Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1918-05-08

derly and who would not wish the law
to be repealed if instead of benefit in
justice and injury should result to the
| Washingtonian.
| Representative Gard: 'It served no
useful purpose. 1t is purely and en-
tirely fiction. 1t cannot accomplish
any good for the District of Columbia.
- There is no reason for 1t, because
it does not operate for any useful pur-
pose If 1t did 1 would be the last to
suggest it's abolition. There is no
possibility of an increase in taxation.
There is no possibility of anything be-
| ing done against the individual tax
payer which is not being done now"
! Representative Sisson: This amend
ment will not change the rate of taxa
| tion = and the District citizens will
now pay. If we as congressman
feel that we do the people of the Dis
trict of Columbia an injustice. and l
am sure we would not, then we ought
not to pass this legislation."
! Repeal Will Increase Our Taxes.
| Hear. on the other hand. the legis-
lators who would repeal the ha1f-and-
| half law in order to increase largely
| the District taxes, and to cut down or
eliminate entirely the national contri-
J button, on the theory that Washing
! ton is the lightest taxed Of American
cities, is able to bear unaided the full
expense of capital maintenance and de-
velopment, and that any national con-
tribution for this purpose is unde-
served beggarS aims.
Representative Johnson: "When it
comes down to the property tax, I main
tain that it is less than I'm any other
city of comparable xize In the world.
/ the subject. and at that time l had
before me forty cities, twenty a little
larger in population than the District
of Columbia. and twenty. just little
smaller than the District of Columbia.
The property tax in the District of Co
lumbia was less than in any of them.
In every other city of the United
States there is municipal tax. a county
tax and also state tax Here
they pay one tax. which makes it
very much less tax than in any other
| city in the world.
| Representative Crisp: Il assert that
the citizens of the city Of Washington
pay lower rate Of property tax than
the people of any other city in the
world. There is only one tax
here. There is no state tax, there is
no county tax. > do not want the
people here to be immune from taxation
and ycor constituent and my constituent
be made to pay their tax burden"
| Representative JUL: Il am unable
| to understand by what manner of rea-
soning a wealthy city like Washington
| Union for amy aid toward deSraying ex-
penses of it's local government
| 1 absolutely fail to understand why
community like Washington > . should
pnsS the hat around to the forty-eight
states in the Union and ask them to
contribute toward its local expenses.
If Congress should decide that
Washington should pay its own bills.
apparently no hardship would be i'm
posed upon the city. The day
ought to come - when every citizen
of this community should wish to look
the citizens from the other parts of the
,ts1
their own expenses here and not look
to the rest OF the country for charity,
| A Most Annoying Paradox.
! According to one set of advocates of
the repeal of the half f-and-half law
such repeal will not increase local
taxes. already equitable and adequate:
| will do no injustice or injury to the
! capital community, and on the contrary
! will benefit both capital and nation,
giving larger opportunity for the con-
crete expression of national pride in the
| nations city.
! The other set of advocates of repeal
| favor it as means of greatly increas-
! ing local taxation and of withdrawing
almost entirely national participation
in capital maintenance and upbuilding.
They look upon the District as a
wealthy, humbuegins mendicant, ur-
/ dertaNed. shirkins just taxation, spong
| ing on the nation. Repeal of the law as
applied by them to the rightiug of what
| they consider a national wrong spells
| injustice and bankruptcy to the capital
| community.
! This House debate condenses in a nut
| shell the paradox from which the Dis
trict has suffered in the past of the
advocacy by some friends as well as
| many unfriends of the substitution for
the definite proportiopate national con-
| tribution toward capital upbuilding of
one that is indefinite, huctuating and
capricious. Thus many unfriends and
some friends of the capital agree upon
| the same policy with diverse and CON
J Trajectory motives. and with the ex-
| pectation of securing directly opposite
/ results.
Unfriends would unsettle the exist
ing financial relations of nation and
| capital in order to minimize the ma
tional obligation toward the nations
! city and to reduce to infinitesimal pro-
| portions national financial participa-
ton in its upbuilding.
| Friends would unsettle these rela-
| tionS in order to magnify and idealiZe
the national obligation and to increase
national financial participation in capi-
tai upbuilding. One would unsettle ex-
| listing conditions to the injury of the
| District; the other would unsettle these
/ conditions in order to benefit the capi-
! tai. And the same enactment is thus
at the same time be n to decrease and
to enlarge the national obligation to-
ward the capital. to make less and to
make more the national maintenance
and to be at once curse and a blessing
to the people of the nations city
! A Blessing or a CurseP
OF course. two sets of dramatically
opposite results cannot both follow the
! same enactment. 1T cannot exalt and
| enlarge the sense of national obliga-
! ton toward the capital and at the same
time reduce it to zero. 1t cannot both
increase and decrease the nations con-
tribution toward the capital. 1t cannot
blow both hot and cold. 1t cannot both
bless and curse the capital.
| One set of these advocates of repeal
Of the half-and-half law is deceived
! Continued on Fourth Iage)