Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-03-16

E. The Mcleod bill, which is designed tc
protect innocent victims from MOTORS,
Fecklessness and insolvency and which
IN some unaccountable manner has In
CURED the disapproval of the Commits
Goners, was enthusiastically Endorsed
Friday at hearing before a subcom-
nittee Of the House District committee.
and chief among its supporters was
Lieut.. Col. U. s. Grant, Sd, who, as
the director Of public buildings and
public parks, has almost as large a
portion of the city under his jurisdic-
ton as have the Commissioners. Col
Grant was O surprise" witness. He
was ct the hearing on another bill, but
as he explained to the committee, he
was 20 impressed with the merits Of the
Mcleod measure that he wished to add
his Endorsement.
It was apparent from the hearing yes
4erday that the Commissioners were
badly advised In disappearing q measure
which Col. Grant characterized as the
minimum" that could be enacted for
the protection Of the innocent public
and which other witnesses declared af-
fected no motorist unless he had shown
himself to be reckless,
The opponents OF the bill, of which
there are few, twelve States having
adopted 1t completely or in part In q
little more than q year, have put forth
two objections to it; one of these is
that It is too severe o penalty to take
away q persons driving permit until
he satisfies o judgment against him
for his own recklessness, while the other
d that it clocks the door after the
horse il stolen"
In regard to the FIRST, the words Of
Mr.. Justice r. Z. Hodgins, chairman Of
the Royal Commission for Ontario,
Canada. In recommending an identical
law for that province might be quoted.
Justice Hodgins says:
Let us consider the basis on which
such an objection rests. It assumes
that it 10 unfair to the motorist in
question. Is 1t? In the first place, the
unsatisfied Judgment 10 which it refers
age caused by the inotorfst after he has
had ample warning Of the new law. Is
there any good reason why it can be
said to be unfair to him that he should
bo required not only to guarantee his
financial responsibility for the future
but also to make good the present dam
eye which he admittedly has caused?
He has had ample opportunity to pro-
tect himself by insurance, posting
bond or putting up cash collateral In
the meantime. II 1t Is necessary under
the law TO require those who drive to
the public danger and cause accidents
to give security for the future, why
should they not be required to pay for
an accident, II any, caused by their
negligence and happening after the law
became effective as q condition of their
privilege to continue to drive on the
highway?
One Of the serious objections to COM
pulsory insurance is that it penalties
the great body Of careful motorists for
the sins Of the small minority of reck-
less operators, and that, as has been
shown in Massachusetts,, the insurance
rates become Q political question. The
charge that the Mcleod bill does not
protect the first victim of a reckless,
inSolvent motorist is based on the fact
that the measure only begins to operate
after driver has shown an inclina-
ton to recklessness or has had his first
accident.
In some cases the proposed law will
probably not compensate the first VIC
tim. but such cases arise only II
an unusual triple coincidence APP
plies TO the driver at the time.
He must be reckless. never having
shown it before; he must be with
out assets, and his first accident must
be . major one. 1t is obvious that these
three circumstances are rarely likely
TO be combined.
The Mcleod bill is far and away the
best measure ever put forward to take
care Of crying public need without
INJECTING penalties on those who do not
deserve them. Certainly there can be
no unfairness In law frankly aimed at
the reckless and insolvent motorist. To
drive q car is a privilege and not q
right, and in the acute trafic problem
Of today the privilege must be zealousiy
guarded.