Evening star., 1924-06-06
RENT BOARD FIGHTS
PLEA FOR INJUNCTION
Asks Court to Dismiss Linkins'
Suit, and Disputes Validity
of Action.
BROKERS CHARGES DENIED
Housing Emergency Still Exists,
Justice Stafford Is Told.

L Justice Stafford of the District Su
preme Court today heard arguments
of counsel on the motion of the Rent
Commission to dismiss the suit
brought by George w. Linkins. real
estate broker and taxpayer, for a
blanket injunction to prevent the
commission from functioning under
the Ball rent act.
Mr.. Linkins contended in his bill
that the housing emergency is passed
and that the United States Supreme
Court took judicial notice Of its pa S.
age when rendering its decision in
the Chastleton case, in which the
court said that if it were passing
on the present conditions it would
be compelled to hold that the law
had ceased to operate"
Mr.. LinkinS also requested the court
10 prevent the officials of the District
and federal governments from using
the money of the taxpayers for the
salaries Of the Rent Commission, for
its attorney, Chaplin Brown, and for
its clerks and expenses.
The motion of the members of the
commission to dismiss the bill reads:
And now come the defendants and
move to dismiss the bill of complaint
filed in the above-entitled cause under
the provisions OF equity rule 80 of the
supreme Court of the District of Co
lumbia; and for the purpose of pre-
serving their rights on appeal under
section 1888 OF the code these de-
PENDANTS also demur to the bill OF
complaint for want of equity therein"
|. Denies Blanket Ruling.
Through Attorney Chaplin Brown.
the Rent Commission also filed an an
hn
members by Justice Stafford last Sat
urday. The answer denies that the
United States Supreme Court took
judicial notice of the passing of the
housing emergency in the Chastleton
decision, as claimed by Mr. Lfnkins.
Denial is also made of the allegation
in the Linkins bill that the commit
tees of Congress, before enacting the
joint resolution continuing the life
of the commission until May %, 1925,
did not obtain facts or testimony
from the public health service to
show that a housing emergency still
exists which required legislation in
the interest of the public health.
The commission also denies that 1t
has solicited Illegally the filing of
complaints by tenants against land
lords, as charged in the bill of Mr..
Linkins, and asserts that all it's acts
have been lawful under the Ball rent
act.
The commission admits the truth of
the allegations of the bill that Daniel
j. Donovan, auditor; James X. Lusby,
diSbursing officer of the District and
Frank White, treasurer of the United
States, VIII continue to pay their SAL
aries and expenses unless enjoined by
the court, not from any conversation
with these officials, but becaues they
are presumed to carry out the law
which provides for payment of sal
aries and expenses. The commission
- IN ~fI
payers will be injured by the pay
ment of their salaries and expenses
of administration.
Disputes Right to Interfere.
The commission also contends that
f, the court cannot prevent the rent
commission from proceeding to act
under the BAH rent act except
through. quo warranto proceedings,
under the decision of the United
Ctates Supreme Court in the Newman
case. Equity. it is held, cannot en-
join the commission from carrying
out an act of Congress even though
the act be unconstitutional and void.
The contention is made that the Lin
kins bill is framed for the purpose
of protecting his private business as
real estate broker, irrespective of
any injury to him as a taxpayer, and
it is asserted such business interests
are not to be protected by Injunction.
Attention of the court is called to
the fact, in the answer of the COM
mission, many hundreds of deter
minations by the commission under
the original Ball act which was held
constitutional by the United States
Supreme Court are still in force and
effect, and to put the commission
out of business by a blanket injunc-
ton would deprive the tenants in
those determined cases of rights al
ready accrued to them by a proceed
ing in which they are not parties.
the Municipal Court and in the Dis
trict supreme Court that would be
affected injuriously If the right to
function was taken away from the
commission. it Is asserted