Evening star., 1928-05-04
The Answer Is Obvious.

A strong plea Tor the eStaDlSIlIleIlt o4
compulsory automobile insurance in the
District was made yesterday by Repre-
sentative Allen T. Treadway of MaSsa-
chusetts before subcommittee Of the
House District committee. Mr.. Tread
way. author OF bill closely following
the lines of the successful MaSsachu-
setts statute for motorists liability in
surance. characterized arguments
against the bill as childish and
stressed the fact that all opposition
could be traced directly to selfish inter-
eSts. He told the committee that when
the bill came before the House there
need be no concern as to that body'S
choice between q measure designed for
public welfare and the arguments Of
fered against 1t by those with private
interests.
Proponents Of compulsory insurance
should be much encouraged at the at
titude displayed by members Of the
committee considering the bill. Rep
resentative Charles Underhill of Mas
sachusetts and Representative William
c. Hammer Of North Carolina seemed
particularly impressed with Mr.. Tread
ways presentation. Representative
Thomas A. Jenkins of Ohio was the
only member of the committee who op-
posed the measure.
Mr.. jenkins opposition was apparent
" based on the premise that wealthy
motorists can afford to have. and do
have, at the present time, liability in
surance. and that the bin would not
affect them. but would place heavy
burden on the poor man who cannot
afford to pay the premium. While Mr.
jenkins was answered adequately by the
other members of the committee. it was
not pointed out TO him that the poor
man. in buying liability insurance at
approximately thirty dollars a year, is
investing not only In his own protec-
ton, but in the protection Of others.
This same man without q compulsory
insurance Law and without insurance
might well be involved in an accident
with . reckless motoriSt as poorly
funded as himself. Where, then,
would he recover damages to pay
for hospital expenses? With COM
pulsory insurance, however, the 9TH
er man would likewise be. insured and
for his outlay Of thirty dollars he would
assure himself remuneration for per-
sonal injuries which otherwise he would
be compelled to pay out OF his own
pocket.
Small sympathy is usually to be had
with the other fellows predicament un-
I'll it is personally experienced. 1t is the
way Of this sometimes selfish world that
convictions change rapidly when placed
In another's position. An opponent Of
compulsory insurance. man In mod
crate circumstances, took his automo-
bile and his little family for trip
northward last Summer. While driving
along a congested highway he was
o@% A@A AA@@A~DSt Ny u AAlFNA WA0
had pulled out Of the oncoming line Of
vehicles. The victim and his family
vent to a hospital while the reckless
driver paid small fine in court. but
Of course. paid no damages to the strick-
en- family. because he was without
means, had no insurance and no equity
In the automobile he was driving. The
victim, as in all such cases. has now
changed his mind about compulsory
insurance law. He spent two months
In the hospital and his bills were heavy.
It Is TO be hoped that none Of the op-
ponents Of compulsory financial respon-
stbility for all motorists undergo such
a narrowing experience to bring about
a change Of mind. All that is neces-
sary Is for them 10 think clear -headedly
over this question, rs there any Jus
tice In equipping an individual with an
instrument so potentially dangerous as
an automobile without first putting on
that individual badge Of responsibility
for his own acta?" The answer Lis
obvious.