Evening star., 1924-11-19
STONE. DISCUSSES
INCOME PUBLICITY.
Newspapers in Test Cases
May Not Be Punished.
If Convicted.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE,

Attorney General Stone was at the
White House early today and informal
ly discussed with newspaper men
some of the pending cases being
brought by the Government to test
whether the law was violated when
the income tax returns We're published
Mr.. Stone is not given to curbstone
opinions and would venture no con-
clusion as to the construction of the
statute, but indicated clearly that the
law is so full of conflicts that only
the courts can straighten out what
Congress intended should be the scope
of the act. E=----------- .a7s---. =-s
One of the interesting questions
which will be raised by the Govern
ment is whether the provisions un-
der which income tax returns We're
made available for public inspection
should apply to any returns except
those for the year 1924.
Treasury showed 1923 List.
IT so happens that the Treasury
Department permitted the public to
look at returns for the year 1923,
though these returns were made un-
der the terms Of the law OF previous
years, in which publication was
strictly forbidden. If Congress in
tended that the public should he al
lowed to gaze at the 1928 returns.
did Congress not mean also that all
returns for previous years, extending,
indeed, back to the very beginning
Of the income tax laws cooperation,
were to be thrown open? One Con-
gress cannot bind another to secrecy
and old records are frequently made
public long after the law originally
reouiring secrecy is considered out
Of date and repealed.
The newspapers that are defendants
in the Government suits Will naturall!
reply that the Treasury Department
itself furnished the 1928 returns 70
the public, which, of course. VIII miti-
gate the offense. The whole thing,
however, is not prosecution for
punishment but a test: Indictments
will be brought by grand juries in at
least six instances and then the trials
will be expedited with the hope or
getting n clear ruling from the lower
courts which might exonerate the
newspapers from blame and the case
would be appealed by the Govern
ment to the Supreme Court of the
United States for final decision.
Won't Go Back OF Last Year.
Meanwhile, the newspapers, which
the controversy thoroughly, know
that to publish returns for years pre-
ceding 1923 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 published for years preced-
G
doubt among some Government law
yers that a prosecution even for that
could stick.
should the Government win it's
suits and the newspaper publishers
be found guilty Of violating the stat
utes, the chances are the Government
itself would move to abandon any
punishment, for the few that are
selected would hardly be punished
and scores of other newspapers be
nermitted to escape any penalty. The
is not primarily inter-
ested in furnishing anybody but in
finding out what Congress really
meant,
CONGRESS itself didn't know when
II passed the law, for 1t put in all
sorts of contradictory provisions. but
the courts are constantly engaged in
telling the country the meaning of
legislation and the in
come tax laws are no exception to
the rule. The litigation may be long
drawn out and another set of returns
available before the decision is
reached, in which case the Govern
ment may be compelled to seek a
Temporary injunction to restrain
newspapers from further publishing
returns until the cases now being
started are settled.
.tCopyright, 1924