trolled as it is in a place which is regulated by law and offerend in an atmosphere which is both congenial and social, rather than at parties and in cars on the streets in Georgetown.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Samuel B. Block.

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL B. BLOCK, ATTORNEY AT LAW,
WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. BLOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have no prepared text and I shall not be more than 5 minutes, I assure you.

My name is Samuel B. Block, and I am a practicing attorney and have been for 30 years. Much of my work is before the ABC Board. I would say in 30 years I possibly handled between a thousand and two thousand actions before the Board, and several hundred cases have been tried before the Board.

I would like to give you, if I might, sir, a working attorney's opinion of the present bill. I would say to you, sir, if the bill is passed with the amendment changing the age of the individual to 21 the impact insofar as dozens of licensees are concerned would be absolutely ruinous. There would be businesses valued from $25,000 to in excess of $125,000 that would have to be closed.

I need not tell you what that means to them obligating themselves to landlords and banks and everyone connected. As far as the 18- to 21-year-olds in the District of Columbia now being served, may it please the chairman, one thing I think is overlooked is the number of young people we have here as a matter of right. These young people who attend the colleges here are here as a matter of right.

Many of your constituent daughters and sons, I am sure, attend school here, too, as do the children of other members of this committee. We have, I believe, something like 40,000 college students between the ages of 18 and 21 who live here 9 months of the year. When you add to that another 27,000 to 30,000 students in the University of Maryland, a few thousand from northern Virginia schools and add to that, sir, the number of young people, adults between 18 and 21 in the service that come into Washington on the weekend, I say to you we have in excess of 100,000 young people in the District of Columbia on any given weekend during this school year.

I would submit to you, sir, as a father myself, I would much prefer to have my daughter in a licensed premises if she is inclined to hear and see and listen to rock and roll and if she wants to have a beer, in a place that, I can assure you, sir, with my experience before the Board and in Georgetown, that there is never as much as 15 minutes in any given hour of any evening that there is not someone from either the ABC Board, Police Department, Youth Administration, Narcotics Squad, Morals Squad, Health Department, Fire Department, or some official person there observing and watching.

I would much prefer she be in licensed premises than other places I can imagine of.

Insofar as conduct of these young people, true, that of perhaps 100 percent of the young people who do attend and frequent the places you have may be 1 or 2 percent I would call either smart alecks and punks and there are the troublemakers not only in Georgetown, but everywhere. But it would be most, I think, inequitable to deprive the decent

young adults of the right to the enjoyment of a rock and roll place for a bottle of beer between the ages of 18 and 21.

Sir, I will close by saying to you that certainly the 18- to 21-yearold today is a much more matured 18 to 21 than was his or her counterpart in 1934.

Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Block, for your state

ment.

The next witness is Samuel J. L'Hommedieu, Jr., Washington, D.C., attorney at law.

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL J. L'HOMMEDIEU, JR., ATTORNEY AT LAW, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. L'HOMMEDIEU. Senator, I am here as an attorney in this city with offices at 1627 K Street, NW., and I am here as attorney for five restaurants, four of which are in Georgetown and their names are listed in the statement.

Now, you can listen to this all day and so I would just like to say that the first five pages of my statement deal with points already covered. I would prefer to submit my entire statement for the record. The CHAIRMAN. All right, your full statement will be incorporated in the record at this point.

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL J. L'HOM MEDIEU, JR., ATTORNEY AT LAW,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

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 3401-3403 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, N.W., and Journey Inn, 2142 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 that provision which raises the age to consume beer and light wine to age 21. 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 relative to the age for consumption of beer and light wine 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 District a mecca of vice and corruption. This city has many serious problems. They are the same ones that confront all urban centers in the United States.

There are intimations from certain persons that the proposed amendment concerning the age for the consumption of beer and light wine 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 the legion of law-abiding "Peters" to pay the one-in-ten thousand "Pauls." ponents have described the adverse impact on neighboring jurisdictions, by virtue of the District's current law. Youth from Maryland and Virginia, otherwise lawbreakers, cross our borders and become lawful long enough to purchase or consume beer and wine, and return to their home state and resume their unlawful status. The reasoning proceeds, somewhat erratically, to the conclusion that if we raise the legal boundaries to 21, all 18- to 20-year olds seeking beer and

Some pro

wine will be foreclosed, and the problem will disappear. The speciousness of this old saw has been repeatedly demonstrated here and in New York, where similar attacks have been mounted. Alcoholic excesses are going to debilitate people of 18, people of 21, people of 31, 41, ad infinitum. This is a regrettable reflection on human nature. It will not be solved, nor even diminished, by suddenly declaring the 18-, 19- and 20-year old beer drinker a criminal.

The proposed amendment, if adopted, would render clandestine and uncontrolled, what is now reasonably controlled. Nothing is going to keep the "underage" drinker from intoxicating beverages, if that is his bent. Any selection of age will necessarily be arbitrary. For many people, no age should be legal. These unfortunates have never learned the lesson of social responsibility and never will. To relate their problem to the legal age for drinking would be laughable, were it not so sad. The District of Columbia has wisely chosen to conform its age requirement to that age when youth enters into, and assumes the mantle of, adult responsibility. The District has rendered lawful what is, practically speaking, apparent. Our youth can marry and raise children at the age of 18, our boys can fight and die at the age of 18, and a person 18 is responsible as an adult for any crime that he might commit. It is sheer fantasy for society to clothe our youth with those critical trappings of adulthood and blithely expect them to wait for the others. Credit our youth with more perception. The 18year old may botch any or all of the adult responsibilities that have been urged upon him. His preparation to meet them has been formulated long before the age of 18, and the relevance of the District's law to this preparation is equally remote.

The current law has the salutory effect of taking the young adult out of the rear seat of an automobile and placing him lawfully into the controlled atmosphere of a restaurant. The present law takes away the fascination for the forbidden. Once the novelty is removed, the young adult can make much better and more-reasoned analyses of how he will handle this responsibility. The restaurant provides a focus for observation. Now it is conceded that our youth can enter a package store, buy beer and go furtively back to the "rear seat of the automobile." How less appealing this is when they can observe their contemporaries enjoying themselves openly, and in the atmosphere of a well-managed and well-regulated restaurant. I strongly urge that the social lessons to be learned are compelling.

The proposed amendment, if adopted, would wreak economic havoc on many restaurants in the District of Columbia. This is no dramatic hypothecation. This is a stark reality. The restaurants which I represent are in the neighborhood of our universities. They have established a rapport with many university students over a course of years. Some of these restaurants are owned by former students of these schools and employ current students on a part-time basis. These are people who have learned, at an early age, to comfortably shoulder the burdens of responsibility. Some of these restaurants have adopted a format which appeals to the tastes of youth. It might not appeal to you or to me, but this does not characterize the format as unhealthy, or decadent. They are, in short, well run and popular establishments, which collectively employ over 100 employees. If the proposed amendment under consideration is adopted, at least three of these restaurants will fail, and the other two probably would fail. The effect on the employees, not to mention the owners, is obvious. The owners have entered into numerous financial arrangements, based on long-range business forecasts. Take away the clientele, and pious assurances to the contrary, the owner is faced with economic disaster. These restaurants, by virtue of their long association with the college student and his contemporaries, have learned how to bring order to youthful exurberance; how to carefully and efficiently oversee the conduct of its clientele.

This proposed amendment will close their doors. And really that is all some of the proponents wish to accomplish. They may try to cover their motive with a facade of concern for youthful morality, but the motive shows through. And make no mistake about this-if this proposed amendment is adopted, the proponents may sit about congratulating themselves on this blow for morality, while the 18- to 21-year olds will be wandering the streets seeking now-illicit ways to fill the sudden vacuum. The debacle of Prohibition can teach us that lesson. I call your attention to the fact that one of these restaurants-The Cellar Doorprovides some of the leading entertainment in the city. Appearing there recently was the Serendipity Singers; within the past year they have had such national names as Oscar Brown, Jr., the Ramsey Lewis Trio and Mort Sahl.

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 percent. The comparative figures were reported for the hours of 6 p.m. to 3 a.m. Traffic problems have been such to cause policy to testify that "you can't even find an illegal place to park" in the M Street

area.

A longtime businessman and resident in Georgetown offered sworn testimony before the ABC 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 15-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 ABC Board that she had 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 youth, 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. A spokesman for the group stated that they had just come from an M Street tavern. 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 stones and bricks thrown through windows, 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 rock and roll, progress, or even youth. These are the objections of citizens who are being denied the peaceful enjoyment of their property because of rowdyism and crime caused by the intoxicated patrons of certain bars.

We might reemphasize that such problems are not restricted to Georgetown. They can be found wherever similar establishments are concentrated in Washington. These situations create a serious obstacle to the improvement of in-city living, a problem which is being given close attention both by Congress and the executive branch.

We hear from those whose financial interests would be affected by the proposed changes in the ABC Act—that if a young man is old

enough to serve in the military, he is old enough to drink. We do not quarrel with this as a general proposition, particularly when young men and women in the armed services are subject to military discipline.

But our problem is not the national draft age versus the national drinking age. Our problem is the drinking age in Maryland and Virginia. Our position in favor of a minimum age of 21 is based entirely on the inability of the citizens of the District or the Congress to bring about a reduction in the drinking ages in our neighboring States to 18.

Our interest is in achieving uniformity, and raising the District age offers the only practical means of doing so. The present situation is just as intolerable as if the draft age were lower in the District of Columbia than in Maryland and Virginia.

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."

In fact, authorities from as far away as Baltimore County, Md., have 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 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.

Another important provision of H.R. 10744 would give the ABC Board the authority to hold licensees to the assertions they make on their applications regarding the nature of the operation of their establishments. In the past few years we have witnessed applicants for new licenses assert under oath to the Board that they intended to run a quiet family-type restaurant.

After the license is issued on the basis of these promises, the actual operation sometimes has borne little resemblance to what was told the Board. A similar situation arises when an existing restaurant and license is sold to new owners and they immediately change the type of operation. The Board currently has not standing authority to pass on these basic changes in the operating conditions during the license year.

We believe that section 6 of the bill effectively meets this problem and we give it our full support.

We feel, however, that we must oppose certain other provisions of the bill.

Section 5 of H.R. 10744 adds the word "original" to section 14 of the act. This is an apparent attempt to emasculate the Board's supervisory authority over existing licensees and make the yearly renewal of licenses automatic. If passed with the suggested interpretation, this provision would eliminate the yearly determination of good moral character on the part of the license holders, the restriction on convicted felons holding liquor licenses, prohibition against interlocking li