Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-03-28
The Comedy of Errors.

District appropriation bill. turned his
review Of the water and water rate
question into an attack on The Star,
concluding with the declaration: "All
In all, 1t appears to me that The Eve
ming stars presentation Of the water
situation could well be called the 1880
edition of the Comedy Of Errors"
As one instance Of Misrepresentation
attributed to The Star by Mr.. Sim
mons the following lengthy paragraph
is quoted in the belief that II 1t u
typical Of the distinguished gentleman's
general understanding Of the water
question, there is little reason further
TO defend The Stars reasoning or &C.
curaey. The paragraph follows:
The Star also quotes Capt. Dram a.
authority for the statement that Wash"
irRton has an equity of $23 ,540, 900 IN
the water system. Why DO they not
tell the whole truth to the people OF
washington? Washington has invested
from its general fund in the water sys-
tenn $9,0S2,346.53. This sum is taken
from the general fund, to which the
United States has contributed both on
the $3.50 and 6o-4o plan, so IT does
not even represent a payment OF CnaC
amount by the taxpayers OF WASH
ington. The United States has invested
out Of the Federal Treasury and ex-
elusive of contributions to the District
treasury general fund $10,931 ,923.97.
FRonn the earnings of the water system
there has been invested in the water
system $l4,457,977.26. Now then, to get
an equity Of $23,540,000 for Wash
ington, The Star takes credit 70 the
city for not only the capital invested
frnyn the District general fund. which
I consider is proper, but also The Star
claims credit to the District for the
entire earnings Of the water depart
ment, when the District owns but IS
per cent Of the plant. II you should
give credit to the United States for
the entire investment, including con-
tributions to the District general fund,
then the United States owns " per
cent of the water system and the Dis
trict IS per cent. But The Evening
star deems 1t perfectly proper to claim
the entire earnings for the District.
Now who told Mr.. Simmons all thatP
n no one misled him, he obviously mis-
read the figures, for he would not de-
lfberately or Intentionally make the mis-
statements that he does here,
In the first place, Mr.. Simmons at
tacks The Star for using an investment
or equity" figure quoted from Capt.
Hugh Dram, Assistant Engineer Com
missioner In charge of the distribution
system. But The Star agrees with Capt.
Dram, 50 let that pass.
Mr.. Simmons takes the figure 9i0,-
e31, e2S.s7, representing United States
investment. and the figure @e0e2, 346.5S,
representing District investment. from .
table prepared by auditors In the ONCE
Of the United States District engineer,
Maj. Brehon Somervell. To obtain these
figures the auditors studied all available
appropriation bills, beginning with one
! IN 1919 and down to the deficiency bill
: % last March, and took from each one
the appropriations for the water plant
Until 1880 the United States built and
maintained the water plant. After 1880
appropriations for the water plant, made
from the general fund, or District OF
Columbia bill, were divided between the
United States and the District-flrst on
the basis Of $3.50; then 60-40 and lat
terly in whatever proportion was repre-
Sented by the lump sum allotment to the
District bill.
In 1889, for instance, under fifty
nifty, the appropriation for water plant
was $575,000. The auditors therefore
credit the United States with an invest
ment for that year Of S287,500 and q
like amount for the District. In 1928,
under sixty-forty, the appropriation for
the aqueduct was $1,5oo,ooo. The
auditors credit the United States with
an investment Of 100000, or 20 per
cent, and the District with an invest
naent of 5000, 900, or so per cent. In
1e24-the calendar year that the lump
sum took efIect--the appropriation was
$500, 900, OF which the United States
was credited with an investment OF
s464,455.7o, or 3l.0s per cent of the
total expenses OF the District" and the
District with an investment Of si,osA,-
B44.3o, or 6s.s7 per cent.
For Mr.. Simmons to say that the
total United States investment Of S10,-
Gal, 923.97 Is exclusive of contributions
TO the District Treasury general fund
Is Inaccurate. The figure includes every
contribution the United States made to
the water system through the general
fund, as we'll as other appropriation
for the water plant.
To state that the District investment
figure $9,oS2, 346.53 docs not even rep
resent a payment of that amount b.
the taxpayers Of Washington" is equally
incorrect. The language Of the appre'
priation bills makes that plain-'tha
the half Of the following sums named
respectively is hereby appropriated, GU
at any money in the Treasury no
otherwise appropriated, and the othe
half out Of the revenues of the Distric
Of Columbia" phraseology subsequently
changed under sixty-forty, but ccntin
uing the same principle Of fixed ratio.
Capt. Dram and The Star include q
District equity in the water system tn
eI4.457, s77.26 contributed In water rent
and main assessments By District res
estate owners. This money was use
IN constructing the supply and distFibu
ton systems. It Is therefore q capits
investment. 1t was paid by District, tax
payers, Just as they supplied other fund
through their general taxes to build tn
water plant. and 1t may properly 3
considered q District investment. Owe
and alseve this sl4.457.e77.26 water usel
paid IN water rents and assessment
aaskhsg slt.s2b.7e7 which was used :