DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
 
 
 
 .'• -O 
 
 . . v,: y-- ■.^.:'-‘^.C- 
 
 AND ITS RELATIONS TO 
 
 •S'- /> .jll/ 
 
 THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT 
 
 ISSUED BY 
 
 THE WASHINGTON 
 CHAMBER OP COMMERCE 
 
 JANUARY, 1912 
 
 V. 
 
 > .?! 
 O'j* j-'! .V 
 

 
 t 
 
 Tw 
 
 REMOT 
 
 Ut, I 
 
 A 
 
 (jji<AGg 
 
 BOOKyrACKS OfiElCE 
 Facts and Arguments Regarding the District 
 
 of Columbia and Its Relations to the Gen¬ 
 eral Government, Compiled and Issued by 
 The Washington Chamber of Commerce. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States provides that Congress 
 shall “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such 
 District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by session of par¬ 
 ticular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the 
 Government of the United States.” 
 
 As is well known, this power was conferred upon Congress for 
 its own protection and in order that the legislative and executive 
 functions of the Government might be carried on without molestation. 
 
 During the Revolution Congress was repeatedly compelled to 
 change its place of meeting by the approach of the British troops. 
 In June, 1783, it was obliged to leave Philadelphia by a demonstration 
 of a body of the dissatisfied soldiers of the Revolution; and as the 
 city and State authorities acknowledged their inability to afford the 
 necessary protection, the framers of the Constitution saw the neces- 
 U sity for giving to Congress absolute control of the future capital, 
 wherever it might be located. 
 
 It is not necessary to go into a detailed statement as to how the 
 national capital came to be located where it is. It is sufficient to say 
 that, after a contest of seven years in Congress, and the considera¬ 
 tion of no less than twenty-two sites in several different States, and 
 the passage by one House of a bill for a dual capital, with a pro- 
 ^ vision that Congress shou. m.eet alternately at the two places, it was 
 finally, by a comprui ’’se, located here by an Act passed July 16, 1790. 
 
 The act authorizt^d President Washington to appoint three Com¬ 
 missioners to lay out and define the boundaries of the District, and 
 to lay out the city on such a plan as he might see fit. 
 
 In order to carry out this act, Washington, in March, 1791, made 
 a bargain with ^he nineteen owners of the land (mostly covered with 
 forest trees, and with but few residents) by which they deeded their 
 lands in trust to tv/o trustees, with an agreement that he should select 
 
so much as he saw fit—should lay it out as he chose; that all lands 
 taken for streets, avenues, and alleys should be a free gift to the 
 United States Government; that the land selected for public reserva¬ 
 tions, for pul^lic buildings, parks, etc., should be laid out into squares 
 and lots, to be divided equally between the original proprietors and 
 the Government. 
 
 The land was divided thus: 
 
 Total number of acres taken for the city. 6,110.94 
 
 Donated to the United States for avenues, streets, 
 
 and alleys . 3,606 
 
 Donated to the United States, 10,136 building lots. . 982 
 
 Bought by the United States for public buildings 
 
 and reservations . 541 
 
 Total number of acres taken by the United States 5,129 
 
 10,136 lots given back to former owners 
 
 981,94 
 
 As the 541 acres for public buildings and reservations were re¬ 
 quired to be paid for out of the first proceeds of the sale of the lots 
 donated to the Government, it will be seen that of the 6,111 acres, 
 5,129, or five-sixths of the whole, were a gift to the Government. 
 Thus the United States, without cost, not only secured the streets, 
 avenues and alleys and the sites and grounds for the Capitol and 
 other public buildings, but, in addition, received a large amount of 
 money from the net proceeds of the sales of the building lots appor¬ 
 tioned to it. 
 
 This gift to the nation by the people of the District of Columbia 
 was pronounced by Thomas Jefferson “really noble.” 
 
 In consideration of this gift it was understood by all parties that 
 the property of the citizens was not to be taxed; and it was so adver¬ 
 tised not only at home but abroad, as shown by Winterbotham’s 
 History of the United States, published in London in 1796, which, in 
 speaking of this gift to the Government, says: 
 
 “This grant will produce about 15,000 lots, and will be sufficient 
 not only to erect the public buildings, but to dig the canal, conduct 
 water through the city, and to pave and light #ie streets, which will 
 save a heavy tax that arises in other cities, and consequently render 
 the lots considerably more valu»^^ ” 
 
3 
 
 It was also clearly understood by all that the Government was 
 to open the streets and make all the improvements aside from private 
 residences. It was so understood by Washington, Jefferson and the 
 Commissioners, as well as by the citizens. Washington, in a letter to 
 the Commissioners, said: 
 
 ‘When you are in a situation to begin the opening of the avenues, 
 it is presumed those which will be more immediately useful will be 
 first cleared.’’ 
 
 Jefferson, in 1801, in a letter to the Commissioners, said: 
 
 “I consider the erection of the Representatives Chamber, and the 
 making of a good gravel road from the new bridge on the Rock 
 Creek along Pennsylvania and New Jersey Avenues to the Eastern 
 Branch, as the most important objects for insuring the destinies of 
 the city v;hich can be undertaken”; and in his message to Congress 
 in 1802, Jefferson spoke of the lots as being “sufficient to meet certain 
 demands, and insure a considerable surplus to the city to be employed 
 in its improvement,” and suggested that the sale of the lots be not 
 forced beyond the demand for them “lest the residuary interest of the 
 city be entirely lost.” 
 
 The city was designed as the capital of a great nation—one in 
 which every citizen of the nation was to have an interest, and in which 
 all would have a national pride. 
 
 It was always spoken of by^the authorities as “The Federal City,” 
 the “seat of the National Government,” and for years while erecting 
 the public buildings, the original Commissioners in their reports al¬ 
 ways spoke of it as belonging to the Government, and in their accounts 
 referred to the funds received and disbursed as “the city fund.” 
 Nothing is more conspicuous in all the early utterances of our Presi¬ 
 dents and public men than their insistence upon the nationality and 
 the permanence of the city of Washington as the capital. 
 
 In his address at the Citizens’ Dinner, given in the city of Wash¬ 
 ington, May 8, 1909, President Taft voiced the same idea. He said 
 on that occasion, in part: 
 
 “I am a nationalist. This city is the home of the government 
 of a nation, and when men who were just as much imbued with the 
 principles of civil liberty as any who have come after, Washington at 
 the head, put into the Constitution the provision with reference to the 
 government of the District of Columbia, they knew what they were 
 
 I 
 
4 
 
 doing and spoke for a coming possible eighty millions of people who 
 should insist that the home of the Government of that eighty millions 
 of people should be governed by the representatives of that eighty 
 millions of people. Washington intended this to be a Federal City, 
 and it is a Federal City, and it tingles down to the feet of every man, 
 whether he comes from Washington State, or Los Angeles, or Texas, 
 when he comes and walks these city streets and starts to feel that 
 this is my city; I own a part of this capital, and I envy for the time 
 being those who are able to spend their time here.” 
 
 Speaking of the grants made by the citizens to the General Gov¬ 
 ernment, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of 
 Van Ness vs. the city and the United States, 4 Peters 62, says: 
 
 '‘The grants were made for the foundation of a Federal City, 
 and the public faith was necessarily pledged, when the grants were 
 accepted, to found such a city. The very agreement to found a city 
 was of itself a most valuable consideration for these grants. On the 
 other hand, it must have been as obvious that Congress must forever 
 have an interest to protect and aid the city. The city was designed 
 to last in perpetuity, capitoli immobile saxum.'' 
 
 The obligation thus created, owing to the poor financial condition 
 of the Government at that time, was not carried out by the Govern¬ 
 ment, as agreed. 
 
 As the Government had not the means to push the w'ork, and as 
 '‘the city fund” had been used up, the citizens, of their owm accord, 
 under authority of Congress, began to improve the streets and ave¬ 
 nues, and for that purpose not only taxed themselves, but the city 
 also borrowed money from foreign capitalists, which it was unable 
 to pay, and in 1835 appealed to Congress for relief. In their report 
 to the Senate on this subject, after a full review of all the circum¬ 
 stances, the Committee on the District of Columbia, of which Senator 
 Southard was Chairman, used the following language: 
 
 “The Committee deem it proper, in the first place, to state that, 
 in the investigation of the causes which have led to the embarrassed 
 condition of the city, they have not found reason to rebuke and con¬ 
 demn the imprudence or extravagance of the inhabitants and the city 
 authorities to the extent which they had anticipated. They have, it 
 is believed, in some instances, been misled into expenditures which did 
 not appropriately belong to them, but the views by which they were 
 governed were of a liberal and public-spirited character. Such has 
 been the fact in relation to the streets. The committee do not find 
 
r» 
 
 0 
 
 in their conduct anything which should excite in Congress a reluctance 
 to come to their relief. The first cause of embarrassment to which 
 the attention of the committee was directed w'as the expense incurred 
 in the opening and repair of the streets. The plan of the city is one 
 of unusual magnitude and extent. The avenues and streets are very 
 wide, and for the number of the inhabitants much greater in dis¬ 
 tance than those of any other city on this continent, and necessarily 
 require a proportionate expenditure to make and keep them in repair. 
 And as the city has not grown in the usual manner, but has neces¬ 
 sarily been created in a short space of time, the pressure for the 
 public improvements has been alike sudden and burdensome. 
 
 “The population is but little more than 20,000, of whom near^)^ 
 7,000 are people of color and slaves, and a large number are tem¬ 
 porary residents connected with the Government. The avenues vary 
 from 120 to 160 feet in width; the streets from 80 to 147; the average 
 being about 90 feet. 
 
 “The avenues and streets which have to be opened and repaired 
 to fill up the plan of the city embrace a distance of more than 60 
 miles. Upon the streets, then, has been expended since the year 1800 
 an average annual sum of not less than $13,000, exclusive of a nearly 
 equal amount assessed upon the inhabitants for the pavements, gut¬ 
 ters, etc., a sum enormous in its amount when the character and re¬ 
 sources of the population and their scattered position and the other 
 improvements which they have been compelled to make are considered. 
 While this burden from the streets was upon them and within the 
 short period since the city was founded, they have been compelled to 
 create their market houses, infirmaries, pumps, wells, lamps, fire en¬ 
 gines and houses, pay their proportion for country roads, and the ex¬ 
 penses of their police, etc. 
 
 “The expenditure upon the streets under these circumstances has 
 unquestionably been one of the principal causes of the embarrassment 
 of the city and the committee believe that it is one which ought not 
 to have been thrown on the inhabitants to the extent which it has 
 been. They found this opinion upon the early history of the city, 
 the object of the nation in its establishment, and the contracts made 
 by the Government for the land which it possesses within its limits. 
 
 “The plan of the city was formed by the public authorities; the 
 dimensions of the streets determined by them, without interference 
 by the inhabitants or regard to their particular interest or convenience. 
 
 It is a plan calculated for the magnificent capital of a great nation, 
 but oppressive, from its very dimensions and arrangements, to the in¬ 
 habitants, if its execution to any considerable extent is to be thrown 
 upon them. No people who anticipated the execution and subsequent 
 support of it out of their own funds would ever have dreamed of 
 forming such a plan. It would have been the most consummate 
 folly. 
 
6 
 
 '‘At that period neither the Government nor the proprietors con¬ 
 templated that the whole or even a large proportion of the burden 
 should be thrown upon the inhabitants of the city. This assertion is 
 amply sustained by two considerations. In the first place, the con¬ 
 tract between the Government and the owners of the land gave to the 
 former a large extent of public lots, sufficient for all the edifices and 
 improvements which its conveniences could require, and, in addition 
 thereto, one-half of all the building lots within the limits of the city, 
 thus making the nation itself an equal owner of all the private prop¬ 
 erty, and equally interested for the benefit of this private property in 
 all the improvements which might be made. In the next place, the 
 Government assumed, and from that day to the present has claimed 
 and exercised, entire and absolute control over all the streets of the 
 city, so, that the inhabitants or the corporate authorities have no 
 power either to enlarge or to diminish them nor to open or close 
 them; but the authority in these respects has been exercised at all 
 times by Congress. It has even closed one of the streets and sold the 
 ground which formed a part of it. 
 
 'Tt could not have entered into the contemplation of anyone at 
 the date of the contract, nor can it now be regarded as either reason¬ 
 able or just, that the city should bear the expense of streets the prop¬ 
 erty and control of which was so absolutely in the Government, and 
 more than one-half of the land adjacent to which belong to it, and 
 must be increased in value by their improvement. The committee are 
 of opinion that the Government was bound by every principle of 
 equal right, and justice to pay a proportion of the expense incurred 
 upon this subject, equal to the amount of the property which it held, 
 and which was to be increased in value and benefited by it; and this 
 would have been greatly more than one-half. If the streets are its 
 property and to be regarded as altogether under its control, it is not 
 easy to perceive why it should call upon or permit others to keep that 
 property in order; and if the streets are to be regarded as for the 
 joint convenience of the Government and the inhabitants the expense 
 of maintaining them should be joint and in proportion to their re¬ 
 spective interests. 
 
 “The anticipation of all parties at the date of the contract and 
 for some time subsequent was that the property acquired by the 
 Government would, under its management and favorable auspices, be 
 immensely productive, enabling it to secure perfect accommodations 
 'for itself, and ‘insure a considerable surplus to the city, to be em¬ 
 ployed in its improvement.’ The city was regarded as having ‘the 
 residuary interest’ in the property, an interest, to which it then looked 
 with hope and confidence, and which was, by proper arrangements, to 
 be ‘saved.’ If, under these circumstances, it has happened that these 
 expectations, created by the action and avowed purposes of the Gov¬ 
 ernment, have been disappointed, if the city has too freely expended 
 
7 
 
 its resources on its own improvement, and if it be now severely em¬ 
 barrassed, however it may be decided by some that it can not claim, 
 from the strict letter of the contract and the rigid justice of the nation, 
 an interference to relieve all its embarrassments, yet it ought not to be 
 regarded as inexcusably importunate when it asks for their alleviation. 
 
 “There has been appropriated for the streets and paid out of the 
 city treasury the sum of $429,971, and in addition to this very large 
 sum it is a low estimate to say that not less than $200,000 have been 
 paid by the inhabitants for the improvements of the streets in various 
 directions. Previous to the year 1830, there had been 106,371 running 
 feet of pavement laid, besides the curbstones and paved gutters, and 
 paid for by special taxes upon the lots, to which the building lots of 
 the Government had contributed no part, although they derived an 
 equal benefit therefrom. While this has been done the Government 
 and nation have expended upon their own streets, which they formed 
 for their own purposes and to answer their own objects, in which 
 they have the exclusive property, over which they have exercised un¬ 
 limited control, and which they may close and sell at pleasure, only 
 $208,925; and the whole of this sum, with the exception of about 
 $10,000, has been devoted to the Pennsylvania Avenue and the streets 
 immediately around and adjoining the Capitol and President’s squares 
 alone, the improvement of which was indispensable to the Govern¬ 
 ment itself and promotive of its own interest, in the convenience of its 
 officers and the transaction of the public business. 
 
 “Congress has expended nothing except upon streets which ad¬ 
 join the public squares, and even upon such has only made some pave¬ 
 ments and walks and set out some trees along the squares, leaving 
 the rest of the expense of even those streets to be borne by the city. 
 While, on the other hand, the city has not only expended its money 
 on the streets wherever the population was scattered over its immense 
 area, but has especially opened and improved those leading to the 
 national establishments at the navy yard and arsenal and those lead¬ 
 ing to and around the public squares and reservations belonging to 
 the nation, and thus, by its own means, enhanced the value of the 
 public property. 
 
 “The committee believe that the expenditure for this object by 
 the Government has been nothing more than its duty and interest 
 demanded, and that it ought to have been made without reference to 
 any interest or convenience but its own. While they do not think that 
 the city was bound to expend the money of the inhabitants upon the 
 streets which the nation claimed and regulated, they believe the nar¬ 
 rowest measure of justice would have required, and does now require, 
 that the Government having in its private building lots and public 
 reservations at least an equal interest in the improvement of the 
 streets, should pay at least one-half of the expense of those streets 
 and that one-half of the money expended by the city for this purpose 
 
8 
 
 ought nozv to be refunded to it, being $214,965. Should this sum be 
 appropriated by Congress, the city will receive only the principal 
 money, and unless interest be paid upon it it will still lose many 
 thousand dollars. The committee therefore conclude that Congress 
 ought to make an appropriation to reimburse to the city the amount 
 of money wich it has expended for the benefit of the Government. 
 
 ‘Tn making this appropriation it will not be necessary for Congress 
 to take from the Treasury of the nation a single dollar which has 
 been derived from any one of all the sources of revenue to which the 
 people of the Union contribute. The Government has already re¬ 
 ceived from the property which it acquired by contract with owners 
 of the soil a much larger amount, as will be hereafter stated in this 
 report. 
 
 “The committee cannot consider the fact that the city has volun¬ 
 tarily and perhaps incautiously expended money upon the streets of 
 the nation without the requirement of Congress as furnishing any 
 objection to refunding the whole or a part of the money which the 
 Government ought in the first instance to have paid. The city may 
 have gone further in this matter than the necessities or convenience 
 of the Government may for the time being have required; and there 
 might, perhaps, with some propriety, be some deduction in that ac¬ 
 count; but the expenditures were made with the generous purpose of 
 increasing the public accommodation and rendering the capital of 
 the country what it ought to be, as well as to augment equally the 
 property held by the individual inhabitants of the city and by the 
 Government itself, and the improvements which it has made have 
 greatly enhanced both. 
 
 “The committee is not aware that any prevalent objections have 
 been made to the manner in which, nor the extent to which, the streets 
 have been opened and improved. The whole seems to have been 
 properly done, and with a just regard to economy and the wants of 
 the’ inhabitants. 
 
 “There is another consideration which strengthens the view the 
 committee take upon this point. The immense property of the Govern¬ 
 ment which has been thus benefited has been at all times free from tax¬ 
 ation, while the property of individuals, adjoining to it, has been 
 subject thereto. In several of the States of the Union where the 
 Government holds landed estate it has paid taxes upon it, and these 
 taxes have been expended for the ordinary municipal purposes of the 
 places where the property was situated. In the city of Washington the 
 case has been directly reversed. Holding here more property than 
 anyone else, it has been subject to no imposition of this kind. 
 
 “In the acts of incorporation, which give to the city a partial con¬ 
 trol and regulation over the streets, there is no exemption of the prop¬ 
 erty of the Government from taxation; and it might, perhaps, be 
 properly inferred that Congress did not intend that it should be ex¬ 
 empted, but that it should be equally subject to those burdens which 
 
9 
 
 became necessary for the common benefit of the whole. But the cor¬ 
 porate authorities have, with prudence and propriety, abstained from 
 levying taxes upon it, and have laid the whole weight upon that part 
 of the property which belonged to individuals, while the Government 
 has been equally participant in the benefits, which have resulted from 
 them. The assessments have been regularly made upon all, public and 
 private alike, but the taxes have been collected only from the private 
 holders of property. * * * 
 
 “It has been before stated that the avenues and streets were trans¬ 
 ferred without any pecuniary compensation therefor being made by 
 the Government. The reservations of ground for public use consist of 
 17 entire squares or large sections in various parts of the city, and 
 contain 541 acres, 1 rod, and 39 perches of land. On some of these the 
 Capitol, President’s House, and other public buildings have been erect¬ 
 ed. The rest of them are either open and unoccupied or have been 
 devoted to public uses, according to the discretion of Congress upon 
 the subject. 
 
 “For this large extent of land, equal to all its present and pros¬ 
 pective wants, the Government paid, nominally, the sum of $36,099 
 to the proprietors of the soil; but in reality nothing. This sum was 
 not drawn from the general Treasury, nor one cent of it contributed 
 by the people of the United States. The whole of it was taken out of 
 the proceeds of the sales of the building lots, which had also been 
 secured by the Government in the contract with the landowners. It 
 thus appears that the people of the United States have paid nothing 
 for all their public lots, nor for the property in the streets. They pro¬ 
 cured them, and now own them, without the expenditure of a single 
 dollar. 
 
 “In the investigation of the subject committed to them, and of 
 the relief to be proposed, the committee have been unable to separate 
 the interests of the District from the interests of the United States. 
 They regard it as the child of the Union—as the creation of the Union 
 for its omn purposes. The design of the Constitution and its founders 
 was to create a residence for the Government where they should have 
 absolute and unlimited control which should be regulated and governed 
 by them without the interference of partial interests in the States, 
 which should be built up and sustained by their authority and re¬ 
 sources, not dependent upon the will or resources of any State or local 
 interest. 
 
 “In accomplishing their object the Union undertook the guardian¬ 
 ship of the District, deprived its inhabitants of the right of self- 
 government and of the elective franchise, and made them dependent 
 upon the will of the representatives of the States, to whom alone they 
 can look for relief.’* 
 
10 
 
 THE ORGANIC ACT. 
 
 Congress, in 1878, after carefully considering the relations be¬ 
 tween the Federal Government and the District Government, adopted 
 and passed an Act prescribing a permanent form of government for 
 the District. 
 
 Speaking of this Act, the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, in the case of Eckloff vs. District of Columbia, 135 U. S., 240, 
 said: 
 
 “The Court below placed its decision on what we conceive to be 
 the true significance of the Act of 1878. As said by that Court, it is 
 to be regarded as an Organic Act, intended to dispose of the whole 
 question of government for this District. It is, as it were, a consti¬ 
 tution for the District. It is declared by its title to he an Act to pro¬ 
 vide a permanent form of government for the District. The word 
 permanent is suggestive. It implies that prior systems have been tem¬ 
 porary and provisional. As permanent it is complete in itself. The 
 powers which are conferred are organic powers. We look to the Act 
 itself for their extent and limitations. It is not one act in a series 
 of legislation, and to be made to ht into the provisions of the prior 
 legislation, but it is a single complete act, the outcome of previous 
 experiments, and the final judgment of Congress as to the system of 
 government which should obtain. It is the constitution of the District, 
 and its grants of power are to be taken as new and independent grants, 
 and expressing in themselves both their extent and limitations. Such 
 was the view taken by the court below, and such we believe is the 
 true view to be taken of the statute.” 
 
 The Organic Act contains, among other things, the following: 
 
 “To the extent to which Congress shall approve of said estimates 
 [the estimates of the expenses of the government of the District, 
 submitted to Congress annually by the District Commissioners], 
 Congress shall appropriate the amount of fifty per centum thereof; 
 and the remaining fifty per centum 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 Dis¬ 
 trict of Columbia.” 
 
 This part of the law should, at all times and in all things, be faith¬ 
 fully observed and obeyed, both in letter and in spirit. Its plain mean¬ 
 ing is that the United States should pay one-half of all the expenses of 
 the District—the permanent seat of the Government of the United 
 States, leaving the District to provide the remainder by taxation. 
 
11 
 
 Such a financial arrangement between the United States and the 
 District was believed to be wise and just, and was made to insure 
 the proper maintenance and development of the National Capital. 
 
 The arrangement is as wise and just to-day as it was in 1878, and 
 its continuance is essential to the District’s welfare. 
 
 On May 22, 1896, the Committee on the District of Columbia of 
 the House of Representatives, to whomi was referred a Bill (H. R.- 
 4448) to repeal the half and half provisions of the Organic Act, sub¬ 
 mitted to the House an adverse report thereon, in which they made the 
 following observations: 
 
 '‘The circumstances under which the National Capitol was founded 
 by the National Government for its own use created an equitable ob¬ 
 ligation on the part of the National Government to share the expenses 
 of its maintenance and development. 
 
 “If the United States paid taxes on its property at the same rate 
 that the citizens do theirs, as is done by the German Government in 
 its national capital, it would amount to considerably more than it ap¬ 
 propriates. To be strictly just, the Government ought to pay its half 
 from the beginning; and if it were to do that it would extinguish the 
 present District debt, nearly all of which was created by officers of 
 the United States Government, acting under authority of Congress, 
 and not by the citizens of the District. 
 
 “The fact that the nation, which at the beginning took title by 
 gift to five-sixths of the area of the national capital, still owns more 
 than half in value of the real estate of the District, irrespective of the 
 streets, of which it holds the absolute fee; and the fact that Congress 
 still exercises the power of exclusive legislation over the entire Dis¬ 
 trict conferred upon it by the Constitution, combine to raise a fresh 
 and present obligation on the part of the nation in respect of its 
 capital, independent of and in addition to the equity arising from 
 national acts and representations in the creation of the city and District. 
 
 “To change the Act of 1878, as proposed by this bill, would be a 
 clear repudiation of both the equitable and legal obligations assumed 
 by the nation in regard to its national capital. This we cannot believe 
 Congress will do. A repudiation of national obligations in respect to 
 the nation’s city would result either in a discreditable capital, poorly 
 sustained by reasonable taxation upon local resources, or in the virtual 
 confiscation of local property through excessive taxation. 
 
 “The District has shared in every national tax and undergone 
 special national burdens. Since the enactment of the internal revenue 
 law in 1862, the District has paid to the United States Government 
 under such law duties to the amount of $7,815,830.80, and of custom 
 duties during the last ten years $557,799. The latter figures, it should 
 be added, represent only the actual amount received from duties at the 
 
12 
 
 custom-house in Georgetown, the port of entry of the District of Co¬ 
 lumbia. It is estimated that only about 5% of the goods imported into 
 the District pass through the Georgetown custom-house, the remaining 
 95% coming through other ports at which, of course, the duties are 
 levied. 
 
 “The only national taxes that fall directly and unmistakably and 
 in ascertainable amounts upon Americans are the internal revenue 
 taxes. The States and Territories which have contributed in 1895 
 less internal revenue collections to the National Treasury than the 
 District of Columbia are Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, 
 Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, 
 South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming (16 States) ; 
 and Alaska, Arizona, Indian Territory, New Mexico, and Oklahoma 
 (5 Territories). 
 
 “The per capita contribution of the District of Columbia is greater 
 than that of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, 
 Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, 
 Oregon, South Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Ver¬ 
 mont, Washington and Wyoming (22 States) ; and Alaska, Arizona, 
 Indian Territory, New Mexico and Oklahoma (5 Territories). 
 
 “The District of Columbia contributed, 1895, in internal revenue 
 taxation, for the support of the national government considerably more 
 than the combined contributions of Maine, Vermont, Mississippi, 
 Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota, Wyoming, Arizona, Indian Territory, 
 and Alaska. 
 
 “The records show that for the war of 1812 the citizens of the 
 District paid a direct tax of $20,000 in common with the States; 
 raised a voluntary fund of $5,000 and gave it to the President to de¬ 
 fend the Capital; fitted up a building for Congress when the Capitol 
 was burned, and tendered a loan of $500,000 to rebuild the public build¬ 
 ings, which Congress authorized the President to accept. 
 
 “The record further shows that the District furnished its full 
 share of volunteers for the Mexican war, and the gallant deeds of 
 some of her sons gave to their names a world-wide fame. 
 
 “In the late war the District paid $50,000 special tax, in com¬ 
 mon with the States, and while but seven of the loyal States even filled 
 their quotas, the District filled hers and 18^4 per cent more, thus ex¬ 
 celling every State of the Union but one; and had the District’s 
 “home guard” been included, as it was there, she w'ould have excelled 
 even that one. The first volunteers sworn into the United States ser¬ 
 vice in the late war were citizens of the District, and to this day they 
 have not been paid for their equipments, furnished at their own cost. 
 No bounty for volunteers was ever paid here. 
 
 “Though sharing all the national burdens, the District has not 
 adequately shared in the distribution of national land and money 
 among the States for educational and other purposes, but supports its 
 school system out of the annual revenues. 
 
13 
 
 “While the General Government has given to the States $28,- 
 000,000 surplus cash from the Treasury, and for public schools, uni¬ 
 versities, agricultural colleges, railroads and other internal improve¬ 
 ment, 350,000,000 acres of the public lands, its financial aid to the 
 District schools has been comparatively inconsiderable, and it has never 
 given to the District an acre of the public lands for these purposes. 
 
 “In 1890 Congress provided for an annual appropriation of 
 $25,000 for agricultural and mechanical schools for each State and 
 Territory, but excluded the District from any share therein. 
 
 “A large number of the pupils in the public schools of the District 
 reside in the States and Territories. All Government employees and 
 officials, including Senators and Representatives, may send their chil¬ 
 dren to the District Schools, and many avail themselves of this ad¬ 
 vantage. Congress has enacted a compulsory law imposing a fine of 
 $20 on each parent or guardian for failure to send each child of school 
 age to school twelve weeks each year.” 
 
 • The Committee of the District of Columbia concluded its able ad¬ 
 verse report on the bill to repeal the Organic Act, as follows: 
 
 “The equitable view of the duty of the general Government 
 (representing the whole people) toward its official capital is still fur¬ 
 ther re-enforced by the example of other great nations. Without 
 room for details we merely cite the fact that the police of the city of 
 London costs about $5,500,000 a year, of which $2,250,000 is paid by 
 parliamentary grant out of the general taxation of the United King¬ 
 dom. The London parks are appropriated for by Parliam.ent to the 
 amount of half a million annually and much larger amounts are voted 
 out of the general taxes for primary and high education in the London 
 schools. In like manner, the French government devotes large sums 
 annually to a share of the vast city expenditures of Paris. 
 
 “In conclusion, the District of Columbia asks from Congress only 
 justice, and not favor. Its people make no appeal to sympathy, nor 
 to pride, but strong in the equity of their case, as here presented, they 
 invoke for it the impartial judgment of an enlightened Congress. It 
 is said that no other city has half its expenses paid by extraneous 
 aid, it is answered that no other city has^ to maintain a magnificent 
 capital fit to be the political metropolis of seventy millions. If its 
 financial system is anomalous, its situation and its obligations are 
 equally anomalous. The only child of the Union, as Senator South¬ 
 ard styled it sixty years ago, was never so worthy as now of its 
 illustrious parentage. The exclusive legislation of the American Con¬ 
 gress surely entails upon that body a grave responsibility, and all 
 that is asked is that the relative rights and obligations of the Dis¬ 
 trict and the Government may be discussed and decided in the forum 
 of reason, and by the well-settled principles of constitutional laws.” 
 
14 
 
 It should be borne in mind that the United States is continually 
 condemning real estate in the District for its own use, thereby re¬ 
 ducing the list of taxable property therein. 
 
 Proceedings have recently been begun in the Supreme Court of 
 the District for the condemnation of twelve squares of ground for 
 the use of the Government, and bills have been introduced in Congress 
 providing for the condemnation of a large quantity of other land for 
 public use. 
 
 Statistics show that, at the present time, the tax-paying citizens 
 of the District of Columbia pay about $16 per capita, for the up-keep 
 of the Nation’s Capital, while the other ninety-two million citizens of 
 the Nation pay only cents per capita! 
 
 VIEWS OF STATESMEN. 
 
 To the foregoing considerations of fact, of history, and of com¬ 
 parative equity, and public policy, might be added a long line of cor¬ 
 roborative testimony from the recorded judgments of public men in 
 the highest places of the nation. Only brief selections can here be 
 made, which, however, show with cumulative weight the justice of 
 the claim that the city of Washington, as the permanent seat of a 
 great and powerful Government, is entitled to the watchful care and 
 generous aid of that Government. 
 
 James Madison said in the Federalist, in 1788: 
 
 “The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat 
 of government carries its own evidence with it. This consideration 
 has the more weight, as the gradual accumulation of public im¬ 
 provements at the stationary residence of government would be too 
 great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single State.” 
 
 In 1874, after the extraordinary and expensive improvements 
 carried out by the Territorial Government led to an investigation by 
 Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary, through Judge Poland, of 
 Vermont, its chairman, made a report on “the legal relations between 
 the Federal Government and the local government of the District, and 
 the extent of the mutual obligations in regard to municipal expenses,’^ 
 etc. The following is an extract from that able report: 
 
 “It is perfectly manifest, from a moment’s examination of this 
 plan, that a city was laid off here for the use of the United States 
 
15 
 
 upon a scale hitherto unknown in this or any other country; upon 
 a plan to carry out which would inevitably lead to an expenditure 
 entirely beyond the requirement of a city for business purposes. It 
 was a plan having reference peculiarly to the wants of the Govern¬ 
 ment, and not to those of its inhabitants; its streets and avenues, in 
 number, length and width, are upon a scale that was appropriate for 
 a national capital, but was entirely inappropriate to the demands of a 
 sparse population not engaged in manufacturing or commerce, and 
 where manufactures and commerce were not encouraged to come. 
 
 “There is something revolting to a proper sense of justice in the 
 idea that the United States should hold free from taxation more than 
 one-half of the area of the capital city, should require to be main¬ 
 tained a city upon an unusually expensive scale from which the 
 ordinary revenues derived from commerce and manufactures are ex¬ 
 cluded ; that in such a case the burden of maintaining the expenses 
 for the capital should fall upon the resident population. 
 
 “A very large proportion of this population are temporary resi¬ 
 dents, and only brought here to serve the Government in various 
 capacities. 
 
 “They acquire no permanent interest and generally hold but little 
 property. The remaining portion of the population is made up chiefly 
 of persons engaged in minor trafiflc and in supplying the wants of 
 the Government, of themselves, and of the temporary residents re¬ 
 ferred to; so that there is absolutely no source of revenue which can 
 be looked to as a permanent support for the necessary expenditures 
 of this city. Aside, then, from all question of sentiment of patriotism 
 or pride in the national capital your committee are impressed with 
 the belief that the Federal Government sustains at least such rela¬ 
 tion toward the citizens and the local government as would require 
 it to contribute to municipal expenses an amount bearing the re¬ 
 lation to the whole amount required, which the interest of the Federal 
 Government here bears to the interest of the local government; and 
 this they believe to be at least one-half.” 
 
 President Grant, in his message of December, 1873, said: 
 
 “The city of Washington is rapidly assuming the appearance of 
 a capital of which the nation may well be proud. From being a most 
 unsightly place, disagreeable to pass through in summer in conse¬ 
 quence of dust arising from unpaved streets, and almost impassable 
 in the winter from the mud, it is now one of the most sightly cities 
 in the country. The Government having large reservations in the 
 city, and the nation at large having an interest in their capital, I 
 recommend a liberal policy toward the District of Columbia, and 
 that the Government should bear its just share of the expenses of 
 these improvements.” 
 
16 
 
 A joint special committee of both Houses, in 1874, to investigate 
 and report upon the whole subject of the conduct of District affairs 
 under the Territorial government, brought in the bill providing for 
 a temporary form of government by commission, abolishing the 
 legislature, governor, and board of public works. This committee 
 was composed of Senators William B. Allison, Allen G. Thurman, 
 and William M. Stewart, and Representatives Jeremiah M. Wilson, 
 J. A. Hubbell, Lyman K. Bass, Hugh J. Jewett, and R. Hamilton, 
 recognized as among the strong men of both Houses. Their report 
 recommended the equitable division of expenditures in the District 
 between the Federal Government and the taxpayers, on the basis of 
 one-half to each. In his speech upon the bill, June 18, 1874, Senator 
 Thurman said: 
 
 “I do not say that this bill is perfect, but I do say that your 
 committee, after four months of such toil as perhaps was never 
 performed by any committee of Congress, have unanimously recom¬ 
 mended the passage of the bill. There was not a dissenting voice. 
 They did it with full knowledge of the facts, and after the most care¬ 
 ful consideration, and, as their report will show, after a 
 consideration of this subject, in which there was not the slightest 
 partisanship or politics whatever. They unanimously adopted this 
 bill and recommended it to the two Houses. It has passed the House 
 of Representatives with but 23 dissenting votes, two hundred and 
 odd against 23; and I do hope, Mr. President, unless there is some 
 great and overruling necessity, the Senate will accept the bill as it 
 passed the House. 
 
 “I do know’, temporary as it is, it is most likely to be beneficial 
 in its effects; and the permanent form of government which will be 
 provided by the joint committee that is to be appointed under this 
 bill will be one, I have no doubt, that will be a blessing to the people 
 of this District and will be a benefit to the whole Union. 
 
 ‘T know very well that there are difficulties in this subject, and 
 you can not take a step without meeting with a difficulty. We have 
 long pondered over these difficulties, and have arrived at the best so¬ 
 lution of them that we could. It is the result of the labors of eight 
 , men, intent upon nothing but to discharge their duties faithfully 
 to benefit this people, and also to take care of the interests, the honor, 
 and the reputation of the United States.” 
 
 The bill reported by the committee passed both Houses without 
 serious opposition, and without an order for the yeas and nays. It 
 continued the law for the District government until June 11, 1878, 
 
17 
 
 when it was replaced by the Organic Act, which continued in force 
 the 50 per cent division of expenditures between the District and the 
 United States. At the time of the passage of the Organic Act, two 
 attempts were made to secure amendments reducing the Government’s 
 proportion of the expenses, one to 25 per cent (which did not secure 
 one-fifth of the House), and a second proposing that the Govern¬ 
 ment should pay 40 per cent and the District 60 per cent of all 
 expenditures. This was defeated by a vote of 92 yeas and 134 
 nays, such eminent Democrats as Blackburn, Culberson, Forney, Her¬ 
 bert, Kenna, Knott, Mills, Singleton, Swann, Tucker, and Wood vot¬ 
 ing against the 40 per cent and in favor of the 50 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Blackburn, of Kentucky, who had charge of the bill in the 
 House, spoke as follows. May 7, 1878: 
 
 “We have come down now to the naked question as to the pro¬ 
 portion of the expenses of this District which the Federal Govern¬ 
 ment should bear. This bill proposes that the proportion shall be 
 50 per cent, and the reasons for that basis of calculation have been 
 very lucidly stated to the House. 
 
 “The people of the District have the right to demand that we 
 shall fix permanently their relations to the Federal Government. It 
 is the Federal Government on one side treating with the Federal 
 city on the other. The people of this District have a right to pro¬ 
 test against being left subject to the whim and caprice of Congress 
 with each recurring session. They have and can have no tangible 
 value to their real estate property. Should you go out, any one of 
 you, to purchase a piece of real estate in the city of Washington, 
 naturally you would ask in the first instance to'what taxation it was 
 subject. If the owner is an honest man he can simply reply to you 
 that he does not know.” 
 
 In opposing the amendment substituting 25 instead of 50 per 
 cent as the proportion to be paid by the United States, Mr. Black¬ 
 burn said: 
 
 “The amendment proposes that the Federal Government shall 
 pay 25 per cent of the expenditures of this District. I say that a 
 careful examination of the interests involved—of the relations which 
 exist between the country and the capital, will satisfy any unbiased 
 mind that the proposition is not fair, much less liberal. I admit that 
 the people of this District are at your mercy; they can not enforce 
 their rights, even if it is admitted they have any. It is perfectly com¬ 
 petent for you to refuse appropriations, and for you to refuse to 
 
18 
 
 bear any proportion of the expenses of the District. There is no 
 appeal. 
 
 “If the people of this District are poverty stricken; if they are 
 debt-ridden and taxation burdened, it is to the American Congress 
 they are indebted for this curse. Less than 12 per cent of the debt 
 that now bows them down to the earth was fastened upon them by 
 rulers of their own choosing. More than 75 per cent of the debt 
 they are carrying now, and which must be left to their children as a 
 heritage of bondage, has been fixed upon them by agents selected 
 by you and placed over them, with plenary powers to dispose of their \ 
 
 property by legalized confiscation or plunder. The Government of the 
 United States acting through its Congress is alone responsible.” 
 
 Mr. Hendee, of Vermont, said: 
 
 “I have looked up the statistics, and up to the present time the 
 people—remember, the people of the District of Columbia—have paid 
 over $30,000,000 in improving the streets in this city and other 
 property, while the Government of the United States has not paid 
 $9,000,000. That is the proportion as it stands to-day; and now I 
 want to know if there is an element even in this House that will say 
 to the people of this country that, although owning half the property, 
 the Government will refuse to pay its share of the taxes to take care 
 of that property ? Shame on such an idea !” 
 
 Mr. Lapham, of New York, subsequently Senator from that 
 State, said: 
 
 “It is niggardly parsimony on our part to propose to pay one- 
 fourth of the annual expenses of improving this District, in which 
 is located the seat of our National Government. It should be re¬ 
 membered that the territory of this District was set apart for the 
 national capital, and that the great mass of the expenditure of the 
 money made here is made for the purpose of promoting the health 
 and comfort of the Representatives of the people, who are here for , 
 
 a great portion of the year; of the executive officers, the heads of 
 Departments, the representatives of foreign Governments, and the 
 vast number of employees in the Departments, who make it a per¬ 
 manent residence. They are all interested in having a healthy at¬ 
 mosphere, in having good drainage and sewerage, and having every¬ 
 thing which will promote their comfort and the health of this city as 
 a residence. 
 
 “They should be provided for in these respects at the expense 
 of the nation, and surely the practice which has hitherto prevailed 
 of the General Government contributing one-half of the quota of 
 this expense, coupled with the reservation in this act that Congress 
 shall at all times have supreme control over the amount to be ex- 
 
19 
 
 pended, it seems to me, relieves this case of any danger so far as 
 burdens on the Treasury are concerned.” 
 
 Mr. Garfield, of Ohio, spoke on the question of the power of 
 Congress, as follows: 
 
 “The Supreme government of the District is vested in the gen¬ 
 eral Government, and we by lav/ can point out whether the Presi¬ 
 dent can appoint these Commissioners or not. There is some doubt 
 whether we can authorize the people to elect them. The question 
 was raised when we had the old District of Columbia, whether we 
 could delegate any powers to anybody else to legislate for this Dis¬ 
 trict. Mr. Hoar, who was then on the District Committee, came to 
 the conclusion that we had made a mistake and transcended our 
 powers when we conferred upon any other body than Congress the 
 power to legislate for this District. That line of reasoning seems 
 to me to lead to the doctrine that we could not establish here any¬ 
 thing like a legislative government in the District. If we could 
 empty this Hall and the Senate Chamber altogether of the burdens 
 of the duty of legislating for the District, I should be glad, for the 
 District finds Congress a stepmother in all its works of legislation.” 
 
 Mr. B. F. Butler, of Massachusetts, said: 
 
 “I want to say a word about the streets and avenues of this city. 
 I want to call to the attention of gentlemen a piece of history. Why 
 were these immense avenues laid out? History tells us that this Dis¬ 
 trict was about to be laid out by Washington at the time when a mob 
 of Paris was overawing the national assembly of France by erecting 
 barricades across the narrow streets of Paris. That was brought to 
 the attention of George Washington, and in order to prevent that in 
 the great future, he made these wide avenues radiating from the 
 places where the public buildings were to be erected, so that it would 
 be impossible ever for a mob of this city to barricade and overawe and 
 imprison the National Legislature or the President. There is no 
 place near the public buildings as they were planned by Washington 
 where a troop of horses can not charge five different ways into a 
 square, if necessary. And the great streets which impose these heavy 
 burdens upon the people are simply a proper precautionary measure 
 of the general Government in having the capital here, and have no 
 sort of relation to the convenience, the commercial prosperity, or 
 the commercial uses of the people of the District, and therefore we 
 ought to pay for them. They are for the use of the nation. It is 
 unfair to the people of the District to tax them for these avenues.” 
 
 In the Senate the bill was thoroughly discussed, with little or 
 no objection to the fixing of 50 per cent as the proportion of District 
 
20 
 
 expenses to be borne by the Government and the citizens. On the 
 contrary, several Senators, notably Senators Whyte, of Maryland^ 
 and Bayard of Delaware, took strong ground in behalf of the pay¬ 
 ment by the United States of a larger proportion. 
 
 Senator Bayard, May 21, 1878, used the following language: 
 
 “The Government of the United States owns and controls a vast 
 portion of the real estate of the District—that is to say, of the city 
 portion and the valuable portion. Washington is the political center 
 of the entire Union. Representatives from every State and Terri¬ 
 tory find their homes here during the sessions of Congress. The 
 agents for the Federal Government in all its executive branches find 
 their departments of labor here, and all persons having business 
 throughout the United States in connection with the Federal Govern¬ 
 ment must in some way or other find their way to Washington. This 
 makes it a Federal city. It is used for Federal purposes. 
 
 “How many people in the city of Washington use these expen¬ 
 sive avenues and streets, upon which such vast sums have been ex¬ 
 pended and upon which such large expenditures in the future are 
 made necessary? The term ‘floating population’ will apply better 
 to those who live here than in any other place of which I have knowl¬ 
 edge. I suppose that a much larger number of those who roll so 
 pleasantly over the smooth streets of this city are people who pay 
 no taxes whatever in it. 
 
 “It is simply absurd to suppose that this little town—for that 
 is all it is—on the borders of Maryland and Virginia, can be main¬ 
 tained upon the scale which we now see it is, at such an expense to 
 the local inhabitants. If it is to be, as I think it ought to be, a Fed¬ 
 eral city worthy of a great nation whose seat of Government it is,, 
 then, it seems to me, that by far the greater portion of the expense 
 must be borne by the Federal Government, and not by the local in¬ 
 habitants. Is it just that one-half the expenses of these broad ave¬ 
 nues, of these extensive improvements, of these luxurious streets is 
 to be borne by the local inhabitants? It seems to me that it is 
 unreasonable. I do not think they can bear it. 
 
 “This town is the mere center and habitation of the employees 
 of the Government—the clerical force of the Departments—people 
 who are swept in and out of office by the ebb and flow of the power 
 of political parties—strangers who come here during the sessions of 
 Congress for a few days or a few weeks—or Members of Congress, 
 whose interests and property lie entirely elsewhere. 
 
 “I want to ask the honorable .Senator who has charge of this 
 bill whether it is just that the people of Washington City shall pay 
 the proportion of one-half of this expensive government, in regard 
 to the scale of which they never were consulted, in regard to which 
 property that is to be taxed never was considered, or whether the 
 
21 
 
 fraction should not be much less. The property will not bear it; it is 
 not worth it. If it is to be paid, it must be paid out of the United 
 States Treasury, from which, in my judgment, it ought to be paid, 
 because the laws contracting the expense and authorizing the outlay 
 were passed without consultation with or without sufficient consid¬ 
 eration in any way for the people whose property lies here. I ask 
 the honorable Senator from Kansas whether he does not consider 
 that the proportion of one-half to be borne by the people of this 
 city is excessive, and whether it ought not to be less even than one- 
 fourth, justly considering the fact that the expenses of governing this 
 town are chiefly caused for the entertainment and for the use and 
 convenience of a non-resident population from all the rest of the 
 Union. It is just and right that they should be called to pay one- 
 half the expense of this scale of adornment and improvement, in¬ 
 tended not half so much for their use and delectation as for the use 
 of those who come here and pass away after a few weeks’ stay? 
 I submit that it is a very grave and very fundamental question in 
 this bill, whether this equal division of the expense is just or right.” 
 
 Senator Ingalls, of Kansas, said: 
 
 “The United States of America have not expended as much here 
 as they received from the sale of lots here. The Government of the 
 United States is to-day money in pocket from the sales of property in 
 this District and in this city.” 
 
 Senator Beck, of Kentucky, said: 
 
 “I did not know that, either, but as something has been said 
 about the value of our property, I desire to say to the Senator from 
 Kansas that I have consented to the provision requiring Congress to 
 appropriate money to pay one-half of the expenses, and that surely 
 is liberal. 
 
 “I agree to pay pretty liberally to keep up everything connected 
 with the city, but I do want the power and the responsibility con¬ 
 fined to the Commissioners, however selected, and I want no ex¬ 
 traneous board, either of health or anything else, to come in and in¬ 
 terfere with their powers. I hope the President will succeed in se¬ 
 lecting the very best men he can find, regardless of their politics. 
 Maybe he can find them without politics altogether, so that they can 
 come to this end or to the other end of the Capitol and have justice 
 done to the city. 
 
 “When I compare the city as it was ten years ago, when I first 
 came to Congress, with what it is now,'I am bound to say I would 
 not, with my limited knowledge of such things, undertake to do the 
 work for twice the money that has been either spent upon it or 
 squandered upon it.” 
 
22 
 
 Senator Edmunds, of Vermont, said: 
 
 “.This bill provides for the United States paying one-half of the 
 expenses of carrying on the government of the District. 
 
 “Half the money comes from the whole people of the United 
 States, and then the Constitution itself provides that this District, in 
 which nobody is a resident (except those in jail) without his free 
 and voluntary consent, shall be a district in which Congress is to 
 exercise exclusive legislation. Congress is the legislative power of 
 the District, and that Congress is the Congress of the whole people. 
 This is a place for the whole people of the United States to have an 
 interest in and to take care of, and to pay the expenses of, as it 
 does now by this proposition to the extent of one-half, and in¬ 
 directly to a much larger degree.” 
 
 Senator Whyte, of Maryland, formerly Governor of that State, 
 took the following view: 
 
 “This District belongs to the people of the United States, not 
 to the people that have happened to cluster around this Capitol, some 
 to be fed by the bounty of the Government, some to make money 
 out of the temporary inhabitants who come here, and some because 
 it is a pleasant place to live in and get good society in, and to come 
 here for the winter. 
 
 “It is our duty, it is our privilege, it is the right of the people of 
 the United States that its Congress shall determine what is right, 
 what is proper, what is good for the government of the District of 
 Columbia within the line as it now stands, and therefore these people 
 ought not to be represented in either branch of Congress. They have 
 no right to be represented here. We represent this District. It is 
 our duty to take charge of it; it is our duty to legislate for it; it is 
 our duty to make officers of the District under our supreme control, 
 and therefore I shall vote against every proposition which looks to 
 the establishment of suffrage in this District. (The proposition to 
 restore suffrage to the people of the District received but 9 Sena¬ 
 torial votes, against 40 in the negative.) They ought to contribute 
 a proportionate part of the expense—not more—for I have examined 
 the subject with great care. When Congress imposed upon me dur¬ 
 ing my absence, the duty of acting as one of a commission, under a 
 , law of the Forty-fourth Congress, I took the trouble to examine, 
 from the beginning, from the foundation of the Government, down 
 to that time, what the relative position of the residents of the Dis¬ 
 trict and the Government of the United States as regards property 
 , really was; and I became satisfied, not that the ratio should be ac¬ 
 cording to this bill, but that the Government ought to contribute 60 
 per cent of the taxes and the people here but 40 per cent. The bill, I 
 think, calls for half and half—50 per cent from each.” 
 
On March 6, 1901, Senator Hoar, of Massachusetts, speaking 
 on the floor of the Senate in regard to the District of Columbia, said: 
 
 “It seems to me there is just one simple principle that ought to 
 be applied to the residents of the District of Columbia. We should 
 ascertain the average rate of taxation in well-ordered American cities, 
 whether it be $1 on the thousand, or $10 on the thousand, or $15 on 
 the thousand, or whatever sum, and then apply that to the personal 
 property and real estate of every resident here. When that is done, 
 with such exemptions as experience suggests in all like cases, the 
 Government should pay the rest of the reasonable expenses of this 
 District. I do not think that having one-half paid by the District and 
 one-half paid by the Government, has any scientific merit whatever. 
 There is nothing in reason why it should be one-half rather than 
 two-thirds or three-fourths. The Government is a great property 
 owner here, and the credit of the city of Washington is the credit 
 of the nation. It is the national capital, and it is the great national 
 interest to have a well-ordered and beautiful, well-ornamented and 
 arranged city here. 
 
 “The com.plaint that the Government pays a part of the taxes 
 seems to me to have no foundation in reason whatever. The Govern¬ 
 ment ought to pay a large part of the taxes. The people here do not 
 govern their own city, it is governed by the Government. The pub¬ 
 lic property here is enormous in amount. It seems to me that that 
 is the only fair and just way that has ever been suggested that I 
 know of. 
 
 “Let a man who comes here to dwell pay what he would pay in 
 Providence or in Dubuque, and when he has done that, let the Gov¬ 
 ernment pay the rest of the bills and spend money as lavishly or as 
 economicallv as it mav see fit.” 
 
 In view of the changes made from time to time in the personnel 
 of both Houses of Congress, the Chamber of Commerce has com¬ 
 piled the foregoing facts and arguments, in order that matters 
 arising in Congress may be understood and passed upon, without 
 an examination of many official records and extended discussions, 
 covering a long period of time. 
 
 In most instances the views expressed are those of men of large 
 experience and long residence at the National Capital. 
 
I 
 
 V’