The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1925-07-30
/ With The
.Alibi Artists
Heavy Fines for Road
hogs Is Entirely Up
to Eldridge
Congress Gives Right
By DONALD McDOUGAL

A few days after Traffic Di-
rector Eldridge announced that
the road hog is responsible for
more accidents than any other
individual, one of the breed hobs
up on the Baltimore Pike and
helps to prove the directors state
ment by knocking a girl off a
thirty-foot bank and managing
her to death.
The director intimates to tho
court that the fine for this form
of homicide should be jazZed up
considerably.
IL the director feels that road
hoggishness and such.like danger
Gus habits deserve a higher PEN
atty than parking fifteen min
utes' overtime. say 1t looks like
he should have mentioned that
fact in the code.
As it stands now, all traffic
violations not prescribed by Con-
gress carry the same penalty
81 to $500 or ten days.
Such murderous acts as grab.
bling the right Of way, binding
oncoming drivers with dazzling
lights, scooting around a corner
and knocking pedestrians onto
the front page-aIl these high
crimes and misderleanors carry
the same penalty as parking atJ20
degrees where the reguiat TORS
say as. l;.f3s sd4 dfW
Congress gave the director full
power to name the penalties for
the different offenses. At the
same time, Congress set a good
example by showing how the diff
ferent violators should be graded.
In the speed regulation, for in
stance, Congress fixed a penalty
of from SIS to SIS for the first
offense: from $25 to 500 for q
second offense, and for the third
or subsequent offense, 500 to.
$500 AND from thirty days to
one year in jail and revocation of
permit.
That penalty is a little drastic,
but It's fair and square and when
you read it you know what you're
up against.
And the court knows pretty
well what to do when such case
comes up. Congress doesn't have
to intimate that it would like a
little higher fine in case of third
offense, for instance. 1t pub
fishes that fact where everyone
can see VT.
That's fair, and it's Ameri-
canism. The Only instruction the
court can receive, under our sys-
tenn, is in the statutes. Whisper
ing things in the judges ear that
aren't published in the code
doesn't fit with our ideas of law.
Such a practice is not fair to
motorists who read the code and
think what they read is all there
is to it. 1t isn't fair to the
courts-it throws a certain legis-
lative work upon them which
they should not be called upon
to perform, and which they have
not the equipment to perform.
Tt is for the directors office
to determine the relative import
ance of the different offenses, and
to fix the maximum and minimum
penalties accordingly
If he feels that the roadhog de-
serves rougher trea TINE M than
other violators, 1t Il fair to
prescribe a higher pena III the
first place. It's fair 10 moto-ists
in letting them know What are
the graver offensee Iaa1ly don I
stop to think about such matters
and fair to the court
AS it is now, the bottom is
knocked out of the penalty clause,
and that leaves the court lin
bad fix, sometimes.
When the defense lawyer argues
1.-THE minimum penalty in this
case is one dollar, your honors
and there are mitigating circum-
stances-the defendant might have
done a great deal worse. We ask
for a small penalty" the court
must take that into considera-
ton.
It's for the court to say whether
the offender is entitled TO the
minimum penalty or not, but it's
for the director to say what that
minimum shall be.
But he must say it with regula-
tons