The Washington times., 1915-11-15

half Of the appropriations after they
ale made.
Obligation Is On u. s.
| 1--WE assert as heartily as anyone that
| the primary obligation Is on the United
] States: that this is emphaticaIiy the
| nations city; that 1t is under absolute
' national control, and that responsibility
/ goes with control; yet that It Is at
once the seat OF the government and
\ the home OF $4,000 Americans; that It
| II practically impossible to unweave
| their respective interests In the munich
pal facilities and services; that 1t is
| practically impossible to determine ex-
actiy the relative amount OF their real
| property holdings. Yet that II Is neces-
/ sary to consider their respective bene-
fits. and also the important factor OF q
| large amount OF exempt property
But we cannot agree with the civil
commission that the half-and-hair pro-
vision OF the act of June II, 1873, Is not
the efficient cause OF the progress of
/ iative fiction. We cannot agree that
the Morrill, plan Is any more practical
| now than when II was first suggested,
in 1874. and failed to command the sup
! port Of Congress. which preferred the
| plan.
IT Is said that It was. the assumption
OF fun national control In the act of
ISIS which produced the Washington OF
coptrol between 1874 and 1873, II not
during tho seventy-four years preccd-
Ing. Can anyone seriously suppose
that Y Consress had adopted the Nor
sion for paying a fxed proportion OF
| the District expenses, had taxed the
people OF the District fully. and added
from the Federal Treasury only irresu-
could ssSs Sse% tss s .os Ss ,Ss
expenditure Of Sla5. 10000 from the Ma
tional Treasury. under the steady OBJ
servance OF the half-and-half plan. a.
rule Of appropriation. with q some
t1ct taxpayers. and not any assump-
Capital what It is?
To Meet Arguments.
| I'VE can understand that II will be
acceptable to those who want to destroy
the half-and-half plan in order to put
tho whole burden. or the greater part
Of tho burden. OF National Capital maxi
ing and upkeep upon the taxpayers. We
came up here primarily to meet the argu-
ments Of those who had claimed In
Congress that the District people were
Able to carry the whole burden. end
that the rest Of the country ought not
to bear any share Of the expenses OF the
common Capital A few mon in the
House. using the now discredited estl-
nat ma sS % 81 real property in the District a.
recent Increase. which seems excessive
to many. the total value three years
later Ia set at only Sa3. .0oO. 900. took that
position. and some Senators agreed with
them. having no other information be-
fore them than the misleading estimate.
| True. all their attempts to put their
view into law failed: but this Inc alry is
effort
''lt would be natural and not strange
II reasonable taxation of the District
people might become gradually and even
rapidly unreasonable in the attempt to
| make them pay the greater part or all
of the National Capital expenses. Depriv.
ed OF the protection Of the half-and- half
principle. they might expect to pay more
than the half. which Is an equitable
pay much more than that.
They would have no vote In deter
mining how much they would have to
pay. unlike the people Of Mexico. the
| only capital under such scheme
where, however. there Is representation
| in the national congress by two sem
ators and several representatives.
Adopted BY Congress.
BE 1t remembered. that Congress
adopted ths half-and-h half plan: It was
|
IL remembered. that Congress has for
the most part lived up to that obllEn-
ton. and has thus far defeated every at
tempt to abolish II. Its great merit Is
its deiniteness. The proportion In any
event must be arbitrary. for 1t cannot
| be exactly measured.
In our brief and In our presentation
national interest and national pride and
national desire for the National Capital
are emphasized by us; We SAID that
United States. We ugree that the
question Is. What shall the local people
contribute We say that since It seems
impossible to measure exactly the re-
holdings as between the National Gov
ernment and the local community. ar
arbitrary proportion, not fixed sum,
which could not be changed with the
increase In population and wealth on
the one side and the increase In the
national interest and the increase in the
local interest. with the increase OF popu-
lation. must be continued.
Under the act. of June II. 1875. the
United States Is not limited to the pay
inent OF one-half Of the expenses. ii
may pay as much more as II pleases.
But the local people are protected from
undue increase In taxation on one hand
and from lack Of progress in the devel-
opinont Of the city on the other.
Mackenzie's Statement.
Mr. Mackenzle statement tollQNS In
part:
"Since the representatives Of the Tax
Reporm Association had the privilege
of presenting their views before this
committee. a new fiscal plan has been
proposed, a very clear-cut and definite
plan. sponsored by men whose views
will naturally have a great deal Of In
huence with the committee. This fiscal
arrangement. as outlined by Commits
sioner Newman. is. in fact. that the
National Government shall pay all OF
the expenses of the District: that John
Hobbs, who Is fortunate or unfortunate
enough to live In the District, shall
pay Into the Treasury of the United
J States a fair and reasonable sum OF
money for the privilege protection
, and civic rights. that he enjoys by liv.
ing here. and that a fair sum Of money
for John Hobbs to pay for living In
the District would be what 1t would
cost him to live In any other city OF
the same size.
In my judgment, however. there are
certain serious objections to the pro.
posed fiscal plan. In the first place
the proposed arrangement would not
remedy the evils and difficulties which
II will be agreed, are a necessary par,
OF the present fiscal system. It would
still be necessary for the District Com.
missioners to submit detailed estimates
to Congress showing exactly what
amount IT Is proposed to expend fol