Supreme Court's Week

August, in Washington, the U. S. Supreme Court last week continued about its business. Among other matters, it considered:

Bootleggers' Incomes. Should a bootlegger list the profits of his profession in his income tax report? He should, said energetic, eloquent Mrs. Mabel W. Willebrandt, Assistant U. S. Attorney General, arguing last week against Bootlegger Manly S. Sullivan. Bootlegger Sullivan failed to make an income tax return, was found guilty of so failing by the Federal District Court at Charleston, S. C. He got the decision reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, reached finally the U. S. Supreme Court. His defense depended on the fact that Congress, passing the Federal income tax law, provided no immunity to return-filers whose income was received from incriminating sources. He stood on his constitutional right to withhold incriminating evidence. The U. S. Treasury Department fought him hard, to avert a precedent whereby, for example, many a corporation secretly violating the anti-trust law might refuse to file income tax returns. . . . The Court pondered. . . .

Landlords v. Bootleggers. Landlords whose tenants violate the Prohibition Act may legally cancel leases of said tenants. Tenants so evicted may not have a jury trial on the issue. So, last week, ruled the U. S. Supreme Court in the case of James Duignan of New York against the Pall Mall Realty Co. and the U. S.