Evening star., 1916-05-21
DISCUSS ABOLITION.
OF HALF-AND-RALF
Members of Fiscal Relations
Committee Give Views of
Rider on District Bill.
QUESTION OF CONFORMITY
TO COMMITTEES REPORT
Vigorous Denial of Such Conformity
Is Made in Senate-Divided
Opinion in House.

| Opinion in House.
Members of the joint select commit
tee of Congress to investigate the fiscal
| relations between the District of Co
! lumbia and the United States yesterday
and last night discussed with repre-
sentatives of The Star the provisions of
| the District appropriation bill of the
House of Representatives. which seek
| to abolish the "half-and- system
of maintaining the National Capital.
| Senator Works of California declared
the bill did not at all meet the recon-
| mendations of the report of the fiscal
: relations committee. adding: Il intend
to combat the bill with all the power l
can if it comes to the Senate carrying
it's present provisions for paying the
expenses of the capital"
Senator Chiffon said he did not care
to comment upon the bill until it comes
to the Senate, but that when it does he
will have something to say.
Views of Senator Salisbury
Senator Salisbury. in an interview
| last night with representative of The
Star at the Metropolitan Club, said he
had noted with interest the views in
opposition to the House District appro-
priation bill which abolshes TIE half
and half system of maintaining the
National Capital, which have been eX-
pressed by Senator Works, Senator Gal
! finger, Senator Chamberlain. Senator
Jones, Senator Sterling and others. He
remarked that the bill will go to the
appropriations committee, of which he
is not a member, rather than to the
District committee of the Senate. of
which he Is a member. but he declared:
Il shall certainly carefully examine
the provisions of the House bill when
it comes to the Senate.
Senator salisbury also remarked that
as his state, Delaware, is such a small
one. he had become interested in the
affairs Of the people of the District of
Columbia. another small community,
because he thinks he ought to try to
District in seeing that they get JUS
tice. When newspaper reports giving
the language of the House District bill
which abolishes the half and half"
ton. Senator salisbury made this
statement:
Il have not examined the House bill.
and therefore can only speak most
generally on the subject. From the
newspaper reports however, the House
bill seems expressly to violate the
findings and recommendations of the
joint select committee of Congress to
Investigate the fiscal relations between
the government of the United States
and the District of Columbia respect
ing the Districts bonded indebted
ness-the 3.65s.
Intent of the Joint Report.
The report of the committee was
that practical justice to the District
and the federal government had been
| done by the half and half division of
| expenses. and that the people of the
| District-paying. as they do. about s17
| per capita for municipal government
were contributing just about as much
as citizens of like communities con-
tribute for such expenses.
THE committee did find that the
half half plan need no longer be
adhered to, but feel sure the members
of the committee would have been
practically unanimous in finding that
| the District should not be called on to
pay 50 per cent plus of all District
| expense, and that, l understand. is the
proportion the District is called on to
pay by this bill
| Il shall certainly carefully examine
the provisions Of the House bill when
| il comes to the Senate.
Reverses Proposed Policy.
| Representative Cooper of Wisconsin,
one of the members of the special joint
committee which has Investigated the
| fiscal relations between the United
states and the District. said:
The joint select committee found
that District taxpayers were bearing
their full burden under the existing
| tax rate. and that it was the duty of
| the federal government to continue the
4 Il
beautifying the National Capital. re-
| gardless of the expense involved. 1t
| was the purpose Of the select commit
tee. carefully emphasized in the report.
| to remove a bar which migh. be ac-
| cepted limiting federal appropra-
| tions for this purpose.
| 1T was not the intention-t was di
| rectiy contrary to the purpose-of the
| committee. to facilitate any attempt to
| shift the burden of responsibility more
| fully upon District taxpayers or TO
| make i, easier for Congress TO cut ex-
| penditures for the District to bare
| necessities. with the view or result of
making District taxpayers bear vir-
tually all the expense of maintaining
the National Capital. 1t is preposter-
| GUS to suppose that this city could be
| maintained on a scale behttlng the
capital OF the United States by rev.
| enues collected even in large part from
| District taxpayers.
People Proud of Capital.
| The special committee was unani
\ nous in holding that this being the
| National Capital, the people of the
country have pride in it. and it was
| altogether wrong to expect the taxes
collected on property in the District
Of Columbia to support the District
| government and make such improve
| nents as the National Capital of this
| great country demands. There are a
| great number of municipal necessities
In which Washington is lacking. The
people of the United states without re-
| gard TO party want the capital of the
| United States to be model municipal
ity. They want no slums, disgraceful
| alleys or inadequate municipal build
inHs. The people want improvements
| possessed by other cities. and which
| they feel the capital of their country
| ought to possess
| MY own Judgment in that the taxes
raised here are on just and equitable
assessment. but they will not suffice to
make these needed improvements. and
| believe II is the duty of Congress to
provide the balance. The people of the
country expect II. They do not expect
the taxable property of the District to
Itake care entirely Of their National
Capital.
Washington will some day have
1000. 900 inhabitants. and as the func-
In. Il