Evening star., 1921-04-29
Editorial Digest
Tenant vs.. Landlord.

|
| While editorial opinion on the five-toI
four decision of the Supreme Court up
holding the rent laws divides as sharply
as did the court itself. the minority of
the court is supported by the majority
of the press. -,
The court assaults the very founda-
tions of established society,"" the San
Francisco Chronicle independently de-
, clares. because it strikes at the very
root OF private ownership of any prop
erty and virtually authorizes the
taking of private property for private
| use without compensation Even with
| the sanction of the United States Su-
preme Court, by a majority OF one.
the Roanoke Times (democratic) still
| feeis that ANY curtailment of property
rights is to be looked on with a certain
amount of suspicion" and this decision.
| as the Boston Transcript independent
republican, sees 1t, opens the way for
further aggrcssions, since 1t marks the
point of recession of the power of the
doctrine of due process Of law as a de-
fenSiNe agency
The cloak Of public cx.gency" is not
accepted as sufficient justification for
upholdng legislation such as the dis
puted act, and even exposes the Supreme
Court to tn" charge of inconsistency,
the Wheeling Intelligencer Grepublican)
| points out. Admitting the housing
| emergency. was it any greater it
asks. than the food profitcerine which
| the Lever act was designed to control"
| and which the Supreme Court declared
| unconstitutional2
The Louisville Courier-Journal tdemo-
c-atic). conceding that shelter is a ne
cessltr," adds: so is food. and SO is
clothing. Nobody may with the sane
tion of a court. go into the grocery store
and procure food or 90 into a clothing
store and tlnthipc at rtrjce9 n
which the vendor does not agree"
Although the Pittsburgh Gazette
Times trepub'ican) asserts that III" de-
cision. like the laws. are intended for
the emergency period and will not be-
come a precedent and tho st. Louis
Globe-Democrat (rcpublican) adds does
not Justify such legislation unless an
emergency exists" tho Baltimore News
Independently suggests that the ''one
question the Supreme Court doris not
answer Ia. When Is an emergency"
The possibility. seen by the Columbus
(Ohio) Dispatch independently that
the Legislative bodies will seek to gain
| ulterior ends by seeing emergencies
where they do not exist, or creating
| them to order" suggests to the New
all laws courtproof' will not strain the
ingenuity of legislatures" II the law
making body is to be sole Judge of the
! existence of an emergency. the New
Bedford (Mass.) Standard frepublican)
feels that we are brought perilousy
close to the point that n statute cannot
be set aside by tho judicial power
Replying to this position. however.
the Springfield Union republican)
! finds no grounds for the fear that
STATE can hereafter declare an
| emergency tina, will have to be ac-
| cepted as such by the judicial pow
| er." and 1t is confident that "the
Supreme Court is not likely to de-
stroy It's own constitutional preroga-
tives."
The broad principle which the ma
| jority opinion establishes. the Chat
tanooga News (democratic) finds, is
simply that private property must
not be used in such manner as to
inture or Inconvenience the pubic
and must be made to conserve the
particularly different from that prin-
; ciple Of law which regulates individual
conduct"
As the st. Louis Post-Dispatch lin
dependent interprets it. the decision
! recognizes the diffe -ence between
sanctity and immunity in property.
! and. while leaving the theory OF
| "sanctity" inviolate. 1T has discarded
the theory Of "immunity." and has
placed obstacles in the way only of
such practices as may he justly de-
scribed as extortion." The St. Louis
Star (independenD agrees that ut is
only the extortionate landlord who
comes" within the scope".of the laws
which the court upholds.. and the
Cleveland Plain Dealer independent
democratic) assures Landlords who
play square" that they have nothing
to fear" a,..
The opinion "of those who find
themselves the victims o. axtortion
and injustice" will be that THE prin-
ciple established. or rather. reaftirm-
ed is pre-eminently just" the Kan
sas City Journal (republicano de
clares The Supreme Court. IN
definitely deciding that property
rights are not paramount to those OF
the public" has rejected the theory OF
the profiteers that the victim can
be deprived of his salary or wages
without due process of law and in
direct violation Of the laws against
extortiof,, but the profiteer cannot be
deprived of his property without that
Nconcsding' that the rent laws
would have been denounced by all
the members of the Supreme Court
twenty years ago" the Detroit Free
Press independently explains the
change in the public and the judi
cial mind" as resulting from the
abuse of power derived from prop
erty. which has brought about this
new limit on the right of man to
do as he will with his own