Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-06-10


biIities under which the District of CO.
Iumbia IabOrs, its tax In harder to meet
than that of the average American COM
munity.
1t is suggested that this showing OF mu-
nicipal taxation does not take into &C
count the state taxation borne by resi-
dents OF the cities with which Washing
ton has been compared
In measuring city tax burdens to ascer-
tain whether the Washingtonian is or is
not reasonably taxed the figures of the
census bulletin giving the statistics or
15s American cities exceeding 5000 In
population are used. These figures Tor
cities with which Washington's taxes
are compared include tax levies not only
by the city corporation. but by school dis
triCts and all divisions of city govern
ment, and include not only general prop
erty taxes Teal and personaD. but special
property taxes and poll taxes. If state
taxation is not included who has reason
to complain?
The suggestion that state taxes paid by
other Americans and not paid by the
Washingtonian should enter into the cal
Cula ton and comparison Is unSound ana
unjust. Why should Washington. enjoy
ing none of the rights and privileges or
a state. maintaining no Legislature to dis
burse funds of its own raising for Its
own benefit, not associated in bonds of
thousands of other Americans spread over
a large area and joint contributors in
the common interest to a tax fund to be
spent in this larger area in developing
and UNFOLDING the honor, dignity ana
credit of an American commonwealth be
viewed as properly chargeable with the
expenses incident to the enjoyment of
these rights and privileges? Why shouiu
not the contributions of state citizens for
benefits and privileges which the Wash
inptOniS0 does enjoy he eliminated IN
a fair comparison of tax burdens and per
capita tax levies?
The District has been pronounced a
state under a treaty with France, a con-
stTuction comforting privileges on aliens.
but not a state under the Constitution,
whose people can Sue in the federal
courts. The District is state when di-
rect taxes are to be collected, but not a
state when representatives are apportiOn-
ed though the Constitution couples the
two things. The District is not state to
make and carry out through a state leg
slature laws for its own benefit. but 1t
is now reproached on the assumption that
il escapes the tax burden incident to the
exercise of this privilege of a state.
In comparing the Washingtonian's tax
burden with that of the taxpayer of an
other city it is possible and it is fair
only 10 compare tho local municipal taxes
constitutingta fund 10 which only the
city taxpayers contribute. and which is
spent exclusively in the city and for
municipal purposes. In this comparison
county taxes do not figure unless the
city and county are identical. and state
taxes do not enter into the calculation a.
all
Thus the Washingtonian's taxes are
properly compared, for instance. only
with those which the ct. Paulte pays as
a ST. Paulite, and not with those which
he pays in addition as Minnesotan. or
as a taxpayer in the Minnesota county
In which ST. Paul is situated.
As county taxpayer the st. Paulite
joins with taxpayers outside Of St Paul
to create a tax fund to be spent in large
part elsewhere than in st. Paul The
contributors 10 the fund are not all ST.
Paulites: the purposes OF its creation are
not solely St. Paulite; its expenditure is
not exclusively inc ST. Paul.
AS state taxpayer the s.. Paulite
pays money into fund to which thou
sands OF Minnesotans outside of St Paul
also contribute. a fund which is not To-
c2lly ST. Pauhte in purpose, in theory
CT in fact.
The city tax. the county tax and the
tate tax stand each on its own bottom.
dey are separate and distinct in person
mel of contributors. in purpose of crea-
ton. in scope of distribution
Washington has not the benefit of out
SIDE contributions to a county tax. or TO
a state tax. in the enjoyment of which il
participates. 1t has no county or state
cations or privileges or benefits
w ~ li4tii, III tIlc
municipal tax burden of the Washington
Giau as a Washingtonian with that Of the
81 Pauhte as st. Paulite be complicat
ed, confused and rendered meaningless
by dragging into the calculation the state
TAX of the st. Paulite as a Minnesotan,
in his relation with thousands of other
.iinneSotans, for the enjoyment of state
rivileges and benefits and the mainte
rance of state machinery of adminstra-
ZION?
.Tbe CaD1-eSc Of tho J-,ita5 sto+ac fnr
spends in the case of the District 10
state legislature, and consequently state
taxes are in its case merged III its ma
i.nral taxation.
When Washington is part OF a state and
enjoys the expenditure within il of its
due share of the state fund TO which
thousands % state citizens outside of its
limits contribute il Will be time to per-
nit state taxation TO enter into its COM
parative per capita tax figures. Munich
pal taxation. state taxation and national
taxation must logically and fairly be COM
pared separately in the different cities
Municipal per capita figures Of the census
bulletin are. therefore. properly compared
state or national tas for instance, internal
revenue) tax burdens.
National Taxation.
The Washingtonian makes a strong COM
parative showing as contributor to the
national taxes. The District has shared
in every such tax and has undergone spe-
cial national burdens. Through its Gus
tom house IL has made contributions to
the national Treasury, and If the con-
sumers OF dutiable goods pay this tax. II
has contributed far above the average
Of municipalities. as one Of the large sea-
coast cities, which are recognized as the
heaviest consumers of imported and duti-
able articles
The only national taxes that fall direct
~ aud Enthusiastically and in ascertainable
amounts upon Americans are the inter
nal revenue taxes. The states and terri
tories which contributed in the fiscal year
ended June 80, 1909, less in internal reve-
nue. collections OF the national Treasury
than the District of Columbia are Ala
hama, Arkansas, Delaware. Georgia Ida
10. Kansas. Maine, Mississippi Nevada
North Dakota. Oklahoma. South Dakota,
South Carolina, Utah. Vermont and Wv
oning sixteen states, and Alaska Ari-
coma, New Mexico and Hawaii -four ter
TitoriesD.
trict OF Columbia for that year is greater
than that OF Alabama. Arkansas. Connec-
ticut, Delaware. Georgia, Idaho. Iowa.
Kansas. Maine. Montana. Minnesota, Mis-
sissippi, New Hampshire, North Dakota
Oklahoma South Dakota South Carolina,
Tennessee Texas. Utah. Vermont and
Wyoming ttweDty-two-states). and Alas
ka, ARIZONA, New Mexico and Oklahoma
-four territories).
the fiscal year ended June 20. 1900, in
internal revenue taxation for the support
OF the national government more than the
combined contributions of Maine. YER