Evening star., 1936-10-20
National Capital Schools.

IN any OtIleT ClIy Ol liic OLiIcu OIdIcS
the condition brought sharply into focus
by Justice Bailey's Interpretation of the
law regarding admittance of children
from the States to the District public
schools would be regarded as utterly fam
tastic and wholly unreasonable. But the
decision merely serves to accentuate the
peculiar status of Washington as a city
which is also the seat of government and
the Capital of the United States.
The condition arising now, under
Which the school authorities must admit
pupils from outside the District al
though unable to provide adequate facili-
ties for the children of residents, comes
rs additional emphasis of the difficulties
faced by the local community when Con-
sress continues to regard the schools as
well as other municipal establishments, as
O joint undertaking between the Nation
and the community, but neglects to meet
the financial obligations arising under
that conception.
Because Washington is the Capital.
the National Government has definite
obligation in the provision OF adequate
educational facilities for the children OF
the thousands of Government employees
and officials whom it brings to Wash
fngton. When the law Of 1915 now at
issue was enacted Congress was meet
ing the obligations imposed by the law
Of 1878 and contributing fifty per cent
Of the "divisible" expenses of maintain
ING and developing the Capital, among
these expenses being the public school
system. As partial compensation for the
appropriation of Federal funds in sup
bort of the schools, the schools were
opened to nonresident pupils, not only
the children of Government employees.
but the children of persons employed In
washington. There were not nearly as
many of them then as there are now.
The suburban communities OF adjacent
Maryland and Virginia were practically
undeveloped. 1t was long journey to
Chevy Chase, Md, and an even longer
Journey to the frontier Of Arlington
County.
The law regarding admittance OF non
resident pupils continued to remain on
the books, valiantly defended by the
Representatives in Congress of the people
of Maryland and Virginia and West Vir-
ginia, but other conditions changed.
Washington has grown beyond its fixed
boundaries. Thousands of "Washing'
tonians" now make their homes and pay
their taxes in Maryland and Virginia
suburbs. Additional thousands OF emer-
eency and regular Government employees
have been brought to Washington and
at the same time Congress has amended
the law of 1878, changing the proportions
OF contribution to schools and other
Capital City expenses, from fifty-fifty to
sixty-forty, and has thus evaded without
repeal the provisions Of the amended
law. Instead of dividing expenses equally,
the local community now contributes
over 81 per cent of the "divisible" ex-
penses from local taxes and more than
any one of twenty-seven of the States or
nine of them combined in the Federal
taxes that 60 into the Federal lump-sum
contribution.
The results are very much as pictured
by the corporation counsel's office In
arguing against continued application
OF the law OF 1915. The schools are
crowded far beyond capacity with the
children of local residents. Almost fifty
per cent of these pupils are sons and
daughters Of Government employees. Not
all Of these parents are direct local tax
payers, but while on duty in Washington
maintain their residence and their tax
paving allegiance in the States. An un-
usually expensive school system is further
burdened with the education OF children
from outside the District.
The remedy lies not SO much in the
repeal of a law which has developed
viciously unfair ramifications, but in
return to the equitable principles Of
National Capital support which originally
gave legitimacy to the school admittance