F 199 .n86 Copy 1 X FOR A GREATER DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. SPEECHES HON. EDWARD De V. MORRELL, (A Alember of the Committee on the District of Columbia) ON ABUSES AND NEEDED REFORMS IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN REFERENCE TO STREET EXTENSIONS, EXPENDITURES, ASSESSMENTS, TAXATION, AND RECEIPTS, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, First Session Fifty-ninth Congress. "WASHINGTON. 1906. X a SPEECHES OF HON. EDWARD DE V. MOERELL. Monday, January 29, 1906. The House having under consideration the bill (H R. 7048) chang- ing names of Pierce place, Blake street, Swann street, Cedar street or place, and Oregon avenue to Samson street — Mr. MORRELL said : Mr. Speaker : As a member of the District Committee I have for some time been impressed with the fact that the present system of street extension in the District of Columbia is unequal and incongruous. Long before the discussion of January 8, 1906, over the Kalorama avenue bill was precipitated upon the House I had begun an investigation not only of the system of the District, but of systems of other cities of the United States. The motive which led me to do this was that I might present a bill for a general law which would remedy these incongruities and inequalities. I now desire to present, as comprehensively as possible, the weaknesses of the present system and to outline the principles upon which a general bill should be drawn. The Washington system of street extension rests upon four distinct bodies of law. These are : » 1. The general highway act of 1893. 2. A series of special street-extension acts. 3. The Code of the District of Columbia. 4. Provisions of general appropriation bills. I. The general highway act of 1893 is a very elaborate law. It provides that the Commissioners of the District of Columbia shall prepare a plan for the extension of a permanent system of highways over all that portion of said District not included within the limits of the city of Washington and Georgetown. It requires that this system shall conform to the street plan of the city of Washington as nearly as practicable; that the streets shall not be less than 90 feet in width nor more than 160 feet ; that the Commissioners shall map out each and every street extension area planned by themselves and submit this for approval to a commission, consisting of — at the time — the Sec- retary of War, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Chief of 7021 3 Engineers; when approved, this map shall be.vome tfie plan for the boundaries and dimensions of all the streets, avenues, and roads in the said area ; that they shall then proceed to condemn the land needed for such streets, avenues, and roads, and which may not have been dedicated by the owners thereof, in the supreme court of the District of Columbia sitting as a district court of the United States ; that a jury of seven shall, under the direction of this court, ascertain the damages occasioned by each extension, assess one-half of these against the land bene- fited and one-half against the revenues of the District of Colum- bia. It provides for an appeal from the decision of this court sitting as a district court to the same court in general terra. The jury under this act is specifically required to assess the damages caused by the opening of any highway against other property which it shall ascertain and determine to have been benefited to a proportional part of the whole of said one-half of the damages. In general terms this law may be said to be a good law, and had it been rigidly adhered to by Congress its effects would have been beneficial. On account, however, of the appeal provision which it contains, vigorous objections were urged against it by interested parties, and out of this grew a flourish- ing body of special laws passed by the Congress of the United States. II. Very soon after the passage of the general highway act Congress was importuned to pass special acts for the opening of certain streets, and entered upon a career of street legisla- tion which has produced something more than twenty special acts. After four or five years of experiment with this species of legislation, an effort was made to arrange a form which should become a model for all succeeding bills, and which we have been told in this discussion did become a model. In fact, it has, I believe, been stated upon this floor, that this particular bill follows this prearranged form word for word. The diffi- culty is to ascertain which of these numerous special acts was the model. As I shall show, they are all alike except in the ten or eleven sections which define the court machinery and the modus operandi by which the decisions of the court are carried into effect. They differ in almost every material provision which makes for or against what might be considered wise legislation. Some of the bills require a dedication of from two- thirds to three-fourths of the land required as an antecedent condition ; one bill requires the payment of a money considera- tion as collateral before proceedings shall begin ; all the others require neither a dedication of land nor a payment of money. But the main question, Who shall pay for these improvements? 7021 Is answered by these acts in an absurdly contradictory manner. Some of them require that all the damages ascertained to be due shall be assessed against other laud benefited; in other cases only 50 per cent of the damages is to be so assessed ; and in others a discretion is given to tlie Conmiissioners by which an amount less than 50 per cent may be assessed. In arranging for the deferred assessments some of these acts give two equal annual assessments and charge 10 per cent an- nual interest thereon ; others give five years at 4 per cent an- nual interest, and still others four years at 5 per cent annual interest. All of these special acts apply to one particular part of the city and ignore all other parts. They all. up to the present, have applied to that region lying between Tennallytown road and the Soldiers' Home, north of Rock Creek, or in the neighbor- hood of the National Park. It may be remarked that this region is the one in which the speculative interests have predominated since 1888. I have investigated the thirteen special acts passed by the Fifty-eighth Congress in order that I might show the differences which I have just pointed out. These acts are : 1. The Wrights road act of April 22, 1904, which requires that the entire amount of damages shall be assessed against the lands benefited in two equal annual installments, with interest at 10 per cent per annum. 2. The act for the extension of Twenty-third street from S to California, April 22, 1904, followed the preceding act in every particular, but required the jury to Include the expenses of the condemnation proceedings in the damages. The deferred assess- ments weie five, carrying interest at 4 per cent. 3. The Kalorama avenue act. April 28, 1904, did not require the assessment of all the damages, nor even 50 per cent, against lands benefited, but gave the Commissioners discretion to accept a less percentage. 4. The Euclid avenue act, April 28, 1904, followed the pre- ceding. 5. The V street act, April 28, 1904, required the parties inter- ested to deposit $1,250 as an antecedent condition. It assessed the entire damage against the benefits and provided for five as- sessments at 4 per cent. 6. The act opening highways on the east and west sides of the Zoological Park, April 28, 1904, followed the Kalorama avenue act of the same date. 7. The Albemarle street extension act, April 28, 1904, is in the same form. 7021 6 8. The Wyoming avenue act. April 28, 1904, required all the damages to he assessed as benefits. 9. The T street extension. March 3, 1905, assessed 50 per cent or less of the damages against beneficiaries. 10. The M street extension act, March 3, 1905, required a dedication of at least two-thirds of the land needed for the exten- sion ; assessed all the damages against benefits, but exempted the remaining parts of all the lands owned by the dedicants from assessment. The assessments were two, at 10 per cent per annum. 11. The Nineteenth street extension act, March 3, 1905, as- sessed the ejitire damages against the benefits and made two assessments at 10 per cent. 12. The Kalorama extension act, March 3, 1905, assessed the entire damages against the benefits and made five assessments at 4 per cent. 13. The Rittenhouse street extension act, March 3, 1905, re- quired a dedication of at least two-thirds of the land, assessed the entire amount of damages against benefits, exempted dedi- cants from further assessment, and made two equal annual assessments at 10 per cent. In the first session of the Fifty-sixth Congress the Sixteenth street extension act was pased. This required a dedication of three- fourths of all the land and that 50 per cent of the damages should be assessed against abutters, but not against the dedi- cants. These dedicants gave about 50 acres of agricultural land as the price for the enormous exemption which they received in the act referred to. It is a strange commentary upon this character of legislation, that if the act requires an assessment of all the damages against benefits the jui'y apparently has no trouble in finding a full 100 per cent of beneficiaries, and if the act requires 50 per cent the jury apparently finds this with equal ease. In other words, a jury seems to have no difficulty in finding whatever percentage of benefits may be demanded by the act in the property abutting, adjacent, or contiguous to the improvement. But in the Sixteenth street extension the jury broke down. Although required to find but 50 per cent of bene- fited property after exempting the dedicants, it could find but about 13 per cent of beneficiaries. The damages assessed by the jury were $729,952. The benefits were $108,834. Although the act required that 50 per cent of the damages should be assessed against beneficiaries, under the discretionary power given the Commissioners this finding was approved and this balance $620,018 was oast one-half on the abutters who were not dedicants and one-half upon the District of Columbia. 7021 It iinist be remembered — and this Is most Important — that, in addition to the damages set out, the entire cost of grading and paving roadways is borne by the taxpayers at large, and that but only one half the cost of sidewalks is assessed on abutting prop- erty owners, the other half being borne by the public. I want it distinctly understood that I do not find fault with the dedicants for taking advantage of existing laws regarding dedi- cants, nor do I find fault with those who bought and own the property through which these streets have been opened, but I do most emphatically find fault with and condemn the laws themselves and this character of legislation. III. The third body of underlying law in the matter of street opening is the Code of the District of Columbia. On February 23, 1905, an act amending the Code of the District of Columbia was passed, which enacted a general law as to alleys and minor streets. It empowered the Commissioners to open, extend, widen, or straighten alleys or minor streets upon petition of more than half of the owners of real estate in the square or block, and limited the width of the minor street to not less than 40 nor more than 60 feet; it authorized condemnations by a jury of five persons, to he selected and charged as in the pre- ceding acts ; it authorized all damages to be assessed as benefits and made four deferred payments or assessments carrying 4 per cent. One great difficulty in the oj-ening of new streets under the Washington system is the modus operandi of the initial pro- ceedings. Too much has been left in the initiative to interested parties and too little to the owners of the real estate of the District to be improved. There is a system vei*y much in favor among American cities very much like the provision set out in the Code. That provision is the one which authorizes the cre- ation of separate street-impro\ement districts. These districts are to be found throughout the American Union and have con- tributed no little to the solution of the vexed question of sti'eet opening and the original or first cost of street improvement. The citizens of the District of Columbia, and by this I mean those whose residence is here and not elsewhere, are deprived of the right of sufi'rage. To give them tlae right to form special improvement districts, either in the old city or in the outlying suburbs, would, in my opinion, not onfy add to their privileges as citizens, but would contribute largely to the improvement of the streets of the District. The provision of the Code limits the street improvement, based upon the petition of more than •lalf the owners of real estate, to a square or block and to 7021 8 minor streets. It should be enlarged to permit a majority of the real estate owners along any street or system of streets to so petition and to form a special improvement district, the entire expense of which shall be cast upon the property of that district and assessed at not more than 2 per cent per annum until full payment is made. This system has worlied well elsewhere, because it to a large measure places these improve- ments directly in the hands of the property owners them- selves, and as they pay the bills and improve in harmony with plans furnished by the Commissioners of the District there should be no objection to its enactment here. IV. The Government of the United States, in the sundry civil appropriation bills of March 3, 1809, and June 6, 1900, made a direct appropriation to the Adams Mill road extension. Al- though this method is rarely used, this appropriation shows that streets may be improved by a direct appropriation from the United States Treasury. COMPARISON OF THH WASHINGTON CITY SYSTEM WITH OTHEK CITY SYSTEMS. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious, I 1 hinlc, that the fault of the Wash- ington system is not so much in method as in law. There is too much law. There are too many ways of reaching an end under the law, and the most vicious of these is the one which permits the opening and improvement of streets by special acts of Congress. Other American cities operate under a single well- known law passed by the legislatures of the respective States, while Washington operates under a series of four distinct bodies of law, in which the body known as special acts differs mate- rially and overri,des the other bodies of the law. The laws under which the cities operate are rarely changed, while the laws of the District of Columbia are changed frequently, sixteen having been passed since 1902. All of the cities of the State of New York, whether of the first, second, or third classes, are by general statutes authorized to condemn lands for the opening of streets, but the expense must be borne wholly by the property benefited, except that the coun- cil of any city, whenever an improvement shall be deemed more general than local, may assess a part of the expense against the city. All the cities of the State of Ohio are authorized by general statutes to assess upon abutting, adjacent, contiguous, or other specially benefited lots or lands in the corporation, any. part of the entire cost and expense connected with the improvement. The municipality, however, must pay at least 2 per cent and may pay more. 7021 9 The cities of Pennsylvania may open new streets upon a peti tion signed by a majority of the owners of property on the streets affected and levy the cost on the abutters. The munici- pality may assume a part of the expense. By reference to a statement of the comptroller of Pittsburg, which I shall attach to and make a part of my speech, it will be seen that the tend- ency to get something for nothing is by no means confined to the city of Washington. The laws of these three States are fairly representative of all the laws of the other States. The almost universal rule is to levy the greater part of the first or original expense of street extension against abutters as the principal beneficiaries. WHO ARE THE BENEFICIARIES? In some States the constitutional provisions are such that benefits can not be set off against damages. In others benefits can not be set off against the land seized, but may be set off against damages to the rest of it. In others the benefits may be set off against the value of the land as well as against incidental injuries. And the latter ruling is supported by the weight of authority in the greater number of States. Elliott in his Roads and Highways, page 557, lays down the rule in these words: Where the property fronts on the street improved then it may be said, as a matter of law, that it is benefited to the extent of the im- provement, and on this assumption assessments on frontage may be sustained on principle. THE ALMOST UNIVERSAL RULE. It is an almost universal rule in all American cities that the expense of new streets is to be cast arbitrarily upon abutters, as the principal beneficiary. And logically, if they are not benefited to the extent of this expense, but yet at the same time they ask for it, who else is? Subject to this, if it can be shown that other and adjoining property is benefited it may be assessed with the abutters. And lastly as the general public obtains an easement in the street, it may be called a beneficiary and may be assessed. But except in rare cases, this assessment against the public is for the least pai't of the expense, and in the great m.jority of cases bears no expense whatever. Right here, however, it may be said that Washington holds a position sui generis. Washington has a .system of streets which are in common like the streets of all other cities, but it also has in addition a plan which demands a system of streets unlike the streets of any other American city, a system which might be termed national in character. And it is but just that 7021 10 to the extent of the excess of expense created by this plan the assessment should be not against abutters, nor against the reve- nues of the District of Columbia, but upon the revenues of the United States. THE APPLICATION. The special statutes of the District of Columbia vary and lead to inequalities and incongruities. Why one set of men should put up collateral in order to obtain the opening of a street and not another? Why on some streets 100 per cent of all the damages shall be assessed against benefits and only 50 per cent or less in others? Why one set of men should pay 10 per cent interest annually and another 4 per cent? Why men on one extension of Kalorama avenue should be required to pay all of the damages and men on another extension of the same avenue 50 per cent or less? Why M street and Rittenhouse street should each be required to dedicate two-thirds of the land and pay 10 per cent on deferred assessments, while each of the other eleven streets named in the other eleven acts require no dedication and charge a less per cent? Why Sixteenth street should be improved at the expense of the public and other streets at the expense of the beneficiaries? Why one section of the city of Washington receives all the benefits of this special street improvement at the expense of all the other sections? These are all vital questions. They show that the laws are incongruous and need revision. To this end I have introduced a bill. A few words in explanation of the bill : This bill modifies and reenacts the highway act of 1893 and chapter 55 of the code of 1901, as the latter is amended. These acts seem to me to be in the main just and reasonable ; but after investigation and reflection I am persuaded that they are defective in three or four particulars, and have attempted to provide a remedy for those defects. The general and fair understanding of the situation in Wash- ington is that there are three parties in interest in every case of opening a new street or avenue in this District — first, the person whose property is taken for that purpose; second, the District of Columbia, and, third, the United States; and that the burdens ought to be equitably distributed among these parties. The United States controls the laying out of streets, avenues, county roads, and suburban streets, through a com- mission consisting of the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Chief of Engineers, for the time being. The national authority, and not the local authority, thus con- trols the subject, and acts solely with a 7iew to national inter- 7021 11 ests In developing here a city conformable in all its parts to the magnificent plan designed by L'Enfant and Washington for a national capital, and not for a county town. The streets are often of 160 feet in width and many miles in length. The case is entirely different from that of other cities. My bill, therefore, provides that the United States shall pay one-third of all dam- ages for property taken for streets exceeding 80 feet in width, and shall be made a party to and be represented by its attorney for this District in all condemnation proceedings relating to such streets. It also provides for allowing the District to issue bonds not exceeding $2,000,000 annually, and not exceeding $30,000,000 in all, in order to provide a fund for the payment of the damages awarded against it in such condemnation proceedings. It secures to any party aggrieved by the final order of the supreme court of the District in any such proceedings the right of appeal to the court of appeals of the District. As to minor streets and alleys and county roads not exceed- ing 60 feet in width, it adopts the provisions of the District Code as amended by the act of March 3, 1901, which do not re- quire the United States to pay anything, the matter being con- sidered purely local. I believe that under the plan I have proposed the burden of expense incident to the development of the capital city may be made to fall with reasonable impartiality upon the parties upon whom it justly and equitably should rest. Equality in the imposition of the burden is of the highest importance, and though absolute equality and absolute justice are never attain- able, the adoption of some rule or system tending to that end is indispensable. I believe that the plan suggested would save a great deal of money to the United States by convincing the people here that we mean to treat them fairly, and thereby in- ducing them to act justly toward the Government of the United States. If we attempt to compel tliem at their sole expense to execute the magnificent plans of improvement prepared by the officers of the United States for the aggrandizement of the national capital, they will simply recoup by awarding exorbi- tant damages against the United States for all lands talcen for its use, and in the long run we shall be losers and not gainers by an unjust policy. They will also continue to endeavor to obtaiji special legislation through Congress, as they have been doing since 1888. My object is to put an end to abuses now existing, and to hereafter carry on street openings in a systematic way under fair and impartial general laws. 7021 12 To refer for a moment again to the faults of the present s.vstem, they are, to my mind — 1. The special laws enacted by Congress interfere with the proper development of the general law. 2. The general law does not give the citizens of the District sufficient power of initiative and results in extravagant im- provements, unnecessary improvements, and favoritism in the selection of improvements. 3. For minor streets and alleys in a single block (that is, streets 60 feet wide or less), the Code places the initiative in the citizens. When a majority of property owners in such block ask for an improvement the Commissioners are directed to make it. This is right as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. The right to form special improvement districts should be given by general statute. These districts should be permitted to take in any length of street or any area upon which streets have not been already laid out. Let a majority of the citi- zens owning abutting property petition for the improvement and then cast upon abutting pi'operty a certain proportion of the cost of condenmation and the first or original cost of the improvement. This is a stimulus to ^ocal pride. 4. Streets in kind like streets of other cities — 80 feet wide or less — should be paid for like streets in other cities, a cer- tain part on abutting property and a certain part by the Dis- trict of Columbia. For such streets one half should be borne by the abutters and the other half by the District. 5. For extraordinary streets, more than 80 feet wide, the United States should pay one-third, the District of Columbia one-third, and the abutters one-third. 6. In other cities the opening and improvement of streets is facilitated by an issue of bonds. Authority to do that in Washington would break dow^n favoritism and result in a .general impi'ovement of all sections. A sinking fund should be created. Assessments made upon abutters for from ten to twenty years, for their proportionate part of every improvement and the necessary interest, and upon the entire property of the District for the remaining part, would provide a fund to retire bonds issued to run at from ten to twenty years. 7. The figures submitted herewith show that the moneys heretofore appropriated for street extension, street improvement, and even for street repairs have been used too much for one part of the city to the exclusion of the rightful demands of all other parts. The following figures, taken from the engineer's report for the years 1903, 1904, and 1905, for work on streets, avenues, 7021 13 county roads, and suburban streets, and repairs to asphalt, sbow the glaring inequalities in distribution of appropriation by the Commissioners of the District : Total improvements in west Washington, ?706,164, or 77.7 per cent. Total improvements in east Washington, $225,865, or 22.3 per cent. Total amount to the Northwest, $602,272, or 72.5 per cent. Total amount to the Northeast, $118,046, or 11.1 per cent. Total amount to the Southeast, $107,819, or 11 per cent. Total amount to the Southwest, $43,892, or 5.4 per cent. engineer's kepoet. Work on streets, avenues, county roads, and suburban streets for the year ending June SO, 1903. [Vol. II, page 42, folder, Table E.] Square yards. Cost. Northwest ..... . .... 12,263 45, 819 837, 698 County roads northwest 85, 729 Total northwest . . 68,0.-2 8,336 7,416 13, 102 4,190 123, 427 Northeast 19, 924 16, 382 Southeast ... 30, 121 9,935 Repairs to asphalt — Table F. Northwest $79, 950 Southeast 7, 457 Southwest 4, 151 Total to northwest, including Georgetown 213, 312 Total to northeast 19, 924 Total to southwest 20, 538 Total to southeast 37, 578 Total to west Washington 236, 845 Total to east Washington 57, 402 Table E, im. Streets in northwest $30, 015 Suburban northwest 129, 577 Total northwest 159, 592 Streets in northeast- Suburban northeast _ 33, 709 8,482 Total northeast 42, 191 Streets in southeast 35, 037 Streets in southwest 16, 726 Table F, 1904 — Repairs to asphalt. Northwest $80,568 Southwest 1,901 Table E, 1903. Streets in northwest $54, 456 Suburban northwest 109, 294 Total northwest 163, 750 Streets in northeast 29, 901 Suburban northeast 15, 852 Total northeast 45, 703 Streets in southeast .. 26, 551 Streets in southwest 16, 479 Table F, 1903 — Repairs to asphalt. Northwest $44. 059 Northeast 10, 178 Southwest 4, 732 Southeast 19, 135 7021 14 CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER CITIES. Pittsburg. — Improvements of a general character are distriljuted upon abutters and the city in the ratio of two-thirds upon abutters to one- third upon the city. Improvements of strictly local character are cast upon abutters. The city comptroller of Pittsburg in his report for 1004-5 said : "A practice which in its inception was intended to relieve hardships in deserving and exceptional cases has grown to such proportions as to become a great and grievous wrong. In outlining public improvements care should be exercised in determining their scope and whether local or general in their character. If general and affecting the community as well as abutting property, the charge against the work might with justice be distributed and the city regarded as a beneiiciary ; but where the benefits are merely local the city should not be assessed with any portion of the work. It seems to have been the practice in late years, and is rapidly growing, of getting all the improvements that can be had at other people's expense. In other words, local improvements are very often made where the benefits are not equal to the damages, and the difTerence is charged to the city. * • • I do not believe that in many of these cases, and the books are full of them, that the gen- eral public is benefited in any way, and some plan should be adopted by which this practice of improving any portion of the local thorough- Ifares at the expense of the general public should be stopped." St. Louis. — This city formerly cast the cost of improvements upon the frontage. This was changed so as to lay special taxation against par- ticular pieces of property as benefits. The auditor for 190.5 says that this system produces greater inequalities than the old system, and that It is complicated, ill defined, and provocative of litigation. In neither case is the cost cast upon the city, except where the city may be an abutter or benefited. The total amount, however, paid by the city la condemnation proceedings under either system since 1887, a period of nineteen years was $:{81.2.34, or aljout $17,400 a year. Buffalo. — Street extensions, grade crossings, and sewer improvements are made by the city and the expense assessed against the streets or districts be"neflted thereby. Bonds are issued and a sinking fund created. A certain amount of the indebtedness is cast upon the front- age and the remainder upon a district locally benefited. Boston. — The cost for extending streets is cast upon abutters. Bonds are issued as in Buffalo, a sinking fund created, and assessments made against the abutting property or the property pf the district benefited. Cost of actual condemnations in Washington. Year. Street. Dam- ages. Benefits. 1902 Si xteenth street $729,952 5,968 6,092 14,608 51, 627 8108,834 2,023 1902 Adums Mill road 190^ Euclid place 7.400 1905 Highways on east and west sides of the Zoological Park. 23,506 808,247 141,763 In all of the other improvements, twelve in number, the benefits were about equal to the damages. The total damages in eleven of these only amounted to about $50,000. From this it appears that this system works well upon small improvements, but opens the way for speculative enterprise at the cost of the city in large improvements. Street extensions in in02 cost $1,086,676; street improvements cost $618,387 ; care and lighting, $936,019. Total, streets, exclusive of bridges and sewers, $2,641,000. In re the extension of Sixteenth street NW., court roll No. 5S0, in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, holding a district court. May 29, 1901. VERDICT AND AWARD OF DAMAGES AND ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS. Schedule No. 1, damages. Schedule No. 2, benefits. „^ _^^^ ^ ^ Proceedings under acts of March 3, 1899, January 30, 1900, and June «. 1900. . . ^ , ., Note. — Schedule No. 1 sets out, first, damages awarded for land taken and damages due to grading, and, second, damages to improve- ments. Schedule No. 1, damages for land taken and damages due to grading. 7021 15 HALL & ELVAN'S SUBDIVISION OF MERIDIAN HILL. Owners. "^"^^'"^"nA Miles Rock ^^f.- ^g Howard University 209125 James°BT"Nrcho"lsonIIIIIIIIIII Hi::" 1*. 3^5*. 75 John vVsmithlllirilllllllllllll-II ^, 905. 00 Henry D. Williams 1 4'>2 25 Louisa A. Williams J' |r^- ^5 Do ---_ _ i;497;25 Do - 1,5.34.75 Do 1, 572. 25 Do I'l'iriririiiiii'"--------'-----------— i!o27.6o Henry D." WilUami..: '—'- \' ^;*6- gj Do - 1; 085. 20 DO 1 190 (\a Benjamin P. Davis j' i^^ gO Do -___ 1; 162. 00 Do 1 181, 20 Do -__ __ 1,200.50 w. i|{^fD^i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::""- }; If,: U Do ___ 1,984.75 Do 2,022.25 Do - 2,000.00 Henry D. Williams ^' i!^'- XX Mary F. Hendeison .„ Of!'>' 00 Jam^-s B. Nicholson '422:25 Do Q 1 oq' on William H. Walker ?' 525; 50 Do ~ n'oTT^in D. W. Clinton Broadhead 1 129. 30 Do I'oio'oo James H. C. Wilson :J' ^^J ^X Amelia F. Hensley |' -^ig" 20 James F. Smith i'fios'20 Robert Portner {' ^"j'g- $^ Marv F. Henderson ^,- ^< A^V' vn W. H. Walker and Chas. M. Campbell, trustees______-_ ^4, 001. 70 Do _I"_III 3', 9()2!00 Do A, OIR 00 Alban H. Nixon "yZ^^l^Z 4 Iflfi: 00 Do - - _ - -_ 4; 280. 00 Myron M. Parlier ^' ^^i; ^^ Do a'o' f\K James B. Nicholson I"""I" 2, SSs! 00 Alonzo^ C.'"BarnVttZIIIIIIIIII """"I"" ^' ^27'. 75 Henry Carter j-fj- |X C. H. Merriam, jr III"I""III 09 30 Do ii""iiir"ii"i~i-ii---------------- ---- 1^' -^'^- ^^ Harriet S. "Bfainei:— I-I-I-I '—- 1::::"" ^' 4-1O 70 Do -__ 5 3,33- 50 Do ""ii'iri — ziririiriiii"" 420. 70 J. H. C.WUs'on andTuce sT HUi:-: 5, 486. 30 Heirs V'Mary"M."Hodian::::iIIIIIIII---— -—----■--- 5, 606. 50 William "ArCampbeflllllllllll 1"!"::""::" ^' III' 35 Do _I_I__II__II 5, 846! 50 Do IIIIIIII""II'I-II---------------- 413 .35 William "Scott ..II— I -'—-- ^' g| ^^ Do 1, 003. 25 Do 'IIIIII"""""-------------------- --- ' ®^- ^^ Mbion^C. Chatham, jrl— I IlZZiri;! ^' 426! lo 7021 16 Owriprg. Award. John D. Langhorne *?• oo?" Ra Harriet S. lilaine ^' ^i^f 2rt Laura F. Barney iii ^yl Cliarles D. Walcott and Richard Rathbum, trustees 438. 70 Rebecca S. Barnes gj- ]^ John E. Anderson o^- "» Eliza A. Duffield 98. 55 Morrell Morean 300. 70 UNSUBDIVIDED TRACT, NORTHWEST CORNER SIXTEENTH STREET AND COLU.MBIA ROAD. Mary Swain Thompson $1, 771. 05 DENISON AND LEIGHTON'S SUBDIVISION OF THE ESLIN ESTATE. Elbert Robinson and Oliver A. Morris $1, 203. 10 Do 3-1- 70 no — 2, eno. 65 Do :::::::::"": in: 96. 20 Do 8.50. 80 Do 9,500.30 Do ::::::::::::: 262. 50 William J. Walker and .John Mitchell, Jr, trustees ,„^-I5 M. W. and Katherine M. Edmunds 6,120.90 Do ^ 1^5- I? Stanley Tcarce ^'V.'i^.i Mary R. Langtree §• I'lS' ^r David Ingalls ^' ^^I" S^ Do -•^- 80 Alexander Grant and George F. Stone, trustees 4, 97S. .35 Do 300. 50 Butler F.~ Abbott___IIII_- 4, 256. 10 Do _ _ _ 6.)4. 00 Katherine S. Foos 3,361.00 Do 922. 10 Elizabeth Varney 739. 80 Do -_ 930. 50 John B. Henderson 1,830.30 Dwiglit Anderson 1. 261.00 Do 515. (0 Phebe S. Lea ?' 2j6. 00 Zeno B. Babb'tt 2, 249. 00 W''l = am and Henrietta B. J. Ramsay 8, 36(.00 Mary B. Ames .__..__..___...__ 8,071.25 Do nil ""IIIIII— I— I 869.00 Do 11-^ 78. 00 Do 1. R^7. 00 Do 185. 15 Georse W. Sensner 1, 482. 74 Do 236. 40 George F. Stone „ ?S^- t2 Do 2, 492. 10 Do 1,820.00 Do 1. fi'^(>- 00 Emma B. Fitzgerald 2, 103. 50 Do — 8.56. 10 Charles R. Rowzee 705. 50 ElizMboth Varney 960. 00 Do 357. 90 Lydia A. Tanner 10,301.20 Do 248.40 S. Elizabeth Henrv and Nellie M. Leadingham 7, 304. 80 Do 1 620. 80 Mary B. Sleman 2, 593. 90 Mortimer Du Perow 203.40 C. R. Mc^Iahon 1,484.20 Priscilla B. Henley 5S8. 00 Elizabeth Smith 48o. 50 Mnrv F. Henderson 913.90 Chailes M. Campbell ^ ^1- 15 John M. Henderson 1, 304. 05 Do 5- 60 William K.Davidson 1,648.40 Do 1. 817. 50 7021 17 Owners. Award. Douglas F. Forrest $2, 354. 70 EUeu MeMahon , 1, 265. 10 Nellie M. Leadingham 1, 323. 60 Jennie F. Skindle 5,719.60 Do 159. 00 Martha H. Wheeler 2,535.90 Do 530. 90 Emeline L. Morse 2, 150. 70 Do 710. 20 Edwin H. Snyder 1,765.50 Alice E. Snyder 1,380.00 William B. Snyder 1,224.00 Alfred T. Gage 487. 70 .s. p. brown's subdivision of mount pleasant. Annie Hardon $2,793.00 Do 3,904.50 Carl Hoffman 242. 25 Mary P. Henderson 246. 70 Do 1 4, 968. 10 Benjamin P. Davis 12, 687. 10 Do 3, 880. 50 Georse E. Emmerich 3, 362. 00 Jessie T. Green 4,220.00 Do 1, 749. 60 Do 1, 749. 60 Do 1, 750. 20 Do 1, 750. 20 Do 980. 00 William and Mary E. Butterworth 6.072.40 William H. Crowell 1, 152. 50 William F. and Charles W. Wagner 48. 35 Richard P. Strong ' 245.60 Laura Arnett Cole 421. 05 Do 6, 363. 90 Do 9, 000. 00 Do 7, 596. 50 Harry B. Parker 217.60 Do 435. 85 Do 3, 157. 40 Heirs of Sydney V. Mitchell 328. 50 Do 1,266.80 Laura Arnett Cole 4,500.00 Do : 3,192,45 Do 125.50 Catherine E. Peek and Claudius B. .Jewell, trustees 1, 204 15 Theresa Dillon 2, 000. 00 Do 2,517.90 Amos Hadley 5, 785. 00 Sarah P. Exley 1,974.60 Do 6,565.30 Do 637.70 Martha F. Harmon 379. 05 Melvina Rogers 10, 824. 90 Do 875. 10 Do 2,617.55 Do 80.00 William E. Anderson 1,149.85 Do 120.00 Rebecca M. Bensal 711. 60 Do 375. 00 John Moon 16. 95 Do 1_ 625.00 Nicholas E. Young 6,967.45 Do 458. 10 Do 1,248.70 Do 3,444.20 Do 119.80 Do 3,564.00 Do 3,247.20 Do 316.70 William H. Andrews 1,700.00 Do 2, 687. 00 T. Pliny Moran 9.30 Do 400.00 7021 2 18 Owners. Award Harrison G. Brewer $90 Do :::::::::: m Do •_ gso. Do 200 Wax. A. and Julia Whitson "" " ttt' Do :::::::::::::: 275: Do 3,122. Do 97 John T. Knott __!_! ~ 87">' Rich.ird D., Wm. U., and Jno. K. Gordon ~ 8".") George R. Repetti ~ 700 Fredericl< \V. Ritter, jr I ~ 700'. Do !__"_ 700 Margaret A. Connell _ _ 700 George W. Bigelow 1 204 EdRiir w. Murphy iiirz:::::": i Thomas O'Connor 437 Alice Simppon ~ "~ j^ ^[75' Eliza Warder "' _ _~ ' 9G'' Do z esol Do _ _ 6 Susie A. Hertford _ _ __ 317 Do :: 2g; Benjamin W. Holman, trustee 29,S Do 45. Do 430. Do 119. Do 369. Do 181. Do 307. Do 50. Do * _ _ 24.^ Do 1.50. Do 1S3. Do 200. Do 121. Do 250. Do 59. Do 300. Do 6. Emma K. Yoder 2 2.32. Do ' 232. Do III_I_I 216! Benjamin W. Holman, trustee _ 3 015 Do 2, 300. Do 3, 344. Do 1. 051. Ellis Spear 4, 767. Do 221 Do 250. Sarah F. Spear 3, 303. Do 500. J. Wilson Dyrenforth 1, Ool. Do 500! Do 446. UNCLASSIFIED TRACTS. Julia A. L. Hall $1, 600. Caroline D. Tracy Z ~ 2', 107. Do Z ' 392! J. D. Croisant 9 Herhert T. W. Jenner ^ 1 800 Albion B. Jameson and Albert F. Hendershott 10, 144. L. P. Shoemaker 481. Charles Early and C. C. Lancaster, trustees I 11,615] Augustus Burdorf and Allen S. Johnson, trustees 4.882. Gustav H. Kiihn 1 775 Charles C. Glover 4^ 353. Charles W. Russell 3, 572 Alexander F. Matthews " ' 50" Charles G. Matthews 1 271 Achsah B. Rowell 1*342. John L. Norris 1 ' 442. Emma Hayes ~ 193' Edward L. White " _I"II " 455' 7021 19 Owners. Award. $92. 93 Helen W. Davts— _ \^^[ 50 Mary V. Barbee 20. 80 Alice F. Opdyke- 50.70 Alexander Reynolds "III" 983. 45 Ks1us^BmdorfYnd"A-lle-n-Crcrark^^ -^^l" gj Do --• SCHEDULE NO. 1 (B) .— D.*MAGES TO IMPROVEMENTS. ^^ Alban H. Nixon 150.00 Myron M. Parker 40.00 ^^^^ -^r.-7-7 1 4.50. 00 James B. Nicholson 2 800.00 Alonzo C. Barnett-- _-- 7-\7---,l ' 150. 00 Elbert Robertson and Oliver A. Morns ^ ^qq q^ Mary R. Langtree ' 05'. 00 Emma B. Fitzgerald 25 00 Charles R. Rowzee 5,900.00 George W. Sensner 5 goO. 00 Mary B. Ames IIIII IIIII--I"" 6,400.00 William andTfemieTta'BTX Ra"miay f O^J]; |]g /eno B. Babbitt 4' 700 00 I'hebe S. I-ea 4! 400. 00 Dwight Anderson 9,500.00 Lydia A. Tanner " 4,500.00 Mortimer Du I'erow j 9^0 00 Coliinibia R. Mc-Mahon 1*200.00 Elizabeth Smitb_ l' 400. 00 Nellie M. l.eadingham 800.00 Ellen McMahon 2,000.00 Douglas F. Forrest " 50. 00 Annie Hardon --" 1,750.00 Do _ - — ^^ Q^^ Carl Hoffman -— "" 2 700.00 Benjamin P. DaviS- - 5' goo oO George M. Emmerich - 4 32I. 00 Jessie T. Green- — 5,000.00 Laura Arnett Cole 5 750. qq Do "" """ 1,200.00 Harry B. P.iiker - "" 3 SOO. 00 Arthur Hadloy _-"_ 5,100.00 Theresa Dillon - 3,000.00 Sarah F. Exley "-— 7,500.00 Melvina Rogers "" 4 ooo. 00 Nicholas E. Young 600.00 William E. Anderson --— 15.00 Rebecca M. Bonsai _— i25. 00 John Moon " " _ 2,700.00 Margaret A C"!^"^!' --,------ " 3,000.00 Wm. A. and Julia M. Whitson ' ^c^o oo Harrison G. Brewer _— 2,900.00 Alice Simpson - _"" 100.00 C. C. Glover '" "~ <^00. 00 John D. Norris 1,000.00 A. B. Rowell . 729, 952. 29 Total damages SCHEDULE NO. 2.— .ASSESSMENTS OF BENEFITS. ^^ John W. Smith *i50; 00 Miles Rock II'TZIIZIIIZIIIIII""---- 37.5. 00 Do IZ 942! 00 Do " _"Z" 451. 80 James B. Nicholson - 50.00 Betsy Ann Hill-- 451.80 Lewis P. n. Davis 225.00 Lucy Dix BoUes 7 1 348.05 Henry D. Williams _ 340. 55 Louisa A. Williams "_ 33.S. 05 Do " 325. 25 Do 254.45 Do Z~'~ZZZZZIZZZZZZ_ZIZZ- 248. 40 7021 20 Owners. Award. Louisa A. Williams $394.50 Henry D. Williams __* 300.65 Do 386. 80 Do 382.95 >Benjamin P. Davis 379. 10 Do 375. 30 Do . 371.45 Do 367. 60 Do 363. 75 Do 359.90 W. Riley Deeble 394.45 Do 388. 45 Do 382. 45 Do 376. 40 Do 370.40 Henry D. Williams 364.40 Maria J. Carter 75 OO Do 75^00 Georgianna Bules 120. 00 John A. Schlueter 90.00 Mary F. Henderson 1, 106 50 Do 1, 115; 85 Do 729. 30 Do 562. 90 Do- 439. 20 Harriet S. Blaine 190. 60 A. M. Crane 144 oO Do 120.00 Selina D. Wilson 200 00 Do 2 420.' 00 Mary M. Henderson 300 00 Mary P. Henderson _ 300 00 Do 900. 00 Charles T. Willis 562 00 De Witt C. Broadhoad 562 50 Do 375.00 George T. Klipstein and Carolina G. Caughey 375. 00 Susan V. Jackson 525 00 De Witt C. Broadhead 375! 00 Joseph P! Webber 150.00 Sarah E. Coffln__ 225 00 De Witt C. Broadhead ~ 1, 659 50 Do 1, 303. 60 James H. C. Wilson 1, 279. 60 Amelia T. Hensley 1,255.60 James T. Smith 1, 231. 60 Robert Portner 1, 207. 60 Mary P. Henderson 1, iss' 60 Prederick L. Rosenund 450 00 Do 750. 00 W. Henry Walker and Chas. M. Campbell, trustees 985. 50 Do : 893. 50 Albion H. Nixon 863 50 Do 833. 50 ^^,r-^.-. 803. 50 James V. White 773. sq Adelaide Barnett 25o! 00 James B. Nicholson 450 00 Virginia B. Holm.es 160.00 Albert W. Bingham, jr 120 00 James B. Wimer 80.00 Elizabeth M. I'ower 40. 00 Mary P. Henderson 300 00 Do 600. 00 _ Do 574.00 Henry Carter 1, 14s. 60 John D. Langhorne 630. 00 Ida M. Shumate 26S. 30 Harriet S. Blaine 2, 215. 00 Laura P. Barney 526.00 Charles D. Walcott and Richard Rathbun, trustee.? 1,067.00 Mable H. Mellen and Marie H. Hoggatt 450. 00 W. D. Davis 774 00 Mable H. Mellen and Marie H. Hoggatt 225. 00 Luey E. Moten 1,125.00 7021 21 RebC'ca S. Barnes $747. 25 Rebecca S. Barnes __ $747. 25 •John E. Anderson 369.40 Eliza A. Duffield ^oo q^ Morrell Moreon 7Jd. »5 DENISON & LEIGHTON'S SUBDIVISION OF ESLIN ESTATE. Elbert Robertson and Oliver A. Morris $777.40 Do 1. ^07. 88 Do 217. 85 Katberine S. Foos ^Vi' ^2 Elizabeth Varney 5iS- o^ Emma B. Fitzgerald osZ' oR ]jo z8». bO Charles R. Rowzee 2^J- ^9 Elizabeth Varney i^I" X? Uo ■ 848. 2o John B. Henderson §?^- §9 Arthur H. Whitlark , ?^5. 7o Do 1. 173. 40 George F. Stone ^ 236. 10 Thomas W. Huuster 1' Sif s9 Charles H. Arnes Son is Mortimer De Perow V^!;" ^^ Columbus R. McMahon 457. 60 Priscilla B. Henley ^I^- ^^ Elizabeth Smith 257.70 Mary F. Henderson §j!.'^- 25 Charles M. Campbell 490. 25 Watson W. Farrar 490. 60 Mary F. Henderson 392. 50 Oscar P. Schmidt SSH" 55 Mary F. Henderson IS^- r); Do 583. 50 Edwin H. Snyder 9.B- 'i9, Columbus Kelly t>9o. 80 William F. Snyder 798. 30 Huldah Tilley and Alfred T. Gage 506. 40 Christine Tyner 60. 75 Thomas H. Sypherd ,ix- 5^ James B. McLaughlin 150. 00 Do 204. 4d Marie Schmidt H^- i9, John M. Henderson, trustee 78. 30 S. p. BROWX'S SUBDIVISION OF MOUNT PLEASANT. Annie Hardon ^?^9- RR Carl Hoffman l^i' ^^ W. H. Crowell AAo" ^R Wilhelmina Hoffman ?>!•!• 2x Carl Hoffman , -^ iV^- ix Joseph H. Crowfoi-d fir ?2 Margaret J. Crawford ^-^zt-- *!'• 1^ William F. and C. W. Wagner, Samuel Barnes, and Philip B. Milton l'?or-|^ Benjamin P. Davis 1. 18^- 70 Mary F. Henderson ^r?- gX Do ■» 6o3. bO Do - 1,056.50 Do ::::::::::::: 468.40 Selina M. Miller_-- HI' W. Do 150. bO Do ::::::::: 389. 10 Do :::::: : 1. 167. 20 Richard p-_^--«:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::; 1. \lt ^g Laura Arnett Cole 5i^- §,^ Harry B. Parker 58/. 80 Heirs of Sydney V. Mitchell 168. 75 Do - 1*^1- -^ Do 145.85 Do ::"::::: 50. eo Charles Schneider 540. 00 Charles R. Wright 234. 00 Henry Troombly 469. 92 C. B. Jewell, trustee 1. 1-0- SO 7021 22 Owners. Award. Dan Costello and Hugh Govern . $939. 85 Nicholas K. Youjg and Joseph H. Crawford 4G9. 90 Nicholas E. Young 43. 10 Robert II. Young 21. 60 Henry C. Harmon 290. 40 Do 667. 30 Sarah F. Exley 466. 80 William H. Andrews 3, 818. 60 Nicholas E. Young 740. 00 Melvina Rogers 319. 90 William E. Anderson 276. 40 Joh» Moon 157. 10 Rebecca M. Bonsai 618. 20 T. Pliny Moran 469. 40 Harrison G. Brewer 280. 3.5 Ellis Soear 375. 00 Sarah F. Spear 750. 00 J. A. Dvreufjrth 473.70 Benjamin F. Holmes 100. 00 Do 200.00 Do 260.00 Do 320.00 Do 380.00 Do 2,650.00 UNSUBDIVIDKD TRACTS. Charles Early and Charles C. Lancaster 2, 137. 00 Augustus Burgdorf and Allen S. Johnson 2, 750. 00 Do 1,228.50 Gustav H. Kuhn 1,000.00 Total benefits 108,834.75 The names of the dedicauts niaj be obtained from the books in the office of the surveyor of the District. A bill (H. R. 12692) to provide for opening and extending streets and avenues, county roads, and suburban streets in the District of Co- lumbia, and for other purposes. Be it enacted, etc., That except as modified or repealed by this act all the provisions of the act of Congress appioved the 2d day of March, 1893, entitled "An act to provide a permanent system of highways in the District of Columbia lying outside of cities," shall be and remain in full force and effect, and that all the powers given to the Commis- sioners and others thereby shall also apply to and be capable of being exercised within the limits of the cities of Washington and West Washington (formerly Georgetown), and tipon and through any addi- tion thereto, whenever it may be necessary to open or connect streets within the said cities, or streets lying partly within and partly beyond the limits thereof. Sec. 2. That in all cases where any street, avenue, county road, or suburban street which may be laid out and established in pursuance of this act or the act of March 2, 1893, aforesaid, shall exceed 80 feet In width, the amount awarded by the court as damages for such high- way or part thereof condemned and established, together with the entire first or original cost of the improvement, shall be assessed one-third against the land abutting npon the street or streets to be improved to a depth of 150 feet on each side thereof and the other two-thirds sliall be charged to the District of Columbia and the Treasury of the United States in equal proportions, and the damages awarded for all reserva- tions which may be condemned and established shall be charged wholly to the Treasury of the United States ; that for all streets 80 feet In width or under the entire amount of the damages and the entire first or original cost of the improvement shall be assessed one-half against the abutting property on each side of the improvement to a depth of 150 feet and the other half shall be charged to the District of Columbia. Sec. 3. That in all cases where any street, alley, suburban street, or county road shall be not more than 80 feet in width and confined to a single block, the amount awarded by the court as damages shall be as- certained and paid in the manner prescribed by the act approved the 23d of February, 1905, entitled "An act to amend chapter 55 of an act entitled 'An act to establish a code of law for the District of Colum- bia," " relating to the opening of minor streets and alleys in the said District ; and all other provisions of the said chapter 55 of the act of March 3, 1901, not inconsistent with this act or the said acts of March 7021 23 2, 1893, and February 23, 1905, shall be and remain in full force and *^Sec 4 That In case citizens of the District of Columbia shall, by petition filed with the Commissioners of the District of irpl"™ '>f„ ^^^ signed by at least one-half of the owners of property abutting upon any highway; street, or streets of the District of Columbia or of Pi-operty lying within the boundaries of any special improvement district or area to be established within the boundaries of the District of Columbia ^sk that a highway, street, or streets be improved, or ope^^d. ^n/. I'^P^^^S^' under this act and the preceding acts and. laws of which t is amenda- tory, it shall be the duty of the Commissioners of the District of Co- lunibia to improve or open and improve said highway, street, or streets n manner and form now provided by law for the impi-ojement of exist- ing streets, or the opening, extension, and improvement of new streets, or as said existing law shall be modified by tliis act ,,„^mpnt Sec. 5. That in order to provide an available fund for the payment of the damages which mav hereafter be awarded against the District of CokinibTa in the execution of the plan of street extension hereinbe- fore authorized and required, and for the first or orij^inalimprovepQent thereof, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia shall have au- hority to execute, issue, and sell from time to "me as exigencies m^^^ require, bonds of the District of Columbia, not to exceed *-'<5^„«'pOO.m any one vear, nor to exceed $30,000,000 in all, to be paid, P^ncipal and interest, fifty years from the date thereof and wholly from the revenues of the District of Columbia. ^ j. ,, a Sec 6 That the United States shall be made a party to all proceed- ings for the condemnation of lands for highways under the system hereby established whenever the highways to be opened, extended or "mproved shall exceed 80 feet in width, and the attorney of the United States for the District of Columbia shall appear for the United States '"s^c.^T^'rCaraS^lfrty aggrieved by the final order or decree of the supreme court of the District of Columbia holding a district court flx- inl the amount of damages or the assessment upon any parcel of land, miy take an appeal therefrom to the court of appeals of the Pi^tnct of Columbia and shall be entitled to a bill of exceptions as in civil cLesTnd said court of appeals may affirm, reverse, or modify the ordir or decree appealed from: Proiuled. That said court of appeals shall consder only qupstions of law arising on such appea, and that luch anneal shall be taken within twenty days after the making of the final o?der or decree appealed from, and not afterxyards. and shall be subiect to existing laws and rules of court regulating appeals to said cout of appeals ffom the supreme court of the District of Columbia^ Sec. 8. That all laws and parts of laws inconsistent with this act ''''sec.' 9?Vhat''th?s act shall take effect from and after its passage. Monday, Febniary 12, 1906. The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. 118) to amend sections 713 and 714 of an act to establish a Code of Law for the Dis- trict of Columbia, approved March 3. 1901. as amended by the acts ap- proved Januai-y 31 and June 30, 1902. and for other purposes- Mr. MORRELL said : Mr. Speaker: Two years ago, when the bill for appropria- tions for the District of Columbia was before the House, a Member who was not either a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia or the Appropriations Committee asked the question, in regard to an item, as to how that item com- pared with items in other cities of the same size as Washing- ton. I was surprised at my own ignorance, being unable to answer his question. But it brought very forcibly to my mind the fact that some investigation should be made as far as that was concerned. During the following summer I collected sta- tistics concerning the expenditures of fourteen other cities be- 7021 24 sides Washington. These statistics are arranged in tables. 1 had intended last winter to present the results of these inves- tigations to the House, but unfortunately I was taken ill, and only returned on the very day on which the appropriation bill for the District was being considered. Now, Mr. Spealier, it is popularly supposed that we are living in Washington under the best possible form of municipal gov- ernment, and we are very happy in that belief. I do not mean to say that we are wrong in that belief, but I think it might be well to inquire as to whether the excellence of the government is commensurate with the expense. Inasmuch as I was unable to present these tables last winter, so as to bring them as near as possible to date, I again made inquiries directed to the cities themselves, reducing the number of cities for comparison from fourteen to seven, and only including those whose population was practically the same as that in Washington. I will for a moment take up the time of the House by read- ing, not the tables themselves but some of the results of the deductions from those tables. For instance, it is worthy to note that in Buffalo, a city of 27 per cent more population and 5 per cent more property than Washington, the expense for all the ordinary purposes of a city government was 32 per cent less than that of Washington. Pittsburg, with 15 per cent more population and 28 per cent more property, expended only 2 per cent more than the city of Washington for the purpose of a civil government. Baltimore, with nearly twice the population, more than twice the property, and the victim of one of the greatest fires in the world's history, expended but 34 per cent more than the city of Washington, ^2,377,686 of which being expenditure resulting from the fire. Deducting this fire expenditure the percentage for ordinary expense for Baltimore in 1904 was but 9 per cent more than that of Washington. St. Louis, double in population and nearly double in property, expended but 18 per cent more than Washington. These totals for ordinary expenditure for these seven cities, together with the percentages adduced, indicate an extravagance in expenditure for the city of Washington out of all proportion to the benefits derived. Had the comparison been extended to Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, and other cities the comparison would have been still less in favor of Washington. These ordinary expenditures cover salaries of city officials, clerks and laborers, expenses of the various departments of ac- counting, assessing, collecting, and disbursing the funds ; the ex- penses for electricity, gas, or other means of lighting ; of water, excepting the original expenditure for plant; of the police, the 7021 25 fire, the health, charities. niarl. 870 Buffalo 3-9, 438 Pittsburg 274,399 Newark, N. J 247,284 1902. Cleveland 98, 999 Cincinnati 176,248 Detroit 207, 488 Milwaukee 212, 632 San Francisco 283, 000 Thus, as I have already said, Washington, with a population of 74,1G9 less than Buffalo, expends for kindred office work $87,429 more than Buffalo. Baltimore, with 230,139 more people than Washington, expends but $49,003 more for office work. Pittsburg, with 42,898 more people, expends $142,468 less money. Detroit and Milwaukee, with about the same population, ex- pend about one-half the money. The same is practically true of Cleveland, Cincinnati, and San Francisco. These are all well- governed cities, and there is no satisfactory reason for an ex- penditure in Washington of nearly twice as much for the same services. Newark, with but 75 per cent of the population, ex- pends 60 per cent of Washington's expenditures. Because Wash- ington is the capital of the country is no reason for doubling, trebling, and even quadrupling the aggregates paid for the same services in cities as large and even twice as large. 7021 28 The other municipalities have a single head, for whose serv- ices one of them, Chicago, with a population of 1,698.575, pays $5,000. Nearly all of the others pay from $4,000 to $G,000. Washington has a triple head, each part of which draws $5,000, with an allotment of a private secretary for each third of the authority. In other cities the chief officer is chosen by the people; has had a long residence in the city, and is identified with its material interests. Table No. 5. — Dealing with the police department, 190i and 1902. Cit.. 'Area (square miles). Cost. Cost per square mile. 1904. Washington. 70 62 43 31 42 2S 18 190 37 33 23 129 41 8S18, 179 1,948,864 l,7r-.8,420 1,059,046 787,613 6lO, 000 509,644 3, 330, 000 677, 607 374, (.WO 329.000 2,689,915 849,248 811 688 St. Louis ... 31,433 40,894 34 16'' Baltimore Buffalo 18, 129 Newark, N.J 1902. Chicago. 28,313 17, 500 15, 600 Milwaukee 14 300 Philadelphia 20 700 Washington and Georgetown have an area of about IG square miles ; the remainder of the 70 square miles in the District, al- though under the police control of Washington, is served by a system of mounted police with beats of several square miles. The aggregate cost, $818,179, is really distributed over an area of not more than 25 square miles, and costs about $20,454 per square mile. Why police protection in Washington should cost twice as much as in Milwaukee and Cleveland and more than in Buffalo, Pittsburg, Newark, and Cincinnati is hard to under- stand. President Roosevelt and John C. Wilkie complimented the police force of Detroit in 1901 very highly. The police forces of any of the cities above named will compare in effi- ciency with the police force of Washington most favorably. Washington has 686 policemen; Baltimore, 972; Buffalo, 628; Newark (1902), 448; Cincinnati (1902), 536; Cleveland (1902), 376; Detroit (1902), 575; Milwaukee (1902), 322; Pittsburg (1902), 405. Comparing the number of policemen in each city with its total valuation, we obtain the following interesting information : There is one policeman or police official in Washington for every $340,000 of taxable property ; in Baltimore, one for every $510,000; Buffalo, one for every $397,000; Pittsburg (1902), one 7021 29 for $794,313; Milwaukee (1902), one for $500,000; rX'troit (1902), one for $750,000; Cleveland (1902), one for $400,000; Newark (1902), one for $1,100,000. If it be argued that the taxable property assigned to Washing- ton is too small, being the valuation of the private proi)erty alone, it may be answered in reply that this does not materially affect the argument. The Government property is at all times under the protection of its own watch force, whose pay comes from the coffers of the National Government. If the valuation of Government buildings is to be added to one side of the ac- count, then the expense of these extra police should be added to the other. It is evident from all these considerations that the Metropolitan police force of Washington, while a most efficient body, costs far more in proportion than other efficient bodies do in cities of the same or larger size throughout the country. The expense account of the fire department in the city of Philadelphia — a city nearly five times as large and covering an area nearly twelve times as great as Washington proper — was $985,319. Washington expended $326,161. The following table will show the expenditures of seven cities for 1904 and five cities for 1902 : Table No. 6.- — Dcallny with the fire department. 1904. Washington ^too' l-?! ILi^r^ :::::::::::::::::::::: i.tSli Bafu^or^:::::::::::::::::: 6i5,o6o Buffalo 741,661 Pittsburi" 600. 000 Newark, N. J 405,098 1902. Cleveland 412,999 Cincinnati ll-' qI% Detroit ioi'tll Milwaukee 421, 333 San Francisco '"^> ^o"* Next comes streets and highwaj^s. This table shows the com- parative expense in cities for extension and improvement of streets, avenues, and alleys, excluding lighting, cleaning, sew- erage, parks, and bridges, 1904. EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF STREETS. City. Exten- sion. Improve- ment. Total. 8199, 504 89,138 43, 2S3 1,132,458 18,095 S583, 723 219,443 320, 770 784, 122 175.468 S783,26T 308,581 D * ^ 364,053 T, l.J 1,916,680 193,563 678,000 Newark. N.j Can not separate. STREET CLKANING. City. Ashei and garbage. Clean- ing. Washington . . St. Louis Boston Baltimore Buffalo Pittsburga Newark, N. J. 8133,387 322, 562 706, 529 195, 800 160,000 8186, 290 70i,569 434, 132 257, 621 140, 000 8299,677 1,027,131 1,140,651 453, 421 300, 000 85,500 224.237 309,727 "The item in the preceding table covers all expense. STREET REPAIRING AND LIGHTING. City. Repair- ing. Light- ing. Total. 8293,427 605, 169 1,073,445 180,510 50,632 150, 000 167, 917 8288, 923 566, 715 8582, 360 1,171,884 1, 073, 445 •320,121 303,391 387,859 240,694 500, 532 354,023 Pittsburg 637, 869 Newark, N.J 408,611 BRIDGES AND SEWERS. City. Bridges. Sewers. Total. 861,777 131,710 459, 658 44,303 369, 862 31,050 4,151 8678, 190 255, 560 324, 360 97,906 8739, 967 St Louis 3H5, 270 784,018 138,209 Buffalo 309. 862 66,330 31,050 Newark, N.J 60, 481 a Included above. It will be seen from these tables that, as I have said, Wash- ington expends about twice as much for street extension and improvement as St. Louis and Boston, four times as much as Buffalo, and $100,000 per year more than Pittsburg. The de- structive fire at Baltimore cast such an amount of extra work upon that city as to make its expenditures for the year 1904 of no value in this comparison. Were less money spent upon street extension and improvement and more upon garbage and cleaning, a better equilibrium would be maintained. The amount expended for sewerage seems to be very high when compared with that of St. Louis, Baltimore, and Buffalo. Next I have a table of public schools. This table includes the expenditure for all schools — collegiate, business, art, kinder- garten, normal, summer, and public — including salaries, books, fuel, buildings, grounds, and other contingencies, 1904 and 1902 : 7021 31 City. Salaries. Buildings and supplies. Total. 1904. Washington $1,068,986 8621, 385 $1,690,371 2,631,358 3,106,876 1, 169, 147 270, 897 1,081,650 87,021 Both items included. 869.862 519,126 1,092.689 61,612 1,491,104 922,441 763,002 334,829 5,738,234 1,440,044 1,178,671 1,075,000 1, 388, 988 1902. 1,154,301 2,413,548 etro t . . . 1,097,031 « Comptroller's report does not itemize. Enrollment, number of teachers, and cost per pupil, hased on total en- rollment and total expenditure, 1903. City. Teach- Cost per ers. pupil. Washington .. Philadelphia . St. Louis Newark, N. J . Boston Baltimore Cincinnati Cleveland — Pittsburg Buffalo 48,745 192, 849 82,459 42, 230 97, 871 88, 528 43,884 64,884 51,494 60, 779 1,339 3, 766 1,669 863 2,195 1,689 922 1, 339 1,008 1,199 833.30 25.50 27.40 23.20 44.00 19.10 21.60 33.80 27.90 24.80 One of the be.st systems of schools in the United States is that of Cleveland, Ohio. The figures upon which the above cal- culations were made were taken from the Report of the Com- missioner of Education for 1903. It appears that the city of Cleveland, with a population of 100,000 more than Washington, employed the same number of teachers in that year. That is to say, 1,339 teachers in Cleveland, Ohio, under a system which educators admit to be one of the best in the United States, educated an enrolled population of 64,884, at a cost of $33.80 each, while the same number of teachers in Washington educated 16,000 less, at a cost of only 50 cents less per capita. It will also be seen that the per capita cost for the education of a child in Philadelphia, under a system admittedly the best, is $7.80 less than in Washington. The per capita cost of education in all the cities named, except Cleveland and Boston, is far below that of Washington. Newark and Cincinnati enroll almost as many pupils and educates them at a cost of from $10 to $12 less per caiiita. Buffalo educates 25 per cent more children than Washington, in schools equally as good or better, at $9 less per capita. The fault of the Washington system lies first in its 7021 32 so-called " board of education." It is nonrepresentative as to residence, educational ability, and knowledge of educational affairs. The system is without a head, as the superintendent is divested of that part of the authority which goes to make eflSciency in public instruction. He has no absolute control over principals or teachers. The principals lack subordination, as do the teachers. The pay of both teachers and principals is representative of the pay of teachers and principals in good schools throughout the. country. The above figures demonstrate this conclusion. The last table refers to charities and corrections for the year 1903: City. Charities. Correc- tions. Total. Washington 5668,343 454,021 a76, 174 218, 406 1,257,362 387, 169 236,200 73,627 60, 500 9,001 227,000 114,261 48, 249 272,000 8153,122 215. 613 8821,465 Philadelphia . . 669, 534 i48,743 384,943 40, 696 101, 196 Milwnnkfp Chicago 165,534 382,534 114,261 » Includes both. Mr. Speaker, this concludes the tables. I may add that it was in the course of this investigation that the matter of street extension was brought to my attention, as also several other mat- ters in connection with the District of Columbia — for instance, taxation. I propose at some future occasion to burden the House with some remarks upon these other matters, and I do hope that the Members of the House will give attention to these tables when they appear in the Record and will scrutinize them care- fully. I ask it for this reason, because, as far as the expenditures of the District of Columbia are concerned, the Members of this House occupy a dual position of trust. First, they come here representing their constituents at home, a portion of whose taxes are used to pay for the government of the city ; next, they rep- resent also almost 400,000 of population of the city of \Yashing- ton, who are deprived of suffrage and who have no means of regulating the expenditure of the money they pay in taxes. I trust for these reasons that the Members of the House will give these matters their careful attention. 7021 33 Monday, Fehruanj 26, 1906. The FTonse having under consideration bills relating to the District of Columbia — Mr. MORRELL said : Mr. Chairman : In the course of my remarks on the last District day I said that I would have some other matters to call to the attention of the House, and among them the matter of taxation and assessment. As a text, I shall quote the law governing assessments in the District of Columbia, which will be found in section 5 of the act making appropriations for the expenses of the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1903, and is as follows : All real estate in the District of Columbia subject to taxation, in- cluding improvements thereon, shall be assessed at not less than two- thirds of the true value thereof. The three things most striking in regard to taxation in the District of Columbia are, first, the undervaluation; second, the enormous outlay or expense of assessment, and, third, the sys- tem of exemptions. 1. The undervaluations. — In the course of my examination of the Sixteenth street condemnation proceedings I stumbled upon some truly astonishing instances illustrating this point. One man owned a piece which was assessed for taxation in 1902 at the value of $253. Now, when the Government took that same land for a street the jury gave him as damages $10,063. The jury acted under oath, and making, in all probability, a fair estimate of the actual value of the land taken gave the owner almost forty times as much as the land was rated at upon the assessors' books. I had wondered how on earth that jury could assess the total damages to property owners in that sec- tion at $796,000 while all the property along the line of the street was benefited only to the extent of $108,000. But when this was discovered I concluded that the land must have been so peculiarly adapted to streets and so useless for any other purpose that it couldn't be improved in value even by the con- struction of a grand boulevard through it. Another striking case is that of Messrs. Elbert Robinson and Oliver A. Mori'is, who owned lot No. 125 in Denison & Leigh- ton's subdivision of the Eslin estate. This lot contained 2,339.7 square feet and was assessed for taxes at a total valuation of $96. The jury awarded damages to the amount of $2,690.65, which was more than twenty-eight times the assessed valuation for taxes. There were several other cases like that of Mr. Nicholson. I might say that they were nearly all like it, so far as the Six- 7021 3 84 teenth street extension is concerned. The following table ex- hibits several of them, selected at random: Table exMMting the difference between the assessed value of lots in the District of Columbia for purposes of taxation and the amounts paid by the Government for the same lots under condemnation proceedings. IN S. P. BROWN'S SUBDIVISION OF MOUNT PLEASANT. Block. Lot. Area in square feet. Total as- sessment for taxes. Paid under condemna- tion pro- ceedings. Name of owner. 1 1 1 10 129 130 15,858.90 9,000.00 7,596.50 $1,307 1,186 631 $12,687.10 9,000.00 7,500.00 Benjamin P. Davis. Laura Arnett Cole. Do. HALL & ELVAN'S SUBDIVISION OF MERIDIAN HILL. 6,708.00 $253 $10, 062. 00 James B. Nicholson. DENISON & LEIGHTON'S SUBDIVISION OF THE ESLIN ESTATE. 125 2 33S.70 $96 $2,690.65 \Elbert Robmson and Oliver A. 127 9,590.30 1,210 9,590.30 J Morris. No effort was made In selecting these examples to find ex- treme cases. My object was merely to get instances of the relative ratio of taxation to the selling price of property in each of the subdivisions involved in the Sixteenth street con- demnation proceedings. The damages awarded in these cases did not include damages for improvements, but solely for land talcen. The situation on Capitol Hill is not so bad, but it is still bad enough — very much worse than it ought to be. There is a document published by Senator Cxtllom's committee entitled the " Report of proceedings in acquiring square 686 as a site for the Senate office building," which throws a great deal of light on this subject. From this report I gather the fol- lowing examples of the difference between the value of land in the District as assessed for taxes and the value of the same land when condemned for public uses : 1. A vacant lot on B street NE., containing 2.278 square feet, was assessed for taxes at $1.45 a square foot, and was assessed as a whole at $3,303. The owner asked the Government $9,714. and the jury awarded him $7,404. 2. Two vacant lots at the corner of Delaware avenue and B street NE. were assessed at a total value of $12,629. The jury awarded $42,042. 3. A front and back lot on B street NE. were assessed at a total valuation, exclusive of improvements, of $3,571. The Im- provements were assessed at $3,500, making the assessed value of the entire property $7,071. The jury awarded $19,775. 7021 ^5 The law requires that assessments shall be made for at least two-thirds of the valuation, and in these cases, which are only fair examples of the whole, we find property paid for by the Government at from three to five times the rate at which it was listed for taxes. I am told that in the proceedings for acquiring square 690 as a site for an office building for the House of Representatives the amounts awarded as damages were in almost every case four or five times as great as valua- tions put upon the lands for taxes. And here I would like to digress a little. I am informed that when an effort was made to find the report and award of the jury in proceedings relating to square GOO the task proved too much. It was not among the records of the case in court roll 597, where it should have been. It had not been recorded either in the Interior Department or in the office of the register of deeds of the District of Columbia. The Secretary of the Interior had approved it and then it had been turned over to a lawyer, and, with the exception of that lawyer, there was apparently no living man in possession of the legal evidence necessary to verify the title of tne United States to the lands included in square 690 of this city. And this seems to have been the case since May, 1904. Suppose all those lots were sold by the former owners to innocent purchasers without notice — there being no proper legal record of the transfer of title — who would be to blame? And what would be the result? But, though it was impossible to find the report and award of the jury in any place where it ought to be filed or recorded, it was possible to find, in a petition for payment of the amount due Thomas F. Mallan under the award, the following facts, which may be taken, in the absence of the jury's complete report and award, as forming an average case. Mallan owned subdivision No. 10, in square 690. This parcel of land was assessed for taxation at $6,048, and the improvements thereon at $7,800, making a total valuation of $13,848. The jury awarded as damages $31,496.07, and the property was probably worth that sum. All this shows, -not that the Government has paid too much for this land on Capitol Hill and in the section around the great central park which has been created beyond the city limits, but that it has apparently been grossly under- valued in the assessment of taxes. (Acts 1901-2, p. 616.) In the business section of the city the discrepancies are not so great, the property there being taxed upon about half its real value. Stoneleigh Court, sublet 35, square 164, is assessed at $535,994, the lot being rated at $105,499 and the building at $430,000. The New Willard Hotel, sublet 26, square 225, is assessed at 7021 36 $1,062,635— the ground at $442,635 and the building at $620,000. The Colorado Building, sublot 60, square 252, is assessed at $536,592— the land at $136,592 and the building at $350,000. Much complaint has been made in the city of Washington, not only against the discriminations in assessments, but also against the undervaluation of land with reference to the im- provements thereon. Some of these complaints have found their vray into the public prints. From the Washington Times of Sunday, January 7, 1906, I extract the following statements of Mr. E. W. Oyster, a prominent citizen of the District of Columbia. Among other things, Mr. Oyster said: ALLEGED ODTRAGEOUS DISCRIMINATION. But great as are the inequalities in tlie assessments of improvements, the inequalities in the assessments of land in different sections of the city and county, and even in the same locality, are very much greater, and the discrimination in favor of the land speculator as against the home owner and home seeker is simply outrageous. LAND VALDES IN NEW YORK. The last assessment in Greater New York shows that the value of land in that city is $3,697,686,935 and of improvements $1,100,657,854, the land values being 77 per cent of the whole. LAND VALUES IN WASHINGTON. The value of the land in the District of Columbia is probably 75 per cent, certainly not less than two-thirds, of the total value of land and improvements, and should therefore bear not less than two-thirds of the tax on real estate. The total assessment on this class of property is $239,461,985, the assessment on land being $136,843,419, on improve- ments $102,618,566. Had land and improvements been fairly assessed in proportion to value the assessment on the land would have been not less than $159,641,324 and on improvements not more than $79,820,661. The discrimination against improvements and in favor of land could not be justified at any time, and surely can not be justified now, as the law under which the present assessment was made provides " that here- after all real estate in the District of Columbia subject to taxation, in- cluding improvements thereon, shall be assessed at not less than two- thirds of the true value thereof and shall be taxed 11 per cent upon the assessed valuation." The law is both positive and clear and was Intended to prevent in the future the unjust discrimination in favor of land-grabbing syndi- cates, speculators, and monopolists. Had the assessors obeyed the law in making the assessment of real estate for the next three years, im- provements would have been assessed at about $125,000,000 and land at about $375,000,000. This would have produced, at $1.50 on the $100, $7,500,000, or about double the amount desired to be raised from that class of property. It is not necessary at this time to enter into a discussion as to whether or not the law is just what it should be, but if the assessors, with the provisions above quoted " staring them in the face," assumed the responsibility of ignoring or evading it to the extent of raising only such an amount of revenue as they think necessary, then they should have ignored or evaded it to the same extent in favor of improvements as they have in favor of land. SHOULD HAVE A SQUARE DEAL. An assessment of one-third the true value of land and improve- ments — say, $187,500,000 on land and $62,500,000 on improvements — would have raised a larger revenue than will be raised under the inequitable assessment made or the next three years. Such an assess- ment would probably raise a howl from those who are holding vacant land out of use for speculative purposes, but should, and no doubt would, meet with the approval of all owners of improved property who believe in the principles of justice and " a square deal." The assertion that land values are not less than two-thirds the value of both land and improvements is based on actual sales in different sec- tions of the District in comparison with assessed values. GOVERNMENT PURCI For instance, the Government paid five and a half times more than the assessment for the land on which the new Government Printing 7021 37 Office stands, and three and a half times more than Ae assessment for the land on which the House and Senate buildings are being erected. The assertion is frequently made that the price paid for land by the Government is not a fair test of true value, for the reason that the United States is alleged to be more generous in the purchase of such property than private parties. However that may be in other cities, the facts do not sustain that contention in regard to the District of Columbia. PURCHASES BY PRIVATE PARTIES. The sale to private parties of 2,000 square feet of ground at the southwest corner of square 236, at Fourteenth and U streets, was noted in the city papers of August 26, 1905, and the price paid for the cor- ner was given as $19,000. The assessment on this land is $o.300, and on the improvement, since torn down, was $3,000. Assuming $6,000 to have been the true value of the building, the amount paid for the land was $13,000, or about four times the assessment. By deeds placed on record in December, 1905, the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association secured from the Bakers' Cooperative Association 11,000 square feet of ground at the southwest corner of North Capitol and P streets. The city papers of December 28 gave the price paid as $55,000, or $5 a foot. The assessment on 2,750 feet of this ground is 90 cents a foot and on the remainder — 8,250 feet — 65 cents a foot, averaging 71J cents a foot, making the total assessment on the land $7,837.50. The improvements are assessed at $4,800, After deducting double the assessment on the improvements (of little value to the pur- chasers) from the total amount paid, it will 'oe seen that the price paid for the land was about $4.13 a foot — nearly six times the assessment. LAND VALUES. A comparison of the assessments with the selling prices of land will convince any fair-minded person that the above examples are not ex- ceptions to the general rule — that is, that the selling price of land in the city, which must be somewhere near the true" value, is not less than from two and a half to four times the assessment on it, and that large and expensive improvements are assessed at from 10 to 30 per cent lower than small ones in proportion to value. The land in the square immediately north of the Treasury Depart- ment is assessed at from $4 to $30 a square foot, the northwest corner of Fifteenth street and Pennsylvania avenue being the $30 corner, and, in the judgment of the assessors, the most valuable parcel of land in the District. It no doubt cost its present owners nearly three times the assessment. Square No. 222, between Fourteenth and Fifteenth streets and New York avenue and H street, is assessed at from $4 to $25 a foot, the northeast corner of Fifteenth street and New York avenue being the most valuable part of the square. The Equitable Building ground at Fifteenth and G streets is assessed at $22 a foot, the Commercial Bank corner. Fourteenth and G, at $20 a foot, and the Bond Building corner at $15 a foot. Taken as a whole, this square is said to be the most valuable piece of land in the city. ASSESSMENTS ON IMPROVEMENTS. The assessments on improvements range from 40 to 65 per cent of true value, averaging about 50 per cent. The New Willard Hotel is assessed at $620,000. The Colorado Building is assessed at $350,000. The Star office and the Loan and Trust Building are each assessed at $200,000, and are among the few large structures assessed up to the average of 50 per cent of true value. It is safe to say that neither the Willard Hotel nor the Colorado Building is assessed up to the average for improvements. The most valuable private residences in the city stand on adjoining squares on the south side of Massachusetts avenue northwest. One is assessed at $250,000 and the other at $225,000, probably not more than one-third of their cost. Outside of the city limits the discrimination in, favor of the owner of vacant land as against the home owner is even more striking than in the city. Improvements are assessed at from 50 to 60 per cent of their cost, while land is assessed at from 10 to 30 per cent of its true value, an average of not more than 25 per cent. For example, land in block 27, Petworth, purchased three years ago for 30 cents a foot, now worth about 40 or 45 cents a foot, is assessed at 12 cents. The land In blocks 37 and 38 is assessed at 2, 3, 4, and 5 cents a foot. None of this land can be bought for less than from six to twelve times the assessment. Land in block 39 was purchased for IS cents a foot about three years 7021 38 ago, and for 25 cents a foot about eighteen months ago, and frame houses costing probably $2,200 and $4,000 erected thereon. This whole block is assessed at 2 cents a foot, not more than 10 per cent of true vahie. The improvements are assessed at about 50 per cent of cost. Very recently land In blocks 73 and 78, on which about forty brick houses are being erected, sold for 40 cents a foot. Three-fourths of the land in these blocks is assessed at 5 cents a foot, the balance at 6 and 8 cents. The assessment on the land in Petworth is from 10 to 30 per cent of true value, averaging about 20 per cent. The improvements are as- sessed at fully 50 per cent. Let no one imagine that the owners of vacant land in Petworth have been specially favored. An examination of the assessor's books will show that the same discrimination has been made in favor of the land speculator in every other section of the District. Millions of square feet which can not be bought for less than from 10 to 50 cents a foot are assessed at from 1 to 10 cents a foot, and thousands of acres which can not be purchased for less than from $2,000 to $8,000 an acre are assessed at from $400 to $2,000 an acre. The flat buildings of the District seem to be taxed according to location rather than actual value ; those in the business sec- tion, like the Stoneleigh, being taxed. on a 50 per cent basis, and those in the suburbs and outlying sections on a 10 and 20 per cent basis. This is apparent from the assessor's report for 1905 (page 81 of the report of the Commissioners), where we find that those buildings located in different sections of the city of Washington are assessed as follows: Northwest, 109 flat buildings, assessed at $495,200 for all. Southwest, 1 building, at $3,000. Northeast, 145 buildings, at $351,500 for all. Southeast, 29 buildings, at $05,300 for all. Total, 285 buildings, at $915,000 for all. Thus it will be seen that the average value of a flat building, according to the assessor, it only $3,210 in Washington. If we deduct the assessed value of Stoneleigh Court from the total value of all such buildings ($915,000), we have $485,000 as the total value of 284 flat buildings in the city, making the average value of such a building only $1,705. Many of these flat buildings are immense buildings, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. This class of property is evidently undervalued al- most as greatly as lands around Rock Creek Park. From the report of the Select Committee to Investigate Tax Assessments in the District of Columbia in the Fifty-second Congress, first session (H. Rept. No. 14G9), I extract the fol- lowing : Now, the attempt to collect taxes which it is thus obvious can not be collected, and as to which there is evidently a feeling that regards their collection as unjust, must by its reactive effects render more diffi- cult than it ought to be the full and equitable assessment of taxes on landed property. And so it is with the assessment of taxes upon build- ings and improvements. The value of the small and cheaply built house may be fairly estimated by a look from the outside, but the value of one of those costly edifices that are becoming so common in the Federal District can not be told without close examination. A door, a pier glass, a marble floor, a stained window, a carved staircase in one of these houses has a value far greater than the entire homestead or hired residence of one who among the great masses of our people would be deemed well to do. • » * The poor man with a small 7021 and poor bouse has to submit. A few dollars difference in the assess- ment will not pay him for the time and trouble of protesting. But the rich man, with the costly house, not merely has more time and larger interests, but finds the diflerence in the assessment a more important matter. Thus in both these ways there are powerful tendencies con- stantly at work to produce unjust inequality in the taxation of build- ings and improvements. This idea is further manifest in the difference made between speculative and business interests in the city of Washington. The latter are apparently discriminated against. In additii.a to the cases cited from the report of the jury in the Sixteenth- street extension proceedings, I might cite numerous others which have come to light through the newspapers. For in- stance, take the following items : One square north of Holmead Manor, from Fourteenth street extended to Brightwood avenue. Assessed at $700 per acre; equal to 1^ cents to 2i cents per foot. Sold from 30 cents to 35 cents per foot. Five acres in Jones tract, on Sixteenth street extended, just beyond Brightwood, sold at $3,500 per acre. Assessed at $300. Nine acres opposite Cleveland cottage sold at $6,000 per acre. Assessed at $150 per acre. March 29, 1903, 4 acres joining the Catholic U.niversity grounds sold for $4,500 per acre. Assessed at $700 per acre. November, 1894, Dumblane farm, 100 acres, sold for $150,000. Assessed at $150 per acre. Twenty-nine and one-half acres on Rock Creek Ford road, plat 6, assessed at $150 per acre. Total value, $4,430. Rosedale, Tennallytown road, assessed in 1893 for $300 an acre. Sold for more than $3,000 per acre. February, 1894, 14 acres sold for $185,000, or $13,214 an acre. Assessed at $6,730 per acre. Fifty acres between Brookland and Metropolis View sold to a syndicate of Washington. New York, and Richmond men for $107,000. Assessed at $;::5,832. From all these citations it is evident that the land of the District of Columbia is not taxed as under the law it should be, and shows that were the National Government to assume the entire cost of the District of Columbia, as some people would have it do, that no one would be benefited except the landowners. From the report of the committee before cited, page 9, I find these words: They (the landowners) would still demand from tenants the full rental value of land regardless of the remission in the assessment on it, and the effect of this net increase in the profits of landowning would be to raise the selling value of land and to greatly stimulate land speculation. Thus the effect of such liberality toward the Fed- eral District on the part of Congress would ultimately be only to in- crease enormously a few large fortunes and to drive a greater numbei of citizens into narrower quarters and make it more difficult for then to li^e. 7021 40 It is inconceivKble how the method of assessment which now obtains in the District of Columbia can be reconciled with the law governing the assessment of taxes, which I cited at the beginning of my remarks, namely, that — All real estate in the District of Columbia subject to taxation, in- cluding improvements tliereon, shall be assessed at not less than two- thirds of the true value thereof. This law appears to be habitually violated in the District assessor's oflSce. The facts above stated prove that it is en- tirely disregarded. In the article of Mr. Oyster we find him making virtually the same charges and stating the answer of the assessor. Mr. Oyster said : That tax dodging, a species of graft, is one of the greatest evils of this day and generation is conceded by every honest man, and that Washington has its full quota of tax dodgers and grafters is self-evident. In my judgment the assessors are more responsible for this shameful condition of affairs than the owners of property, at least so far as real estate is concerned. " It is not only wrong, but it is unsafe," said ex-President Harrison in a speech before the Union League Club, of Chicago, in 189S, " to make a show in our homes and on the street that is not made in the tax returns. This country can not continue to exist half taxed and half free. Each person has a personal interest — a pecuniary interest — in the tax returns of his neighbor. We are members of a graat partnership, and it is the right of each to know what every other member is contributing to the partnership and what he is taking from it. It is not a private affair; it is a public concern of the first importance." Thus encouraged by the words of the honest man and great statesman above quoted, I make hold to challenge the fairness of the past and pres- ent assessments of real estate and personal property in this District. TESTIMONY OF EXPERTS. In 1892, under oath before a select committee of the Hoiise of Repre- sentatives appointed " to inquire into all alleged irregularities pertain- ing to assessments in the District of Columbia." Samuel Phillips, ex- president of the Washington and Georgetown Railroad Company, a large owner of real estate, and an expert on the value of such property, said: " I have been familiar with every assessment made in Washington during the past thirty years, and there has never been one which has not been viciously defective, bearing severely on some, who were generally the poorer class, with inexpensive improvements, and favoring the richer, with large and important buildings. * * * The rich man will prob- ably get off with the payment of one-half the taxes that are placed upon the poorer men." A number of other experts on real estate values gave similar evidence before that committee, which is printed in House Report No. 1469, Fifty- second Congress, first session. PETWORTH PROTESTS. With these statements in mind, and after investigation, having reason to believe that all subsequent assessments had been " viciously defective," I introduced, and the Petworth Citizens' Association, in April, 1905, unanimously adopted, a series of resolutions setting forth the above facts, and requested the assessors to correct the injustice complained of by assessing all property equitably, on the basis of value, " without fear or favor," as required by law. THE ASSESSOR'S STATEMENT. In reply to these resolutions Hopewell H. Darneille issued a statement addressed to the Commissioners in defense of the board of assessors, in which he asserted that certain statements in the resolutions of the Pet- worth Association were unjust and conveyed " an imputation which the board of assessors justly resents." In the statement referred to he also said : " The assessing of either real or personal property is, in the ab- stract, purely a matter of opinion based upon experience and compari- son. * * * I do not undertake to defend the action of the. author- ities Intrusted \iith the assessment of real estate for the past thirty 7021 41 years, but \vi /b a full kn&wledge of the records of this office. I can state that I know of no radical departures from what values should have been. * * * In regard to the discrimination in favor of large hold- ings, it may or may not be that property for years has been assessed unjustly, in that small homes have paid from 25 to 50 per cent higher rate, but certain it is that such is not the case now. Both large and small properties are assessed on the same basis." The majority of taxpayers — and every man and woman pays taxes directly or indirectly — will, doubtless, agree with Mr. Darneille that the assessing of property in the abstract has been " purely a matter of opinion," and, in a very large number of cases, very poor opinion, indeed. If " with a full knowledge of the records of his office." the assessor knows of " no radical departures from what values should have been,' then I respectfully suggest that he "store his 'mind with useful knowl- edge " by reading House Report No. 1469, above referred to. DISAGREES WITH THE ASSES.SOE. Notwithstanding Mr. Darneille's assertion that " both large and small properties are assessed on the same basis,"- under the new assessment an examination of the assessments on a large number of improvements in different sections of the city has demonstrated to my satisfaction that the assessments on that class of property vary from about 40 to 60 per cent of true value, and in exceptional cases still higher on small improvements, averaging about 50 per cent for the District, the ad- vantage, as usual, being in favor of the larger and more valuable building. Nor does the complaint stop with the method of the assess- ment of lands and their improvements. Mr. Oyster urges the following complaint against the method of assessing personal property : There also appears to be a very large screw loose somewhere In the personal tax appraisement machinery. This class of property in Wash- ington is alleged to be assessed at 100 per cent of true value, and on that basis amounted to $26,575,819.66 last year. Compare our $26,500,000 assessment on personal property on a 100 per cent basis with such cities as Cleveland and Cincinnati on a 60 per cent basis, with San Francisco on a 65 per cent basis, and with Detroit on a 100 per cent basis, and consider what the great difference between the assessments in those cities and Washington means. Does it mean what has been frequently charged by Senators and Represent- atives in debate on the floors of Congress, that this District is the paradise for tax dodgers?" ^. ■ ^-u -f The following are the assessments on personal property in the cities named (see Census Bulletin No. 20, p. 440) for the year 1903 : City. New York Chicago Philadelphia . Boston Cleveland San Francisco Cincinnati ... Detroit Providence... Popula- tion. 716, 139 873, 880 367, 716 594,618 414,950 355, 919 332,934 309, 619 186, 742 Per ct. 100 20 100 100 60 65 60 100 100 866,092 991, 052 501,825 155, 523 851,910 554, 179 785, 700 671,860 241,080 Cleveland, only one-fourth larger in population than Washington, in 1903 on a basis of only 60 per cent of true value, assessed double the amount of personal property assessed in Washington in 1905, on a basis of 100 per cent of true value. On the Washington basis the assessment in Clevelpnd would have been about $88,000,000, about three and one- third times our assessment. San Francisco, not much larger than Washington in population, in 1903, on a basis of 65 per cent of true value assessed over four times as much as our assessment in 190o. On the Washington basis of 100 per cent the assessment in San Fran- cisco would have been about $172,000,000, six and one-half times the assessment here in 1905. , i.. ., What is the trouble with the Washington personal tax machiner: > Is it with the machine or with the engineers? If the trouble is with 7021 42 the machine, then Congress should reconstruct it. If not, then the assessors should rigidly enforce the law, and all those within its reach should honestly obey it and " render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's." And there is no proper machinery for correcting these abuses ; for whenever a taxpayer appeals from an assessment on his property the appeal lies from the man who made it in one ca- pacity to the same man in another capacity. The board of equalization should be an entirely different board from the board of assessors. 2. The enormous outlay or expense. — The regular force in the assessor's office consists of thirty men ; one at $4,000 ; two at $2,000 each ; three at $1,400 each ; seven at $1,200 each ; three at $3,000 each ; one at $1,500 ; eight at $1,000 each ; two at $900 each, and two at $600 each. In addition to this the appropria- tion bill for 1905-6 carried $2,500 for temporary relief. The salary roll was $43,000. The total expenditure for the assess- or's office is placed in the report of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia for 1905 at $64,397. The salary account in the assessor's office for the city of Buffalo for the same period was $21,753 ; other expenses, $1,914 ; total, $23,669. The Washington office is complicated to the extreme, and the expense account entirely too large. The department of assessors cost Pittsburg, for the year end- ing January 31, 1905, $37,000, or $27,397 less than Washington. The assessment of the revenue for the city of St. Louis for the year ending April 10, 1905, was $70,360, or but $5,963 more than Washington, although double in population and nearly double in wealth. 3. The system of exemptions. — The fact that the United States pays one-half of the expenses of the District of Colum- bia seems to have led the local population to the idea that property and privileges in the District should be taxed at one- half the rate paid by the people of other cities. By the act of June 11, 1878, directing the Commissioners of the District to make estimates of the probable expenses for the ensuing year, the following pro\ision is made : To the extent to which Congress shall approve of said estimates. Con- gress shall appropriate the amount of 50 per cent thereof, and the remaining 50 per cent 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. This provision is ambiguous. It does not define taxable property ; and the Commissioners have exercised a very broad discretion in the matter of declaring particular pieces of prop- erty nontaxable or exempt. In 1904 the total assessed value of land exempt in the Dis- trict of Columbia was $177,306,418, and the total assessed value 7021 43 of improvements exempt was $100,600,430, making a grand total of $283,906,848, which was at that time 57 per cent of the en- tire assessed value of property in the District. The property exempt comprised not only property belonging to the United States and the District of Columbia, but also property devoted to religious, charitable, and educational uses. The total valuation of exempted property under the last three heads was $12,616,686. Considering the rapid increase of holdings by religious, char- itable, and educational institutions in the District, I heartily concur in a suggestion contained in the report of the assessor for the year 1902, which is : Immunity from participation m the expense of the m'lnlf/Pfiity 'f^,^ privilege which should be sparingly granted. That ^ statute shouia he enacted clearly defining what property is efemptfiom taxation, um^ fining the same to institutions conducted wholly for public benefit, ano leaving as little discretion as possible with the ^flicials of the Govern ment, thus avoiding opportunities for and claims of discrimination. I trust that the Members of the House will give these matters which I have presented the consideration which they deserve. Tuesday, March 20, 1906. The House being in the Committee of the Whole House on the state Hi the Union and having under consideration the hill (H- K._ lo* ,''!.) makfng appropriation! fSr the legislative, executive and judicial ex^ penses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1 JOT, ana for other purposes — Mr. MORRELL said : Mr. Chairman : My attention has been called to certain arti- cles which have, from time to time, appeared in one of tlie leading journals of Washington, criticising a speech which I made on the comparative expenditures of Washington and cer- tain other cities, and an effort has been made to discredit the figures which I presented. Great stress is laid in these articles upon Bulletin No. 20 of the Census Bureau, and while the tables shown on pages 464, 470, Jxnd 476 of that document bear out the figures which I gave, yet'l may state for the information of the House that the tables I presented were made up from the auditor's reports for 1904 of the cities with which 1 compared Washington a year later than the census document. The method of refutation adopted is that which in legal par- lance is known as " confession and avoidance." The chief mat- ter of avoidance of these newspaper articles is to regard the remarkable differences disclosed by my figures, not as the result of municipal extravagance, but as differences growing out of the problems peculiar to Washington's condition. We are told that the conditions which surround Washington are unknown else- where Other cities have easy sailing, while the condition of Washington is peculiar. There is some slight difference of 7021 44 names, and other slight difEerences of method, but the main conditions of municipal expense are about the same everywhere. A certain number of people in a given area have to be governed. It costs more in Washington than elsewhere in cities of the same grade. The reason is not attributable so much to these difCerences of condition as to differences in management and municipal control. But we have heard so often that Washing- ton is the best governed city in the world that at last we have come to believe it; and when a presentation is made disclosing enormous weaknesses of administration we find it difficult to believe; but when the presentation can not be denied, the next best thing is to avoid it. In my speech I gave a table of figures showing gross ex- penditures of seven cities, and followed this by another table showing net or ordinary expenditures of the same cities. . These figures are either right or they are wrong. That they were right is evidenced by the fact that they have not been denied. They stand unquestioned, except that census figures for 1903 are offered as a sort of buffer to ward off the force of my charge. Instead of acting as a buffer, however, they support every line of my indictment. My figures, however, were not taken from Census Bulletin No. 20 for 1903, a mere second-hand presenta- tion, but were taken from the first-hand reports of the auditors or comptrollers of the cities named for the year 1904 and com- pared with figures taken from the report of the Commissioners of the lyistrict of Columbia. Every figure shows an actual ex- penditure of money as vouched by the auditing officers, whose duty it was to make the reports. A definition was then given by me, a definition originated by these same auditing officers, by which the difference between gross and net expenditures might be ascertained. The total of ordinary expenditure was given by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, as well as the total of gross expenditure, so that I had nothing to do but to set down this total in both places as the gross and the *et expenditure of Washington. The auditors and comptrollers of nearly all of the other cities had made like distinctions, so that tn those cases it was merely a work of transcription. In the few cases where these dis- tinctions had not been made by the auditors it was easy to apply the definition and ascertain the ordinary expenditure for every city. Great stress is laid by them upon the difficulty which sur- rounds calculations of this sort, and a whole column has been devoted by the writer to let the people know how great a task I had attempted, how intricate it was to the uninitiated, and how absolutely I had floundered in my effort to clarify what the writer averr'^d I did not understand. 7021 45 Auditors have sworn duties to perform, and in certifying over their signatures to certain sums of money which they term gross expenditures and other sums which they term net or ordi- nary expenditures are but worliing to let the uninitiated linow the truth about expenditures, however much it may be desired by some to befog and mystify the subject. These auditors also certify the constituent items which make certain figures repre- sentative of gross expenditures, and anyone by omitting these items may easily ascertain the net expenditure. I gave the absolute totals for gross and net expenditures of the city of Washington and of six other cities. They were not percentages, but amounts. They were not deductions, they were acts. These figures showed, for gross expenditures, that Washington spent about $3,000,000 more than did Buffalo, a city that in 1900 had a population 27 per cent larger. They showed also that Washington spent almost $4,000,000 more than did Newark, N. J., a city of only 12 per cent less population. These expenditures show that Washington spent almost as much money as the city of St. Louis, a city of more than twice the population of Washington. That it spent almost as much as the city of Pittsburg, and a far greater amount in propor- tion than Baltimore or Boston. In net expenditures the figures showed that Washington ex- pended 32 per cent more than Buffalo and 36 per cent more than Newark ; that St. Louis, though twice as large and with an area about equal to that of Washington, spent only 18 per cent more; Pittsburg, but 2 per cent more, and Baltimore, 34 per cent more. They admit these totals and avoid their force by creating con- ditions which, as we shall see, exist only in the minds of their creators. Now, what are these special pleas of avoidance? Special plea in avoidance No. 1. — Here it is, as set out in the columns of the city paper : It (Washington) bears the cost of the Judiciary from the highest to the lowest court, save the Supreme Court of the United States, whereas in the other cities only the municipal courts of high and low degree are paid for by the city. Let us investigate these facts. The auditor of St. Louis, in his report for 1904-5, names the courts for which that city pays expenses to cover the city and county in relation to the State. The courts named by him are : Circuit court, circuit court of criminal causes, court of criminal cor- rection, and probate court. The amount given by him as expenditure for these purposes, as paid by the city, was $100,994. The auditor for the District of Columbia for 1904 gave the expenditures for the courts of the District of Columbia, being "salaries employees, supreme 7021 46 eourt, court of appeals, and defending suits in Court of Claims," at $79,149. It will thus be seen not only that this plea was false so far as St. Louis is concerned, but that the expense of the judiciary of the District of Columbia, despite the enormity of the dis- parity of conditions as set out by the critic, was the most ra- tional of all the expenses of the District. In addition to this, the purely police-court expenditures for St. Louis were $124,879, while the same expenditures in Wash- ington were $G0,643. But this is not all. As further expense of the city of St. Louis, growing out of its relation to the county and State as paid by the city, the auditor notes the following seriatim : Costs in misdemeanor cases $38, 000 Justice of the peace courts 94, 866 Jury commissioner 25, 160 Jury and witness fees 00, 000 Jail 42, 480 State reform scliool, boys 15, 000 State reform sclaool, girls 700 Convicts at State lunatic asylum 200 Probationary delinquents 5, 200 Court-house and Four Courts building 35, 837 In all, for the administration of justice, exclusive of municipal courts 478, 438 In all, for the administration of justice, including municipal courts, §124,879 603, 317 When these figures are set in contrast with the paltry figures which ax'e paid for the administration of justice in the District of Columbia in all the courts of high and low degree, the abso- lute falsity of the claim that Washington pays an expenditure for this purpose which other cities do not becomes apparent. It also shows that the conditions surrounding Washington, so far as the administration of justice is concerned, are much more favorable than in St. Louis. ■Special plea in avoidance A^o. 2. — It is stated that " Washing- ton is properly credited with expenditures which in other cities are made by county and State." The auditor of the city of St. Louis in the same report further sets out as expense of the city of St. Louis, and as paid out of the revenues of St. Louis, the further items growing out of its relation to the county and State, as follows : Assessment of revenue $75, 800 Coroner's office , 33, 204 Eleemosynary institutions and charities : City dispensary, city hospital, female hospital, insane asylum, poorhouse, and house of refuge 652, 426 Foundlings 15, 000 Indigent pupils at State deaf and dumb school GOO Contingent fund _ 12, 500 Recorder of deeds 57, 739 In all —— 847, 367 Adding to this the expense for administration of justice, $478,400, we have a total of $1,325,805 as expenditure paid by St. Louis for gen- eral expenses growing out of its relation to tte city and county. 7021 47 Evidently there was no data at hand and Imagination was drawn upon for assertions which are worthless in the light of the data furnished by the auditor of St. Louis. I shall set out in an appendix the court and other expenses growing out of the rela- tion of city to county and State for other cities, which will show still further the weakness of the statements made. Again the statement is made that " the insurance department is everywhere except in the District supported entirely by the State." This is a sweeping assertion, but, like the other assertions, Is merely sophistical and contentious. In the first place, the city of Washington expends but the trifling sum of $7,812 for this great bureau. The department of insurance is ordinarily located at capitals of States, and, un- fortunately for the cities chosen by me for comparison with Washington, only one of these happened to be a capital. There- fore five of the cities had no such department, and therefore paid nothing for it. The city of Boston, however, is a capital, and I hardly think that so far as this city is concerned that the as- sertion is true. The auditor for the city of Boston in his report for 1904-5 certified to the people of Boston, the people directly interested in the matter, that that city had paid a lump sum of $92.j,800 as its proportion growing out of its relation to county and State. This sum was charged up to the city of Boston, and appeared in, its gross and net expenditures, and to that extent negatives the sweeping assertions of plea No. 3. St. Louis, although not a capital city, paid the State $1,711,- 312 to cover statutory obligations of the city in its relation to the State, and we suppose that this would include the infinites- imal obligation covered by the so-called " department of insur- ance." However, if the alignment of $7,812 will help my Wash- ington critics to release Washington from the charge of extrava- gant expenditure I cheerfully concede it. Plea in avoidance No, 4. — Other functions performed by State or county officers are here per- formed by officers of the District of Columbia. In respect of schools contributions are usually made by the State or county, if it be only to the extent of giving the normal school training for teachers, while in a number of cities there is State or county aid for city schools. The objection to this plea is that it is altogether wrong, so far as the element of State or county aid for city schools is concerned. By State laws a State tax is levied for educational purposes upon city and country alike. In apportioning this money the city gets back in all cases a less sum than the tax amount paid into the State treasury. In no other way could public education for weak districts in the country be main- tained. Large cities not only educate their own children, but 7021 48 through this State tax educate the children of the rural dis- tricts. The amount received by the city from the State is not State aid in any sense of the term, but simply its pro rata part of the apportionment. No matter what this amount may be, it is charged up by the auditor in both gross and net expendi- ture, and as such appears in the figures given by me. The same argument applies to county aid. The richer cities of the county contribute through county taxation a sum of money which makes possible the public education of all the children of the county. So that in its last analysis the cities contribute through State and county taxes to State and county education, and receive back for their own educational purposes a less sum than was paid out. This sum, however, small or large, is ex- pended by the cities and is audited regularly by the city officers as ne^ and gross expenditure. The difference is made up by municipal taxation. The auditor of the District of Columbia, in his itemized ac- count of expenditures for 1904, nowhere brings into the account the item of normal schools. Hence, so far as the auditor's re- port is concerned, Washington bore no such expense, unless that expense be included in some other item. The total ex- penditure for schools in Washington for 1904 was $1,090,371. The city of Boston sustains at the public expense of the city several very important schools unknown to the Washington schedule, and in 1904 paid out something more than $111,558 for its normal school instruction. The salaries paid to the Teachers' Training School of Baltimore was something more than $23,000. Buffalo also maintains its system of normal schQOls, which are paid for out of the revenues of the city. The normal department of the Pittsburg High School is sup- ported entirely from the city revenues. Cleveland contributes $17,900 annually for the support of normal training, which is charged to city expenditures. The city of Cincinnati supports its normal schools for the training of teachers in the same way. The Buffalo City Training School for Teachers and the Buffalo State Normal School, although in the same town, are distinct institutions and supported from distinct funds. Plea in avoidance No. 5.— In these articles it is staled : Again the charities and correctional institutions, including prisons and reformatories, are here borne entirely by the District of Columbia, whereas in the cities generally they are carried chiefly and often en- tirely by the State or county. This is another sweeping assertion, and, like the others, may be demolished by simple presentation of the facts. It will be admitted that the charities of the District of Columbia, as set out in the report of its auditor for 1904, have been well taken lare of. The aggregate expenditure for. this purpose was 7021 49 $379,265, and iucluded the Reform School for Girls, Reform School, Garfield Hospital, Columbia Hospital for Women, sup- port of convicts and prisoners. Board of Children's Guardians, Central Dispensary, Eastern Dispensary, Women's Clinic, Washington Home, National Association for Colored Women, Newsboys and Children's Aid Society, Washington Hospital, German Orphanage, Women's Christian Association, Young Men's Christian Association, Hope and Help Mission, Columbia Institution, jail warden, and St. Ann's Infant Asylum. Of this item, $79,919 went for the support of convicts and prisoners and $2,000 for the jail warden. Now, what have other cities done? The auditor of the city of Pittsburg for 1004 reported an expenditure for charities of $151,117 apart from their prisons, which were supported en tlrely at the expense of the city, but the exact amount of the expenditure can not be separated from the total. In Buffalo the expenditure for the poor was $120,535. This includes an item for hospitals, homes, and asylums of $57,000. The city of St. Louis expends upon public charities and cor rections, according to the report of the auditor for 1904, $910,524. being city hospital, new city hospital, emergency hospital, insane at State institutions, female hospital, insane hospital, poor- house, house of refuge, jail, woi'khouse, care of foundlings, deaf and dumb, insane, reform and industrial, juvenile delinquents, and probationary system. Batimore in 1904 expended $490,907 for ordinary charity and correctional expenses and $17,676 for extraordinary. Boston spent as follows: City hospital, relief station, Haymarket square, and conva- lescent home $486, 994 Children's institutional department 186, 017 Insane hospital department 329, 321 Pauper institutions department 213, 429 Overseeing poor department 131, 284 Besides this Boston paid something more than $900,000 to the State as its expense in its relation to county and State for courts, prisons, etc. It will thus be seen that plea in avoidance No. 5 has no foundation whatever. Plea in avoidance No. 6. — The District of Columbia, paying for filtration plant, sewage-disposal system, railway terminal, District government building, and other ex- traordinary improvements, can not be fairly compared with cities which have less extensive projects on hand. The gentleman' should have continued and said, to make his remarks pertinent, that the cities cited by me had less extensive systems than Washington. Inasmuch as he did not do so it may be fairly inferred that all of these cities had equally as great an expenditure for these permanent improvements as did AVashington. The tables for gross and net expenditure 7021 4 50 contain these very items, and in my speech reference was made to these things. The Commissioners in their report for 1904 put the net expenditures, exclusive of those for the water de- partment and expenditures on account of special and trust funds, at $9,079,908. I used these figures in my speech. The auditor in his report places the gross expenditure at $10,257,- 547. The difference between these items is what the city of Washington pays for the extraordinary expenditure upon fil- tration plant, sewage disposal, etc., which expenditure, of course, is spread out over a number of years. The difference is $1,177,639. The difference between the net and gross expendi- ture of St. Louis is $1,184,985, and St. Louis has as many great projects as Washington. The difference between net and gross for Boston is about $10,000,000, for Baltimore about $4,000,000. for Buffalo about $1,100,000, for Pittsburg about $1,000,000. So that so far as the cities used by me for comparison are con cerned they are every whit as public spirited as is Washington and are carrying upon their shoulders enterprises fully as stu- pendous as any of those adverted to by my critic. I now propose to show a few of the expenditures borne by the cities I have named which are not borne by the city of Wash- ington nor the District of Columbia. FIRST. ELECTION EXPENSES. Washington pays nothing for this purpose. In 1904 other cities expended as follows : Boston 1162,470 Baltimore 107, 605 St. Louis 164, 000 Buffalo 23,473 Pittsburg 18, 599 SECOND. EXPENSES OF LEGISLATION. Washington pays nothing for this purpose, all the general legislation of the District being enacted by the Congress of the United States. In other cities the following amounts are paid to common councils and boards connected with these councils : Bufifalo $49, 148 St. Louis i§'446 Baltimore 5o, 730 Boston : „„ Aldermen 29, 439 Council 21,546 Incidental 9,702 Committees 17, 208 Common council 30, 201 THIRD. PARK EXPENSES. The grounds around the Capitol, the Congressional Library, Botanic Gardens, War and Navy Department, Weather Bu- reau, Experimental Gardens and Grounds, Agricultural Depart- ment, Department of Commerce and Labor are cared for at the expense of the United States alone. The Zoological Park and 7021 51 Rock Creek Park are cared for at the joint expense of the Dis- trict of Columbia and the United States. The word "park" in Wasliington lias a fat different meaning to what it does in other cities. In Washington every little piece of ground in front of the residences along any street is called a park, and forms a part of the city's parking system. In addition to this, there are parks all over the city in kind like the parks of other cities. The first species of parks, the grass plots in front of resi- dences, so far as curbing and sidewalking is concerned, has its expense cast upon the District of Columbia, one-half of which is paid by the United States. As to the grass itself in front of these residences, the expense for its care is borne by the occu- pant of the premises. The immense stretches of ground around the public buildings, which form the chief part of Washington's real park system, has the expense of their care cast entirely upon the United States, while the Zoological Garden and the Rock Creek Park share their expense as hereinbefore named. It will thus be seen that while Washington has many and beau- tiful parks their expense as to care is to a large part borne entirely by the United States, and only to a limited extent by the District of Columbia in connection with the United States. This is not true as to other cities, many of whom have parks and park areas equally as numerous and beautiful as Washing ton. These parks in other cities are exempt from all taxation, while in the District of Columbia a valuation is set upon them in the arrangement by which the United States pays into the coffers of the District of Columbia, as an assumed tax upon its buildings and grounds in the District, an amount equal to the amount raised by taxation upon all the other real property of the District. In other words, the United States pays one-half the taxes upon property in the District of Columbia, and in so doing pays the District of Columbia a tax upon large parking areas which in other cities are exempt and produce no revenue whatever. The following table will show what other cities are doing in this line : Park department expenses in I90i. Boston $646, 864 Baltimore ?^^' l^i St. Louis 192, 49o Buffalo 153, 713 Pittsburg 137, 510 FOURTH. POLICF. EXPENDITURES. The actual police expenditure for Washington In 1904 was $818,179, a greater amount than that paid by either Buffalo or Pittsburg. In addition to this, the Government of the United States appropriated sums approximating $300,000 for watchmen, exclusive of sergeants-at-arms and doorkeepers. Of this sum, 7021 52 $29,000 was divided in equal parts between the District of Co- lumbia and the United States. From all these considerations it appears that while Wash- ington may have some expenses in kind unlike other cities, that other cities have also a series of expenses that are unknown to Washington. The tables outlined in my speech, instead of being impaired by the comparisons forced upon me by this news- paper criticism, are reeuforced thereby. FIFTH. TAXATION. There is a general impression throughout the country that the city of Washington, like all other cities, bears the whole burden of municipal taxation, and this impression has been created and fostered. This is not true. The Government duplicates without cost of assessment or collection whatever amount of taxes the District of Columbia raises upon its own account. In other words, the United States Government pays one-half of the taxes of the District of Columbia. Other cities are not so favored. The taxes from all sources raised in the District in 1904 were $4,707,236. The Government paid for that year $4,672,253. This enables Washington to tax public buildings and parks, a thing other cities are not permitted to do. Buffalo has ex- empted property belonging to the following persons and cor- porations : United States ?6, 559, 775 State of New York 3, 849, 995 Erie County 1, 774, 515 City of Buffalo 10, 908, 690 Public schools 3, 903, 000 ITivate schools , 1, 361, 390 Religious corpoi-ations 9, 631, 000 Cemeteries 895, 000 Charitable associations 1, 860, 000 Scientific associations 931, 000 Pensionaries 261, 000 Hospital 590, 220 Miscellaneous 22,990 Total 42, 527, 825 The exempted property in Boston belonging to the city of Boston alone is more than $79,000,000. The following is a list of exempted property in St. Louis : Public buildings $4, 347, 284 Parks 12, 069, 044 Fire department 995, 000 Police department 1, 04S, 000 Water—-- 10, OOo, 000 Harbor and wharf 290, 000 Miscellaneous 1, 067, 000 Total - 29, 816. 328 This excludes all Government buildings and all school and church build'ugs, which are likewise exempt. 7021 53 Washington in 1004 exempted for District buildings, churches, hospitals, and colleges the insignificant sura of $1,214,700. The conditions, so far as the actual facts disclose them, favor Washington. All other cities have no guardian to whom they may appeal and upon whom they may cast an undue part of their legitimate expenditures. From the facts and figures which 1 have presented it may be said that the reasoning process of my friend Mr. Deadwood, who, I understand, is the author of all unsigned articles, is about as corrugated as the wrinlcles in my brow when I try to think, and the deductions of Mr. Deadwood are about as ambiguous and difiicult to find the meaning of as it is to find what the De V. in my name stands for. What a glorious thing is a beautiful bright star night when one looks up to the firmament of heaven, an illumined mass of celestial bodies ! Astronomei's on such a night are in their ele- ment, not merely defining one recognized group from another, but nominating each individual illumined heavenly body from another. At such times even the layman gazes heavenward in admiration, and with his limited knowledge picks out the North Star, the Dipper, and other known celestial groups, and at such times appreciates the true force and value of that passage in the Scriptures which says : " There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial ; but the glory of the celestial is on6, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars ; for one star differeth from another star in glory." The rays of liglit which in this article have been shed in the shape of criticism by the terrestrial luminary, generally so able and wise, are scarcely as long as one side of my mustache waxed out as I had it for the benefit of the ladies during the public school hearings. In fact, the difference between this terrestrial luminary in this instance and its celestial namesake is so marked that the terrestrial luminary reminds me of the perversion of an old nursery rhyme, which runs : Twinkle, twinkle. little bat ; How I wonder what you're at, Up above the world so high, Like a tea tray in the sky. I ought, I fear, even apologize to the bat. I trust that those who are so fond of poking fun will realize that there is nothing personal in these last remarks, but that they are made purely in the spirit of jest. I shall now, Mr. Chairman, having disposed of this matter, go and wash my hands aod put on a clean suit of clothes. 7021 54 APPENDIX NO. 1. The avjditor of Baltimore named the courts under State de- partment expenses as charged to city expenditure as criminal, Baltimore City, common pleas, superior, circuit, orphans, ju- venile, supreme bench, and justices of the peace, and placed the total expenditure at $18G,409, for which he set out an itemized account. APPENDIX NO. 2. The auditor of the city of Boston certified $900,125 as expense paid by Boston, growing out of its relation to county and State, and which was included in the total net or ordinary expendi- ture of my speech. Analysis of Census Bulletin No. 20: General administration includes all expenses for departments and offices, as executive, legislative, law, assessments, collec- tions, treasurer, statistics, city hall, elections, etc. Notwithstanding Washington has no expense for collecting one-half its revenue and no expense for legislative office, nor elections, its per capita expense for general administration in 1903 was greater than Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, Pittsburg, or Milwaukee. (See Table No. 1.) Its expenses for courts were greater than Chicago, Philadel- phia, Baltimore, Cleveland, Buffalo, San Francisco, Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Detroit, or New Orleans. (See Table No. 1.) Police. — Notwithstanding the enormous amounts paid by the Government for police, which is not included in these figures, the per capita expense for police in 1903 was greater than in any city in the Union having a population of 300,000 or more, with the exception of New York. That is greater than thirteen of the largest cities of the United States, and if the amount paid by the Government be included, it will yield a per capita of $4.22, or greater than any city in the United States by 83 cents. (See Table No. 1.) Z^tre.;— The expenses for the fire department were greater than Chicago, Philadelphia, or Baltimore, and about equal to St. Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburg, and Cincinnati. (See Table No. 1.) The expenses for health were greater than Chicago, Balti- more, Cleveland, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Detroit, and New Orleans. ( See Table No. 1. ) The expenses for public charities and corrections per capita were greater than any city in the United States. (See Table No. 1.) The per capita expense for public highways was also greater than that for any city iu the United States. (See Table No. 2.) 7021 55 The per capita expense for public sauitation was greater than any city in the United States except New Yorls and Boston. ( See Table No. 2. ) Public recreations per capita were greater than New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis. Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburg, Cincin- nati, Milwaukee, and New Orleans. (See Table No. 2.) The aggregate per capita for schools was greater by more than 50 per cent than any city having a population of 300,000, with the exception ot New York and Boston. (See Table No. 3.) The per capita salaries for teachers was greater than any city having a population of 300,000, except New York and Boston. (See Table No. 3.) The miscellaneous expense for schools was greater than any other city having a population of 300,000, except New York and Boston. (See Table No. 3.) The per capita library expense was nearly double that of any city in the United States having a population of 300,000, and was only excelled by Boston, and in that city by only 1 cent (See Table No. 3.) 7021 S — s a .2 2 -si m5 OOOiO •<)< gg 3S 56 [^3 tooco o ys-icco" CO sss -s SSc5 S P S 3 SS 2^ c c o o'3 Cl.'-' o5oo -3 3 o2 HO ii jHO;oo(N-H(icnt-tot-to Si ii|§i§esi°sS S§SSgSSS?5§5SSSS g IS §gsgiiilslii s_s |||sgss;|ggb^§ ss g5?;g5:^^gS^8S & 0?0ii^ GOO Oi §ss!8s?S5S'a§? 3 S ^' O t ^- -H „ s? gS;58 SS^gJ^g;^ S?i n- ...... m-^-^- »» ,.=3 S£gS§S§SE^S^SS?2g?Sg?£;?3SgS§3 .2 c l| g •^- • • •^•^- -^-oi • • • -^rA^ ■ -rA -^ -^ a i^iisiissii^isSiiifiiiie ^ S |f |[£[| 1 1 i g'l 1 g|| SK||S5!gS3S52 ^ O >. "5 c £ 6 II c C c 1 > -I 1 §1 1 1 111 ^5 a 3 d tj 5 SSS;SS§S?3S s;s g g §s a;3S3g: ? S ss? ? T021 4 £ |8SS5 gs 2i S m""" " c4rH 1 g SiSI gl n S«l^ ??,?; H - .cc--^".n 2 ^ M S| i o-^ S^ S?iSS ??iK .1 c " roa^'^ M-a< c.^ ^ w 2g£§ ^f si s -H ■ ■ ■ 1 2§S2 ss .9 3 ■ S"§R?? -H-V iS ^ ' »«. .o •s? t ■^^ w> $5 ■J3 o 03 O >_,Kw"-^'SS E OOOO -3 3 S i"^ >> go 6 O ^ap: 5 g^ 1 SSSSSJ^SSSS si-^--""^-- "^ ^liiiiigil 812,289 2,122 1,683 946 2,248 1, 151 750 706 14 721 SS^SggS^JSS 8 i^ii^gigsi 81,514 1,046 561 160 547 312 120 155 354 114 SgiSSSS^^SS o^^^co « 83,031,470 2, 425, 303 1,417,740 1,101,325 2,183,073 20,760 1,401,987 174,303 51,112 165.594 SggES^J^gS?! jH -^r^ici • • ,A smu?.§m 86,348 1,549 1,361 964 1,379 391 320 344 224 422 SS£;S?5SlgSSS ^(Ncj^ui -r-ici "g MS g.r:cocic<- gg?i§S§Sgf5S ^ •-■-•«-^^^c4 i=iiiisgii 2i§g'i iissg ©---•- New York, N.Y.. Chicago, 111 Philadelphia, Pa. St. Louis, Mo Kostnn Muss iPlI r-i urn 1 c 1 1 s JhJJS 3 S2 t^ oc 3SS?^?J ?5S S s S§3§Sg3 g§ss S ? S S GO Jl 8 g ml 4 s 63 S^ ■^ s a g ?;*:« § ^ Payin pen ies, etc. 5 ^ s nm " s s 2 - ^?^ s SSS3 S s s £.2l. •^ §* ^ « w^^S ■"J" sgi So^S ■g CO fn i S ^ tf <^s Ol t> a, S. 1 S5 s i t^ SS§5 3 o r^ y'-of^ s § cocoes g ^ ^"^- S s^ s gjgg s f^& a^ " 0) o s ^• 5 g g o ° °->: ^1 g s s -< ^ "^ 2 ^05 r3 88S s s s § rf"a ^ eocjc^' ci in" c4 a °n g £ r^ ?s §^S ^ 5 g 1 s is'B" i Si s s^'- o S '^ ;4 s ^^5 bo ?i ^ So o8 c:] g i bo s g III i i o t» I : : :S ^S :!:! s : : :" - .2^ a 1 L't:'^ ■5> ^ SM a ^ o.c.co. ;5 3 a 1 2i = 2-3 ^&? o o O 1 5§^ SSSr i^^SSS3 g i^iiiiiiii Si ^SSSSSSSSf 8 '^ 753 933 743 315 598 260 876 201 160 541 81.69 81,302 1.05 371 . 75 -936 1. 38 210 2. 39 25 .55 340 1.311 244 .85' 147 . 14' 923 1.371 247 iiii^iisii 86, 286 1,960 843 1,418 293 643 324 60 471 SSSSSSSSESS g — -- - 86,248,202 1,484,619 1,409,7.55 707, 952 1,058,584 506, 585 671, 804 400, 936 260,803 493, 366 sssssgg^ss ^?j(Ne^-*iHCT-liOC^'^C4C^CO Tt< i-H rH ri Tj* 00 rH 04 W rH fH iH t-l »H :f2SSgS?5§lgg3SF25§SSg 8SSgSSf:g is- "■ • ii§i§3isiimiisii iiSigii ■I lO CO 00 rH CC O^ «0 ^ CO t^ 1-4 t-l iC 05 i-H O • -^ Irt • "O OXOO-WMTjCIMO>IMr IH 0« rHiH ; :!; g g s g -"'s s g s s sfs 5 53 ^1 -■Or-(«n«OiOT-IWOC»OC <00«Ot»C0005«)Ot^COI 5^s§j OiiM— 'i-it^c^cxjasr-i'NccoirMr-t^osoowi^XiOMoot^m (MC5rHOO»-tu35000«'^U7HMr-iT?HCOO^iOaiOOCOrHCOCOCO M CCi-icoco^as'*j'cDTji>oaiGoccoo 62 Monday. April 9, 1906. The House having under consideration bills relating to the District of Columbia — Mr. MORRELL said : Mr. Speaker : In taking up the question of receipts in the Dis- trict of Coluuibia, I beg to say that this is the last of the sub- jects in connection with the government of the District of Colum- bia to which I shall call the attention of the House, and I shall endeavor to show that while as a whole the amount received from the various licenses, etc., is fairly large, yet there are many in- stances where the receipts of the District could be increased and a certain amount of economy practiced. I might add that these remarlvs which I have made from time to time calling attention to what I consider certain abuses in the District has not been for the sake of querulous criticism, but, by calling attention to them, if possible to bring about a better state of affairs in the District. I may also state that in my remarks I have dealt wholly with the subject and not with the individual. In the matter of receipts for licenses, privileges, etc., Wasji- ington fails to make as good a showing as other cities of similar grade. Much has been said about differences of condition be tween Washington and other cities as an excuse for the greater expenditures of Washington. This, as I have said, is a very cheap way to avoid the real issue. The District of Columbia, considered as a municipality, covers an area of about 64 square miles, much of which is agriclutural and swamp land, and the additional expense of governing such area is not correspondingly equal to the expense of governing an equally crowded area. For example, Buffalo police precincts run from 0.72 to 10.07 square miles each ; Chicago has three times the area and pays but 50 per cent more ; Philadelphia has twice the area, but ex- pends but little more than 50 per cent more. The excessive ex- penditures of Washington are not chargeable to conditions so much as to extravagant management and inharmonious adjust- ments. Thus the management of market houses seems to be faulty when all receipts from these sources in Washington are com- pared with the audited statements of the fiscal officers of other cities. I give the figures: 7021 63 Comparative statement of receipts and expenditures of im. market houses. City. Receipts. Expendi- tures. Ex. cess. Washington 811,9.54 58, 973 41,622 6.5, 570 110,5.52 56,652 32, .546 36,800 $6,240 25, 231 23, 737 13, .586 12,149 7,304 27, 288 S5 714 33, 742 Newark 17,886 Pittsburg . Boston 96 966 Buflfalo 44, 403 Cleveland 9,572 " No expense stated. Newark, a smaller city, has a net excess of receipts of reve- nue over Washington of about 300 per cent; Baltimoi'e exceeds Washington more than 800 per cent; Boston, more than 1,700 per cent; Buffalo, nearly 800 per cent, and St. Louis nearly 400 per cent. The gross market receipts of Washington are out of all proportion to those of other cities, and suggest a weakness that should be remedied. In the same way the dramshop licenses seem to show a some- what poorer revenue-producing power. Revenue from dramshop lieenses, 190!i. Washinston $415,985 St. Louis 1,267,507 Buffalo (1902) Boston Pittsburg: Baltimore Cleveland Cincinnati Detroit (one-half to the State). Newark (1902) 560, 995 1, 000, 000 508, 712 575, 364 751, 004 418, 256 648, 000 360, 200 St Louis and Boston, about twice the size of Washington, take In, respectively, three and three and one-half times as much as Washington. The revenue should be greater, and if the license is not high enough Congress should remedy the defect. If we must have saloons, let them contribute to the revenue in pro- portion to those of St. Louis and Boston. The liquor licenses of Washington ought to yield about $650,000. The license is $800 per annum and the traffic will safely stand $1,000. Chicago charges a flat $1,000 license fee. Without going into the ethical questions of whether high license tends to destroy an immoral business or whether the business itself is immoral, it seems that a $1,000 license has proven itself a good business standard and not grievously burdensome to small dealers. A tax of $3 a day is not a heavy tax upon a business whose margin of profits is abnormally great. A graduated license tax be- ginning with $1,000 for small dealers and increasing to $2,000 for large establishments would possibly be more equitable, more regulatory, and a better revenue producer. 7021 64 The wholesale liquor license tax is $300 per annum and that of the brewers $200. It appears to me that each of these should be not less than $500. Private bankers are charged $500, and their business is no more profitable than that of brewers or wholesale liquor dealers. Distillers and rectifiers are also charged $250, and these, it is suggested, should also pay $500. For the year ending October 31, 1905, the barroom licenses of Washington numbered 518 and the wholesale liquor licenses numbered 136. For the license year beginning November 1, 1905, 515 barroom applications were recorded and 134 whole- sale liquor applications. It will thus be seen that the business year by year sustains about the same proportion, and it is be- lieved that these proportions would not be changed materially by the higher license tax indicated. The total receipts from licenses in 1904, other than barroom, were $110,490. A comparison of this amount with the amounts received by other cities for licenses, franchises, and privileges, other than barroom licenses, will show that this feature of revenue has been underworked in the District of Columbia to the advantage of those holding the franchises and special privileges : Washington : All other licenses $110, 496 Franchise taxes, street railways 44, 292 Cleveland 117,567 Cincinnati : Licenses 134,292 Excise taxes, street railways 230, 045 Excise taxes, gas and electric-light companies 4, 179 St. Louis 837, 653 Franchises 266, 440 Baltimore : Franchises 444, 306 Licenses 90,313 ton : Street railways , 360, 000 Dog taxes 25, 000 Excise tax, street railway 65, 000 Whisky and other liquors pay about six-sevenths of the total license taxes of Washington, and the same is approximately true of all other cities, except St. Louis, where a far better ad- justment of all licenses has been made, and with seeming suc- cess. The various schedules of license rates now applicable to Washington seem to be unwisely adapted, to be discriminative in their nature, and are therefore poor revenue producers. Fol- lowing are a few marked instances : LICENSES FOB SIGHT-SKEING CAHS. The Seeing Washington cars that run daily upon the street railway tracks of AVashington charge the public 50 cents a trip upon all cars. Their license tax is $6 per annum for each car not exceedng ten passengers, and $12 a car for those exceeding ten passengers. Th's would make a daily license rate of from 7021 65 2 to 4 cents a car. The license rates should be from $25 to $50 per annum. And the automobile cars for seeing Washington should pay twice these rates. To charge a merry-go-round $12 per week, or $G24 per annum, and these cars from $6 to $12 per annum, is to discriminate against amusement for the children in fiivor of sight-seers from abroad. Why land-improvement companies should pay $50 per annum and investment associations $100 per annum is hard to under- stand. Pawnbrokers at $100 and note brokers at $100 are in sad contrast with private banks at $500 per annum. Businesses that charge 3 per cent a month should pay a $500 license, if they can not be altogether prevented. INSPECTION EXPENDITDKE. The appropriations by Congress for inspection of all kinds in 1904 amounted to $139,402, itemized as follows : Inspector of building $2, 7.50 Principal assistant 1, 600 Five assistant inspectors 6, 000 Five assistant inspectors 5, 000 Temporary inspectors 2, 400 Total building inspectors 17,750 Inspector of plumbing 2,000 Seven assistant inspectors 8, 400 Six assistant inspectors 6. 000 Five members plumbing board 1, 500 Total plumbing 17,900 Inspector of fuel 1, 500 One assistant 1,100 Total fuel 2,600 Inspector of licenses 1, 200 One assistant 1,000 Total licenses 2, 200 Four inspectors, personal-tax board 4,800 Inspector of streets 1, 200 Two assistants 2,400 Inspector of aspbalt 2, 400 Two assistants 1,500 Total streets 7,500 Inspector of gas 2,000 One assistant 1,000 One assistant 840 Total gas _ 3^40 Inspector of sewers 1, 200 General inspector 1, 300 Total sewers 2,500 Two inspectors of property 1, 872 Inspector of material 1, 200 Inspector 1, 500 Insf-^ctor 1,200 Two insnectors 2, 400 7021 5 G6 One inspector -.^rnn Oue inspector 1. •^"O Total inspectors _ _Ji^22. Inspector of bridges 1- ^^^ Four inspectors, street sweeping ^f'S^R Ten inspectors, street sweeping -^i' SSx Three inspectors, street sweeping 2, 700 Total, street sweeping 18, 500 Six inspectors, stables J. 200 Two Inspectors, stables 1, 800 One inspector, stables Uio Total, stables 9,975 Two electrical inspectors 2. 400 Inspector of lamps i- !il!^! Three assistants ^, 700 Total, lamps ^>. 700 Chief Inspector, health 1, 800 Thirteen sanitary and food inspectors 15, 500 One sanitary inspector 1, 800 One sanitary inspector ^' i9.n One marine-prodncts inspector 1, 200 Four sanitary inspectors 4, 000 Three sanitnry inspectors 2, 700 Traveling expense, inspectors 1, 200 Total, health 28. 900 Four inspectors, charity 2, 880 Ohe inspector, charity 900 Traveling expense 400 Total, charity 4, 180 Inspector, child caring 480 One inspector, water 1. 200 Eight inspectors, water 6, 400 One Inspector, water 000 Total, water 8,500 Total, inspection 139,400 It is hard to turn around in Washington without running into an inspector. Inspectors of buildings, plumbing, fuel, licenses, personal property, streets, asphalt, gas, sewers, property, mate- rial, smoke, street sweeping, stables, electricity, lamps, health, food, marine products, horse diseases, charity, child caring, and water. There are 120 men on the rolls as inspectors, drawing a total compensation of $139,000. Inspector of buildings is very important, but why should Buffalo pay $8,800 for this work and Washington $17,750? Pittsburg pays but $11,500, and Boston uot quite as much as Washington. Washington pays $17,900 for plumbing inspection, and St. Louis $13,502. Other cities seem to prosper very well without 7021 67 any expenditure whatever for this purpose. Why pay fourteen men $1G,400 for no apparent service? Citizens of Washington tell me that they have lived eighteen months in a house without ever seeing an inspector. Others say that these gentlemen come around once in a while and act very arbitrarily. They come right in exactly as if they owned the premises. They go to the spigots and to closets. They write out a military order which contains a threat of cessation of water if certain things are not done. There is no appeal, and there is no way of determining whether it is a case of graft or bad plumbing. The day after the call it is not difficult to find plumbers all over the city with pockets full of these orders. It is a principle of law that a man's house is his castle and regu- lations which defy this principle are autocratic and wrong. It is unwise to put this amount of power in the hands of any one man. It opens the way to graft. Owners and occupiers of property have some honesty and pride, and may be depended upon to keep their plumbing in repair. Nine-tenths of the plumbing repair in Washington is done by owners and occu- piers without notice from any inspectors. The majority of cities have no such officers and those that do pay no such sala- ries. Buffalo gets along with six plumbing inspectors and pays them $7,400. This $17,900 might be very well omitted from the list of appropriations without injury to any one. All spies are abominable, but spies that force their way into private houses when the male members are away and without any antecedent notice are odious in the highest degree. I had investigations made in New York, Baltimore, and Philadelphia to ascertain what they paid for fuel inspection. I was surprised to find out that these cities had no such officers as fuel inspectors, and the auditors of other cities fail to itemize such an account. Of what use are they? Washington pays out $2,G00 for this pur- pose and it is of no advantage to any one save the inspectors. Nor is there any use for an inspector and assistant inspector for licenses. No other city boasts of this luxury, and this $2,200 may be saved without injury to anyone. xue four inspectors of the personal-tax board are unneces- sary. Buffalo assesses her property with three assessors and pays them $11,500 in all. Washington has six assessors draw- ing $17,000 between them, and it is hard to understand the reason for the payment of $4,800 for four inspectors for the personal-tax board. There are three inspectors of streets drawing $3,600, besides a superintendent of streets, whose pay is $2,000, and a superin- tendent of county roads, whose pay is $1,500. In other cities the street superintendents do their own inspecting, and there 7021 68 appears to be no valid reason for the additional positions in Washington. There is also an inspector of asphalt, at $2,400, and an assistant, at $1,500. Thus, $7,500 are paid for street inspection in Washington and no real service performed. There are three inspectors of gas, drawing $3,840 per annum. What their duties are no one appears to know. The gas company fur- nishes a poor article of gas despite their inspection and charges the people a high price for it. If we must have gas inspectors, let the Commissioners select them and cast their pay on the gas company. This company places meters in every house using gas. If the user is not proud of his meter and asks for a test he will get it. A man comes to the house and goes through cer- tam genuflections. If he says the meter is all right you pay his bill. If he says the meter is all wrong the company pays his bill. As the company sends him to you, the meter is gen- erally found to be virtuous, and you are mulcted for the fee. The meter registers gas burned whether the jets are lighted or not, and when you complain you are told that the meter showed no gas used, but that the office charged it up anyhow by a system of averages that is good for the gas company whether it gratifies the public or not. The gas company of Washington has a good thing and should pay for all gas inspection. The sewer inspection of Washington is moderate. It only costs $2,500 and two men to do the work. There ar^ two in- spectors of jn-opei-ty, drawing $1,872, and one inspector of material, at $1,200. What these gentlemen do I can not tell, but as other cities seem to exist comfortably without them, T favor their abolition here. Then there are six plain inspectors, without any other title, drawing $7,500 in all. It is possible that these six inspectors are the inspectors of all the other in- spectors. They may easily be dispensed with. The bridge in- spector, at $1,200, is not a bad feature if he has anything to do. But the greatest joker of the lot is the inspection of the street- sweeping department. Seventeen men are annually employed to inspect the street-sweeping business, and they draw $18,500. Washington paid out in 1904 the sum of $179,712 for sweeping/ and cleaning streets, avenues, and alleys. The inspectors re- ceived nearly 11 per cent of this fund. Now, in all serious- ness, what reason is there for paying street-sweeping inspectors $1,100 or $1,200 per annum each when good men may be had by the scoi'e, fully equipped mentally, morally, and physically for the work, at from $40 to $50 per month? What is the execu- tive office for if not to enforce the street-cleaning contract? And why should the Commissioners call in seventeen men to inspect a work that in other municipalities is done by the executive office? The appropriation in 1905 for the executive 7021 69 office, as appears from the statutes of the United Stat?s for the third session of the Fifty-eighth Congress, page 884, was, "in all, $76,299." In addition to this the next paragraph appropriates for other expenses of the exccvitive office, " in ail, $20,300," or a total of $90,599. To this the item of $18,.^)00 for street-sweeping inspection should be added, for the reason that a part of the Commissioners' duties is to see that contracts made by them are properly performed. If this duty is cast on seventeen other men the expense involved should be charged to the executive department. But Washington has no need for these officers, and this $18,500 should be eliminated from the account. Granting the necessity for the offices, the pay can be reasonably reduced 50 per cent. We are glad to notice that the Commissioners report that this feature of inspection is to be abolished. There are nine inspectors of stables, drawing $9.9?5. Six of these men get $1,200 apiece. There are good men— good young men— who would be glad to do this work at $60 a month, and that is all it is worth. The common decency of re-spectability would lead good citizens to keep their stables clean, and nine young Americans of vigor and stamina at $60 a month each would, like Hercules of old. see to it that the stables of such Washingtonians as prefer to follow in the footsteps of Augeas should not only be cleaned, but kept clean all the while. Why pay out $2,400 for two electrical inspectors and $3,700 for four lamp inspectors? The inspectors get $0,100 and the repair men $5,540. Let us have more repairs at better pay and less inspection at lower pay. Health inspection is something that appeals to the wisdom of all men, and a certain amount of it is proper. But Washing- tion seems to have an excess of inspection and only an aver- age of health. There are twenty-foUi.' health inspectors in this city, drawing $27,700 per annum, besides using about $1,200 as traveling expenses for junketing trips to outside dairy farms. Baltimore gets an equally good inspection for $11,707 and Buf- falo for $14,715. Even the charities of Washington cost $2,880 for inspection. Why pay four good, clean, honest men $720 each a year for ferreting out poverty? Where are the ministers of the city? Where are the humane societies? It seems to me that these people are as credible and as honest as any set of inspectors, and they may always be relied upon to do the best of charitable work. Then, while stable inspectors get $1,200 a year, the inspector for the child-caring charities is paid the munificent salary of $480 a year. If nine men are worth $9,975 for stable inspection, 7021 this child-caring inspector ought to be worth about $4,000 a year. Give this inspector $1,000 at the least and cut down the stable contingent to $60 a month. Then, notwithstanding the $17,900 paid nineteen plumbing in- spectors, $8,500 more must be given to ten other men as water inspectors and an unknown amount for smoke inspection. AUDITING DISTRICT ACCODNTS. From volume 1, page 20, of the Commissioners' Report for 1905, it appears that books and i-ecords of the Wasliington Asy- lum, the Industrial Home School, the office of the inspector of gas and meters, the office of the superintendent of the bathing beach, the offices of the several market masters, the office of the pound master, the accounts of collateral received at the several police precinct stations, the accounts kept in the police depart- ment of various funds and moneys received in the nature of trust funds, and of a number of other institutions and estab- lishments connected with the District government involving money transactions have not been made the subject of period- ical examinations by the auditing department. The auditor's office is a most important one, but if it is not auditing and ex- amining the institutions of the District which handle money it is not performing its most important function. The Commis- sioners say that the present clerical force is inade^iuate and ask for a greater amount of help. A greater economy in other lines of expenditure will make possible the complete develop- ment of this most important office. The last Congress author- ized the employment of fifteen persons in that office and appro- priated $23,750. It also provided for five other clerks, at an ag- gregate expenditure of $5,500 ; in all, twenty persons, at a charge of $29,250. This would seem to be enough to do all the work required of the office, and to do it well. The auditor receives no larger salary than should be paid for his work. The prices paid for other clerks are higher in proportion to Buffalo prices. The Buffalo salaries are: Comptroller, $4,000; deputy comptroller, $2,000 ; chief bookkeeper, $1,600 ; assistant book- keeper, $1,100; three assistant bookkeepers, at $900; warrant clerk, $1,100 ; assistant, $900 ; bond and insurance clerk, $1,100 ; local accounts clerk, $1,000; statement clerk, $1,000; recording clerk, $900 ; local tax-roll clerk, $900 ; markets accounts clerk, $800; tax-sale clerk, $1,500; three assistants, at $1,000; coun- tersigning clerk, $900; five clerks, $900; stenographer, $720; in all, twenty-six good clerks and officers for $29,720. If Buffalo can retain twenty-six good men for $29,720 Washington ought certainly to retain twenty-five men in minor positions, and a reorganization would produce good re!^ made between salaries and money paid for buildings and supplies. By this method it was possible for any man, the truth of the figures being admitted, to reach a rational conclusion as to the comparative expenses of the cities named. It is always proper to deny the accuracy of figures, and to prove their inaccuracy by the substitution of others. It is possible in the presentation of great masses of figures, taken from a number of voluminous reports, to fall into error, and it is the right of every disputant, if error exists, to prove it from the record. But no such method was adopted by those who essayed to answer my speech, and the logical inference is that my figures were correct. In fact, the figures were admitted, but the deductions made from them denied, or the figures were admitted, but the method of their presentation was declared to be unfair. An effort was made to show that office expenditures in Washington were different from office expenditures elsewhere, and that no fair comparison be- tween them could be made; that as the Government paid half the expenses of the District of Columbia it was unfair to compare the valuations of Washington with the valuations of other cities ; the character of the Government of the District was so unique, having the threefold functions of a State, county, and city government, that no fair comparison could be made between it and other cities, etc. It will be seen from these answers that the truth of my fig- ures was not denied and that their force was parried by quib- bles and inconsequential averments. Thus, of what consequence is it to anybody, in a comparison of expenses between Washing- ton and another city, to say that the Government pays half the expenses and that a fair comparison demands either that the valuation be doubled or the expenditure cut in two? What had valuation to do with the figures quoted? I dealt with ex- penditure, and showed that the total net or ordinary expendi- ture of the city of Washington for the year 1904 was out of all proportion in extravagant outlay to the expenditures of other named cities. Does it make the expense any less to have the Government pay one-half of it? It does make the ex- pense less to the taxpayers of the city of Washington, but this is a matter of no consequence whatever, however, in a com- pp'-ntive statement of tne expenditures between cities. Zn March 16, 1906, I presented another speech showing the undervaluations and inequalities of assessment which obtained in tlie District of Columbia, and on March 22 another in which I paid particular attention to the answers of certain newspaper 7021 6 82 criticisms, in which I showed that all the matters of avoidance specially set up were unfounded in fact and unworthy of seri- ous consideration. I also submitted a table taken from Bulle- tin 20, census statistics, shewing the total and per capita pay- ments for classified expenses for the year 1903. No attempt having been made to answer my statistics for the year 1904, except by the pleas in avoidance already referred to, and my critics having shifted the ground to 1903 and referred to Bulle- tin 20, census statistics for that year, I cheerfully met them upon their own ground and published two full pages of said bulletin which not only bore out the accuracy of my previous classifications, but also supported every figure presented therein. In that report it was shown that the expenses for general administration in Washington were greater than those of Milwaukee and Cleveland, and far greater in proportion than those of Detroit, Pittsburg, and Buffalo. That the expenses for courts were greater than those for New Orleans, Detroit, Mil- waukee, Cincinnati, Pittsburg, Buffalo, and Cleveland. In fact, almost four times as great as the greater number of these cities. That the expenses for the police department were greater than those of the larger cities New Orleans, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Pittsburg, Cleveland, or Buffalo. That the expenses for the health department were greater than those of New Or- leans, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, or Buffalo. These figures showed that the expenditures for public chnrities and correc- tions were from two to eighteen times greater than those of New Orleans, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Pittsburg, San Fran- cisco, Buffalo, Cleveland, Baltimore, St. Louis, and Chicago, be- ing excelled alone by New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. For public highways the expenditures were from two to four times as great as those of New Orleans, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Pittsburg, San Francisco, Buffalo, Cleveland, or Baltimore, and almost equal to those of Chicago, the expendi- ture for highways in Washington being $1,001,298, and in Chi- cago, $1,027,701. In the matter of public sanitation the ex- penses of Washington were very much greater than those of New Orleans, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Pittsburg, San Francisco, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Baltimore. For public recre- ation the expenditures of Washington exceeded New Orleans, Milwaukee, Cincinnati. Pittsburg, and Cleveland. In payments for schools Washington exceeded New Orleans, Milwaukee, Cin- cinnati, San I'rancisco. and Buffalo. These figures talcen from Bulletin 20 simply aggravated the disease. The claimed ex- travagance of my initial figures faded into insignificance when brought into juxtaposition with the figures of Bulletin No. 20, the authority upon which the criticisms were based. 7021 / 83 The same objections might be made by me to the separate classification in Census Bulletin No. 20 as were made by the critics to the classifications in my original speech. But these would be but quibbles, as all classifications are subject to this kind of criticism. Census Bulletin No. 20 deals with " aggregate corporate exi^enses," and explains that term on page 27 of the volume. The bulletin also deals with corporate payments, and makes these payments include all payments for (1) general service. (2) municipal service, (3) municipal investment, (4) municipal industrial expenses; for (1) general and (2) com- mercial or special improvement outlays and for the reduction of debt. All of these I included under the shorter term " gross expenditure," and for 1904 showed that Washington expended more in this way than the six cities St. Louis, Boston, Balti- more, Buffalo, Pittsburg, and Newark, N. J. On page 446 of Census Bulletin No. 20 the aggregate corporate payments or gross expenditures for forty-nine cities are shown, from which I extract the following outlays, adding only the population of each of the cities for 1900 : • City. Popula- tion. Aggregate corporate payments. Per capita payments. 278, 718 508,857 381,768 352, 887 342,782 325,902 321,616 285, 315 285,704 287, 104 810,843,620 8, 442, 400 9,904,321 7,271,955 6,855,163 7,915,106 11,875.111 5,226,012 6,000,442 4,453,125 $36.98 15.89 Cleveland 23.87 Buffalo 19.07 19.26 23.77 Pittsburg 34.42 16.70 19.38 14.81 Thus of the fourteen cities having a population greater than Washington, Washington had a greater aggregate outlay than eight of them. Of the forty-nine cities on page 446 of said bul- letin, Washington had a greater outlay than forty-three of them, ami her per capita expenditure exceeded all of them save New York and Boston. I consider this a most extravagant showing. But suppose we look at the detailed heads of expenditure as set out in Bulletin No. 20. On page 446, under " Payments for general and municipal service expenditure," we find the follow- ing: Washington $C, 502, 475 Cleveland — - 5, .561, 781 Buffalo 5, 340, 749 San Francisco 6, 172, 566 Pittsburg 5. 463, 586 Cincinnati 5, 178, 131 Milwaukee 3, 457, 542 Detroit 3, 819, 409 New Orleans ^^1 3, 447, 913 7021 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Washington paid more than any one of the forty-nine cities on the page for this item, except New Yorlv, Chicago, Philadelpliia, St. Louis, Boston, and Baltimore. It will be noticed that Balti- more expended but a trifle more than Washington and that the aggregate expense of the item " Payments for general and mu- nicipal service expenditure " makes up more than three-fifths of the aggregate outlay or gross expenditure. On the same page, under caption " Outlays for municipal in- dustries," we have: Washington $1, 161, 187 Chicago 919, 781 St. Louis 494, 480 Boston 1, l.-.S, 643 Baltimore 224. 528 Cleveland 908, 941 Buffalo 6.5, 750 Milwaukee 110, 693 Detroit 492. 614 New Orleans 6, 443 Municipal industries cost more in Washington than in any of the forty-nine cities, except New York, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and Memphis. On the same page, under caption " Other than municipal in dustries," we have : Washington $2, 198, 550 Baltimore 637,669 Buffalo 1,416, 728 San Francisco 400,423 Cincinnati 888,644 Milwaukee 1, 335, 851 Detroit 1, 301, 962 New Orleans 655, 497 Now, these three items, payments for general and municipal service expenditure, outlays for municipal industries, and out- lays for other than municipal industries, make up in their aggre- gate what I termed in my first speech " net " or " ordinary " expenditure, and which for 1904 I calculated to be $9,079,908. Collecting these three items, we have as the net or ordinary expenditure for 1903, according to Census Bulletin No. 20, the following: Payments for municipal-service expenses ?6, 502, 475 Payments for municipal industries 1, 161, 337 Payments for other industries 2,198,550 Total net or ordinary expenses 9, 862, 362 So that the vague criticism that my classification was too general, and therefore liable to be misleading, falls to the ground. The expenditure for the ordinary expenses of District government for 1904 under my classifications were less than those worked out by the census bulletin of 1903. The absolute verity of my classifications for comparative purposes is, there- fore, I consider, established, and all indirect criticism clearly out of place. 7021 o