Evening star., 1936-04-06
Plea for Fixed Ratio Is
Reiterated in
argument.
Injuries, Not Benefits,
Seen as Result of
Current Policy.

power to be extravagant or economical,
and to spend as much or little of
their own tax money as they pleased.
But Congress in fact limited its power
to expend National tax money. and
left undetermined the amount of local
tax money that 1t could expend. And
it has exercised this power without
regard to the wishes of the taxpayers
to raise and spend ;ocal taxes not only
for strictly municipal purposes, but
for semi-National and primarily Ma
tional projects.
1t is to correct this condition that
we representing Washington now urge
Congress, In considering the District
budget, to increase the Nations lump
sum contributions (as long as Congress
continues the lump-sum practice) or
to provide that the local taxpayers be
given an effective voice in deciding
how much they will raise in taxes and
how they will spend the taxes when
raised, or to restrict the kind and
amount of appropriations on the Dis
trict appropriations bill, with the re-
suit of limiting arbitrarily the amount
OF the local contribution toward Capt.
tai upbuilding on the same lines as
under the lump-Sum payment plan the
National contribution is limited.
Wise limitation upon the local tax
payers contribution toward the MAIN
tenance and development of the Ma
tion'S City could be made effective by
relating it % to the total appropria-
tion in each year in the District ap-
preparation act, as in 1878 in the So
so ratio, and in 1922 in the 60-40 ratio,
or (2) by relating it to the Districts
contribution in each year in National
Gnternal revenue) taxes.
Return Districts Internal Revenue.
Since the District paid in such taxes
in the fiscal year 1885 $12,638,144,
more absolutely than each of % of
the States, more than nine of the
States combined and more per capita
than all Of the States except seven,
and receives in return no representa-.
tion in the House, though the Consti-
tuition couples inseparably Represent
atives and direct National taxes. the
last-named suggestion seems equitable
In fairness in this connection it should
also be considered that the Nation has
heretofore not only denied National
representation to the National tax
paying District, but has also until very
recently excluded the District in dis
tributing hundreds Of millions of dol
lars in bounties and subsidies to the
States. 1t Is also to be remembered
that the National taxes paid by resi-
dents of the District in contributions
to the customs revenues of the Nation
will still remain in the Treasury for
National uses. By this procedure the
Nation would contribute to the Ma
tionaI Capital municipal maintenance
and upbuilding no dollar that had not
been paid in National taxes by the
people of the District themselves.
1t could not reasonably be protested
that such repayment of its own money
should not be made to the District,
since already in National bounties or
subsidies to the States Cn which the
District has not heretofore been per-
mitted to participate) several States
have received even more from the Ma
tional Treasury in the shape Of such
bounties and subsidies than they have
paid into the Treasury in National
internal revenue taxes. If the Nation
can thus make subsidy payments to
even a few of the States of more than
these States pay in National taxes,
surely there could be no reasonable
objection to a return to the District
Of this part of its contribution Of Ma
tional taxes, the Nation retaining in
the Treasury the contributions of Dis
trict residents to customs revenues.
Political equity and financial equity
for the District have always been in
separately interviewer. The people Of
the Distritc urgently petition for both
| equities. In the New Deal era Of
| America no other Americans need n
new deal more distinctly than the un-
Americanized Americans Of the Dis
trict. Give US, then 1--WE petition) q
New Deal.
ARGUMENT FOR FIXED RATIO.