The Washington times., 1914-06-12
THE DISTRICT APPRO-
PRlATIONS.

1t does not seem that there should
be excuse for letting the District of
Columbia appropriation bill die be-
cause of the. differences Of opinion
letween the two houses III some fea-
lures of it. In this bill are many
features on which there is substan-
tial agreement among all the MEM
bers Of both houses, aad which look
to making provision for real needs Of
the District.
On the other hand there are some
features which represent distinct in
novation in governmental policy to-
ward the District. The Borland
is one of these, with its
new plan of assessing the cost of
certain street improvements. The
House is in favor of, ard the Senate
opposed to, this new scheme. An
other discord arises over the provi-
sion for turning back to the Federal
Treasury any surplus arising in a
given year in the municipa! reve-
nues.
Finally, there are some provisions
for important public improvements,
especially schools and hospitals,
which the Senate has put in and the
more economical House wants shut
out.
Not a single one of these details
concerning which there is difference
between the two houses can possibly
justify letting the legislation fail.
The Senate may fairly insist, as to
the Borland amendment and the one
concerning the surplus, that these
touch on fundamentals Of policy, so
important that it cannot consent to
changing the scheme If the local
government without more consider
alton. 1t is perfectly plain that if
Ben Johnson We're not chairman of
the House District Committee there
would not be serious chance of these
measures gaining the support of that
body. johnson is a natural born rip
per. The thing he finds. especially
if it is working well, he wants to
undo. For many years these details
, of financial policy have been as they
are now, and nobody has found fault.
That does not prove, of course, that
they have been right. But in addi-
ton to this is the fact that the Sen
etc, after full consideration of all
the bearings, has peremptorily de-
clined to accept these provisions
Thus it is evident that there is an
abrupt difference Of opinion. and one
which is almost certain not to he
reconciled by any compromise or
agreement The whole appropria-
ticn may fail, but there will be no
meeting of the minds as to these
disputed provisions.
! Manifestly, then, the sensible
thing is to drop out, for this session,
; the provisions as to which agree
ment is impossible, and let the rest
Of the bill pass. Why should = hum
Gred provisions be lost, which every
body favors, because of stubborn
ness over something on which agree
ment is impossible?
A year hence, if the advocates of
reorganization in the fiscal system,
are still insistent on changes, they
will have the chance to try again
The House will be free to insert its
! amendments once more; and il by
that time the Senate shall have been
converted to the House view, why
the Senate will accept them, and the
trick will be done. But ii is worse
than folly to kill all that is good in
this bill simply because of some
bo6y's determination not to accept
! defeat on a matter that IT best is q
close issue.
The items for schools and hos,
pitfalls, on which the Senate insists
and which the House conferecs op
pose, are in the same class. The
Senate could reasonably afford tc
yield these, and let them be stricken
out of the bill, in cor slderation OF
the House yielding on the Borland
and the refund-of-surplus provisions
That would be compromise ir
which neither side could claim Z
sweeping victory; and it would leave
all the questions for future decision
certain to get consideration, and rea
sonably certain to be decided, a
last, in the right way.