left Washington and construction of apartments was undertaken, the vacant apartments increased as did the efforts of the owners and agents to rent them. This is reflected in the increasing volume of advertising, of this nature. Do you think that between $7,000 and $8,000 would have been spent in October, 1924, in this one newspaper in an effort to rent apartments unless there was a large Vacancy list.

Chart No. 2 shows the per cent of increase of items entering into the cost of living in Washington, D. C., December, 1914, to December, 1924, as published by the United States Department of Labor. The "housing" figures, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, are compiled from rental data on medium-priced houses. They do not include alley houses or high-priced apartments. This bureau reports that they made a careful study of the question and their conclusion is that while there have been many increases of even a hundred per cent or more in rents since 1914, in a great many cases where the same family has occupied a house or apartment during all of this period the increases in rents have been much more reasonable. You will notice that the line in this graph shows the increase has been 36 per

cent.

The CHAIRMAN. Do those two charts mean to show that rentals have been increased only 40 per cent in Washington?

Mr. MCKEEVER. A little less than that. The average increase in rental, according to the Department of Labor, is 36.4. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that is right?

Mr. MCKEEVER. I think, as the Department of Labor said, that there have been some increases greater than that, but I do not believe the average has been any more than that. There are many rents in this city that have never been raised. You have not heard of those, of course. You only hear of the extreme cases. It is exactly like the case of the man who makes a lot of money in oil stocks. We hear of him, but the man who loses thousands and thousands of dollars we hear nothing about.

In their use of the term "housing" the Department of Labor of course mean rentals. The department uses the term "housing" for "rents" in many cases.

In every report on living costs in Washington issued by the Department of Labor "housing" has been the lowest of any item. Why legislate and regulate the lowest item? "Furniture and furnishings are now 122.3 per cent higher than in 1914, an increase three times as great as "housing," which has increased 36.4 per cent. The only apparent reason for regulating "housing" is that the other items can not be regulated as they could move to a fair market.

The CHAIRMAN. Where did the Washington Association of Building Owners and Managers get this data?

Mr. MCKEEVER. All from the Department of Labor. Senator JONES of Washington. Do you claim they got it all from the report of the Department of Labor?

Mr. MCKEEVER. Yes, sir; every bit of it. You can check the figures. I have that report and will submit it to you before I leave here. The data are all taken from the Department of Labor figures as prepared by them.

Mr. MCKEEVER. Chart No. 3 shows the rent increase is low in Washington compared with other cities in the United States.

PERCENT OF INCREASE OF ITEMS ENTERING INTO

The CHAIRMAN. That figure of 34 per cent is included here?
Mr. MCKEEVER. This is taken from the figures of the depart-

ment.

Senator JONES of Washington. Where did you get the figures for the other cities?

Mr. MCKEEVER. They are also from the Department of Labor. These figures are from reports of the United States Department of Labor and show all cities which they publish where living costs are based on 1914. These figures are the latest published and represent the increase as of September 30, 1924, as compared with the year

1914.

Chart No. 3, entitled "Rent increase is low in Washington compared with other cities in the United States," is based on statistics published by an accredited Government bureau-the Bureau of Labor-as I have said. They do not represent opinions or sob stories. They represent facts. Study this chart. Some interesting facts are represented. Baltimore, about 40 miles away, enjoying the reputation of "a cheap place to live," has increased their rents twice as much as Washington, yet there is no hysteria in Baltimore. Perhaps the workers there are paid a living wage. If rent has increased so moderately in the District, and in spite of this there is a condition demanding legislation, why not look elsewhere to discover the thing to be legislated?

In only three cities

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Before you proceed further let me ask this question. If it is true that the average rent has increased so little in the District of Columbia as relates to the average person, then if we had rent control the average person would not be interfered with at all. Yet you know, as well as I do, that there are certain apartments here which have increased their rents not only 40 per cent, but 120 per cent and some as high as 150 per cent. Ought we not to have some control to prevent that profiteering?

Laws are not made to prevent fair and just returns from property nor to punish people who never commit crimes, but they are intended for those who are not willing to treat their neighbors as they would be treated themselves. That is the intent of the law.

Mr. MCKEEVER. A law that makes a man who is treating his tenants in a fair and just manner subject to the complaints and almost the control of one disgruntled tenant in a large apartment house, who can take the owner into court or before a rent commistion and put him to an expense ranging from $3,500 to $10,000 to defend himself before the rent commission, is certainly not a law that is fair to the just landlord.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think there ought to be some control of the person who is increasing rents 140 or 150 per cent when the average increase in only 40 per cent, as you state it?

Mr. MCKEEVER. Competition of the day will very quickly control it, as I will show you a little bit later in my statement. During the war a tenant perhaps had to pay an increase for the simple reason that he could not move; there was no place else to go at that time. But if any landlord raises his rents to-day

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). The rents were not increased during the war because the Saulsbury Act prevented it.

Mr. MCKEEVER. You perhaps lose sight of the point. The condition was that a tenant could not have moved if he wanted to, and that is the reason why you had to protect them; but to-day if any landlord raises his rent or the tenant is dissatisfied, the tenant can go elsewhere and get just as reasonable quarters.

The CHAIRMAN. If they can do that, then we need no law; but all the evidence we are receiving is to the effect that they can not do that. Mr. MCKEEVER. Will you take one day and go around the city with me and see those places that are for rent, vacant and in habitable condition at this time?

The CHAIRMAN. I spent several days doing that.

Mr. MCKEEVER. With whom did you go?

The CHAIRMAN. I went by myself.

Mr. MCKEEVER. Did you know where to go?

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes; I simply went to those places which were advertised for rent.

Senator COPELAND. Senator Ball probably knew as well as the tenant would know where to go.

The CHAIRMAN. I went to those places that were advertised, and while I would find very fine apartments for rent I did not find any reasonably priced apartments for rent. By "reasonable" I mean apartments renting for $50 or less. I found plenty of them at $75 to $100 or more. That is why we claim there is not a sufficient amount of reasonable rental property.

Representative HAMMER. The trouble about your survey, which is a Government survey, is that it was conducted by your body that was not truly representative; that is, it is composed, on the figures furnished by you, of 119 out of 500 real estate people here, and it therefore can not be accurate. The Government did not make this investigation; they did not gather the facts upon which the percentage you are giving is based. It was not a Government investigation or survey. They did not gather the facts at all as you have admitted. They were gathered by you.

Mr. MCKEEVER. But I do not admit that.

Representative HAMMER. Your attorney did.

Mr. MCKEEVER. No. You led him into that the other night-
Representative HAMMER. We led him into nothing, sir.

Mr. MCKEEVER. But you put those words up and he did not know the situation. He is not a real-estate man. The Department of Labor got these figures from a certain number of houses that they were keeping track of. We do not know what those houses are.

Representative HAMMER. Did you not gather the facts during the last hearings before the House committee when we had exhaustive hearings over there and did you not come before the committee and place that chart in the record, saying that you had had the Labor Department prepare these schedules and these drawings for you? Did you not put them in our record and did we not have plates made of them and are they not explained as having been prepared by the Labor Department upon data furnished by you? Is not that true? Mr. MCKEEVER. The only part of that statement that is true is that I did bring you some charts. I did not say that we had the Department of Labor prepare them. I did not say they had anything to do with them. I said they were prepared from figures furnished by the Department of Labor.