Evening star., 1920-06-27
ARGUMENTS GIVEN
!. To SHOW LEGALITY
| OF BALL RENT ACT
Contentious of Tenants
League to Go Before D. c.
Supreme Court.

Arguments in support of the con-
stitutionality of the Ball rent act, TO
be presented by attorneys of the
Tenants Protective League i'll con-
nection with its application to the
District Supreme Court for writ of
mandamus favoring the District rent
commission. were incorporated in a
letter from George =. Hart, chief at
torney for the league, TO Alexander S.
Lanier. a local lawyer. made public
last night.
The petition for an injunction will
be sought to restrain the lower courts
here from interfering with the func-
uonS OF the rent commission untl the
United States Supreme Court has had
an opportunity to determine finally
the validity of the Ball act.
Contentious of Tenants League.
The league bases it's plea on the
following contentious:
Congress has supreme authority in
the District of Columbia through
police power granted by the Constitu-
tion. and therefore the commission
which it has created to settle disputes
between landlord and tenant must be
respected.
The Ball act does not violate the
provision of the Constitution decree
ing freedom of private contract be-
plies only to the various states.
The act does not take property
for private use without due process
of law. since appeals to the courts
from decisions of the rent commits
sion are allowed. with the privilege
of trial by jury.
Inequality of protection to citizens
Is expressly avoided in the act.
through provisions for both landlord
and tenant"
Letter From Attorney Hart.
The letter from Attorney Hart to
Mr.. Lanier, also an attorney, in part
follows:
LAS you suggest. there is no doubt
that Congress is supreme in regard to
police power over the District of CO.
lumbia, and especially when the con-
ditions would justify drastic legisla-
Uon. as, iii my opinion. exist in the
present housing situation. OF course,
II is not to be believed that Congress,
in the exercise of this police power,
would legislate oppreSSively or un-
justly. but in the interest of the peace
and good order of the community. It's
power to legislate is supreme and so
expressed in the Constitution of the
United States.
With respect to your conclusion
a, that the police power of Congress is
the only ground upon which the con-
stltutlonallty of the Ball act can be
sustained because it destroys the free
dom of private contract, l beg leave
to call your attention to section 10.
article j. of the Constitution of the
United States which applies only to
the states, and Mr.. Cooley. in his
Constitutional Limitations says
that the District of Columbia and the
territories of the United States are
not included under that section.
With respect to your suggestion
that the right of the citizen would be
ir1TN airnd hN- inaf of hn Pol
act, take it that you have reference
to the bill of rights, and not the
Constitution of the United States; and
also with respect to taking property
for private use without due process
of law. While that applies to the
District of Columbia. due process of
law has been defined by the Supreme
Court of e'UEited States. and unless
the citizen is deprived of that right
and he is not under the provisions of
the Ball act, because appeal is pro-
vided for from the rent commission to
q the Court of Appeals, merely on errors
of law, and then that goes back through
the rent commission to the Municipal
Court, where either party to the liti-
cation may take an appeal to the
Supreme Court of the District and
have the issue of fact determined by
a jury
Question of Equal Protection.
IE ICE dlu " UOl having
equal protection under the law, the
rents act has express provision for
both landlords and tenants on equal
parity.
You state that the Salisbury law
was less flagrantly unconstitutional
than the Ball act because the former
was passed as war measure, etc,
while the latter was passed after hos
tiiitieS had actually ceased. This
need not make answer to because of
the fact that you make reference to
the police power of Congress. in which
l concur.
The court of appeals of New York
court that stands in high degree
before the United States Supreme
Court. has recently upheld an act of
the legislature of New York which
is similar to the rents act of the Dis
trict of Columbia, except that it is
more drastic in several respects.
The rents act is law until the court
of last resort declares otherwise. The
Court of Appeals of the District is
not the court of last resort; therefore
refusal of the courts in this jurisdic-
tion to recognize the existence of that
law is without warrant of law or tn {
Constitution of the United States,
which the judges must respect"
Letter From Attorney Lnnier.
The letter from Mr.. Lanier follows
The Star of today states you are
attorney for the Tenants Protective
League. | am interested in seeing
the Ball act sustained, and therefore
take the liberty of suggesting to you
that you base your argument before
The court mainly on the ground that
said act is a constitutional exercise
of the police power of the Congress SIS
over the District of Columbia to meet
an emergency and a situation vitality
affecting the health and the morals
of the people, and the peace and good
order of the community.
In my opinion there is no other
ground upon which the constitution
ality of the act can be possibly sus-
1ained. for it destroys the freedom
of contract in respect to matters that
are inherently lawful per Sc, and that
pertain 10 the fundamental rights OF
the citizens under all free govern
ments worthy of the name; il also
takes private property for private
use without due process of law, and
denies TO the citizens the equal pro-
lection of the laws. etc. II is more
fiagrantly unconstitutional than was
the Salisbury law, because the lat
ter was passed as u war measure in