Now, the registry cards and tags, on page 7, line 11-"The validity of such registry card and tags or other markers shall expire at the end of the calendar year for which they are issued or upon any transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle for which they are issued "-right there should be inserted the words "and must be removed." That is on page 7, line 11. We have numerous instances in the city where people are carrying their last year's license tags, and they say, "Well, there is no law on it. I will not take them off." But those numbers are kept there to confuse persons who may try to get the numbers. The regulations require that no more than two other numbers, including the District of Columbia, shall be carried on the rear of the automobiles, and it strikes me we ought to have some law compelling them to take them off, and inasmuch as the law is being written here it would not hurt to have that in. We have had so many regulations disposed of by the court as unconstitutional that while we have an opportunity I would like to have it clear and properly defined.

Mr. LANHAM. You mean not to carry any markers for a calendar year that has expired?

66

Mr. HEADLEY. Yes, sir. It is only a matter of four more words. Mr. LANHAM. What amendment would meet that now?

Mr. HEADLEY. In line 11, page 7, after the word "issued," insert and must be removed," so it will read, "at the end of the calendar year for which they are issued and must be removed, or upon any transfer of ownership of the motor vehilce for which they are issued, they shall be returned to the motor commissioner by the licensee."

Mr. LANHAM. I get your idea, but the question in my mind is whether the words "must be removed" would be exactly sufficient to express it.

Mr. HEADLEY. At the end of the year they must be removed. In other words, we have automobiles traveling around Washington to-day with two District of Columbia tags on them, one 1919 and the other 1920. Of course, we are familiar with them. We know which is which. And, in addition to that, sir, there are lots of automobiles traveling around here to-day with a 1919 Maryland tag on them which is exactly like the District of Columbia tag.

Mr. LANHAM. Don't you think that those words "and must be removed," in order to keep the grammatical construction and convey the idea that you wish to convey, would come in more appropriately after the word "expire" on line 10? That is, "registry card and tags or other markers shall expire and must be removed at the end of the calendar year"?

Mr. HEADLEY. Yes, sir; that would be better. And upon the sale of an automobile to another person, the person to whom these tags were issued should be responsible for the return of them to the automobile commissioner, because we have no doubt even now there are hundreds of dead numbers, dead automobile numbers, traveling around the city, and there are hundreds of people whom we never locate because those numbers have not been returned, and the reason we want to locate them is because complaint has been made to police headquarters about their manner of driving on the

streets.

In section 2, at the bottom of page, line 24, after the word " owners" I should think it should read "full name and address in the District of Columbia, if residing or employed in the District of Columbia." Now, a man who may have a card is approached by an officer who says, "I would like to see your permit. He hands him out a card that is written " S. Jones." It might be Silas, Samuel, or Susanne-a family affair. I have had instances of that sort. Mr. LANHAM. There might be several people in the district with the same name.

Mr. HEADLEY. Yes, sir; or there may be several people in the same family with the same initials.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. The way in which the owner's name is put on the card is largely a matter of the automobile commissioner's office. Mr. HEADLEY. Yes, sir; I know.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. You write the name on the card?

Mr. HEADLEY. That is a new rule; yes, sir.

Mr. LANHAM. That could be corrected without legislation. Mr. HEADLEY. Now, the address in the District, if residing or employed in the District-the idea of that is there have been so many instances-I have investigated so many instances of complaints made against drivers of automobiles in the last 20 years whose driving was of such a character that it needed some investigation, and after a great deal of time and expense I find them riding under my nose. About two weeks ago I sent a letter to a man residing in Germantown, who gave his name into the office here as living in Germantown, and after about 10 days I located him in the water office in the District of Columbia. Now, that man should have given his Washington address where he is employed, and it is a habit, a practice of some people when they apply for a tag in the District of Columbia they give their address somewhere else. I had one the other day of a man who resided in Georgetown who gave a fictitious address. We had a complaint against him, and we also had a complaint against him last year, and in looking him up he lived at some place where there never was any house, and this year he gives his address somewhere in North Carolina, some place in North Carolina that I never heard of, and we can't locate that man, and I have a complaint against him. The only way we can do is to locate him through the policeman who may chance to see him as he passes on the street.

This condition of affairs is thought over and prepared to offset any possible chance of the police apprehending persons who may have violated the law or those who intend to violate the law. It would not be fictitious in North Carolina if he gives a North Carolina address.

Mr. LANHAM. I was just wondering if you could not fix a penalty for fictitious address and thereby prevent a good deal of trouble. Mr. HEADLEY. What I had in mind was that in case of persons employed in the District of Columbia they should give their District of Columbia address.

Mr. LANHAM. But for failure to do it shouldn't there be some penalty? Otherwise you could not enforce it.

Mr. HEADLEY. Speaking of the man now employed here but whose home is back in some other State?

Mr. LANHAM. Yes.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. There is a provision in here pertaining to that providing penalties for anybody who obtains a permit by fraud or misrepresentation.

Mr. HARDISON. Mr. Zihlman, I overlooked one little matter, if you will pardon me. I notice in the bill here that you designate one of the judges of the police court as the judge of the traffic court, and you fix his salary, I think, at $1,000 extra, and you provide that in his absence the other judge shall act and receive compensation at the rate of $1,000 during the time he is acting as judge of the traffic court.

I do not think that ought to be in there if this bill goes through, for this reason: The court sits there in two divisions, the District of Columbia division and the United States division, and we have to divide the work between us. For instance, to-day I had jury trials, and I am sitting in the United States branch now, and I had to send the current stuff down to the other judge, although he is sitting in the District of Columbia court, and he had to hear that-United States cases in the District of Columbia court. Now, when he has a heavy day, like jury trials or something of that sort, he will send the current stuff of the District of Columbia court up to me when I am sitting in the United States court, and we have to divide the work between us in that way; and it would be a very gross injustice to provide that one of the judges down there should be the traffic judge and get the compensation at the rate of $1,000 more than the other, because in the very nature of the situation down there we have got to divide the work between us about evenly; and if this bill should go through at all and the police judges be designated as judges of the traffic court, the bill ought to provide that each may sit as a traffic judge and get the same compensation, because otherwise it would work a very great injustice.

Mr. LANHAM. Another thing, in the case of illness or absence of the one who might be designated as the traffic judge, wouldn't the other judge of the police court thereby have his work increased and have so much work that he would hardly have time to look after the traffic court?

Mr. HARDISON. The provision in the law is that when one judge is absent, the judge of the municipal court sits. The bill ought to recite that either judge of the police court, or whoever is sitting as judge of the police court may act as traffic judge, too. There would be inexplicable confusion unless you have it that way.

Mr. HEADLEY. That is the point, Mr. Lanham, that I mentioned, about the judge acting in the place of the other.

This bill has been gone over very thoroughly by those who have testified, and there are just some things that I want to touch on. On page 19, line 3, it says:

Such operator and occupants, if requested by the injured person or his representative, within a reasonable time after such accident, shall give to such person or representative the number of the motor vehicle and the name and address of the owner and operator and of any occupants thereof not in excess of five.

Now, this should not be left to the person who was injured to make the request. Persons who are injured sometimes are not able to ask

for the addresses, and that is the time that it should be given, and the person causing the injury should be required by law to give them their address. We had a case here some time ago, three or four years ago—we have had several instances where they have injured persons or killed them and drove away and did not leave their names. want to say something about that later on.

Twenty-four hours is a long time to give a person the opportunity to report to the police stations in the District of Columbia, where there are 14 of them, and many telephones also that they might use. Mr. ZIHLMAN. Well, 24 hours I don't agree with you there. Twenty-four hours is not too short a time for a man in an accident to report the details. I think they should have that latitude of 24 hours for reporting.

Mr. HEADLEY. I think it is more important that they should be required to give their names, whether they were asked or not. Mr. ZILHMAN. I agree with you there.

Mr. LANHAM. The person might be so badly injured that he could not inquire.

Mr. HEADLEY. Yes; I think so.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. I think that is a very good point.

Mr. HEADLEY. The impounding law, gentlemen, is one that has been in operation in Detroit for many years and has worked very successfully. It is a very important regulation to assist the police department in clearing the streets of many violations of the regulations that we are powerless to handle just now. We find men of education, intelligence, and position in the District of Columbia who will park their cars at 90° where 35° is required by regulations, and standing them up against a fire plug. We must see that man place it there in order to prosecute him. I could successfully place automobiles in many places in the District of Columbia where I ought to be sent to jail for doing it, and successfully elude the efforts of the police to convict me for it. And we ought to have that authority given us by Congress to remove those obstacles and prosecute the person who owns it. It should be up to them to divulge, as stated, the identity of the person responsible for placing it there.

Mr. LANHAM. Have you got any kind of an amendment drafted to this bill that you think would serve that purpose?

Mr. HEADLEY. I did not get that. I just want to give you the general thought in order that it might clear the streets. Now, I sat in the office of the present superintendent of police of Detroit, who at that time was inspector of traffic, and a very able man, and I saw the police bringing in automobiles that had been left at places where the persons who left them there ought to be severely dealt with. They are just careless and don't care. If they don't know the regulations. their license ought to be revoked. I have in mind the fire plug on Fifteenth Street just north of New York Avenue. We require 35° parking there because of the business in that particular locality, where it is absolutely a necessity to require 35° parking in order to allow the straight-ahead traffic to get through, and in addition to that to take care of the wants or requirements of the people who use the streets in that vicinity. We try to play 50-50 with them and give the greatest service to the greatest number, and with all our efforts we are imposed upon, if I may say that.

To get to the Union Station proposition, I told you about how the signs were put there. It was such a condition there that I wonder that the Members of Congress did not criticize the police department and the commissioners for not having taken care of that condition long before they did. If I had been a man holding a position of importance in the department, I am afraid I would have been fired for that.

Mr. ZIHLMAN. As I understand it, you are very familiar with the traffic regulations and violations here in the District. Is there an unusually large number of violations on the part of drivers of public vehicles here in the District?

Mr. HEADLEY. Now, that comes under the man who is known as hack inspector. I don't have the opportunity at this time, for the past six months back, to keep tab on the public-vehicle drivers. These reports do not come in to me. We do not have a regular traffic branch under one man. Of course, there should be; but we don't have it just at this time, but it should be, so that the man in charge of the regulation of traffic might be able to talk intelligently about just such things. I know a great many of these public-vehicle drivers, and I have a very high regard for them as a whole, but they will violate traffic regulations in spite of all we can do, in their efforts to get the dollar that might be rolling along the street. That is really the cause. The trouble is, gentlemen, that the supply is greater than the demand. There are, as you have been told, about 1,500 public vehicles in Washington, and I dare say 300 would be sufficient to take care of the wants of the people who come here and those who are here.

One of the sorest places in Washington heretofore-not so much now-has been in front of the Willard Hotel at Pennsylvania Avenue. No doubt you are familiar with the methods employed by drivers who, in their effort to locate the dollar, rush out, four or five of them, to the curb and obstruct vehicular traffic coming from the east. Now, gentlemen, any person, man or woman, might walk out of the Willard Hotel, and if they looked toward the hack driversthey may want a Ford, but half a dozen Wintons and Packards will come out there, and they then obstruct the street.

I have a copy here of a recommendation made by the board of trade, by their committee of 100, recognizing the seriousness of the condition on our public highways. These recommendations have been made to the commissioners, and I believe they are going to appear before this committee on this subject, and I don't think there is any condition in the city of Washington which needs special regulation so much as the conduct of the drivers in front of the Willard Hotel.

Mr. LANHAM. When was this recommendation made?

Mr. HEADLEY. It was February, 1920, just last month. Some time ago our late major and superintendent of police, who I believe was the foremost traffic man in the United States-I know of no man who knew more about traffic than he—in his efforts to treat these hackmen 100 per cent fair, invited them into the board room on a certain morning about two years ago, and I think about 200 or more responded. Their conduct was very reprehensible, and after that they got worse.