Evening star., 1923-02-16


The sixth question is
Is there any special equitable obIi-
cation upon the nation to develop or
maintain the capftals
Washington's answer TO question 6
recognizes a peculiar national obliga-
tion in equity toward the capital,
double obligation, extraordinarily
heavy under each head: "a That arts
ing from the circumstances of the
creation OF the capital. and t2) that
which is coupled with and measured
by the nations absolute control of
the nations city. The nations OBJ
legation to Washington under the
first head is not duplicated in the
case OF any other of the worlds cap
itals included in this table, except
Canberra, the capital that is- to-be OF
Australia, which does not yet exist
In respect to a few other capitals
(Mexico, Paris, Rio, Buenos Aires
Athens, Romeo a national obligat tion
of the second kind is recognized,
measured by the degree of peculiar
control exercised over them in each
case by the nation. This equitable
obligation is substantial in the case
of Mexico and of Paris and much
slighter in the case of Rio. Buenos
Aires. Athens and Rome. But even
Mexico and Paris fall far behind
Washington in the height and breadth
OF this obligation.
The true basis of this nations OBJ
legation of proportionate contribution
toward the maintenance and develop
ment Of the capital is not solely or
primarily untaxed ownership of Dis
trict real estate, though a substantial
and continuous obligation does arise
in connection with such ownership
The strongest obligations resting
upon the nation are equitable in their
nature and based primarily on the
circumstances Of the capitals Gre
alton. and the treatment of the cap
ital by the nation ever since the birth
Of the nations city.
BY this special obligation I mean
an obligation over and above that
which is imposed solely by the fact
that city is a capital.
The Nations Intention.
The general government, by the fact
Of planning a magnificent capital,
covering a large area and character
lied by broad streets, avenues and
reservations to an extent unsuitable
for a self-supporting commercial city,
and by founding this capital in
place comparatively uninhabited. as
well as by the terms of the bargain
with the owners of the soil, and by
the declarations of its representa-
tives at the founding of the city and
afterward, showed an intention to
build up a national city. at the ma
tion's expense, on a grand scale. ire
spective of the future population of
the District. The capital was to be
primarily a center Of federal action.
and the occupation Of the ground by
settlers was merely incidental to this
great purpose.
It was to be . meeting place for
the use, convenience and entertain
ment Of the, people Of the entire
Union. and the expense Of its.support
and adornment was not to be limited
by the scanty resources of what per-
manent population it might acquire.
The original owners Of Washington
donated five-sevenths of the city's
soil and yielded the right Of self-gov-
erpment to the nation on the under
standing and implied agreement that
the nation was to build up here q
magnificent capital at its own ex-
pense, reimbursing itself from the
proceeds of the sale Of donated lots.
A pretentious city was planned and
lots were sold by the government on
the strength of this understanding.
For three-fourths of a century the
nation violated or neglected, the obii-
cations which it had thus incurred.
In 1878 the government. which had In
the beginning impliedly undertaken
to meet aIl the expenses OF capital
making and then shifted that burden,
n the main. upon private citizenA, de-