Evening star., 1923-02-05

District as its proper proportion OF
such expenses.
amount of ss34.S3 was paid out OF
federal revenues for the relief OF
Eldred c. Davis on account OF loss
occasioned by larceny in the office
of the collector of taxes. AS there is
States should have borne the entire
cost, your committee recommends that
$3l7.17--one-hal OF said amount
should now be charged against the
District.
Mr.. Tagsart views the matter in
this light, while Messrs. Donovan and
Galloway make no recommendation.
The citizens joint committee cannot
understand why the District govern
ment should have anything to do with
the matter.
Items Properly Charged.
Certain other items have been point
ed out by Messrs. Haskins and Sells. |
with the comment that although they
may not be proper matters for adjust
ment. yet they should at least be In
teresting in connection with future
LEGISLATION dealing with. District fiscal
In the opinion Of your committee all
of the following have been properly
charged and 1t is recommended that
in all OF such cases no sums shall be
gally or morally. from the one gov
ernmept to the other.
]. The first one is summarized by the
committees accountants in a letter to
the chairman. dated January II. 1923:
, In our opinion the general fund
should be charged with $54o,4Si.54, as
follows:
Redemption OF District 5qs
bonds issued under the act Of
Congress approved June 10. 1879 .'
texcirblSe Of pArticiUation in in
teIest payments and premiums
paid on redenptionl charged
against the United states In
violation OF provisions OF the
!: act or Congress- shown on
! paEe s. OF our report t50co of
Less adjustment of errors as '''' l'O'''
enumerated on page OF our
report ..................... Gs5 4e
Remainder Observation-Disclosures. s545, ,4s4. 54
The act in question authorized the
I District Commissioners to issue Ger
tain bonds OF the DiDstrict, redeem
able twenty years after date, to an
! amount not exceeding $1,2O0.000. The
! contention on & provision" contained
In the act, to the effect that It should
| not be construed to make the federal
f, government liable for any part of the
: principal or interest on the bonds.
| and they point out that such pay
| ments were eventually made Jointly
! from the revenues Of the United
States and OF the DiDstrict.
| However. such reimbursement was
made on the $3.50 basis, in accord
1 ance with the express authorization
/ of the Congress. contained in several
| subsequent acts. In the opinion OF
/ this committee. Congress had knowl-
edge. actual as well as constructive.
! of the provision contained in the act
| of June 10. 1879. and deliberately in
tended to place payment of the prin.
cipal and interest of these bonds on
| the same basis as other District ex-
pressed BY the District auditor and
the citizens' joint committee. while
| Mr.. Taggart Of the general account
ing office does not give his opinion
because he believes the question is
Department Of Justice. reiterates
| that in subsequent appropriation
acts it is expressly recited that so
/ trict. and so per cent from the
moneys OF the United States. for
! the payment cf interest and sinking
| fund OF tho District" He adds that
| Congress certainly had right to do
| this, and even though the provisions
| OF former acts were in conflict with
| such appropriations, the subsequent
; action Of Congress must be held to
| legally settled. This position is
| supported by decisions of the con-
+! troller of the United States Treas
ury.
View of Committee.
! Your committee inclines strongly
! to this view, and believes it worthy
! of note that the Mayes-Spalding in
/ vestigations brought this matter
| fully to the attention of the Congress,
J which failed to include the item In
| those for which reimbursement was
/ then required from the District.
{, .. The next principal item to which
. the committees accountants invite
! consideration also dates back to the
! time when the present form of gov
! ernment was established in the Dis
: trict OF Columbia by organic act OF
+, Congress. The United States then as
! sumed so per cent of the debt Of the
District outstanding on June so. 1873.
, There were. however. uncoliected
taxes amounting to N.s22.1ss.75
! which were later deposited in the
, credit OF the District. The question
! arises whether such action was proper
!. or whether the federal government
{, should have been credited with SO
} per cent OF such tax collections.
| Here again. in the opinion OF your
> committee. tue law controls. reflect
4, ing as 1t does the evident intention
! OF the Congress. The purpose OF the
!
! clean; to provide for the payment of
prior and future obligations on a So
D.. so basis. and to turn over to the Dis
/ trict authorities what assets existed
! at the time. Messrs. Galloway, Dono-
| van and the citizens joint committee
Mr.. Taggart takes a neutral position.
Quotes Report.
The following extract from the
Galloway report states the situation
clearly:
"The organic act OF June IL, 1878.
provides that the Commissioners Of
the District shall have power to apply
the taxes and other revenues Of the
1 District to the payment of the ex-
penses thereof, and that they shall
take over the books. papers. records,
money, credit, securities, assets and
accounts belonging or appertaining
/ to the business or interests of the
District; and another part of the same
act provides that all taxes shall be
paid in the Treasury of the United
States and the same, as we'll as the
appropriations to be made by Con-
penses OF said District on itemized
vouchers, etc.
In other words. it seems that there
was an intention to change the forms
of government, giving to the new
| form whatever assets that had ac-
cruing for the purpose of beginning
| a carrying on the new plan. Even
actual money then on deposit was
transferred to be used in accordance
with the new plan. and 1t certainly
was not the intention of Congress to
deprive the District Of all means dur
ing the first year OF carrying out its
| duties under this new plan. Had these
, taxes. uncollected ut June 80, 1878.
been used for other purposes than tn
!