Evening star., 1933-07-04

Defects in the income tax law, some
Of which are declared to have been cor
rected by Congress, are emphasized by
the public in the comments on the ac-
Quittal of Charles E. Mitchell, New York
banker, on trial for failure to pay an
income tax. 1t was charged that losses
sustained through sale of securities to
his wife constituted evasion Of the law.
The public, in the majority of instances,
feels that, as one newspaper expresses
it, the law itself should have been in
dicted"
"Mitchells defense was not denial"
says the Scranton Times, "but that what
he did was within the law, that he was
following a common practice" The
Rochester Times Union, while holding
that ''the action of the jury sets no
binding precedent" declares that ''Mr
Mitchell's acquittal, in view Of the
special circumstances, tends to indicate
that probably other instances of sales
to close relatives or friends, to es-
tablish losses and thus write of in
the law" The Lexington Leader
feels that "the entire case was handled
with the utmost skill, and it is obvious
that whatever may be said of the ethics
of the transactions involved, Mr..
! Mitchell was within the law" The
Hartford Times states that Mr. Mitchell
seems to have been ably defended" and
that "the prosecution was energetic and
expensive, but vain
"The easy way would have been to
convict him as play to the galleries" :"
suggests the indianapolis News His ac-
qulttal is credit to the system of jus
tice." But the Portland Oregon Journal
voices the judgment: THE great bar of
public opinion frequently dissents from
verdicts by jurors and renders decisions
of its own. And the decision in this
great tribunal of last resort will be
demand for more and more curative
legislation by which gentlemen of mil
lion-dollar incomes shall not escape in
come tax and go free in courts while
some poor soul who steals a loaf OF
bread fo- a starving family is sentenced
and stung and strated by the law.
In disagreement with this point Of
view is the Statement by the Cincinnati
TimesStar: eve have erected a great
bureaucratic machine for tax collection.
Bureaucratic machines are apt to be au-
tocratic in their attitude toward indi-
vidual citizens, and individual citizens,
particularly If they are not accustomed
to that sort of treatment, are apt to OBJ
ject. 1t may be that the Mitchell jury
subconSciouSly perhaps, was expressing
resentment. It may be, also, that the
| Government, If it continues to demand
| an ever-increasing share of the indi-
vidual's income for its own purposes, and
| il it becomes more and more autocratic
in collecting that share, will find it in
creasingly difficult to get juries to look
severely upon defendants IN tax cases" "
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram advises
that public resentment should be aimed
at the law, toward bringing about cor
rection, and not toward the individual" J"
1.-THE law is fundamentally and in
defensibly defective" declares the Nash
vile Banner, a conclusion which is
drawn also by the Topeka Daily Capt.
tai. the Oakland Tribune and the Buff
falo Evening News. Criticism of "loop-
holes" in the law is expressed by the
Lowell Evening Leader, while the
Roanoke World-News holds that the
case reflects on Congressman, "who,
year after year. have failed to enact
q properly drawn income tax statute"
The Charlotte Observer advises that
''the next indictment should be against
the law" The Altoona Mirror believes
and the Chicago Daily News urges that
the law needs considerably more tight
ening up than Congress, in its haste,
deemed necessary"
"The mass of the people" says the
Springfield CMass.) Republican, will
never see the justice Of the capital gain
and loss provisions" and that paper
feels that through the arrangement
public confidence is subject to shocks
that weaken the whole political and
social structure" The Asbury Park
Evening Press concludes that ANY tax
] that immunizes those most able to pay
Is Q downright fraud" and the Omaha