Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-06-19
The vater-Biu MIDDLE.

The difference between the Senate and House
which has brought the water-supply bill to q
standstiil relates simply and purely to the pay
ment OF the cost OF the proposed Improvement.
The necessity for the work and the plan submitted
for its execution have met with practically unani-
nous approval In both houses The Senate holds
that the government should bear the expense OF
ali necessary Improvements and extension. 1t is
not so easy 10 define the position of the House
upon this question In the debate upon the bill in
the House tie utter1nceS and arguments OF those
who lei the opposition to the Senate theory OF re-
curing the government 10 bear the whole expense
OF the extension were that the District should di-
vide this burden With the United States. The
amendments proposed by MesSrs. Reagan and
BlOunt specifically provide that .one-half' OF the
expense should be borne by the District OF CoIum-
bia. Mr.. Reagan's amendment read: 'sPr0vided,
that One-half OF the several sums appropriated by
this bill shall be paid by the citizens of Washing
ton and Georgetown" and that no portion OF the
money should be expended until provision for pay
Ing this half should be made. Mr.. Blount's
amendment was that 'One-half the Improvements
provided for in the foregoing sections shall be paid
for by the District OF Columbia and authorized
the issue OF bonds to meet this expense. In the
arguments OF all those who spoke against
the bill as it came from the Senate
the idea that the District should bear
half the expense was prominent, and nowhere
was there even suggestion that the District
could be equitably burdened with any greater
proportion OF the cost Yet, the final action of the
House imposed the entire cost OF the proposed ex-
tension upon the District, leaving the government,
with all its vast interests In an Increased supply
OF water, to enjoy the benefits without any ex-
pense. This result brought about by the
adoption OF Mr.. HewittS substitute, which was
accepted by Mr.. BlOunt, evidently in the belief
that 1t provided for substantially the same end
that is for dividing the expense between the gov
eminent and the District In fact, Mr.. Blount dis
tnctly so declared, for he said, in accepting the
Hewitt substitute, that 1t expressed the 'ssame
idea" In the hurry OF drafting during the dis
euSs.on or by some sort of oversight no doubt, the
Hewitt substitute, instead OF expressing the 'Same
idea" as that OF the Blount amendment and the
idea and principle advocated by the supporters OF
that amendment, fastened the entire cost of the
projected extension Of the water works upon the
District That substitute provides that the cost
OF the proposed improvement shall be annually
computed and stated by the U. s. Treasurer and
charged 10 capital account, and that interest at
a65 per cent shall be included in the District tax
levy until the same the capital accounO shall
finally be extinguiShad. 1t is clear that this
imposes the whole cost upon the District and GER
tainly there are no members OF Congress who in
tend that the government shall get its supply of
water at the expense of the District. The bill Is
In conference, and the error, by the omission OF
tie words ''one-half," can be easily corrected.