Evening star., 1916-08-31
The District Bill.

While it is gratifying that the Dis
trict bill should become law at this
session, thus insuring continuance of
works under the municipal government
which would otherwise be halted or seri-
ously affected under Continuing reso-
rhtion," it is deeply to be regretted that
the measure carries the unjust pro-
vision for the taxing of intangible prop
erty. The recession Of the House from
the half and half repeal was to have
been expected. At no time after the ac-
tion of the Senate, whereby the organic
act was maintained by to ] vote,
was any other course to be viewed as
probable. Nevertheless, the situation
was affected by the Senate's own adop-
tion of the tax measure. Had this pro-
vision been added in the House, the
trict's fiscal system, there would have
been no occasion for surprise. In the
conference, therefore, the Senate rep
resentatives were in no position to trade
unless it turned out that the House. in
elined of late toward radical and strange
methods of local legislation, was, in fact,
opposed to the intangible tax. A be-
lief that this was the case developed
toward the close of the conference, and
gave rise to hope that the Senate, gain
ing the half and half, would yield on
Al - - l..
the Senate conferees ready. it is under
stood, thus to yield, the House voted to
accept all of the Senate's amendments
remaining in dispute.
Thus the District retains the half and
half provision of the organic act, which
should not have been in jeopardy, and is
muleted in an unnecessary, burdensome,
inequitable tax There was no argument
in behalf of this imposition that it
would supply needed revenues. 1t was
not urged that it would equalze the bur
den of taxation. 1t was not shown that
it would ameliorate the situation Of the
small home owner, for whom much sym
pathy has been expressed in Congress in
the course of the debates on local
finances. 1t was merely contended that
intangible property should be taxed here,
as in some other places, regardless of
whether the money was needed or not,
4nd with no effort to effect a more equi-
table distribution of the tax levy in
view of this addition to the revenues
other than consideration of the whole
tax system of the District by a joint
committee. Had this reference to joint
committee preceded the tax enactment
there would have been no logical ground
Of complaint. A more inequitable pro-
pesal has rarely been made in legisla-
tive body, and the grievous injustice of
it is that it was enacted without hear
ing, without any we'll informed discus
sion. 1t was literally slapped ON the
District bill, regardless of every other
consideration save that intangible prop
erty is elsewhere subject to taxation.
The salvation of the half-and half
at least holds the District immune from
the dangerous sliding scale basis Of
finance. The adoption of the intangi-
bic tax imposes the necessity of asking
Congress at the next session to cancel
this unfair imposition. 1t would seem
to be impossible to secure stability for
the District. From session to session
these controversies arise as new and
strange methods of finance are tried or
proposed. The District prays today for
tranquility, but not at the expense of
such an injustice as q tax which it does
not need, the yield of which it is not
permitted to spend in accordance with
the terms of the organic act, and which
must inevitably work hardship upon the
very class of people for whom sympathy
is expressed in Congress whenever Dis
trict money matters are under discus.
sion.