Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-05-29
All Other States and /,
Member Of the Associated Press.
Mr.. Lords Tax Views.

Mr.. Lords Tax Views.
No one can argue with the general
principles that Mr.. Lord believes should
govern equitable taxation of the people
of the District of Columbia. 1t Is true
that there should be rigid economy in
expenditures. 1t is true that the en-
phasis should be placed on equalizing
the burden Of taxation rather than q
mere hunt for new sources which, tap
ped, will serve to increase the general
merits in the proposed income tax as
against a tax on intangibles and If the
District has become the haven for in
heritance tax dodgers that Mr.. Lord
1ntimates 1t has, despite the existence
of the Federal tax, that condition should
be rectified by the body which has ex-
elusive power here to levy taxes.
These, 1t is repeated, are generaliza-
tons that can provoke little debate
The people of the District have never
opposed bearing a fair share Of the bur-
den Of taxation. and they have borne it
cheerfully.
The difference Of opinion between
House and Senate which provoked this
new inquiry into fiscal relations, how
ever, was not rooted in any contention
that the District of Columbia has been
escaping its fair share of the burden
of building the Capital. The trouble
has been that the Federal Government,
binding itself by law to a certain finan-
cial responsibility, has shifted that re-
sponsibility by legislative evasions, and
the repeated and annual Sinking of
this responsibility finally reached the
point that demanded some careful de-
termination, anew, of the Federal Gov
ernment's obligations.
Mr.. Lords views, which are fairly
and intelligently expressed, indicate
nevertheless the course that the House
inquiry has followed. All the emphasis
has been placed upon taxation Of the
District and the business Of how to- get
more money from the District. The
amount that the Federal Government,
as a result of its lawful and moral
obligations, should contribute has been
for the most part relegated to minor
consideration. It Is an obvious fact
that the Federal Bureau Of Ef1ciency's
report on District finances was re-
pudiated by the committee Of inquiry
not because 1t showed by fair compare
son that the tax burden In the District
was adequate, but because 1t showed
that the Federal Government was an
nually escaping obligations that, aside
from those imposed by a law Of its
own making, were due on account of
the extraordinary factors that must be
considered when studying the unique
position Of the Federal City among all
the other cities of the Nation, and per-
hapS the world.
1t is most important, Mr.. Lord be-
heves, to hold expenses within income,
and the people should get in public
works only what they can afford"
THAT, Of course, Is another generaliza-
ton that Is perfectly true. It in
wolves, however, one of the chief points
of consideration in any investigation Of
the Capitals financial system, where
generalizations no longer apply. The
people of the District, for instance,
could not afford" such a great public
work as the Municipal Center Develop
ment. They could not afford the broad
and expansive park development system
shat has become one of the attractive
features Of the American Capital. They
would not undertake, by themselves, to
build the Capital Of the United States
hs it is being built today. The COM
nunity's tax burden should be measured
BY what the people Of the city can afford
10 pay. What we have in Washington.
as a Capital City, will depend upon
what the American people as a whole
can afford to pay. When these two
ideas are confused, the result is another
fiscal inquiry, with most Of the stress
laid on ways and means to increase the