Evening star., 1935-05-12
Proposal No,o Pending
in House Is Based on
Emergency.
Present Situation Is
Hardly Comparable to
Congestion of 1913.
BY J. A. OLEARY.

BY J. A. OTEARY.
The present move 70 fix or control
rents in Washington BY law recalls
the trying period the District passed
through from 1918 to 1925. when the
World War emergency leo to the es-
tablishment of a temporary" Rent
Commission that continued for more
than five years. while Congress
threatened to enact other more dras-
tic laws.
Just as the rental legislation of
1918 was based on an emergency
growing out of the World War" the
proposals now pending in the House
are based on the presumption that a
new emergency exists, growing out Of
the war against the depression"
While the creation of new govern
mental agencies since March 4, 1888,
has brought large nImber Of tenn
porary employees to Washington. the
present housing situation is hardly
comparable to the congestion of 1918,
which caused Congress to declare an
emergency justifying the setting aside
of private contracts between land
lords and tenants, and creating a
Rent Commission.
Study Held Appropriate.
Before considering revival of those
drastic wartime restrictions, there
fore, it would seem appropriate for
| Congress to ascertain first the extent
| of existing housing facilities here, and
compare the present figure with the
abnormal congestion that followed
| the influx Of war workers in 1918,
when even the renting Of rooms in
private homes throughout the city
hardly proved adequate to accom-
modate the new population without
serious overcrowding.
The rent laws of 1918 to 1925, 1t
should be borne IN mind, resulted
from the gathering in Washington
within a short period of 100000 new
residents, at time when the normal
population Of the city was only 364,-
600. In other words. the population
Of the city was increased suddenly by
| one-third.
Notuh al boW SuO@s&hNNs
With this steady stream of new
arrivals seeking houses. apartments
or rooms. the law Of supply and de-
mand was thrown far out Of balance.
The demand far exceeded the avail
able supply Of housing With the
newcomers bidding for accommoda-
tions, the opportunity to obtain
higher rents was not confined to
owners of property, but was offered
also to lessees by subletting all or
part of properties in which they were
tenants.
Charges Of profiteering in rents be-
gan to fill the air on Capitol Hill,
and members of Congress, in trying to
prevent exorbitant increases, brought
forward drastic remedies which struck
at all property owners alike.
The Spokesmen for owners OF rental
properties did not oppose the general
objective of regulating rents during
the war emergency to keep them at
a reasonable level but some Of the
provisions that we're enacted, and
some of the plans that were con-
, stantly being advocated in Congress
were so sweeping in their terms that
for seven years landlords and tenants
were arrayed against each other be-
fore congressional committees and in
the courts.
Many Lessons Learned.
WASHINGTON learned several lessons
from its experience with emergency
rent legislation, and members Of the
present Congress should consider the
history of those prior experiments in
local rent control before re-enacting
similar legislation.
Washington learned. first, that tenn
porary, emergency laws have a ten
dency to linger on indefinitely and
are brought to an end with great diff
fculty, even after the courts have
restrained or curtailed their func-
tions.
Washington also learned that dis
cussion of such legislation leads to
the advocacy Of measures more dras-
tic and ar-reaching than would be
necessary to correct the conditions
complained Of.
The first thing Congress did. for
example, when the rent agitation be-
gan in the days of the World War,
was to pass the Salisbury resolu-
ton tafterward declared unconstitu-
tienaD, which allowed all tenants who
had been in possession Of a property
for one month or longer to continue
to occupy it without an increase in
rentals. It prevented the eviction Of
tenant as long as he paid the rent
and did not become a nuisance. As
long as those conditions were met
tenant could only be eucted if
bona fde purchaser wanted the house
for occupancy by himself or family.
Temporary Expedient.
The Salisbury resolution was an
admittedly temporary expedient. by
which Congress sought to freeze" the
rental situation as it then stood, and
to prevent evictions for the purpose
Of renting to other tenants at higher
rates, until a rent regulation law could
be drafted.
In July. 1919, eight months after
the signing of the armistice, however,
the life of the resolution was ex-
tended. Members of Congress had
started before that date discussing
rent regulation law to take the place
Of the broad, sweeping Salisbury
resolution. but the House and Senate
took widely different views as to the
form Of regulation, and it was Octo-
Der, 1913 year after the armistice-
before the Rent Commission law,
based on the war emergency, came
into existence.
For more than a year before the
Rent Commission was set up the
question had been debated and buf-
feted back and forth between House
and Senate. In the House former
Representative Ben johnson Of Ken
lucky, then chairman Of the District
Committee, started out early in 1918
by advocating bill which sought to
limit rents arbitrarily to 10 per cent
above the rates for the year ending
with September, 1916. Resorting to
the taxing power, this bill sought to
levy a 100 per cent tax on receipts
from rental property if they went
more than 10 per cent above the 1915
level.
Senate Develops Plan.