Evening star., 1921-08-15
The Rent Act Extension.

The Rent Act Extension.
Unless a bill which is before the
Senate, and which, it is expected. will
be voted on tomorrow. becomes law,
the Ball rents act, passed to meet an
emergency in housing conditions in
Washington that arose during the
war, will expire October % next. If
the bill is passed and approved the
life of that act will be extended to May
%, 1922. The Supreme Court of the
United States has decided, by five-to-
four division, that the act does not
violate the Constitution. having been
passed as war emergency measure.
1t does not follow that the mere re-
enactment or extension of the act will
meet the test applied by the Supreme
Court, for the conditions prevailing at
the time of the extension may not be
such as to justify it on the ground of
emergency. Nor is it likely that test
Of the validity of the extension
act could be applied and settled in sea.
son before its expiration. 1t is incum.
bent upon the Senate. therefore, in
considering this measure, to examine
most carefully into the question Of
whether such an emergency exists to-
day as to justify the lengthening of
the life of the law.
1t is contended by those who deal
in real property, for sale and for
rental. that there is today no shortage
of housing accommodations in the Dis
trict, that numerous houses and apart
ments are available. being now vacant.
Assertion to this effect was made be.
fore the Senate District committee
when the bill was under consideration
there. Figures were offered to prove
the fact. Since that hearing was held
there has been some depletion Of the
departmental population Of the Dis
trict, owing to reductions in the gov
ernment force. If there has been a
tendency toward surplus of accom-
modations since the court rendered its
decision it has been probably hastened
and not retarded subsequent to the
hearings.
Extension of the act would be justi.
fed only on the ground that there is
today as great an emergency in hous-
ing conditions at the capital as there
was at the time of its enactment. The
court doubtless looked at conditions
as they were when the law was passed,
not as they were when the decision
was finally formulated and announced.
It can hardly be contended thst the
conditions were identical. And II there
is less of congestion now than when
the decision was announced, 1t follows
that the need as well as the legal
justification for the extension is
diminished.
The question for the Senate to con-
slider, therefore, when it discusses and
votes upon the pending bill is whether
the need exists for the extension. in
such terms as to justify the new enact
ment in the terms Of the Supreme
Courts ruling Of emergency legisla-
ton. Property owners and operators
in realty declare that there is no such
condition. Fear Of repeated rent rails
ing and Of reprisals against tenants
moves the proponents Of the extension
bill to urge its passage. 1t would
seem possible for the Senate to dis
cover the facts and to act with JUS
tice toward both property owners and
renters. On the one hand it will be
possible, by the extension Of the law,
to hold rents at their present stage
for eight months longer, after October
%, and on the other hand it will be
possible, by refusing to extend the act.
to let the law of supply and demand
take its course, and. if there is a sur
plus Of accommodations, rents will not
rise unless a combination Of all prop
erty owners is effected to that end,
which is beyond reasonable belief.
7 There is grave doubt Of the need Of
further drastic rents regulation. There
/ is grave doubt of the possibility of
meeting again, if time permitted, the
test Of highest court review. 1t is for
the Senate to weigh these doubts when
it considers the bill tomorrow.