The Washington times., 1921-04-19
|RENT DECISION
STRIKES DEEP
Ruling on : Right to Regulate
Rates Seen as Farreaching
BY Hapgood. =
BY NORMAN HAPGOOD.


The decision Of the United States
Supreme Court that the District Of
Columbia and the legislature of
New York have the right to regu-
late housing strikes SO deep into
our conceptions Of government ex-
clusively in the interest of property
that the more stand-pat element on
the court he'd frightful time with
itself. The decision was won by
five votes to four.
FAR REACHING REsEARCH.
Congress with its 531 members, CO.
operating with the President. can
make what laws II likes but they
are scraps of paper unless they meet
The approval OF the nine gentlemen.
This freeing of the people to deal
with the vast and increasing difficult
ties of housing thus hung by a single
vote. When President Wilson put Mr..
Brandeis on the Court he was fully
aware what he was doing,
IT was his definite intention to try
to swing the Court away from exag-
gerate property superstitions toward
a broader conception of human rights
1t was with the same idea in mind
that he followed the Brandeis ap-
pointment with. the Clarke appoint
ment. -.,
Thus IL is evident that the an
pointment, presumably to be made by
President Harding. will have more to
do with the permanent laws of the
United States than any laws passed
by Congress and by his signature en-
acted into law.
The far-reaching nature of the de-
cision was so clear to the minority
that Justice McKenna. in an impas-
stoned three thousand word dissent,
talked back to the majority to the
effect that they were launching this
fair counry on the horrid road to
Bolshevism.
"who can know to what destina-
ton they will conduct us?" he asked,
his voice rising with indignation and
alarm. They were headed straight
for SOCIALISM or some form of social
ism" For this dreaded something
"this court Is called upon to make
way"
MekENNA'S OBJECTION.
The sacredness OF property never
had . moro sturdy exponent. That
State or community which seeks to
injure 1t will soon discover the error
of it's way" There was talk about
homes for the homeless, but "the an
swer does not satisfy" Tenants to
be sure, are more numerous than
landlords" but the eternal verities
remain.
And here is most significant
ejaculation: Justice McKenna feared
''the doom of judicial judgment on
legislative action" There he touched
the quick. He was right.
Impartial Interpretation. yes, on the
question of obvious conflict with the
Constitution. But even that function
will soon be taken away from the
court by Constitutional amendment IL
the court insists on using its "judg-
ment" about the wisdom or safety of
legislative acts.
The Judge who delivered this har-
angue in favor of pushing the Consti-
tutional safeguards to property so far
rs to prevent the State from protect
ing Its citizens in an urgent need Of
life was the very Judge who delivered
equally passionate diatribes against
the right Of free speech.
THE CONSTITUTIONS USES.
The Constitution is nothing when II
defends our freedom. 1t is every
thing when It protects our money.
The combination was found not in
Justice McKenna alone. Justice Nc
Reynolds was with him. and no hui
man being ever showed more con-
tempt for Constitutional safeguards
than Justice McReynolds showed
when the cases turned merely on the
guarantees of personal liberty.
Justice Vandeventer and Chief Jus
tice White also steadily voted against
free speech. despite the Constitution.
and they Joined in this appeal to let
the property guarantees block all pro-
gress.
Has the Supreme Court, Justice Nc
Kenna cries, become an anschronim?
Is II to become an archaeological relic?"