Evening star., 1925-03-11
Commissioners Act to Obtain
Use of Balance Left From
1922 Revenue.
WOULD USE BIG SUM
FOR SCHOOLS AND PARKS
Are Anxious to Have Matter Set
tied Before 1926 Budget
Is Prepared.

The District Commissioners today
asked the controller general Of the
United States for a ruling on the
Districts claim to certain revenues
amounting to ss19,37383 which were
left undetermined by Congress when
1t recently recognized that the city
has large surplus fund in the
Treasury.
The amount of the Districts sur
plus, as found by the act of Congress,
Is $4,43S,154.92. If the controller
verif1es the city's claim to the other
$Sl9,S73.83 the total amount of the
surplus will be s5,257.52s.75.
The city heads transmitted to the
controller A clear and comprehensive
presentation by Maj. Daniel J. Dono-
van, auditor, of the reasons why the
additional amount should be declared
a part of the surplus fund.
For Schools and Parks.
Maj. Donovan pointed out that the
Commissioners are anxious to have
the question settled before the next
estimates are prepared so that Con-
gress may be asked to appropriate
the remainder of the surplus for
school and park purposes next year.
After explaining in detail the sew
eral items that make up the $Sl9,-
1888 and the reasons why the Dis
trict authorities believe 1t is right
fully due the city, the auditor sum-
med up:
1T would seem that the foregoing
explanations convincingly and con-
clusively show that the sum of $s19,-
1888. embracing the four items con-
sidered in detail above, was improp-
erly treated as an obligation of the
District of Columbia on June 80. 1922,
thus resulting in correspondingly re-
ducing the surplus revenues of the
District in the Treasury on that date
Had this amount been properly treat
ed as a credit forming part of the
general fund on June 80, 1922, be-
longing to the District of Columbia,
the free surplus revenues on that
date would have been reported as
amounting to $685., ,52s.75, instead OF
$4,A3S,1 ,154a2."
Was Surplus Revenue
In explaining what makes up the
undetermined claim, Mai. Donovan
said:
The additional sum of ss1e.s7S.S3
claimed by the District, over and
above the sum of s4,43s.154s2, is
made up of four items, as follows:
The sum of s169,50s.S5. This
amount represents revenues collected
by the District of Columbia and de-
posted in the Treasury of the United
States during the fiscal year 1922 over
and above appropriation and other
charges against the revenues of the
District for that year. This money
was actually in the Treasury at the
close of the fiscal year 1922 and is
included as a part of the general fund
balance of s7,574,416.90 certified by
the controller general to be to the
credit of the general fund of the Dis
trict of June 80, 1922.
Misunderstanding Claimed.
The accountants employed by the
joint select committee of Congress
treated this item, together with the
following items, as obligations of the
District of Columbia rather than as
credits. which they properly were.
tee in reducing the surplus revenue
of the District as of and on June 80,
1922.
"On page 33 of the printed report
of the joint select committee (Docu-
ment No. sol, Sixty-seventh Congress.
fourth SESSION. the total amount
treated as an obligation instead of a
credit is reported as $s25,603.69,
which, subject to the deduction there
from of claimed surplus fees of the
recorder of deeds and register of
wills, amounting to s6,229.s6, subse
quently deducted from the general
fund balance of the District in ac-
cordance with a decision of the con-
troller general, would leave the diff
ference of s819,373.S3 left to ascer
tainment and determination by. the
controller general under the act ap-
proved February .. 1925.
s233,430.72 Omitted.
"The sum of s23s.43o72. Under
the deficiency appropriation act, ap-
proved July 1. 1922, items totaling
s3ss,051.20 were appropriated for the
District of Columbia. The charge
to the revenues by reason of such ap
preparation amounted TO $2Ss,47o.72.
Because the act in question was not
approved until after the close of the
fiscal year 1922 tit was approved on
the first day of the year 1920, 1t was
not considered or included by the
General Accounting Office or by the
auditor of, the District of Columbia In
their respective statements OF ac-
count between the United States and
the District of Columbia for the rs
cal year ended June 80, 1922. 1t
should not have been included in the
report of the accountant of the COM
mittee or in the report of the COM
mittee itself, as 1t was transaction
to be taken care of and included In
the statement of account between the
United States and the District of Co.
luubia for the fiscal year 1928.
The joint select committee, proceed
ing on the basis of the report OF the
accountants, charged the Districts