Evening star., 1934-12-31
Some Reasons Why the Nation
Should Contribute to Capitals
Maintenance and Upbuilding
An Equitable Obligation Is Based on Nations
Great Bounties to States in Which
Capital Does Not Share. .uas
THEODORE w. MOVES.

w. MOVES.
| equitable obligation, though treated as
subsidy in these comparisons. The
constitutionality of the subsidies to the
States has been vigorously attacked,
but the constitutionality of national
payments to meet the national obli-
cation in respect to the seat of gov
ernment has never been questioned.
Emergency Relief Subsidies Under the
New Deal.
The employment-relief policy of the
administration, the aim of which has
been to grant or to lend money to
States. and municipalities for employ
ment-creating enterprises, has included
the District of Columbia, and the Dis
trict has shared modeStly in some of
the distributions.
From July, 1882, to May. 1888, the
Reconstruction Finance Corp. ad-
vanced $500, 100000 for relief pur-
poses to the States, to Hawaii and
to Puerto Rico. Originally intended
to be repaid by deductions from fu-
ture Federal highway grants, Congress
later eliminated the required repay
ment, making grants cut of the ad-
vances Except small amount loaned
to cities). The District was not per-
| mitted to share in the distribution of
such grants.
Between May %, 1888, and October
81, 1884, the District shared in the
direct-grant policy of the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration nor
NAL community needs having been ag-
gravated in the meantime by the fact
that this is the National Capital and
| that extraordinary numbers of tran
sients were attracted here. During the
| period in which the F. E. r. A. was dis
tributing 81 1877 ,488, ,226 to the States for
relief the District received $7,789,562,
an amount exceeded by 80 of the
States. For the United States as a
whole the Federal Government fur
nished 65.6 per cent, the States (n-
cluding cities) having furnished 34.4
per cent. The Districts contribution
was 32.7. almost equal to the total
average and higher than the average
for cities alone (203 per cent?. More
than half the States received greater
percentage of Federal funds than the
District. The need for local relief funds
Is indicated in the extraordinary fact
that an estimated is per cent of the
Districts population Is on the relief
rolls. Forty per cent of the Negro
population Of the city is now receiv-
ing relief, and per cent of the white
population.
In c. w. A. relief the District re-
ceived $S,587, ,180 out of the S812,-
157,704 distributed for this purpose.
Much of the work done was under the
supervision of Federal authorities, in
the improvement of Federal property,
done without regard to municipal
needs.
Up to November I, 1894, the Agri-
cultural Adjustment Administration
paid to the farmers of the land, in
rental and benefits, some $421, ,697.-
389, The District, which paid into
the United States Treasury for the
fiscal year ending June 80, 1884. about
$326,635 in special processing taxes
from which the payments were made.
did not share in the distribution of
benefit payments.
Permitted to Share Road Fund.
The National Government made a
welcome departure from previous pol
icy when it included the District in its
emergency distribution for highway
improvement, the District, on the
basis of the distribution formula (area
and population and mileage of rural
mail delivery routes) receiving S2,892.-
31l Of the $600,000,000 distributed.
This was the first time in Is years of
Federal highway aid that the District
was included. The amount received
was less than that received by any of
As Of the States.
The District has not Jared as well
under the lending program of the
Public Works Administration. Al
though Congress authorized the Dis
trlct to borrow about $4,000 900, the
Public Works Administration has
loaned the District only $7,259. 500
more than million of which was. de-
quoted for repayment from the cur
rent years lump sum, after being ac-
cepted by the Commissioners with the
understanding that it was a grant
The repayment of 70 per cent of the
loan Is secured by clause in the |
authorizing act which earmarks 10
cents OF the tax rate to assure paw
ment Of not less than a million dol
lars year. The Districts loans of
$7,259,000 may be compared with
S798, 1885, 1888 of non-Federal projects
loaned or given as grants to the States |
and municipalities.
OF grants for Federal projects total |
ing about 81 200, 900. some S3l.-
100000 has been granted for Federal
projects In the District. This money
has been used chiefly in the Federal
building program. In this connec-
ton, most of the money appropriated
for public buildings in the District is |
said to go into the States for pur-
chase and fabrication of materials. |
In an unofficial estimate of the distri- |
button of funds for the new Depart |
ment of Commerce, Post Office and
Interstate Commerce Commission |
Buildings, 1t was revealed that only |
$3,000,000 of total of $21 ZOO, 900 |
spent on these structures was spent in |
washington. The remainder was |
shared by % of the States, which |
supplied or fabricated the material, or
the railroads which transported the
IE6 Lerlai.
The Public Works Administration |
authorities contend that it is impos-
sible to break down the great relief |
expenditures by States. Some of the |
projects, such as irrigation, reclama-
ton, flood control, river and harbor
Improvement, Tennessee Valley i'm
provement, and even the building of
warships for the Navy, are spread in
benefits over great areas, and the re-
ceipts Of such expenditures are shared |
among the people of many of the
States. The expenditure of New Deal
billions has been beneficial in Wash
ington, as elsewhere, In providing some
although Washington has
an acute relief problem of its own
which continues to be serious and
which is proving heayv burden m,