National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-02-23
the DISTRICT TAX BILL.
(ContinIsd from Fret PGQs.)

Works as well as the Board OF Health in the same
and functions Of each. The truth Is, each is a
for the government Of the district, and duties and
responsibilities must be determined accordingly"
9TH. member. Of the Board of Public work,
are appointed BY the President, confirmed by the
| Senate, paid BY the United States: and being
thus appointed, to them is committed the control
trespass to interfere with their prescribed duties
as with those Of any other agents Of the United
| States"
"But It Is proposed to hold this government re-
sponsible for the negligence Of the Board Of Pub
Which The people Of this Bistric. have no more
| control than the people Of neighboring State.
This is running the doctrine of imputed sins SO far
| into the ground that am unwilling to follow
| it."-0pfHfon Of Mr.. JUStfee olfn.
Here is the precise question decided. How can
an action be maintained against this District for
had no more control than the people Of the State
| Of Maryland hsd7 The District Legislature
aS t asy GEssG By s
streets; It could create debt or make Gppropris-
tions within certain limits to provide funds for
| this board, but It could not prevent the board
from paving all the streets with most costly ma
terial or do any other thing. Congress alone
could control this. Where, then, did authority
| come from, and to whom did the board look in
improving streets with authority only TO levy tax
for one third the cost upon the property benefited?
| L
"Your committee are able to see but one way
in which the board could have expected to pay
this large debt: that is by receiving aid from Con-
| gress, as It must have occurred to them that the
resources Of the District could not be taxed SUM-
| GENTLY to pay them. Page a."
| 1t is not my duty to defend the board or to
state their theory Of action; they have done their
work, and are content to abide the verdict of his
tory as to its wisdom and its value. / am speak
ing for the people of the District, to show that
they did not do this thing. They did their share,
| and Will pay their share, but they will not and
| cannot do more. But did this board reckon with
out its host2 Had they right to look TO Con-
| gress? Was their action unprecedented? Upon
this point cite from the opinion Of Hon. Q. Cush-
ing pages AS I7o Of report of Joint Investigating
| Committee. 1t states the whole case. hope
| members will read II entire. can only sum-
Gushing whether the board could 90 on increas-
ing liabilities in the face Of the act OF January g.
1S unless ATTIC b we're
/ Of March 3, 1873, repealed this restriction, and
left the matter to come up as deficiencies. He
| showed how impossible 1t would be for the board
to delay work deyolved upon them by paving
| half street and leaving the other half unpaved,
or half laying sewer, end the like. He dis
| cussed the double relation Of agent of the Dis
trict and agent Of the United States conferred
| upon the board, and advised that it was compe-
brought disaster and Great the very liabilities
| now insist are not ours, but yours. refer to
this to show that this board were not acting be-
yOnd the color Of authority.
| need not remind the House that Mr. Cushing
| enjoys the reputation of both o statesman and
| good lawyer. Few men In this country have had
so wide a range Of experience in public affairs.
| He states the theory on which the board acted.
Whether 1t Is sound in law not is your affair,
| not mine. The action Of Congress would indi-
cate that 1t is sound. Congress continued to ap-
| proprlate money from time to time, and when
| the crash came and the board was destroyed
| Congress appropriated over q million more, and
provided for funding all the liabilities Of the Dis
trict and the board. In this act Of June 20, 1874
/ fnd legislative Interpretation, as 1 claim, Of
| tween District debt and Board Of Public Works
liabilities. The theory Of the report OF the COM
mittee and the bill is that the United States are
| liable, and q guarantee is pledged to pay the
| bonds. The committee avoid and the act avoids,
deciding this question; but there can be no doubt
| of the meaning Of both. You may call them Dis
trict of Columbia bonds or Alaska bonds; they
| remain the bonds Of the United States, given to
discharge liability OF the United States, liza
| Assembly, and cannot now DO declared our OBJ
| legations without violating every Congressional
safeguard thrown around our property and our
| citizens.
In this matter the Board Of Public Works
stood in the exact relation that General BabcOck
or the Supervising Architect, Mr.. Mullett, stood
| in conducting recent public work. Congress
could with the same legal right impose tax on
our SaI.p property 70 pay one Of MT: Aulletts de-
penditures on public square, II he ever makes
any, as to tax US for work done around the public
buildings and squares by the Board Of Public
Works without our authority. The acts Of the
public acts, and the United States cannot escape
| the consequences. How can we be taxed directly,
| to the exclusion Of all the rest Of the United
States, to pay the debt Of the United States? j
submit that It cannot be done; and this opinion is
the law laid down by your Judiciary Committee
Judge POLAND, (see report No. s27, second ses.
sion FOrty-third Congress, land is, as l under.
submitted By the Joint COMMITTEES appCnted IN.
der the act Of June %, 1874. (See report No. 4T9
second session Forty-third Congress.
But, Mr.. Speaker, do not want to protrsct
the argument on this point. 1 think 1t estab-
lished. We come to the practical question, what
| is TO be done about It? HOW much Of this llsbil.
| ity must the United States assume? say the
United States should at least assume the entire
So6 loan, as matter OF law, Of equity and Of
| necessity. These views will notice briefly. !
have already noticed the legal argument,
THE LAW OF THE CASE.
First. Ofthe classes Of claims authorized by
the act Of June 20 to be funded the act expressly
designates as liabilities Of the board the first,
| second, fourth, sixth and eighth classes. These
include the sewer tax, which Congress declared
| illegal, and other claims that find no warrant oil
| authority in any legislative enactment Of the
| District. They are:
First class, claims against the Board
ofPublic W oTks evidenced by sewer
certificates, under act Of LeRisla-
ture, atterWard repealed by Con-
seeond cias; claims a1sinst the Siil-'''- ~
Board of Public Works, evidenced
BY certificate Of their auditor. -. 44s4,l44 81
| Fourth CLASS, Claims IOr NliCl no
evidence OF Indebtedness has been
issued, arising ont Of contracts,
Works ..................... 2,sOs,5s7 Is
works from the streets and alleys 4s3,O9I 81
Eighth class, claims for sewer tax
paid by persons; same as first class 557,Sss s.
$95l4,4O7 q
1t is not possible to make an exact division o.
| nnuarrr,anF lfahF k,,N,,
Just division Of the expenditures Of the last threC
| years, upon the theory have advanced Of the
Government liability lot al acts Of the Board not
| made which will not require the United States Ia
| pay at least S10,000,0OO. This may not be ST
view and must be taken sooner or later .' It q
| your work; your agents did IL you stood by and
| encouraged It. 1t will not do to turn now and
cast the burden upon the oppressed people Of thi:
\ District.
THE EQUITY OF THE CASE.
Second. As q matter Of equity say the United
States should not only assume these 3.o5 bonds
but should pay one half OF the expenses Of thlI
District since the capital was located here. There
| never has been Q time since the permanent es-
| Enlistment Of the capital that any fair appor'
tionmsnt Of local expenses would not require the
In Q speech last winter Congregational Record
| appendix, p. 1l3) endeayored TO carefully de
hne the legal and equitable relations Of the Dis
| trict with the National Government, and to trace
| the history Of both In this regard. / think
| demonstrated that the United States should pay
at least one half Of the cost Of the local govern
| ment, and based that belief on principle AND
| upon recognized precedent. cannot now repeal
the argument, but believe careful perusal o.
| It and Of the facts upon which II rests will con
| vince any unprejudic ed mind.
cite the argument there elaborated, and par
| ticulRrly the following:
Report Of Senator Southland, February 2, 1885,
i to the Senate.
Report Of senator Brown, May Is, 1858, to the
| Senate.
Report Of the House Committee on the District
| OF Columbia, No. p, second session FOrty-seconc
| Congress, May 10, 1872.
| Report Of Judiciary Committee Of the House
No. 627, first session Forty-thIrd Congress, 1874.
Report Of the Joint Committee Of Senate ant
House, No. IT9, second session Forty-thlrd Con
gress, Dece mber !, 1874.
This proposition assumed, what is the state o
the account? could present an approximate
| table showing within q few hundred thousand
| dollars the exact amount due from the United
States. 1t would show the expenditures Of al
kinds made by the local and General Government
for purposes which may be regarded on common
account. 1t would bring the United States II
debt to the District Of Columbia not far from
$4,000, 000 But will not pursue this In detail
We have got to that point In the District where
Congress must repudiate part Of the debt Of
assume It, for we cannot pay 1t; and congress
must make up its mind further to provide for
large proportion Of the cost Of local government
for we cannot pay It all; and in this view It MAJ
~ he az IN afrfka a balancR-a Sheet YOf