Evening star., 1922-01-24
The District Bill.

The District Bill.
In reporting the District bill to the
House the appropriations committee
has followed precisely the language of
appropriation employed in the last two
local fiscal measures. The departure
OF the bill of 1920 from the fifty-fifty
ratio is maintained, the ratio standing
as during the past two years. at sixty
forty. the District to pay the larger
portion Of the capital maintenance ex-
pense. Similarly. the language of
revenue provision remains the same
the Commissioners being empowered
to increase the rates Of taxation on
realty and tangible personally If the
estimated net revenues for the fiscal
year are not sufficient to meet the Dis
trict's share 1t is provided. however,
that the rates of taxation shall in no
event be less than u nor more than 2
Der cent
It Is to be noted that the House
committee, following its own proposals
for two years past, which have been
adopted In the law, takes no cog
-izance Of the recent action Of the
Senate In passing a bill which aban-
dons all fixed ratio of District-federal
contribution to capital maintenance.
This is the proper course. The bill
which recently passed the Senate in
those terms is matter of unfinished
business. 1t has vet to. be considered
By even committee Of the House,
much less the House itself. The ap-
reopriations committee has, therefore,
proceeded correctly in ignoring this
proposition, which is so iniquitously
unfair to the District.
On each previous occasion when the
House has passed an appropriation
bill with the ratio changed from that
provided in the organic act of 1878 the
Senate has undertaken to amend by
restoring the half-and-half provision,
only, however. to yield in conference
and allow the House proposal to stand.
THIS year it is expected that the Sen
ate will do the same. regardless of its
recent action, and seek not only to
restore the fifty fifty ratio but to incor-
porate in the appropriative clauses the
vital principle of the Jones bill, which
provides for an equitable disposition
and use of any surplus of District
money ana ~, a fair funding of cap
.tal needs in case of a deficiency Of
District revenues,
The original Jones bill has in sub
stance twice. passed the Senate after
full deliberatiop The Carraway-JOpes
bill has passed the Senate only once,
and then hastily and without due con-
sideration. Washington hopes and be-
Heves that the original Jones bill rep
resents the real thought of the Senate.
The bill itself presents many reasons
for disappointment, representing an
almost unyarying range Of reductions
from the estimates and in some cases
reductions from the current law. AS
q result Of these cuts this bill carries
appropriations, including the water
service, of s20,391, $3.50. as against
$23, ,001 ,566.74 Of current appropria-
tions and the budget estimates of
S2s,sss, ,36s.fs. Nearly half Of the re-
duction from the estimates is conf
prised in a single item Of $3,000,000
8or the increase of the water supply.
We're that item added the bill would
carry about $4,000 more than the
current appropriations. But this is an
extraordinary item, and an increase
Of 81, soc 900 over the current appro-
retation for water service expansion,
50 that in any analysis this bill repre-
ssnts a material loss from the present
standard Of District maintenance, and
o very heavy loss from the standard
a. estimated by the Commissioners
and with changes approved by the
budget bureau.
Thus once more is presented the
nroepect Of efforts by the Senate to
restore to the appropriation bill for
the District the features of needed pro-
vision both in current maintenance
AAd in new works which have been
cut in the economy process in the,
HiNse. -,