NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1935)

The National Association of Broadcasters NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING ..... WASHINGTON, D. C. PHILIP G. LOUCKS, Managing Director NAB REPORTS ConrrlaM. It34. Tka Natlaoal Auoclatlan af Braadaaitan Vol. 3 No. 6 JAN. 31. 1935 SENATE DELAYS CONFIRMATIONS The Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce indefinitely postponed action on confirmation of Commissioners Sykes, Brown, Stewart, Payne, Walker and Case this week after going extensively into the dismissal of former Supervisor Van Nostrand and Inspector George Llewellyn of the Atlanta office. The investigation into these cases came as a result of charges made before the Committee by Senator Bilbo of Mississippi, who is oppos¬ ing confirmation of Chairman Sykes because of the part he is alleged to have taken in the Mississippi elections. Following the investigation by the Committee, the Commission decided to give a hearing to Mr. Llewellyn this week. Each of the Commissioners was called before the Committee and asked questions bearing upon his qualifications for appointment. Principal attention was given, however, to the Bilbo charges against Sykes and the facts and circumstances surrounding the separation from the service of Mr. Llewellyn and Mr. Van Nostrand. Ben S. Fisher, former assistant general counsel of the Commission, appeared before the Committee and told of his investigation of the charges against Van Nostrand. The charges made against Judge Sykes by Senator Bilbo were denied by the Commissioner and it was shown that he was abroad attending the Madrid conference at the time of the Llewellyn dismissal. The Committee also indicated that it intended to go into the question of license assignments and transfers and indicated that it was interested in the Commission’s policy with respect to newspaper ownership of stations and multiple ownership. Senator Wheeler, chairman of the Committee, took an active part in the questioning of witnesses and the sessions were well attended by members of the Committee. FCC REGULATES ATTORNEYS The Federal Communications Commission on January 26 issued the following statement: “At the hearing of the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee yesterday, January 25, 1935, when the confirmations of the Federal Communications Commissioners were being reviewed. Commissioner George Henry Payne told Senator Wheeler, Chairman of the Com¬ mittee, and other members, that, inasmuch as there had been criti¬ cism of the attorneys practicing before the Commission, he would introduce a resolution preventing such practices. “At today’s meeting Commissioner Payne introduced this resolu¬ tion and it was unanimously passed. “The resolution is as follows: “ ‘Resolved that when the rules and regulations governing practice and procedure before this Commission are adopted there be included the following paragraphs setting forth the effect of previous connection with this Commission: “ ‘ “(a) No former officer or employee of the Federal Com¬ munications Commission shall act as attorney or agent, or as the employee of an attorney or agent, or shall appear as an officer or employee of an individual, partnership, or corpora¬ tion, in any matter or controversy pending before the Federal Communications Commission during the period of his employ¬ ment therein within two years after the termination of such employment; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not be construed to prevent appearances as witnesses. “ ‘ “(b) This rule shall not apply to persons who have sev¬ ered their connections with the Federal Communications Com¬ mission prior to 60 days after its effective date.” ’ ” STAY ORDER ISSUED IN WLW CASE The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on January 30 issued a stay order against the Federal Communications Com¬ mission preventing the enforcement of the Commission’s order re¬ quiring Station WLW, Cincinnati, Ohio, to reduce its nighttime power from 500 kilowatts to 50 kilowatts on February 1. The order is to remain in effect until February 11, on which day the court will hear argument on the issues raised by the station’s appeal. On January 25 the Commission made public its decision authoriz¬ ing WLW to continue operating with 500 kilowatts during daytime hours but dismissed the application “in so far as it requested special temporary e.xperimental authorization to operate nighttime hours.” The Commission’s decision was based upon the following con¬ clusions: “(1) That the Commission is without legal authority to grant the application in so far as it requests an extension of the night¬ time use, between local sunset and 12 midnight, of 500 kilowatts power ; “(2) That the instant application, in so far as nighttime operation is concerned, involves only a question of law to be determined by application of the Treaties and Agreement now in force; “(3) That no purpose would be served by conducting a hearing on the application as it is incumbent upon the Commission to deny a part of the authority requested in the application, and this duty could not be altered by any facts which the applicant might attempt to establish at a hearing. That the law does not require the holding of a hearing where, as in the instant case, it would be entirely futile and of no avail whatsoever to applicant. “(4) That the express condition contained in the authority issued coupled with applicant’s acquiescence therein by operating there¬ under, especially in view of the notice given on December 21, 1934, reserves to the Commission the authority to dismiss or deny that portion of the application which the Commission is of the opinion cannot be legally granted.” Immediately WLW applied to the Court for a stay order, alleging that the Commission rendered its decision without previously giving the applicant notice of a time and place for hearing; that the Com¬ mission had no power under the Communications Act to deprive the applicant of its right to notice and opportunity to be heard; that the Commission acted contrary to law in so far as it proceeded upon the assumption that its decision was required or justified by any provision of the International Telecommunication Convention of Madrid, 1932 ; that the Commission erred in so far as it proceeded upon the assumption that its decision was required or justified by any provision of the Agreement of May 5, 1932, between the United States and Canada; that the decision was contrary to the public interest, convenience and necessity; that no finding of fact by the Commission is supported by any evidence and the findings are arbitrary and capricious; and that the decision deprives applicant of its property without due process of law. The notice of appeal states that the Canadian agreement is in¬ valid and contrary to the requirements of Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States in that it is a treaty, and, although being a treaty, was not made by the President of the United States and was not made by and with the advice and con¬ sent of the Senate. The notice of appeal alleges that Station CFRB, Toronto, Canada, the station with which interference is claimed, is not operated by the best methods and procedure and has not been kept abreast of scientific and technical progress and that much of the receiving apparatus in general use in the area surrounding Toronto is obsolete, non-selective, and below modern standards. It is further claimed that the Commission’s decision deprives vast areas of the United States of satisfactory broadcast service ; it closes • Page 707 •