Evening star., 1923-02-05

way. as the representative Of .he
Department of Justice and of the
United States, for his opinion: The
committee submits to the Judgment
of the Senate and of the House OF
Representatives it's conclusion that
be given a strict literal interpreta-
tion, in disregard of the purpose and
intention Of the act as whole, and
OF other provisions of the act. In
his opinion Mr.. Galloway states:
IT am fortified in this conclusion by
a consideration of the act as whole,
the title of which indicates that it Is
an act dealing with proportional ap-
preparations for the government and
other activities of the District of CO.
lumbia. 1t is an act directed wholly
toward the consideration of those
things which are primarily and solely
for the interest Of the District of Co
lumbia. All of the act preceding the
paragraph quoted deals with an ar
rangement for proportional appro-
priations and for expenses primarily
for the support of the District of CO.
lumbia. The committee Is created to
inquire into all matters pertaining
TO the fiscal relations between the
District of Columbia and the United
States since July /. 1874
All past legislation upon the fiscal
relations between the District Of Co.
lumbia and the United States, so far as
I have been able to ascertain. involves
expenditures primarily for the beneht
OF for the maintaining, upbuilding or
beautifying Of the District of Columbia
and conducting its activities, and Con-
gress seems to have had such things
always in mind when 1t considered
these fiscal relations.
There is nothing in any of the acts
indicating that Congress ever intend
ed that such expenditures as for the
Lincoln Memorial or the Congressional
Library were made for the primary
purpose of beautifying the District OF
Columbia, and even some of those
urging a construction which would
include such expenditures have stated
that they do not think that the Dis
trict should bear any proportion
thereof. Can il be logically contend
ed that Congress was directing this
committee to do useless thing?
Further. should not this act have such
construction as would make 1t rea SON
able and susceptible Of execution? II
1t Is held to include all Of these eX-
penditures 1t Is conceded by most all
that the task would be so enormous
same could not be accomplished either
within the time fixed by Congress or
, with the amount Of money appro-
I priated.
"All Of these things sustain the con-
clusion which I have heretofore ex-
pressed that this act should not have
strict literal Interpretation indis-
gard OF the act as a whole. IT is my
opinion that this requires your COM
mittee to report to Congress what
! ! sums have been expended by the
| United States and by the District OF
Columbia. respectively. whether ex-
! pended primarily for the purpose Of
maintaining. upbuilding or beautify-
! the purpose of conducting its govern
ment or its governmental activities
and agencies. or for the furnishing of
! conveniences. comforts and necessi-
| ties TO the people of the District. ex-
| cludins the cost of construction or of
| maintaining any building erected or
| owned by the United States for the
| purpose OF transacting therein the
business of the government of the
| United States and that your report
| need not include expenditures which
do have the effect of upbuilding or
beautifying the District OF Column
! 6ia. but which were erected by Con-
gress primarily for another purpose
and which incidentally did in fact
upbuild or beautify said District"
In a few words, your committee be-
lieves that the language contained in the
clause in question, which reads: "A
joint select committee Is directed
to inquire into all matters pertain
ing to the fiscal relations between the
District OF Columbia and the United
States since July l. 1874" not only de-
fines, but limits the scope of the
committees investigation to matters
| that properly pertain to such fiscal
relations; that the words for the
| purpose" mean "for the purpose" and
| not for secondary purpose" or "hav-
! ing the incidental effect: that in the
act reference TO the surplus is made
IN apt words; that the act must he
construed as a whole; that the task
assigned must be considered as posi-
BILE of accomplishment. and that
when all these factors are taken into
consideration. including the occasion
for the creation of the committee, the
intent and meaning of all the
language Of the act Is clear.
Your committee is anxious to carry
out completely the mandate Of the
to call attention to the various con-
! structions which have been urged,
and to set forth its conclusions in
some detail.
! under the law, your committee has
! included in this report tabulatad fig
ures, secured as a result of It's n
! quiry into all matters pertaining to
| the fiscal relations between the two
governments. from July /. 1871, to
June 80, 1929. inclusive, which show
| what sums have been expended by
| the United States and the District OF
Columbia. respectively, for the pur-
pose enumerated.
On the merits Of the particular
question which has been used as an
illustration, IL is the sense of your
committee that no portion of ex-
penditures made wholly out of federal
funds for the purpose of the construc-
: tion Of national memorials or monu-
ments in honor Of any national hero
or character. or in commemoration
! of any national event shall. In maxi
; ing up the fiscal balance. be charge
able to the District OF Columbia.
Work of the Committee.
AT the beginning of its labors your
| the fact that Investigations had al
| ready been made, under authority of
! the Congress, intending to cover the
fiscal relations between the two gov
ernments during the period up to June
| 80, 1911. and that the reports on such
| Investigations had been acted upon
+, by the Congress.
| Messrs. Haskins and Sells were.
! therefore. directed to make a detailed
audit and examination Of the District
| 80, 1922, inclusive. and in addition to
) bring to the cons 'deration of the con-
mittee any other items pertinent to
the inquiry to which their attention
was called or which came under their
T, observation. and which existed dur
! ing the period between July :, 1874.
and June so. 1911. This detailed au-
dit has been made. and a report sui
mitted by the accountants. which m
cludes references to certair outstani-
/ ing items arising prior to the latter
date.
Lack of ThorouEhness Suggested.
| 1t has been suggested. however,
| that the Investigations made relative
| to these earlier years were not as
| thorough or comprehensive as they
should have been: that errors may
not have been detected In every in
, stance, and that the reports Of the