Evening star., 1924-05-10

the rent commission ana dIo not Wish
10 nave that body adjudicate the Ques-
tion of his rentals all he would have
TO do would be to make application
to the District Supreme Court for a
temporary injunction. 1t is a custom
of the court that when one of the
justices has passed on matter that
contrary view will not be taken by
another member of the court prior to
a final decision by the Court of Ap-
peals on the question.
ThiS, OF course, will tend to virtually
nullify the rent commission pending
final decision of the case.
Rent Board Confident.
I'VE have just begun to fight" said
Mr.. Brown this morning. He ex-
pressed confidence of winning in the
final decision of the case, contendinE
that the government, through the
courts, must either recognize that an
emergency exists in housing by con-
tinuing the rent commission, or rec
ognizing it through legislative action
to increase the pay of its employees
to meet the rentals. There are plenty
OF apartments for rent he claimed,
but the rent is far above the ability
OF the tenants to pay.
The commission of course, respects
the court, and will cease action in
the Warren case, but it does not take
the injunction IN In1S case as d gen -
eral prohibition against the consider
alton of other cases before it or to
come before it.
Mr.. Brown is confident of winning
in the final decision of the case. even
II it has to 90 aEainato the Supreme
Court of the United States. There Is
an emergency in housing, he con-
tends, and the government, through
the courts, either wilI'have to recog-
nize it by leaving the rent commits
sion to function, or recognize it in
its executive and legislative branches
by providing Increased pay for its
employees in order. to meet the cost
OF housing which is away beyond
their reach now.
Cannot Pay Rentals.
There are pIenty of houses and
apartments at very high rentals, he
says, but the average government
servant and pensioners who are here
cannot live in these, because they
cannot meet. the rental charges So,
he contends, If, the government cannot
recognize the emergency existing in
this way, it can wipe it out, by in
creaSlng the salaries of it's employees
and thus increasing the cost of gov
eminent and"taxes, so that the land
lords may get il.
AS an illustration of the situation
wi. Drown clleu the case or Harry
Norment and Charles Linkens against
the tenant A. Bowen. a penstoner.
which case was argued yesterday, and
In which the court did not issue a
temporary Injunction. This tenant,
1t was shown, originally rented the
house at SIS a month, leaving him
$50 month from his pension on
which to live. He admitted to the
court that he could live on this, but
that now it was impossible, since the
month This was the first case con-
s1dered by the court yesterday but
the court did not issue q restraining
order or injunction against the COM
mission in II. In view of the fact
that the court did not issue an order
OF prohibition against the commits
sion, Mr.. Brown said that the COM
mission would not feel compelled to
cease until the question Of whether
an emergency did exist is answered
in its fnality.
ComMission Restrained.
TO keep the Rent Commission from
functioning, it is Mr.. Browns con-
tention, there should be issued a writ
OF prohibition. in. view of the fact
that the commission is a quasi Judi
cial body-in fact, the courts them
selves have not determined in what
fclass to place the commission. The
injun ction restraints the commission
but does not enjoin the Iitigants in
the case.
The court has indicated by issuing
injunctions, in one or two cases that
il is not the intention to issue it in
all cases where injunctions are asked.
For this reason the commission does
not take it that the Injunction will
be general, and will prevent the COM
mission from acting only in the par
ticular cases in which the injunctions
are issued.
Tf <ba Dant ro-a,;ee;1n - , ;,.l:.:,
body. said Mr.. Brown. who added that
the Supreme Court is not clear as to
what it is, it can only be prevented
from functioning by a writ of prohi-
bition. In the Warren case none, of
the tenants was made parties, and,
therefore, it is contended that the in
junction is not the proper remedy to
be applied for.
The present situation, MIR. Brown
said further. Is almost parallel to.
previous one, where the Court of Ap-.
peals held the rent act to be un-
constitu tionaI, and where "the Su-
prenne Court OF the District of Co.
lumbia issued, injunction after in
sion. which suits were finally decided
in favor of the Rent Commission.
During all the period that these in
functions were in force the Rent
Commission continued to function in
all cases brought before it. and 50 it
will while the matters at issue now
are being considered.
Emerxency Whole Issue.
The CASE at issue, of course, wraps
ITSELF around the question Of whether
An emergency, on account or which
the original law was passed, still
exists, it was pointed out
The Supreme Court of the United
States has pointed out in the Chastle-
ton case that this is the question.
re nfrt n cd