Evening star., 1932-01-07


has been dealt NTH in the past
BOUT the time of the World War
| " Congress in a number of years
N failed to appropriate all the
\ money then being eXacted IN
local taxation. together with
unconditional Federal funds, with the
result that a surplus of District taS
money accumulated in the Treasury.
This situation prompted Congress II
1922 to create another Joint Select
Committee of the Senate and House tc
delve into the fiscal relations problem
for the purpose of determining the Dis
trict's claim to this surplus That
committee, after an exhaustive study OF
the accounts between the United States
and District of Columbia back to the
early DAYS of the citys history, reported
| early in 1928 that the District had a
free surplus to its credit amounting 70
S4438l5492 The committee recon-
mended that it be held in the Treasury
Subject to appropriation by the Con-
gress, as a part of the Districts snare
Of the expenses of maintaining It's gov
ernment in accordance with the law;
Two years elapsed, however, before
it was possible to get through both
branches of Congress, early IN 1925, the
necessary legislation recognizing the eX-
isterce of the surplus. In the mean
while, those members Of the House who
Objected to the definite percentage
method under which the United states
and District of Columbia had shared in
CapitaI development for nearly hail a
century, already had succeeded in per-
| suadjng Congress to turn, in the fiscal
year 1925, as a temporary. exceptional
annual appropriation practice from the
fixed ratio to the S9,00O,ooO lump sum.
Getting Around the Law.
Thus while the District taxpayers
were securing a measure of justice IN
| the recognition of their accumulated
| surplus. the beneficial effects Of it were
more than offset by the consequences
| of being deprived of the safeguard
the fixed ratio method had given them
against an inequitable apportionment.
While opponents of the definite pro-
| portion rule were not able to have the
substantive 60-40 law repealed, they
established by indirection a precedent
which has continued for eight years.
The 60-40 ratio had been in erect
only a few years when in 1924 the
| House introduced the practice Of de-
parting from this substantive law by
substituting a lump-sum Federal con-
tribution, The first lump-sum provl-
sion got through the House under the
Holman rule, as a legislative rider on
the appropriation bill for 1925, on a
| theory that it was in order if it meant
a reduction or retrenchment in the Fed
eral Governments obligation. 1t got
through the Senate by threat of no
appropriation bill for the District If
the Senate refused to yield.
When the lump-sum provision was
offered on the floor of the House in the
| Spring of 1924 as an amendment to the
District appropriation bill, points OF
! order were raised against it. In the
ensuing debate those who felt such an
amendment was not in order on an
appropriation bill pointed out that 1t
did not seek to reduce the total carried
| by the bill. but merely the Federal
share, and that to comply with the in
| tent of the rule it should be re-
| duction in the amount to be expended
under the bill Supporters OF the lump
sum amendment insisted 1t was only
necessary that it be retrenchment in
! the Federal expenditure to be in order.
The points of order were overruled and
! the amendment went into the bill.
Thus. it was held, in effect, that the
substantive 60-40 ratio could be de-
parted from for the purpose Of reliev-
| ing Uncle Sam of part OF his obllga-
! ton.
/ Senate Forced to Yield.
The Senate yielded reluctantly to the
House in that first departure from the
! definite proportion system in 1924. The
original House amendment proposed
| So, 1000 600 as lump sum. The Senate
/ wanted either to adhere to the 60-40
| law or a Sl4,000,000 lump sum. The
! $4,000, 900 figure finally emerged as a
compromise in order to pass the bill.
Returning to the question Of the city'S
! accumulated surplus, the District did
! not win recognition of its right to that
| fund without overcoming opposition.
! 1t had to combat efforts which were
made during the 1922 inquiry to show
| that the municipality was indebted to
| the United States in variety Of ways
which. if sustained, would have eaten
up the surplus. AS a striking example
! the Joint Select Committee was asked
! to 60 back prior to 1880 and reopen
old claims of the United States against
! the District, long since settled or for
! given and forgotten. Some of these
were claims on which the United States
had accepted the principal amount due
without charging interest, and the 1922
! committee was asked to figure interest
on these claims. The committee, how
ever. came to this conclusion:
while the Congress has, Of course
| extensive powers with relation TO the
District of Columbia it is our firm con-
yjction that the collection of interest
on these paid-up accounts, particularly
when it Is specified that settlement is
| in full' or in full settlement cannot
be supported, either on legal or equita-
BILE principles.
The committee reached a general
conclusion that in making any settle
ments as the result Of its report no
interest be held to be due from the one
government to the other.
1t also was urged upon the committee
that, under the language Of the reSolu-
ton, it was required to make list for
the information OF Congress OF all sums
spent by the United States in beauti-
fying and upbuilding the National Capt.
tai since 1874, regardless Of whether
such sums had ever been considered as
affecting fiscal relations between the
| Federal and local governments. One
witness, using the Lincoln Memorial as
an illustration, took the view that while
the committee was not required to re-
gard such Federal projects as subject to
the $3.50 or 60-40 ratios, yet it was the
duty Of the committee TO report on al
SuCh items tOrT the consideration OF Con-
greSs in determining the surplus ques-
ton.
National Projects Excluded.
The committee stated in its report
that no portion of expenditures made
wholly out of Federal funds for the pur-
pose Of constructing national memorials
or monuments in honor of any national
hero or character, or commemorating
any national event, should be charge
able to the District in making up the
, fiscal balance.
Local organizations in Washington
through the Citizens Joint Committee
on Fiscal Relations, answered fully al