Evening star., 1925-05-13

| local taxpayers should be added a
dollar from the, National Treasury,
and that the aggregate revenue
should be expended for Capital up
builling. This provision protected
the District from excessive taxation
| by causing a taxgatherer, alien to
the unrepresented District, to appro-
pirate from his own Treasury for the
Districts benefit every time he ap
| propriated from, the Districts tax
revenue. Every dollar he took under
| the tax power from the local COM
munity increased correspondingly his
| own Capital contribution.
The law of 1922 retains the prin-
ciple of defini1e related Capital con-
tributions. in which the law of 1873
was rooted That the ratio of this
relation was changed from $3.50 to
s0-40 did not alter the basic prin-
ciple involved.
The pending proposition destroys
all relation between the national and
local contributions, and, leaving all
taxing power in the hands OF the
United States, deprives the unrepre-
sented Capital of its safeguard
against excessive taxation by a tax
ing body in which 1t is not repre-.
sented.
StNOyS tkAC AlbCAA pC1GC oCt@
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
ton is to reopen the fiscal relations
peace Settlement of June 20. 1922, and
to plunge the House and Senate into
the old, we;irisome wrangle, so hurt
full to the District, over the issue Of
dot ,if nj inn n ta
contribution, toward Capital upbuild-
ing and over the ratio (50-50 or 60-40)
of definite proportionate contribu
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 a few years to work out its
vindication on its merits or its failure
on it's desDerits this needed rest viii
be secured. If the old controversy
over definite prDportnonate 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 legislation was
based will be Eagrantly violated.
4. 1t teaches q false theory con-
cerning 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 if 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 its National Capital
power and obligation, its 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
since 1S74-S. AS long as all the
assets and revenues of the national
and local joint contributors toward
Capital upbuiIding 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-
lIiS VI Tue JOl1il
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 con-
| tributor.
X X X
5. 1t reduces to minimum or de-
stroys any chance of equitable pro-
pOrtionate contribution by the United
States I'm apprOpriating and spending
the Districts accumulated Treasury
tax surplus.
Another practical effect of destroy
ing the 60-40 ratio will be to reduce