Evening star., 1920-05-20

Balttmoreans pay for expenditure in
baltimore. What Washingtonians pay
for expenditure in Washington cannot
equitably be compared with what Bal
timore plus what they pay as Mary
| landers for the maintenance or a
sovereign state and for expenditure in
that state.
One might as well inject into the
comparison of city burdens con-
pays in national taxes as an American
for expenditure on account of the
United States. including Baltimore.
In other words. the taxes that the
Baltimorean pays as Marylander o,
as an American have nothing to do
with city calculations and compare
sons. In the different cases there are
not the same persons contributing,
not the same area within which ex-
pc enditureS are made. and not the same
beneficiaries of these expenditures.
Baltimore taxes are paid by Balti-
moreans only. and are spent in Bafti-
more only. The Marylanders who are
in Baltimore contribute state taxes in
common with thousands outside OF
Baltimore. to be spent not in Balti-
more, but in all Maryland. Washing
ton has not the benefit Of outside con-
tributions to state tax in the en-
Joyment Of which it participates. j:
has no state relations or privileges or
benefits.
No Comparable Benefits.
2. Mr.. Beales says:
In cases where other cities actually
received certain benefits from the
states. but where no com
parable benefits are enjoyed by Wash
ington. the cost of such benefits should
be excluded from these comparisons :
My personal view is that. so far as
concerns the only important benefits
received by the citizen of a state (who
lives in city) in consideration Of his
state tax. Washington enjoys no COM
parable benefit whatever. and on the
principles laid down by Mr.. Beales all
state taxes should be excluded from
the calculations.
What are the benefits enjoyed by
the citizen of a state which constitute
the real consideration for the state
taxes which he pays? If he lives in a
large CITY Of the state. is it the drib-
let OF state expenditures which the
counties permit to get through to the
city: No. The state tax which he pays
rs essential to his status as citizen of
a state and to his enjoyment as such
citlzen OF political and judicial rights
of inestimabIe value and of large
financial benefits
What comparable benefits are en-
joyed by Washington
state taxes are paid that one NAV
enjoy with thousands outside Of ones
home city the privileges and benefits
or citizens of the state, including
representation in Congress and the
electoral college and in a state legis-
lature: recognized status in the
United States Supreme Court, and the
financial benefits which come from en- :
Joyment of the land grants. bounties
and so forth which the nation has
lavished upon the states
These land grants amount to 1885,
5.4.123 acres of the public domain.
These money donations include over
sl6.000.00O from public land sales.
$2S:000.0o0 as deposits" under the act
OF 1885, and over s63, 100000 under the
Morrill, act.
The payment Of taxes as the citizen
of a. state gives the taxpayer his pro
portionate share in these financial
benefits. The Washingtonian enjoys
no part In these grants. bounties and
benefits as citizen of a state. Why
should he pay or have charged
against him as part of his equitable
tax burden the taxes which are Incl