The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1933-06-30
NJ. ySays:

T AM not going to roast Charles E. Mitchell.
He has suffered enough. Most men in his
position would have done about the same thing,
though they might have been little more cir
cumspect. In that lies the pity of it.
MitchellS acquittal on criminal charges of
evading the income tax shocked a few people,
but pleased more and left the vast majority
Indifferent.
Law is no stronger than the sentiment be-
hind it. The income tax law is too technical
and complicated for assured enthusiasm. In
theory, most people are for it, In practice, most
people work every way they can to beat it.
Enforcement of the income tax law has come
to be battle of experts. Save in small and
simple cases, average people feel wholly unable
to make out returns They have no choice but
to employ trained auditors accountants, or at
torneys.
Under such circumstances, the public is slow
to believe that criminal offense has been COM
mitted when some citizen or corporation gets
into trouble with the government. The public
assumes that they have acted on what they
supposed to be expert advice.
UTHILE perfectly willing to sustain the gov
w eminent in its effort to collect an income
tax where mistakes or evasions have occurred
iuries are and will continue to be hesitant about
sending taxpayers to prison. unless their offenseS
obviously were deliberate or intended to concea
another kind Of crime as in the case Of A
Capone.
This does not mean that the public is deceived
by or satisfied with the income tax evasions that
constantly are taking place, or the manifest in
justice of system which permits them. The
public simply is too bewildered to trust its owr
Judgment and for that reason is inclined to give
defendants the benefit of every possible doubt
1t is supposed commonly that men of great
wealth or large affairs have distinct advantage
because of their ability to employ the abest ex-
perts and to exert social or political influence
Such advantage however, is not confined tt
administration of the income tax law. Oul
whole system of justice is weakened by the fact
that the personal ability of hired representatives
counts for too much.
Other things being equal, the defendant who
can employ the cleverest attorney has far bet
ter chance to win that the defendant who car
not.
THE rule of experts in any line necessarily
l. helps those who can employ the best while
it hurts those who must put up with the medic
ere and inexperienced.
We really are up against trial by combat
whether in connection with the income tax law
or the administration of justice, with our fate
in the hands OF hired champions, rather than
in those of an impartial tribunal.
Instead of functioning in an impersonal
scientific way to find out the truth, our courts
act as umpires, their chief duty being to see
that the contesting lawyers observe the rules of
the game.
While such method does not eliminate the
possibility of justice it does put premium on
personal ability to twist evidence and impress a
jury.
Though the contest has been refined, we still
are obliged to depend on hired representatives
when it comes to case in court or dispute
over income tax returns, and great deal de-
ponds on their relative ability to outwit each
other.