Evening star., 1945-11-25
Proposed Courts Deal
Unfair to the District
Dangerous Precedent Created If
Local Taxpayer Shares Cost
By John w. THOMPSON, yr.

Dangerous Precedent Created If
Local Taxpayer Shares Cost
BY John w. Thompson, Jr.
The sole argument for charging the
District taxpayer anything in connec-
ton with the proposed new $l2,7O0,000
Federal court building, to be built on
District-owned land at Third and G
streets NV, is the volume OF purely
District legal business handled by the
two courts for which the new structure
is proposed.
Unquestionably testimony will be in
troduced by proponents of the pending
bill at the scheduled public hearing
Wednesday at 10 am. before the House
Committee on Public Buildings and
Grounds to show that 80 or 90 per cent
OF the cases handled by the United
States Court for the District Of Colum-
bia are purely District matters that
would be handled by the municipality
had 1t complete judicial system of its
own. The percentage handled by the
United States Court of Appeals is much
less.
To begin with. percentages Of this
sort give a misleading picture, for they
fail to take into account the actual
amount of time spent on District as
compared with Federal matters. Un-
contested divorce cases can be handled
in a matter of minutes, where a sedi-
ton trial will run four months. The
District does have an obligation to pay
for services rendered by these Federal
courts and does so now to the extent of
go per cent of the costs of District Court
and 30 per cent of the costs of the Court
of Appeals. If these percentages are
unfair either to the Government or the
District they should be changed as the
situation changes. The relationship
here has a completely equitable basis,
and the sole argument for District
financial participation in the Federal
courts begins and ends here.
To suggest. however, as the pending
bill does. that the District taxpayer
should pay half the cost of construction
OF the building and receive half credit
for the District-owned site does violence
to all principles of equity This year the
District will pay nearly 100000 to st.
Elizabeth's Hospital, about $500 900 to
Freedman's Hospital and some 100000
to the National Training School for
Boys, all Federal institutions, for serv-
ices rendered. In none of these cases
does the District contribute to capital
improvement. District officials can re.
call no instance where the local tax
payer has been forced to participate in
Federal capital improvement since the
abandonment by the Government in
1925 OF the principle Of proportionate
payment OF District expenses. The Dis
trict did pay half the cost of remodel
ing the present courthouse in 1919 But
in those days there was a definite and
fixed ratio Of expense sharing, which
Congress later abandoned There is no
suggestion now that the Federal Gov
ernment is going to share the cost of
District undertakings to the extent that
pending legislation requires the District
to share the cost Of this Federal under.
taking.
II construction OF Z new Federal
courts building, as might be assumed by
pending legislation, were deal between
equal partners, there would be nothing
wrong with dividing the cost of the site,
paid for in full by the District taxpay.
ers. 1t would appear to be a joint
building project, in which joint title
would be held-similar to a Joint hold
ing between individuals-where the
joint ownership would extend to both
land and improvements, and to future
control OF the premises. But the only
suggestion OF partnership in this project
is in dividing the costs. The building
is Federal building to house Federal
courts. The architect is the architect
OF the Capitol, not the municipal archi-
tect, and the architect of the Capitol
alone is responsible for the construc.
ton. Full title will be vested in the
United States, with no evidence of local
ownership. This is one sided deal in
which the United States Is taking over
District-owned land for half its value
and forcing the District to pay half the
cost Of the building, less credit for the
site.
In private venture, If land and i'm
provements are jointly owned and one
partner wishes full control and title, he
buys the other one out. In this way the
bought-out partner receives full value
for what he put into the project. II
the United States wants to build
Federal court building on District-owned
land, full value for the site should be
paid to the District.
-Four years ago bill was introduced
calling for construction, at Federal ex-
pense, OF q new court building In Judici-
ary Square. This project was abandoned
because of war conditions. But the bill
was clear recognition Of the fact that
the Federal Government would pay for
its new Federal courts building here,
just rs it pays for its own Federal
courts buildings everywhere else. The
District seems to have become involved
In this new deal solely because it hap.
pens to own an available site and be.
cause it might be easier to obtain con-
gressional approval of q project for
which half the cost will be charged to
the local taxpayer.
The unfairness Of the proposed deal is
unrelated to the needs Of 4 new court
building. The unsatisfactory conditions