C h i prr »ain y \ • Orto n Pa r Vq* 3 Financial c^wdiTiow <>T 4Vj have total assets of District to apply to debt 1, 758, 054 37 SEWER-TAX INDEBTEDNESS. It is also urged that because our Legislature authorized the sewer- "tax bonds to issue, therefore the District must provide for them. It would seem idle to contest this, for Congress declared the act illegal, and repealed it. But it may be added, and still our assets w r ill pay it and leave a small balance. Thus : Sewer-tax certificates, including interest (class one) $1, 112, 942 29 Sewer tax paid by property-owners (class seven) 557, 686 52 Total 1,670,628 81 Assets already shown 1,758,054 37 Balance to be applied to our funded debt 77, 425 56 I have charged the District with everything which by any pretense is justly or in my opinion legally chargeable to it ; and allowing credit for assets, we have the debt about nine and a half millions. In this I include, but do not concede, nearly $2,000,000 sewer tax, which has no warrant of law and which I do not believe it competent 6 for Congress to compel the people to pay ; and I have included the- certificates of assessment, which are chargeable to and payable by individual property-holders. LIABILITIES OF THE UNITED STATES. I come now to the more important question who are liable for the remaining indebtedness, for we have reached but a part. I claim that the United States are legally and morally liable. Who created these liabilities? The board of public works. Under what author- ity? Let us see. I have shown negatively that they derived no authority from the- District Legislature or the people ; and as to the District, any liability created without such authority is void. After the board had exhausted the $4,000,000 loan, the proceeds of special assessments, and temporary aid given by the Legislative- Assembly, they still found themselves in the presence of an unsolved problem of improvements. They obtained authority from the Legis- lative Assembly, by acts of August 10, 1871, and May 23, 1873, to assess one-third of the cost of improvements against private property benefited as provided by the organic act ; but the Legislature could not and did not attempt to provide for the other two-thirds. Our general fund was exhausted and our limit of $10,000,000 debt reached and our taxes up to the maximum of 2 per cent., which was barely, sufficient to pay the current expenses of government and the interest on our debt. The Legislature, therefore, could not if they would incur a liability for this two-thirds cost. Here is the dividing line between these liabilities. The Legisla- ture had started this general fund from which the two-thirds of the cost should be paid by the $4,000,000 loan act, but they provided dis- tinctly (section 2, act July 10, 1871,) " that in no case shall the boards of public works enter into any contract for any work which shall exceed the estimate " on which the loan act was based. Besides the organic act, section 37 stood as a protection to the District, and still, stands : The said board shall have no power to make contracts to bind said District to the payment of any sums of money, except in pursuance of appropriation made by law,.. and not until such appropriations shall have been made. The act of Congress of May 8, 1871, said : The debt of the District of Columbia * * shall at no time exceed the sum of $10,000,000, unless an increase * * shall have been previously authorized by act of Congress. And the same act also said : The aggregate amount of taxes in any one year, excepting such additional assess- ments as may be made for improvements specially authorized by law, shall not exceed 2 per cent, on the assessed cash valuation of property in said city. The bars were put up in every direction, and they have never been taken down so far as the District is concerned. The District stands upon the statute law, and disclaims all liability- in violation of it. (See report of Joint Investigating Committee^ page 7.) Now, who were this board ? They were the agents of the United States ; they were paid by them ; appointed by them ; to them they reported, and to them alone were they answerable. Who can gainsay this? The organic act, section 37, gave to this board entire control of all the streets, avenues, and alleys in the District. They were Govern- ment officers in every sense, and have been so held to be by the courts. This is important, and I do not want any doubt indulged as to my ■proposition. The supreme court of this District decided, after a full -argument, this exact question in Barnes vs. The United States, and other cases. I read enough to show the decision : Barnes sued the District of Columbia for damages arising from an injury bj r falling down an embankment in one of the streets exca- vated by the board of public works. In commenting upon the con- trol over the streets given by the organic act to the board of public works, the court say : After entire control of any subject or matter is given to one person or to a board, 'what kind of control can be implied, by way of reversion or remainder in the Dis- trict, to some otber person or body. It is said the board of public works is a constituent part of the District govern- ment as last organized; and therefore, on any omission of duty by any constituent .part of such government, whereby damage has been occasioned to third persons, an action may be maintained by' such persons against the District government. This position is rather specious than sound. Congress saw fit to create the board of public works as well as the board of health in the same act; but this does not satisfy the separate duties or functions of each. The truth is, each is a distinct part of the agency of the United States for the government of the District, and duties and responsibilities must be determined ■accordingly. The members of the board of public works are appointed by the President, con- firmed by the Senate, paid by the United States ; and being thus appointed, to them is committed the control and repair of the streets. It would be as much a trespass to interfere with their prescribed duties as with those of any other agents of the United States. ******* But it is proposed to hold this government responsible for the negligence of the board of public works created by Congress, * * * over which the people of this District have no more control than the people of a neighboring State. This is run- -ning the doctrine of imputed sins so far into the ground that I am unwilling to follow it." — Opinion of Mr. Justice Olin. Here is the precise question decided. How can an action be main- tained against this District for a liability created by your agents over whom we had no more control than the people of the State of Maryland had ? • The District Legislature could aid the board by appropriations, but it could in no way interfere with its control of the streets ; it could create a debt or make appropriations within certain limits to provide funds for this board, but it could not prevent the board from paving all the streets with most costly material or do any other thing. Con- gress alone could control this. Where, then, did authority come from, and to whom did the board look in improving streets with authority only to levy tax for one-third the cost upon the property benefited ? I will let the joint investigating committee of last Congress answer. They say : Tour committee are unable to see but one way in which the board could have ex- pected, to pay this large debt: that is by receiving aid from Congress, as it must have occurred to them that the resources of the District could not be taxed suffi- ciently to pay them. Page 14. It is not my duty to defend the board or to state their theory of action; they have done their work, and are content to abide the ver- dict of history as to its wisdom and its value. I am speaking for the people of the District, to show that they did not do this thing. They did their share and will pay their share, but they will not and cannot do more. But did this board reckon without its host ? Had they a right to look to Congress ? Was their action unprecedented ? Upon this point I cite from the opinion of Hon. C. dishing, pages 475, 476 of report of Joint Investigating Committee. It states the- whole case. I hope members will read it entire. I can only summa- rize it. The question was submitted to Mr. Cushing whether the board could go on increasing liabilities in the face of the act of January 8, 1873, prohibiting it unless appropriations were previously made. Mr. Cushing held that the act of March 3, 1873, repealed this re- striction, and left the matter to come up as deficiencies. He showed how impossible it would be for the board to delay work devolved u pon them by paving half a street and leaving the other half unpaved,. or half laying a sewer, and the like. He discussed the double relation of agent of the District and agent of the United States conferred upon th® board, and advised that it was competent for it to do the very tbAng which ultimately brought disaster and created the very liabili- ties I now insist are not ours, but yours. I refer to this to show that this board were not acting beyond the color of authority. I need not remind the House that Mr. Cushing enjoys the reputation of both a statesman and good lawyer. Few men in this country have had so wide a range of experience in public affairs. He states the theory on which the board acted. Whether it is sound in law or not is your affair, not mine. The action of Congress would indicate that it is sound. Congress continued to appropriate money from time to time, and when the crash came and the board was destroyed, Con- gress appropriated over a million more, and provided for funding all the liabilities of the District and the board. In this act of June 20, 1874, I find legislative interpretation, as I claim, of my p roposition. The act makes a distinction between Dis- trict debt and board of public works liabilities. The theory of the- report of the committee and the bill is that the United States are liable, and a guarantee is pledged to pay the bonds. The committee avoid, and the act avoids, deciding this question ; but there can be no doubt of the meaning of both. You may call them District of Colum- bia bonds or Alaska bonds; they remain the bonds of the United States, given to discharge a liability of the United States, a liability which had no sanction of our Legislative Assembly, and cannot now be declared our obligations without ' violating every congressional safeguard thrown around our property and our citizens. In this matter the board of public works stood in the exact relation that General Babcock or the Supervising Architect, Mr. Mnllett, stood in conducting recent public work. Congress could with the same legal right impose a tax on our property to pay one of Mr. Mullett's deficiencies or General Babcock's excess of expenditures on a public square, if he ever makes any, as to tax us for "work done around the public buildings and squares by the board of public works without our authority. The acts of the board as the agents of the United States were public acts, and the United States cannot escape the con- sequences. How can we be taxed directly, to the exclusion of all the rest of the United States, to pay the debt of the United States ? I submit that it cannot be done, and this opinion is the law laid down by your Judiciary Committee at the last session in the report submitted by Judge Poland, (.see report No. (327, second session Forty-third Congress,) and is, as I understand it, the exact theory of the report and bill submitted by the joint committee appointed under the act of June 20, 1874. (See report No. 479, second session Forty-third Congress.) But, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to protract the argument on this point. I think it established. "We come to the practical question.. 9 what is to be done about it ? How much of this liability must the United States assume ? I say the United States should at least assume the entire 3.65 loan, as a matter of law, of equity, and of necessity. These views I will notice briefly. I have already noticed the legal argument. THE LAW OF, THE CASE, First. Of the classes of claims authorized by the act of June 20 to be funded, the act expressedly designates as liabilities of the board the first, second, fourth, sixtb, and eighth classes. These include the sewer tax, which Congress declared illegal, aud other claims that find no warrant of authority in any legislative enactment of the District. They are : Tlrst class, claims against the board of public worts, evidenced by sewer certificates, under act of Legislature, afterward repealed by Congress $1,112,942 29 Second class, claims against tbe board of public works, evidenced by certificate of their auditor 4, 484, 144 52 Fourth class, claims for which no evidence of indebtedness has been issued, arising out of contracts, written or oral, of board of public woiks .7. 2,896,537 78 Sixth class, claims for private property taken by board of pnblie works from the streets and alleys .'. 463, 094 85 Eighth class, claims for sewer tax paid by persons; same as class first 557, 688 52 9, 514, 407 96 It is not possible to make an exact division of the District and Gov- ernment liabilities ; but no just division of the expenditures of the last three years, upon the theory I have advanced of the Government liability for all acts of the board not authorized by the Legislative Assembly can be made which will not require the United States to pay at least $10,000,000. j>«This may not be an agreeable view to Congress, but it is the true view, and must betaken sooner or later. It is your work ; your agents did it ; you stood by and encouraged it. It will not do to turn now and cast the burden upon the oppressed people of this District. THE EQUITY OF THE CASE. Second. As a matter of equity I say the United States should not only assume these 3.65 bonds, but should pay one-half of the expenses of this District since the capital was located here. There never has been a time since the permanent establishment of the capital that any fair apportionment of local expenses would not require the United States to pay at least one-half. In a speech last winter (Congressional Record, Appendix p. 113) I endeavored to carefully define the legal and equitable relations of the District with the National Government, and to trace the history of both in this regard. I think I demonstrated that the United States should pay at least one-half of the cost of the local government, and I based that belief on principle and upon recognized precedent. I cannot now repeat the argument, but I believe a careful perusal of it and of the facts upon which it rests will convince any unprejudiced mind. I cite the argument there elaborated, and particularly the following : Eeport of Senator Southard, February 2, 1835, to the Senate. Eeport of Senator Brown, May 15, 1858, to the Senate. Report of the House Committee on the District of Columbia, No. 72, second session Forty-second Congress, May 13, 1872. Report of Judiciary Committee of the House, No. 627, first session Forty-third Congress, 1874. Report of the Joint Committee of Senate and House, No. 479, second session Forty-third Congress, December 7, 1874. 2C 10 This proposition assumed, what is the state of the account ? I could present an approximate table showing within a hundred thou- sand dollars the amount due from the United States. It would show the expenditures of all kinds made by local and General Govern- ment for purposes which may be regarded on common account. It would bring the United States in debt to the District of Columbia not far from $15,000,000. But I will not pursue this in detail. We have got to that point in the District where Congress must repudiate a part of the debt or as- sume it, for we cannot pay it; and Congress must make up its mind further to provide for a large -proportion of the cost of local govern- ment, for we cannot pay it all ; and in this view it may not be mate- rial to strike a balance-sheet. You can get a certain revenue from our property, but it is limited and the balance must come from the Treasury. I state this frankly, and to those who take a proper pride in the capital and are disposed to accept the duty devolved upon you by the Constitution, it cannot be disagreeable. In any event it is best for us all that the exact truth be known. THE NECESSITY OF THE CASE. This leads me to present, finally, the argument of necessity. There is a point beyond which a people sometimes cannot go and cannot be driven. The citizens of this District have arrived at that point now. They can and will pay a reasonable tax upon their property ; but they cannot and will not do more. You may seize and confiscate, or you may become possessed of their property by sale under the mar- shal's hammer ; but you. cannot enforce a tax large enough to support this District government in all its branches and provide for the pay- ment of all the liabilities existing here. If our property were assessed to-day, excluding the usual exempt class, the cash value would not reach $75,000,000. It has been inflated to ninety odd millions; but times are changed; real property is greatly depressed, and has scarcely any sale. Aside from real estate we have but little property or business from which revenue can be derived, and, compared withmost other cities, really nothing. All attempts heretofore to a'ssess personal estate have been delusive and disappointing, and have scarcely paid the cost of collection. Assuming that our real property couldbejustlyassessedto $90,000,000, we have a basis of calculation which is the most favorable. The commissioners for the District estimate the necessary expenses for the ensuing year, (see Miscellaneous Documents, No. 40, House of Rep- resentatives, second session Forty-third Congress,) $2,755,800. This is exclusive of the interest on the 3.65 bonds and exclusive of a sink- ing fund to retire the whole debt. Add these two items, and we have (estimated) $750,000; total revenue required, $3,505,800. To raise this by tax upon our property would require us to pay four dollars on every hundred, and this cannot be paid by our people under the circumstances. The extraordinary tax of 3 per cent, levied by act of June 20, 1874, when the commissioners made their report to Congress, (page 93,) was delinquent to the amount of $1, 607, 216 04 And on the prior levy of 2 per cent, under the Legislature (esti- mated) 500,000 00 On other levies 150, 000 00 Making a total of delinquent tax 2,257,216 04 11 To this must be added special taxes against private property, still uncollected 3,176,454 37 "Which makes still to he paid by our citizens, and which hangs over all the property, the sum of 5, 433, 670 41 The most of this must be provided for while we are paying our next year's tax, whicji, I submit, it is not possible for us to do. But in this connection it is due our citizens that Congress should know what extraordinary sums have been paid by them in furtherance of improvements and to maintain our local government in the past three years. We have actually paid in money since the 1st of June, 1871, when the new government began, exclusive of the debt bonded and floating, over $5,000,000 ; which, added to the delinquent tax and special assessments unpaid, $5,433,670.41, makes the total of $10,433,670.41 ; add to this the amount of the liabilities funded, float- ing, and unpaid, $18,427,360.24, and we have $28,861,030.15, which is equal to nearly one-third of the entire taxable real estate of the Dis- trict. May I not conclude the argument here? Can any member look this subject squarely in the face and vote to cast upon this people the entire burden of government in this District ? If there is, I warn him to provide liberally for the officers of the law, for upon them will devolve the disagreeable duty of dispossessing half the resident popu- lation of this capital. In this course of cruelty there is but one measure of refinement necessary. Make the non-payment of tax cause for imprisonment ; we will at least secure shelter at public expense. A GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY SOMEWHERE. I have pursued this question, Mr. Speaker, as far as I propose to do. I know there are those on this floor who assert that the United States should do nothing more toward sustaining local government here . than in any other city of the Union ; who say you should do nothing to support the schools, when one-third of the pupils are children of non-residents, who are the public servants of the United States and obliged to live here, but contribute little or nothing to taxes ; who say you should not help the fire department, when here the United States have more valuable treasures exposed in inflammable build- ings than the whole population besides ; who say that the police de- partment should not be aided, when your own lives and property, and that of thousands compelled to come here and transact business de- pend on the efficiency of this corps ; who say that the health depart- ment should not be assisted, when but for its efficient work of last year and the help you gave Congress would have been driven out of the capital to escape the scourge of small-pox ; who say that you should not pay anything toward lighting the streets, when it would be next to impossible to transact the public business and would be unsafe to venture beyond your houses but for this public convenience ; who say you should not help pave, sewer, and other- wise improve and adorn the city, when you have laid off a capital here upon a plan which implied and brought with it the pledge that you would do these things at your own expense, and unless you do them they must be undone and your city cease to be possible as your capital. It is to those, and such as those, who believe all these mon- strous errors, that I present the District of Columbia naked and pros- trate and almost hopeless. I have laid our burden at your feet and I declare to you, not de- fiantly, but earnestly, that we will not, because we cannot, take it up unless you assist us. I have striven for four years to impress upon 12 Congress the necessity for some intelligent and declared purpose to- ward this District, and my only hope now is that hetween the des- potism set up last session and the anarchy we seem drifting to, Con- gress will soon wake up to the fact that here at the nation's cen- ter ; here where we should have a model government ; here where hy common consent and with a common pride a generous and liberal policy should govern; here of all the broad domain of the United States is the most vacillating, the most uncertain, the mosb ignorant, and the most unpatriotic course pursued. I have not uttered since I have had the honor of being among you one word of partisan appeal, for I have felt that while I was sent here upon the nomination of one of the great parties of the country, it was to serve interests purely local and in behalf of which there should be no party dispute ; but it is a disappointing reflection that that party with which most of my constituents are in sympathy, however much it may have done to beautify this city, has destroyed the only government we had and has not given ug a better one ; that while in spasms of good feeling it has appropriated generously, it has, under cover of this duty performed, wholly overlooked the greater one of providing here a wise, an efficient, a model government. There is a grave responsibility somewhere, and I hope there may yet be patriotism and national pride enough to perform it. While you are agonizing over States which are provided by the Constitution with machinery to operate themselves, I beg of you not to forget the heart of the nation, that cannot even pulsate without you will let it. I beg of you do not longer draggle this " child of the Union" at the heels of Neglect $1 beg of you do not forget that this entire community, as large as some of your States, is practically ex- isting under a despotism, which, if it chose to avail itself of the power you have given it and were not composed of men every way to be trusted, as our present commissioners can be, might oppress this peo- ple to a point that would bring personal disgrace upon every one of you and indelibly tarnish the very name of American liberty. I declare my deliberate opinion to be that there is not within the range of my knowledge of Christian nations a spot so badly gov- erned as this one, where Congress alone has absolute and exclusive legislative control. Taking the government of the District of Colum- bia as an example of the wisdom of Congress, this nation could not exist twenty-four hours, if it were not for the reserved rights of the States which secure to them good government'. / It is impossible, Mr. Speaker, for me to say more or do more than I have done to arouse Congress to a sense of duty toward the capital of this great nation. In common with the citizens of this District, I have urged the local needs ; I have urged the national view ; I have worked in season and out of season, and must we now only sit down in utter despair and wait the final consummation of our ruin ?