Evening star., 1934-11-25

1fIL OF argument uINoHSPb"SthS
petition to the President from the
Citizens Joint Committee on Fiscal
Relations in the District OF Co.
1umbtd: |
1. The lump-sum payment practice
DESTROYS all relation between the Ma
tional and local contributions and leav-
ing all taxing power in the hands OF
the United States deprives the unrep-
resented Capital Of Its safeguard
against excessive taxation by taxing
body in which II is not represented.
Under the lump-sum payment prac-
tice additional dollars of tax exacted
from the District no longer increase,
but correspondingly reduce the Ma
tional contribution, actually or rela-
lively.
Teaches a False Theory.
2, II teaches a false theory concern
ing the relation of Nation to Capital.
It obtrudes annually upon the atten-
ton of Congress the suggestion OF
large cash donation to the Capital, as
If the primary obligation OF National
City upbuilding were upon the local
taxpayers and the Nation were only
an incidental contributor, voluntary
and benevolent donor. Since the Ma
tion in 1878 recognized and assumed
its National Capital power and obllga-
tion, it's responsibility in respect TO the
Capital has been primary and domlnat-
ing. As late as 1916 this relation OF
Nation to Capital was fully recognized
and clearly set forth in the report of
the Joint select committee OF Congress,
which made the most thorough, ex-
haustive and able study Of the fiscal
relations OF Nation and Capital that
statesmen had given to the subject
since 1874-8. AS long as all the assets
and revenues Of the National and local
joint contributors toward Capital up
building are in the hands OF the Ma
tional joint contributor and as long as
all decisions concerning the amount 10
be paid by the Joint contributors re-
spectively and concerning the eXpendl-
ture Of the joint revenue are to De
made by the National contributor, the
latter must, in equity, and Will In fact
bear the primary responsibility OF
Capital upbuilding, and the local tax
PAYERS will be recognized in their true
relation as merely incidental contr1ou-
tors of tax money, not fixed In amount
bv themselves, but exacted at the
pleasure of the other joint contributor
Since all the taxing power remains in
the hands of the National partner, no
limitation upon the amount OF Ma
tional payment is required, but the
self-imposed limitation upon the
amount to be exacted from the i'm
potent partner is essential.
Is not the superlative Inconsistency,
the climax of topsy-turvydom attained
ty a financing plan which places
limit upon the amount Of his own
money which may be spent by the
omnipotent National partner, with
exclusive power Of legislation and ap-
propriation in his hands, and removes
all limit from the amount which the
National partner may exact for Capital
upbuiIding from the impotent local
partner, the District taxpayers? Pro-
lection against himself for the power
full partner who needs no protection!
A denial of protection for the weak
partner who is absolutely helpless and
impotent and who desperately needs
TO be protected!
;. 1t taints with unfairness or bad
faith nearly every understanding or
transaction which it touches.
Unlawful Offspring Of Holman Rule.
(a) 1t came into existence as rider
on an appropriation bill in def1ance
of substantive law under strained
construction of the Holman rule.
This misapplication Of that rule
tends to put the National appropr1-
alton for Capital upbuilding in a po-
sition where it may not be increased,
however righteously, without running
the gantlet of the House District COM !
mittee and of District day limitations
and delays, but may be decreased
without the sanction of any committee A.,
by hasty, unthlnkirg proposals from
the floor of the House, adopted by a
mere majority of the little group OF |
our legislators in the House who take |
an interest. friendly or hostile, in Dis |
trict concerns.
Under its vicious influence the rule |
seems to say in effect that in action
upon appropriation bills no substan-
tive legislation can be disobeyed unless |
Uncle Sam repudiates some financial
obligation or otherwise makes money |
by the change.
The rule thus misconstrued and mis- !
applied, while barring equitable in |
creases in appropriation, facilitates the
denial or evasion Of legal indebtedness;
1t invites violation with good or bad
motive of existing substantive law; |
and it tempts to reputation Of just |
debt.
Unfairness in Respect to Surplus.
Cb) In appropriating for National |
Capital purposes the Districts fve
millions surplus Accumulated during |
the war years by failure Of Congress
to appropriate for Capital needs), 1t
robbed this fine action by Congress OF
much of its merit.
It caused reputation Of equitable
contribution by the United States In
appropriating and expending the Dis /
trict's accumulated treasury surplus. |
The tax money creating this surplus
vas collected by authority Of the half
and-half law solely to apply upon the
Ildll VI oloClASo oPPAoPAA
ations. Whenever it came to be ex-
pended 1t would be equitable to spend
1t under the half-and-half law, the
United States duplicating it.
Under the demoralizing influence OF
the lump-sum payment practice the
surplus has been expended without
participation by the Nation under any
percentage of obligation to enlarge the
surplus fund for the upbuilding OF the
Capital. Decision that the tax surplus.
collected under the $3.50 law, existed
unavoidably involved the decision that
O proportionate payment by the Nation
was equitably due whenever the tax
surplus should be expended. But the
lump-sum payment practice, as ap-
piled, repudiated this equity.
Taints With Unfairness Expenditures
for Parks.
(c) The lump-sum payment expert
nent, as practically applied, converted
the Park Commission law from a bene-
a. and hlesSinr IN the Nafi0nal Can.