Page images
PDF
EPUB

station, or other place of public gathering, but any hackman may solicit employment by driving through any public street or place without stops, other than those due to obstruction of traffic, and at such speed as not to interfere or impede traffic, and may pass and repass before any theater hall, hotel, public resort, railway or ferrey station, or other place of public gathering, provided that after passing the same he shall not turn and repass until he shall have gone a distance of two blocks beyond such place.

6. No person shall be allowed to ride on the box with the driver.

7. No person shall solicit passengers for a public hack or hacks upon the streets and highways of the city of New York except the driver of a public hack when sitting upon the driver's box of his vehicle.

8. Any person violating any of the provisions of this article, except those where another penalty is specifically provided, upon conviction of such violation by a city magistrate or the commissioner of licenses, or his deputy, either upon confession of the party or by competent testimony, may be fined for such offense a sum not exceeding $10 and shall be subject to the suspension or revocation of his license, in the discretion of the commissioner of licenses, or a deputy commissioner with the approval of the commissioner.

SEC. 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately.

[The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.; Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.; the Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey, through freight and passenger service, office of manager, Twenty-fourth and Chestnut Streets.]

Mr. GEO. E. HAMILTON,

Union Trust Building, Washington, D. C.

PHILADELPHIA, March 13, 1920.

DEAR MR. HAMILTON: I am in receipt of your letter of March 12. I would be very sorry to see the proposed law put into force which would prevent the full protection to the traveling public. I would very much regret to see any law put into effect which would prevent the public from securing the best possible protection against irresponsible hackers and cab drivers at Washington Terminal. My experience in matters of this kind impressed me with the absolute necessity of safety as far as possible for the public.

I find that I will be very closely dated up next week. Mr. Williard will be here on Monday and Tuesday, and other important engagements the balance of the week will make it impossible for me to get away.

I feel, however, that every effort should be made to prevent the passing of the bill referred to, and I hope you will be able to secure the help of sufficient people now at Washington Terminal to give you the necessary assistance. With my best wishes, I am,

Yours, truly,

J. B. WADDINGTON.

JACKSONVILLE TERMINAL Co.,
Jacksonville, Fla., March 12, 1920.

Mr. GEORGE E. HAMILTON,

Care of Hamilton & Hamilton,

Union Trust Building, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. HAMILTON: Your letter of March 9 reached me this morning, and I wired you immediately Western Union message as per inclosed confirmation.

I think it would be a calamity and almost a crime to permit the public hackers of Washington to have free access to the taxicab facilities in any portion of the station for the purpose of solicitation or loading up passengers. It is my belief that we owe a duty to the traveling public to furnish them a reliable and dependable taxicab service to take them to their homes and hotels after they arrive at our station.

The only way, in my opinion, to obtain this protection for the traveling public is to make an arrangement with some taxicab concern whose reliability and responsibility is such that it will absolutely protect the patron against any damage incident to injury or mistreatment of any other kind.

I know personally that women have been insulted after entering public cabs at Washington during the time I was superintendent at that place, and I know further that these people claim that when they entered these cabs the drivers assured them that they were taxicabs of the Terminal Taxicab Co.;

therefore, when these people were overcharged, as almost invariably occurred, or were insulted or mistreated, they would take the matter up with me direct, only to find that they had not used a Terminal taxicab but had used a public hack. I received complaints too numerous to mention, mostly verbal, over the telephone, from people in Washington, as to being overcharged by the Terminal Taxicab Co., and in every case, without exception, on proper investigation it developed that it was a public cab, and not a Terminal Taxicab vehicle.

When I went to Washington in February, 1919, there were times when it was practically impossible for a passenger to cross from the front of the station to the street-car tracks for the purpose of boarding a street car. This was due to an incessant stream of public hackers, one after the other, constantly moving in a very slow procession in front of the main entrance of the station, I recall a number of cases where old men, women, and several young girls were knocked down by these public hackers, and seeing the urgency and necessity of something to break up this practice in order to protect those who used the street cars, and who, in my opinion, represent over 90 per cent of all the traffic which leaves the station by public vehicle, I found it necessary to erect chains and barriers to prevent public hackers from passing in front of the main portals of the station. I do not believe I would be exaggerating when I state that the relief was so immediate and noticeable to the traveling public that I received hundreds, and possibly a thousand, complimentary letters and telephone messages particularly congratulating me for my thoughtfulness in removing such a hazardous condition as existed in front of the station at the time this action was taken.

In connection with the above move I ordered certain traffic rules put into effect on our own property and for which we erected signs and also built and installed two platforms within the main taxicab entrance at the west end of station, which resulted in removing practically all of the difficulties we had experienced.

The regulations we put in permit any public hacker or any individual to come in and unload their passengers in the main taxicab entrance, as well as the big plaza to the east of the main entrance of the station, just the same and under the same conditions as did the Terminal Taxicab Co.; at the same time a separate place was provided in the taxicab entrance at west side of the station for the Terminal Taxicab Co. to load all of its vehicles, while a third place was provided for the purpose of individuals to enter and load passengers in cars which might belong to individuals.

At the same place public hackers who might have made previous arrangements or who were signaled to come in and pick up passengers were permitted to come in and load their passengers. This simple arrangement permitted us to treble the efficiency of the taxicab entrance, and this was sorely needed, and I might add we were forced in a measure to put in these platforms because public hackers would deliberately run their cars around and in front of the taxicab company cabs and block the whole areaway by such action while they solicited business. The erection of the platforms in question did away with the possibility of any such work as this on the part of any cab driver, as he was compelled to keep his car in one passageway.

In addition to the above arrangements, we set aside at each end of the station parking space for the cars of patrons of the terminal company who might want to leave their cars parked for a short period of time or ran over to Baltimore or some other station and back. All of these places and locations were protected by proper parking signs and instructions.

Without going into the merits of the legal questions involved, as to whether or not the terminal company had the right to lease a portion of its property, I do not believe that any Congressman who will properly investigate the conditions around the Union Station could make a single suggestion that would better protect the interests of the public and every other citizen than the arrangements now in effect, nor do I believe there is a Congressman that would be willing for his wife or daughter to take a cab whom they did not know to be thoroughly reliable from the Union Station to his home, especially at night. On the contrary, the very fact that there is provided a reliable and responsible taxicab company with cheaper rates than those charged by the public hacker to perform such a duty would satisfy any patron that they would be safer transported from the station to their destination.

Further, if the committee will give careful investigation and consideration to the manner in which this traffic is now handled at the Union Station, I will guarantee that they can not make a single suggestion that will benefit the opera

tion of that part of the terminal activities, and if it be thrown open to all public hackers it will be a step backward that every member of the committee will regret and hope for the hastening of an opportunity to reverse their action.

You know what insistent demands I made on the taxicab company to give efficient and proper service, and you will recall the many cases which I have mentioned to you of complaints against public hackers which were laid to the door of the Terminal Taxicab Co. until investigated and placed on the public hacker, where it belonged.

I only wish it was possible for me to get away from Jacksonville to come to Washington and appear before the committee in person, and hope you will understand the situation I am in, because of the fact of having just been put in charge of this property at a time when tourist traffic is at its very height and the terminal being rebuilt and remodeled. It would deeply grieve me to see the fruits of almost a year's hard work in trying to line up the traffic matters of the station at Washington according to what I believe conscientiously were to the best interests of the entire public torn down and again put in the former state of chaos in which I found it. Surely there is not a Congressman on this committee who can not remember what a hazardous undertaking it was to get to a street car or try to get out of an automobile in the taxicab entrance prior to last year, and I hope the action contemplated in the Zihlman bill will not be *aken.

Yours, very truly,

J. L. WILKES.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

The Washington Terminal Company v. The International Auto Sight-Seeing Transit Company. Equity No. 34604.

WASHINGTON, D. C., Monday, December 7, 1916. The above-entitled cause came on to be heard before Mr. Justice Stafford at 10 o'clock a. m.

Present on behalf of the plaintiff, George A. Hamilton, Esq., Frederick D. McKenney, Esq., and Edmund Brady, Esq.

Present on behalf of the defendant, Frank J. Hogan, Esq., and William H. Donovan, Esq.

Counsel thereupon proceeded to argue the case to the court at length, at the conclusion of which, at 3.15 o'clock p. m., the following occurred:

The COURT (Mr. Justice Stafford). Do counsel expect that the facts will be materially changed upon the final hearing from what they are now as presented on the pleadings, or would it come down practically to the same question of law that we have here now?

Mr. HOGAN. Speaking for the defendant, we are of opinion that they would not be changed materially. In fact, if the court please, I endeavored to draw the answer so that it would raise the questions.

Mr. MCKENNEY. If your honor please, leaving out of view the question of averments, which we think constitute mere averments of conclusions or deductions, we would not think they would be materially changed. Of course, that space is open space, and people do go through without our stopping them and asking them where they are going.

The COURT. That is what I understand.

Mr. MCKENNEY. They do not go by any open and asserted claim of right. They go from east to west without regard to that question.

The COURT. I asked the question because this is an application for a temporary injunctions, and often the balance of convenience rule is sufficient to determine the question whether an injunction should be grated. But the facts are so fully disclosed by the pleadings here in connection with such facts as are within the knowledge of all of us, and which we can hardly banish from our minds, that I have reached a rather clear opinion as to the question, and I think I may as well dispose of the matter now, practically, as I would if it were presented for final hearing.

In the first place, I think the most important consideration of all connected with the case, as I have gathered it from the able argument of counsel on both sides, is the originally planned scheme, as shown by the act of Congress and by what was done there in the beginning. It was contemplated thereby that there should be this large space, this immense building, with its ramifying tracks, and the great front of the station, with one large portico, and, of course,

a wide, open space in front of it. That must have been contemplated in the original scheme; and the tracks of the street railways, for the accommodation of the public, who must rely in the main upon such means of conveyance, were, of course, expected to pass over this space.

It was expected also that there would be a broad approach to it from the east and one from the west, and that there would be these other streets entering or approaching the station from the south. That was all as originally contemplated, and with that contemplation, the tract was set apart and put under the direction and control of the Terminal Co as a public servant, to serve the public, and it was given the necessary power and control to that end. It was contemplated in the beginning, then, that it would have the same control over the space now in question that it had over the buildings themselves.

It was contemplated that there would be people coming through Massachusetts Avenue to the east and coming through California Street to the west to approach this station. Anyone who ever thought about it would know that people might come, if there was a shorter way, and keep across one way or the other. We all know that public places of this sort are used for purposes of short cuts. People do use them in that way. People will go through a railroad station if it happens to cut off a little distance, or through any other public place, and nobody pays any attention to it unless it comes to be a nuisance.

The first question, it seems to me, is whether there has been anything in the way the Terminal Co. has treated this space that is absolutely inconsistent with the expectation, to begin with, with the plan and purpose of it in the beginning. What is pointed out as indicating that there has been an abandonment of that, an action entirely inconsistent with it?

The matter principally relied upon, as I understand it, is that the public have been permitted to use this space as a thoroughfare from one section of the city to the other. It is set out in the answer, and it has to be taken as true, that during these years the public has actually used it. There has never been any particular stamp of approval put upon it. There is nothing to indicate that the terminal authorities have been notified that these people were not coming over that space from California Street or from Massachusetts Avenue to come to their station, but only to make a thoroughfare of it, and that they insisted on their right to do so. That simply has been allowed to go on, as it always would in such circumstances.

Are we to infer from that fact that the Terminal Co. dedicated the space to that use, and made a public street of it as much as if it had a name and were laid out by the public authorities as a street? I do not see how we can draw that conclusion from that fact. It seems to me there is little if anything in that inconsistent with the original plan and scheme. Because officers were not instructed to watch and see whether automobiles and carriages passed by the station without stopping there, and used the street only for a thoroughfare, I do not see how we can say that that indicates a clear, unequivocal intention on the part of the Terminal Co. to dedicate that space as a street.

Then it is said that the permission given to the defendant heretofore has been such as to recognize that this was a public street, but I think when you take the facts bearing upon that subject, and the previous license to the Taxicab Co., and its licensee, you can not draw any such inference form that fact, or from any treatment which this defendant has received at the hands of the plaintiff.

Then there are the criminal prosecutions, and while they are evidence, and of some force, it seems to me they are altogether inadequate from which to draw so important a conclusion as this. I hardly think you can say that the corporation, as such, has thereby committed itself to the view that this is a public street and for all purposes should be treated as such. The company or its subordinates were anxious to get rid of what they thought was an obstruction, and they took the quickest and readiest means at hand. But I think it would be unwarranted and unjust to infer therefrom a dedication of this street to the public. I think it would be to defeat a purpose of Congress to hold so; that is, to draw that inference from the fact of the criminal prosecutions, or from all these facts together which are relied upon by the defendant.

On the other hand, you have the original purpose or plan, as shown by the act of Congress, and shown by the work that has been done there in such magnificent style by the Terminal Co. and the Government of the United States. You have the fact that the title remais as it has always been since the beginning of this matter, in the Terminal Co. You have the taxes assessed against this company. You have it leasing to the street railways and collecting from

them the rents. You have a pretty consistent effort throughout on the part of plaintiff to control this space as against such companies as the defendant, and, weighing the matter up in that way on both sides, it seems to me reasonably certain that the property is still private property, although held for a public use, of course, and that being so, I think there is no question at all under the decisions relied upon by both sides that an injunction, narrowed to the scope now proposed by the company's counsel, is one that ought to be issued.

As a practical matter, I think it is fully as well for the defendant that this course should be taken, for in that event it will have an undertaking which will fully protect it during the brief time when, perhaps, it may be necessary for this case to be pending before it is decided upon its merits here and in the court above.

I will say nothing more.

(Thereupon at 3.30 o'clock p. m, the court adjourned.)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Equity No.

Washington Terminal Company, a corporation, plaintiff, v. International Auto Sightseeing Transit Company, a corporation, defendant. 34604.

This cause coming on for final hearing upon the merits upon plaintiff's amended bill of complaint and exhibits thereto and the defendant's return and exhibits thereto, to the rule to show cause issued on said amended bill of complaint and exhibits, as well as defendant's answer to said bill, and the Commissioners of the District of Columbia having appeared herein by the corporation counsel of the District of Columbia as amicus curiæ for the purpose of submitting to this court the question whether the alleged roadway in front of the said Union Station is or is not a public highway, and it appearing to the court that the title to the property and space in these proceedings described, and lying between the south line of the property of the Washington Terminal Co. and the Union Station building, as shown on plat filed as exhibit to original bill herein, is vested in said Terminal Co. and under its control, supervision, and direction and that no other control or direction has even been granted or acquiesced in by the said Washington Terminal Co. and that the said property and space is not a public highway. it is this 31st day of October, 1919, adjudged, ordered, and decreed that the defendant the International Auto Sightseeing Transit Co., its officers, agents, servants, employees, assigns, or others acting for said defendant be and they are hereby perpetually restrained and enjoined from entering for the purpose of soliciting and from soliciting patronage for said defendant's sightseeing cars or other vehicles, or from parking or standing its said sightseeing cars or other vehicles or any of them upon said property and space or upon any property or space vested in and under the control of the said plaintiff for a longer period of time than may be reasonably necessary for the purpose of receiving or discharging passengers with whom said defendant shall have had in advance of said receiving or discharging a bona fide contract for their transportation, and not for the purpose of placing, parking, or loitering with its said sightseeing cars or other vehicles or any of them on said property and space or any part thereof,

By the court:

O. K. as to form:

FRANK J. HOGAN,

Attorney for Defendant.

WENDELL P. STAFFORD,

Justice.

X

« PreviousContinue »