Evening star., 1936-03-16
D. c. SUIT INCLUDES
SUSPENSIONS AND
POWER OF BOARD
SO Others Join Citizen in
Seeking Ruling on Con.
stitutionaIity.
FUNDS MAY Be ENOUGH
FOR HIGH COURT APPEAL
Improper Delegation of Power Is
Alleged, Citing Famous N. R.
A. Poultry Decision.

District Supreme Court Justice Jesse
c. Adkins was called on today to decide
the constitutionality of the law under
which the Board Of Revelations and
Restoratioas of Operators Permits
functions.
If he should hold the law an I'M
proper delegation of legislative author
ity, as he has been asked to do, traf-
flc authorities here would be de-
prived of the right to revoke and
suspend permits-a weapon which has
proved unusually effective in keeping
down traffic law violations. After
hearing arguments for several hours,
he took the case under advisement.
The test case, which was being
heard before Justice Adkins this after
noon, was brought by Calvin B. Hart
man, 1856 Sheridan street, who asked
that the District Commissioners and
the board be enjoined from withhold.
ing his permit Hartman was con-
victed February II of first-offeuse
speeding paid a 81 fine and later
learned his permit was suspended for
Is days.
Many Volunteer Aid.
About so persons interested In his
fight have communicated with his
attorney, Mason WEIGH. offering
financial support to permit the lawyer
to carry the fight to the United States
Supreme Court if necessary.
The law in question, amended as
of 1881, grants the Commissioners
or their agents authority to revoke
and suspend permits for any cause
| they may deem sufficient.
Welch said the statute was un-
constitutional because it permitted
an assumption of delegated legis-
lative powers by an administrative
board"
He contended the law fails to
provide standards to guide the Com
missioners.
Citing the famous Schechter poultry
case, in which the Supreme Court
invalidated N. r. A, WEIGH main
tanned that the courts have held
Congress has no authority to dele
gate its legislative powers to an execu-
| tive agency. and law which sets
I'D no limitations or standards Is
such a delegation of power.
Right of Appeal Cited.
Assistant Corporation Counsel Ches-
ter H. Gray, representing the Commis-
sioners and the board. argued that
the court is without jurisdiction to
hear Hartman's petition, since he has
an adequate remedy at law.
He pointed out that this remedy
consists of the right to appeal to the
Commissioners from the boards ac-
ton, and Hartman also may ask the
United States Court Of Appeals for a
writ of error, bringing his case before
that tribunal.
1t is not necessary that Hartman
take advantage. of all the appellate
provisions of an unconstitutional law.
WEIGH countered.
Opposite conceptions of the basic
theory under which man is per-
| IIllClcu W uoC tkIC oCAOCGo 90 uAA o0eS
mobile thoroughfare were presented
by the two attorneys.
WEIGH contended motorist has an
inalienable right, as a citizen, to OPP
crate his automobile on the streets,
subject only to regulations properly
promulgated.
Gray, on the other hand, argued no
such rights exist, and an operators S
permit is merely evidence Of a priv
ilege which has been granted and
which may be revoked at will.
Through WEIGH, Hartman informed
the court he was given no hearing be-
fore the suspension. Neither would
he receive hearing if he appealed to
the Commissioners from the boards
action, WEIGH declared.
As a result, Welch argued, man
whose permit is suspended or revoked
may be deprived of the use of his
property without hearing, constitute
ing violation of the fifth amendment
of the Constitution, which provides
that no one may have his property
taken from him except by due process
Of law.