FIFTY-FIRST CONGRESS, 1889-1891. 1297 
Mr. Hempur. It has the right to levy special assessments upon 
the adjoining property in proportion to the benefit of this improve- 
ment, and not only adjoining property, but all property directly 
benefited. 
Mr. A. J. Hopkins. And does not the expense so levied become a 
lien on the property ? 
Mr. Hempum. Oh, yes; and it bears interest. Under this bill we 
simply provide for a temporary loan as to a large part of the expense 
for the purpose of getting control of this property at once, instead of 
waiting until it shall be more valuable. 
Mr. Srone, of Kentucky. Do you regard it as a wise thing for the 
Government to enter into the business of lending money to cities, cor- 
porations, or anybody else? 
Mr. Hempurii. No; I do not say it is wise for the Government to 
enter into any such business; but I do say that when the Government 
undertakes to govern the capital of the nation and to legislate for it 
through Congress, and undertakes to bear half the expenses of the 
government of the city, it is wise and proper to make such financial 
arrangements as will save the people expense. 
Mr. D. Kerr, of Iowa. If the assessments on the adjacent property 
* do not cover this expense, then there is no other provision at all for 
meeting it. 
Mr. Hempnry. No, sir; the overinaont stands whatever part of 
the expense may not ie recovered from the property owners; but from 
the best information I can gather (of course I can not tell what is going 
to be ascertained as the value of the property) the amount of actual 
expense to the Government under this bill will be comparatively small; 
and some gentlemen say it will be nothing. Of course I simply give 
my opinion, founded upon the best information I can gather. 
Mr. Horxtns. It must be something. 
Mr. Hempnuity. There have been instances in this country where 
every cent of the expenses of a park of this kind has been assessed on 
the adjoining property, and it was thought a wise thing. 
Mr. Kerr, of Iowa. Has that ever happened except in a single 
instance in Chicago ? 
Mr. Hempntty. I can cite that one case of my own er 
Mr. G. E. Apams. There were three instances in Chicago. 
Mr. Bucuanan, of New Jersey. This bill as now reported provides, 
I understand, for a loan by the Government to the District, and as 
security for that loan there is the contingency that,money may be 
obtained by“assessments levied upon the property which may be bene- 
fited—property adjoining or elsewhere. I understand the gentleman 
from South Carolina to say that there is no other contingency under 
which repayment of this loan may be assured; and he calls this a slight 
expense. Now, I want to ask the gentleman this question: Does he not 
H. Doc. 7832——82 
