Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1926-01-07
CONTINUED. from First Page.)

more is presumed to have been grant.
ed than is expressly stated In the
| words of the grant, and the rule of
construction in regard to such grants
is neither to be too strict nor too
liberal, but fair and reasonable. to
effectuate the intention of the Legfs.
lature.
Congress, by the act or March 3
1928, after legislating directly relative
to the procuring of operators permits
speeding and reckless driving Of mo
tor vehicles, fleeing from scenes OF
accident, driving while under the in
tluence of Intoxicating liquor. smoke
screens. reporting by garage keepers
of cars damaged in accidents and rev
ocation or suspension of operators
permits, delegated to the director oi
traffic certain authority which is con
tanned in Section tb) of said act
which provides as follows:
The director is hereby authorized
beginning so days after the enactment
of this act. CD to make reasonable reg
ulations with respect TO brakes. horns
lights, muff1ers and other equipment
the speed and parking of vehicles, the
registration of motor vehicles. the is
suance and revocation Of operators
permits and such other regulations
with respect to the control of traffic
in the District not in conflict with any
law of the United States as are
deemed advisable, -
No Restriction Intended.
Congress itself, in said act OF
March 5, 1925, in dealing directly with
certain phases of the traffic conditions
of the District, nowhere attempted to
restrict or interfere with the personal
liberty of our citizens when they are
In, oh IF NJ
or motor vehicles. Can it be said then
that Congress intended to give such
power to the director of traffic when
it vested in him authority to make
such other regulations with respect
to the control of traffic in the Dis
trict not in conflict with any law of
the United States as are deemed ad-
viSable? What did Congress intend
by the use of the words control of
traffic?
1T might be contended that the
words control of traffic as used In
said section 6 (b) are sufficiently broad
and comprehensive to include, and
were intended to include. pedestrians.
but the rule of statutory construction
is. as was said by the Court of Appeals
in the case of Miles Planting Co. VS..
Carlisle. 5 App. d. c.. 1873, l44:
1t is an undoubted rule of con-
struction that the special meaning or
purpose that might, under some cir
cumstances, be found to Turk in a
single word or part Of a sentence,
must yield to the plain intention dis
closed by the whole.
Reading the Traffic Act of March
3. 1925, within its four corners, in.
Guiding its title, and giving effect. il
possible, to every clause and word of
the statute. IS 1t is my duty to do,
and bearing in mind that no more
authority is presumed to have been
granted the director of traffic than
is expressly stated in the Traffic Act;
and applying to that statute a fair
and reasonable construction to effect
uate the intention of Congress, l am
forced to the conclusion that the
authority delegated to the director OF
traffic was expressly limited by Con
gress to the control of vehicles or We
hicle traffic, and conferred upon him no
authority to restrict or interfere with
the right of personal liberty of our
citizens while walking along or over
the public highways.
Question of Unreasonableness.
THE first question, Has the director
of traffic power to make any regula-
tions controlling the actions of pedes-
TRANS upon our streets as contained
in said section (a) of article 2, being
decided in the negative, the DISPOSE
ton by me of the second question, as
to whether the regulation here in
volved is unreasonable, unusual. un-
just or oppressive or restrictive of or
in violation of the right of personal
liberty, is unnecessary, for, even If the
regulation Is reasonable, just and
proper in itstelf. and even necessary
for the preservation Of peace and good
order and the safety Of the public, yet.
If the director Of traffic has no author
ity to make it. it cannot stand"
1t was announced at the District
Building that Director of Traffic Ed
ridge and Assistant Corporation Coun-
sci Ringgold Hart are whipping the
proposed regulation INTO legal shape
for presentation tomorrow to the
Board of Commissioners for their ac-
ton. Both officials were in conference
this morning with Commissioner Fer
ming, sponsor of the all-night parking
ban idea for Washington
May Modify Ban.
Reports were current that some
modification has been made in the
original plan, which would prohibit
parking of automobiles on the streets
between and am. The change, it
was reported, would prohibit parking
for periods longer than four hours
after l am.
Commissioner Fenning will present
the regulation at the meeting of the
Board of Commissioners. Whether it
will meet the approval of the other
two Commissioners is a matter for
conjecture, as neither Commissioner
Bell nor Commissioner Rudolph have
given the slightest intimation as to
how they will act when the regulation
is formally submitted. Mr.. Fenning,
however, has announced that he saw
no reason why his colleagues would
not indorse 1t.
Senator Jones announced his 1nten-
ton of fighting the proposal following
receipt this morning Of letter from
Commissioner Fenning in reply to q
request he had sent to the Commits
sioner for information as to why the
proposed regulation was necessary.
Questions Asked.
In his letter to Commissioner Fen
ming, Senator Jones asked the follow
ing questions; How many accidents
have occurred in the last six months