The Washington herald., 1921-05-01
ny MARK SULLIVAN.

/
decision handed down by the Su,
pfeme Court last week has brought
that decision to q point where Il
enGaees the attention Of constitu.
tional lawyers and public men more
fully than any subject Of mere iegis'
lation. Your correspondent 10 as
sured that the discussion will quick.
ly spread throughout the country.
Both those who like the decision
and those who dislike IL intensely
agree that its Importance is ex'
treme. Apparently II was only be
cause OF accidental circumstance
that the decision failed to make a
the moment 1t was handed down the
sensation which many serious law
yers say II will make as soon as the
lawyers, judges, editors and Other
commentators, Of the. country are
aware OF its direct present effects or
the Constitution and its implications
as to the future.
Expresses Dissent.
The assertion that the effect OF
the DECISION on the Constitution OF
the United States is sensational
does not rest merely on the consti-
tuttonal lawyers here in Washing
ton who are now saying It. Grounds
to Justify their description of 1t as
sensational are to be found In the
words of one of the court itself.
Justice McKenna, who was strongly
opposed to the decision made by the
ma jority of the court and who
handed down the dissenting opinion,
in thSt dissenting opinion repeatedly
uttered words of alarm at the enect
Of the decision on the sanctity Of
the Constitution and its implications
for the future.
That Justice McKenna was deeply
moved Is readily to be'seen from an
examination of his words. Several
local students OF the Constitution
who are now discussing the decision
say that II ranks in fundamental i'm
portance with any decision ever
handed down by the Supreme Court,
and that its effects on the heart OF
the Constitution, as written in the
beginning. are as far-reaching as
any of the courts most history
making decisions.
Stated as simply as possible ana
with a due warning to the reader
Of the limitations involved in giving
mere extracts from a decision ana
paraphrasing its spirit. I've case was
this:
Congress during the war passed a
law applying to the District Of CO.
lumbia known as the rent law.
Stated roughly. II provided that a
landlord cannot get his property
back from a tenant at the end OF
his lease II the tenant Is willing to
go on paying the same rent. A
similar law was passed by New
York state applicable TO New York
City.
The laws were obviously contrary
to the normal sanctity of contracts
However. they were passed, and
many tenants, both in New York
and in Washington. took advantage
Of them. A multitude of suits
arose. In the lower courts the laws
were quickly declared unconstitu-
tional. But in due course two OF
the suits, one from New York anc
one from Washington. were united
and carried up to the Supreme
Court. II Is the decision in thes>
two cases which is now described
as so sensational.
This present decision by the su-
preme Court upholds the law and
decides that the landlord cannot
eject his tenant at the termination
of the lease. The court was divided
on lines of FIVE tn four. The justices
who decided in favor Of the law are
Holmes. Day. Pitney. Brandeis and
Clark. the decision being written
by Holmes.