Evening star., 1915-02-25

litigant, should apply to himself the
spirit of the statute of limitations and
rooted. He should say: With control
over the whole affair in my own hands
all the time for thirty-five years have
during the whole period treated thir
compromise or bankruptcy settlement
of 1878. 1 will not now, in common
fairness. reverse my position and de-
mand from the District taxpayers of
1913 lega! proof Of this settlement on
penalty Of a fine Of million dollars If
this proof is not Forthcoming. There
was proof which was satisfactory to
me in 1878 and Immediately thereafter,
of thirty-flve years or not And while
the statute of limitations cannot be
pleaded against me, / will not, in a
matter in which 1 occupy the position
beneficiary of my trust, which would
be barred by this statute. If this claim
was not formally and specifically set
tied in 1873 it was all my fault The
pleaded against me, but l will plead it
against myself not to permit my ward
to evade a conceded honest debt, but to
spare my ward the demand of legal
proof of thirty-five-year-old fact
which I have treated as a fact during
these thirty-fve years"
III
If old claims and equities prior to
1878 are to be revived in favor of the
United States, then they must also, in
consistency and fairness. be revived in
favor of Washington.
1t IL not equitable to apply the hnlf-
and-half principle In equalizIng ex-
penditures between 1874 and 1873, ex-
clusiveIy to the interest on the 3.65
bonds. This same principle, II applied
other expenditures ON the District's
account between 1874 and 1873. and
these expenditures should also be
eauaIixed. The report of the municipal
finance committee of the Board Of
Trade investigates fully and states
in great detail the whole Of this ac-
count between the United States and
the District of Columbia and shows
that In an equalizing of the expendi-
lures shown in this account for the
four years between 1874 and 1873 the
United States Is indebted to the Dis
trict.
District prior to 1873 are to be viewed
as surviving the Districts bankruptcy
settlement of 1878, then claims and
equities for the District must be treat
ed as similarly endowed with continued
life or with like possibility of res
direction. If the District of today is
to be held responsible fol any nebIect-
ed debts of the District p-Ior to 1878
Washington's unsatisfied equities and
partly unpaid credits.
If Uncle Sam as a creditor can con-
vey himself thirty-five years or a. haIt
past he must & back similarly as a
debtor and meet now the unsatisned
equity against him which arose IRON
the circumstances Of the founding of
ers of Washington donated five-s sew
enths of the city's soil and yioIdo the
ri, hit of government to the ma
ton on the understanding and imnIied
up here a magnificent capital at its
own expense, reimbursing itself. in
part, from the proceeds of the sal, of
donated lots.
A pretentious city was planned. and
lots were sold by the government on
the strength of this understanding. For
three -fourths of a century the nation
violated or neglected the obligations
which 1t had thus incurred. In 1878
the government, which had in the be-
ginning impliedly undertaken to meet
all the expenses of capital-making and
then shifted that burden. in the main,
upon private citizens, decided that JUS
tice required it to pay one-half of the
Districts expenses.
From these facts two equities in
favor of Washington's people and
against Uncle Sam arise: % For the
payment of much more than one-half
of the local community's capital-mak-
ing expenditures from 1890, based on
the nations undertaking to meet these
expenses itself at the founding of the
city; (2) for the repayment to Wash
ington of whatever it's people had paid
more than the United States, applying
to the past the half-and-half principle
of the organic act
The old claim of the District against
the nation which revives II 1t was not
merged In that bankruptcy settlement
of 1878 amounts to more than $18,OOO,-
600. and the Districts resurrected claim
In 10 that Of Uncle Sam as 10 to I.