Evening star., 1923-10-24
LUMP PAYMENT IS
BAD SUBSTITUTE
FOR 6O-4O SYSTEM
1t Destroys Unrepresented
Capitals Safeguard Against
Excessive and Unjust
Taxation.
KILLS 1922 PEACE PACT,
REVIEWS FISCAL CHAOS
It Limits Capital Contribution of
Nation and Leaves Unlimited
That Exacted From Taxpayers.
Editorial Correspondence Of The Star.
THEODORE w. MOVES.

III.
The threatened bill to abolish def
mite proportionate contribution under
the 6O-40 ratio in Capital upbuilding
and 10 substitute lump sum con-
tribution by the nation should be re-
jected for several reasons.
l. 1t destroys the definite proper
tionate contribution system. under
tho beneficent operation or which the
National Capital has wonderfully de-
veloped, and which after seven years
OF exhaustive investigation and dis
cussion has been vindicated by re-
tention in the 1922 law.
Destroys City's Taxation Safeguard.
The compromise law OF 1927 cou-
pied with imposition of new tax
burdens and the inhiction of varied
material injuries upon the Capital
the vitality important offsetting bene-
ut of retention OF the principle of
definite prOp0rtionate contribution,
the Districts safeguard against ex-
cessiye and unjust taxation by tax
ing body In which It In not repre-
sented. The threatened bill deprives
the District of this offsetting benefit,
the only feature of the compromise
legfslation clearly advantageous to
the people of the Capital.
.. To raise now the issue of n
lump sum substitute for definite pro-
pOrffOnate contribution by the nation
is to reopen the fiscal relations peace
settlement of June 70. 1922, and to
r'unEc the House md senate into the
old wearisome wrangie. so hurtfui TO
the District. over the Issue of def
mite or Indefinite proportionate con-
tributions toward Capital upbniid-
ing. and over the ratio (5O-50 or
0O-46} Of definite proportionate con-
tributi0u.
Destroys Fiscal Peace Settlement
The asowed purpose and promised
result of the new law was to bring
to House and Senate and people OF
the District a period of wholesome
and refreshing rest from fiscal rela-
tionS controversy. If the act of 1922
is yindication on its merits or its
failure on its demerits, this needed
rest will be secured. If the old con-
troversy over definite proDortionate
compulsory discussion of the threat
ened bill. this rest will be denied
and one Of the avowed main purposes
Of the act Of 1922 will be defeated.
Fiscal Chaos Again.
The understanding when the act of
June 90. 1922. was agreed upon by
House and Senate viewed that act as
compromise measure disposing for
many years OF these troublesome fis-
cal relation issues. The Districts
contribution toward Capital upbuild-
ing was increased from so to go per
cent: its tax rate on intangible per-
sonalty was increased 66 2-3 per cent,
and the foundation was laid for in
creasing its realty tax; it was
deprived of exclusive credit for
large sums of miscellaneous receipts
hitherto solely enjoyed, this action
INJECTING heavy loss. and It was
compelled TO accumulate from its tax
money of present years (every cent of
which was needed to meet the urgent
municipal needs of today a fund of
millions to provide in advance for
meeting the first half-year expenses
of 1928. In partial compensation
for these drastic eXactions the Dis
trict was TO enjoy for five years and
indefinitely thereafter the benefit of
approximate certainty as to its ratio
of proporttonate contribution: 1t was
through increased respect to be shown
to the Commissioners estimates to
have in substance the privilege of in
fluential participation in shaping ap-
propriations of which Ii should pay
so per cent, and it was to be spared
for a long period the hurtful dead
locks over ratios between House and
Senate which annually endangered
the District appropriations and un-
deservedly prejudiced House senti-
ment against the Capital community.
But no sooner was the definite 60
40 ratio fixed by compromise agree
ment, leaving only the surplus ques-
ton to be decided equitably by Con-
gress, and almost before the Capital
community had adjusted itself to its
new fiscal organic act and had begun
to enjoy the promised bliss of fiscal
peace, q proposition appeared to re-
pudiate the agreement upon the CO.
40 ratio, to substitute a system of
unrelated contribution by Capital and
nation and to precipitate Washington
taxpayers into the fiscal chaos from
which they had recently emerged.
And today, when the prospect of
fiscal peace has grown brighter; when,
by the certificate OF the controller
general. approved by the joint surplus
committee of Congress. the Districts
treasury surplus has been demon
strated to exist, and the troublesome
surplus question, except for minor
equitable readjustments which Con-
gress can make at its leisure, has
been removed from the class of preju-
dice promoters and friction-bree
revival is threatened of the lump
payment proposition, and our vision
of fiscal peace and rest vanishes.
vital Feature OF 1922 Law.
The vital feature of the act of 1929.
carried over from the act of 1878, Is
that it fixes a definite equitable stand
ard of national participation in Capt.
tai making, related to the cOntribu-
ton exacted I'm taxes from the Capt.
tai community, and does not leave
this standard to the shiftings Of ca
price.
Two practical questions in respect
to financing the Capital have been OF
vital Importance from the beginning:
(1) Shall the national and local con-
tributions be definite or indefinite, re-
lated or independent; CD Who shall
determine the relation of the amount
of these contributions, respectively?
The history of the Capital has DEM
onstrated distinctly that these con.
tributions should be definite and re
Iatedt and that If indefinite and unre-
related to insure justice each contrib
utor should have voice in deter1nin-
ing the amount of his contribution.
Since the day of the creation of the
Capital the nations obligation toward
the nations city has been the same
primary, exclusive and dominating.
Not the obligation itself, but the de-