As I say, no matter what system of bail you require, he can forfeit it, and you can't help it, and you can't put it so heavy as to prevent him giving bail. You can't deny him bail, in other words, on a charge of that sort. Now, if vou should require a heavy bail; if I should make the bond with the idea of making him appear, he could put that up and then all you could do would be what is being done now. If you don't want to accept a forfeiture; if the party who takes the bail makes it so low that the prosecuting attorney thinks it ought not to be let go at that, he can do what he is privileged to do now and what they sometimes do now, come into court and ask that an attachment issue for the man, and he is then arrested and brought into court, and the forfeiture is ordinarily set aside under a system which prevails down there now, upon the theory that if they do choose to bring them into court they ought not to enforce forfeiture, too. When people assert the right to stay away, which is done ninetynine times out of a hundred, they set that aside and give them a trial, and no matter what system you provide, that same thing could be done, and would be done then, just as it is now. You can not change. that condition to save your life. Mr. ZIHLMAN. Well, it could be done under this bill for certain violations. Mr. HARDISON. You could not do it under any bill, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ZIHLMAN. The penalties imposed are sufficient, to my mind, to justify or at least to inspire a very strong incentive in the man to appear and contest the arrest for alleged violation. I don't think, under the penalties imposed here, he would forfeit, without appearance, the sum called for. Mr. HARDISON. I agree with you there. I think that is the feature of the bill, but still you are under the same situation I de scribed. You might make the collateral heavy in some cases, but at last it would work out to just the same situation then as it is now. That can be done now. The prosecuting attorney can bring any man into court now, providing he can get hold of him-sometimes he goes away and they can't get hold of him. That would be the situation then, too. That is a thing you can't change, no matter how you legislate on it. You can make the penalties heavier, and, of course, as you make the penalties heavier the bonds ought to be heavier. Mr. LANHAM. Judge Hardison, as a matter of information, what percentage of the complaints that are filed in traffic cases down there actually come to trial and what percentage go off on forfeiture of collateral? Mr. HARDISON. Well, a very large percentage go off on forfeiture of collateral. I could not state it in percentage, but it is safe to say that 75 per cent go off on forfeiture of collateral. Mr. LANHAM. Is that by reason of the fact that the bond is put abnormally low? Mr. HARDISON. Well, I could hardly say that. If the man feels that he is guilty, he wants to save time and wants to save notoriety— it is not a very pleasant experience to be hauled up in court and fined. Mr. LANHAM. Isn't the collateral, though, in most cases much less than his fine and costs would be? Mr. HARDISON. I can not say about that. Mr. LANHAM. Of course, I understand that would be more a matter of the administration through the corporation counsel's office. Mr. HARDISON. Well, it is through the police-the corporation counsel has nothing to do with that part of it; that is a matter of the police power alone. They can right now, as the law stands now, exact a collateral that would at least be as high as the maximum penalty that might be imposed, and if they make that too low, of course, that is a matter of administration. Mr. LANHAM. Now, without a change in law, the same evil would exist even if we had a traffic court-the same evils that exist now? Mr. HARDISON. Yes; you could not get around that to save your life. Mr. LANHAM. From the standpoint of time and the congestion of the docket, etc., what necessity exists for the establishment of a traffic court? In other words, could the organization of the police court as now constituted try all the traffic cases which under a proper law would come to trial? Mr. HARDISON. I don't think there is any doubt about it. Mr. LANHAM. And that no special necessity exists for the creation of a traffic court? Mr. HARDISON. I think it is a good scheme to create a division of the present police court to be called a traffic court, because you could have the docket then and keep matters segregated and could try them in some space of time, but here, gentlemen, is the serious objection to creating an original court-I was talking to Senator Sherman about it not long since, and he fully appreciated it. He practiced law in Chicago at some time in his life, and, of course, one policeman may arrest half a dozen people during the day, and they may be in different courts, and the same police officer will have occasion to go to the municipal court, where he may be a witness in some case that might come up; he might have occasion to be before the grand jury and the supreme court; he might have a case on file in the supreme court; the same officer might have a case on trial in the District of Columbia branch of the police court, and he might have a case on trial in the United States branch of the police court; he might have a case on trial in the juvenile court; and the more courts you make the greater they impede one another and hamper one another in that an afficer can not be everywhere at once. and if you create a traffic court you have simply got another court that the same policeman has got to go to. We have a good deal of trouble down there now in not being able to get officers in the police court. We have two divisions there, and the same officer may be in one division; for instance, he may be before the supreme court, he may be before the grand jury, he may be in the supreme court, he may be in the juvenile court, or he may be in the municipal court, and if you create another court and put it in another place you simply multiply the trouble in that respect, and that is a very serious trouble, too. Mr. LANHAM. I realize that as an old prosecuting officer. Mr. HARDISON. Senator Sherman said: We have got to such a point in Chicago, they have split the courts up there so much that the chief requisites of a practicing lawyer is a stout pair of legs to run around and find the court you have got to try your case in. If you make another court you have got to have a new organization, which would be a great expense, and while we have a considerable congestion of business in the court now, it is largely in the United States branch of the court, and we are getting cases pretty well cleaned up in the District of Columbia branch of the court, in which, of course, traffic cases would be heard. We have about, I should say, not more than 40 or 50 jury cases behind there now, while we have four or five hundred in the United States branch of the court, and if you take the traffic cases out of the District of Coumbia branch of the police court in a little while, when the liquor that is now in the country plays out, really that court will not have enough to occupy its time. Mr. LANHAM. It could assume, then, all of the functions of a traffic court under proper laws and regulations with reference to traffic and still not be more busy than it should be? Mr. HARDISON. Yes; I think that is right. I don't think there is any doubt about that. But this thing of getting every man now that you arrest to come into court and have his case tried there, you will never be able to do that under any system you may devise. Mr. LANHAM. You can't do it with reference to other offenses? Mr. ZIHLMAN. Don't you think, Judge, that the present system has led to carelessness; and according to the testimony before this committee a great number of accidents which could be avoided occur due to violations of the traffic laws? Do you think they are in excess of those in cities of like size? Mr. HARDISON. Well, I can't say about that, Mr. Zihlman. I don't know. I never was in a position to know just exactly what the situation was in other cities of this size; but I doubt that very much. I doubt if there are more accidents here than there are in other cities of the same size. Mr. ZIHLMAN. You know recently there has been a great deal of public discussion and newspaper discussion of the great number of accidents. Mr. HARDISON. Yes; and there is foundation for it, undoubtedly. But I will say this, that since this crusade has been going on, and since police officers have been more diligent in making arrests for passing street cars while stopping, and other offenses, we don't hear so much of it as formerly. We don't have nearly as many cases in the police court as we did formerly, and they are more diligent and people are being warned, and the discussion is bearing fruit. The discussion of it has had a salutary effect. Mr. LANHAM. Now, suppose that this, under different regulations and an amended law, is made a feature and kept a feature of the police court; is there any basis in reason for the additional compensation here of $1,000 a year paid for a judge of that court? Mr. HARDISON. Well, we were before the appropriations committee yesterday afternoon Mr. LANHAN (interposing). I don't ask that to embarrass you in any way. Mr. HARDISON. You are not embarrassing me in any way. We were before the Appropriations Committee yesterday, and we put up a very loud clamor there for increased compensation anyhow, because the salary is too low, and I think they are in thorough sympathy with us, and I think if they had it in their power they would increase our compensation, which I hope they will do. It is ridiculous to ask any man to do that work down there for the salary he receives. Mr. LANHAM. Well, your theory, as I understand it, is that according to the work you now have to do you are not adequately compensated, and that by reason of the recent prohibition legislation, when the present stock of whisky plays out around the country you will have, even with jurisdiction of all these traffic offenses, just about the normal work of a police court. Mr. HARDISON. Well, I would not say that, Mr. Lanham, for this reason: If you pass this law and increase the penalty for these offenses, you will have to give them a jury trial. Of course, we can sit down there alone and try half a dozen cases while a jury is trying one case, and it will increase the work of the court. There is no doubt in the world about that. Mr. LANHAM. But the diminution in business due to recent legislation along other lines will probably bring the work up to about the normal work of a court that is functioning properly. Mr. HARDISON. You see the war made an excessive amount of work, and while I think that if you take a normal situation as it existed down there before that time, and then take the drunks out and add this in, I think this would somewhat increase it over the other. It would make it a little higher, but with that taken out, proper reduction for that, and this added, I don't think it would be so heavy that we could not take care of it. Mr. LANHAM. Just on the basis of what would be your normal work down there, the work of the court, as I understand it, with the present compensation, you are entitled to increased compensation regardless of any provision in this law? Mr. HARDISON. Yes; we are asking the committee to give us $5,000 a year down there, which ought to be the compensation of judges there by all means. It is a ridiculous salary that is paid now. Mr. ZIHLMAN. Isn't your salary paid by statute? Mr. HARDISON. Yes, sir. A police magistrate in New York City gets $7,000 a year and hasn't near as large a jurisdiction as we do. He doesn't try near as many cases as we do. We try more cases here in two weeks than he tries in a month, and he gets $7,000 a year and we get $3,600. The judge of the police court in Louisville, where he doesn't have near as important cases as we do, gets $5,000 a year, and we try more cases down here in two weeks than he will in a month. Mr. ZIHLMAN. How can the Appropriation Committee increase the salary if it is fixed by law? Mr. HARDISON. Well, they can do that by a bill, a special bill. Mr. ZIHLMAN. You know they are not a legislative committee It would have to come from the District committee. Mr. HARDISON. They can recommend it. Mr. ZIHLMAN. They can put it in but it is subject to a point of order on the floor. It can't be done unless no point of order is made against it. It can't be done by the Appropriations Com mittee. Mr. HARDISON. No; but they can recommend it. It would be subject to a point of order, of course. There is one other thing that occurs to me, gentlemen, that I think attention ought to be called to. I notice here in the bill you propose to confer upon the traffic court the trial of joy-riding cases. Mr. ZIHLMAN. You mean on page 19? Mr. HARDISON. No; section 3, page 4, which gives the traffic court jurisdiction over violations of section 826b of the District code. We looked that up the other day and as I now recall it that is the joy-riding statute. Mr. SHELBY. That is an amendment recently adopted by Congress. Mr. HARDISON. If that is the case, gentlemen, you will have to make some change in that, because the penalties that are imposed over there make that an infamous crime and you can not try a man where he is charged with an infamous crime unless he is charged by a grand jury. You would have to provide for either a grand jury in this branch of the court, or you would have to make some other provision about it. Now, this is the thought that occurred to me and I was talking it over with Judge McMahon, and I don't know why it might not be worked out. I don't know of any reason why a provision might not be put into the law that where the grand jury in the supreme court, which investigates these joy-riding cases to start withyou know they are initiated by a warrant issued by the police court or by arrest when brought into police court; the police court sits and examines them and holds them over to the grand jury; the grand jury indicts them and they are tried in the supreme courtthe supreme court is congested and they want relief over there. It occurred to me that it might be feasible to provide that the grand jury there might consider those cases, might return indictments, and then the chief justice of the supreme court might certify them for trial down to the judge of a police court and let them be tried in the police court, provided they are tried by a judge who does not sit as an examining magistrate. I don't see why that might not be done. I don't see why it should not be done, and it could be done. Mr. SHELBY. The penalty clause would still interfere there. Mr. HARDISON. No; it would not. If you allow a man to be indicted by a grand jury, he can be tried in any court and you can give any court jurisdiction over the offense. We could have the legal power to try it, just as if it was tried in the supreme court; it could go by appeal from the police court to the court of appeals, just as it does from the supreme court to the court of appeals. There is no reason why that should not be done. Mr. LANHAM. Do you have jurisdiction in the police court of felonies? Mr. HARDISON. No; our jurisdiction down there is limited to one year's imprisonment and a fine of $1,000, in default of which he |