THE END OF THE TENANTS’ PROTECTIVE LAW
The _Weltpresse_, once the liberal-bourgeois paper, but now the
principal organ of the Christian-Social Party, received a communication
from the owner of the house located at No. 19 Billrothstrasse,--a
communication containing a keen and logical argument against the
continuance of the Tenants’ Protective Law. “This law,” said the
letter, “had reason and justification when there was a housing shortage
and the populace had to be protected against being rendered homeless
through the avarice of individual landlords. But today there is no
more housing shortage; thanks to the beneficial anti-Jewish law of
our revered Chancellor, normal conditions have been restored, and
the necessary surplus of apartments exists. Therefore this Tenants’
Protective Law has become superfluous and, at the present time,
constitutes only a brutal attack on the rights of the landlord;
furthermore, it conflicts with our Constitution. The repeal of the
law would of course be followed by a rise in rents; but this would be
entirely justified, and, in the long run, would prove salutary to the
community, for the higher rents would raise the amount of taxes to be
paid, as well as the value of the houses. It is characteristic that it
was a cultured French artist, living in my house, who expressed to me
his amazement at this Tenants’ Protective Law. He declared that the
capitalist circles of France find the law ridiculous, and that, among
other things, it discourages foreigners from investing their money
in Viennese real estate. Therefore let us do away with the Tenants’
Protective Law! The noble Christian spirit of the Viennese landlords,
together with the automatic action of the law of supply and demand,
will prevent an excessive rise in rents.”
This letter appeared in a prominent position in the _Weltpresse_,
accompanied by an editorial note that very cautiously approved the
views of the esteemed correspondent, yet, at the same time, differed
with him slightly. For neither the landlords nor the tenants were to be
offended.
This marked the beginning of an animated public discussion; letters
poured into the editorial offices, and the landlords clamored more and
more for the repeal of the Tenants’ Protective Law, for the privilege
of giving notice and of raising rents at their own discretion. Herr
Windholz, the owner of the Billrothstrasse house, suddenly became an
important personage; he was elected to the presidency of the landlords’
association, and he came every day to his cultured French tenant, M.
Dufresne, for advice. Gaily Herr Strakosch, _alias_ Dufresne, egged him
on, declaring emphatically one day:
“If the landlords endure this slavery any longer, I’ll consider them
spineless fools one and all, and I’ll leave the city where such
conditions can continue to prevail.”
“But what can we do?” Herr Windholz asked in despair. “What can we do
when the government absolutely refuses to comply with our demands?”
“What can you do? I’ll tell you: Get your association together today,
and resolve to deliver a three days’ ultimatum to the government. If by
the end of that period it has not restored the privilege of managing
your houses in your own way, you, the landlords, will strike. You
will pay no taxes, you will suspend the lighting and cleaning of your
houses, you will refuse to pay interest on your mortgages--in short,
you will commit sabotage against the state.”
Herr Windholz waxed enthusiastic, embraced the Frenchman, and assured
him that whatever may happen his rent would not be raised.
Subsequent events followed M. Dufresne’s plan. The Viennese landlords’
association accepted the ultimatum unanimously, and the government was
defeated. In vain did Dr. Schwertfeger asseverate that the repeal of
the Tenants’ Protective Law would have most disastrous results; his
fellow ministers outvoted him. Primarily, as the _Arbeiter-Zeitung_
maliciously pointed out, because the Ministers of Finance, Education,
and Commerce each owned several houses.
Thus fell the Tenants’ Protective Law, which had forbidden the
landlords to dispossess their tenants or to raise rents at will; and
twenty-four hours later there took place a stormy open meeting of
the landlords, where it was decided to increase the current rents a
thousandfold, so that they would be somewhat more in keeping with the
cost of living. A solemn pledge bound all to adhere to this decision.
The populace, only a small minority of which consisted of landlords,
went mad. The working classes now had to pay millions in yearly
rentals for their rooms, and a small middle-class apartment could not
be had for less than fifty million. The housewives’ organization, the
unions, the association of steadily employed workers, the war invalids
and war widows, the artisans’ societies--all of them called mass
meetings and staged demonstrations; for fully eight days no work of any
sort was done in Vienna or the provincial towns, while demonstrations
were held from morning to night. The number of broken window-panes grew
at a terrifying rate, and for the first time in a considerable number
of years the streets resounded with the cry:
“Down with the government!”
Both the Christian and the German-Nationalist papers lost many readers;
but the _Arbeiter-Zeitung_ again basked in the sunshine of fortune’s
smiles.