Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • The Solicitor General for the United States. Mr. Newton D. Baker, for defendant in error. The matter published by the defendant was no part of the income return, but merely a copy of the list prepared and made available to public inspection by the commissioner. It is the duty of the Commissioner, under the provisions of § 257(b) of the Revenue Act of 1924, to prepare and make available for public inspection in each collection district, lists containing the name of each person making an income tax return and the amount of tax paid by him; and therefore the publication made by the defendant was not a printing or publishing of a part of an income return in a manner not provided by law in violation of Rev. Stats. § 3167. If § 3167, interpreted in connection with § 257, forbids the printing in a newspaper of the name of the taxpayer and the amount of tax paid, contained in the lists open to public inspection, then to that extent § 3167 is unconstitutional, since it abridges the freedom of the press protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Judges
  • George Sutherland
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • The Solicitor General for the United States. Mr. Newton D. Baker, for defendant in error. The matter published by the defendant was no part of the income return, but merely a copy of the list prepared and made available to public inspection by the commissioner. It is the duty of the Commissioner, under the provisions of § 257(b) of the Revenue Act of 1924, to prepare and make available for public inspection in each collection district, lists containing the name of each person making an income tax return and the amount of tax paid by him; and therefore the publication made by the defendant was not a printing or publishing of a part of an income return in a manner not provided by law in violation of Rev. Stats. § 3167. If § 3167, interpreted in connection with § 257, forbids the printing in a newspaper of the name of the taxpayer and the amount of tax paid, contained in the lists open to public inspection, then to that extent § 3167 is unconstitutional, since it abridges the freedom of the press protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Judges
  • George Sutherland
See more information ...
Smart Summary

UNITED STATES v. BALTIMORE POST.

Decided upon the authority of United States v. Dickey, ante, p. 378. 2 F.2d 761, affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case comes here from a judgment of the lower court dismissing the indictment, 2 F.2d 761, and is the same in all respects as No. 768, United States v. Dickey et al., just decided, ante, p. 378. Upon that authority the judgment below is

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE STONE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

UNITED STATES v. BALTIMORE POST
(May 25, 1925)