The Washington times., 1915-10-26

are less per capita than Washington.
When the per capita interest payments
are deducted from this column in order
current needs OF the present and the
future. eliminating from consideration
past expenditures or waste represented
BY interest-bearinG Indebtedness, 1t Is
found that Washington's per capita is
greater than that Of every other city
on the list"
Capitals Tax Burden Heavier.
In comparing Washington taxes with
those exactd in cities Of similar size.
Mr.. Noyes said$
1T Is interesting especially to compare
Washington's per capita tax burdens
with those Of the cities In this list that
are nearest 1t In size: with New Or
leans. which is larger than Washing
ton. and with Atlanta and Birmingham.
which are smaller. From every con-
ceivable viewpoint the tax burdens of
Atlanta and Birmingham measure
lighter than that OF Washington: and
the same is true Of New Orleans. ex-
cept only In respect to per capita re-
ceipts from all city county, and State
taxes. Under this head Washingtons 8
per capita is S20.02 and that OF New Or
ledns " men tne per capita inter-
est payments are deducted to ascertain
the comparative needs for present and
future. New Orleans falls considerably
below Washington.
Next let us compare Washington's
tax burden with that OF a group of
cities over 10000 in population In the
States OF Washington. Michigan. OHIO
Indiana. Illinois. Kentucky. and Ten
nessee.
These cities are Chicago, Cleveland.
Detroit. Milwaukee. Cincinnati. Indian
apolis. Louisville. Columbus Toledo.
Memphis. Dayton. Grand Rapids. and
Nashville.
Per Capita Tax Levy Larger.
"Of these thirteen large. prosperous,
and typical American cities not one has
as large n per capita realty tax levy
as Washington. Five have a larger and
eight a smaller per capita total prop
erty tax lexy. Only two (Chicago' and
CtncinnatD have larger per capital re-
ceipts from all municipal taxes. Eleven
| cleveland. Detroit. Milwaukee. Indian
apolis. Louisville. Columbus. Toledo.
Memphis. Dayton. Grand Rapids. and
Nashville) show smaller per capita re-
ccipts from all municipal taxes. When
an equitable proportion OF county taxes
is added to per capita receipts from all
municipal taxes four cities tChicago.
Detroit. Milwaukee. and CincinnatD
! show a larger per capita than WASH
ington. and nine cities Cleveland. In
dianapolis. Louisville. Columbus. Toledo.
Memphis Dayton. Grand Rapids. and
Eashville) show a smaller per capita.
when the per capita OF interest pay
ments has been deducted In order to
cut out expenditures representing i'm
provements enjoyed or graft or extrav-
agance suffered in the past and TO show
| raf hprdena for
current maintenance and development
OF present and future three cities (Chi-
cago Detroit. and Milwaukee,, very
slightly exceed Washington in per cap
ita and ten cities Cleveland: Clncin'
natl Indianapolis Louisville. Columbus,
Toledo. Memphis, Dayton. Grand Rap
Ids. and Nashville) show a smaller per
capita"
Tax Levy Has Increased.
Refuting suggestion that Washington
has a large quota OF tax dodgers
Mr.. Noyes presented a table OF figures
to show that since 1907 Washington
property tax levy has steadily In.
creased, while that Of many compar-
able cities has nuctuated.
After contending that Washington
residents are without tho franchise and
4 voice In their own government. fact
which should be taken into considera-
ton. ton in ,.,S: comparing tax figures Mr.
"AM Americans are today patrioticaily
proud Of the Capital and Inspired by
the national sentiment for which u
stands. No American would. I thirek
use his constitutional power to oppres'
his fellow Americans living in the Dis
trict OF Columbia II he did not believe
that what he proposed was fair and
"Erroneous beliefs In respect tc
washington's tax burden thus consti'
tute the basis and inspiration Of the
attacks upon the existing financial ar
ransement. They are responsible TO,
your vitality important functions is.
think, to pass upon the soundness oi
these beliefs"
A Damaging Charge.
Evidently referring to tho brief filed
by Herbert ]. Browne. who assisted II
the preparation OF the George repor
Of the Sixty-third Congress Mr.. Noyes
continued:
The charge of comparative under
assessment of Washington realty mos
in evidence alleges specifically tha
District realty measured by tn,
standards applied in other cities wa!
worth seven hundred and forty-fou
millions in 1912. though assessed fo
only three hundred and thirty mil
| lions.
This specific excessive overvalua
tion of Washington realty-the err
roneous deduction from false premise,
OF a single non-expert witness before
a House subcommittee-has Crept into
| House committee reports. has beer
accepted as gospel truth by man,
Representatives and some Senators
has been quoted as incontrovertiblt
fact In Congressional debates. and
thus has inflicted serious and unmerit.
ed injury upon the people of Wash,
ington. This preposterous overvalua'
ton Is the foundation of the charge
| so prejudicial to- the resourceless
| community that Washington is the
richest per capita OF American cities
In taxable resources; that II is so rich
| that It can easily raise eleven millioni
year on realty and fifteen millions
| In all local taxes. and stands in nc
need Of assistance for its maintenance
| and development from the nation
through the act OF 1878 or in any othei
| way"
Disadvantages of Washington.
Turning to the question of nationa
capitals. Mr.. Noyes argued at length
the peculiF disadvantages of Wash
ington. He said In part:
IAN nations except the United State.
encourage the development Of tn,
taxable resources of the capital com
munity. directly or indirectly, in vary
| Ing degrees, or, at least do not dis