Evening star., 1918-02-27
NO WAR EXTOR1|0N
BY PROFIT TEER|NG
Whether in Rentals, Fuel,
Food, Ships, Labor or Mu-
nitions, Here or Elsewhere!
CURBING WARTIME GREED
THEODORE w. MOVES.
Editorial Correspondence of The Star.

1
Editorial Correspondence of The Star.
II.
| Under the Johnson bill. any one who
| charges IL per cent more in the rental OF
any real estate "a naked lot, house, a
store, room. a garage) in 1918 than
in 1856 is profiteer and extortioner.
He is fined the amount Of his excess OF
| rental over 10 per cent, and this money
is confiscated by the District government
| II he continues to collect this rental after
the Johnson bill becomes law. he forfeits,
in addition. to his tenant double the pro-
hibited excess and an attorneys fee. not
less than $50.
| 1t makes no difference that there is
no element of extertion anywhere in
| the transaction: that the lease represents
the honest agreement of lessor and lessee.
each seeing in 1t a financial benefit; that
the scale of Washington rentals in 1876
was extraordinarily low, and that the Pc
riod was marked by many vacant houses
and decreasing rents; that in 1s17-1S. de-
mand increasing faster than supply, the
standard of rentals automatically in
| creased; that in many individual cases the
| rental OF particular properties in 1915-lb
was too low. and that a greater increase
in 1917-1S than 10 per cent means equity to
the landlord and not extortion to the ten
| ant; that many tenant OF 1sl7-lS was
able to put vacant lot or improved prop
erty to some new and more profitable law
| full use in 1917-1S than 1856, and was
eager in his own interest to rent the prop
| erty at greater increase over the 1876
rate than 10 per cent
Impairing Contract Obligation.
| The johnson law destroys the right of
| these District residents to agree together
| in their reciprocal interest as to the rental
| of real estate. 1t declares their leases
contrary to public policy and unenforcible.
1t SO threatens the lessor as to make II
dangerous and almost impossible to rent
safely at all, without going over with his
tenant and the government his rental
transactions back to April 1, 1915.
The great body of these leases do not
relate to residence houses and rooms,
the subject of today's profiteering; the
great body of these lessons are not
residence renters, room renters, hotel
keepers. the alleged prof1teers of today.
The vast majority of leases voided rep
resent the coming together OF the
minds Of lessor and lessee in agree
ment that the contract is beneficial to
and desired by both.
Cure Present Proateering. 80
The evil.to be cured is present and
future prohteering. ,XbXs not Apply. an
uation. and not complicate and con-
fuse conditions and inevitably delay
correction of the evil of today by rip
ping up the Districts tax system of
for 1s15-16 and 1s17-1s. and, in effect.
voiding portion Of the latter? Why
not relieve the sufferers Of today i'm
mediately, without waiting for the de-
tH
sets the precedent of local income
tax and which violates on its face the
constitutional prohibition against ex
post facto laws? Why not simplify
cutting out the dangerous and obnox-
ious retroactive provisions Of the John
son bflls
II those tenants from whom excessive
are to be set right these excess rentals
when taken from the landlords must
be restored to them. But the Johnson
bill does not propose that they shall
get cent of 1t. Why should the gov
ernment employe Of small means, who
suffers from excessive rentals Of the
present. in whose interest both Chair
man Johnson and The Star are sympa.
thetically concerned, be forced to wait,
with no promise of a righting of his
own wrongs of the past, while Chair
man johnson runs amuck among the
1917 rental contracts, the local tax
l.
bitions?
There seems to bel some confusion Of
thought and contradiction of opinion
as to whether restitution of the money
extorted is made to the victim under
the johnson bill. The bill itself is
clear. 1t is perfectly accurate to saw
| that the Johnson bill so far as pa.t
profiteering is concerned makes no res
titution to the victims. but takes away
| the spolls OF extortion from the land
lord and turns them over to the Dis
trict. as substitute profiteer. The pro-
rentals applies by the terms of the
bill only to future collections of such
rentals after the passage Of the act.
There is no error in the statement that
| so far as past profiteering is concern
| ed the bulk of alleged extortion money
collected is not paid back by those who
received it, and is not returned to
| those from whom it has been extorted.
Objectionable as New Tax.
If the Johnson bill is intended in
| good faith to impose an income tax
upon the District it should receive the
thoughtful and deliberate considera-
ton with full hearings to which every
proposition of new taxation for the
| District is conceded to be entitled. AS
an income tax it is discriminatory,
lacks uniformity. is uneven in its ap-
| plication. 1t is like no other law in
| all the world. 1t Is as sane as a tax
would be upon the cigarette purchases
| each year over fixed amount by red
headed bachelors Of the District. If
| any large revenue is derived from this
tax it would call for a readjustment
| of the tax system under the decision
| of the fiscal commission that the ag-
gregate tax burden is already heavy
| enough. If part of the revenue is to
| be furnished by a new tax on incomes
| there should, of course. be relief in a
corresponding amount from the con-
| cededly too heavy real estate taxes
| now imposed.
| The retroactive District income tax
proposition fails to solve satisfactorily
the profiteering problem.
1t collects punishment money from n
great multitude who have not ext0rted