Mr. LANHAM. Do you not think it will be absolutely necessary in some way or other for the Washington Terminal Co. to be divested of its interest in that part of this property which is now the street? Mr. HAMMERLY. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANHAM. And get that in the public before we can very well pass any legislation that will correct the evils that exist down there! Mr. HAMMERLY. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANHAM. In other words, this section goes on to provide that we shall take charge, that is the public shall take charge, through law, of private property and the use that people make of it. It is a pretty doubtful thing whether you can restrict a man's rights to run his private property as he pleases, as long as he does not violate the law, and this property down there is now, private property. I am not saying it ought to be, or it ought not to be divested. Do you not think that the private nature of that property will have to be taken away from the Washington Terminal Co. before you can very well do it through public legislation here, correct the evils that exist?

Mr. HAMMERLY. Yes, I do. I think it not only ought to be taken away from them, but I am a tax payer in the District of Columbia, and I feel I have just as much right to be on that thoroughfare, and it ought not to be private property.

Mr. LANHAM. Of course, I ask you that question, because the property is used down there for public purposes, and it seems necessary in a great many respects for public use, but until that is done it is pretty hard to correct those abuses.

Mr. HAMMERLY. I agree with you that it is a hard matter, but I think it ought to be public property, and that the Washington Terminal Co. should not have any control over that street whatever outside of their building line, any more than I have over the ground that I have paid for. I bought a house and lot, but I have not any control over the ground that I actually have paid for. The District controls it. I have a lot which is about 20 some feet in front of the building line of my house, that I have paid for, and yet I have no control over it. I have a hedge planted there, but if the Police Department should see fit to make me move the hedge to give access to the mail carrier to cross my line, they can do so.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Does the public ever come over across the street, across those four car tracks to hire vehicles?

Mr. HAMMERLY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. They do come over?

Mr. HAMMERLY. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANHAM. They have got to go through a cluster of vehicles to get there, do they not?

Mr. HAMMERLY. If they leave west of the main entrance, they have got to cross through a lot of terminal taxicabs to get there, and if they leave directly in front of the main entrance, they have got to cross over three platforms and four car tracks.

Mr. LANHAM. And if it is raining you can not go over there and get them?

Mr. HAMMERLY. It is absolutely impossible to get them, unless you violate the anticrabbing law and run over to the curb and get them.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. I have not read Judge Hardison's decision. I have been out of the city, so I am not familiar with it. Under that de

cision, if this so-called anticrabbing law, the act of July 11, 1919, is enforced, how will you people get any fares at all?

Mr. HAMMERLY. From the information I have received, they will have to create new hacking stands. Now, I asked the District officials if they were going to create new hack stands. They said they did not know what they were going to do, because they had not officially received Judge Hardison's decision.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. How many public hack stands are there in the city now designated as such?

Mr. HAMMERLY. Well, there are quite a few. There is one at Dupont Circle, Thomas Circle, the Willard Hotel-that is, on the south side of Pennsylvania Avenue at the Willard Hotel, but the hackers occupy the north side, which has not been really made a hack stand, but they have just been given that privilege by the police department to stand on the north side of the street.

There is one on the Avenue at Twelfth Street, one on the Avenue at Tenth Street, one on Fifteenth and I streets, on the north side, and two at the Union Station, one on the east side of the Plaza and one on the west side of the Plaza, and on Water Street, on the other side of the street from the Norfolk & Washington Steamboat Co. Mr. ZIHLMAN. Is that all?

Mr. HAMMERLY. Well, I think it will be absolutely necessary for this legislation to be passed in order to give us an equal opportunity with the taxicab companies, and that the property directly in front of and around the Union Station shall be declared public property; but, of course, that would have to be a separate bill, I guess, in Congress.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Now, we will give Mr. Maltby 15 minutes to present his argument in behalf of the public hackers.

STATEMENT OF MR. FRED A. MALTBY.

Mr. MALTBY. In regard to the section referring to a traffic court, with my experience here I am of the opinion that a traffic court certainly should be established, and that traffic court should be separate and distinct, should be an institution born from this time on and with the idea of remedying the evils that now exist. There are sufficient laws here to remedy any condition, but it is the application of the law that disturbs the major part of the public.

At the Union Station, for instance, something happens like this: The Terminal Taxicab Co., from 1908 until 1913, operated as hackers just the same as hackers now operate, with a badge. On July 1, 1913, Mr. Dunlop signed for a garage permit, went to the building inspector's office and had a garage permit issued to the Washington Terminal Co.

Mr. LANHAM. Who is Mr. Dunlop?

Mr. MALTBY. Mr. Dunlop is the president of the Terminal Taxi Co. to-day, being identified with most every corporation in town in some way or other, and connected largely with the Capital Traction Co., and many other institutions. Now, he has a beautiful camouflaged permit issued. In bold letters, the most distinct thing on that application is, "This permit must be approved by the plumbing inspector and signed by owner of property before it shall issue." All right,

the Engineer Commissioner has never approved it. It was in the files of building inspector, " Permit No. 5." A man named Kern, possibly working for $2.50 a day at that time, signed it. It was marked: "No structural alterations are necessary." He signed it in lead pencil, and that operated for the tax office to issue a permit. When I asked the tax office, Mr. Coombs, about it, he said: "All I know is that the record in the building inspector's office lets us out." Mr. LANHAM. What is the official designation of the man who signed it?

Mr. MALTBY. President of the Terminal Taxicab Co.

Mr. LANHAM. I mean the employee down there in the District building?

Mr. MALTBY. An inspector in the building inspector's office, a man who goes out and looks at the buildings.

Mr. LANHAM. Is he authorized by law or regulation down there to sign instruments of that character?

Mr. MALTBY. I do not know his exact status, but I am of the opinion that his acts are subject to his superior. But I will say this, that that was stamped and O. K.'d, he having examined that spot and O. K.'d the application with a rubber stamp. The name of Mr. Morris Hacker, the building inspector at that time, was rubber stamped on it, as a matter of form. Now, it was lacking in this essential thing, that it says in bold type, "The plumbing inspector must approve this before it is of any value," and that never was done. All right.

Mr. LANHAM. Who was the plumbing inspector at that time?

Mr. MALTBY. I do not know. Mr. Morris Hacker, so the record shows, possessed $500 worth of bonds in the Capital Traction Co. along about that time. That has no connection with it at all other than that they were all friends. This garage permit was issued for 30 cars, $65. We have positive evidence of Mr. Boobar in a proceeding before the court that they had loaded 128 cars there within an hour at one time. I know that many times they have 45, 60, and 70 cars working under this 30-car permit, even if the permit was right. Mr. LANHAM. What action have you ever taken by way of making complaint?

Mr. MALTBY. I have complained to everybody, but nobody that has to do with the getting of a warrant or the getting of a process out has been moved. I have told the corporation council's office; I have laid it before the judges. It just stays right there. When a man was arrested who was employed by me, I put up the defense that the man was arrested in the garage, and as charged in the information he was charged with being on the public highway, and I said the information was defective and the case should be dismissed.

To prepare my defense I summoned the officials of the Railroad Administration in charge of the Union Station, I summoned the officials of the taxicab company, and they were all there except Mr. Dunlop, who had an excuse because of death. That was all right. I excused him. In a conversation the attorney of the Terminal Railroad, Mr. Brady, advocated a 48-hour sentence in jail to keep me quiet, and maybe I would lay down and stop bothering them, because I had misused the process of the court to bring all those business men down there and take them away from their business. When Mr.

Bubar, who was general manager of the Terminal Taxicab Co., receiving a salary of $7,500 a year, was put on the stand, and he denied knowing anything about the garage at Union Station. When confronted by a certified copy which I had, he said, "I believe we did. have permission to put one there, but we have not put one there." Judge Hardison got out of his chair and went down to where he was on the witness stand and asked him, "Can you put your finger on the spot where that garage is at the station?" "He said, "No; I can not." So much for him.

Mr. Warrington, who represented the Government in charge of the Union Station, emphatically denied it, and by his manner indicated that nobody who had any sense would suggest that there was a garage there. The judge said, "Well, this permit is evidently void."

66

After the trial I went in and talked to assistant corporation counsel, Mr. Hill, and I told him about the thing, and I said, “ You seem to me to occupy the position of a man who represents the community-not any one set, me or anybody else, but the community-and when anything arises in the process of a trial that does not seem just right it certainly behooves you to investigate it, and see what there is to it. You certainly know, as a man, that there is not any such thing as a garage at the Union Station."

Mr. LANHAM. Does not Judge Hardison, in his opinion, recognize that there is a garage out there?

Mr. MALTBY. He does not. He positively said that there was not any garage. These are his words, almost. I was there when he rendered his opinion. He said, "In regard to this talk about a garage, there is not any such thing as that there." He started to indicate that he would give them a chance to construct one-to put one some place. There was some talk about Mr. Brady trying to suggest to the court that they put it over in the corner outside. Mr. LANHAM. If that be the law, and there is no garage there, the Terminal Taxicab Co. has no right to its fares in there? Mr. MALTBY. They have no right to do it.

Mr. LANHAM. The decisions are conflicting down there, and that is one thing that gives rise to this confusion now with respect to the cases of this character, is it not?

Mr. MALTBY. No, sir. It is only a confusion of a person who is not familiar with the situation. A person who is on the ground can. see the maneuvers and workings of the officers-I will not say officers, but one officer in particular, Newkirk. If you were there and saw the workings between this one officer and the Terminal Station officers it would become very apparent to you. These people are required to have the same license that we have exactly. Maryland requires them all the time to have it. When they leave the District line and go beyond the District line they become hackers, the same as any other hacker, and have a license to do it, likewise.

They have always crawled under the shadow, "We are a public utilities company here," and it is a most beautifully camouflaged story all the way through. The judge decided emphatically that they were common carriers, and as such they were hackers the same as we were. Some time in 1918, when they had this suit in order to go under the utilities commission, Corporation Counsel Syme said: "You are occupying a public hacking stand at the Union Station,

show that they put one Terminal taxicab away down in the corner, not giving a hacker a chance to take one off that space.

The sight-seeing cars pay a commission to the Terminal Taxicab Co. for the privilege of standing in the garage. The sight-seeing cars pay them, and they must go through that hole and stay there until they are checked up, and then go off.

Now, I say that in order to correct the situation that exists there it is not absolutely necessary to have any more laws. We want some way to have these laws applied. Apply them where they are.

Now, I can show that every time the commission tries to do someting for you-and they try always-every time the authorities—we will say the commissioners, or whatever it is that has the authority— say to the Terminal taxicab, or somebody, "Now, if you do not sit down we will spank you," and that is the end of it. It is like a man saying it to his own child, and it passes, and that is the last of it.

If I might ask Mr. Hight a question, which involves his hotel, he said the other day, in answer to a question of Mr. Stern, that Judge Morris had no stock in his company.

Mr. HIGHT. Absolutely none.

Mr. MALTBY. And never had any?

Mr. HIGHT. No.

Mr. MALTBY. What is the name of that company?

Mr. HIGHT. The Willard Hotel Co.

Mr. MALTBY. Who are the principal stockholders?
Mr. HIGHT. That is not material.

Mr. MALTBY. It is very material in this case.

Mr. HIGHT. No; I do not think it is, with regard to Judge Morris. Mr. MALTBY. Well, who are the principal stockholders in the Raleigh Hotel?

Mr. HIGHT. You were asking whether Judge Morris ever held any stock in the Willard Hotel, and he never did hold any.

Mr. MALTBY. I am going to be very plain. The decision affecting hotels, which was called the Willard Hotel decision, affected all the hotels. Judge Morris, on March 1, 1904, decided this case, and it applied to all hotels. Judge Morris died September 12, 1909. Judge Morris made a will June 20, 1904. He had 108 shares of stock of the Columbia Hotel Co., of the par value of $100, but it was valued at $1,250.

Mr. HIGHT. $1.000 a share.

Mr. MALTBY. As the word goes around town, and as most everybody knows now, the Columbia Hotel Co. is composed of men who were in the Willard Hotel Co. The name does not mean anything. The Willard Hotel Co. and the Columbia Hotel Co. are practically the same company.

Mr. HIGHT. They are absolutely not. They are entirely separate corporations. The Willard Hotel Co. has no connection with the Columbia Hotel Co., and the Columbia Hotel Co. has no connection Iwith the Willard Hotel Co.

Mr. MALTBY. Judge Morris had 108 shares of record in this Columbia Hotel Co., which operated the Raleigh Hotel, and he made a decision which affected every hotel company.

Mr. HIGHT. Do you mean to impugn the motives of a judge on the bench in a case involving a few shares of stock in my company?