At Woodlawn

They could stand it no longer, those business men of Woodlawn, Ill. Last week they assembled in the Woodlawn Business Men's Association and drew up a resolution:

"WHEREAS, Certain newspapers are exploiting crime and criminals to a degree to disgust and discourage the average citizen, and

"WHEREAS, Said newspapers have the habit of publishing the names and addresses of unfortunate women and girls who are the innocent victims of criminals; Therefore, be it

"RESOLVED, That the Woodlawn Business Men's Association in regular meeting . . . urge a cleansing of the daily press of this mass of crime reports and suggest that the names and addresses of the aforesaid unfortunate women and girls be eliminated. . . . Further be it

"RESOLVED, That this Association encourage clean journalism by cooperation with such newspapers as show a disposition to cleanse their pages of these lurid crime stories."

Chicago is a city of many suburbs. Chicago depends upon its suburbs as few cities do. Suburbanites are its big buyers in the department stores. Suburbanites support its theatres. Suburbanites buy many bales of its newspapers. There is a big transient population from the surrounding agricultural districts; but without the suburbanites Chicago would be at a loss.

Wherefore the Chicago newspapers, with one exception, had cause for concern in the indignation of the Woodlawn suburbanites.* The Chicago Tribune was meant as one of the "certain newspapers." The Chicago Daily News was meant. The Journal (Hearst) was meant. The Herald-Examiner (Hearst) was meant. The only Chicago newspaper of any dimensions that was not meant was The Journal of Commerce--terse, unemotional, efficient business man's daily, which one Woodlawn Business Man particularized, together with the earnest Christian Science Monitor, as being a "clean sheet."

The Dogs

After the U. S. press published the income tax figures (TIME, Nov. 3), the U. S. Department of Justice was on the lookout for a newspaper-dog or two. When the dogs were caught--or rather selected--the equivocal tax-publicity law, as set forth in the publicity clause of the Revenue Act of 1924, would be tried on them in test suits. It was a matter of interest to the public which, of thousands of available canines, the Government would select.

A fortnight ago, a Federal Grand Jury in Baltimore indicted The Baltimore Post. As dogs go politically nowadays, this was a homeless stray; the Post supported La Follette.

Last week, Federal Grand Juries indicted The Kansas City Journal-Post and The New York Herald-Tribune. Of these, the Journal-Post was chosen because, being privately owned and edited by one Walter S. Dickey, the suit would determine the rights of an individual under the tax-publicity law. The Herald-Tribune was chosen because it was the leading Administration organ in the biggest U. S. metropolis and its prosecution would clear the Administration of any charges of partisan discrimination.

It was noted of the three cases: That the indictments were virtually identical in wording, each citing as the cause for indictment the publication by the paper of the tax figures of individuals chosen at random from long lists of names published. Thus, the Baltimore Post's alleged offense was in making known the payments of five separate citizens, to wit, the Messrs. Daniel Willard (railroad man), Waldo Newcomer (capitalist), and J. Cookman Boyd, Leon C. Coblenz, Frank A. Furst (small tax-payers). None of the individuals had protested their treatment by the papers to the Government.

That the indictments were brought by the Government, not seeking fines and imprisonment, but to come at the meaning of the law. For the newspapers, there was safety in numbers.

That, in outlining their defense (all the defendants declared they would plead "Not Guilty"), the newspapers fell back upon the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, that Amendment which guarantees to the press the right of free speech. Everyone was agreed that the law provided that the tax lists should be placed "open to public inspection." The question, as the Herald-Tribune framed it, would therefore be: "Can Congress say, 'You may talk, but you may not write?'"

That Congressional leaders decided to await the outcome of the suits before considering whether or no to alter the publicity clause of the Revenue Act of 1924.

*Other important Chicago suburbs : Riverside, whilom seat of Society; Hinsdale and Wheaton, gentleman-farmer communities; Oak Park, Rogers Park and Wilmette, ''middle class" communities, civic-spirited; Evanston, puritanical and efficient; Kenilworth, Winnetka and Glencoe, more countrified and country-clubby; Highland Park, a cross between these and the larger pretensions of Evanston; Lake Forest, "the Newport of the Middle West."