New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-08-10
AUTOMOBILE LEGISLATION.

1t is not in the least surprising that one OF the
courts has held a part of the new automobile
law to be unconstitutional, though it is by no
means certain that it's decision would be sus-
tanned by the higher courts. At the time of the
enactment Of the law doubts Of the propriety Of
some of its provisions were expressed, and 1t
has since become pretty evident that some fur
Their legislation will be necessary in the near
future 1t is to be observed, however, that the
adverse judgment affects only minor and non
essential detail Of the law, and, if upheld and
enforced, will have the effect not of multiplying
the major provisions of the law, but at most Of
merely making them somewhat more difficult
to enforce. There is not the slightest reason to
suppose that it will mean anything like license
for scorchers or that because of it the cam
paign against abuse Of public highways will be
abandoned or relaxed.
There is one point in current discussions of
the subject which needs to be set right in an
emphatic manner. Some i'll advised or disin-
genuous motormen have raised the complaint
that automobiles are being Disseminated
against, and many other people unthinkingly ac
Cept that version of the case as true, and say
that such discrimination is unjust 1t would be
If it existed, but it does not exist. There is no
discrimination against automobiles, and, so far
as we can ascertain, there is no serious thought
not abolition of determinations against them,
but establishment of determinations in their
favor. They are not content with having auto
mobiles enjoy equal privileges with horse drawn
vehicles. They want them to have superior
privileges; and that is what we are opposed to,
and what we believe the great majority of
thoughtful and fair minded men are opposed to.
The public highways are for the use of the
whole public on equal terms. They are now as
freely open to automobiles as to horses. That is
as it should be, subject to reasonable and equi-
table regulations. We should say that horses
which, because of any popularity or vice. are
offensive dangerous to the general public
should be excluded from public roads If. for
example, a horse had the fixed habit of going
into fit of blind staggers, or of wantonly run
ming away, every time it was taken out Its
owner should not be permitted to drive it upon
a public highway In like manner we believe
that machines which, because of non-dirigibility,
or excessive noise or nauseating odors, or other
reason, are offensive or dangerous should be ex-
cluded from public places. There are strict laws
regulating the speed of horses, which are gem
orally recognized as right and necessary. They
are also generally observed, and when they are
violated the viOlatOrs punished and the peo-
pie say it is well. All that is asked is that
drivers Of automobiles shall observe similar
laws. Most Of them, believe are willing to
do so. But there are some who habitually and
defantly break the law Such should be DUN
ished severely.
We note that Lord Balfour's proposed law in
England, to which we recently referred is being
forced through by the government on the ground
that public safety requires it. That law is much
like the one we have here, limiting the speed in
the country to twenty miles an hour, but per-
mitting ten instead of eight miles in cities Such
rates of speed are recognized by horsemen as
the maximum at which it is safe or proper ~
drive horses on highways and similar recos
milton must be given to them by automobiIists