Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1918-05-03
Senate and Organic Act.

The Senate is about to take up the
District appropriation bill, with its rider
repeating the half-and- half law. The
assault of this year on that law dupli-
Gates in essentials those of 19l4-15 and
1915.
The Senate in 1915 rejected repeal
by vote of &C to 90. In 1916 it re-
jected repeal by vote of Al to Is. I'm
less conditions have changed or now evil
ience has been discovered the Senate
would naturally act now as it did on
objectionable proposition of 19l4-15 and
that of 1916.
Has anything happened since 19l4-15
to influence the Senate in either direc-
ton on this issueo
The congressional joint fiscal commit
tee has investigated and reported
While, as we have seen, the committee
holds up the finger CT dubious disap-
prevail at the half-and- half law in the
abstract, it destroys in specific detail
the reasons advanced in 1915 for the
repeal of the half -and-half law. 1t sug-
gests that there is no reason or neces-
sity to continue the half and-hal law
1t demonstrates that there is no reason
or necessity to repeal it.
The reasons assigned IN 19I4-15 and
ngain in 1915 for repeal were, first, that
Washingtonians, as demonstrated by the
George report of 1912, on the evidence
of Mr.. H. ]. Browne, were grossly un-
derassessed in that year. realty properly
valued at s744,0O0,O0O being valued by
the assessor at only 1896, 100000. The
evidence before the joint committee and
the report of that committee show the
George report valuation to he grotesquc-
" excessive. It is demonstrated to be
at least 500, 100000 too great: (D By
the finding Of the joint congressional
committee; (2) by the report of the Dis
triet assessors; (3) by the testimony of
the census bulletin summoned by Mr..
Browne AZ a corroborative witness, and
is reduced to an absurdity by COMPARE
soc with the assessment valuations of
other large cities.
The second vital factor of the two
earlier attacks on the half-and- half law
consisted Of table Of comparisons Of
city tax rates based on estimated true
valuation Of realty, and which was made
to show that Washington was the light
est taxed Of large American cities, pay
ing only about one-half the average pay
mont of other such cities. This stand.
ard Of Measurement Of comparative tax
payments was demonstrated before the
joint committee to be absolutely unre-
liable, and was rejected by the joint
committee. The figures of comparative
tar burden resulting from use Of this
standard Of measurement were shown to
be misleading and worthless, not only
by the census authorities, in discussing
the basis on which these figures rest and
by the admissions Of tax officials in
states and cities, but by the grotesque
results which follow acceptance Of the
accuracy of the reports of the relations
Of assessed to true value and the at
tempt to use this false reported rela-
tion as factor in measuring compare
tive tax burdens.
The comparative tax burdens of cities
are most accurately measured by COM
parison Of tax ievies and tax receipts
in the aggregate and per capita. There
is NO factor of irresponsible guesswork
anywhere in this calculation to develop
erroneous and deceptive results.
This standard Of measurement was
adopted by the joint committee The
evidence before the committee showed
that Washington's per capita tax bur
den, instead of being below the average,
Is distinctly above it; that the few
among comparable cities which exceeded
it in tax burden exceeded it only slight
ly, and that many cities which ought to
bear and are able to bear far heavier
burden fall below it, even when stand
ards of comparison are employed which
in effect imply the unfair taxation of
the Washingtonian for what he does not
get.
The burden imposed by Congress upon
the local taxpayers is found to be fully
a. heavy as that which the average self
governing municipality imposes upon
itself. and, in view of the capitals lack
Of taxable resources and other peculiar
disabilities under which the District of
Columbia labors, its tax is harder to
bear than that of the average American
community.
The joint committee, applying the per
capita property tax standard of measure
ment to comparative tax burdens, de-
clares that Washington's burden, instead
Of being half burden, as contended by
enemies Of the half-and-kalf law, is q
full burden. measuring up to that i'm
posed in other American cities. On this
point the joint committee declares:
aThs annual tax in Washington is ap-
proximatcly ZIG. per capita. In the
Judgment Of your committee this is a
reasonable tax levy at this time, es-
,.>.fallv vhan we conaider M VIA rnust