Evening star., 1920-06-28
PLEA OF TENANTS
FOR MANDAMUS
SOON TO Be FILED
Ask Order Competing Courts
to Respect D. c. Rent Com
missions Authority


District Court of Appeals and the Mu-
nicipal Court. to respect the authority OF
the District rent commission. will be
instituted in the District Supreme Court
tomorrow or Wednesday. by the Ten
ants Protective Leag que. it was said to-
day. by George T. Hart chief attorney
for the League
simultaneously with this move the
league will file petition with the Unit
ed States Supreme Court asking for a
writ of certiorari, restraining the local
courts from interfering with the rent
commission until the highest tribunal
has determined the constitutionality of
sion operates
May Change Plans.
If the District Supreme Court grants
the writ of mandamus the league. prob
ably. will withdraw its application for
certiorari and work mainly to obtain an
early decision from the United States
Supreme Court as to the validity of the
Ball law. Mr.. Hart declared.
The fight in behalf of the rent com =
mission which local lawyers who are
interested in the muddled rent situa-
constitutional ground that Congress
has supreme police power over the
District of Columbia and that its
right TO take hand in the local sit :
uation must be respected.
Letter Gives SideIight
new sidelight is thrown on the
situation today by letter from At
torney Alexander Sidney Lanier to
Mr., Hart, in which the opinion is ex-
held to be constitutional on the as
sumption that police power was in
volved, but taking issue with other
reasons advanced in its favor.
Referring to your reply to my
letter in today's Star. permit me to
correct an erroneous impression you
got therefrom. namely, that l was
! not aware of the fact that the con-
, stitutionai prohibition against the
impairment of the obligation of con-
| tracts applies solely to the legisla-
lures of the several states, and not
to the Congress. This 1 well knew,
but my statement, mentioned by you,
, was with respect to another and diff
tferent provision of the Constitution.
What ! meant was that Congress
cannot make that unlawful which is
per Sc and Inherently lawful, and that
in respect thereto it is a fundamental
right Of the citizen to contract Wth-
out let or hindrance. except, perhaps,
In SO far as the overwhelming neces-
stiles of the government might for
the time being subordinate the exer-
else of the right to those necessities,
as, for example. in the prosecution
of war, or the vital interests of the
nation in the exercise of her treaty
making power.
Reference to Fifth Amendment.
Il had reference to the fifth amend
.ment of the Constitution, which for
bids Congress to deprive the citizen
Of his life, liberty or property, except
by due process of law. Now the Su-
preme Court has many times held that
the right to make the usual contracts
of life are included in that. liberty
and that Congress is forbidden by this
amendment to deprive the citizens Of
the right to make these contracts.
In regard to the validity of the Ball
act. you might examine the case of
Mum agt- Illinois, "a U. s., l13 L
haven't seen this case in perhaps
twenty years, but my recollection is
that it involved the validity of an act
Of the Illinois legislature regulating
the charges of grain elevators of pri-
vate ownership in Chicago. and that
it was upheld by the United States
Supreme Court on the ground that the
business was of a character and so
affected with public interest that it
was within the regulatory police
powers of the state"
Commenting on the inference of Mr..
Lanier that the rent commission
might be construed as depriying citi-
zens of private property without due
process of law, Mr.. Hart today called
attention to the fact that the law pro-
vides parties with the right of appeal
from the decisions of the commission
and the subsequent trial by jury