Evening star., 1931-12-15
The Mapes Report.

Seldom in the history Of congress
sional proceedings has there been
spread upon the public records in the
form of an oStensibly unbiased report,
based upon an ostensibly unbiased pur-
suit of the facts, such a one-sided
presentation of the background, such
beclouded conception of the problem,
and such a prejudiced formula for
solution as that which is presented in
the report of the Select Committee Of
the House on Fiscal Relations, laid on
the Speakers desk today.
And seldom have the ways been so
thoroughly creased for the launching
Of hastily considered and seriously con-
tested legislative propositions as in
the preparations for consideration of
this report and of the bills accompany
Ing it in the House Of Representatives,
The report is too long for adequate
anlysis here. That will be done later
through the news and editorial columns
of The Star A fair and full resume
OF the report is printed elsewhere in
The Star today for those to read and
Judge who will.
They will find a report that attempts
to give a history of the controversy
over fiscal relations by the ingenious
device of citing certain unrelated eX-
Cerpts from the findings of past COM
mittees that have gone into the sub
Ject-eXcerpts that are for the most
part irrelevant to the present inquiry
and which conceal, and even distort, the
full meaning, significance and spirit of
those reports. There was no apparent
purpose served in doing this. The
MapeS Committee has nothing to be
ashamed OF in the history of fiscal re-
lations. The generous Interpretation of
the committees method is to believe
that it approached the important sub
ject Of background so listlesSly that it
picked at random the ina0equate and
misleading portions of preceding reports
that it prefers to quote. TIE result, how
ever is subject to no ether interpreta-
tion than the PLAIN fact that from reaG-
Ing these reports one would naturally
conclude government b. TIE Dis
trict has been tried and found wanting,
and that in conducting TIE dangerous
experiment of home rule the District
financially wrecked itself thus COM
pelling an altogether unintenGed rescue
by Congress in the form of the fixed
proportionate system Of contribution
The report declares that The fifty
fifty law was in effect from July l,
1878, to July, 1920, when a change was
made from a fifty per cent proportion
to forty per cent proportion. ."
This plan continued until July l,
1925, when Congress changed from the
proportionate contribution 70 an annual
contribution of s9.O0OO0O."
The report does not mention the i'm
portant fact that when Congress
changed to the lump sum method of
contribution, this year by year change
was effected by legislative evasion of the
substantive law establishing the definite
proportion Of siXty-forty which today
remains unchanged, though the House
had endeavored unsuccessfully on at
least two occasions to amend or repeal
it; that this legislative evasion was &C
Complished by a committee of the House
through the doubtful eXpedient of an
nual legislative riders on appropriation
bills, and that the change has been
perpetuated by opportunism, possible
because of the legislative congestion
that marks the proceedings of Congress,
and that the Senates refusal to
bow definitely to House dictation brought
into existence the committee which
made this report.
In recording the finlings Of It's tax
expert, Mr.. Lord, the committee fails
to mention-and the failure becomes
eloquent, so marked is it-the report Of
the Bureau of Efficiency, which was
introduced in evidence before the MapcS
Committee. 1t makes reference to cer-
tain methods of computing relative tax
burdens OF which 1t does not approve,
but 1t does not mention the important
fact that the experts of the Bureau of
Efficiency found that although Wash
ington has lower tax rate than any
of these cities (the cities compared by
the bureau), when their tax rates are
adjusted on the basis of Washington's
assessed valuations per capita, Federal
property holdings being included, as
they should be, Washingtons tax rate
Is actually higher than the average
adjusted tax rate for the other cities"
Instead, it presents as fact that the
adjusted tax rate in the District Of
Columbia is $3.50, or $3.50 less than
the average adjusted rate for all the
cities compared by the committee) and
1921 less than the average adjusted
rate for the other twenty-five cities"
The committee finds reason for deep
distress in the increasing and high tax
alton in other municipalities and in the
rural communities, viewing with alarm
as we'll as indignation, but fails to make
any reference to the fact that it learned
from the District auditor that in Wash
lugIOil DetWeSH 1SZU anu 1891 lHc dp-
preparations have increased nearly $685.
100000; that the Districts proportion
of $990J 900 in 1920 has mounted to
$36,0o0,0C0 in 1881, and that the United
States proportion of s9,7o0,ooo in 1920
has dropped to s9,5OO,Oo0 in 1881; in
other woris, in the face of an increase
Of about 100 per cent during this period,
the United States is paying less today
by 100000 than it did in 1920"
The committee, recommending GER
tain new tax legislation affecting public
utilities and steam railroads in the Dis
trict. suggests that bills affecting these