Evening star., 1927-12-04
NOTHING NEW IN LATEST PLANS
DITCH FIXED RATIO PRINCIPLE

Dy the DlStr1ct anu cucrdi ooSeih.
ments in support OF the Capital City.
paving it's share through then exist.
ing taxes, the committee concluded
that the definite system Of apportion-
ing the expenses was no longer necee.
sary, and proposed as substitute
that Congress should pursue den'
mite policy of regular and liberal ap-
preparations, having in view not only
the permanent moral and physical ad'
vancement of the city. but also its
pre.eminent beauty and grandeur as
the municipal expression of the Ma
tion's home and the peoples pride
The committee did not determine, a.
directed. what the proportion Of na.
tional contributions should be, but its
findings were made the basis six years
later for the new 60-40 ratio established
In the appropriation act for the fiscal
year 1923.
But long before Senator Works had
advocated his plan or the prominent
Washingtonian quoted above had sug-
gested his, the same principle was
advocated in the early seventies OF the
last century by Senator Lot Myrick
Morrill, Of Maine. He said the United
States should collect from the Capital
community reasonable, moderate tax,
tional amount was required to main.
tain the Capital. Yet the Morrill, plan
was put aside after q thorough in
quiry which led to the organic act OF
1878 and the definite ratio system.
1t was Senator Works who stated
that the only foundation for advocacy
of continuing the fixed ratio principle
n an uh
Congress would not adequately sup
port its own Capital. and, at the
same time, would overtax the Dis
trict. ITO concede that the fears
themselves are well founded 10 TO
seriously reflect upon Congress" he
said. Il do not believe that Congress
hasp urposely or willfully neglected
the interest of the District. I think
there are very few members Of either
house of Congress who have made
themselves familiar with the condi-
tions in the. District or appreciate
its needs as they should" That state
ment, used as an argument for aban-
doning the fixed ratio, is about as
good an argument for its retention
as will be found anywhere.
But of course the argument for q
fixed ratio, which in reality confines
itself today to an argument that
Congress follow the intent of q law
of its own making, founded on Its
own investigation and never re-
pealed, embraces more than a fear
or distrust OF Congress. It concerns
q very well known principle Of
| Americanism. It has been pointed
out many times before that govern
ing and financing of the Capital are
| inseparably coupled, and no substi-
tute will be found that does not take
into account and connect the power
of control with the obligation to
maintain and develop; protecting and
| promoting the rights and welfare of
| the people of Washington, while de-
ve1oping the Capital. Those who ad.
vocate discarding the fixed ratio OF
| appropriation lay much stress on the
incontrovertible fact that the re.
sponsibility for building the Capital
! to understand what would lead Con-
gress to this sudden awakening IN
the matter of its responsibilities IL
the fixed ratio were discarded. Under
the $3.50 plan these responsibilities
| were In no manner curbed, but def
nitely outlined. That they were
shirked time and time again by fail
| ing to match District contributions
with Federal contributions was DEM
| onstrated by an accumulated surplus
of unexpended District revenues
| amounting In 1898 to S4.43S.154. I'm
| der the 60-40 plan Congress met itE
responsibilities of contributing 40 per
cent for two years, then lodged that
responsibility by q legislative trick,
which has been repeated annually
for the last four years. All this has
been done in the face Of d law def =
fiite1y stipulating the extent of the
Nations responsibilities. In the light
Of past experience and present con.
ditions 1t is not comforting to think
Of the manner in which Congress
would regard its responsibilities II
their extent was outlined only In
vague words, inspiringly optimistic
AZ Alich Words might he