Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-01-23
Illogical Inconsistencies.

Representative Griffin of New York
asked the House puzzling question
yesterday. 1t should be answered. But
the odds are that it will remain as
only one more of those dark and enig-
NAUTICAL mysteries in the fiscal relation
ship between the United States and the
District for which there is no compre-
hensible explanation
Mr.. Griffin reminded his audience
that a year ago activity in research
on the part of certain proponents of
the lump sum resulted in their discov-
cry that the financial obligation, as a
municipal taxpayer, of the Federal Gov
eminent to the District amounted to
about five million eight hundred thou
sand dollars. The difference between
that amount and the magic" lump
sum Of nine million dollars was three
million two hundred thousand dollars,
and this balance was conveniently Ia
beled Exhibit A." representing the
financial obligation of the Federal Gov
eminent as a partner in the task of
Capital building and maintenance.
But, said Mr.. Griffin, the figure of
five million eight hundred thousand
dollars was debatable. The Bureau OF
Eficiency's corps of energetic young
men was thereupon set upon the trail
to determine the exact obligation of
the Federal Government as municipal
taxpayer. The bureau found it to be
seven million four hundred and forty
thousand dollars. The difference be-
tween this amount and the magic nine
millions is only one million five hun
dred and sixty thousand dollars.
So, presto! One and half million
dollars becomes Exhibit B" and rep
resents that generous contribution of
the Federal Government toward Cap
ital building and maintenance to which
our legislators point with such glowing
pride.
Why, asks Mr.. Griffin, If three mil
lion two hundred thousand dollars
represented the Federal Governments
financial obligation in Capital building
and maintenance last year, does one
million five hundred and sixty thou
sand represent that obligation this year?
Mr.. Griffin suggests that mo further
elucidation Of the illogical inconsistency
of the lump sum is needed" Nor is
there. But a number Of other illogical
inconsistencies present themselves. One
is that the lump sum of nine million
dollars, representing Federal contri-
button that was considered just, equita-
BILE, generous and bountiful in Dis
trict appropriation bill of Twenty-Five
million dollars plus for 1925, remains,
in the minds of its progenitors, equally
just, equitable, generous and bounti-
full in budget of thirty-eight million
dollars plus for 1880.
Another illogical Inconsistency is that
while proponents Of the lump sum care
fully agree, on the one hand, that the
Federal Government is only tenant,
paying the landlord District fair
amount for his living quarters, they
just as carefully argue, on the other
hand, that the District landlord must
raise and spend his money only as the
tenant directs and as the tenant
chooses. The right of the tenant so to-
do is in part justified by the fact that
he navs a. nodicun over what he. the
tenant, says is fair rental.
Yet another illogical inconsistency,
traced to the dictatorial yet cumber-
some method of appropriating for the
District, is that while the Budget Blu
reau returns to the Commissioners their
estimates, refusing, in the sacred name
Of economy, to sanction them, or order
ing the Commissioners, in the sacred
name of economy, to cut them, the baf-
fled Commissioners are figuratively
boiled in Oil, tarred, feathered and
ridden on a rail because they ALLOW"
unexpended District revenues to remain
idle in the Federal Treasury, when the
Commissioners have no power to spend
this surplus and when the exclusive
power of appropriative and all other
District legislation is in Congress.