Evening star., 1932-03-22

JllS magnificent CdplOdl Va e
tion, but oppressive from It's very ol-
mensions and ARRANGEMENTS to the in
habitants, If its execution to any con-
siderable extent is to be thrown upon
them. No people who anticipated the
execution and subsequent support OF IL
out of their own funds would ever have
dreamed of forming such plan. 1t
would have been the most consummate
folly"
The Southland report of 1885, COM
menting on the intent of the founders
of the Capital City, stated:
"At that period neither the Govern
ment nor the proprietors contemplated
that the whole or even a large pro-
portion of the burden should be thrown
upon the inhabitants OF the CITY,"
To show what complete control the
Government exercised over the streets
at that early time, the Southard report
continued:
"It has also changed the situation
of the streets and canal, retaining to
itself the lots thereby thrown open, and
the Supreme Court has sustained Its
authority in so doing. 1t could not
have entered into the contemplation of
any one at the date of the contract, nor
can it now be regarded as either rea-
sonable or just, that the city should
bear the expense of streets the property
and control of which was so absolutely
in the Government, and more than
one half of the land adjacent to which
belonged to it, and must be increased
in value by their improvement. The
committee are Of opinion that the
Government was bound by every
principle of equal right and justice to
pay a proportion of the expense in
Cured upon this subject, equal to the
amount of the property which 1t held,
and which was to be increased in value
and benefited by it; and this would
have been greatly more than one-half.
If the streets are its property, and to
be regarded as altogether under its con-
troll, 1t is not easy to perceive why it
should call upon or permit others to
keep that property in order; and If the
streets are to be regarded as for the
Joint convenience of the Government
and the inhabitants, the expense Of
maintaining them should be joint and
in proportion to their respective in
terests."
Nations Neglect Of Streets.
The committee stated that the early
action of the Government and its
agents was believed to have been in
conformity with the foregoing principle,
but added in the 1885 report that the
Government has not heretofore borne
anything like its relative proportion.
It's expenditures for this object have
been comparatively small, and devoted
almost entirely to the avenues and
streets which were indispensably nee
essary for the convenience of Congress
and the public officers
In reviewing what had been spent on
the streets up to that time, the South
ard report went on:
There has been appropriated for the
streets and paid out of the city treasury
the sum of $429,971, and in addition to
this very large sum it is a low estimate
to say that not less than 5000 900 have
been paid by the inhabitants for the
Improvements of the streets in various
directions.
Previous to the year 1880, there had
been 106,371 running feet of pavement
made, besides the curbstones and paved
cutters, and paid for by special taxes
upon the lots, to which the private
building lots Of the Government had
contributed no part, although they de-
rived an equal benefit therefrom. While
this has been done the Government
and Nation have expended upon their
own streets, which they formed for
their own purposes and to answer their
own objects, In which they have the
exclusive property, over which they ex-
ercised unlimited control, and which
they may close and sell at pleasure, only
$208, 1925 and the whole of this sum,
with the exception Of about $4,000, has
been devoted to the Pennsylvania ave-
nue. and the streets Immediately around
and adjoining the Capitol and Presi-
dents squares alone, the Improvement
Of which was indispensable to the Gov
eminent itself and promotive of its own
interest, in the convenience of its off,
GERS and the transaction of the public
business"
Congress, this report added, had ex-
pended nothing except upon streets
which adjoined the public squares, and
even upon those had only made some
pavements and walks and set out some
trees, leaving the rest of the expense
Of even those streets to be borne by
the city"
Proposal of $3.50 in 1885.
The Southard Committee recon-
mended in 1885 that one-half of the
expenses of the streets should be paid
by the Government, and went further
by suggesting that one-half of the
sum the city had previously expended
on streets should at that time be re-
funded. Many years elapsed, however,
before the equitable half-and-half prin-
ciple was adopted in the organic act of
1878. Thus, for three-fourths of a
century nearly all of the work of street
Improvement fell upon the local COM
munity.
A House Judiciary Committee, in
making a report on fiscal relations in
June, 1874, referred to a Treasury De-
partment statement of expenditures by
the Government up to 1871 to show
how the amounts appropriated had
f1uctuated. After citing the Govern
ment appropriations in several different
years to indicate the fluctuation, the
committee stated that "the
total expenditures up to 1871 for i'm