Evening star., 1924-03-12
RENTLAW ARGUED
IN SUPREME COURT
ChastIeton Apartments Suit
Disputes Constitutionality
of Commissions Operation.

the United states. oupi Sii0
the case testing the constitutionaiitS
of the District of Columbia rent law
brought by the Chastleton apart
rnents and other appellants, agains'
the rent commissioners. w. GwSnh
Gardiner is attorney for the appel
lants. Chaplin Brown, counsel lot 'he
rent commission. and Robert H. NC
Neill, for other appellents, were the
attorneys OF record.
The case came up upon an appear
allowed by the Court of Appeals OF
the District of Columbia to review a
judgment of that court, which 1udg-
ment affirmed judgment of the Su-
preme Court of the District of CO.
lumbia that the bill of the appel
Iants should be dismissed. The origI-
nal proceeding was begun by the ap-
pellants by a bill in equity. tted III
the Supreme Court of the District OF
Columbia October 81. 1922. -..
Appellees filed a motion to disHniss
the bill, and the motion was Eran1 60
by the, court November l6. 1922. The
appellants appealed from this action
of the lower court to the Court OF
Appeals of the District of Columbia,
which affirmed the action of the lower
Commission Held Unnecessary.
In their argument the appellants
insisted there was no emergency or
shortage of housing conditions exist
ing in the District OF Columbia at
the time of the passage of the act
time of the hearing before the Rent
Commission in the case before The
court, nor at the time of the filing of
the bill in equity in TINS case. .
Counsel in its brief declares 1T is
most respectfully submitted that
Congress has no power to regulate
and control the use of private prop
erty in the matter in which It has at
tempted to do in the act before the
court. and since no emergency exists
and there is no shortage of houses
and no shortage of apartments, the
right TO control is contrary TO the
provisions of the Constitution Of the
United States, and is, therefore, void
at is most respectfully submitted
that from the record IN this case the
court will find that the housing con
dition in Washington is not such as
endangers the public health, the
and is, therefore, not within the
police power. and cannot be supported
under the Constitution of the United
States.
Rnises Three Questions.
Counsel Tor the Rent Commission
and other appellees said that three
questions of law are presented for
decision on this appeal:
First: Is the amendment of May
%. 1929, to the rent act of october
%. 1919, constitutional and valid:
Second: If the said act tamend-
rnent of MAY %, 1929 is constitutional
and valid. does the provision for ap-
peal from its determination OF the
Rent Commission to the supreme
Court of the District OF Columbia. in
!
of law provision of the Constitution n
of the United States--fifth amend :
ment-and all other provisions OF the
Constitution?
Third. If the act tainendnnent OF
May %, 1929 is constitutional and
valid, is il service of process upon, or
notice to, the so-called rental agent
sufficient 10 give the Rent CommiS-
sion the jurisdiction. power or au-
thority to fix. or. in the language of
the statute. make a determination
of rents of rental property and apart
Inents? r,.s.,
considering the second of the above
~ stated as follows: Does the provi-
sion in the act for appeal from n de
termination of the Rent Commission
to the Supreme Court of the District
of Columbiaf in general term satisfy
the PROVISIONS of the fifth amend
ment of the United States Constitu-
tion2" ).
Decisions Are Cited.
'"I'hree decisions of the Court of
Appeals in constituting the language
of the rent statute to mean that the
provision for appeal therein from the
determination of the Rent ComE-is-
sion satisfies the due process c.aLSs'
and other provisions of the NTH
amendment, are plainly in conformity
with and supported by the decision
of this Supreme Court in the case Of
Block VS.. Hirsh. 256 L. S., 135. where
in at page 15S this court speaking
through Mr.. Justice Holmes, says:
The statute is objected to on the
further ground that landlords and
tenants are deprived by it of tria |
the land II the power of the COM
mission by statute to regulate the
relation is established. as we think
it is, by what we have said. this OBJ
lection amounts to little. To regu-
fate the relation and TO decide the
facts affecting it are hardly separa-
bile. While the act is in force there
is little to decide except whether the
rent allowed is reasonable. and upon
that question the courts are given
the last word
Contention Is Disputed.
at is the contention of appellants
that because they allege in their bill
of complaint that 10 emergency ex-
lists, the defendants are bound by
such allegation, and that a demurrer
to Cor motion to dismiss) the bill of
complaint, admits the truth of such
allegation in the bill of complaint
But il is respectfully submitted that
such an allegation is only a conclu-
sion. and that a demurrer. or motion
to dismiss, admits only allegations
we'll pleaded. Such allegations can
not overcome the solemn determina- =
ton of the Congress that an emer-
gency. does exist Omitted States VS..
Des Moines Navigation & r. Co., 142
L. s., SOD.
1T is unnecessary for me to cloud
the issue in this case, or confuse the
law. by. the citation OF authorities
other than the case of Edgar A Levy
Leasing Company VS.. Siegel, 25S L. S.
242
The next above cited case involved
the conStitutionality of a law of the
state of New York relating to the
rental and housing conditions of the
that state, passed subsequent to the
close of the world war. The constitu-
tionality of that law was sustained
by this court in the above cited case
and the principles of law establishes
in that case govern the law of the
case at bar
cit is respectfully submitted that the
judgment of the Court of Appeals of
the District of Columbia should be af-
frmed.'
EX-WIFE OF Angler DUKE