Evening star., 1924-12-05

against excessive taxation by a tax
ing body in which 1T Is not repre-
scented.
X X X
8. 1t destroys the fiscal peace set
tlement promised by the new organic
act.
To raise now the issue of a lump
sum payment substitute for definite
proportionate contribution by the ma
tion Is to reopen the fiscal relations
peace settlement of June %, 1922, and
to plunge the House and Senate into
the old, weartsome wrangle, so hurt
full to the District, over the issue of
definite or indefinite proportionate
contribution toward Capital upbuild-
ing and over the ratio (5050 or 60-40)
of definite proportionate contrtbu-
ton.
The avowed 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 relations
controversy. If the act of 1922 is
left for few years to work out its
vindication on its merits or its failure
on its demerits this needed rest will
be secured. If the old controversy
over definite proportionate contribu-
ton is to be renewed by compulsory
discussion of this bill this rest will
be denied, one of the avoWed main
purposes of the act of 1922 will be
defeated and the understanding
upon which this compromise legis-
lation was based will be flagrantly
violated.
4. 1t teaches false theory con-
cerninE the relation of nation to
Capital.
1t obtrudes annually upon the at
tention of Congress the suggestion
of a large cash donation to the Capt.
tai, as IL the primary obligation of
national city upbuilding were upon
the local taxpayers, and the nation
were only an incidental contributor,
a voluntary and benevolent donor.
Since the nation in 1878 recognized
and assumed it's National Capital
power and obligation, it's RESPONSE
bility in respect to the Capital has
been primary and dominating. AS
late as 1916 this relation of nation to
Capital was fully recognized and
clearly set forth in the report of the
joint select committee of Congress,
which made the most thorough, ex-
haustive and able study of the fiscal
relations OF nation and Capital that
statesmen had given to the subject
assets and revenues of the national
and local joint contributors toward
Capital upbuilding are in the hands
of the national joint contributor, and
as long as all decisions concerning
the amounts, to be paid by the joint
contributors, respectively, and con-
cerning the expenditure of the joint
revenues are to be made by the ma
tional contributor, the latter must
in equity, and will, in fact, bear the
primary responsibility Of Capital up
building, and the local taxpayers
will be recognized in their true re-
lation as merely incidental contrib
utors of tax money, not fixed in
amount by themselves, but exacted
at the pleasure of the other joint
contributor.
5. 1t reduces to n minimum de-
stroyS any chance of equitable pro-
States in appropriating and spending
the Districts accumulated Treasury
tax surplus.
Another practical effect of destroy
ing the 60-40 ratio will be to reduce
to a minimum any chance of equi-
table proporrfonate contribution by
the United States when our accu-
mulated tax surplus comes to be eX-
pended This tax money was col
lected by authority of the half-and-
half law solely to apply upon the
Districts half Of District appropria-
tions. Whenever it Is expended it
would be equitable to spend it under
the half-and-half law, the United
States duplicating it. If when the
surplus comes to be used the pro-
portionate contributions are on the
60-40 ratio, the nation through
Congress will either apply, as equity
seems to demand, the $3.50 ratio
or will make the existing 60-40 ratio
retroactive and add to the Districts
surplus only 40 per cent from the
national Treasury. But if both the
$3.50 and the 60-40 ratios are de-
stroyed, and when the surplus comes
to be expended there is no definite
proportionate contribution by nation
and taxpaying Capital, then the
chances are 100 to 1 that the nation
will not participate at all under any
percentage of obligation to enlarge
the surplus fund for the upbuilding
of the Capital.
X X X
g. There are no offsettfnS bene-
fits to the injuries inflicted by the
bill.
Broadly, Washington is tempted to