Evening star., 1919-12-01

Constitution, art. 1, sec. s, par. I'D,
the provisions of the Constitution
which protect persons and property in
all other places under the jurisdiction
of the United States are without par
ticular force here. To this we can
not accede 1t would be an anoma-
lous situation, indeed. if nearly half
a million people at the seat of gov
Capitol should suffer such a discrim-
ination and be outside the protection
of the Constitution. Fortunately. this
question has been set at rest by the
Supreme Court of the United States
In Callan VS.. Wilson. 127 u. S., $40,
$50, Mr.. Justice Harlan. speaking for
the court. said: There is nothing in
the history of the Constitution or of
the original amendments to justify
the assertion that the people of this
District may be lawfully deprived of
the benefit of any of the constitution
81 guarantees of life, liberty and
property
Purpose Of Congress.
"1n Wight agt. Davidson, 1S1 L. S.
371, 3S4, the court, speaking of an act
regulating assessments On property in
the District of Columbia, said: No
doubt, in the exercise of such leeisla-
tive powers, Congress is subject to the
provisions of the fifth amendment to
the Constitution of the United States,
which provides, among other things.
that no person shall be deprived of
life, liberty or property without due
peecess of law, nor shah private prop
erty be taken for public use without
Just conversation The title of the
resolution in question indicates that it
was the purpose of Congress to pre-
vent owners of real estate in this Dis
trict from collecting excessive rents
during the war. That purpose was to
be effected by closing the doors of the
courts to owners who, should attempt
to get possession Of their property oc-
cupied or to be occupied under oral
OF written agreements, including those
already expired, 50 long as the tenant
or occupant should continue to pay
rent at the rate Heretofore paid.
THE owners of property unoccupied
at the date of the resolution, or that
was built or completed thereafter,
were much more advantageously sit
uated than were the owners of prop
erty occupied at that time, since it was
permissible for owners of the former
would agree to pay.
Privation to Citizen.
'It readily will be perceived that IN.
der the provisions of this resolution
one who became a tenant after it's
passage might and probably would
pay substantially more than a tenant
in possession of like property under
similar conditions, and it is quite
probable that the new rate would
more nearly approximate the fair
rental, since the increased cost of liy-
ing. repeatedly recognized by the gov
ernment itself, normally would affect
the cost of maintenance and upkeep
Of property and hence the rental rates.
No rates, uniform or otherwise, were
prescribed by the resolution. In other
words, varying rates, under varying
conditions and circumstances, were
arbitrarily continued in force with no
attempt at uniformity.
'The resolution not only deprived the
citizen of property without compensa-
ton, but its operation was not uniform
or intended to be uniform, for it affecteS
and was intended to affect in one waV
property already under lease and to
AFFECT In another way property not un-
der lease. The former class of owners
were arbitrarily required to accent
rental based in many Instances pnon
pre-war conditions and which. there
fore, might be so inadequate under ex
lstlng conditions as to amount to a TAX
ing Of private property without com.
pensation, while the latter class were
left free to exact whatever rent thew
might obtain.
Sale for Business Pnevsr+.a
Moreover, the resolution prevents IL.
sale for business purposes of one class
of property and permits the sale Of an
other class.
whether the business of renting IN
, the District Of Columbia is so far affoot-
ed with public interest as to he snh-
Ject TO regulation by Congress in the
exercise OF police power, we need NOT
now determine. Certain it is. howevar
that sucn regulation must be reasona bIe
and operate with substantial unifarro;ta
The resolution before US is unreasonah he
because its necessary result is the tax
ing OF private property without cor,na,,
sation, and it is not uniform IN ;.s
operation for the reason that II ia M
impartial within the class subiect ~
its provisions. 'oos 10
'The Constitution is not superseasa
perience has demonstrated tbat ana eX-
provision may be made for Tn. r.s
tiondl security and defense. with.
oTerstepping it's limitation,
present case, for example, by the sx sxe
ercise Of the power Of eminente sx-
main. the government mieb1 40
checked and thwarted anv ~ nave
on the part Of landlords toSua ~ uency
ton, and, at the same time, have .a.;r
fed tht due process clause of the
while courts always are re,po..
to declare law unconstitutionaI an
particularly when enacted to nneet a
supposed .ef emergency, we are con.
VlnCGQ lHdI ally tcmpOrarv A..
barrassment resulting from or i'm
dent to an adherence to the supren,a
law of the land is to be preferreS me te
the far-reaching effect Of a depart,,roe
therefrom.
..The safeguard which the Con st,+r-
ton has thrown around the citizen
to protect him in his person and nronn
erty ought to be jealously guarded
and observed; we are constrained,
in question is unconstitutional.
1.-The judgment must be affirmed
with costs.
"Afirmed. lsigned) chas. II. Robb.
associate Justice"