Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-11-03
LOAN SHARK LAW
UPHELD ON APPEAL
Appellate Court Decides the
Enactment Is Not Un-
constitutional.
PLEA OF PAWNBR0KER
FOR DISTRICT LICENSE
Lower Tribunal Reversed In the
Matter of w. N. Prender's Ap-
plication for Mandamus.

The loan shark" law passed Feb
yuary last was sustained today by
the District Court of Appeals. in an
opinion by Chief Justice Shepard. The
sppellate court reverses the decision OF
Chief Justice Clabaugh of the District
Supreme Court which held the law
discriminatory and therefore uncon-
stitutional and void.
The question arose TN a proceeding
Tor mandamus instituted by William n
Prender. a resident of Alexandria
county. to compel the District Commits
sjoners to grant him license as q
pawnbroker under the old law, on the
theory that the new enactment was in
valid.
The lower court sustained the conten-
tion of Attorneys Tucker. Kenyon &
Macfarland and E. 5. Bailey for MI
Prender. and directed mandamus TO is-
sue Assistant Corporation Counsel Ste
phens noted an appeal.
The argument made by counsel Tor the
..would-be'' pawnbroker was that the first
section OF the new law was invalid, IN
that ii allowed licenses to issue to foreign
or nonresident corporations and re1uSed
the privilege to a nonresident INDIVIDUAL
This discrimination was held to be uncon-
stitutional.
Reasons for Reversal.
In reversing this ruling. Chief Justice
Shepard says: THAT there is such dis
criminat ton cannot be denied, and the
question is, considering the nature of the
business regulated. whether the classi-
fication and discrimination are within
the power of Congress.
in, cI at
trict of Columbia is vested with the
ordinary police power of the states with
in their several limits. and is not lin
ited by the provisions of the fourteenth
However, as has been said, in Curry
vs. District of Columbia the power Is
exclusive. but it is not unlimited nor Is 1t
arbitrary In that case, which is relied
on by the appellee. it was held there
could be no discrimination between GER
tain persons in the District pursuing a
business neither Injurious nor objection
able and at all times open to De pursued
freely by those desirous to engage In It.,
whereby certain ones Of the same class
were given substantial practical ad-
vantage over others.
THE regulation of the rates OF inter-
est 10 q matter clearly within the poiice
power. The business Of lending money
in small sums upon pledge or security
is one within the police power and sub
ject not only to license. but also to
regulation for the prevention Of mis-
chiefs attending IT,
Within Discretion of Legislature.
The power to regulate existing, the
"details of the legislation and the excep-
tions proper to be made rest primarily
within the discretion of the legislature,
the court points out. So long as the
regulations are not unreasonable and as
long as the classifcations made have
a reasonable basis and are not merely
arbitrary selections. the CHIEF Justice
holds. il is not for the courts to say that
they are beyond the exercise OF the iegit-
innate power of legislation.
This power of classification OF per-
sons" Chief Justice Shepard says,
making different provision in relation
10 residents and non-residents, has fire.
4uentiy been upheld as being reason
s,ble."
The purpose of the act has much to
% the court finds, with determining
neither the classification is reason
BILE or arbitrary.
The purpose of the act under con-
Iteration" the opinion states. was to
ture mischiefs~ resulting from money
ending of the kind defined through
former inefficient or want of legislation.
The new regulations requiring bonds
suable by injured persons. notices to
licensees of complaints and investiea-
tions upon which the successful admin
istration of the new law, in a measure,
depended. and through want Of which
il might be defeated. was the apparent
reason why licenses in the case OF
natural persons and unincorporated as
sociations were limited to residents.
Service of Processes.
These were within the Jurisdiction and
could be personally served with process
and the notices required. Such persons
living out OF the District could not be SC
served. The reason for this discrimina-
ton is emphasized by the admission oi
corporations Of other states"
These corporations are required to have
q resident representative under the new
law and so are on the same footing as a
local resident for the purpose of serving
notices and process
I'VE are not prepared" concludes the
appellate court, Ito say that these are mo-
reasonable grounds for the classifica ton
much less that they are palpably unrea
sonable and arbitrary"
Violators of Law to Be Prosecuted
Immediate prosecution OF all person.
found violating the loan shark law will
be ordered by the Commissioners, follow.
ing the decision of the District Court oil
Appeals today upholding the constitution
ality of the law.
Commission Siddons. who. as mem
Der of the Monday Evening Club, tool
an active part in the campaign for loar
shark legislation. stated that offender.
OF the law will be proceeded against a
Il have been informed that the Dis
trict Court OF Appeals today sustained
the conStitutionality of the so-called .loa,
shark law, said Commissioner Siddons
n have not yet seen the opinion of th
court. and do not. therefore. know it,
scope. but assuming that my informatio,
is correct, | am very much gratitied a
the outcome
Will Move With Celebrity.
IF this opinion of the court become
the final judicial view, the District O
Columbia authorities will not be foun,
wanting In a strict enforcement of IL
provisions. and violators of the law vii
be proceeded against with firmness an,
CELEBRITY"
Rev. John Van Schaick, jr, forme
president OF the Monday Evening Club