« PreviousContinue »
out that front space as a thoroughfare. The original intention was, it seems to be out on the line of the street, but they saw fit to go back on the lot and build it. Now, when they go back they must necessarily dedicate a place for the public to use. Now, let the public use it. If they want a garage, like they say they want to run, get a place for the garage and build it. Put the necessary fire protection in against the oil and grease and everything else and let them do the same as everybody else does.
Mr. Lanham. You say it is unlawful; what steps have you taken for the enforcement of the law it violates ?
Mr. Maltby. I have reported it to the prosecuting officer, and the judge has said it is unlawful, and I undertook in this case we had down there to show the illegality of it. The judge said the garage permit was void, but it still hangs there. The corporation counsel, Syme, in 1908, said, “You have no garage, as you state. But he should have gone further and told his assistant to proceed and make them get away from there. But nobody moved.
Mr. LANHAM. You understand all we can do is to recommend certain laws to be made. When it comes to the executive and judicial functions we have no control in the world over it.
Mr. MALTBY. I understand that, but I am telling you why it is necessary to have a traffic court separate from the institution we now have.
Mr. LANHAM. You say it is unlawful for this garage to be there
Mr. MALTBY. Yes, sir.
Mr. LANHAM. All we can do is to make it unlawful; if it is already unlawful, the administration of the law is not vested in this committee.
Mr. MALTBY. We have nobody here to do anything for us but Congress. Out of these statements should grow something to investigate this situation. I am making it in good faith.
Mr. LANHAM. Certainly.
Mr. MALTBY. Documentary evidence is better than anything I can say; if I stated it verbally I might color it myself, but here are the documents.
Mr. LANHAM. This committee can not very well go beyond its functions of having hearings and then proposing legislation.
Mr. Maltby. I am showing you these things; these are collateral matters so far as this committee is concerned. I am trying to show this to separate the thing now, and not give the power to the commissioners, because we have that state here now, and we do not want to get into the same rut with a new court, or an added court.
Mr. LANHAM. How do you think the establishment of a traffic court would relieve the inequities that exist at the Union Station?
Mr. MALTBY. We would have a judge who is a lawyer, and now if we can have it—I don't know, but it seems to me the next thing to do is to have two men to sit with him, like a jury would be gotten from outside some place, and let them serve a month at a time like jury does, and he would advise them on the law involved in the situation, and they will say whether the man is guilty or not.
Mr. LANHAM. In other words, you say we ought to do away with the jury of the present system and pick up rather an expert jury?
Mr. MALTBY. No; let the two juror's serve for a time, a month at a time. The public is paying for it, and we would have protection, and we are not getting it now.
Mr. LANHAM. I am trying to get at the thing in your mind that will remedy the situation you are complaining of. In other words, what would you offer to relieve these conditions?
We find here a letter written to Maj. Pullman. Maj. Pullman, September 28, 1917, or the day before, went in there with his machine and a number of taxicab drivers rammed him with their machines, evidently not knowing who he was. He immediately got out of his machine and made known his identity and told them to come into the police court the next morning; he virtually put them under arrest. Mr. Thomas G. Dunlop wrote a letter to the corporation counsel something like this:
DEAR MR. SYME: In view of our very pleasant relations, etc.I can not remember the exact wordsMaj. Pullman tried to do something last night, and will you please call his attention to the fact that it can not be done.
Mr. MALTBY. No. This letter is a matter of record; and this went at the time Maj. Pullman told those fellows to go to the court. Now, there was nothing done, I know, to the Terminal Taxicab Co., and it was not bothered any more; that shows that some hand stayed that.
Mr. LANHAM. These things are all a good deal of innuendo and insinuations, one way or another, but they all relate to administration.
Mr. MALTBY. Yes; I understand that.
Mr. LANHAM. Do you want us at this time to turn aside from the investigation of needed legislation and make an investigation of the police department and the city affairs; or shall we go ahead and draft a law under which proper traffic regulations may be had?
Mr. MALTBY. I am only giving you these facts to show the necessity of doing something and cover that the best you can. I do not want to get away from the bill. I understand this would require a separate investigation, by a separate committee, but having that in mind, if you can draft a bill to suit the conditions that exist, or try to keep from repeating the same things it would be well. If we got into this same rut you have wasted your time, and we have ours.
Mr. LANHAM. A great many things in the last analysis must be left to administration.
Mr. MALTBY. Yes; but if we could have separate trials by juries I think it would help. These laws that have been passed, it makes it a $10 fine for violations; you can not get a jury trial for a $10 fine; let us have a heavy enough fine.
Mr. LANHAM. Now, you are getting to the practical suggestions.
Mr. MALTRY. I will come to them. I am through with the story part of it. Make it as much as necessary under the existing laws to let a man have that which belongs to him, the right of trial by jury; the corporation counsel should be paid more money. He does a great deal of work; most of these cases are tried by him, prima facia cases are made out before it gets into the court, and the corporation counsel does an immense amount of work, and he does not get more than $3.50 a day, I understand.
Mr. LANHAM. Is he an efficient man?
, we get the same service from him as if we paid more money.
Mr. Maltby. They do not stay there very long; they can not afford to stay very long.
Mr. LANHAM. I do not argue that as a matter of low salary, but
Mr. Maltby (interposing). I understand. Now, as to this forfeiture of collateral; is that in that ball? Something was said that forfeiture of collateral was not right.
Mr. ZIHLMAN. It proposes heavy penalties, but does not take it up specifically.
Mr. Maltby. And there should be something incorporated into this new law whereby if a citizen goes down with enough witnesses to make a prima facia case, he should be able to get a warrant and not have to depend on an officer to get it. For instance, in the matter of speed, in regulating the traffic, if I know by my eye that a man is going too fast I should be able to get a warrant for him, but if the officer says no, I am informed that if you go to the prosecuting officer and ask for a warrant he says, “No; you can't
Mr. LANHAM. You don't mean that if a reliable witness, or witnesses, go down to make a complaint, and if they should be ready there to make proof they could not get a warrant?
Mr. Maltby. I have been unable to get warrants myself against the Terminal and Federal' Co.'s; I have made charges that they had defective meters, and a policeman was put in there to see, but the matter has stayed on for eight or nine months and nothing is done.
Mr. LANHAM. What is the remedy through this committee for that?
Mr. Maltby. That is a situation. I am not competent to tell what they should do; I don't know what they should do; but these things happen, and the reason I am relating all these things is to put it in the minds of the commitee.
Mr. LANHAM. You understand from our standpoint we are dealing with legislation? Mr. MALTBY. Yes. sir.
Mr. LANHAM. Here is a commissioner who is given legislative and judicial and administrative functions; do you think we should turn that over to him?
Mr. MALTBY. No, sir. While we have three commissioners, we have only one man over the police department—a commissioner. This commissioner of motor vehicles, if his authority should be reviewed by the commissioners and be subject to their final say, would be without any power, save mere suggestion.
Mr. LANHAM. Here is our attitude; just assume that all of these inequities exist; here is a class of people who are oppressed, so far as the traffic is concerned in this city, and that every word you say from your own knowledge or rumor is true; this thing exists; now, under those circumstances what recommendations have you to make to this committee as to what it should do, and what it should incorpo. rate into the law to meet those conditions ?
Mr. Maltby. That bill, if there is a provision in there whereby a man can have a jury trial
Mr. LANHAM (interposing). Jury trial for what?
Mr. MALTBY. Àny crime that is committed under the regulations. except a light out, or anything small. If a police says your lights are out, you can't prove they are not; if he says you are going 30 miles an hour, you can not prove differently. If you have a jury they will go into the thing and listen to all of it, and you can have it investigated and present your proof, and have a wider scope.
Mr. LANHAM. Do you know of any people that are arrested for having their lights out when, as a matter of fact, they were burning?
Mr. Maltby. Sure; that is easy. Now, I do not have a right to
jury, because the fine is made $10, and anything less than $40 you can not have a jury. If a man pays for it he certainly ought to have a jury, and if the fine is made heavy enough, $42° or $15, he could have it.
Mr. LANHAM. You think the penalty ought to be increased here?
Mr. Maltby. Yes; I do. I am willing to pay the penalty if I am guilty.
Mr. LANHAM. That is, the minimum penalty ?
Mr. MALTBY (interposing). No; not the minimum, a maximum of $40 will give you a jury trial.
Mr. ZIHLMAN. Not where the penalty is not imposed.
Mr. ZIHLMAN. The maximum penalty here is more than $40 in nearly all violations.
Mr. Maltby. That is all right, then. Then, if the commissioners have the right, why can't they block off a place and let every public hacker go on that stand and stand? They have decided—two courts have decided—you could stand on private property. When they arrested one of my men, we put up the defense it was a privately owned place and the police had no right there.
Mr. LANHAM. Did you hear the testimony of Lieut. Shelby here? Mr. MALTBY. Yes, sir.
Mr. LANHAM. Lieut. Shelby cited before the committee a number of decisions showing that the decisions of the courts are largely confusing as to just what the situation is.
Mr. MALTBY. Yes, sir.
Mr. LANHAM. Let me ask you, if that is not right, just to state succinctly what is the present state of the law down there with reference to the decisions?
Mr. MALTBY. At the station?
Mr. LANHAM. Yes; in other words, he says it is very confusing, and if you can give it to us in a sentence or two sentences, so that it is not confusing, please do so.
Mr. MALTBY. At the suggestion of George E. Hamilton, at the station in the taxicab case, the decisive case, he said, “We have no adequate remedy at law."
Mr. LANHAM. Is he a judge ?
Mr. MALTBY. No; he is a lawyer.
Mr. LANHAM. What a lawyer said is hardly coming to the point. These decisions, Lieut. Shelby says, are very confusing as to what the law is as to the public and private nature of that property. Now, if the law can be stated definitely—that is, if these decisions do not conflict; if they are in harmony, then state definitely and succinctly what they hold.
Mr. MALTBY. All right; if I am a hacker and here is the Terminal Taxicab Co., the police come up and arrest me instead of the taxicab company.
Mr. LANHAM. That is giving an instance rather than stating the law.
Mr. Maltby. In Judge Stafford's decision the original sight-seeing company had a contract with the station to be allowed to be there, but business got bad, and they did not undertake to do much business; they wanted to get from under the contract. The corporation counsel said he would hold up the prosecution of cases in the court until the supreme court could settle the question of private property at the station, etc. Now, he said he would suggest that some one go in amicus curiae and get the thing settled up. That was his letter to Hamilton and filed in case, the record shows/the Gassenheimer people spent about $15 to defend that case-Judge Stafford ruled that the records showed that the title is in the terminal company, and in view of this statement, and in view of the answer you madethe words as near as I remember—“ I decide this is private property and you have no right there.” Judge Hardison, in his decision, said Judge Stafford's decision did not particularly cover the test cases before him; while it is private property, the corporate functions of that station would cease to exist or they would not be able to perform the corporate functions if it was not a thoroughfare. Four or five months prior to that Judge McMahon ruled that it was a public highway. Mr. LANHAM. There are conflicting decisions right there.
Mr. MALTBY. Judge Stafford only ruled in a specific case in a civil suit to keep this sight-seeing company from soliciting business in the station building. This man stood his car there and went into the station and sold tickets. That is a different situation from the one now; that is not the same thing, and that only applies to that one particular case, and would not apply to all cases. We all agree that it is private property in the sense that it is owned by the station company, but it is used as a public thoroughfare, and inasmucin as they have dedicated it to the public by allowing the public to use it 10 years—and the public has always used it—they can not change it now. Judge Hardison so ruled last Saturday. Speaking of terminal taxicabs, “You must come out of the hole; you can't fix a garage there."
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Frank J. Hogan, of our bar, who is a very good lawyer, and who never overlooks a point of law, tried that case for the defendant, and his theory was that the people walking to and fro to go to the station through there, that there was a dedication of that property by the Washington Terminal Co., which lost control of it.
Mr. LANHAM. The decisions of the courts agree to that theory.