Evening star., 1932-01-27

l, The lump-sum payment practice
DESTROYS all relation between the Ma
tionaI and local contributions and Ieav-
ing all taxing power in the hands OF
the United States deprives the unrep-
resented Capital of its safeguard
against excessive taxation by taxing
body in which it is not represented.
Under the lump-Sum payment prac-
tice additional dollars Of tax exacted
from the District no longer increase.
but correspondingly reduce the Ma
tional contribution, actually or rela-
lively.
Teaches a False Theory.
2. 1t teaches a false theory concern
ing the relation of Nation to Capital
It obtrudes annually upon the atten-
ton of Congress the suggestion OF
large cash donation to the Capital, as
If the primary obligation Of National
City upbuilding were upon the local
taxpayers and the Nation were only
an incidental contributor, a voluntary
and benevolent donor. Since the Ma
ton in 1873 recognized and assumed
its National Capital power and obiga-
ton, its responsibility in respect to the
Capital has been primary and dominat-
ing. AS late as 1916 this relation Of
Nation to Capital was fully recognized
and clearly set forth in the report OF
the Joint select committee Of Congress,
which made the most thorough, ex-
haustive and able study Of the fiscal
relations of Nation and Capital that
statesmen had given to the subject
since l874-8. As long as all the assets
and revenues of the National and local
ioint contributors toward Capital up
building are in the hands Of the Ma
tional Joint contributor, and as long as
all decisions concerning the amount to
be paid by the joint contributors re-
spectively and concerning the eXpendl-
ture Of the joint revenue are to be made
by the National contributor, the latter
must, in equity, and will In fact bear
the primary responsibility Of Capital
upbuilding, and the local taxpayers will
be recognized in their true relation as
merely incidental contributors Of tax
money, not fixed in amount by them
selves, but exacted at the pleasure OF
the other Joint contributor. Since all
the taxing power remains in the hands
of the National partner, no Limitation
upon the amount Of National payment
is required, but the. self-imposed linz
itation upon the amount to be exacted
from the impotent partner Is essential.
Is not the superIative Inconsistency,
the climax of topsy-turvydom attained
by a financing plan which places a
limit upon the amount Of his own
money which may be spent by the
omnipotent National partner, with
exclusive power Of legislation and ap-
preparation in his hands, and removes
all limit from the amount which the
National partner may exact for Capital
upbuiIding from the impOtent local
partner, the District taxpayers? Pro-
lection against himself for the power
full partner who needs no protection! A
denial of protection for the weak part
ner who is absolutely helpless and i'm
potent and who desperately needs to be
protected!
3. 1t taints with unfairness or bad
faith nearly every understanding or
transaction which it touches.
Unlawful Offspring Of Holman Rule.
(a) 1t came into existence as rider
on an appropriation bill in defiance OF
substantive law under strained con-
struction of the Holman rule.
This misapplication Of that rule tends
to put the National appropriation for
Capital upbuilding in position where
1t may not be increased, however
righteously, without running the gantlet
OF the House District committee and OF
District day limitations and delays, but
may be decreased without the sanction
of any committee by hasty, unthinbins
proposals from the floor Of the House
adopted by a mere majority Of the little
group of our legislators in the House
Who take an interest, friendly or hostile,
in District concerns.
Under its vicious influence the rule
seems to say in effect that in action
upon appropriation bills no substantive
legislation can be disobeyed unless
Uncle Sam repudiates some financial
obligation or otherwise makes money
by the change.
The rule thus misconStrued and mis-
applied, while barring equitable in
creases in appropriation, facilitates the
denial or evasion of legal Indebtedness;
II invites violation with good or bad
motive of existing substantive law;
and it tempts to repudiation of just
debt.
Unfairness in Respect TO Surplus.
Cb) In appropriating for National
Capital purposes the Districts five mil
lions surplus, it robbed this fine action
by Congress of much Of its merit.
1t caused repudiation of equitable
contribution by the United States In
appropriating and expending the Dis
trict'S accumulated treasury surplus.
The tax money creating this surplus
was collected by authority Of the half
and-half law solely to apply upon the
Districts half of District appropri-
ations. Whenever it came to be ex-
pended 1t would be equitable to spend
it under the half-and-haf law. the
United States duplicating it.
Under the demoralizing influence OF
the lump-sum payment practice the
surplus has been expended without par