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

c w. WOIE0.
representation can be made of the eN-
ercise of full power over the municipal
fund by its half-contributor. But as
soon as the nation becomes a minority
contributor to this capital maintenance
fund. at that moment 1t loses any
equitable right exclusively to control it.
| II mus; devise some way in which the
will of the majority contributors to the
/ capital-maintenance fund shall prevail
rs TO the amount of taxes TO be raised.
the forms of taxation 10 be employe ed
| in raising il, and as to the purposes
| tor which the capltal-maintenance fund
| Shall be expended.
The turning over of the local taxing
| bower to the ma jority taxpayers should
| be genuine and not bogus and deceptive
, If Congress retains exclusive power Of
| lecislat ioa under the Constitution over
! taxation and merck enlarges the city s
opportunities 20 nc heard III petition. or
! merely increases TIE number of official
! petitioners OF merck gives the District
| III. right to name its official petitioners to
congress: ~ commissioners and vote
! less DELEGATE. the mimi 'iDal taxing power
| viii not he transferred, and Washington
! viii he buncoed and sold-hricked
! II it sold its hirthIight for a mess Of
: ,otta.e at the founding of the city it
| VIII have ncei deprived of the pottage
| without restoration of its brthright and
will HAY. been swindIcd of both birthright
| ana nOttaSe
Not an American Birthright
J The theory that the nations half con
| triDutlon in lieu of taxes gives it Dlaus-
| ible ground of controlling the municipal
corporation assumes. of course. that
while representation in Congress is. when
certain conditions are met. an American
| right. representation in a municipal cor
| poration is not an American birthright.
! In theory the powers exercised by the
officers Of cities are by delegation from
| the people of the whole state. in whom
The ultimate sovereignty. as modified by
tho Constitution Of the United States, re-
! sides Ii; New York. from 1717 to 1921.
4 the officers of the municipal corporations
were appointed by the governor. and tour
senators chosen every year by four sub
divisions of the assembly. Instances of
! the intery ention OF the state government
| into the affairs of cities. amounting III
some cases to indirect disfranchisement,
| have not been lacking in later years
Universal suffrage is demanded by re-
| publican principles only in the choice OF
those officers who exercise purely gov
| ernmental functions. and not in the Sc
| lection of agents by municipal corpora
tons to perform duties affecting private
property interests.
| Taxpayers take the place of share
| holders in other corporations. In dis
! bursting funds for municipal purposes the
! just principle of representation Is saved
I, only if those who contribute the money
direct its expenditure In the case OF
our local municipal corporation the nation
pays half the taxes. so to speak. and.
| with more or less of Difference to the
! wishes of the other taxpayers. does all
| Of the deciding as to the methods OF
| disbursement. SUCH a system OF eXpeno-
ing the municipal funds while it is very
| far from perfect. comes much closer TO
enforcing the will of the taxpayers than
the system which prevails in the ordinary
municipality of determining such ex-
, penditures by unlimited popular suffrage.
which gives to non-taxpaying. irresponsi-
| BILE voters the power to expend eXtrava-
ganty and corruptly the money sup
piled by the taxpayers and places
I the contributors and on-contr1butors 10
/, n fund upon an equal footing in the mat
ter of deciding how and by whom the
| fund shall be distributed. Under 1t have
resulted in intolerable misgovernment and
! robbery of the taxpayers in many OF our
! american cities.
/ Taxation and Representation.
The requirement OF local residence
! for eligibility to the commisslonershlp
| goes far to work a practical compli-
ance in the local municipal govern
/ ment with the principle of no taxation
| Without representation. the gist OF
! which is that the man who puts up the
! money should say what shall be done
! with it, The District taxpayers include
! Uncle Sam as to 90 per cent OF me
| erty owners combined as to the other
! so per cent. Uncle Sam. through Con-
! gress. decided all questions or taN
I raising and tax disbursing- BUT the
sioners who under the law are local
residents and representatives OF the
/ community. take the initiative in IRAN
! ing approprative legislation by pre-
..,,hv
I Thus the one-half taxpayer through us
/ representatives the Commissioners
! proposes the tax raising and tax dis,
F. bursting which will meet the needs OF
, the people of the District: and the other
4, half taxpayer. through its representa-
! tives in Congress. approves or rejects
! these propositions. When an approprla
] ton is made in this way 1t represents
1, the will of all or the great bulk OF the
1 taxpayers.
/ In sharp contrast with this practical
compliance with the principle that oni!
| those who contribute to Il fund shouie
say how much should be raised and how
| the money should be expended is the
| practice in many other large American
! cities. where tax questions are de-
termined by unlimited popular suffrage
and where organized non-taNpayers have
| by mere force of numbers been able tt
I. seize the city's purse and to spend as
!, they pleased or to steal the money con
| tributed by the taxpayers. AS long as
! now required by the eligibility pro
| vision OF the law TO be. the genuine
representatives of the views and wishes
| of the local taXpaying community, the
taxing and appropriating legislation fol
! the District will thus come closer Il
representing the will of the taxpayers
than that in any other great American
city
/ If the nation contributes less than hall
toward capital-uphuilding it loses the
right on equitable American principles te
control the finances of the municipality
But il is doubtful whether under the
Constitution. in its present shape. it car
make a genuine bona-fide transfer of this
| full power to the local majority (Set
Roach ct al VS.. Van Riswick, Wash
ington Law Reporter. November 10. 1870
and it may be found that nothing less
than the absolute divorce of nation anG
capital. which would follow total repudi
alton of the capital-mantenance obliga'
ton. will accomplish fully this liable
transfer If this turns out to be the use
(; all the protests against Il total repudia
ton of canital-maintenance obllGat1 tons
which logically means the destruction oil
the nationally-controlled capital OF the
forefathers will apply with equal force
to the mere diminution of that nationa
contribution. since such diminutiol
! threatens the same destructive result.
/ Not Genuine Self-Government.
In 1883 in a Star article | pointed out
the limitations upon the power OF Con-
| gress under the present Constitution tc
give genuine municipal self-eovernmen'
to the District even if it wished. Much
of what was then said is applicable to-
day