Mr. SHELBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Those former rates, though, have been restored, as I understand it?

Mr. SHELBY. I didn't know whether they have been or not.

Mr. J. F. KING. I can answer that question, Mr. Chairman. I was at the hearing in the board room there and they did restore the former rate to 40 cents per mile instead of 30 cents. Their rate before that was 40 cents per mile when they reduced it to 30 cents per mile, and they restored it to 40 cents per mile, as it had been heretofore, after the first half mile.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Now, Lieutenant, the police department do they construe that these taxicabs which are owned by the several corporations are subject to the act of 1919, known as the anticrabbing law? Mr. SHELBY. Yes; they are subject to that.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. The present case now pending before Judge Hardison is based upon a violation of that law?

Mr. SHELBY. It is based upon a violation of the loitering law.
Mr. ZIHLMAN. Isn't that the same thing?

Mr. SHELBY. No.

That

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Here is the law-the act of July 11, 1919. was put in as a rider, I think, on the District appropriation bill. Mr. SHELBY. Yes; that is the act; the anticrabbing law. That was an amendment to the appropriation bill. It was under this act that these people are charged in the police court.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. That is, the present case now pending?

Mr. SHELBY. Yes, the present case now pending; and the decision on which we are waiting with a good deal of anxiety.

Now, section 18 says that no person who maintains a place of public accommodation, etc., shall in any manner, directly or indirectly, authorize any common or private motor-vehicle carrier of passengers for hire to use any portion of the public highway. That attempt to restrict the right of the proprietor of a hotel to enter into contractual relations with a corporation to furnish a cab, a right which is accorded him under this decision of the court of appeals that I have cited; and will the committee take that particularly into consideration? It is a great big question.

Mr. STERN. Mr. Chairman, could I ask the witness a question?
Mr. ZIHLMAN. Well, that is entirely with Lieut. Shelby.
Mr. SHELBY. I should be very glad to submit to inquiries.

Mr. STERN. Do you know that Judge Morris, who rendered these two decisions you speak of, is a stockholder in both these corporations?

Mr. SHELBY. In what?

Mr. STERN. In the hotel companies, at the time he rendered the decision against the public-vehicle drivers. Do you know that he was a stockholder in two hotel companies?

Mr. SHELBY. No; I have no knowledge of that.

Mr. HIGHT (of the Willard Hotel). Do you know that he was?

Mr. STERN. I understand he was.

Mr. HIGHT. In what company?

Mr. STERN. We understood he was a stockholder in two hotel companies. We understood it was the Raleigh and Willard Hotel companies.

Mr. HIGHT. He had no connection whatever with the Willard, and never did have.

Mr. STERN. We understand he was connected with the company. Mr. SHELBY. Mr. Hight is manager of the Willard Hotel and has been for several years, and I think he can qualify as an expert witness on that. But I don't think that has anything to do with it; I think it is positively absurd to inject anything like that into the

case.

Mr. STERN. You made the statement yesterday that the conditions at the station were notorious because of the continuous going around of these vehicles.

Mr. SHELBY. I used the word "atrocious," not "notorious."

Mr. STERN. Well, it is just as bad. May I ask you this question: Don't you believe that these men, these 1,000 men, that if they had an equal chance with the corporation-owned taxicabs, that would eliminate crabbing?

Mr. SHELBY. No; I do not. I honestly do not believe it would. It would simply add to the confusion.

Mr. STERN. If they had an equal chance with the corporation?

Mr. SHELBY. Unless they were all restricted to a certain stand, and the persons who wanted to hire a vehicle were compelled to come to that stand, and the driver was not permitted to leave the stand until his passenger had entered the vehicle. That is the only way I can see that the situation can be controlled.

Now may I address myself to the traffic court?

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Yes; we would like to hear you on that.

Mr. SHELBY. The establishment of a traffic court is, of course, a question that is in line with progress. Traffic problems are the biggest problems that are faced by any municipal authorities to-day, when you take into consideration the fact that somewhere between six and seven thousand people are killed in the United States every year as a result of traffic accidents, and millions of dollars worth of proptrty destroyed and damaged. You can then appreciate the fact that specialization along this line is an absolute necessity and should have been instituted years ago. In our own city last year seventy-some persons, if my figures are right, were killed as a result of traffic accidents.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. How many?

Mr. SHELBY. I think it was seventy some. I haven't got those figures here, but that is approximate. There were over 4,000 traffic casualties in which property was damaged. There were several thousand arrests for violation of the traffic regulations-exact figures can be furnished, but I am simply speaking roughly now-all of which simply goes to prove that the need of specialization is imminent.

Now, the definitions are very fine

Mr. LANHAM (interposing). Just before getting into that, you say the need is imminent. What precedent is there for it in other American cities?

Mr. SHELBY. New York and Baltimore are two that I recall offhand. New York has a specially organized traffic court, and my information is that it is serving a wonderful need, serving a great need, and doing a wonderful amount of good. Judge House presides in

that court, and he is a man of wide experience, a resident of New York, a man of broad sympathies.

Mr. LANHAM. How long have those two courts been in operation? Mr. SHELBY. The New York court has been in operation quite some time. The Baltimore court was just recently organized.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. The Baltimore court is about three years old. Mr. SHELBY. Recent, I believe, as compared with New York. The court in New York City, I think, is seven or eight years old. Mr. LANHAM. Are there any other cities that have such courts? Mr. SHELBY. I don't know. That information can be gotten very easily, I think.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Now, Lieutenant, I had in mind when this bill was drafted the establishment of a separate court and the appointment of a separate judge for this purpose. I saw in one of the Washington papers that some one-I don't know whether it was one of the judges or some one connected with the District government-appeared before the Senate committee having this matter in charge and stated that the present police judges, to the number of two, I understand, that you now have under existing law, were fully able to take care of any duties which might devolve upon them by the establishment of this traffic court, and for the purpose of economy and to probably prevent opposition from that source this bill was so drafted that one of the present police judges shall be designated by the President to act as traffic-court judge. What is your opinion about that?

Mr. SHELBY. That is just what I want to address myself to. I am unqualifiedly opposed to that. I should like to see the traffic court divorced altogether from the police court, except in so far as the preamble to the act creating it is concerned. It should be a branch of the police court, but a separate and distinct branch, and it should have original jurisdiction over all of these cases mentioned in section 3 of the bill, but it should be a separate and distinct branch of the police court. The bill as it is drawn now simply increases the compensation of one of the present judges $1,000 for doing that which he is doing now without that $1,000, because all of the traffic cases are now tried in the police court.

Mr. LANHAM. What objection is there to the trying of them in the police court now? Is there congestion of the docket that makes this necessary?

Mr. SHELBY. There is congestion of the docket, and I want to impress upon the committee the necessity of providing against any such thing as a forfeiture of collateral in these traffic cases. I think every case should be brought to trial and tried on its merits and heard before a competent court. The practice now is for a person arrested for a violation of the traffic regulations to go to the police station, leave a small collateral, and leave the station and forget all about the offense. Generally the collateral is very small. The highest fine provided in most cases is $40-from $1 to $40. It doesn't make the proper impression on the person who violates the law. He forgets about it too quick. No impression has been made on him. He simply drops into the station house and says: "Officer so and so sent me here," and he presents the card that the officer gave him. They accept a small collateral, and under a decision of the court of appeals that is not a conviction. A forfeiture of collateral is not a conviction.

Mr. LANHAM. But couldn't this remedy be had under your present court structure-the police court?

Mr. SHELBY. Then the court would be congested to such an extent that the present two judges could not take care of the business at all. The appointment of a judge whose work would be confined exclusively to the hearing of traffic cases would only involve an additional expense of $2,600. The present salary of the judges is $3,600. You provide $1,000 extra compensation for the judge so designated by the President to sit in the traffic court; by the appropriation of $2,600 more you could provide for a separate and distinct judge, who should be a resident of the District of Columbia, not so much learned in the law perhaps as endowed with a good fund of common sense and judgment; a man who is familiar with conditions, with street conditions, with conditions with regard to traffic in all sections of the city; a man who is familiar with the operation of motor vehicles, familiar with conditions as to the brakes and the horns and the lights, and who is qualified to render an opinion on all matters of that kind brought to his attention.

Mr. LANHAM. Well, the $2,600 would be the expense with reference to that one judge from the standpoint of payment there, but there is a great deal of latitude given here in the ramifications of this bill that would be expensive. But I want to ask you this question, Lieut. Shelby: Why is it that this present practice obtains of dismissing these cases and absorbing that collateral; what has led to that practice?

Mr. SHELBY. Under a section of the Revised Statutes the officers at the station houses are permitted to accept collateral for persons arrested; and if they do not appear in court the next morning when their cases are called, the collateral is simply declared forfeited. It acts in lieu of a bond.

Mr. LANHAM. What you need is revision of the law there.

Mr. SHELBY. What we need is revision of the law there, not so much with regard to other cases, in my opinin, as with regard to traffic cases. Those cases should be brought into court and tried. That is the only way we can break up this general disregard for the rights of others on the streets. Thousands and thousands of persons are arrested every year for violation of these regulations, and it is a great big question and worthy of the expenditure of a little more money than this. This provides for the expenditure of the sum of $12,000 for the period subsequent to the passage of this act ending June 30, 1921, and for each fiscal year thereafter the sum of $10,000. That, I take it, is exclusive of the salary of the judge. Mr. LANHAM. What page is that?

Mr. SHELBY. That is page 5, section 6.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. No; we appropriate $25,000 on page 20 for the period subsequent to the passage of this act ending June 30, 1921, and for each fiscal year thereafter the sum of $20,000.

Mr. SHELBY. That is for the commissioner of motor vehicles?
Mr. ZIHLMAN. Yes.

Mr. SHELBY. I am referring particularly to the court now.
Mr. ZIHLMAN. Now, that is on page. 5.

Mr. SHELBY. Page 5, section 6, relates to the expenses of the court. Mr. ZIHLMAN. As to the expenses of the court, there is the judge; it authorizes a clerk at $2,200, and provides that he may appoint

"such other officers and employees." We had in mind that the present office force of the court-the police court-would be able to take care of that, and that, with an additional judge and such necessary outlay for printing regulations and things of that kind, the expenses other than the salaries of the two officers will only be nominal. I don't know whether that sum arrived at is sufficient or not.

Mr. LANHAM. Is that authority given to the police judges now to appoint within the appropriation any number of officers that they want and spend any sum they please for any of these purposes?

Mr. SHELBY. No; their expenditures are laid out-so many bailiffs, so many clerks, so many stenographers.

Mr. LANHAM. Do you think it would be a wise provision to incorporate in the law a section that gives authority to a police judge to appoint as many officers and employees as he pleases?

Mr. SHELBY. No; because, as Mr. Zihlman says, he had in mind that the present personnel of the court would be able to take care of this business.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Well, if you will pardon the interruption, those matters are usually regulated by the Appropriation Committee, which specified, as you say, two bailiffs at so much, two probation officers, two assistants at so much, one stenographer, $1,200. That is the language in which those appropriations are usually carried. I think Judge Hardison, for instance, is to-day before the District Appropriation Committee on matters pertaining to police court. They are usually based on authority of law, but at times there are some matters that I have gone into in reference to the District where the only authorization for the employment of persons is carried in the District appropriation bill, which simply says "two bailiffs at $1,200, or $1,400," and there are times in cases that I have investigated where there is no authority of law except that they are carried in the District appropriation bill.

Mr. SHELBY. This would, of course, involve the employment of an additional assistant corporation counsel, perhaps, too. Do you make any provision in here as to in whose name these prosecutions shall be brought? I think they are brought in the name of the commissioner of motor vehicles.

They should be brought in the name of the District of Columbia, in my opinion, and on information signed by the corporation counsel or one of his assistants.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. I don't believe it is clearly set out.

Mr. SHELBY. No; it is not clearly set out by whom the prosecution shall be brought. But with reference to the traffic court, unless a judge is going to be appointed specially, I don't see that we are improving any over conditions as they exist now, because the present judges hear all the cases.

Mr. LANHAM. What is the primary fault of the present system? That is what I am trying to get at the necessity for this.

Mr. SHELBY. The forfeiture of collateral; the fact that repeated or numerous arrests do not seem to act as a deterrent.

Mr. LANHAM. Is this collateral simply forfeited because the judges haven't time to try the cases?

Mr. SHELBY. Well, yes. If all of these cases were brought in there and tried, the docket would be so congested that both judges

173006-20- 4