Evening star. [volume], March 14, 1914, Page 5, Image 5

About Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
DEPICTS PERILS
ni on pole
Commander Evans Tells Geo
graphic Society of Scott's
Antarctic Expedition.
SPEAKER WAS WITHIN
145 MILES OF THE GOAL
Saved From Death by Heroiim ofj
Petty Officers?Calls Motor
Sledges Useless.
Commander E. R. G. R. Evans. British
royal navy, second in command of the
Scott Antarctic expedition of 1910. yes- [
terday afternoon and last night told j
for the firfct time in America how Capt. j
Scott attained the pole and perished j
with his companions on the return j
journey. The two lectures were de- ?
llvered at New Masonic Temple before j
members of the National Geographic
Society.
Commander Evans himself got to
within 145 miles of the south pole, lead- j
in* the last supporting party that
turned back there when Scott began
his final dash. He also would have |
perished had it not been for the stead
fastness and heroism of the two petty j
officers with him. Crean and Eashly, j
who dragged him to safety after he j
was found to be almost dying with j
scurvy, and after he had weakened the
possibility of his safe return to his j
base by giving up one of his men to
Scott on the flnai dash, so that the lat- j
ter might have a still better chance of !
reaching the pole.
Introduced by Gen. Greely.
Commander Evans was introduced to
the audience l>y Maj. Gen. A. W. Greely.
1". S. A., retired, whose expedition at
tained the farthest north of his day. and
who was at that time himself saved by
what explorers regard as a miracle as
great as the rescue of Evans. The latter
took occasion to note the achievements
of Gen. Greely in the frozen north, in
speaking of Oates. one of Scott's^com
panions on the final dash, who walked
forth to die alone when he became a
Handicap on the principal polar party.
<>ates.'* Commander Evans said,
proved in the south, as Gen. Greely did
i' the north, that so diers are able to
? oaipete with sailors in exploring."
Scott's letter to the public had said
he and his polar party if they had lived
>-ould ha v.* told "a tale to stir the blood
of Englishmen." and. in allusion to this,
? Jen. <iretiy slid, in introducing Com
.nandei Evans:
"As long as English literature shall en
dure, that wondrous letter of Scott's to
tht public, when he found he was to
die. and the still more wonderful self
sacrifice of Oates. will stand forth to
stir others of all nations to emulation.''
Calls Scot "My Leader.*'
Commander Evans adopted the use of
the phrases. "my leader" and "our leader"
in speaking of Scott. He made it a point
to be exact in giving credit to the va
rious iriembera of the expedition for the
work they had done, speaking of all of
them by name repeatedly, and devoted
but little time to the recital of his own
narrow escape.
"On January 4 the last supporting party
marched south to latitude 87 degrees and
?'4 minutes with the polar party, and
seeing that they were traveling rapidlv.
yet easily, we halted, shook hards all
around, and said good-bye. Up to this
time no traces of the successful Nor
wegians had been seen, and we all fondly
imagined that our flag would be the tirst
to fly at the south pole. We gave three
huge .cheers for the southern party as
they stepped ofT. and then turned our
sledge and commenced our homeward
inarch of nearly 800 miles. We frequent
ly looked back until we saw the last
of Capt. Scott and his four companions.
tiny black specks on the horizon, and
little did we think that we were the last
to see them alive, that our three cheers
were the last appreciation they would
ever know."
Not Uncharitable to Amundsen.
"Lady Scott has remarked on the mag
nificent spirit shown by her husband and
his four sepciall? selected tentmates,
when they kn<?w that Queen Alexandra's
tittle silk Uftion Jack had been anticipat
ed by the flag of another nation," con
tinued Commander Evans.
Scott and his companions had done
i.M-ir b* st, and never from one of them
.. an uncharitable remark. January
>? homeward march was commenced;
party had before them a distance of
o.er mm jnil? 8. Seaman Evans died Feb
ruai y 17, and then the bereaved little
* na pushed northward with tine per
wi-ance. although they must have i
krvwn by their gradually shortening |
marches that little hope of reaching their
winter quarters remained. In their later
slaves their marches dropped to three
miles a day. The temperature fell as they
advanced, and we find them recording a
temperature of 441.2 below zero one night.
Poor Oates' feet and hands were badly
frostbitten?he constantly appealed ^to
Wilson for advice. What should he do,
what could he do? Wilson could only an
swer, 'S.og on -Just slog on.' March 17,
which wak Oates' birthday, he walked
out to his Meat h in a noble endeavor to
save his three comrades beset with hard
ships, and as their dead leader wrote,
'It waa the act of a brave man and an
English gentleman.' "
"But for the Kallantry of Crean and
l^ashly," he said. "I should not have
been spared to tell you these things.
When it was fo-nd that I had been
stricken with scurvy I wanted to get on
a bit to be able to show them Mt.
Erebus, as I was the only one of the
three who knew navigation, and I felt
that if we could locate that landmark
they might win it. It was at this point
that the only disobedience known In the
whole expedition was found, I was
paralyzed from the waist down, and I
ordered Crean and Lashly to leave me
and push on ahead and endeavor to
send back or bring a rescue party. They
refused and strapped rne on a sledge and
pulled me for four days. Then Crean
pushed ahead, and I.ashly stayed be
hind to be with me until the end came.
Crean got to Hut Point, almost done,
and he brought the relief that enables
me to be here tonight."
Motor Sledg-es Useless.
? 'ommander Evans paid his compli
ments to the celebrated motor sledges
which caused so much comment in the
exploring world. He said they were
"horribly useless." He showed pictures
of them, taken by cinematograph, which
proved, he said, that there was "much
more stopping than going."
The audience showed by its applause
that it regarded all the pictures exhibited
as splendid. One striking view was of
New Year eve#at midnight, showing a
sunset effect in the pack ice. Another
was a Krotto. lighted by electricity, in
an iceberg. Smne flashlights were taken
on the expedition, one of them showing
a midwinter day at noon.
Leander Syme Fractures Wriit.
I zander Syme. sixteen years old. son of
Corporation Counsel Conrad Syme, this
morning fractured his right wrist while
cranking an automobile in front of Con
vention Hall. He was taken to Emer
gency Hospital, where Dr. W. H. Syme
i his uncle, set the fracture.
Piles Cared la ? ?? 14 Days.
Drugglkts refund money If PAZO OINTMENT
*slN to rure Itclilng. Blind, Bleeding or Frotrad
uiv Files. 4'lm application gives relief. Mt,
A SQUARE DEAL
FOR WOII
(Continued from First Page.)
Portland, ore.. 1* ?
Rochester. N. \ 1^.19
Denver. Col J? w
Louisville. Ky J?-'1?,
St. rani. Minn - 12 L"
iVlunibus, Ohio lo.r?
Toledo, Ohio
Oakland. Cal lj-jg
Atlanta. Ga 1I?*?
I Worcester. Mass -2=1
, Birmingham, Ala 5.C?
| Syracuse. N. Y 10.36
I New Haven. Conn 10. IS
Memphis. Teun
Scranton. Pa ?-*5
Richmond. Va -J.
Fati-rsoD. N. J
Omaha. Neb 16.0?
Fall Hirer. Mass 13.21*
Spokane, Wash
Day tan, Ohio
Gran?l Rapids. Mich
Nashville. Tenn JO-*2.
Bridgeport. Conn l^ lj
Ixnvell. Mans J2.81*
Cambridge. Mass 1JJ -;
San Antonio. Tex *Z.3o
New Bedford. Mass 1? ?
Hartford. Conn T^i
l>all??. Tex
Trenton. X. J
Albany. N. Y ?5'!r?
! Salt Lake City, Ltah
I Reading. Pa -*i??
Camden. N. J oViu
Springfield. Mass
Wash
Lynn. Mass "?2.,
l?es Moines. Iowa
Lawrence. Mass i-??'
Wilmington. Del *J.t?
Kansas City. Kan....'. if-J
Yonkers. N. fr Jo
Youngstown. Ohio
Houston. Tex
Fort Worth. Tex
Dnliitb. Minn So Ti.
Norfolk. Va if!.1,,
Oklahoma City. Okla
Schenectady. X.
Somerville. Mass
St. Joseph. Mo
rtlca. N. ?
Flizabeth. N. J
Waterbury. Conn " f?
Troy. N. Y
Akron. Ohio...... Jj-J"
Manchester. N. '"'AS*
Hoboken. N. J ..'To*
Wilkes-Barre. Fa "?**.
Erie. Pa
Kvansvllle. Ind JJ-??
Peoria. 111.......
Fort Wayne. Ind *1"
Harrisburg. Pa "?{("
Savannah. Ga u na#
Fast St. Louis. Ill
Jacksonville, Fla in"*M*
South Bend. Ind
Terre Haute. Ind X ?r..
Passaic. N. J V'H>*
Johnstown. Pa 1189*
Bayonne. X. J 14 o2*
Brockton. Mass
Portland, Me iiir*
Holyoke. Mass #21*
Charleston. S. 1?*7'?
Wichita, Kan
Allentown. Pa n'ao*
Springfield, 111 8 i*2*
Covington. Ky 9 19*
Altonna. Fa..... I1II".". m!!?
Paw tucket. R. I
Canton. ?"?i*
Mobile. Ala..... * 1<? "v*
Sarramento. Cal 12 81*
Sagiuaw, Mich n'ftS*
Sioux City. lo^'a-; 11 1*8*
Binghamton, N. 04*85
Atlantic City. N. J 14 2f?*
Rockford. 111.... 7*83*
Little Rock. Ark 8*31*
Augusta. Ga. . 10*87*
Springfield. Ohio 6 915*
Lancaster. Pa 11*83*
PueblO. Col ii'ro*
New Britain. Conn 1 *
Chattanooga, Tenn 7*01*
York. Pa ^
Maiden, Mass 11 17*
Berkeley. Cal <1 ?o*
Bay State. Mich ?'?J"
Haverhill, _ Mass 15^04*
Topeka, Kan 12*40*
Salem, Mass j4*j4?
Lincoln. Neb ir *??
Davenport. Iowa i4*o?*
El Paso. Tex.. L;A\
San Diego. Cal.... *, 9 30*
Tampa. Fla... 10*26*
McKeeaport. Pa 7 <?2*
Flint. Mich..... o"*>i*
Kaiatnazoo. Mich 10 22*
Raeine. Wis JV ^*
Superior, Wis q in.
Wheeling. Va 7 06*
Macon, Ga 29 30
Newton. Mass
Butte. Mont. 9*88*
Woonsocket, R. 1 0*61*
Montgomery. Ala 7*49*
Chester. Pa ,/ej*
Fltchbnrg, Mass 12*79*
Dubuque. Iowa ^09*
Galveston. Tex... 5 97*
West Ilotwken, N. J in"r,2*
New Castle. Pa 11*67*
Roanoke. Va ? * ? ? ? l80rt.
Elmira. V T. ? ? ? 7 57*
Huntington, W. Va -R1
East Orange. N. J 0 8J.
Knoxvllle, Tenn 0 S7*
Hamilton, Ohio 10 45*
Lexington, Ky 7*05*
Springfield. Mo 11 12*
Qulncy, 111... *1 J?.
Charlotte. N. H 05*
Joliet. HI.'*- * 19 49
Pasadena. Cal 1123*
Auburn. N. 14*56*
Everett, Mass q 27*
Decatur. III.. 524.
Portsmouth. Va ? ? ? ?-7o?
Perth Am boy, N. J........
Taunton. Mass 20 43
Ouincy. Mass Ti'?w>*
Lansinz. Mich
Plttsfield. Mass. 1". 53*
Cedar Rapids. Iowa
Oshkosh, wis I!!!!!!!! io!w>*
San Jose, Cal..... 9.08*
Amsterdam. V Y. !''I'.. 11.77*
Jamestown. N. 22 29
Mount Vernon. N. ?u*oO
Niagara Kali,. N. Y ~!*L
Jaekwrn. M loll - ? " if.
Wllllamsport. J-iA.
jopiin. mo ?r,T
Lima, onio 10 *?fi*
Muskogee, Okla 17*48
Chelsea, Mass...
New Rochelle, >. io^W
Aurora, III. ?->2*
Lorain. Ohio 11 72*
Austin, Tex 8 11*
Newport. Ky 10* S2*
Orange. N. * ^'99.
I.a Crosse, Wis If*"80
Lynchburg, Va 8*36*
Siireveport. La. moi*
Colorado Springs. Col ioVi?? I
Council Bluffs. Iowa
Of the l'.H cities, excluding W ashinK
ton. which exceed :??.00() in population,
the number whose per capita tax le^s
were less than that of Washington in 1M1_
Is 147; more than Washington. 4t. This
city's comparative per capita taxation
has increased relatively since 1'llO in
which year only 1? cities had smaller
per capita levies and Si cities exceeded it.
Cities of Smaller Tax Burden.
The cities in which the per capita tax
levy Is smaller than in Washington are:
Philadelphia, Pa.; Baltimore. Md.; New
Orleans, L>a.; Jersey City. N. J.; Seattle.
Wash.; Kansas City, Mo.; Indianapolis,
Ind.; LOuisvllle. Ky.; St. Paul. Minn.;
Columbus, Ohio; Toledo, Ohio; Atlanta,
Ga.; Worcester, Mass.; Birmingham,
Ala.; Memphis. Tenn.; Scranton. Pa.;
Paterson. N. J.; Fall River, Mass.; Spo
kane. Wash.; Dayton, Ohio; Grand Rap
ids Mich.; Nashville. Tenn.; Bridgeport,
Conn ' I.owell, Mass.; San Antonio, Tex.;
Trenton. N. J.: Salt Lake City. Utah;
Reading. Pa.; Camden, N. J.; Tacoma.
Wash.; I.ynn, Mass.: Lawrence, Mass.:
Wilmington, Del.; Kansas City, Kan.:
Youngstown, Ohio; Houston, Tex.; Port
Worth Tex.: Duluth, Minn; Norfolk, Va.:
Oklahoma City, Okla.: Schenectady, N.
Y* Somerville. Mass.; St. Joseph, Mo.:
rtlca. N. Y.; Elizabeth. N. J.; Waterbury,
ronn ? Akron Ohio: Manchester. N. H.:
Hoboken. N. J.; Wilkes-Barre, Pa.; Brie.
Pa Bvansville. Ind.; Fort Wayne. Ind.;
Harrisburg, Pa.; Savannah, Ga.; East St.
Ixmls. 111.; Jacksonville, Fla.; South
Bend.' Ind.: Terre Haute. Ind.: Passaic,
N J.': Johnstown. Pa.; Bayonne, N. J.;
Brockton, Mass.: Holyoke, Mass.;
Charleston. S. C.; Allentown. Pa.: Spring
field 111.; Covington. Ky.; Altoona, Pa.;
Ala' Saginaw. Mich".; Sioux City. la-:
Binghamton. N. Y.; Rockford, 111.; Little
Hock Ark.: Augusta, Ga.: Springfield.
Ohio-' Lancaster. Pa.: Pueblo. Col.: New
Britain Conn.: Chattanooga. Tenn.; York,
Pa ' Maiden, Mass.; Berkeley. Cal.; Bay
City Mich.: Haverhill. Mass.; Topeka,
Kan'' Salem, Mass.; Lincoln, Neb.; Dav
enoort Iowa: El Paso. Tex.: Tampa.
Fla" McKeesport. Pa.: Flint. Mich.;
Kalamazoo. Mich.; Racine. Wis.: Su
perior Wis.: Wheeling, W. Va.: Macon,
Ga ' Butte. Mont.; Woonsocket. R. I.;
Montgomery, Ala.: Chester. Pa ; Fitch
burg Mass.: Dubuque. Iowa; Galves
ton fex.; West Hoboken. N. J.; New
Cns'tle Pa.; Roanoke, Va.; Elmira, N.
Y ? Huntington. W. Va.: Knoxville,
Tenn ? Hamilton, Ohio: Lexington. Ky.;
Soring Held. Mo.; Qulncy. 111.; Charlotte.
N C.; Joliet. 111.; Auburn. N. Y.; Ever
ett Mass.; Decatur, 111.; Portsmouth. Va.:
Perth Amboy. N. J.: Taunton. Mass.;
Tjtnslng, Mich.; Pittsfield, Mass.; Cedar
Rapids, Iowa; Oshkosh, Wis.: San Jose.
Cal ? Amsterdam, N. Y.: Jamestown, N.
Y - Jackson. Mich.: Wllllamsport, Pa.;
Joplin. Mo.; Lima, Ohio; Muskogee.
Okla.*. Aurora, III.; Lorain, Ohio; Aus
tin. Ter.: Newport, Ky.; Orange, N. J.:
La Crosse. Wis.; Shreveport, L?l; Col
vado Springs, Col.: Council Bluffs. Iowa.
The following cltie* have per capita tax
levies within $2 of Washington: that is,
not exceeding $17.73: Chicago. Si. Louis,
Cleveland, Milwaukee. Los Angeles. Min
neapolis. Providence. Rochester. Oakland.
CaJ.; Syracuse, New Haven. Richmond,
I Omaha. New Bedford, Dallas, Albany,
(Des Moines. Peoria. Wichita, East
Orange, Chelsea and Lynchburg.
PER CAPITA TAX LEVY CLASSIFICATION.
Cities with per capita less than $10 50
Cities wltfh per capita between $10 and ?15.. 86
Cities with per capita between $15 and $20.. 44
'Washington's class).
Cities with per capita between $20 and $25.. 10
Cities with per capita over $25 5
195
The per capita tax levies are not hign
or low In accordance with population of
the city. The high levies are scattered
through the list. The five highest are
Boston, New York. Newton. Mass.
(population, 41,195); New Rochelle. N. Y.
(population. 32,029). and Pittsburgh.
The following table gives the compara
tive per capita tax levies of some cities
approximating Washington in size, with
the addition of the much larger neigh
boring cities of Baltimore and Philadel
phia:
Philadelphia 14.30 Minneapolis 17.60
Baltimore 15..V. Jersey City 11>.69
Detroit 19.22 Kansas City... 15.47
Buffalo 21.45 Seattle 15.53
Milwaukee 17.14 Indianapolis 14.04
Newark IS.54 providence 10.89
New Orleans 14.78 Louisville 15.02
Wanblngrton... 15.75 St. Paul 12.17
city figures by the census compilers In
figuring the comparative tax-burdens of
the respective cities.
The census bulletin, giving the statis
tics of 1912. explains the inclusion of the
county tax figures as follows: "Of the
independent local governmental units or
divisions other than the city corpora
tions whose receipts and payments are
included in this bulletin the school dis
tricts are the most important and most
numerous. * ? ? For ten of the eighteen
cities having over 300.000 inhabitants a
percentage of the receipts and payments
of the counties in which the respective
cities are located, based on the ratio
between the assessed valuation of the
city and that of the county, has been in
cluded. with those for 'other divisions of
city government.' This treatment is de
sirable because in the remaining cities
of groups I and II the original county
organization has been merged with that
of the city. The addition of the county j
figures places the cities of groups I and j
II on a more nearly comparable basis,
than would otherwise be the case. The:
cities of groups I and II for which a per
centage of the county receipts and pay- j
ments has thus been added to the city j
figures are Chicago, Cleveland, Pitts
burgh. Detroit, Buffalo, Milwaukee, Cin
cinnati. Newark, Los Angeles and Minne
apolis."
The eight other cities in which the city
and county taxes are merged are New
Southern and Southwestern Cities (1912.)
Assess,
basis.
50
(Hi 2-3
So
100
St. Louis
Kansas City ..
WanhinsTton
New Orleans .
Louisville
Atlanta
Birmingham
Memphis
Richmond
San Antonio ..
Baltimore
Pop. 1912.
712.027
265.977
. 342.778
350, f ?5
229.323
167.041
150.249
137,469
131,45.".
106,2!'5
569.56* >
Realty,
assess.
$441,854,410
113.513.040
330.322.4S7
W7.177.355
123.S83.099
1O7.942.043
65.221,080
S3.160.560
85.932.370
88.674.175
372,651,502
Per cap.
total assess.
$916.06
672.32
1.050.05
671.71
S39.06
926.88
5P.6 52
803.96
1,131.73
834.23
1.270.81
Total Per cap.
tax levy, tax levy.
$12,354,918 $17.37
4,115.595
5.39S?9S4
5.182.421
3,444.226
1.935,344
851,196
1.746,205
2,082,763
1.312,498
8,843,005
15 47
15.75
14.7S
1502
11.59
5.67
12.70
15.84
12.35
15 53
The above table compares Washington with other southern cities in basis
of assessment, population, actual realty assessment, per capita total assessment
(real and personal), total tax levy and per capita tax levy. The figures are
interesting and suggestive. Of all these southern cities Baltimore is the only
oae which claims a full valuation on the 100% basis -for its realty assessments.
Only St. Louis and Richmond slightly exceed Washington in per capita tax levy,
and all the others fall below it.
Washington and Cleveland.
Basis. Rate.
Washington (1910> 66% 15
Washington ?1912> 66^ 15
Washington <19121 (raised to 100#).. 100 1"?
Cleveland (1012) 100 13.15
Cleveland (1910) 60 33.56
Per cap. Total Per rap.
Realty asses, total asses, tax levy, tax levy.
$285,153,771 $937.41 $4,655,192 $14.06
330.322.487 1.050.05 5.398.984 15.75
495.483.730 1,531.88 7,876,402 22.97
518.552.210 1,267.79 10.019.807 16.78
201,505,120 490.44 9,228.210 16.46
The above comparisons ?f j?? "?*
?^rLd?S^STrfTnu"e9SlfrJecdause
Cleveland had In the interval between
SSK
noted, r.nev^8e.hafUrwhi.e C^ve.and
raised Its basis of assess)men't and en
larged by many millions its figures
den. represented by ^.h?h.P" xC^fs while
levy. Increased very Blightly- . ' He,i
Cleveland's realty assessment increased
from $Ml.n03.130 in 1?1? to J ,1b ^2,-lO^n
1912. its tax rate was radically
sSSS5fSs%s.ffs
actual tax bufden than in the case of
^Thl'johnaon-Pronty propo.ltloB l^to
.dopt the George Pr?P???>
land incrcMf in re?lty aawr
without making a Cleveland dee^??
In tax rate, and to Impose In addit"o?
a drastic tax on intangible
*Ufc the result of m-ch -.re than
doubling the per enpltn ?n*?7J; _h|nB_
,o^^?mJ^re8nt7^j/i-a
m~msm
Washington's assessment and tax ev>
would make the ii.
larger than that of anj other cn>
% W?'??x levy were Increased
on" by raising the standard of
^pl^Tax*evy?would be larger than that
Sdhj? ffi W
thietLmaydlStaoTinterest to figure what
?5* proTosed^'
r',heK cPaZ?aign ^Va^ln^
First there is the actual (1?12) per capita
levy of $15.75. Then if the realty as
sessment is raised from 08% Per cent to
1(10 per cent without reduction of the tax
rate there results a ^?*p"ftJ^Per
J'" ?7 The Browne-George per
!7p?ta fon which the George bin Is based)
Is $3:t.N?. The per capita imposed byRep
resentative Crisp's figures (on which the
Johnson-Prouty proposal is baaed) is
rn?l Mr. H. J. Browne figures (1814) a
slng'e tax levy of $15,000.<HH). and Repre
sentative Boriand a composite tax levy
of the same amount The ^ ^tmre
under their proposals is *^;45-Kepre
tentative Prouty's per capita
posed in the recent Joint debate, isi WA'
The following table shows the detail of
these figures:
WASHINGTON, 1912?ACTUAL AND SI'&'ULA
TIVE PER CAPITA LEVIES.
Total Per cap.
pop. tax levy, tax levy.
\ctual levy. 1912.. 342J7G |5.39M>84
At fuU valuation. 7.87?.402 22.1*7
IS II
Itrowne (single tax), 44 i&,000,000 42.45
i#,?w,?>o ??
Compare these speculative proposed tax
levies with those actually "nposed
throughout the United States. Appl ed o
resourceless Washington they are clearl>
bankrupting and confiscatory. .
Questioning the fairness of these com
parisons of per capita tax levy objectio
is raised that the census figures do not ,
take into account county and s*ate as ,
well as city taxes. a.*d that \\ ashington.
which has no county or state taxes, bene
fits by this omission.
la) The cennua per capita tax levy
.w, take county taxm into the cal
eolation la the eighteen lar*e?t cltlen
of the United State., where the county
la either Identical with the city, or
where the city la >o nearly the whole
connty aa to make county tax"
substance city taxes, and to mrite the
eltv tuxonyera dominate and become
approximately the connty taxpayer-,
(b) In moat other cltiea the connty
percentage of addltloaal tax levy
be Hmall, judgiBK by Inference from the
addition* on thla acc?uat In the caae
of the great cltiea. And whet* tne
city la a mere minority fraction of the
county, no that the contrlbutora to the
Guilty fond outalde of the city are nu
mert.ua. and the area of "?
county fund much greater thaa the ar*
thp city, the name conwlderatlona
nnerate to render unaultable and mis
leading the injection of coanty
into the comparison, as nppl} to bar
injection of atnte taxe. Into the cun
iTin .O There la ?o good renaon
whatever why atnte tnxea should be
considered In thla calculation any more
than national taxca.
County Taxes in 1912 Census.
When Washington Is shown to be
heavily taxed by a comparison of its cen
sus figures with those of the other cities
of its class, the attempt Is made to slur
this showing by the claim that only city
taxes are compared In the eensus bulle
tins. and that county taxes, which Wash
ington does not have to bear, must be
added to the per capita tax levy of the
other cities, in order that there may be a
fair comparison of tax burdens. In the
House debates on the subject it haB been
asserted In the face of the showing made
hv the census, that Washington is the
Ugh test taxed city In the >'nlted States
on account of this alleged ignoring of
count? taxation in the census compari
""But in the census bulletin recently pub
lished giving the figures of 1912, county
axatl'on enters into the calculation In the
cities of Washington's class. Jhe theory
that county taxation must be added to
the census figures of all other cities than
Washington to render fair Intercity com
parisons falls to the ground. In eight of
these eighteen cities (Washington and
seven others) the county and city or
ganizations are merged. In the ten oth
cities a proper percentage of county
receipt* ^nd ^ymenU U added to the
York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Boston,
Baltimore, San Francisco. New Orleans
I and Washington.
No State Taxation.
It has also been suggested that this
showing of municipal taxation does not
take into account the state taxation
borne by residents of the cities with
which Washington has been compared.
In measuring city tax burdens to ascer
tain whether the Washingtonian is or is
not reasonably taxed the figures of the,
census bulletin giving the statistics of j
195 American cities exceeding 30,000 in !
population are used. These figures for I
cities with which Washington's taxes 1
are compared include tax levies not only j
by the city corporation, but by school j
districts and by the counties in which
large cities are situated, and include not
only general property taxes (real and per
sonal), but special property taxes and poll
taxes. If state taxation is not included,
who has reason to complain?
The suggestion that state taxes paid by
other Americans and not paid by the
Washingtonians should enter into the cal
culation and comparison is unsound and
unjust. Why should Washington, enjoy
ing none of the rights and privileges of
a state, maintaining no legislature to dis
burse funds of its own raising for its
own benefit, not associated in bonds of
statehood interest and sympathy with'
thousands of other Americans spread over
a large area and joint contributors in
the common interest to- a tax fund to be
spent in this larger area in developing
and upholding the honor, dignity and j
credit of an American commonwealth, be i
viewed as properly chargeable with the j
expenses incident to the enjoyment of i
these rights and privileges? Why should I
not the contributions of state citizens
for benefits and privileges which the
Washingtonian does not enjoy be disre
garded in a fair comparison of tax bur
dens and per capita tax levies?
The District has been pronounced a
state under a treaty with France, a con
struction conferring privileges on aliens,
but not a state under the Constitution,
whose people can sue in the federal
courts. The District is a state when di
rect taxes are to be collected, but not a
state when representatives are apportion
ed, though the Constitution couples the
two things. The District is not a state to
make and carry out through a state leg
islature laws for its own benefit, but it
is now reproached on the assumption that
It escapes the tax burden incident to the
exercise of this privilege of a state.
In comparing: the Washingtonian**
tax burden with that of the taxpayer
of another city It Is possible and It In
fair only to compare the local munici
pal taxed, constituting; a fund to which
only the city taxpayer*! contribute, and
which Is Kpent exclusively in the city
and for municipal purposes. In this
comparison county taxes do not figure
unless the city and county are Identical,
or approximately Identical, or the city
Is so large a part of the county that
the nominal county receipts and pay- j
ments are mainly city receipts and pay- I
ments; and state taxes do not enter |
Into the calculation at all. The city tax,
the county tax and the state tax stand
each on its own bottom. They are |
separate and distinct In personnel off
contributors, In purpose of creation. In
scope of distribution. Washington has
not the benefit of outside contribu
tions to a county tax, or to a state tax
In the enjoyment of which It partici
pate*. It has no county or state rela
tions or privileges or benefits.
i he Congress of the United States cor
responds in the case of the District to a
state legislature, and consequently state
taxes are in its case merged in its na
tional taxation.
When Washington is part of a state and
enjoys the expenditure within It of its
due share of the state tund to which
thousands of state citizens outside of its
limits contribute it will b* time to per
mit state taxation to enter Into its com
parative per capita tax figures. When
Washingtonians are like Baltlmoreans,
Marylanders again with all the Maryland
ers' rights and privileges as cltisens of a
state, it will be time to Charge against
the Washingtonian in comparison with
the Baltimorean the state tax which the
latter pays not as a Baltimorean but as
a Mary lander. When Washington has
senators, representatives a))d a state leg
islature it will be time tor it to pay for
such luxuries in the shape i>f a state tax.
Municipal taxation, state taxation and
national taxation must logically and fair
ly be compared separately in the different
cities. Municipal per capita tlgures of
the census bulletin are, therefore, prop
erly compared unaffected by considera
tion of either state or national (as. for
instance, internal revenue| tax-burdens.
National Taxatjion.
In an earlier letter Washington's partici
pation in national taxes oh equal terms
with other American citiei* is described.
The Washingtonian pays the same na
tional taxeB that every ovher American
pays. It is sometime? said that the
Washingtonian pays $1S annually (per
capita) toward capital-makiii.r. while other
Americans contribute per capita about 6
cento. But the Washlngtorian's real fig
ure is $18.06, for he contributes both as a
Washingtonian and as an American. He is
the only one who pays on both sides of
the account and he Is the only one who
has nothing to say on either side of the
account. Just as the congressman's out
raged constituent contributes, theoreti
cally, his 6 cents ann.tally to enable the
nation to meet Its obligation In respect
to the nation's city, so the Washingtonian
contributes his full shar?? in national
taxes to enable the natioii to pay the
congressman's salary, to erect an ex
pensive federal building in. the congress
man's little home town, anjd to cause by
appropriate irrigation a: "navigable"
stream to flow down the dry bed of the
congressman's home creek.:
, In another letter" the real taxpayers of
national taxes are sought :and it is dis
I covered that not even the average 6 cents
per year is paid for capital maintenance
by the outraged constituent of the con
gressmen most vigorous in protest against
this national contribution.
Does not the Washingtonian pay enough
both In national and local taxes? Is he
in any respect favored by the legislative
body, which, not chosen by him. decides
for him all questions of ciqultable taxa
tion?
Corporation Tax Nov in Levy.
As an offset to the objection that
county taxes do not In the case of some
of the cities enter Into the census cal
culation of tax levy Is the fact that
taxes Imposed upon the ?ross incomes
of public service corporations, hanks, I
etc., In lieu of personal taxes are not
considered In calculating the per capita
tax levy.. This kind of tax Is con
spicuously heavy In Washington. It
shoiild equitably be treat'ed as part of
the personal tax and figure In the per
capita tax levy.
Assistant Assessor Oyster has analyzed
the per capita tax levy figures of the
various cities. According to his calcula
tions the part of the personalty tax which
is derived from the public utility corpora
tions, bankri, trust companies, etc.. and
which dees not enter into t"he census per
capita tax levy is greater *n the case of
Washington than the part of the personal
tax which does enter into tiie census cal
culation. His figures concerning Wash
ington are:
Per capita tax?Real estate...... $14.45
Personalty ? ? ? -r 1-3U
Census total : $15.75
Banks, gas company, street railroads, etc.. 2.01
$17.76
Mr. Oyster's figures corroborate what I
have said as to the heavy realty tax im
posed on Washington compared with that
of other cities. Here are scime of the per
capita realty tax levies in various cities:
Washington, $14.45; St. ?x>uis, til.75;
Cleveland, $11.42; Detroit, $*3.47; Milwau
kee, $13.74; Cincinnati. $13.03; Denver,
$13.27; Omaha, $11.06; Los Angeles. $13.67;
New Orleans, $10.48; Seattle, $12.88, and
Providence. $10.74.
If Washington's personal tax, omitting
the corporation personal t*ix, is lighter
than that of many cities, it* realty tax is
correspondingly heavier. TThe total tax
levy, combining realty atjd personalty
tax, averages high amobff American ;
cities. Its personal tax ought not to be j
increased as proposed by .the Johnson- j
Prouty amendment, unless- its excessive
realty tax is correspondingly diminished. .
Between Mr. George on one? s'de and Mr. '
Johnson and Mr. Prouty ;on the other
Washington is threatened with a heavy ;
increase of bpth real and personal tax '
levy, raising the total per capita tax levy, ,
as we have seen, to a starting total.
Uncle Sam Not in Tax Levy. j
In another respect the comparison of '
the census per capita tax; levies Is not
fair to Washington. account Is
taken In the calculation of the heavy
taxable values held exempt from tax
ation by the United States, on which
as a quasi taxpayer I ncl? Sam pays a
six-mftlllon-dollar subvention In lieu of
] The Most for the Money.
67,000 H". P. (Homspower)
Back of every announcement
In The Evening Star,
"The Home Paper."
1 ?i
A Place in the Suburbs
Adds to the Joy of Living
Already the Suburban Property
column of The Star gives signs of
approaching spring.
It will pay you to watch this col
umn on the Want Ad pages of The
Star daily, as the best propositions are
taken quickest. j
READ THE FARMS COLUMN
taxes. If oaly a part of this sabvea
tloa la viewed an repreaeattag realty
vplaea onaed >y the Halted State* aai
wlthdrawa front the aaaeaameat roll
aad tax list, the addltloa of thin part
of the faad to - the total tax levy la
caleulatlaK the per eaplta tax levy
would Novell the latter to aa uabear
ably bardeaaome flgsre.
In comparing the per capita tax levy
of Washington with that of other cities
it is to be considered that the contribu
tion in lieu of taxes of the largest (quasi?
taxpayer is. in Washington's case, omit
ted from the calculation. It is as if the
steel trust and other great plant-owning
corporations were omitted from the tux
levy of Pittsburgh. If l"ncle Sam was
treated in the calculation as a single tax
payer. his tax contribution added to the
levy and his own name added to the pop
ulation. Washington's per capita would
be doubled, amounting to $31.50, a greater
per capita than that of any other city
In the United States, more than doubling
Philadelphia, Baltimore and New Or
leans. and nearly doubling Chicago, Cleve
land and Milwaukee.
There is no way of handling the ques
tion which makes it fair to omit from the
Washington calculation of per capita con
tribution all consideration of the amount
paid in by the largest property owner and
quasi taxpayer.
Eliminate the government's exempted
property from consideration and what is
there of property and resources in the re
maining fraction of Washington to cause
it or to enable It to bear a high per
capita of tax burden? What has it of
business property values to make it com
pare favorably with much smaller Ameri
can cities? Its mills, its factories, its
great plants (so far aa they exist) are in
the government's exempted fraction of
the city and do not count In the local as
sessment and tax levy. Then there is the
third of the population colored and an
extraordinarily large percentage of tran
sients and non-taxpayers. How much per
capita of ta^ levy could Philadelphia.
Baltimore .or New Orleans or Chicago,
Cleveland or Milwaukee or Buffalo, Cin
cinnati or Detroit afford to pay if its
largest taxpayers, the owners of its mills,
the manufacturing plants, etc., were
omitted from the calculation and a third
of its population was colored?
Not one of these cities has so large a
percentage of floating non-taxpaying pop
ulation as the capital, with its one-third
negro population and its thousands of
temporary visitors and the government
employes, and this non-taxpaying popu
lation reduces the nominal per capita tax
levy without reducing it In fact by cash
contributions. Not one of the cities enu
merated has so few money-making re
sources in manufactures, trade and com
merce, In proportion to its population, to
meet this drain of taxation.
Clearly Washington's tax levy not only
averages up in actual figures with those
of other American cities, but for the rea
lon stated it must be doubled in order to
make a fair comparison with other cities,
and even without this doubling its tax
burden is, owing to its peculiar condi
tions, harder to be borne than that of
any other municipality with approximate
ly the same census figures of tax levy.
AFTER KOBE MONEY.
Another Race Track Bill Introduced
at Annapolis Adds 1 Per Cent.
ANNAPOLIS, MD? March 14.?Fo'low
ing the killing recently by the senate of
the Williams bill to abolish the Harford
county racing commission and wipe out
betting at the Havre de Grace track Del
egate Noble Mitchell of Harford intro
duced a bill in line with racing legisla
tion in France. The bill is to compel the
Havre de Grace track to turn over 1 per
cent of the gross receipts taken in at its
meeting to the Harford county officials,
to be used toward the maintenance of
the Havre de Grace Hospital.
The proposed law means that instead of
5 per cent being deducted from the re
ceipts the amount shall be raised to W
per cent. Five per cent is now deducted
for maintenance of tjarford highways.
By taking its stand in regard to the
Williams bill, it is said, the senate did
not mean to demonstrate opposition to all
legislation restricting track betting. In
stead it was thought better not to favor
ably consider any individual anti-betting
or restriction bills until reports are ready
on stE*e-wide measures.
Railroad Must Dispose of
Sound Steamship Lines, Say
Government Attorneys.
Department of Justice attorneys in
charge of the New Haven dissolution, at
their conference today with the road's
counsel, revised their demand that the
New Haven prepare to get rid of its so
called Sound steamship lines. The de
mand came as a surprise to New Haven
officials and to officials of the department
itself not directly connected with the ne
gotiations.
The announcement several weeks ago
by Chairman Howard Elliott that the
railroad and the department had "agreed
to agree" declared that the New Haven
should rid itself of its outside steamship
lines, but said plainly that determination
of the Sound lines question should be left
to the interstate commerce commission.
Under the Panama canal act no railroad
is permitted without the commission's
authority to own and operate steamship
lines after July 1.
Obstacles More Serious.
The new development did not tend to
clarify the situation, and it became more
evident that the obstacles in the path of
a complete understanding are growing
more serious as the negotiations ^continue.
Although no official explanation of thts
new demand by the department was
forthcoming, it was understood that j
T. W. Gregory and Jesse O. Adklns. the
government attorneys in charge of the !
case, feel that provision for the disposi- ,
tion of the sound lines is necessary to
their side of the case.
In the bill prepared by Mr. Gregory for
suit under the Sherman act against the
New Haven the sound' lines were includ
ed as prominent factors in the New
Haven's alleged monopoly of the New
England transportation field. The de
partment is said to take the attitude that
it can do no less in an amicable adjust
ment of the case than it would have at
tempted to do through the courts. If the
interstate commerce commission decides
that the New Haven can lawfully retain
the sound lines the department probably
( would be satisfied and its skirts would be
: clear.
Disposition of Docks.
j Involved In the question is the disposi
tion of many of the wharves and docks
owned by the New Haven In sound citie
such as New Haven, Bridgeport, Vail
River, New Bedford and Providence.
Many of these properties are said to be
of little value to the New Haven and
others have been for sale for years.
The argument against their sale was
made by E. G. Buckland. vice president
of the road, who said these properties
were owned in fee and that forced sal?-s
would lead to material losses by NVw
Haven stockholders. He denied that
their ownership by the New Hav? ti
gave the road a monopoly of the water
frontage and a monopoly of the water
commerce of New England.
He called attention to the fart that
the New Haven had made many offers
to sell certain of these properties, but
had been unable to secure what it con
sidered fair offers.
Odd Fellows' Get-Together Meeting.
Special Oorresj?ondeii?e of The Star.
HYATT8VILX.E, March 14, lt?U.
Oriole Ix>dge. No. 47, I. O. O. P., held a
get-together meeting Thursday evening.
Following a brief session of the lodge
visitors inspected the premises and later
partook of a feast. Brief addresses wers
made by William H. Anglln, master of
ceremonies; William A. Shepherd, deputj'
grand master; D. W. Corkins, noble
grand; Frederick Johnstone Edward A.
Puller. Fred I>. Tillman. Dr. Robert H.
Johnstone, Capt. O. A. Greager. Edward
Devlin, J. Frank Ldllard, W. I,odge
and T. Howard Duckett.
YOU Can't Win
Out in the frame of life unless you
have grit- and grit's only another term
for health.
' Royal Pilsen" and
(light)
"Old Glory" Beer
il)arki
- are beverages of proven worth as
TONICS. They'll irtve you th.
strength, the stamina, to "make
good" at your daily ta.?kn.
TWO DOZ. bottles
$1-25
Abner-Drury Brewing Co.,
25th at F N.W. Phone West 435-6
Brewer* of "Proitreimlve Brevr.**
The Tempcrance Food-Brink.
J. E. Weisman & Sons
Established 1888
Beg to announce opening of a stand in Center
Market. Most complete line of Salt and Smoked
Fish in the city. We prepare personally all our
Fish in the most sanitary plant south of New
York.
We also have stands In Klgm
and O Street Markets
am mmmmamm 11 i ii'ii 'in 'ii i i1 "i ii imiiMSiiiimiiiiii1 hi ir
Subscription Books Will Remain Open
Until Tuesday, March 17, at 3 O'Clock.
In order to distribute the shares of this bank to as many of
our business men and citizens as is deemed practicable, and
thereby have a greater number of friends of the bank who arc
directly interested in its success, the subscription books will
remain open until the close of business Tuesday, March 17.
1914. ?
There is no question that the entire capital stock will be
subscribed for. What the management desires is to have A
LARGE NUMBER OF SHAREHOLDERS owning from
one to twenty shares, rather than a fewer number with larger
holdings. This condition always makes for the greater suc
cess of a financial institution.
With'$lOO per share going to capital and $25 per share to
surplus, the bank will have, when subscriptions are fully
paid, a capital of $250,000.00 and a surplus of $62,500.00,
besides A PROFITABLE LINE OF BUSINESS TO
START WITH- AND DEPOSITS IN EXCESS OF
$1,100,000.00.
Perhaps no other bank i
ness under such favorable o
ing of this bank.
Washington ever began busi
mditions as will mark the open
Franklin National Bank
Cor. 10th Street and P
ennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Authorized Capital, $250,000.00
Deposits, Over $1,100,000.00