Evening star., 1920-04-02
D. c. WILL APPEAL
EAGLE HUT VERDICT
Effort to Remove Postal
Station Will Be Carried to
Higher Court.

commissioner brOWnlOW announced
today that the District would take
to the District Court of Appeals the
determination of the rent commission
late yesterday not to order the postal
station from Eagle Hut. 9th street
and Pennsylvania avenue. on the
ground that the postmaster was not
given sufficient notice.
The Commissioners informed the
postmaster before Christmas that
they wanted to remove the hut, which
was erected by the Y. NJ. {. A Tor the
comfort of men in uniform during the
war. The Commissioners wanted the
hut removed to restore to its pre-
war condition the park space Oh
which II stands.
The Commissioners take the grouno
that they had no agreement WIN 'ne
postmaster. They gave the u NJ. =. "A.
permission to erect the hut as wa,
project and the postmaster leased
part of the building from the y NJ
c. A.
Ruled Rental Property.
The commission in its finding ruled
that Eagle Hut is rental property
within the meaning of the Ball rent act
The commissions determination fo!-
lows. ,,,
complainant. the postmaster of w ash-
ington. as an officer of the 1eoerai
government. is in possession ol 'ne
building mentioned in this proceed
ing. by virtue of a lease made Win
the National War Work Council OF
the Young Mems Christian Associa-
ton. and that the lessor, at the time
of making such lease, had posses
sion. the legality of which is not
questioned.
so far, then. as the postma ster on
the one hand and the National war
Work Council on the other are con-
cerned, we have the case of a build
ing. or part of A building rented or
hired under a lease or other contract
for the use or occupancy thereof
These parties obviously stand In tne
relation of landlord and tenant. ana
the record fails to disclose any Val1d
to the tenant upon which the latter
may be evicted or dispossessed under
the provisions of the act TO regulate
rents in the District, approved oc-
tober %, 1919.
Nor does this conclusion seem to
be affected by any circumstance aris-
ing from the relation. if any. of the
District of Columbia to the land upon
which said building stands. If we as
sumo that the title to the land is. as
claimed in the District of Columbia.
and that the Commissioners of the
District have administrative control
thereof. then it appears that the Com
nissioners of the District had full
knowledge of, and in fact expressly
consented to, the construction or.
equipment of the building by the Ma
tional War Work Council for post
Office purposes. and thereby recog-
nized, so far as they were concerned.
the lawfulness of the occupancy by
the postma ster
Purpose OF Rent Act.
''The whole purpose and effect of
the rent act (grounded upon the ex-
istence of rental conditions in the
District of Columbia burdensome to
public officers and embarrassing to
the federal government in the trans
action of the public business)- was
to create and establish a new relation
between any person in the lawful oc-
cupancy of any rental property at the
time of the passage of the act
whether as Subtenant. lessee sub
lessee or otherwise-and the owner
of the freehold. such as prevents the
disturbance or termination of such
lawful occupancy. except in the man.
ner and upon the conditions pre-
scribed by the rent act. 1t would
seem to follow that the Commission
ers of the District. having consented
to the use and occupancy of the
building in question by the post
master. were thereby brought into
such privity with that official as pre-
cludes them from ousting him from
the premises, except upon notice duly
given to him. No such notice is dis
closed by the record. Whatever might
be the effect. at common law of the
notice given by the Commissioners of
the District to the National War
Work Council, that notice cannot
serve as a basis for the expulsion of
the postmaster, under the remedial
provisions of the rent act"
The determination was signed by
Capt James F. Oyster, chairman of
the rent commission, and by Commits
eioner A Leftwich Sinclair. Commits
sioner Guy Mason wrote a dissenting
opinion on the bottom of the finding. in
which he said:
Il cannot concur in this determine
tion. The building in question is not
rental property in the sense the act