Evening star., 1924-12-05
The Districts Protest.

The Districts Protest.
The District appropriation act for
the current fiscal year departs from
the principle of proportionate con-
tribution of Federal funds for the
maintenance and development Of the
Capital municipality. 1t makes a con-
tribution of So 100000 to the total cost
of running the District out of the
funds of the United States, an arbi-
trary sum unrelated to the local tax
payers contribution toward Capital
upbuilding. Adoption of this method
was an abandonment for the current
fiscal year only of the principle of pro-
portion which at the rate of $3.50 pre-
vailed for many years, and at the rate
of 60-40 had been established by the
act of June 90, 1922.
In framing the new District appro-
priation bill Congress must determine
the manner in which the Federal con-
tribution will be made. The Bureau
of the Budget, in submitting the esti-
mates, phrases the appropriating clause
in alternative terms, one following the
language of the current appropriation
act and the other the substantive law
which was ignored at the last session
but not repealed.
In another part of The Star today
is printed the text of petition sent to
Congress at the last session by the
citizens joint committee on fiscal re-
Tnf Ln
the District of Columbia. 1t applies
specifically to the present situation,
with the District bill under considera-
ton. It sets forth seven distinct argu-
Tnents against the Iump-sum method,
arguments that are irrefutable and
that should weigh with Congress now
in the present case.
The lump-sum method of Federal
contribution in Capital maintenance
destroys the definite proportion sys-
tenn, under the beneficent operation
Of which the Capital has wonderfully
developed, and which. after seven
years of exhaustive investigation was
vindicated by retention in the law of
1922. 1t destroys the unrepresented
Capitals safeguard against unjust
and excessive taxation, inasmuch as
with the Governments contribution
unrelated to the whole it may be re-
duced to so low a point as to put
nearly all the burden of maintenance
as the fixed-ratio principle. prevails
the District is safeguarded from
this imposition of excessive taxation
by a taxing body in which it is not
represented.
The lumpsum plan adopted last ses-
sion set aside without warrant the
fiscal peace settlement promised by
the new organic act of 1922, and re-
opened a controversy which had
proved harmful and obstructive. This
plan of fixed-sum appropriation teaches
further a false theory concerning the
relation of the Nation to the Capital.
AS late as 1916, extending from 1873,
the Nation recognized its equitable
relation to the Capital. The departure
Of 1924 set up a new and inequitable
principle.
Approximately $4,500,o00 of Dis
trict money is now lying in the Treas
ury, ostensibly to it's credit, but not
actually available for use, it being the
surplus of funds unappropriated in
the past upon the ratio basis. A bill
is now pending to make this money
available for District uses. It should
be expended on the same basis that
prevailed at the time of it's collection
from the taxpayer, namely, with a
proportionate contribution of Fed
eraT funds. That is a simple equity
against which no valid argument can
be advanced. The lump-sum plan
adopted at the last session initiates
against such equitable utilization of
this surplus. Continuance of that plan
is protested the more strongly because
Of the possible effect on the legislation
making the Districts accumulated
surplus available now for promoting
needed development works.
There are no offsetting benefits to
the injuries inflicted by the lump-sum
plan. The District loses. 1t cannot
gain anything. Under it the District
cannot escape supervision and the
cutting of national contributions by
the Budget Bureau. Under 1t friction
breeding discussion of the ratio is not
averted, but on the contrary aggravat-
ed Under it the District gains no
power to participate in its municipal
Legislature.
The practical effect of the fixed-sum
appropriation is to place a maximum
limit on the contribution of the United
States, and to remove the limit en-
tirely from the contribution of the
local taxpayer.
For these reasons the District pro-
tests against continuance of the lump
sum plan.
s~hara NAV he merit In a o,yast Of