Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1932-02-03

/
which the Nation has lavished upon the
! States.
These land grants amount to 1885,
| 524.723 acres of the public DOMAIN
These money donations include nun
dreds of millions.
The payment of taxes as the citizen
of a State gives the taxpayer MS pro
portionate share in these financial
benefits. The Washingtonian enjoys
no part in these grants, bounties ana
benefits as citizen of State. why
should he pay or have charged against
him as part of his equitable tax bur-
cen the taxes which are incidental 10
| the status of State citizens and which
are one condition of the enjoyment OF
these financial benefits?
The WashingtOnian has none OF
these political or judicial rights or
privileges Why should his faIr tax
burden be held to include what the
State citizen pays in connection WIN
the actual enjoyment Of these inesti-
mable rights, privileges and Dement'S?
Bears State Burdens but No State
Benefits.
| The proposition carries out the old
idea that Washing.O is 10 be viewed
as a S ate when burdens are imposed
]
! fits or privileges or rights are to be con-
ferred. The District has Eeen pro-
nouuced State under a treaty with
France, a construction comforting priv
ileges on aliens, but not State under
the Constitution whose people can sue,
either as State citizens or as aliens,
in the Federal courts. The District is
a State when direct taxes are to be
collected, but not a State when Repre-
sentatives are appOrtiOned, though the
Constitution couples the two things.
The District is not a State to make and
carry out through a State Legislature
laws for its own benefit, but 1t is now
reproached as a State because it es-
capes the tax burden incident to the
exercise of this privilege of State.
The District is not TO be State to
enjoy any of the political, judicial and
financial benefits, privileges and rights
of a State but is to be State to the
extent that the equitable tax burden OF
its people in comparison with the
tax burden of other Americans must be
figured to include consideration OF State
taxes.
When Washington is part of State
and enjoys the expenditure within 1t
of its due share of the State fund to
which thousands of State citizens out
side of its limits contribute 1t will be
time to permit State taxation to enter
into its comparative per capita tax
figures. When WaShingtOnians are like
Baltimoreans, Maryianders again. with
all the MaryIanders' rights and privi-
leges as citizens of A State, 1t will be
time to charge against the WaShingto-
MAN in comparison with the Balti-
MORGAN the State tax which the latter
pays, not as a BaltimOrean but as
Marylander. When Washington has
Senators, Representatives and State
Legislature it will be time for it to pay
for such Iuxuries in the shape of
State tax.
Vast Material State Benefits.
OF course. the main consideration for
the payment Of State taxes is the en-
joyment of the political power and
prestige involved in participation IN
the National Government on equal
terms with other Americans. To be
transformed through statehood from
the status of political aliens to that OF
full-f1edged Americans, with all the
powers, rights and privileges apper-
tanning to that status, confers bene-
fit upon the individual of value not
to be calculated in dollars and cents;
and deprivation of this benefit involves
a loss which is also incalculable,
Every one, therefore, will recognize
the Justice of WaShingtOn'S protest
against being taxed to correspond to
what other cities pay to MAINTAIN
State government, since the District
under the Constitution and the laws
enacted by Congress is not permitted
the right, privilege and benefit of en-
Toying and maintaining a State govern
ment. But very few persons in the
whole United States appreciate the
scope CT the material benefits in boun-
ties and subsidies which attach to
statehood of which WaShingtonians are
wholly deprived. Our citizens joint
committee brief in 1915 recited the mil
lions which in the past had been dis
tributed by the Nation among the
States. emitting the District of Column
bia. BAIT these subsidies by the Nation
to the States are not confined to the
past. but continue in vastly enlarged
proportions in the present.
Federal Aid to States.
Discussing Federal subsidies to the
States, George B. Galloway in an ar
ticle written for Editorial Research
Reports under date of January l, 1881,
points out that under its power to APP
propriate money for general purposes
the Federal Government from its
earliest days has assumed the reSpon-
sibility of rendering financial and ad-
miniStrative assistance to the states
The practice of granting subsidies TO
the States from the Federal Treasury
began with the land ordinance for the
Northwest Territory in 1875 and has
continued down to the present time.
Congress has made grants to the states,
particularly from the sale OF pubic
lands for schools, roads and canals
Today the whole field of relationships
created by these subsidies Is covered IN
minute regulations reached by agree
ment between State and Federal author-
tiles. In recent years Congress mas
actually entered the domain OF state
and local government and has created
new organs OF administration which, IN
strict sense, are neither Federal nor
State in character"
Mr.. GALLOWAY points out that from
modest grants of land or money for
the maintenance of public schools, for
universities, for use as seats Of govern
ment or to defray the cost of erecting
public buildings, for reclamation, or aid
to the States in building canals, to
stimulate railroad construction, and Tor
internal improvements, the system OF
Federal aid to the States has expanded
until today there are 81 classes of Fed
eral aid payments made annually at
total cost to the Federal Government
Of about S150000,O00 a year. Except
in cases where the basis of expendi-
lures or allotmentS is wholly Federal
it is generally required that the State
must equal the expenditures of the Ma
tional Government.
Growth of the Subsidy System.
The rapid growth of the Federal aid
system is shown by a comparison of
the payments during the last 20 years.
In 1912 this total was approximately
100000. BY 1920 it had risen to
$42,O0O,000, by 1922 to $134,O00,OO0 and
by 1927 to $163,0OO,O00, the highwater
mark of the payments up to the pres
ent time. During the fiscal years 1920
111,y sx.Ar