Evening star., 1920-06-02

Refers to Old Decision.
The court refers to it's decision in
validating the salisbury law. and
says the Ball act is similar. Justice
Van Orsdel repeats the statement
made in the Salisbury decision that
the provisions of the Constitution
which protect persons and property
are uniform in their operations
throughout the United States. and that
the people of this District cannot be
lawfully deprived of the benefit of any
of the constitutional guarantees OF
life, liberty and property"
In disposing of the contention that
the owner should first have applied
pealed to the courts for relief if un-
successful. Justice Van Orsdel said
plaintiff would then be in poor
position after invoking the jurisdic-
tion of the rent commission to attack
the validity of the act"
Dissenting .Optnien.
In dissenting Chief Justice Smyth
late rentals benause sehs sxtf1ofdi-
nary conditions existing in Washing
ton The determination Of the legis-
lature that rental property was i'm
pressed with a public interest is en-
titled to respect and should not be
brushed aside except upon copclusive
proof that it has no basis on which to
rest"
The chief justice also urged that the
whole law should not be invalidated
because portions might be consloereo
unconstitutional.
The decisions were rendered in the
case of Louis Hirsh. who sought 10
recover possession OF an street
store. and in the mandamus proceeolng
of Mrs Sarah E. McCathran to compel
the Municipal Court to hear and de-
termine her suit for possession with
out recourse to the rent commission
In the course Of the majority opin-
ion the court said:
The right of plaintiff to question
the constitutionaiity of the act in this
proceeding is assailed- 1t is urged
that he should have pursued the rem
edy prescribed in the act. and. II un-
successful, appeal But plaintiff would
he in poor position to question the
jurisdiction which he had himself in
1oked merely because of an adverse
decision If he should invoke the aid
of the statute and suffer defeat before
the commission. he would estop him
self to seek further relief on the
ground of the unconstitutionality OF
the act. He would not be permitted to
thus experiment with the law.
Present Act Is Sole Defense.
THE sole defense interposed is the
present act. If it is valid the defense
is complete, since the thirty-day no
1ice required by the act was not given.
and the proceedings could only be
had before the commission. II the
act is void it furnishes no defense.
since. under existing law, at the ex-
piration of time lease no notice is
required, and the proceedings to ac-
guire possession must be brought,
as in this case, in the Municipal Court
of the District. An unconstitutional
cnyn far ri y &
ii imposes no duties; it. affords no
protection. it creates no Office; it is. in
legal contemplation, Is imperative as
though il had never been passed. Nor
ton VS.. Shelby County. lis L. s..
4.5. 642.
Coming to the validity of the act.
we have held in the recent case of
Wilson agt. Mcdonnell. considering
an act of Congress similar to the one
before us. that the provisions of the
Constitution which protect persons
and property are uniform in their
operation throughout the United
States In this respect there is no
distinction between the District Of
Columbia and the states of the Union.
There is nothing in the history of the
Constitution or of the original amend
1nents 70 justify the assertion that the
people of this District may be law
fulIy deprived of the benefit of any OF
the constitutional guarantees of life
l.1erty and property. Callan agt- VIII
Aon. IT L. 5. $40, so.
Is Property Right.
But what are the rights of which
plaintiff has been divested If the pres
.nt act is held to constitute a valid
defense 10 his action for possession
Plaintiff had a vested estate and re-
version in fee in the property in ques-
ton to come into possession on Janu-
ary 1, 1920. Defendants right of pos
session terminated on December 81
1919, by the express terms of hi.
lease. a contract valid and existing
when this act was passed This righ'
of reversion il a property right. Of
which plaintiff cannot be divested ex.
cept by due process of law.
Gives Defendant Option.
The act gives defendant the optior
Of retaining possession of the prop
erty at the rental fixed in the lease
" nich is continued in force. or. If dis
satisfied he may apply TO the com
mission for reduction OF the rent
Il reduced by the commission. plain
tiff is powerless to have a review Of
the facts upon which the action of tn.
commission is based. Not only i.
plaintiff denied any remedy for thi:
continued detention of his property
but he is forbidden TO sell his prop
erty except subject to and burdenet
by the option OF the tenant 1t woult
seem, therefore, that if the propert!
cIarNses ~ the Copstitution are lonHN