The Neshoba Democrat., 1921-12-22
And the serious thing is that the

rather to invite the doing OF an unlaW.
full thing in order that after a while
tremendous fines anG penalties may be
collected for the account OF the state
and the. officers charged with the en-
forcement Of Its laws. In this connec-
tion wish to say and to emphasize
that l am not criticizing any of the
present officers of the state. do not
have in mind the present occupant OF
the office of revenue agent or the
present attorney general I am talk
ing Of the office and not the man, be-
cause these men are unquestionably
doing only the bidding OF the state.
The evil proceeds from the legislation
and not from the officers.
have taken some pains to find out
the extent of the prosecution of busi'
ness enterprises Of other states. In
detail the information would be
lengthy and probably uninteresting.
The net result, however, is that in pro-
portion to population and in proportion
to the amount of capital invested In In
dustrial and transportation life, litiga-
tion instituted by our state surpasses
that of every other state to such an
extent that en- effort at comparison
would be absurd. 1t la practically the
rule In all other states that some ques-
tion OF public good Is to be considered
before the state begins Its prosecu-
tions. II law be not observed and
its non-observance be unimportant, the
state is content to let the business
prosper, to let its payrolls continue
and itself to enjoy the general good
that comes from state development.
But this Is not true in Mississippi. In
every important center in the state
there are representatives of the rev.
enue agents who watch out for every
possible sort Of opportunity to catch
business off guard, and to inflict
upon it the penalties provided by our
laws, which for the most part are Sc
verer for similar offenses than the
laws Of any other state of the Union.
A Bad Principle.
These actions Of the revenue agent
find expression in two kinds Of litiga-
tion. The first 10 back taxes, and the
second, real or supposed violations of
the antitrust or other laws. We have
never reached the point where the
business of the state can never know
what its operating costs will be until
seven years have expired, because for
seven years it is subject to tax for
back assessments, and any question Of
business expansion or Industrial out
| look is constantly colored by prospect
of back tax cases involving tremendous
amounts. And the singular thing is
that our court has given the revenue
| agent a power In back assessing that
| is practically without limit. Our -Su-
preme Court has held that the law
| presumes the revenue agent in making
back assessments will do his duty, and
that the burden is upon the taxpayer
to prove that he does not owe the tax.
| rather than there Is any obligation
upon the revenue agent to prove that
! he owes the tax. In other words, the
| presumption of the law Is that the rev.
enue agent will do right and the tax
payer will do wrong. The revenue
agent is authorized to lay back as.
sessment of any amount he sees tit
| against any business of the state, and
! the business of the state must 60 to
the expense of employing counsel and
proving that 1t does not owe the tax.
/ II a mistake is made, or II the law Ia
misunderstood, 1t is the taxpayer who
suffers, the state and revenue agent
who wins. Think Of the principle be.
hind this rule. The state and the rev.
enue agent under the laws are in part.
nership to prey upon the business of
| the state, dividing their recovery, four
parts to the state and one part to the
agent. You might as well expect econ
omy and consideration In the cost plus
plan found disastrous by the federal
| government as to expect equitable
dealing and fair treatment to the tax.
| payer when 1t is to the financial good
| both OF the state and Of the revenuee
| agent to collect from the taxpayer the
| greatest possible amount
For little while would like to
mention some OF the litigation that hasi
recently been instituted by the state,
In part through the revenue agent and
in part through other sources, which
illustrate my meaning. Not long ago
the manager Of one of the largest lum-
Der companies in the state told me
that his company some years befor .
bought some land which had been sol d
by the state before the Civil War. e liz
company, 1t happened, had located it.
logging road on some of this Ii md
which lay between the mill and tim
Der pond. Without any notice, al !, tn,
suit Of the state he was one day 81 ,rvet
with an injunction which prev ente,
him actually from operating h is 10,
road over this land and haali ag hi
timber over It to his min. a sucl
cases the state gives no bond and /
1t loses the case pays no daw ages TO
the harm 1t has done. In tlm s partie
ular case the mill has BEEN forced b
pay $25.O00 to relocate Its h acks, an,
this before ever the quest ic n was de