Evening star., 1947-02-08


Federal payment toward city expenses
today are wrapped up in the Overflow
OMahoney- -Hebert formula.
This is the only plan pending under
which the United States would assume
proportion of the cost Of city operation
instead Of appropriating each year an
arbitrary lump sum.
In the Senate the measure is being
sponsored by Senator OMahoney,
Democrat, of Wyoming. A companion
bill in the House has been introduced
by Representative Hebert, Democrat, OF
louisiana Senator Overton of Louisi-
ana first proposed the idea and worked
it into shape.
The principle of the formula Is to
repay the District for the large amount
of land which the Federal Government
owns here tax free which in private
hands would be taxable.
How it Works.
Reduced to percentage, it asserts
that the Federal Government owns 1856
per cent of the total area of the city
exclusive of parks, streets and alleys
and District government holdings.
Under the plan this percentage figure
Ito the nearest per cent-would be
multiplied by the total tax income of
the last completed fiscal year to get the
amount of Federal payment.
For example, should the bill be passed
this year and the formula used in the
new District budget for the year be-
ginning July l, District officials would
add up the total tax collections for the
fiscal year ended last June 80 in the
three city income funds-Water, high
way and general. They would then
multiply by 10 per cent to get the total
Federal payment, which would be about
$11 1866 $780,
This payment would then be split
across the three funds according to the
percentage each represents Of the total
revenue figure.
There is double safeguard to the city
In this formula. 1t would increase the
Federal payment as Federal land hold
ingS increase. 1t would also boost the
national share as new or increased taxes
boost the total revenues. In any case
1t would yield more than the 81, 600 900
lump-sum payment made this year and
the 100000 payments Of the preced-
ing seven years.
Why the Government Should Help.
But why should the Federal Govern
ment pay anything toward the city?
The answer is that the obligation is
first moral one, secondly a practical
one. and thereby hangs tale:
1t harks back to June 10, 1888, when
band of soldiers gathered outside In
dependence Hall to present grievances
to the Executive Council of the State of
lya mi 10 ,f
Confederation was meeting in the same
building at the time. It's members ap-
pealed to the Pennsylvania Council to
suppress the disorder but no action was
taken. Congress then adjourned to
Princeton few miles away.
To this incident historians attribute
the decision of the Confederation lead
ers to establish capital outside exist
ing cities where Congress would have
exclusive authority and control. 1t was
so ordered in the Constitution.
In line with this decision, original
owners of the area selected along the
Potomac River donated five-sevenths of
the city soil on the understanding that
the Nation would here develop mag
nifcent headquarters at its own expense.
Part Of the cost was to be made up by
the National Government through the
sale OF the donated lots.
The moral case for Federal payment
thus rests on the principle that with
exclusive control and paramount ma
tional interest goes the obligation to
support that interest. It also arises
from the deal under which the Govern
ment obtained the land. A capital be-
longs to a nation, not to its local in
habitants alone.
The practical argument is that COM
munity resources alone are not enough
to develop Washington according to the
Federal plan for it. From 1900 to 1885,
the city, neglected by the Federal Gov
ernment, ran into debt to the point
where it had to be rescued by Congress.
Forty years later the same thing hap
pened again resulting finally in recog-
milton of the obligation by Congress in
the act of 1878. The Federal Govern
ment agreed to match the community
dollar for dollar in Capital development.