The Riots of 1964 — Chapter 5

May 1965

Project Director’s Report
Paul Estaver, Director

May 1965

During the month of May the Hampton Beach Project made the transition from hypothesis and discussion to the first stages of demonstration. A youth organization came into being, the start of a working relationship with the various police departments was seen, and the relationship between the TAR Committee and its parent organization was more clearly delineated. Three meetings early in the month contributed significantly to this latter development.

Spaulding Potter Outline Considered

The first of these, on May 1st, took place at the business office of selectman Noel Salomon, as designated by the TAR Committee. Its purpose was to revise the so-called white sheet to a form which might better find Chamber of Commerce approval and Hampton Beach Community acceptance. Present were Salomon, Preston, Van Nostrand, C of C President Vanderpool and myself.

During the few days since the previous C of C directors meetings, rumors had continued to abound concerning the TAR program. There was apparently discontent that the federal funds were going so largely into salaries of project personnel rather than to program. Further, the white sheet which had been handed out at the directors meeting as an outline for discussion was now passed around the beach and viewed by various members of the community with some alarm. To a person who had previously heard nothing of the Hampton Beach project it was not a proper presentation for of course it did not specify that this was a tentative program or that the Chamber would not be bound by its details. Such lines as “American Youth Hostel personnel for sleeping facilities” or “visiting pros to talk in coffee houses” or “teen-clubs” disturbed many citizens.

The purpose of the meeting in Salomon’s office was not so much to change the program as to clarify it for the coming directors meeting. I distinctly remember someone’s saying “This white sheet is killing us. Whatever we do let’s make the revision a different color for whatever psychological value it will have.” Thus did the second version come to be known as the “pink sheet”.

The actual revisions in the outline were slight. Detailed references to the design of the building were omitted as was the comment in reference to spreading the crowd. The term “visiting pros” was revised to “visiting personalities” and the reference to coffee houses was deleted.

The group felt that it would be better to have Preston make the presentation of the outline at the coming meeting since he was a regular beach businessman and a member of the directors, in view of increasing criticism of TAR as a group of outsiders. Through the summer Preston played an important role in finding a consensus acceptable to the program and to the community, and his ability to strike a compromise is well known and regarded. At this meeting he argued strongly that since the directors had already clearly indicated their opposition to commercially competitive elements in the TAR program it would be wisest not to insist on teen clubs or coffee houses at the possible expense of the other program elements. Accordingly it was agreed at this point that no food or games such as pool or ping-pong would be permitted in the youth center, that it would be essentially a youth headquarters rather than a pavilion; as noted above, coffee houses were dropped from the program at this point and, although teen clubs remained on the agenda, they were quickly discarded thereafter.

TAR Committee Expansion Sought

The next meeting of note was the May 3rd TAP-TAR conference called to establish better lines of communication between the committees and to rework the Spaulding Potter fund application. While complete minutes of the meeting are included in the agenda, several principle viewpoints can be summarized here: There was expressed a need for more beach operatives to be involved in TAR’s planning to include in policy making those with a financial stake in the beach. The question was raised whether the programs contemplated could effectively deal with young people on the beach without bringing in additional youngsters who might compound the problem.

Specific issues raised concerning the program itself were the question of business competition and the danger of preferential treatment of various rooming house operators if a lodging referral service were set up.

Members of the committees agreed with the two suggestions of Chairman James Fallon which might correct difficulties in communication and problems of protocol.

First, Fallon would recommend to the directors that the TAR Sub-committee be reconstituted as a full committee of the Chamber and that its major policy decisions be subject to the approval of the directors; second, he would recommend that President Vanderpool add three new members to the TAR Committee to balance it more evenly with beach operatives.

Late Arrival of Directors Significant

In the discussion it was also noted that some of the misunderstanding about TAR resulted from the fact that several of the directors had only recently returned from Florida and had not been informed of the steps which saw the development of the TAP Committee and the subsequent growth of the TAR program. This point should indeed not be overlooked. Of the 36 directors of the Chamber, probably 20 to 24 are active and regular participants at meetings. Of this group eight were away from Hampton Beach during the winter and early spring months. Two returned April 20, two returned April 27 and four others were not back until the May 4 meeting which concluded the discussions on the Spaulding Potter application.

Major Policy Meeting

This meeting was a long and lively one, and its tenor is best suggested by the reproduction of the minutes which follow below. In anticipation of the public interest which had been aroused, the directors scheduled the meeting for the auditorium on the second floor of the Hampton Beach Fire Station. The minutes note that there were “about one hundred visitors” present and perhaps the number was even larger.

Great credit should go to President Vanderpool for his deft chairmanship of this meeting. The size of the crowd and its initial inclination to be critical could have resulted in a chaotic conclusion of the TAR program then and there had it not been for Vanderpool’s insistence on an orderly presentation of all the facts and all the viewpoints.

Minutes of the meeting of Board of Directors of the Hampton Beach Chamber of Commerce

Fire Station Hall
May 4, 1965
Hampton Beach, NH

Meeting called to order by President Vanderpool at 8:05 pm with the following directors present: Batterbury, Bragg, Cann, Doherty, John Dineen, Joe Dineen, Downer, Gerald Dunfey, John P. Dunfey, Fallon, Flynn, Foley, Fuller, Gagne, Goding, Harris, Henneka, King, McCurdy, McLane, Preston, Ring, Ross, Salomon, Trofatter, Cunningham, Stone, Van Nostrand, and Secretary Elliot. About one hundred visitors were present.

Vanderpool waived the reading of the minutes of the previous meeting.

He told of the work of the Directors since last Labor Day. He mentioned the organization of TAP and TAR and the Governor’s Commission, headed by Judge Blandin. He said the approach of TAP he considered was “the Tough Approach”. He mentioned the various laws, which are being asked for through the State Legislature, as well as the increase in both State and local police assistance.

Vanderpool explained TAR is to work with boys and girls who come to Hampton and endeavor to convince the good teenagers to stay on the right side of the law, expressing this as an imaginary line.

He spoke of Dr. Rosenthal from Washington and the Federal Grant for a study of the youth problems, which are increasing nation-wide, and explained that the grant was forth coming from President Kennedy’s committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Problems.

The President then introduced chairman of the TAP Committee, Fallon, who said Senator Hunter was the former chairman and credited Hunter, President Vanderpool with much work and actual progress towards the solution of this problem. He said the Chamber of Commerce could not solve the matter but only suggest, recommend, and endeavor to convince others to do so. Governor King, he said will establish State Police Headquarters at the Hampton Beach Sea Shell. The State Police are already working at Hampton Beach weekends. He continued the TAP committee agreed to push budgets for all requests of the police department, to work on various laws, to show their willingness to help in the passage of the State Police budget and to carefully release publicity, which is to be handled by Robert Preston, a member of TAP, TAR and the Governor’s Commission.

He said the State has been requested to authorize the Selectmen, with approval of the Town Meeting, to make ordinances and give them similar authority to that enjoyed by City Officials.

Fallon said he has sat in on the Blandin Commission which has not yet rendered a complete proposal, but has gone along with the TAP recommendations in many cases. He said it was learned that many of the things TAP wants to accomplish can be done by laws already on the books, which have been pointed out to the TAP chairman and the Town Manager by the Blandin Commission.

One new law being asked for is the increase of fines for misdemeanors from $25.00 to $100.00 maximum fine. He said we are asking for regulatory restrictions on renters of property. We have backed a bill on the reduction of the juvenile age limit.

He closed by stating he would like to recommend procedures for TAP-TAR communications which were voted upon by the combined committees the day before.

President Vanderpool next introduced Richard Stone, told those present that he is a young man, living in Hampton for about five years with his wife and family of three children; one who is vitally interested in the youth of our country, has served on a commission of human relations, spent 24 hours at the Hampton Beach Sea Shell during the 1964 riots and that he is an airlines pilot for Northeast Air Lines.

Stone praised the work of President Vanderpool and Chairman of TAP Fallon, then told of the work TAR hoped to accomplish. He said the Federal Grant has been authorized so that the professional experts working on TAR may find out who the youngsters are that come to Hampton Beach, why they are here, etc. He then explained the accounting procedures, that all bills will be paid by vouchers signed by Stone, checks made out and bookkeeping handled by a CPA in Exeter. All checks and vouchers are to be okayed and signed by President Vanderpool.

Stone said Rev. Manning Van Nostrand has been loaned by his church to handle the job of Community Coordinator. Van Nostrand has a Masters degree in Philosophy. He has received permission of the Bishop of his church to carry out the necessary work. Mr. Paul Estever, Stone Said, will act as Youth Coordinator, having left a position he has held for the past seven years as Editor of Profiles Magazine to do this work.

Advisors of the TAR group include Dr. William Kvaraceus, Tufts University; Dr. Helen Kenney, Research Professor at Harvard; and Dr. Palmer, University of New Hampshire Dean of Psychology.

He said TAR’s policies are threefold; first Research and Report; second Coordinating the Community into one society of responsible citizens and business people, who can control and conduct themselves in a worthy manner; third to Coordinate Youth Activities to the point where youth will accept responsibility and will govern themselves towards good citizenship.

He said the Federal funds are mostly for personnel, office material, etc. He then explained that TAR is now asking the Directors of the Chamber of Commerce for approval, so that TAR may apply for a grant from the Spaulding Potter Foundation of Concord, New Hampshire, an organization which has seen fit to take a great interest in the Hampton Beach problem.

Stone then passed out a prospectus of how the funds might be used. He explained that the suggested program is only tentative, but that in order to apply for the funds we must tell the Foundation in general terms why we need them.

The president then asked Preston to express himself, as he has lived with the situation and been a member of all committees and the Governor’s Commission since Labor Day.

Preston said as he sees the present recommendations of TAP and TAR this is a two-pronged approach toward the solution of our problem. He said his job is to coordinate all factions, including local and State Police, National Guard, TAP and TAR and the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce.

Preston went through the prospectus, explaining in detail the reason the Youth Center building is needed, where it might be located and included among the issues that it would stand as a symbol of youth and an organization, perhaps similar to a Junior Chamber of Commerce Group. It could be a message center, where parents could contact those who wish to register, a place for the dispensing of permits for late hour workers in case of a curfew; possible housing services to assist the Hostelry owner and youth to find suitable quarters, at reasonable rates, particularly those working on the beach.

Recreation facilities, he said would not be included in the building but it might be possible for carefully scheduled events at certain non-busy times of the week, or the day, could be permitted, such as ball playing on the beach during the hours of calisthenics.

The posting of rules and regulations could be a part of this center, where the youths themselves would actually do the work of registering and other activities, uplifting the beach and being of assistance to the State Police. He stressed that this would not be a hangout but rather a place of business. A teenager office with proper management.

He said the Chamber of Commerce is short of funds for their program and possibly part of the $10,000.00 could be used to augment the Chamber program this season, provided it was entertainment pointed at teens.

President Vanderpool called on Harris to speak as a Precinct Commissioner. Harris stated flatly that he does not go along with anything that goes on here tonight. He said he might consider a building provided it could be given to the Precinct after the season for the youth of Hampton Beach to use year round. He was opposed to taking care of kids at Hampton Beach and felt there was only one way to handle some of the “Jerks” who come to Hampton. He concluded by saying he was tired and did not think he would stay to listen to the balance of the program, urging all present to turn down all of the TAR proposals.

The president then introduced Noel Salomon, Selectman, who said Selectman Hackett asked him to state for him that the Chamber of Commerce should not lobby in Concord and should not take the power away from the Board of Selectmen.

Salomon continued, however, he and Mr. Trofatter felt quite differently about the matter. Force and force alone will never solve our problem. We have had the publicity and we are going to get people here whether we want them or not. You can’t expect to bring 5000 individuals together, young or old, with nothing to do and not expect trouble.

Don Ring, reporting from the legislative level, said that the requested bills of TAP are being worked on, but some have not as yet even been written.

Vanderpool asked Stone to introduce Dr. Si Rosenthal of Washington, D.C. Dr. Rosenthal thanked president for the invitation to come. He spoke of the application being received by the President’s Committee on Juvenile Delinquency, stating it was the first time ever that such a request had been made. He said it was also the first time that funds have ever been granted, and the first time in history that funds have been designated to any Chamber of Commerce. Whatever the Chamber of Commerce decides to do with these funds he said they can do, within certain limitations. He spoke on other area problems, which varied somewhat, as well as a variety of solutions. “America’s Youth,” he said, “are in trouble and we adults have a job to do. These kids are going to be us very soon and we are going to have to deal with them.”

“Seaside, Oregon, National Guardsmen were resisted violently, even at the point of their bayonets, and the night following their riot the youth came back and did $5,000.00 damage to one building alone. On the other hand Ft. Lauderdale had no riot. He believed it was because police worked out a relationship with the youth. I have worked all my life with young folks, old people and individuals from all walks of life. I believe we must let youth of today express themselves, but we must not let them do anything they want to do. We must somehow communicate with them. These might be your kids or mine.”

Dr. Rosenthal continued, “Something is happening in our country today, that we cannot understand. What makes it possible for these ‘kooks’ to lead others and other intelligent teenagers to follow them, to charge into loaded shotguns. If it was a war we would say they are wonderful. We now say they can’t be that bad. If they are that bad we are in worse trouble than we were last Labor Day.”

“We must not play tiddley winks with them. There are those who are now planning for 4th of July and Labor Day but I am willing to wager the planners are in the great minority. One solution may be to keep them out illegally. We do not know whether this program will work or not, but we are dealing with the lives of people. Tradition is being broken at Hampton and no place in this country is today the same as it was ten years ago. Society has changed, kids have cars, buzz radios at their ears, and we have trouble understanding it.”

“These kids have no place at Hampton Beach, but neither do they have any place at Boston, or Cape Cod, or anywhere else. People resent change and everywhere things are changing. We try to hold on to something we don’t have anymore. Watch out, the kids might take up the cudgel the day after the Fourth or the day after Labor Day. Resentment has risen in us against them and in them against us. We can control them by using National Guardsmen and all types of force, but it seems to me as we talk about ‘kooks’, perhaps we ought to look at ourselves, and consider the kind of greeting kids receive when they get here.”

Dr. Rosenthal said he did not intend to become embroiled in whether or not the TAR program should be tried at Hampton Beach but that he believed something different must be tried if Hampton is to succeed in coping with this drastic situation.

Chief Paul Leavitt was then introduced by President Vanderpool and he told of the outstanding improvement in the Hampton Police Force, working with the State Police and in combination with the National Guard. He spoke of having the assistance and advice of men, such as the County Psychologist from Dade County, Florida, and Sergeant of the Los Angeles, California Police who will be in Hampton to instruct our policemen in all the best and latest methods to cope with violence and law enforcement.

Leavitt said, “I imagine you would like to know where I stand.” The Police Department will be 1st. A law enforcement unit, with the State, County and Local officers. There has been a fourteen week training school, which ends tomorrow. Phase Two will be started immediately and includes a training course, paid for by the United States Government, and administered by the International Police Chiefs Association. Never before has any community in this country had the opportunity to have such outstanding training as is available to the Hampton Police officer, now.

All police will work with the community to prevent riots, as well as, to stop it and quickly if it starts. He stated that he went on record as being in favor of the best efforts and plans of both TAP and TAR. He will, however, veto any program or act, if he truly believes it necessary. The day of “Wine and Roses” is over at Hampton Beach, but he would not be foolish enough to think we can take a shot gun out on the beach and have these kids disappear.

A question and answer period followed. Henneka stated, at Ocean City, Maryland, a riot had been dispersed by the use of hundreds of police dogs. Mrs. Schuck asked if it was possible to have a choice between TAP and TAR. Vanderpool said at a later date a mass meeting will be scheduled for the purpose of the public expressing their opinions and the committees explaining their activities.

Dineen said he had not been named as a member of TAR, but that he had been recently appointed to the committee. He felt it was unusual that a businessman of his long standing and interest in the beach had not been called upon to express his opinion. He said, “I stand halfway between Mr. Salomon’s beliefs and those of Ralph Harris. I do not want to have four or five people from the Town of Hampton come down to Hampton Beach and tell us how to cope with our problem.”

Vanderpool immediately made public apology for not having recognized Dineen before, saying he hoped Dineen would consider his apology, if he felt one necessary.

Mr. Munroe said he didn’t think we should try to work with the kids. Bill Dunfey said when we have beach erosion at Hampton Beach, we bring in an expert and the Engineering Corp. We might make a few changes in their recommendation, but basically we feel they know the answer to the problem. Why then, don’t we listen to the experts in Sociology and Psychology in the fields necessary to deal with the situation such as ours. The real gap we are trying to bridge is something like this – Do we really believe what we learn in school and in church? Mr. Dunfey concluded saying he was strongly in favor of TAP and TAR.

Mr. Henneka urged that someone contact Ocean City, Maryland.

Robinson said he came to the meeting with a lot of wrong ideas. He had been listening to rumors all week and that now he had heard the proposals of the various committees, he would like to go on record as favoring these plans already made.

Another business lady asked if any of those on the TAR Committee had actually seen the riots at Hampton Beach. Elliot explained that he was a member of TAR Committee and had seen all riots at Hampton Beach, including 48 hours of continuous work during the 1964 version; that all three of the local men, Van Nostrand, Stone and Estever had spent 24 hours of the worst time of 1964 riot at Hampton Beach. He went on to say that perhaps none of the ideas we have will work, but I would not be guilty of not trying them.

He stressed that this was a nationwide problem, that this group in Hampton, New Hampshire, are endeavoring, not only to help themselves but to assist the United States of America in coming up with a plan of action that can be used wherever such activities occur.

President Vanderpool asked for a show of hands in favor and opposed to the work of the committees and the vote was overwhelmingly in favor.

After a few further questions and answers and short discussion, the visitors left the meeting and the Board of Directors were asked to make a decision on whether or not the application should be forwarded to the Spaulding Potter Foundation.

It was stressed by both Preston and President Vanderpool that the proposal for a program was tentative and that all the directors were asked to do at this time was to authorize TAR to make the application.

Cunningham moved and McCurdy seconded TAR be authorized to apply to the Spaulding Potter Foundation for the amount mentioned in the proposal sheet, which becomes a part of these records. Cann asked for a “Yes” “No” ballot. The president agreed but John Dunfey said he could see no reason why a show of hands could be objected to, that it was getting late and everyone was tired, a lot of time could be saved by not using a “Yes” “No” ballot. The vote was taken by a show of hands, a few directors present refrained from voting. There was one vote in opposition. The motion passed as stated overwhelmingly.

The meeting immediately adjourned at 11:15 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Bill Elliot, Sec.

The final, formal version of the Spaulding Potter application is included in the Addenda and represents a fairly clear statement of the purposes and details of the Hampton Beach Project as it was conceived at that date. The series of debates leading up to the approval for this application served effectively to clarify for the community and for the directors the direction the TAR program was taking. Although the debates had dealt with concepts embraced in a funding application rather than with specific program details, when the actual details of the initial program were presented two weeks later the directors approved them almost in entirely.

TAR Expanded – Program Presented

At the May 11th directors meeting Fallon’s two motions – to make TAR a full committee responsible to the directors, and to add three new members – were accepted. New members appointed by President Vanderpool were John Dineen, John Foley, a beach businessman and precinct commissioner and George Downer, owner of businesses both at Hampton and Hampton Beach. At the May 17th meeting of the TAR Committee and at the May 18th meeting of the directors, the following program outline for the young people was presented. Having learned our lesson over the difficulties with the white sheet, this time we passed out no mimeographed outlines but prepared a poster large enough so that its lettering could be seen across the floor of the meeting. With the exception of the American Youth Hostel item, which was deferred for subsequent discussion, the program outline was accepted virtually without debate by the directors.

May 15: Open temporary headquarters

May 16 – 22: Early youth membership drive
Hire four more full time workers for summer Meeting: Adult-youth committee
Start high school assembly program
Interview schedules – first filing May 20

May 23 – 29 Youth committees: research, programs, beach rules, ad hoc committees, etc.
On-beach research – fact finding (volunteers)
Job clearing-house
ID cards
Recreation consultant
Conference of youth and police – start American Youth Hostel program

May 30 – June 5: Start Youth Center Building
Establish July 4 program

June 6 – 12: Program #1 – Hoot, June 6
Hire final 2 full time workers
Interview Schedule final filing – June 12

June 13 – 19: Interview schedules – data processing
Youth Newspaper – start

The high school program mentioned under the heading “May 16” was to be a series of talks and conferences by me and possibly other volunteers to acquaint young people in surrounding communities with our project and the image of the Beach which was hopefully changing. Unfortunately, there was never time to attempt this scheme.

In making my presentation to the directors I stressed the fact that July 4th should properly be a dress rehearsal for Labor Day weekend and that not only should plans for the July 4th weekend be shaped up as quickly as possible but also a series of other smaller programs – of which the June 6th hootenanny would be the first – were necessary experimental steps to establish what could be successfully attempted by way of program within the limits of safety.

Further perusal of the TAR meeting minutes for May show that by the 24th we had received word that the Spaulding Potter application had been denied, since the fund’s directors felt that there was danger in over-financing projects like ours. Although we could tell ourselves that the various debates over the approval of the application had served the purpose of clarifying for the community the direction of the project, we were still in the serious position of being virtually without funds for a building and for entertainment program, particularly for the holiday weekends. In subsequent weeks we explored the possibility of everything from a circus tent on up in the area of building. However at that time we also continued the search for program funds; both the Rockefeller Foundation and New Hampshire’s Economic Opportunity Office were consulted, with inconclusive results, and finally it became apparent that the only source of funds would be from the community itself which, C of C fund-raising attempts had shown, offered a limited potential.

Conditional approval for the TAR Committee to attempt to raise funds was given by the Chamber of Commerce directors with the stipulation that the committee consult the Chamber officers to be sure that our efforts and theirs were not to be at cross purposes. In any case it was felt that any TAR solicitations should be deferred until after the early June Chamber of Commerce presentation of its “Fair Share” subscription and membership program.

Final TAR policy items considered in late May were the question of the American Youth Hostel program, which was deemed inadvisable, and the realignment of the budget so that the $1000 for the IACP-training program could be paid out of the line item allocated to project consultants.

Even at this date there was some question of the validity of spending several thousand dollars for consultation. Unfortunately one local newspaper item had taken the line that a lot of common sense was all that was needed and that professors were a lot of window dressing. To the embarrassment of everyone the salary figure for one consultant was incorrectly quoted to be something in excess of $30,000. One TAR member raised the question whether one consultant could do in the place of three, thus saving money for other efforts. The obvious answers were that the consultants were drawing no such astronomical figures as indicated and that each was a specialist in his own right and would contribute an added dimension to the research design.

One final item in the TAR minutes should be noted: Daniel Maloney, principal of the high school, stated strongly that the stringent police practices of these spring weeks had antagonized many young people with whom he came in contact. He noted that the attitude of the high school students through the fall had been fairly solidly behind the police but that restrictions now in effect were engendering a spirit of hostility from local young people – “not just the punks, but my school leaders.” The notation in the minutes says simply, No action was taken regarding police activities, and their actions were both defended and criticized.”

Through the month of May and into June the several sub-committees of TAR for civic and volunteer action met a number of times and made some steps toward concrete progress. In the case of all these volunteer committees there was initially required a period of orientation and subsequent general discussion which on occasion was time consuming. Frequently such committees draw strong minded individuals with private theories and solutions of their own. One individual, for instance, felt that it was of prime importance in solving Hampton’s problems to conduct a campaign to remove prurient literature from the news stands. Another person was prepared to take a group of youngsters, dress them in blankets, send them to the beach with guitars, get them arrested, and fight the case through to the Supreme Court if necessary in an attempt to discover where the line lay between conventional and preventative law enforcement. Counter arguments that the case might well be won but that the solution in terms of community action might be lost were not entirely sufficient to dampen the individual’s enthusiasm.

Community Committees

In theory the function of the various volunteer committees was to educate and involve as many persons from the business and lay communities as possible in the riot problem, to establish the fact that the riots were indeed a community problem of a social nature which demanded understanding and correction of attitudes in people of all ages.

Specifically the Civic Committee under Mr. Van Nostrand planned to break itself down into five sub-committees:

A. Business practices committee- to arbitrate disputes between young people and business operators and to hear grievances from both groups in regular informal sessions, perhaps over breakfast or coffee.

B. Housing committee – to organize a list of property owners, inform the owners when disturbances might arise in one of their properties during his absence, and in a variety of ways to bring special pressure to bear upon irresponsible landlords.

C. Research committee – to help administer the beach Business Attitude Survey and to help tabulate its results.

D. Beach observation committee – four to six people to circulate the beach on weekends and peak week nights recording in a systematic way their observations.

E. Parent-to-parent letter writing committee – to inform parents of out-of-town youths when their children were arrested at Hampton and to express the concern of the committee over the problem.

An additional committee of persons working directly with youth planned to supply volunteers for various youth programs, to help with fund raising, and to carry on an extensive press clipping function whose results would be collected in a cumulative scrapbook.

Also in line of community action Van Nostrand contacted the Massachusetts Council of Churches in a final effort to carry out the TAR Committee’s charge of seeing that sermons on the subject of youth responsibility were preached. The Council of Churches also expressed tentative interest in sponsoring a coffee house or some sort of other recreational program at Hampton Beach but was ultimately unable to carry through its intentions for lack of funds.

Research Planning

Under the heading of research planning during May, the interview schedule for ’64 riot arrestees was completed in its final form early in the month (see Addenda for copy). During these weeks the consultants also made a number of trips to Hampton Beach for personal observation of the activity and inspection of the youth and adult cultures there, to assist them in designing the interview schedules to be used during the summer.

By May 10th groups of interviewers from the University of New Hampshire, Tufts and St. Anselm’s had undergone training sessions with the interview for Labor Day arrestees. The list of names of those arrested was broken down as systematically as possible and teams of interviewers were sent to get in touch with them. Names of persons south of Massachusetts were dismissed as impracticable, but we hoped to be able to contact arrestees in the Springfield, Worcester, greater Boston, North shore, and Merrimac Valley areas, along with a good number from New Hampshire communities. An initial estimate for cost of time and travel showed that interviews would run to approximately $6.00 apiece, which the budget would adequately support.

However the first attempts to contact arrestees were discouraging. Some of the addresses were incorrect or the respondent would be away from home at school or at work. Even more disheartening was the reaction of the respondents themselves and especially their families. Many of them had found their contact with Hampton and the courts understandably disagreeable; they wanted nothing more to do with any representative of Hampton Beach at whatever level. One man tore up the interview and handed it back to the worker. Another worker was almost bodily ejected from one house. In still another instance a woman did not realize her daughter had been detained and warned by the Hampton police and the emotional explosion following the discovery made all hopes of an interview impossible.

Initial results from first attempts to carry through the survey showed that costs were running from $14 to $20 per interview and that the time required to reach an adequate sample of arrestees would not be available to the workers, who were themselves restricted by academic responsibilities. For this reason it was agreed that the interviews should be given not only to arrestees but to any young people we could contact who had been closely involved in the 1974 riot.

Also in May, Manning Van Nostrand submitted the final draft of the theoretical base which delineated the leading questions to be asked and hopefully answered by the demonstration and research. Further discussion of this document will be found in Mr. Van Nostrand’s summary of the research data.

At a conference in Boston on May 21st Van Nostrand and Dr. Kvaraceus consulted with Seymour Rosenthal, Dr. Israel Gerver and Dr. Jack Otis of the Division of Juvenile Delinquency to shape the research design for the summer and to review in detail some of the specific interview schedules and questions to be used therein. It was stressed by the Juvenile Delinquency representatives that the function of the research in this project was to evaluate the demonstration phase of the work and the response and possible change of attitude in the community as the demonstration phase progressed. It was also stressed that, unlike other departments, the Division of Juvenile Delinquency adhered to a concept of “aggressive consultation” with grantees, following its projects closely and actively advising as policy and methodology were developed. A complete schedule of data gathering instruments will be found in the section concerning itself with the month of June.

Youth Work and Planning

Organizational youth work through May progressed rapidly. In an early May meeting with the paid workers I indicated that, while I was perfectly willing to discuss program ideas and theories with them, the ultimate decisions would have to be my responsibility, that I would proceed on the best advice I could obtain from our project consultants and from Washington, taking into consideration the needs and desires expressed by the young people themselves, and we decided to let it go at that.

The weekend of May 8th saw some further contact with young people on the beach, but unfortunately the offer of a store on C Street had been withdrawn in the course of the debate over the Spaulding Potter application.

The same week I had the opportunity to talk at length with James Clark, a 22-year old Air Force man who lived year round at Hampton Beach. He described himself as a beach leader, a party giver, and stated that he had a following of 300 to 1000 young people.

Many of the program ideas under consideration in the TAR Committee jibed with those Clark now offered – naturally enough since we both had gone to the young people themselves as a source. However, when I spoke in terms of a youth building and some sort of loose organization, he was dubious of its success. Specifically, he spoke of his following as a clique and warned that any sort of outside organization superimposed on the beach society could very well be shunned by the beach regulars.

He stressed rather strongly the sort of parties he and his friends had had in previous years, frequently away from Hampton Beach. These were luaus with much food and beer and noise and obviously a certain amount of sex play- hardly the sort of program TAR was about to embrace. He saw his own role for the coming summer as a sort of mediator between the youth and the police, under which he would intercede on behalf of young people who were arrested and take them under his own brand of protective supervision.

Over the summer a number of us came to know Jimmy Clark quite well. He was a mixed blessing – well intentioned and energetic, and certainly with a wide acquaintance among the young people on the beach. Without his help the organization which subsequently came into being could not have grown nearly as quickly.

On the other hand, the parties of which he spoke with pride had not endeared him to the adult beach community. Several times they had drawn the attention of the police, and finally he agreed to call a moratorium on party giving, at least within the confines of the town of Hampton, for the season. In addition he had an unfortunate way of talking out of turn. Once, for instance, he said that he and Police Chief Paul Leavitt were buddies and that Leavitt would do anything to help him out, and the Chief nearly threw him off the beach. Several other times similar statements got him into similar predicaments, and only the active part he had played in the youth organization saved him from the ire of police or other officials.

In any case, on this evening of our first meeting I made it clear to him that the TAR program could not be bound by or identified with any clique, that the effort, if it were to be successful, had to be community wide and involve not only young people but adults, that no one individual, however popular or powerful, could hope to achieve the goal by himself. His pragmatic response was that the clique existed and could not be ignored but that he would do his best to help in the establishment of the TAR program.

All of us were aware of course, of the validity of some of his statements – that if the TAR program workers, adult or youth, paid or volunteer were branded as finks or do-gooders, we would be ignored by the “regular kids.” We could not hope to reach severe neurotics or hard-core troublemakers, but without the help of these regular kids – ordinarily law abiding to a reasonable extent, but potential followers when a riot got under way – our program could be largely ineffectual.

On May 11 the lieutenant who served as state police liaison with the TAR Committee and the youth project, came to my home and we conferred for perhaps two and a half hours. I explained to him the history and growth of the project concepts, and we went over in detail the program elements immediately coming up including the youth center building and a possible hootenanny to be organized subsequent to exploratory conferences between young people and representatives of both state and town police.

The lieutenant was fully cooperative. He said that his personal philosophy concurred with the TAP-TAR program and that he felt it would be healthy to provide young people the opportunity to engage in activities of their own and to provide their own controls so that direct police supervision would not be necessary. He said that he felt most young people were decent if given half a chance and that he was delighted to see an effort like the Hampton Beach Project under way. While he could not speak for Colonel Regan, he said he would keep the colonel posted on our plans as they progressed and that he himself would be available to us whenever we needed him.

I told him quite candidly that I hoped the stringent police measures then in effect at Hampton Beach could be somewhat relaxed as the young people demonstrated step by step their ability to supervise themselves. He agreed that the measures were stringent but said that until a new atmosphere could be developed the police had no choice but to be tough, and we discussed various incidents of the past two weeks in the light of this viewpoint. One important point of agreement was that police action is often misunderstood by the casual onlooker, particularly so in a situation like that at Hampton Beach; therefore a valuable function of a youth organization could be to interpret such misunderstandings, to be a two-way channel of communication through which police and the young people could come to understand each other better.

Youth Headquarters Opened Weekends

During that same week we obtained the loan of a store for our temporary headquarters at the beach through the generosity of George Downer. It was an excellent location, on the corner of Ocean Boulevard and A Street, well-lighted and about 30′ by 70′ in size. Borrowing some plank tables and some chairs from the Methodist Church and from several private individuals, we opened up for business for about two hours on the afternoon of Sunday, May 16th. There were three of us – one worker from UNH, one adult volunteer and myself. Bearing in mind the various failures to find an organizational name, we put up a sign that said simply “The Project – Temporary Headquarters.” The effect was the desired one, unpretentious but sufficient to arouse the curiosity of the passer-by.

In the course of that two hours we were able to entice perhaps 30 young people to come in to talk. Invariably their first complaint was about police restrictions and our response was, in effect, that if they didn’t like it then it was up to them to do something about it. We reminded them that the police are a military organization acting on orders, that the orders came from the community, and that the community perfectly understandably felt that vigilant police work was in order. Hampton had suffered through a war the previous Labor Day and they weren’t about to let it happen again.

The young people agreed that a beach resort is a place where one supposedly goes to have fun and that things had become pretty bad when the community’s only choice was to establish a state of armed truce. Obviously the conclusion, then, was somehow to return to a normal state of peace.


The community had taken the first step toward the restoration of peace, we pointed out, by virtue of our presence in this store. Through our efforts the community was offering youth the opportunity to establish and organize some sort of a responsible body, and it was up to that body to take the second step if they wished to have restored the privileges now lost to them. Responses varied from enthusiasm to doubt, but when we closed business for the day we had the names and vital statistics of more than 25 young people in our 3 x 5 card file. Specifically we asked for address, phone number, date of birth and the frequency with which they visited the beach.

On May 19th I met again with the state police liaison lieutenant at the Concord Armory and went over with him in detail the five week youth program just approved by the Chamber of Commerce directors. The lieutenant was enthusiastic and said he would apprise Colonel Regan of these facts. On the schedule specifically were a tentative hootenanny for June 6 and an early June target date for the establishment of July Fourth plans. I described our recruitment drive of the previous weekend and said that as a first step in establishing communications between young people and police I hoped to have him and Chief Leavitt meet briefly with several of those who would be paid workers the following Sunday afternoon, May 23. The lieutenant said he would be at Hampton Beach that day and would make a point of meeting with us.

Two days later I received a phone call from Bill Elliot at the Chamber of Commerce to say that State Police Capt. Marchand, in charge of the Exeter division and thus Hampton, had just visited and was much upset at a rumor he had heard about a hootenanny on Hampton Beach. The captain reported that Col. Regan was similarly alarmed. I immediately phoned the liaison lieutenant who said I was not to worry and that everything would be taken care of.

Membership in Youth Organization Grows

On the weekend of May 22 – 23, we kept our temporary headquarters store open both days approximately from 10:00 to 5:00. Both days we had the assistance of two crew members from UNH and St. Anselm’s along with volunteers in the persons of Richard Hammond and my wife. The workers would go out, introduce themselves and the concept of the project and urge respondents to come to the store to discuss the matter further. Saturday was a little slow, but by Sunday afternoon the word began to get around and young people were coming in in such large groups that we had to talk to them 20 and 30 at a time. Again there were doubts and reassurances – and many new signatures. By the time we closed business Sunday afternoon there were 210 “members” in the as yet unnamed new youth organization.

A visitor for Sunday had been Dr. James Wylie of Boston University School of Education, who was acting in the capacity of consultant on sports and recreation. Not only did he voice some enthusiasm about our methods and progress, but he pitched in with the afternoon’s recruiting work when the traffic was heavy. A breakdown of the membership as of May 23rd showed that of the 210 who had signed in, 144 were male and 66 were female; the age range was as follows:


The geographical breakdown of the group was as follows: Local (within 20 miles) – 70; Merrimack Valley (Mass.) – 61; Central New Hampshire – 26; Central Mass. – 18; Greater Boston – 9; miscellaneous – 5.

For the scheduled late afternoon conference between the workers and the police I had asked several of the workers who had been tied up with exams to come down specifically between the hours of four and five. During Sunday morning and again in the afternoon I checked several times with state police troopers at the beach to see whether the liaison lieutenant was in the vicinity. No one knew for sure, but it was thought that he was in Hanover. When five o’clock came, Chief Leavitt appeared and talked with the workers, but the liaison lieutenant never arrived.

Since it now appeared that there was somewhere a breakdown in communications between the project and the state police, I phoned Col. Regan and made an appointment to meet him twenty minutes before the Blandin Commission convened at the State House early the following week.

Search for Consensus with State Police

When we met, he immediately announced that he was totally opposed to the project’s concept of entertainment for the young on the beach. He stated he was admittedly prejudiced but he felt that it was not feasible to undertake such a project after the beating his men had taken last year. For several minutes then we went over our previous conversation and agreements and I emphasized that any such programs would be taken step by step and expanded only as experience indicated it was safe to do so. In the end the colonel agreed “It might work” and suggested we place the matter before the Blandin Commission that morning.

At this time the Blandin Commission had plenty of other work at hand. The first draft of their lengthy report and recommendations was before them for review and revision. For something more than three hours on this day those members present went through the draft line by line striving for clarity and consensus. Not until long past what should have been the lunch hour did they have an opportunity to consider the practical questions of program which both Colonel Regan and I were anxious to have resolved.

Colonel Regan opened the discussion by stating, as he had in the past, that although he had not sought the responsibility he nevertheless felt that the safety of Hampton Beach rested solely with him and that he was dubious about the TAR program.

I in turn reviewed the concepts of the TAR Committee and its program and described our meetings with young people in recent weeks, presenting at the same time the breakdown of membership to that date. I indicated that the response of the young people to the idea of an organization through which they might demonstrate their responsibility and regain some lost privileges had been accepted with enthusiasm and that I felt to falter at this stage could severely cripple the program’s progress. Most of the subsequent dialogue on this matter was between one member of the Commission and myself.

He stated that he personally disliked the idea of bargaining with young people for their good behavior and he felt that they should demonstrate their willingness not to cause trouble for a certain interim before any programs were attempted – at least until after the Fourth of July. My response was that the young people to whom I had talked equally disliked the idea of bargaining for what they felt were their constitutional rights at a public beach and that my answer to both viewpoints was that this is not a question of bargaining either for rights or for good behavior, but rather a search for understanding and good will on the part of both the adults and the youth communities. I noted that it seemed to be generally agreed that July 4th should be used as a test weekend for Labor Day and that if this was to be done there would need to be several smaller projects tried before July 4th weekend to determine what programs could be effective and safe.

When the Commission member asked me whether or not I had promised the young people a hootenanny for June 6, I said that I had not promised the young people anything but I had been given encouragement to believe that, if a conference of police and young people could clear the way for activities such as a hootenanny, it would be seriously considered. I went on to say that the Chamber of Commerce had cleared this program element and, further, that the lieutenant who had been assigned the responsibility of liaison had given me no reason to believe that there would be any opposition to it by the state police.

When various other members of the group joined in the discussion, the consensus was that it was not the function of the Blandin Commission to determine what should or should not be specific program elements – that these decisions should be made by the community and the various police departments. They indicated their hope that the colonel and the TAR Committee could come to an agreement on these matters, and we agreed to do our best. After the meeting the colonel suggested that I call him next morning to make an appointment for later that week.

When I did so, I was told that he was out for the day. A little uncertain what step I should take next, I conferred with Richard Stone and Chief Paul Leavitt, reviewing for them the events of the previous day. Leavitt’s comment on that and several other occasions was that as a policeman he felt no obligation to accept advice on police matters from any layman, however well-intentioned. The fact that the IACP was in support of the TAR Project and that Lt. Norman Kassoff of the IACP had been a part of the police department effort to sponsor a similar program at Fort Lauderdale was, Leavitt said, what had convinced him that such a program should be tried at Hampton Beach. Colonel Regan, he felt, regarded lay intervention in police matters in a similar light, and since the state police at that point had not had contact with the IACP personnel their viewpoint was probably that Hampton Beach was primarily a police matter rather than a community problem. Further Leavitt noted that when I was backed into a corner I tended to push my argument too strongly, to talk too fast.

At Leavitt’s suggestion, I then called Colonel Regan and said that I owed him an apology and that I tended to get carried away with my enthusiasms. He agreed that this was true but accepted the apology gracefully and agreed to meet with me and Stone at Hampton Beach the coming Friday.

Thus on Friday afternoon, May 29th, we did meet in the Colonel’s car. For the benefit of Captain Marchand who was also present we went over the history of the TAR program and its hypothesis that an active organization of young people could be a deterrent through the summer and on Labor Day. We indicated that the 200-odd young people presently in the program were only a beginning and that we hoped to have 2,000 to 3,000 by the season’s conclusion. Once again we apologized for any apparent unilateral planning and said we had presumed that the liaison had implied state police approval.

First Songfest Tentatively Approved

We were joined then by Chief Leavitt who indicated that he felt the TAR program should at every stage be evaluated with great caution but that he felt it would be wise to undertake the first steps at this time. After further discussion the colonel agreed to go along with a hootenanny on the beach provided it was held in a carefully restricted area well away from the so-called combat zone just north of the Seashell complex. Further, he said he would arrange to have Lt. Paul O’Leary, now in charge of the Hampton Beach area, join in a discussion with a committee from the youth organization the following Monday, May 31st.

On the morning of May 31st I again met the colonel and he stated a second time that Lt. O’Leary would be available for the afternoon’s conference. A moment later I encountered Lt. O’Leary himself and repeated the colonel’s conversation. Lt. O’Leary said he would speak to the colonel about it.

Over the weekend of May 29-31 recruitment continued at our A Street temporary headquarters. Now in addition to one or two paid workers, along with Hammond and my wife, we found that the young people themselves were taking over the function of bringing in prospective members and explaining to them what the new organization was to do. Particularly active at this time were Jimmy Clark and several of his friends, and it was Jimmy who made a point of introducing me to Mary Flanders and Jack Derby, both in their early twenties, and both among the strongest leaders that the youth organization had through the summer.

Encouraged by our several conferences with Colonel Regan and by similar reassurances from Chief Leavitt, these young people and I discussed at some length how the new organization should be structured and how quickly it could actually get going. It was obvious that we were growing very fast – almost a hundred members a day.

Certainly, part of this rapid growth and quick sense of an organization shaping up was as a result of many hours of prior discussion and planning on the part of Clark and his friends. They even had a tentative name for the organization – CAVE – the Committee to Avoid Violent Eruptions. Subsequent comments that the acronym was not exactly uplifting, it seemed to me, were compensated by the fact that this was the young people’s own choice and that they were enthusiastic enough about it to experiment with designs and monograms and drawings of cave men and women.

At the conclusion of Saturday afternoon we agreed that if membership continued to climb as it had through this day we would be able to call a mass meeting by Sunday afternoon and be well enough organized by Monday afternoon for the conference with the police. Since we knew that Cy Rosenthal would be visiting from Washington on Sunday, we decided to ask his advice before making a final decision.

CAVE Established

Sunday was Memorial Day and turned out as warm and bright as mid-summer. During the course of the day the beach crowd grew to several thousand, in light clothing and bathing suits, sunning themselves if not actually swimming. The braver ones paddled in the ocean.

By 2:00 pm activity in the temporary headquarters had been brisk enough and the young people were impatient enough to get going that we made our decision to have a mass meeting at four o’clock. Several announcements were put out over the Chamber of Commerce P.A. system and we sent forth as many young people as possible to spread the notice by word of mouth. As four o’clock drew near it was with some satisfaction that we watched young people drifting toward our store. An organization sprung into life hardly more than a week ago had, with a few announcements, drawn some 220 people by actual count to its first meeting.

Fairly promptly at four o’clock we called the meeting to order. Rosenthal and I both spoke briefly to describe what the organization aspired to be and what its importance was, not only to Hampton Beach but to young people across the country. We asked that any members interested in taking an active part in shaping the organization or carrying out its programs remain afterward to join one of three committees on membership and publicity, rules or program. There was to be a fourth committee to establish a name, but CAVE was accepted by acclamation in the general meeting.

Committee Structure of CAVE

Immediately following the general meeting the various committees went into session to elect chairmen and other officers and to shape their work for the days immediately coming. On the following day each of the committees met one more time, then combined for an afternoon meeting with representatives of the two police forces.

The primary function of Membership and Publicity was determined to be the making up of signs and handbills, both to draw new members and to publicize whatever events CAVE might be allowed to schedule. There were poster and drawing materials to be procured, mimeographing facilities to be borrowed, and people with artistic abilities to be recruited.

The Program Committee spent much time debating the sorts of events CAVE might be able to put on with any sort of success and the locales where they might be held. Discussion ranged over the gamut from sand-castle building and athletic events through parades, hootenannies and dances. In the end the latter two were held to be the only ones desirable and practicable. In actual fact, the term “hootenanny” was rather quickly dropped, since there were not available the professional performers with sufficient repertoire to carry off an audience participation program effectively. Instead the term songfest was used as more accurate and as one friendly police officer suggested, less flamboyant sounding. Various members of the Program Committee were assigned the tasks of finding guitar and banjo players and singers who would come to Hampton Beach the following Sunday to lead informal singing and to perform in the event that a songfest were allowed for that date.

The matters at first considered by the Rules Committee were questions of structure, membership and laws. After considerable debate it was decided that, at least in the foreseeable future, CAVE would have no general officers or governing body but would continue with its present loose sort of committee structure, combining the committees for important decisions when necessary. The age range for membership was established at 13 years minimum and 25 years maximum, and was held throughout the summer with a few exceptions – inadvertent ones for the most part. The Rules Committee also worked out a rather clearly defined statement that the function of CAVE was primarily to eliminate the cause of riots rather than to eliminate riots themselves through constructive activities and a general code of reasonably lawful behavior.

There was initially a great deal of concern that a few tough kids could join the organization in the hope of evading police measures when and if they found themselves in trouble. It was feared that such individuals could rather quickly ruin CAVE’s image and potential good name. Ultimately it was decided that CAVE would accept any new member who presented himself in good faith, even though he might have had past difficulties with police; however as new cases occurred involving CAVE members they would be brought before the Rules Committee for such action as was deemed necessary. Even this decision was recognized as tentative, for there was not clear consensus what disciplinary action might effectively be taken. An organization in its infancy hesitates to set up barriers to membership or regulations which would eject members, once they are recruited.

Several additional notes on committees; Although the age of CAVE members at this time and throughout the summer averaged a little less than seventeen, the early committees had a strong representation of young people in their twenties who formed a natural leadership of the organization. A few of these older people were active, at least intermittently, through the summer but several of them made a point of dropping out or simply ceased to come after the July Fourth period when they sensed they had no genuine voice in establishing policy. At the outset they were interested in the challenge of leadership they felt had been offered to them rather than in the programs as such, especially since dancing and singing were more to the interest of the teenagers. Particularly they were challenged by the concept that CAVE, in its group function, could aid the relationship between youth and adult societies and as a result moderate the regime of rigid law enforcement.

One other thing we learned rather quickly about committees was that with a few significant exceptions it was best not to load one chairman, or key member, with too much responsibility. Particularly in the casual life of a beach resort where lives were less ordered by the clock than in winter circumstances, no one individual wanted to carry the whole load, and any number of individuals might forget to appear at an appointed hour. For this reason each committee ultimately had not only a chairman but as many as two co-chairmen, any one of whom could act in the others’ stead. meetings were scheduled for late afternoon or early evening rather than morning, and often times it was found easier to quiz individual committee members on a matter as we caught up with them on a corner or they dropped into headquarters, than it was to schedule a formal meeting.

Meetings with Police

However this was more characteristically true as the summer progressed than it was during the early days of CAVE’s existence when everything was new and there was little other distracting activity on the beach. On the afternoon of Monday, May 31, at four o’clock the combined committees met to discuss our approach to the police representatives when they appeared at five. I assured them I had within the day contacted both state and local police and that both had promised to send representatives at the appointed hour. I also relayed to them Chief Leavitt’s request that the first songfest be held away from the combat zone, and after some consideration the committee settled on an area north of the Marine Memorial, that is to say well away from the center of the beach and the heavily populated portion of the boardwalk, but within easy walking distance of our A Street headquarters.

It was decided that the committee chairmen, about seven of the older people, would be the principal spokesmen at the outset but that the entire committee membership would be welcome to contribute once the initial presentation had been made. The store was swept, the ashtrays were emptied, the tables were arranged in a hollow square with chairs at the head reserved for the guests and some 35 young people settled down to wait.

Five o’clock came, but no police appeared. At ten minutes past five a quick phone call to Chief Leavitt indicated that he had been momentarily tied up but was on his way. But Lt. O’Leary of the state police was nowhere to be found. None of the troopers about the beach could tell me where he was, nor did a phone call to the Exeter barracks clarify the matter. I left an urgent message reminding him of the meeting and returned to the A Street store to find Chief Leavitt waiting at the entrance. He was most reluctant to undertake the conference without the participation of the state police, but when it got to be half past five it was clear that we could wait no longer so the chief and I settled in our places and I opened the meeting for discussion.

This first direct confrontation between a police official and a representative body from a youth organization was unusually significant. Up to this point I could act as a go-between, assuring the police and community what the young people would be willing to do, and assuring the young people what the police and community would be willing to do. Now it was time for me to be still and let the various parties speak for themselves.

It was a rewarding experience. Chief Leavitt asked a good many difficult questions in the course of the next half hour, and the answers he received were direct, honest, thoughtful. The young people were deadly serious and it was wholly apparent. To open the meeting the various chairmen explained what their committees had determined, and in the course of the explanations indicated the scope and the direction of the CAVE organization, including the hoped-for songfest the following Sunday.

Leavitt then asked them how they could guarantee that there would be no trouble if such an event was held, and their response was that there could of course be no guarantee but that they were working in a realm of probabilities, that they would do everything within their power to see that a songfest would be orderly and that the songs would be kept within limits of good taste.

What if some tough guys tried to cause trouble? They would be turned over to the authorities. If there were trouble at a first event, would the young people then understand that the scheduling of a second event would be much more difficult? Absolutely. If it were necessary for reasons as yet unseen to call off the event at the last minute, would the young people understand? Again yes.

The questions and answers continued in this vein until after six o’clock, at which time the chief said that his general inclination was to favor such a movement but that he could not make the decision without the concurrence of the selectmen, the Parks Department and the state police, all of whom would have to be consulted. For this reason a second conference was scheduled for the following Wednesday evening in hope of fuller police representation and a more definitive conclusion.

After the chief left there were many questions. The young people were familiar enough with the beach setup to realize that without concurrence from both police departments no program could take place. What did I think of their chances? The only answer I could give was that I honestly did not know but that I would do everything I could.

Counsel from Washington

Shortly thereafter I placed a call to Cy Rosenthal in Washington. On this occasion and on a number of others, both before and afterward, we found that staff members of the Division of Juvenile Delinquency an invaluable aid in coping with problems both large and small. Particularly in the early stages of the Project’s development, Rosenthal was a frequent visitor to the beach, and he made it a point to be available anytime by phone. Previously he had pointed out that in projects of this nature the lay persons in charge were more inclined than not to shoulder the entire burden themselves instead of calling upon professional advice to help with problems of program and community development.

On this occasion I told Rosenthal I was up a tree. In the process of trying to establish a youth program I had forced myself on the state police to the point that I had found it necessary to apologize. Yet neither nagging nor patient waiting seemed to achieve the desired end. It seemed to me that they were obviously reluctant to see the program carried forward. Beyond going back to nag some more I couldn’t see what to do.

After he had heard the details of the negotiations between the police and the project personnel for the past several weeks, Rosenthal suggested we now make the assumptions in talking with state police officials that Lt. O’Leary’s absence from the conference was unavoidable, that since the state police had promised to help carry through this initial program they would continue to be of assistance. Now it would be in order to tell them that the meeting had gone well and that we had scheduled one final conference expressly because we wanted the state police to have the opportunity to participate.

Subsequent conversations with Colonel Regan and Lt. O’Leary along these lines proved effective. Both said they were glad the conference had gone well with Chief Leavitt; Lt. O’Leary explained that he had been called away to a fire and promised to be present at the coming conference the following Wednesday.

On the night of May 31st an examination of our 3 x 5 cards showed that our organization had doubled over the weekend. Total membership was 479, the average age was increasing a little, and the area representation was beginning to have the heavy Merrimack Valley concentration it continued to show through the summer. For a detailed summary of the CAVE membership for the entire summer, see Page 222a. Had we continued to pick up new members older than 18 at the rate we did over this weekend, CAVE might have been a stronger organization. Note also that at this point the proportional representation from local areas was much heavier than it was as the summer progressed.

The age range was as follows:

. . . . . . .AGE . . . . .

The geographical breakdown was as follows: Local (20-mile radius) – 176; Other New Hampshire – 60; Merrimack Valley – 202; Central Mass. – 39; Greater Boston – 26.

Although our final tally does not break our figures down by city, it was quite clear that Lowell, Massachusetts, far outstripped any other community in its representation of young people at Hampton Beach. At this time there were 87 members from the various Hamptons and 97 from Lowell.