Evening star., 1934-04-20
SIGN REGULATION
TEST IS FAVORED
Commissioners Hope to
Have Court of Appeals
Pass on Validity.

Under duress Of recent adverse rul-
ings in Police Court which make it
harder than ever to secure convictions
for alleged violations Of local sign
regulations, the District Commission
ers are endeavoring TO test the validity
Of their powers in the Court of
Appeals.
Six cases are pending in Police
Court awaiting decision, Assistant Cor
poration Counsel Edward w. Thomas
said today, in which he hoped to bring
out the constitutionality and validity
of the whole set of sign regulations.
One of these especially. involving the
Roosevelt Theater on Ninth street. he
is anxious to take before the Appellate
Court for review. That is the only
way, Mr.. Thomas said, to obtain a
definite decision on the validity OF
the Commissioners powers to regulate
and restrict outdoor advertising dis
plays in the city.
Cases Are Pending.
Some of these cases have been pend
ing for many months in Police Court.
A motion to quash the Roosevelt The
ater Theater case was argued in Sep
tember, 1888, and the decision has not
yet been handed down. II the court
sustains the motion, then Thomas
said the District government could
ask the Court Of Appeals to review the
case. II the case is dismissed or the
defendant acquitted, the opportunity
for a decision from the higher court
is removed
Because Of certain adverse rulings,
it was said that District authorities
have been unable to make much
headway in enforcing strictly all the
regulations governing outdoor adver-
tising signs. ANY one Of the six cases
pending. it was said, would serve as
test case in the appellate court.
They involve directional signs, over
hanging signs, oversize signs and
other types alleged to have been erect
ed and repainted in violation Of the
regulations.
Theater Panel Erected.
The Roosevelt Theater case involves
the erection of a panel without first
obtaining a permit. The theater had
received a permit from the building
inspectors Office to erect a sign over
its entrance. Then it is said to have
put up panel advertising the various
changes of attractions No permits
had been given for this, it was alleged,
and so the case was taken to court.
The attorney for the theater filed
a motion in court attacking the con-
stitutionality and validity Of the sign
regulations. Every possible point of
constitutionality Is at issue in the
case.
The case involves non n-conforming
use of advertising over public space.
Another case involves q directional
sign on Pennsylvania avenue southeast
near Fort Dupont, the District alleg-
ing it advertises a business not con-
Quoted on the premises. The site is
in a residential area.
Garage. Sign Involved.
A third case was brought against
the Washington Garage for display
ing a wall sign on the rear Of its
building overlooking a space across
from public building regarded as
Shipstead act area. 1t was alleged
no permit had been obtained.
Recent Police Court rulings, it was
said. have practically tied the hands
Of District authorities in many re-
spects. The decision in the Schneider
Restaurant case, handed down by
Judge John P. Mcmahon in May,
1888, makes it particularly hard to
regulate roof signs.
The restaurant was charged with
repainting two signs without a permit.
Judge Mcmahon held in this case,
that where sign. had been erected
before the regulations became effec-
tive, 1t could be repainted at any
time without a permit, provided it
was structurally sound.
Mr.. Thomas declared the Commits
sioners should be given absolute con-
troll over public space from one build
ing line to another, and without this
authority he indicated little can be
done In the way Of enforcing sign
regulations under present conditions.
With that power. he said, they would
have full authority to regulate or re-
move any signs or billboards over
looking what Is regarded as public
space.