Mr. HEADLEY. He writes slips to the men-I don't know precisely, but from what I have seen-I have stood there many a time waiting there, and I have seen them write slips and give them to the drivers.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. The driver of the Federal Taxicab Co.?

Mr. HEADLEY. Yes.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Does he solicit business, to your knowledge?
Mr. HEADLEY. No, sir; if he did I would arrest him.

Mr. LANHAM. Is he an employee of the Federal Taxicab Co.? Mr. HEADLEY. Yes, sir; I rather think he is. He has a sign on his hat. I imagine he writes slips for the drivers. I would like the committee to know that the police department is very desirous of having this done by this committee in order that these men may know just what their rights are; so that we will know, because we do not want to do an injustice to anyone; we have no fight with anybody.

Mr. LANHAM. You want to treat them all right, and you want to know what the proper laws and regulations are in order to bring that about?

Mr. HEADLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Well, I understand from the letter I have from Mr. Brownlow that it is the desire of the commissioners to keep the public streets for the use of the people of the District, and that they have endeavored-the corporation counsel states here that they have endeavored to break up such a practice that is, allowing the use of the public streets by the taxicab companies as garages; so that you, being a part of the District government, I would assume that that is the policy of the police department?

Mr. HEADLEY. Yes, sir. Our corporation counsels have repeatedly made regulations to cover this situation, and they have failed; and I know it is wasting my time to attempt to write any regulation that covers it, except this particular one that I have ventured now, that they must not leave their stands until individually notified, or they intend to leave the vicinity of the place where they may be parked. Mr. ZIHLMAN. Have you anything more, captain?

Mr. HEADLEY. I have nothing more.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. The committee will stand adjourned until Monday morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 4.35 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 o'clock a. m., Monday, March 15, 1920.)

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE
ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Monday, March 15, 1920.

The committee met at 10.15 o'clock a. m., Hon. Frederick N. Zihlman presiding.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. The committee will be in order. We will hear this morning from Mr. Odell S. Smith, who is representing the Washington Board of Trade on the pending bill.

STATEMENT OF ODELL S. SMITH, REPRESENTING THE WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I would just like to say one or two words on the general bill, as the board of trade stands for it.

In the first place we are very much in favor and very anxious that we should have a traffic court. We believe that would facilitate the work very much, would help the police department and help the citizens, and we desire, I think, to have that separate from the police court if possible—have it a special court.

Secondly, we are very anxious that in the granting of licenses an examination to some extent should be given so as to ascertain whether a man is color blind or whether he can see, or whether he has the ability to run an automobile.

Mr. LANHAM. You think there ought to be some examination also as to the character of the applicant?

Mr. SMITH. Absolutely.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Have you read the section of the bill that pertains to that, Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. Only hurriedly, sir, and so I was not going to argue along that line at all, but I would like to take up your article 18.

Mr. LANHAM. Just before you come to that, with reference to this traffic court, do you know whether or not the business could be so arranged with the present police court as now organized that special days could be set aside for the hearing of traffic cases, and that the same results could not be had in that court as now constituted?

Mr. SMITH. I should say that in our little pamphlet of resolutions that the board of trade adopted we have suggested that if the first thing I have suggested can not be done, until such time as that can be accomplished, the police court judges be requested to set aside a certain time in a day or a certain day in a week on which those cases could be heard.

Mr. LANHAM. The evidence here seems to show that there is a little falling off of some kinds of cases by reason of the passing of the recent prohibition legislation, and perhaps they will have a little more time hereafter to look after traffic cases.

Mr. SMITH. I suppose the real true angle could only be obtained from the legal profession of the District of Columbia who are conversant with that matter. An ordinary citizen that does not appear before the police court very often could not tell you very much about that line of work.

66

Mr. LANHAM. Now, with reference to the board of trade, the board of trade is an organization of members here in the city, is it? Mr. SMITH. The name Board of Trade" is a misnomer in a certain way. For instance, we do not deal in margins or meat or anything like that, as a regular board of trade.

Mr. LANHAM. I just wanted it in the record just whom you repre

sent.

Mr. SMITH. It is a civic organization for the betterment of Washington in all lines. We number now about 2,000. There were over 1,500 paid members last year.

Mr. LANHAM. It is a different organization from your chamber of commerce?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; distinctly different. While members belong to both organizations, it is a distinct organization of its own. Mr. OVERSTREET. They have the same object in view?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. In regard to your article 18, I have no ax to grind with anybody; I don't own an automobile myself; I have no stock in either of the automobile organizations in the city, but it seems to me that there are three parties interested in that articlewell, maybe four: first, the general public; second, the Union Station. or the Terminal Co., the hotels; third, the organized taxicab companies; and fourth, the individual men who earn a living by renting their cabs for hire.

I think, to be fair, that as far as possible any man, whether he belongs to a corporation or whether he is an individual, should have the same rights, and yet you can not exactly give everybody the same right. When you buy a home and there is only 25 feet in front of it you have a special right in front of that house, notwithstanding that it is a public street, more than I would have who live perhaps a mile away. You have the right to park there a little while. It would be unfair to you and unfair to the public if I, who live a mile or two away from there, should come and park my automobile in front of your house all the time. So that when a hotel or a railroad, if you choose, sets up its establishment, it has-I don't mean under the laws-but morally it has some little right there that I would not have. There has grown up-at the Union Station it has somewhat subsided, but a year or two ago the conditions there were very bad. Before Maj. Pullman had the street roped off and made it one-way street, there was a continuous circle of men with their taxicabs riding around.

Mr. LANHAM. Did Maj. Pullman have that done of his own initiation?

Mr. SMITH. Well, I would not say, for I do not know. I think he did it, however, on the advice of his men-of Capt. Headley.

Mr. LANHAM. Of course, that is private property down there, and I was just wondering what the circumstances were under which he would go in on private property.

I

Mr. SMITH. I could not say how that was, but it was through his advice and sanction that it was done. Now that condition has been removed a little bit to the west, and the same revolving proposition goes on there, which makes it extremely dangerous to the public and very annoying. Now, I can not go into the legal proposition. know the condition very well up there, but I can not go into the legal part of it; but it seems to me that, if possible, both the Terminal Taxicab Co. and these other men should have their rights and have them reserved, and I should think that a public stand some place should be made for the individual men, and they should be made to remain there until they get a job.

Mr. LANHAM. By individual men you mean individual owners or men who individually operate their own cars for hire?

Mr. SMITH. Men who operate their cars for hire. That is done in New York and is done in most large cities that I have visited. There is a dead line across which these men can not come. They can go there and solicit and get their passengers and then bring up their car or take the passengers to the car. I think that is feasible and

fair; but as it stands at the present time it is rather unfair to the public and to the men themselves, because the first man that gets there gets the job, and of course they are all trying to get there first, and that operates against the public.

That same condition exists to-day-or did exist in front of the Willard Hotel, the Raleigh, and the Hotel Washington. Especially in front of the Willard it is a bad proposition, and in our report we have suggested, instead of center parking in Pennsylvania Avenue, side parking be established.

Mr. LANHAM. You mean parking at the curb?

Mr. SMITH. Parking at the curb; not head in but back in.

Also as a general proposition-one gentleman just called my attention to what Maryland is trying to do. It seems to me to put everybody on an equal footing; that everybody who runs a public conveyance, whether it is a corporation or an individual, their chauffeurs should be bonded. .

Mr. LANHAM. It would be a pretty good thing for the bonding companies, wouldn't it?

Mr. SMITH. I am not speaking for the bonding companies, sir; I am speaking for the public.

Mr. LANHAM. Do you suggest the incorporation of something of that kind in this bill?

Mr. SMITH. I believe it would be a good thing, sir.

Mr. LANHAM. Do you know of any State which has a blanket provision of that character, requiring a bond from every operator of an automobile?

Mr. SMITH. Now, I am not going as far as every automobile operator, only to the man who is a public conveyancer.

Mr. LANHAM. Well, do you know of any State that has that provision?

Mr. SMITH No; I do not; but it seems to me that that would do two things; it would make a driver extremely careful, because he would hate to lose his bond and his job, and it would make the man employing him seek to get good men.

Mr. LANHAM. Do you know of a city where that has been tried or required?

Mr. SMITH. I am not sure, but I think New York does it. Now, I am not sure of that; and I believe also that there should be—that the company should carry liability insurance.

Mr. LANHAM. Why, in your opinion, should a provision of that character be made with reference to drivers for hire and not with reference to individual drivers?

Mr. SMITH. Well, when I came up here I did not prepare along that line; I came simply as a common-carrier proposition. Here is a man who goes out to carry you or me. If anything happens, how am I safeguarded? Should I not be safeguarded?

Mr. LANHAM. Looking at it from the standpoint of the injured party, who may be injured by infraction of the law by a driver of an auto, it doesn't make much difference to him when he is injured whether he is injured by a public driver or by a private individual, and why should the injured party be discriminated against by requiring a bond of the chauffeur who drives for hire and not requiring one from the private individual who may injure him?

Mr. SMITH. I was thinking not only of the accident on the street that might occur by coming in contact with some individual walking or some other vehicle, but by the occupant of the car, more than the other proposition. It might be a great hardship, but I don't know but that it would be a good thing for the public if these men were bonded; but I would not want to go into that question.

Mr. LANHAM. Now, let me suggest this, as throwing a little light upon what a big proposition it would be to require practically a universal bond, that any man walking along the street has a splendid opportunity to burglarize. He is doing a lawful thing in walking along the street, just as an automobile driver is pursuing a lawful occupation in driving along the street; why not require a bond of the citizens to the effect that they shall not burglarize houses?

Mr. SMITH. Well, of course, that is rather far-fetched in its conclusions.

Mr. LANHAM. The only difference perhaps is that in automobile accidents it is a personal injury, and in burglary it is a property loss. Why not protect people in their property as well as in their persons?

Mr. SMITH. Well, a good many people do, you know, insure themselves against burglary.

Mr. LANHAM. I understand, but that is the other end of it. People can insure themselves against automobile accidents, too, by taking out accident insurance, but that does not protect them against a man who inflicts injury.

Mr. SMITH. But I contend this, that if I go up to you and say: "I am at your service," I ought to be in some position to protect your life and protect any injury that might come to you.

Mr. LANHAM. I am not arguing necessarily against that, Mr. Smith; I am just trying to present the proposition that this is a good big authority, and I am just wondering if there is any precedent for it already established in any city or State.

Mr. SMITH. I could not say. I think New York has some such law, but I would not want to say that it has.

Then another subject to be brought up along the same line is an insurance deposit with the commissioners to protect the public. Mr. LANHAM. To be given by all licensed drivers?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANHAM. Individuals as well as those offering their vehicles. for hire?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. That is a general proposition.

That is about all I have to say, sir. I believe that these men, whether they are individuals-I think the board of trade stands behind me-whether they are individuals or whether they are corporations, as near as possible should have equal rights, but the terminal proposition has gone to a bad place up there where the individual men keep continually going around in that circle. It is a bad proposition. I believe there ought to be a public stand there where they can go. And the same thing should be done on the

Avenue.

Mr. LANHAM. Are any of the so-called hackers or any of the corporations here in the automobile-renting business members of the board of trade?