Evening star., 1914-02-06
Section 8 of Appropriation Bill
Destroys by Indirection
HaIf-and-HaIf Provision.
CRISP BILL IN EFFECT
NOW AT ISSUE IN SENATE
Shall National Participation in Cap
ital Upbuilding Become Uncertain,
Fluctuating. Capricious
BY THEODORE W. MOVES.

The lali-and-hali provision NAV
he destroyed openly as by the
Crisp bill, or insidiouslv and b.
indircction a. by section 8 of the
District appropriation bill now
pending in the Senate. which
reads a. follows:
Section s. That to the extent
flle revenues nf the District oi
Columbia Tor tho fiscal year nlnc-
teen hundred and fifteen shall ex
cccd the proporiionatc part ot the
a1rropriations made IN this or anv
ether act aud cllarSeablc against
SAID revenues. the same shall be
covered into the Treasury OF the
uited States To the credit of
'ni~ccllaneous receipts.
| Idcr existing law the District
Is IL be taxed in the fiscal wear
IoI4-IqIS only to raise one-halt
the amount OF the appropriations
Tor that year. The IoI4-I5 appro-
priation bill is obviously framed in
violation of existing law. since 1t
proposes as to part OF the local
tax money OF that year, not dupll-
cation as directed BY law, but led
eral conhscation And ii this pro-
vision is enacted it will operate -
repeal the l1alf-and-half provision
ii the act of 1873. certainly for
EoI4-IoIs. and as a precedent per
l,ap> permanently. as effectively
a- the Crisp bill itself: though the
appropriation bill contains no
word of reference TO the act ot
1873 and no clause repeating in
consistent legislation.
Everybody in ashington and
every friend OF the capital III Con
.res> should understand that sec
ton 8 oi the District appropriation
bill. passed by the House. and
nov pending in the Senate. carries
out the deadly purpose OF the
Crisp bill and gives the hali-and-
hall principle mortal wound.
~ The half-and-half provision
should not be repealed in the
manner proposed By section 8.
covertlv. insidiou>lv. by indirec
ron: and ~ without the Sub
,;itution OF some other definite
,.erccnia.e 81 proportionate con-
ribution in its place; ~ the
iali-and hall provision should not
be DESTROYED at this time d pro-
posed bv section 8. when under its
operation with reasonable taXa-
tion of the District no more than
4 sufficient revenue Is derived for
The wise and economical main
tenance and development OF the
capital. and when the effect OF
rendering uncertain the degree of
national participation i'll capital
making would expose the capital.
helpless. to tho attacks OF con-
9picuous and influential Legislators
who are now scheming and labor
ing 10 minimize or eliminate ma
tional participation III capita,
maintenance.
No Covert Repeal.
The hsrf-and-haIf provision. the
euarant. Of fair play and prospe y
r. he a
insidiousIH or by indirection, ms pro-
posed by section =. hut. n at all. openly
and after full iteration. and with all
tho care and anxious thought which
accompany changes In Fundamental
Law.
There arr some otherwise perfectly
reasonable congressman who are ap-
par"utlS inspired by an irresistibl.
tendency 10 have crack at th. or
gam act hecaus" they think they ar.
told that II j. sacred. inviolable. and
that they cannot touch ii.
OF course. as far as power of Congress,
70 amend OF repeal is concerned. there i.
nothing sacred at inviolahl, about tn,
"fsantc act one Congress cannot thu.
ft' lat hsndS ot subsequent Congresses
Washington contention is not that il
r.ifftt3i hii tltt II ought not To IL. re-
ptdird The Supreme. Court has spokcf
81 this l"S'slatioli an organic act tn,
aud '2ts shown clearly the thought an,
wish - tht enAcjinS Congress that til.
aet sfir4ld he regarded as on th.. tasi.
ri "a i"ral Constitution rather than Al
"idItt'tfE 'ilrr%nt law- But the eNclusiv.
ipNef ~ legislation concerning the Dis
lri"t - IN the majority of the existin;
o2i-r'1Ss- \" greater vote is require,
Ia f"ii-sh the Constitution of thu. Distric
tiiitn {" repeal the nicst insignificant leg
islatIVe ite1u IF municipal regulation TIL,
term organic act is convenient from
its l'f"NltH. aud it IS accurately dcscril,
iiNr according 10 tine Supreme. Court i.
th.t I uIt"d states The suggestion con
NeNrd ~ IL is not that Congress rauno
alter this act. hut that II eus hi not ~
sept with th~ c;tret.l d.Iihers,tion will
witch I'll" alteration ef fundamental I.r
lSlati"r = property approached Tie. fac
ti';tt the Congress at 1873 1ri..i to tia
extent 81 lis power I" cloth this I..cis
lattun with tn. sttrihtteS of f,,rrnarenc, +,
calling pernituent the form III govern
ment created hN il. aud refusing to aG,
:. the usual rrSerN alton Of power 10 amen,
or repeal. and the fact that the Suprem
Continued on Fifth Page)