Mr. LANHAM. There is practically no check on his authority here, though. You are basing all this upon the theory that you are going to have an ideal man to perform this service, a king who can do no wrong. Of course, this may be a very good idea, but it is very broad authority to place in the hands of one man, where he is practically a legislative, judicial, and executive officer, all in one.

Mr. SHELBY. Yes; he has police powers and legislative powerswell, he has no power to enact regulations under this bill; he can recommend regulations to the commissioners, and the commissioners, in the very nature of things, will never adopt his recommendations without referring them to the police department. The commissioners will never adopt a regulation recommended by the automobile commissioner; in the very nature of things, it would not be wise to do so, because the police department will be familiar with conditions as they exist on the streets and will be in a position to give expert advice to the commission.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. What is your view about the section of the bill providing for, first, the issuance of an instructor's card, and later a driver's license such as now exists in Maryland?

Mr. SHELBY. I don't think much of that, Mr. Zihlman. Now, this bill would in effect declare null and voil all of the present operators' permits in existence.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. I know. We have checked that up. We have corrected that and continued those until January 1, 1921. We don't do it in the bill, I know.

Mr. SHELBY. No; you don't do it in the bill.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. But we have prepared an amendment for that.

Mr. SHELBY. You have prepared an amendment. Now, the amendment continues those now in force, continues them in force until January 1, 1921?

Mr. ŽIHLMAN. Yes.

Mr. SHELBY. In other words, it gives the persons holding those permits the time between the passage of this bill and the 1st of January to get new permits?

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Yes. It gives them 60 days to familiarize themselves with the regulations provided herein. Then it provides that they shall go into effect.

Mr. SHELBY. That is fine, because it will take many months to issue. I suppose there are fifty or sixty thousand permits to operate motor vehicles in existence in the District of Columbia.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. It also continues the license tags.

Mr. SHELBY. It continues the present license tags.

Mr. LANHAM. There is another matter that I want to bring up here. This may not be the proper time, but I notice here on page 8 one reference to it, and there are other references in here. These various fees that you collect and the various fines that you collect are paid into the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the District. What is the meaning of that phrase "to the credit of the District"? What will become of those fees?

Mr. ZIHLMAN. That is the way all money is collected in the District.

Mr. LANHAM. Will that go in with the surplus that is now in the Treasury to the credit of the District, and which can not be ex

pended by reason of the fact that Congress has not duplicated it in the appropriations?

Mr. ZIHLMAN. It will depend on whether Congress next year duplicates it or not. If not, it remains as surplus.

Mr. LANHAM. Here is one proposition that I am trying to bring out. This bill provides that all of the money for establishing this court and for paying the commissioners and the officers and their accouterments, and so forth, and their telephones, shall be paid half and half by the people of the United States and by the people of the District, in accordance with the present plan. In other words, everything that goes into it is paid half by the people of the United States. and half by the District of Columbia, and everything that comes out of it goes into the credit of the District of Columbia. Now, how about Jones, who is paying half the freight there? How is he protected? Then if that goes into the surplus which now exists to the credit of the District of Columbia in the Treasury, and which amounts now, I think, to four or five million dollars, and which has not been expended by reason of the fact that Congress has not duplicated that amount in an appropriation, why, then, if it goes into that surplus, when Congress duplicates that amount the people are coming along and having already expended the money through their appropriations, to bring about that result they are to spend some more money to meet what has come as the result of their first expenditure. In other words, they are going to get hit twice.

Mr. SHELBY. I don't believe that this will all go into the surplus fund. I am not qualified to speak authoritatively on fiscal relations existing between the District and the United States Government.

Mr. LANHAM. I just wanted to know what it means to the credit of the District" from a practical standpoint and in the application of those funds afterwards what it means to put that into the Treasury to the credit of the District.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. I would like to say, as the author of the bill and the one who introduced it, that we are just simply following the present fiscal relations between the Government and the District. We can not change those by a traffic-court bill, so we simply continued the method which has been built up and has been sanctioned by repeated acts of Congress.

Mr. SHELBY. It provides that it "shall be covered into the United States Treasury to the credit of the District of Columbia." Mr. LANHAM. Now, what becomes of those funds?

Mr. SHELBY. They are appropriated-to be frank with you, I can not explain thoroughly. As I say, I am not an authority on the fiscal relations between the District and the United States Government. I hope to be some day when Congress enacts some bill that we can depend on for future time. We don't know from one year to another just where we stand.

Mr. LANHAM. Paragraph 3, section 5, provides annual fees for these various cars of different horsepower. For fractions of a year do you take an annual fee? I see there is no provision made here for fractions.

Mr. SHELBY. No; under the present law we do not take any fractional fees.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. You charge for a full year?

Mr. SHELBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. There is no change in the existing rates.

Mr. LANHAM. I am a newcomer in the District and am not very familiar with those things.

Mr. SHELBY. There is another inconsistency in the present law. Suppose I have a machine of more than 30 horsepower. I take out a license for that car and pay $10 for it. I keep that car until the 1st of December. Then I sell it to Mr. Brady here. Upon the transfer of ownership under the law he must take out a new license for that car and pay $10 for the remaining month of that year. That is the most absurd thing.

Mr. BRADY. Under the Maryland law they have an apportionment of that license.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Well, your fees here are nominal and I don't see anything wrong with that.

Mr. SHELBY. We don't try to charge them so much as they do in Maryland.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. The committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning, and the secretary of the Automobile Owners' Association wishes to have an opportunity to be heard on some of the provisions of the bill at that time.

Mr. LANHAM. I imagine you have two or three things more, Mr. Shelby?

Mr. SHELBY. Yes; and Capt. Headley has something to say. He is in charge of traffic, and no man in the District is better informed as to actual conditions on the streets.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. We will give the captain an opportunity to-morrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 11.30 o'clock a. m., the subcommittee adjourned. until 10 o'clock a. m. to-morrow, Friday, Mar. 12, 1920.)

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE
ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Friday, March 12, 1920.

The subcommittee met at 10 o'clock, a. m., Hon. Frederick N. Zihlman presiding.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. The committee will be in order. Lieutenant, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF MR. W. S. SHELBY, LIEUTENANT, METROPOLITAN POLICE-Resumed.

Mr. SHELBY. I have not much more to say, Mr. Chairman. I would like to continue further along that traffic court.

The appointment of one of the present police judges to serve as judge of the traffic court would merely mean the separation of the cases. He would probably go into court in the morning and hear the usual grind of disorderlies and drunks and various other

cases.

Mr. ZIHLMAN (interposing). You still have those?

Mr. SHELBY. Yes; we still have them in reduced numbers, though with the number being continually reduced, I am very happy to say.

He would simply hold court and try the usual grind, and then adjourn that court and reconvene as a traffic court. All of those who had been summoned there to appear for violation of the traffic regulations would have to wait until he had finished his regular routine business. The officers in the cases would be compelled to wait, and he would proceed to invest himself with his toga as judge of the traffic court with a brain somewhat tired out and weary from the usual grind that he had been listening to. He would not be in a condition to give to this subject the attention which it deserves. He would not bring to it that clear mind and that quick decision that the subject is surely worthy of, and the educational value will be lost unless we can force these people who have violated the traffic regulations into court. The mere leaving of a few dollars collateral makes no impression upon them at all, but if they are forced to come to court and sit and wait and plead to the charge, hear the evidence and receive the advice of the court, the educational effect will be very, very great and very valuable and farreaching.

Mr. LANHAM. Do you think that under the regulations that might be prescribed under the provisions of this bill, if this were enacted into law, there would be a sufficient number of violations to keep one man busy all the time sitting as a traffic court?

Mr. SHELBY. I think so for quite some time; yes. I think the fact of compelling defendants to appear personally in court to answer the charges would have a very, very splendid effect, and in time the number of arrests would, of course, decrease very materially.

Mr. LANHAM. Requiring them to do that, would that be a matter of your regulations, or wouldn't that have to be a matter of law?

Mr. SHELBY. It would be a matter of law. Under the present law they can leave collateral. The court can, of course, compel them to appear.

Mr. LANHAM. Now, there is nothing in this bill which would relieve that condition?

Mr. SHELBY. There is nothing in this bill which will relieve that condition. The judge of the traffic court can compel persons who leave collateral to appear. He can issue a bench warrant for them and direct them to appear, and if we get the proper sort of man as judge, we may be able to bring that condition about, if he looks at the matter in the same light in which we look at it.

I am strongly in favor of divorcing the traffic court absolutely from the police court.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. That also is the position of Mr. Brownlow, is it not, or are you qualified to speak for him?

Mr. SHELBY. I am not qualified to speak, but I am of the opinion it is the position of Commissioner Brownlow.

There is another thing, the effect on the police officers who have been working, we will say, from 4 o'clock in the afternoon till 12 at night, who go to their homes and get their sleep and come to court and have to wait until the regular court is adjourned and reconvenes, as a traffic court, which sometimes may be 1 or 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and these policemen and these defendants would be compelled to wait around the court unless they had some special

hour at which they would convene as a traffic court, regardless of the business of the other court.

Mr. LANHAM. And there is no way under the present system of the police court that special hours could be set, cases set at special times?

Mr. SHELBY. That could be arranged. Special days could be set. That is one way out of the difficulty. That is, they could have, we will say, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays for the trial of traffic cases, and the judge appointed by the President to serve as judge of the traffic court could on those days simply convene at 9 o'clock in the morning as a traffic court and devote those three days entirely to hearings of traffic cases.

Mr. LANHAM. And that could not very well be done under the present organization of the police court?

Mr. SHELBY. It could be done, yes; if the judges were willing to cooperate. The courts now meet at 10 o'clock. The judge generally comes on the bench at 10 o'clock and sometimes they are through at 12, sometimes at 2, sometimes at 3, depending on the size of the docket, depending on whether or not jury trials are in progress.

Mr. LANHAM. Is the major and superintendent of the Metropoliton police force is that one person?

Mr. SHELBY. That is one person; yes.

Mr. LANHAM. I notice that is referred to in the singular here. Mr. SHELBY. It is the major and superintendent, the title under the law.

The question of the penalty clause provided here is one that is worthy of consideration. Section 10, on page 12:

Any person violating any provision of sections 5 to 9, inclusive, of this act, or any regulation issued thereunder

That means any traffic regulation that may be issued by the commissioners later on under the provisions of this act

shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for more than one year, or both.

That will, of course, entitle defendants to a jury trial. Under the present traffic regulations, with the exception of the speed law, they are not entitled to a jury trial because of the minimum penalty imposed. Under a decision of the Supreme Court persons brought into court for these ordinary misdemeanors, where the fine is less than $50 or less than 30 days, are not entitled to a jury trial. The trial must be by the court.

Mr. LANHAM. One thing here, with reference to this section 10: Any person violating any provisions of sections 5 to 9, inclusive.

Among those provisions is one that any person operating a motor vehicle shall carry on his person an operator's license card. Then there is another one; he shall carry on his person a registry card. Now, every man who owns an automobile and operates it here in the District of Columbia has got to carry those two cards at all times on his person. If he should change his coat and accidentally leave one of those cards at home he might be fined $500 or suffer such other penalty as may be imposed.

Mr. SHELBY. A person who has an automobile and two suits of clothes is very prosperous. As Abe Martin says, there is one advan