Evening star., 1932-01-03

This is the first OF d series Of
special articles discussing the history
of the fiscal relations controversy and
hon the problem has been dealt NTH
in the puSt.)
NY attempt to solve the recurrent
n problem Of dividing the expenses
n for normal maintenance and
4 \ development of the Capital City
! between the exclusively con-
trolling Federal Government and the
taxed but unrepresented community Of
local taxpayers should in equity be ap-
preached by a study Of what has gone
| before. 1t is only on the basis Of a
| thorough understanding Of the back
ground, it is believed, that one may OBJ
! tain q clear conception of the nature Of
! the partnership that exists between the
Federal Government and the local COM
munity in the matter of Capital main
tenance and development And 1t is
only with this conception we'll estab-
lished in mind that one may at
/ tempt fairly to appraise the weight OF
| the many factors that enter into the
! situation as it is today.
The report Of the House Select Com
mittee on Fiscal Relations between the
! United States and the District OF Co.
| lumbia, Of which Representative Mapes
| of Michigan was chairman properly
! prefaces its discussions and conclusions
| concerning fiscal relations today with
| a brief history Of such relationship in
| the past. Unfortunately, the MapeS
! Committee departed at the outset from
| the role of historian and reverted to
| the part of an interpreter of historical
| events. While any one has the right
to interpret history, correct interpre-
| tation obviously depends upon full
and unprejudiced survey at the outset
of facts that should be commonly ac-
cepted by everybody.
In the discussion of the background
of the fiscal relations problem in this
and subsequent articles an attempt will
be made to present such facts and
where it is appropriate to indicate the
possibly faulty inferenceS drawn by the
Mapes Committee report by giving
whot The Star believes to be only fair
conclusions that may be drawn from
such facts.
Purpose Of the Founders.
At the outset it is important to recall
the purposes the founders of the Ma
ton obviously had in mind, when, prior
to 1900, they turned from already es-
bdUlISIl6u ClIlSo dllu Cdllc W IllC ulIOC-
veloped shores of the Potomac to place
the seat of Government in an area
where, from the very start and for all
time, national interests and control
would be paramount.
When the original owners of Wash
ington donated fve-sevenths of the citys
soil and gave up the right Of self-gov-
ernment to the Nation, the understand
ing and implied agreement was that the
Nation would develop a magnificent
Capital at its own expense, reimburs-
ing itself in part from the proceeds Of
the sale Of the donated lots.
Notwithstanding this conceded rela-
tionship between Nation and Capital,
for three-fourthS of a century local
taxpayers found it necessary to assume
almost the entire burden Of Capital
development. From 1900 to 1874-l878
there was no definite or related method
of dividing the expense Of developing
the National Capital. In that early
period each partner contributed what
it pleased. But, although the local
community raised and disburSed local
taxes at its pleasure in that era, it
went considerably beyond the limits Of
its slender taxable resources in meas
uring its obligations toward the Capital
City The Nation measured its obliga-
ton meagerly in terms of dollars dur
ing this period of the city's infancy
Twice during that period the local com.
munity became virtually bankrupt II
striving to meet unaided the task OF
Capital development.
Recognition of Neglect.
In 1878 the Nation recognized the
prior neglect Of its responsibility
toward development Of the Capital City
and gave practical expression to this
revival of its obligation by agreeing
to pay one-half the accumulated fund
ed Indebtedness of the District and
one-half Of future expenses. At the
same time it took the power Of self
taxation away from the District, thus
giving the Federal Government the
right to fix the local contribution as
well as its own.
While this meant taxation without
representation in the municipal govern
ment, as long as the half-and-half plan
was in effect the local community was
protected against excessive taxation by
the Nations pledge that every dollar
collected from the unrepresented local
taxpayers for Capital maintenance
would be matched with an equal sum
by the Federal partner, who exercised
complete control. Even while the half
and-half plan Of the organic act of
1878 remained in operation the local
community's so per cent did not repre-
sent all of its contribution toward de-
velopment of the National Capital, be-
cause, as Americans paying national
taxes, Washingtonians also contributed
their proportionate share Of the Fed
eral money expended on the Capital.
When Congress by the act of
June 29, 1922, changed the long
standing $3.50 principle to 60
40, the local community still had a
modified degree of protection against
being saddled with an unfair share of
maintaining the Federal City, for. as
the annual appropriations increased
in the aggregate, there was an assur-
anct that the Federal obligation would
be raised at least in definite ratio,
, if not in the same amount as the local
community paid.
But after few years of 6O-4O the
national partner, possessing all the
power of decision, though bearing the
smaller end of the ratio of expense,
departed entirely from the percentage
basis and substituted the arbitrary lump
sum. 1t did not repeal the substantive
60-40 law, but brought the lump sum
into practice by writing 1t into the Dis
trict appropriation bill in the House
each year. The Senate originally op-
posed this substitution and fought
against confining the Federal share to
a SO 900 900 lump sum in the beginning
and has advocated q more equitable ar
rangement since. While these efforts
resulted after a number OF years in
raising the lump sum to $4,000 900 for
| 1881 and 1882, it still left the local
| community carrying the lions share Of
the burden in a city which belongs to
all Americans and in which the Ma
tional Government exercises all the
| power.
Fixed Responsibility Necessary.
The history Of the Capital has dem
onstrated that the contributions of the
Nation and the community should be
definite and related, especially when all
hauthority is vested in one partner-the