Opinion of the Court. 337 U.S. at that time, provided: "That the [Federal Works] Administrator shall fix fair rentals, on projects developed pursuant to this Act, which shall be within the financial reach of persons engaged in national defense: (Emphasis supplied.) § 7, 54 Stat. 1127, renumbered § 304, 55 Stat. 363. This rental policy was thus expressly fitted to the purposes of the defense housing. Those purposes did not call for its further subordination to the control of a District Administrator of Rent Control under other statutory standards fitted to private landlords. This special defense-housing rental policy was further expressly emphasized by Congress in another amendment made applicable to the Lanham Act defense housing January 21, 1942." Therefore, whether or not these further provisions were also to be applicable to Bellevue Houses, which had been constructed under an earlier Act, they became applicable to the many Government-owned, defense-housing units constructed in the District under the Lanham Act. Congress thus evidenced its purpose to insist upon special standards of rentals for its defense housing. It is significant that it did so by Acts approved June 28, 1941, and January 21, 1942. One was enacted quired or constructed under such title." (Emphasis supplied.) 55 Stat. 363. Title I of the Lanham Act, approved October 14, 1940, consisted of §§ 1-3, and in the Act of June 28, 1941, it was given the title "Defense Housing." 55 Stat. 361. "SEC. 6. The second proviso of section 304 of such [Lanham] Act, as amended, is amended to read as follows: 'Provided further, That the [Federal Works] Administrator shall fix fair rentals, on projects developed pursuant to this [Lanham] Act, which shall be based on the value thereof as determined by him, with power during the emergency, in exceptional cases, to adjust the rent to the income of the persons to be housed, and that rentals to be charged for Army and Navy personnel shall be fixed by the War and Navy Departments:" (Emphasis supplied.) 56 Stat. 12, 42 U. S. C. (1946 ed.). § 1544. 346 Opinion of the Court. before, and the other after, the enactment of the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act on December 2, 1941. This emphasis was repeated on April 10, 1942, in a manner which demonstrated still further that Congress, in its consideration of the Lanham Act, had not overlooked the substantial extent to which that Act related to the construction of defense housing in the District of Columbia. On that date Congress amended the Lanham Act with special reference to operations in the District. It added Title IV. This authorized a $30,000,000 appropriation "to provide housing in or near the District of Columbia (including living quarters for single persons and for families) for employees of the United States whose duties are determined by the National Housing Administrator to be essential to national defense and to require them to reside in or near the District of Columbia." 56 Stat. 212, 42 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 1561. The rental control provisions amended on January 21, 1942 (see note 21, supra), already were applicable to such housing. The very § 304 · which contained those amended rental control provisions was further amended so as expressly to include the District of Columbia in the term "local municipalities" to which land could be conveyed for street or other public use incidental to a project. See 54 Stat. 1127, 55 Stat. 363, 56 Stat. 212, 42 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 1544." In the light of the foregoing express provisions for the control of rents in the public interest on Governmentowned, defense-housing projects, there is no ground for implication that the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act conflicts with it. 22 As evidencing a purpose that Government-owned, defense housing constructed under the Lanham Act likewise remain under the general civil and criminal jurisdiction of the respective states and of the District of Columbia, wherever such housing might be located, § 307 of the Lanham Act was amended by the Act of April 10, 1942, to include expressly the District of Columbia. See 54 Stat. 1127, 55 Stat. 363, 56 Stat. 212, 42 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 1547. = Opinion of the Court. 337 U.S. III. The National Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 emphasizes the conclusion that the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act does not apply to Governmentowned housing in the District. Although the National Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, approved January 30, 1942, expressly empowered the National Price Administrator, under certain limitations, to establish maximum rentals in so-called defenserental areas,23 he never did so in the District of Columbia. That Act, therefore, does not have a direct application to the issue in this case. However, the language of that Act and its policy toward the rent control of Governmentowned, housing accommodations, both inside and outside of the District of Columbia, has a bearing upon the proper construction of the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act. The National Act is not only consistent with our interpretation of the District Act but it lends support to that interpretation. The National Act left the control over rent to local authorities, except where the National Price Administrator found it necessary to intervene. The decision of the National Price Administrator not to intervene in the District of Columbia was an especial compliment to the existing controls, because the District of Columbia was a typical area calling for competent rent control and, in fact, had been declared by the statute itself to be a "defense-rental area . . . ." § 302 (d), 56 Stat. 36, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed.) § 942 (d). His satisfaction with the conditions in the District indicates that the local practice followed by the District Administrator of Rent Control, in not attempting to fix the rentals in Government-owned housing, had produced no conditions 23 §§ 2 (b) and 302 (d), 56 Stat. 25-26, and 36, 58 Stat. 633-634, 59 Stat. 306-307, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed.). § 902 (b). 346 Opinion of the Court. which seemed to the National Price Administrator to call for federal intervention. A still more significant point is that, if he had intervened, under the National Act, he, and not the District Administrator of Rent Control, would have been the one vested with control over the rental policy of the Government-owned, housing accommodations. 24 In contrast to the omission, in the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act, of any express reference to the United States as a landlord, the National Act expressly included the United States as a "person" to whom it applied. Thus, within two months after the omission of the United States from such a definition in the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act, Congress demonstrated that, when it sought to include control of Governmentowned housing under conditions where the established procedures and local controls might fail to meet the needs 24 It was made unlawful for "any person" to violate the Act or regulation issued pursuant to the Act, § 4, 56 Stat. 28, 50 U. S. C. D. (1946 ed.) § 904, and then "person" was defined as follows: EC. 302. As used in this Act "(h) The term 'person' includes an individual, corporation, partnership, association, or any other organized group of persons, or legal successor or representative of any of the foregoing, and includes the United States or any agency thereof, or any other government, or any of its political subdivisions, or any agency of any of the foregoing: Provided, That no punishment provided by this Act shall apply to the United States, or to any such government, political subdivision, or agency." 56 Stat. 36-37, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed.) § 942 (h). The Act also provided: "SECTION 1. . . . "(c) The provisions of this Act shall be applicable to the United States, its Territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia." 56 Stat. 23-24,50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed.) § 901 (c). Opinion of the Court. 337 U.S. of the times, it expressly said so. The same section provided that the punishments prescribed for private violators did not apply to the United States. The National Price Administrator, however, never published any regulations even potentially applicable to the District of Columbia. On the other hand, he did publish regulations stating his general policy as to Government-owned, housing accommodations elsewhere which might come under his control. Such regulations stated that, for housing constructed and owned by the United States, a state or any political subdivision of either, the maximum rents were to be those generally prevailing for comparable housing accommodations on the maximum rent date "as determined by the owner of such accommodations: . . Similarly, for housing accommodations rented to Army or Navy personnel, including civilian employees of the War and Navy Departments, for which rent is fixed by the national rent schedule of the War or Navy Departments, the maximum rents were to be those established by such rent schedule.25 25 "SEC. 4. Maximum rents. Maximum rents . . . shall be: "(g) Housing owned and constructed by the government. For housing accommodations constructed by the United States or any agency thereof, or by a State of the United States or any of its political subdivisions, or any agency of the State or any of its political subdivisions, and owned by any of the foregoing, the rent generally prevailing in the Defense-Rental Area for comparable housing accommodations on the maximum rent date, as determined by the owner of such accommodations: Provided, however, That any corporation formed under the laws of a State shall not be considered an agency of the United States within the meaning of this paragraph. The Administrator may order a decrease in the maximum rent as provided in section 5 (c). "(h) Housing subject to rent schedule of War or Navy Department. For housing accommodations rented to either Army or Navy personnel, including civilian employees of the War and Navy Depart |