Evening star., 1925-04-19
PAPERS DEFENDED
/ IN TAX PUBLICITY
Attorneys Differentiate Be-
tween Printing of Lists and
a. of Actual Returns.

Newspaper publication of lists of
names of income tax payers and the
amounts paid were defended and at
tackled before the Supreme Court Fri
day. when the arguments in the
cases of the Kansas City Journal-Post
and the Baltimore Post were com
pleted Questions TO counsel for the
Government by several of the jus
tices inclined observers to take the
view they were unwilling to follow
the contention that publication of the
lists constituted a vocation of the
law
The two cases came before the Su-
preme Court o nappeal by the Govern
ment from adverse decisions in the
lower courts.
: During his argument on behalf of
the Government Solicitor General
Beck said that he did not care Two
straws" how the court decided the
case, but that he hoped the court
would remove from controversy the
question whether the Constitution S
guarantee of freedom of the press
gave newspapers the right to publish
any information which might be
this request the solicitor general was
loined by the counsel for the news
papers.
Justice Sanford. questioning Mr..
Beck, wanted to know whether the
prohibition against the publication of
income tax returns was not limited by
the provision except when authorized
by law" and whether the authorize
tion for the lists did not provide such
an exception. Justice Van Devanter
similarly suggested that the amount
of taxes paid. which formed the mate
rial part of the lists, was not a part
of the return as the Government had
contended~ Justices Sutherland and
Butler pressed questions along the
same lines
A remark by Justice McReynolds
that the lists were published" when
made available to public inspection
brought, as had the preceding ques-
tions, reiteration by Mr.. Beck of the
Governments position that the news
papers could be punished for publish
ing the lists.
Chief Justice Taft, directing the at
tention of Mr.. Beck to n statement in
the decision of the district judge in
the Missouri case to the effect that
after Congress had made public Gov
ernment records, publication of the
information in the community could
not be prohibited, asked whether it
was not the duty of the court to con-
Strue statutes which seemed to con-
fiict so as to protect their constitu
tionality whenever that was possible.
Without waiting for a reply to this
question, he asked another. suggest
ing that it might be possible to re-
tain in their full effectiveness both the
provision opening lists to inspection
and the one which prohibited publica-
ton. by restricting the latter strictly
to returns as distinguished from the
lists, and 70 consider these as being
open to publication.
There seemed to be enough in the
income tax returns, aside from the
nlemora nda of the total taxes paid. he
said to make it worth while to retain
in full force the law relating to the
publication of the returns and still
permit the lists containing the totals
to be published.
Defends Right of Publicity.
I'VE are required" he concluded.
ito reconcile if we can, the different
parts of the statutes"
Senator Reed of Missouri and NJ. II.
Winger appeared for the Kansas City
former Secretary of War, made a
brief statement for the Baltimore
Post, this case being submitted by the
solicitor general on briefs without
argument
The Solicitor General insisted that
newspapers which published the lists
had violated a section of the law
come tax returns. Congress provided
that the commissioner of internal
revenue should make the list avail
able in the Offices of the collectors
under such restrictions as he might
think proper to impose, said Mr.. Beck.
md empha sized that the commission
er had not given his consent to the
publica ton of the lists in the news
papers.
Sees Blow at Free Press.
Counsel for the newspapers held
that there was a material difference
between the income tax returns, which
it would be unla wfui to publish, and
the lists, and argued that whatever
was lawfully made public for inspec-
tion could legally be printed.
Attacking what he described as the
Governments effort to drive a wedge
between free speech and free press,
MIR. Baker asserted that to say that
YOU can freely discuss verbally all the
information contained in these lists,
TO say that you can radio the informa
tion broadcast throughout the country
without committing any offense, but
that the publication of the same in
formation in the most obscure news
paper in the country would be a
crime. is an inconceivable construc-
tien which no court would place upon
this law.
The view of the Government on this
point, as presented by Mr.. Beck was
that not much publicity would be
given the lists if they were kept out
of the newspapers. Looking upon the
icit HI he he
Government saw material difference
haf ling the Lists a lila BILE t1