Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-04-06
BUILDING BILL SCORED
Hearing Before the District
Committee.
PROTEST OF Mr.. DAVIS
Says It Invades Ali Private
Rights.
DETAILS OF THE MEASURE
Claimed That the Law Is Vicious and
Unconstitutional in Every Respect
commissioners Authority.

rell of Pennsylvania is chairman. gave a
hearing to the opposition to the insanitary
buildings bill. Among those appearing be-
fore the subcommittee in opposition to the
measure were President Mcbride of the
Citizens Protective League of the District
OF Columbia and Henry Z. Davis and J.
FIoyd King, counsel for the league
Ihese gentlemen argued that although the
blu was entitled one to provide for the
abatement OF nuisances Ii was In reality
one authorizing the Commissioners to COM
pei or, In fact, themselves to make repairs
OF tenements which were the property of
private individuals and If necessary to re-
construct or destroy them, merely because
the tenements might be in some condition
not meeting the requirements of the build
ing regulations prescribed by the Commits
sioners.
In other words 1t was argued. the real
OBJECT of the measure was to authorizes the
commissioners by the entry forcibly re
necessary. upon private property, to repair.
reconstruct or destroy 1t, because In the
unafded judgment of the Commissioners
the property was not In condition to meet
their requirements
Mr.. Davis argued that 1t was difficult to
conceive measure more at variance with
the fundamental rights of the citizens
lie held that it authorized the Commits
sioners without opportunity to the owner to
show cause.-the provisions respecting the
showing Of cause leaving II optionaI with
the commissioners to demand 1t OF MOTTO
require correction of an assumed condition
OF private property. This Of necessity, Mr..
Davis said, involved % the existence of a
law or regulation In violation Of which the
assumed condition exists; (2) that without
any nearing on the part of the property
owner the Commissioners may adjudge the
law to have been violated: 60 that the
property owner. still without hearing shall
submit to the judgment Of the Commission
ers without right Of appeal. and "a that
f1,fro tn ,I,,,tN -
sioners requirements the owner shall be
subject to have his property entered upon
on pain OF fine or Imprisonment, or both in
case OF hindrance on his part to be followed
by tax against the premises of the cost
ana incidental expenses Of whatever the
Commissioners decide must be DONE which
Is to be collected as general taxes are coll
lected-that is, ultimately by sale of the
premises.
Mr.. Davis held that the vice of the bill
down to this point is that the property
owner. without hearing, may be Judged by
the Commissioners and not by regular
legal tribunal to be guilty under the law
or regulation supposed to be involved, and
upon this judgment have his property
forcibly invaded and either altered to meet
the views of the Commissioners or, If they
say so, destroyed.
Rights of Citizens.
Mr. Davis added: THAT this would be
to violate every recognized right of the in-
divfdual is too plain for discussion
For 1t is yet the law of the land that no
man Is to be condemned in respect of any
rights of either person or property without
hearing and opportunity to defend him
self. And to state the proposition that
without previous opportunity to be heard
on the question whether he has violated the
law, the citizen is to be subject to the in
vasion of his home upon the mere judgment
of the Commissioners that he has been
guilty of some infraction of the law is to
answer it."
Mr.. Davis held that it was no answer to
this plain and fundamental proposition to
say that the citizen may have his resort
to g. court of equity after an invasion. To
drive the citizen to such a course as this
was to compel him to seek protection
against threatened unlawful invasion of
his property, thus reversing his right
which was to be left unmolested and un-
disturbed in either property or person ex-
cept upon judgment in due process Of
law.
1t would be no difference in principle, Mr.
Davis argued, to say that the citizen might
lawfully first be judged guilty and then
given to the courts to have the judgment set
aside. Moreover, he pointed out that the
course under consideration would place upon
the citizen the burden and expense OF pro-
tecting himself against an invasion or his
most sacred right without any lawful pro-
ceedings against HIM
Mr. Davis thought 1t ought not be nee
essary to address this argument to a body
of American citizens, much less to BODY
supposed to be the custodian OF the prin-
ciples underlying the rights, both personal
and property, OF such citizens. The funda-
mental law of the land was that any 1nva-
sion of private rights without due process OF
law was unthinkable. just as 1t was IN
thinkable that in the light Of modern con-
ceptions any right of the citizens could ar
bitrarily be taken away
In answer to the arguments of those ia
voring the measure that 1T made 1t possible
for the drastic proceedings contemplated
to be taken only after opportunity to show
cause, Mr.. Davis said that, as already
stated, the bill leaves it to the Commits
sioners to determine whether any such op-
portunity shall be given; 1t provides that
even II this opportunity Is given 1t shall
rest with the Commissioners beyond the
possibility of appeal to determine finally
whether the citizens shall be judged guilty
and proceeded against. and, moreover, it
made It possible for the Commissioners to
take action against the citizen owning prop
erty at the time upon notice by publica-
ton only TO prior owner with whom the
owner at the time has no lawful relation
such as to render him liable for any failure
of duty the part of the former owner.
"Vicious Details"
Mr.. Davis held that the bill was not only
In its conception and scope a vicious one
as a whole, but that 1t was also radically
vicious in detail. In addition to the de-
fects already indicated. he enumerated the
following: a. The bill authorized the Com
miSSionerS ana all othef persons. including
contractors and their employees no matter
what their character might be, forcibly to
invade the home Of the citizen, whether in
his presence or In his absence. and whether
his women folks alone were the actual oc-
cupants at the moment, and in whatever
condition OF health they may be, to inspect
that home from top to bottom; ~ 1t subjects
to fine or Imprisonment or both, the husband
who in behalf OF an invalid wife; the
father, who In behalf of a delicate daugh-
ter; the brother, who In behalf of an at
fiicted sister. would resist such an invasion;
and CD it authorizes the imposition upon