New-York tribune., 1921-04-19
Z. S. Supreme Tribunal,
5 to 4, Holds Curtail-
ing of Property Rights
in Emergency Justified
N. Y. Appeals Body's
Decision Is Upheld
Statute in Washington
Also Sustained; Findings
Socialistic, Says Minority
rxo,, The y,!5,.re.s wash;notou B,,,.o.

From The TrTbRre's WASHINGTON Bureau
WASHINGTON, April 1S.--The United
States Supreme Court to-day upheld
the constitutionality Of the New York
and District of Columbia anti-profiteer-
ing rent laws. 1t held that, as an
emergency existed, circumstances have
clothed the letting of buildings j..
with a public interest so great as to
justify regulation by law"
The court pointed out that property
rights have already been interfered
with by police powers regulating the
height of buildings, and by other meas
ures, and added: eve do not perceive
any reason for denying the justifica-
ton held good in the foregoing cases,
to law limiting rights of real prop
erty, if the public exigency requires
that"
On both decisions the bench divided.
to 4. In each case Chief Justice
White and Justices McKenna, Vande-
ssnter and McReynolds gave dissent
ing opinions. protesting at length
against disregard of the property
clauses of the Constitution even in
tines Of emergency. The dissenting
opinions branded the majority view as
supporting form of socialism.
The New York case was that of Mar
Gus Brown Holding Company, Inc. ap-
pellgnt, vs.. Marcus Feldman, Benjamin
Schwartz, ct al, an appeal from the
New York Federal District Court. The
Supreme Court upheld the New York
tntuo md %l,4
Holmes handed down the majority
opinion and Justice McKenna wrote
the opinion in dissent.
The facts and the decision in the
New York case were summed up by
Justice Holmes as follows:
Ruling in New York Case
"This is bill in equity brought by
the Marcus Brown Holding Company,
the appellant, owner of q large apart
nent house in the City of New York
in the house and the District Attorney
Of the counsy of New York The ten
ants are holding over after their lease
has expired, which it did on September
80, 1920, claiming the right to do 80
under Chapters 942 and 947 of the Laws
New York of 1920.
sThe object of the bill is to have
these and ether connected laws de-
slzrd unconstitutional. The District
Attorney is joined in order to prevent
ais srforcing by criminal proceedings
chapters 131 and 951 of the acts Of the
same year, which make it q misde-
meanor for the lessor or any agent or
lanitor Intentionally to fail to furnish
such water, heat, light, elevator, tele-
phone or other service as may be re-
quircd by the terms of the lease and
necessary to the proper or customary.
ase OF the building. The case was
heard in the District Court by three
Judges upon the bill, answer, affidavits
aao some public documents, al! of
which may be summed up in a few
WORDS The bill alleges at length the
rights given to lessor by the common
law and statutes Of New York before
me enactment OF the statute relied
spon by the tenants, covenant by the
.a'ter TO surrender possession at the
sermination of their lease and due de-
'aana, aa, and claims protection under
ar.cie l, Section 10, and the Four
~ 'ssasa as Amendment of the Constitution
OF the United States"
Public Emergency Declared
AN affidavit alleges that before the
Iassase OF the new statute another
,esse OF the premises had been made. to
o. 80 a.''o ehect October /, 1920. The an
rmer OF the tenants relies upon the
,n .sm statutes and alleges Willingness
so,a pay reasonable rent and any rea-
dauie ds.as increase as the same may be
;,ssinilned ;us;a1ned by court of competent
jurisdiction. 1t also alleges that thew
n'aue efforts to obtain another suitahJe
sspar.ment, but failed. The District At
;uday moved to dismiss the BILL The
s.uges considered the case upon the
,,Ihei,uss, upheid the laws and ordered
me cd Dill to be dismissed.
oAo tne above mentioned CHAPTERS.
AZ and s47, a public emergency IS de,
SSaaea Ssa TO exist, and it is provided by
rrs;a sSpssr sa' that no action shall be
rai,healhable roa, to recover possession f
~ G ppn1ooperty pno pery in city of population
cornt' ,teo"'ooo or more or In city in
IL, ;rnty d,y ,asaJolning such city, occupied
I, rareg r"eaiing purposes, except on action
gronnd ME- yer. such possession upon the
sryahu ~ tnat the person is holding over
s sno is Objectionable or an ar
M, NIL *hefe the owner of record of the
;au.ng' II aaa oeing a natural person, seeks
tbas soou Iaith to recover possession of
e. same or room or rooms therein
crr. sue immediate and personal oc-
spaa,mcy ssaa,.y by himself and his family as
Ss"si!ing, s.. or an action to recover prem
ss,s svs ior the purpose of demolishing the
iaa ia@'s with the intention of construct
s ebsn. q ne" building > The earlier
Ssurpser' snrth' s42; is similar, with some
esaa. ss.saer details. Both acts are to be in
= Sa.cs only until November 21, 1929. It
n n Unnecessary to state the provisions
i snapter 944 for disputes as to what
viii reasonable rent. They are dealt
Avn IN The decision Of the Court of
lrr,Iis Lew cited below and in Edison A.
slasch hsesslng = ng Company, Inc, agt. Siegel,
sa as' as as in the previous case of Block
ees,,a essi hirsh, we shall assume, in ac-
'uance q, .hI with the statutes. the finding
A,n sne court below and of the Court Of
-freais OF the state in Peonle ex rel