NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1946)

its renewal may not be withheld in order to punish an applicant for violating the Act or a rule or regulation of the Commission. Such violations are to he punished only by the imposition after conviction, of the heavy fines imposed by Sections 501 and 502 of the Act. Nor does the Commission claim the right to punish, but on the con¬ trary disavows any punitive intent here. So it is manifest that the Commission’s decision must depend for validity on the rationality of the step, directly and without any other consideration, from the Com¬ mission’s well-grounded finding that the real beneficial owner of twenty-four per cent of the stock had been con¬ cealed from it, to the conclusion that the appellant “can¬ not be entrusted with the responsibilities of a licensee,” and the consequent additional conclusion that the renewal license would not serve the public interest, convenience, or necessity. We are unable to agree that the step can logically be taken. Other elements must necessarily be weighed. Certainly the conclusion cannot be upheld as a penalty, for the reason stated heretofore; but the conclusion that the denial of the renewal license was penal in nature and so intended by the Commission cannot be escaped, for the appellant is the same corporation now which for fifteen years consistently has furnished adequate and satis¬ factory broadcasting service to its public, and has in all respects met the requirements of law and regulation except in the concealment of stock ownership upon which the Commission based its action. The Commission was quite justified in feeling vexed at the deception, and perhaps would have been justified in seeking criminal prosecution of Smith or of the appellant itself; but to say that this concealment, which did not induce or influence its former grants of renewal licenses, alone supports a conclusion that public interest, convenience, or necessity would not be served by the renewal, is in logic a non sequitur. The high mechanical, scientific and artistic standards main¬ tained by the station, and the highly penal result of the deprivation of a license for a continuance of operation, are necessary considerations in the formation of a judg¬ ment as to public interest, convenience, or necessity. Under the situation disclosed here, we conclude that the Commission acted arbitrarily in proceeding from its warranted conclusion that the stock ownership had been misrepresented to it, to the drastic decision that the continuance of the license would not be in the public interest, with the concomitant results of disestablishing an established and satisfactory radio station and of im¬ posing upon its corporate owner the entire loss of its good will and the serious impairment of the value of its capital assets. Reversed. GRONER, C. J., Dissenting : I regret that I am not in accord with the conclusion reached by the majority. I do, however, very heartily agree with the view that this is a hard case. The Com¬ mission’s drastic order, terminating the life of the station, punishes the innocent equally with the guilty, and in its results is contrary to the Commission’s action in several other comparable cases. But that the making of the order was within the discretion of the Commission, I think is reasonably clear. Shortly stated, the record shows the WOKO, Inc., act¬ ing through its General Manager, who ever since its organization has represented it in all of its transactions with the Commission, deliberately misled the Commission by repeatedly misstating the beneficial ownership of twenty-four per cent (24%) of its capital stock. What, if anything, would have happened if the truth had been disclosed is, in my view, not material. The case, as I think, turns rather upon the question whether the statutory powef of the Commission to de¬ termine public interest, convenience or necessity is broad enough to authorize the rejection of a license for renewal for repeated false swearing in statements of fact required to be filed by the Commission’s rules and regulations.1 An affirmative answer to the question seems to me to be obvious on the grounds of public policy and, accordingly, I do not stop to inquire whether the express statutory 1 47 U. S. C. § 308. authority to revoke impliedly embraces also the power to refuse to renew.2 RADIO ATTORNEYS INVITED TO BAR MEET The Administrative Law Section of the D. C. Bar Asso¬ ciation announces that speakers at its regular meeting, to be held at the U. S. Chamber of Commerce Bldg., 1615 H St., N. W., Washington, 8:00 p. m. Feb. 5, will be the Hon. Sam Hobbs, Congressman from Ala., and Hon. Gerard S. Reilly, member of NLRB. All attorneys practicing before the FCC who wish to attend will be welcomed. District Meetings 17TH DISTRICT MEETING The following account of the District 17 meeting in Seattle, Jan. 14-15, was received too late for inclusion in last week’s Reports: Highlighted by a keynote address by President Justin Miller, broadcasters of the 17th NAB District, comprising stations of Oregon, Washington and Alaska, held a most successful meeting at the Olympic Hotel in Seattle. Applications for membership were received from KIRO Seattle, KRKO Everett, and KVI Tacoma. Entertainment for the main banquet on Monday night was provided by talent from all Seattle stations, under the guidance of the Arrangement Committee chairman, Bob Priebe, of KRSC. Each of the 117 registrants attested to the constructiveness of the sessions and heartily applauded District Director Harry Spence, of KXRO, Aberdeen, and the entire arrangements committee, for a good job, well done. At the closing session Tuesday, Tom Olsen of KGY, Olympia, was elected head of the Washington State Broad¬ casters and Glenn McCormick of KSLM, Salem, was named to lead the Oregon unit. Following is a list of those in attendance: A. Adler, KMED, Medford, Ore.; C. E. Arney, Jr., Natl. Asso. Broadcasters; D. A. Baker, KBKO, Everett; Ray Baker, KOMO, Seattle; Frank P. Barnes, Gen. Electric, San Francisco; Leonard Beardsley, KXA, Seattle; Ted Bell, KRSC, Seattle; Stan Bennett, KOMO, Seattle; Paul F. Benton, KMO-KIT, Tacoma; John Blake, KWSC, Pull¬ man; Louis Bookwalter, KOIN, Portland; Francis Brott, KOMO, Seattle; Harry Buckendahl, KOIN, Portland; C. O. Chatterton, KWLK, Longview; Fred Chitty, KVAN, Van¬ couver; Joe Chytil, KELA, Centralia; Jack Clarke, KIT, Yakima; Fran Conrad, ABC, Los Angeles; Ted Cooke, KOIN, Portland; Norman A. Davis, KALE, Portland; Margaret Dieringer, KXA, Seattle; John DuBuque, KXA, Seattle; Hugh Feltis, BMB; Birt F. Fisher, KJR, Seattle; H. M. Gander, KORE, Eugene, Ore.; O. W. Fisher, KOMO, Seattle; Romig C. Fuller, KRSC, Seattle; Arthur Gerbel, Jr., KJR, Seattle; Fred G. Goddard, KXRO, Aberdeen; Richard E. Green, KOMO, Seattle; Spence Green, KJR, Seattle; Homer Griffith, Homer Griffith Co., Hollywood, Cal.; Saul Haas, KIRO, Seattle; Gus Hagenah, Standard Radio, Chicago; Ralph Hanson, KUIN, Grants Pass, Ore.; Ben Harkins, KONP, Port Angeles; Bob Harris, KRSC, Seattle; Mrs. J. B. Hatfield, KEVR, Seattle; Joe Hiddleston, KIRO, Seattle; J. A. Hogg, General Electric, Seattle; Bill Hubbach, KOMO, Seattle; Mr. E. T. Irwin, KVI, Ta¬ coma; Mrs. E. T. Irwin, KVI, Tacoma; Lee Jacobs, KLBM, KBKR, KSRV, Baker, Ore.; Mrs. Lee Jacobs, KLBM, Baker, Ore.; John Jessup, KJR, Seattle; Glenn Jones, KWSC, Pullman; Mark Knight, AP, Seattle; Howard 3 47 U. S. C., § 312. JANUARY 28, 1946-62 ( Continued on next page)