The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1922-03-03
TAX PLAN
. FOR CITY
OPPOSED
Capital Not Represented on
Reorganized Appropriations
Committee.

The District of Columbia has q
real fight on its hands in the Sen.
ate.
Not only has the traditional
sympathy and support given to the
District government in that body
almost completely evaporated. SO far
as taxation matters are concerned,
but other troubles are in store for
Washington.
The Senate Is now undergoing a
drastic reorganization of its com.
mittee structure. Control Of all ap-
preparations Ia to be centralized In
q single committee. On that com.
mittee there is only, a single member
Of the District Of Columbia Com.
mittee-Senator Wesley l.. Jones OF
Washington.
Senator Ball made a strong pro-
test against the apparent side
In the Senate yesterday. He be.
neves that three members OF the
District Committee ought to be al
lowed to sit with the Appropriations
Committee when the District bill II
under consideration. He said:
Ball Makes Protest.
AS chairman of the Committee
on the District Of Columbia, find
that ! am very much Handicapped
in not being in touch or having
anyone present at the District Com
mittee meetings who Is In touch
with the Appropriations Commit
tee. I think always heretofore the
chairman Of the District Committee
has been q member Of the Appro-
priations Committee, but at present
he Is not. am not fighting for
power; but all these appropriations
for the District are sent to me, and
I necessarily have to hunt up the
Appropriations Committee, as the
situation now Is. However. II /
am always to know Just what these
conditions are when these matters
are coming up, ! should have some
intimate touch with the workings
Of the Appropriations Committee IT.
self"
Senator Wesley Jones strongly
seconded the amendment Of Senator
Ball to this proposed new rule, say
ing: a.
ut might we'll happen in the fu-
ture that the members Of the Dis
trict Committee who are also MEM
bers of the Appropriations Commit.
tee would cease to be members OF
one or the other, and therefore
there might be no representation OF
the District Committee on the APP
preparations Committee. 1t does
seem to me that It would be
mighty good thing when the Dis
trict bill is being considered to have
the chairman of the District Com.
mittee, and two other members on
the Appropriations Committee. just
as the other committees are pro-
vided for"
The proposal probably will he
voted upon In he Senate today.
In the meantime there Is another
feature of the proposed new rules
which may have an immediate ef-
feet upon the District bill now on
the Senate calendar.
Might Cut Tax Clause.
II the Senate committee reor-
ganization Is effected In advance
Of the consideration Of the District
bill, II will be possible to eliminate
the s1.75 tax clause without great
difficulty. The new rules distinctly
prohibit the Appropriations Com.
mittee from inserting any general
legislation Of any type In a gen
eral supply bill. A point of order
against such legislation will be suf-
ficient to recommit the measure to
the Appropriations Committee for
further consideration.
There Is a widespread opinion in
both House and Senate that the new
tax feature of the District bill Is
doomed. In the House there Is OPP
position to II because II Is feared II
would lead to a greater burden upon
the Federation Treasury for District
expenses than is the case under the
existing 60-40 ratio. In the Senate
there is opposition because Of the
fear that 1t would ultimately saddle
practically the entire burden Of sup
porting the local Government upon
the citizens Of the District. These
two conflicting views meet in a COM
afforf "a I'LL 4ha ttrldax. -