Evening star., 1924-11-03
Supreme Court Opinion in
May Leaves No Constitu-
tionaI Basis for Act, JUS
tice Robb Holds.
DUTY PLAIN FOLLOWING
THAT FINDING, HE SAYS
Statute Still May Be Made Perma-
nent If Conditions Which it Was
Originally Intended to Meet Can
Be Proved to Exist in Capital
Today, Verdict.


Be Proved to Exist in Capital
Today, Verdict.
There is no housing emergency
in Washington and after the United
States Supreme Court had decided
the passing of the emergency in the
Chastelton opinion last April there
was no constitutional basis for the
legislation by which Congress, May
II last, purported to continue the
Ball rent law in force for another
year"
This is the purport of the opinion
OF the District Court OF Appeals
rendered today by Justice Charles
n. Robb, in which the decision OF
Judge Mattingly of the Municipal
Court, in the case of Peck VS.. Fink
was reversed, and the cause re-
manded for further proceedings.
Judge Mattingly had held the Ball
rent act to be in force. A writ OF
error had been allowed from that
ruling
Justice Robb points out that this
| legislation intended to meet q tenn
porary emergency" has already been
extended for more than years and
If the emergency is not at an end
may be continued indefinitely and
may become permanent law. He de-
! clares the opinion of the United
, States Supreme Court in the Chastie-
ton case is so clear that it must be
taken as an authoritative declaration
by the highest tribunal that the
emergency has ceased to exist at the
date of that opinion upon facts
known judicially to the court.
The plain duty of the Court of
Appeals, Justice Robb says, is to ap-
ply the opinion of the United States
! Supreme Court to the case at bar as
that opinion is so clear and direct
as to leave no room for doubt as to
its meaning"
Emergency at End.
In reference to the recent exten-
sion by Congress of the Ball rent
law Justice Robb states: While it
is true that after such declaration
by the United States Supreme Court
on May i. 1924, Congress pur-
ported to continue the legislation in
force for another year, there was no
constitutional basis for the legisla-
ton, the Supreme Court having de-
clared the emergency at an end upon
facts judically known to the court"
In the course of his opinion Jus
tice Robb says:
! This writ of error of the Munici-
| pal Court of the District of Columbia
! involves the question whether the
! emergency giving rise to the enact
| ment of the so-called rent law of the
! District still existed on May ,, 1924.
! the date of determination by the
| Rent Commission reducing the agreed
! rental of the premises in question.
/ ION May /, 1922, the plaintiff in
! error leased to the defendant in err
ror the premises involved at an
agreed monthly rental, payable in
. advance. On November 19, 1928, de-
! fendant in error filed complaint
| with the Rent Commission for an
adjustment of rent. Hearing was
I had in March following, and on May
/ ., 1924 the commission announced its
! finding. Meanwhile, the Supreme
/ Court of the United States had an
! nounced it's decision in the case of
/ the Chastleton Corporation VS.. SIN
! clair. 264 U. S. 543. and plaintiff in
! error contending that the finding of
! the Rent Commission was "A nullity,
| served notice upon defendant in err
Uses by reason of his failure to pay
! the agreed rent.
| Precedents Cited.
! THE life of the original rent law
| of October %, 1919. was limited to
| two years. In Block VS.. Hirsh $50
! u. S. 1876, the constitutionalty of that
act was upheld because as states in
! Pennsylvania Coal Company VS.. Ma
! hon, 26O L.. S. 393, it dealt with the
congestion of the City of Washington
resulting from the war, although the
act went to. the verge of the law.
The opinion in the coal company case
was announced in December. 1922.
| The act of August "a, 1921, purported
to continue the rent law in force,
with some amendments, until May %.
| 1922. On the latter date there was d
! further declaration by Congress of
/ the continued existence of the emer-
! gency giving rise to the original act
! which, with further amendments, was
| extended until May. 1924. The deci-
sion of the Supreme Court in the
Chastleton case was announced April
/ 81, 1924. On the 18th of May, 1924,
! Congress purported to continue the
rent law in force until May %, 1925.
1t thus appears that this emergency
! legislation, originally limited to ex-
! pire in 1921, has been prolonged by
| successive extensions until the mid
die of 1925, a period of more than
five and one-half years"
Reverses High Court Opinion.
Justice Robb then reviews the opin-
ion of the United States Supreme
Court in the Chastleton case, and
adds:
The court then declared that it was
not necessary to inquire how far it
might go in deciding the question of
| the passing of the emergency for
| itself, on the principles enunciated in
| certain cited cases, adding, These
| cases show that the court may as
certain as it sees fit any fact that is
merely a ground for laying down a
rule of law, and if the question were
merely whether the statute IS in force
! today upon the facts that we judi
cially know We should be compelled
| to say that the law has ceased to
J operate Inasmuch as the case before
! the court involves conditions in
| Washi eton at different dates in the