Evening star., 1909-05-11
SUBJECT TO TAXATION
Court of Appeals Decision in
Taxicab Case.
COME UNDER LICENSE LAW
Space at the Union Station Held to
Be q Public Stand.
VEHICLES EMPLOYED FOR HIRE
Police Court Decision Sustaining
Company's Contention Is
Overruled.
COME UNDER LICENSE LAW
EMPLOYED FOR HIRE

The District Court of Appeals. in an
opinion by Chief Justice Shepard, today
declared that the space occupied by the
taxicabs on the grounds and within the
building of the Union station is pub
lie stand within the meaning of the law.
Although the property is not public space,
but is owned by the Washington Ter
minal Company, and the company Is not
bound to open it to public use. the court
said, it has, by the uses to which 1t has
been put, become public place.
I'VE can come to no other conclusion.
declares the chief justice. in giving effect
to the general intention of Congress,
than that the carriages of the taxicab
company kept for hire in the Union
station building are taxable as vehicles
for hire under the terms of paragraph II
of the personal tax act Of July I, 1902,
and that they are not exempted by para
graph 13."
The case came up from the Police
Court on writ Of error from the judg-
ment of Judge kimball Quashing an in
formation in which jeremiah Fickling,
manager of the taxicab company, was
charged with engaging in the business of
a proprietor of a horseiess carriage for
the transportation Of passengers and ac-
cepting hire therefor without having q
license.
A statement Of facts was agreed on be-
tween Corporation Counsel Thomas and
Attorneys McKenney, Flannery G. Hit,
representing the taxicab company.
The Company's Contention.
The taxicab companys contention.
which was sustained by Judge Kimball,
was that having paid the license tax re-
quired by paragraph 13 for keeping a
nd
hire at any one Of the designated public
stands. 1t is not liable to taxation upon
carriages kept in the hired private space
at the Union station. They argued that
public stands are those only which have
been established as public cabstands by
order of the Commissioners.
In overrulng this contention. Chief
Justice Shepard said: THE apparent in
tention of Congress was to compel the
owners of all carriages kept for hire,
barn or garage licensed under paragraph
13. to pay the license tax. per carriage.
imposed by paragraph IL. The imposition
of that tax Is not limited to those car
riages kept for hire only at the public
stands established by law. We see no rea-
sonable ground for inferring an intention
that the owner of a barn or garage
might maintain stand, convenient to the
general public. away from the place of his
licensed business and therefrom. at the
hackney carriages in competition with
those who pay the higher license tax i'm
posed upon all other owners of such car
riages. To permit this would destroy that
equality and uniformity of taxation
which 1t is the policy of all laws to pre-
serve as far as practicable
Considered q "Public" Stand.
court. that the space occupied by the
taxicab company on the grounds and
within the building of the Terminal Com
pany is a public stand within the mean
ing and scope Of the proviso. 1t is true
that space is the private property of
the Terminal Company, which it Is not
bound to open to general public use, and
1t had the right to contract for its eX-
elusive use by the taxicab company. to
subserve the convenience and comfort of
passengers arriving In and departing
from the railroad station.
1t had the power to maintain the space
as a stand for those particular carriages
only in the exercise of its public call
ing. and as an aid to the performance of
its public duties. which thereby became
affected with a public use. subject only
to the right indicated. BY it's uses
it became public place, notwithstanding
the limitations upon other uses. The
taxicab company, licensed to keep car
riages for hire at particular estab-
in this space for hackney and not
livery service; and from there it not
only served railway passengers, but ALSO
as shown by the evidence in this case
other persons than arriving and depart
ing railway passengers"
Other Cases Decided.
The appellate court affirmed the judg-
ment of the District Supreme Court in
the cases Of Edward A. Fay against the
District Of Columbia. involving an as
sessment by a jury in condemnation pro-
ceedings and of N. M. Minnix Company
against L. c. Smith & Bros. Typewriter
Company, which was a replevin suit in
stituted originally In Justices court for
the recovery Of a typewriter.
Justice RObb delivered the first named
opinion and Justice Van Orsdel the latter.