Evening star., 1935-02-27
INCOME PUBLICITY
SUIT IN PROSPECT
Kldnapings and Wave of
Credit Withdrawals
Is Feared.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.


Of income tax returns will lead to q
wave of kidnapping and blackmailing,
to say nothing Of possible withdrawal
OF credit to small business whose
proprietors are supposed to be earn
ing more than they do. there is a
possibility q court action to enjoin
publication Of the returns may be de-
veloped by interested taxpayers.
The Constitution says:
THE right of the people to be
secure in their persons. houses. papers
and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures shall not be
violated
50-year- Decision Cited.
The Supreme Court more than so
years ago rendered a decision which
has some bearing On this point when
it said:
we do not overlook these consti-
d tutional limitations which. for the pro-
tCNllOAl III POASOlloi kACAOo-
sarily attend all investigations con-
Quoted under the authority of Con-
gress.
Neither branch of the legislative
department, still less any merely ad-
miniStrative body established by Con-
gress. possesses or can be invested
with a general power of making in
quiry into the private affairs of the
citizen. (See Kilbourn v. Thompson)
I'VE said in Boyd v. United States
and it cannot be too often repeated
that the principles that embody the
essence Of constitutional liberty and
security .orbid all invasions on the
part Of the Government and its en-
ployes of the sanctity of mans
home and the privacies of his life
AS said by Mr.. Justice Field in the
Pacific Railway Commission case OF
all the rights of the citizen, few are
of greater Importance or more es-
sential to his peace and happiness
than the right of personal security.
and that involves not merely protec-
ton of his person from assault, but
exemption Of his private affairs. books
and papers from the inspection and
scrutiny vi others. without the en-
joyment IF this right, all others would
lose half their value"
Publicity Compulsory.
The Supreme Court has always
held that a particular purpose or rea-
son had to be shown to Justify a
statute in seeking the citizen to file
Information or obey orders from
courts to produce papers.
But what is the legislative or
judicial purpose of the lsw which
requires income tax returns to be
made public? No purpose Is cited In
. the law itself. The case would be
different If the citizen refused to give
to the commissioner of internal
revenue all the data on which his
income tax return is based. But in
the present instance, all the data are
voluntarily furnished and the new
law which goes into effect this year
for the first time makes it compulsory
for the Treasury Department to open
the returns to public inspection.
The law is in plain violation of the
Constitution, judging by the prece-
dents cited But it is one thing for
the rights of the citizen to be violated
and it is quite another thing for him
to obtain redress.
The lawyers hereabouts are dis
cussing just how case could be got
ten into the Federal courts which
would tend to stay the hand of the
Treasury Department from making
public the income tax returns. Unless
damages can be shown, no suit can
really be considered. and the trouble
Is that the damage actually has to
occur to few citizens before there
can be any acceptance of the idea
that damage Is inevitable.
Data Source Must Be Shown.
In the case of a kidnapping, more
over, it would be necessary to prove
that the kidnapers got their informa-
tion as to the wealth of citizen
from reading the income tax re-
turns. something that would be al
most as complicated as proving the
crime itself, for example, in the
Hauptmann case.
There is some talk that citizens may
file suit against collectors of internal
revenue throughout the country, hold
ing them personally liable for damages
that may ensue from the invasion OF
privacy. The Treasury Department
has never been in sympathy with the
publicity law anyway and this might
operate as deterrent to its action.
Executive Ignores Law.
Again and again the executive
branch of the Government has taken
the responsibility for disregarding a
mandate of Congress II 1t appeared
that a greater damage might ensue
from the performance than the breach.
This was true in connection with the
laws passed by Congress to give dis
count of per cent, to all importers
who carried goods in American ships.
President Wilson took the position that
the law violated commercial treaties
and he ignored the law. So did two
successive administrations and it was
subsequently repealed.
II the Treasury Department. mindful
of the dangers through suits to col
1ectors Of internal revenue, should de-
eide to await the outcome of litigation
on constitutionality, there is no way
it could be compelled to make the act
effective In the meantime.
incidentally. the movement for re-
peal is growing in both houses and If
the President would add his support
to the measure 1t would no doubt be
Immediately adopted.
(Copyrisht. 1881