Evening star., 1921-09-16

not place half of the entire cost Of a
street on the ahutting property."
Mr.. Clayton cited q case where 9fl6t
only valued at between 500 and $500
was assessed approximately Sis for
the paving and laying of q curb on
Georgia avenue, thoroughfare used
by hundreds Of motorists from all
parts of the District and Maryland
every day.
Passed in I1nae af Deficit.
Mr.. Clayton recalled. that when the
Borland law was passed In 1914 the
city had a deficit Of $765,060. He said
the existence Of that deficit might
have been one reason in the minds
of members of Congress when they
paving. 80.
"But that situation no : longer ex-
ists." Mr.. Clayton declared. Since
1914 the District has wiped out Its
deficit and has accumulated surplus
of more than 100000 in tax money
in the Treasury. so that the need for
the revenue produced by the BOrland
law no longer exists.
Mr.. Clayton said 1t is true that other
large cities have special assess
the belief. however, that investigation
would show that nearly all of those
cities are heavily in debt, while the
District has a surplus of revenue.
Follows Kansas City Lead.
c. C. Lancaster said the late Rep
resentative Borland was prompted in
fathering a special street paving as
sessment for the District because such
an assessment was levied In Kansas
City. Mo.
Mr.. Lancaster declared. however.
that in Kansas City it was held that
the people of the city owned the
streets. whereas in Washington the
federal government owns the streets.
William S. Torbert. a member Of
the federation committee, quoted
court decisions to show that the fed
eral government controls the streets
of the District. and. that. therefore.
1t Is unfair to compare Washington
with other cities in the matter of
street paving assessments.
Refers to Donated Land.
. Referring to the land donated by
the original proprietors of the Dis
sos m da ,ss ssd e
eral government pay the original
proprietors for this land? As we have
seen, there was no present or Pc
cuntary considerations: but it goes
without saying that the proprietors
did not part with all this land with
tion. Speaking of this. Mr.. Justice
Story who delivered the opinion Of
the court. said: The grants were
made for the foundation a q federal
city. and the public faith was neces-
sarily pledged when the grants were
accepted to found such city. It
was not a mere gratuitous donation
from motives Of generosity or public
spirit; but in consideration of the
great benefits they expected to de-
rive from having the federal city laid
off upon their lands.
But what benefit would the orig
inal proprietors have derived from
the mere designation upon a map Of
certain areas as streets? The en-
HANGED value of retained land un-
doubtedly was in the mind of the
original proprietors. but enhancement
depended upon the federal govern
ment doing its part in making these
areas streets in fact--grading and
improving them. placing them in con-
dition for traff1c. This obligation was
recognized by the federal government
for many years and until a gentle
man from Missouri, who was unable
or unwilling to differentiate the Capt.
tai city from the provincial cities of
his own state. succeeded in securing
from Congress the reputation of that
obligation through the enactment OF
the so-called Borland amendment"
Warner Stutler and Washington Top
ham. members of the federation. and
T. V. Powderly also spoke in favor Of
repeating the Borland act.