Evening star., 1934-12-30
Obligation Based Upon Excessive Ex
actions From Local Revenues for
Payments, Wholly or in
Part National.

Va WiAhV WobAA w P0AA a. w eoAAhA6 SSiA
were the ordinary commercial self
sustaining community. Also obliga-
ton based upon payments which are
national or semi-national and impose
an obligation upon the Nation to pay
all or half or 40 per cent of expendi-
lures and which render inadequate
the Federal contribution Of approx
mately II per cent in the current
fiscal year. These items should
(a) either be eliminated from d. C.
bill and handled under some other
appropriation bill with specific equi-
table provision for distribution Of pay
ment between Nation and Capital. or
tb) If retained in D. c. appropriation
bill should be coupled with specific
statement OF equitable distribution Of
payment between Nation and Capital.
or (c) II retained in D. c. bill and
payment made with low percentage Of
national contribution (such as II per
cent? under present lump-sum pay
ment, then this unjust excessive con-
tribution by Capital to be considered
in making equitable increases OF lump
sum contribution.
Decreasing Federal Contribution to
Semi Ma tional Projects.
The argument accompanying the
recent petition to the President from
the Citizens Joint Committee on F4s-
cal Relations Between the United
States and the District Of Columbia
touched on some Of the semi ational
undertakings, the larger portion Of
the burden of which has been thrown
on the District.
For example:
The Municipal Center. The Com
missioners, having been advised that
the Municipal Building would be
needed by the Federal Government in
its Avenue triangle development.
sought in 1929 to obtain permission
from Congress to purchase two squares
Of land as the site for new Mu-
nicipal Building. or group Of buildings.
The total estimated cost, land and
buildings. was S12 2,000, 900. The Dis
trict then had surplus revenues in the
Treasury amounting to about $6,000,- :
900, and 1t was the understanding
| (see H. r. 1878, Seventy-flrst Con-
greSs, second session. that the Dis
trict would be credited with the value
Of the District Building. tentatively
placed at $1,000 900. The Commis-
sioners' project was possible without
undue strain on current revenues.
Congress changed the plan, on the
theory that the new District struc-
lures should conform In scale and
grandeur to the Federal development
(see House hearings on S. 4l80. Sew
enty-first Congress. second session
April, 1890. The Commissioners were
ordered to purchase additional land
and to plan for municipal center de-
velopment, the estimated cost Of which
was in excess Of $22, 900. More
than $6,700,000 has now been ex-
pended in purchase of land and
preparation of plans, and the District
is unable to proceed with completion
Of the project because of lack of reve-
nues. In the meantime, deplorable
conditions in the Police Courts and
other lower courts, due to overcrowd-
ing, have become worse, and there Is
no definite promise of relief through
the construction Of new buildings
Congress has been unwilling to ad-
vance its share Of the cost Of this
semi-national undertaking, and &C
cess to other sources Of revenue (such
as the Public Works Administration
has been denied.
Park and Planning Commission.
This national body was created by
an act Of Congress public No. 202
Sixty eighth Congress) in 1924 for
the development of parks within and
outside the District of Columbia. the
name being changed from National
Capital Park Commission to National
Capital Park and Planning Com
mission in 1926. The broadly ma
tional conception of this task
was indicated in the wording OF
the act, which proposed the appro-
priation each year of "a sum not ex-
ceeding l cent for each inhabitant OF
| the Continental United States, a.
determined by the last preceding
Q920) decennial census" Funds ap-
propriated for use within the District
Of Columbia were to be paid from
the revenues of the District Of Co
lumbia and the general funds Of the
Treasury in the same proportion as
other expenses Of the District Of
Columbia"
New Terms Impose Greater Burden.
But when the park development
law public No. 284, Seventy first Con-
gress) of 1880 was enacted, and q
total sum of SIG ,000, 900 authorized to
be advanced for use within the Dis
trict, repayments were demanded
from the District at the rate Of q
million dollars year, and between
1924 and 1890 the proportion of the
, Federal lump sum payment had
shrunk from approximately 40 per
cent to approximately 20 per cent Tin
the current fiscal year it is about II
per cent? and participation in this
semi-national undertaking was there
by reduced by more than half, throw
ing q much greater proportion Of the
cost on local taxpayers.
Rock Creek Potomac Parkway. This
addition to the national park system
! of the Capital was proposed by the
HdTk SOtIllulSSlOu VI lSVl. IllOT w
that time Congress had directed the
chief of engineers to report on .
suitable connection between the Ma
tional Geological Park and Potomac
Park, and his report was made in
1900. The Park Commission adopted
one of two proposed plans of treat
ment, but it was not until 1918 that
Congress took action by creating q
commission to acquire the land, all
, of which was in private ownership
The act authorized expenditure of
81 100000 for acquisition of the land,
and from the fiscal year 1917 through
the fiscal year 1926 appropriations
for purchases were made. ranging in
amount from $50, 1000 to $250,O0 an
nually. The money was divided, f1rst
on the basis of $3.50 and later 60-40
between the United States and the
District. The authorized appropria-
ton of $4,000 was exhausted in
the fiscal year 1895. In the calendar
-