Mr. LANHAM. It provides, on conviction, for a fine of not less that $100 or more than $1,000, or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

Mr. SHELBY. The penalty, if anything, should be made more

severe.

Mr. LANHAM. It is in our State. It runs from misdemeanor to a felony penalty under the laws of our State, in the discretion of the

jury..

Mr. SHELBY. I think where injury to the person results it should be a felony and a penitentiary sentence provided.

Mr. LANHAM. This also provides for revocation of the license in addition to that penalty, and that the license so revoked shall never be subsequently restored.

Mr. SHELBY. Now, there is a provision here "while under the influence of liquor or drugs." That is a good provision, a very wise provision, because any man who, under the influence of liquor, attempts to operate a motor vehicle is a potential murderer.

Now, one other section here and then I am through.

Mr. LANHAM. Just before you come to that, I notice here on page 16, with reference to the commissioner, that if an appeal is taken from such decision as he may make to the appellate court the commissioner's determination shall not be modified or set aside by the court except for error of law, which makes his authority all the greater. He passes absolutely upon questions of fact. Now, whenever in his opinion, whether that opinion may be actuated by judgment or by prejudice, he feels that a certain course is necessary, he can go ahead and take that course, and then, unless he makes some error in law, when an appeal is taken from his decision the party is helpless. I just wanted to call attention to that with reference to the powers given the commissioner here and the limitations placed. upon an appeal from the commissioner's decision.

Mr. SHELBY. It gives him authority to modify his findings as to the fact or make new findings by reason of the additional evidence. Mr. LANHAM. There is that safeguard thrown about it.

Mr. SHELBY. And, pending the final decision on appeal, the commissioner's determination shall be in full force and effect, and the appeal shall not operate as a supersedeas or in any manner stay or postpone the enforcement of the determination appealed from.

Mr. LANHAM. That gives arbitrary power to the commissioner, don't you see, subject to his own whim and caprice, if he should be a man addicted in any way to whims and caprices, as most men are at times.

Mr. SHELBY. Yes; it would be a rather uninteresting world if we

were not.

Mr. LANHAM. Yes; that is true.

Mr. SHELBY. I should like to see something written into this bill relative to the transfer of ownership of motor vehicles. I had in mind something like this: "Upon the transfer of ownership of any motor vehicle license for which is issued under the provisions of this. act, the person transferring such ownership shall report to the commissioner of motor vehicles, on forms to be provided by him for that purpose, the name and address of the person to whom he transfers such motor vehicle." I think that will about cover it.

173006-20-5

Mr. LANHAM. That is both for the purpose of protection of the District in the matter of the payment of the fee and in case of violations of the law in which that car might figure; you have got the ownership of the car.

Mr. SHELBY. Yes; under this bill if ownership is transferred the new owner will be compelled to get a new license for that car. That provision of the law is not changed. You might add to that: "And the person so transferring ownership of said car shall remove therefrom the license ags or numbers issued by he commissioner of motor vehicles and return same to said commissioner." Then the new owner has no choice; he must go and get new numbers. Frequently under the present law ownership is transferred and the person who purchases the car proceeds to run about the city with the numbers that were on the car, and unless he violates some regulation and the officer has some reason to stop him that fact is never discovered, and we want to obviate that. We want to keep a complete check on these automobiles.

Mr. LANHAM. And you have no provision by which that can be done?

Mr. SHELBY. There is no present provision for it, except the provision in the law which says numbers shall not be transferred from one vehicle to another; but there is no provision for a person transferring a vehicle to report the transfer to the superintendent of licenses, and such a provision should certainly be incorporated in the act.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. The bill, though, does provide that the validity of the license shall cease at the time the change of ownership is

made.

Mr. SHELBY. Yes.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. The condition to which you refer could be covered by regulation, could it not; it would not necessarily have to be in the law. The law says that the validity of the tag shall cease when the change of ownership is made.

Mr. SHELBY. You mean that the commissioner could enact such a regulation?

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Under this law, section 5 provides that the validity of such registry cards and tags or other markers shall cease at the end of the calendar year for which they are issued or upon any transfer of the ownership of the motor vehicle for which they were issued.

Mr. SHELBY. Yes. Well, we have practically the same provision. although expressed differently now the provision that numbers shall not be transferred from one vehicle to another and also the provision which requires the person to go and get a license when he purchases the motor car. Even though he purchases it on the 1st of December he must pay the full license fee. We want to prohibit the use of what are known as dead numbers.

Mr. LANHAM. There is one other thing that I notice in here. largely an incidental matter. It provides, with reference to a car the license which has been issued by some other State; and if it does not have the markers in the place on the car provided by the regulations of the commissioner of the District of Columbia, that man is subject to arrest and certain penalties in section 7.

What about a man who has just come in from some other State and who has his markers on his car with reference to the provisions of the law or regulations of the State in which he takes out his license, and then he comes in here, and suppose he comes in from Maryland to transact a little business in the District of Columbia, or comes in from Texas or Missouri, or some other State, and his markers are on his car in accordance with the laws of Texas, and he is going back to Texas-making a trip through the country-your catch him here in the District of Columbia, and he has got to take his markers and change them, and without knowing anything about what your law is here the burden is put upon him to go and find out what the law is, because ignorance of it is no excuse, and he has got to change his markers which are on there lawfully in accordance with the authority under which they are issued; then just as soon as he gets out of the District line he has got to change them again. He might have to change them at every State line under such a regulation.

Mr. SHELBY. Yes; I think that provision of the law could be changed. That probably would work a good deal of hardship, because we do have a great many visiting automobiles.

Speaking of Maryland, if a man from Maryland came in, he would not get more than 6 feet over the line before we would have him.

Mr. LANHAM. That is the reason I very hastily incorporated those other States in the illustration.

Mr. SHELBY. And the same thing applies about District motorists going into Maryland. We expect some day to be able to establish reciprocal relations with Maryland.

Mr. LANHAM. I understand the purpose of that provision, and I think it is a good purpose. There ought to be some regularity and uniformity with reference to a matter of that character, but it seems to me there should be some exceptions provided in the bill. and the verbiage of it changed a little, so as not to work a hardship on an innocent man.

Mr. SHELBY. I agree with you that would work a hardship in many

cases.

Now, I do not know anything else that I care to talk about. I am very glad to see that Congress is taking this matter up, and I am sure that some good and wise legislation that will be far-reaching in its effect for good will grow out of these hearings.

Mr. LANHAM. With reference to a permanent operator's license in here, what provision is there concerning a revocation of that license? I notice section 6 provides that a permanent operator's license may be issued.

Mr. SHELBY. The court can revoke the license. There is a provision there under which the court can revoke the license, and no license shall be issued to that person for three months. I believe. Under the present law the commissioners only can revoke the license. The court under the present law has not the power to revoke a license that permits a man to operate.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. If you have finished, we will hear Capt. Headley. Mr. SHELBY. Capt. Headley is in charge of the traffic and has done more than any other one man in the District of Columbia to

improve conditions. He is working on it night and day, and has very many valuable suggestions to make.

STATEMENT OF ALBERT J. HEADLEY, CAPTAIN, METROPOLITAN POLICE.

Mr. HEADLEY. Gentlemen, the field has been very fully covered by Lieut. Shelby, but there are some things left unsaid that I would like to bring to the attention of the committee. For instance, in regard to the traffic court, if these rules or laws are properly made and given under the jurisdiction of the traffic tribunal for trial, the police court judge or the traffic judge will have plenty of work to do until we finally eliminate from the streets these reckless drivers who are killing people and damaging property on the streets.

Mr. LANHAM. Will the judges of the present police court have plenty to do if they are divested of this traffic work?

Mr. HEADLEY. I don't often get to police court nowadays. I have plenty to do to keep me away from there, but I understand that conditions have changed with the District of Columbia since liquor went out. But the most important of all is that we will have a man as judge of the traffic court who will not only be learned in the law but will also be a driver himself, who is familiar with the conditions in the District of Columbia and the manner of driving by people who use our streets.

I do not see just what could be done to clear the situation except one man to be known as the traffic judge, to sit either in the morning when other courts sit to accommodate the police department as a whole, or it might be better to have the court sit later in the day so that it might accommodate the business people who may be forced to attend the police court or the traffic court.

Mr. LANHAM. Couldn't that be done under the present organization of the police court and have a certain time set for these traffic cases so that people who were brought in their as witnesses or as parties might not have to wait?

Mr. HEADLEY. I rather think, sir, that if every person who violates a traffic regulation is brought into court and that it be a part of the punishment that he must come into court and waste that time, he will be more cautious about the manner of driving on the streets thereafter.

Mr. LANHAM. Then the present system, you think, is pretty good in that regard?

Mr. HEADLEY. No, sir; I do not. I think it needs a man specially fitted for the work.

Mr. LANHAM. I mean with reference to waiting. I understood from Lieut. Shelby that one incident of these cases now is that they have to come in there and wait until they get through with their regular routine of going through the blotter with reference to police violations.

Mr. HEADLEY. Yes, sir; the dock prisoners are always tried first. That compels business men and police who have been out all night, who have been on duty from 12 o'clock at night until 8 o'clock in the morning-they must sit there until the dock is empty-for instance, there are cases of health regulations and building regulations and

many other regulations that are tried in our police court. I have been in court till 2 o'clock in the afternoon, waiting, and I can't see that we ought to have anything but a specialist on this job.

It is a special job, and I rather think a man who drives an automobile is better fitted to handle such cases than a man who does not. I do not know whether our two present judges do drive automobiles, but there is one provision that has not been taken care of yet in case you do decide to recommend a special judge, and that is a judge to relieve him in case of sickness or leave of absence for any

cause.

Mr. LANHAM. I think there is a provision in this bill to that effect, and providing that he should be paid pro rata during the time of the service. I think that is in the bill.

Mr. HEADLEY. Now, I sat in the Chicago traffic court about five years ago. They sat at 9, 1, 5, and 8 at night to attend those cases, to handle those cases, so that they may be disposed of quickly with the least disaccommodation to those who might be brought in. Mr. LANHAM. Is that a separate traffic court?

Mr. HEADLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANHAM. They have one in Chicago in addition to Baltimore and New York?

Mr. HEADLEY. Yes, sir; he does nothing but try traffic cases, and the person brought in is usually charged in the name of the corporation council, I believe, and the State official. I do remember there are two representatives there prosecuting cases.

Mr. LANHAM. Do you know how long that court has been in existence there?

Mr. HEADLEY. I do not. I think it has been four years since I was there in this particular instance. I don't know how long it has been in operation.

Mr. LANHAM. Do you know of any others outside of New York, Baltimore, and Chicago?

Mr. HEADLEY. No, sir; I do not know of any others.

I think that the regulation of traffic is a problem that is new to the police department in Washington. It is new to all police organizations, and as the city grows it becomes a greater problem and needs special treatment from the specialists on the job. I want to say here that in the police department in Washington there are few men who have traffic sense. This is a kind of police service that requires a great deal of thought, and to do the very best for all concerned requires men who are experienced in that kind of work.

Mr. LANHAM. Well, you have some special men in your police department assigned to this duty, have you not?

Mr. HEADLEY. Yes, sir; we have men, practical men, motor-cycle men and automobile men enforcing traffic regulations in a way. Mr. LANHAM. Do you know how many, Captain, are assigned to such work?

Mr. HEADLEY. There are 64 bicycle lieutenants, sergeants, and privates; maybe 19 motor-cycle men and automobile men who are doing duty in the outlying districts. They are hurry-up men-they are used in many ways.

Mr. LANHAM. Not exclusively in connection with traffic?