Evening star., 1939-07-22
Concerning 'Precedents'

tary Ickes, in response to a request
from Senator King for report on
the Overton plan for measuring the
Federal payment, recommended
against 1t and based his opposition
on three points.
First, that the legislation would
create dangerous precedent in that
1t might lead the States to petition
Congress for contributions" toward
expenses Of their governments based
on the amount Of Federal land within
their boundaries.
Second, that the greater portion"
OF Federal land within the District
Is utilized by citizens Of the District
although maintained and developed
with Federal funds, thereby reliev-
ing the District government Of the
necessity for substantial expendi-
lures for these purposes"
Third, that while some payment
should be made to the District by the
Federal Government, the amount
should be determined on "some more
relevant basis" such as the value of
municipal services performed by the
District Of value to the Federal
Government.
The Star called attention to the
Secretary's incomprehensible misin-
formation regarding the use of Fed
eral funds in the development and
maintenance Of Federal land in the
District and Secretary Ickes subse-
quently acknowledged and corrected
his erroneous statements In another
letter to Senator King. But In cor
recting the error he said that the
inaccuracy did not affect the main
point OF his argument, which is, ap-
parently, that the Overton plan
would create precedent by basing
the amount of the Federal payment
to the District on the amount Of Fed
eral land thus inviting possible de-
mands on the Treasury by the States
because Of Federal land within their
boundaries.
OF course, the creation Of the "Ten
Miles Square" as the seat Of Govern
ment of the United States was in
itself precedent. The planning of a
great Capital City, under direct and
exclusive control Of Congress, was
another precedent. The denial to
Americans who live here of the fun
damental right Of the vote was an
other precedent-an accidental prec-
edent. The considered decision of
Congress in 1878 to pay half the ex-
penses of development and main
tenance of the Capital, and pursu-
ance Of that policy for nearly fifty
years, was another precedent. The
whole conception of Washington and
its subsequent development as the
Federal City was and is a precedent
and for the precedent-smashing,
lavish spending Mr.. 1ckes to argue
against the Overton plan as a dan
gerous precedent is going pretty far
afield.
In the first place, the Overton plan
principle is not a precedent as Mr..
1ckes will discover by referring to
the Oregon and California Land
Grant Act of 1926 "a Stat. 915)
which authorizes and directs pay
ments each year to certain counties
in the States of Oregon and Wash
ington of amounts equal to taxes had
tax exempt land remained in private
hands. There are precedents also in
the legislation Of June, 1896, author
izing Mr.. Ickes, as Public Works
Administrator, to make agreements
with States and cities for the pay
ment to them of sums Gin lieu of
taxes" in connection with tax
exempt housing developments.
-. The Overton plan does not go so
far as to propose taxation of Federal
property. It is far more moderate.
But suppose the District received
from the National Government q
payment "in lieu of taxes" based on
the tax assessment of Federal prop
erty here. The amount, according
to a study of Federal Ownership of
Real Estate and Its Bearing on State
and Local Taxation" made for the
President this year, would about
equal (9656 per cent? the annual
average of payments to the District
from all Federal sources dncluding
P. w. A., F. E. r. A., w. P. A., etc.
between 1928 and 1887.
On the other hand, payments made
to the States on the same basis (that
is, taxation Of Federal land in the
States) would average only 1851 per
cent of what the States are already
getting from the Federal Government
in grants, etc. With the exception of
few Western States, with their vast
areas of public domain, the amount
Of tax-exempt, Federal land is, Of
course, inconsequential and even in
these States the tax-free public lands
constitute no real problem to State
taxpayers. Here in the small, limited
area Of the District OF Columbia,
| where more than half the total land
4