Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1932-06-08
Spokesman Appear Before
Commissioners at Hearing
on Billboard Law.
AMENDMENT is SOUGHT
DUE TO BRIDES RULING
Union Men Fear Abrogation of
Rights Under Anti-Injunc-
ton Act.


others who sought changes in the sign
regulations affecting commercial adver-
Using displays, appeared before the Dis
trict Commissioners at a public hearing
TODAY to ask for an amendment proVld-
ing that the rules shall not apply to
signs displayed or carried for the pur-
pose Of acquainting the public with the
existence of labor dispute
Since Corporation Counsel w. w.
Bride previously had held that union
placardS commonly used in "picketing"
came within the regulations when the
amendment was first asked by the local
Fur Workers Union several weeks ago,
the labor Spokesman contended that
without such an amendment. the Com
missioners would be empowered to
abrogate the right of labor to maintain
"picketing' as defined in the recently
enacted Norris-La Guardia anti-injunc-
ton bill
The labor representatives who appear
ed at the hearing we're March Lewis,
for the Fur Workers Union, Local No.
72;: John B. Colpoys. editor of the
Trade Unionist, and Edward j. Tracy,
representing the legal information de-
partment of the American Federation
of Labor.
Cites Congress Action.
Tracy contended that Congress, hav-
ing legalized 'picketing," any attempt
by the Commissioners to enforce regu-
would be the same as lending their
Offices in behalf of unfair" employers
In local labor disputes.
Maj. John C. GotWals, Engineer Com
missioner. who presided at the hearing,
pointed out the District authorities had
no intention of framing section Is OF
the regulations so as to discriminate
against that right.
He said that what the Commissioners
had in mind at the time was the indis-
eliminate carrying of signs on streets
and public spaces. and it later devel-
oped, as a result of the recent labor dis
pute, to involve the question of picket
ing"
The Commissioners were more con-
cerned with questions of ''discrimina-
ton" which would tend to break down
the regulations, if permitted than with
the mere question of the legal right of
plcketing. which they considered out
side the scope of the hearing.
Other Changes Discussed.
The hearing also was called on four
other proposed changes in the regula-
tons. designed chiefly to remove what
is regarded as determinations or in
justices. affecting particular businesses
or locations.
Aside from this, the question of fees
for the repainting or repairing Of signs
was brought up, witnesses pointing out
that in the case of some companies the
cost of taking out new permits to ex-
actly reproduce old signs was as high
as $500 year. 1t was commended
that the regulations were not promul-
gated for revenue-raiSing purposes, but
to improve the appearances of outdoor
advertising as we'll as to restrict and
supervise.
David Hornstein, representing the
Sign and Pictorial Painters Union as
well as the United Food Stores, Inc,
proposed amendments not included in
the call for the hearing. He suggested
a nominal fee for the repairing and
repaInting of commercial signs from
So to ST. according to the size. At
present, he declared, the same charge
OF $40 is being made to paint repro
auction as for the original permit.
Harry j. Rhatigan, representing STAN
ford & Inge, Inc, in the commercial
sign business. pointed out the charge
for repainting commercial signs was
the organized outdoor advertising COM
panieS.
Company Protests Cost
Representing the Sanitary Grocery
Co, H. N. Deal told the Commissioners
1t cost his company approximately
$500 year to obtain the original
permits for its signs and additional
permits to repaint. He suggested stores
and other commercial concerns be given
the same privilege as theaters to change
their signs without the additional ex-
pense involved. James j. Mullins, rep
resenting the Association of Sign Men
in the District, took the position that
the permit charges actually were a
penalty imposed on business firms for
keeping signs in decent appearance.
Mullins declared there was no obiec-
ton to the original permit charges, but
If the increased cost of repainting
signs continued, it eventually would
result in merchants dropping beauty
for economy"
The same witnesses favored a change
in the regulations that would permit
the placing of two show cards in win
dows without permit. provided they
did not exceed IA by 18 inches. This
amendment was proposed to favor cir
Gus advertising or others of a similar
nature. The idea, Maj. Gotwals pointed
out is to restrict it to period of
about two weeks to cover the current
interest in the affair. Otherwise. he
suggested. it would pave the way for
indiscriminate placarding which the
regulations sought to restrict.
Would Alter Regulation.
Another amendment provided that
Gin the case Of a sign of one line Of
lettering not exceeding 16 inches in
height, the background of such sign
will be excluded if not over feet by 6
inches in height" This was proposed as
a change to section l. regulating the
area of skeleton signs
Another amendment was intended to
clarity section 2, which requires the is
suanCe of permits by inserting the words
Except as otherwise provided in these
regulations" in the sentence in which
the permit requirements are set forth.
The last proposed change in section
IL was designed to modify existing regu-
lations that no sign erected before the
adoption of the regulations shall be re-
paired, altered. reprinted or moved I'M
less it be brought into compliance with
the requirements of all applicable regu-
lations. 1t was sought to change this
so that permits for repainting one line
of lettering not exceeding 16 inches in
height, whose total area exceeds 100
square feet, may be granted upon ap-
proval by the Commissioners.