Evening star., 1924-12-10

but in criticizing its methods OF
operation.
The only limitation on the press is
libef-namely, the printing Of even
| n true statement which may be dam
aging to an Individual. But in recent
years the newspapers have publish
ed records taken from congressional
proceedings which unQuestionably
damaged individuals, but no prosecu-
tions ever have been undertaken by
the Government to redress wrongs
of that sort.
So the Government in the present
instance Is compelled on the one
hand to consider whether any dam
age has been done to individuals by
the publication of income tax returns
in the newspapers, and If that dam
age has been done the Departm ent
of Justice must prove that 1t was not
done through the distribution of the
same information to those who were
by law given access to the records.
The Department of Justice cannot
argue that publication has done
damage, therefore, but simply that
the law forbade publication except in
q certain way-by Individual applica-
ton to the offices Of the collectors Of
Internal revenue.
Newspapers We're well advised by
counsel before they published the in
come tax data that they had right
to do so under the Constitution and
that If the law forbidding publication
was to be applied to the press 1t was
unconstitutional.
The Kansas City case was won by
the Journal-Post by contending that
its constitutional rights permitted 1t
to publish Information lawfully ac-
quired. The Post Is owned by Walter
8. Dickey, a prominent Republican
and one of the most ardent support
ers the Coolidge administration has;
man who from time to time has
been mentioned for a possible cabinet
portfolio. The relations between the
New York Herald Tribune and the
administration are also close. SO the
Government cannot be accused Of per-
secution in selecting defendants. but
the wonder is growing in Washing
ton and elsewhere that the Depart
ment Of Justice ever began the suits
In view Of the certainty of defeat.
In Congress it would appear that the
court procedure was determined upon
as a means OF delaying action until 1t
can be determined what the country
wants-income tax payments reveal
ed or suppressed. Sentiment for and
against Is not confined to party lines.
The Treasury Department considers
the provision obnoxious and wants IL
repealed. President Coolidge will
sign a repeal measure If put up to
him.
Why then are the leaders waiting
on a court opinion? They hope that
the whole question Of the relationship
between an income tax return and
publication may be settled once and
for all. If the courts take the posi-
tion that Congress cannot forbid pub
ltcation in a newspaper OF informa-
ton made available by Government
bureaus, will the courts also say that
the newspapers cannot publish other
parts Of data, private or public
property? If the Supreme Court de-
cides ultimately that income tax in
formation must be kept secret, Con-
gress Will be saved a controversy and
prolonged debate. The general belief
OF lawyers who have studied the
precedents Is that the publication OF
income tax returns will not be held
Illegal and that Congress will have
to take other steps to guard the tax
payers return, even to the point of
determining what can be done with
the information after II is given in
confidence to congressional commit
tees. For the Senate has often marked
a document confidential" especially
a treaty. but the newspapers have
published the same without being
prosecuted for so doing.
1924