Evening star., 1937-08-09
DRIVERS PERMIT
REVOCATION LAW IS
UPHELD IN APPEAL.
Delegation of Legislative
Power Declared Not
Improper.
GR0NER GIVES DECISION
IN A. M. LA FOREST CASE
Stephen Presents Dissenting
Opinion, Declaring Authority to
Revoke Unconstitutional.

Constitutionality of law empow-
ering District officials to revoke or
suspend automobile drivers permits
for traffic law violations was upheld
today by the United States Court
OF Appeals.
The validity of the statute, which
states, The Commissioners or their
designated agents may, with or with
out a prior hearing, revoke or suspend
an operators permit for any cause
which they or their agents may deem
sufficient" was questioned five times
last Winter. In all cases. however,
except the appeal of Alfred M. La
Forest, the court refused to consider
the question.
Attorneys for La Forest contended
the act was invalid because it vested
legislative power and unreguln>e dis
cretion in administrative officers.
Opinion Written by Groner.
In an opinion written by Associate
Justice D. Lawrence Groner, the ap-
pellate court held this position could
not be sustained.
The District of Columbia is mu-
nicipality, and in one form or another
has exercised a large degree of self
government from the beginning" JUS
tice Groner wrote. Its supreme
legislative body is Congress- and Con-
gress from early times has repeatedly
lodged subordinate legislative powers
in the municipality. = In the very
nature of things Nngress could not
anticipate and legislate in relation to
the innumerable regulations and
changes in regulations necessary to
accomplish safety Of life and limb on
the highways of the District of Co.
lumbia."
The opinion stated that the section
Of the traffic act providing that officials
might revoke permits for any cause
they may deem sufficient" should be
construed in the light Of another sec
ton which empowers the Commission
ers to make and enforce usual and
reasonable" traffic rules and regula-
tions and to make like regulations in
regard to issuance and revocation of
permits.
So read and considered. section
13A (the part of the law questioned)
permits a revocation or suspension
only in cases where there is shown to
be q breach Of the usual and reason
able regulations made concerning the
control OF trafic," Justice Groner
wrote
The court pointed out that there
was no charge that the Commits
eloners adopted unreasona BILE regula-
tions or that they had acted arbitrarily
or capriciously.
Stephens Dissents.
In a dissenting opinion, Associate
Justice Harold M. Stephens said the
two sections of the act construed to-
gether IN the majority opinion had no
relation to each other. He said he
thought 1t "unquestionable" that the
section concerned was an unconstitu-
tlonal delegation of legislative power
since 1t set up no standards to guide
the Commissioners or their agents in
revoking permits other than their
personal judgment.
La Forest was arrested in January,
1895, on speeding charge. He pleaded
guilty in Police Court and paid small
fine and "a few weeks later was notified
by the Board of Revelations and Res
torations of Operators Permits that
his permit had been suspended for
IS days.
According to the procedure outlined
In the traffic act, he appealed from
this decision to the District Commits
sloners, who referred the appeal back
to the board for formal hearing. There
was hearing, and the board adhered
to its former ruling, which the Com
missioners then affirmed La Forest
then applied to the Court of Appeals
for a review, which also is provided
for by the traffic act
Corporation Counsel Elwood Seal
and his assistants, Vernon E. West and
James w. Lauderdale, represented the
Commissioners.