The Washington herald., 1911-07-30

A clash Of opinion and general
locking Of horns over the question of
whether the United States government
had received credit on the half-and-
half plan for the several millions Of
dollars that it had paid toward the retire.
ment of the famous issue OF District
of Columbia bonds known as the 3.65s
took place In the House Of Representa-
tives yesterday afternoon between Rep
resentative Edward L. Taylor. jr., OF
Ohio, and Representative Ben johnson,
of Kentucky. When the echoes of an
hour of lively debate on that matter
cleared away, 1t was found that the
Ohio Representative had filed what was
regarded as apparently conclusive evil
dence that the District had met its full
obligations to the government under
the law, and that Representative John
son had not only reiterated his charges.
made in the House early in June, to the
effect that the government had been
shouldering more burdens on behalf of
the District than was its legal right,
but had charged that, during the last
seven or eight years, bonds in payment
of old Indebtedness Of the District of
Columbia had been issued in denomina-
tions which the law did not provide,
and had been retired above par IL
legally.
On . Wrong Basis.
In a speech which gave evidence of
careful and laborious research among
the records and statutes Of the District,
Representative Taylor, himself a for
mer member OF the District Of Colum-
bia Committee Of the House, took d.
rect issue with statements made sew
eral weeks ago by Representative John
son, chairman OF the District Commit
tee, in regard to the. ass bonds. when
a plea was made for the appointment
Of a subcommitte with authority to in
vestigate District finances and general
affairs. He cited various statutes and
referred to the organic law of the Dis
trict to show that Representative John
sons contention that the government
was bound only as a guarantor OF the
interest on the bonds in question. and
was entitled to vast refunds which had
not been made, was wrongly based. Mr..
Taylor gave the House what purported
to be a complete review of the history
Of the bonds and the statutes which
have governed the Committee on Ap-
propriations for third OF a century in
making settlements with the District.
Dcunltc SOhcIusIOut.
Those who give this matter consid-
eration." said Representative Taylor,
can reach but one conclusion. First.
that the 3.65 bonds were issued under
authority Of law as set forth In the act
Of 1874; second. that the faith and cred
1t Of the United States was by the same
act pledged by q proper proportional
appropriation, and by a just taxation
Of the residents Of the District to pay
the interest and create a sinking fund
to meet the principal when due; third,
that the act of 1878 legalized for the
first time a joint partnership between
the government and the District Of Co.
lumbia on a so per cent basis as to all
Of the expenses of the District of CO.
lumbia, that the sinking fund and in
terest OF the District Of Columbia were
as much part of the current expenses
as were any Of the expenses of the Dis
trict; fourth. the act of 1879 specifically
provided that out Of the Joint fund of
the District and the United States gov
eminent there should be set aside q
sum sufficient to meet the interest, and
to reduce the principal by the creation
Of sinking fund on the 3.65 bonds,
which are now the only bonds out
standing against the District"
Touching on the other matters involved
in the investigation OF District AFFAIRS
ordered by the House, including the
question Of taxes, Mr.. Taylor said he
wished It understood that he did not
speak as one opposed, but that he ap-
proved Of the most rigid and searching
investigation Of the affairs Of the District
in its every department In regard to
the controversy over the bond issue,
however, he asserted that the Kentucky
Representative had overlooked the essen
tial fact that the organic act under which
the District Is now operating was not
passed until one year after the statute
cited by him as upholding his contention
that the government had paid out mil
lions Of dollars for which 1t was not
liable.
Chairman Johnson's Answer,
Representative johnson entered the
controversy with a strong protest against
the Ohio Representatives. manner Of In
terpreting the statute Of 1874 and the
bearing Of subsequent laws passed In
1873 and 1879.
According to the act Of 1s7A" said
Representative johnson, ..these' bonds
were to be paid by the District and the
Federal government to such an extent
as the Federal government might there
after make appropriations SO to do. When
they came to form the permanent agree
ment between the District and the Fed
eral government In 1878 they used this
language:
Hereafter the Secretary Of the Treas
ury shall pay the interest on, the a65
bonds Of the District OF Columbia, issued
in pursuance of the act Of Congress ap-
proved June 20. 1874. when the same Shall
become due and payabiei and all amounts
SO paid shall be credited as a part of
the appropriation for the year by the