In fact, I never remember taking my friends to that station that I was ever able to get up to that walk, but invariably, no matter what the weather, had to park out in the open, and then come around to the granolithic walk and into the station. You can readily see what the condition would be where 80 or 90 or 100 cars-I do not mean taxicabs, but all kinds of motor vehicles-arrive at that station within an hour or so, or possibly even a shorter period. They can not all get up to that granolithic walk. So that apart, as I say, from the question of the public hackers versus the Terminal Taxicab, the present platforms have brought about a condition much better than that which existed before.

I gained the impression from the testimony of some one here, but possibly was inaccurate in it, but the idea conveyed to my mind was that the Terminal Taxicab Co. both loaded and unloaded at the granolithic platform. The regulation of the terminal company is this, that they may park their cabs at the granolithic platform up to the pillar just immediately opposite that western door. In other words, they are not allowed, under our regulation, to come where they will block that door, and from that point on they are not allowed. When it comes to the question of unloading, every cab, whether private, public, or a terminal taxicab, must unload at the first wooden platform, or, as has been stated here, the second platform, which is the first wooden platform. You are all required to unload there, no matter who you are.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Including the terminal taxicabs?

Mr. BRADY. Yes, sir; they have to unload there. Every cab that comes into that station has to unload on that platform. There is no unloading on the granolithic platform.

This trouble is not new. It is as old as railroad stations are. The law books are full of cases. Of course, the controlling case in this District is the case of Donavan against the Pennsylvania Railroad, a decision in the Supreme Court of the United States reported in 199 United States Supreme Court Reports, but I recall similar cases that happened in this city. The Kansas City terminal has had it. Salt Lake City had it, Portland, Oreg., had it, New York has had it, some of the large cities in Texas have had it, Boston has had it, and almost without dissent-I think probably there are only a few cases holding otherwise the courts have upheld the right of the terminal or railroad company to control traffic within their own property limits, and also their right to grant the exclusive privilege for taxicab or ordinary cab service upon their properties.

Now, the Donavan case had a double aspect. The injunction there was sought to keep the public hackers off of the station property in Chicago, and also to prevent them from assembling on the public street. There the station is built flush with the public street, and an injunction was sought also to keep them off of the street in front of the station. The Supreme Court of the United States held that their right to keep them off of their property was undoubted, and sustained the injunction in that particular. As to the public street, they declined to grant any injunction, stating that the public street. as a rule, was under the control of the municipal authorities, and that was a matter for them to regulate, and one over which the railroad company had no control.

Unless there are some questions you gentlemen would like me to answer. I think that is all I care to say in regard to the history of this matter and what I have observed in regard to it myself.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Mr. Brady, do you represent the Terminal Taxicab Co.?

Mr. BRADY. No, sir; I have absolutely no connection with the Terminal Taxicab Co.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. You represent the Washington Terminal Co.?
Mr. BRADY. The Washington Terminal Co.; yes, sir.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Has the Washington Terminal Co. some arrangement with the Terminal Taxicab Co. other than that they lease them that

Mr. BRADY. It is a leased privilege, as I understand it; yes, sir. Mr. ZUHLMAN. Nothing more than that?

Mr. BRADY. In what way do you mean?

Mr. ZIHLMAN. I mean an arrangement between the Washington Terminal Co. and the Terminal Taxicab Co., other than just a lease of this west portico?

Mr. BRADY. That is all. The lease gives the superintendent of the Washington Terminal Co. the right to set aside and designate the space upon which the cabs may stand while waiting patronage, and also gives them the right to maintain an office at a place on the station property to be designated by the superintendent of the terminal company.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. It also leases them this part over there?

Mr. BRADY. The space set aside for them is here and around here and here [indicating] to the point where the western door opens. Mr. ZIHLMAN. Have you obtained from the District of Columbia some sort of a permit to use this as a garage?

Mr. BRADY. No, sir; the Washington Terminal Co. had nothing to do with that. That is a permit that the Terminal Taxicab Co. took out with the District of Columbia.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. To erect a garage there?

Mr. BRADY. Yes: I have heard that referred to here and in the police court proceedings.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. The Terminal Taxicab Co. has a lease on the ground around here to the west of the station?

Mr. BRADY. They have a place where the cabs come. That is the place designated by the superintendent for them to stand.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. That is included in their lease, is it not?

Mr. BRADY. Well, there is no specific space leased to them, Mr. Zihlman. The superintendent tells them where they can stand. He can change it to-morrow and can give them more space or less space. There is no specific space, as I recall, leased to them. They have got to stand where the superintendent tells them to stand, and that is the place where he has told them to stand.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. The superintendent of the Washington Terminal Co. ?

Mr. BRADY. Yes.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Is there any arrangement whereby the Washington Terminal Co. gets a commission on the business?

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

Mr. ZIHLMAN. That is the arrangement I was referring to.

Mr. BRADY. I did not understand your question. Yes; there is a consideration for the lease of the privilege.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. A commission?

Mr. BRADY. I imagine it is on a commission basis, but I really have not read that part of the lease. I have read selected portions of it, where it has been quoted in the police court, or in some other proceeding, but I have never read the lease through in my life. But I imagine it would be on a commission basis. Many privileges around a station are put on that basis.

Mr. BURDICK. Did the Terminal Taxicab Co. obtain some right from the District to erect a garage there?

Mr. BRADY. All that I know of that is what I heard in the police court, where the permit was introduced in evidence in the trial of this case just recently before Judge Hardison, and it has also been referred to in the hearings before this committee.

Mr. BURDICK. They have no lease on that particular space?

Mr. BRADY. Not as I understand it; no, sir.

Mr. BURDICK. The right of occupancy of any specific parking space is not leased to them?

Mr. BRADY. It is a mere lease of a privilege, as I understand it, rather than a lease of specific land. It is the lease of a privilege. Mr. BURDICK. So that you do not know under what theory they could have a garage license there?

Mr. BRADY. I am not familiar with that license any more than I have heard here. It is a matter with which I have never had any connection.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. The question really in dispute is as to whether this street in front of the station is the property of the Washington Terminal Co. or the District.

Mr. BURDICK. I understand that.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. And the Terminal Taxicab Co. seems to have fortified itself by getting an arrangement with the station allowing it to use the street in front, and then has fortified itself in addition by getting a license to erect a garage there.

Mr. BURDICK. Yes; but this witness says they have no lease of that particular strip of land at all. All they have is the privilege of parking their cars where the superintendent designates.

Mr. BRADY. Yes.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. They have a lease on this west portico.

Mr. BRADY. That is simply the part of the station that the superintendent designates for the standing of their cabs.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Some one testified here that they paid $65 a year for the privilege.

Mr. BRADY. That is the tax they pay to the District of Columbia for the garage permit. That is my recollection of the testimony on that. Mr. Zihlman.

Mr. BURDICK. What I can not understand is how you can get the right from the District Commissioners to have a garage on land that you have no interest in at all.

Mr. BRADY. As I recall that permit, when it was introduced it did not specify any particular place, did it, Mr. Zihlman; it simply said at Union Station?

Mr. ZIHLMAN. It has not been introduced here, and I have never seen it.

Mr. BRADY. I have never seen it myself.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. It was referred to, and I think that the language of it was quoted.

Mr. BRADY. That is my recollection, as I heard that suggestion

made.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Have you a copy of that permit, Mr. Maltby?

Mr. MALTBY. I have a certified copy of it. A Congressman has it, but if you want it now I can get it. He has it in his files with some papers. I can go and get it, but I can tell you the language in it. The instrument itself is better, and I can get that. I was under the impression this committee had it. I have a certified copy of it, and I will get it in five minutes.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Get the copy, and we will put it into the record. Mr. BURDICK. Has the agreement between the Terminal Co. and the Terminal Taxicab Co. been introduced?

Mr. BRADY. No, sir. It was introduced in evidence in the police court case, and I think it is there.

Mr. MALTBY. The agreement between the Terminal Taxicab Co. and the Washington Terminal Co., and the agreement between the Shoreham Hotel and the Terminal Taxicab Co., upon objection by Mr. Dunlop, counsel for the Taxicab Co., was kept out, and not allowed by the judge to be seen, but was just handed to him, with the understanding that he was to look at it, and nobody else. He has it with his papers, and they can not allow anybody else to see it. But the judge, and the counsel concerned, the two counsel, the one on my side and the one on the side of the Taxicab Co., saw it. Mr. Brady was there, but I do not think he saw it.

Mr. BRADY. The attorneys handed it to the court, but I never read it.

Mr. BURDICK. Is there any objection on the part of the Terminal Co. to letting the committee have the benefit of that agreement with the Taxicab Co.?

Mr. BRADY. No, sir.

Mr. BURDICK. Will you furnish it?

Mr. BRADY. Yes, sir; I will get a copy and leave it with the chair

man.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. The public vehicle drivers have been up here for the past week, and Mr. Mosley, who represents the public vehicle drivers, has been designated to speak for them, and we will give him an opportunity to testify before the committee.

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN H. MOSLEY, REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC VEHICLE UNION, LOCAL NO. 654.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Whom do you represent, Mr. Mosley?
Mr. MOSLEY. The public vehicle association.

Mr. BURDICK. An association of them?

Mr. MOSLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURDICK. Is that the name of the association?

Mr. MOSLEY. The Public Vehicle Union, Local No. 654.

Mr. Chairman, the Public Vehicle Association of the District of Columbia has long fought for a fair and equal opportunity to earn. a livelihood in competition with all others engaged in the same line

173006-20--13

of business. The Zihlman bill, H. R. 12667, offers to us a ray of hope for a remedy for some of the existing conditions of which the hackers have so justly complained. The bill provides for the creation of a traffic commissioner, and we heartily indorse the plan, and we would like to have incorporated in this bill a provision that this commissioner shall be required to have charge of the hack stands, and shall create new hack stands in case of necessity.

Our reason for this complaint is that under existing conditions traffic constantly changes, as to the locality where public vehicles are required, or their service is needed, and hack stands that have been designated in former years at other places that were active at that time, some of them have become inactive as the condition of business has changed, and new places for the hackers to park in order to get business have not been provided.

Upon application to the sergeant of police, who has charge of the inspection of the hackers, known as the hack inspector, we get the information that the authority for the designation of such stands lies in the courts. Upon other applications we get the information that the authority for such designation lies in the District Commissioners. So that we are constantly shifted from one to the other, with no result as to the creation of hack stands where business is now in such a condition that there is something for the hackers to do.

Therefore we recommended that under the provisions of this bill the traffic commissioner be required to create stands wherever there is business, at the hotels, terminals, wharves, and other public places, in a place adjacent to the curb at such places of business.

As to the matter of the license of a driver, under the provisions of this bill, we do not feel that the commissioner should have entire power to revoke a man's license. We feel that a man should have an opportunity to present his case to a court, to a tribunal, and have a chance to fight his right out, and we come to this conclusion by some developments that have recently occurred, and these developments are based upon rumors which we have no evidence to back up, but we have every reason to believe. There was current a rumor which came from some chauffeurs of the Terminal Taxicab Co., that is given out by them among the public vehicle chauffeurs in and about the station that the Terminal Taxicab Co. was going to have a number of the licenses of the public-vehicle drivers doing business about the station revoked, so that by spring there would not be more than 10 public-vehicle chauffeurs in competition with the Terminal Taxicab people at the Union Station. Along about the 1st of February, or thereabouts, we find that the licenses of four or five public-vehicle chauffeurs were revoked upon charges, and some of them were first offenses.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Do you mean the driver's license, or their license as hackers? You have two, do you not?

Mr. MOSELY. We have two. That is the hacker's license, the license to do business. So that taking the rumor that the Terminal Taxicab Co. were exercising influence to reduce the number of hackers to compete with them directly, and the occurrence of five licenses being revoked about the beginning of spring, there was every reason to believe that there was some foundation to such a rumor. Mr. BURDICK. Who revokes those licenses now?