Evening star., 1932-01-08
the $3.50 basis and later 6o-4o) un-

on the 5U-5U DaSlS anu AdVcl ou"1Vi uAA
til 1925.
for q second time in the appropriation
act for the fiscal year 1926, the House
wanted a clause inserted to require that
the estimates for 1927 be submitted on
the same basis as 1925, namely, $9,000,-
600 The Senate, however, would not
accent this, and it went out in con-
ference.
Thus. each year, the lump-sum pro-
nosal has been renewed on the initia-
tive of the House without a direct re-
neal of the language Of 1922, which
said That annually, from and after
,uIv l. 1922" 60 per cent should be
Maid by the District and 40 per cent
by the United States.
The Senate's stand against legislation
which would definitely abolish the
fxed-proportion principle goes back
further than the recent era of annual
lump-sum departures from the 60-40
law.
Senate Stands Pat.
notable instance of the refusal Of
the Senate to accept such legislation
is found in 1920 and 1921. AT that
time the fixed-percentage ratio was
$3.50, and Representative Mapes OF
Michigan. sponsor of the present bill
10 repeal the 60-40 provision, was then
advocating similar measure to repeal
the definite proportion rule ana leave
the Federal Government to make vague
and f1uctuating annual contributions to
cover whatever might be the difference
between the Districts revenue colleC-
tions and the total appropriated.
The House passed that Mapes bill of
1920 but the Senate promptly expressed
its attitude by adopting substitute
proposal of Senator Jones of Washing
ton restoring the $3.50 plan, and the
measure went to conference. Mean
while, the House had written an amend
ment into the District appropriation
bill of that session, using the wording
of the MapeS bill relative to the repeal
of the $3.50 plan, together with rec
ommendation for an increase in the
tax rate on real estate and tangible
personally from IL to 212 per cent.
Basic Principle Remains.
In order to get the appropriation bill
through that year, the Senate agreed
for the first time to change the ratio
from $3.50 to 60-40, but while this
changed the ratio, it retained the basic
principle of fixed proportion. While
this agreement WAS being reached on
the appropriation bill, the separate
Mapes bill, which would have wiped
out entirely the fixed proportions, was
deadlocked in conference and remained
so when that session ended in June.
Thus, while the Senate had consented
to change the ratio for that one fiscal
year to 60-40, it stood firmly against
the legislative bill to abolish the basic
principle on which fiscal relations had
rested for decades.
Committee Was Divided.
Although the Mapes bill of 1929
originated in the House District Com
mittee. it had the support of only about
half the members of that committee.
The day after Mr.. Mapes filed the re-
port in support of the bill, report IN
opposition was filed by former Repre-
sentative Thomas S. Williams of ILL
nois which was signed by eight mem
bers, and Mr.. Williams said at the
time that careful poll made by him
showed the committee about evenly di-
vided.
The bill passed the House and was
followed a few weeks later by incor-
poration of a similar $3.50 repeal
amendment in the appropriation bill
When this rider to the appropriation
bill came up in the House, a point Of
order was raised against 1t and sus-
tanned. but substitute amendment was
Immediately offered which limited the
draft on Federal funds SO that they
should Gin no event be as much as one
half of said expenses"
When the Senate two months later
70 hi fAl
amended it so as to retain the half
and-half law. it marked the first time
that the issue between the two branches
of Congress over fiscal relations had
been joined in a legislative measure.
In prior years the struggle had always
been over a rider in an annual appro-
priation bill And when thus presented
on its merits as distinct piece of leg
islation, the Senate declined to yield to
the House on the proposal to do away
with the flxed-percentage basis.
Perishes in Conference.
AS previously stated, that session
ended in June, 1920, with the 60-40 ra-
ito inaugurated for the ensuing year in
the appropriation act, but without
altering the substantive law, and with
the separate Mapes repeal bill still in
disagreement in conference.
The next session being part Of the
same Congress, the conferees met again
on the Mapes measure, but were no
nearer an agreement. That session
continued the 60-40 provision in the
appropriation bill for another fiscal
year. That was the final session of the
Sixty-sixth Congress, and when it ad-
journed the Mapes $3.50 repeal bill
died in conference.
The following year, in June, 1922,
Congress enacted the provision in the