San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1923-01-27
PARTICLES CRIMINIS

Every dav. in every way, the phil
osophy Of the governments prohibition
agents is getting profounder and pro-
founder-if you don't care what YOU say.
Several times during the last year it has
seemed humanity impossible to go 10
greater heights of absurdity than those
SUCCESSFULLY attained by these people
But apparently for them there are no
barriers in the realm of the illogical. In
the field of the ridiculous there seems to
be no limit to their resourcefulness. They
have done almost everything except make
prohibition prohibit Consider their lat
est achievement At the present writing
it is their latest; soon il, too, may be stir
passed.
Briefly. bootleggers in New York have
been officially warned that they will be
required to pay income tax on their IL
legal gains Prohibition agents. it IS
announced, are preparing lists of boot
1eggers known to have done profitable
business. and those lists are TO be turned
over to the internal revenue department
for income-taX purposes. Information
given by the booteggers in making their
returns will be regarded by the treasury
officials as Confidential" and will not be
passed on to any other federal department
for the purpose of prosecution. This
pledge of secrecy is said to be accord
ing to the law
From any standpoint whatever, the
execution of the scheme thus described
would make the United States govern
ment a party to crime, and no provision
that either the prohibition or the tax law
NAV or might contain could destroy this
vital reality.
In the first place. to force bootlegger
TO paw a tax on his unlawful income, or
even to accept tax money voluntarily
proffered by him as an acknowledged
part of such income, would be to share
in the spoils of crime.
Bootlcgging is forbidden by law; the
bootlegger is criminal or engaged in
work of nature defined by law as GRIM
ina1 The government outlaws the boot
legger's profession, marking it as abom-
Unable and himself as an enemy OF society.
Then that same government says to him,
in effect:
"Here, Bo, YOU come across with a part
Of that loot; divvy up, and I won't squeal
on YOU"
If the government should undertake
to compel bootlegger to give it, for
income-tax purposes, information which
would be used in prosecuting him under
the prohibition law, he could, of course,
stand upon his constitutional right, re-
fusing to incriminatc himself. Hence the
internal revenue departments pledge OF
secrecy.
But under what great legal principle
does the government get its right to enter
into such deal with one whom it char
acterizes as a criminal?
The governments first duty is to ap-
prehend and prosecute an alleged GRIM
inal, and convict him if it can, thus put
ting stop to his unlawful practices. But
this process is reversed by the income-taX
scheme. Thus it appears that govern
ments greatest desire is to "get the
money" even at the expense OF making
itself a party to the crime from which
such money is admittedly derived.
That prohibition minds should be able
10 surpass this achievement in the realm
of the ridiculous is almost uncomfortable
But they'll do it-just watch 'em.
r11TrT1O11c CONrr1