Evening star., 1936-10-21
One Policy or the Other.

For the benefit, as it were, of the
Presidents special committee now en-
gagged in a study of fiscal relations, the
courts have been asked to rule on two
important aspects of that relationship.
In one case the preliminary ruling by
Justice Bailey has upheld the rights
of parents employed in Washington but
living outside the District to send their
children to the local public schools, de-
spite the crowded condition of those
schools and the assertion by the school
authorities that there Is no room for
nonresident pupils In the other case
a packing company has petitioned the
courts for writ compelling District
officials to issue the necessary permit
for construction of packing house and
abattoir in a commercially zoned part
of the District.
What is the connection between these
separate and distinct appeals to the
courts and the subject Of fiscal relations
between the United States and the Dis
trict of Columbia?
In the matter of nonresident pupils,
the connection may be plain enough.
Nonresident pupils originally gained ad-
mittance to local schools because of the
financial participation, by the National
Government, in District expenses. At
the time of enactment of the law now
at issue, the National Governments con-
tribution was fifty per cent Of such ex-
penses. 1t has dwindled to the current
1875 per cent under the reduced lump
sum, although the school admittance
law remains the same and the population
of Washington and the suburbs in ad-
jacent counties has almost doubled.
The appeal to the courts in the matter
of the abattoir touches another angle
of the fiscal relationship. The opposi-
tion to this packing plant from Federal
and municipal officials is directly in line
with the policy Of discouraging or ex-
cluding large commercial establishments,
because of esthetic and other considera-
tions, from the Capital City. Opinions
differ whether a modern packing plant,
under supervision of the Bureau of
Animal Industry and erected on the
same site previously occupied by the
business for many years, is peculiarly OBJ
jectionable. On one side of that ques-
tion is Secretary Ickes' desire to protect
the location for the model housing prof.
ect some day to be completed not far
away. On the other side is the COM
pany's statement that the usual objec-
tions to slaughter houses, notably odor
and filth, are Immediately removed
through the strict regulations of the
Department of Agriculture. The COM
pany's building operations, of course,
would add to the community's tax base
and the plant would give seasonal en-
ployment to about 600 persons.
The objections to the plant may be
well taken. The point is that If they
are sustained and the plants erection is
halted, the community's tax resources
and employment possibilities are by so
much reduced. Denial of the co.npanys
permit would be in perfect accord with
Capital City development policy. That
policy may be wise. But we cannot have
our cake and eat it too. We cannot
hope to develop without substantial
financial aid from the exclusively con-
trolling National Government a Capital
City free from large or Objectionable
Industries, contributing, as in other cities,
q large portion of local revenues. If the
aid from the National Government par
TALLY in lieu of such taxation is with
held, then local tax resources must be
developed.
Under the policy of Capital City de-
velopment, heavy local industries are
discouraged and at the same time large
areas Of real estate are Withdrawn from
the tax list for the Federal Governments
occupancy. The result, under the de-
creasing lump sum, is to throw an in