tions on drivers' permit cards and should have authority to suspend or annul said permits for repeated offenses.

Until it is possible to secure a traffic court, your committee believes special hours should be set aside in police court to hear traffic cases only.

Mr. LANHAM. This legislation that you suggest would be necessary in order to make the traffic court effective. The traffic court under present conditions would not remedy the situation very much, would it?

I

Mr. RAYNER. No, sir; this other legislation is necessary in regard to the things I have mentioned. The present operation, I might say, of the police court-I have a copy of the order requiring policemen to be in court at 9.30 in the morning prepared to prosecute-requires the policeman who has been on duty till 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning to lose his sleep to be at court and then wait until the cases are called, and also frequently it takes the bicycle man out of the district when the foot man is also called in court for a criminal case. and it frequently leaves certain sections of the city almost unguarded. We believe that a traffic court should sit in the afternoon for cases that occurred the night before; sit in the morning covering cases of the day before, and give both the civilians and the policemen an opportunity for their proper appearance.

Mr. LANHAM. Let me ask you this question: The suggestion was made by Judge Hardison, I think, before the subcommittee a day or so ago that there were certain ills that arose from the establishment of too many courts, one of which is this: That when a case is called for trial frequently-and the policeman is a witness-that policeman is also a witness in several courts that are sitting at the same time, and by reason of the multiplicity of courts very frequently we can not get the witness because the witness can only be in one place at one time, and that by establishing another court, a traffic court, you simply add to the difficulty in that regard. Of course, that may be obviated in this case by reason of the fact that you are going to have special officers to look after traffic. However, all policemen will look after traffic, I suppose.

Mr. RAYNER. I believe that a foot man if he sees a car parked straight out in the street, for instance, even though he is not a traffic officer, should make a notation of that instead of passing it by.

Mr. LANHAM. Now, that foot man may also be a witness in a burglary case; he may also be a witness in a theft case; he may also be a witness in an assault or murder case; and here are these cases now pending in these courts and yet at the same time. You start in your traffic court and John Brown, a foot man is a witness in your traffic case, but he is also a witness in a burglary case that is pending over in the supreme court, and Judge Hardison was calling attention to the fact that the multiplicity of testimony, so to speak, that has to be given by the various policemen is an argument against the creation of additional courts, because he can't appear in so many courts where he has so many cases.

Mr. RAYNER. A foot man could hardly make any arrest in a traffic case except one which would come under the impounding law which we have requested. Any other traffic case would be made by a man on a motor cycle.

One point about this traffic court that has been mentioned is the fact of detaining business men. I don't care if they are detained, if

they have committed an offense. But frequently there are 8 or 10 witnesses who are also business men and have important business to attend to, and it is an injury to these men to keep them in court. That is the important thing-not consideration for the man that committed the offense.

Mr. LANHAM. That should be presented in the police court by having special days to hear traffic cases.

Mr. RAYNER. That would be a very good idea until we can get a traffic court.

Mr. OVERSTREET. Have you got such traffic courts established in other States?

Mr. LANHAM. From the testimony it seems they have them in Chicago, Baltimore, and New York. Those are the only ones I have heard of.

Mr. RAYNER. I think I can finish now in about five minutes, and I am going to ask your indulgence, if this does not come under the jurisdiction of this committee, to let me talk just a minute on it anyhow; but we believe it does come under this committee, because we have suggested here legislation that will be required by Congress to enact what we ask. That is in regard to motor vehicles for the police department to enforce these traffic laws and protect the public.

The city of Detroit has 1,100 policemen; the city of Washington has 900. The city of Detroit has about 40 automobiles at headquarters alone for the use of the police department in running down murder cars and raiders and bank robbers and thieves of one kind and another, and for enforcing traffic rules; our police department has a total of only 3 or 4 cars, and only 2 that are able to cope with cars that these other men would operate, high-speed propositions.

Now, if you will be kind enough to read the suggestions that were made here in regard to efficiency, we believe that our 900 policemen will have the efficiency in Washington of 1.800 policemen if they are properly equipped with motor vehicles. The man who discovers a burglary receives help quicker, and in a case such as we had last summer and before, the police department has absolutely had to depend upon civilians donating their automobile, and driving them themselves, as many as 10 civilians at one time driving night after night a year ago last January to capture a man whom we knew nothing about, who attacked war workers and terrorized all the women of Washington. Now, that work has been done willingly by these civilians, but it should not be necessary for the police department to be under the obligation to civilians to help them out on these cases. Frequently a call comes in, as it did the other day to intercept the diamond thieves, the bandits from Baltimore. They had no cars to send after them, and a civilian took them out.

Mr. LANHAM. That condition leads to your suggestion here in paragraph 6 under the police department that legislation be passed assigning to the District of Columbia certain surplus material of the Army?

Mr. RAYNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANHAM. That could be used here?

Mr. RAYNER. Now, that material is being assigned, and here is an article right in the paper yesterday telling how it is being assigned to the State highway commissions of the various States. Mr. LANHAM. That is under a law just passed by Congress.

Mr. RAYNER. They are being assigned to the Department of Agriculture and to the Interior Department and other departments, and we feel this way: During the war Washington only had about 700 policemen; almost 200 of those men were detailed at the White House, at the embassies, and the State Department and other places on Government business. The real citizens of Washington, including 120,000 Government employees, depended upon 500 policemen, divided into three shifts, as near as I can get the figures, to protect them, putting only about 150 policemen on the streets at a time, reducing the number sometimes to only two or three in the middle of the night in certain large precincts. We feel that these men are protecting Government property. The Government owns perhaps one-third to one-half of the property in the District. The Government employees need protection. There are thousands of young women from other States, from your own States perhaps, here in Washington, and we feel it would be no injustice to the citizens of the rest of the country to transfer some of these automobiles, which we know are stacked up high at Camp Holabird with the rain trickling down through them and rusting them away, and they won't be worth anything if they are left stay there for a few more months, or a year more; and it will be doing a great favor to the inhabitants of the rest of the country by making this transfer and protecting Government property and the persons here.

Mr. LANHAM. And you feel this would not be using Government property for private ends and purposes?

Mr. RAYNER. Absolutely not.

Mr. LANHAM. Especially by reason of the peculiar conditions that exist with reference to legislation and appropriation for the District of Columbia?

Mr. RAYNER. The police force of Washington is overworked. The detectives have more assignments than they can cover, and only important cases are thoroughly covered. They have to travel miles and miles a day-69 square miles to cover. If they only had automobiles, as any modern business firm does-in my own business our salesmen cover the same territory that they do, and every salesman uses an automobile for the purpose of efficiency.

Mr. LANHAM. And you can only get automobiles through an assignment of this kind or get an appropriation from Congress?

Mr. RAYNER. Yes; and we feel that they are already bought and that they are deteriorating and that you could not do a better thing than to supply this department as the department is supplied in Detroit and in Los Angeles and other cities.

Mr. LANHAM. Are they high-powered automobiles adapted to this work here?

Mr. RAYNER. Certain standard Government cars are high powered and would be ideally adapted. Ten or twelve of those should be here all the time. Then, they have motorcycles, too. There are 60, I believe, bicycle men who have to peddle around on foot. It is absolutely impossible for them to catch a man in an automobile.

They should have motor cycles. The Government has those, and has side cars. Capt. Headley, whom you saw up here the other day, has to go on foot. He had an assignment a short time ago to visit 69 schoolhouses to talk to the children and one thing and another. Now, that man's valuable time is wasted riding on the street cars. With that idea, I will close, and thank you very much for your courtesy.

Mr. LANHAM. If I may say one thing more, Mr. Rayner, in your opinion, the drafting of a proper law in a matter of this kind would necessarily require a comparative study of the laws of the United States and the ordinances of the leading municipalities and the work of some experts in getting it together?

Mr. RAYNER. I believe it would. I am not an expert on the subject, but I think you would do well to consult with the experts and the other people who have made a study of this thing and give us a model law that other States would be glad to copy.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Mr. Batchelder, of the Automobile Association, is here, and we would be glad to hear from him on the pending bill. STATEMENT BY MR. A. G. BATCHELDER, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. BATCHELDER. Mr. Chairman, we happen to have a high-speed spokesman here, and I myself will make my statement exceedingly brief.

I might make this reference to consulting the laws in the different States. It has been our experience that-for instance, I recollect particularly Massachusetts-we got together a conference of the motor vehicle commissioners of different States in an effort to obtain absolute uniformity-and the gentleman from Massachusetts said it was an exceedingly easy matter to obtain a uniform law for the entire country by simply adopting the Massachusetts statute. Then, of course, there are quite a few of the different States each of which really thinks it has the correct thing, and more and more, year by year, there has come about this uniformity. In fact, we have in existence now over in New York City what we call the uniform motor vehicle conference committee. It meets several times a month. It is made up of representatives of our organization, the users; and, of course, we stretch all over the country, all the clubs of the country, every part of the United States.

It also includes the National Association of Automobile Manufacturers, also the National Automobile Dealers' Association, also the Trailers' Association of America—that is a new thing that is coming in that we haven't had very much to do with yet, but I think down in your State they are beginning to meet with the trailer proposition and this conference committee is meeting several times a month, as I said, and they are gathering the laws from all over the country and they are making a study of certain things which have been discussed here to-day.

I can not help but feel with regard to the District of Columbia that we are a subdivision of Government and whether you call it an automobile board or whether you call it a motor vehicle commissioner, I don't care which, except that with some 22,000 to 25,000

motor-car owners I think you should dignify it by calling him a motor behicle commissioner as set forth in the bill. I don't see that there is any objection to giving that particular title.

Mr. LANHAM. Do you think he should be given the powers specified in the bill, or have you studied the powers given?

Mr. BATCHELDER. In certain States and I will leave with you here a compilation of all the laws of all the different States, and you will note the different officers in those States who are intrusted with the inforcement of the automobile laws.

Mr. LANHAM. But this commisioner in this bill, Mr. Batchelder, is intrusted with making the laws and trying the cases from the preliminary standpoint, then inforcing them. You give him legislative, judicial, and executive functions.

Mr. BATCHELDER. I think, Mr. Lanham, that I shall probably leave that particular question to Mr. Syme, who, as you know, was the corporation counsel of the District and it was at the request of Judge Martin A. Knapp, who happens to be the head of our D. C. Division here, that Mr. Syme consented to be our legislative chairman, and with his great knowledge of the conditions in the District, I feel that he is more competent to pass upon that particular phase. You asked in regard to whether in other States there was a law compelling the giving of a bond by all operators of vehicles. Mr. LANHAM. Yes.

Mr. BATCHELDER. Perhaps the point you had in mind was as to the difficulty of it, that while it has been attempted it has never been put over in any State that I know of, for the simple basis that there wasn't any reason why the man earning his livelihood, who had to get out a license in order to earn it, that he should not be just as desirous of keeping his good standing as a private automobile owner and you couldn't very well compel one to put up a bond unless you compelled the other to.

Mr. LANHAM. Yes; I was doubtful, both from the standpoint of expediency and from the standpoint of law. Of course, I have not studied the question.

Mr. BATCHELDER. The matter of the headlight proposition is a very difficult matter, which is not settled yet by any means anywhere, and I know the law to which Mr. Rayner refers, and happen to know men who are trying to enforce it, and I expect to see the motorvehicle commissioner of Connecticut next week in Connecticut to find out whether it is working out. But you can find as many opinions on that as on any other subject, even the treaty of peace, and the result of it is that no one is agreed yet, except that there is a sort of common understanding among a lot of people that where we are at fault is that we don't give enough light. It is not a question of hitting the other fellow in the eyes; you mustn't do that; but you must provide enough light to make the driving of an automobile safe, and we have even suggested to the Society of Automotive Engineers that while there should be a maximum limit there also should be a minimum requirement of these smaller lights. You perhaps have seen in the District here again and again the little vehicle with two little bits of pee-wee lights, that will go dashing across the street, and you don't hardly know it is near you until it is right on top of you, and, of course, we feel it is all wrong.