to extend the law two years and on the floor of the Senate I accepted an amendment cutting it down to one year.

Representative BLANTON. Then I understand it. Mr. Whaley, I believe you stated that for the past six years as a general rule landlords have not made improvements, they have not painted, they have not papered, they have not fixed up their plumbing, they have not put their buildings in good repair. I so understood you, as a general rule.

Mr. WHALEY. That is my own statement. I have no correction to make in it. I made it twice, and

Representative BLANTON. Now then

Mr. WHALEY. Just a moment, please. That is based on inspections of buildings I have made personally and on the information obtained in the cases I have tried.

Representative BLANTON. With regard to heating, to what extent have the landlords not furnished heat during the past six years-as a general rule, or do you want to qualify that?

Mr. WHALEY. I can not specify as a general rule. When I made the statement of six years, I mean when a tenant got up and said, "We have not had any repairs for six years," or "We have not had any repairs for 10 years," or "We have not had any repairs for eight years," and the further statement "We have lived here all this time."

Senator COPELAND. I would like to add a comment there, if I may. Mr. WHALEY. That is the reason why I made my statement. It is not because I inspected six years ago.

Representative BLANTON. I understand that.

Mr. WHALEY. When I make a statement of that sort it is based upon testimony heard before me.

Representative BLANTON. It is your best judgment?

Mr. WHALEY. Exactly so, and from testimony heard by me. The CHAIRMAN. Those are inspections you have made in cases that have been appealed to your commission?

Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; and the testimony taken before the commission in cases I have heard, and I have heard probably 270 or 300

cases.

The CHAIRMAN. A large number of the real estate men of Washington have never had cases appealed to your commission?

Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Therefore they would be eliminated from this general proposition you have mentioned?

Mr. WHALEY. Certainly. There are exceptions, of course, I have been in buildings that have been beautifully kept up. I have allowed them the highest percentage I could. You asked what we allow them. We allow anywhere from 6 per cent up to 9 and sometimes as much as 10 per cent, and that is based on the condition in which the building is kept up. If it is poorly kept up we allow them 6 per cent. If it is better than that, we allow 7. That means 6 per cent net; that is the net percentage. If it is better than that we allow 8 per cent. If it is in fine condition we allow them 9 and sometimes 10 per cent. It is because the tenant is getting the benefit of the service that he is willing to pay, and the commission feels that he should pay a little higher rent because of the service he is receiving.

27363-25-PT 1- -2

Representative BLANTON. I would like to ask a few more questions, if I may. Has your commission, since you have been on it, ever issued an order requiring a landlord to do any improvement work? Mr. WHALEY. No, sir. We have not had the power to do it. Representative BLANTON. You have never forced them to do it? Mr. WHALEY. We have not had the power to do it, but generally they have done it after we have fixed a low rate of return. They have gone in and repapered and repainted the place and fixed it up and come back to the commission and asked for a refixing of their rent, and we have refixed them and raised the rent and raised the percentage for them.

Representative BLANTON. Will you give a list of such cases as that? Mr. WHALEY. We can furnish it to you; yes.

Representative BLANTON. I wish you would. The Rent Commission has been in existence for the past six years?

Mr. WHALEY. Since 1919.

Representative BLANTON. That is for the past six years.

Do you not think your statement is the greatest indictment you could bring against the Rent Commission?

Mr. WHALEY. I do not consider it so.

Representative BLANTON. That for six years while we have had a rent commission there has been no improvement by landlords, showing that there must be some reason for the landlords not improving.

Mr. WHALEY. Mr. Blanton, I tried to explain to you and I have explained to the committee that there has been no power in the act allowing us to make them do anything.

Representative BLANTON. I understand that.

Mr. WHALEY. The act is faulty in that direction. The object of the present bill is to give us power to make them do things.

Representative BLANTON. With regard to a survey, when you appeared before our House committee in February, 1924, was not the first question I asked whether or not you had made a survey of rental houses in the District?

Mr. WHALEY. It was.

Representative BLANTON. And you stated that you had not done so?

Mr. WHALEY. That is correct.

Representative BLANTON. Did not I suggest then to you that the first thing that ought to be done was to make such a survey? Mr. WHALEY. You did.

Representative BLANTON. Did you ever make it?

Mr. WHALEY. We did not.

Representative BLANTON. Since May, 1924, your commission has had very little to do since the 40 injunctions were brought against you?

Mr. WHALEY. You are right.

Representative BLANTON. Have you made a survey since that

time?

Mr. WHALEY. We have not.

Representative BLANTON. Have you made a personal survey since then, yourself?

Mr. WHALEY. I have not.

Representative BLANTON. Why have you not done so?

Mr. WHALEY. I wanted you to ask me that question. Last year the commission went before Congress, before your committee and your subcommittee on which you sat, and recommended to you that this act should be made permanent-I did, at any rate. I told you why I thought it should be made permanent. I told you why we could not make the survey was because we had no money to do it. Representative BLANTON. I made a survey and I have not had any money.

Mr. WHALEY. Wait a minute. We urged upon you-there was not one member of the commission who did not urge upon you the extension of the act for two years. Congress in its discretion and your committee in its discretion decided you did not want to do so for more than one year. Assuming that the present Congress is composed of the same men and the same committees and would be of the same opinion, this rent commission has not raised its hand for the extension of the act or for anything in reference to the act, but assumed that Congress had authorized it to go out of existence on May 22, 1925, and that it was going out of existence. That is the reason why we did not make a survey and that is the reason why we have not made any effort to ask Congress to extend the act. If it was a new Congress maybe we would have done so, but being the same Congress with the same committees we assumed you would be of the same mind.

Senator COPELAND. May I ask a question if Congressman Blanton will permit me?

Representative BLANTON. Certainly.

Senator COPELAND. I would be terribly disappointed if for any reason I could not support this bill, because I doubt if anybody in this room has more knowledge of the need of it in the city than I have because of my experience in New York. For instance, in the matter of heat, I turned the heat on in 130,000 houses in New York in one year, showing the necessity of it. But I confess that I am disturbed when I look at the foundation of this bill. I would like to ask the chairman of our committee if there is any doubt in his mind about the right of Congress to enact such a law in the absence of an emergency, but simply on the general principle of the police powers?

The CHAIRMAN. I am not prepared at this time to answer that question. I am convinced an emergency might exist with ample houses to take care of the population of the city.

Senator COPELAND. From what I know of Washington I am personally convinced that there is an emergency, but what I think about it would not mean anything to lay a foundation for the passage of this law.

The CHAIRMAN. An emergency is not in the shortage of houses, but an emergency is in the rentals charged being beyond the capacity of the employees of the Government to pay. I consider Washington is a city for the employees of the Government.

Senator COPELAND. How do you know that is the condition? That is the point. You and I think alike on this matter, I am sure, but no matter what our opinion is that might not bolster up the law. The CHAIRMAN. The Senate ordered the District Committee to make a survey of conditions in Washington last year. We made that survey. We got information definitely of the number of vacant

apartments in the city. We got the rentals charged in the city. We got the average income of all the Government employees in the District and comparing the Government salaries with the rentals for a moderate sized apartment my own personal opinion was that it was not within the reach of Government employees to pay the rentals demanded.

Then came the question as to why the rentals were higher in Washington than in adjoining cities. The committee sent its agents over to Baltimore and made a careful survey of rentals in Baltimore. While the high-priced apartments in Baltimore were about the same as in Washington as to rent, there were no moderate priced apartments in Washington that were vacant. There are some such apartments, but there are never any vacancies in them; at least the vacancies are very, very few. The vacancies we found were in the apartments which had pyramided generally their trusts, making the overhead of those apartments much greater than the actual overhead would have been had they been built and conducted on a strictly proper business financial basis. That condition in my judgment constituted an emergency. There were ample apartments and houses for employees of the Government, but it was only in those apartments where there were frequent vacancies, those apartments where they had pyramided the trusts until the rentals were beyond the reach of any Government employee.

If Representative Blanton will go to the trouble to make a careful investigation himself he will find that my statement is absolutely correct. There are many apartments rented for a reasonable rental and the service is the finest you can get, but in those apartment houses you find no vacancies. The people living in them retain their apartments. There has been no raising of rent in them to any material extent. The rents are reasonable for the service rendered, but the people coming here employed by the Government must go to the apartments where there are vacancies, and there are not many vacancies except where the rents are unreasonable, and they are unreasonable because the overhead is too great.

а

Representative BLANTON. In view of the fact that I am about the only member of the committee who has thus far expressed himself as unalterably opposed fundamentally to this kind of a law, I am sure the committee will excuse me for wanting to ask some questions to bring out a certain line of thought. If they will permit me I would like to continue.

Senator COPELAND. Would you mind waiting just a moment? Of course, so far as I am concerned, Congressman Blanton, I am unalterably opposed to your position. You know that very well.

Representative BLANTON. Yes; we are fundamentally opposed to each other on this proposition.

Senator COPELAND. I do want to say that it seems to me, before we can think of passing this law, that we have got to verify by evidence the fact that the committee may be convinced and convey that conviction to Congress and prove that there are rental conditions in the District of Columbia which create a situation dangerous to public health, comfort, morals, peace, and welfare. Of course, my conviction is that there is such a conviction, but have we laid the foundation? Are we ready to undertake it? I do not want Brother Blanton to get away with this if I can help it.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee determined to have hearings upon the bill. If those favoring the bill fail to make a case before the committee, I think no bill will be passed. That is what the hearings are for; that is the purpose of the hearings.

Senator COPELAND. I wish you would satisfy my conscience now. I confess that my conviction is that we would not be permitted to pass this law just on general principles.

Representative STALKER. May I submit that in my humble opinion we could not pass a permanent act on the present emergency, that we could not make the law permanent on the ground that to-day there is an emergency.

Senator COPELAND. I think I agree with the Congressman on that matter. We can only exercise the police power, as I understand it, in the face of the necessity, human necessity. The question is, therefore, is there such a necessity? I have serious doubt myself about being able to pass a permanent act.

Representative STALKER. In other words, if we are to make the act permanent we must go on the preamble in the bill. If we are going to make it on the basis of the present emergency, then we must go according to the bill of last year. That was a temporary measure. Senator JONES of Washington. If we have power to pass the bill and it is not within the police power of Congress, would the court go back to see whether we were justified in exercising that power? I do not think so.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a good suggestion.

Representative HAMMER. I think Senator Copeland and all of us were relying upon the facts which we secured last spring. We had very exhaustive hearings and we heard both the landlords and the tenants. When we decided not to have full hearings or when we rather were of the opinion the other day that was then expressed, I thought we were basing our proceeding upon and were going to use the facts we gathered then. I do not know whether we could call that a survery or not, but we had hundreds of witnesses before us and while there may not have been hundreds who testified, yet the labor organization had one man to represent them and the various civic associations were represented, and then we had a general meeting at the last and took them one by one, each one that wanted to say anything. At the time I placed in the record a brief which I prepared in part myself and partly by the aid of others on the question of the legality and power of Congress to enact legislation under the police power which the Senator from New York might probably find of some interest. I made three short speeches on the matter about that same time.

I do not think there is any doubt about the police powers.

Mr. Whaley has made an effort to be frank, and I did not gather the impression from him in his testimony that he did not investigate the matter. When he said he had not made a survey, I understood him to mean that he had not made a complete survey. Mr. Whaley did investigate and did give us a great deal of information through his testimony. I knew that he had made a personal survey at least.

Mr. WHALEY. May I make a remark right there? In answer to Mr. Blanton I stated distinctly that testimony of last year held good as to this year and I would not change a word or line of it. I have