Evening star., 1933-02-27
Confusion of Issues.

The issue Is COllllStN III PA AS"~iie Ao-
discussion of legislation to empower the
District to borrow like the States from
the R. F. c.
Critics of the loan proposition treat
It as a proposal to borrow quickly sew
eral million dollars with interest at
per cent for emergency relief instead
OF drawing for this purpose from
possibly-available District surplus, by
the latter method saving interest
charges
To this proposal no other than
negative answer is conceivable. Whether
an individual or a municipal corpora
tion. no one with surplus funds Of ones
own Immediately available and subject
to ones use will wisely borrow and pay
interest
But the question whether to borrow
or not to borrow Is not for immediate
answer, but will arise later. The i'm
mediate issue is whether the District
shall be included with the States and
Territories when the Nation is granting
to the latter the privilege of borrowing
from the R. F. c. for emergency relief
when private and public contributions,
having been vigorou.ly and enthusias-
tically utilized to a maximum degree.
prove inadequate and are on the verge
of exhaustion. This question is entire
ly independent of the question whether
10 I,CrrOup6
from the R. F. c. Conditions arising
or existing later will determine the
answer to the latter question. Grant
of the privilege of borrowing does not
bind the beneficiary to borrow, and does
not hamper attempts to get the full,
direct appropriation of relief money
which will make borrowing unneces-
sary. Indeed a potential beneficiary
under the loan plan, who, finding in the
eleventh hour that there is no neces-
sity for it to attempt to borrow, valves
the borrowing privilege, will enjoy the
hearty approval of the other potential
benefciaries whose greater necessities
can be more completely met by reason
OF the waiver.
Congress. representing the Nation,
shows in this matter praiSeWorthy
disposition to modify slightly the axiom
that the District is a State when
burdens are to be imposed and not a
State when privileges and bounties are
distributed The La Toilette Costigan
bill proposed the distribution of millions
among the States, Territories and the
District, according to population, the
money to be used for the relief of the
distressed and starving The Wagner
bill, in addition to making available a
sum for outright gifts to States, Terri
tories and the District to aid tran
sients. proposed that additional millions
should be placed at the disposal of the
r. F. c., to be loaned to the States,
the Territories and the District for the
relief of distress on proof in the case
of each applicant that there has been
100 per cent of vigorous and intelligent
effort to secure the maximum of private
contribution and of public money ap
preparation and that in view of the
extraordinary needs of today the aggre
gate Of private and direct public con-
tributions is inadequate for complete
relief. Thus both bills recognize that
the District as a payer of national taxes
has a substantial stake in the national
tax fund from which the proposed gifts
or loans are to be taken and is entitled
in ea-:.,J to participate in gifts or loans
Of t'.c kind proposed, since the Dis
trict's contribution to national taxes
exceeds those of twenty-seven Cor more
than half of the States.
The Senate substituted the Wagner
bill for the La Toilette Ccstigan bill and
approved and passed the Wagner bill,
including the District with the States
and Territories in the list of possible
borrowers, and in the list of benefciaries
of an additional fund of SIS 100000 TO
be given outright on application and
r. F. C. approval for relief and work
relief to unemployed and needy tran
sients and to aid in their rehabilitation
in training and work camps Or ether
wise"
II we District residents had the same
power that is possessed by citizens of
State to decide fer themselves how
much shall be appropriated for direct
relief from public money for needy
Washingtonians, we could say with
some positiveness that We will provide
so large an amount by direct sppropria-
ton of public money and by entllusias-
tic contributions Of private money that
there will be no necessity or temptation
to borrow relief money, even at low
rate of interest.
But being unrepresented in our ma
tional-state-m municipal legislature we
have nothing to say concerning the
manner OF expanding our tax money,
whether national or municipal. Con-
gress will say for us how much of our
tax money shall be spent in direct
relief; whether we shall share with the
States the privilege Of borrowing under
stringent restrictions; and whether the
condition shall exist which will make
exercise of the borrowing privilege
necessary or desirable.
Under these circumstances will it
not be wise for us to put ourselves in
position to take advantage Of every
suggested alternative form of relief.
including the methods which we do not
prefer?
Will it not be sensible for lis to ac-
cept with grateful appreciation the con-
sideg4+e and equitable proposal made.
th-ttWe enjoy with the states rcth our
xAare in the transient relief fund ana