The Washington times., 1921-02-27
Dc. RENT LAW
. IS DEFENDED
Government Brief Attacks Un-
scrupulous Realtors-"PubIic
Must Be Protected"

The rental situation in Washington
presents this invarisble concomi-
tant, that, unless the public interest
he recognized and protected. either
the mass OF population or some i'm
portant element OF II will stand In a
condition Of economic helplessness
toward those who are the masters
of the situation"
BRIEF Is FILED.
This IL the challenge flung at
those opposing the functioning OF the
District Rent Commission by Henry
III. Classic, special assistant to the At
torney General. and william L. Frier-
son. solicitor general, In a brief filed
with the Supreme Court of the United
states In behalf of the Government as
friend of the court In the Hirrch-
Block case to test the constitutional
ity OF the Ball rents act.
"ln such cases II Is idle to talk
about freedom OF contract and the
right OF man to do with his property
what he pleases. There Is no free
dom of contract and the use of the
property is not being made by the
owner of IL. 1t is the others who are
using It. And the necessities of the
suituation, and the permanent needs
VI society as a whole, require that
they use it," the brief continues.
The true question is not whether
the war Is over. but whether condi-
tions which would have JUSTIFIED reg
ulation during the war still existed
when this act was passed. The war
power is but a transferred portion of
the police power originally residing
In, an 70 tAS nd In ntatr rtat has
power Is at all times plenary and in
divisible
ITO concede that the power Of rent
| regulation might exist as a war power
| liz to concede our case. What would
justify IL as an exercise OF legislative
IOwer In war but conditions of social
fact which, whether arising from that
emergency or some other, maxi the
emergency of a public interestr
At MERCY OF LANDLORDS.
The brief stresses that since the
District OF Columbia was set aside
for the uses OF the Government. "the
Government at Washington must
live. and IL must live at Warrington"
1t is further emphasized that when-
ever the Government Is forced, as It
was by the exigencies Of the war. to
concentrate in the limited area OF the
District a new army OF civil employees,
the whole population Is placed at
the mercy OF those VINO possess the
available facilities for shelter and
habitation."
ut Is a matter OF common knowl-
edge that the high rents paid by war
workers resulted in conditions of
oyercrowding dangerous to health.
and during the influenza epidemic.
even to life. The obvious result of
ia i'm az
dislocation which impairs. and may
even imperil, the success of the ad-
ministrative mobilization upon which
depend the very safety of the coun-
try" the brief continues.
Classic and Frierson use numerous
other arguments to prove that no
doubt should exist as to the need of
a law to regulate rents, declaring
further in this respect that absence
OF regulation means gross inequality
in the distribution of the total incre-
ment created by the new situation
and the unjust enrichment of the
few INSCRIPTIONS owners for whom
the sky is the limit IL there were
no other reason for the rent law IL
might well be justified by its effect in
equalizing the benefits OF an extra
ordinary situation as among the own
ers themselves"
"POSSESSlON" IS CRUX.
The brief declares il is unfortunate
that the Hirsch-Block case should in
volre the rent regulatory feature OF
the Ball act when the case itself is
merely one of possession. However,
IL is argued, the possessory operation
of the act is logically separable from
its regulatory operation. and Con
gress has expressly declared its in
tent that the various features of the
legislation shall stand independently
of all others. II. for any reason, the
possessory provisions be invalid, such
invalidity is without effect upon the
provisions for the regulation OF
rents"
Although il Is admitted that the !
power temporarily to continue exist |
ing occupancy may be dependent upon
the power to regulate rents, 1t is de-
clared that the converse is not true
and that the power to regulate rents
is not dependent upon the power to
continue occupancy.
The brief concludes that a public
interest exists and must be protected,
and that Congress has the undoubted
power to subject rents in the Dis
trict to reasonable regulation. and
further that the procedural provisions
for that purpose lack no element of
due process.
1t is submitted that the possessory
feature of the Ball act Is so cleverly
separable from its regulatory opera
tion that IL should not, for any rea-