Evening star., 1932-01-26
Document, With Signatures
and Argument, Presented to
Vice President and Speaker.
ASKS A RETURN
TO FIXED RATIO
Requests Abolition of Lump-sum
Requests Abolition of Lump-sum
Plan, or, Until Then, a Sub
stantial Increase.

A plea for equitable treatment of the
people Of Washington in settling the
problems of fiscal relations between the
Federal and District Governments was
presented to Congress today in a petit
tion from the Citizens Joint Committee
on Fiscal Relations between the United
States and the District of Columbia.
The petition was handed to Vice
President Curtis and to Speaker Gar
ner by Edward F. Colladay, chairman Of
the Citizens Joint Committee.
Shortly after the Senate met at noon,
the Vice President acknowledged receipt
of the petition and referred it to the
Senate District Committee, which has
before it the House bill seeking to re-
peal the substantive law of 1922, es-
tablishing the 60-40 ratio of fiscal
relations. That committee also has
before it the four House bills seeking
to increase the Districts tax burden
by approximately s4,000,0O0 q year.
The petition, in the House, was re-
ferred to the District Committee.
Urge Bills Rejection.
The petition, signed by % citizens,
representing constituent and co-operat-
ing organizations of the Citizens Joint
Committee on Fiscal Relations Between
the United States and the District of
Columbia, urged rejection of H r.
6285, which would repeal the 60-40
ratio of contribution, and asked for a
return to the definite proportion plan.
Although the substantive law pro-
vides for the 60-40 ratio plan, the petit
ton pointed out, Congress has adopted
as a temporary provision the lump
sum method of contributing to the Dis
trict's expenses. If this lump-sum prac-
tice Is continued, the petition urged, the
amount of the Federal contribution
should be largely increased"
The petition explained that the plat
form of principles laid down by the
Joint committee and adhered to in the
fore the Congressional Joint Select
Committee in 1915, the House
District Committee in December, 1919,
and the Senate Appropriations Commit
tee in April. 1920, contended the United
States should contribute largely" ac-
cording to fixed and definite propor-
ton, which should be at least one-hal.
This platform, Congress was in
formed, was modified by the organic
act OF 1872, Wnlch reamrmed the DELL
mite proportion principle, but changed
the ratio from $3.50 to 60-40, impos-
ing the go per cent burden on the local
taxpayers.
Amendments Rejected.
while Congress has refused all
propositions to amend the definite pro-
portionate contribution provision of the
law of 1922" the citizens stated, "and
while the 60-40 provision Is the exist
ing substantive law, Congress in 1924
provided as temporary provision on
the annual appropriation act for the
fiscal year 1925 a mmp-sum contribu-
ton, in lieu of the 40 per cent contri-
button provided by substantive law,
and has renewed this exception to the
provisions of the substantive law in
each annual appropriation act since
that date"
Calling attention to the bill intro
duced in this Congress for repeal of
the substantive law ratio, the commit
tee urged defeat of the bill and re-
turn to the 60-40 platform. In sup
CONTINUED on Page 2, Column g.