Evening star., 1922-08-24
RENT ACT IS HELD
.N0N-RETR0ACTVE
Board Has No Power to Alter
Contracts Antedating
October 22, 1919.
OPINION HANDED DOWN
Commissioners Had Heretofore Dis
agreed on Point, Resulting in
Confusion With Public.
OPINION HANDED DOWN

Tne-District Rent Commission to-
day announced that it has no power
to fix rents in cases where landlords
and tenants have entered into rental
agreements, through leases executed
prior to establishment Of the COM
mission.
In an explanatory decision the
commission ruled that the terms OF
the Ball act do not specify that its
provisions shall be retroactive. and
that in the absence of direct wording
in this respect 1t is to be presumed
that Congress meant for the law to
be prospective" only.
The determination will prevent
landlords and tenants who signed
leases prior to October %. 1919, the
date of approval of the rents act,
from petitioning the Rent Commission
for adjustment of rents until the
lease has expired according to con-
tract.
Commissioners Disagreed.
Today's announcement dispelled
certain amount of confusion which
had existed in rental circles since
a disagreement over this point
among the Commissioners them
selves some months ago. One of the
Commissioners originally held that
the Ball act could not be construed
as operating retroactively. but the
two other members maintained diff
ferently, and it is understood that
number of determinations have
heen handed down in the past under
the majority opinion. Hereafter the
procedure in all such cases Will be
to dismiss the petitions for adjust
ment of rents.
The ruling was made in the case OF
Isador Reichman. who filed a com
platnt on May 13 against his land
lords, Israel S. and Mary A, Miller. al.
Iepine that the rent of $275 a month
reouired of him for the business prop
erty SOL H street northeast was
unreasonable The commission found
that Reichman signed a lease agree
ing to pay this rental on September
10. 1918, more than a month before
the Ball act went into effect.
Points Of Ruling.
Interesting points in the ruling fol-
low:
Upon consideration. the commis-
sion is of the opinion that it is With
out authority to modify leases en-
tered into by the parties thereto
prior to the approval of said food
control and the District of Columbia
rents act. It is not q question of the
mower Of Congress to authorize the
commission to pass upon such leases;
the sole question Is whether the po"
er has been exercised.
an a matter involving such a de-
parture from pre-existing usage, It is
rea sonable to presume that II Con
rress had intended to confer, upon the
leases already in existence at the
time the said food control and the
district of Columbia rents act was
nassed, such intention would have
heen expressed in clear and unmls-
taxable terms. instead Of being lett
construction.
Declared Ancient Maxim.
.Ik is q maxim which is said to be
| as ahcient, as the law itself that a
new law ought to be prospective, not
retrospective In its operation.
ALTHOUGH the legislature may have
the power to enact retrospective laws,
a construction which gives to a stat
ute a retroactive operation is not
| favored, and such effect will not be
given unless 1t 10 distinctly expressed
or clearly and necessarily implied
that the statute IL to have a retro
active effect. Ehere Is always q pre-
sumption that statutes are Intended to
operate prospectively> only, and words
ought not to have retrospective
operation unless they are SO clear,
strong and imperative that no other
meaning can be annexed to them, or
unless the intention Of the legisla ture
cannot be\otherwise satisfied. Every
reasonable doubt IL resolved against a
retroactive operation Of q statute.
"It therefore follows that said COM
-l.iux nAoaild hA auA !. ~ Easrx,..s a