Evening star., 1925-04-28
LEGAL BATTLE ON
OVER zON|NG LAW
Columbia Road Owner Tells
Court Her Property's Earn
ing Power Is Cut.

Arguments in support of and against
the constitutionality Of the zoning law
were made by counsel before Justice
Bailey of the District Supreme Court
today in the suit brought by Mrs. An
ME Sherman to compel the building
inspector to permit her to equip her
property at 16565S and 1900 Columbia
road for business purposes The prop
ertY in question has been zoned resi-
Dental by the Zoning Commission.
In lengthy attack on the constitu-
uonality of the law. Attorney Edmund
Campbell contended that the regula.
ton of the Zoning Commission which
torbids stores on all streets that have
been Zoned residential is unconstitu-
tional and cannot be based on the po
lice power as being for the protection
of health, safety, morals and public
welfare.
Mr.. Campbell was followed by Assist
ant Corporation Counsel James c.
Wilkes, who cited cases in support of
his contention that the zoning law is
constitutional.
The assistant corporation counsel
was supported in the arguments by
Edward NJ. Bassett, a legal expert on
of the court in the arguments
Earning Power Cut.
Attorney Campbell declared in sum-
ming up Mrs. Steerman's case as fol-
lows: First, that the zoning law has
deprived her of an essential use of her
property: second. that such restriC-
ton cannot be justified except under
the police power: third. that it is not
a proper exercise of the police power
to say that all stores are a menace
to the health and safety of a residen-
tial street.
Attorney Campbell said that such
a restriction undoubtedly would bene-
fit a residential section and tend TO
beautify Washington. A regulation
limiting the property rights of an
individual, however, cannot be based
on such a consideration, he contended
Restrictions intended to benefit or
beautify the city, he said, fall under
the heading of eminent domain, which
provides for the taking of property
for the public welfare and making
payment for II.
Denies Store is Nuisance.
Some particular store. after it has
been established. may become a
menace to the public health or safety
by the manner in which 1t is con-
Quoted. Mr.. Campbell said. But he
argued that simply because they are
stores they cannot be held to be
nuiSanceS.
Mr.. Campbell cited court decisions
in various states to support his ar
gument that the zoning regulation
prohibiting stores on residential
streets, and based on. police power,
are in violation of the fifth amend
ment to the Constitution, intended
to prevent the taking of property
without just compensation or due
process of law.
In opening his arguments for the
Zoning Commission Assistant Corpor-
alton Counsel Wilkes said that when
the case was first brought before him
he asked himsef the question whether
coming is a new-fangled attempt to
exercise the police. power or whether
1t Is valid. In trying to analyze the
question, he said, he compared it with
other well defined instances of the ex-
ercise of police power. He cited the
regulation forbidding the erection of
frame dwelling within the fire limits,
which, he said, takes away some of
the property owners rights. He next
cited the regulation against the erec-
tion of a dwelling unless there is a
sewer system to be connected with 1t.
Both, he said, are valid police regula-
tions.
Is Modern Need.
Mr.. Wilkes declared that back in
the days when the Constitution was
adopted either one of the regulations
he cited probably would have been re-
garded as unconstitutional, but that
they are not so regarded today. At
some time since the adoption of the
Constitution, he said, there came a
period when the regulations he cited
were construed to be constitutional,
and he contended that that period has
now been reached in zoning.
Corporation Counsel Stephens in
troduced Mr.. Bassett, who was
brought to Washington to aid in the
CONTINUED or Page 4, Column 81