Evening star. [volume], December 15, 1931, Page A-6, Image 6

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

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
I TEXT OF REPORT BY MAPES COMMITTEE ON FISCAL RELATIONS I
I _
THE report of the Mapes Com
mittee and of the minority views
of Fenresentative Frear of Wis
consin follow, in part:
Soon after its appointment, be
ginning December 3. 1930. and ending
December 20. 1930. the committee held
public hearings, at which representa
tives cf various civic organization* and
public officials of the District of Colum
bia and others who desired to do so
appeared before the committee and pre
sented their views a* to what they re
specttvelv ccnsidered to be a solution
of the problem of the fiscal relations
between the United States and the Dis
trict of Columbia.
For the purpose of aiding the com
mittee in its work it engaged the serv
ices of George T,ord of Detroit, w'ho has
had many year.-' experience in tax re
search work and who enjoys a national
reputation in the field of taxation.
* * * A questionnaire was prepared
and sent to cities in the Unit’d -Stales
of comparable size with the District of
Columbia, ranging in population from
282,981 to 900.429. asking for detailed
information concerning the taxati-n of
the various forms of taxable property
within their respective jurisdiction.
• * *
History of Fiscal Relation*.
The governmental set-up of the Dis
trict. of Columbia is unlike that of anv
other city in the United States, and. so
far as this committee knows, it is un
like that of any other in th? world.
The constitutional provision requiring
Congress “to exorcise legisladtn in ail
rases whatsoever over, such Di. trict
• * * as may * * * become th°
seat of the Government of the United
States" has led, starting almoet from
the beginning, to oonstant controversy
b'th as to the form of the government
of the District and es to how the ex
penses of the District government
should b? mrt. what proportion of them,
if am. should be borne by the Federal
Government and what prop'rtion cf
them should be born? by the people and
the privately owned property within the
District.
AS siaieu u> Aryan in ins rnaruiy
of the National Capital" The decade
that came to an end In the early thir
ties * * * was * * * marked bv an
almost continuous agitation for a
change in the government.” ill Bryan,
150i.
This agitation In varying degrees of
Intensity has continued down to the
present time.
Front time to time, as different phases
of the controvers'. have became acute,
committees of Congress have been ap
pointed to investigate ana report upon
them. Th* reports of these various
committees have, each in its turn, had
a tendency to quiet the agitation for a
time, but only for a time.
Comparative Taxes Studied.
There is little that can be said about
the relationship between the Federal
and District governments that has not
already been said bv one or another of
these various committees. * * * In
undertaking the task assigned it. how
ever, the committee d'd feel that no
thorough and satisfactory study had
ever been made of the comparative tax
burden of the people within the District
with these who live in other cities of
comparable sire and advantages, and
that such a study should be made In
order to determine what would be a
fair and just tax for tbp people of the
District to pay. It therefore sets out
to make such a study.
Up to the time of the adoption of
the present form of government for the
District in 1878 there had never been
any uniform or consistent policy as far
as making contributions bv the Federal
Government, to the expenses of the gov
ernment of the City of Washington or
of the District of Columbia is concerned.
* • * Since 1871 the City of Wash
ington and the District of Columbia
have been one and the same. or. to be
entirely accurate, since that date there
has bpen no such legal entity as the
City of Washington. There has been
only the District of Columbia. The
Federal Government never contributed
to the expenses of anv of th“ other
governmental units in the District ex
cept the City of Washington, and never
adoptpd am uniform or consistent pol
icy of making contributions to the City
of. Washington until the adoption of the
present form of government for the
District in 1878. Some years it con
tributed liberally, some years sparingly
and some years not at all.
The Poland report, submitted to the
House from the Committee on the Judi
ciary in 1874. referring to the question
"whether some accurately refined basis
of expenditure cannot be prescribed and
maintained by law," declared: “There
never has been since the location of the
Capital at this place anv consistency,
or even intelligence, in the adjustment
of these expenditures."
Southard Report Quoted.
The government of thp City of Wash
ington, and later the District of Co
lumbia, has never been very successful
in the management of its finances when
left to its own devices. As early as
February 2, 1835, the Southard report
declared:
“The city js involved in pecuniary ob
ligations. from which it is utterly Impos
sible that it ran be relieved by any
means within its own control, or by any
exertions which it may make, unaided
by congressional legislation."
On June 16, 1874. the Allison report
Stated:
“The testimony discloses that the
. District treasury is p-actically exhaust
; er in all its departments."
Referring to the territorial form of
government with a delegate in Con
gress, which had been in effect for
three years, the ,«me report declared:
“Your committpp have unanimously
arrived at the conclusion that the
existing form of government of the
District is a failure."
In this connection, and in view of
the present agitation of seine of the
people of the District for the ballot,
It may not be out of place to call at
tention to the experiences of the Dis
trict when the people in it exercised
the right to vote,
i Here follow excerpts from “Wash
ington A Not Too Serious History”
by George Rnthweil Brown, describing
the riots of 1857 and of 1852.)
As stated in the Southard report of
1835- “The design of the Constitution
and its founders was to create a res
idence for the Government where they
should be regulated and governed by
♦hem without the interference of par
tial interests In the States, which
should have absolute and unlimited con
trol, which should be regulated and gov
erned by them without'the interference
of partial Interests in the States, which
should bp built up and sustained by
their authority and resources, not de
pendent upon the will or resources of
env state or local interest." ,
And again in the report of the Joint
Committee of Congres in 1915—“This
was the great plan conceived by the
fathers of the Government, the wisdom
of tvhich grows more and more appar
ent with the coming and going of the
■ years.”
!l Present Form Adopted in 1878.
The Joint Select Committee of Con
fess. of which Senator Morrill, of j
i Mfcine, was the chairman, reported in
1874: “The committee recommends as
b*8t calculated to avoid a repetition
pt ,the errors and short-comings of the
i and to promote the Interests of
njl who are or may be in any way
- connected or associated with the na
, tinhal capital in the future, that Con
i' gfrtss exercise that exclusive legists
r tipn over the District with which it is
& Invested by the Constitution, and pro
r S'We for the general superintendence
or its affairs and the enforcement of
the laws through officers and agents
directly amenable to the supreme ex
ecutive authority of the United States.”
Whatever one may think of the wis
dom of the provision of the Constitu
tion referred to, there Is no doubt
about the fact that it imposes upon
Congress the duty and responsibility of
providing for the government of the
District.
In 1878 the present form of govern
for the District was adopted, and
the policy inaugurated of dividing the
cost of operating the District govern
ment equally between the citizens and
property of the District and the Fed
eral Government. In other words, the
Federal Government contributed 50 per
cent of the cost and the taxpayers of
the District contributed 50 per cent.
This plan was based upon the unique
method of measuring the value of Fed
eral property with that of the private
ly-owned property in the District. A
value of 30 cents per square foot was
placed upon the streets and avenues,
which added approximately 50 per cent
to. the valuation of actual Federal prop
erty, consisting of parks, public build
ings, etc. In this way a valuation for
Government property equal to the val
uation of privately-owned property was
reached and Congress evidently was
persuaded that the cost of operating
the District government should be split
evenly betwe^i the United States and
the District.
In 1876 a oin investigating com
mittee detprr ned that the Federal
share of the expenses of the District
government lould be fixed at 40 per
cent. The v: ommendation of this .joint
committee, however, was not received
1 favorably. The fiftv-flfty law was in
effect from July 1, 1878. to July 1, 1920.
when a change was made from a 50
per cent proportion to a 40 per cent
proportion of the total District ex
penses contributed by the Federal Gov
ernment. This sixty-forty plan con
tinued until July 1, 1925. when Con
gress changed from the proportionate
contribution to an annual contribution
of $9,000,000 The Seventy-first Con
gress provided a lump-sum contribution
of S9.500.000.
There has been a great deal of con
troversy from time to time as to the
wisdom of changing from a proportion
ate plan of contribution to a lump-sum
plan. Several of the civic organiza
tions in the District have protested th?
change, setting up the claim that as
the expenses of the District grew, it
would be only fair that the contribu
tion of the Federal Government should
increase accordingly, and that this
could only be fairlv done by fixing defi
nitely the proportion of the total ex
penses of the District that should be
pgid by the Federal Government.
Advocates Cite Benefits.
The advocates of the lump-sum plan
claim that it has the advantage of aid
ing rather than curbing the carrying
out of public improvements in the Dis
trict; that it tends to moderate local
demands for appropriations through a
realization that, the increase must be
locally born*, that being a definite and
fixed amount It can at once be set down
in the midget, thus simplifying budget
ary procedure; that it makes possible
an increase of appropriations needed
for public improvements in the District
within thp limits of fair taxation with
out any increase of the burden upon an
already overburdened Federal Treasury;
and. furthermore, that the economic
condition of the country, together with
the extraordinary burden of taxation
carried by the people in the States and
the condition of the Federal Treasury
Is the answer to the demands for In
erased Federal aid to the District Gov
ernment.
(Here follows a quotation of views ex
pressed before the Joint Select Cnm
mitee of 1915 by George E. Hamilton,
against the fifty-fifty principle of ap
propriations.)
At best, as was well stated by the
joint committee of Congress in 1915,
the half-and-half plan "was conceived
as an economic necessity to lift the
burden of debt from the oppressed Dis
trict and its taxpaying citizens." And
again. "This arbitrary rule- a rule of
then seeming necessity—need no longer
be applied to District appropriations."
The committee has given careful con
sideration to all arguments used for
and against the lump-sum plan and
has come to the conclusion that it is
I the preferable one.
General Taxation.
In the study of the taxation of gen
eral properties in the various cities of
the United States having a population
[ reasonably comparable wdth the popu
lation of the District of Columbia, it
has been disclosed that in all these cities
the people are groaning under the
burden of taxation which they have
been compelled to carry. That is partic
ularly true of the taxes levied upon real
property. This condition is made promi
nently evident by the extraordinary
amount of delinquent taxes. * » * A
similar eonomic condition obtains in
the rural sections of the country-. If
anything, to a greater extent than ts
found in urban districts. The commit
tee calls attention to this fact in order
that it may be given mature thought in
the consideration of the comparative
tax burden carried by the people of
the District of Columbia with the tax
burden carried by the people in other
municipalities • * *
Anotner tning that should not be for
gotten In a study of this matter is that
there has bpen a decided depreciation
in realty values everywhere during re
cent years, particularly in in the indus
trial urban centers. Notwithstanding
this drperiation in values, the assessed
valuations have not been reduced to
any considerable extent and the public
expenditures- have been constantly on
the increase, resulting in an increase
in the levy of taxes. * * *
Assessment of Property.
In making a comparison of assessed
valuations of property in the various
cities it was necessary, of course, to as
certain at what ratio to actual value
property was being assessed. In Its
study of this matter the committee
found that various methods are used
to arrive at a determination of the re
lation of assessed valuation to actual
values, none of which determines such
relation with absolute accuracy. * * *
Although it is difficult to determine
the relation of assessed values to actual
values, the committee believes that the
ratios as they appear in the statistical
tables attached hereto are as accurate
as It is possible to obtain. These ratios
were obtained from the administrative
officers of the municipal governments
who actually make the assessments and
from such organizations as real estate
boards, chambers of commerce and indi
vidual citizens familiar with property
values. These administrative officers,
organizations and citizens, being famil
iar with property values in their respec
tive communities, are more competent
to determine the actual ratio of assessed
valuations to actual value than any one
else, and therefore the information they
furnished the committee is the most
reliable that could be obtained for ad
justing tax rates. * * *
rnc committee nas iouno tnat one
method c£ finding the ratio of assessed
values to actual values frequently used
is to compare the assessed value of
property with the price paid for it at
voluntary sale. This the committee feels
is not a safe method, for the reason
that most of the sales of real property
are made on land contracts. In other
words, on the installment plan. Sales
of this character are freqeuntly made at
a substantial amount in excess of actual
value. That Is evidenced by the fact
that these contracts are often discounted
to finance companies and others dealing
in such securities at anywhere from 10
to 40 per cent.
Another novel method employed by
some to determine relative assessed val
uations to actual values, relative tax
rates, tax levies, etc., is the per capita
basis of assessments. * * * This
committee rannot agree with this con
tention. Property values cannot be cre
ated in excess of their actual value by
any system of mathematical raleulation.
One city having approximately the same
population as another may have within
its borders property wealth far in excess
of the other city. It is impossible to
arrive at a true comparison of relative
assessed valuations and tax levies by
any such method.
Federal Real Property in Tax Base.
It js argued that no true comparison
of the relation of the tax burden car
ried by the people in the District of
Columbia with the tax burden carried
by the people in other cities can' be
made without considering in the com
parative value of Federal property hold
ings located in the District of Columbia.
The value of all Federal real property
a-tually used for Federal Government
purposes, It Is claimed, should be em
braced In the taxable real values and
j this to the limit of structural costs, or
present-day reproduction structural costs,
| irrespective of use, income, obsolescence
' or market value. Evidently no consider
j ation is given to the monetary value to
j the people of the District of Columbia
because it is the Nation's Capital, nor to
i the benefits derived by the people in the
I District by the flow of visitors to the
j city who spend large sums of money
1 while here. Neither Is there any con
I sideration given to the increment prl
] vate property values, created almost
solely because of the activities of the
| Federal Government in the District. It
j is perhaps needless to say that many
1 citizens of the Distriet have grown
wealthy because of this increment value.
It is cnly necessary to refer to the large
increase in land values, as shown by the
1 assessment rolls, to indicate to a con
siderable extent the truth of this
st itrmpnt.
j The committee cannot agree with the
! contention that the Federal real estate
or property should be used in the com
parison of relative tax burdens The
buildings owned by the Federal Govern
ment would be practically useless to any
one but the Government. They have
practically no market value. * • *
Under such conditions it is decidedly
unsound to use the cost or reproduction
value of these buildings In any com
parison of relative assessed values or
tax burdens. Furthermore, much of the
land value upon which these Govern
ment buildings stand was created by
the Federal Government, and due con
sideration certainly should be given to
this fact by Congress,
i The principal reas n advanced for
( includmc such propertv values in the
' comparative is that it. is th» onlv large
I industry in the District of Columbia,
and that this in-.ustry is fairly ccm
! parable with large Industries in other
: cities. The committee cannot agree
! with this contention, either. The Fed
eral Government's activities in the Dis
trict have the highest degree of stabil
ity There Is no diminishing of its
activities. Indeed, they are quite gen
erally on the increase, with a corre
I sponding Increase in the Government
pavrnll. They are continuous, not in
l terrupted by financial and industrial
depression. * * *
i Here follows an excerpt from a radio
speech by Robert J. Cottrell, executive
I secretary of the Board of Trade, cis
: cussing the relative absence of the de
pression in Washington.)
Th“ committee cannot see anv logic
in makirg a comparison of Federal
Government properties with the prop
erties of industrial corporations located
elsewhere.
Fed»ral Aid to States.
In discussions of the fiscal relations
, between the United States and the Dis
trict of Columbia a comparisicn has
b=en made of the amount of Fe-'eral
aid given to States with the Federal aid
given the District of Columbia. This
comparison has little, if anv. signifi
cance. fer th» reason that very little of
the Federal aid given the States reaches
the municipalities. It nearly all goes
S to the rural communities. Further
more. mast of this money given to the
Stetes constitutes a conditional grant,
in that the States sre required to match
the amount of the Federal grant.
Federal Intangible Property.
A unique method has been employed
and recommended to this committee in
determining the amount of intangible
Federal property holdings that should
be charged to the Federal Government
for the purpose of comparing the rela
1 tive tax burdens of the District with the
tax burdens of other cities. It is argued
; that the value of intangible personal
i property in the hands of private owners
is about equal to the value of their
1 tangible property. The tangible prop
j erty owned by the United States and
located in the District of Columbia, it
j is said has a value of $90,000,000. and
therefore that $90,000,000 of intangible
j property should be Included in the com
parative so as to place it on the same
! basis as the tangible and Intangible
j property holdings own«d by the citbens
of the District. This, it seems to the
committee, is purely an arbitrary set
up. There would be iust as much sense
in saying that S900.0nn.000 of Federal
intangible property should be included
in the comparative as $90,000,003. By
what reasoning $90,000,000 of intangible
property should be allocated to the Dis
trict of Columbia the committee does
not know. * * •
Assessment of Intangible Property.
The use of the assessment of intangi
i ble propprtv and taxes levied thereon
for comparative purposes is exceedingly
difficult and unreliable The systems of
taxation employed and the rates of
- taxes imposed upon this class of prop
erty vary so greatly in the various tax
ing units that no compagison can be
made that would be worth considera
tion. • * *
The committee doubts that the assess
ment of personal property and the levy
thereon ran be safely used in a com
parison of tax burdens. In many tax
ing units some classes of tangible per
sonal property are exempt from taxa
tion. such as manufacturing products.
Other forms of taxation, such as taxes
irrpesed on franchises and the imposi
tion of other excuse taxes, are substi
tuted for personal property taxation.
For these reasons the committee
thinks that the mast reliable compari
son of tax burdens is confined to the
assessment of real property and the
taxes levied thereon. • • •
Loss of Revenue to the District.
One of the chief arguments made for
increased Federal contributions toward
the expenses of the District Government
is that the District has suffered loss of
taxes because of the exemption of Fed
eral properties from taxation. In esti
mating the loss of revenue it has been
the fashion to treat the Federal prop
j erties as if they were always on the
i assessment rolls of the District. This,
the committee thinks, is a mistake. The
only possible loss of revenue would be
the revenue derived from the taxation
of the land and improvements thereon
immediately preceding the acquisition
of the properties by the Federal Gov
ernment. In other word*, the amount
of taxes paid by the private owners of
property at the time the Federal Gov
ernment acquired it. In tills connection
it is pertinent to say that the assessing
officer of the District, Mr. Richards,
contends that there is no loss of reve
nue because of the acquisition of these
properties by the Federal Government.
The actual value of the property ac
quired by the Federal Government from
private owners in the last 10 vears has
been appraised by Mr. Richards, the
city assessor, at $36,204,049. so that the
loss (* revenue from this valuation
based on the prevailing tax rate, would
be a little over $600,000 a vesr. It is
certain that no individual or private
^corporation woud have made the costlv
improvements on the land that the
Federal Government has made and it
is doubtful that Improvements would
have been made at all by private par
ties to any considerable extent. Fur
thermore, the appreciation in the value
of land in the immediate vicinltv of the
Federal improvements, which appreci
ated value undoubtedly will be reflected
‘in the assessment rolls of the District,
will to a considerable extent offset the
loss of revenue caused by the removal
of this $36,204,049 from the assessment
rolls, to say nothing of the replacement
of the privately owned buildings in
other parts of the District.
Tax Levies Per Capita.
Statistics have been presented to the
j committee to show that, based on the
| per capita basis, the taxes paid by the
! people of Washington compare favor
ably in amount with the taxes paid by
the citizens of other municipalities, and
in some instances exceed the amount
paid by such citiaens. Various methods
have been followed in order to arrive at
this eomluslon, none of which appears
to this committee as being a reliable
basis for comparison of relative tax
burdens. One city may have one-half
] the population of another city and still
the smaller city may have within its
I borders much mve taxable wealth than
/
the larger city. That 1* particularly j
true in so iar as personal property I
wealth is concerned. To show how true
this is it is only necessary to point out
that there is an utter lack of uni
formity in the various States and
municipalities in the systems and
methods employed in the taxation of
personal property. In many of the
cities the ad valorem system of taxa
tion is followed, in others the millage
tax system is followed, in others income
taxes are imposed as a substitute for
both ad valorem and mileage taxes, and
in others there is either a total or par
tial exemption of certain classes of
property. Because of this wide differ
ence in the base of taxation no com
parison of personal property taxation
on a per capita basis can be made with
any degree of accuracy as to equality
of burden.
If any consideration is to be given at
fill to per cepita taxation it should be
confined to the per capita taxes levied
on real property. While the per capita
taxes have been computed by Mr. Lord,
of which mention will be found on an
other page of this report, for reasons
already stated the committee does not
believe it is a reliable basis for com
parison of relative tax ljurdens.
Comparative Assessments and Taxea.
Particular attention is called to the
statistical compilation embodied in this
report showing a comparison of as
sessed valuations, tax levies, etc., in
each of the 23 cities used tn the com
parison. This statement the commit
tee believes is as accurate a picture of
the tax burden carried by the people
of these cities as it is possible to obtain
from the standpoint of statistical in
formation. * * *
In determining the adjusted rate of
taxation and the amount of taxes levied
upon the specific amount of property
valuation, the utmost rare has be^n ex
ercised. This, of course, was necessary
in order that no Injustice be done. * » •
The statistics • • • have been gath
ered after much painstaking effort,
which required extensive research work.
They present as accurate a picture of
the relative assessed valuations and
taxes levied In the various cities as it
is possible to obtain.
The following remarks relating to
these statistical compilations will be of
interest:
The total population of the 23 cities j
embraced In the comparative statement j
Is 10,959,751.
The total tax levied upon the real
property In these cities amounts to
$526,444 179. and the average per capita
is $48 03.
Eliminating the District of Columbia, 1
the total popu’ation of the other 22
cities is 10,472,882.
$48.35 Per Capita.
The total tax levied upon the real
property In the 22 cities other than the
District of Columbia amounts to $506.
342.302. an average per capita of $48.35.
The population of the District of Co
lumbia is 485.869 and the tax levied
upon real property amounts to $20,101.- j
877. or a per capita of $41.29. which is
$6 75 per capita less than the average
per capita for all cities and $7.06 less
per capita than the average per capita
for the other 22 cities.
The total of all taxes levied in the 23 ;
cities amounts to $637,129,676, an aver- I
age per capita of $58 13.
The total of all taxes for all of the
cities, except the District of Columbia,
amounts to $610,250,892, an average p»r
capita of $58.27.
The total taxes levied in the District
of Columbia amount to $26,878,784, a
per capita of $55.21. nr $2 92 less than
the averag" per capita for all cities and
*3 06 less per capita than the average
for the other 22 cities.
The total full valuation of real estate
in thp 23 cities amounts to $22,229,107,
292. upon which was levied a tax of
$526,444,179. The average adjusted tax
rate fnr all the cities is $23 68
Excluding the District of Columbia,
the full value of real property in the
other 22 cities in $20,915.259 131 and
the total tax levied thereon *506,342.
302. The average adjusted tax rate is
$24,21.
Tire adjusted tax rate in the District'
of Columbia is *15.30, or $8 38 less
than the e.verage adjusted rate for all
cities, end $8 91 l°-s than the average
adjusted rate for the other 22 cities.
Based on Actual Realities.
The average tax levied upon a
$10,000 property is *237. Excluding
the District of Columbia, the average
tax on a $10,000 property is $242 Th»
tax levied on the full value of a $10,000
property in the city of Washington is
$153. or $84 less than the average fnr
all the cities, and $89 less than the
average for the other 22 cities
These comparisons are based upon
actual tax realities in the various cities,
which the committee believes is the
only fair comparison that can be made
In making the comparisons the com
mittee has eliminated from considera
tion any and all arbitrarv set-ups of
values and taxes that would be levied
on such values. Arbitrary set-ups of
property values can of worked out to
the advantage of any interests by
mathematical calculations. They are
not found on facts, and therefore are
not worthy of consideration.
It is the actual amount of money
that the taxpayers pay into the public
treasury upon their properties that
counts, irrespective of what the tax
may be named. That is the guide the
committee has followed In its investi
gations. and the committee believes it
is the only safe guide to follow for
comparative purposes.
The committee doee not deem it
necessary to dwell further upon thee
statistics. It has endeavored to compile
them in such a way as to be under
standable by anyone who cares to study
them.
(Here follow* brief reference to com
parative statistics relating to bonded
debt, exemptions, park area and reve
nue derived from taxing public utilities)
Changes in D. C. Revenue Laws
iGasoline Tax)
For eight years the District of Co
lumbia has been imposing an excise
tax of 2 cents a gallon on gasoline
There was derived during the last hs
cal year from this tax approximately
$1,800,000. There are only four States
that Impose as low a tax as 2 cents a
gallon on gasoline, namelv. Connecticut
Missouri, New York, and Rhode Island.
In the other States the tax ranges
from 3 cents a gallon to ^ cents a
gallon
The average tax for all the States,
excluding the Diatrict of Columbia is
a fraction over 4 cents a gallon. In
the States in close proximity to the1
District of Columbia, Delaware levies a
tax of 3 cent* a gallon, Maryland levies
a tax of 4 cents a gallon, North and
South Carolina levy a tax of 6 cents
a gallon, Pennsylvania levies a tax of 3 !
cents a gallon. Virginia levies a tax of
5 cents a gallon, and West Virginia
levies a tax of 4 cent* a gallon, so that
ao far as the tax on gasoline is con
cerned the owners of motor vehicles in
the District are in a favored class.
The claim is made that it is hardly
fair to compare the gasoline tax in the
District with the tax in the States for
the reason that the revenue derived
from such a tax in the States is uaed
for improving public roads and not pub
lic street*, as is the case in the District
of Columbia. It does not seem to the
committee that there is much weight
in that argument, for the reason that
motorists from the District of Columbia
use these roars, especially roads located
In States bordering the District. Citi
zens of other cities pay the same gas
tax as their fellow citizens of the State
in which they live are required to pay.
It is also claimed by those opposed
to an increase in the tax on gasoline
that the District is now receiving suffi
cient revenue to take care of the entire
expense of street improvements and
maintenance. The facts, the committee
finds, disprove that contention. Maj.
Donovan, the Diatrict auditor, ip his
appearance before the committee stated:
“The amount of the gas tax fund is
not sufficient to take care of the entire
street expense. About $2,000,008 will
be paid In 1932 from the gasoline tax
fund, but In addition to that about
$1,200,000 more will have to be provided
out of the general revenues of the Dis
trict for maintenance and repairs to
rtreets.”
Streets Subject to Heavy Travel.
So that It is certain, notwithstanding
the statement that $2,000,000 would be
derived from a tax of 2 cents a gallon
on gasoline, that $1,200,000 additional
money would have to be obtained from
the revenues derived from other source*
In the District In order to meet the
entire expense of luture street improve
ments and maintenance. Certainly no
stronger argument could be made In
support of a reasonable increase In the
tax on gasoline than the statement
made by MaJ. Donovan.
The streets In the District of Colum
bia, as well as the streets In other cities,
are subjected to heavy motor vehicle
travel, necessitating the raising by some
f rm of taxation a large annual main
tenance fund, in addition to the cost of
widening and the creation of new arte
rial street highways. It is only fair,
the committee thinks, that the owners
of motor vehicles in the District should
meet to a large extent these costs.
The committee can see no logical rea
son w’hy the owners of motor vehicles
located In the District should not pay
a tax on gasoline reasonably compar
able with the tax levied upon the tame
product In other communities, particu
larly In the communities adjacent to
the District Their failure to do so
gives the retail gasoline Industry In
the District an undue advantage.
The committee, therefore, recom
mends that the present law providing a
2-eent tax on gasoline in the District of
Columbia be increased to 4 cents a
gallon, which rate of tax would be less
than the average rate imposed on gaso- |
line In the States, and is reporting a
bill to that effect.
Motor Vehicle Weight Tax.
Under the present system of taxing ,
automobiles as personal property and ;
the flat rate of $1 registration fee in
the District, the owners of motor ve
hicles In the District have been and are
In a highly favored class as compared
with the taxes paid on motor vehicles
in the several States. The flat rate of
tl registration fee. irrespective of the
weight of the motor vehicle, cannot be
too severely condemned. It is the heavy
cars, such as trucks and busses, that i
ao tne most damage to pavements and
which occupy by far the most apace In
the public streets. To charge the same
registration fee for such motor vehicles
es »s charged for a light-weight passen
ger car is ridiculous.
In addition to this flat registration
fee of $1 per car, the District assesses
all cars as personal property. Accord
ing to the testimony cf Maj. Donovan
bef-re the committee, there were a little !
over 126,000 motor vehicles assessed
the first part of last year, and
the revenu* derived from the assess
ment of these cars for th» one-half vear
period, amounted to $214,190. On'this
basis the total personal property tax on
that number of vehicles for the full year
would b* $428,380. it is evident, there
fore that th° total tax. including th=
registration fee on motor vehicles, for
1930 would not exceed $600,000, or a
total tax of $4 75 per car.
30.000 Pay Minimum of $1.
In addition to the 126.000 cars on
which the tax was paid, Maj Donovan ,
stated that there were approximately >
30,000 cars having no value, on which
a minimum tax of $1 per car was paid. !
These cars were still being used on cr i
occupying the street;, and certainly
while in use on the public streets should
be required to pay a tax comparable i
with the tax naid on other cars of ap- I
proxirr.ately the same weight.
The average tax per car in J930 in I
the United 8tatea was approximately j
$14, or about three and one-half times
the average tax paid upon motor ve
hicles in the District of Columbia. The
committee can see no reason whv that
condition should longer obtain. It be
lieves that the most equitab’e svstem of
taxing motor vehicles is a tax based on
their weight. It is the simplest as well
as the fairest and most equitable
method of taxing them. It is con
ceded b'- every one that the heavier the
vehicle the more it damages the public
highways. This fact should be a prime
factor in the determination of the
amount of tax that should be imposed
on motor vehicles.
The committee therefore recommends !
the enactment of a law providing for a
tax on automobiles bases on their !
weight as a substitute for the present ,
registration and personal property tax
n w- imposed on motor vehicles in the
District If the rate of tax based on
weight shall be fixed so as to produce
an average of $14 per car. which is the
average tax per car in the United
States, it would produce a substantial
increase in the District revenues and
no one w;ould be hurt. The committee
is reporting a bill to put this recom
mendation into effect.
Inheritanre Tax.
At the present time there is no in
heritance or estate tax Imposed in the
District of Columbia, except the Fed
eral estate tax. All State* impose either
a tax on inheritance cr estates except
the States of Florida and Alabama.
A reasonable rat? of tax on inheri
tances or estates Imposed by the Dis
trict government would produce an av- ;
erage annual revenue of not less than
$750.00(1. The committee know* of no
goad reason why such a tax should not
b- adopted in the District, especially as
the Federal Oovernrrent permits a
credit of all inheritance taxes paid In
the States, or which may be paid in the
District of Columbia, up to 80 per cent
of the Federal estate tax.
The committee believes that the es
tate tax i* preferable to the Inheritance
tax because of its simplicity. It has the
advantage that the tax msv b” com
puted Immediately after the value of
the net taxable estate Is determined.
This regult* in a mat*rial saving in
time and expense, both to the estate and
to the government that imposes the
tax. Furthermore, it is easy for the \
testator to determine in advance the 1
t'tal tax burden upon the estate, and
therefore he can carry out exactly his
intentions as to the net amount which
the several beneficiaries are to receive.
In the case of inheritance taxation
the amount of tax depends upon the
number and relationship of persons who
receive the property. These facts, how
ever, cannot be determined as to the
remainder until after the death of the
life tenant It often happens, there
fore, that it is necessary to postpone
the taxation of the remainder until the
life tenant'* d*ath. In *ome cases arbi
trary rule* of cletermlning the tax have
been adopted, and this quite often work*
hardships. Such complicated problem*
as these are avoided in imposing a tax 1
cn the estate.
The estate tax has the advantage of
simplicity and of relative speed with
which estate* may be fettled. The com
mittee. therefore, recommends that a
law be enacted providing for a reason
able tax upon the estates of decedents.
The Clinton Joint Committee in mak
ing its report in 1915 stated: "We be
lieve there should be a proper tax on
inheritance in the District.”
The committee Is reporting a bill to
put this recommendation into effect.
Income Tax.
The committee believes that a tax
upon Incomes is the most equitable tax
that can be imposed, becaused it is
based on ability to pay and is a tax
that is hard to evade. More and more
this 1* recognised, as evidenced by the
increase in the number of taxing Juris
dictions that have provided for a tax
upon incomes.
The committee believes that if such a
tax was imposed in the District of Co
lumbia as a substitute for the present
millage tax on intangible property, it
would result in greater equality in the
distribution of the tax burden in the
District and would produce a sub
stantial amount of revenue in excess
of that now obtained under the mlll
age-tax system. Last year the District
received a revenue of $2,725,941 from
the tax imposed on all Intangible prop
erty. It 1* our opinion that, if a
reasonable Income tax is adopted, the
amount of revenue, obtained therefrom
will exceed the revenue from the tax
cow imposed on Intangibles by not less
than $750,000 annually and. as has al- |
ready been said, the tax will be much
more equitably distributed among the
people.
An Income tax would reach many
people well able to pay some tax to
ward the support of government who
now pay no taxes, and It would reach
the Income derived from intangibles,
which Intangibles are now concealed
from the taxing authorities of the
District.
The committee, therefore, recom
mends the enactment of a law pro
viding for a reasonable tax on incomes
as a substitute for the present mlLlage
tax on intangible property, and is re
porting a bill to put this recommenda
tion Into effect.
Taxation of Public Utilities
All the public utilities In the District
are subject to specific taxation or fran- j
chise taxes. The tax is based on gross
eamings or gross receipts and the rate
varies according to the class of cor- ;
poration.
The rate on the gross eamings of
gas companies is 5 per cent. Electric
street-railway companies are taxed at
the rate of 4 per cent on gToss receipts.
Electric light companies are taxed at 4
per cent on gross eamings. Telephone
companies are taxed at 4 per cent on
gross eamings.
It will be noted that these rates of
taxation are unequal and therefore
violate the basic principle of equality
in taxation. If the present system of
taxing these utilities is to be continued,
and the committee doubts its wisdom,
the law should be amended so as to
provide uniformity in the rate of taxa
tion.
According to figures furnished the
committee by the office of the District
assessor, if these various utilities were
taxed on an ad valorem basis of valua
tion the District would gain consider
able revenue These companies paid
last year in taxes a total of $1,611,000. |
It 1* estimated by the District assessor's
office that if they had been taxed at
the game rate of taxation as Imposed
on other classes of tangible and in
tangible property they would have paid
$2,500,000, or approximately $900,000
more than they paid under the present
system. The present specific tax on
gross eamings and gross receipts is in
lieu of any ad valorem tax on tangible
personal property ana in* mmage tax
on Intangible personal property.
In addition to these public utilities I
there are two others operating in the
District now—the Western Union Tele
graph Co. and the Postal Telegraph
Cable Co. The Western Union Tele
graph Co. last year paid in taxes only
$3,471. and the Postal Tel“graph-Cable
Co. paid in taxes only *1.424. These
companies practically tax themselves
in that it has been the practice to
accept without question a statement
from each of the companies as to the
value of its property in the District for
Purposes of taxation There never has
sen any appraisal made of its personal
property by the assessing officer of th*
District. The committee believes and
recommends that an appraisal of the
Eroperty of these companies In the
listrlet should be made by competent!
englnee s.
Ta ition of Steam Railroads.
There !s contained in the law govern
ing the taxation of steam railroad prop
erty in the District a unique provision, !
as follows:
"It being the true intent and mean
ing hereof that the liner of railroads
and terminals hereby authorised shall
be assessed and valued f r the purpose
of taxation and taxed on the same basis
as if the same were not eon'trued and
maintained by means of su'h bridges,
tunnels, viaducts, retaining walls and
other structures."
The construction placed upon this
provision of the law by the assessing
officers of the District is that the tun
nels or bridges spanning the streets or I
water communications in the District,
the retaining tvalls around Union Sta- -
tion and along Maryland. Delaware and
Virginia avenues and the iron viaduct
located at the south end of the tunnel
near New Jersey avenue and C street
southeast, are not subject to assessment
for taxes.
It is estimated bv the District asses
sor. Mr. Richards, that the value of this
property, which is not now assessed for
taxes, is anywhere from $10,000,000 to !
$15,000,000. If it was placed upon the
fax rolls, the revenue derived therefrom
wculd approximate $200,000 annually 1
which is nearly double the tax now im
posed upon railroad property in the I
District. The total revenue the Dis
trict will receive from the taxation of
railroad property this year amounts to
$233,878.
The committee knows of no good rea
son why this property should be longer
exempt from taxation, and if it can be
legally placed upon the assessment roll
by an amendment to the law. the r5m.
mittee recommends that the law be
amended accordingly.
“ is only fair and equitable that all
privately owned property, especially that
used for commercial purposes and profit,
be placed upon the assessment roll for
taxes. There should be no such thtm?
'Here follows a diaest nf thm e.H—i
:
Conclusion*.
vote to impose a tax burden upon any
0n^' cann°t he stated too emphati- '
1H1 no one' esPeclally no member 1
of this committee, wants to overtax the
people nf the Distriet. At the same
time it is probably fair to say that the
people of the District, being human, do
not want to pay any more taxes than
they are obliged to pay. and very' natu
rauy resist any effort to increase the
existing taxes or to impose any addi
tional ones, realising, no doubt, that
whatever they pay. whether much or
little, the Federal Government will
make up the balance necessary to run
the District government. On the other
hand, there are those who think that
the people of the District are in a
privileged class as far as. taxation is
concerned; that they are not paying as
P^uch toward meeting the expenses of
the District government as they should,
or as much as the people who live in
other cities in the United States of
comparable size and advantages are re
quired to pay.
Should the people of the District be
required to pay the same as people who
live in other cities of comparable size
and advantages, or should some consid
eration or concession be given them be
cause they have no voice in their gov
ernment, or should they be required to
pay a little more because they enjoy {
the privileges and advantages of living ;
in the Capital City? Should the Dis
trict be treated like any other city and
the people who live in it be required to 1
pay the entire expenses of the District
government, as the people of other cit
ies are required to do, or does the coun
try want a more beautiful and magni
ficent city for the Capital of the Nation
than the people of the District should
be asked to maintain or would require
if It were not the Capital City?
These are some of the questions
which naturally suggest themselves to
any one who makes any serious attempt
to consider the tax problem of the Dis
trict.
CommiUce Drafts Bills.
Carrying out the purposes of the res
olution. th* committee, as hereinbefore
set forth, recommends the enactment
of an income and an inheritance tax
law for the District, an increase of the
gas tax from 2 cents to 4 cents per
gallon, the enactment of a motor ve
hicle weight tax law. a change in the
taxing system of certain public utilities
and a revision of the law providing for
taxation of the property of steam rail
roads in the District.
The committee has prepared and Is
introducing bills which it asks the
House to consider &nd pus. providing
for an income tax. an inheritance tax,
an increase in the gas tax from 2 cents
to 4 cents per gallon and a motor ve
hicle weight tax. The people in the
States pay these taxes. If the people
of the District are to pay taxes that
are comparable with those paid by peo-'
pie in the States, they should pav them.
As to these taxes, there is no chance
for argument from a comparative
standpoint. In fact, the rates suggested
in the bills reported by the committee
are somewhat under the average of the
States. If they are not imposed in the
District, the District is bound to be a
haven for tax dodgers, for those who
want to escape the payment of such
taxes.
The committee feels that the changes
recommended in the laws relating to
the taxation of certain public utilities
and of the property of the steam rail
roads should be considered and per
fected by the regular standing legisla
tive Committee on the District of Co
lumbia; that to perfect such legislation
would require more time and considera
tion, Including the hearing of those in
terested and affected by the proposed
changes, than this committee is justi
fied or warranted in taking for that
purpose.
The committee thinks that the major
problem assigned to it. and the one
chiefly in the minds of the members
of the House of Representatives when
the resolution creating the committee
was passed, was. as stated in the first
paragraph of the resolution “to investi
gate the various elements, factors and
conditions which may be deemed perti
nent and essential to the accumulation
of data and information bearing upon
the question of fiscal relations between
the United States and the District of
Columbia and to recommend to the
House what amount, in their judgment,
the United States should contribute an
nually toward the development and
maintenance of the municipality” and
It has devoted a large portion of its
time and study, with the assistance of
Its tax expert. Mr. Lord, to this feature
of the resolution. In view of the facts
developed in its investigation and study,
and the findings, as before set out in
this report, how much should the
United States. In the language of the
resolution, "contribute annually toward
the development and maintenance of
the municipality” of the District of Co
lumbia?
Congress Hu Dual Obligation.
This question, like many other gov
ernmental questions, is not "susceptible
of exact determination " but is a ques
tion that Congress is obliged to pass
upon every year in the passage of the
annua! appropriation bill for the Dis
trict. In the performance of this duty
Congress has a dual obligation to per
form. It must be fair to the people of
the District and it must be fair to the
people of the Nation who live outside
the District It is the principal ques
tion assigned to this committee to an
swer and to report upon.
There is no serious dispute about the
principle to be followed in working out
an answer to the problem. The diffi
culty comes in its application.
The witnesses appearing before the
committee from the District very gen
erally. if not without exception, agreed
that the people of the District should
pay in taxes about the same or bear
about the same tax burden as people
of other municipalities throughout the
United States of like size and advan
tages. but the majority of theme were
tenacious in their contention that they
are already doing that and many in
genuous arguments are advanced to
prove that contention. The Joint Com
mittee of 1915 recommended "that the
people of Washington pay a tax com
parable in assessment, rate and amount
to that tax paid by the residents of
other cities similar in population and
location to the City of Washington.”
The report of that committee went
cn to say; "We find after a most care
ful consideration of all of the evidence
and circumstances as shown to exist at
this time that there is no reason for
anv arbitrary rule of proportionate con
tribution for the expenses of the Dis
trict of Columbia by the residents there
of and by the people of the United
States: that th“ correct rule should be
that the responsibility in taxation of
the residents of the District of Colum
bia b« as fixeJ and certain as the re
sponsibility cf residents of other Ameri
can cities comparable with the City cf
Washington; that with the payment o'
such taxes as may be equitabl and
properly assessed against privately
owned taxable property, the financial
responsibility of the residents of the
District should be concluded "
The Morrill Joint Select Committee
of 1874 reported that the District "may
properly be required to make that just
contribution to the current annual ex
penses. the interest of the public debt
and its ultimate payment, which a peo
ple so situated as compared with other
communities may be required to pay for
like protection, privileges and immuni
ties."
lorrect Formula Believed Found
The committee believes that the cor
rect formula i« stated in these reports,
as above quoted, and It is happy to say
that that formula is generally accepted
a* being correct by student* cf the situ
ation both in and out of the District
The committee has no doubt that
every one in the United States desires
the National Capital to be one of the
best and most beautiful capitals in the
world and that it forever be maintained
as such, and that Congress shall, if
necessary, from time to time, assist
financially in maintaining It at a stand
ard that shall be excelled by no other
capital. The amount of this financial
assistance should be measured largely
by the amount necessary to conduct the
governmental affairs of the District in
an efficient and economical manner over
end above the amount of revenue de
rived from the taxation of private prop
erty, license fees, etc. The rate of nx
imposed on private property to reason
ably approach the average rate of taxa
tion in the other 22 cities of the com
parative. In other words, the amount
of Federal contribution toward th? ex
penses of the District government should
be based largely on the differences in
the amount of revenue derived from the
taxation of properties levied on the basis
of a fair and equitable tax rate, together
with the revenues derived from specific
taxes, license fees, fines, etc . and the
total amount of money that the District
needs to conduct the District govern
ment in a manner that shall be a credit
to the District and the Nation. There
ara few indeed who aeriously dispute the
correctness of this statement.
On this basis the committee has made
the study it has to ascertain with as
much definiteness as it is possible to do
how the tax burden of the District com
pares with the tax burden in cities of
similar size and advantages, with the
result, as before stated in this report,
that it finds that the tax rata in the
District cf Columbia is the lowest of
any of the 23 cities with which com
parison has been made. * * *
It is contended by some that in the
consideration of comparative tax bur
dens all taxes levied in other cities for
State and county purposes should be
eliminated and the comparison confined
to taxes levied for the purposes of city
government alone In those cities, and
that interest on the bended debt of
other municipalities be eliminated from
the comparison because the District has
no bonded debt.
^ Actual Money Paid Counts
The committee cannot agree with that
contention. There are in the District
institutions maintained from revenues
derived from either Federal or District
taxation similar in character to insti
tutions that are maintained by county
or State governments. The ' District
has it* courts, similar to county
and State courts. Other functions in
many respects similar to functions ex
ercised by State and county govern
ments elsewhere are performed in the
District either by the District or Fed
eral Government. The District govern
ment does practically everything that
the various unit* of government do out
side In the States, and the people cf the
District receive from the Federal Gov
ernment the various benefits and serv
*
' Ices that are taken care of outside by
county. State and school taxes
The true index to tax burdens is the
actual tax levied and paid into the pub
i lie treasury by the owner or owners of
iproperty in the various cities having
re itively the same actual value. In the
opinion of this committee it makes no
difference by what name the tax may
be called—a State tax. a school tax a
j city tax or a county tax—it Is the actual
! money paid over the counter of the pub
| lie treasury that counts, and that is the
only true measure of comparative tax
! burdens.
I Nor does this committee agree with
; the contention that the interest on
j public debts of other cities should be
! eliminated. Other cities have been
■ forced into debt for different reasons,
principally because their tax burden
has been so great that they could not
| afford to add to it for the cost of need
ed permanent public improvements,
i The District of Columbia is in a favor
ed position in this respect, made pos
sible to a large extent at least because
of the financial assistance received by
it from the Federal Treasury' As an
illustration, the water system of the Dis
trict was originally paid for by the Fed
eral Government. It is obvious that if
the cost of permanent public improve
ments in other cities had been includ
ed annually in their budgets, the rate
of taxation in those cities would have
been much higher and therefore the
comparison with the rate prevailing in
the District of Columbia would show a
correspondingly wider difference than
is now shown.
The committee has no sympathy
with the attitude of hostile criticism ofl
the improvement and development ofl
the District and everything that is!
done by Congress to that end. that isl
sometimes expressed. The District ofl
Columbia is probably the most beautiJ
ful and magnificent Capital in th«|
world. • * • j
Enjoy Many Benefits.
The people of the District of Coll
umzia enjoy benefits and privileges thal
are not enjoyed by the people in anj
other city. In no other city in thl
country do the people enjoy so man#
advantages by way of beautiful park#
library facilities, etc . as are enjovel
by the people in the District of Col
umbia, not to mention the innumerable
and immeasurable advantages and
privileges incident to being a resident
of the Capital City. They are created
and maintained to a considerable ex
tent at the expense of the people of
the United States and not at the ex
pense of the people of the District of
Columbia alone and constitute no part
of the District budget
The committee does not desire to
place any undue burden of taxation
upon the people of the District. On
the contrary, because of the peculiar
government set-up of the District, it
prefers to err. if anv error is to be
made, on the side of liberality toward
the District. * • • The committee
concedes that the government of tne
District cf Columbia for the most part
is efficiently and economically admin
istered, without undue waste or ex
travagance and desires to give tne
District the benefit of such adminis
tration. * • •
It is the aim of the committee to give
the House sufficient statistical informa
tion and data to enable every member,
not only now but in the future to
reach his own conclusion, from the
information given, as to what the con
tribution of the Federal Government
toward the expenses of the District
Government snould be The commit; ee
considers this feature of its report of
prime inporiancc.
The committee does not hasitate to
f.8y that in its judgment the tax rate
the tax .burden, in the District is not
as high, is not as burdensome, as h is
in comparable cities, nor as it is m
nearly every community, urban or
rural, in the United States Anyone
v.ho thinks that it is either loolmg
himself or blind to the actual fact..
He can not realize how the average
citizen is almost literally sweating
blood in order to pay his taxes and
many are utterly unable to do so
The committee does hesitate, how
ever. to make any recommendation, tne
effect of which might lead to a tax
rate in the District equal to the aver
age, even ol those in other cities of
comparable size and advantages be
cause it is impressed with the fact that
such a rate on general property is too
high, that it is overburdensome, and
often prohibitive. The committee be
lieves that the general property tax
should be relieved by other taxes^ su-'h
as are herein recommended, v herever
it is practicable to do so. At the same
time the committee can not help but
feel that the tax rate in the District
might well be raised to more nearly
approach the average of other cities
without any injustice to the District. -
cr without giving the District any
reasonable cause to complain.
Rate Largely l'p to District. _
The present law provides that the
tax rate in the District shall be nit
less than S1 70 per hundred of tne
assessed valuation of real estate and
tangible personal properly, as before
stated, if the rate had been $20 per
thousand valuation, for example, which
is considerably below the average rate
in the comparable cities, it would have
produced a revenue, based on the 1930
valuation of proper;v, of $25 793 397
as against $21,924,387 that was levied
on such property in 1930,
It is not the province of this com
mittee, however, to recommend a rate;
It is rather to recommend what amount
in its judgment the Federal Govern*
me-nt should contribute annuallv tow
ard the development and maintenance
of the municipality. The rate will de
pend upon the budget, the cost of the
District government. It is largely in
the hands of the District to determine
the rate. It will be for the District in
asking for appropriations, largelv’ to
determine whether the general prop
erty tax will be increased or not, and
that is as it should be.
The committee feels that for the
present, at least, the Federal Govern
ment should continue to contribute
something toward the expenses of the
District, the Capital City of the Nation;
that to do so is perhaps wise public
policy and in accordance with the
public sentiment of the country, but,
with the constantly increasing values
of privately owned property within the
District, it becomes progressively more
easy for the District to meet the ex
penses of the District government as
the years go by. without undue burden
or any increase In the general property
tax. The time may come when the
District should in all conscience meet
the total normal budget of the District
government.
Tl:e District budget for the fiscal year
1933. beginning July 1, 1932, and end
ing June 30, 1933, submitted to Congress
within the last few days, estimates that
the appropriations for the District dur
ing that year, including deficiencies, will
total $45,633,312, and that the revenues
of the District, based upon a contribu
tion of $9,500,000 by the Federal Gov
ernment, will amount to $45,670,000,
leaving a surplus of revenues over ex
penses of $36,698.
ii the bills reported by the committee,
are enacted Into law. approximately.
$4,000,000 will be added to the revenues
of the District, without any increase of
the general property tax and without
any increase of the assessed valuation
of general property, The Federal con
tribution could be reduced that amount
for the fiscal year 1933 at least, without
interfering with a balanced budget.
The committee feels, however, that on
itfCWnt of present economic conditions
tr*" but get estimates for the fiscal year
1933 have perhaps been reduced to a
lower figure than it would be safe to
depend upon as a permanent policy, but
the increased revenues provided for in
the bills which the committee Is re
porting, snd the additional revenues
that may be raised by the changes in
the laws relating to the taxation of the
property of steam railroads and of cer
tain public utilities In the District, rec
ommended by the committee, together
with the natural increase from a con
stantly, increasing valuation of privately
owned property within th- District, to
i (Continued on Sovanfc Page./
i