Evening star., 1924-11-06

satisfied, the better sentiment of the
country should insist that Congress
amend the law and prohibit a prac-
tice that is wholly indefensible"
As the Pittsburgh Sun Independent
Democratic) views it: "The action of
the Government in opening up the
tax reports to public scrutiny without
warning has had deplorable results.
1t was particularly ill-advised that
this action should have been taken
before officials were clear in their
own minds as to the legality of pub
llcation by newspapers To put the
burden of determining this upon the
press itself resulted in vast confu-
SION A reasonable explanation. ac-
cording to the Springfield Republican
independently, sis that officials are
trying to make the press the goat,
in case the income taxpayers become
indignant over the unwelcome public
ity thrust upon them" for "the de-
.partment throws out the suggestion
that printing names is very different
from making them available for pub
lie Inspection and that. therefore, the
wicked newspapers must bear the
blame for whatever publicity fol-
lows
The confusion in Washington over
the legality of the publication by
newspapers is at least "laughably di-
verting." remarks the Ohio State
Journal (Republican. for those
charged with the duty Of interpret-
ing the law have been running around
in circles" and since nobody seems
to know what the law means, the At
torney General has wisely decided to
bring a test case against one of the
newspapers which made bold to pub
lish some of the returns and we SUD
pose the question Of exactly what, IL
anything. Congress meant by this re-
form measure will be decided some
time with proper judicial solemnity."
That the test be immediate, the De-
troit News independently contends sis
desirable, since il Congress felt the
general publication CT tax figures
trespasses on the rights Of individuals
or is otherwise detrimental to the
public policy the fact should be ad-
duced before the offense is repeated"
Voicing a viewpoint held by a num-
Der of papers which declined to print
amounts paid in income taxes, because
the Portland Express (Republican)
declares it believes the publication
is contrary to sound public policy, be-
cause it can serve no useful pur-
pose, because the returns are decep-
tive, furnishing no accurate gauge of
conclusions that not uncommonly re-
fleet on the honesty of those making
the returns, and finally because there
is a question of the legality Of the
publication" Along the same line,
the New York Evening Post Onde-
pendenD holds it is IAN utterly un-
warranted and mischievous abuse"
and that 'for a newspaper to print
information of this sort is to play the
~ ;ah
mond News-Leader Independent
Democratic) observes, too. that 'the
endorsements are many and OBJ
vious, especially to business houses,
while the advantages are few and
doubtful"
Explanation of the attitude of the
newspapers which took the bull by
the horns and printed returns as soon
as the Treasury made them "availa-
BILE for public inspection" Is found in
the following from the New York
Times Independent Democratic)
comment on Attorney General Stones
position: 1.-THE Attorney General OBJ
serves that publication of this infor-
nation in newspapers Is not spe-
eifically provided for by the laws.
But 1t is not specifically forbidden in
the section requiring that the tax
payments be made available to public
inspection The Attorney General
adds that newspaper publication 'ap-
peared not to have been authorized
under the provisions of section 257
(B).' But If the lists were, as good
lawyers contend. public records, their
publication required no authorization
except that of the United States Con-
stitution. The press is guaranteed
freedom to print all such matter un-
less contrary to public morals or Sc
dition."