Evening star., 1932-01-31
CAN A MOTORIST OPERATE CAR
WITHOUT VIOLATING THE LAW?
Hardly Possible Because of So Many
Traffic Regulations and Obsolete
Rules Long Forgotten.

tiff. by his demurrer, has admitted the
truth of certain allegations mace by
defendant in its return, which is fatal
to the relief which he seeks.
He admits % that automobiles, by
reason of their size, great speed, rival
ing the velocity of railroad trains, and
alarming noise are extremely dangerous
tC the travelling public and their use on
public highways is fraught with great
danger to travellers who drive horses;
(2) that the said turnpike was designed
and constructed expressly for he con-
venience and pleasure of people in driv-
ing with horses over the same, and by
reason of its grades, high entertainments
and numerous curves the passage OF au-
tomobileS over the same would be such
a menace as to exclude vehicles drawn
by horses and give to automobiles a
complete monopoly of its use; 90 that
safety to the general public peremp-
torily demands the exclusion OF auto
mobiles from the turnpike, and for this
reason passage thereof over the same is
refused; (4) that no possible toll Tor
automobiles over turnpikeS would be
adequate by reason Of their character.
The managers of highways owned
by private corporations have an un-
doubted right, in the exercise of a sound
discretion, to prevent such use Of the
highway as will make 1t dangerous to
the general public
Unless forbidden by legislative en-
actment as in the case OF bicycles, etc,
enumerated in the act of April %, 1889,
they may exclude from its highways
carriage or vehicle the use of which is
dangerous, where the safety Of the gen.
eral public demands such exclusion.
1.-THE Legislature has not seen fit to
/ aYprPiSn nf discretion
as to motor vehicles or automobiles.
Admissions of Plaintiff.
by the admissions of plaintiff in
this case, the use of such vehicles is
fraught with extreme danger to the
travelling public and with great dan
ger to travellers who drive horses and
this applies particularly, for reasons
| stated in the return, to the highway
/ question.
by the further admissions of plain
| tiff, safety to the general public per-
| emptorily demands the exclusion of
automobiles from the turnpike and
this is the reason why their passage
over the same has not been permitted.
In view of these facts, thus estab-
| liShed, the discretion of defendant has
been lawfully and wisely exercised.
In addition to this, it is conceded
by plaintiff that he has no right to go
upon defendants turnpike, except upon
| the payment of toll.
There is no rate of toll for auto
mobile fixed by statute, nor does any
appear to have been established by rule
or regulation of the turnpike company.
THE plaintiff admits that no posi-
BILE toll for automobiles over turnp1kes
would be adequate, by reason of their
| character
May the court compel the defendant
to accept an admittedly inadequate
toll?
"If not, how can the court comply
with plaintiffs prayer and fix the
amount of toll which he must pay?
without an order that plaintiff pay
toll. how can the court peremptorily
command that he be permitted to use
the highway in the manner which he
desires?
THE questions suggest their own an
swers.
Upon the case as presented, the
plaintiff has failed to show a right to
peremptory writ
Effect of Decision.
The effect of this decision was later
corrected by statute giving the right
to motorists to operate on any roads on
which horse drawn vehicles were per-
mitted.
Contradistinguished with some of the
obsolete laws of commission involving
an automobile, one of the notable OBJ
solete laws in the District of Columbia
is found in the exemption law enacted
by Congress in 1901, which eXempts GER
tain property of a householder from
execution.
The law, now more than 80 years
OLD, exempts. among other things, one
horse. one mule, one yoke OF oxen, one
cart, one wagon, one team and the har
ness for such team, one COW. one swine
and six sheep.