Evening star., 1920-03-01
ACT AUTHORIZING
RENT FROM VAULTS
NOT RETROACTIVE
Appellate Court UphoIds Plea
OF Business Men Occupying
Space Under Sidewalks.

The act of September 1, 1916. au-
| thorizing the District Commissioners
| to assess and collect rent from vaults
under the pavement in front of busi-
! ness houses is not retroactive and an
piles only to such permits as have
Deen issued since that date. The Dis
i trlct Court of Appeals so held TODAY
IN an opinion by Mr.. Justice Robb.
reversing the decision of the District
supreme Court in three cases brought
oy the District Of Columbia to recover
rent Tor vault space from local mer-
chants. The defendants were r. p
Andrews Paper Company, Saks e CO
and Abraham Lisner.
Chief Justice Smyth dissented from
the view taken by his two associates
| Substance Of Briefs Filed.
| Ella aborate briefs. filed by counsel.
show, with other things. thar since
| me time of George Washington. in
1893. it had been usual to issure ner-
mits under the building regulations
| Tor owners to construct these side
walk vaults and that at no time had any
charge other than a permit fee been
made for the installation of the vaults.
iney contsnded that a vested right
had, by reason of the contractuaI rela-
tons growing out of the permits be-
come vested in the owners of the
vaults. which it was unlawful to dis
turb by any form of legislation.
Justice RObbs Comment.
In the present case" says Justice
Robb. there is no contention that
me space occupied by appellant is
needed for public purposes, nor is it
charged that appellant has failed to
comply with any condition affixed to
its permit. Every occupant of public
/ space under such permits is subject.
OF course, to all reasonable police
! nd
pied by him is required by the pub
lie, his interest instantly must Weld
to that of the public These condi-
| tions materially affect the value of
the privilege enjoyed
| The provision in the act of 1916
| is in no sense a police measure, it's
sole purpose being to provide reve-
nue.. 1t must be assumed that in the
| enactment of this provision Congress
| intended to preserve vested interests
/ The vault in question having been
! erected upon condition that no charge
! would be made for use of the space
! occupied, we are of the view that
Congress did not intend to abridge
/ the right of appellant by the enact
ment of this statute.
! The provision relied upon by the
t District, to the effect that no right,
| title or interest of the public is in any
way waived or abridged, is followed
| by he words except as expressed in
SalQ permit ana tne condltlOnS afore-
said and those conditions, as We
have seen, mean that while no charge
will be exacted for the occupancy Of
such public space the rights of the
public are paramount, and upon a
/ proper showing of public necessity
! the occupation of the space must be
| restricted or terminated.
! I'VE rule. therefore, that the statute
| in question was intended to apply.
and does apply. only to permits there
after issued"
The cases presented were in the
nature of test of the law and-were
in charge of Attorney NJ D. Rosen-
! berg of the Merchants and Manufac-
| turers' Association and of Attorney
! E. Hilton Jackson. for the Hotel
| Mems Association. {.
| Attorney ROsenberg's Statement.
Speaking of the opinion today, Mr..
Rosenberg said: "It is of vast i'm
portance and of financial benefit to
the property owners of the District
| Of Columbia. The cases were filed
about two years ago by the District
Of Columbia against Saks & Co. a
corporation. the r. =. Andrews Com
ner, owner of the Palais Royal attempt
ing to enforce the collection of rent
ais for the use of vault space under
the sidewalks adjacent to the busi-
ness DullulnSs occupied Dy the de-
| PENDANTS.
In 1916, in the appropriation act en-
acted by the federal Congress for the
| District of Columbia, there was en-
braced a provision making it man
/ datory upon the users of vault space
| to pay a rental for the use of the
same to the District of Columbia. Pur-
| suant to this legislation the Commis-
sioners made certain regulations call
| culated to put the statute into opera
ton and assessing an annual charge
4 per square foot against the user of
the vault space for the same.
|, THE defense set up by counsel rep
, resenting the defendants was sub
stantially to the effect that the NUM-
cipal government in granting the
parties permits for the building of the
T vaults had entered into a contract and
as such neither the federal Congress
nor the officials of the District of Co
lumbia had the lawful right to dis
turb the obligations mutual on both
IL i int 49, h.