Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1918-05-02

local tax was reasonable and fair which
| left any Of the expenses Of the nations
r. 70 essS' ~ Ia e: nss5s
ana hopelessly to propose LEGISLATION
which In making national provision for
the capital shall cause Congress TO
liberal appropriations. having in view
not only the permanent moral and ply
steal advancement OF the city. but also
L its pre.eminsnt beauty And Grandeur
the nn sxp,s .sn'n. Of ar,d the
They all leave the national contribu-
ton to the capitals upbuilding. d.
vorced from any definite policy. to SHIFT
from session to session in accordance
sive Congresses, fuctuating and uncer-
tain instead Of regular. often misery
instead Of liberal and rejecting the
peoples pride"
Since the principles laid down by the
joint congressional committees report
are hostile to all Of the practical and
proposed methods OF repeating the
|half-and-half law, this report, instead
Of recommending this repeal. in effect
recognized by the Joint committee are
better met by the half-and-h half law
than by any Of the proposed suostt-
|tutes.
The opinion Of the Joint committee
necessary as a self-imposed obligation
to keep Congress up to the mark Of a
half contribution does not overrule tne
other findings OF the report. and doee
that opinion be we'll founded. And tho
committees opinion on tho subject may
be erroneous.
Certainly the half-and-half law was
needed in the last Consress to preyen ~
ward off bankruptcy: 10 It not stiil
needed? II there 10 doubt on the sub:
ject should not that doubt be resolved
in favor Of the District. since the half,
and-half law is fair and by contlnueu
existence injures no one?,
No Immediate Repeal.
Why should Congress abolish the
half-and- half law at this session, either
directly or indirectly? The last Con-
gress, instead of abolishing 1t. real
firmed it and LET future acton thn r. Gom
Of the joint congressional committee.
This committees report does not abol-
ish the half-and-half Law. or, as we
have seen, on the whole, recommend
its unconditional abolition.
The prejudice which caused members
Of the last House to vote to aPollsh
the half-and-ha1f provision was based
upon the belief that this law was un-
fair to the nation; that under its opera
lions the Washingtonian was grossly
undertaxed: that his tax burden was
only one-ha1f that Of the resident OF
the average American city; and from
half-and-ha1f law should be repealed
in order to do equity by imposing prac-
tical1y the whole burden of capital up
building upon the local community, and
~ of an unfair financial exaction. the
vital alleged fact in which this belief
! and this prejudice were rooted was that
the realty valuation of Washington IN
fniG
realty was consequently in that year
and today underassessed for taxation
by several hundred million dollars.
The Senate denied these contentious
ferred to the joint fiscal committee
for determination. The contentions Of
washington on these issues. voiced In
the Board Of Trade as far back as
1898. and familiar to all OF U.S. ,r..., wsle
bic evidence. by the Joint citizens
committee at the recent hearings.
The Joint congressional committee
finds on all the vital issues of fact In
favor Of washington. 1t sustains As
ment Of Washington realty which dis
closes nearly two hundred millions less
OF realty values than were alleged to
exist in 1912 by the so-called George
Washingtonian is not underassessed,
but that, as compared with the resident
OF comparable American cities. he Is
Of property taxes. about $40, is q rea-
sonable tax burden. no more than
which should be exacted: that while
the Nashingtonian Is contributing all
he eauitably should toward capital up.
ouildins. more instead Of less should ntd
on,v 70 the impulse OF equity, but Of
enlarged patriotic pride in the nations
city.
Does any one believe that moro than
an infnitesimAl fraction Of the repre-
sentatives who in the last House were
nisled as to the controlling facts would
have voted as they did II they had
known the truth az disclosed BY the
Joint committee's report and the :us.
fnds In effect that the half arid-half
provision is absolutely fair to the ma.
ton. Why should those who voted
against It because they thought 1t un-
fair continue to oppose 1t after Its
fairness has been demonstrated?
r,$Av. Mazda