Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-12-10

eminent should contribute, was the
principal critic
1t seems to me-" said Mr.. Mapes.
that you're trying to work out a de-
tense of the Federal contribution of
S9,000,000. In order to justify that,
you have to work out a tax on in
tangibles for the United States
We're not making any attempt to
Justify the $4,000. 900 contribution -
Murphy replied. In order to determine
what the Federal contribution should
be in the Light of WaShington's tax
burden in comparison with IA other
comparable cities we took into consid-
Grafton the loss of revenue to the Dis
trlct from two principal sources-the
tax on real property and the tax on
personal property-due to the fact that
Washington is the Nations Capital"
Questions Two References.
Il am not criticizing your report, y
continued Chairman MapeS, but it APP
pears to put the bureau in the light of
advocating particular way of adjust
ing this matter
Why do you say on page IS of your
report that the Federal property hold
1ngs should be- included in adjusting
-Washingtons tax burden in comparison
with the IA comparable cities?
And why do you say on page 10 of
fair to compare tax rates and tax
revenues IN Washington with those in
other cities. without taking into con-
sideration the large property holdings
OF the Federal Government, which are
exempt from taxation?'
Now why is it manifestly unfair to
compare tax rates and tax revenues If
the actual tax burden Is higher or lower
In the District than in the IA other
cities, excluding the Federal holdings?"
Believe 1t Unfair.
I'VE believe it rnanifestly unfair"
Murphy responded, Ito make compar-
tSons if the holdings of the Federal
Government are excluded. Why? Be-
cause corporations IN the other IA cities
pay taxes and it would not be fair to
the District if its largest business-the
Federal Governments excluded"
"As / understand you, Mr.. Murphy"
Mr.. Mapes said, you think there isn't
any way of determining what the citi-
Gems of the District should pay without
including the property of the Federal
Government, even though the citizens
OF the District pay much less in taxes
than those in other cities"
'If the facts show that the per cap
ita tax burden in Washington is less"
replied Mr.. Murphy, Il believe the tax
burden should be raised to make it
comparable with the other cities. I
don't see that the Efficiency Bureau has
Handicapped the committee in any way
in determining what the per capita
tax burden should be-"
Il don't see that you have handi-
capped the committee in any way"
fnterposed Representative FTear of
Wisconsin. The committee wanted to
get your ideas"
Holds Government Not Industry,
you are constantly imposing q new
proposition on the committee which
does not prevail anywhere in the
world continued Mr.. Frear, with
this idea Of treating the Federal Gov
eminent as an industry. II 1t Is an
industry 1t Is not prof1t-making in
dustTy, and If this principle is true
here, can't understand why it doesn't
apply throughout the country.
The theory on which you propose to
tax the Federal Government is that
the area of the District is so small that
every time the United States acquires
additional property it removes that
much more from taxation"
That is one Of the factors" answer
ed Mr.. Murphy.
Murphy, who has been on the wit
ness stand for three consecutive days,
completed his testimony and tomorrow
the committee plans to call representa-
tives Of some Of the civic and business
organizations of the District. At the
very outset Of his testimony this morn
ing, Murphy explained the formula pro-
posed by the bureau by which it ar
rived at the $40, 163, 391 as the amount
the Federal Government should con-
tribute In the 1882 fiscal year toward
the expenses Of the District.
Explains Bureau System.
Murphy explained that the bureau
took into consideration the tax liability
of the Federal Government as a
municipal taxpayer, including all
Federal property dedicated to the use
Of the District and all park property, as
well as the liability which should be
assumed by the United States to re-
tnburse the District due to the loss IN
revenue because Of the fact that Wash
1ngton is the Nations Capital
He pointed out that the Efficiency
Bureau Is not suggesting that the
Federal Government subject itself to
taxation. but that the proposal was
merely factor used in determining the
basis Of the amount the United States
should contribute to the expenses Of
the District
Murphy brought out that the bureau
DID not take into consideration the spe-
cial police and FIRE protection provided
by the Federal Government for its
buildings in Washington in arriving at
any of its conclusions This led Repre-
sentative Holiday Of Illinois to ask
him If the value of the Capitol and the
White House were considered and the
Government makes a contribution based
on the taxable value of its holdings,
whether it would be entitled to the
same police and fire protection provided
for all the agencies Of the District.
Considered Entirely As Industry.
Absolutely" replied Mr.. Murphy.
"The Federal Government would be
entitled 10 all the protection and bene-
fits Of any private tax payer. 1 be-
lieve, however. that the Federal de-
partments would continue TO carry
force Of guards and special police just
washington do, even though they have
the benefit of the District Police De-
partment"
Discussing an item in the bureaus
report concerning Washingtons loss in
revenue occasioned by the fact that it
Is the Nationals Capital Chairman
Mapes asked Mr.. Murphy II consid-
Grafton was given TO any gain in reve-
nue., due 70 the fact that the seat Of
the Federal Government is located in
Washington
No" answered Murphy. We felt
In our whole treatment of this property
that we should consider the Federal
Government as an industry"
Would EquaIize Burden.
isn't it true that the Federal Gov
eminent is not engaged in business for
profit as are the industrieS?" asked Mr..
Mapes.
Yes" replied Murphy. But the
bureau came to the conclusion that a