DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Hon. ALLEN T. TREADWAY, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN TREADWAY: I am very glad to have your letter of January 27 and to give you the following information concerning the situation at the Union Station: You evidently have not been informed that the street in front of the Union Station to the line marked by the outh curb is, I regret to say, the property of the Washington Terminal Co., which owns the land in fee simple by the authority of an act of Congress. Two or three years ago Judge Stafford decided, in a suit brought by one of the sight-seeing automobile companies against the Washington Terminal Co. to enjoin the latter from interfering with the sight-seeing company in occupying a portion of the space in front of the tation, that this place was private property, the fee of which was in the Washington Terminal Co., and that that company had the right to exclude the sight-seeing automobile company and to grant special privileges to the Terminal Taxicab and the Federal Taxicab Cos. upon this space. Ever since this decision it has been a matter of much concern to the District authorities, particularly the police, to know just exactly what authority we have over this space for the purpose of enforcing the traffic regulations. A series of cases have consequently been prepared against public hackmen and the Terminal and Federal Taxicab Cos., respectively, to ascertain their right to occupy this space and also the space on the public streets adjoining the hotels. When these cases have been finally disposed of by the court of appeals, which is expected to be some time this spring, we will know-or ought to know-what authority we have over this space, and if it be decided that we have none, or not sufficient for the purpose of public safety, it is our intention to apply to Congress for relief. As to the policy of roping off the space in front of the Union Station, this was made necessary because of the so-called "cruising' or "crabbing practice of public-vehicle drivers who drove in an endless circle slowly by the station, keeping within the law but endangering the lives of women and children and others who were crossing from the pavement in front of the station to the street cars. There were times when the lives of hundreds of people were endangered by these practices, and it was the view of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia that the only way to make the streets safe for pedestrians at this point was to prohibit vehicles from coming in front of the station and endangering the lives of the thousands of people who were compelled to ride on the street cars. Public-vehicle stands have been established in the immediate vicinity of the station and persons are able to find them with as little difficulty as in any city in the United States. If you can get the authority of law to place the ownership of the street in front of the Union Station in the name of the United States, so that the Commissioners of the District of Columbia may have control of the same, I assure you you will find many persons willing to cooperate with you in this movement to better the conditions for the traveling public at that point. With best wishes, I am Very sincerely, yours, R. W. PULLMAN, Major and Superintendent. I wrote him a further letter, as I received some communications from people about other conditions, and perhaps I ought to read this letter as well. This is dated February 11, in reply to another letter of mine. [Reading:] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Hon. ALLEN T. TREADWAY, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN TREADWAY: The matter of the Terminal Taxicab Co.'s drivers interfering with foot passengers in front of the station during the night and morning is something that has not, in so far as I know, been called to the attention of officers of this department. I shall, however, direct the captain of the sixth police precinct, in whose territory the Terminal property is located, to see that foot passengers are not interfered with by the Terminal drivers. We may have a little difficulty in this respect because of the fact that the company parks its machines on the area which under the law is private property but which for all ordinary purposes is a public street. The public vehicle drivers so abused their privileges in front of the Union Station that it became necessary to prevent their practices of "crabbing" and cruising " which at busy times of the day endangered the lives of persons who had to use street cars. It was merely for the greatest good for the greatest number, because perhaps 500 people have to use the street cars at the station to every one who can afford to take a taxicab or public vehicle. 66 We had a great many complaints of the old conditions which made it almost impossible for pedestrians to get from the pavement in front of the station to the street cars and made it especially difficult for old persons, cripples, and for women with children. Until the receipt of your letter we had no complaint on the present arrangement except that which has come from public-vehicle drivers who want the privilege of " crabbing" in front of the station. We have however, extended to them every privilege which we can under the law by enlarging the publicvehicle stand at either end of the plot immediately in front of the station. Formerly public-vehicle stands were restricted to six cars at each end; now the number is unlimited, and sometimes there are as many as 40 or 50 on the stand. With best wishes I am, Very sincerely, yours, R. W. PULLMAN, Major and Superintendent. You see, Mr. Chairman, there are some very pertinent suggestions in Maj. Pullman's two letters. He says in the first one that if there is some way that ownership could be changed in front of the station the commissioners of the District would be very glad to cooperate; and in the next one there is a little difficulty experienced from the fast that what is public space down there is monopolized by the taxicabs of the Terminal Co. It is an extremely interesting situation, I think. That covers my personal side of the matter, but when you stumble onto these things it is well, perhaps, to go to the bottom of them, and, as a matter of fact, I had intended to follow the matter up, but other business has prevented, and this bill, perhaps, gives the opportunity. Here is a map, Mr. Chairman, that I secured from the surveyor of the District, Mr. Hazen, under date of February 5 [indicating blue print]. This white line represents the actual building. Here is the arch proposition that we have been talking about [indicating]. Here is the front of the depot. Now, this red line is the line of the so-called ownership of the Terminal Co., this being on the curb across the entire hnghway here, and the car track running through here [indicating]. Those signs that I showed you are approximately here, as you know. The claim of the Terminal Co., as I understand it, is that under this act of Congress and the condemnation of various streets, the line of their property is as marked there in red, and therefore they can do as they please with anything within those limits. Now, I think that has reached the point where Congress should act, either recognize that Congress has of its own volition established the most tremendous monopolistic opportunity which the public can recognize is being very seriously abused, or that unintentionally it created this condition, and whatever Congress has done it can correct in the future. I suppose it would involve some losses, perhaps, some settlements, but as I understand it this whole area leading out through here to the tracks and across the street was in a sense a gift to these joint railroad companies for the purpose of building a station upon. They have not exercised that right on that area. Now, then, the question seems to me to be whether that property between the actual building line and the red mark, as shown by the surveyor, comes within the province of what the Congress intended it should donate to that company. Mr. LANHAM. You think their use of it would indicate a dedication to public use on their part? Mr. TREADWAY. Of course, it was the intention of Congress that it should be for public use, and it is not for public use. Mr. LANHAN. I mean the use of it by the company. If they have title out to here in their own right in fee simple, and they have permitted the use of it through these years for public purposes, do you think thereby they are precluded by at least the constructive dedication on their part of that property to public use? Mr. TREADWAY. Well, as conditions are to-day I should not want to admit that they had dedicated it to public use, because they are absolutely monopolizing what part of it they want and putting up signs here and telling what the public can or can not do on their private property. Mr. LANHAN. Other than by some kind of condemnation proceedings, how could the Government acquire that property? Mr. TREADWAY. I have not read carefully either of the acts. This act which I refer to was at a later date amended. I have a further copy of it here. To my mind there is no reason in the world why Congress can not to-day say that the line of the construction of the depot is the one that Congress intended to give. Probably when this act was passed-we don't know; none of us was here; but the chances are that no plans had been drawn. So far as the intent of Congress was concerned, was it not expected that the building should come out to here, out to this red line? If it had come out to the red line, or if one man had as much right on this property as another man, it would be dedicated to public use. Mr. LANHAN. Would this committee have the authority to pass upon a matter of that kind and report legislation of that kind? Mr. TREADWAY. I think so. You reserve in this act right here, the last section of it, that Congress reserves the right to alter, amend, or repeal this act. That is not even necessary, as a matter of fact, to include that statement, I am told, as a section in the bill, because you directly do have that right. Now, if Congress prescribed that area and gave it to the Union Station Co., or whatever the official title may be, they did it for the specific purpose of constructing the depot. That land was not used by the company, and there is no reason in the world why it should not revert to the ownership of the District. Mr. ZIHLMAN. Maj. Pullman, in his first letter, states that it is the intention of the District authorities to appeal to Congress. Mr. TREADWAY. Yes; if this lawsuit which is now up-I don't know anything about that case-is not decided in favor of the District. Mr. ZIHLMAN. The remarkable thing about this whole proposition is that both ends of the station, other than these streets which they It seem to have very carefully laid off, is a sheer drop, so that it is impossible to reach the station on either of the streets on the side. Well, there is no street on this side, but there is one over here [indicating]. Mr. TREADWAY. That street is expressly reserved in the act. evidently was the expectation that the post-office building was later to be constructed, and First Street is expressly reserved, fortunately; otherwise I imagine the public would have about as much chance there as they have got around the front. Mr. LANHAM. I was raising my question with reference to what you considered the advisable and proper method of divesting the title from this Terminal Co. Mr. TREADWAY. I think congressional action is absolutely justified, in view of the use that the terminal people have put it to. I see no reason why Congress should not act. Congress granted the land for a specific purpose, for the accommodation of the public; the public are not being accommodated; a monopoly is being maintained, and evidently conditions are hopeless, because Maj. Pullman himself said nothing could be done. Now, there are one or two other interesting things. The decision of Judge Stafford, made several years ago, stating that to be private land, I have not seen. Probably the committee has it, but this is an opinion delivered last year by Judge McMahon-whether it is an appeal from this case that is now in the court of appeals or not I do not know. Evidently an appeal was taken by the attorney at interest here, and I suppose that is the case to which Maj. Pullman refers. He cites many interesting cases as to the public rights and use of approaches to stations in this decision. He says: Now, on the question with respect to the rights on the streets generally, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Barney v. Keough, in 94 U. S., 340, said: "On the general question as to the rights of the public in the cities we can not see any difference in principle with regard to the extent of those rights, whether the fee is in the public or in the adjacent landowner, or in some third person. In either case the street is legally open and free for the public passage and for such other public uses as are necessary in a city, and do not prevent its use as a thoroughfare, such as the laying of water pipes, gas pipes, and the like, and according to the law of Iowa, which must be taken to govern the case, it may be occupied by those improved iron ways for public passage which modern skill has devised and which advance and general improvement requires." Of course, on this motion to quash there is no testimony establishing the fact that the property to which it is sought to apply this regulation is in fact owned by the Washington Terminal Co. But evidently the District authorities consider that it is— but it was stated in argument that it was owned by the Washington Terminal Co., and, as I recall, that statement was not denied. Mr. SHEA. It is conceded, I think. The COURT. So it would really narrow down to a question of proof on that particular point; but for the purpose of this motion the court is going to hold that the property, the highway, the street, or whatever you might want to call it, is adjacent to the Union Station property; and it is absolutely necessary that that property be used by the public who have occasion to transact business in the station or over the railroads; and it is a highway or street, in the court's mind, beyond any question, nowithstanding the fact, even if it be so, that the fee of that particular street or property or place or whatever you might term it is as an actual fact in the Washington Terminal Co.; and I think, for the purposes of preserving order and looking at the safety of the public, as outlined by me in this case of Stevens v. District of Columbia, 16 Appeals, that the commissioners, under the authority vested in them by Congress and under the act already referred to and in the second section of the joint resolution, has just as much control over that particular property for the purpose of regulating the movements of vehicles and to preserve order and look after the safety of the public as they have in any other section of the city of Washington and that the regulations apply just as well there as they do to any other part of the city. For that reason I will have to overrule the motion to quash. Evidently Judge McMahon was very confident that the District authority did apply there and that they had ample rights. Mr. LANHAM. How does it happen, Mr. Treadway, that the signs of the District authorities appear there on that private property? Is that by any initiative on the part of those authorities or by any desire on the part of the terminal company? Mr. TREADWAY. I started to take that up with Maj. Pullman. You see this last letter from him is dated after his fatal illness started, February 11, and I thought of that very thing. He died February 22, and this letter was dated February 11, so this is undoubtedly about as late as any official action of his. The police authorities, admitting that to be private property, would not have the right to put that sign up there unless in cooperation with the terminal people. Now, the object of the terminal people in wanting to cooperate to close the front of the station is undoubtedly found in the fact that when you arrive in the city, as I have already stated, the first thing you see is that big taxicab sign where they want to throw the burden of traffic that is going to leave the depot by taxicab. So it was to their advantage to have such a sign put on their private property and to have it have the official appearance of being carried out by the police department. It is very evident that had not the terminal company cooperated with the police they very readily could have asked Maj. Pullman to have removed it. I don't see any other possible construction. Mr. LANHAM. So far as you know, is the personnel of the Washington Terminal Co. and of the Terminal Taxicab Co. in any way the same? Mr. TREADWAY. I have no knowledge on that. I simply know that the Terminal Taxicab Co. owners are prominent citizens of the District. Mr. ZIHLMAN. I don't think so. The Washington Terminal Co., as I understand it, is a joint company of the railroads entering the city. The Terminal Taxicab Co. is made up of a number of very prominent people in Washington, business people, hotel men. Mr. TREADWAY. I think we have very thoroughly established the relation between the Terminal Co. and the Terminal Taxicab peoplethat is, so far as a friendly disposition is concerned. Now, there is a still further question of how far the interest in the Terminal Taxicab Co. may reach any city officials. I know none of the commissioners I have called at the department, of course, in connection with official matters-but here is a peculiar thing that was called to my attention by one of the gentlemen who I believe appeared here yesterday, of a permit granted by the department of buildings, the inspector of buildings in the District in July, 1913, for the establishment of a garage at the Union Station. It has very peculiar phraseology and is well worth your consideration. Whether this has come to your attention or not I don't know, but here is an application from the Terminal Taxicab Co., a copy of course, signed by Thomas Dun |