New Britain herald., 1925-05-25
MACRI JURY IS
 NOT YET AGREED
Continued from First Page)

which they should be made public.
 In the exercises Of his discretlon- ary power 1t was argued the con- missioner had decided that tho lists should be made available to public inspection only in the office of the collectors.
 Counsel for tho newspapers, Scna- tor Reed of Missouri representing the Kansas City Journal Pos, and former Secretary of War Newton D. Baker the Baltimore Post asserted thero could he no censorship wAcre- hy an official could prohibit the publication in the newspapers Oi or- fCial information which was lawful ly In the possession of the public, was subject to lawful discUssion on the street corners and in dli pjaccs of public meeting, and could he free ly broadcast by radio.
 Publicity Attacked
 Newspaper publicity of the lists was also attacked by the govern ment on the ground that they were q part of the Income tax "rcturns" and that the law hal made 1t un- lawful for any person 10 print or in any manner publish the returns"
 Counsel for the newspapers in- sisted that this Tart of the govern mont's argument waS seriously de- feCtiye, because the law which the government roliol upon did not broadly prohibit as the government contcndcd the publication Of Ire turns" but only forbade the print ing Fin any m3nncr whatever not provided by lew" That thc lists were not part of the return" was evident, they argued, because they contained the amount of income tax paid as determined by the commis- sioner of internal rcynue 10 he due. and not the amount calculated on tho blank filled out by tho individual in making the return,
 The governments views on the desirahiIity of prohibiting newspaper publicity Of the lists was presented by Solicitor General Beck in his brief in the declaration that IL was mot for the newspaper publishers to commorclalize public record and swell their circulation hy making possible universal intormcddIing in pt her DncrlotS buciDoCs u
 This line of argument was met by publishers counsel with the as- scrtlon that it was for congress and not for the administrative branch of the government 10 decide what the , laws should be on tho subject, They insisted that the judiciary branch of the government must Construe the laws of congress relating to the lists, and that the views of admin istrative officers as 10 what was de- sirablo or undesirable could have no weight.
 From the viewpoint of Senator Reed the cases involved larger question than the right of news papers to print lists of income tax papers. They directly assailed, he | insisted, the freedom of the press. and the right of free speech. He urged the court "to lay down in no uncertain terms a clear, Coiupre- hensiye and uncduivocal construction i of those rights as they are guaran- teed by tho first amendment 10 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 wheth- CT congress intended that the lists should be printed in the newspapers and if it did whether it was reCes- sary first 10 obtain the permission of tho commissioner of internal revenue.