Evening Star Newspaper, November 25, 1934, Page 6

A—6 = Argument Backs Proportion Basis of Contribution. No Offsetting Bene- fits in Departure From 1922 Law. Tert of argument accompanying petition to the President /mm_the Citizens’ Joint Committee on Fiscal Relations in the District of Ca- lumbia: 1. The lump-sum payment practice destroys all relation between the Na- tional and local contributions and leav- ing all taxing power in the hands of the United States deprives the unrep- resented Capital of its safeguard against excessive taxation by a taxing body in which it is not represented. Under the lump-sum payment prac- tice additional doliars of tax exacted from the District no longer increase, but correspondingly reduce the Na- tional contribution, actually or rela- tively. Teaches a False Theory. 2. It teaches a false theory concern- ing the relation of Nation to Capital. It obtrudes annually upon the atten- tion of Congress the suggestion of a large cash donation to the Capital, as if the primary obligation of National City upbuilding were upon the local taxpayers and the Nation were only | an incidental contributor, a voluntary and benevolent donor. Since the Na- tion in 1878 recognized and assumed its National Capital power and obliga- tion, its responsibility in respect to the Capital has been primary and dominat- ing. As late as 1916 this relation of Nation to Capital was fully recognized | and clearly set forth in the report of the joint select committee of Congress, | which made the most thorough, ex- haustive and able study of the fiscal relations of Nation and Capital that statesmen had given to the subject since 1874-8. As long as all the assets and revenues of the National and local joint contributors toward Capital up- building are in the hands of the Na- tional joint contributor, and as long as | all decisions concerning the amount to be paid by the joint contridutors re- spectively and concerning the expendi- ture of the joint revenue are to be made by the National contributor, the latter must, in equity. and will in fact bear the primary responsibility of Capital upbuilding, and the local tax- | payers will be recognized in their true yelation as merely incidental contribu- tors of tax money, not fixed in amount by themselves, but exacted at the pleasure of the other joint contributor. Bince all the taxing power remains in the hands of the National partner, no limitation upon the amount of Na- tional payment is required, but the self-imposed limitation upon the amount to be exacted from the im- potent partner is essential, Is not the superlative inconsistency, the climax of topsy-turvydom attained by a financing plan which places a limit upon the amount of his own money which may be spent by the omnipotent National partner, with exclusive power of legislation and ap- propriation in his hands, and removes all limit from the amount which the National partner may exact for Capital upbuilding from the impotent local partner, the District taxpayers? Pro- tection against himself for the power- ful partner who needs no protection! A denial of protection for the weak partner who is absolutely helpless and impotent and who desperately needs to be protected! 3. It taints with unfairness or bad faith nearly every understanding or transaction which it touches. Unlawful Offspring of Holman Rule. (a) Tt came into existence as a rider on an appropriation bill in defiance of substantive law under a strained | construction of the Holman rule. This misapplication of that rule tends to put the National appropri- ation for Capital upbuilding in a po- sition where it may not be increased, however righteously, without running the gantlet of the House District com- | mittee and of District day limitations and delays, but may be decreased without the sanction of any committee ' by hasty, unthinking proposals from the floor of the House, adopted by a mere majority of the little group of our legislators in the House who take an interest, friendly or hostile, in Dis- trict concerns. Under its vicious influence the rule seems to sey in effect that in action upon appropriation bills no substan- tive legislation can be disobeyed unless Uncle Sam repudiates some financial obligation or otherwise makes money by the change. The rule thus misconstrued and mis- applicd, while barring equitable in- creases in appropriation, facilitates the denial or evasion of legal indebtedness; it invites violation with good or bad motive of existing substantive law: and it tempts to repudiation of just debt. Unfairness in Respect to Surplus. (b) In appropriating for National Capital purposes the District’s five millions surplus (accumulated during the war years by failure of Congress to appropriate for Capital needs). it Tobbed this fine action by Congress of much of its merit. It caused repudiation of equitable contribution by the United States in appropriating and expending the Dis- trict’s accumulated treasury surplus. The tax money creating this surplus was collected by authority of the half- and-half law solely to apply upon the District's half of District appropri- ations. Whenever it came to be ex- pended it would be equitable to spend it under the half-and-half law, the United States duplicating it. Under the demoralizing influence of | the lump-sum payment practice the | surplus has been expended without participation by the Nation under any percentage of obligation to enlarge the surplus fund for the upbuilding of the Capital. Decision that the tax surplus, collected under the 50-50 law, existed unavoidably involved the decision that & proportionate payment by the Nation was equitably due whenever the tax surplus should be expended. But the Jump-sum payment practice, as ap- plied, repudiated this equity. Taints With Unfairness Expenditures for Parks. (c) The lump-sum payment experi- ment, as practically applied, converted the Park Commission law from a bene- fit and blessing to the National Cap- {tal community into a threat of injury. On its face the National Capital Park and Planning Commission law is broadly National. The terms of the law suggest the patriotic interest in it to the extent of a cenl a year contri- bution of every man, woman and child in the Republic. The title to all the land purchased by the Park Commis- sion is vested in the United States. The current ratio was and is 60-40, fixed in the substantive law by the rew organic act of 1922, and still un- yepealed. The whols exceptions to THE SUNDAY STAR, WASHINGTON, D. Petition by the Citizens’ Joint Committee on Fiscal Relations Between the United States and the District of Columbia, Petition to the President of the United States directing 2ttention to the District of Columbia ow pending before the hat while the Iamp-sum tion: i tion practice, To the President of the United States: Your petitioners, the Cltisens® Joint Committee on Fiscal Re- lations between the United States and the District of budget estimates for the fscal r ‘Bareau of the in ‘continues as the annual temy substituted B the argus Columbia other representatives of its eonstituent & rating orga specifully represent: ‘The platform of prine; laid down by the joint committee % et s briefIn the hearings before the and adhered to in the commit joint select comm| ittee in 1918, the House December, 1919, and the Senate Appropriations Committee 1920, is as follows: Wi largely to the exj tion portion she one-] This platform was modified by of 1922 which reaffirmed the princip contribution by locsl commanity a: Suilding, but changed the ffty- iy rat the sixty per cent burden upon the local to ‘e contend, first, that the United States should contribute e District; second, that this eontribu- finite proportion: the Distelet's new le of def: Nation towal o taxpayer. tions, whose names are subscribed below, re- Committee in in April, To prevent glari third, that this pro- precll tor nie act fonate Capital up- sixty-forty, imposing nite : The committes's plattorm of principles, thus moditied. announced by the Executive Committee mittee October 31, 1923, as follows: We contend, first, that the United States miaint iding of the that this contribution should be s fixed and definit rd, that this proportion should be ‘taxpayers and forty by the United States. ‘While Congress has refused all propositions to amend the defi- hml‘h the tenance and upbullding second, rtion: thil Y the District the Citizens’ Joinit Com- should contribute National Capital; ite pro- sixty-forty—sixty or otherwise, the : a ‘of Substantive 1aw In cach annusl sppropristion act siace praciice be th forty definite e to the slxty- L Seorided by enistat rebotagiive appended to and made a part of this petition. munieipal needs which cannot ‘Your petitioners further 2 lump-sum payment is the approprial annual appropriation scts immediate correct some of its grosser and more obvious injustices. . the lecal taxpayers tive say in regard to the amount of local which the tyx money is to be expended. of the law of 1 ision on the annual payment eon| is exception wrges & roturn i 3 ton (2w for the somsons oo forlh i reasons petition, that the President, Biirier of Colambls ts be. 0 the e perm; THEODORE W. NOYES, Chairman Executive Committes, Citigens’ Joint Commities on District of Colunia Fisea! Relations. ROBERT V. FLEMING, President Washington Beard of Trade. b JORN LOCHER, President Central Labor Unien. 17229 Citizens’ Joint Committes on Fiscal Relations a Vice Chairman of its Exeentive B AMES G. YADEN, leration of Citizems’ JAMES E. COLLIFLOWER, lerehants and Manufacturers’ ANNA KELTON WILEY, President 18 NOEL, Prevident Bar Asseciation. CAROLINE NOGUE, President Veteless D. C. League of Women Voters. ‘TUCKER, President Nertheast Washington Citisens’ Association. ¥. P. 5. SIDDONS, President President LOUIS T. BREUNINGER. Presidont Kiwanis Club. K Cosnecthinn. L. A. CARRUTHERS, Chairman ‘Committee on Fiscal Relations, Federatiom of Cliimens’ Associations. EDWARD ¥. COLLADAY, Chairman Committes on District Pinance, Board of Trade. s ten 6§ Uy e w. NO" Presdent Association of Oldest Innabditants the 0-40 ratio involved in the tempo- rary lump-payment plan of 1925, and succeeding years to date merely sus- pend the substantive law of 1922 for the year during which the exceptions apply and do rot repeal or perma- nently amend the substantive law. ‘The lump-sum payment plan, by ignoring the law’s specific direction of a 60-40 division of the cost, and by failing to make a specific incresse of the lump-sum payment to satisfy the law's direction of a National 40 per cent contribution, has. practically thrown the whole cost of Park Com- mission expenditures upon the local taxpayers. It has eonverted a fine, wise, broadly National project, which the self-deceived District enthusiasti- cally indorsed, into an unjust increase of the local taxpayers' tax burden, against which the District taxpayer has vigorously protested. When the original National Capital Park and Planning Commission law was enacted in 1924 the United States was contributing approximately 40 per cent to expenses of the District and this law declared that the funds ap- propriated to carry out the purposes of the act “shall be paid from the revenues of the District of Columbia and the general funds of the Treasury in the same proportion as other ex- penses of the District of Columbia.” ‘The park development law, subsequent- ly enacted, authorized an advance of $16,000,000 to the Park and Planning Commission for park and playground purchase and develobment in the Dis- trict, to be repaid at the rate of $1,000,000 a vear, and when the first payment became due in the fiscal year 1931 the United States contribution to District expenses had already been re- duced, under lump-sum practice, to approximately 20 per cent. Advances of funds for park purchases have been halted, only a fraction of the total amount authorized has been advanced, yet the District has been held to the annual repayment of $1,000,000 a year, while the United States contri- tution, in the current fiscal year, has been reduced to approximately 17 per cent. Paralyzes Permanent Improvements. (d) It paralyzes all great and costly permanent improvements and all loans for such improvements by creating in the community & reasonable doubt whether the National partner in financing the improvements and re- paying the loans will not exact every cent of payments for primarily Na- tional or semi-National projects from the impotent local partner, the Dis- trict taxpayers. (¢) It taints with bad faith and hurtful injustice the District’s new or- ganic act of 1922. . ‘The understanding, when the act of June 29, 1922, was agreed upon by House and Senate, viewed that act as a compromise measure, disposing for many years of our troublesome fiscal relation issues. The District’s contri- bution toward Capital upbuilding was increased from 50 to 60 per cent; its tax rate on intangible personalty was increased 6635 per cent, and the foun- dation was laid (though intent to in- crease was disclaimed) for increasing its realty tax; it was deprived of ex- clusive credit for large sums of miscel- laneous receipts hitherto solely en- joyed, this action inflicting a heavy Joss, and it was compelled to accumu- late from its tax money of present years (every cent of which was needed to meet the urgent municipal needs of today) a fund of millions to provide in advance for meeting the first half- year expenses of 1927-8 and of subse- quent years, In partial compensation for these drastic exactions the District was to enjoy specifically for five years and in- definitely thereafter the benefit of ap- proximate certainty as to its rates of proportionate contribution; in order to spare the District all controversy for these five years over ratios and tax rates the law in specific terms levied in advance that year “for each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1623, 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927,” indicated how the tax rate should be fixed and directed that the proceeds should be applied to the District’s 60 per cent contribution and to the building up by 1927 of a surplus to put the District on a cash paying basis.” The District was thus to be spared for a long period hurtful deadlocks over ratios between House and Senate, which annually endangered the District ap- propriatitns and undeservedly preju- diced House sentiment against the Capital community. Unjust and Hurtful Discrimination. The District has been compelled to carry out faithfully all the provisions of the five-year program that mean loss and injury to it; but in appropri- ating for the fiscal year 1925 Congress nullified for that year the 60-40 pro- vision of the law of 1922 (the only pledge in the compromise distinctly beneficial to the District) by attaching to that bill the vicious and demoraliz- ing lump-sum payment rider. The all-powerful Nationsl partner | has in each of the fiscal years since that of 1925 repeated this unjustly and discreditably discriminating exaction from the impotent local partner. ‘When Congress ceases to enact this annual exception to the jaw of 1922, the 60-40 rates directed by that law will automatically operate and the promised era of peace, good will and good faith will be enjoyed. (f) The vicious influence in the di- rection of repudiation and bad faith of the lump-sum payment practice is fur- ther suggested in tne exaction in full from the local partner, the District taxpayers, of the final payment on the parkway connection between P ac and Rock Creek Parks. At first the Nation paid in full for the Natiohal Parks to which it secured title. Then for parks at the Capital it exacted from the District taxpayers 50 per cent of the cost and later 60 per cent. But in this parkway case the final payment was made solely from Dis- trict tax money. No Offsetting Benefits for Injuries. 4. There are no offsetting benefits fo the injuries inflicted by the lump- sum payment practice. All the pre- dictions of evil cencerning it have been 100 per cent fulfilled. Not one of the benefits promised for it has been enjoyed. Washington was tempted to assent to surrender its safeguard of National proportionate contribution by the as- surance that if a fixed lump-sum pay- ment were made by the Nation, the taxpayers would have practical control of the question of the amount of tax money to be raised by themselves, of the forms of taxation to be adopted and of the objects for which their tax money should be spent; that since none of their tax money came from the Nation or National Treasury they could, with few limitations, raise and spend their own money to suit them- gelves, dominated by neither Budget Bureau nor Congress. Our experience has demonstrated that the lump-sum payment practice has given no greater freedom in any respect whatever from the rigid super- vision and arbitrary control of Budget Bureau and Congress; that it has not increased & particle the District’s power to participate in its fiscal taxing and appropriating legislation. Con- gress still has and jealously exercises exclusive power to determine how much it shall be taxed, in what forms it shall be taxed and for what pur- poses its tax money shall be expended. ‘With gross unfairness it gives back to the Nation its pledge of proportion- ate contribution which accompanied National seizure of the Capital's power of self-taxation without restoring to the District this self-taxing power of which it had been deprived. Its prac- tical effect is to place a maximum limit on the contribution of Uncle Sam, who needs no protection, and to remove the limit entirely from the contribution under compuision of the local taxpayers, who, impotent, des- perately need protection from the un- checked exactions of the National partner, the time of the adoption of the lump- sum payment practice disavowed any intept to increase the District's tax burden by the change of appropriation practice, and predicted that there would be no increase. Other legis- lators frankly announced that one of their purposes in changing the appro- priation practice—a purpose which they predicted would be accomplished ~—was to enable a taxing body in ‘which the District is not represented to increase the local tax burden at its pleasure, unchecked by the require- ment that every such increase shall be reflected in some measure in Na- tional taxation for Capital upbuilding. Authorized by substantive law to collect only 60 per cent of District eppropriations from the local taxpay- ers, it is now collecting (in the cur- Tent fiscal year) approximately 83 per cent of total appropriation. The prophets of evil were the true prophets. ‘The maximum National contribu- tion is made definite during the time in which Congress refrains from di- minishing it; but all limits are de- clared off in respect to the local con- tribution, and it remains definite only in the demonstrated certainty that the local tax burden will be largely and steadily increased, and that the local taxpayers will not participate at any time in the decision of the amount of the increase, the methods of taxa- tion by which the increase is secured and the purposes for which the tax money is spent. DOROTHY SEEGAR WILL AID BENEFIT Star in “Rose Marie” Will Pro- vide Music Features at Card Party. Dorothy Seegar, whose work in the dtar role of “Rose Marie” proved an outstanding music hit, will be fea- - tured in a pro- gram of music on the evening of December 5 at a beneflt card party for the student fund of the Os- teopathic Wom- en’s National As- sociation, to be held at 2400 Six- 8 o'clock and program of Dorothy Seegar, ~Music at 9 o'clock. Beegar is known in private life as Mrs. Paul Hatch. —_— HOLD VICTORY DANCE 700 Employes of Hecht Co. At- tend Event. More than 700 employes of the Hecht Co. last night celebrated o victory dance at the Wardman Park Hotel, emblematic of the winning of s contest held during October. The feature of the evening was the pres- entation of a huge cup, token of victory, presented to Harold H. Levi, vice president and general manager, by James Rotto, director of publicity and td“nrtmn'. Anzac Memorial Unveiled. SYDNEY, Australia, November 24 (#)—Two hundred thousand persons watched the Duke of Gloucester un- veil the Anzac Memorial today in ‘honor of new South Wales soldiers who fell in the World War. Twenty- five thousand soldiers marched in re- A C., NOVEMBER 25, Federal Allotment Should Show Gain With District’s. Alternative Plans Suggested to Give D.C. “New Deal.” We of Washington urge: 1. That existing substantive law authorizes in- crease of the $5,700,000 lump-sum payment up to an amount equal to 40 mate relation to the increase of the District budget. 1If justice requires the Nation to econtribute so much when the District's annual budget is so much, the same justice requires it to contribute more when the District budget is doubled. The practical sug- gestion is that the amount of the fixed payment should be readjusted if there is any notable increase in the Na- tional Caspital's annual expenditure. An immediate increase of the basic lump-sum appropriation of $5,700,000, for example, would be in just relation to the increased estimates proposed by the Commissioners to care for the minimum improvements and main- tenance funds required by the Capital. In transmitting to the Congress the estimates for the District for the fiscal year 1934, the President included in his special message the recommenda- tion from the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to reduce the National contribution to $5,700,000, the Direc- tor of the Bureau explaining in this eonnection: * “The estimate of appropriations for 1934 for the PFederal contribution to the District of Columbia herewith sub- mitted is $5,700,000, which is & reduc- tion of approximately'26.8 per cent from the Federal contribution for 1933 of $17,775,000. This reduction is ap- proximately the same percentage of reduction which the total of the esti- mates herewith; both annual and permanent, for 193¢ ($32,999,700) bear to the total of the same appropri- ations for 1933 ($45,122,622).” It is contended by your petitioners that in reducing the Federal contri- bution by the same proportion that the estimates for the District had been reduced, the Bureau of the Budget established precedent which likewise should be followed when the total of these estimates is increased. The total estimates submitted by the Commis- sioners for the fiscal year 1936 have increased by approximately one-third over the appropriations for 1934, which, in substance, were those recom- mended by the President through the Bureau of the Budget. Increase Specifieally L 3. The amount of annual payment should be increased specifically in proportion to National projects includ- ed in the District appropriation bill. ‘Whether or not there is a general re- adjustment of the lump-sum contribu- tion there should be specific increases in that sum representing in each year the placing in the District budget of primarily National prejects which it is conceded should be paid for wholly or in frem the National Treasury, but which by inclusion in the Distriet bill and under the lump-sum payment plan as practically applied are paid solely by the District taxpayers from eurrent faxes. The past Congress authorized the Public Works Administration to lend to the District of Columbia & total of $10,750,000 for the execution of certain projects which are specified in the act. Funds have been advanced or tentatively allotted to the extent of $5,500,000, but participation by the United States in repayment of 70 per cent of the money borrowed is specifi- cally prevented by the requirement that “10 cents of the tax levied and collected upon each $100 of the as- sested valuation of all real and tangi- ble personal property subject to tax- stion in the District of Columbia shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of a spe- cial account for such reimbursement to the Pederal Emergency Administra- tion of Public Works and shall not be available for any other purpose.” While the projects, as, for instance, the disposal sewage plant, are distinct- 1y semi-National in and scope, purpose serving both the local community and the United States Government, the repayment of the loan is pilaced en- tirely upon the local community. ‘There are several other National or semi-National projects which, as a result of appropriations on the District bill to finance them with an inflexible lump-sum National contribution, have been in effect paid for solely by Dis- trict taxpayers. Included in this list are the appropriation of the accumu- lated surplus of local taxes, without any corresponding contribution of any kind or amount from the National Treasury, and the appropriation solely from local taxes of the money to com- plete the parkway connection between Potomac and Rock Creek Parks. An- other threat of imposing an expend- iture, equitably National upon the local taxpayers, is found in the com- pulsory substitution of the new Mu- nicipal Center for the present District Building. This substitution is made in order that the municipal buildings may harmonize in magnificence with the new National public structures and involves a total estimated expendi- ture of over twenty-two millions of dollars. It is submitted that this excess of expenditure on the Nation's City over that necessarily expended for a simi- lar in the compgrable Amer- ican commercial city canhot in equity be exacted to the extent of three- fourths or more from the taxpayers of the District. When the District Commissioners were advised some years ago that the present Municipal Building would be needed by the Federal Government in connection with its building program, and after a proposed enlargement, for local use. of the present mn butlding had been declared in conflict with the Pederal building program, the Commissioners sought, in 1929, per- mission from to purchase two squares of land as the site for & new group of municipal structures. The total cost of the land and the buildings to be erected thereon was estimated to be $12,000,000. At that time there had been accumulated in the Treasury to the credit of the Dis- trict surplus, or unexpended, locai revenues amounting to $6;500,000, and influential members of Congress had proposed th of the muniei- by the United States (H. R. 7878—71st Congress, Second Session) at a cost to be determined by a board, and which was tentatively estimated at $5,000,000. did not spprove the phn-m Commissioners, 1934—PART ONE. and raising the estimated cost of the t resolution of p- proved June 15, 1929, $3,000,000 was appropristed for purchase of the site, and an additional $3,000,000 appropri- ated in the 1931 supply bill for the revenue surpluses exhausted, and with demands on current revenues for its financing. Exciude National Projects. 4. If the lump-sum payment ean- same way that Capital expenditures of National tax money are limited under the lump-sum payment plan. When the appropriations of local and National tax money for the Capital were by law and in practice in definite percentage relation, this limitation sutomatically resulted, and this check upon the appropriation of District tax money, unless accompanied by a re- by the District from the definite pro- portionate contribution plan. When for the latter plan, at the in- stance of the House appropriations committee, the lump-sum payment plan was tentatively substituted, it was suggested that loss of this limi- tation upon District expenditures and taxation would be cured by permitting the District to participate so efTectively in the raising and expenditure of its tax money that it could be extrava- gant or economical, as it pleased. But, in fact, the District has no more to say about its taxation and the ex- penditure of its taxes under the lump- sum payment plan than under that of definite proportionate contribution. And under the inflexible lump-sum payment plan Congress limits itself concerning expenditures on the Na- tion's city of tax money contributed by the Nation, which it represents, but removes the limit upon the raising and expenditure of the tax money by the District, which it does not repre- sent and to which it is not at all responsible. And as a result we have appropriations from the District tax money abnormally swelling to meet and semi-National projects. To prevent injustice, the President is asked either (1) to recommend & substantial increase in the basic lump- sum payment in the pending 1936 esti- pose the exclusion of great National or semi-National projects from the District bill and their financing on some other supply bill, so wording the items thus excluded as to set forth the exact method of financing in re- lation to the amounts of contribution by Nation and Capital that is thought to be just, or (3) propose to Congress the provision of a local as well as a National maximum of contribution, or (4) recommend to the Congress that by referendum or otherwise, the local taxpayers be permitted to have some effective say in regard to the amount of local taxes and the purposes for which the tax money is to be ex- pended. The President is respectfully urged to give consideration to the fact that | since the Nation is in exclusive control |of the raising and spending of all Capital revenue, including the District tax money, the United States is the and the District only the in- cidental contributor, and not vice versa, as the present lump-sum pay- ment plan seems to assume. District Only Incidental Contributor. Protection was afforded the local taxpayer under the 1878 law not only by the provision that the Nation would contribute 50 per cent of the total appropriation, but also by the as- surance that the local taxpayers would not be compelled to contribute more than 50 per cent of the total. So in the law of 1922 the effect of the statute ‘was to pledge the local taxpayers that not more than 60 per cent of the total tax would be exacted from them. When the lump-sum payment plan was substituted tentatively for the 60-40 ratio this pledge was suspended, but it was suggested that an effective substitute for this pledge was found in the declared determination of Con- gress under the lump-sum payment plen to give the local taxpayers a certain control over their own tax raising and tax spending, involving the power to be extravagant or economical, and to spend as much or little of their own tax money as they pleased. But Congress in fact limited its power to expend National tax money, and left undetermined the amount of local tax money that it could expend. And it has exercised this power without regard to the wishes of the taxpayers to raise and spend local taxes not only for strictly municipal purposes, but for semi-National and primarily Na- tional projects. It is to correct this condition that we representing Washington now urge the President, in considering the Dis- trict budget, to recommend increase of the Nation's lump-sum contribution (as long as Congress continues the lump-sum practice) or to propose to Congress that the local taxpayers be given an effective voice in deciding how much they will raise in taxes and how they will spend the taxes when raised, or to suggest restricting kind and amount of appropriations on the District whole-cost expenditures on National | mates for the District, and (2) to pro- | and direct national taxes, the last named heretofore not only denled national representation to the national tax- States. It is also to be remembered that the national taxes paid by resi- dents of the District in contributions to the customs revenues of the Nation will still remain in the Treasury for national uses. By this procedure the Natien weuld centribute to thé Na- paid in mational taxes by the people of the District themselves. It could not reasonably be protested that such repayment of its own money not be made to the District, since already in national bounties or bsidies to the States (in which the District, has not heretofore been per- mitted to participate) several States have received even more from the Na- tional Treasury in the shape of such bounties and subsidies than they have bution of national taxes, the Nation retaining in the Treasury the con- tributions of District residents to customs revenues. Political equity and financial pquity for the District have always been in- separably interwoven. The people of the District urgently petition for beth equities. In the New Deal era of America no other Americans need a new deal more distinctly than the un- Americanized Americans of the Dis- l;le!. Give us then (we petition) a New ROOSEVELT GIVEN CITIZENS’ PLEA FOR LARGER LUMP SUM| (Continued From First Page.) citizens of the Capital City have a| real friend in him. | Emphasizing the fact that the sub- | stantive law establishing the 60-40 | ratio of expense between the District | and Federal governments has never | been repealed, the petition and sup- | porting argument renew the joint| committee's plea for a return in prac- | tice to this substantive law, or for | 2 more equitable Jump sum payment | as long as Congress continues to fol- low this departure from the fixed pro- portion plan. i After reciting the history of how the | arbitrary lump sum practice came | into existence as a rider on an appro- priation bill “in deflance of substan- | tive law under a strained construction | of the Holman rule” the joint com- ' mittee’s brief calls attention to the | fact that the lump sum method of Federal payment deprives the un- represented local taxpayers of their safeguard against excessive taxation. Recommendations of Committee. The joint commitéee summed up its petition with the following plea. “To prevent glaring inequity, your petitioners therefore urge, for reasons stated in the argument hereto at- tached as part of this petition, that | the President, through the Bureau of | the Budget, should (1) recommend 2 | substantial increase in the basic lump | sum payment by the United States in | the 1936 budget for the Dis- | trict of Columbia; (2) that great na- | tional or semi-national projects be excluded from the District budget and financed through some supply bill other than the District supply bill, so wording the items thus excluded as to set forth the exact methods of financ- ing in relation to the amounts of contribution by Nation and Capi- tal that is thought to be just, or (3) recommend. in the President's mes- sage to Congress on the 1936 budget, a local as well as a national maxi- mum of contribution. on the assump- tion that it is the impotent partner (the District of Columbia) who alone needs this protection, or (4) recom- | mend to the Congress that, by refer- | endum or otherwise, the local tax- payers be permitted to have some effective say in regard to the amount of local taxes and the purposes for which the tax money is to be ex- pended.” Under the lump sum practice, the brief points out, additional dollars of tax exacted from the District no longer increase, but correspondingly reduce the national contribution, ac- tually or relatively. Expenses Shifted te D. C. To show how the annual substitu- tion of & Jump sum in place of the 40 per cent Federal share called for by the substantive law has gradually shifted the burden of mantaining the National Capital more and more to the shoulders of the local residents since 1925, the petition points out that for the current fiscal year the District government is being required to meet 83 per cent of the total ap- propriation. In other words, the Fed- eral Jlump sum payment for this year represents only 17 per cent, instead of the 40 per cent contemplated by the unrepealed substantive law. As long as the lump sum practice continues, the joint committee stresses the fairness of increasing the amount in some approximate relation to the increase in the total of the District budget. In this connection, the joint com- mittee points out that for the fiscal year 1934 the Budget Bureau recom- mended reduction of the Federal pay- ment from $7,775,000 to the present figure of $5,700,000, a cut approxi- mately 26.8 per cent, on the ground that the total of the District budget had been reduced by about that per- centage. The joint committee contends that, by taking this action, the Budget Bureau established a precedent which likewise should be followed when the total of District estimates is increased. The total estimates the Commission- ers have submitted for 1936 represent an increase of approximately one- to- third over appropriations for 1934. The it accompanying the petition also sets forth detafled in- stances in which the local com- munity has been required to meet the cost of national, or semi-national, improvements without equitable par- ucip:um by the Federal Govern- ment. Semi-National Projects. ‘The costly acale on which the Dis- trict has been required to plan the Municipal Center development, in or- der to harmonize with Federal im- provements in the National Capital, is cited by the joint committee as an illustration of this tendency to place national or semi-national burdens on the local community. The terms which Congress has required the District to comply with in repaying loans from the Public Works Administration is listed as another example. Pointing out that such projects as the sewage- disposal plant are semi-national in HOUSE TC REVEAL FASCIST CHARGES Data on Reputed Offer to Gen. Butler Will Be Given Out. By the Associated Press. NEW YORK, November 24—The Congressional Committee on un- American Activities concluded today its investigation into the alleged Fascist “putsch” described by Gen. Smedley D. Butler with a promise to make public all the information that is “pertinent.” Representative John W. McCormack of Massachusets, chairman of the committee, said a detailed statement would be issued tomorrow concern- ing several “important inconsist- encies” in the testimony of Gerald P. MacGuire, the Wall Street bond salesman named by Butler as the man who approached him. The committee, MacCormack dis- closed, has evidence to contradict MacGuire's statement. through his lawyer, that he was registered at the Palmer House, Chicago, between Sep- tember 21 and October 8, 1933—a period during which he supposedly offered Gen. Butler $13,000 at a New- ark hotel. Trips of Broker Claimed. “While hotel records show that Mac- Guire was registered at the Palmer House between September 21 and October 8" he said, “the statement of the committee will indisputably show that on two occasions he came back to New York City between those dates, and on another occasion he was registered at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington. “The information the committee has is that the 29th Division Convention was held September 26 and 27 in Newark.” Though he mentioned no dates pub- licly, Gen. Butler said it was during this convention that MacGuire walked into his hotel room in Newark and “started to toss thousand-dollar bills on the bed.” “In connection with the 29th Division Convention,” McCormack said, “Mac- Guire has admitted under oath that he saw Gen. Butler there.” ARMY GAME BROADCAST BREAK BLAMED ON FANS In answer to protests and queries | Teceived with regard to interruption of the broadcasts of the Army-Notre Dame game over radio Station WOL yesterday afternoon. the manage- ment of the local station released the following telegram last night: “Spectators at the game interfered with our broadcasting of the Army- Notre Dame game this afternoon. Assaulted our announcers and engi- | neering staff, damaged our equipment with the result that it was impossible to continue broadcasting. The game had been on the air 10 minutes. Sub- sequently, * 'arrests were made and matter will be prosecuted. Any pro- fanity heard by listeners was on the part of spectators who assaulted our staff. We deeply regret this occasion and hereafter protection will be pro- vided to prevent its recurrence.” The telegram was signed by George B. Storer, president of the American Broadcasting System, the local sta- tion announced, and was addressed to the station manager of WOL. _— DRUGS BILL REVIVED Wallace Says Congress Will Get Disputed Bill Again. Secretary Wallace yesterday de- clared the controverted food and drugs bill, which failed of passage at the last session of Congress, would be re-introduced. He added that the measure would be re-submitted in essentially the same form as it was almost a year ago and that the Department of Agriculture would support it in Con- gress. — e in repaying the 70 per cent loan is prevented by the mandate of Congress that the proceeds of 10 cents of the tax rate on real estate and tangible prop- erty be set aside in a special account in the Treasury for reimbursement of the loan. The petition declares that District taxpayers are at present reasonably and, in view of their peculiar disa- bilities, even heavily taxed, and that no increase in the local tax burden should be considered “unless it is clearly demonstrated that such addi- tional taxation is absolutely necessary to meet urgent municipal needs which cannot otherwise be satisfied.” SIGNERS ARE LISTED. Leaders Explain Purpose of Petition to Budget Director. Members of the Citizens’ Joint Com- mittee on Fiscal Relations between the United States and the District of Co- lumbia, who signed the petition, are: Edward F. Colladay, chairman; Theo- dore W. Noyes, chairman of the Ex- ecutive Committee: Robert V. Fleming, aresident, Washington Board of Trade: James G. Yaden, president, Federation of Citizens’ Associations; John Locher, president. Central Labor Union; James E. Colliflower, president, Merchants and Manufacturers’ Association; Anna Kelton Wiley, president, District of Co- lumbia Federation of Women's Clubs; Coroline Hogue, president, Voteless D. C. League of Women Voters; F. Regis Noel, president, District of Co- lumbia Bar Association; Evan H. Tucker, president, Northeast Washing+ ton Citizens’ Association; F. P. H. Siddons, president, District of Colum-~ bia Bankers’ Association; Harold E. Doyle, president, Washington Rea! Es- tate Board; Chester D. Swope, presi~ dent, Rotary Club; Louis T. Breunin« ger, president, Kiwanis Club; Francis G. Allison, jr., chairman, Law and Legislation Committee, D. C. Bankers’ Association; L. A. Carruthers, chair- man, Committee on Fiscal Relations, Federation of Citizens’ Associations; Edith L. Phelps, chairman, depart- ment of legislation, D. C. Federation of Women’s Clubs, and Henry L. Hard« ing Burroughs, president, Society of Nlth_fm. Mr. Noyes also signed the petition as president of the Association of Oldest Inhabitants, ind Mr. Colla- day signed it as chairman of the Committee on District Finance, Board of Trade. Mr. Colladay, Mr. Noyes and Robert J. Cottrell, secretary of the Joint Citi- zens' Committee, called on Director Bell n¢ thy Badget Bureau last Sat- urday. Mr. Noyes, as chairman of the Executive Committee, explained the petition and its purposes to Mr, Bell and received his co-operation in mnl the petition before the Presie L]