Evening star., 1925-01-10
CLAIMS S819,373
SURPLUS FOR D. c.
Donovan Calls Attention of
Cramton to Facts De-
veIoped at Inquiry.

Maj. Daniel J. Donovan, District
auditor, today addressed a letter to
Representative Cramton of Michigan,
urging him to recognize the Districts s
claim to certain revenues amounting
to sS1s,373S3 as a part of the city's
surplus in the Treasury.
Il have read in the local news
papers" Mai. Donovan wrote to Rep
resentative Cramton, that you have
introduced in the House a bill intend
ed, as l understand the matter, to be
substituted for the Phipps bill, pro-
viding for the crediting to the Dis
trict of Columbia of certain revenues
in the Treasury of the United States
as developed by the examination and
Investigation made by the Joint select
committee of Congress, appointed un-
der the provisions OF the District OF
Columbia appropriation act approved
June 2e, 1872
"It appears to be your intention to
modify the Phipps bill to the extent of
eliminating therefrom the right of the
District of Columbia to receive credit
for s819,373.S3, in addition TO the sum
of s4.43S,154.92.
Submit Explanation.
I'm my opinion. the District of CO.
lumbia would be done a grave injustice
II deprived OF this credit of SS19,313.S3,
a. that amount represents patent mis-
takes on the part of the accountants
employed by the joint select commit
tee to conduct the bookkeeping and of
the investigation into the fiscal rela-
tions between the United States and
the District of Columbia. l cannot
f,,1T a
vised of the character of the items
that make up this sum you will agree
that 1t would be mantfestly unfair to
exclude from the full amount of the
credit to be given the District for the
surplus revenues this sum of SS19,-
373.S3. For this reason l ask your in
dulgence to submit the following eX-
planation of the Districts just and
moral claim to the sum mentioned.
The sum of sS19,373.S3 is made w
of four items, as follows:
l. The sum OF s16s,50s.S5. This
amount represents revenue collected
by the District of Columbia and de-
posted in thu, Treasury of the United
States during the fiscal year 1922 over
and above appropriation and other
charges against the revenues of the
District for thatyear. In other words
the District Of Columbia collected anC
deposited in the Treasury of the
United States in the fiscal year 1922
$169,50S.S5 more than the total appro-
priation and all other charges agains
the revenues of the District for thai
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 1854,
1850 certified by the controller gen.
eral to be to the credit of the general
fund of the District on June 80, 1922
Now, then, could this item be treated
as an obligation to reduce the sur
plus revenues of the District in the
Treasury on June 80, 1922? Yet this
is what was done by the accountants
in their report to the joint select
committee, and by that committee in
its report to Congress.
Used In Fixing Tax.
The fact that this sum of s169.'
5OSS5 was used as an element in fix
ing the tax rate of the District fol
the fiscal year 1928 did not destroy
the other fact that on June so. 1877
the money was actually in the Treas
ury of the United States to the credl
of the District of Columbia. There
was not any warrant or justihcatlor
for charging the amount OF this item
in the form of an obligation agains
the District of Columbia
"The joint select committee wa:
finding condition existing s o.
and on June 80, 1922, and the amoun
of this Item of s169,50S.S5 should have
operated to increase. not reduce, thu
surplus revenues of the District IL
i the Treasury on that date.
-. The sum of $239, ,430.72. Unde1
the deficiency appropriation act ap
proved July l, 1922, items totallins
! S399, 9,O51.20 were appropriated for th'
District of Columbia The charge t
the revenues of the District by reason
of such appropriations amounted t.
s239,430.72. Because the act in ques
! ton was not approved until after tn
| close of the fiscal year 1922 Gt wa
approved on the first day of the fisca
/ year 1920, it was not considered o
! included by the Controller Genera
! or by the Auditor of the District o
| Columbia in their respective state
ments of account between the Unite'
Continued on Page 4, Column 2.)