there, which is illustrated by the number of informations that I have read to you as having been filed there for these years, you would never have gotten through with the work in the police court if you sent every case into court. You would have at least 10,000 or 20,000 cases still pending. Therefore I think that the forfeiture procedure was forced upon the authorities by the reason of the congestion in the

court.

Mr. BURDICK. And what was the percentage?

Mr. HART. Of forfeitures?

Mr. BURDICK. Yes.

Mr. HART. I would say at least 75 per cent, or more.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. I think Lieut. Shelby stated 80 per cent.

Mr. HART. I have no doubt but what it may go to 80 per cent. Mr. ZIHLMAN. What is your view, Mr. Hart, as to enforcement of laws and regulations relating to motor-vehicle traffic? Do you believe that they should come directly under the supervision of the superintendent of police and his men?

Mr. HART. I think that it should come under the jurisdiction of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia and that the police department, under the police commissioner's jurisdiction, should enforce the regulations.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. You do not think there is any necessity for the establishment of a motor vehicle commissioner?

Mr. HART. I do not; no, sir. I believe there is something in the hearings about five motor cycle men being detailed.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Yes.

Mr. HART. I think that the entire police force should look after traffic conditions as a part of their work, but that some should specialize in traffic work, as is now being done, and that it should come under the Commissioners of the District of Columbia rather than a motor vehicle commissioner; that the police chief, acting under the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, one of whom is generally known as the police commissioner by reason of that particular branch coming under his control, should be the party responsible for the enforcement of the regulations. I see no necessity for a motor vehicle commissioner in this jurisdiction. I can see it for the States, for the reason that was assigned by the commissioner here this morning, which is the first time I have ever heard that phase of it presented, and that is the question of the various counties and villages, necessitating a motor vehicle commissioner, but I see no necessity for such office in this District.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. I do not agree with you that it should come directly under the supervision of the Commissioner of the District of Columbia who is known as the police commissioner by an arrangement entered into between them, because I can not see, with his multitude of duties, how he can possibly deal with the question which seems to have grown to such proportions. It seems to me that it demands the direct supervision of some one familiar with the subject. It might be that they could delegate that authority to some one in the police department.

Mr. HART. That is my idea, that he should be amenable to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, but whoever is selected would be a member of the police department. That is the very idea that I have.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Do you wish to ask Mr. Hart any further questions?

Mr. BURDICK. No, sir.

Mr. HART. I made a couple of notes here that may interest you. I do not know. You know that section 48 of the Code of Law for the District of Columbia provides that when a man is arrested for a misdemeanor he may leave collateral for his appearance. It is not a question of whether the police department may wish to accept it or not. It is a privilege granted to the defendant himself. He may leave collateral. That is the collateral system in this jurisdiction. Now, as concerns penalty. I have not read this bill before last night when I read it through twice. Section 44 of the code, which refers to the penalty and jury trial, provides in what cases a man shall have a right to trial by jury, and in this jurisdiction he is entitled to a trial by jury wherever he would be given a trial by force of the Constitution or where the penalty may be $50 or more, or where he can be deprived of his liberty, I think the code mentions 30 days. Now, it depends upon what penalty is fixed in these traffic laws and regulations, as you all know, as to what a defendant is going to do. My experience has been this, that when they are entitled to a jury trial they demand it, not because they want to be tried by 12 men, but they want the delay due to the congestion of the court. I was confronted by the same thing in connection with the Sheppard law approved March 3, 1917, when there would be coming in 10 cases a day of people arrested for selling whisky, and all 10 would demand a jury trial because they knew we could only give them a jury trial two days in a week, the other two days being devoted to the United States branch of the police court. Therefore I call your attention to the fact that in cases of minor violations of traffic regulations, your penalty should not go over $40, and I do not say that to deprive a man of his right to trial by jury, but because I believe the congestion is such that it has to be done. Then, when you come to the case of a man driving while intoxicated, I think it is unfortunate that you can not lock him up and throw the key away. I think your penalty provision is well put there, and that a man guilty of such offense should be drastically dealt with. But in the minor traffic regulations I suggest that the penalty should not be such as to entitle the defendant to a jury trial, because otherwise you will never get through.

Now, I think you should have a more rigid examination of those persons who apply for permits. Under the present condition a man goes down and states that he is so old and has had at least three weeks' experience, and if he is fortunate enough to have $2 he gets an automobile permit. As Commissioner Brownlow says, that is due to the small number of people in the license office to look after these matters. It is a question of the manner in which it is issued. Mr. ZIHLMAN. That can be cured under existing law by regulations?

Mr. HART. It can be cured under existing law. Concerning the question of the signs that are placed upon the streets, no man wants to go to sleep at night obeying the law and wake up the following morning and find a new law. But that feature is cast aside when these signs are placed on the streets with the lettering large enough

to be seen by the automobilists, so that they will have fair warning by that sign. I think if Congress passes that regulation it will be a good regulation, a valid regulation, because an act of Congress goes into effect immediately, whereas a police regulation must be published for 30 days. Now, here is what will surprise you. I have often wondered whether a man who can not read the English language should be permitted to have an automobile permit. I have had several cases come into the police court where they have disobeyed the signals and signs, and their excuse is that they could not read English.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Could they speak it?

Mr. HART. Yes; but they could not read it; but that is just a minor detail that I am calling your attention to. I think that the bicycle men on the police force, so far as traffic regulations are concerned, have become obsolete. The bicycle man catches a man going 22, 23, or 24 miles an hour. If they go faster than that he can not get them, and the man who goes faster than that is the very man that we want to get. So that I think the bicycle man should be abolished to a great extent. Of course, they should be kept in such reasonable number as the commissioners might desire for all purposes, but the vast majority of them should be motorized.

I think the question of a permit, where you are going to note the warning on it, is an excellent thing. I have told you what I thought about the traffic court.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Is there anything else, Mr. Hart?

Mr. HART. Not unless you care to ask questions.
Mr. ZIHLMAN. I think that is all.

(Thereupon, at 11.50 o'clock a. m., the subcommittee adjourned until Tuesday, March 23, 1920, at 10 o'clock a. m.)

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE

ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D. C., Tuesday, March 23, 1920.

The subcommittee met this day, Hon. Frederick N. Zihlman presiding, Mr. Lanham being absent on account of illness.

STATEMENT OF MR. A. J. DRISCOLL, REPRESENTING THE
WASHINGTON SAFETY-FIRST ASSOCIATION.

Mr. DRISCOLL. Mr. Chairman, at the last meeting of our organization, which is a very active organization here in the District, a civic organization, of course, organized for the safety of streets and the safety of pedestrians, we unanimously adopted your bill, with one proviso, however, that instead of the different police court judges having charge of the traffic court, as provided for in your bill, that a separate judge be assigned to look after the interests of that court. We did that, Mr. Chairman, feeling that if we had a separate judge to look after that court, better results could be accomplished. As you know, when an officer makes an arrest now, very frequently he is compelled to go to court at 9 o'clock in the morning, we will say,

and I have known of cases where those men have had to remain in court until 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and then had to hurry out, possibly to get a bite to eat, and then go back on duty. That has been due, I think, in great measure to the fact that the police courts were overcrowded with work and could not get down to these cases of traffic violations. I believe that in some instances they felt that the other cases were a little more pressing, and were satisfied to leave these other cases pass, so I believe, in the interest of the bill, in the interest of the court, in the interest of the enforcement of the law, it would be much better if we could have a separate judge, and that is the way our organization looked at it.

A police officer, or traffic officer, has difficult work to do. It is laid out for him by the commissioners and by the law. We maintain that if, after a man makes an arrest and takes his case into court, he has to remain there all day and maybe a part of the time that he should be back on his beat, that the work that is laid out for him by law suffers, and consequently we do not get the benefit of that man's activity on the street that we are entitled to, and we feel finally that these cases are just as important, just as pressing as any other case, and should receive the same consideration.

There is another question that we debated, Mr. Chairman, and that is the question of forfeitures and fines. We do not believe that it is a very good idea to allow the forfeiture of collateral until the offender has been taken at least before the court or the prosecuting attorney. We do not think that a man should be simply served with notice, and pay no attention to that notice, but we feel that it should go further that that, and that the man should be taken before the proper officer who has the regulating of such forfeitures, if it is possible.

There is another matter that I would like to go into, and that is the question of equipment in the different police precincts. I do not know whether you are acquainted with conditions here in the District or not, but I judge you are. But I do want to impress upon the committee that we are greatly in need of adequate equipment here in the different precincts throughout the city for the enforcement of traffic regulations.

It might be interesting for the committee to know that some of these precincts have not what we term a wagon to go out and get a prisoner who should happen to be arrested and carry him in to the police station. I know by experience of one instance here one Sunday afternoon where we called up three or four precincts before we were able to get a wagon to take the injured people to the hospital. There was no wagon in which to take the damaged equipment to the police station. Eventually we did hail a vehicle that was coming down the street, and we loaded the damaged stuff into this automobile, and they took it to the precinct. We feel that every police precinct should be equipped with at least one motor vehicle. We feel that every precinct should be equipped, especially within the city limits, and generally speaking, with a wagon to look after the prisoners that should be arrested. I think that is very important. Our policemen have had a great deal of difficulty, and it places them in a very awkward position at times, to arrest a prisoner and then have to wait on the street until they telephone around to the different

precincts in order to get a wagon to carry that prisoner to the station. I think those things, Mr. Chairman, should receive the consideration of this committee.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Mr. Driscoll, did your association discuss the feature of the bill that provides for the appointment of a motor-vehicle commissioner?

Mr. DRISCOLL. Yes, sir.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Do you favor the appointment of a separate commissioner?

Mr. DRISCOLL. We do.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Instead of having it under the police department for enforcement?

Mr. DRISCOLL. Well, we discussed that, but we felt, with the way conditions exist now, that the police department is the only means they have for enforcing the law. I do not know that I would go so far as to say that we did decide that we should have a special commissioner. I believe that with the organization of this traffic court, when it is operating as it should be, that the police department could handle this very nicely. I think we are agreed on that.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. It would certainly require a man who would be designated for that work alone?

Mr. DRISCOLL. He would have to have specific charge of that work, but I think it should be taken up and handled in the last analysis by the judge of the traffic court.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. You think better results could be obtained by a police officer detailed for that specific work and under the direct supervision and restriction of the traffic court?

Mr. DRISCOLL. I think so; yes, sir.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Do you favor the examination of applicants for drivers' licenses?

Mr. DRISCOLL. Yes; we do, Mr. Chairman; a more rigid examination than we have at the present time. As you know, the examination at the present time is not very serious. They do not go into details very closely, and we feel that there should be a more rigid examination. They have a very good one in the State of Maryland, requiring that a man has to have knowledge of the running of a machine, and they have a commissioner to make those examinations, and I should think that the same kind of a commissioner, acting in and for the District of Columbia, would be a very good thing.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Did you discuss the penalties imposed for certain violations in this bill?

Mr. DRISCOLL. No; we did not, Mr. Chairman; we did not go into that very deeply.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Is there anything else, Mr. Driscoll, that you want to say?

Mr. DRISCOLL. That is all, I think, Mr. Chairman, unless there are some other questions the committee cares to ask.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. No; I think not.

Mr. DRISCOLL. But generally speaking, speaking for the people of the District-and I have been around a great deal-they are very much in favor of this bill, and we are very much in favor of this traffic court, and think we ought to have it. They have it in other cities, and Washington is a growing city, and we should have it, and we hope we will have it.