Evening star., 1923-01-22

half out of District revenues. Since
this fund is limited by law to
$4,000 Gncluding cash and value
of material on hand,) it is quite clear
the District has exceeded the author
ity of Congress in increasing the
value of the fund to $283,OS7.11. II
is suggested that unless Congress
wishes to approve the action or the
to s56.000 by covering into mis-
cellaneous receipts the value OF ma
terials transferred to the various
construction projects, one-half to the
credit of the United States and one
half to the credit of the District.
q. Drawback certificates:
These certificates represent re-
fundments on account of erroneous
or over collection of special improve
ments assessments. When applied to
the payment of general taxes they
also represent a loss to the District
in general revenue of s702,S25.S1.
Congress, in providing that 80 per
cent of all such drawbacks received
in payment of general taxes should
be considered as money and credit
to the District evidently intended ia
share with the District it's loss of
revenue. Since the United States by
the organic act of June IL, 1878, as
sumed portion of the general eX-
penses of the District, and by legis-
lative acts since that time the United
states blSlfitl hdNC pOi nv q POI
of the cost of such special improve
ments as paving, sewers, ETC., 1t does
not appear that the sharing of this
loss was intended as pure g1t on
the part of the United States, but
ra ther belated recognition on the
part of the United States of an obli-
cation for IA portion of the cost OF
such special improvements FROM
this viewpoint. j see no reason why
the District should now be charged
with any part of the SS5l,4lZ.Su
credited on account of drawback
certificates.
Trash Plant.
II. Trash Reduction Plant:
The earnings of the trash reduction
plant while under municipal opera
ton have not been checked by me.
However, $4,000 was transferred
from the miscellaneous trust fund
deposits account on August 81, 192z'
and paid to the collector or taxes.
d. c. (audit No. 3225S). This amount
was deposited SOC to the credit of the
District of Columbia and 400 to the
credit of the United States. 1t Is pre-
sumed that this 100000 represented
a surplus after operating expenses
had been paid, as 1t is noted that
while the collector of taxes for the
fiscal year 1921 shows no receipts
tor of the budget reports receipts
from the sale of waste paper, tin,
bottles. etc, $95.5sS. 1t is sug-
gested that the District be directed to
close out this trust fund account and
to pay all expenses of operating the
trash reduction plant from current
and to cover all such
collections into miscellaneous receipts
to the credit of the United States and
the District in the proportion in which
therefor are made.
l. Relief of Eldred G. Davis, col
lector of taxes, ID. c.:
No equitable reason is known why
the United States should have borne
all the cost of this item, and 1t is
recommended that one half of the
amount of S317.17 be now charged
against the District with interest
from the date of the relief act.
J. Increase of compensation paid
by United States where regular COM
pensation was charged proportionally
to the United States and District OF
Columbia:
Bonus and Zoo Park.
This was an apparent oversight by
the legislative body, as the bonus
should logically be charged like the
regular compensation. 1t is recon.
mended that $191,s90.35 as determined
by Messrs Haskins and Sells be now
charged against the District
X. Land for National Geological
Park, acts of June 8, 1920, and March
4, 1921:
AS other appropriations for land fol-
the National Geological Park have
been charged proportionally agains
the revenues of the District, there i.
apparently no reason why an ex.
ception should be made in these two
caSes-I would therefore recommend
that the District be now charged with
so per cent of the actual cost Of this
land.
L. With regard to the difference
of S5,260.6S between the credit bal.
ance due the District as shown b,
the auditor, D. c.. and the genera
accounting office, this difference /:
occasioned in part by reason of the
fact that the general accounting of.
flee charged the District of CoIumbis
with SO per cent of the amount or
buildings and grounds during the ifs.
cal years 1921 and 1922, whereas the
auditor, ID. c., only charged the Dis.
trict with so per cent Of the net dis.
bursements for those fiscal years
These differences will automaticall,
adjust themselves when the balance
in each appropriation is carried t.
the surplus fund at the end of tive
fiscal years. These items are $2,3s7.5s
ana SS,249.6O, respectively.
Minor Items
The item Of $4,000 error discovered
in the statement for fiscal year 1872:
was occasioned by reason of the re-
appropriation Of 100000 for q new
lodge and comfort station in the
Smithsonian grounds. The original
appropriation was $3.50, whereas the
amount reappropriated was errone-
ously charged against the District as
6O/4O. The District should be credited
with $4,000.
a net charge of s17.Ss was made
against the District by reason Of an
error IN covering $29.82 into the
water fund, D. c., instead of repay
ing the appropria ton, electrical de-
partment, .. c., 1920.
1t is also noted that the auditor
y. e, has not included in his state
District of Columbia share of which
amounts to S1,480.75. This leaves a
net INDICATED difference between the
United States and District of Colum-
bia of $6s6.39.
Note: Re Item B:
L have not here referred to sinking
fund matters for the reason that il
is understood they involve legal in
terpretations which are proper fol-
con sideration by others and not
strictly a matter within the under
stood intent of your request for rec
ommendation, as to charges or credits
Note: Re Item D.
The recommendation relative to
earnings of Courts is on the assump-
ton that the expenses of the Courts
as to federal matters or District OF
Columbia matters are now shared on
nrOnpr h2 sic a1fhnnerS, {e.,
stood that in all Of the states the
whole burden of maintenance Of the
courts is borne by the United States
In conclusion I wish to state that
the opinions herein expressed are
personal to the undersigned and are
not intended to reflect the official
views of the general accounting
Office of the controller general.