Mr. WHITEFORD. It is an outgrowth of the justice of the peace court. It has been made, in the last three years, a court of record. It has jurisdiction up to $1,000. Senator COPELAND. Would that be the proper court, or would it be the police court? Mr. WHITEFORD. Oh, no; you would not want to go into the police court. The municipal court is one of what we may call our inferior courts. Our trial court in the District of Columbia is the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Senator COPELAND. That is the place, then; is it not? Mr. WHITEFORD. Then we have the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. We have four courts-the police court, which hears only criminal cases and violations of traffic regulations and the District police regulations; the municipal court, which has jurisdiction of landlord-and-tenant cases and other cases up to $1,000. Senator COPELAND. That is all right. That is where it would belong. Then may I suggest that we have this printed as a committee print for the consideration of the committee? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that will be ordered. Mr. GORE. Might I make one other suggestion for the benefit of the Senator? You authorize the court to fix a reasonable rate. I would suggest, Senator, that that power can hardly be vested in a court. Your requirement that the court shall pass on the reasonableness of the rental rate is a judicial question, and can be determined by the court; but you could not vest a court with authority to fix a rental rate. Senator COPELAND. What should we say, then? Mr. GORE. You could authorize the court, I think, to pass on the reasonableness of a rental rate. Senator COPELAND. All right. Mr. GORE. That is judicial. The other question is not. The other is an exercise of legislative authority. DIVISION OF TIME AT FUTURE HEARINGS (During Senator Copeland's statement the following occurred:) The CHAIRMAN. I should like to state that with the two hours on Monday the realtors will have a half hour more than their allotted time, and in view of that fact it is perfectly proper for Senator Copeland to make his statement. Representative BLANTON. Mr. Chairman, right here, with the Senator's permission, if I may, I want to make this suggestion: The Real Estate Board of Washington represents its organization. Senator Gore represents another organization of realtors. There are a great number of property owners here in the District of Columbia. Many of them are Government employees. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Copeland has the floor. Let him make his statement first. Representative BLANTON. I just want to ask the Senator a question on this point, with his permission, of course. Senator COPELAND. Go on. Senator JONES of Washington. Just a moment. As I understand, the time that Senator Copeland takes, of course, will not be taken from either side of the case. Representative BLANTON. I want to ask the Senator from New York about his idea on this proposition: I have received numerous requests for a hearing from property owners all over the District, many of whom are Government employees, who say they have no organization. They are not organized. They want to be heard on this bill. They are against it. What opportunity is going to be given them to be heard? The time is going to be awfully short. The organization represented by Mr. McKeever and Mr. Petty is just one little organization of realtors. Senator Gore represents just another little organization; but all of the property owners of the District are unheard here. Senator JONES of Washington. We ought to arrange to give them an opportunity to be heard. L Representative BLANTON. They ought to have an opportunity to be heard, and I hope before we adjourn the committee will give them an opportunity to be heard. They are sending me requests here and sending me statements, saying that they can not be heard, and they want their statements put in the record. I have no time to put their statements in the record. Senator COPELAND. I think that is perfectly fair. (After the conclusion of Senator Copeland's statement the following occurred:) : The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to make a statement. The full committee decided at the beginning of these hearings that they would allow each side eight hours. They have already extended the hearings for those opposed to any legislation on this subject to ten hours and a half. There was unanimous consent that the testimony which occupied two hours the other night should not be counted on the time, and they have also allowed a half-hour more this morning, which leaves only two hours more, which will be Monday beginning at 10 o'clock. Now, the point has been raised by the Congressman from Texashas he gone? (It was stated that Representative Blanton had gone.) The CHAIRMAN. The point has been raised by him that we should allow additional time for those opposed to legislation who are not represented by these organizations. If we are going to allow additional time to one side, the other side will demand it. By unanimous consent we allowed the additional two hours of which I have spoken, which was perfectly proper. That time was devoted to a legal argument. Personally, however, I am opposed to opening the doors, If you do that, you are going to continue these hearings indefinitely; and, for one and I know that a number of the other Senators are in the same position- I can not continue these hearings every morning and every night, because our appropriation bills are coming over. We will have to devote practically all day to those when they come before us. When the District bill gets here my time will be taken up from 9 o'clock in the morning until very late at night, and I can have no hearings. Personally, I am opposed to opening the gate. The Congressman from Texas and Senator Jones are agreeable to it, but I know that his time will be taken up next week on another appropriation bill. 27363-251-PT 4-5 I should like to know what the committee's decision is on that matter. We can not extend one side unless we extend the other, having already granted two hours and a half of extra time to those opposed to the bill. Mr. WHITEFORD. I should like to say one word to the committee. We have not yet had an opportunity to discuss the license law, which I should like to have half an hour, at least, to present. The CHAIRMAN. There are two hours for that. Mr. WHITEFORD. There are still two hours? The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes; you have two hours on Monday. Mr. WHITEFORD. I understood that the committee was to meet last night to hear us, and I made my court engagements to suit. Then I thought it was to meet to-night; and I am in the midst of the trial of a case that will be continued on Monday morning at 10 o'clock, and will go on all day Monday. This morning I had a great many motions, and I put them over to get up here as soon as I could, and I had to use a good deal of moral suasion with the court to get that done. I should like to be heard on that proposed law for a few minutes. The CHAIRMAN. How long will it take you to explain this bill? Mr. WHITEFORD. I will guarantee to keep within 30 minutes on that, if we do not have to go into the Constitution again. The CHAIRMAN. Why not meet at 9.30 on Monday morning and let you explain that bill instead of really explaining a different bill, and not count that half hour? I think with perfect propriety we can exclude that from the time. Mr. WHITEFORD. Nine thirty? The CHAIRMAN. Can you get here at 9.30? Mr. WHITEFORD. I can; yes, sir. Court convenes at 10 promptly, and I should have to be down there at that time. If we were delayed here a few minutes, that would complicate matters, and I should have to leave here 5 or 10 minutes ahead. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose we meet at quarter past 9 then. Mr. WHITEFORD. I will be here if the committee will be here. The CHAIRMAN. We will meet at quarter past 9 on Monday morning. Mr. JOSEPH LOWE. Mr. Chairman, I am connected with the management of the Clifton Terrace Apartment, which has been brought into the discussion here at length. We are not connected with either of the two organizations here present, and we feel that the inter ests The CHAIRMAN. There will be two hours on Monday, from 10 o'clock until 12, devoted to your side of the matter, and the time will be divided just as you people can divide it. You still have two hours' time, and we will not count against the time the half hour taken by Mr. Whiteford in explaining a different bill. We will give you the two full hours, but you will have to divide that to suit yourselves. Mr. GORE. I might suggest this, Mr. Chairman: If time be granted under the request Mr. Blanton made this morning to the committee, Mr. Lowe could occupy part of that time. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned until Monday morning at 9.15 o'clock. (Thereupon, at 12 o'clock meridian, the committee adjourned until Monday, January 26, 1925, at 9.15 o'clock a. m.) X RENT COMMISSION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 1925 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE Washington, D. C. The joint subcommittee inet, pursuant to adjournment, at 9.15 o'clock a. m., in the room of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, Senator L. Heisler Ball presiding. Present: Senators Ball (chairman), Jones of Washington, and Copeland. Present also: Representatives Lampert, Hammer, Stalker, and Blanton. Present also: Roger J. Whiteford, counsel, and John A. Petty, executive secretary, of the Washington Real Estate Board. Present also: Thomas P. Gore, counsel for the Association of Building Owners and Managers of Washington. STATEMENT OF ROGER J. WHITEFORD, COUNSEL FOR WASHINGTON REAL ESTATE BOARD The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Whiteford, I believe you are going to explain the bill with reference to the licensing of real-estate operators which has been submitted by the Washington Real Estate Board. Mr. WHITEFORD. Yes, sir. Before I proceed to that, however. there are two short matters I want to present for the record at the request of the real estate board. You gentlemen of the committee have no doubt noticed in the press about some eviction notices that have been served on certain tenants in the Earlington Apartments, on Sixteenth Street just below Columbia Road. The suggestion has been made on several occasions that the real estate board apparently is not taking any interest in these matters and is not controlling the action of the real-estate men in the District of Columbia. I want to read into the record a letter which has gone out from the secretary of the real estate board to Quinter, Thomas & Co., rental agents of the Earlington, which shows what has been done by the real estate board in that connection. The letter is addressed to Quinter, Thomas & Co., dated January 24, 1925, and is as follows: The newspaper accounts of the reported service by your firm of eviction notices on certain tenants in the Earlington apartments, together with the publicity incident thereto was brought to the attention of the executive committee. In order to be advised of the facts in connection with the matter a special committee consisting of members of this board was appointed to inspect the Earlington and report to the executive committee. This special committee reported that the building was in bad condition and showed indications that it had not been properly maintained and that the service being rendered was poor. It was the opinion of the committee that from $7,500 to $10,000 would be required to recondition the building. The special committee further advised the executive committee that the gross annual rental reported by you of $33,780 would be a fair rental if the building was in a thoroughly good condition, properly maintained with good service rendered the tenants. This board stands for fair and equitable dealings in real estate and is not in sympathy with practices or dealings of any character that are not based on these principles. We feel that rental agents should use their influence to see that the owners of the properties placed in their care not only keep their rentals on a fair and just basis, but that the properties be maintained in good order and proper service rendered tenants. With this thought in mind the executive committee recommends that you advise the owner of the Earlington that you will no longer represent him unless he places the property in good condition within 60 days and properly maintains the building and renders the character of service justified by the rentals asked. The attention of the executive committee has also been called to the mortgages reported against this property and I was instructed to notify you to appear before the executive committee in the offices of the board on Tuesday, January 27, at 1.30 p. m., to explain your connection, if any, with the financing of this building. Very truly yours, JOHN A. PETTY, Executive Secretary. The CHAIRMAN. That is a very good letter and I am sorry the real estate board had not taken such action before. Mr. WHITEFORD. That matter was not brought to our attention until just within the last few days. We did not know that action was going to be taken. The real estate board has taken action of this sort wherever it could. It so happens that the firm of Quinter Thomas & Co. is a member of the real estate board. I also want to read into the record a newspaper clipping handed to me at the meeting last Friday by some one in the room, taken from the Baltimore Sun, as follows: The "trial court" established by the real estate board of Baltimore is doing more to compel members to handle business on strict lines of ethics than any other one single factor. I have to be in court in 25 minutes, now, I am sorry to say, but in the few minutes that I have at my disposal for this purpose I want to discuss briefly the proposed law for licensing real estate brokers, copies of which have been printed and placed in your hands several days ago. This proposed law is founded upon what is known as the Mac Chesney Act, which was written by Gen. Nathan William Mac Chesney, who appeared before your committee about a week ago. The act is substantially as he wrote it and as it has been adopted in some 19 States, with some changes to meet what we feel are different conditions in the District of Columbia. The CHAIRMAN. In the States where that law has been adopted, who appoints the members of the commission? Mr. WHITEFORD. In some States, in fact in many of them, the governor appoints the commission. In some States they have but one commissioner, and in others they have a board of three commissioners. I want to say at the outset that this act is in our opinion constitutional, it having been passed upon by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Bratton v. Chandler (260 U. S. 110). That is a comparatively recent case, within the last two years. The constitutionality of the act was the sole matter under discussion, |