Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1924-11-22
INCOME: TAX CASES
MERELY To REVEAL
statutes NE:AINING
BY DAVID LAWRENCE


right. J92t.)
WASHINGTON, Nov. 20.-Attor-
jney General stone was at the White
House early today and informally
discussed with neWSpapermen some
of the pending cases being brought
ibV the government to test whether
| the low was violated when the in
come tax returns were published.
Mr.. Stone is not given to CuIbstone
opinions and would venture no con
cluSion as to the construction OF the
statute, but indicated clearly that
| the law is full of conflicts that only
the courts can straighten out what
congress intended should be the scope
Of the act.
One of the interesting questions
which will be raised by the govern
ment is whether the provisions I'M
der which income tax returns were
made available for public inspection
should apply to any returns except
those for the year 1924.
1t SO happens that the treasury
department permitted the public to
look at returns for the year 1928.
Though these returns were made I'M
der the terms of the law of previous
y
y forbidden. If congress intended
that the public should be allowed to
gaze at the 1928 returns did con-
Gress not mean also that all returns
for previous years extending indeed
back to the very beginning Of the
income tax laws operation were to
be thrown open? One congress can
not bind another to secrecy and old
records are frequently made public
long after the law originally requir-
ing secrecy is considered out of date
and repealed.
Treasury Gave Returns
The newspapers who are defend
ants in the government suits will
naturally rep:y that the treasury de-
rartment itself furnished the 1898
returns to the public which, of
course, will mitigate the offense.
The whole thing however, is not a
prosecution for punishment, but
test. Indictments will be brought by
grand juries in at least six instances
end then the trials will be expedited
with the hope of getting a clear rul-
ing from the lower courts, which
might eXOnerate the newspapers
from blame and the case would be
appealed by the government to the
supreme court of the United States
for final decision.
Meanwhile the newspapers which
have looked into the legal aspects
of the controversy thoroughly know
that to publish returns for years pre-
ceding 1928 means a greater risk and
liability to punishment than for the
alleged offenSe committed by scores
of newspapers in printing the re-
turns made available recently by the
treasury department itself 1t is not
likely that any returns will be pub
hshed for years preceding 1923, even
though there is grave doubt among
some government lawyers that a
prosecution even for that could stick
Punishment is Improbable
Should the government win it's suit
and the newspaper publishers be
found guilty of violating the statutes,
the chances are the government il
self would move to abandon any pun
iShment, for the few that are Sc
lected would hardly be punished and
scores of other newspapers be per
mitted to escape any penalty. The
government is not primarily inter-
ested in furnishing anybody, but in
finding out what congress really
meant. Congress itself did not know
when it passed the law for it put
in all sorts of contradictory pro
visions, but the courts are constantly
engaged in telling the country the
meaning of contradictory legislation
and the income tax laws are no ex-
ceptiOn to the rule. Litigation may
be long drawn out and another set
of returns available before the de-
cision is reached, in which case the
government may be compelled to
seek a temporary injunction to re-
strain newspapers from further pub
fishing returns until the cases now
being started are settled