Evening star., 1933-03-28
Continued From First Page.)

dollars.
As long as the Federal Government,
appropriates so much as penny fol
the support Of its National Capital
that penny stands for some concrete
obligation. All reasonable men should
agree that the Federal Governments
real obligation to its Federal Capita
should be carefully determined by TAX
ing into consideration all of the many
items. tangible and Intangible, that &c
to make it up.
And after the obligation is measured
the Federal Government should meet II
and cent for cent. That, 1t would
; seem. might be put down as an ele-
mental rule of honesty and fair dealing
The Federal Obligation.
Has the Federal Government, in con-
sidering an appropriation of s5,7OO, ,00O
for the Federal City, made any determi-
nation of the obligation that this ap-
preparation is supposed to represent?
If it has not made such a determi-
nation, one of two things is apt to be
true.
Either tbs United States is paying
more than its justified share of local
appropriations, or it is paying less than
its justified share of local appropria-
tlons and thrusting the difference on
the shoulders of unrepresented local
taxpayers.
The former lump sum OF $500, 900
was not based on any sound appraisal
of the Federal Governments obliga-
tion to the Capital
The lump sum of $7,775,OO0 was not
based on any sound appraisal Of the
Federal Governments obligation to the
Capital.
And the proposed lump sum of S.
100000 is not based on anything except
an arbitrary percentage reduction from
the last-named figure
How is the Federal Governments OBJ
legation to the Capital to be measured? :?
OF what does it consist?
After long years of neglect Of the
Capital, which brought the munich
pallty and many of it's taxpayers to
virtual bankruptcy, and after several
years of careful inquiry, the Federal
Government decided that the expenses
OF the Capital should be borne be-
tween them half and half.
That ratio existed from 1873 to 1922.
1t was attacked many times. But every
investigation justified the equitability
as well as the soundness of the system
OF thus dividing, by a ratio fixed in
advance, the expenses between the local
community and the Federal Govern
ment In 1922. however the ratio was
changed, substantive law being duly
amended and the local taxpayers being
charged with 60 per cent instead of SO
per cent of the expenses that were
divisible between them and the Federal
Government.
Investigation after investigation en-
| phaSlZed two things-frSt, the fairness
and adequacy of the local tax burden
imposed by Congress as measured by the
yardStlck of what citizens of other, self
governing cities taxed themselves; Sec
ond. the real responsibility on the part
of the Federal Government to contrib
ute its just proportion of expenses in
making up the total appropriation nee
essary for maintaining this Federally
planned. Federally governed Capital
and in carrying out the Federally or
dalned development on the scale de-
termlned by the representatives of all
the people of the United States except
those who live in Washington.
Substantive Law Repudiated.
! But, two years after the new division
Of expenses between the local COM
munity and the Federal Government
| 4t7u UStll dSleco UpOIl ny Tile OOIlSreSS.
the House, by means of a legislative
rider on an appropriation bill repu-
dated the substantive law without re-
pealing it and put into practice the sys-
tenn OF approprlating in a lump sum
instead of in relation to the total of the
| Capital City's running expenses.
Congress had refused to repeal the
substantive law. But House practice,
OF breaking away from it each year
| by means of a rider-temporary only
for the year in which 1t applied-stack-
| ed the cards against the District and
left its citizens virtually without appeal
! Despite the annual attempts by the Sen
| ate to increase the lump sum, the lump
the expenses of the District kept mount
| ing. Practically the same story was re-
peated over and over again. The Senate
would be placed in the position of yield
ing to the House or of killing the Dis
trict bill-as it was killed this last ses-
! sion. Agreement and compromise were
| deemed more practical
| In 1929 the Bureau of Efficiency was
asked by former Representative SIM
mons OF Nebraska to make an inveSti-
| cation of Washington's tax burden, in
| relation to that of other cities of the
country; also to make an estimate of
/ pay in local taxes if, as a municipal
property owner. it was assessed on its
property holdings as other property hold
erS are assessed. This the Bureau of
| Efficiency did. The results of that in
vestigation fully confirmed the argu-
nent Of Washingtonians who had
claimed that, when the disabilities of
| the local community were taken into
| consideration, they were bearing an
| adequate tax burden.
The Bureau of Efficiency also set up
! a theoretical method of determining
| the Federal Governments obligation to
the local community. In our opinion"
said the Bureau of Efficiency, "the solu-
ton of the problem of fiscal relations
| lies in determining the Federal Gov
ernment's liability toward the cost of
/ operation and maintenance of the City
of Washington along two lines, namely,
| Cd its tax liability as a municipal tax
payer in Washington in connection
with the ordinary costs of government
of the municipality, and (2) its lia-
bility on account of the loss of revenue
and on account of extraordinary ex-
penditures occasioned by the fact that
| Washington is the National Capital"
1928 Obligation s7,44o,o3e.
AS municipal taxpayer"-that Is.
as the owner of property which, if
| taxed, would yield revenue-the bu-
reau found that the Nations obliga-
| ton for the fiscal year 1928 was ST.
44O.O39
But the bureau made no attempt
that year to compute the Federal Gov
ernment'S additional obligation ION
| account of the loss of revenue Ito the
municipality and on account of ex-
traordinary expenditures occasioned by
the fact chat Washington is the Ma
| tional Capital"
The next year the Bureau of Eff
cheney brought its tax data up to date
at the request of the so-called MapeS
Committee of the House, appointed to
inquire into the subject of fiscal rela-
/ tions.
For the fiscal year 1882, the Bureau
of Efficiency found that the Federal
| Governments tax liability" to WASH