Evening star., 1938-02-18
Much Ado About Nothing.

Much Ado About Nothing.
Chairman Nichols. according to The
Stars report, says that his subcommittee
IN charge of the pending tax bill does
not propose to allow the Commissioners
to hx the tax rate on real estate for
two reasons. First according to Mr..
nichols, 1t has been history that the
Commissioners never voluntarily raised
the tax rate. Second, according to Mr.
Nichols, if the Commissioners were al
lowed to fix the rate the question of their
authority to do so might be contested
in the courts.
For the information of Mr. Nichols
and the subcommittee, the Commits
sioners have raised the tax rate, since
1924. on three separate occasions. They
Increased the rate from $l20 to $l40.
They increased the rate again from
$1.40 to $l.70. They increased the rate
again from sl.70 to slS0. Under the
law the Commissioners are specifically
directed to lax annually such rate of tax
alton as will produce the money
needed to defray the expenses of
the District during the year for which
the rate is fixed" In other words, they
have very little discretion in the matter
and can either raise the rate when it is
necessary, or face the prospect of going
to Jail.
Since Congress adopted a lump sum
system Of appropriation, thereby ignor-
ing unrepealed substantive law, the pro-
cedure has been to leave to the Commits
sioners the formal announcement at the
beginning of the new fiscal year of the
rate on real estate necessary to produce
the revenue ordered spent by Congress
during that fiscal year. The authority of
the Commissioners to fix the tax rate
has never been questioned in the courts.
There is little likelihood that it would
be so questioned
In 1888 former Representative Blan-
ton endeavored to write into the Dis
trio appropriation bill legislative rider
ordering the Commissioners to reduce
the tax rate from s1.70 to $780, The
late Chairman Buchanan of the House
Appropriations Committee joined Mr..
Blanton In strong plea that the rider
be permitted to stay in the bill on the
ground that tax relief was due the over
taxed owners Of real estate in the Dis
trict Of Columbia. Regardless of Mr..
Blantons motives. the argument he ad-
vanced was that the real estate tax was
too high and should be reduced.
This rider was defeated and stricken
from the bill on a point OF order. In
the following year the same attempt was
made to fix the tax rate in the appro-
priation bill and when the point of order
was raised against the rider, a curious
parliamentary tangle followed in which,
for few minutes at least and as a ire
taliation' against the gentleman who
raised the point OF order, the District
was deprived Of any payment by the
NNSANA ~SVSAAAAiCAiOs dlUllOukU CllS OlS-
trict. Of course, had nothing in the world
to do with the point of order or any,
thing else. The lump sum was restored,
but the rider was defeated.
Mr.. Nichols and the members of his
subcommittee are seeing things under
the bed when they announce their fears
that the Commissioners would never
raise the tax rate on real estate if that
empty prerogative were left to them.
Whether they wanted to do it or not,
whether they thought it was just or un-
just, the Commissioners would have to
set tax rate sufficiently high to pro-
duce the money appropriated by Con-
sress. And why this curious tax bill now
engaging the attention of Mr.. Nichols
and his subcommittee should be clut-
tered up with lot of meaningless rig
marole about the real estate tax rate,
when there are really important matters
deserving Of their consideration, passes
all understanding