Evening Star Newspaper, April 14, 1935, Page 4

A—4 TREASURY REPORT SEEN INCOMPLETE Leaves Important Issues Still Unsettled in Fis- cal Question. BY BEN McKELWAY. Completed after a study which began last Fall, the Treasury Depart- ment has sent to the District Com- mittees of House and Senate a report by some of its experts which opens with the declaration that the recurring problem of fiscal relations between the District and National Govern- ments involves two distinct ques- tions: 1. Whether residents of Washington are dearing a heavier burden of tax- atfon than residents of cities “‘roughly” comparable in size and character. 2. In view of the special character of the District in its relationships with the Federal Government, what considerations should govern the establishment of a continuing basis for Federal contributions? ‘The report is so admittedly incom- plete as to fail in furnishing a satis- factory answer to the first question, and it disposes of the second by pro- posing another and “more extensive investigation, conducted with the as- sistance of experts within and out= side of the Federal Government.” Otherwise, it leaves the second ques- tion practically untouched. Answers Only One Question. The report sums up its answer to the first question with the state- ment: “If consideration of the quality and quantity of services received by resi- dents of the District be excluded and attention be focused solely on the actual money burden of taxation, the clear answer is: The evidence indicates that Washington taxpayers bear a smaller total burden of taxation than the residents of other cities of roughly comparable size and character.” Confronted with the Treasury's re- port that the tax burden (as exam- ined by the Treasury) is lighter here than elsewhere, according to the “evidence,” immediate interest turns to the nature and the source of the evidence. Those who have been sufficiently interested in the drab subject of com- parative tax statistics to study meth- ods used in such comparisons will be surprised to discover that the Treas- ury experts have apparently repudiated the methods chosen by their fellow experts in the Department of Com- merce and have gone outside the Government service to borrow figures, or rather theoretical figures (for they are not actual), as the evidence upon which to base the finding that the District’s burden of taxation is rela- tively low Adjusting Tax Rates Explained. ‘The method chosen by the Treasury experts in weighing the property tax burdens of the cities chosen for the comparison is to “adjust” the actual, or nominal, tax rates of these cities on the theoretical, reported, ratio of as- sessment value to true, or real, value. For instance: The tax rate of City “A” might be $25 a thousand, and the tax rate of City “B” might be $50 a thou- sand. In City “A” property may be assessed at a reported 100 per cent of real value, while in City “B” property may be assessed at a reported 50 per cent of real value. The tax rates are “adjusted” for comparison by applying to the tax rate the reported ratio of | assessed to true value, and in this| case the “adjusted” tax rate for the two cities would be the same—i. e., $25. | The whole trouble with this method lies in getting the real ratio of assessed to true value. The Treasury experts did not get it themselves. They bor- rowed the figures of the Detroit Bu- reau of Governmental Research, an organization which engages in annual | comparisons of municipal financial | statistics and which obtains the as- sessment ratios from municipal assess- ing officials, other bureaus of research and others. How Accurate Are the Ratios? When it is recalled that the compar- ison of tax burdens is largely made on the basis of reported assessment ra- tios, then the question turns to the accuracy of these reports. | And in this case it is interesting to | study one of the tables contained in| the Treasury’s report, which contains | the estimated ratio of assessed to true value used in its comparison. | Repor‘ed | Ratio Assessed to City. Washington .. San Francisco. Newark . Boston Buffalo . Milwaukee . Jersey City. Portland, Oreg. Kansas City Cincinnati . Baltimore .. Louisville .. New Orleans Minneapolis Seattle Now, if these reported ratio figures are correct, it should be possible to compare the real value of property in all these cities by applying to the actual census figures of total assess- ment the Detroit Bureau of Municipal Research figures on reported ratios. That is, if Milwaukee's actual assess- ment figure, as reported by the census, is $1,030,722,137, and the Detroit Bureau of Municipal Research reports that the ratio of assessed to full value in Milwaukee is 80 per cent, then the actual value of property in Milwaukee ought to be $1,288.402,600. Comparing “Full” Assessments. Raising the Census Bureau assess- ment figures (as of 1932) to full value on the basis of the reported ratios used by the Treasury, the result would ‘be as follows, with the cities arranged in population rank: Full Value Population. Assessment. . 820,500 $1.598,03 % City. 1. Baltimore .. 2. Boston i 3. San Francisco. . Milwaukee 5. Buffalo 6. Washington. . Minneapolis. . . New Orleans. Cincinnati ... . Newark . . Kansas City. 0.428 . Portland 642,507,300 5. Louisville 308,600 47 .000 It is important to remember that Washington, a non-industrial resi- dential city, is being compared here with larger, industrial cities; that in Washington 5409 per cent of the city’s property, more than half of it, is exempt from taxation. Yet when the taxable fraction of non-industrial Washington, where the principal in- dustries are Government and real estate, and where the greater part of the real estate is in residential prop- erty, is compared with other cities as to the reported full value of its prop- erty, the amazing results follow: That Washington, sixth in population, is exceeded in the value of property only by larger San Francisco and Boston. That the taxable portign of Washing- ton is of greater vaiug/ than all of larger industrial Baltimore, or Mil- waukee, or Buffalo. That while Washington exceeds the next city in population, Minneapolis, by only 10,300, the taxed property here is almost four times as valuable as the taxed property of Minneapolis. That if you took all of Kansas City, Seattle and Jersey City—with a com- bined population of 1,108,700—their aggregate full value of property (ac- cording to the Treasury's statistical estimates) would be less than that of Washington by more than $80,000,000. Results of Dubious Accuracy. It would be hard to convince any- body that any such conditions pre- vail, and that any such comparisons are indicative of the actual facts. Yet the comparison of the reported full- value assessments of the cities, as made above, is merely another way of using the figures which the Treasury experts used in their comparison of tax rates and on which they based, in large part, their conclusion as to the low tax burden in Washington. In former years the Treasury ex- perts’ method of comparison has been examined more thoroughly, with even more unbelievable results — results which showed, for instance, that the individual taxpayer in San Antonio, Tex., was far more highly taxed than the taxpayer in Chicago, and more than twice as highly taxed as the tax- payer in San Francisco, but not near- ly so highly taxed as the taxpayer in Jacksonville, who was taxed more than twice as much as the taxpayer in Miami. For in all comparisons made by this method the faulty and unreliable ele- ment—generally apologized for by every agency which has used it—is the reported ratios, or percentages, of assessment to true value. Such a figure is almost impossible to obtain with any degree of accuracy, because city assessors differ not only in their judgment of what constitutes real value, but in their ability to estimate the percentage of assessment to true value; in their practice of assessing the taxpayers who elect them to office and in their honesty in state- ments concerning compliance with a law which, usually, requires 100 per cent assessment. If this basic ele- ment in tax comparisons is faulty, then the tax comparisons themselves are naturally faulty. The Reliable Yardstick. The yardstick used by the Census Bureau, the Government's agency for tax and other comparisons between tistics relating to tax levies, receipts from the several forms of taxation, governmental cost payments, etc., | which are gathered from the cities and tabulated by the Census Bureau's | own experts. The difference between | the Treasury experts’ method and the | Census experts’ method is that the | at figures, from which a statistical symbol is created, while the latter | deals in actual figures. Two Comparisons Made. The difference in the showings made | as to tax burdens is indicated in com- | paring the Treasury experts’ table of adjusted tax rates with a table pre- pared by the Citizens’ Joint Commit- tee on Fiscal Relations in 1932. The | Treasury experts draw conclusions | from results obtained by the “ad- | justed” tax rate method. The other table compared actual tax levies and actual population figures and expressed the results in per capitas. In both tables the cost of debt is eliminated from the comparison, but both tables | include the element of State taxes (as | the Treasury table did not eliminate this item). Treasury Comparison. (Fourteen Cities.) Tax rate after elimination of debt service charges. $32.09 31.75 23.61 22.56 21.62 21.49 21.28 20.80 20.78 City. Jersey City, N. J. Boston, Mass. Newark, N. J. Minneapolis, Minn. Louisville, Ky.... Seattle, Wash Milwaukee, Wis. Baltimore, Md. Kansas City, Mo. Portland, Ore Buffalo, N. Y. San Francisco, Calif. ‘Washington, D. C.... 15.00 Cincinnati, Ohio... 13.36 Joint Committee Comparison. (Pifteen Cities.) Per capita total tax levy. less per capita interest payments 7$39.63 734.18 *62.40 *58.24 744.43 53.73 *58.22 53.81 T47.55 +38.50 +40.60 *65.72 741.24 *54.66 50.76 9 5 19.90 15.55 per capita City. total St. Louis, Mo Baltimore, Md. Boston, Mass. Pittsburgh, Pa. San Francisco, Calif. Milwaukee, Wis Buffalo, N. Y... Washington, D. C... Minneapolis, Minn.. New Orleans, La. Cincinnati, Ohio. Newark, N. J... Kansas City, Mo. Seattle, Wash.. Indianapolis, Ind. Less than Washington Greater than Wash- ington fLess than Washington. *Greater than Washington. Of the 14 cities compared in tax burden with Washington, in this table, 7 are next larger in population than Washington and 7 are next smaller. (This table is reproduced in part from table VIII of the Citizens’ Joint Committee’s Book of Tables, 1932.) The important showing in these two tables is that when the com- parison of tax burdens is made by the so-called adjusted tax rate method, the indicated tax burden in Washington is exceeded by 12 of 14 cities. When the comparison is made with actual figures, expressed in terms of per capita tax burden, there are only five cities with a heavier tax burden than Washing- ton, while nine are shown with a smaller tax burden. Facts Not Complete. In addition to having used what many will regard as a faulty method of comparison, the Treasury experts’ report contains several references to the fact that its investigation is not complete. For instance, it says: “As has been indicated, comparative rates of taxation on general property, however refined. afford only a crude and preliminary measure of the com- parative tax burden of different cities. Not only are there important differ- ences in valuation practices that may be inadequately corrected by the fore- going adjustments (adjustments of tax rate), but there are also important differences among the various cities and other local governments in sources of revenue other than general property taxes.” ‘The report then takes up the com- parison of per capita costs of govern- ment—exclusive of debt service—and finds that Washington ranks thir- teenth in the list of 15 cities when the lump sum is excluded, and eighth when the National Govern- ment contribution is included. But while the report seems to attach some significance to this comparison, it im- mediately apologizes for not having presented the essentially significant facts which should accompany such 8 comparison. Says the report: “Crude and Preliminary.” “It has been twice noted that com- parative general property tax rates offer but a crude and preliminary measure of the comparative burden of taxation. A similar tement must be made about per {apita costs of tax levy. $42.4 cities, is composed of accurate sta-! | former deals with reported, guessed- | 19.97 | THE SUNDAY STAR, WASHINGTON, D. C, APRIL 14, 1935—PART ONE. Report Finds D. C. Tax Rate Lowest in Comparison of Cities <Corltlnu:d From First Page.) and in assessment practices” which re- quire some adjustment on tax rates on the basis of the theotretical rate that would exist if all property were uni- formly assessed at 100 per cent of its value. To make the adjustment the Treas- ury experts used figures on adjusted tax rates supplied by the Detroit Bu- reau of Governmental Research, and with such figures compared adjusted tax rates in 15 selected cities be- tween 300,000 and 825,000 population. Four cities in this group were omitted because of insufficient data. The findings from this comparison are that when debt service is in- cluded, Washington's tax rate is the lowest obtaining in any of the cities compared, and when debt service is eliminated the tax rate in Wash- ington is lower than any city except Cincinnati. Cities Compared. The cities compared are: Jersey City, Boston, Newark, Min- neapolis, Louisville, Seattle, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Kansas City, Portland, Buf- falo, San Francisco and Cincinnati. The report shows that Washington's property is assessed at 100 per cent of true value and that it stands at the top of the list of comparable cities in | per capita assessment. Explains High Per Capita Here. In connection with its table show- ing the very high per capita assess- ment, both actual and made on the basis of the reported ratios of as- sessed to full value in other cities (Washington being higher in both instance), the report points out that: “It may be contended that this high per capita property value is only a reflection of an inadequate correc- tion reported to the Detroit Bureau of | Governmental Research for the un- | duly low appraisal of property that is common in other cities; and that the comparatively high per capita prop- erty value in the District does not ex- ist in fact. “As against this contention, cer- tain conditions found in the District, while they offer no proof, are con- sistent with relatively high per capita property values. The residents of Washington, for example, filed the largest number of income tax returns | per capita in 1932 for cities of 300,000 population or more. Lijkewise, Wash- ington ranks second &mong the 15 cities included in the foregoing table in the number of automobile regis- | trations per capita. Between 1930 and 1933, as against an average decline of approximately 11 per cent in automo- | | bile registrations for all cities of | 300,000 population or more, Washing- ton experienced an increase of ap- proximately 11 per cent. It may also be noted that the decline in the dol- | lar volume of retail sales in the coun- I try at large between 1929 and 1933 | was 49 per cent, as compared with a | decline of only 28 per cent for the | District.” District Stands Eighth. In comparing the cost of govern- ment, the Treasury used 14 cities and showed that, with the Federal share included, Washington stood eighth on the list, with per capita of $84.03 for | cost of government. With the Federal | share excluded, the report placed | Washington thirteenth, with a per | capita cost of $68.29. Still other figures were given to show what the comparison would be on cost of government, if capital out- | lays and expenditures for public serv- {lce enterprises in certain cities were | excluded from the calculation. | The Treasury also discussed briefly | the contention that the government | costs of other cities should be reduced | by the amounts of their contributions | to State government, before compar- ing them with Washington, which does not derive any benefits from State government. Under this procedure, | the Treasury stated, Washington would occupy sixth place on the list of 14 cities studied. | Discussing the comperisons, both of | tax rates and governmental cost pay- ments, the report declares: t has been twice noted that com- government. A city which provides | | ampler services of a given kind than |another, or one that provides impor- tant services not offered by another, might well have a higher per capita cost of government without com- | mensurately adding to the taxpayers’ | burden.” And when the Treasury re- port deducts from the cost of govern- | ment in other cities the amounts paid by those cities for benefits re- | ceived in the form of statehood, cit- izenship, etc., in which the District does not share, the District is shown to be fifth in the list of 15 cities (al- though it is sixth in population rank) as to per capita cost of government, exclusive of debt service. At the 1915 fiscal hearings an equi- table comparison of governmental costs was submitted which showed that in most items the payments of the Na- tional Capital exceeded those of com- parable cities. This greater cost was attributed to national requirements of larger expenditures on higher stand- ards in the Nation’s City than were required in the average American com- mercial city. And this greater cost was treated as testifying and com- pelling in equity a large national con- tribution. On the basis of admittedly incom- plete investigaton, and by the use of a method plainly open to criticism, the Treasury report reaches its con- clusion that the tax burden in the District is relatively low in comparison with the high tax cities selected for the comparison. But the report, un- fortunately, fails to take up for thorough discussion the important subject which is of concern to Wash- ington at the present time—the amount which the National Govern- ment should appropriate as its share | many governmental functions of the l would necessarily bear pro rata shares of the costs of State services if they | figures for both tax rates and per of the National Capital expenses. A. Bank for the ‘ INDIVIDUAL The Morris Plan Bank offers the INDI VIDUAL the facilities of a SAVINGS BANK with the added feature of offering a plan to make loans [ practical basis, which enables the borrower to liquidate his obli- gation by mean of weekly, semi- monthly or |i monthly deposits. | parative general property tax rates of- fer but a cyude and preliminary meas- ure of the parative burden of tax- ation. A similar statement must be made about per capita costs of govern- ment. A city which provides ampler services of a given kind than another, or one that provides important serv- ices not offered by another, might well have a higher total per capita cost of government without commensurately adding to the taxpayers’ burden. Ample fire protection, for example, may add to the per capita cost of gov- ernment, but reduce the total expenses of the taxpayer by reason of lower in- surance rates. The like is true of po- lice protection and traffic regulation. Expenditures on health services, though they loom large in the per capita costs of government in certain cities, may be more than amply com- pensated by better medical care, lower mortality and reduced wage and sal- ary losses due to sickness. Services Vary. “The fact is that cities vary widely both in the quantity and the quality of the services rendered their resi- dents. Hence, a direct gomparison of aggregate and per capita financial outlays only, properly requires supple- mentation by an intensive analysis of the character of the services ren- dered. “The strict comparability of sum- mary figures presenting per capita governmental costs is further impaired by great variations in the number of governmental organizations operating in various communiues, and in their overlapping functions. The residents of the city of Portland, Oreg., for ex- ample, are taxed to support a mu- nicipal government, and also distinct governmental units in charge of the county, the school district, the dock district, the port district and the State of Oregon. The District of Columbia, on the other hand, is a single govern- mental unit and it differs from all other cities in the fact that its tax- | payers do not contribute toward State outlays for the construction and main- tenance of rural highways, rural schools, agricultural and conserva- tion projects, etc. There is, moreover, no clear line of demarcation between District and of the Federal Govern- | ment, Finally, the fact may be noted | that residents of the District are free from inheritance and income taxes that are in force in many States. “It is sometimes contended that the Government costs of other cities should be reduced by the amounts of their contributions to the State gov- ernments before comparison is made | with the costs of the District gov-| ernment, on the ground that the Dis- | trict does not derive any benefits from | a State government. Even under this | procedure, 5 out of the 15 selected cities would show higher per capita costs of government, exclusive of debt service, than those borne by the resi- | dents of the District. “But this procedure is open to the| objection that State governments sup- | ply a multiplicity of educational, health, highway, social welfare, and other services to the cities within their borders. All the costs of such services can hardly be excluded from consideration because the District, in the absence of a State government, must provide many of them itself. Further, the people in the District lived in any of the States. Costs Included. “In order, therefore, to make the capita costs of Government as nearly comparable as might be, under all the difficulties outlined in the foregoing. there have been included in the figures for all cities but Washington the rates and costs, exclusive of debt service, chargeable to State, city school dis- trict, and other overlapping govern- mental units. “The foregoing data and discussion provide a rough answer to the first of | the two questions posed in the intro- duction of this memorandum, namely: “In point of fact, are the taxpayers of the District of Columbia bearing a heavier total burden of taxation than the residents of other citles of roughly comparable size and character? “If consideration of the quality and quantity of services received by resi- dents of the District be excluded and attention be focused solely on the | actual money burden of taxation, the | clear answer is: “‘The evidence indicates that ‘Washington taxpayers bear a smaller total burden of taxation than the residents of other cities of roughly comparable size and character.’ On the basis of tax rates, the report makes the following example of thel difference between the tax burden, as it found it, here and elsewhere: “(1) Suppose a man buys a small house in Washington for $5,000. What will his taxes be in the District? Suppose another man at the same time buys a $5,000 house in each of the other cities used for comparison. ‘What will the total of his taxes be in each of the other cities? Other Values Brought In. “(2) What will the total taxes be, on the same basis, for the purchaser or owner of a business block worth $100,000? “(3) What will the total taxes be, on the same basis, for the purchaser or owner of a corporate business en- terprise worth $100,000? “(4) What will the total taxes be, on the same basis, for the purchaser or owner of an apartment house worth $1,000,000? And the report gives as the answer to the questions the fact that the District home owner would pay total taxes of $93 here and compared with $175 as the average of the 14 other cities; that the $100,000 business block owner would pay $1,500 total here as compared with the average taxes of 14 other cities of $2,912; that the $100,000 corporate business here It is not meces- sary to have had an account at this Bank is order to borrow. Loans are ed within a day or two after filing application—with few exceptions. MORRIS PLAN notes are usually made for 1 year, though they may be gives for amy period of from 3 to 12 months. MORRIS PLAN BANK Under Supervision U. S. Treasury 1408 H Street N.W., Washington, D. C. “Character and Earning Power Are the Basis of Credit® |the costs of such services in other | Satisfactory criteria for the appor- | pays taxes of $1,256 compared with the average tax of the other cities of $2,329, while the million-dollar cor- poration in Washington would pay taxes of $15,000 compared with taxes of $28,110 elsewhere. The report concludes with the fol- lowing discussion of the status of the District of Columbia as a determinant of the amount of Federal appropri- ations toward its support: “Thus far, the attempt has been made to measure the reasonableness of the tax burden borne by the resi- dents of the District of Columbia solely by comparison of its tax rate and per capita money cost of gov- ernment with those of other cities. It may be contended, however, that the peculiar status of the District makes such a comparison unsatisfac- tory as a measure of the reasonable- ness of the tax burden, even if sup- plemented by a thorough analysis of the comparative character of the services rendered. Factors Are Cited. “1. It may be argued that, in point of fact, the District has.no rural and State projects to support and that its governmgntal expenses should there- fore be lower than those of other cities. Further, it may be contended, agencies of the Federal Government constitute the correlative of the im- portant industrial and commercial enterprises existing in other large cities; and that the exemption of Federal properties from taxation therefore unduly concentrates the burden of the District expenses upon other property owners, except to the extent that this is mitigated by Fed- eral contributions to the revenues of the District. It has also been con- tended that, by reason of its position as the seat of the National Govern- ment, the District is obliged to under- take important expenditures, such as those on parks and streets, that are not undertaken on the same scale by | ordinary cities of comparable size. “In line with this view of the status of the District, it is contended that the Federal Government should (1) pay for all outlays made by the Dis- trict by reason of the latter’s position | as the seat of the National Govern- ment; and (2) contribute a further amount equal to that which would be paid on the basis of the property tax rate if the Federal Government's ' properties were not exempted from taxation. Federal Phase Considered. “2. Directly in conflict with this | view of the status of the District of Columbia, and, therefore, of the prop- er measure of its reasonable tax bur- | den, is the view that the District of Columbia is an arta ceded to the | Federal Government for a national capital. Under this view, most of the | contentions noted in the paragraphs | immediately foregoing are robbed of considerable weight. The problem then becomes, not one of the abstract moral and legal rights of the District | of Columbia against the Federal Gov- | ernment, but one solely of determin- | ing a continuing basis for the equi- table treatment of the residents of | the District of Columbia by Congress. | In view of the services received by | their residents, and in the light of | comparable cities, how much of the total expenses of the District should ; equitably be borne by its residents | and how much may properly be con- | tributed by the Federal Government? “In practice, the Congress has ap- parently adopted the latter of these | alternative viewpoints. But the great | variations in the amounts and relative | proportions of the Federal contribu- | tions, and, more particularly, their declining trends in recent years, have | constituted an unceasing source of controversy. Such controversy could | be minimized if Federal contributions to the revenues of the District gov- | ernment were regularly determined on the basis of announced principles. | tionment of the costs of the District government between District taxpay- ers and the Federal Government could | be established, it is believed, by a! careful investigation into all the rele- | vant facts. Recommendations. “In order (1) to supplement the| foregoing analysis of the comparative | tax rates and costs of government by reference to the quantity and quality of services rendered; and (2) to pro- vide the data needed for the choice of continuing criteria for the determi- nation of the proportions and amounts of revenues that may be justly raised { would grant equal rights to men and | eral Court here today by State Thea- through District taxation and Federal eontributions, respectively, it is recom- mended that a more extensive in- vestigation, conducted with the as- sistance of experts within and outsid of the Federal Government, be au- thorized.” Urge Further Inquiry. The recommendation will be laid be- fore the Senate District Committee at its next meeting. This was made known last night by Senator William H. King, Democrat, of Utah, chairmaa. Senators Copeland of New York and Capper of Kansas, two other members, said they believe it would be highly desirable to proceed with the further inquiry suggested by the Treasury. “At the earliest moment we ought to make a thorough study of the sub- Ject,” said Senator Copeland. “We have got to take up, anyhow, the question of changing existing law to bring assessments here down to a more comparable basis with other cities.” Senator Thomas, Democrat, of Okla- homa, who has charge of the District appropriation bill, had not seen the Treasury tax report last night, but re- iterated his view that Washington should be allowed to adopt the lower assessment rule followed elsewhere, so that its tax rate would be more comparable with other cities. He said District officials already have collected the necessary data on that subject. Favors Conclusive Study. Senator Capper, referring to the Treasury suggestion that the investi- gation be pursued further by experts in and out of the Government, said that “as long as the study has gone this far, it would seem only logical to carry it to a conclusion.” Discussing the additional data sug- gested, Senator Capper added: “I feel sure it would be found that Washing- | ton has the most efficiently managed | and economical government of any of the cities, due to the faet that the Federal Government keeps watch over it, and a close check on expenditures.” INDIFFERENCE LAID TO MISS PERKINS Los Angeles Woman Leader Says | Secretary Is Not Inter- ested in Cause. By the Associated Press. SANTA MONICA, Calif., April 13.— | Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor, | was accused by a speaker at a conven- | being “not in the least interested in | JUSTICE UNITGETS LIMA PLANE CASE Inquiry On to See if Fiyers Violated Neutrality or Arms Laws. The Department of Justice has been called upon to determine whether 10 American airplane pilots and me- chanics, who have been grounded at Lima, Peru, have been guilty of vio- lation of the neutrality of arms em- bargo laws, it was learned yesterday afternoon. The State and Commerce Devart- ments, both of which have been in- vestigating the case, which it is feared might involve the United States in serious diplomatic difficulties with warring South American republics in the Gran Chaco, called upon the Justice Department to aid them. ‘There it was admitted that investi- gators are making a preliminary siudy of all the records , to determine whether, there has been a violation of the neutrality laws. If it is found that one has occurred, a thorough in- vestigation will be undlertaken at once. In the meantime, it is understood that the grounded men, each of whom has been notified by the Depaflmem] of Commerce that he is subject tc a| $500 fine for landing in Peru with- out permission, have arranged to nan- dle their case through one of their number, now believed to be on the way to the United States. Time May Be Extended. The men, among them four well | known in Washington, were granted 10 days in which to enter a delense“ against the action of the Commerce Department in grounding them and | subjecting them to fine. The 10-day period expires tomorrow. In view of their effort to conduct | a personal defense through their | representative, said to be Wayne Cannon, assistant navigator of the | “expedition,” the 10-day period prob- ably will be extended indefinitely to give him time to reach here from Lima. Cannon, it was said, was| granted diplomatic permission to | leave Lima and it was assumed he | would come directly to Washington. | The other members are expected to remain at Lima with their four TANIMANY FOLS FARLEY PROGRAM Coalition With Repubiicans Beats Bill to Reappor- tion State.. By the Associated Press. . ALBANY, N. Y, April I Tam- manv_Hall hurled fresh defiance at Gov. Lehman and Postmaster General | Farley today by helping the Republi- can minority defeat the Democratic bill for congressional reapportionment. The vote was 67 ayes to 76 noes. | ~As a result the session approached |its end with rumblings of a special session to come later and an unre- lenting fight between Tammany and the State and national administra- | tions. Although beaten for the time | beirg. Lehman and Farley are ex- | pected to press the fight after reform- ing their lines. Defeat Is Conceded. Temporarily conceding a Tammany victory, Gov. Lehman decided that so far as he was concerned the Legis- lature might adjourn tonight, as planned, and he would not interfere. But the lawmakers heard reports that they may be called back within a few weeks for a final showdown with Tammany on reapportionment. Three times the Tammany delega- tion in the Assembly has formed a ccalition with the Republican minor- ity to defeat reapportionment. Roosevelt Is Scored. Angered at the proposal to deprive Manhattan’s Democratic machine of 10 seats in the Legislature and three in Congress, Louis A. Cuvillier, leader of the Tammany delegation, on Thurs- day charged that President Roosevelt was seeking to wreck Tammany and nad ordered Gov. Lehman to have the reapportionment bills passed. Reapportionment was one of the two major points in his legislative program in which the governor was unsuccessful. The other was ratifica- tion of the Federal child labor amend- ment A bill for this purpose was defeated today in the Assembly by a vote of 35 ayes to 103 noes. DISMANTLE TYPEWRITER tion of women's clubs here today with | Erounded airplanes, said originally o TQ TAKE OUT PET SNAKE the cause of women.” ‘The charge was made by Mrs. Anne Leidendecker, president of the Los Angeles district, California Federation | of Business and Professional Women's Clubs. Mrs. Leidendecker said the actions of Secretary Perkins at her recent la- bor legislation conference in San Fran- cisco “proved her attitude toward women.” “We had a conference with Miss | Perkins, asking for her views on the | mendment before Congress which women in every field of work,” Mrs. | Leidendecker said. “We soon learned she believed women are not and never will be the equals of men and that we are biologically handicapped and must therefore suffer from protective legis- lation which discriminates against us.” | PARAMOUNT IS SUED FOR $444,000 DAMAGE State Theaters, Nebraska, Charges Conspiracy to Drive Firm Out of Business. By the Associated Press. LINCOLN, Nebr., April 13.—A suit for $444,000 damages under the Fed- eral anti-trust laws was filed in Fed- ters, Inc., against Paramount Pictures Corp., the Lincoln Theater Corp. and a dozen other movie firms. State Theaters, owned by G. L. Hooper and George F. Monroe, charged the major film companies of the United States and the Lincoln Theater | Corp. conspired to drive it out of SHOES FOR INHERIT THEIR. fim GENERATI ONS ¢ L FINE SHOEMAKING ® French, Shriner & Urner workman- ship — for over half a century the accepted model for fine shoemaking —has built into these Shriner shoes an entirely new standard of value 'way beyond their modest price. have been built to the order of Yhe‘ Bolivian government as bombard- ment airplanes for use in the Chaco war, . G. 0. P. Club to Meet. RIVERDALE, Md., April 13 (Spe- cial) —The Republican Club of the nineteenth district will meet Tuesday evening at the Riverdale Fire House. Councilman William C. Wedding, president, is extending an invitation to all Republicans of the district to Jain. TAILORE % s we ha ! By the Associated Press. BEAUMONT, Tex., April 13.—Em- ployes of a Beaumont typewriter shop gasped in relief today after complet- ing their most ticklish job—unravel- | ing & 39-inch kingsnake from the | mechanism of a portable typewriter. | The snake, pet of Miss E. Simpkins, | & school teacher, became entangled | while investigating the machine. She insisted that her pet be not injured in | removal, and it was necessary to | dismantle the typewriter. ve made in years... rk Clothes are recognized thru- out the land as the finest, most luxurious FRENCHSHRNERE TRNER 0urcmlmqra¢)¢mo)¢lsm'lmollz-w SALTZ BROTHERS Cyine Apparel for Gentlemen, 1541 F -sm‘£s1'. W. and authentically styled clothes for men produced. Now thru this new arrangement in price every man can enjoy their exclusive rich- ness, comfort, sterling qualities and the resultant way they ha ve of rendering satis- faction beyond all others. Here is the most interesting display in this city of fine quality fabrics, all hand tailored in the traditional Fashion Park manner. Other Fashion Park Suits—$40 to $65 Fashion Park Topcoats—$35 to $55 Charge accounts—with monthly settlement; or convenient 12-pay plan. The Mode—F at Eleventh ¢ A