Evening star., 1932-01-08
History of Fiscal Relations
No. 5 g.
HOY the Senate Has Resisted Efforts in the House
to Repeal the Fixed Ratio Provision OF Snbsfdn-
tive Law and Hov the House Has CIR
cumyented That Ldp Without Repeal.

This is the nth and concluding in
stdIlment OF a series OF special articles
discussing the history Of the fiscal re-
ldtions controversy and hotO the prob
lem has been dealt NTH in the pdst)
THE present effort of the House to
repeal the provision which made
the 60-40 ratio permanent
basis for handling the expenses
of the National Capital in 1922
serves to recall that, while annual de-
partures from this ratio nave occurred
in the form of a lump-sum Federal
contribution for one year at time, the
senate has resisted similar efforts In
the past to wipe out substantive law
embodying the principle Of definite
proportion contribution.
AS recently as 1928 1t was demon
strated that the Senate still recognized
the continued existence of the 6O-4O
substantive law, although, then, as IN
the preceding few years, 1t had to yleld
to the House by accepting another
lump-sum Federal contribution to get
the District bill through the closing
DAYS of the session.
When the appropriation bill reached
the Senate in the Spring OF 1923 IL
contained the 100000 Federal lump
sum which the House had written IN
each year since the fiscal year l9zo'
The Senate Appropriations Committee
in 1928 struck out the $4,000 OOO clause
and inserted the 60-40 rule. When the
measure was taken up in the Senate,
noinf of order was made that the
Senate amendment was leglSlatlon OH
an appropriation bill.
Point of Order Overruled.
The then presiding officer of the Sen
ate overruled the point Of order, and
in doing SO cited the act of 1922, Whlch
the House is now asking the Senate TO
repeal The presiding officer said:
SThe chair. upon investigation, nndS
that in the District of Columbia appro-
priation act approved June ~ 1877
provision was incorporated hXlng
6O-4O basis of expenditures annually LOT
the District and Federal governments,
respectively, from and after July l,
1922 with certain exceptions, ana luT-
ther authorizing a tax rate on tanglple
and Intangible property necessary 10
bring the amount to be paid by the
District of Columbia government up 20
the go per cent prescribed IN the Jaw
THE chair, therefore, is OF the opln-
ion that the amendment is IN line Win
the present law, and overrules the point
of order"
A Deadlock Results.
The Senate passed the bill with the
6O-4O provision in it. Then 1oiloWeo
weeks of deadlock in conference, IN tne
course of which the Senate members,
in a spirit of compromise, suggeStea
some other ratio which would reduce
tbe Federal Governments 40 per cent,
hut retain the basic principle OF den
mite proportion such as 6623 from the
District and 1914 from the Unlteo
States. The House, however, lnSlSteo
on its $4,000 900 lump sum. Bringing
in a martial report on other features OF
the bill. former Senator PhlppS OF COL
orado. chairman of the Senate group,
was in favor of going back for fur-
ther conference on the main question,
but Congress was approaching the close
of the session. its business nearly COM
pleted. and the Senate decided 10 re-
cede and accept the $9,O0O,OOO lump
sum for another year.
In considering the present enort Oh
the House to repeal the substantive law
of 1922, it is pertinent also 10 recaH
that the first lump-Sum exception 10
that law went through the House unoeT
the Holman rule, on theory thaC II
was in order on the appropriation Dill
If it had the effect OF reductlon OF
retrenchment in the Federal Govern
ment's obligation. 1t remained In the
bill because the Senate was faced with
the alternative of yielding to the House
or running the risk Of having the ap-
propriation bill fail Of passage, which
would have meant continuing reSolu-
tion limited to only necessary malnte-
nance funds.
House Point of Order.
When the lump-sum provision was
offered in the House as an amendmenI
to the appropriation bill for the tiScal
wear beginning July l. 1924, points OF
order we're made against it. Members
of the House who regarded the amend
ment as out of order emphasized that
it did not seek to reduce the total car
ried in the bill but merely the Federal
share. and that to comply with the m
tent of the rule of the HouiSe it should
be a reduction in the amount TO be spent
under the bill. The advocates OF the
lump sum argued that 1t was only neceS-
sary that it be retrenchment In the
Federal expenditure
The points of order were overruled,
and thus it was held, in effect that
the substantive 60-40 law could be ig
nored if the departure from it was for
the purpose of relieving the Federal
partner of a part of his obligation to-
ward the Capital City.
First Lump Sum Proposed.
The House began the lump-Sum prac
tice by proposing $8,000,000. The Sen
ate that year advocated either adher-
ance TO the 60-4O law or a lump sum
of $4,000 900. In order to prevent fail