Evening star., 1915-11-15

per cent. He cited no changed condi-
ton. except that the government had
| owned a larger proportion Of the then
| city than 1t does Of the presen city. The
emphatic and convincing argument he
made as the responsible chairman of the
House District committee in charge OF
| the bill in 1873 against leaving the capi-
| tai and the District taxpayers to the
| wh.m and caprice of each recurring ses-
sion of Congress, and in favor of a
fixed proportion in the contribution to
the expenses, is unanswerabe.
| ut is claimed by the civil Commission
ers that the half-and-half plan is "a
! legislative felton, and has long since
| been practically abandoned by Congress,
although they grant that 1t had a psyche
| annual appropriations based upon the
| wants of the people of the District OF
Columbia, SO that we now have an or
derly budget; we now have an annual
| me valuable result of a legislative
fiction. Indeed, it suggests that the
legislative fiction ought to be continued.
and that there is nothing in the claim
whole. OF course, if that charge were
well founded, Congress would have re-
pealed the half-and half law instead of
defeating every attempt to do so, includ-
ing those in the last session of the last
Congress.
Cites Action of Congress.
But the best answer to the claim
that the half-and-half principle is
practical one of the actual action of
under that principle.
Il ask your special attention to the
table prepared at my request by the
auditor of the District of Columbia,
giving the total of all the appropria-
tions for District expenses from 1878
to June 80, 1915.
"It shows that the total appropria-
tions payable half and half from the
District and national revenues, re-
spectively, from 1873 to 1915, are $780,
074,457.24. of which the United States
paid half and the District half, and
bia paid from its revenues $5,947, ,16e.s9
under appropriations and appropria-
tion charges, and $s20,74631 in refund
ing enormously collected taxes, etc,
which, of course, being merely a re-
fund of revenue collections. is properly
Out of a total appropriation, therefore.
of s276,021, ,61S.13 for the thirty-seven
years, only s5,s47,16o.s9 was made
wholly out of District of Columbia
revenues, very small percentage in
so large a total amount.
even these slight deviations from
the half-and-half plan ought not to
have been made, but they were COM
paratively slight. They are no argu-
ments for repeal. The regular annual
practice was to appropriate literally
half and half Except as to the self
sustaining water distribution service),
and this has been maintained right
down to the present fiscal year.
Fiction Theory Not Supported.
"The actual facts do not support the
theory that the half-and- half plan has
been a legislative fiction. The table
presented by Commissioner Brownlow
showing appropriations for the period
1900 to 1914 illustrates just as strik-
ngly the insistence of Congress upon
the observance of the half-and-half
plan imposed by it upon itself and the
District taxpayers. This table has ap-
parently not been fully understood by
the members of the joint select COM
mittee, who have thought it showed
departures from the half-and half plan
instead of fidelity to the half -and-half
plan. If they will examine the table
they will see that with the exception of
the small percentage of APPROPRIATIONS
wholly from District of Columbia rev.
enues made every year since 1891. the
differences between the payments by
the United States and payments by the
District brought out especially In the
relative percentages are due to the
temporary advances from the United
States to the District of Columbia in
the early part of the period, and their
repayment by the District of Columbia
to the United States in the latter part
of the period. That was the period
when over 81 200. 600 was spent in ex-
traordinary municipal improvements.
including the filtration plant. the sew
age disposal system, the District gov
ernment building, the Connecticut Ave
nue. bridge and other important pub
lie work.
not provide the Districts ope-half of
these expenses, SO that Congress ar
ranged that the United States Treasury
should advance from year to year the
amounts required by the District to
make up It's one-half, which, however.
We're to be repaid, and were repaid
within the period. with 2 per cent in
terest.
$4,436, 1853 Was Advanced
The actual amount advanced was
81. .436. 1880, and, with the interest,
was repaid by the end of 1914, the total
amount, with interest, being $4.971.-
s3O.9S. In the years when the advances
were being made the United States rel
ative percentage of payments was
larger than that of the District of Co
vances were being repaid the District
of Columbia percentage of payment
was larger than that of the United
States
In one year, 1914, the District was
required to reimburse the United
States, on reStatement of an old ac-
count. for patients at the Government
Hospital for the Insane, the payments
being wholly from District revenues.
Yet, taking the whole period, 1900 to
1914. so carefully did Congress arrange
for the observance of the half-and- half
plan that, as shown by the table. the
relative percentage, OF the District OF
Columbia and United States primary
payments was: District of Columbia,
81 20 per cent, and United States, AZ. 50
per cent, which is only 1.20 percentage
difference. In other words, the table
conclusively shows that, far from be-
half plan has been the rule OF action
of Congress as to all regular appropri-
ations, with slight exceptions for spe-
ciai reasons, as. for example, the larg
est item of all, which is for the pur-
chase of land for street extensions
selection of these special objects to be
paid for only out of District revenues
is arbitrary. and has nothing to do
with the half-and half plan.
Account With the District.
Much has been made in support of
the legislative fiction theory of the
fact that there is no general account
in the Treasury Department between
the United States and the District Of
Columbia as to the revenues of the
District of Columbia. and that the con-
% hn Nra ty, I1I