Evening star., 1920-03-21
Trent LAW AGAINST
| CONSTITUTION, SAY
| COUNSEL IN BRIEF
First Appellate Court Case
Denies Realty Affected
With Public Interest.

Declaring the Rail- rent law, ia
grantly violative OF the Constitution
and void" and attacking the validity
Of the legislative declaration that
real estate in Washington is "affected
with public interest" Attorneys VIII
liam q. johnson. Myer Cohen and
Richard d. Daniels have filed in the
district Court Of Appeals brief in
support Of their claim that the Dis
ing a Judgment in favor of Louis
Hirsh for possession of premises at
80 F street northwest. Of which Ju-
lius Block is tenant.
The brief Is the first filed in the
appellate court attacking the Ball
law. The Judgment appealed from
was taken formally by consent Of
counsel. Justice Siddons signed an
order upholding the validity Of the
act without argument and the case
is being rushed to the Court Of Ap-
pea1s in the hope of securing an
opinion from that tribunal on the
validity Of the act before the sum-
mer recess Of the appellate court
The sole question in the case, It is
stated. is the constitutionality of the
act. Mr.. Blocks lease had expired
and he claimed the right to remain
under the provision Of the rent law.
Constitutional Question.
Counsel in their brief claim that
the Ball act. as applied to this case,
not only attempts to take away from
Mr.. Hirsh> his right OF reversion At
the end Of his lease, but attempts
to fix the price at which the tenant
may continue. despite the fact that
business property is frequently worth
more at the end Of a lease than when
the tenant entered into possession.
This Is clearly violation of the
constitutional amendment, 1t is as
serted, which forbids the taking Of
private property without due process.
mot only does this act attempt to
take from the landlord owner his re-
version and bestow it upon the tenant
to hold at the tenants will, and at
a compensation fixed by Congress,
namely. the rent fixed by the expired
lease" say counsel. "but it also denies
all right of judicial redress. It does
not change or substitute remedies, but
denies them in toto, BY the express
terms Of the act, the tenants right
to use or occupancy shall continue
and such tenant shall not be evicted
or dispossessed SO long as he pays the
rent
"But the previously existing right
of action in the landlord Is also prop
erty' of which he may not be deprived
without due process Of law. AS said
by Mr.. Justice Matthews. delivering
the opinion Of the court in Pritchard
VS.. Norton. 1o6 U. s.. l24, 1a2:
, ''Hence, It is that vested right Of
action Is property in the Same sense
in which tangible things are prop
erty, and Is equally protected against
arbitrary interference. Whether 1t
springs from contract or from the
principles of the common law, 1t is
not competent for the legislature to
take 1t away. A vested right to an
existing defence is equally protected,
saving only those which are based ON
informalities not affecting substan-
tial rights, which do not touch the
substance Of the contract and are
not based on equity and justice
ut is also ths constitutional right
of the citizen to decide for himself
with whom he will contract and whom
he wiz accept or continue as tenant.
and he may not lawfully be compelled
to accept ene as tenant Of whom he
does not approve"
Relation to State of War.
The existence of state of war
gives no validity to the statute.
counsel claim. WAR carries many
and grIevous Affections" reads the
brief, but among them is not the
abrogation, temporary OF permanent,
of the constitutional limitations upon
CONTINUED on Page 4. Column g.