The Washington times., 1903-06-05
PRESENTS THE CASE
OF AUIONOB|LISTS
Carl j. Lockwood Tells Why
They Want to Test Rules.
WANT THEIR STATUS DEFINED
Courts to Decide What Are Rights Of
Owners and Drivers-No Desire
to Fight Commissioners.

Carl J. Lockwood, an automobile
dealer, today explained the object sought
in his suit for an injunction against
the enforcement of the automobile regu-
lations. He declared first of all there
was no objection 10 the limiting of the
speed of mechanical vehicles to twelve
miles an hour.
Mr.. Lockwood said the real object was
to have the regulations reviewed by
court decision, so that automobilists
would know exactly their rights under
the law. If it should be found that the
Commissioners had authority to formu-
late the regulations, and 10 enforce them
against automobiles, in distinction from
other vehicles. the operators OF the We
hicles would abide by the law, and do
their best to obey it.
Mr.. Lockwood disclaimed any inten-
ton to fight the District Commission
ers. He said the latter had conscien-
tiously performed what they conceived
tc be their duty. He had no fault to
find with the Board, or any member of 1t.
Certain Clauses Objected To.
There was no disposition on his part
TO raise a hue and cry against the regu-
lations, or TO make a sensation over the
fancied wrongs of the automobilist. He
said they did feel 1t to be hardship TO
have particular form of vehicle singled
out and made subject to especially strin-
gent regulations. but he was not seeking
public sympathy along that line.
There We're certain clauses in the
regulations 10 which automobilists OBJ
Ject on principle. They object TO any
scrt of numbers on the machines No
oiher vehicles are required to have
them. Furthermore, the carrying OF
lights en- machines propelled by gaso-
line is dangerous. Any accident that
might loosen or cause break in the
gasolene tank would almost inevitably
result in an explosion. If lights are car
RED on the rear of the machine The
fumes would be borne that way, and
everybody with experience knew what
an explosive mixture was gasolene and
air. There was more real danger from
this source to the driver and those in
The car than there could be to the pub
arG the lights.
Hardship in Requiring Permits.
1t was a mistake to suppose that auto
nobilists as a class were DESTROYS of
driving their vehicles in a reckless man
ner. They are costly. and it did not
Fay to break them. The almost total
lack OF collisions and accidents was suf-
flcient proof of this view.
Mr. Lockwood objected strongly TO the
regulations which called for the examin-
ing, and licensing of automoDilists. He
said no such requirement was made OF
those managing horses, and yet moth
ing was more dangerous than an unruly
horse. If the regulations made a speed
limit, and prohibited mechanical We
hicles from being operated in reckless
manner, that was as far as they should
&C. Requiring the operators to have
permit and TO exhibit II when called
upon 10 do so, was a hardship, and prob
ably bad law. Al least the courts would
be asked TO settle the point whether
a single class of owners OF vehicles
could be singled out and subjected TO
such requirements.
Mr. Lockwood said the ultimate mo-
I've of the suit was 10 have the rights
and privileges Of automobile drivers
definitely defined. He hoped there might
be a modification of the rules, but there
was no desire or intention OF doing away
with all regulations upon this class OF
vehicles.
( Erskine NJ Sunderland, who was fined
$50 by Judge Kimball in the Police Court
for alleged violation of the automobile
Regulations. has taken an appeal 10 the
Court Of Appeals for the District. Mr.
Sunderland when arraigned for trial in
the lower court, asked TO be tried by
jury. This right he says was refused him.
Al the investigation Mr.. Sunderland also
asked TO be permitted TO offer testimony
TO show that the speed motors used by
the police do not always make a correct
record OF the speed of the machines TO
which they are attached. Mr.. Sunderland
IS represented by Attorneys Lambert and
Baker.