Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-01-18
CLASH OVER POLICY
THREATENS RIFT AT
DISTRICT BUILDING
Continued From First Page.)

the old custom which was actually Ne
garded as policy after many years of
practice, of ironing out controversial
points in proposed legislation before
its introduction in Congress.
But this procedure was not followed
in the case of the traffic bill. There
we're no preliminary conferences be-
tween the Commissioners and the Pub
lie Utilities Commission before the
original draft of the bill went to Con-
gress. Since it's introduction, the meas
ure has been a veritable storm center,
with the congressional committees un-
expectedly taking the role of a medi-
ator in dispute that under ordinary
circumstances would have been adjusted
long before the bill had taken final
shape.
And what has been the result? A
series of notifications have been made
upon direction of the committees in an
effort to get the agencies into complete
accord. Action on the bill necessarily
had to be delayed, and even now, after
the various changes, the Public Utilities
Commission stands ready to fight one
of the major provisions at the first
opportunity. This situation, it is feared,
may leopardize the passage of the bill
at the present short session.
What has gone on behind the scenes
at the District Building since the battle
started has not been revealed. At any
rate, feeling is known to exist between
various officials that is not as pleasant
as it might be; there are mutterings of
double crossing" and the Bureau Of
Efficiency is being criticised for inject
ing itself into the controversy In fact,
the bureau is looked upon at the Dis
trict Building as a Federal agency which
has nothing whatever to do with the
regulation of traffic in the District.
Utilities Group Opposed.
According to last reports, the traffic
bill in its present form, has the approval
of the Commissioners, the Bureau of
Efficiency and all others concerned,
with the sole exception of the Public
Utilities Commission. A great many OF
the commissions objections to its pred
ecesSors were removed in the seven re-
visions, but there is one major provision
which the commission still most vehe-
mently oppoSes-a provision which 1t
claims ties its hands in emergencies by
requiring that whenever a regulation
is made relative to the routing of COM
mon carriers, the location of their
stops, or TO the establishment or change
in location Of platforms or loading
zones, it shall be served on the District
Commissioners prior to PRONUNCIATION
The bin further provides that If the
commissioners fail to approve the pro-
posed regulation within 10 days it shall
be referred to a joint board composed
of the Board of Commissioners and the
Public Utilities Commission.
In effect, the commission contends
the provision would prevent it from
passing any order until it had been
approved by the Commissioners In
faI ant t.
found necessary to rerodte bus line
or street cars because of public cele-
bration, the commission would be COM
PEELED to await the pleasure of the
Commissioners to indorse the change
The Commissioners, it was explained,
could hold the plan for 10 days before
it would automatically revert to the
joint board for action, resulting in an
unnecessary delay.
Support Is Indicated.
Aside from this feature, the COM
mission indicates it will support the
bill in its present form. 1t will, how
ever, fight vigorously, 1t was said, any
provision which prevents action on
public utility matters as they arise
Where there are questions involving the
conflict of authority, the commission
to the joint board for final adjustment.
The obvious lack of cooperation in
the preparation Of the trafdc bill,
which is believed to be responsible,
partly at least, for the present feeling,
goes back to the creation by the Com
missi0ners of the Traffic Advisory
Council, the recommendations Of which
led to the preparation of the new
measure. At that time the Commits
sioners invited the commission to dele
gate a representative on the council,
but it declined on the ground that it
had no one sufficiently qualified to
take part in the proceedings. The COM
mission, however, said it would like to
be officially advised of the findings of
the council The Commissioners, it
was said promised that copy of the
councils report would be submitted TO
the commission.
Still Awaiting Report.
But the commission claims it is still
waiting for the report. although it did
receive a copy Of the new trafilc bill
several days after its introduction. In
the meantime, the commission kept
posted, solely on press reports, on the
plans of the Commissioners TO draft
new traffic bill No attempt was made
in the actual framing of the bill, it was
declared to obtain the views of the
commission, though it was to be vitality
affected by the proposed legislation, For
this oversight, the Commissioners apol-
ogized profusely. They said they had
no intention of ignoring the commits
sion, but in the press of business and
the haste to get the bill introduced as
early as possible, they had inadvertent-
ly overlooked the commission.
Before the hearings on the bill start
ed, however the commission and the
Commissioners met in joint conference
and discussed its provisions, and agreed
TO certain notifications. In this con-
ference the Commissioners yielded to
the objections of the commission, and
the bill was revised.
Then it was learned that the Bureau
of Efficiency objected to certain fea-
lures of the bill. The bureau contended
that while the avowed purpose of the
legislation was to avoid divided author
ity, II would In operation make for
further confusion. In spite OF this
opposition, the Commissioners sent the
revised measure to Congress.
Measure Again Revised.
When hearings began before the SEN
ate Committee on Traffic opposition de-
yeloped, and the bill was again revised
Then, when 1t came up for consider
alton again, other objections were
found. The Senate subcommittee, how
ever, did not decide what to do with
the revised bill.
In the meantime the subcommittee
on streets and traffic of the House Dis
trict Committee held several hearings
on the much-revised bill, and 1t was
modified several times. Finally. the COM
mittee ordered favorable report to
the House, and Corporation Counsel
Iarida utas intrustAd with the task of
attempting to obtain the agreement Of
all three agencies so that a united front
may be presented when hearings are
resumed before the Senate Committee.
But Brides task seems hopeless as far
as the Public Utilities Commission Is