crises in the local government have been due to the failure of Congress to authorize adequate payments in lieu of taxes for municipal services received by the United States. The brief is appended hereto. Attest: FEDERATION OF CITIZENS' ASSOCIATIONS, DAVID BABP, Secretary. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF A LARGER PARTICIPATION BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE EXPENSES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATEMENT OF FACTS The District of Columbia was ceded by the States of Maryland and Virginia to become "the seat of the Government of the United States," under a provision of the Constitution which empowers Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation over such a district. When the United States Government was moved here in 1800 the population of the entire District was less than 15,000, and there was very little to be taxed, outside of the self governing cities of Alexandria and Georgetown, which levied their own taxes and expended their own tax revenues. Since none of its property was then within the boundaries of these two cities. the United States of necessity provided whatever municipal services it desired at its own expense. Scon, however, a new city grew up around the new government buildings. In 1802 Congress chartered the city of Washington as a self-governing munici pality with the ordinary municipal powers, including the power to levy taxes and expend tax revenues. This new city government furnished municipal services to its citizens and also to the tax-free properties of the United State> Congress made direct payments for some of these services; for others it "coltributed" lump sums to the municipal budget from time to time, but these sums were inadequate. During the entire period from 1790, when the District of Columbia was originally laid out, to 1835 the municipality expended a total of $5,500 000, a large sum for those days, of which Congress "contributed" about $1.400,000, or approximately 26 percent. The city incurred a large indebtedness, and by 1835 was practically bankrupt. Congress investigated, and its investi gating committee found that the United States ought to pay more than one-half of the municipal expenses as its fair share. No specific action was taken. however, but during the next 35 years Congress was more liberal in its “contributions," which aggregated $9,000,000, or about 34 percent of the total of $26700,000 expended for municipal purposes during that period. In 1873, the United States, through the War Department, installed a water supply system for the Federal buildings at a cost of $3,385,000. This water was not made available to private consumers until 20 years later, but since that time the entire costs of maintenance, operation, and extensions to the system have been paid out of rents charged the private consumers, and the United States has received all of its water free of charge. Owing to the inadequate "contributions" by Congress toward the expenses the municipality during the period from 1835 to 1870 the local government was unable to provide the improvements and services required to keep pace with the growth of the city. In 1860 the population of the District had increased to 75,000, not including the area south of the Potomac River, which was ceded back to Virginia in 18'6. Most of this increase was within the limits of the city of Wash ington. The Civil War brought about a relatively large increase in population. which further emphasized this neglect. The close of the war found Washington an overcrowded city, lacking many of the facilities which a city of its size should have. Its streets were largely ungraded and unpaved. It had no water-supply system, except for the Federal buildings, and no adequate sewerage system t had more the appearance of a frontier town than the seat of the Government of a great nation. Despite the inadequate expenditures during previous years, it had accumulated a debt of $4,350.000. In 1871 Congress tock the matter in hand and reorganized the local govern ment. It abolished the city governments of Washington and Georgetown and set up a new government for the entire District, modeled on the plan of the Terri torial governments. Unlike the Territorial governments, however, the people had ery little power in this new government. The only elected officers were the embers of the lower body of a two chamber legislature. The members of the ipper body were appointed by the President of the United States, as were the Governor and the members of the Board of Public Works. These latter officers xercised the real powers. They embarked upon an extensive program of municial improvements, the cost of which was out of all proportion to the possibilities of revenue from local taxation. Only a small part of these expenditures was uthorized by the Territorial legislature. It was hoped that Congress would ecognize the fact that Washington is the Capital City of the Nation and would Issume at least a fair proportion of the cost. Congress did not do so, with the result that excessive taxes were levied and the debt was further increased to $23,360,700. The Territorial government became bankrupt and Congress abolshed it in 1874, making provision for the appointment of a commission to iquidate its affairs. During the ensuing 4 years Congress investigated the affairs of the Territorial government and considered what form the future government of the District should take. It found no evidence of graft or corruption, but it did find that the appointed officers of that government had been injudicious in entering into con. tracts involving large expenditures of money with no assurance of where the money was coming from. The investigating committee conceded that Congress had been derelict in its obligation to make adequate payments for municipal services received by United States properties, and recommended, as a similar committee had recommended in 1835, that at least 50 percent of the municipal budget be paid from United States funds. Meanwhile, from 1870 to 1878 Congress appropriated $18,600,000 toward the expenses of the District, or about 382 percent of the total expenditures of $48,100,000 during this period. The demand for payment by the United States of 50 percent of the municipal budget was met with the not unreasonable counter demand that if Congress appropriated such a large proportion of the funds it should have some control over the municipal budget. The need for such participation was so desperate that many citizens, particularly those with large financial and property interests, were willing to exchange their supposedly inalienable right of local self-government for a guaranty of a 50-percent participation. As a result, Congress, in 1878, passed the so-called organic act which provided for a government by appointed commissioners with limited administrative powers, and final action by Congress upon all but minor details of the affairs of the municipality. This act further provided that the Commissioners should annually submit to the Secretary of the Treasury, for his examination and approval, an estimate of municipal costs for the ensuing fiscal year, that the Secretary should "carefully consider" such estimates, "approve, disapprove, or suggest such changes in the same, or in any item thereof, as he may think the public interest demands," and deliver his statement of the amounts approved by him to the Commissioners, who should transmit the same, together with their own estimate, to Congress. The act then provided that "to the extent to which Congress shall approve the said estimates, Congress shall appropriate the amount of 50 percent thereof, and the remaining 50 percent of such approved estimates shall be levied and assessed upon the taxable property and privileges in said District other than the property of the United States and of the District of Columbia." It also placed limits on the rates of taxation of real estate "not exempted by law" and on personal property "not taxable elsewhere." This 50-percent participation continued until 1921, and under it the District made steady progress. Largely because the United States was paying this large proportion of the costs, Congress from time to time included in the local budget items of a national character, no part of the cost of which ought to have been imposed upon the local taxpayers. The taxpayers, however, had no say in the matter. The budget was made up by the appointed Commissioners, was modified by the Secretary of the Treasury, a Federal official, and final action was had by Congress, in which the local citizens were not represented. Toward the end of this period, Congress developed the practice of paring down the estimates so that the total amount of the budget was less than twice the anticipated revenues. Many of these cuts were made at the expense of adequate municipal services or necessary capital improvements, but the local citizens were powerless to do more than make ineffective protests. A surplus was thus accumulated. Because of this surplus, there arose in Congress a sentiment that the 50-percent partici crises in the local government have been due to the failure of Congress to authorize adequate payments in lieu of taxes for municipal services received by the United States. The brief is appended hereto. Attest: FEDERATION OF CITIZENS' ASSOCIATIONS, DAVID BAEP, Secretary. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF A LARGER PARTICIPATION BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE EXPENSES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATEMENT OF FACTS The District of Columbia was ceded by the States of Maryland and Virginia to become "the seat of the Government of the United States," under a provision of the Constitution which empowers Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation" over such a district. When the United States Government was moved here in 1800 the population of the entire District was less than 15,000, and there was very little to be taxed, outside of the self governing cities of Alexandria and Georgetown, which levied their own taxes and expended their own tax revenues. Since none of its property was then within the boundaries of these two cities, the United States of necessity provided whatever municipal services it desired at its own expense. Scon, however, a new city grew up around the new government buildings. In 1802 Congress chartered the city of Washington as a self-governing munici pality with the ordinary municipal powers, including the power to levy taxes and expend tax revenues. This new city government furnished municipal services to its citizens and also to the tax-free properties of the United States. Congress made direct payments for some of these services; for others it "con tributed" lump sums to the municipal budget from time to time, but these sums were inadequate. During the entire period from 1790, when the District of Columbia was originally laid out, to 1835 the municipality expended a total of $5,500 000, a large sum for those days, of which Congress "contributed” about $1.400,000, or approximately 26 percent. The city incurred a large indebtedness, and by 1835 was practically bankrupt. Congress investigated, and its investigating committee found that the United States ought to pay more than one-half of the municipal expenses as its fair share. No specific action was taken, however, but during the next 35 years Congress was more liberal in its "contributions," which aggregated $9,000,000, or about 34 percent of the total of $26700,000 expended for municipal purposes during that period. In 1873, the United States, through the War Department, installed a water supply system for the Federal buildings at a cost of $3,385,000. This water was not made available to private consumers until 20 years later, but since that time the entire costs of maintenance, operation, and extensions to the system have been paid out of rents charged the private consumers, and the United States has received all of its water free of charge. Owing to the inadequate "contributions" by Congress toward the expenses of the municipality during the period from 1835 to 1870 the local government was unable to provide the improvements and services required to keep pace with the growth of the city. In 1860 the population of the District had increased to 75,000, not including the area south of the Potomac River, which was ceded back to Virginia in 18'6. Most of this increase was within the limits of the city of Washington. The Civil War brought about a relatively large increase in population. which further emphasized this neglect. The close of the war found Washington an overcrowded city, lacking many of the facilities which a city of its size should have. Its streets were largely ungraded and unpaved. It had no water-supply system, except for the Federal buildings, and no adequate sewerage system. It had more the appearance of a frontier town than the seat of the Government of a great nation. Despite the inadequate expenditures during previous years, it had accumulated a debt of $4,350.000. In 1871 Congress tock the matter in hand and reorganized the local government. It abolished the city governments of Washington and Georgetown and set up a new government for the entire District, modeled on the plan of the Territorial governments. Unlike the Territorial governments, however, the people had ery little power in this new government. The only elected officers were the embers of the lower body of a two chamber legislature. The members of the ipper body were appointed by the President of the United States, as were the Governor and the members of the Board of Public Works. These latter officers xercised the real powers. They embarked upon an extensive program of municial improvements, the cost of which was out of all proportion to the possibilities of revenue from local taxation. Only a small part of these expenditures was uthorized by the Territorial legislature. It was hoped that Congress would ecognize the fact that Washington is the Capital City of the Nation and would issume at least a fair proportion of the cost. Congress did.not do so, with the esult that excessive taxes were levied and the debt was further increased to $23,360,700. The Territorial government became bankrupt and Congress abolshed it in 1874, making provision for the appointment of a commission to iquidate its affairs. During the ensuing 4 years Congress investigated the affairs of the Territorial government and considered what form the future government of the District should take. It found no evidence of graft or corruption, but it did find that the appointed officers of that government had been injudicious in entering into con. tracts involving large expenditures of money with no assurance of where the money was coming from. The investigating committee conceded that Congress had been derelict in its obligation to make adequate payments for municipal services received by United States properties, and recommended, as a similar committee had recommended in 1835, that at least 50 percent of the municipal budget be paid from United States funds. Meanwhile, from 1870 to 1878 Congress appropriated $18,600,000 toward the expenses of the District, or about 381⁄2 percent of the total expenditures of $48,100,000 during this period. The demand for payment by the United States of 50 percent of the municipal budget was met with the not unreasonable counter demand that if Congress appropriated such a large proportion of the funds it should have some control over the municipal budget. The need for such participation was so desperate that many citizens, particularly those with large financial and property interests, were willing to exchange their supposedly inalienable right of local self-government for a guaranty of a 50-percent participation. As a result, Congress, in 1878, passed the so-called organic act which provided for a government by appointed commissioners with limited administrative powers, and final action by Congress upon all but minor details of the affairs of the municipality. This act further provided that the Commissioners should annually submit to the Secretary of the Treasury, for his examination and approval, an estimate of municipal costs for the ensuing fiscal year, that the Secretary should "carefully consider" such estimates, "approve, disapprove, or suggest such changes in the same, or in any item thereof, as he may think the public interest demands," and deliver his statement of the amounts approved by him to the Commissioners, who should transmit the same, together with their own estimate, to Congress. The act then provided that "to the extent to which Congress shall approve the said estimates, Congress shall appropriate the amount of 50 percent thereof, and the remaining 50 percent of such approved estimates shall be levied and assessed upon the taxable property and privileges in said District other than the property of the United States and of the District of Columbia." It also placed limits on the rates of taxation of real estate "not exempted by law" and on personal property "not taxable elsewhere." This 50-percent participation continued until 1921, and under it the District made steady progress. Largely because the United States was paying this large proportion of the costs, Congress from time to time included in the local budget items of a national character, no part of the cost of which ought to have been imposed upon the local taxpayers. The taxpayers, however, had no say in the matter. The budget was made up by the appointed Commissioners, was modified by the Secretary of the Treasury, a Federal official, and final action was had by Congress, in which the local citizens were not represented. Toward the end of this period, Congress developed the practice of paring down the estimates so that the total amount of the budget was less than twice the anticipated revenues. Many of these cuts were made at the expense of adequate municipal services or necessary capital improvements, but the local citizens were powerless to do more than make ineffective protests. A surplus was thus accumulated. Because of this surplus, there arose in Congress a sentiment that the 50-percent partici crises in the local government have been due to the failure of Congress to authorize adequate payments in lieu of taxes for municipal services received by the United States. The brief is appended hereto. Attest: FEDERATION OF CITIZENS' ASSOCIATIONS. DAVID BABP, Secretary. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF A LARGER PARTICIPATION BY THE UNITED STATES IN THI EXPENSES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATEMENT OF FACTS The District of Columbia was ceded by the States of Maryland and Virginia to become "the seat of the Government of the United States," under a provision of the Constitution which empowers Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation over such a district. When the United States Government was moved here in 1800 the population of the entire District was less than 15,000, and there was very little to be taxed, outside of the self governing cities of Alexandria and Georgetown, which levied their own taxes and expended their own tax revenues. Since none of its property was then within the boundaries of these two cities. the United States of necessity provided whatever municipal services it desired at its own expense. Soon, however, a new city grew up around the new government buildings. In 1802 Congress chartered the city of Washington as a self-governing munici pality with the ordinary municipal powers, including the power to levy taxes and expend tax revenues. This new city government furnished municipal ser vices to its citizens and also to the tax-free properties of the United States Congress made direct payments for some of these services; for others it "co tributed" lump sums to the municipal budget from time to time, but these suns were inadequate. During the entire period from 1790, when the District of Columbia was originally laid out, to 1835 the municipality expended a total of $5,500 000, a large sum for those days, of which Congress "contributed" about $1.400,000, or approximately 26 percent. The city incurred a large indebtedness, and by 1835 was practically bankrupt. Congress investigated, and its investi gating committee found that the United States ought to pay more than one-half of the municipal expenses as its fair share. No specific action was taken, however, but during the next 35 years Congress was more liberal in its "contributions," which aggregated $9,000,000, or about 34 percent of the total of $26700,000 expended for municipal purposes during that period. In 1873, the United States, through the War Department, installed a water supply system for the Federal buildings at a cost of $3,385,000. This water was not made available to private consumers until 20 years later, but since that time the entire costs of maintenance, operation, and extensions to the system have been paid out of rents charged the private consumers, and the United States has received all of its water free of charge. of Owing to the inadequate "contributions" by Congress toward the expenses the municipality during the period from 1835 to 1870 the local government was unable to provide the improvements and services required to keep pace with the growth of the city. In 1860 the population of the District had increased to 75,000, not including the area south of the Potomac River, which was ceded back to Virginia in 18'6. Most of this increase was within the limits of the city of Wash ington. The Civil War brought about a relatively large increase in population. which further emphasized this neglect. The close of the war found Washington an overcrowded city, lacking many of the facilities which a city of its size should have. Its streets were largely ungraded and unpaved. It had no water-supply system, except for the Federal buildings, and no adequate sewerage system t had more the appearance of a frontier town than the seat of the Government of a great nation. Despite the inadequate expenditures during previous years, had accumulated a debt of $4,350.000. it In 1871 Congress tock the matter in hand and reorganized the local govern ment. It abolished the city governments of Washington and Georgetown and set up a new government for the entire District, modeled on the plan of the Terri torial governments. Unlike the Territorial governments, however, the people had |