Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-04-25
REFERRED TO COURT
Corporation Counsel's Report
on Cab Controversy.
TEST CASE TO BE MADE
MR.. DuvA11 COMEDIES JUSTICE
OF CABMEN's COMPLAINT.
Review of the Differences Between a
Local Union and Livery
Stable Proprietors.

Inc CoTpOTduOn COUNSEL, A. b. Luz
vail. has rendered an opinion to the Com
missioners on the subject of the protest of
the local Cab Drivers Union against con-
tinuance Of the present practice Of allow
ing hotels the privilege of keeping livery
stable carriages in front Of their doors.
The cabmen complained they were not al
lowed to take their places in front Of the
hostelries, and were the victims of dis
elimination. Mr.. Duvall declares he can
see no satisfactory solution of the matter
except through test case in the courts.
The counsel reviews the case and says he
is inclined to believe that the complaint of
the cabmen is just one.
Il return herewith" he says in his
opinion, the protest of the Cab and Car
rage Drivers Union. Local. No. 1885, of
the international Team Drivers Union of
America, affiliated with the American Fed
GRAFTON of Labor, against the manner in
which carriages belonging to public liveries
are permitted to stand in front of the
hotels of the city of Washington-which,
with reports by the hack inspector and the
major and superintendent of police, to-
gether with the testimony taken at the pub
lie hearing before the Commissioners Janu-
airy %, 1903, and briefs by counsel in be-
half of the Cab and Carriage Drivers
Union and the hotel proprietors, respect
lively, you referred to me for opinion.
Contest an Old One.
1.-THE controversy which is now renewed is
an ancient one and ought to be finally set
tied in justice to all parties concerned.
When the question was last under consid-
GRAFTON, at the request of the Commission
ers, 1 gave my views upon the subject in an
opinion dated July 10, 1899, containing a
somewhat extended discussion Of the ques-
tons involved. to which beg leave now to
refer. 1 then thought and still think the
claim of the hotel proprietors in the
premises untenable. 1 am unable to recog-
nize the similarity between the use of the
pupnc street as proposed by the hotel pro-
pr1etors and it's use by the wagons of bust
ness houses for business purposes. The
merchant uses his wagons, not for gain or
hlre, but as q necessary incident to the
conduct Of his ordinary business; his wagon
is not hired to, and it's service is not OBJ
ta1nable by, the general public at the mere
call of the public, and at rate fixed by
public law. ~
THE keeping and use of these vehicles on
the street by the hotel proprietors. in my
opinion, constitutes a business distinct from
keeping hotel it is no part of that
business No hotel guest expects to obtain
a carriage without paying hire for it, and
such a convenience Is not necessarily part
or the usual comforts of hotel OF course
the owner or possessor of a carriage or
vehicle may freely use 1t for his own pleas
ure or comfort, and he may have it stand
in the public. street in front of his residence
for reasonable time, but he may not make
a stable yard of the street, or exclusively
use any portion of it.
Declared by Court of Appeals.
II consider that the controlling principles
of law in this matter have been declared
by the Court of Appeals In Curry agt. Dis
trict of Columbia. decided April 4, 1899 In
that case the court reviewed the police
regulation made by the Commissioners set
ting apart portions of 9th street and B
street adjoining the Baltimore and Poto-
mac railroad station for the exclusive use
of the railroad hack service under the au-
thority of the joint resolution of Congress
approved June T. 1893.
I'm its opinion holding that the regula-
ton was not authorized by the joint res
olution and therefore null and void, the
court said:
" But the question here is not one Of con-
venience to the railroad company or it's
public, but one of equality Of right before
the law. The comfort of the public is not
to be subserved by the destruction of pri-
vate right or the subversion of funda-
mental principle Of all free government.
THE streets of the city of Washington
are for the equal use of all the public; and
it is violation Of the fundamental principle
of equality to attempt to give an exclusive
privilege in them, or in any part of them,
to any one person, company or organiza-
ton whatsoever, to the exclusion of others
equally entitled. If the service proposed to
be rendered by the railroad company Is of
so superior character to be entitled to
supersede In the estimation of the public
all other effort in the same direction by
private persons. 1t will be easy to accom-
plish the desired result, and even to Gre
ate a monopoly such as will not be Of
fensive to the law, by the establishment
of the service by the railroad company
upon it's own ground, instead of the public
streets Of the city, and by the manifesto
ton there of its superiority by the way
of test in fair competition
Provisions Of the Regulations.
1.-The police regulations authorized by
acts of Congress provide under a penalty
that: No vehicle shall unnecessarily OBJ
struct the free passageway of any street
or avenue, nor hinder or delay the passage
of any other vehicle etc. This as I
showed in my previous review of the SUBJ
1ect is but the declaration of the common
law rule and relates to public Or private
vehicles alike. In the case of vehicles for
hire the provision of section Z, article 10,
of the police regulations is: Vehicles for
hire, seeking employment, shall not stop
or loiter upon any street except at the
regular public stands etc.
"An alleged violation of this regulation
by a cabman was passed upon March 8,
1900. by the Court of Appeals in Stephens
agt District of Columbia. The proof
sCwed that the cabman did not stop on
the street, but drove his vehicle along
and turned and returned upon the same
street. The court held this not to be VIC.
lation of the regulation and said:
Beyond question the ordinance under
which the prosecution in this case was IN
stituted Is of a character to subserve the
public convenience and public safety. and
it's Illegally, should be made very plainly
to appear before the courts could be justi-
fed in holding it void. At the same time
a reasonable construction must be given
to 1t that Will conserve the liberty of the
Individual, while not impairing the efficacy
of the ordinance as proper regulation for
the public safety. In the absence of spe
that driven2b the defendant from being
upon any specified street or from being