Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1890-05-22
building was erected; but the people Q.

building was erected; but the people OF
the locality are not, therefore, taxed for
its construction or maintenance. The
erection of a large building in his own
city, costing eight or ten millions OF
dollars, twas an incalculable advantage
to all the property within the range of
the building" yet his people were not
taxed any more than his honorable friend
from Massachusetts to pay for the build
ing.
But Mr.. Cogswell wanted to know if
there was no distinction between an
ordinary Government building and a
great geological or other park within
three miles of the residence property"
of Washington. Mr.. Butterworth re-
piled that he drew distinction: One
was "a scientific institution for educa-
tlonal purposes, the other a building in
which to transact public business,
Both were equally national in char
acter and each in the interest of the
whole people of this country"
Mr.. Anderson. of Kansas, in order to
show that the question was a local one,
asked if 1.-The city of Cincinnati or Chi
cago, or any of the considerable cities of
y
literally for the location of a national
park there" Mr.. Butterworth admitted
that they might" but he thought that
did not affect the question whether
they ought to contribute to the estab-
Ishment of such national enterprise"
Mr.. Gambler, of Massachusetts, said
that attention has been drawn to the
low rate of taxation prevailing in Wash
ington. He thought it ought to be low.
eff you wish to be economical in the
salaries of the employees of the govern
ment you should be careful not to enter
upon the policy of extravagant expendi-
tHres that will lay heavy burdens upon
them"
Mr.. Hill, of Illinois, saw no good rea-
son for making the people of the district
bear part of the proposed expense.
This geological park was very different
from the Columbus park. The former
was to belong to the United States, and
was for the advancement of science, the
latter directly for the benefit of the
people of the locality where Columbus
park is to be inaugurated or estab-
liShed."
Toward the close of the debate Mr..
Hopkins of Illinois got the floor. and de-
clared that Geological park would not be
less national park if the wealthy resi-
dents of the District of Columbia were
compelled to bear their fair proportion
of the expense For it went without argu-
ment that the establishment of the park
had largely enhanced the value of prop
erty in all sections of the city of Wash
ingtOn." ''As a matter of equity" then,
las matter of just law he could see
no reason why the people ''who have
these little advantages" should not pay
correSpondingly.' No such advantage
cold be said to arise in favor of the tax
payers throughout the country. Would
any gentleman say that a resident of
his (Mr. Hopkins0 district had the
same advantages and could enjoy this
park as well as a person residing in
Washington city? If not, then why
should Congress compel outside people
to paw for it? In view of this, the House
of Representative should stand by its
former action and should say to the Dis
trict and the country that it proposes that
this expense ''shall be equitably divided
between those who enjoy the results as
special advantages and those who can
| only enjoy them for brief season while
here on pleasure trips"
Despite the complication arising from
the fact that Geological park is under
the supervision of Smithsonian insti-
tuition, and might, therefore, in sense,
be deemed governmental affair, when
it came to test, the House by an over
whelming vote refused to see that the
people of Washington would not be
greatly benefited, and it, therefore, in
sisted upon its amendments to the SEN
ate bill, that half the expense of the
improvements should fall upon the Dis
trict of Columbia, and called for con-
| ference with the Senate on the subject