Evening star., 1927-05-03

Continued from First Page)
by way of punishment. Every offender
is entitled to a trial should he so elect.
Forfeitures of collateral placed for
appearance can only be declared by
the court"
Commenting upon the question of
collateral required for the appearance
in court for various offenses, the COM
mittee report said:
"At the present time, there is an
order in the Police Department that
not less than SIS be accepted as col
lateral for appearance in cases of
intoxication, and not less than S. in
cases OF overtime parking. The
assistants to the corporation counsel
at Police Court are likewise under
orders to permit not less than s.
forfeiture in the last mentioned class
of cases. These orders should be
rescinded. 1t is seldom the courts fine
more than $40 for the first offense of
intoXication and for parking overtime
a fine of 81 is usually imposed when
the case is presented to court.
your committee realizes where
small collaterals are placed and the ap.
pearances of the defendants are not re-
quired in court that such practice is a
return to the forfeiture of collateral
system which has heretofore been so
severely criticized by various indi-
viduals. The committe is of the opin-
ion however. that such practice is jus
tilted, in view of the limited number of
judges and prosecutors and the total
inadequacy of the present Police Court
building to eXpeditiously handle the
volume of business therein trans
acted
There is no express provisions of
law prohibiting the forfeiture of col
lateral. but on the contrary such prac-
tice was no doubt contemplated by
the provision of sectf6 AZ of the code
of laws for the District of Columbia.
Warnings Are approved.
"'Your committee finds it now dis.
Cretionary with members of the police
force to warn offenders for minor in,
fractions of the police regulations or
TO require the deposit of collateral for
their appearance. Your committee be
lieves this practice is a good one and
that it should be continued. We be-
lieve that hundreds of warnings are
given by officers throughout the year
in lieu of arrests. Nevertheless. dur
ing the fiscal year ending June 30
1926. there were 40,3S5 arrests i'm the
District for traffic violations. This is
a sad commentary, but the remedy
lies in the hands of the motoring
public.
Motorists should obey existing
regulations They are promulgated for
the benefit of the community as a
whole and can be divided into two
classes. safety regulations and regula-
tionS for convenience. There cans be
little excuse for a violation of the for
mer class, and obedience to the latter
class must be uniform il they are to
serve their purpose The question of
overtime parking is a difficult one to
deal with. No doubt in many such
cases the circumstances are such that
warning should answer the purpose.
Many of the arrests for this violation.
however, are of persons who are hos
tile TO the regulation and have no re-
spect for its enforcement. They are
known as repeaters, trusting that
they may get by because of the limit
ed force available in the enforcement
of this convenience regulation.
Other Like Regulations.
There are other regulations of like
kind. TO the extent that they are vio-
lated by one Individual, another is de
prived of the equal use of the public
space. A more wholesome respect for.
and observance of. the parking regu
lations would reduce materially the
total number of yearly arrests for
traffic violations.
Your committee is of the opinion
that the placing of a number of.
charges against one defendant for the
sole purpose of multiplying cases, as
outlined by the presiding judge of the
Police Court, is not just nor in the
of good administration. Our
convinces us. however.
that such practice does not exist. The
character of the various offenses are
taken into consideration. Many of
the actions of driver charged with
being intoxicated would be indicative
of his condition. For instance. one
who is intoxicated while operating
motor vehicle and at the same time
runs on the wrong side of the street,
passes a standing street car. fails to
obey the stop signal of an officer and
similar performed acts, should be
charged only with the one offiense of
driving while. intoxicated. The lesser
and all facts be presented as evidence
of the true condition of the defendant
Several Charges Justified.
"Your committee is of the opinion.
however, that under certain circum-
stances an officer is justified in plac-
ing more than one charge against the
party arrested. For instance. one
who operates greatly in excess of the
speed limit and who has no operator s
permit should be charged with both
offenses. Your committee does not
deem the latter practice a. multiplying
of eases. In any event, the question
as to the character and number of
charges to be preferred against any
one individual should be left to the
sound discretion of the prosecuting Of
feated here yesterday by vote of 145