Evening star., 1934-11-25

NContinued From First PageD
citizens Of the Capital City have a
real friend in him.
Emphasizing the fact that the sub
stantive law establishing the 60-40
ratio Of expense between the District
and Federal governments has never
been repealed, the petition and sup
porting argument renew the joint
committees plea for a return in prac-
tice to this substantive law. or for
q more equitable lump sum payment
as long as Congress continues to fol-
low this departure from the fixed pro-
portion plan.
After reciting the history Of how the
arbitrary lump sum practice came
into existence as q rider on an appro-
priation bill "in defiance Of substan-
tive law under q strained construction
Of the Holman rule" the joint COM
mittee's brief calls attention to the
fact that the lump sum method OF
Federal payment deprives the un-
represented local taxpayers Of their
safeguard against excessive taxation
Recommendations of Committee.
The Joint committee summed up
its petition with the following plea:
ITO prevent glaring inequity. your
petitioners therefore urge, for reasons
stated in the argument hereto at
tached as part Of this petition. that
the President, through the Bureau of
the Budget, should % recommend
substantial increase in the basic lump
sum payment by the United States in
the pending 1885 budget for the Dis
trict of Columbia; (2) that great ma
tional or semi.national projects be
excluded from the District budget
and financed through some supply bill
other than the District supply bill, so
wording the items thus excluded as to
set forth the exact methods Of hnanc-
ing in relation to the amounts
of contribution by Nation and Capt.
tai that is thought to be just, or 80
recommend. in the Presidents mes
sage to Congress on the 1886 budget,
q local aS well as a national maxi
mum Of contribution. on the assump-
ton that it is the impotent partner
(the District of Columbia) who alone
needs this protection, or (D recon-
mend to the Congress that. by refer
endum or otherwise, the local tax
payers be permitted to have some
effective say in regard to the amount
Of local taxes and the purposes for
which the tax money is to be ex-
pended"
Under the lump sum practice, the
brief points out, additional dollars Of
tax exacted from the District no
longer increase. but correspondingly
reduce the national contribution, ac-
tually or relatively.
Expenses Shifted to d. C.
To show how the annual substitu-
tion of lump sum in place Of the
40 per cent Federal share called for
by the substantive law has gradually
shifted the burden of maintaining the
National Capital more and more to
the shoulders Of the local residents
since 1925. the petition points out
that for the current fiscal year the
District government Is being required
to meet SO per cent Of the total ap-
preparation. In other words, the Fed
eral lump sum payment for this year
represents only II per cent. instead OF
the 10 per cent contemplated by the
unrepealed substantive law.
AS long rs the lump sum practice
continues, the joint committee stresses
the fairness Of increasing the amount
In some approximate relation to the
increase in the total Of the District
budget.
In this connection, the joint COM
n1ittee points out that for the fiscal
year 1884 the Budget Bureau recon-
mended reduction Of the Federal pay
ment from $7,775, 900 to the present
figure Of s5,7oo,o00, . cut approx
nnately 268 per cent, on the ground
that the total Of the District budget
had been reduced by about that per-
centage.
The joint committee contends that,
by taking this action, the Budget
Bureau established precedent which
likewise should be followed when the
total of District estimates Is increased.
The total estimates the Commission
ers have submitted for 1885 represent
an increase Of approximately one
third over appropriations for 1894.
The argument accompanying the
petition also sets forth detailed in
stances in which the local COM
munity has been required to meet
the cost Of national. or semi-national,
improvements without equitable par
ticipation by the Federal Govern
ment.
Semi.National Projects.
The costly scale on which the Dis
trict has been required to plan the
Municipal Center development, in or
der to harmonic with Federal i'm
provements in the National Capital, is
cited by the joint committee as an
illustration of this tendency to place
national or semi-national burdens on
the local community. The terms which
Congress has required the District to
comply with in repaying loans from
the Public Works Administration Is
listed Is another example. Pointing
out that such projects as the sewage
disposal plant are seui-national In
purpose, the joint committee declares
that paIticipattoo by the United States