1398 CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS. 
~ Mr. A. J. Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I can express in less than the 
time allotted to me all that I desire to say on this subject. 
I trust that every member of this House will understand that a vote 
in favor of the motion made by the gentleman from Maryland is a vote 
to saddle upon the General Government the entire expense of main- 
taining this park, and that a vote against his motion is a vote in favor 
of making the District of Columbia divide that expense. 
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Butterworth], as well as the gentle- 
man from Kentucky [Mr. Breckinridge], has spoken eloquently of 
making this a national park and compelling the General Government 
to pay the entire expense. As I understand it, sir, it is no less a 
national! park if we compel the wealthy inhabitants of Washington 
and the District of Columbia to bear their fair proportion of the 
expense. It is under the control of the General Government now, 
and will continue under the control of the General Government for 
all time, whether that division of expense is made or not. But the 
District of Columbia is likewise under the control of the General Goy- 
ernment, and it is entirely proper that the legislators in the two bodies 
of Congress should determine whether it is equitable and proper to 
take the entire amount out of the Treasury of the United States, or to 
compel the people of the District of Columbia to pay one part of it. 
Now, it goes without argument that the establishment of the park 
and the-maintenance of it has largely enhanced the value of property 
in all sections of the city of Washington; and, as a matter of equity, 
as a matter of just law, I can see no good reasen why the people who 
have these special advantages and benefits from that great park should 
not pay correspondingly for the advantages they enjoy. No such 
benefits can be said to arise in favor of the taxpayers generally 
throughout the country. Will any gentleman say that a resident in 
my district has the same advantages and can enjoy this park as well as 
a person residing in Washington City? Will anyone say that anyone 
residing in the State of Alabama has the same rights and the same privi- 
leges that he may enjoy from day to day as the person residing within 
the limits of this city? If not, then why should we compel these 
people by our votes to pay for this? 
The statement made on the floor to-day that the taxes imposed upon 
the property owners of Washington will not average one-half of the 
taxes imposed upon people in any other city of the United States, is a 
statement that has not been contradicted. It has not been denied by 
the men who favor the Government paying this entire cost. We can 
well understand, Mr. Speaker, why it is that wealthy men from all 
sections of the Union are coming to Washington and making it their 
home. It is because they can enjoy the special advantages granted to 
the people of this city which are given by the United States and paid 
for out of the public Treasury, while the people in the other cities 
and States of this Union, who are deprived largely of all these 
e . 
