Evening star., 1954-11-22
Justices Uphold
RedeyeIopInent
In Southwest
Tribunal Removes
Doubt on Powers
To TokeIL Lund Title
By Robert K. Welsh

The Supreme Court, in an 3.
too decision today upheld con-
stitutionality of the District Re-
development Act of 1945.
The opinion upheld a judg-
ment by a three Judge Federal
court panel here last November.
But. as written by Justice Doug
las, it apparently went farther
than did the lower court in re-
moving doubt as to limitations
on the proposed redevelopment
of the so-called Area B project
in Southwest Washington.
1.-The District Court indicated
grave doubts concerning the Dis
trict Redevelopment Land Agen-
cy's right to take full title to
the land as distinguished from
the Objectionable buildings To-
Gated ON it" Justice Douglas
wrote. I'VE do not share those
doubts.
Ruled Function of Agency.
"If the agency considers 1t
necessary in carrying out the
redevelopment project to take
full title to the real property
involved, it may do so. 1t is not
for the courts to determine
whether it is necessary for sue
ceSstul consummation Of the
project that unsafe, unsightly or
insanitary buildings alone be
taken or whether title to the
land be included. anymore than
it is the function of the courts
to sort and choose among the
various parcels selected for con-
demnation.
The Supreme Courts decision
today comes only a month after
oral arguments were heard on
the case challenging constitu-
tionality of the 1945 act under
which the Southwest slum clear
ance and redevelopment program
were projected.
The case was brought to the
high court on behalf Of the
estate of the late Max r Morris,
who owned a small department
store at 712 Fourth street S.W.
The store is slated for seizure
along with other properties as
part of the Area B program.
Explains Provisions.
After explaining in detail the
provisions of the 1945 law and
the contentious raised by at
torneys for the store property,
Justice Douglas noted that:
"The power of Congress over
the District of Columbia in
cludeS all the legislative powers
which state may exercise over
its affairs. We deal. in other
words, with what traditionally
has been known as the police
power. An attempt to define its
reach or trace its outer limits
is fruitless, for each case must
turn on its own facts. The
definition is essentially the
product of legislative determina-
ton addressed to the purposes
of Government, purposes neither
abstractly nor historically cap
able of complete definition.
Subject to specific constitu-
tional limitations, when the
legislature has spoken the pub
lie interest has been declared in
terms well-nigh conclusive. In
such cases the legislature, not
the judiciary. is the main guard
ian of the public needs to be
served by social legislation,
whether it be Congress legislat-~
ing concerning the District Of
Columbia or the States legislat.
ing concerning local affairs"
Won't Rule on Desirability.
Justice Douglas declared that
the Supreme Court will not deter.
mine whether particular hous-
ing project is or is not desirable
THE concept of the public
welfare is broad and inclusive"
he continued. "The values Il
represents gre spiritual as well as
physical, asthetic as well as mon
etary. 1t is within the power Of
the legislature to determine that
the community should be beauti-
ful as well as healthy. spacious as
well as clean, well balanced as
iSee SOIITHWEST pana AoA