Page images
PDF
EPUB

Everybody knows that will not do. A man has no moral right to charge 50 per cent as the rental for furniture.

Senator HOLLIS. The bill you drafted does not cover that, does it? Representative JOHNSON. The bill as I introduced it provided for 5 per cent on furniture. An amendment was offered to one part of the bill

Senator POMERENE. What do you mean, a 5 per cent rental? Representative JOHNSON. Five per cent of the value of the furni

ture.

Senator DILLINGHAM. For its use?

Representative JOHNSON. Yes. An amendment was offered in the House increasing that 5 per cent to 15 per cent. I did not oppose that amendment; it was adopted. So, in one part of the House bill which is now before you, 5 per cent is the rate and in another place 15 per cent is the rate. In the hurry, and under the five-minute rule that we have over in the House, that escaped us. Those two provisions of the bill must be reconciled, and I will leave a written memorandum with the committee relative to them. But there was nobody in the House who claimed that 15 per cent of the value of the furniture was not sufficient, and I accepted-by not opposing-that provision which increased the rate from 5 per cent on furniture to 15 per cent.

It is Mr. Warren, again, who does not understand "why this arbitrary rate was selected." He says, "Why this arbitrary rate was selected, I can not say." He there refers to the rental year ending on September 30 and the next rental year beginning the next day, October 1.

Senator DILLINGHAM. That was 1917?

Representative JOHNSON. Yes; 1917. No; 1916. He suggests the beginning October 1, 1917, and opposes the rental year beginning the 1st of October, 1916. But the rents that were in vogue last fall, the 1st of last October, in a great many instances were abnormally high, and I do not believe that an abnormally high rental should be the standard by which future rentals are to be gauged, and everybody knows that during the rental year of 1916, while the war in Europe was going on and when it was believed by most of the country that we ourselves would soon become involved in it, there was a great influx of people to the city of Washington, and that lease conditions were sufficiently high, and the admissions made by the landlords and those who represented them before this committee show that they were sufficiently high, and I believe that that date

Senator DILLINGHAM. Do you believe that in 1915 and 1916 they were sufficiently high?

Representative JOHNSON. I believe that the rents in vogue on September 30, 1916, were sufficiently high.

Senator SAULSBURY. There is a distinction there as to the leases that went into effect October 1.

Representative JOHNSON. Yes; and it is not my purpose now to go back of October 1, 1916, for a basis.

Senator SAULSBURY. That is, you take that as a normal rental? Representative JOHNSON. I take the leases which went into effect on the 1st day of October, 1916, a little more than a year ago, and which terminated in 1917, as being sufficiently high.

Senator SAULSBURY. The date of September 30, 1916, is not used by you for the purpose of pushing the rental value back another year from the 1st of October, 1916?

Representative JOHNSON. I have used the two dates, the 30th of September, 1916, and the 1st of October,. 1916, in the bill to distinguish between the end of one rent year and the beginning of another rent year. In other words, annual leases usually expire on the 30th day of September and new ones begin on the 1st day of October. In writing the bill I had to use both of those dates in order not to confuse rental years.

Senator DILLINGHAM. I would like to make clear in my own mind whether you contend that the rentals paid upon the leases which expired September 30, 1916, were, in your judgment, adequate?

Representative JOHNSON. Those which commenced on the 1st day of October, 1916, and which terminated September 30, 1917, were fully adequate; there is no sort of question about that.

Senator DILLINGHAM. I asked that question because that fact has been very much disputed.

Representative JOHNSON. Yes; but I have said repeatedly that in order to have a bill that would prevent extortion in the future I would consent to move up the date. I want to be perfectly frank with the committee about it.

Senator POMERENE. What do you mean by that?

Representative JOHNSON. I mean that I would agree to the fixing of a later date than the one I fixed in the bill as a basis, provided we could get a bill which would stop the practice in the future. I would be willing to make that as a concession if it were necessary to do so.

Senator HOLLIS. Mr. Johnson, in my opinion, it would make essentially no difference, because all the testimony here has been that rates were not advanced substantially last fall; that the landlords contented themselves with filling up their apartments at the old rates. That is the testimony, and there has been no other testimony. The increases that I fear are going to come next fall under the great increase of population that we are going to have.

Representative JOHNSON. You may be correct, Senator.

(At this point a recess was taken for 10 minutes to enable the members of the subcommittee to go upon the floor of the Senate, at the expiration of which time the subcommittee resumed its session.)

Representative JOHNSON. In Mr. Bates Warren's testimony, on page 22, I find that he speaks of a horizontal increase of rent on the percentage plan. He and those with whom he is cooperating oppose a horizontal increase. Notwithstanding that, in speaking of his own property, he said:

Mr. WARREN. It should not be less than 20 per cent in any event, in my opinion; about 25 per cent in the class of property where elevator service is given.

Senator POMERENE. Twenty per cent in other properties where there is no such service?

Mr. WARREN. I should say 15 per cent. Of course, this is mere guesswork, more or less.

Then, further down on page 21, Mr. Warren says:.

Mr. WARREN. I will apply the rule to myself. I own property where I do not give service, and I own property where I do give service. Where I give

service, with the exception of one house, I should say 25 per cent increase would be fair. I should say in the other case, where I give no service, 15 per cent would be fair.

So it is quite evident that the plan of limiting the increase of rentals on the percentage basis would be considered fair enough, even by Mr. Warren, if the percentages were large enough; so, at last, his objection seems to be one to a horizontal increase of only 10 per cent; but it seems that a horizontal increase of 25 per cent would not be objectionable to him.

Senator POMERENE. Now, how would he define the service he spoke of; that is, elevator service and janitor, etc.?

Representative JOHNSON. In a conversation lasting perhaps not longer than a minute with Senator Hollis, on the floor of the Senate Chamber the other day, when my coming before this committee was mentioned, Senator Hollis seemed not to have noticed that there was a provision in the House bill which allows the landlord to charge the tenant with the cost of that service.

To show that Mr. Warren further considers the percentage plan a feasible one I read from his testimony, on page 24, as follows:

In answering your question, Mr. Chairman, when I said 25 per cent for the property where service was given, including the elevator, and 15 per cent where it was not given, that is based upon present prices. I do not know where they are going.

If he can base a horizontal increase upon present prices he can base the same kind of increase upon the prices which Congress may fix.

Then, on page 25, Mr. Bates Warren says:

Then, again, in cases where light, heat, or elevator service is furnished it means a partnership between the landlord and each of the tenants of the building.

It seems to be very objectionable to him that there should be any sort of partnership between them, the landlord and tenant, looking to the saving of expenses. Instead of being objectionable I would regard that partnership as a very desirable thing. Further along he says:

He does in theory do it; but he [the tenant will have a right to say whether he has been charged too much or too little, and he not only has a right, but the lawyer to do such a thing is employed by the hotel proprietor to go down and file a suit against him, with a minimum fee of $50.

I can not see that it would be such an awful thing for the guest at a hotel or the tenant in their property to have a voice in determining what he should be charged. To me that seems to be the equitable thing not only seems to be, but it is quite clear that that is an equitable thing. If there is to be a mutual bargain and trade-if two minds are to meet in making the contract-the lessee must of necessity have a voice in it. But, from that part of the testimony submitted by Mr. Bates Warren, it would seem to be a thing that should not be tolerated, to give the guest at a hotel or the tenant a voice in saying whether or not be is being charged too much.

Then on page 26 Mr. Bates Warren says:

In conclusion, I wish to call attention to that part of the bill which requires the owner to file a monthly statement with the assessor, whose duty it will be to recheck each and every one.

No owner is required, by the bill which has passed the House, to make any monthly return, or any other return, unless his return would show profiteering. Therefore, I can see no objection to that. Then again, a few lines further down, Mr. Bates Warren says further

The owner will be compelled to list the tenant of every house, of every apartment, of every room.

I say he would be required to do no such thing except when he was making an income-tax return showing that he had collected rents beyond those fixed by law.

Then, in speaking of the assessor's duties as provided under the bill as it passed the House, Mr. Bates Warren says

In other words, it seems to be a bill providing for a rent administrator anyhow, after all.

There is not a great deal of difference. Instead of selecting some particular person in the District of Columbia as an administrator, the assessor, a public official, is named instead. As a check upon what he will do in the way of making valuations for rental or tax purposes, he has before him as a guide what he already has done, or what he may do in the future in the way of making assessments for taxation purposes. One is a check upon the other.

Senator HOLLIS. No; in your bill the assessor goes out and enforces the rate of taxation, and in the other the rent administrator is getting data as to what would be a fair rate. That is the distinction I see.

Representative JOHNSON. Mr. Bates Warren says further:

The tax feature of this bill is entirely out, as you will see when you read it. When the retroactive feature went out, the tax feature went out.

Then, if that is true he ought not to object any longer. I have seen no bill which has not a retroactive feature in it. The bill which passed the House fixes April 1 as the date when fixed rentals shall become effective. I believe that a bill is going to be passed by Congress, and I have no doubt that it will be an effective one when passed. I do not know that it will be out of place to say so, but I can do so without violating any sort of confidence at all that Representative Tinkham said in the House lobby, in the presence of others, that he had been assured by a member of the committee that the House bill would not receive any consideration by the Senate committee. I, though, always bear in mind that hope was left in Pandora's box. I not only have hope, but I entertain the conviction that the local situation is going to remain unchallenged and uncurbed by either branch of Congress.

I find further in the testimony of Mr. Bates Warren the following: Senator DILLINGHAM. You think that class of people would not open their doors if they were compelled to make these returns under the Johnson bill? Mr. WARREN. I do not think they would; and I am going to give you an illustration.

His illustration is worthless, but the thought suggested means much-it is a reflection upon that class rather than a criticism of the bill. In the first place, the people referred to in the question by Senator Dillingham and in the answer made by Mr. Warren would not have to make any returns unless they profiteered, but it seems from Mr. Warren's answer that those people who have opened their

49995-18-13

[graphic]

houses, ostensibly for patriotic reasons, are gi to the dollar than they are to patriotism, bec to open their houses at all they would be willi prices as the House and the Senate in their Now, I do not know, of course, what you gen but in the bill that Mr. Bates Warren submitte found on page 29, sec. 6 provides:

That the President is hereby authorized to appoint consisting of three persons, who shall be citizens of least two of whom shall be residents of the District

If that were done, if any three men were app question would sooner or later arise whether all have to agree to a proposition, or whether a ma In the absence of the statute specifying other have to agree upon any proposition. I take it will be accepted without any further argument Senator HOLLIS. I can not let that go, because other way. I am not sure.

Representative JOHNSON. No; you will find th of what you say is the accepted rule. The rule w unanimous verdict of a jury is the fundamental laid down for all commissions and boards; and unle cally states that less than all of them may do a thi of them to do it.

Senator HOLLIS. I am quite sure there are decision Mr. Johnson. They are, in my State, just the other Representative JOHNSON. In any event, it is well that in mind if you make provision for a board of Further along, on page 30 of the record, Mr. Bates Why, the mere introduction of this bill practically stopped th Now, if the mere introduction of the bill, and the pas the House of Representatives, has stopped profiteering, actment of a law certainly will stop it; but if Congress a law that will stop it, then we have the right to take it that it will be resumed again just so soon as that failure fact-becomes assured.

Senator Pomerene asked a question on page 31 of the re I will read from the record as follows:

Senator POMERENE. Let me make a suggestion in regard to this b have read it here. I am not committing myself either to the gener to the details of it. You are submitting to this administrator absolut of the fixing of the prices. You are laying down no general rule, no la by which to guide him at all, and I think that in that respect, assuming was all right in other respects, it is very seriously defective.

I agree with Senator Pomerene in that; and in that connec may say that the bill I have introduced lays down a rule fo while none of the bills which they have introduced lays down a for any. Then, at the bottom of page 31 I find this:

Senator DILLINGHAM. Mr. Warren, there is another class of property you have not referred to, and that is the real estate that is occupied for 1 cantile and manufacturing purposes.

Mr. WARREN. Business property; yes.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Business property.

Mr. WARREN. I see no reason on earth for putting it in the bill, because is no profiteering suggested as to that at all.

« PreviousContinue »