could prevent conditions that existed in front of the station, and I had those signs printed and placed there-saw that they were placed there myself in proper position in order to make this situation effec

tive.

Mr. LANHAM. When were they placed there?

Mr. HEADLEY. I can not tell you exactly, sir. It was during the war because I remember meeting Mr. Warrington, the Federal control representative.

Mr. LANHAM. Now, are you also familiar with the circumstances under which a permit was issued for a garage down there in the open air?

Mr. HEADLEY. No, sir; that is out of my line of work.

Mr. SHELBY. The District authorities evidently appreciated the fact that there was a community of interest there in cooperating with the Federal authorities in control of the Union Station, in so far as protection of life and property was concerned.

Mr. LANHAM. I do not mean to contend that it was not properly done, or done with the consent both of the private people and the public authorities, but I simply wanted to know the agreement and understanding in order that it might be determined whether that property down there had been dedicated in any way to public use, or just what its status was with reference to its being public or private property.

Mr. SHELBY. Unquestionably it has been dedicated to public use. That is the contention of the District in the cases now pending before Judge Hardison. The chief contention of the District, as I understand it, is that that has been dedicated to public use.

Mr. BRADY. The contention was made, Mr. Lanham, in the case before Judge Stafford, and he held there had been no dedication to the public.

Mr. SHELBY. Now, if I may address myself to section 18 again briefly and cite some decisions of the court of appeals, with the purpose in view of demonstrating to the committee the necessity of constructive legislation. Section 18 provides that the use in this section of the term "place of public accommodation" includes any hotel, apartment hotel, railroad terminal, restaurant, theater, or other place of public amusement in the District.

Now, if you will make a note of these citations, 23d Appeals, D. C., page 272.

Mr. LANHAM. What is the title of the case?

Mr. SHELBY. Willard Hotel v. District of Columbia. The decision was rendered March 1, 1904, I think, by Mr. Justice Morris. In effect Mr. Justice Morris said that modern hotels were expected to furnish facilities of different kinds to their guests, among those facilities being an opportunity to get transportation promptly to and from the hotel.

Mr. LANHAM. Does he hold that they can use public streets for that purpose?

Mr. SHELBY. He did, yes, sir; and he further said that they were justified and had a right to have their own carriages there at the curb of the hotels: that they were entitled to a reasonable use of the public street with their own carriages; or if they were not equipped with carriages themselves, they could-in effect he said they

were privileged to make a contract with somebody having carriages, and they would be entitled to the same privilege.

Mr. LANHAM. And he could make an exclusive contract in spite of the regulations of the city, and discriminate against-I mean among various men living from the same line of occupation?

Mr. SHELBY. That is my interpretation of the decision. That is a layman's viewpoint.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. While you are on those decisions, are you familiar with the case of Lempkie and Ryan, who were arrested by the police while stopping or loitering, seeking employment, wearing publichack badges?

Mr. SHELBY. Yes, sir; I have that citation here. I was just going to come to that, in order to further confuse the committee. [Laughter.]

Mr. LANHAM. What is the citation on that?

Mr. SHELBY. Forty-eight Appeals, 178, Ryan v. District of Columbia, and Lempkie v. District of Columbia. Now, these men were arrested at the Willard Hotel for loitering, charged with loitering or soliciting. They parked their vehicles on the curb line, the west side of Fourteenth Street between the Avenue and F Street, the curb line adjoining the Willard Hotel, and in line with the taxicabs. Mr. ZIHLMAN. With the corporation taxicabs?

Mr. SHELBY. Yes, sir; with the corporation taxicabs. They had signs "for hire"; they were wearing their badges, and the officers arrested them. The court in effect held-I believe you will find by reading the decision-that the mere fact of these men standing there with their vehicles and having a "for hire" sign plainly exposed to view, and having their badges on, notwithstanding these facts they were not soliciting within the meaning of the law, and it reversed the decision of the police court. The police court held them and they took it up on appeal. That in effect nullifies the former decision. Is not that your point?

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Well, not exactly. The former decision, as I understand, contended that the hotel keeper had the privilege of keeping vehicles for the use of guests.

Mr. SHELBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Now the second decision did not go into the question of whether these men were loitering, but simply held that the fact that they had a "for hire" sign on their car, displayed a device to indicate that such hack or cab is not engaged, shall not of itself be considered as soliciting patronage. That is, if they had been soliciting by word of mouth they would have been guilty under the provisions of that recent act.

Mr. SHELBY. That is in effect the decision.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Now, I would like to get this matter clear. Do I understand that the orders given by the men in charge of the police department here are that if anybody who is not a driver for the Terminal Taxicab Co. or some other corporation engaged in the hiring of public vehicles-if they park their car in the vicinity of one of these hotels they will be allowed to remain there, but if anybody with a for hire" sign on the car draws up to the curb the police department are ordered to arrest those men?

66

Mr. SHELBY. If they solicit.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. If they solicit?

Mr. SHELBY. If they solicit; yes.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Well, the corporation taxicab company's taxicabs do not solicit?

Mr. SHELBY. No; if the corporation cabs solicit they too are amenable to the law and could and should be arrested.

Mr. LANHAM. They are allowed to stay there, though, by the crub? Mr. SHELBY. Yes.

Mr. LANHAM. That is equivalent under their garage fee to declaring that a garage is in a public street?

Mr. SHELBY. Yes; in a sense. I should say so; yes. I find by a more recent decision (241 U. S., 252), the Terminals Taxicab Co. v. Kutz, the engineer commissioner that is, the Supreme Court held that the taxicabs were public utilities and as such subject to the rules and regulations of the public utilities commission and not subject to the ordinary regulations governing public hacks.

Then there is another case that you will be interested in (33 Appeals, 371, District of Columbia v. Fickling). That decision was rendered May 11, 1909. I did not read that decision. I did not have time. If I had had time I would have copied all these decisions and given them to the committee, because they are very, very interesting, in that they serve to confuse every one. We don't know just where we stand and we need some really constructive legislation.

Mr. LANHAM. Let me ask you, could you have any regulations or make the provisions of section 18 here effective until there is some settlement down there with reference to the rights on that street, and until by legislation or otherwise the public acquires that property. Mr. SHELBY. You mean, at the Union Station?

Mr. LANHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHELBY. That is pending before Judge Hardison now. A taxicab and a public hacker were arrested over there at the Union Station for loitering-charged with loitering; that is, a taxicab of the corporation and a driver of a public vehicle driving his own vehicle up there. They were arrested for loitering; the same charge placed against both drivers. The District in its brief and in its arguments to the court contended that that property, though private, had been dedicated to public use, and as such the police regulations and the act of Congress the amendment to the appropriation bill of 1918 relative to loitering-applied, and asked for a conviction on that contention; and that is the case that Judge Hardison has under consideration now.

Mr. LANHAM. Of course, all that could be absolutely obviated if, as a matter of law or through condemnation proceedings, or in some way, this property were made public property.

Mr. SHELBY. If in some way it could be made public property, then we could enact regulations with the aid of our legal department that would hold in the Court of Appeals. I don't think there is any question about that.

Mr. LANHAM. And also regulations that would stop this constant strife and bickering between hackers and corporations running automobiles.

Mr. SHELBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANHAM. And also protect the rights of the public there who do not use autos at all in a great many instances.

Mr. SHELBY. Yes. The public hackmen blame the corporations for loss of business, and I believe my distinguished friend, Mr. Brady, who was discussing the matter with me yesterday, will agree that the loss of their business is not due to any unusual encroachment by the corporations. The falling off of business was due to the fact that the goose that was busy laying the golden egg has ceased to exist. War conditions do not exist any more and the people are not coming into the District who use public vehicles, and I don't know how many hundred-I believe there are something over 1,000 or 1,200 publicvehicle licenses in effect in the District of Columbia, aside from the vehicles owned and operated by the corporations. There simply isn't enough business for them all, no matter what privileges they are given. The business is not here.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Now, Lieutenant, the District Commissioners have never made any order or regulation giving the use of these public streets that you speak of to these taxicab companies, but, on the contrary, it has been a policy of the commissioners to break up that practice and preserve the streets for the use of the public.

Mr. SHELBY. To preserve the streets; yes, sir.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. But the only thing that has prevented them doing so up to this time is the absence of a law that would be upheld by the Court of Appeals of the District?

Mr. SHELBY. Yes, sir; and at every turn they are confronted by these decisions of the court which are conflicting, confusing, and if you gentlemen will get the decisions I have cited to you and get Judge Hardison's decision, not of what it is, it will only further confuse the issue. I don't care what his decision is, it is bound to conflict with some previous decision.

Mr. LANHAM. And that is the reason you say that some fundamental legislation must be had that will wipe out this controversy? Mr. SHELBY. Yes; and will establish for all time equitable conditions, under which both the corporations and the private motorvehicle operator who operates his own motor vehicle for hire and goes out in an effort to make a living can live and exist.

Mr. LANHAM. Now, lieutenant, with regard to your suggestions and recommendations, as to that legislation-what are they?

Mr. SHELBY. First with reference to the Union Station, that through condemnation proceedings the property be caused to revert back to the United States and placed directly under the control of theh District Commissioners. There is no legislation that can be passed that will give the commissioners the control of those porticos, of that portico under which the taxicabs go to discharge and take up passengers, and the Terminal Co. would still have the right under court decisions to have contracts with these private corporations to operate vehicles from that private stand, that private entrance. But as far as the front of the station is concerned if the property reverts back to the United States and is placed under the control of the commissioners, we then can enact regulations that will take care of that situation.

Mr. LANHAM. And that is the attitude of the commissioners as to what should be done?

Mr. SHELBY. I think it is. I have not talked with Commissioner Brownlow-Commissioner Brownlow, I believe, wants to appear before this committee before the committee concludes its investigation.

With respect to other places of assembly, hotels, places of entertainment, some legislation should be enacted that will give the commissioners absolute, unquestioned authority to enact such regulations as they see fit to control the situation. Each place of such assembly has peculiarities of its own that may require special regulations. A А general regulation perhaps would not apply to all hotels, to all theaters, to all places of public assembly. The commissioners should have absolute, unqualified authority to enact such regulations as they see fit covering each and every situation that comes before them. I don't know just how that could be brought about. We are still confronted with the probability of any regulations that they enact being attacked in the courts. The commissioners have the right under acts of Congress, under joint resolutions, to enact reasonable, ordinary, and usual police regulations. They never enact a regulation without consulting competent legal authority in the legal department of the District as to the constitutionality and the necessity of this regulation, and when such regulations are approved by that legal authority of the District and are put into effect and enforced, frequently they are attacked in police court and the police court frequently declares them unconstitutional, a right which I do not think should be vested in a police court.

Section 18, I do not think, will take care of the situation with which we are confronted here.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. The other parts of the bill give the commissioner power to make regulations, and this section 18 simply provides that no person who maintains a place of public accommodation such as is defined in the first paragraph shall make regulations that will discriminate in favor of one person engaged in the same business as against another person engaged in that business, and as I understand it this taxicab company pays no license?

Mr. SHELBY. Except garage license.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. How much is that?

Mr. SHELBY. I don't know.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. That garage license covers all of the cabs?

Mr. SHELBY. Yes; as many vehicles as they want to keep. Of course, then they pay the tax on the vehicle.

Mr. ZIHLMAN.. Yes, of course; but they pay no public hacker's license?

Mr. SHELBY. They do not pay a public hacker's license, and the Supreme Court of the United States has held they are not public hackers within the law; that they are a public utility and as such are under the control of the utilities commission.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. They are regulated, I understood you to say, by the Public Service Commission?

Mr. SHELBY. By the Public Utilities Commission. Their rates are established by the Public Utilities Commission, and there are certain rules under which they operate.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Did they several years ago petition the Public Service Commission to allow them to reduce their rates of fare? Do you know anything about that?

Mr. SHELBY. They did reduce their rates of fare during the war, I am told, voluntarily.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Subject to the approval and approved by the Public Service Commission?