The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1903-06-09
SURPRISE SPRUNG ON
DISTRICT BY AUTOISTS
Injunction Asked Against
the Commissioners.
CITED TO APPEAR JUNE Is
Justice Gould Commands Commission
ers to Show Cause Why Restrain
ing Order Should Not Issue.

While the proceedings instituted by
Carl J. Lockwood against the District
questioning the legality of the automo-
bile regulations, were in progress yes
terday before Justice Gould the plain
tits counsel. Lambert & Baker, sprung
surprise in the form of a petition
asking that the Commissioners be en-
joined from putting the proposed regu-
lations into operation and effect.
Most of the averments contained in the
new bill are similar to those in the
one recently filed by the complainant
in his own behalf. They outline the au-
thority under which the Commissioners
are undertaking 10 act, and attack the
regulations so far as the first five and
eighth sections are concerned. as being
unlawful and unreasonable and, as it
is alleged Infringing upon the property
rights of the complainant and others
situated similar to himself.
L is set forth that these sections are
absolutely null and void To substantiate
the statement as to their unreasonable
character as matters of fact, about thir-
ty- eight affidayits from different automo-
bilists IN the city are attached to the
bill, each consisting of about four type
written pages.
Petition of Owners.
The affidavit states that the running
of automobiles on the public streets
of Washington is in no way hindrance
| or disturbance to anyone: that the
parties have read over the sections re-
ferred to and declare them to be I'M
| reasonable in fact: that no necessity
exists for the Commissioners to promul-
gate them. Each signer states that ne
has never injured anyone while driving
his automobile, and that he does not
drive his machine in an improper man
ner; that these automobiles are man
aged easier than a horse aud buggy, or
carriage and that less experience is re-
quired to propel them.
| The petitioners declare that section
takes away the right to propel automo-
| biles in a lawful and proper manner
and compels the parties 10 submit TO
al examination to obtain a permit from
| the Commissioners to do that which
they have been lawfully doing for long
period OF time.
| Section 8 is attacked because IL is
said to be unreasonable to compel auto
drivers not only TO have suitable lamps.
lat that such lamps must be approved
| by the Commissioners. II is contended
that part of section 3 which requires a
| light on ii e rear in close proximity to
.I.,3 gasolene tanis, is dangerous. and
n l, the present regulation in regard to
t.la lights Is sufficient.
| o9ction s Is claimed to be unreason-
able as matter of law, as it would be a
hardship TO owners of automobiles to be
in a position where they could be
stopped by any officer when they were
running their machines in a lawful and
proper manner
Relief May Be Granted.
! Upon the presentation of the petition
contained in the new complaint. Justice
| Gould issued rule against the Commits
sioners requiring them 10 show cause
on June IS why the relief asked by the
| petitioner should not be granted.
/ The arguments on the original petition