Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-07-12
Ten.Cent Jitnevs.

Tnasmuch as the law regarding tht
operation Of public vehicles in the
! District is not altogether clear in
! respect TO the definition Of a COM
mon carrier" there is doubt AS to
/ the right Of any private enterprise
/ 70 set up a regular service of transpor-
| tation at rates fixed by itself without
reference 10 and approval by the Pub
lie Utilities Commission. In this sit
uation The experiment, starting today
Of establishing system Of "iitney
i services at ten-cent fare is accom-
panied by a QUESTION as to legality that
mSy be considerably prctracted
Il has been held by The courts that
cabs hauling passengers from railway
stations 10 their homes and from hotels
10 stations are common carriers But
decisions have also been rendered diff
feren.iati ne in the case of a passenger
Sumnoning a cab from a garage or
established station for personal service.
UnqueStionably public vehicles running
on established routes III regular service
are common carriers and are subject
10 the jurisdiction Of the commission.
The proposed iitney service will run
from fixed points to other fixed points,
but according to statements made. not
by rigidly determined routes They will
star. only when they have received a
complement of passengers, taking none
others on the way Whether this diff
ference in custom makes them indie
pendent OF the commissions jurisdic-
ton IS to be- determined.
There is a competition between this
proposed service and the street railway
and bus lines The transportation
companies are making protest on the
ground that the competition set up
without official approval will be harm
ful to them. No formal action has been
proposed and there will probably be a
period of observation before specific
steps are taken to test the right of
the enterprise to proceed without a
permit from the utilities commission.
AS the vehicles employed in this
service are of the taxicah class, the
establishment OF a straight ten-cent
rate may be considered as a competitive
cut In the taxicab charge. But as to
the bus and street railway companies,
the rate to be charged is not lower.
but in respect tn the latter is higher
than the established rate.
There is no possibility. Of course. of
getting court decision on these cues
tons Immediately nor is there any
chance Of early legislation specifically
covering such situation. The matter
must b. worked out through experiment
and possibly with direct judicial inter-
vention in case any Of the interests
involved feel that they are injuriouslv
affected But even Intervention br
writ would not be finally conclusive. as
appeals would doubtless be taken. pro-
tracing the situation.
Meanwhile it will be interesting tn
observe how the public responds to this
prefer Of service at a rate of fare
which Is lower than the taxicab rates.
is the equivalent 10 the bus rates in
many cases and is higher than the
street railway rates II there is a large
patronage and IL proves profitable. the
promoters Of the enterprise will doubt
less persist against obstruction. II the
public does not patronize il the service
VIII be discontinued and the immediate
problem will thus be solved. But there
should be some definition Of the right
OF the promoters Of public transporta-
ton services TO Ak their own rates and
conditions.