NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1943)

prompt dispatch of the business of the Commis¬ sion were guaranteed. “I do not believe that broadcast licensees should be immune from the application of other laws of the country. Neither do I believe that the Com¬ mission should be deprived of power to determine whether licensees are disqualified to operate radio broadcasting stations because of violations of laws not specifically within the jurisdiction of the Commission. However, I do believe that these licensees should be free from the necessity of hav¬ ing the Federal Communications Commission de¬ termine, directly or indirectly, whether licensees are guilty of alleged violations of law, other than those specifically placed within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Radio licensees should have the same rights as any other person to the judicial processes guaranteed in the Constitution. “A procedure could be established whereby the Commission, in determining the qualifications of licensees, could consider violations of law not within its jurisdiction. For example, the legisla¬ tion could provide that the Commission may con¬ sider such violations when there is evidence of guilt adjudicated by courts of competent jurisdic¬ tion. This procedure would afford both due proc¬ ess and at the same time protect the public interest. However, the Federal Communications Commission should not be permitted to revoke a license merely because an official of a licensee cor¬ poration violated some law and such violation had no relation to the operation of a broadcasting sta¬ tion. The proposals in S. 814 do not incorporate this suggestion and therefore, in my opinion, the proposed legislation does not go far enough in defining the Commission’s powers. The same doubt which exists today appears to be carried forward in the new legislation. It seems that the Commission is still empowered, when considering the qualifications of licensees for renewal of li¬ censes, to determine whether such licensees have violated laws other than those specifically under the jurisdiction of the Communications Commis¬ sion. While it may be true that today the Com¬ mission is not empowered to determine directly whether a licensee is guilty of alleged violations of such laws, it is equally true, in my opinion, that the Commission can indirectly make such a deter¬ mination and that, if the licensee is guilty in the mind of the Commission, the latter has power to refuse to renew the license. Sometimes punish¬ ment depriving the licensee of his investment can be more severe than the punishment which would be accorded in the courts after trial by jury. It is my belief that the Commission should not have this indirect power because it does not accord to licensees the due processes of law guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights and it also amounts to an unfair concentration of judicial power in an administrative agency. COMMISSION ORGANIZATION “The bill provides for a reorganization of the Commission. In general, I believe these proposals are an improvement over those provided in the present law and likewise constitute a considerable improvement over the system now being utilized by the Commission. Some criticism has been leveled at the wording of the proposed legislation because it has been interpreted that the Chairman of the Commission is shorn of power. While I think it advisable that the powers of the Chair¬ man be specified, I do not believe he should be de¬ prived of having a voice in the formulation of pol¬ icies and regulations governing any phase of com¬ munications. Consequently, I believe that the Commission as a whole should be empow'ered to formulate regulations and policies and, that in any hearings involving a change in policy or the establishment of a new policy, the entire Commis¬ sion should be authorized to sit and decide the is¬ sues. While at this moment the relationship be¬ tween broadcasting and common carriers may not be clear, it is entirely possible that policies af¬ fecting common carrier communications will have a direct effect upon broadcasting and vice versa. Therefore, I can visualize the desirability, when broad policies are being considered, of bringing together the two groups of men charged with the regulation of each of these phases of communica¬ tions. This is particularly true when allocating radio frequencies to the various communication services. The number of channels assigned to broadcasting have a direct bearing upon broad¬ casting regulatory philosophies. Likewise, the type and character of communications systems in the common carrier field and the policies with re¬ spect to competition will affect the number of channels which can be assigned to these services. Thus, the various phases of communications must be considered as a whole when allocating fre¬ quencies to services. Therefore, it seems advis¬ able that not only should all of the Commissioners understand the broader aspects of all the prob¬ lems of communications, but also that the Chair¬ man of the Commission be empowered to cast his influence and his vote as one of the seven members of the Commission on all matters of policy and regulation. While my interpretation of the pro¬ posed legislation indicates that the Chairman and the Commission are given such power, I desire to make certain that the claims of those who do not interpret the legislation as I do, are given due weight. “It may be thought that advocacy of the require¬ ment that all Commissioners understand the broader aspects of all the problems of communica¬ tions nullifies arguments for the separation of the detailed functions of the Commission. This is not a valid criticism. The fact is that no person can exercise proper judgment in individual cases and at the same time provide the basis of an efficient dispatch of business if he has to act upon every case presented before the Commission. Moreover, if he is to be burdened with the details of all the individual cases, he has no time to con¬ sider properly broad matters of policy. “It makes no difference, from the standpoint of efficiency, whether you have a seven or twenty-five [7]