Evening star., 1930-06-24

Continued From First Page.)
Broussard, Copeland, Dill, Glass, Hay
den, Kendrick, McKellar, Overmau.
Pittman, Robinson, Arkansas; Shep-
pard, Swanson, Thomas. Oklahoma
Campbell, Tydings, Wagner, Walsh,
Massachusetts,; Walsh, Montana, and
Farmer-Labor-Shi Total in
favor-54.
Against: Republicans-Blaine, Howell
q.
Democrats-Black, George and Har-
ris--3
Total against-5.
Opening the debate Senator Bingham
said he regretted to ask the Senate to
turn from its other duties to take this
up, but that the Senate conferees had
been unable in the past to induce the
House members to agree to anything
above S9,000,000, and that the question
had been raised that the Senate had
not expressed itself.
Robinson Outlines Views.
Minority Leader Robinson said the
recognized parliamentary procedure for
bringing the two branches of Congress
together is through conference and that
he would not look with favor on the
pending resolution if it were not for the
circumstances that have developed with
regard to this bill. Senator Robinson
said to declare that one branch of
Congress ''is blufing," that one house
Is not sincere in its position tends to
prevent confereeS getting together.
The minority leader said he didn't
like this method of procedure, but that
1t is of very great Importance that the
District bill be passed. He expressed
the belief that it is reflection on the
ability of both Houses to legislate to
realize a conference has broken up
merely because the conferees are un-
willing to pursue the normal course
where differences arise between the
two bodies He said that if Senator
Bingham felt that this was the only
way to bring about a conference cal
culated to result in an agreement, he
would not object to the resolution.
On the roll call he voted for it.
Senator Glass asserted that I'VE have
reached point where the Senate must
determine whether it is or is not a
part of the legislative machinery"
He declared that for six years the
House, in contravention of the 5000
law, has fled a lump-sum contribution
and that the conferees of the other
branch of Congress had arbitrarily in
sisted on their figure without regard
to the views of the Senate. He said
the Senate conferees have made every
conceivable offer of compromise.
Senator Glass declared that even if
the substantive law should be changed
from 60-40 to 1925, the Federal contri-
button would be $l,500,000 above the
present So, 100000 lump sum,
Senator Glass concluded with the
assertion 81 for one would refuse to
serve as a conferee if the Senate does
not sustain its conferees" He added
that he favored the Bingham resolu-
ton but would insist on $12,000,000.
Reasons Summarized.
Senator Bingham told his colleagues
the Senate conferees are asking for a
vote of confidence and summarized the
reasons why they believe some increase
above 100000 Is justified.
He declared that If $9.000 900 was
equitable when the total appropriation
was $33 100000 ut is certainly not fair
as q contribution toward $44,000, ,000." "
He told of the large expenditures about
to be made for a monumental municipal
center and for additional park expan-
sion, which, he declared, would not be
necessary If this were not the National
Capital.
Senator Black, Democrat, of Alabama,
asked what is the tax rate here, and
Senator Bingham explained that it is
$1.70. Senator Bingham added that
the exhaustive study by the Bureau of
Efficiency showed that this was close
to the average of SITS for the other
cities included in the study.
Senator Howell. who made the only
extended argument in opposition, CEN
tered his attack on taxation in the
District, declaring that in Pittsburgh
taxation is 100 per cent greater than
here, in Boston IS per cent greater,
and II" Minneapolis IS per cent greater.
Senator Phipps of Colorado, who for
number of years was chairman in
charge of the District bill, related briefly
the history Of how the 60-40 ratio was
departed from two years after it had
been adopted, and of the annual strug-
gle since that time to try to obtain a
more equitable arrangement than
SO 900, 900 from the House. Referring
to the first occasion when the Senate
yielded to the House on the $4,000 900
lump sum in 1925, Senator Phipps said
that was a fatal mistake on the part
of the Senate" He said it was argued
then that the House probably would
agree to more than $4,000, 900 later, but
that the total of the appropriation bill
has gone up each year without any
change in the lump sum contribution.