Page images
PDF
EPUB

would be sitting all day long, and perhaps far into the night on some occasions. This collateral is left at the station and just automatically forfeited. It is a perfunctory proceeding.

Mr. LANHAM. Is it understood when these cases are filed down there that they will not be tried?

Mr. SHELBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANHAM. Is that simply due to the fact that we have two police judges and ought to have three?

Mr. SHELBY. No; it is not. It is not due to that fact. This collateral is simply accepted as a bond and they accept collateral equal to what they believe the fine will be if the case is tried.

Mr. LANHAM. Now these judges-the police court has authority to try these cases?

Mr. SHELBY. Yes; the police court has authority. The police court can issue an attachment for any person who forfeits his collateral if they want that person tried.

Mr. LANHAM. Now, do I understand the reason they don't do this is simply that they haven't time to do it with their other duties? Mr. SHELBY. No; that is not the main reason. The main reason is to prevent the business man and others arrested for violation of these regulations from sitting around the court room all day waiting for their cases to be called. It is an accommodation, a courtesy extended to these men-and properly so. It would be a great hardship if 100 or 200 men are arrested to-day for violation of the traffic regulations to compel them to come and sit in the police court and wait until their cases were called.

Mr. LANHAM. They would have to do that if we had a special traffic court, wouldn't they?

Mr. SHELBY. If the traffic court was operated properly and by a thoroughly competent judge with a thorough knowledge of the situation and a quick mind, quick to arrive at decisions, quick to visualize and grasp the situation, he could run those cases through there nicely and very easily in a short space of time.

Mr. LANHAM. Now, the present judges, are they sitting all the time-the judges of the police court?

Mr. SHELBY. No; they sit separately at the same time. One is in the United States branch, and one in the District of Columbia branch; one branch in which violations of the United States statutes and statutory misdemeanors are tried, the other in which all violations of municipal regulations and ordinances are tried, and certain acts of Congress which are triable in the District branch by virtue of a special provision of the act.

Mr. LANHAM. I am just trying to get at the necessity for establishing the traffic court, having another judge here, adding more expense in these times when we are trying to conserve as much as possible. What is the vital necessity for this? Why, under existing laws and under the existing court structure, can't these cases be tried and disposed of?

Mr. SHELBY. The judge of a traffic court who specializes in conditions leading to violations of traffic regulations can do much more to alleviate conditions, toward improving conditions than can possibly be done under the present system, because he would devote all of his time and all of his thought and all of his attention to that.

Mr. LANHAM. I understand that. He would be a specialist and an expert in the handling of that business, but just now, as I say, when we are trying not to launch into any more expensive channels than we have to, I want to know if the present police court is so hampered by reason of lack of time and by reason of the congestion of the docket that they can't try these cases.

Mr. SHELBY. I don't think they are, to be frank. They can try the cases as long as they are brought in the same manner in which they are brought now, when perhaps one-half of the persons arrested forfeit the collateral. Sometimes two-thirds forfeit the collateral, sometimes even a greater percentage, and those cases are not brought before the court at all. The information is simply filed in the office of the corporation counsel, or the United States Attorney, sworn to, the collateral declared forfeited and the papers filed. They are never brought before the court.

Mr. LANHAM. That is the fault of the law with reference to procedure and not due to the lack of a traffic court.

Mr. SHELBY. It is not due to the lack of a traffic court; no; but if we forced all these cases to trial, these courts would be in session all day long and perhaps far into the night on some days.

Mr. LANHAM. Don't you think that they ought to begin doing that before we establish this traffic court, and get to the place where they can say they are so congested they can not do the work, and then, appear and say: "We are prosecuting these cases so fast that we simply haven't time to try them all "?

Mr. SHELBY. I don't know how we are going to bring that condition about. I would like to see all traffic cases heard in open court. Mr. ZIHLMAN. You think that would bring about a remedy?

Mr. SHELBY. I do. I think it would have a very salutary effect. Mr. LANHAM. I think it would, too. I am inclined to think so, but what I want to know is, couldn't that be done under the present system?

Mr. SHELBY. I would hate to undertake it.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Lieutenant, it has been stated to me when the questions of violations were up-I don't know how authentic the statement is—that there is some sort of an arrangement whereby certain drivers of public vehicles are not arrested for running in excess of the speed limit, while the law is enforced against private cars, cars driven by private owners. That is, there is an understanding between the police department and the drivers of public vehicles here in the city.

Mr. SHELBY. In other words, the charge is made that the police department discriminates?

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Yes; discriminates in enforcing the speed law; that taxicab drivers, especially those employed by these large companies, are allowed to exceed the speed limit; that they have been seen going past a traffic officer at the corner at the rate of 20 miles an hour, and no attempt made to prevent them, but if the owner of a private car drives past an officer at that speed he is arrested. There isn't one regulation for a private car and another one for a public vehicle here in the District, is there?

Mr. SHELBY. Most assuredly not. That is an absurd contention and one that is made, though, in every city and with relation to every

police department, with every law-enforcing agency. That charge of discrimination is made and has been made ever since such agencies were in existence, and it is amusing but not founded on fact. That is, there is no organized intentional discrimination. Of course, I can not speak for every individual. Individuals are not all constituted alike and some men may enforce the law without fear or favor; others may discriminate, but that is due to their individual character and make-up. Certainly the department frowns on any discrimination. The fundamental principle of the doctrine of the man who has just passed out, who was at the head of this department for five years, was law enforcement without discrimination, without fear or favor, without regard to religious, political, or fraternal connections, and he lived up to that so far as he was able to do so. That was his doctrine; that is what he preached and that is what I preach and what I will always preach.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Then your contention is, Lieutenant-your belief is that by a judge specializing in these cases; that with a commissioner of motor vehicles cooperating with such a judge, it would bring about a better condition in the motor-vehicle traffic in the District?

Mr. SHELBY. I do, unquestionably. The bringing of these men before a court, a judge who specializes in hearings of that character, would have a very deterrent effect. I think if that were done, in a few years you could then perhaps dispense with the traffic court.

Mr. LANHAM. Where would this court sit? Are there quarters now available?

Mr. SHELBY. No; we would have difficulty in finding quarters, but through the United States Commission on Housing I believe we could find quarters. I believe there is a congressional committee that apportions the space in the public buildings.

Mr. LANHAM. Do you think the enactment of some such legislation as this would be the initial step in an effort to get an appropriation for a building to house the court?

Mr. SHELBY. Well, of course, they might do that.

Mr. LANHAM. Now, you have an automobile board that issues automobile licenses.

Mr. SHELBY. The superintendent of licenses is the secretary of the board and there are two other members. I don't believe they ever sit as a board. The superintendent of licenses issues all the licenses for operators' permits. They are required to make affidavit to the fact that they are familiar with the traffic regulations and familiar with the construction and type of motor vehicle that they are going to operate, and they fill out the blank and pass it in and the clerk says: "You are familiar with the traffic regulation? You solemnly swear?" "Yes." "All right, here is your license." Anybody can get a license, it doesn't make any difference who it is, he can go in there and get a license.

Mr. LANHAM. They don't sit by reason of the fact that there is no necessity for them to sit under the regulations as they now exist?

Mr. SHELBY. Under the regulations there is no necessity for it. Mr. HEADLEY. Mr. Chairman, may I tell you about that? The chief engineer of the Washington Market Co., the chief engineer of the pumping station, and the inspector of boilers in the District

of Columbia sit on Friday nights-that is, they appear there, I don't know how long they sit, but they appear there on Friday nights, three men outside of the District government who compose the board, and the present automobile commissioner.

Mr. SHELBY. The superintendent of licenses.
Mr. HEADLEY. He is secretary of the board.

Mr. LANHAM. What do they do there on Friday nights?

Mr. HEADLEY. I was never there [laughter].

Mr. KING. I can answer that question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHELBY. They pass on applications for licenses as steam engineers, I believe, and various other things.

Mr. LANHAM. Have you attended the meetings?

Mr. KING. I have never attended that meeting, but I can state what they do when I got my operator's permit on the 25th of November, 1913.

Mr. SHELBY. I would like to hear Mr. King.

Mr. LANHAM. All right.

Mr. KING. I appeared before, as Capt. Headley said, the engineer of the Washington Market Co., to obtain an operator's permit. I had never driven an automobile before, although I had been with others and had been instructed for about a month before I applied for an operator's permit, and the engineer of the Washington Market Co. put me under a pretty strict investigation and I complied with all of the laws, knew the traffic regulations in every respect, with the exception of one, and also I knew the traffic speed limit and also the particular workings of the automobile that I was going to drive.

66

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Why didn't you go to the office and simply buy a license like you do a postage stamp and like everybody else does? Mr. KING. For the simple reason that I was told that I had to take an examination, and I studied what I was going to do thoroughly before I went there, and I went before the chief engineer of the Center Market and I complied with everything with the exception of one. He says to me then: Well, if you "-this was November 25, 1913-he says: "If you were driving out H Street going east and was going under that viaduct, which way would you go, on the right-hand side or the left-hand side?" I said, "On the righthand side." He says, "Look, find out which side you should go under and come back to-morrow." I went back to-morrow and I says, "Why, I would drive under the middle." He says, "That is all right." I had to get two signers before I got it. He granted my permit on the 25th of November, 1913. I had to tell him how I would start a car and how I would stop it. Mr. SHELBY. That is a very unusual case. I have heard of in recent years going through that. Mr. KING. I had to tell him how I would start the car, how to stop it, which way to turn corners, and the speed limits.

You are the only man

Mr. LANHAM. Now, these men on this board, is there any reason why this laxity could not be remedied and still keep the present board? The personnel might vary, but the make-up of the board could be the same. Is there any reason why proper regulations could not be made through the present system without the appointment of a commissioner as provided in this bill and the extensive ramifications of this bill?

Mr. SHELBY. No; I don't think the board as it exists now ever could take care of the business.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Is it a salaried board?

Mr. SHELBY. No; the superintendent of licenses is a salaried man and he is charged with the issuance of licenses for all other business conducted in the District of Columbia, and he is charged also with the issuance of these automobile licenses and permits, operators' permits and licenses, with the supplying of the_two_tags, one for the front and one for the rear of the machine. In addition to that, he must issue all sorts of licenses, public amusement places, auctioneers, undertakers, embalmers, restaurants, stock brokers every imaginable business that you can think of he is required to issue licenses for and keep records of.

Mr. LANHAM. And he would have too much to do to really carefully take care of the duties assigned to the commissioner under this bill?

Mr. SHELBY. It would be impossible with the force assigned to him now. There are somewhere between thirty and forty thousand automobile licenses issued every year in the District of Columbia. Surely that is worthy of a bureau all to itself and a commissioner. I am heartily in favor of the enactment of this section of the law providing for an automobile commissioner, largely patterned after the Maryland law, and I am strong for the Maryland law, because we have got a fine commissioner there, too-Austin Baughman.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. They have done wonderful work in cooperation with the traffic court there in Baltimore. There is no question about that.

Mr. LANHAM. He is given pretty broad powers in this bill, legislative, executive, and judicial.

Mr. SHELBY. He can do pretty near everything under this bill. I see he is permitted to summon anybody, to issue a summons duces tecum for some one in California if he wants to.

Mr. LANHAM. He is not a court. This is simply a preliminary hearing.

Mr. SHELBY. And it provides that in the event of anybody failing to heed that summons, he can appeal to the courts and they can issue the summons-and United States court.

Mr. LANHAM. Isn't that a pretty broad authority to give to a man who is officiating at a preliminary hearing, to go anywhere in the United States and bring a man here, and all of his books, and rather an expensive procedure?

Mr. SHELBY. It is broad authority, but I think it would be proper if the question is of that much importance.

Mr. LANHAM. If a person would drive a car, say, from West Virginia into the District and strike a person and go on without attempting to render aid, it would not be but 10 minutes before he would be out of the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.

Mr. SHELBY. If he was a person of that type; yes.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Well, there have been quite a number of such cases where people have been fatally injured and the drivers of the car

went on.

Mr. SHELBY. And never have been apprehended.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Never have been apprehended.

« PreviousContinue »