Evening star., 1927-03-07
ELDR|IDGE UPHELD
ON REDUCED SPEED
Right to Limit Traffic Under
22 Miles Sustained by
Court of Appeals.

The District Court of Appeals, in
a unanimous opinion rendered today
by Justice Charles II. Robb, sustained
the right Of Director Of Traffic NJ. D.
Eldridge to reduce the speed of vehicu-
lar traffic from the limit of % miles
per hour The court reversed a deci-
sion of Judge John p. Mcmahon of
Police Court, which held invalid sec.
ton SIX of Article w of the traffic
regulations limiting vehicular traffic
on certain bridges to a speed of Is
miles an hour for passenger cars and
IL miles per hour for commercial
vehicles.
1T cannot be maintained" says the
court. that the regulation is not rea-
sonable. Fast driving on these bridges
not only would endanger human life,
but tend to damage the bridges them.
selves. This seems SO obvious as to
require no further demonstration"
Called Serious Problem.
The court points out that the proper
control of vehicular traffic in cities OF
the size of Washington presents
serious problem. 1.-THE tremendous
toll of human life," says Justice Robb,
resulting from complex traffic condi-
tions Is evidence of the necessity for
more adequate regulation and protec-
ton. Congress, in the enactment OF
the statute, clearly recognized this
necessity and therein evinced a pur-
pose to clothe the director OF traffic
with authority reasonably consistent
with the end to be accomplished.
"It is insisted, however. that al
though the director was expressly au-
thorized under section 6B to make
reasonable regulations with respect to
the speed of vehicles, the provision
of section ga prescribing a maximum
rate of 90 miles an hour, except In
outlying districts and on .arterial high
ways, Is inconsistent with the ex-
press grant contained in section 6B.
THAT Congress did not intend to
authorize speed of % miles an hour
appears from section 9B, which in
effect prohibits reckless, unreasonable
or dangerous driving within the max
imum speed limit. Except in outlying
districts and on arterial highways the
director may not authorize a rate of
speed greater than 20 miles an hour.
He Is authorized, however. to make
reasonable regulations to prevent
reckless, unreasonable and dangerous
driving within such maximum speed
limit"
Conflict of Statutes Denied.
The court declares that such regula-
ton is not in conflict with the statute,
but Is in harmony with it and in aid
of its provisions. Any other con-
clusion, the court asserts, would do
violence not only to the obvious in
tent Of the traffic act, but to the ex-
press provision in section 6B. The
act, Justice Robb points out. should
be considered as a whole, and Ii pos
sible given an Interpretation that
will harmonic and accord full force
and effect to all Of it's provisions.
Claude Bailey. driver of Capt.
tai Traction bus, was charged with
driving over Klingle Bridge at rate
In excess of 10 miles an hour and not
exceeding % miles. Attorney Edward
Swingle for the accused filed a motion
to quash the information and Judge
Mcmahon sustained the motion and
ruled that the director of traffic was
not authorized to reduce the speed
of motor vehicles.
Corporation Counsel Stephens sued
out a writ of error to the Court of
Appeals. Bailey will now have to
stand trial on the charge. It u ex-
pected.