Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1915-10-20

greater portion Of the expense must be
borne by the federal government and
not by the local Inhabitants. Is II just
that one-half of the expense of these
broad avenues, of these extensive I'M
provements. Of these luxurious streets.
Is to be borne by tho local Inhabitants!
1t seems to me that 1t Is unreason-
able. I do not think they can bear It.
There Is not in this District. so far as
know, any manufacturing industry
worthy of the name. So far as agricul-
ture Is concerned there Is nothing here
worthy of the name. The census shows
Ia mere handful of people engaged In
agriculture and 1t shows a manufac-
turing industry less than is contained
In a single block of hundred towns
that l could name in different parts OF
this country.
Basis Of Taxation.
Now, what is the basis upon which
you are to tax? There must be wealth
or there must be a productive industry
that creates wealth. This town is the
mere center and habitation of the en-
ployes of the government, the clerical
force Of the departments, people who
are swept In and out of their omces by
the ebb and flow of the power OF po-
ltttcal parties. strangers who come nero
during the sessions Of Congress Tor
few days or a few weeks, or members
of Congress whose interests and whose
property lie entirely elsewhere.
Il want to ask the honorable senator
who has charge of this bill whether 1t
is just that the people Of Washington
city shall pay the proportion OF one
half Of this expensive government, in
regard to the scale Of which they never
were consulted, in regard to which
property that is to be taxed never was
should not be much less. I remember
in debates before today that in regard
to the avenues and streets here there
was law. written or unwritten. which
seemed In some way to be recognized
that the charge of the avenues fell
upon the government Of the United
States. while the keeping Of the cross
streets, as l will term them. was LEFT
to the town. Then there was pro-
portion Of about one-third OF the ex-
and the rest was paid by the local pop
ulation. But, Mr.. President, that was
before this system of reckless and
widespread improvement which we have
city in the United States. there is none
known to me in the world. in which
the same amount of expensive pave
ment has been laid down as In this city
of $4,000 people. Instituting such a
tails the expense of keeping 1t up. Let
any man ride today, il he can ride.
over such streets and he will see mile
after mile of expensive wooden pave
ment in such condition of decay that
the best thing would be to take it up
even II 1t never were to be renewed.
But 1t is intended to be renewed, 1t Ia
intended to be kept In order upon the
scale upon which it was started. That
will entail an enormous expenditure,
which. having some experience in re-
gard to expenses Of that kind, / would
say the local population OF Washington
are totally unable to bear. The prop
erty will not bear it: 1t is not worth 1t.
If it is to be paid it must be paid out
from which in my Judgment 1t ought to
be paid. because the laws contracting
the expense and authorizing the outlay
were passed without consultation with
or without sufficient consideration in
any way for the people whose property
lies here.
Would Have O.. S. Give More.
II ask the honorable senator from
Kansas whether he does not consider
that the proportion of one-half to be
borne by the people Of this District is
excessive. and whether it ought not to
be less even than one-fourth, justly
considering the fact that the expenses
OF governing this town are chiefly
caused for the entertainment and for
the use and convenience of non-resi-
Union. I believe If statistics could be
established, If the number Of people
who pass in carriages over these streets
could be polled. and their places Of resi-
Washingtonian out Of ten would be
found in the daily use of the drives and
rides of this city. Is that to be so? Is
1t just and right that they should be
called to pay one-half Of the expense
of this scale Of adornment and improve
ment, intended not half SO much for
their use and delectation as for the use
Of those who come here and pass away
after few weeks stay? I submit that
1t is a very grave and very fundamental
question in this bill, whether this equal
division Of the expense is Just or right
In that / express my own opinion, as
indicated by these unprecedented re-
marks. that the proportion is too great
in favor Of what may cali the people
of all the other states who come here
and use this District as a temporary
residence for few months or a few
weeks, and against those who are COM
PEELED to live here and keep 1t up for
the use and convenience of other alb
sent persons"
When Senator Bayard had finished
Senator ingalls, said that at later day
he would reply to the formers sugges-
ton that the United States should pay
more than so per cent of the District
expenses but he seems not to have re-
Cured to the subject.
so Per Cent Agreed To.
The substitute bill of the Senate Dis
trict committee was adopted by the
Senate without a division. There was
conference between the two houses.
but this did not involve the so per cent
provision. AS to that both houses had
agreed. The act was approved by the
President June II, 1873 GEO Stat, 1929.
The act. after providing. among other
things, that the Commissioners OF the
District should annually submit esti-
mates of the Districts expenses to the
Secretary Of the Treasury. who should
revise them and submit them to Con-
gress. contained the lolloWlnS pro-
vision:
ITO the extent to which Congress shall
approve of said estimates. Congress
shall appropriate the amount of SO per
centum thereof: and the remaining so
per centum of such approved estimates
taxable property and privileges in said
District other than the property Of the
United States and of the District of
Columbia"
Lest it be thought that we urge too
strongly the fundamental and perma-
nent effect which should be given to
this provision of the act Of 1878, we in
what the Supreme Court said on that
subject in the case OF Eckloff VS.. Dis
trict of Columbia Obs U. S.. 240):
Significance of 1878 Act.
THE court below (Supreme Court of
the District) placed its decision on
what we conceive to be the true signii-
canoe of the act of 1878. AS said by
To-, 20 ha do1