Evening star., 1935-05-12

Il
| ing shortage.
The 1890 census gave the Dis
trict a population of 486.869, and
rough estimates Of the city's
population today place 1t in the
neighborhood of $4,000, an in
| crease of about per cent.
upon the Ball rent act, creating the
Rent Commission. to hear and deter
mine rent complaints. Although based
on the emergency Of the World War
and originally limited to two years,
the Ball law was continued by Con-
gress from time to time and did not
finally pass out of existence until
May, 1925, nearly six years after the
war had ended.
The main feature Of the Salisbury
resolution, namely, that tenant could
retain possession regardless Of the
terms of any lease or contract as long
as he paid the rent, was carried over
and made part of the Ball rent act.
The only difference was that after
October, 1919, the tenant was subject
to any modification in rent ordered
by the Rent Commission, but, as be-
fore, he could only be evicted II the
bona fide owner wanted to occupy
the house himself.
Long Series Of Court Fights.
The whole period of this emergency
rent legislation was marked by a
long series of court fights between
landlords and tenants. Before the
Ball act was placed on the statute
books. the legality of the Salisbury
resolution had been challenged in
court, and in December. 1919. the
District Court of Appeals held the
resolution unconstitutional In an
opinion by Justice Robb, the court
held it not only deprived citizen OF
property without compensation, but
was not uniform because it affected
in one way property already under
lease, and in another way property
not under lease. The Constitution
is not superseded by a declaration Of
war. the Appellate Court declared
This decision, however, involved the
separate resolution, which was about
to expire, and the identical provision
had just been re-enacted by Congress
as part of the Ball Rent Commission
measure
Then began a series of court at
tacks on the Ball act, in the course
of which the issue twice reached the
United States Supreme Court. In
June. 1920, the Court of Appeals held
the Pail law unconstitutional, as I
previously had done regarding the
Salisbury resolution. Ten months
later, In April, 1921, the United States
Supreme Court. by five to four de-
cision, reversed the appellate tribunal
and sustained the Ball act. The ma
jority opinion. rendered by former
Justice Holmes, contended that the
laws Of eminent domain and those
conveying police powers, justified re-
striction OF property rights without
compensation in cases of public emer-
gency.
The minority argued that the Con-
stitution bars such a statute in specific
terms. They also cited the prohibition
against any State adopting a law i'm
pairing the obligations of contracts.
Commission Extended.
The two-year life of the Rent Com
mission was drawing toward a close,
but Congress, in August, 1921, ex-
tended its existence until May. 1922.
Before that date rolled around, how
ever, Congress again breathed new
life into it, prolonging its existence
for two more years and enlarging it
frnry, fhrna fn 6,yo
made the date Of expiration May,
1924.
In April, 1924. another case involv-
ing the legality Of the law came up for
decision in the United States Supreme
Court. just three years after the 5-to-
4 decision. The highest court sent
this suit back to the District Supreme
Court for trial on its merits. holding
that it was necessary to develop the
facts as to the emergency existing
before it could act on the question Of
constitutionality.
While the constitutionality was not
decided as to that case, the highest
court. nevertheless, stated that eff
the question were only whether the
statute is in force today upon the
facts that we judicially know, we
should be compelled to say that the
law has ceased to operate. Here
however, it is material to know the
conditions Of Washington at different
dates in the past"
Although the court had indicated
plainly that it regarded the emer-
gency as having passed at that time,
Congress one week later again ex-
tended the life of the Rent Commits
sion for another year, or until May
"a. 1925.
New Suits Filed.
Meanwhile, new suits were con-
stantly being filed in the courts, and
in November. 1924. another of these
test cases reached the District Court
of Appeals. Taking notice of what
the supreme tribunal had said the
previous April. the Appellate Court
held there was no longer q housing
emergency In Washington. and that
after the Supreme Court had spoken
in April. there was no constitutional
basis for the action Congress had sub
sequently taken In extending the rent
law for another year.
In that decision Justice Robb point
ed out that the rent law, intended to
meet q temporary emergency had
already been extended for more than
five years. He declared the opinion
Of the Supreme Court in April of
that year was SO clear that it must
be taken as an authoritative declara-
ton by the highest tribunal that the
emergency ceased to exist at the date
Of that opinion upon facts known ju-
dicially to the court.
Although the Rent Commission re-
manned nominally in existence for
six months thereafter. until May AZ.