Norwich bulletin., 1921-04-19
''Renta|'' Decisions
 by Supreme Court.
Curtailnent of Properly
 Rights JustifiabIe h in case ! of Public Exigency.s < <

Washington, April s1s.-Cuftailrnent of property rights is justifable in casee'of public exigency,sthe supreme court heid today fin deciding tive; cases involving tHe validity of laws affecting leases on apxtt- ments and business property. r- - T;>
 Dividing five to four, the .court, upheld the Ball act. applying to S all real. estate in the District of Columbia. and the sb- called New. York city housing laws" :" In both: cases Chief Justice fWhite and Ass sociated Justices McKenna -McReynofas and Van Deventer filed a dissenting opin- ion, which was declared to- ybe unusual both :.as to it's length and the fcrcefni language employed. s '-. s,S's; '.-s s>.si
 The Ball act prohibits the. dispcssessiem of aj tenant at the, expiration of his cur renT lease on any ground except undesira- bilAty1 and has set,rup' a fair rent commits sion to pass upon all disputes as ito fates heing paid. The New York laws. i1c.ufi- ing several sections ofathe state statutes, fnfal1e it obligatory upon landlords to fur nish' certain service to .tenantsss and ,pro- hibft the filing of dispossess suits:srs,a .ss
 q That the emergency congress sought to lmeet~(inl the Ball act) did exist must be assumed,s Associate Justice Holmes said in the majority opinion. The gen. eral proposition. to be. maintained. them Is that circumstances. have. clothed the: let ting of buildings in the District of Eoium- ibia with public Interest. so great las sto justify regulation by 1aw.''' -sst s .se,s,iss. Police powers .-already. have been, in- voked in. several citiesa to . limit the heights of buildings; he, said, and to that extent have interfered with property rights. while the supreme court had held | in suits involving maintenance of ,watHr-
 sheds and various, phases of the insur.
 ance business that public interest might
 require limitation of property rights. [, !. ',
 We do not. perceive any reason fei l denying the justification held good jr foregoing cases,' he continued, srto a law llimiting rights of real, .proeerty. if tn. ! public exigency requires that"
 | The majority opinion pointed out the 1 property owner has recourse to the rents l commission in Washington and to tn,
 courts in New York for determination al
 to "a fair" rental.
 "The grounds for dissent are the ,ex
 plicit provisions of the constitution of thu i Unietd States" Associate Justice Nc
 Kenna said in the dissenting paper. 9Th,
 national government by the fifth amend ment, and the states by the fourteenth are forbidden to deprive any person o life, liberty or property without du' l process. of law A further provision o 1 the fifth amendment is that private prop | erty cannot be taken for public iuse with tout just compensation. i. "The statute permits aglessee to con tinue in possession of leased premises af ter the expiration of his siexse This i contrary to every conception of lease l the world has ever entertained. I tThere can be no conception of prop
 erty aside from it's control and use. Pro lection to 1t has been regarded as a vita I principle of republican -institutions.i Gu Esocialt system depends upon its santtit, and the state or community which seek to invade it will soon discover the erro
 in the disaster which foIlows.r <