Evening star., 1923-01-31
No Cut of Districts Surplus.

Successive accountants (Mayes
| Brothers. Spalding. etc), employed by
Congress have ransacked the ac-
counts from 1874 to 1911 and have al
ready reported fully every unpaid
credit in favor of the United States in
that period, and Congress. acting
upon these reports, has compelled the
District to reimburse the United
States in the full amount found to be
justly due in connection with these
credits. The District claims to be able
to prove that these official account
ants did not state the Districts cred
| it's between 1874 and 1911 with the
same fullness and completeness a. the
credits of the United States. and that
an equitable balancing of the accounts
from 1874 to 1878 can be secured only
by adding TO the Districts side of
the account certain District credits
obviously overlooked or ignored by
the official accountants
II the reports Of the official account
ants upon the period between 1874
and 1911 and the action of Congress
compelling certain reimburSementS. in
pursuance of these reports. are view
ed as binding the United States, but
not the District then the surplus
credit of the District, found to exist
in stating the account since 1911, can
not be decreased by the discovery of
ditional credits in favor of the
United States but may be materially
increased by adding to the Districts
side of the account any additional
credits of the District which the evi-
dence may show to have existed and
to have been neglected and omitted
| in the statements of the first official
accountants.
If the action of Congress on the re-
ports of the Official accountants be-
fNuA a
! the District as well AS the United
States, then the amount Of the Dis
trict's net surplus since 1911 will be
unchanged. suffering for the present
neither increase nor decrease. Com
Eress In legislating upon these re-
ports of past Indebtedness of the
| District fixed semi-judiciaIIy and
without appeal the amount of reim-
bursement to be justly made and de-
termined finally whether all or half
of the alleged Indebtedness should be
equitably paid. and whether or not
The interest provision of the net of
June 20. 1922. does not apply to these
retmbursements in respect to which
Congress In final semi-judiciaI set
! tfment has determined thnt no In
tereSt charge should justly he made
II the work OF the ofHcIaI account
ants on the period between 1874 and
1911 is totally dfsregarded as bind
ing neither the United States nor the
District, and a full new restatement
of the entire account from 1874 to
date is made, the result will he the
same, and the Districts accumulated e d
tax surplus will be materially in
| creased.
Equities of the Period from 1878 to
Date.
The law of 1873 contemplated ad-
vances by the United States to the
District of Columbia to be reimbursed
in the current year. No equitable or
moral obligation in favor of the Unit
ed States can arise from faithfully
carrying out the law of 1878 in ac-
cordance with it's terms. There can
be no obligation of the District, for
example. to pay interest on advances
! which are contemplated and COM
manded by the law itself. On the
other hand, there is an equitable or
moral obligation by the United States
to make good by reimbur sements
(perhaps with interest any viola
tions by itself of its self imposed OBJ
tligations under the law of 1873. which
remained the permanent, substantive
fiscal law of the District until ii was
in effect repealed by the new fiscal
law of June 20, 1922.