Evening star., 1934-04-24
Wanted: New Deal for Capital;
Guaranteeing 1t Financial
and Political Equity.
Wisdom and Justice of Definite Plan
of Percentage Payment by Nation;
Evils of Lump Sum Substitute.

Editorial Correspondents Of The Star.
THEODORE w. MOVES.
ARTICLE 2.
The lump sum payment plan re-
verses the financial relation of Nation
to Capital established by the organic
act of 1873 and teaches a false and
hurtful theory concerning such re-
lation. It obtrudes annually upon
the attention of Congress the sug-
gestion Of a large cash donation to
the Capital as If the primary obliga-
tion Of national city upbuilding were
upon the silent partner, and the
dominating partner were only an in
cidental contributor, voluntary and
benevolent donor. Since the Nation
In 1873 recognized and assumed its
National Capital power and obligation
its responsibility in respect to the
Capital has been primary and domi-
mating. As late as 1915 this relation
OF Nation to Capital was fully recog-
nized and clearly set forth in the re-
port Of the Joint Select Committee
OF Congress which made the most
thorough, exhaustive and able study
Of the fiscal relations of Nation and
Capital that statesmen had given
TO the subject since 1s74-l87s. As
long as all the assets and revenues of
both partners as joint contributors to-
ward Capital upbuilding are in the
hands OF the active partner, and as
long as all decisions concerning the
amount to be paid by the joint con-
tributors, respectively, and concerning
the expenditure of the joint revenue
are to be made by the active partner.
the latter must in equity and will
In fact bear the primary response
bility OF Capital upbuilding, and the
silent partner will be recognized in
his true relation as merely an Incl
dental contributor OF tax money not
f1xed in amount by himself, but ex-
acted at the pleasure Of the active
partner.
Superlative and HurtfuI Inconsistency.
With obvious and hurtful incon-
sstency the lump sum contribution
plan imposes a limitation upon the
amount OF national lump sum pay
ment, but does not limit at all the
amount which the active partner NAV
exact from the impotent silent part
ner. Since all the taxing power re-
mains in the hands of the national
partner, no limitation upon the
amount of national payment is
required. but self-imposed limitation
upon the amount to be exacted from
the impotent partner is essential.
Is not the superIative inconsistency
the climax Of topsy -turvydom attained
by = financing plan which places a
limit upon the amount of his money.
which may be spent by the omni-
potent national partner. with ex-
elusive power Of legislation and appro-
priatiOn in his hands, and removes
all limit from the amount which the
national partner may exact for Capi-
tai upbuilding from the impotent
local partner. the District taxpayers
Protection against himself for the
powerful partner who needs no pro-
lection! A denial Of protection for
the weak partner who Is absolutely
helpless and who desperately needs
to be protected!
Unlawful Offspring Of Holman Rule.
Created in violation of the spirit
of the organic act and of the supple
mentary act of 1922. and by abuse
Of the Holman rule. the lump sum
payment plan taints with unfairness
nearly every understanding or trans
action which it touches.
1t came into existence as a rider
on an appropriation bill in defiance of
substantive law under a strained con-
struction of the Holman rule.
This misapplication of that rule
tends to put the national appropria-
ton for Capital upbuilding in a posi-
ton where 1T may not be increased,
however righteously. without running
the gantlet of the House District
Committee and of District day limi-
tations and delays, but may be de-
creased without the sanction of any
committee by hasty, unthinking pro-
posals from the floor of the House.
adopted by a mere ma jority Of the
little group Of our legislators in the
House who take an interest, friendly
or hostile. in District concerns.
Under its vicious influence the rule
seems to say in effect that in action
upon appropriation bills no substan-
tive legislation can be amended or
enacted unless Uncle Sam repudiates
some financial obligation or other
wise makes money by the change.
The rule thus misconstrued and
misapplied. while barring equitable