Evening star., 1925-05-25
PRESSIsl)PHELD
IN TAX PUBLICITY
Supreme Court Decides Pub
fishing of lists Was
Legal.
BY the Associated Press.

BY the Associated Press.
Newspapers which published lists
of income taxpayers were upheld in
doing so today by the Supreme Court.
The court declared the newspa pers
were not guilty Of violation of the
law in publishing income tax lists
made available to public inspection in
the offices of collectors of internal rev.
enue.
The cases appealed were those won
by the Kansas City Journal-Post and
the Baltimore Post in the lower
courts. which had held that any law
prohibiting publication Of information
which Congress had directed the In.
ternal Revenue Bureau to make avail
able for public inspection-and they
argued this point last Fall--Would be
unconstitutional. This contention the
Supreme Court in effect upheld.
Claimed Right to Decide.
The Government contended that
Congress provided that the Commits
Sioner of Internal Revenue should
make available ito public inspection
in such manner as he may determine,
in the Office of the collector in each
internal revenue district and in such
other places as he may determine,
lists containing the name and the post
Office address of each person making
an income-taX return in such district,
together with the amount of income
tax paid by such person" 1t was en-
tirely within the control of the Com.
missioner, the Government held to
prohibit publication of the lists In the
newspapers. and to determine the
other places" than the Offices of the
collectors in which they should be
made public.
In the exercise of his discretionary
power it was. argued the Commits
sioner had decided that the lists
should be made available to public in.
spection only in the Office of the
collectors. --s.,.-
Counsel for the newspapers, Senator
Reed of Missouri, representing the
Kansas City Journal-Post, and former
Secretary of War Newton D. Baker,
for the Baltimore Post. asserted there
could be no censorship whereby an
official could prohibit the publication
in, the newspapers of official informa
ton which was lawfully in the posses
sion of the public, was subject to
lawful discussion on the street corners
and in all places of public meeting,
and could be freely broadcast by radio
Newspaper publicity of the lists was
also attacked by the Government on
the ground that they were a part
of the income tax returns" and that
the law had made it unlawful for any
person to print or In any manner pub.
lish the returns"
Counsel for the newspapers insisted
that this part of the Government
argument was seriously defective. be-
cause the law which the Government
relied upon did not broadly prohibit,
as the Government contended. the
publication of returns" but only for
bade the printing ''in any manner
whatever not provided by law" That
the lists were not q part Of the re-
turn" was evident, they argued, be-
cause they contained the amount of
income tax paid as determined by the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue to
be due, and not the amount calculated
on the blank filed out by the individ-
ual in making the return.
The Governments views on the de-
STABILITY of prohibiting newspaper
publicity of. the lists was presented by
Solicitor General Beck in his brief in
the declaration that It was mot for
the newspaper publishers to CONNER
cialize public record and swell their
circulation by making possible uni
versal intermeddling in other peoples
business" - >
Denies Freedom at Stake
This line of argument was met by
COUNSEL WIFI Cne assertion
that it was for Congress and not for
the administrative branch OF the Gov
ernment to decide what the laws
should be on the subject. They IN
sisted that the judiciary branch of
the Government must construe the
laws of Congress relating to the lists,
and that the views OF administrative
officers as to what was desirable or
undesirable could have no weight.
From the viewpoint of Senator Reed
the cases involved a larger question
than the right of newspapers to print
lists of income tax papers. They di-
rectly assailed, he insisted, the free
dom Of the press and the right of
free speech. He urged the court ito
lay down in no uncertain terms a
clear, comprehensive and unequiVocal
construction of those rights as they
are guaranteed by the first amend
ment to the Constitution"
Solicitor General Beck vigorously
opposed the suggestion that the
freedom of the press was at stake,
and insisted that the only question
at issue was a decision as to whether
Congress intended that the lists
should be printed in the newspapers,
and. If it did. whether it was neces-
sary first to obtain the permission of
the commissioner of internal revenue
-s~