Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-02-07

LIZA Il ~ l.
he was urging ii to reject they would ad-
| init a friend within their gates, and so
| far from assuming a liability. would pro-
tect the government against imposition
These foolish predecessors of ours con-
sumed two or three days in the discus
sion of an amendment. under an entlre
| misrepresentation Of its terms and erect
After all they builled better than they
knew. WHO were the real friends OF
the government in this controversy? 1t
IS curious inquiry. Blackburn i'll MS
desire to protect the government insisted
that the House reject the amendment.
The friends of the amendment agreeing
that it would charge the government with
new liability, urged it's passage. Mt
blackburn in the result is a winner, IN
spite of himself After all of these years
| it is now ascertained that the friends or
the amendment erred in supporting IT,
and the opponents of the same were
sadly at fault in their rancorous antas-
onlsm to proposition of real merit. Who
is entitled to criticism for his part in
that debate? MIR. Blackburn for APPROX
ing measure which he ought to have
supported. or Mr.. Haydee and others in
advocating a measure which they ought
to have opposed. since III the result, re-
lief ana protection has been afforded
when an obligation was intended? In
the view now pressed upon the chair the
government. result Of this act of
1879, has valid claim for many millions
upon the District This IS what Mr..
Blackburn said in 1879. speaking to sec
ton ] of the amendment OF the gentle
man from Kentucky:
This report of the committee on con-
| ference binds this government in its own
capacity to the payment of one-half of
the debt
Further, he said:
Ihis proposition of this section OF the
bill is to fasten upon the government of
| me onlted States for, the first time an
debt 1"
Further explanation by Mr. Saunders
| followed.
Repudiates Half-and-Half Plan.
Representative Borland Of Missouri Of
| Tered the suggestion that there is no or
ganized law for the District of Columbia:
Il Will not stop to argue that question:"
he asserted. 1.-THE statute providing for
the form OIL government for the District
Of Columbia amended from time to
| time is an ordinary act OF no different
| from any other act of Congress. AS
times and conditions change, as the Dis
| trict gets out of difficulties in which it
was then involved other situations pre-
| sent themselves. and that law Is subject
| TO amendment from time to time as the
wisdom of Congress may determine"
Mr.. Saunders agreed that the act is
subject to repeal, and the members got
into argument on various phases of the
half-and-h half principle following this.
Mr.. Borland argued at length against it.
Representative Hayes of California re-
peated some of the remarks of Repre-
sentative Johnson of Kentucky when he
charged that tracts of land in the Dis
trict of Columbia, in the midst Of prime
val forests, are opened up and laid out
into town lots
Il want to say that this statement is
erroneous said Mr.. Hayes. "In Massa-
fS Ave, ai SlIh n iIyici on
Connecticut avenue in SauIs Addition,
in Cleveland Park, in all of these subdi-
visions the District of Columbia has never
paid for the improvements Of the streets
! or for any other public Improvement
Gives Taxation Figures.
| Mr.. Hayes went deeply into the ques-
| ton of the taxes here, refuting some
! of the figures presented to the House
| recently by Representative Prouty Of
| Iowa. He produced table showing
| the populate total assessment and
| total tax per capita in several cities.
Washington's population was given as
| 331 900, total assessment of real estate
was given as $293, 389.839, the tax on
real estate as S4,4OO,S5O, revenue from
| other sources was given as S2,000,OOO,
| tax real estate per capita was given
| as $3.50 and total tax per capita as
1894 OF thirteen similar totals shown,
nearly all were larger than washing
| ton, such cities as Philadelphia, St
Louis. Boston. Buffalo, Milwaukee, At
lanta being in the compilation.
Mr.. Hayes said, in part:
An examination of the table VIII
show that Buffalo and Providence pay
higher taxes per capita than the city
of Washington, while the taxes of the
cities of Cincinnati and Indianapolis
are much lower.
Now. the gentlemen / have referred
4. theory
cause the city of Washington paid only
l u per GENT on two-thlrds Valuation
they could compare that with other
cities which pay higher rate per
cent on their valuation, and, because
they found in other cities ii lower rate,
have jumped to the conclusion that,
therefore. Washington does not pay
the taxes it should pay. Now. OF
course the tax rate has nothing TO
do with the taxes city pays.
Il have in mind a city where the total
rate is "a per cent on the valuation, Dut
the valuatio is only 40 per cent of the
market value of the property. because
that city is part of a county, and 1t not
| only has it's city tax to pay, put state
and county tax, and in order TO put 1t
on the same basis as the county and state
the attempt is made by the assessor to
put it on the same basis as to valuation,
whereas in the city of Washington the
valuation of the assessor is supposed to
represent the value of the property.
went over a list of the property reaching
from the Mall to II street and from the
Capitol to the White House, and l find
the valuation of the assessor is within >
per cent of the market value of the prop
erty as indicated by the sales for the last
five years of that property. | mean that
the valuation of this property by the as
SCISSOR is within > per cent OF Its market
value
In Further Retaliation.
LAS further refutation it can be shown
that during the years 1903 to 1912 there
were some 300 sales between 9th and 10Th
streets and h and II streets northwest.
These sales aggregated over $13O0O,OO,
and the basis of assessment for this prop
erty, which was examined and valued in
1910, is within ) per cent of these sales.
More than ninety of these sales We're be-
low the basis of the assessment, showing
that the assessors had taken average
figure in making their appra1Sement, and
1t is generally conceded that fair as
sessment should agree with the average
sales of any section.
LAS an example Of how property was
valued I will state that the northwest
corner of 18th and II streets val
ued at S132S1O in 1910 and sold for $780,
600 in 1872; 400 Ii street was valued at
$7O335 in 1910 and sold just before
the valuation for $4,000; 1405 G street
was valued at $4,000 in 1910 and sold
for $4,000 in 1911; 14O7 and 400 +
street were valued at $121 900 in 1910 and
cold for c11O nM during that wear. 14thi