Evening star., 1920-06-26

Chief Justice Smyth of the Court of
Appeals, District of Columbia, in dis
senting from the decision handed
down by that court in the Hirsh-
Block case, declaring the Ball rent act
unconstitutional, announced his rea-
sons, in part, as follows:
When it is considered that this Dis
trict was selected as the seat of the
| government of the United States, and
| that there existed therein condition
of affairs such as Congress sets forth
| in the act, to say that the government
| is powerless to afford any relief Is to
attribute to it weakness that would
| be, indeed, unfortunate.
The determination by the Congress,
presumably after careful survey of
all the pertinent facts-for we must
| assume that Congress discharged It's
| full duty-that rental property in TINS
District was clothed with a public in
terest when the Ball act was passed,
! is entitled to great respect by the
courts, and should not be brushed
| aside except upon very conclusive
proof that it has no basis on which to
rest. But we were told at the bar that
| it had no effect, and should be treated
! by the court as negligible. Counsel
| frankly admitted that he did not have
any authority for this assertion, and
my studies have not revealed any
l
1853, IT'S, the Supreme Court declared:
1--WE ought never to overrule the de-
cision of the Legislative department of
| the government unless a palpable
error has been committed"
| What, then, is the test by which the
court is to ascertain whether this de-
termination by Congress is sound?
| The Supreme Court furnishes it. In
Mum agt. Illinois. "a U. S., 113, 1872. it
said: -Four our purposes we must as
| If state of facts c0n1d
exist that would Justify such legisla-
| ton, it actually did exist when the
| statute now under consideration was
passed. For US the question is one of
| power, not of eXpediency. If no state
of circumstances could exist to justify
such a statute, then we may declare
| this one void, because in excess of the
Legislative power of the state. But if
It could, we must assume 1T did
! Could there be anything palmer or
more direct?
In the light of what has been said, I
| see no escape from the conclusion
that the business of renting property
| in this District under the conditions
| mentioned is affected with public
! interest.
The fact that Congress has power
to regulate does not establish by any
means that it may disregard constitu-
| tional guarantees and deprive an own
er of his property without due process
| UT 0cHy iIIIf lCdSoHdOlc SOihpcHod-
tion for its use. The power is subject
| to constitutional limitations. AS I
| have heretofore shown, the act under
review does not impinge on any con-
stitutional right which Hirsh is en-
| titled to assert here. If in a proper
! action by him it should appear that
| the enforcement of any of the provi-
sions of the act would deprive him
of such a right, the courts will be
| open for his protection. Certain pro-
! visions may be void. but that would
| not render the whole act illegal. Sec-
| tion 121 provides: 'If any clause,
sentence, paragraph or part of this
| title (act) shall be adjudged by any
court of competent jurisdiction to be
| invalid, such judgment shall not af-
! feet, impair or invalidate the remain
| der thereof, but shall be confined in
| it's operations to the clause. sentence,
| paragraph Of part thereof directly in
| volved in the controversy in which
| such judgment shall have been rem
dered." In a decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States rendered
| March %, this year. the constitution
aIity of certain statutes of Oklahoma
was considered. The statutes pre-
scribed that a commission should fix
maximum rates for services perform
/ ed by laundry company. 1t was pro-
vided that diSobedience to an order
| establishing rates would be a con-
tempt of the commission and sub
| ject the recaIcitrant company to
| nena1ty not exceeding $500 day. No