Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1912-01-06
REAL ESTATE BILL
Dealers and Owners Heard
by House Committee.
NO CONSIDERATION MONDAY
Fraudulent Practices Cited by Chair
man Johnson.
BROKERS REPUDIATE THEM
Arguments Against "Rea1 Consid-
eration' Measure Stated by Sew
eral at Today's Hearing.
REPUDIATE THEM

real estate men of the District Of Column
bia called upon Chairman johnson of the
House District committee today to pro-
test against the real consideration bill
which was favorably reported by the Dis
trict committee yesterday, and which
may come up in the House for action on
Monday.
The text of the bill was printed in The
Star yesterday afternoon. 1t proposes to
compel mention in deeds and mortgages
of the real consideration at which prop
erty changes hands. The local real estate
interests are a unit against the measure
At the conclusion Of the conference
Chairman johnson announced that while
the arguments presented had not
changed his views as to the necessity
for the enactment Of the bill, he would
not call it up for passage in the House
next Monday as he had intended. He
announced that the District committee
would be called together at 10 o'clock
the morning Of Friday, aJnuary 10, for a
further hearing on the question.
Among the real estate men who pro
tested against the bill today, and whit
urged that it not be called up Monday
or until they have a chance to present
further arguments against it, were H. L
Thornton. George Y. Worthington. B. II
Warner. B. IL Warner, jr.: Levi Cook
Fulton R. Gordon, Morton J. Luchs. Her
bert Shannon. Britton Brown, Harr,
Wardman, Randall Hagner, Reginald
Beall, Charles Fairfax. William II. San
ders. George White. George yesterday
James L. Parsons, J. D. Sullivan, L. II
Schneider and G. w. +. Swartzell
Complaints Of Fraud.
For most of the time the real estate
men were at the rooms of the District
committee Chairman johnson sat as a
committee of one to listen to their pro-
tests. Representative Dyer of Missouri,
a republican member OF the committee,
came in before the discussion closed.
At one point Of the conference Mr..
Worthington asked the District chairman
II there was any motive behind the intro
duction of the bill except the desire to
aid the tax assessors of the District.
There 81" Mi. Johnson rep led. II
have received some confidential CORE
spondence, but since you put the matter
in that light I will say that compfa nts
have been made of instances Of fraud by
real estate agents who recite fictitious
consideration. / have a written COM
plant from man WHO SOiu d piece Vi
property for $500 on the representation
Of his real estate agent that this was the
highest figure obtainable.
This man gave ten-dollar consideration
deed to the real estate agent, who. in
turn, already having in his possession
an offer, decided 1t to another and re-
ceived $4,000, thus getting not only his
commission, but 81 500 bonus from his
own client. The real consideration. had i
been stated, would have put the innocent
seller on guard"
B. III. Warner, Morton j. Luchs, Ran
dali Hagner and several other real estate
men present simultaneously expressed
their entire disapproval of the action of
the real estate man mentioned by Mr..
johnson.
"Men who do that ought to go to the
penitentiary. You need another law to
reach that" they remarked.
another Case Cited.
The District chairman. continuing, said
he had a complaint from widow, who
claimed she had been defrauded out OF
$50, 600 by practically the same sort of a
performance.
Il do not know that these things are
true" said Mr. johnson. "but a real con-
sideration bill will prevent such prac-
tees"
Randall II. Hagner told the District
chairman that he did not own any ground
in Washington and consequently that as
easements and tax increases were no per-
sonal concern Of his.
II appear. however" he said. ION be-
half of five or six large property holders
who are unalteraby opposed to this real
consideration bill"
Mr.. Hagner said he could give some
instances which would illustrate the
harm that might be done by the enact
ment of the bill into law.
Recently" he said. II mad sale of a
certain piece of property at 81 square
foot less that the value of other property
in the same block. 1 did so because the
property in question was hampered by a
$123. OC0 for property worth $4,000 more.
but he had to pay 500 to get rid Of the
Objectionable lease.
'This additional 500 200, however. does
not go in the record. and the other prop
erty holders in the neighborhood will un-
doubtedly believe that the property is de-
preciating in value. 1t is quite possible
that the tax assessors could be thrown
OF the track in just the same way"
illustrates Objections.
Mr.. Hagner gave another instance
which. he said. illustrated the main OBJ
lection to the bill.
Suppose man builds five houses" he
said. land sells three at good prices, one
at an ordinary price and the fifth he sac
rifces. II You make public the prices at
which these houses were disposed Of il
causes discomfort all around. and besides
the assessors do not know which price to
the property
But why should he sell at a sacrificed 90
Cnalrrnan johnson inquired.