Evening star., 1923-02-05

pufpO6cS VI inc new lOIh oL BSvSaA a.
ment, the District would have been
unabls to contribute one cent toward
carrying out its part Of said plan un-
I'll 1t was able to assess and levy
Certainly Congress did not intend
that by this Legislation, and, in fact.
the express provisions of the statute
above referred to, indicate a contrary
intent. 30 that 1t Is my opinion that
from a legal standpoint this question
is also settled, as Congress clearly
showed that 1t intended that these
uncollected taxes be deposited in the
Treasury to the credit OF the District
exactly as they were deposited"
The above Is another. Item which
! was called to the attention of the
Congress In the Mayes-Spalding in
vestigations.
Largest Item.
8. The largest item to which the
accountants refer, without making
definite recommendation. consists or
receipts from licenses. privileges. etc;
years 1912 to 1922. inclusive.
These, in the opinion of your COM
mittee, fall clearly in the same cate
CORY as local taxes, and were properly
credit Of the District OF Columbia.
The organic act Is specific on that
point. After the requirement that an.
nual estimates of proposed District
expenditures should be transmitted 10
Congress, it provides that:
| ITO the extent to which congress
shall approve of said estimates, Con,
gress shall appropriate the amoun'
of so per centum thereof, ana .ne
naming so per centum OF sucn ap,
assessed upon the taxable properly
and privileges in said DISTRICT otnNI
than the property of the United States
and the District OF Columbia
| District Auditor Donovan. In MS re-
| port, cites several decisions OF the
controller of the Treasury which re-
fer to this language and appear 70
/ settle the question conclusively In tne
Districts favor. The arguments al.
vanced under this head in the briet OF
the citizens joint committee ats5 PAP hp
peal to your committee as belns
| sound and based upon correct rules OF
legal construction.
! 1t is, of course, quite within the
| for a different disposal of future col
lections, and from time to time the
receipts from certain privileges nave
been placed, by act of law, Jointly
to the credit of the District and the
federal government. But except In
cases where such specific provision
I is made the District has been en-
titled, according to your committee,
to the full amount of such receipts.
Galloway Report Quoted.
Mr.. Galloway, In his report, con-
firms this view that legally such fees
wholly to the District. as has been
done. Mr. Taggart "can see no rea-
son why the District should now be
charged with any part OF these col
Iections" with the exception OF a
small item known as special rein
| bursable taxes, amounting. during the
period covered by the accountants
report, to s9.014.23.
hat N n
law these latter items should be COL
lected in the same manner as gen.
/ eral taxes in the District OF Colum-
bia, and the committee cannot see
how a valid distinction can be made
as TO this class of miscellaneous COL
lections.
4. Another matter referred to by
the accountants. without any ape
cific recommendation, arises from the
fact that certain United States Army
off1cers have been assigned from time
J to time to duty in the District gov
ernment.
Their compensation. consisting of
pay and allowances. comes wholly
out of the revenues Of the United
States. This Is also true of civil en-
pioyes Of the general accounting OF
fee. who have been called upon to
work on District accounts. The full
amount of such Army officers COM
pensation. between the years 1912 and
1922. Is given as s2S2,4221S.
Authority Not Questioned.
| There is no question but that there
is specific legislative authority for
the payment of such Army officers by
the United States. and for their de-
tail to the District government;
neither Is there any doubt as to the
| existence OF statutes creating the
positions held by employees in the gen
| eral accounting Office and the Treas
ury Department who keep the Dis
| trict accounts.
These employees, of course. are SEE
leeted primarily to safeguard the In
| terests Of the federal government
More than this. the arrangement re-
| lating to Army officers carries out the
general policy Of the Congress. AS
pointed out by Mr. Taggart, who de-
clines to make a recommendation, it
has not been the policy to charge for
the services of such engineer officers
for river and harbor improvements,
and for otheE purposes, even where
the whole cost OF the work Is paid
by states. municipalities or by prj-
vate interests
Mr.. Galloway, Mr.. Donovan and the
citizens joint committee concur in
the views of your committee. that no
part Of this item should properly be
charged to the District.
4 Refer to Collections.
5. An item, to which the account
ants have also called attention, Is
that certain collections made by the
j clerk OF the Supreme Court Of the
District. for the issuance Of certain
jurors, are covered into the Treasury
wholly to the credit OF the federal
government. The accountants recon-
mend that the committee consider
the item, while Mr.. Taggart suggests
States and the District as to such col
| lectionS subsequent to June 80, 1922
which the committee understand Is
covered under the terms of the Dis
trict appropriation act for the present
fiscal year
There Is no question but that there
was SUFFICIENT authority of law to
justify the deposit Of these funds
wholly to the credit of the United
states, and your committee believes
1t consistent to recommend that they
should not be disturbed. A ruling in
support of this position was made by
the controller of the Treasury under
tire sum involved is s. siI5.s7o.ss.' 81"
6; The cost of erecting and fur
nishing the District of Columbia
Court Of Appeals building. provided
for by the act of May so. 1908. ag-
paid by the federal government Sal
aries of employees and miscellaneous
expenses of this building, since Its
completion. have been apportioned
| between Ine Cnlted states and the
District Of Columbia
Your committees attention has been
called to the fact that, in addition to
considering appeals from the Supreme
Court OF the District. this appellate
court also has original jurisdiction
in cases involving patents. and that
this business Is of considerable vol
ume. Many suits are also brought
in or carried to this court on account
of the fact that one Of the parties is