Mr. ZIHLMAN. That is all right; we know you are very busy. Mr. BROWNLOW. I am just giving you my general views, but I would be glad to answer any questions that the committee may ask to the best of my ability.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. There is one condition that I would like to ask about that the commissioners should be and I have no doubt are familiar with; that is the condition stated here as to a private thoroughfare in front of the Union Station, and the conditions under which private cars can enter that station. Congressman Treadway, of Massachusetts, appeared before the committee, and he made the statement, which he substantiated by producing photographs and maps here, that the street in front of the station, which Judge Stafford, as I understand it, has declared to be a private thoroughfare, is rented for a garage to the Terminal Taxicab Co.; that they have obtained a license from the District engineer's office for a garage; that they have parked their cars there; that the street in front of the station is roped off; that the commissioners have prevented parking on the east end of the station; and that the only way that a private citizen who is not employed by the Terminal Taxicab Co. can take his family to the train at the station is by going into the second driveway and unloading his family, and they must then climb over the first driveway to enter into the station. Now, I did go down to the station the other day and discovered another way by which you can get into the station-you can go through the driveway and unload your passengers, and they can go into the rotunda of the station.

Mr. BROWNLOW. You can also go into the east entrance.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. No; it was testified to by Mr. Treadway that he drove in there and was notified by a policeman that he could not come in there. You can go into the driveway on the east end, and after you get in there it is almost impossible to turn around; that space is also occupied by the private cars and the sightseeing busses. Now, I certainly feel that that is a condition that should be looked into and remedied by the District commissioners; it certainly was not the intention of Congress when they cooperated in the building of that station to create a monopoly of that kind, either by restriction of the street in front of the station or by some arrangement of the Terminal Co. There should be some arrangement provided for the drivers of cars who take out a license in the District and who are not employees of this corporation.

Mr. BROWNLOW. Of course, the commissioners can not change the status of this space which has been established by the courts. Perhaps that can be done by legislation. I certainly think that some provision for egress from and ingress into the station should be supplied.

Now, there is only one of those features which you mention of which I have particular personal knowledge, and that is the stopping of vehicular traffic in front of the station. The majority of persons who enter and leave the Union Station either alight from a street car to go to the Union Station or board a street car to go to some destination in the city. The condition of affairs was such there that the hacks there was such a continuous stream of them that it was extremely dangerous and extremely difficult to get from the Union

Station to a street car. The commissioners had so many complaints of that, and I went several times myself and investigated it personally, and as a result, while we did not control the street we assumed to control to some extent the traffic over the street and authorized the erection of stanchions and chains which cut off the traffic of that street. Nothing I have ever done has brought me as much praise from the individuals who use the street cars. And I know of my own personal knowledge that the "crabbing" or slow driving of the vehicles made it highly dangerous for persons to get to a street car; it was highly dangerous, and in some instances almost impossible for the people to get from the station into a street car. That is one of the things that I do not believe should be disturbed, unless some better method of regulating the vehicular traffic through that section be found.

Now, I am not personally familiar with Judge Stafford's decision. I believe Mr. Hart, who is to follow me, can give you more accurate information than can I. As for the license for the garage, I never heard of it before.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Well, it was stated here

Mr. BROWNLOW (interposing). I mean-you mentioned it to me. just before the hearing; but before this morning, I mean.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Well, the street in front of the station is used as a garage. Here is a picture of the cars in the garage [handing photograph to Mr. Brownlow].

Mr. BROWNLOW. Oh, I know that they are there; but that it was a licensed garage I did not know.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. They have obtained a license for a garage, and no structural alterations or changes are to be made by the District commissioners. It was stated here by some witness that the license was for $65 a year, and that it was signed by one of the inspectors in the office, and not by the engineer commission as required by law. Mr. BROWNLOW. I am entirely unfamiliar with that, Mr. Zihlman, so I can not answer any question concerning it without looking the matter up.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Do you want to say anything about the streets in the vicinity of several of the large hotels here being used by these large companies and the drivers of cars which are not owned by those corporations being prohibited from taking fares on those streets? It has been stated here by witnesses that the cars of these large companies park on Fourteenth Street, and Fifteenth Street, and at Twelfth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, and that when any driver of one of these cars not owned by these companies drive through there slowly or stop that they are immediately arrested. You submitted to me a letter giving the opinion of the corporation counsel in that matter, and in the letter you stated that the commissioners desired to break up such a practice, or Mr. Stephens, the corporation counsel, so states. In the memorandum you transmit to me you say that the corporation counsel suggests that the commissioners have endeavored to break up such a practice only to be met with the decision of the court of appeals in the case above referred to, and that the commissioners have further endeavored to put into operation the terms of the act of July 11, 1919, and have done all that can be done under the circumstances to enforce the provisions

of that law by instituting prosecutions which are now awaiting the decisions of the judge of the police court.

Mr. BROWNLOW. Of course, that Willard Hotel decision has affected the matter. I think the antiloitering amendment of July 11. 1919-Mr. Hart will be able to describe that to you-there were arrests made at a number of places. Judge Hardison has decided the cases, but the opinion has not been handed down, and, of course, until we see that decision and see how it affects the matters at issue we will not be able to proceed.

Mr. ZIHILMAN. Now, in that Willard Hotel case, which you kindly transmitted to me, this is the substance of the decision, the court holds that the hotel company has the right to station and maintain its own carriages on the street in front of its own premises for the transaction of its own business and the accommodation of its own guests, without the violation of any existing law or municipal ordinance. Now, would you construe that language where it says. "maintain its own carriages on the street in front of its own premises," that that would mean that they are privileged to enter into a commission arrangement with taxicab companies and use that park for their cars on the public thoroughfare to the exclusion of private vehicles and cars driven by private hackers?

Mr. BROWNLOW. We have been so advised by counsel.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. That is the interpretation put upon the language "maintain its own carriages on the street in front of its own premises"?

Mr. BROWNLOW. Yes; "its own carriages"; they do not have to own them, but could lease or secure them by contract. That has been the interpretation that has been given to that decision, so far as I know, uniformly. You must remember, of course, that the commissioners have given very wide latitude to independent hackers in the matter of stationing their cars in the immediate vicinity of these hotels where exclusive privileges also are granted, and that privilege has been most grossly abused by the system of "crabbing" which used to go around the Willard Hotel, and it was almost impossible to go across the street there; you would be solicited and almost assaulted by hackers in going from Fifteenth Street to Fourteenth Street; in my personal experience, and every effort to interfere with it was defied, and that was the reason why this section was added to the last appropriation act.

Now, I believe in all candor that the only way you are going to get around this thing is to put them all on the same basis, all carrying a taximeter, and all subject to exactly the same rules and regulations: if there is any lack of uniformity you are going to have charges and countercharges. I also believe that if all of the public carriages have taximeters, they are all common carriers and all are required to pick up fares anywhere, that the practice of commissions will be discouraged and that eventually it might result in cheaper rates to the public.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Could you then take care of it by regulation?

Mr. BROWNLOW. By regulation and by the establishment of public taxicab stands for a certain number of vehicles in various convenient places.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Well, certainly, as long as the present condition continues whereby the taxicab companies can use Fourteenth Street

and Fifteenth Street, and the hackers occupy that space in front of the hotel, there certainly is going to be a condition that does not make for the safety of the general public.

Mr. BROWNLOW. I believe that the controlling element in uniformity will be the requirement of a taximeter.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Put them all on an equal basis?

Mr. BROWNLOW. Put them all on an equal basis.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Is there anything further you want to say? Mr. BROWNLOW. Nothing further, except to say that I believe that this legislation is most important. We are hurting too many people on the street; we are killing too many people on the street; and we need a radical reformation in the matter of the enforcement of the traffic laws; and I believe whatever else may be determined upon, that the most important thing is the establishment of a separate traffic court, under a separate judge, and a definite provision of law which will require all persons who are charged with offenses against traffic regulations to appear before that judge.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. All right, Mr. Brownlow, we thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF MR. RINGGOLD HART, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Mr. Hart, please give your full name and business. Mr. HART. Ringgold Hart; assistant corporation counsel. Mr. ZIHLMAN. Now, Mr. Hart, the committee has asked you to come up here this morning because we understood that you had handled a great many of these cases in the courts in reference to the violation of traffic laws and regulations; and that you are also familiar with the court decisions as to the use of the street in front of the Union Station, and the statements that have been made by previous witnesses on that branch of the subject have been rather confusing to the committee. A statement has been made that Judge Stafford ruled that the space in front of the station was private property and belonged to the terminal company, and that other court decisions are to the effect that its use by the public had forfeited the title of the terminal company in that property. And we would like to have you give us information on that subject, and also to get your views on some of the provisions of this bill.

Mr. HART. I believe, in answer to that question, that I would refer to the police regulations relative to loitering that was on the statute books here prior to the present loitering regulation, that is paragraph 12 of the act of Congress-the appropriation act approved July 11, 1919.

Prosecutions under this loitering act have been submitted to Judge Hardison. Prior to that time the taxicabs at the hotels were not taken into court and charged with loitering, not by reason of any privilege that was granted to them by the Commissioners of the District, but by virtue of the decision in the Willard Hotel case; the court of appeals decision. In brief, that decision was to the effect that the hotel had a perfect right to have cabs in front of the hotel to accommodate the guests only of the hotel, the same as the hotel would serve meals, refreshments, and music to its guests.

As concerns the Union Station, I think all will have to concede that the title to the space in front of the Union Station is in the Washington Terminal Co.; there is no dispute about that.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. No; there is no dispute about that.

Mr. HART. Judge Stafford had ruled, I think it was in an injunction proceeding, that the Washington Terminal Co. had control over that highway, and that it was private property. Bowing deeply to Judge Stafford's ruling, I could not see it that way so far as the question of the controlling of traffic was concerned, so that I filed informations under the regulation in effect prior to the time this one went into force and effect, charging the public hackmen with loitering on that particular property, the space in front of the Union Station.

My theory was that even if the fee was in the Washington Terminal Co., so far as the use of it was concerned, it was dedicated for public use, and I was successful in my prosecutions in the police court. This particular question was never taken to the court of appeals on an appeal from the decision of the police court.

Before I issued any prosecutions I went down there and looked the situation over personally, and I do not know of any more chaotic condition existing than existed at the Union Station. On a number of occasions, in order to give every man a fair show, I went personally there to look the situation over, and on two or three occasions, before I could get near the Union Station with my car, I had to get out and exhibit a police badge in order to break a way through the line of public hackmen there, and I so informed the court on many

occasions.

Now, that was the condition before this act of July 11, 1919. When that act was passed I considered the matter carefully and I determined that the court was again going to have an opportunity to pass on the question of loitering. In other words, did Congress have in mind at the time they passed this act the conditions as they existed as the Union Station and the conditions as they existed at the hotels? I presumed that it did, and on that theory I filed informations in this matter, and these are the informations that are in the police court at the present time, and in which Judge Hardison has intimated what his decision will be, but has not handed down his final decision.

I took a public hackman in on an information charging him with loitering in front of the Union Station; that is, to the west of the central entrance of the Union Station; I took a Terminal Taxicab man in under identically the same circumstances. Then I went to the west portico and took a public hackman in under identically the same circumstances; and I took a terminal cabman in there under the same circumstances. Then I went to the Shoreham Hotel and took a public hackman in at that hotel, and took a Terminal cab in under identically the same circumstances. The only difference in the information is that in the case of the public hackman I charged him under one count. It was perfectly apparent that he was a public hackman. In order that there might not be a slip I filed two counts in the case of the Terminal cabman, one on the theory that he might. possibly be a private vehicle-although I could not see it-and the other charging them with being a public vehicle.