Evening star., 1927-05-31

The position in which the United
States Government is placed by the
decision of the Supreme Court that
bootleggers must file income tax re-
turns has resulted in much discussion
as to the ethics involved.
Taking the extreme position of op-
position, the Los Angeles Express
declares: Uncle Sam in the act of
taking his cut out. of the profits of
bootleggcrs is the not wholly edifying
picture presented by the decision.
The process of reasoning which sup,
ports this theory of the Government
splitting the earnings with bootleg
gers is hard for the average mind to
follow. If it is law, it is mighty bad
law and an outrage against the coun-
try's honor and dignity. If the Gov
ernment is to participate in the profits
Of the unlawful liquor traffic, why
not share in the same way in the
profits of burglars and pickpockets?
And if the Government splits the
swag with them, does it not by that
act condone the offense and place the
operations of bootleggers and burglars
and pickpockets in the category with
legitimate business?"
On the other hand, the conclusion
that the ruling means making a
I
them" is expressed by the New Or
leans Tribune, which says: "We our
selves long opposed the taxing or reg
ulation of horse race gambling be-
| cause it involved a sort of legal recoe-
milton Of the gambling business, and
| the law denounced it. But when 1t
| became cleal that the gambling was
going to proceed. whether or no, and
| be still more of a nuisance and a
menace without regulation and taxa.
| tion. we altered our position" The
! st. Paul Dispatch also feels that 'taX-
alton implies a certain degree of regu-
! lation," and adds: $50 we have
| primly made the first move in the
| direction of Government regulation of
! bootlegging. Heaven knows the bust
| ness needs it:
! Hitherto" it is pointed out by the
! New Haven Register, the lower
courts have varied in their ideas on
| the question. Some of the judges
have held that the bootlegger must
pay. and others have said that such
| payment was in the nature of forcing
a man to be q witness against himself
| i'm q proceeding that bordered on the
| criminal and therefore it was inn
proper under the fifth amendment to
the Constitution" The next idea. ac
cordng to the Register. is that it must
be legal to deduct the bribes paid and
this being so, a pretty kettle of fish
! Is uncovered"
The statement by Justice Holmes
covering the matter of bribery, IN
which he said that it would be time
for the court to take up that question
| J., n &
raise it," brings from the Allentown
Call the statement that "it is safe tC
say that this challenge to the boot
| legger's civic courage will not be ac
cepted." The Columbus Ohio State
Journal remarks that lit is hard tc
imagine the bootleggers poring over
their income tax blanks intent upor
making honest returns"
"As q matter of fact. does the Fed
eral Government actually believe tha,
bootleggers will make complete re
ports OF their incomes?' asks the
Cedar Rapids Gazette, and the Phila
delphia Public Ledger makes the sug
gestion: Legal ingenuity may ye
bring the issue to another test, bu
the reference in the opinion to the
'temerty' of a taxpayer who might b'
tempted to deduct illegal expenses II
making his income tax return leaves
little nope for those who wish Il
escape paying an income tax on theil
earnings from an outlaWed traffic.
"Neverthelc1s, nobody is likely tt
get hurt in the rush of bootleggers Il
file their tax returns" contends th'
Milwaukee Journal. while at the otkel
extreme the Salt Lake Deseret News
states, "Pity it is that such fund.
cannot be confiscated in toto and thu:
be made to play the part they shoult
play in wiping out ne Nations debt"
The Chicago Daily News, considering
various points made, finds that never
theless, the return itself must . bt
filed" The News is of the opinion
that the courts should not stretcl