The CHAIRMAN. Yet they had offered their check, as has been done in most of the cases we have heard about, for the old rent?

Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes. You understand the writ is placed in our hands and there is but one alternative execute the writ or we are mandamused. We can not go into the cases of course.

The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate that.

Senator COPELAND. Then the only thing necessary to do to get a person out would be to raise the rent to a point where the tenant could not pay and then call on the marshal and have the tenant evicted for nonpayment of rent?

Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, sir.

Senator JONES of Washington. You do not issue the writs yourself? Mr. CALLAHAN. Oh, no; we simply execute the writs.

Senator JONES of Washington. The writ is isued by a court and given to you?

Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, sir.

Senator JONES of Washington. And you then have no discretion? Mr. CALLAHAN. None at all, although I have in many cases during the war said, "I am not going to execute that writ until a certain day."

Senator JONES of Washington. But you did not go behind the recitals in the writ?

Mr. CALLAHAN. Oh, no, we do not know the circumstances at all. I could sit her for a month and tell you about cases that have gone through my hands in the last 25 years.

Representative LAMPERT. Is there a fee connected with the service of these writs?

Mr. CALLAHAN. One dollar to the Government. The fee office was abolished in 1901 by an act of Congress, and the $1 that is collected now goes into the Treasury under the code The fee system was legislated out of business.

Representative LAMPERT. Would there be any other way of serving writs except through the marshal's office?

Mr. CALLAHAN. No, sir. We are really holding a dual position in the District of Columbia. We act as constable, sheriff, and marshal. The United States marshal's office is the one place in the District of Columbia for all judicial proceedings of that sort. In the old days we had constables as well.

Representative BLANTON. Whether you serve the writs or not, it brings you in no additional revenue?

Mr. CALLAHAN. Not at all.

Representative BLANTON. Your salary is fixed?

Mr. CALLAHAN. My salary is fixed by law.

Representative BLANTON. If I own property I can not put a distasteful tenant out just by raising the rent $20 and telling you to evict them. They have to have a 30-day notice, and then after the 30 days' notice expires I have to go into court and have an order of the court to get an eviction judgment.

Mr. CALLAHAN. You get what is called a landlord and tenant notice, a copy of which I have here in my pocket. You have to recite in that the reason why you want the property.

Representative BLANTON. Then I have to get an official eviction? Mr. CALLAHAN. A writ of restitution.

27363-25-PT 2-8

Representative BLANTON. That writ is directed to you from the

court?

Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, and then we send them a notice notifying them. Then we do not do anything until after that notice is sent until we receive a notice from the agent to act.

Representative BLANTON. Then, there is quite an interim between the notice of raise and the issuance of the eviction writ?

Mr. CALLAHAN. Oh, yes.

Representative BLANTON. Then there is some time between the time you get the eviction notice and the time you actually execute it? Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, sir; 10 days sometimes, and then again if there is sickness or disease or something has happened by which we can go out and extend the time, we take it up with the agents and the agents have always worked with the marshal's office.

Representative BLANTON. When this lady came down to your office and insisted on you putting her out

Mr. CALLAHAN. She told me she had the reporters there ready. Representative BLANTON. Did she appear to be suffering from ill health in any way at that time?

Mr. CALLAHAN. No, she did not; not even when she was there on Wednesday. She was there on the 3d and was there again on the 7th. Representative BLANTON. If she had told you she was sick and that it would probably jeopardize her health by putting her out that day, would you have put it off?

Mr. CALLAHAN. I would certainly have done it. I would have used my influence with the real estate agent, and he would have listened to me, because he knew what it meant if we put her out in that condition.

Senator COPELAND. Would he listen to you in all cases?

Mr. CALLAHAN. They always have. To be fair with them, I have never found one yet in all my experience in office when I said, "I want you to extend this time to a certain date," that they didn't say, "It is up to you, Callahan."

Representative BLANTON. How long have you been in office?

Mr. CALLAHAN. Since 1902, when the code went into effect abolishing constables. Previous to that I was a constable.

Representative HAMMER. This was an eviction for nonpayment of rent?

Mr. CALLAHAN. I do not know. Here [indicating] is the paper. All I am familiar with is that end of it. I had charge of that particular branch of the office previous to May 1, 1924, when I was appointed chief deputy. I was deputy in charge of this office from 1902 to 1924, May 1, when I was appointed chief deputy. I succeeded the then chief deputy. I was chief of this division from the organization of it in 1902 down to the day I took the office of chief deputy marshal.

Senator COPELAND. Is the paper which you have handed me the paper that you served in this case?

Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, sir.

Representative HAMMER. Are you aware of the fact that this suit was brought for nonpayment of rent?

Mr. CALLAHAN. I do not know anything about it.

Representative HAMMER. You are not aware of the fact that she had paid her rent all the time, and even offered to pay the rent which was advertised in the Evening Star, as asked for the apartment, and they refused to accept it?

Mr. CALLAHAN. I know nothing about that.

Representative HAMMER. Do you have any instances in which you have actually evicted people who offered to pay the advanced rent that have not been permitted to do it?

Mr. CALLAHAN. Lots of them, but I could not tell how many.

Representative HAMMER. It is a fact that a number of them who have actually offered to pay the advanced rent have been denied that privilege?

Mr. CALLAHAN. That is what they have told us, and that is what I have heard in court.

Senator JONES of Washington. You know nothing about it yourself? Mr. CALLAHAN. I know in some instances myself; yes, sir. Senator JONES of Washington. You do?

Mr. CALLAHAN. To be frank with you, I do, indeed.

Representative LAMPERT. Will you bring that record down to date, beginning from about the time of recent court decisions? Mr. CALLAHAN. That will be a man's job.

Representative LAMPERT. I want it from the time of the decision holding up the action of the Rent Commission and the rent law. Mr. CALLAHAN. I understand.

Representative LAMPERT. You are familiar with this proposition from every angle, I take it. Has the number of eviction notices increased since last April over what it was before that?

Mr. CALLAHAN. I would not want to say that. I have not been over there since February 8 of last year. I came over as acting chief from February 8 on. I would not want to make a statement I could not back up.

Senator JONES of Washington. You can ascertain that briefly from your records?

Mr. CALLAHAN. Here [indicating] is what I started with. I was asked for the number of writs issued out of our office, and we gave that number. I said, "I want to know how many were attachments and how many garnishments and how many restitutions, so if Congress wants all of this in detail I have got it." That is the reason I had it at this time. I never thought for a second that it would ever be used in a case like this. I brought this statement along for fear you would ask me the number of writs issued. The total number of landlord and tenant writs issued for nonpayment of rents and possession was 3.629 for this quarter. We worked by quarters.

Representative BLANTON. This is a short agreed judgment between the parties in this case, and it is a very material matter that I want to go in the record, with the permission of the committee. This is an agreed judgment in the municipal court of the District of Columbia in the case of C. E. Tribby, plaintiff, versus J. K. Tschipke, defendant. It is marked "Filed, municipal court, November 8, 1924," and reads as follows:

Now come the parties hereto by their counsel and agree as follows:

First, that judgment in the above-entitled cause for possession of the premises therein described be rendered forthwith in favor of plaintiff.

Second, that stay of execution be had until December 31, 1924, provided the rental due for the months of October and November be paid forthwith and pro

vided that the rental for the month of December be paid on or before November 25, 1924. In the event of a failure on the part of the defendant to keep and perform any or all of the above conditions execution shall issue forthwith.

This is signed by the attorney for the plaintiff and signed also by attorney for the defendant. The writ was not issued until after that day. You served the writ on either January 6 or January 7? Mr. CALLAHAN. It was issued on the 2d day of January and was executed, I believe, on the 9th.

Representative BLANTON. You served it finally?

Mr. CALLAHAN. Notice was served first.

Representative BLANTON. When did you put the goods out on the

street?

Mr. CALLAHAN. The deputy marshal put her out on the 9th, Friday.

Representative BLANTON. And the judgment provided they were to go out on December 31?

Mr. CALLAHAN. That is a judgment by confession of the parties. They agreed to vacate by the 31st of December, "Costs as per stipulated herein." There is the docket entry right on the paper.

Representative HAMMER. I want to make this observation, that it is in evidence that she had paid the rent and the checks had been returned; that the checks were returned and in the hands of her attorney, but when that judgment was rendered then he did accept the payments that he had previously refused, and it is in evidence that the December check was returned.

Representative STALKER. The list of evictions showing something over 1,500 covered what period of time?

Mr. CALLAHAN. That covers from August 20 to December 31. There was a total of 1,509 writs of restitution issued-not all conviction. There may not have been more than 1 per cent, or even less than 1 per cent, of them actually put out.

Representative STALKER. What I think we should have is also for a corresponding period prior to that, a similar statement in order that we may compare the number of evictions when the rent act was functioning with the number thay have had since the rent act was practically paralyzed.

Mr. CALLAHAN. That ought to be furnished to you by the municipal court. They have a better way of getting at the information than we have. Mine is a matter of record, to keep our records straight to enable us to make our returns to the Treasury. The municipal court can give that data better than I could.

The CHAIRMAN. We had better have this statement of writs issued in the municipal court inserted in the record. (The statement referred to is as follows:)

Writs issued in municipal court, District of Columbia, August 1-December 31, 1924

Total number of landlord and tenant writs issued, both for nonpayment of rent and possession, 3, 629.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions by any member of the committee?

Representative LAMPERT. It occurs to me that if the gentleman has the record of the cases this year, he must have a record of last year.

Mr. CALLAHAN. It is simply a matter of this kind. I was asked two or three times to furnish some data and I could not give it in the way they should have it, so I followed the matter up a little and got the information in this form. Now I will know how many attachments are issued and how many summons, because I am keeping the record in a way that will give me the information whenever I want it. Representative LAMPERT. You have them all in your report, which you have just handed to the committee?

Mr. CALLAHAN. No; we merely lumped it.

Representative HAMMER. You have not a record that contains information with respect to every writ you receive?

Mr. CALLAHAN. I can give it right here, but it is lumped.

Representative HAMMER. You have not an itemized detailed statement?

Mr. CALLAHAN. No, sir. We have an itemized statement, but we have to go back to get it. We have no way of carrying all those things through except by taking our records page by page and day by day.

Representative HAMMER. Do you mean to say you have not an itemized statement of where you received these dollar fees?

Mr. CALLAHAN. Oh, yes; we have that. We would have a lot of trouble to get it out as you want it, and it would take a very long time. Representative HAMMER. How long would it take?

Mr. CALLAHAN. I have not got the people down there to do the work. I would have to take a couple of men off of some other work. I would have to take them off of my quarterly report, for instance.

Representative LAMPERT. I think the point made by Representative Stalker is a good one, and if there is any way to get the information I think we ought to have it. Could you not have it for us by next Monday, when we meet again?

Mr. CALLAHAN. Oh, I can give it to you by Monday, anyway.

Senator JONES of Washington. How would it do to give the number of similar writs issued during a period of six months prior to the decision of the Supreme Court, giving the number of evictions in a period of six months prior to the decision of the Supreme Court holding the law invalid or prior to the time when the commission was enjoined from enforcing the law, if it was so enjoined?

Mr. CALLAHAN. That is for possession cases only, or do you want nonpayment of rent cases, too?

Senator JONES of Washington. Yes; we want everything covering the same data that is covered by the statement you have submitted to the committee.

Representative BLANTON. Would not the Senator prefer the first six months of 1917?

Senator JONES of Washington. No; I would prefer the six months preceding any suspension by the court decision affecting the Rent Commission.

Representative STALKER. I would suggest a period when the rent act was functioning.