Evening Star Newspaper, February 5, 1932, Page 4

P v THE EVENING STAR, WASHINGTON, RITCHIE CALLS ABLE LEADERS U. §. NEED Only Means of Providing Re- lief in Johless Crisis, He Says in Radio Talk. By the Associated Press BALTIMORE, Febru bert C. Ritchie, Democratic candidate for President, declared in & radio i ight that enlightened gov- the only for unem- y 5.—Gov. Al- was ng relief land Governor, speaking nal chain, declared that Keep its } T shown ca comm Urges Alert Leadership. 1 question, however, is one of 1eard of o effort the as vet made to ascertain t ted authorities the n ate to me the Govern- emergency. before huge appropria- yment relief taxation that place on the tax- and in the face re of our long policy which the proposal of would in payers of the country of the conceded blished National d be wnvolved Ritchie attacked ation of ed e Feder: government to co-ordinate trans- es under a spirit of ive portati “live THE WEATHER tomorrow in- rmer; fresh warmer centralization | ire. Barometer. | Inches. 56 69 29.86 30.02 30.17 3022 yesterday am. today Year Tide Tables United S Coast and day Tomorrow. 7:54 am Tam I 22 p.m pm 3¢pm 4 The Sun and Moon. Rises Sets. 32 34 3¢pm be lighted one- Weather. P cloudy e | T AREHAAAAN 3394 L3016 2982 3008 30,08 3018 30.16 DD DT Y 3 O A A e 80 8 ot 45 32 0.86 Ci FOREIGN. (7 am., Greenwich time, today.) Temperature. Weather. 40" Forsy 32 1 41 6 Part cloudy today.) Cloudy Be Clear Port Ham ar b2t ton Juan ! phia, | dens | Indianapolis, 1$18.96. D. €., FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 9001932 Efficiency Bureau Figures With State Tax and Debt Payments Deducted oy, Cleveland \""'“" 4 (Reprinted from The Star of December 17, 1930.) n otal tax levy per lcapita (real lumn ) total ! capita LR roperty tax I3 Tose ! 'interest and al property | Tess’ 3 less Colf i capRa in- ‘fund capita 1 Jess Coli ) Per capita P ek Dot 1oy Berest-ang hkine S total roperty o tax levy fess Col. e i (Table & Ool. 10{ capita State tax. [Per capita. interest sinkine fun: per sinking fund ayments. | 28 el " - e 7 3 - - -3 ‘ &Cd \ Sliax \ istate tax, %r. o ® £ ‘l‘u Q) 28 i 4 S R Bt. Louls .. Baltimore _— — 45.352— —@4TT— | — 33.695— + 72041 + 81.810+ + 19.715+ " ittsburgh . T 5T T+ 65.456— F 59.535— & BUuffalo .evsserersiecssniesianins Terieeeen] ¥ 813 T064 Milwaukee F eb481— T Ri= | + 5085— 3299 | — 41661— — A= = 85077 ~ §2.136— { | + 64514— |+ 65119+ | | | + 86.783— + 57.858— " Minneapolis ........ i —ATB03— | 4997 | e | — W New Orleans — 30.M4— — 35— Cincinnati ...... Indianapolis .. + 85271 Q58— *Washington 4902 48 ___ tWashington personal property, $90.371,480 “The plus and minus signs at Washington. than park property and property used intang the corresponding figures for Washington ) 64.69—10 le personal left and right o roperty, $90.371.480. s 64.69 the holdings of the Federal Government are included. n the items of ascessed valuation include the valuations of the property hol r the exclusive benefit of Washington, D. C. These valuations are as follows 9 1 | — 223 —5 48797 2 T 3 —13 2 233 | e4se112 —6 48797 |6 57488 844671 e T 87.268 T T 7315313 72930 1 1 !.- 1 3 Idings of the Federal Government other Real property, $320,751,051; tan le of the figures in this column indicate whether the items for the cities thus marked are more or less than g The left-hand plus or minus sign relates to the first and the right-hand sign to the second of the two figures for Opposite each of the Washington figures is & summary indicating the number of cities more or less than Washington. parisons Since 1920 Equitable Methods Note: This is the fifth of a series of special articles discussing past and present attempts to show that ;&'nshmgton escapes payment of fair ares HE people of the District in 1920 did not confine their showing to the effect of the proposed in- crease in rate, but compared their burden, as it then existed with other communities. They took 11 large cities in various parts of the country and compared them with Washington, as of 1918 Those cities were Chicago. Philadel- St. Louis, Cleveland, Baltimore, Orleans, Minneapolis City, Indianapolis and Louis- New Jersey ville on a per capita basis, thus what the individual tax burden was when the total levy was considered in relation to population. Taking real estate alone, Washing- {ton's per capita realty levy of $16.55 | was exceeded by only three of those 111 cities. In per capita total property tax. con ington's figure was $20.58. ties were ahead of it This, it must be remembered, is only a partial pictur® of tax bur- limited to that part of the reve- nue raised from property tax When per capita municipal recipts | from all sources were compared Wash- ington, with $23.79 per capita, exceeded all other cities in the comparison ex- cept Chicago. which had $24.23. The 10 other cities ranged as follows: Phila- delphia, $20.57. St. Louis, $22.36; Cleve- land, $22.82; Baltimore, $21.05. New Orleans, $17.57; Minneapolis, $21.59; Seattle, $2355: Jersey City, $18.98; $17.26, and Louisville, Including County Taxes. Even when an equitable portion of county taxes 1s included for the other In the case of all cities of 300000 or more population the census included county taxes ir the city figures, so that county taxes were taken into account except Indianapolis which had less than 300,000 population The addition of the county taxes for se two cities raised their per capita gures, but did not cause them to pass Washington. If the un_.ir comparison is made of including af county and State taxes elsewhere, nine cities exceed Washing- capita statistics. In large cities which dominate or include the counties con- taining them, it may be fair to consider county taxes. But it has always been contended in behalf of the people of the District that there is no justification for requiring them to match State taxes while they are deprived of all the bene- fits which citizens outside of Washing- tax. With all county and State taxes included the highest per capita on the list was $29.37, Washington was $23.79, and the lowest was $20.55 t was al contended then that to meusure the tax burden needed to meet current expenses and those of city de- velopment of the immediate future, the per capita interest payments on indebt- cdness Tepresenting past expenditures should appropriately be deducted. If per capita interest payments are omitted from the comparisons under discussion, only four of the 11 cities had larger per capitas than Washington. Washington in the Lead. ‘When per capita receipts from all mu- nicipal taxes, less per capita intersst payments, plus per capita receipts: from all county taxes were compared, none of the 11 cities had a higher figure than Washington’s $23.21. ‘Washington demonstrated in 1920, as it had in earlier years, that it had an exceptionally high level of assessments —_a per capita realty assessment greater that that of 59 out of the 68 largest cities in the country. Hence, even with a moderate rate per $100, its per capita realty tax burden ranked high. In the interval between the 1915 study and the discussion in 1920, a tax on intangibles had been added to the tangible personal tax, making Wash- — e R R The District Is Not Undertaxed No. 5 Burden of Taxation in Washington Shown by Com- manded by Circumstance, Are Followed. Seattle, | The comparisons were presented | showing | sisting of realty and personalty, Wash- | Five of the | and six showed | cities on this list the standing of Wash- | \aa | ington next to Chicago is not changed. 204 in the previous comparison for all citles, | and Lousville, | ton, leaving two behind it in the per | to Rank High, When of Computation, De- ington's personalty tax burden reason- ably high. The taxes on gross recsipts | of public utilities and banks, unusually heavy in Washington, were not classi- | fied by the census authorities as a per |sonalty tax. but it was contended on behalf of the District that they should be so considered in comparisons with i other cities. Census Figures of 1918. It was brought out in the Senate hearings in 1920 that, using the census figures of 1918, the total per capita gen- eral property tax. including city. county and State taxes. for the 227 cities over 30.000 in population, was $25.7: The total per capita of city $22.25 Washington's total city tax leaving out the personal tax on gross receipts of certain corporations. $20.68. | Washington’s total city tax alone, in- cluding the personal taxes on the gross earnings of the corporations, $22.92. It was then shown that if the House proposal of & 2!, per cent rate on realty and tangible personal property were ap- plied, Washington’s total city tax alone would have jumped to $35.11 Taking the two census groups of cities nearest to Washington in population, above and below it, and combining their figures, it was shown that in total per capita, including county and State taxes, their average was 965. In city taxes per capita, their average was $20.765. Washington's per capita total property tax was $20.68, or with the personal tax on gross earnings of corpo- rations included, $22.92. ‘Thus, Washington's city tax per capita, including the tax on gress earn- ings of corporations, of $22.92 was §2.04 less than the average for those cities when the county and State taxes else- | where were thrown into the comparison | But Washington's per capita was $2.15 | more than the average when city taxes alone were compared. | Increase of Taxes Here. Between 1922 and 1923 Washington's property tax increased 182 per cent, | while some other Amertean cities were |increasing as follows: St. Louis, 4.1 | per cent; Minneapolis, 5.9 per cent: | Newark, 5.2 per cent; Baltimore, 128 per cen St. Paul, 2.5 per cent, and Louisville, 15.8 per cent In the period between 1924 and 1926 Washington's tax rate advanced from taxes $12 per thousand to $17 per thousand, | an increase of more than 41 per cent, and the revenue from taxes on realty |and tangible personal property went up | $6,498,004 in two years. from $10,514,653 In 1924 to $17,012,747 in 1926, | It was at this time that the House in- troduced the practice of departing from | substantive law by substituting annual- |1y an arbitrary lump sum Federal con- | tribution for the 40 per cent called for under the definite proportion principle. The details of how this was accom- | plished by rider on an appropriation bill were set forth carlier in the gen- eral history of fiscal relations. ton derive from the payment of that | | Comparisons of 1925, | Again, in 1925, Washington's tax bur- den as measured by the tax rate stood high among comparable cities when allowance was made in the calculations for variations between the assessments and true values throughout the country. | Interesting comparisons were worked out, using as a basis the statistics in the 1925 report of the Detroit Bureau of Governmental Research and printed in the December, 1925, number of the National Municipal Review. The De- troit Bureau presented for cities of over 30,000 population the actual tax rates | | by purposes, the total tax rates adjusted |upon a basis of a uniform assessed | | valuation of 100 per cent, and the re- |adjusted tax rates when allowance was | made for the percentage of variation ‘between actual assessments and the legal bases. In analyzing these statistics early in 1926 The Star presented tables com- paring separately a group of cities having low assessments and high tax rates and a group, which, like Wash- | ington, had a high' level of assessment and a low rate. Washington's nominal tax rate of $17 | per thousand was next to the lowest in the list of 28 high-assessment cities | | with which it was compared. When, | however, the rates were readjusted by taking into account the estimated ratio alone, | 10of the assessed to actual value for each city Washington moved up near the top of the high-assessment group and | was not far from the seven cities which were able to remain above it. How Rates Compared. Washington's rate remained at 17 in the readjustment. The readjusted | rates of the seven cities ahead of it | were: Cleveland, 62; Cincinnati, $17.03; Lakewood, Ohio. $2060: Lima | Ohio, $19.68; Norfolk, $20.10; t. Louis $1853, and Atlanta, $17.05. This left 21 cities with lower tax rates than Washington, ranging from Akron. O with $16.80. to Little Rock, Ark.. $1032 And in this comparison the total tax rates for the other cities included State tax, which, for the reasons already stated, Washington has always con- tended should not be in the equation | against it In the Municipal Review table Wash- gton was credited with a hundred per t relation of assessed to true value. and a number of other cities were thus credited. In the discussion of the subject in The Star at that time it was pointed out that this 100 per cent rating is relative, not absolute, and implied that Washington's assessment approximated as closely to 100 per cent of true value as the lower percentage relations re- ported in respect to some other cities approximated the true percentage rela- tion. Therefore, relatively to other cities, Washington was accurately cred- ited with full assessment valuation. Washington's Ratio High. In 1924 the Census Bureau reported on wealth, debt and taxation in the United States as of 1922, in connection with which it studied the ratio of as- sessed to true value in the States and the District of Columbia. In this com- | parison Washington was ahead of the list of States, with a relation of assessed to true value on realty of 90.8 If, in order to be doubly fair to other cities. Washington makes a further re- adjustment of its own tax rate by ap- plying this 1922 Census Bureau per- | centage of its assessed to true value, the District rate of 17 becomes 15.44. When this specially reduced Washington rate of 1544 is used in the comparison 17 of the 28 low tax rate and high assess- ment cities were above the District and 11 below it. But four of the higher cities were under 16 and only a few cents above Washingtons | The closeness of these high-assess- | ment, low-tax-rate cities to each other | in the comparison is shown by the fact | that five of them were less than 14, four were between 14 and 15, seven were | between 15 and 16 (including Wash- | ington at the doubly readjusted rate of 15.44), six were between 16 and 17 (ncluding, at 17, Washington’s Munici- Review rating), (wo were between 17 and 18, and five were above 18 The Bureau of Efficiency Inguiry. Coming down to the situation in the t few years, those who have held that Washington bears an equitable tax burden believe their contention is sustained when the satistics compiled | by the United States Bureau of Ef- olency for Washington and 14 cmer‘ large cities are analyzed and compared. The Efficiency Bureau prepared sta- tistical tables on the subject twice—first in 1929, on the basis of the estimated | populations in 1928, and again last year with actual population figures made available through the 1930 census. On each occasion the Efficiency Bu- reau tables compared the tax, revenue and expenditures figures of 14 cities be- tween 300,000 and 1,000,000 of popula- {tion with two Washingtons: First, a Washington with all Government prop- | erty left out of the calculation; second, | Washington including the taxable value | of property actually used by the Federal| Government in the conduct of Uncle Sam's business here. Parks and Gov-| ernment property used for the exclusive | benefit of Washington were omitted ln\ arriving at the value of property used by the United States. It has been the contention of the Dis- trict all along that, although its tax rate is comparatively low, it observes such a high standard of assessments that when the rate is applied to the | assessment an adequate tax burden results. District's Low Tax Rate. Looking at the 14 cities used by the Efficiency Bureau, none has as low & tax rate as the District, but in the 1929 report not one had as high a per capita assessment of real property as Wash- ington with the assessed value of Fed- eral preperty included, and only one (Boston) as high & per capita assess- ment as Washington with the Federal property excluded. In the 1930 revision of the figures not one had as high an assessed valuation per capita, either for real or for personal property, as either of the Washingtons, | Leaving out the value of the Federal | property, Washington's assessed valua tion of real property ($1,118,093,162) was greater than the corresponding val- | | uation of such larger and richer cities as St. Louis ($1,046,957,570), Baltimore | ($1,109,045,366), Pittsburgh ($1,108,842,- | lhT\n Buffalo ($1,031,770.390) an | Washington, fon a waukee ($801.371,698), and exceeded t combined valuations of Minne ($266,066,076), New Orleans 256) and Indianapolis ($436 High Property Assessment. Lacking industrial development and having within its borders so much tax- exempt property, Washington's assessed luation of shoul vely low d prope h 66,17 1 be cc cities The obvious conclusion is that Was ington observes an excef hi of assessment t t applied elsewhere the tax cities would be lower snd_more ble to Washingto In Washington, where the assessor is not politically elected or chosen. a sci- entific plan of assessment is followed and its accuracy is tested by compari- sons with sale prices. In gathering information f regarding assessments, the Bureau of Efficiency quoted the Census Bureau as listing the reported bases of assessment in practice, in terms of per cent of esti- mated true value, as follows For Washington, 100 per c more, 90 per cent, and M per cent It also quoted the Detroit Bureau of Municipal Research as placing Wash- ington's ratio at 90 per cent, as com- pared with 80 per cent for Baltimore and 34 per cent for Minneapolis. Thus while opinions may diff tion of percentage of assessed value, there is no difference of op as to Washington's relatively assessment. Total Tax Levy Shown. Accompanying the 1929 report of the Efficiency Bureau was a table compar- ing as of 1928 assessed valuations, total and per capita; tax rates, tax levies, total and per capita, for real and per- sonal property. This table culminated in a column showing “Total tax levy per capita, real and personal, general prop- erty tax. 1928." This showed that in per capita total general property tax the taxed fraction of Washington (Fed- eral property holdings omitted) exceed- ed 2 cities and was exceeded by 12, But with the estimated value of the real and personal property used by the Federal Government included, was greater than 7 cities and less than 7 From the standpoint of current main- tenance the significant comparisons do not include a comparison of interest payments on city indebtedness, which represent expenditures in the past of the proceeds of loans the benefits of which have been enjoyed. Since Wash- ington has not enjoyed the benefit of such loans, it contends that it should not be required. in order to put itself 5 taxpaying equality with other cities, to tax itself in the amounts rep- resented by these interest payments and they should be deducted from the prop- erty tax levies of all the cities in a com- parison with Washington of the cost of current maintenance. assessing taxables rates of the oth Congress high Deducting Interest Payments. If the bureau’s figures of per capit interest payments are dedumd ??urr;: the per capita property tax levies of the 14 cities and Washington in the For Quality Richness Pure—Rich—Delicious s fi Quart DELIVERED. PACKED IN DRY ICE. CLEAN AND SANITARY. Fancy Assorted Cakes. . $1.00 For Valentine Parties Individual Ice Cream Forms Hearts,LoveBirds, etc. doz. $3.50 Large Heart Mold... .. $2.25 Heart Iced Cakes. . . . .0z 50c Heart Mints .. ... .... ».60c Phone West 0063 1254 Wisconsin Avenue in|p n. | is used as column 1 | | 1929 study, the resulting per capita tax levies for current maintenance and de- velopment compare as follows: Wash- ington, with Uncle Sam omitted as a taxpaver, exceeds 4 cities and is ex- ceeded by 10; Washington, with the Federal property holdings included, ex- ceeded 9 of the cities and was exceeded by 5. ywhtn the per capita State tax is deducted from the figures for the other cities, as Washington contends it should be, the per capita property tax levy of the other cities, less interest payments, compare as follows: Washington, with Uncle Sam's property left out, exceeds 5 of the 14 cities; Washington, with the property actually used by the Fed- | eral Government included, exceeds 11 of the 14 cities. Comparison of Tax Burdens, In this comparison Washington's per capita figure, omitting the Federal prop erty, was 44.232. Including the Federa property, Washington became 58412 The other cities ran as follows: Clevs land, 45625; St. Louis, 36.966; more, 30.483; Boston, 64.586; Pittsburgh, 59.326; Buffalo, 56.839; Milwaukee, 46525, Newark, 52.904; Minneapolis, 42.195; New Orleans, 34.757: Cincin- nati, 59.773; Indianapolis, 38.267; Roch- ester, 53.311, and Jersey City, 48.100. The foregoing comparisons have dealt with property tax burdens. When the comparison is broadened to cover all city taxes (including county and all other taxes except State), less city in- terest payments, the result is as fol-| privileges or benefits or _statehood. | of the lows: Washington, without Uncle Sam considered as a taxpayer, exceeds 5 of the 14 cities; Washington, with the property used by Uncle Sam included has a per capita exceeding every one of the other cities except Boston In this comparison Washington, with Uncle Sam’s property included, had a per capita of 55.983. The per caplt; the other cities were: Cleveland, 46 St. Louis, 36.483; Baltimi Boston, 78,810 Pittsburgh, falo, 51.653; Milwaukee, 49.852 48.204; Minneapolis, 40589: New leans, 32.257; Cincinnati, 53.162 anapolis, 40.021: Rochester, 452 Jersey City, 44 821 Even when the Federal property eliminated and the comput fined to the limited porti which is actually t per capita of 43.190 exceeds that of Baltimore (31.736). New Orleans (33.257). St. Louis (36.483), Indianar olis (40.021) and Minneapolis (40.589) Bureau's Second Report. In making fts second report to Con- gress a year ago the Efficiency Bu revised these 1928 tax statistics on the basis of later information, and when these are analyzed Washington stands better in capita comparisons. When W ton's contention that required to match Sta terest on bonded debts is & stands again nea top of There is prese showing how the revised statistics In his testimony before the Spec House Committee c T ent in into fi F. Mu assistant ch ciency Bureau ¢ the property used by th Government in the conduct of the tion's business here should per capita compariso 7 on with other cities, since the Fede: Government 1n this case takes the of some of rich tax-paying rations of other ci whose hold naturally tend to raise their per ca The Efficiency Bureau. however careful to_ present istics both with and wit eral property. and hered to in the tab with this analysis of t Indi- trict ington’s ed herewith tat ties stand with these Total Tax Burdens. The Efficiency Bureau's table 2 com- red 1928 assessed L tax d per capita, for real an property, and ended total tax levy per capita, real and per- ax. 1928,” which the table pre- sented herewith. This shows that Wash- ington, omitting *the Federal property, had a per capita general property tax levy of $49.02, which was greater than 3 and less than 11 of the cities. But When the Feder r d in this column Washington's per capita becomes $64.69. which was greater than 14 cities. This was a gain fo gton in the standing. compar e ana made the year befo e Wa has not indu sonal, general propert the inc; comparisc payme here, wh It is con- istrict, that nents should be ty tax levies in co with the others on s ducted fror paring Wa; the cost of current Living Beyond Income. Bureau of Efficiency did not f practice in the tables, but ental cost pa 1 made the erence between al cost paym The low th discussi s report the b ion that a d per_capita govern of Washington and other cities is counted for almost entirely by tures (in the case of other cif on account of interest on bonded debtedness and capital outlays evident that most of the other ng be’ d inco and A BANK for the INDIVIDUAL A4 Money Can DO Love does some tI’:ings - - - genius does some tllings e grit, anbi jon, s ill, all do some tl\ings. But there are other tl'xings !I’lat only money can Jo. Re- Place your furnate, repair your plumbing re-pave your PO RO N T things may be obtained at this bank, e el B i il deposits over a period of twelve months A THE MORAIS [ Morris Plan Bank Under Supervision U. S. Treasury 1408 H Stre Balti- | ning into debt in order to undertake extensive programs of public improve- ments. In the table herewith presented these per capita interest payments are set forth in column 4, and when they are subtracted from the total per capita property tax levies (column 1) the re- sulting per capitas_compare as follows | Washington, with Federal property left out, has a greater per capita than 5 of the’ 14 cities, while Washington, includ- ing the property used by the Federal Government, has a greater per capita than 12 of the 14 cities (column 5 gives these per capitas for each city). In its report the clency Bureau explains that the revenue receipts listed under the heading of taxes takes in all the taxes collected in the respective cities, whether by city, State or other civil division. For all the cities except ‘Washington these taxes were shown by the bureau in two sections, namely, city nd State, and the city section included county and district taxes. “Although Washington has no State or county organization,” the burcau re- port stated, ‘it was considered neces- ary to include State and coun for the other cities in order to arrive { at their total tax burden.” Equitable Deductions. Earlier in this review of District tax- | ation attention has been directed to | Washington's plea that, in equity, it | should not be asked to match the item | of State tax when it enjoys none of the | Therefore, if the per capita State tax in | this present analysis (column 2 of the accompanying table) is deducted from the per capita property tax levy, less | interest payments, it is shown that the | per capita of Washington is greater than 6 of the 14 cities and is exceeded | by 8, even when the | Federal prop- erty e left out of the 1 the value of the property actu- | ally used in the conduct of the Gi | ment’s business is included, Washing- ton's per capila is gre than all but one of the 14 cities. (These figures are in_column 6 of the table herewith.) In this column 6 Washington, even with the Federal property left out, has a per capita of 48.797, which is shown to be_more than 50 per cent greater than Baltimore's figure of 30.964; more than a third above New Orleans, 34.353 more than a fourth above Louis, 37.536, and nearly one-sixth greater than Indianapolis, 42.528 In the last two colum | the comparison | general property to all kinds of taxes, limited to city taxes (including county | and all other taxes except State) and ng city interest paym taxed fraction of Wi 1t the U taxpaver, has a which is greater than 9 of cities on this basis of c luding Un Was! | i he table | roadened from las a $57.265. per | e 0. exceeding in the comparison n when the Uni d as a t 2.886. Wash far_below Pittsburg | (59.287). Newark 858) and | Cincinnati (59.850) | UNDERTAKER IS SUED With Hearse Ask As the resul Crash s $10,000. of a collision between a obile 1 ber h caused the de: Agnes Brady. suit to recove: damages has been filed aga W. Hysong. 1300 str Bend administrator of bre the suit Leonard A. Block. Mrs. Brady was fatally injured when the car in which she was riding col-| the hearse at Thirt et and Alabama avenue. JEWISH WOMEN TO MEET Council to Conv sf National Tuesday Afternoon. The National Council of Women will meet at the Jewish Com- | munity Center Tuesday at 2:15 o'clock, | it was announced today Entertainment for t include an_epilogu h Mrs. Morris Cafr rd. Mrs. M. Mo Rosenthal, M and ) Iva Mrs. Norman oup of songs, and Mrs present a book review. occasion W Peace Patter, 2, Mrs. Oscar ague, Mrs. San- Milton Strass- n Tashoff taking Fischer wi! David Simon e Fund for French Line Approved. | PARIS, February 5 (#).—A g the French Line 110,000.000 about $4,400000) to defray| T costs for six months was ap- proved by the Finance Committee of the French Senaie yesterday | ger After 54 years as a Sunday_school her at Brookeborough, Ireland, | hn Bloomfield has retired re-roof your I‘Aome, an et Northwest | the ¢ CATHOLIC TRAINING MADE IMPERATIVE Congregation of Sacred Of- fice Rules Children Must Be Educated in Church. By the Associated Press. VATICAN CITY, February 5—Mar- riage between Catholics and non- Catholics hereafter will be considered illegal by the church unless the chil- dren actually are educated as Catholic: declared a new and stricter ruling is- sued today by the congregation of the sacred office The ruling, tightening mixed mar- riage restrictions. was issued because of a belief that parties to such marriages often have disregarded promises that the children should be reared as Catholics The congregation decided that hence- forth those who obtain the dispensation rch for mixed marriage must take those promises seriously and that the chidrch no longer will accept the plea that the laws of the countries where such persons reside prevent proper Catholic education of the chil- en If necessary, the congregation de- cided, such persons must refrain from going to countries where they would be unable to keep their pledges to the church In case of any failure to educate hildren as Catholics, the church will regard such marriages as illegal. The congregation's ruling, in the form of a decree, was approved by Pope Pius The text mentions that the step was taken to m with the encyclical in which the Pope laxities marriages. The decree applies to marriages be- \ “Catholics and non-Catholics, baptized and unbaptized.” It was announced that if the parents in & mixed marriage fail to educate their children as Catholics the dispen- sation granted for the marriage be- comes “null and invalid.” Such action would make the mar- 4 illegal so far as the church is and was regarded as | amounting to annulment of the mar- age. HOUSE POSTAL GROUP APPROVES FULMER BILL Measure Would Permit Department to Purchase American Goods Wherever Possible. e Associated Press The House Post Office Committee to- cay approved the Fulmer bill directing Post Office Department to pur- chase American goods wherever possi- ble. ‘The measure was one of those in- troduced by Southern Congressmen to have the department buy cotton twine in preference to jute. The law now pro- vides that the department must pur- chase from lowest b Unde proposed ge, t ild be bought even more than im- », provided the controller cld the cost not excessive. how- Fred Pelzman’s FASHION SHOP of hundreds of fine SUITS O’COATS Reduced as Follows $35 SUITS & O'COATS $1 750 Reduced to $45 SUITS s2 2 & O'COATS $32 Reduced to & O’COATS Reduced to Reasonable Charge for Alterations 50 $55 SUITS & O’'COATS Reduced to $65 SUITS 50 50 Capital & Surplus, $250,000 & 9th & E 501 Ninth St.