Evening star., 1922-05-03

ton for q new conduit from Great
Falls. Representative Davis said:
That is a matter on which we are
going to spend $500, 900, and we have
appropriated in this bill, If the House
will consent to 1t, which I think it will,
s1,500,O0e, besides an authorization
for about another s1.5OO.ooo. in ad-
dition to the other 100000 which
they have already. In fact, we
tory. think, on the water propo-
sition for the present. OF course, we
in the House are just as much in
terested in good water supply for
this District as. any Of the conferees
Of the Senate"
Even before the amendment affect
ing the fiscal affairs of the District
was offered Representative r. Walton
Moore Of Virginia. democrat. reserved
a point of order against it. Repre-
sentative Charles r. Davis Of Mime
sofa argued that this was not tnvolv-
ed in the conference report, but
Speaker Gillett ruled that the action
of Representative Moore was timely.
Representative Moore endeavored
to persuade Representative Davis to
postpone Offering the amendment re-
garding fiscal affairs until all other
items in dispute had been disposed of,
but was unsuccessful.
When the amendment was offered
by Representative Davis. Mr.. Moore
made the point of order. first, that it
would piace new legislation on an
Appropriation bill. and, second, that 1t
is not germane to the Senate amend
ment. He said that the Davis amend
trict new fiscal system. By way
Of Illustration. he pointed out that
the Tax on intangibles, I believe. is
three-tenths of l per cent: This
amendment makes it one-half Of l
per cent. This amendment looks to
new division between the govern
ment and the District. varying from
the present law. of revenues derived
from certain sources. This amend
ment contains a provision which, so
far as 1 know. is completely new,
with respect to the payment of
the District of Columbia. At pres
ent. the law provides that taxation
shall be based upon two-thirds Of the
value of rear estate. This amend
ment provides that the basis here
after shall be the full market value.
"They are not only changes in ex-
listing law and, therefore. unauthor-
ICED, but. in addition. it seems to me.
unless the theory of germaneness
can be stretched to an indefinite limit
they violate the requirement as to
germanenesS." So
Representative Moore argued that
and the interests of all concerned. 1t
is very evident. however. that the
majority of the committee do not well
come any views that may be inter-
preted as representing the interests
of land owners or investors in real
estate. At the public hearing in April
the chairmen of subcommittee pre-
sented reports and several of them
and some of the other members Of the
committee very frankly expressed
land hogs and of "disloyalty" of in
vestors in real estate was freely in
dulged in by them. My great offense
seems to be that later made state
ment Of my views, based on what
heard from the lips of the members Of
the comm ittee at that public meeting.
Because my views differed from some
objects to my activities I therefore
believe that the committee does not
desire a full and impartial hearing
and consideration of all phases of the
question.
Interests of Majority.
THE majority Of residents in the
District of Columbia are tenants and
the natural tendency of large COM
mittee of citizens is therefore to
jority. Where l believe the COM
mittee errs is in not recognizing that
their best interests lie in gaining
through justice and fair play the con-
fldence of real estate owners and pos
sible investors in real estate. since
very largely for the relief they wish.
"I hope that the committee Will