The Washington times., 1925-07-06
MANDAN()S
AGAINS I
D. c. IS
DENIED
Justice Bailey Holds Rulings
of Commission Are Not
Unreasonable

The coming law of the District
was today declared to be constitu-
tional by Justice Bailey of the
District Supreme Court, who also
held that the regulations of the
coming commission as to the To-
eating of business houses in resi-
Dental sections sre neither "arbi-
trary nor unreasonable"
The court denied the petition of
Mrs. Annie Sherman for q man
damus against Colonel John w.
Oehmann, building inspector, the.
s District Commissioners and the
Zoning Commission to compel the
issuance of a permit 70 snalei
alterations to premises att 1855
$500 Columbia road 50 tlat the
property could be used for bust!
ness purposes.
In Police Power Of ID. c.
Justice Bailey, in his opinion.
said in part:
''In my opinion the coming law IS
within the constitutional power o.
Congress being included in the
police power as defined by the SE-
preme Court in Chicago. Burlington
and Quincy Railway Company VS..
Drainage Commissioners 200 u. s.,
561, where the court said:
We hold that the police power
pf State embraces regulation for
design to promote the public con-
venience or the general prosper-J,
az well as regulations designed TO
promote the public health, the pub
lie morals. or the public safety
1.-THE particular provision OK the
coming regulations attacked in this
case. those prohibiting business
houses In residential sections, are
in my opinion designed to promote
the public convenience as well as
the public health and safety and
this / find to be the case both as a
matter of common knowledge and
from the testimony introduced by
the defendant. There seemc to be
nothing arbitrary or unreasonable
in this limitation on the use of prop
erty in resident sections or in the
particular section in which realtors
property lies.
May Work Injustice.
81 think. too, that the effec. OF the
decision in Hadarcheck VS.. Sebastian
2S9 L. S. 1874 is to sustain the
power Of the legislature to prohibit
the conduct of any business in a
Residential, neighborhood as being in
the nature of a nuisance in such a
location.
ut may be true that the coming
law or the zoning regulations may.
a. general laws usually do, work
an Injustice in particular instances,
but they are not unconstitutional
for that reason. 1t. is true, toe,
that there might be some form of
business which might be conducted
In REALTORS property without IN
jury to the public convenience or
health or morals. but where the
general policy of the law is within
the powers of the legislature 1T is
also within it's powers to determine
the questions of fact upon which
Its legislation is based and to pre-
scribe general rules designed 10
carry out it's purpose. and where
there Is nothing arbitrary or un-
reasonable in it's determination of
those facts the courts are bound
by its acts.
Besides, in the instant case a
relator in her petition does not
state the particular business for
which she intends to use her prop
erty and even IL the question were
material the court cannot de-
termlne whether the particular use
AWould or would not be a detriment
others in the particular neighbor-
mood. This commission is alone suf
Ilclent, i think. to bar relator from
the relief asked.
results therefore that the
application for a writ of mandamus
VIII be denied and the petition dis
missed"