La Forest v. Board of Commissioners, 6890.

• Decision Date: 09 August 1937
• Docket Number: No. 6890.,6890.
• Citation: 67 App. DC 396,92 F.2d 547
• Parties: LA FOREST v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

67 App. DC 396, 92 F.2d 547 (1937)

LA FOREST v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.^*

No. 6890.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Argued June 7, 1937.

Decided August 9, 1937.

Nathan M. Lubar, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Elwood Seal, Vernon E. West, and James W. Lauderdale, all of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, GRONER, and STEPHENS, Associate Justices.

GRONER, J.

Petitioner, while driving an automobile on a public thoroughfare of the City of Washington in January, 1936, was arrested for unlawfully exceeding the speed limit fixed by the traffic laws and regulations in force in the District of Columbia. He pleaded guilty and paid a small fine, and a few weeks later was notified by the Board of Revocations and Restorations of Operators' Permits that his driver's permit had been suspended for fifteen days. He appealed to the Commissioners of the District, who referred the appeal back to the Board for formal hearing. There was a hearing, and the Board adhered to its former ruling. The Commissioners thereafter affirmed, and petitioner applied to this court for a review, which we granted, confined to the single question whether the statute complained of embraced — as was claimed — an unconstitutional delegation of power to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia.

In 1925¹ Congress passed an act to regulate vehicular traffic in the District of Columbia. The act provided for the appointment by the Commissioners of a director of traffic who was authorized to perform the duties prescribed in the Act "and such additional duties, not inconsistent therewith, * * * as the commissioners may require." Section 6(a). The act authorized the director to make reasonable regulations with respect to the equipment, speed, and parking of automobiles, the registration of motor vehicles, the issuance and revocation of operators' permits, and such other regulations with respect to the control of traffic not in conflict with any law of the United States "as are deemed advisable." Section 6(b). As a condition to the issuance of a driver's permit, the act required an examination showing that the applicant was mentally, morally, and physically qualified, and in addition possessed the necessary knowledge to avoid injury to others in the use of an automobile. Section 9(c), 43 Stat. 1123, provided that the operator of an automobile convicted of reckless driving should be fined not less than $25 nor more than $100 and imprisoned not less than ten days nor more than thirty days for the first offense, — with severer punishment for a second offense, and in the latter case, upon certification of the conviction, the director was required to revoke the driver's permit issued to such person. Section 10 provided that any driver of an automobile causing an accident and failing to stop or operating an automobile while intoxicated or under the influence of a narcotic drug should upon conviction forfeit his permit. Section 13(a) of the act further provided:

"The director may in his discretion (except where for any violation of this Act revocation of the operator's permit is mandatory) revoke or suspend the operator's permit of any individual convicted of a violation of any of the provisions of this Act, or after notice and upon hearing for the violation of any regulation made under the authority of this Act."

The section — 13(a) — was amended in 1926 (44 Stat. 812, 814, D.C.Code 1929, T. 6, § 250(a) by authorizing the director "with or without a prior hearing to revoke or suspend an operator's permit for any cause which he * * * may deem sufficient," but with the right of appeal to the Commissioners and with the further right to apply to a judge of this court for a review.

In 1931² a more comprehensive traffic act was passed by Congress. It contained all the provisions of the former act authorizing the making of reasonable rules and regulations; provision for the mandatory as well as the discretionary revocation and suspension of permits; provision for registration; for certification of title; for the establishment of arterial and boulevard highways; for traffic lights; etc. Section 6(a), as amended by section 4 (D.C.Code Supp. II, 1935, T. 6, § 243(a), of the new act is as follows:

"The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are hereby authorized and empowered to make, modify, repeal, and enforce usual and reasonable traffic rules and regulations relating to vehicles, and rules and regulations concerning the control of traffic, the registration of motor vehicles, and the issuance and revocation of operators' permits; and to exercise any power or perform any duty imposed on the director of traffic, which office is hereby abolished; and in the administration of the above powers and authority the commissioners may exercise the same through such officers or agents of the District as the commissioners may designate: Provided, That no member of the Metropolitan Police Department may be empowered to perform any function under this Act other than in the enforcement thereof."

Section 9(a), as amended by section 4, 46 Stat. 1427, D.C.Code Supp. II, 1935, T. 6, § 246(a):

"No vehicle shall be operated at a greater rate of speed than permitted by the regulations adopted under the authority of this chapter."

Section 13(a), as amended by section 4, 46 Stat. 1428, D.C.Code Supp. II, 1935, T. 6, § 250(a):

"Except where for any violation of this Act chapter revocation of the operator's permit is mandatory, the commissioners or their designated agent may with or without a prior hearing revoke or suspend an operator's permit for any cause which they or their agent may deem sufficient."

The section then goes on to declare that in each such case the reason for the revocation or suspension shall be set out in the order; that it shall take effect in five days after notice unless the holder — in case the suspension is made by an agent of the Commissioners — shall make written application to the Commissioners for review, and with the right to the person affected within thirty days after the decision of the Commissioners to apply to a judge of this court for review; and providing that the order of this court on review shall be final.

Petitioner insists that the act is invalid because it vests legislative power and unregulated discretion in administrative officers. We think the position is not sustainable.

The District of Columbia is a municipality, and in one form or another has exercised a large degree of self-government from the beginning. Its supreme legislative body is Congress, and Congress from early times has repeatedly lodged subordinate legislative powers in the municipality. In 1802 (2 Stat. 195) Congress invested a mayor and common council of the city with all the usual authority of municipal bodies, including the power to pass by-laws and ordinances and powers of administration, regulation, and taxation. In 1871 (16 Stat. 419) a Legislature was established, with all the attributes, not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, of a distinct government. There was also a governor and a board of public works. This form of government continued until 1874 (18 Stat. 116), when it was superseded by a Commission consisting of three persons appointed by the President to exercise, except as limited by the act, the power and authority theretofore vested in the governor and board of public works.

This governmental history of the District is interestingly traced in detail in the opinion in Metropolitan Railroad Co. v. District of Columbia, 132 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 19, 33 L.Ed. 231. In the very nature of things Congress 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 in the District of Columbia. As far back as 1887 (24 Stat. 368), when the problem was comparatively simple, Congress conferred upon the Commissioners power in this respect. When the question was raised then as to the right of the Commissioners to make and enforce regulations under that authorization, this court upheld the power of Congress to delegate to the Commissioners authority to make police regulations of a purely local nature. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. District of Columbia, 10 App.D.C. 111. Since that time many cases have arisen concerning regulations promulgated by the Commissioners pursuant to authorization from Congress, and this court has never questioned the validity of the type of delegation here complained of. See U. S. ex rel. Kerr v. Ross, 5 App.D.C. 241; Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. District of Columbia, supra; Callan v. District of Columbia, 16 App.D.C. 271; Taylor v. District of Columbia, 24 App.D.C. 392; Barnes v. District of Columbia, 24 App. D.C. 458; Coughlin v. District of Columbia, 25 App.D.C. 251; U. S. ex rel. Smithson v. Ashford, 29 App.D.C. 350; Collins v. District of Columbia, 30 App. D.C. 212; District of Columbia v. Tyrrell, 41 App.D.C. 463; Siddons v. Edmonston, 42 App.D.C. 459; Smithson v. District of Columbia, 42 App.D.C. 184; Crane v. District of Columbia, 53 App.D.C. 159, 289 F. 557; Croson v. District of Columbia, 55 App.D.C. 122, 2 F.(2d) 924; White v. District of Columbia, 55 App.D.C. 197, 4 F.(2d) 163; Carranzo v. District of Columbia, 56 App.D.C. 118, 10 F.(2d) 983; Smallwood v. District of Columbia, 57 App. D.C. 58, 17 F.(2d) 210.

While, therefore, mindful of the principle that the Legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law, it can, as was said by the Supreme Court in Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 694, 12 S.Ct. 495, 36 L.Ed. 294, make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes or intends to make its own action depend. We think the present act is well within this latter principle.

Nor do we think it correct to say that the act is so wholly...