Evening star., 1919-12-01
SALISBURY LAW
HELD VOID BY D. c.
COURT OF APPEALS
Declared Unconstitutional
Because Unreasonable:
Lacking in Uniformity.
JUSTICE ROBES OPINION
AVOIDS BALL RENT ACT
Citizens Deprived of Property
Without Compensation. Is
Finding.

Without Compensation. Is
Finding.
The Sau!sbUr-- resolution - uNcOU-
stttGtion3l bcGaus,. unreasonable anu
lacking in uniformity. according to an
opinion of the Court of Appeals OF the
District of Columbia, rendered today
by Justice Eobb. The appellate
tribunal finds that the resolution mot
only deprived the citizen of property
without compensation. but its oper-
auon was not uniform or intended to
De uniform, for it affected and was
INTENDED to affect in one way prop
eTty already under lease and to affect
in another way property not under
lease. 1t also prevented the sale for
business purposes of one class Of
property and permitted the sale OF
another class. the court points out.
IL is unreasonable, the court finds,
because its necessary result is the
taking of private property without
compensation The resolution lacks
uniformity. the court says. for the
reason that it is not impartial within
the class subject to its provisions.
Constitution Protects People.
The people of the District of Co
lumbia are protected by the Consti-
tuition, says Justice Robb. notwith-
standing the pienary Legislative power
VI NpISl lie SoHSlitullCH Is not
superseded by declaration Of war.
he points out, aud experience has
demonstrated that ample provision
may be male for the national secur-
ity and dkfense without overstep-
ping it's limitations.
IN the present case for example"
says Justice Robb. by the exercise os
the power OF eminent domain the
government might have checked and
thwarted any tendency on the part
1~ IT,
the same time have satisfied the due
process clause of the Constitution
Justice stafford Anirmed.
The opinion afiirms judgment rem
dered December 90. 1918. by Justice
Stafford of the District Supreme Court,
awarding possession of premises 1905
Belmont road TO Curtis c. Mcdonnell,
Who brought suit to evict Hannah T.
WILSON. who occupied the property
when he purchased it in the preceding
July. He gave notice for possession at
the END OF the tenants ieass. Justice
Stafford awarded possnssion without
passing ON the cOnstitutionality OF the
resolution.
Other justices of the lower court have
held opposing sjess@, 90 the constitu-
tonality of the aliactment Justice
Could held it invalid, while Chief jus
tice Mccoy upheld the resolution.
Having in. mind evidently the Bail
rent law, which is to supersede tie
rent law. which is to supercede the
Salisbury resolution. Justice Eobb in
lis opinion says:
Whether the business OF renting
N the District of Columbia is so far
Injected with a public interest as to
be subject to regulation by Congress
In the exercise of police power, we
need not now determine Certain If
IS however. that such regulation must
he reasonable and operate with sub
stantiai uniformity
Held UDcOBstitutionuI,
Concluding his opinion Justice Robb
declares: While courts always are re-
iuctant to declare law unconstitu-
fional and particularly when enacted
TO meet Il supposed emergency, we are
convinced that any temporary embar-
rassment resulting from or incident to
an adherence to the supreme law of
the land is to be preferred to TIE
far-reaching effect Of departure
therefrom. The safeguards which the
Constitution has thrown around In,
citizen to protect him in his person
and property ought to be zealously
strained. therefore to hold that the
resolution in question is unconstitu-
tional.
Text Of the Opinion.
The text of the opinion follows:
In the Court of Appeals of tn. Dis
trict of Columbia, Hannah 7. Wilson
appellant. VS.. Curtis c. Mcdonnell. ap-
pellee. No. 324S.
Appeal from Judgment in the Su
preme Court of. the District for the
plaintiff, appellee here, under law rule
- Of that court, in a landlord and
tenant proceeding instituted in the
Municipal Court.
According to the averments' of the
declaration, plaintiff was bona fide
N h.A lr-S.rY 1tx.xe-
necessarily requiEed them for his own
occupancy. and had given legal notice
10 the tenant to that effect The de-
fendant, in her affidavit of defense
denied that plaintiff necessarily re,
quired the premises for his own oc-
eupahcs' ana demanded jury trial
Own Occupancy ImmateriaI.
Appellee contends that the .ioint
resolution TO prevent rent proffteerine
IN the District of Columbia common7
u known as the Salisbury resolution
40 Stat $3.50, and invoked by the an
RELIANT, Is unconstitutional, and hencc
that 1t Is immaterial whether or NOT
nc necessarily required the premi ises
ior MS own occupancy.
In the preamble or the resolution
II is declared Essential to he nstiona !
security and defense, and for ,he s,,c
cess.ui prosecution of the war,fo cs-
tablish governmental control and as
"olS auequdtC regulation of real eg-
iate IN the District if Columbia, Il
Us provided in the resolution that
until treaty Of peace shall have
been definitely concluded between the
United States and Germany, no iudj
elal oraer, decree or judgment for the
recoVery OF possession of any real es-
.ate in the District of Columbia pou,
or hereafter held or acquired nv oral
or written agreement or lease for one
month or any longer period or for
me e1ectment or dispossession of the
tenant therefrom, shall be made and
mat ali leases thereof Shall continue
50 long as the tenant colitinues RI
nay rent at the agreed rate and Der
forms the other conditions of the ten
:Antcy which are not Inconsistent
herewith. unless the tenant has corn
lnitted waste or has been guilty on
the premises of conduct which CON
Stitutes nuisance or breach of the
peace. or other misdemeanor or crime
or that the premises are necessarily
required by a landlord or bona 6de
purchaser for occupation, either nv
himself or his wife, children or de-
pendents. while he is in the employ
of or officially connected with any
branch of the government, or where
The property has been sold to a bona
Gdc purchaser for his own occupancy.
Modification by Court.
The resolution further provides
that where an order, decree or jude-
mcut has be"a made But not executed
before the p.sSagen of the resolution.
and the court is of opinion that il
would not have been made had the
resolution been in force, it shall he