The Washington times., 1911-10-03
JUDSON TELLS
WHY He OPPOSES
JOHNSON'S PLAN
Regrets Congressional Hos
tility Toward the Fl
nances of District.
Continued from First Page.)

NCOnIlnueO ITOu1 flTSI fdBe-l
faction in Congress, / drafted a measure
and laid it before members OF the COM
mittee and other people in Congress.
That bill would end much OF the criu-
cism and diminish the development oil
sentiment in favor Of abrogating the
equal division arrangement.
Before describing this bill should
point out some more of the protests
that Congressman make against condi-
tions under the present arrangement.
Right or wrong, they feel tnat there Is
a tendency among some Wasningtonians
to regard all expenditure as good
thing, because 1t keeps something do
ing, makes the city BETTER and only
half Of 1t Is paid for by the people.
They feel that there is too general
view that every dollar spent brings a
half dollar of outside money in, so 1t S
a good thing to spend as much as pos
slble.
Another Source of Criticism.
In addition to this, there is another
source of criticism. The national con-
tribution is based on the theory that
the nation is helping bufld beautiful
capital, with exceptionally fine public
works, parks, boulevards, etc. Now. as
a matter of fact, when / came here
there had been no expenditures for
Broadly speaking, the town had been
standing still in the matter of these
extraordinary expenditures which 1t was
assumed the nation was interested IN
IN order to provide 4 beautiful Capital
that IL would be proud to visit.
observing the development of park
and boulevard systems and the like in
other cities in recent years, should
say that Washington, despite the con-
tribution of the National Government,
had not been keeping pace with cities
like Detroit, Indianapolis, Cleveland, and
probably the average city comparable
to Washington in this regard.
"If the city was not getting these
things, it was not getting the things
Congress mean TO pay for, in part at
least, through its contribution.
For Maintenance Only.
'T found among members of Congress
a strong and growing feeling of this
sort, and 1t gave me concern. Mem
bers felt that the District was using
gress, too largely merely for the main
tenance of ordinary functions of a
city administration, and not getting so
much of the extraordinary effects that
are presupposed in the argument that
We are building a beautiful Capital.
Against this view is the fact that
streets IN Washington are wider, dis
tances longer, than in the ordinary
city. This is true because Washing
ton was laid out to be a Capital. In
the case OF In0 paving
I have suggested, 1t seems certain that
the extra width Of street abutttng on
mans property, which must be paved,
should not be paid for by the owners
Of the property. That is a proper con-
trfbution for the Federal Government
to make, because II this were what 1
may call an ordinary city instead of a
national city, the streets would not be
so wide or distances so great. Thus,
as to paving. sewers. and various other
public works the plan of the city i'm
poses extra costs that the Federal con-
tribution should meet.
But 1t is believed by many people i'll
Congress that the Federal contribution
is much larger than is needed to meet
these proper additions to normal costs.
and that the excess, after paying theca
normal costs as tley would appear in
an average city, is not. IN fact. being
used to accomplish the extraordinary
things that Washingtors position as q
capital makes the general public want
to see doie here.
Important Point in Bill.
80 I drafted my bill, which proposed
simply to provide that some fixed sun
should be named in the Commissioners
estimates each year, to be spent on these
extraordinary developments-what