Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-06-15
Unprinoipled Lump.sum prinoinle.

1t so happens that neither the prin-
ciple OF fixed ratio in District appro-
priations nor the principle of the lump
sum stands as the barrier separating
the House and Senate on the 1881 Dis
trict bill. The issue that divides them
Is the amount of the Federal contribu-
ton to the Federal Capital, set six years
ago by the House at $4,000 900. This
year the Senate asked $4,000, 900, later
Offering to compromise on some other
figure between nine and twelve millions.
The House refuses to bulge.
But as Representative Simmons made
number Of illusions to both prin-
eiples in addressing the House Thurs
day on the District bill, it Is proper to
renew that discussion in connection
with the deadlock between the con-
fereeS. This IS done elsewhere In to-
days Star.
Those who defend the existence of
the lump sum as q regular annual ap-
propriative practice are Immediately
confronted with the necessity Of ex-
planning away its illegitimate BIRTH for
It has come into being in defiance Of
substantive law that still remains on
the books. One Of the troublesome
facts that stands to condemn the
legitimacy Of the lump sum Is that
there have been at least two carefully
planned efforts to wipe the fixed ratio
system Of appropriation of the books
and by congressional mandate, which
could not be questioned, to supersede
fxed ratio by the lump sum or some
analogous principle. These efforts have
failed through repulse by the Senate
and Congress has refused to take ac-
ton that would abolish from the sub
gtantive law the system Of fixed ratio.
The next question. therefore, concerns
The devious route by which this lump
sum provision was placed on the ap-
preparation bill in defiance Of substan-
tive law. It's proponents cite the Hol-
man rule. AZ q matter Of fact 1t came
into being a. the unlawful offspring Of
the Holman rule, or else one must ac-
sspt the Holman rule a. meaning that
IA action upon appropriation bills no
substantive law can be disobeyed un-
less the Federal Government repudiatss
Q financial obligation and thereby
makes money. Under this nisapplica-
ton Of the Holman rule o legislative
rider On an appropriation bill, such Is
the lump gum provision, Il not subject
10 O point Of order because It does not
increase the Federal obligation. The
Holman rule represents an extraordi-
nary way Of doing something that can
not be accomplished by ordinary meth
ods. The Implication against the le-
gality, not to mention the fairness Of
the lump sum. cannot be avoided.
The lunp-sum payment plan Is I'M
sound IN principle and unjust In prac-
tice when applied 10 the peculiar rela-
tons Of national and local partners In
the National Capital partnership. It
destroys all relations between the ma
tional and local contributions and,
leaving all taxing power In the hands of
the United States, deprives the unrepre-
sented Capital Of its safeguard against
excessive taxation by q taxing body in
which 1t Is not represented. 1t teaches
. false theory concerning the relations
Of Nation TO Capital, obtruding annual
~ upon the attention Of Congress the
suggestion Of q large cash donation to
the Capital, as II the primary obliga-
ton Of National City upburding were
upon the local taxpayers and the Ma
ton we're only an incidental contribu-
tor, q voluntary and benevolent donor.
It places . limit upon the amount of
money to be spent by the omnipotent
national partner, with exclusive power
Of legislation and appropriation In his
hands, and removes all limit from the
amount which the national partner
may exact for Capital upbuilding from
the impotent local partner. the District
taxpayers.
-%SSS--<