Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-02-28
Annual Auto Tags Hit.
Identification Is Held Sole Pur.
pose of d. C.. Plates.
To the Editor of The Star:

To the Editor OF The Star;
| Thinking of the much delayed deliv-
cry OF 1927 auto tags to District of
Columbia auto owners, it has occurred
to the writer that this annually re-
peated mulcting of the already tax
burdened auto owner for the price Of a
new pair of tags is one of the most
utterly useless and foolishly unreason-
able and inexcusable proceedings to
which the municipal government sub
jects auto owners
That we need tags on all automo-
| blles for identification purposes goes
without saying. and is probably &C.
copied by all without argument. That
| there Is any necessity whatever for
requiring their renewal every year is
difficult to prove.
What purpose Is served by these
tags? Identification, purely and SIM
ply; nothing else. Any present rea1
son for requiring annual renewal Of
these could be applied with equal force
as a reason for renewing them semi
| annually, or quarterly, or even month.
iy or weekly, yet the very preposter-
BUSINESS OF such propositions la appar-
ent Immediately they are made.
| The claim Is now made that the
present 81 charge for District Of Co
lumbia tags merely covers the cost Of
| - anu ioSdLA5 dIAu AC~
| cordlng owners names and addresses
and important data relative to the car.
ThlS being the case, such transactions
are not revenue-producing. and hence
cannot be justified on that basis True,
the time was when these tags amount.
ed In fact to proclamations by the
| issuing official, to all concerned, that
| the possessors had paid their annual
tag tees for the cars carrying same.
| However, that is now history. As we
now. pay such fees practically entirely
on the sane pay as you ride" basis In
the form OF gasoline tax, the above
mentioned reason for requiring fire.
| quent renewals has ceased to hold
| identification being the sole purpose
OF these tags, can any one adduce any
real reason why tag No. 45681, for
example, Identifying John Does Ford,
may not perform that function Just as
perfectly in 1927 or 1880. or any other
year for that matter, as in 1925? In
tact, does not the present District of
| Columbia situation amply prove this
contention and practically demonstrate
it's correctness? Why, indeed, should
an auto owner ever again be required
| TO purchase new tags unless perchance
| ne has ruined or lost the old ones? So
| long as they are capable of perform
| ing their function--that of identified.
| tlon-there Is no reason for his getting
new tags even when he disposes of his
present car and gets another. II he
be required to promptly register with
the proper official any change of ye-
| hicle, will not such registration serve
every purpose? The name, type, mum.
| Der. etc, of the new vehicle can be
| recorded against the number Of his old
| tags and the record will again be COM
! plete and up to date.
These tags cost District Of Columbia
residents more than $780, annually.
Why not make that $10G 900 cover FIVE
or ten years or even more, perhaps.
and after the first year Except for
above indicated necessary renewals or
| for those issues to persons newly be-
coming District Of Columbia auto own
ers) let the people save that 500, 900,
| or the savable major portion thereof.
to buy commodities of real intrinsic
value? And what we have said here
applies with equal force to any of the
States. Assuming that the actual cost
everywhere is 81 for producing and
dispensing each pair Of tags to equip
single automobile, this would mean
an annual national saving of approx
mately $20,000,000. Isn't this worth
saving? w. II. WADLEIGH.