Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-01-18

spends in the case of the District to- a
state legislature and consequently state
taxes are in its case merged in its national
taxation.
National Taxation.
The Washingtonian makes a strong COM
parative show -ng as a contributor to the
national taxes. The District has shared
in every such tax and has undergone spe-
eial national burdens. Through it's custom
house it has made contributions to the ma
tional treasury, and # the consumers of
dutiable goods pay tbs tax, it has con-
trlbuted far above the average OF NUM-
palities. one of the large seacoast
cities, which are recognized as the heav-
| les; consumers of imported and dutiable
ar icles.
The only national taxes that fall directly
and unmIs ;akabiy and in ascertanable
amounts upon America are the internal
revenue taxes. The states and territories
which con ributed IN 1893 less in internal
revenue collections 20 the national treasury
than The District of Columbia are Alabama,
Arkansas, Delaware Idaho Maine, Mss!s-
sipp Montana, Nevada, North Dakota,
Oregon, South Dakota. South Carolina,
Utah. Vermont. Washington and Wyom ng
Sixteen states), ANA Alaska, Arizona, In
| dian Territory. New Mex co and Oklahoma
Give terTi,Ories).
The per capita contribution of the Dis
trict of Columbia for that year IS greater
than that of Alabama. Arkansas. Colorado,
Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas,
Maine. Montana, MiS=ss Dpi, Nevada
Nor h Drko a, oregon, south Dakota. South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas. Utah, Vermont
Wash ng;on and Wyom ng twenty-five
states), and Alaska. Arizona, Indian Terri
tory. New Mexico and Oklahoma Give ter
ri;ories).
The District of Columbia contributed in
1895 In internal revenue taxat on for the
support of the national government consid-
erably more than III combined con .ribu-
ans Of Main N1r .is,ai, ,.i n-tb
and South Dakota, Idaho and Wyoming
The per capita contribution of the Wash
ingtonian to this nat onal fund was fifteen
times as great as that of the resident of
, Alabama, eleven times that of the resident
of Arkansas. twelve times that of the resi-
dent of Maine. eleven times that of the
resident of South Carolina ten times that
of the res dent of Vermont. and 12O times
that of the resident of Mississippi.
Does not the Washingtonian pay enough
both in national and local taxes? Is he in
any respect favored by the legislative body
VIII Oh, not chosen by him. decides for him
all questions of equitable taxation?
Which is the Mendfcant.
The figures above given concerning ma
tional taxation throw light upon the ques-
ton whether the western congressman's
average constituent is really robbed to ease
the tax burdens of the mendicants residing
in the District of Columbia. 1t appears
that the contribution of such constituent
10 the national revenue is nfin tesimal and
in The cases cited far exceeded by the con-
tributon of the Washingtonian himself
While the District has no representation
in the national Legislature which is pa d
! from and which disburses this national
fund its contribution 10 the national reve-
nue. exceeds the combined contributions of
Maine. Vermont. Mississippi, North Da-
kuta, South Dakota, Idaho and Wyoming,
which cast fourteen votes in the Senate
and eighteen i'll the House. The Washing
tCnian pays into the fund from which are
drawn the salaries OF the South Dakotan's
senator's and representatives nearly X
times as much the South Dakotan: to-
ward the salary of the Kansas congress
nan Eve times as much the Kansan: for
the Texas congressman, five times much
as the Texan: for the Vermont congress sman,
over Ten mes much as jhe Vernon err:
for the congressman from South Carolina
or Arkansas, twelve times much as the
Arkansan or South Cdroiinian and for the
Mississippi congressman l2U times as much
as the NJ - ssHnian.
Neither in the past nor present, neither in
respect 10 money nor land, has the District
of Columbia been notable national bene-
fciary. even compared with the states of
the west, in which mis-. AIKEN impression
| to this effect largely prevails.
The owners of the soil of Washington
were here before the government came
| before the nation and government were even
created. They gave of their own property
| TO the government that the nation might
| iTactlcaliy own ana exclusively control
| national city. They donated to the nation
| all but a small fraction of the area of
| Washington.
| Donations to the Western States.
The greater part of the soil of most Of the
| western states was, on the other hand, at
| first the territory of the nation, acquired
| by purchase, conquest or treaty, including
| treaties with the Indians and passed by
| gift to the inc vidual settlers under the
| homestead and timber-culture laws and by
nominal sale. bu; actual gift under the pre-
| emption laws. The nation wisely donated
| land 10 the people who would live upon ii
| and cultivate ii. Later when these COM
| munities of settlers became states the ma
| ton gave back TO them the proceeds of the
| sales under the presumption law in the
| shape of grants of money for educational
| purposes and added thereto vast land
| grants direct. including over one hundred
| mil ions CT acres for schools and colleges.
! Thus IN the case of Washington private
! individuals were the donors and the nation
| was the beneficiary: in the case of most of
| the western states the nation was the donor
! and the individuals and communities the
| beneficiar'es.
| While the nation up to 1873 exacted an
| excessive and oppressive contribution from
| the local taxpayers toward the upbuilding
| of the capital and since that date has re-
! ouired all that could be equitably demand
| ed. Ii has failed to carry out fully its own