The vidette. (Iuka, Tishomingo County, Miss.) 1912-1967, 1922-01-12

of an unlawful thing. Its attitude Is
rather to invite the doing OF an uniaw-
full thing in order that after q while
tremendous fines and penalties may be
collected for the account OF the state
and the officers charged with the en-
forcement Of its laws. In this ccnnec-
ton I,wish to say and to emphasize
that 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. 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 busl-
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
dustral and transportation life, ltiga-
ton instituted by our state surpasses
! that of every other state to such an
extent that an effort at comparison
would be absurd. 1t is practically the
rule in all other states that some ques-
ton of public good is to be considered
before the state begins its prosecu-
tions. If a 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.
anue agents who watch out for every
possible sort Of opportunity to eaten
a business off guard, and to- infllet
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-
ton. The first is 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 power in. back assessing that
is practically without limit. Our SUI
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 fit
against any business of the state, and
| the business of the state must go to
the expense of employing counsel and
proving that it does not owe the tax.
II mistake is made, or If the law is
misunderstood, it is the taxpayer who
suffers, the state and revenue agent
who wins. Think Of the principle be-
| hind this rule. The state and the rey.
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 it is to the financial good
both of the state and of the revenue
agent to collect from the taxpayer the
greatest possible amount.
For a little while | would like to
mention some of the litigation that has
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 before
bought some land which had been sold
by the state before the Civil War. His
company, it happened, had located its
logging road on some of this land,
which lay between the mill and tim.
Der pond. Without any notice, at the
suit of the state he was one day served
with an injunction which prevented
him actually from operating his log
road over this land and hauling his
timber over 1t to his mill. In such
cases the state gives no bond, and II
1t loses the case pays no damages for
the harm 1t has done. In this partic.
ular case the mill has been forced to
pay $4,000 to relocate its tracks, and
this before ever the question was de
cided as to whether a title of seventy
years old, given by the state, ought to
be, good, whatever may have been the
conditions under which it was convey
ed. During that seventy years the
state unquestionably has received
more in taxes from the various owners
than its entire present worth amounts
to. What do you suppose this business
man of Mississippi would or could say
to another business man looking here
for an opportunity for investment? II