Mr. HEADLEY. No, sir; they are regular patrolmen out on the streets, out in the country districts, taking care of those sections remotely removed from the business section. They do everything from apprehending violators of the speed law to seeing that people have tags for their dogs-just regular patrolmen.

Mr. LANHAM. In the city proper have you any men who have no duties except traffic duties?

Mr. HEADLEY. No, sir; we have no special men on the job, except the men you see on the crossings, and they simply regulate that which comes to them at the intersections of the streets.

May I say this, sir: That we need and need badly a special corps of men mounted on motor cycles in the outer sections of the city; mounted on the highest-powered motor cycles. Downtown we need low-powered motor cycles because of the congestion there. The police department in Washington should be a model department. equipped with the very highest-powered automobiles, in order that they might compete with the criminals in murder cars and other kinds of depredations. As it is now we are up against it; we are tagging on behind. They lead and we follow; and if it is possible at this time to remedy that condition-I don't know that it is-it is very necessary in order to enforce these laws and to make conditions what they should be.

Speaking of the authority that should be vested in the commissioner of motor vehicles, we who have been in the service of the District of Columbia for many years look upon the commissioners as the law-making agency, and with this power vested in this particular motor official it would mean two law-making agencies in the District Building. I presume it would mean that the police department would be required to make recommendations to the motor commissioner, who will transmit them to the commissioners. I feel that the commissioners should be the only law-making body in the District of Columbia. I rather think there is a great deal of authority being given the motor commissioner here.

Mr. LANHAM. Don't you think that Congress ought to exercise some of that authority in the passing of laws, and thereby relieve the commissioner of such embarrassment as would necessarily be incident to the performance of the functions assigned to him in this bill?

Mr. HEADLEY. He will find it very embarrassing, because I have been doing the duty that you are going to assign to the commissioner for some time-I don't want the job, in the first place--I have been doing just the very things that the commissioner here will be called upon to do. I have been doing them for years.

There are instances where this law would work a great hardship upon some people in some instances. For instance, as you say, a person coming into Washington, or one of our citizens, might be found without his permit. We have taught our men to first ask for the permit-we want to know the identity of the person-and if he hasn't his permit, it is very embarrassing to him. Now, we don't want the revenue from these cases; we want the regulations enforced and complied with with as little friction as possible, because, as you know, Washington is a city of people of superior intelligence and standing, and we want to be just as Chesterfieldian as they are.

Now, in regard to this provision here on page 6, lines 16 to 21, directing the major and superintendent of police to cooperate with

the commissioners; that is dividing the responsibility, and I am afraid it would not have the desired effect. It would mean, "Let George do it," and there is too much of that now.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. You believe these men detailed to this special service to be known as "motor-cycle police" should be under the supervision and direction of the major and superintendent of police, and not under the supervision of the commissioner?

Mr. HEADLEY. Yes, sir; all enforcement of law, physical enforcement, should be in the major and superintendent of police, or the commissioners, with the major and superintendent as the supervising officer. I am sure it would divide responsibility this way; and the average policeman would say, "Well, that is the motor commissioner's job. He gets $4,000 a year for it and I only get so much, and let him do it. He is charged with the enforcement of the law; let him do it." That might work all right in a State like Maryland or Delaware, or some other State where their authorities are extensive, covering a great area of territory; but here in the District of Columbia, inasmuch as we supervise the entire District, our police officers going into every part of it, the remotest parts, even down into Rock Creek sometimes-while we have been divested of authority in Rock Creek Park, still we don't hesitate to make an arrest if it is necessary-the policeman should feel that it is his job; and if the job was still his job, the police officers are pretty well organized, and they will see that these regulations are enforced; and I congratulate Mr. Zihlman, or whoever wrote this bill, that teeth are in it, and that is what we want. This is a bill that will meet the approval of all of our well-meaning citizens, and the other element we do not care about.

Mr. LANHAM. You mean you want a bill that will enforce proper traffic regulations?

Mr. HEADLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANHAM. I think that is desired by everyone.

Mr. HEADLEY. Now right here, I believe the commissioners, if it is possible to give them the authority-in fact, the commissioners ought to have the authority; the motor commissioner should have no authority for the enforcement of law on the outside; he will have plenty to do on the inside.

Mr. LANHAM. In other words, you think that too large powers are given the commissioner here?

Mr. HEADLEY. Yes, sir; to one man. They might be safeguarded. by putting them in three men. If this authority is given to the three commissioners, I think it will be safeguarded. I think the commissioners should be authorized to make and promulgate police orders regarding traffic. Most of our people do not appreciate how important the traffic division of the police department is, except when it is brought to them by a case of death or serious injury. It may be that I am a little more impressed with the importance of this service because of my long years of association with it, and knowing the difficulties that arise, and the prospects always in the future of giving better service.

I think the commissioners should be authorized to make and promulgate police orders regarding the manner and time of parking and no parking, as the case may be, and the diverting of the ve

hicular traffic when necessity requires such action-and at this point, it is very important that the official police signs should be used and conspicuously displayed in lieu of 30 days' notice in the newspapers. The commissioners are authorized to make all these regulations, usual and necessary regulations, but in so doing they do not become operative until 30 days after the first insertion in the newspaper. That means that when a condition arises on the street, as it often does-I put up signs and sometimes they are obeyed and sometimes they are not, and I can not enforce them and they are not carried out. We should have traffic regulations providing that persons should comply with any instructions put upon official police signs in any highway in the District of Columbia, and violations of these regulations should be punished accordingly. These signs carry no force with them unless backed by a regulation previously advertised in the newspapers, serving notice on the public, and Ì rather think that signs at the curbstone, like those in front of the Willard Hotel, "Do not park next to curb; park in center"-I think that is sufficient notice to any man who might read. There are some people in the District of Columbia who know just where and where not these signs may be backed up by a regulation, and they are disregarded.

Several days ago, by way of example, I came up Pennsylvania Avenue in a street car, and I saw the Star Publishing Co.'s representative building a boardwalk out in Eleventh Street in preparation of taking down an old part of their building. That necessitated the changing of the 45-degree parking on the east side of Eleventh Street. I immediately notified the traffic officials to send signs down there indicating that the parking should be parallel and not 45 degrees, in order to take care of the traffic to prevent collisions on the street, and they were put up, but they are daily being disregarded. If we were authorized to make this police order, or the commissioners to make the police order and put those signs up-be honest about giving the fullest advertisement possible by these signs-we do not believe you can regulate a condition that might exist overnight, and if you are going to give the power to an individual this is not too much power to give to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia who have so ably represented the people for nearly 50 years.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. The law says-or this proposed law-says that any regulation made by the commissioners shall be subject to the approval of the commissioners of the District of Columbia.

Mr. HEADLEY. Yes, sir; but aside from that, Mr. Chairman, I do not think any one man should have the power that is being given in this bill, and inasmuch as we have three commissioners who are representative men I rather think the rights of the people would be better safeguarded in the hands of three men rather than in one.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. But under the present system the commissioners do not physically themselves perform all the duties that devolve upon them. If they have some matter pertaining to the police department they refer it to the major and take his advice.

Mr. HEADLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Even though you have vested the powers in the commissioners. they physically can not do all these things, and they

take the advice of men who have charge of that particular branch of the District government.

Mr. HEADLEY. I readily understand that, sir, but I rather think that the conditions that exist on the streets should come under the direct supervision of the police department who have their agencies all over the city, and I do not know whether it is the intention of the bill that the police department should make recommendations to the motor commissioners, to be transmitted to the Commissioners of the District. I think the outside should be taken care of by the police so that there will not be divided responsibility.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. The committee will stand adjourned until 2.30 o'clock this afternoon. We will be glad to have you resume then, Captain, and I might say that the judges of the police court want to be heard on the bill, and the hearing will be held this afternoon in order to give them an opportunity to appear, because they haven't time in the morning.

Mr. HEADLEY. They will take up to 3 o'clock anyhow, will they not? Mr. ZIHLMAN. We will be glad to have you finish at 2.30, unless you would rather wait till 3.

Mr. HEADLEY. I would rather give them a chance first, because I will be engaged at 2.30, and I will be here at 3 o'clock sharp.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. How many violations, average violations, of the present traffic laws and regulation do you have daily? Have you ever made any estimate?

Mr. HEADLEY. Well, sir, I can tell you better by saying there were about 8,000 speed cases in the year 1919.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. Speed cases alone?

Mr. HEADLEY. About 8,000. I think there were 16,000 cases all told, but I shall bring that information definitely.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. All right, Captain, we will be glad to have you come on after the police judges.

(Whereupon, at 11.10 o'clock a. m., the committee recessed until 2.30 o'clock p. m. this day.)

AFTER RECESS.

The committee reassembled at 2.30 o'clock p. m., pursuant to recess. Mr. ZIHLMAN. We are ready to go ahead now, Judge Hardison, and the committee will be glad to hear you.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT HARDISON, JUDGE OF THE POLICE COURT, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. HARDISON. Gentlemen, I do not know the method of procedure here at the hearing nor just how the matter stands. What I had in mind was to make a few suggestions, general suggestions, as to the traffic situation here.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. I may say for your information, Judge, that Lieut. Shelby, of the Metropolitan police, and Capt. Headley both spoke on the establishment of a traffic court here, and both were very emphatic in saying that in their opinion the present police judges had sufficient work on their hands; that they could not give such attention as was necessary to the handling of traffic cases if these

cases were brought in court and not disposed of as at present by depositing collateral and simply waiving their appearance. Čapt. Headley, who was on the stand just before we adjourned on account of the roll call, stated that there were 8,000 cases for violation of the traffic regulations in the District in the past year, and he made some reference-I do not know whether he stated that many violations, but he made some reference to there being 16,000 cases, including minor offenses. That was my understanding of his testimony. Now, we will be glad to get the viewpoint of the judges of the police court on this matter.

Mr. HARDISON. Judge McMahon is detained now in the trial of some cases, unfortunately, but he will come up here as soon as he gets through; and if you are still in session, he will be glad to make

a statement.

As to bringing all the cases into court, gentlemen, I do not think that is practicable under any law you devise here.

Mr. LANHAM. You mean under any court devised in this billprovided for in this bill?

Mr. HARDISON. Yes; and I hardly see how you could do it. You can not pass any kind of a law that would keep a man from forfeiting his bond, whether the bail is in the shape of a bond or in the shape of collateral.

Mr. LANHAM. It was understood from the testimony of these other gentlemen that there would have to be some different legislation with reference to the forfeiting of this collateral before a court of this character would be effective.

Mr. HARDISON. That is what I was going to say. If you create a traffic court, you would have to go about it somewhat after the manner you are going about it now. You arrest the man; you can't deny the man bail, you know, and particularly on a misdemeanor charge like these would be. If you arrest a man either day or night at an hour when you can't grant him an immediate trial, he has the right to make bond or give bail, either by making a bond or by depositing collateral. And you can not, of course, impose extreme bonds; you have got to demand a bail that is commensurate somewhat with the circumstances of the offense and the character of the crime charged, and he can give that no matter whether you call it a collateral or whether it is a bond, and you can not prevent him from forfeiting it. If he chooses to forfeit it and stay away, that is his business. He can do that.

Mr. LANHAM. Still, the maximum amount of such a bond could be such that it would not be attractive to him to forfeit it.

Mr. HARDISON. Yes; but you will get into trouble if you do that. Suppose a maximum penalty is a $50 fine, just to illustrate. You see, the Constitution provides that excessive bail can not be exacted, and you could not very well put that man under a bond that is more than the maximum punishment you could impose on him.

Mr. LANHAM. As a matter of custom, is he put under a bond anything like the maximum punishment?

Mr. HARDISON. Now, don't misunderstand me; I am not indorsing the present system; I am just pointing out these practical suggestions to you, and we will get that in just a moment, if you will indulge me.