Evening star., 1918-04-11
FAIR RENTALS LAW
in GREAT BRITAIN
War Restrictions on Rent In
creases in British Isles,
New Zealand and New
South Wales.
llJMro ra IIo ar lluer Nll1
HINTS TO US OF JUST LAW
THEODORE W. MOVES.
Editorial Correspondence Of The Star.

| Eultorldl Correspondence OF Inc Staf.
The British precedents in fair rent
legislation have been secured by the
Senate District committee. The war
| laws on the subject in Great Britain,
New Zealand and New South Wales are
printed in the record of the Senate COM
mittee's hearings on the House anti
prof1teering bill.
Pointed and useful hints to Congress
Of wise and just legislation are thus
given by our closest kin across the sea,
as co-inheritors of the common law and
as co-rpakers OF statute law, and by
Enghshmen on the other side Of the
world in those famous experimental labo-
ratories for testing new. progressive and
| radical legislation-New Zealand and
Australia.
Great Britain. under the deadly stress
| OF war brought to the very door of
| every home, and the antipodean COL
| onies with their tendency to favor any
new and drastic thing in Legislation.
have, it may be assumed. gone to the
limit of safety and equity in this kind
| OF war legislation.
Hints From Across the Sea.
| l. ShOul0 our 1A1rsfent9 law De re-
troactives These British laws say no.
In New Zealand the law does not apply
to any rent accruing due before the
passing Of the act: in Great Britain
a. few days Qess than a month"; before
South Wales the law commences to
| operate at q fixed date a few days
| after the passage of the act.
Clearly. the House acted wisely and
| justly when it eliminated the retro
active feature of the johnson bill with
| Its penalty, furnishing extortion. cam
| ouf1aged as an income tax. in order to
| avoid the constitutional prohibition
against ex post facto laws.
2. Should our fair-rents law be gem
er-al i'm application Yes. The British
law applies to all Of Great Britain:
New Zealand's to all Of New Zealand; !;
to all of New South Wales. For sound
reasons outside of the British precedent
| war rent profiteering should be pre-
vented not merely in the District, but
| is found to exist. The legislation on
the subject should be nationwide in
scope.
Void a Minimum Of Leases.
3. Should our fair-rents law apply its
tpeStItctie1a and ~its~ ,votding. recon-
structing touch to a mininnm Or MAKE
! mum OF leases? A minimum.
All these statutes impair the obliKa-
tfon of voluntary lawful contracts, an
act in general abhorrent, to be justified
| only on the score Of some vital neces-
| sity. and to be permitted only to the
absolute minimum degree which will meet
| this necessity.
In Great Britain. where the maximum
| rent to be recovered after the passage
of the act is with few exceptions the
rental OF August 8. 1914. or II not rent
ed on that date the rent at which it was
| last let before that date or first let
| since that date. the law applies only to
small dwelling hOuses where the stand
ard annual rent does not exceed in
London f35. in Scotland $50. elsewhere
| E26.
| In New Zealand where the maximum
standard rent is on the same basis as in
Great Britain. except that there is add
| ed a minimum standard rent of per
cent of the capital value of the leased
property, the act applies to a dwelling
house where the standard rent does not
| exceed f104 per annum.
| Neither in Great Britain nor in New
Zealand does the law apply even to
rent which includes payments in re-
spect of board, attendance or use Of
furniture.
In New South Wales, where the statute
is a real fair-rents act, to be utilized
| by either tenant or landlord, and where
the rental determined by the court is a
| percentage, with a maximum and min
imum limitation, of the capital value
of the dwelling. the act applies only to
| dwelling houses leased at a rent not
| exceeding f156 a year.
The House bill proposes for the Dis
| trict of Columbia the fixing ofsan ar
| bitrary maximum rental rate not only
for every dwelling house. small or
lnrge, in the District, hut for every
piece of District real estate. whether
| built upon for business purposes or va
can't, whether unimproyed lot or cul-
i tivated garden or farm.
Confusing Innocent and Guilty.
Under the House bill any one who
charges IL per cent moro in the rental
Of any real estate "a naked lot, house,
| a store, room, a garage) in 1918 than
in 1856 is a proflteer and extortioner.
Any owner Of real estate whose prop
erty was not rented in 1856. II he
| 10 per cent OF the value Of his prop
erty. is also an extortioner and
profteer. He is fined the amount of his
excess of rental. and this money is
conflscated by the District government
on the pretext of imposing an income
tax. He forfeits in addition. to his
| tenant double the prohibited excess.
with costs Of suit and attorney s
fee not less than $50. 1t makes no
| difference that there is no element of
extortion anywhere in the transaction.
that the rental in excess of 10 per cent
| of increase of assessed valuation is
in most cases in accord with equity
| 1t makes no difference that the great
body of these leases do not relate to
residence houses and rooms. the sub
| ject Of today's profiteering, or that the
| great body Of these lessons are not resi-
dence renters or room renters or hotel
| keepers. the alleged profteers of to-
| day.
The bill makes 80 many who have
| not extorted ext0rti0nists that real
prOhteers escape special odium.
Voiding Of Honest Contracts.
The House bill declares all leasing
| ~ sfota Of he 1t