Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-02-05
HOW CONGRESS CAME TO PAY HALF
Of THE DISTRICTS SOUNDED DEBT
Story of the Arrangement At
tackled by Yesterdays Action
by the House.

that Congress chooses to make it so in
each act carrying with it an approprla-
ton. He is open to conviction. never
theless. and if he finds upon investigation
that he has erred in his construction OF
the law. will change his course. and In
any event, will stand by the law. what
ever Ii may be found to be and wherever
it may lead him.
1t is difficult to reconcile the cOnStruc-
ton given to the act of 1874 by either of
these two distinguished gentlemen with
Its plain and obvious intention, or with
that given to it by Congress in every leg
islative act since, having any bearing on
the subject.
No Limitation.
If Congress had intended to limit the
total amount of claims that should he
audited to sIoG00,Hs0. including the then
funded debt of more than $9,9Go,0o0. why
was it necessary to authorize a total is
sue of $1,000, 600 of $50 bonds to provide
for less than $1U0U0O of floating debt, in
side the SlO,0O0.OOO limitation? Why did
the Senate adopt by unanimous vote
Senator Allison $ amendment to the Nor
rlii bl!l which was intended to and did
compel the funding of several millions of
board of audit certificates into $50 bonds
when the ten million limitation had al
ready been exceeded by the issue of sev-
eral millions of :I.6,I bonds? one of the
chief objects of the act of 1874. aside
from authorizing a joint select committee
to frame Il bill for a permanent form OF
government, was to ascertain what por-
ton of the floating debt was lawful and
what portion was unlawful, and to pro-
vide for the settlement OF the lawful por-
ton of said debt.
The sixth section of the act of June 20.
1874, constituted a board of audit, con-
SiSting of the first and second controllers
of the Treasury of the United States, to
examine and audit for settlement all the
unfunded floating debt OF the District OF
Columbia specified in said section; and
among them debts evidenced by certifi-
Gates of the auditor and controller of the
District of Columbia: claims existing or
thereafter created for which no evidence
of indie btedness had been issued arising
out of contracts, written or oral. made
by the board of public works or by and
on behalf of the District of Columbia.
Board of Adults Settlements.
The seventh section of said act author
lied the Commissioners of the sinking
fund to issue $50 per cent bonds and to
exchange said bonds at par for like sums
of any class of indebtedness in the sixth
section named, evidenced by certificates
of said auditing board. In pursuance of
said authority the said board of audit is
sued certificates in settlement OF SAID
sinking fund exchanged for said certifi-
Gates said $50 bonds to the amount of
about $13,WWUCO. Therefore, whatever
question there may have been prior to
the settlement of said claims under the
provisions of this act as to the validity
of the floating debt of the Dist. let of Co
lumbia or of the board of public works,
the settlement of said claims by said
board of audit and the exchanging of the
same at par for said bonds, under the
hOrifV n
vided by said act, settled and determined
forever all doubt or question as to the
validity of so much of said debt as was
converted into $50 bonds.
1t is said that ''it is the unexpected that
always happens Congress gave a very
forceful illust: alton of the truth of this
old adaSe in the act of June 10, 1879, au
thoriZing the issue of 81 200, 900 per cent
twentyyear bonds to redeem funded in
debtedneSS of the District or of the late
corporations of Washington and George
town due January 1 and March l. 1879,
and certain pleasure bonds, with the fol-
lowing proviso:
Provided That this act shall not be
construed TO make the government OF
the United States liable for either the
principal or interest OF said bonds or any
part thereof.
Under the provision of this act bonds
to the amount of s10S9,3O0 We're issued
to redeem $99O176.67 of pleasure bonds
and for reimbursing the United States
for the amount of 1921, 800 advanced to
redeem the city of Washington ten-year
force-pump bonds. (Second annual re-
port. treasurer of the United States, on
the sinking fund, November 30, 1879
Inconsistent Proviso.
The proviso III this act is inconsistent
with the act of June 20. 1878 and the
act of March =, 1877? appropriating from
the public Treasury for interest and sink
ing fund requirements on the old funded
debts of Washington and Georgetown as
well as on the $50 bonds. Otherwise, it
is not inconsistent with any previous
legislation, except the act Of 1873, which
limited the amount to be raised by taxa
ton to 80 per cent of the approved esti-
mates. All of the previous legislation on
the debt concerned only the unfunded
debt created by the board of public works.
as the other old debts of the corpora tons
of Washington and Georgetown We're evil
denced by bonds. stocks. etc, requiring
no action by Congress. prior to the act
of June 10, 1879, except as to payment
OF interest.
The proviso to the act of June 10, 1879.
taken by itself, being later than the acts
of June II and June 20, 1873, and March
3, 1873 which have been cited as show
ing that the government of the United
States was thereby committed to the
payment of One-half the interest and
principal of the old debt, may fairly be
considered to indicate a change of pol
icy on the part of Congress toward that
old funded debt, and as foreshadowing
similar action in the future as to the in
terest and principal of that debt. On the
face of it, it would be difficult to account
for this proviso on any other theory. But
when we consider it in connection with
every subsequent legislative act on the
subject from that day to this, We see
that it merely indicates an isolated and
final protest against the liability of the
United States for any part of that debt.
1t never was repealed except by impli
ca tion and stands a monument mark
ing what it is believed will turn out to
be the last serious attempt by Congress
to release the government of the United
States from its just share of the burden
of that debt, under the act of 1878.
Interesting History.
The history of that proviso is interest
ing and altogether exceptional. From the
day of it's enactment into law it has
never had life enough in it, or force
enough behind it, to command the respect
of Congress. 1t was never violated by
anybody, nor construed by anybody be-
cause no one ever had an opportunity to