 years. We respectfnlly request that Congress bring the Capital City within the collective judgment of the many state legislatures which have explored this problem. SAMUEL J. L'HOMMEDIEU, JR., Washington, D.C. 20006, August 9, 1966. The Honorable John L. McMillan, Chairman, House District Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: It is my understanding that due to the present legislative situation it is doubtful that further hearings will be held on H.R. 2101 and similar bills (that is, prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under 21 years of age). Accordingly, pursuant to advice received from your staff, I am enclosing here. with an original and a copy of a statement I had hoped to deliver to your Committee at such hearings. It is requested that this statement be incorporated into the record pertaining to H.R. 2101 and similar bills. If it is necessary for me to take any further action in order to insure inclusion of this statement in the record, please advise so that I may comply immediately. Very truly yours, SAMUEL J. L'HOMMEDIEU, Jr. STATEMENT OF SAMUEL J. L'HOMMEDIEU, JR., ON H.R. 2101 AND SIMILAR BILLS Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Samuel J. L'Hommedieu, Jr. I am an attorney in Washington, with offices at 1627 K Street, N.W., and appear here as attorney for Mac's Pipe & Drum, Inc., a restaurant at 34013403 M Street, N.W., Jack's Cafe, Inc., trading as Groovy's, 3350 M Street, N.W.. Cellar Door, Inc., a restaurant at 1201 34th Street, NW., and Journey Inn, 21-12 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. I am also appearing for 3259 M Street, Inc., trading as The Crazy Horse, at 3259 M Street, N.W., which I not only represent but have an interest therein. Naturally, I am appearing in opposition to each of the above bills. I believe that because of my familiarity with the problem, that I can offer assistance on the questions presented. First of all, the current law has served the District of Columbia well for 32 years. The wisdom of this law, despite emotional assertions to the contrary, has withstood the test of time. It has not made the Distric a mecca of vice and corruption. This city has many serious problems. They are precisely the same ones that confront all urban centers in the United States. There are intimations from certain persons that the proposed amendment would assist in the control of youthful crime. While I do not feel this position would bear the light of statistical data, I can understand the hypothesis behind it. Many things might aid in the control of youthful crime, but the corresponding rent in social customs and personal liberty would create havoc, and magnify the very problem sought to be corrected. There would be less mobility for the potential young criminal if he were not able to drive an automobile until the age of 21, or perhaps even 25. Our society demands, thankfully, that we will not rob |