In 1916, coming down to the coal situation, we contracted with J. Edward Chapman, and I bought coal at $3.75 a ton-soft coal. Last year I paid $8.90 and $10.60 for coal at that same apartment.

In 1916, the year that they want to take as fixing the prices, I paid about $6 a ton difference.

Now, other things. During 1916, 1917, and 1918 there was the same janitor service, for which I paid $20 in the summer and $25 in the winter, and yet my janitor now wants $35, in an apartment. That is a big increase over the rent. We have to pay it. Of course, we can not get any other help.

Now, take supplies; just take a common house broom that you could buy at 40 to 45 cents. They are now cheap at $1.10 to $1.25, and you can not get them. They are advertised for that price.

Take, for instance, a plumber-and last winter was an awful winter for repairs-you take a plumber that you could get to go there and work at $4.50 and $5 a day; the George A. Fuller Co. were advertising and taking all they could get at $7.50, and where the plumber would go and do a regular job and charge $4 or $5 for it the same job to-day costs $10 to $20.

They say material has increased, and it has increased. I bought a boiler for a party in the District, and the boiler cost something over $2,500, and I was using the catalogue of 1915 when I was looking it up, and that same boiler at that time was only $1,150; so that things have increased over what they cost in 1915 and 1916 to such an extent that the rents will have to be increased accordingly; and, as I say, as for net increase in rents it is almost physically impossible for the assessor or anyone else to take a net increase or to make a price and get a net income from property. It would almost have to be gross. For instance, a bill could be assessed to one amount, of what it is worth, and a gross increase made, and I believe that in apartment houses 20 to 25 or even 30 per cent is a fair increase, gross income, for apartment houses, whereas for houses 10 per cent would be fairfor residences on the same basis, because when you rent a residence out the property is rented and you have very little to do to it, comparatively speaking, compared to what you would do to an apartment-the service and the coal and supplies, and then the personal service you have to give to it.

And I say that no law can be passed that makes a horizontal raise in rents. It will have to be done by a rent administrator who from time to time can change the rent and change prices as conditions change.

I heard a gentleman say that colored people would move into a property and throw it to nothing. Well, they will. We have no law here to prevent colored people from moving next door to you in any section of the city, and when they do we either move out and the property can not be rented to anybody else but colored people, or else it goes down to nothing; and so I say that the bill that the real estate brokers have presented for a rent administrator is fair, and I do not believe that Congress or the District or the authorities have any right, or even any interest, in the rental proposition in the District unless there is complaint-unless a man complains.

If I come here, and I am a man of means, and I take a fancy to a certain house, and I want to buy it, Congress would not say anything

if I paid a million dollars for a house that was not worth $500, and no one else would. Why should we not do that same thing if a man wants to throw his money away on a rental property in that way? But if you bring in Government clerks getting only a nominal salary, and they have got to be housed, and some one is taking advantage of them, I think there ought to be an administrator to come in and arbitrate that matter, and say, "You are charging too much. You are not entitled to rent that house for more than this amount." Then, also, you have an appeal by the tenant if he is not satisfied, or by the owner if he is not satisfied, and that is the only just way. You can not just arbitrarily say that all houses in the District of Columbia, down Southwest here, where very few people except colored people live, and over Northeast, where people do not care to live, should be compared with houses in the Northwest. The value is growing all the time there, and the value of property in this section is coming down and is not increasing at all; but the city west is increasing; and it is not increasing more than 10 per cent over two years in the rental proposition, anyway. That is all I care to say.

Senator HOLLIS. Now, how about finishing the hearing? How many are there here who want to be heard? I will ask all those who still want to be heard to hold up their hands.

(A number of gentlemen held up their hands.)

Senator HOLLIS. There are several. Then, let us try to wind the hearings up to-morrow. Let us meet to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.

Mr. BOWLES. Just before you adjourn, I would like to say this: There is another thing that strikes me very forcibly in this Johnson bill, or any other bill that is arbitrary, that it is going to have the direct opposite effect from that which Congress wants to do. I am positive that Mr. Wardman and other gentlemen in town, who have been building, would not build if they did not realize that they were going to get a fair price, because even if they are patriotic gentlemen I know that they are not going to put their money in a losing proposition. What Congress really wants is to get more rooms, and what people want to get is lodgings.

Mr. PIERCE. There will be 10,000 Government clerks on the streets looking for rooms if that bill passes.

Mr. BOWLES. Yes. If they are given a show these gentlemen will go out and build. I know there is a tightness now; there is an embargo on lumber and on certain shipments here. You can not ship lumber through the Potomac yards. I happen to be interested. in some lumber coming here, and I know that we have to get an order from the War Department before we can get certain lumber shipped through the District of Columbia. And, now, when that embargo is lifted-because I believe that the embargo will be lifted, this spring, I expect, if there is no stringent law-this thing will be cleared up; but I believe if it is left as it is, with things fluctuating back and forth, people will be afraid to build; and I believe if we have an administrator here-an administrator will be just as fair as our courts, and he would have to be fair, because men are honest, and I can not cast a reflection on the District of Columbia to the effect that we can not find an honest man in the District of Columbia to administer the rents-and I believe these people will come forward

and build, and I believe that on the 1st of July, when all of these alley people who are coming on the streets have come on the streets, they will be taken care of, because there are lots of places. There are squares out here just lying waiting for colored people, and that land will be developed, and it will be developed if Congress gives us a chance and makes a fair, honest law, whereby they can make a return on their investment.

Senator SHERMAN. You do not believe that taxing these areas would tend to develop them at all?

Mr. BowLES. I do not believe it would in any wise tend to create building. I believe the thing that would create building is to give people an opportunity to get a real, good investment out of the money invested in the building. That is the thing that will do it.

(At 1.10 o'clock p. m. the subcommittee adjourned until to-morrow, Thursday, March 28, 1918, at 10 o'clock a. m.)

ANTIPROFITEERING RENT BILL.

THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1918.

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10 o'clock a. m., pursuant to adjournment, in the committee room, Capitol, Senator Henry F. Hollis presiding. Present: Senators Hollis (acting chairman), Dillingham, and Sherman.

STATEMENT OF EVAN H. TUCKER, PRESIDENT OF THE NORTHEAST WASHINGTON CITIZENS' ASSOCIATION.

Senator HOLLIS. The committee will first hear Mr. Tucker. Please state your full name.

Mr. TUCKER. Evan H. Tucker. I am president of the Northeast Washington Citizens' Association.

Mr. President, first I want to state just the section of the city that I represent. I represent the urban portion of the northeast section. of the city, right from this building out both ways. The character of our population is the lower and middle classes.

We have not many apartment houses or very large residences. They are mostly houses that are occupied by industrial workers, such as the Navy Yard men, the steel-plant men, the Government Printing Office people, and the clerks in the Government departments. I believe those are generally the kind of people that you are trying to look after.

Senator HOLLIS. Mr. Tucker, the majority of the people who live there are tenants, are they not?

Mr. TUCKER. The majority are tenants; yes, sir.

Senator HOLLIS. Perhaps three-quarters of them?

Mr. TUCKER. More than that, I should judge.

Senator HOLLIS. Which class do you think you more fairly represent the landlords or the tenants?

Mr. TUCKER. Most of our people are really owners and residents; they live in their homes. There are very few of us who are landlords, because it is a section that has not the wealthy class in it. Senator HOLLIS. What is your interest in this measure?

Mr. TUCKER. I have been president of this association for 25 years, and my interest is a public interest and my personal interest is just the interest that the public has. If you want to know my business, I am in the real estate business in a small way, handling my own property, some of these small houses. I am a landlord to that extent.

Senator HOLLIS. Then your interest is rather on the landlord side? Mr. TUCKER. My personal interest is, but I always subordinate my personal interest to the public interest. The public interest is what I am trying to serve all the time.

Senator HOLLIS. You may proceed.

Mr. TUCKER. We have three general objections to the Johnson bill. At our last meeting, I will say, which was held on the 11th of this month, our association unanimously disapproved the Johnson bill. Every member present was opposed to it, whether he was a tenant or whether he was a home owner, and we have three general objections. First, there is the general objection that we have to all experimental legislation. We look upon the Johnson bill as a crude invention, never tried at any place, and one which would not work at any place and one which, if any Member of Congress should try it in his own State or town, would probably lead to the loss of his political life. That is the way with a good many of these experimental measures that are brought into the District of Columbia here.

With all due respect to every Member of Congress and without any special reflection on anyone, you gentlemen come here to legislate over a people to whom you are not responsible, and this is looked upon by some of the Members as being a good place to exploit some of their theories without any danger to themselves. They could not do that in their own States, because there would be a danger to their own political lives, but they can come here to this District and bring such measures as are entirely unsuitable for any locality and exploit them. That we object to in every experimental measure. We do not think the District of Columbia should be made an experimental station. for these things. We want, here in this District, the best that can be had of proved legislation. We do not object to being regulated in any way that has been shown to be practicable and just and equitable to the people.

That is the general objection on that line.

We look upon this as an abnormal time, an unusual time; and the great need of the hour here in this District is to furnish homes for the incoming Government employees, especially the young ladies. That is a wonderful need. We know that because we have a committee out now, trying to find rooms for these young ladies; and I will say for our good people in the northeast that we are taking care of a great many of them in a good way.

There is one point in regard to this that I especially want to call your attention to, because it has not been brought up here before, and that is the moral side of this question. These young ladies come here from the North, South, and West, many of them from the small towns in your State and Senator Dillingham's State and other States. They are young ladies some of whom are of good character, some not. Some of them are of exceptionally good character when they come here, but they come to a large town, where there are the bright lights and the temptations of a large town; and I want to call your attention to the fact that just at this time there are very unusual temptations.

These young ladies are here without any supervision, without any of their family relations and friends to look after them, and they are subject to these young men who are here in the military service,