Mr. SMITH. That I could not answer, sir. I think some of them are, but I could not say. I know that some of the men that belong to the Terminal Railroad Co., or their officials, are members; that is, some of the Pennsylvania men, for instance, are members of the board of trade, and so forth. I could not answer that right off, but I did not come up with anything like that. I think some of the public hackers may be members of the board of trade.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Now, Mr. Rayner, we will hear you.

STATEMENT OF MR. W. PEARCE RAYNER, CHAIRMAN OF THE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE OF THE AUTOMOTIVE TRADE ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. RAYNER. I am chairman of the traffic committee of the Automotive Trade Association, and I might say also that I was secretary of Mr. Odell Smith's subcommittee that formed the wording of this report, and he has asked me to speak for the board of trade in regard to the suggestions here, and with the permission of the chairman, if you will kindly grant it, I would like to refer to our printed report.

First, I would like to talk to the subject of the commissioner of motive vehicles. We have gone rather thoroughly into the laws of other States covering a similar proposition. We appreciate that the intent in this law here is to give us just what we ought to have in Washington, but we also feel that the law as written covers Washington in a way which would be necessary for a large State comprising thousands of square miles, rather than for a District the size of the District of Columbia, covering 69 square miles, and that conditions which exist here more nearly resemble the conditions handled by the police of other cities, such as Detroit, Philadelphia, etc.

We can realize why in a State like Maryland they should have a commissioner of motor vehicles whose authority will extend even to the smallest village, and why he should have detailed to him special motor-cycle men to cover the highways, but we feel that in the District of Columbia it would be a duplication of effort-the appointment of a commissioner of motor vehicles.

Mr. LANHAM. Whose efforts would be duplicated?

Mr. RAYNER. Those of the police department.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. You mean duplication of authority?

Mr. RAYNER. Duplication of authority, and also of effort. In so far as he is furnished with special motor-cycle policemen not over the number of five at his disposal

Mr. LANHAM (interposing). You mean the commissioner is by this bill?

Mr. RAYNER. Yes. We feel that in a city of this size better results can be obtained by delegating whatever authority is to go to this commissioner to some police official, and instead of having five or less motor-cycle men specially appointed for that work, to have every traffic officer, every bicycle man, and even the foot men instructed to carry out the regulations. It is a growing practice with a lot of people to observe the traffic regulations strictly only when they can see an officer in sight.

Mr. LANHAM. You don't believe the necessity exists, then, for the appointment of a commissioner?

Mr. RAYNER. We do not. And we can not find anywhere, even in the State of Maryland law, where this commissioner of motor vehicles is granted anything but enforcing authority.

Mr. LANHAM. Now, what is this organization you represent?

Mr. RAYNER. I represent two in my talk, because they both happened to adopt the same set of resolutions.

Mr. LANHAM. One was the board of trade?

Mr. RAYNER. And the other the Washington Automotive Trade Association, comprising over 90 per cent of all the motor car dealers, motor truck dealers, accessory dealers, and insurance agents selling automotive insurance in the District of Columbia. I am chairman of their traffic committee, and my statement is a result of their studies-not my own.

In the Virginia law the highway commissioner, who takes the place of the commissioner of motor vehicles, and his assistants are vested with the powers of sheriff-the duty of officers to enforce the laws and highway regulations. They are purely and simply enforcing officers.

In the Detroit regulations, under the laws of Michigan, the police department of the city of Detroit has all powers and duties in relation to the management of vehicular traffic, and they also have that public-order law that Capt. Headley spoke about:

Whenever the police department shall deem it advisable for public safety or convenience temporarily to close any street, alley, or parts of streets to vehicular traffic or to vehicles of certain description, or to divert the traffic theron, or to divert or direct the course of pedestrian travel, the said department shall have the power and authority to do so.

By that they mean instant power. Capt. Headley mentioned that it takes 30 days before his police signs are effective; and we strongly recommend in the incorporation of this law some police-order law which will give instant authority to change the course of travel or to put up signs where there are obstructions; for instance, if there should be a bomb explosion or something like that some place, in order to divert traffic entirely away from the District.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. You recommend in your report that there be special traffic officers who shall be picked men?

Mr. RAYNER. Yes, sir. We feel that is already covered in the police department at the present time; that our police department is constantly growing better along those lines, and if left to develop along the course that we are pursuing now will efficiently regulate traffic.

Mr. LANHAM. And at less expense?

Mr. RAYNER. At less expense than the appointing of a special commissioner with the appropriations here mentioned.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Can't that be done then without any further law? Doesn't the police department now have power to regulate motor traffic?

Mr. RAYNER. I don't see the necessity of any special law on the subject of a commissioner of motor vehicles, and our point would be to rather object to some of the powers that are granted in this bill. Mr. LANHAM. Specify what they are.

Mr. RAYNER. For instance, if you will permit me, as an objection, to take up the subject of headlights. In every other State-I have

the laws of a number of States here-the headlight question is considered so important that they do not intrust it to the regulation or judgment of any one man; they pass a State law to cover the subject. The ordinary changing of the route of travel and parking might be left to regulation, but in every other State you will find that even speed regulations, all sorts of regulations that are delegated to the commissioner of motor vehicles, are covered by the enactment of the governing body, which in our case is Congress, and those things are of sufficient importance to protect the lives of people on the streets that we believe they should be covered by laws and not police regulations, and on that account we would like to ask you to incorporate in your law, which we hope will be a model for the whole country, a model headlight law, defined by the statute. Mr. LANHAM. What State do you think has a model headlight law?

Mr. RAYNER. I think the State of Connecticut has a model headlight law at the present time, and my information on that comes from the scientists of the Bureau of Standards.

Mr. LANHAM. Have you a copy of that law available?

Mr. RAYNER. I have; yes, sir.

Mr. CONRAD H. SYME. There was a copy of it in the Post yesterday.

Mr. RAYNER. I have the whole book of the motor-vehicle laws of the State of Connecticut, and I have the headlight charts which they give to everybody. It is a law that does not entail any expense at all upon the man that wants to use the headlights that come with his car. If I may I would like to speak on that subject under our subject of headlights.

Now, if I may refer to the second subject on our own sugges tions it perhaps does not come under this committee, but if legislation is necessary to secure the widening of the three streets mentioned we hope it may be enacted at some time, because they represent the neck of the bottle at those points where the traffic has to narrow down, and greatly impede conditions in moving traffic down town.

Also if legislation is necessary under article 6, I understand that circles are Government reservations and not controlled by the District of Columbia. If legislation is necessary to increase the grass plot at that point and narrow the road for motor-vehicle traffic to a point where the vehicles will naturally fall into line instead of crisscrossing each other, it would be greatly in the interest of safety of pedestrians who have to cross those circles. As an extreme example. I might mention Thomas Circle. In going from the corner by the Lutheran Church to the corner by the Portland Apartment House the pedestrian has to walk across the traffic of six streets converging into the circle there, a distance of 270 feet.

Mr. LANHAM. Or go around the sidewalk.

Mr. RAYNER. Yes; and then cross six streets-three streets, I should say, going half way around instead of going directly across. Under the subject of street cars I don't believe there is anything there that can not be covered by a police regulation. In conversation with Senator Dillingham the first question he asked me as chairman of this committee calling at his office was how they could

pass a law which would absolutely keep all automobiles off the streets having street car tracks. He purposely made it extreme in order to show the point he wanted to cover, and we had a suggestion in here which he asked me to state, to the effect that safety zones be applied to every street car stop, even in outlying section where the traffic was the least bit heavy, and that some law be made compelling pedestrians to stand in the safety zone so established, or remain on the sidewalk. I don't know whether you drive an automobile or not, but the custom now is for street car riders to stand all over the street, and he said that might be a good suggestion.

The next subject I would like to talk on is section 826b, I think it is your section in here covering joy riding. In our report here we say that thieves and joy riders are the same thing. We do that to make it emphatic. The thief steals property; the joy rider leaves the property damaged and frequently ruined, and is a menace both to life and property. The monetary damage caused is usually much greater than the amount necessary for a grand larceny charge. We say here:

Your committee implores more rigid and severe penalties for joy riders and thieves, and deplores the leniency of the courts in many cases. A light sentence to a joy rider is an invitation to a second offense.

And we feel that we are justified in not criticizing the courts too severely, because we realize their attention is taken up with other subjects, which we consider the best argument for a traffic court. But there have been many, many cases in which joy riders-one case week before last, where a man after he had been convicted of the charge was put on probation, although he may have caused unseen damage to the stolen automobile amounting to several hundred dollars. You may recover the car and it may appear to be all right, but the misuse of that car may have developed a crack in the motor, in the frame, in the axle, or something will develop three or four months after the man is out on probation, and you can't do anything with him.

Mr. LANHAM. Now, I understand that the code at present provides for theft and joy riding under the same statute, with the same penalty. Now, you have described thieving and joy riding here as essentially the same.

Mr. RAYNER. We believe they are.

Mr. LANHAM. Do you think you ought to have the same statute or do you think you ought to have legislation changing that and prescribing one penalty for joy riding and a separate penalty for theft, and making the theft of an automobile a felony where it will have to be brought in the supreme court and not allow such latitude of discretion in the judges?

Mr. RAYNER. I believe that the law at present gives a penalty up to five years, and for that reason it has to go to the other courts. If there was any way to put that into the traffic court, a separate court, and meet that penalty with a fine, if it is possible, a law should be so enacted as to give that jurisdiction to the traffic court.

Mr. LANHAM. To give felony jurisdiction to the traffic court? Mr. RAYNER. On joy riding and theft of automobiles and vehicles only.

173006-20

Mr. LANHAM. Now that could only be done upon an indictment found by a grand jury.

Mr. RAYNER. I am not learned in the law at all; I am a layman; but if that indictment could be returned to a traffic court under your law, I should think that would be the place to try those cases.

I would like to cite a concrete example. I have the owner's name here. Recently a Mr. H. W. Van Senden had his car taken from the Mount Pleasant Garage, after he had turned it in at midnight—at 12.30. It was not recovered until 7.30 the next morning. The man who stole the car, the joy rider, was an employee, who was instantly discharged, and had intended to leave when he took the car. To show the inconsistency of the application of the law under the present court procedure, Mr. Van Senden, after the car was stolen and recovered, appeared in court against this man; he spent most of the day-in fact, till almost 3 o'clock-in the court waiting to get his case through, and the man was convicted but was placed on probation by the judge. Mr. Van Senden having neglected his business for almost the entire day-which frequently happens in the present condition of the courts being overzealous to get back to his business, perhaps went a mile or two faster than the speed limit going out Thirteenth Street. A traffic officer got hold of Mr. Van Senden after he had spent the day recovering his stolen automobile, took him to the station house and made him forfeit collateral whereas the thief was let go absolutely free. Now, there are just such anomalies continually happening in the present administration of traffic conditions and joy riding and theft under our present police court conditions. Mr. LANHAM. Is that a matter of administration or a matter of law? If it is a matter of administration, of course legislation would not remedy it.

Mr. RAYNER. I refer to this point; we say here:

Your committee implores more rigid and severe penalties for joy riders and thieves and deplores the leniency of the courts in many cases. A light sentence to a joy rider is an invitation to a second offense.

Mr. LANHAM. How could we prevent that leniency except by permitting no probation?

Mr. RAYNER. That would be a good thing, on the second offense, because we say also here: "A light sentence to a joy rider is an invitation to a second offense." If that could be incorporated in the law for the second offense it would cure the situation. I was going to cover that under the subject "Traffic court," because we feel that a judge trained to the automobile viewpoint and motor-vehicle viewpoint and the pedestrian's viewpoint in traffic cases would not show that leniency, because all the cases coming before him would repeatedly impress on his mind the necessity of exercising full authority. The other judges in other lines of work do all right, but their minds are occupied by many sorts of criminal cases.

Mr. LANHAM. Do you think we ought to have a special court for every class of cases?

Mr. RAYNER. No, sir; I do not. May I quote from the Star from yesterday:

The average automobilist pays little if any attention to legislation pertaining to the motor vehicle he may own and operate. A motorist hardly realizes that approximately $28,000,000 worth of automobiles are stolen during each year. Now, that will continue.