Evening star., 1920-05-29
Rider Legislation.

IN Its stead any OlneI ucHHitc pioPoi
tionate relation of contribution by ma
tion and local taxpayers toward eapi-
tai upbuilding. Another rider on the
District appropriation bill proposes a
two thirds increase of the local tax
rate on realty and tangible personality.
In opposition to the first rider and
the Mapes bill Washington proved
that the proposed legislation a. hurt
fully reverses the present practice OF
District of Columbia financing; (2)
ineauitably shifts the primary obi
CATION of capital maintenance from
nation to local taxpayers; (3) by re-
troactive application to the so-called
surplus of unexpended District taxes
it repudiates an equitable obligation
and is morally indefensible, and ~ 1t
repeals by indirection covertly, un-
necessarily, unjustly and most harm
fully the law of 1878, which has for
more than forty years, without unfair
ness to any one. developed the ma
tion's CITY into one of the most beau
tiful of the worlds capitals.
In opposition to the ta1-rate increase
Washington proved that it was already
reasonably taxed in view of its Grip
pling disabilities in comparison with
other comparable American cities; that
If any increase whatever of its tax
burden was equitable it would be of
very small percentage and that two
thirds or one third increase of that
burden was not only unnecessary but
grossly excessive; and finally that no
increase whatever in tax burden was
iustifable until the accumulated, un-
expended surplus of District taxes had
been utilized and applied in the
amount found necessary to meet a
prospective deficit.
The Senate met the House rider on
the appropriation bill with leglsla-
tive rider of its own; and in substitu-
tion for the Mapes bill it proposes
the Jones amendment.
The Senate proposition is that O
by repeal of the law of 1909 the Com
missioners shall be permitted to sub
nit to Congress the full actual needs
of the District; that (2) Congress
shall appropriate in satisfaction of
these needs whatever amount it deems
wise and necessary, advancing from
the Treasury the necessary funds for
capital maintenance and development
and reimbursing itself from local tax
alton in the amount of the Districts
proportionate part $50 per cent, or
55 or 45) of the total appropriation; !;
that (3) the District shall raise its
part of the capital development fund
by applying each year to the fixed
standard of assessment tax rate on
realty and tangible personally which
in connection with other tax revenues
and accumulated surpluses Of unex-
pended District taxes in past years
shall approximate the capitals obliga-
tion for the current year; that ~
there shall be no decrease of tax rate
below the present basic ~ per cent,
thus reducing to a minimum the pos
sibility of a deficit, and that (5) any
surplus of unexpended District taxes
shall 60 over to be expended for the
capitals benefit as District revenue in
some future year.
The precedents and unwritten law
governing attempts to legislate by
rider or "limitation" on appropriation
bills will compel withdrawal by the
proposing house from insistence upon
the proposed alteration Of existing
substantive law if there is renewal of
persistent refusal of assent to it by
the other body. In an issue of this
sort the body proposing to alter ex-
isting law by legislation on an ap-
preparation bill must, if steadfastly
resisted, yield in the end. Irregular
legislation on appropriation bills is
thus subject equitably to a final eff
fective point Of order by the body re.
sisting the irregularity.
This rule applies equally to the or.
ganic act repeal and the tax rate in
crease proposed by the House, and to
the repeal of the law of 1909, the leg
islation concerning surpluses and def
icits and the flexible tax rate provision
proposed by the Senate. Neither pro
posal of substantive legislation can be
made effective as rider on an appro
priation bill if the other house re-
jects it.
In accordance with this rule the
House and Senate eonferees on the
District appropriations bill should
make earnest effort to get togethe,
IN agreement upon an equitable fnanc
ing system for the District, harmonic
ing the contradictory legislative
riders. But if they cannot agree the
legislative riders of both House anG
Senate should he dropped from the
appropriation bill, that bill should bt
promptly enacted and the Legislative
differences between House and Senate
should he left TO be thrashed on
through the legislative committee.
twhere such issues belongl in confer
enee upon the House Mapes bill and
the Senate Jones amendment