Evening star., 1923-03-05
BALL rent LAW
MAY BLOCK B. & Q.
IN PLAZA. DISPUTE
Effort of Railroad to Regain
Government Hotel Site
Likely to Be FoiIed.
U. S. HAS RIGHT ALSO
TO. REFUSE TO BE SUED
Many Technicalities Involved.
Cooperation Believed Barred From
Eviction at Least Until 1924.

Despite the failure Of Congress to
authorize the President to negotiate
with the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
Company for use of the government
hotels site on the Union station plaza
for another year. present rent laws OF
the District may operate to prevent
the railroad company from obtaining
possession of the hotels site, with re-
sulting eviction Of hundreds Of wom-
en- employed in federal departments,
it was learned from authoritative
sources today.
According to informal opinion ex-
pressed by A. Leftwich Sinclair,
chairman Of the District Rent Com
mission. the United States govern
ment apparently is in a position to
block effectuaHy any attempt of the
Baltimore and Ohio officials to regain
possession of the land leased to the
government, merely by refusing to
give. consent to being sued in the
courts over the matter.
U. 8. Can Refuse.
Under the law. Chairman Sinclair
said, the government cannot be
brought into court as a party in such
a proceeding without its consent.
Possibility. he pointed out, of its CIV
Ing consent appears remote. in view
OF the unbroken record of the past
against being hailed into court. The
Rent Commission, he said, some
months ago. was forced to dismiss
several petitions for rent reduction.
brought against the Interior depart
ment by tenants of government own
cause the government exercised its
prerogative of refusing to be brought
Into the proceedings.
Even though the government should
break precedent and consent to being
made party to landlord and tenant
action in the Municipal Court the
Baltimore and Ohio company may
have to buck up against the rigid pro-
visions of the Ball rent act, Mr.. Sim
clair believes.
Rent Law May. STEP In.
The company, in order to gain pos
session under this act. which expires
by Limitation in 1924, would have to
show that 1t wanted the property for
Its own. occupancy or that 1t desired
to make material repairs or altera-
tions to the property or that it in
tends to raze the buildings to make
way for other structures. Unless
there exists specific contract be-
tween the company and the govern
ment giving the latter the right to
tngs would be construed under the
law as being part of the real estate
owned by the railroad company.
1t is the general understanding that
the railroad company does. not con-
template occupying the property, re-
pairing the buildings or erecting new
ones in their place.
Status of Hotels in Doubt.
There are a number Of technical
legal problems involved in the matter
which only can be decided in the
courts, 1t appears. For example, the
railroad company may claim that
the government hotels are, in fact.
bona-fide hotels, and as such exempt
from the provisions of the Ball act.
The government, on the contrary.
may contend that they are apart
ments. apartment-hotels or boarding
houses, and not, within the meaning
OF the Ball law, transient hotels.
Further, the RAILROAD company may
claim that the dormitories are not
operated by the United States gov
ernment, hut by corporation, viz,
the United States Housing Corpora
tion. The governments answer to
this probably would be that the hous-
ing corporation Is a part of the De-
partment of Labor and. therefore. ac-
tually q part of the United States
government
The railroad company. it was point
ed out today by Chairman Sinclair
of the Rent Commission, could not
institute eviction proceedings direct
ly against the women occupying the
hotels. The tenant Of the company,
under the Ball law, is the party to
whom property is leased and from
whom rent Is received. The women
are subtenants. and their landlord,
CONTINUED on Page 2, Column g.