Evening star., 1927-11-17
The True Reason for Fixed Ratio.

The True Reason for Fixed Ratio
Computations of the appraisal VALUE
Of Federal Government property in thu
District of Columbia are interesting
but they do not bear explicitly upoi
the question of the Districts equity il
the matter of national aid in munich
pal maintenance. 1t has never beer
contended that the annual payment:
by the United States in SUPPORT of Thu
National Capital municipality are il
lieu of taxes. The organic act of 1878
which established the principle Of {
fixed ratio of contribution. then set a
fifty per cent Of the whole annual ap
preparation, was based upon the propo
sition that it was the duty of the Gov
ernment, in exclusive control Of the
area set apart as seat of nationa
administration and designed upon g
scale and restricted to uses commen
surate with the dignity and require
ments of the United States. to share
In the cost OF development and main
tenance. Experience had proved that
the District, unaided, could not pos
sibly support itself out of it's own
taxation.
The fixed ratio principle was adopted
and established as a means of regu
Eating the appropriations annually
made for me District. For every dol
lar raised by local taxation the Gov.
ernment contributed another dollar
There was in 1873 no thought of a
valuation of the Federal property in
the District as the basis of this contri.
button. Nor in later years, when the
ratio was reduced to sixty-forty, was
there any consideration Of that valua.
tion. Not even in 1929. when the
lump-sum system was substituted for
the fixed ratio, was this action actu.
Ated by count of values.
The equities of the situation demand
q liberal contribution by the United
States to District development and
maintenance, regardless Of the rela.
rive holdings of the Federal Govern
ment, the municipal government ana
khe taxpaying citizens. They demand,
furthermore, that that contribution be
in determined ratio and not placed
upon the lump-sum basis. For as long
Rs the appropriations are made by
Congress, in exercise Of the privilege
OF exclusive legislation granted by the
Constitution, there can be no other
check upon excessive expenditures
than through the medium Of a proper.
tionate sharing of the cost by the
Federal Government.
The cost Of maintaining and devel-
oping the Capital municipality is in.
creasing steadily. The tax burden, al
ready heavy. has in late years become
heavier in proportion. With the
change to the lump-sum plan there has
eome a disposition by Congress to
throw a constantly increasing weight
upon the shoulders of the local tax.
payers. who, without large industries
and concentrated values such as are
present in other communities to sus-
tain them, are unable to meet the
acquisitions without sacrifice and suf
fering.
Thus, while the computations Of the
values of Government holdings in the
District are striking, they do not def.
nitely bear upon the question now
presented, relative to the restoration
of the equitable system of the fixed
ratio in the making of District appro'
priations. 1t matters nothing what
the White House or the Capitol or the
Treasury would cost in reproduction
today, or what their values may be in
terms of adjacent property. The points
to be stressed to Congress in the ap
peal of the District for a return to the
safeguarding policy of definite pro
portion Of Federal funds as contribu
tion TO the annual cost of Capital
maintenance are that that principle is
equitable, that under it the District
advanced satisfactorily for many
years, that only through it can there
be guarantee against extravaganza
and excessive taxation ana that, final
~, the duty of the Government to
share with a stated percentage in the
cost of the making and management
of the municipality over which it ex
ercises exclusive control has hereto
fore been recognized in law and fha,
there is no ground for it's abandon
ment now that the cost of District
government has grown TO larger fig
ures.