Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-02-19
Cost of District Government.

Representative Morrtlrs recent remarks
fl the House Of Representatives relative to
the cost of the District government, were
based. as have been many utterances on the
same line in the past by other commenta-
tors on local affairs upon a misapprehen-
sion Of the conditions existing here At all
events if the speaker has not misappre-
hendcd the case, he has ignored a very i'm
porlant factor in il. Throughout the array
Of statistics cited by the representative
from Pennsylvania ran the principle of COM
pairing the District with other cities on the
basis of. first. cost of administration; sec
oud population, and third. assessed valu-
alton. The net result of this statement of
the case was to show that Washington pays
more for its municipal government in pro-
portion To- it's size and values than other
cities
The prime fallacy of this method of COM
putalou lies IN the fact that II is unfair.
because Inaccurate, 10 count all of the an
uu3l expenditures of the District on the
one side and only the assessed valuation
OF property on the other To obtain
proper basis OF computation for comparison
with other cities the annual expenditure
should either be cut in half, or the as
sossed valuation should be doubled For
the government of the United States owns
property In the District to the extent of
valuation generally described as approxi-
mating The fun valuation of all other prop
critics which are subject TO taxation. If the
governments property is not calculable In
convenient terms for purposes of cOnputa-
ton. to bring the total Of the property in
the District up to a proper basis, then
surely IT is possible to cut in half the cost
of the local government, thereby effectng
direct relationship between the assessed
valuation cited by Representative Morrell
and the cost Of administra ton.
Ir either of these changes in the bases of
comparison Is made Washington is given
its proper status in any tables that may
be worked out to contrast the capital with
other cities. 1t is unfair to count In the
governments contribution to the local ex-
peudtures and count out the basis upon
which that contribution is established.
There appeared in the news columns of
The Star last Saturday an article setting
forth the mistakes discoverable in Mr..
Morrelrs statistics relative to the cost of
office administration. 1t appears from that
analysis Of the speech that Washington
in the tables, was saddled with an office
expenditure OF $74.4u3 whereas a fair state
ment of the case puts this Item at so, $40
when all The factors legitimately to be
thus classified are included. In his COM
PARSONS Mr.. Morrell neglected to give the
District government proper rating as
compared with the municipal and the
county administrations elsewhere. It has,
indeed, in some respects, a simili,ude 10 a
state organization.
In point Of the police and fire depart
ments. which We're used by the speaker,
the District is able 10 withstand the closest
comparative scrutiny. Again, in these de-
p3r'mepts, for reference to other cities
computations must be based upon either a
having Of the expenditures or n doubling
OF the assessed valuations, for the police
men aud the firemen must protect the gov
ernments property. which is not repre-
scented at all in Mr.. Morren's statistics.