Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1914-05-13

the Secretary out of the revenues or
the United states At the time the
Secretary of the Treasury advanced thu
$250.S14.31 to pay the February l, 1877.
interest on the 3.65 bonds the Commits
sioners of the District Of Columbia had
TO their credit on the books in the
Treasury Department the sum OF $14s
1872. 10. none of which was reserved q"
pay the interest then due. At the time
the Secretary of the Treasury ad-
vanced s250.s14.3l to pay the Angus
Commissioners Of the District OF Co
lumbia had to their credit on the books
in the Treasury Department the sum 81
Sl42.s14.6l. none of which waa reserved
to pay the interest then due. At the
time the Secretary of the Treasury al
vanced s250.sia3l 10 pay the intercs,
on the 3.6o bonds due February |. 1875
the Commissioners OF the District o.
Columbia had to their credit on IN.
books in the Treasury Department tho
sum of sos6.09s.sl none OF which VIA.
reserved to pay the Interest then due
IT is true that IL the entire amour
on hand 10 the credit of the Commits
sioners OF the District at the time thesn
advances were made by the Secretart.
OF the Treasury was needed for actuai
current expenses Of the schools, the no.
lice and hrc department then IL coild
not nave been reserved by the Secre
tary of the Treasury. but during thu,
fiscal years 1877 and 1873 the COMMITS
sloners OF the District of Columbia d.,
posted in the Treasury DEPARTING,
revenues amounting to over $500 90
IN excess Of the acfuni current expenses
OF SCHOOLS police and nre drpa rtmen,
out OF which Congress had directed
that the Treasury of tho United state
should be reimbursed hut no r~tm
bursemcnt was made
Ihese words Of Accountant Ma - mad,
a part of tn" report of the House Dis
frict committee, accuse the Secretary %
the Treasury 1S16-1sl of violating tho lou
Doth In making interest advances fror
The Treasury and in failing to reimhurs
the United States for such advances nc
tually though unlawfully made The Sc
rotary OF the Treasury was commando
after deducting the actual current OK
penses OF schools. the police and tho ;r,
department to reserve the revenues o.
the District In his control in the Treasur,
to meet the interest on these bonds. AND
only In case of a failure in such Distric.
revenues was he authorized to advanca
these interest payments from tn. Treas
nry The figures given by Accountant
Mayes show that the quarter million ad
vance of August 1. 1915. was as TO ever,
cent Of II in violation of the law there
being at that time of District funds 10
the Treasury s377.212i3. The same tota
unlawfulness Is attributed to the quarter
million advance of February /. 1878: and
violations of the law as 10 "A substantial
portion of the advances on February I.
1877. and August I. 1878. The Secretary
of the Treasury uS16 to 1879 is accused
of violating the law, not only in respect
to the advances, but In his failure to an.
ply District funds in reimbursement. Ad
vances lawfully made in accordance with
the law We're to be reimbursed as fast as
District revenues were paid into the
Treasury over and above what was re
ouired for current expenses of schools
police and fire departments. Accountant
Mayes points out that during the fiscal
years 1877 and 1s1S District revenues
amounting to over SI.sOo.oo0 in excess OF
the actual current expenses OF schools.
police and fire departments were deposited
in the Treasury Department and became
available to he applied by the Secretary
of the Treasury in conformity with the
law to the reimbursement OF the million
dollar advances. but that no reimburse
ment whatever was made
These alleged violations of law and the
question of the amount of the Districts
Indebtedness on account of these ad-
vances. of course came before Congress
in the final settlement of all claims and
equities in 1878.
The position of the House District com
mittee is that the amount of an unlawfu
advance from the Treasury, which I'M
lawfully was not reimbursed by its Sec
rotary of the Treasury in 1865. and the
collection of which was neglected BY
Congress in the settlement of 1878. should
now be collected from the local taxpayers
of 1913, thirty-iive years after the COM
mission of these law violations and iaches
or neglects bv the agents of the United
States.
If without any equity. or any valuable
consideration flowing to the taxpayers
Of today it is proposed to take from the
latter two million dollars of potential
revenue available for the current munici-
pal needs, under a literal and technical
construction of the laws of 1876 and 1877,
giving their provisions perpetual life and
applying them after Shylockian methods
to another generation of taxpayers. NAV
not the latter demand in respect to this
unjust and harsh Shylockian claim "a
consistent. strict construction of the laws"
They are to be fined one million nominally
and two millions actually for the law VIC
lations or neglects of the nations agents
in previous generation and century. If
they are to be held 10 strict compliance
with the reimbursement provision as To
certain advances. must not those VINO
demand this reimbursement show strict
compliance with the provision authorizins
the advances? If the advances Wee I'M
lawfully made. in violation of the law.
as Accountant Mayes demonstrates. can
reimbursement be demanded thirty-Iive
years later, where no considerations oi
equity intervene. in accordance with the
terms of the law? Does the law require
reimbursement by this generation and
century of any advances made in the last
century. unless they have been made in
strict accordance with the terms of the
law?
If Representative JohnSon's and Repre-
sentative Prouty's birth had been delayed
a century the taxpayers Of pl3 would.
under their reasoning. be liable to be
mulcted for this million dollars of alleged
debt which Uncle sam might have col
lected. but failed to collect. from the taN-
payers of 1868. who owed 1t. If Uncle
Sam would not permit an alleged debt
to be barred after lapse of thirty-five
years, 1:;5 years would not bar il, or l. H.,
years.
In fairness to the taxpayers of 1913 or
20l3 or 1Oo13. Uncle Sam should say, like
a man: I'm 1865 | directed that this
debt should he paid from the revenues o.
the District after the deduction of GER
tain expenses had in my hands
through my Secretary of the Treasury
the District money to pay this interest
when il was due I failed thus to pay II.
In violation of my own law / advanced
this interest money from the Treasury.
Since the taxpayers Of lSfs-S proiited hy
this failure on my part. II would nave
been right if | had collected this debt Tor
at any rate half of it, in the offsetting OF
claims and equities in the settlement a.
1878. | have acted since 1875 as if this
claim had been thus offset or settled.
will not confiscate the needed revenues OF
the local taxpayers half century or a
whole century after the event to shift
the penalty for my neglect or violation
of the law. Since the advance from the
Treasury was not lawfully made. il is
not to he reimbursed by the taxpayers.
the law are to be reimbursed in obedience
IA no of the law