New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-01-14

g coufscation and spoliation OF her property.
She also stated and the court seems. for
the sake OF the argument to have accepted
the statement though II is disputed, that the
changes required would practically wipe ont
her equity in the property. As she failed to
comply with the law q suit was brought by the
Tenement House Department in the Municipal
Court 10 collect the civil penalty OF $50 pro-
vided bv the law. Justice Joseph adopted the
extraordinary cxpodient Of letting a jury pass
lInon the reasonabIeness Of the requirement
that IS, practically Judge the cOnsdtutonality
OF a State law Every juror was an owner OF a
tenement house, and one was also prominent
builder The jury brought IN Il verdict for the
Tenement House Department thus showing
that citizens OF common sense whose interests
are naturally against advancing regulations
agreed that the law was proper one and ought
TO be enforced. This judgment was affirmed
by Justices Freedman. BischoT and blanchard
in the Appellate Term, and now is sustained by
the Appellate Division. After the trial in the
Municipal Court Justice GTeanbaUm granted an
order upon the defendant. directing her 70 COM
ply with the law, though ahidayits similar in
character to the testimony before adduced were
presented 10 show its unrca bleness. This
second case also went TO the Appellate Divts-
ion, was argued for the Tenement House De
partmant by Assistant Corporation Counsel
Fleming, and the order IS affirmed.
The opinion, written by Justice C'Brien,
takes the strongest ground in support Of new
sanitary legislation TO sUPeTsede old require
nents found insufficient to safeguard the public.
II SAYS: The most drastic requirements may as
"a proper exercise of this 1.-THE policel power he
"sQnctioned, with the limitation merely that
they are upon their face no more than rea-
"sonable in view Cf the evil sought 10 be over
come" BY reasonable upon their face the
court does not mean that II any other tri-
buual VIII take testimony on the reasonable
ness Of any change ordered. That would make
the law constitutional or unconstitutional IN diff
ferent cases. The court will not consider e1-
traucous eydencc but merely says that upon
Its face the law does not present an unreasona-
be requirement 1t has established a rule of
sanitation IN tenement houses for proper pub
lie purposes and that rule is enforceable even
though It works individual hardship. In nc
sense does It involve taking private property for
public use but simply regulates the use OF pri-
vate property for the safety OF the community
including the owner,
In view Of the extensive litigation Of tbs
natter and the agreement Of eleven Supreme
Court justices and twelve jurors on the rea-
sonablcncss IL the law, it looks II the re-
form would bc proof not only against attacks
IN the courts. but also in the legislature Doubt
less efforts VIII be mado to weaken the law
Governor Odell however IS on record squarey
against any backward step in tenement house
legislation. And what possible basis Of ngita-
ton IS lett after twelve tenement house own
ers, in as extreme 4 case OF hardship for
the landlord as could well be made out de
cided that the alterations required were no
more than reasonable and necessary for public
safaty7