Hearing of J. F. Rutherford, House of Representatives, 73rd Congress (1934)
Download: PDF — Hearing of J. F. Rutherford, House of Representatives, 73rd Congress (1934)
/cover.jpg)
RADIO BROADCASTING
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
MERCHANT MARINE, RADIO, AND FISHERIES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEVENTY-THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 7986
MARCH 15,16,19,20,1934
53657
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1934
COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE, RADIO, AND FISHERIES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEVENTY-THIRD CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
SCHUYLER OTIS BLAND, Virginia, Chairman
GEORGE W. LINDSAY, New York
OSCAR L. AUF DER HEIDE, New Jersey
WILLIAM I. SIROVICH, New York
ROBERT RAMSPECK, Georgia
AMBROSE J. KENNEDY, Maryland
CHARLES N. CROSBY, Pennsylvania
ALBERT C. WILLFORD, Iowa
MONRAD C. WALLGREN, Washington
JOHN YOUNG BROWN, Kentucky
EDWARD C. MORAN, JR., Maine
FRANCIS E. WALTER, Pennsylvania
FREDERICK R. LEHLBACH, New Jersey
FRANK R. REID, Illinois
CHARLES L. GIFFORD, Massachusetts
RICHARD J. WELCH, California
FRANCIS D. CULKIN, New York
GEORGE W. EDMONDS, Pennsylvania
JOE H. EAGLE, Texas
A. H. CARMICHAEL, Alabama
DAVID D. TERRY, Arkansas
LINCOLN L. McCANDLESS, Hawaii
ANTHONY J. DIMOND, Alaska
J. W. GULICK, JR., Clerk CONTENTS
Hon. Louis T. McFadden, Member in Congress from Pennsylvania 2
Mr. E. S. Wertz, as counsel for the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society 26
Mr. Anton Koerber, Washington representative, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society 34, 57, 80
Mr. A. R. Goux, secretary Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society 62, 89
Mr. Charles H. Carr, Sr., radio representative Watch Tower Association 96
Mr. C. J. Woodworth, member of Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society 119
Mr. Philip G. Loucks, managing director National Association of Broadcasters 125
Mr. M. H. Aylesworth, President National Broadcasting Co. 131
Mr. Henry A. Bellows, vice president Columbia Broadcasting System 158
Mr. Henry L. Caravati, executive secretary National Council of Catholic Men 178
Dr. Frank C. Goodman, executive secretary Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America 184
Hon. E. O. Sykes, chairman Federal Radio Commission 188
APPENDIX
Supplementary statement of Hon. Louis T. McFadden, Member in Congress from Pennsylvania... 201
Supplementary statements of Mr. Anton Koerber, Washington Representative, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society... 202, 205
Supplementary statement of Mr. E. S. Wertz, as counsel for the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, outlining summary of evidence produced at these hearings... 206
Letter from J. F. Rutherford to secretary, Federal Radio Commission, enclosing list of 169 radio stations broadcasting sermons entitled “War of Escape” and “Holy Year”... 208
Statement of letters submitted in hearing in support of Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society programs... 210
Statement of alleged interference with Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society programs... 212
List of articles, etc., filed with committee during hearings... 214
Supplementary statement of A. R. Goux, secretary, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society... 214
Certificate of incorporation of International Bible Students Association, given at London, June 30, 1914... 215
Certificate of incorporation of Peoples Pulpit Association of New York... 222
Certificate of extension of purposes of Peoples Pulpit Association of New York... 223
Charter of Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society of Pennsylvania... 224
RADIO BROADCASTING
THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 1934.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE, RADIO, AND FISHERIES Washington, D.C.
The committee met at 10 a.m., Hon. Schuyler O. Bland (chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we have met this morning for the consideration of H.R. 7986, introduced by Mr. McFadden, and the bill will be inserted in the record at this point.
[H.R. 7986, 73d Cong., 2d sess.]
A BILL To amend the Radio Act of 1927, approved February 23, 1927, as amended (44 Stat. 1162)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Radio Act of 1927, approved February 23, 1927, as amended (44 Stat. 1162), is amended by the addition of two new sections to follow section 28 of said Act (44 Stat. 1172), said new sections to read as follows:
"No person, persons, company, association, or corporation owning and operating a radio broadcasting station, and receiving and broadcasting radio programs for hire, shall discriminate in the use of such station in favor of a program of speech sponsored by any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office, and/or by any religious, charitable, or educational company, corporation, association, or society or any other like association or society, and against or to the exclusion of another person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office, or of another religious, charitable, or educational company, corporation, association, or society chartered or licensed under the laws of the United States, because and for the reason that such person, religious, charitable, or educational company, corporation, association, or society holds and promulgates and advocates views contrary to those expressed in programs that have been broadcast. The owner, lessee, or operator of any broadcasting station contracting for or accepting and broadcasting radio programs for one legally qualified candidate for a public office, and for one class of religious, charitable, or educational company, corporation, association, or society, and refusing to contract for or to accept and broadcast for hire radio programs of speech offered for broadcast by another legally qualified candidate for a public office, or by any other religious, charitable, or educational company, corporation association, or society within the provisions of this section, because or for the reason that such legally qualified candidate, or such religious, charitable, or educational company, corporation, association, or society holds or promulgates a contrary or different view from that which is expressed by the person or parties broadcasting programs, shall be deemed guilty of an unlawful discrimination. All persons, companies, corporations, or associations owning and operating a radio station who shall be guilty of a misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine of not less than 500 nor more than 5,000, and in addition thereto may be required to forfeit the license for operating such broadcasting station.
"No person, persons, company, association, society, or corporation shall by threats, or by coercion, or by misrepresentation, or any other like manner interfere with or prevent, or attempt to interfere with or prevent, the broadcasting of any radio program by any owner, lessee, or operator of any radio broadcasting station; or interfere with or attempt to interfere with, or to prevent any owner, lessee, or operator of any radio broadcasting station from entering into a contract with another person, persons, company, association, society, or corporation, to accept, receive, and broadcast programs of speech and music by radio.
No person, persons, company, association, society, or corporation shall induce or attempt to induce any person, persons, company, association, society, or corporation to withdraw business or fincial support or social intercourse from any radio broadcasting station, or the owner, lessee, or operator of any radio broadcasting station in the use and operation of such radio station or in the broadcasting of any and all programs offered to be broadcast, or which may be broadcast at any such station. Any person, persons, association, society, or corporation violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than 500 nor more than 5,000, or in the case of an individual or the responsible officials of an association or corporation, by imprisonment for a term of not less than sixty days nor more than two years, or by both such fine and imprisonment."
The Chairman (continuing). Mr. McFadden, the committee will be very glad initially if you would explain the difference between the existing law and the proposed amendment. As every one knows, the members of the committee are exceedingly busy in their offices and the committee has considerable matter before it; so it is hoped the time will be conserved as much as possible. There is no desire to cut off anybody; but, at the same time, we wish to avoid repetitions; because statements that are introduced by one witness are as much under consideration as if they are reiterated by a number.
STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIS T. McFADDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. McFADDEN. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply appreciative of the opportunity to say a few words in connection with H.R. 7986, which I introduced on February 14.
My interest in the subject of radio broadcasting is of long standing. I think I can say, without any reservation, that I probably had the first radio-receiving set that was in Washington, and it was manufactured in a plant which I owned personally.
I have been observing for a long time the development of radio broadcasting in the United States and have been very much interested at all times to see that this modern development proceeded without hindrance and without undue censorship. I recognized early the great power and influence that it would have in the dissemination of information. I realized, as a news-distributing agency, that it had powers equal to that of the press, if not greater, and I have felt for some time, as I have observed the programs over the radio, that there was being exercised a degree of censorship, not only in advertising, but in the subjects that were discussed.
While I recognize the fact that the broadcasting companies have at times indicated that they wanted to hear both sides of the question; nevertheless, I have observed, in many cases, that such was not the result.
Mr. Sirovich. You spoke of the censorship of advertising. Can you mention any instance where you have observed it, regarding advertising?
Mr. McFADDEN. Oh, yes; there are many of them—many of them.
Mr. Sirovich. I mean could you mention any specific cases?
Mr. McFADDEN. I do not just get your question.
Mr. Sirovich. You spoke about censorship on advertising. I would like to know what advertisements have been censored.
Mr. McFADDEN. Well I will say to the gentleman it is my understanding that much material that goes out as advertising is propaganda and I am referring to that angle of it. I do not know that I want to state any specific cases at this moment, but I will deal with one or two angles of that a little later on.
At the opening, I would like to present for the record a list of the signers of petitions that have been sent in by the millions, 416,000 people in the United States who are interested in this question of censorship. There has been sent to each of the Congressmen in practically every district in the United States petitions from those who are interested in this question of censorship of radio and possible discrimination.
The CHAIRMAN. It is not intended in that respect that those petitions shall all be copied in the record, I presume?
Mr. McFADDEN. Oh, no. This is a condensed statement showing by congressional districts and States the number from each one.
The Chairman. Without objection, that may be incorporated in the record.
(The list referred to is as follows:)
Petition signers according to States
SUM
Alabama
28, 770
Arizona
7, 989
Arkansas
22, 912
California
226, 964
Colorado
36, 039
Connecticut
22, 651
Delaware
4, 058
Florida
38, 702
Georgia
40, 957
Idaho
11, 502
Illinois
132, 091
Indiana
81, 604
Iowa
33, 908
Kansas
44, 952
Kentucky
20, 256
Louisiana
13, 735
Maine
8, 602
Maryland
27, 533
Massachusetts
74, 108
Michigan
112, 704
Minnesota
43, 303
Mississippi
18, 835
Missouri
74, 504
Montana
12, 766
Nebraska
20, 039
Nevada
1, 170
New Hampshire
5,863
New Jersey
841,781
New Mexico
5,656
New York
144,916
North Carolina
40,064
North Dakota
8,011
Ohio
259,579
Oklahoma
54,245
Oregon
23,072
Pennsylvania
238,774
Rhode Island
8,348
South Carolina
14,409
South Dakota
9,139
Tennessee
37,867
Texas
106,568
Utah
5,947
Vermont
1,167
Virginia
45,905
Washington
66,703
West Virginia
32,248
Wisconsin
34,256
Wyoming
4,753
Hawaii
District of Columbia
22,320
Grand total
2,416,141
Petition signers according to congressional districts
ALABAMA
No. 1___ 2, 260
No. 2___ 4, 346
No. 3___ 2, 274
No. 4___ 1, 569
No. 5___ 986
No. 6___ 1, 464
No. 7___ 947
No. 8___ 967
No. 9___ 13, 957
Total___ 28, 770
ARIZONA
No. 1 (at large) 7,989
ARKANSAS
No. 1 3,138
No. 2 2,356
No. 3 2,503
No. 4 3,469
No. 5 5,159
No. 6 2,873
No. 7 3,414
Total 22,912 Petition signers according to congressional districts-Continued
CALIFORNIA
No. 1...5,075
No. 2...2,330
No. 3...5,019
No. 4...4,009
No. 5...6,168
No. 6...8,232
No. 7...5,818
No. 8...6,303
No. 9...9,021
No. 10...10,352
No. 11...16,832
No. 12...13,512
No. 13...20,813
No. 14...20,343
No. 15...16,882
No. 16...18,467
No. 17...22,036
No. 18...14,203
No. 19...14,891
No. 20...6,658
Total...226,964
COLORADO
No. 1...11,755
No. 2...9,474
No. 3...10,947
No. 4...3,863
Total...36,039
CONNECTICUT
No. 1...7,642
No. 2...1,848
No. 3...3,422
No. 4...6,169
No. 5...3,570
Total...22,651
DELAWARE
No. 1 (at large)...4,058
Total...4,058
FLORIDA
No. 1...12,937
No. 2...2,553
No. 3...3,336
No. 4...19,876
No. 1 (at large¹)...
Total...38,702
GEORGIA
No. 1...5,239
No. 2...4,840
No. 3...6,058
No. 4...1,711
No. 5...6,902
GEORGIA—continued
No. 6___ 2,155
No. 7___ 4,598
No. 8___ 4,960
No. 9___ 586
No. 10___ 3,908
Total___ 40,957
IDAHO
No. 1___ 5,598
No. 2___ 5,904
Total___ 11,502
ILLINOIS
No. 1___ 3,175
No. 2___ 8,699
No. 3___ 6,043
No. 4___ 2,654
No. 5___ 1,721
No. 6___ 12,323
No. 7___ 17,268
No. 8___ 806
No. 9___ 1,785
No. 10___ 4,866
No. 11___ 9,290
No. 12___ 12,194
No. 13___ 3,159
No. 14___ 4,680
No. 15___ 2,101
No. 16___ 4,764
No. 17___ 1,358
No. 18___ 4,736
No. 19___ 3,887
No. 20___ 1,700
No. 21___ 5,420
No. 22___ 9,712
No. 23___ 3,723
No. 24___ 1,559
No. 25___ 4,468
No. 1 (at large 1)
Total___ 132,091
INDIAN'A
No. 1___ 12,266
No. 2___ 4,073
No. 3___ 9,463
No. 4___ 9,873
No. 5___ 7,296
No. 6___ 2,781
No. 7___ 8,459
No. 8___ 5,941
No. 9___ 4,011
No. 10___ 5,493
No. 11___ 6,269
No. 12___ 5,679
Total___ 81,604 Petition signers according to congressional districts—Continued
IOWA
No. 1...5,793
No. 2...9,205
No. 3...1,929
No. 4...2,204
No. 5...3,248
No. 6...3,527
No. 7...4,060
No. 8...1,821
No. 9...2,121
Total...33,908
KANSAS
No. 1...7,677
No. 2...6,091
No. 3...9,185
No. 4...8,366
No. 5...5,359
No. 6...2,236
No. 7...6,038
Total...44,952
KENTUCKY
9 (at large)...20,256
(1 package.)
LOUISIANA
No. 1...5,057
No. 2...1,142
No. 3...
No. 4...544
No. 5...939
No. 6...4,376
No. 7...609
No. 8...1,068
Total...13,735
MAINE
No. 1...1,719
No. 2...4,307
No. 3...2,576
Total...8,602
MARYLAND
No. 1...704
No. 2...2,710
No. 3...4,765
No. 4...9,250
No. 5...5,012
No. 6...5,092
Total...27,533
MASSACHUSETTS
No. 1...3,856
No. 2...2,566
No. 3...3,930
No. 4...5,042
No. 5...5,439
No. 6...2,529
No. 7...6,373
No. 8...5,995
No. 9___ 3,132
No. 10___ 9,952
No. 11___ 2,811
No. 12___ 8,416
No. 13___ 5,542
No. 14___ 5,479
No. 15___ 3,046
Total___ 74,108
MICHIGAN
No. 1___ 13,164
No. 2___ 6,544
No. 3___ 6,758
No. 4___ 5,551
No. 5___ 4,676
No. 6___ 9,227
No. 7___ 5,126
No. 8___ 4,422
No. 9___ 2,678
No. 10___ 4,343
No. 11___ 1,631
No. 12___ 1,147
No. 13___ 11,150
No. 14___ 6,225
No. 15___ 8,797
No. 16___ 10,180
No. 17___ 11,085
Total___ 112,704
MINNESOTA
9 (at large)___ 43,303
(1 package.)
MISSISSIPPI
No. 1___ 1,511
No. 2___ 1,515
No. 3___ 4,768
No. 4___ 539
No. 5___ 2,859
No. 6___ 4,798
No. 7___ 2,845
Total___ 18,835
MISSOURI
13 (at large)___ 74,504
(1 package.)
MONTANA
No. 1___ 5,392
No. 2___ 7,424
Total___ 12,766
NEBRASKA
No. 1___ 4,038
No. 2___ 5,146
No. 3___ 4,187
No. 4___ 2,354
No. 5___ 4,314
Total___ 20,039 Petition signers according to congressional districts—Continued
NEVADA
1 (at large)... 1,170
NEW HAMPSHIRE
No. 1... 4,092
No. 2... 1,771
Total... 5,863
NEW JERSEY
No. 1... 13,148
No. 2... 10,332
No. 3... 5,482
No. 4... 2,893
No. 5... 4,614
No. 6... 8,151
No. 7... 4,925
No. 8... 6,239
No. 9... 4,248
No. 10... 4,456
No. 11... 6,222
No. 12... 7,102
No. 13... 2,134
No. 14... 4,835
Total... 84,781
NEW MEXICO
No. 1 (at large)... 5,656
NEW YORK
No. 1... 3,926
No. 2... 5,846
No. 3... 3,512
No. 4... 1,608
No. 5... 1,909
No. 6... 3,063
No. 7... 2,855
No. 8... 3,559
No. 9... 1,818
No. 10... 1,556
No. 11... 2,696
No. 12... 2,556
No. 13... 114
No. 14... 920
No. 15... 1,789
No. 16... 1,379
No. 17... 1,265
No. 18... 1,077
No. 19... 3,208
No. 20... 3,281
No. 21... 8,009
No. 22... 1,629
No. 23... 1,826
No. 24... 5,631
No. 25... 5,743
No. 26... 2,178
No. 27... 2,610
No. 28... 2,586
No. 29... 4,142
No. 30... 7,121
1 Some taken from each district.
NEW YORK—continued
No. 31...548
No. 32...4,778
No. 33...1,429
No. 34...2,448
No. 35...4,491
No. 36...4,319
No. 37...1,256
No. 38...7,427
No. 39...2,263
No. 40...8,212
No. 41...6,319
No. 42...7,964
No. 43...4,050
No. 1 (at large).¹
Total...144,916
NORTH CAROLINA
No. 1...1,008
No. 2...3,429
No. 3...2,027
No. 4...3,006
No. 5...2,710
No. 6...9,021
No. 7...3,398
No. 8...2,229
No. 9...4,267
No. 10...5,850
No. 11...3,119
Total...40,064
NORTH DAKOTA
No. 2 (at large)...8,011
OHIO
No. 1...2,596
No. 2...4,526
No. 3...19,284
No. 4...7,637
No. 5...2,634
No. 6...4,790
No. 7...4,968
No. 8...3,805
No. 9...11,630
No. 10...4,162
No. 11...3,253
No. 12...14,590
No. 13...5,278
No. 14...28,972
No. 15...10,442
No. 16...15,275
No. 17...10,052
No. 18...12,761
No. 19...13,034
No. 20...23,240
No. 21...24,425
No. 22...32,225
No. 1 (at large).¹
Total...259,579 Petition signers according to congressional districts—Continued
OKLAHOMA
No. 1...12,642
No. 2...3,202
No. 3...3,684
No. 4...7,490
No. 5...11,588
No. 6...5,306
No. 7...5,615
No. 8...4,718
Total...54,245
OREGON
No. 1...13,211
No. 2...2,662
No. 3...7,199
Total...23,072
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 1...1,972
No. 2...3,479
No. 3...5,032
No. 4...6,087
No. 5...3,655
No. 6...3,568
No. 7...2,586
No. 8...4,490
No. 9...10,725
No. 10...7,685
No. 11...1,730
No. 12...11,870
No. 13...7,887
No. 14...8,209
No. 15...979
No. 16...1,879
No. 17...3,524
No. 18...7,892
No. 19...4,480
No. 20...4,954
No. 21...9,299
No. 22...3,821
No. 23...4,463
No. 24...7,766
No. 25...12,088
No. 26...10,169
No. 27...7,535
No. 28...7,092
No. 29...11,048
No. 30...14,619
No. 31...14,639
No. 32...7,754
No. 33...10,318
No. 34...15,480
Total...238,774
RHODE ISLAND
No. 1...5,233
No. 2...3,115
Total...8,348
SOUTH CAROLINA
No. 1...2, 198
No. 2...3, 162
No. 3...1, 652
No. 4...1, 992
No. 5...1, 195
No. 6...4, 210
Total...14, 409
SOUTH DAKOTA
No. 1...7, 202
No. 2...1, 937
Total...9, 139
TENNESSEE
No. 1...3, 964
No. 2...4, 505
No. 3...10, 335
No. 4...2, 089
No. 5...3, 373
No. 6...237
No. 7...1, 300
No. 8...3, 080
No. 9...8, 984
Total...37, 867
TEXAS
No. 1...1, 545
No. 2...12, 929
No. 3...3, 990
No. 4...4, 100
No. 5...6, 942
No. 6...2, 422
No. 7...3, 379
No. 8...13, 313
No. 9...3, 975
No. 10...5, 732
No. 11...2, 622
No. 12...5, 323
No. 13...2, 127
No. 14...12, 800
No. 15...3, 477
No. 16...6, 572
No. 17...6, 226
No. 18...9, 094
Total...106, 568
UTAH
No. 1...834
No. 2...5, 113
Total...5, 947
VERMONT
1 (at large)...1, 167
VIRGINIA
9 (at large)...45, 905 Petition signers according to congressional districts-Continued
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WISCONSIN
1(at large)
22,320
No.1
5,669
No.2
1,207
No.3
2,324
WASHINGTON
No.4
4,211
No.1
3,816
No.5
5,699
No.2
22,298
No.6
2,544
No.3
5,406
No.7
3,472
No.4
5,494
No.8
1,822
No.5
15,983
No.9
4,702
No.6
13,706
No.10
2,606
Total
66,703
Total
34,256
WEST VIRGINIA
WYOMING
No.1
7,191
1(at large)
4,753
No.2
4,965
HAWAII
No.3
2,767
No.4
5,132
No.5
2,319
No.6
9,874
Total
32,248
Mr. McFadden. This bill (H.R. 7986) covers the points that these people are interested in. I recognize, in that connection, that there are several bills pending before Congress in relation to the subject of broadcasting and the radio business in the United States. The recent message of the President attempting to set up, or suggesting that there be set up, a new bureau or commission on the subject of radio, telephone, and telegraph, is an interesting suggestion and I am aware of the fact that there are pending before the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committees both of the House and Senate bills proposing to carry out this particular phase of the President's suggestion.
Mr. CULKIN. Is there anything in that bill that proposes to regulate the scope of radio or other communication, or to censor it—in the communications bill that has been introduced?
Mr. McFADDEN. Well I understand that in the Senate bill there is a phase of that; but I do not believe that the subject matters covered in my bill are in that bill. I might say, in that connection, I have no pride of authorship in this bill and, if it is the sense of this committee when those other measures are taken up that the provisions in my bill can be inserted in those bills, if they are to have the right of way, I would suggest to this committee, if they report favorably on this, that it might be included in those bills very properly.
The CHAIRMAN. I think, really, that suggestion would be addressed to the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee.
Mr. McFADDEN. Yes. I just mention that in passing.
Mr. CULKIN. Assuming Congress gives them jurisdiction.
The CHAIRMAN. We tried to secure jurisdiction of that bill, as you know, and were not successful.
Mr. McFADDEN. Yes. I tried to help you in that effort as much as I could, and I think now that inasmuch as telephone and telegraph modes of communication are being taken out of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and because of the crowded work of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Interstate Commerce Committees in both the House and Senate, this legislation should properly be before this committee.
I would like to say that for more than a hundred years America has stood in the very foremost rank of the governments of the earth. In natural resources America is today the richest country under the sun.
The founders of the American Nation desired greater freedom than they possessed. That they might be free and independent of cruel and oppressive rulers they fled from Europe and established the American Republic, to which Nation men have long pointed with pride. When the Nation was young, many of her statesmen were patriots, because they loved their fellowmen and honestly and valiantly contended for a just government. Today there is little true patriotism left among the rulers of the Nation.
The three visible elements of men that rule the Nation are the commercial, the political, and the religious, and, of these three, the commercial is the most powerful. Among the earlier statesmen of America, there were some God-fearing men who foresaw the advance of a mighty and selfish power and gave warning that the greedy would some day destroy the liberties of the people. That warning was unheeded, and the selfish commercial element, which is otherwise called "Big Business," has stealthily and constantly moved forward to its goal. With grasping arms like the tentacles of a mighty octopus it has laid hold upon practically all of the visible wealth of the Nation. At the same time the men who by laborious efforts have developed the country and produced the wealth of the land have been unjustly treated and robbed, and today they are crying for bread; and that in a land of boundless plenty. And the question is raised how long will such unjust conditions exist?
"Big Business" has no regard for the rights of the common people. In 1917, "Big Business," for ultra selfish reasons, needlessly and wantonly forced the American Nation into the World War, which resulted in the greatly increased wealth and power of a few men and made serfs and paupers of many millions of people. Today, "Big Business" owns practically everything visible. By the manipulation of the finances of the Nation, "Big Business" has acquired title to almost all of the real estate, while hundreds of thousands of honest toilers are losing their homes and their land. A few ultra rich men fix the prices of the food products that are reaped by laborers; and, by reason thereof, the farmers are robbed and the laborers are being starved; and that within the borders of the richest Nation of the world.
"Big Business" owns the ships that ply the seas, and that fly through the air. It owns and controls the railways and other ways and means of transportation. "Big Business" has acquired the preferred securities of the public carrier corporations, while some of the common people hold the less desirable stocks and securities. When the railways were recently pressed for money to pay the interest on their preferred securities, "Big Business" caused the American Government to advance a hundred million dollars to the banks upon the pretext of helping the banks to thaw out their frozen assets and to stimulate business immediately; but, instead of so using that money, "Big Business" immediately absorbed the entire hundred million and applied it to the payment of interest on the preferred securities which it held.
"Big Business," which is composed of a very few men, owns and controls the telegraph and telephone lines, the radio, the electric and power lines, and it owns and controls the mines that produce the fuel and the building material which all the people are compelled to use.
It owns and controls the banks and most of the money that is in them. The factories and the great mercantile establishments are owned and controlled by the same selfish interest.
"Big Business" has in its employ the most astute lawyers of the Nation, who write the contracts always in the interest of their clients, and the common people must take the ragged end. Every branch of the Government is contaminated and improperly influenced by "Big Business." It controls the two major political parties of America and names and elects at will the public men to office who will
best serve its selfish interests. "Big Business" controls the Army and the Navy, the guns and the ammunition, and the police power of the Nation.
Mr. GIFFORD. Just a moment; I want to get that clear. Did "Big Business" elect Roosevelt?
Mr. McFADDEN. I think they had a big share in it; yes.
Mr. Gifford. Well, you make that statement, don't you?
Mr. McFADDEN. Well, I do not care-
Mr. Sirovich. Which interest controls Roosevelt?
Mr. McFADDEN. Well, I do not care to discuss that angle of the question here in a radio hearing.
Mr. Sirovich. You have made a general statement here?
Mr. McFADDEN. Yes.
Mr. Sirovich. Do you wish to be interrogated on that?
Mr. McFADDEN. Well, I think that is aside from this particular question.
Mr. Sirovich. If not, I will respect your wishes.
Mr. McFADDEN. I will be very glad to go into it with the gentleman on another occasion.
Mr. Gifford. That is the trouble, my dear man. I thought you were beside the question, anyhow, myself, and I think the question is very pertinent at this point.
Mr. Sirovich. Mr. Chairman, I move that the gentleman be permitted to proceed.
Mr. McFADDEN. Well, generally speaking, in answer to the controversy that has just been raised, I would say that the same financial influences or international influences that were present in the past administration are in evidence here at this particular time, and I think the international financial influence in radio is one of the matters that should be given consideration in connection with any radio legislation particularly as it pertains to broadcasting.
Mr. GIFFORD. I was rather sympathetically following you, and I
supposed the past administration would come in for a flaying, but I did not suppose you meant the present one.
Mr. McFadden. So far as I am able to discern, there is very little difference, so far as financial influences are concerned, in the last administration and the present.
Mr. GIFFORD. You spoke about the telephone and telegraph company. How many stockholders are there of that company?
Mr. McFADDEN. Well, I think, Mr. Gifford, it was said yesterday before one of the committees here that there were something over 600,000 stockholders.
Mr. Gifford. Seven hundred thousand, I thought. Is that "Big Business"?
Mr. McFadden. It is "Big Business" controlled, I will say to the gentleman, because of the lack of interest on the part of the stockholders.
Mr. GIFFORD. I agree with that statement.
Mr. McFADDEN. Which enables those who are connected with "Big Business" to control these big corporations with very little stock control of their own.
Mr. GIFFORD. I agree with that.
The Chairman. Of course the gentleman understands that silence on our side on an indictment of that kind does not admit acquiescence on the part of the majority members of this committee. [Laughter.] Proceed, Mr. McFadden.
Mr. McFADDEN. Practically all of the business corporations of America are owned or controlled by "Big Business." The employees of these mighty corporations have a hook in their nose, so to speak, and they dare not call themselves their own. They must obey the selfish men who are the mighty lords of finance or else lose their jobs. They need their salaries to feed and clothe themselves and their families; hence, they are at the mercy of "Big Business" and are therefore serfs.
"Big Business" either directly or indirectly owns or controls almost all of the newspapers and magazines of America, and which agencies serve as propagandists for "Big Business" and their immediate political and religious allies. The same selfish interests own and control the professional clergymen, and these men make merchandise of the Word of God in order to keep the people in ignorance and in subjection to the ruling powers. Thus it is plainly seen that the power of the Government is centralized in the hands of a very few.
Mr. Sirovich. Did my distinguished friend call the attention of the people of the United States to all of these things when he was chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency?
Mr. McFADDEN. I will say to the gentleman I think my record will show that for the last several years I have been pointing out these things.
Mr. Sirovich. I do not mean for the last several years; I mean during the time the gentleman was chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency.
Mr. McFADDEN. Yes; I did.
Mr. Sirovich. When was it?
Mr. McFADDEN.I was chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency for 12 years, ending 2 years ago.
Mr. Sirovich. And at what time did the gentleman call the attention of membership of the House to these things that he is now calling to our attention?
Mr. McFadden. In various hearings and in statements all through my administration as chairman of the committee. I will say the gentleman will find plenty of it in the hearings on the Strong stabilization bill, which was really an analysis of the operations of the Federal Reserve System, in connection with the domination of that System by "Big Business" and big financiers.
Mr. Brown. Does the gentleman have any specific instance to give in which those who preached the Word of God have peddled it as merchandise?
In order to make a general allegation, he must have some particular individual in mind that is doing it. For my own part, I would like to know to whom he refers.
Mr. McFADDEN. I will be very glad to tell the gentleman. I am referring to the Council of the Federation of Churches of Christ in America.
Mr. Sirovich. Does that mean the former chairman of the council, Dr. S. Parkes Cadman, and Bishop R. J. McConnell?
Mr. McFADDEN. It does. They are the chief propagandists on the questions of big business.
Mr. Sirovich. You know the respect I have for you, Mr. McFadden, but I have always entertained a very great admiration for both the Reverend Dr. S. Parkes Cadman and Bishop R. J. McConnell. I have listened very keenly to Dr. S. Parkes Cadman week after week on the radio preach the true gospel of the brotherhood of man, and I could not conceive in any statement I have ever heard emanate from him an attack that might in any way be considered propaganda. He has always preached the true brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God.
I would like to know, for the sake of the record, at this time, since those two men have been mentioned, in what way Dr. S. Parkes Cadman and Bishop J. R. McConnell, president of the Protestant Churches of Christ of America, are propagandists and what kind of propaganda they are giving out.
Mr. McFadden. I will say to the gentleman, in regard to that Mr. Sirovich. And I say that in all sincerety and in all my affection for you.
Mr. McFadden. I will say to the gentleman that both of those gentlemen are members of that particular organization which I referred to as the Council of Federation of Churches. Dr. Cadman until quite recently, was a British subject in the United States. He was very influential in the organization of this particular group and the part that they are taking in the censorship which the N.B.C. have set up of all religious matters, which indicates the international idea in regard to all religious matters, and there are witnesses here, I think, who will present more in detail the affiliations of this particular group, as regards this question of censorship.
Mr. Sirovich. But while the Rev. Dr. S. Parkes Cadman was born a British subject, is he not today an American citizen?
Mr. McFadden. I am not sure. He took out his first papers in 1905 in the United States and there was some lapse of time. Whether those papers have been completed entirely yet, or not, I cannot say definitely.
Mr. Sirovich. But I mean what propaganda is he giving out; that is what I would like to know—just the specific subject.
Mr. McFadden. The subject of internationalism. The groups with which the church is affiliated, this particular group, are engaged with the other organizations, working for the entry of the United States into the World Court and League of Nations, and are a part of that particular group of people who are working to consolidate the interests of the people of the United States with the other countries of the world.
Mr. Brown. Mr. McFadden, is not that one of the chief tenets of the Christian religion—universal brotherhood, or so-called "internationalism", or respect for the rights of others?
Mr. McFADDEN. Well, I do not think it has quite the tinge that is being taught by these particular groups.
In times past statesmen have warned the people of the danger that would result from the centralization of power in the hands of a few men. While the people have heard this warning, and many of them have sensed the advancing danger, they have been helpless to prevent what has come to pass. Today the common people are bound hand and foot. In 1917 the predatory element that ruled the Nation created the slogan, "The war will make the world safe for democracy", and then caused its propaganda press and its hypocritical clergymen to sound this false slogan throughout the land. Now after 14 years democracy has disappeared from the earth. There is at this very time a concerted movement by those few men who control the commerce of the land to have America ruled by a dictator, which means the setting aside of all constitutional law and the putting into force of such orders as the dictator may deem necessary.
"Big business" maintains paid lobbyists at Washington, which lobbyists conduct also a bureau of information for the special benefit of their employers. Each week a letter goes from that bureau of information to the executive heads of big business corporations. The information is provided for only corporation executives, and not intended for the people. These secret communications disclose in advance the action that Congress will take, what bills it will pass, and what it will not pass; and by watching the public press it is seen that these predictions come true. This and other facts show that the rulers are greatly perplexed and proceeding with much fear.
Well do you know that fear has laid hold upon almost everyone. You see this manifested by Government officials, bank officials, and employees, by business men and farmers, by professional politicians, clergymen, and the common people. Why is there such great fear and perplexity amongst the rulers and distress amongst the people everywhere?
"Big business" and their mouthpieces, namely, the commercialized clergy referred to are reprehensible before God for hindering the truth concerning the present conditions in America and the means which might provide a remedy for the people, by God's help. There should be some action taken to further stop such intolerance in the use of the radio (and that during this session of Congress) to prevent the further entrenchment of such powers. That is the reason why I have introduced this bill and am asking for consideration of it at this time. I believe it will open the way for a fair deal in the proper use of the radio in broadcasting.
Mr. Sirovich. In the use of the word "intolerance"—"such intolerance in the use of the radio"—what do you mean by that?
Mr. McFADDEN. Well, I think the word is fully understood by the gentleman.
Mr. Sirovich. No; I cannot understand it. I want you to read that paragraph over, just toward the end there.
Mr. McFADDEN. There should be some action taken to further stop such intolerance in the use of the radio (and that during this session of Congress) to prevent the further entrenchment of such powers.
Mr. Sirovich. What do you mean by "intolerance" there? 53657----34----2 Mr. McFADDEN.I have reference to the kinds of discussions that take place in this propaganda that is being circulated in promotion of the international idea for the United States and not giving an equal opportunity to those who are opposed to that particular view.
Mr. Brown. Mr. McFadden, you would not propose, of course, to cut out any of their rights to circulate their ideas over the radio, would you; in other words, you just want-
Mr. McFadden. I am asking for the same privilege for everyone in that particular. In other words, I do not like the idea of the Radio Corporation arbitrarily setting up, of their own volition, a censorship which deprives other people of the United States, who have views that are in contravention of these views, having the same right
views that are in contravention of those views, having the same right.
Mr. Sirovich. Would you be in favor of having a few clear channels owned by the Government of the United States for the benefit of the people alone?
Mr. McFADDEN. Well, I think in view of the censorship that is being exercised and the use to which radio is being put that it involves the very question of either the Government operating for its own uses, or more strict supervision of the Government over this question.
Mr. CULKIN. Mr. McFadden, are not all those channels preempted now?
Mr. McFADDEN. Practically so.
Mr. CULKEN. Are not they all in use?
Mr. McFADDEN. Practically so; although I believe radio is subject to still greater expansion, if it was possible to adopt certain changes in the method of operation.
Mr. CULKEN. Well the science of radio must be able to find finer broadcasting lines in order to have more communication; is not that
broadcasting lanes in order to have more communication, is not that true?
Mr. McFADDEN.I understand the present main chains control about 80 percent of the broadcasting.
Mr. CULKIN. And the Radio Corporation of America controls all chain broadcasting?
Mr. McFADDEN. Well I am suggesting that through that method the two major companies, I understand, control about 80 percent of the broadcasting.
Mr. Gifford. Mr. McFadden, I notice over the radio that Members of Congress, who have some very important matters which they are sponsoring, are asked to speak. Now this has received very wide advertising, certainly, this McFadden bill, and have you been invited by the Radio Corporation to speak to the country over the radio on this subject?
Mr. McFADDEN. No, I have not.
Mr. Cifford How do you account for that?
Mr. McFadden. Well I have not given it any serious thought. I might say to the gentleman, in answer to that, that something over a year ago I introduced a bill in the House proposing to investigate some of the subversive organizations in the United States. I think I named 19 such organizations. Almost immediately thereafter there went over the air on a Nation-wide hook-up a very severe criticism of the present witness before your committee by Dr. S. Parkes Cadman, because I connected the Council of the Federation of Churches with the Carnegie Foundation and a number of other organizations that were carrying on activities in the United States, which I considered to be detrimental to the welfare of the people of the United States and its form of government.
I was not given the opportunity to answer. I made no application, however. Frequently broadcasters, in my particular activity dealing with these particular subjects here, have paid their respects to me and I have attempted at times to get copies of the statements that were made and in each and every instance I have been unable to secure a copy of the broadcast that was made.
Mr. Gifford. I want to suggest that I listen to Senators and Congressman who have specialized in certain things, like the chairman of this committee-I have listened to him with a great deal of pleasure-and I was wondering if you think there has been a well-balanced situation relating to these talks, or have they been very largely in defense of the present conditions. And I wanted to ask how they came to get these invitations, and would the chairman be willing to suggest or someone suggest how these invitations are extended? I often wonder, and I wonder if you know?
Mr. McFADDEN. I do not know.
Mr. GIFFORD. Do these invitations come from the radiobroadcasting company, or from what source do you receive invitations to speak over the radio on these matters? So many of our Senators and Congressmen have been invited, and who extends the invitation?
Mr. Sirovich. I will say I have had the pleasure of listening to my friend Mr. McFadden on WJZ and WOR on banking matters, you remember.
Mr. McFADDEN. Yes.
Mr. Sirovich. Who extended the invitations to you then?
Mr. McFadden. I was invited to debate, some 2 1⁄2 years ago, with Norman Thomas by the WOR people, and I spoke once over a Nation-wide hook-up of the NBC; at least, I suppose it was a Nationwide hook-up.
Mr. CULKIN. What was that subject?
Mr. McFADDEN. I was invited by a friend of mine here in Washington to go over there and open the program for the Halsey, Stuart Co., a national investment house.
Mr. Sirovich. Did they allow you to speak on any subject?
Mr. McFADDEN. No; they wanted me to speak particularly on the opening of the Halsey, Stuart hour, which I did.
Mr. Sirovich. Did you have to submit your speech beforehand to the company for censorship?
Mr. McFadden. Yes; I submitted it to a friend whom I later understand was connected with the publicity end of either the Halsey, Stuart Co. or the NBC Co.
Mr. Gifford. Mr. McFadden, I want to pursue that subject a little further. I wonder if there is any such present use of the radio for what everyone seems to grant is publicity? I think I have had charge of publicity in one way and others have probably had charge of publicity in the other. Is it through these publicity bureaus that get these invitations?
Mr. McFADDEN. Well, in an address that I made on the floor of the House on the 31st of January, I referred to the possible political censorship or control of certain time for political purposes, and I cited in that particular instance how the Postmaster General, Mr. Farley, speaking in Boston on the previous Saturday evening, was influential to the extent of killing the regular program of the Columbia Broadcasting hour for that evening so that his particular address could be broadcast.
Mr. Gifford. I am interested in the doctor's statement there if there should not be a few cleared channels where the Government would supervise, and I am wondering if any government, at some time or other, would not contain a majority of a political party which would be almost impossible to make the public believe, at least, they could be fair?
Mr. Sirovich. I want to tell my good friend Mr. Gifford I have been working for the last 3 weeks on a bill which I intend to present shortly, called the National University of the Air, and in which we will have men and women interested in art, science, and politics present their side fairly and squarely on several cleared channels that we have and still own today, that have not been taken away from us.
Mr. Gifford. Mr. McFadden, do you think it would be possible for a government such as ours, which always has a majority of one side or the other—would it be possible to have some control of clear channels without some suspicion they were partisan?
Mr. McFADDEN. I think a certain amount of time could be allotted the administration for the various heads of the Government departments, for the dispersing of information which pertains to the Government.
Mr. Gifford. I wanted to know if you are going to bring out here any threats or favoritism, or suggestion from the present Radio Commission which seem to have brought about a condition where favoritism was maintained or fear was instilled into other people. It runs in my mind that there have been some people who have received suggestions from the Radio Commission that they had better not do this, or had better not do that. Have you any information along that line?
Mr. McFADDEN. I think the gentlemen who are to follow me have specific instances of that kind, which they will enumerate.
Mr. CULKIN. Mr. McFadden, in England, is not the broadcast under the control of the existing Government?
Mr. McFADDEN. Yes; the British Broadcast.
Mr. CULKIN. And do you know how that has worked out?
Mr. McFADDEN. I have not studied it in detail; no.
Mr. CULKIN. Do not they usually cut off their opponents when they are on the air?
Mr. McFadden. I have understood they did, yes; and, to a certain extent, I have understood that applied here—that there was static or other elements introduced, if some one was making a statement that was not pleasing. This question that Mr. Gifford raises here is a most interesting question and it is one which I think all of us should give serious thought to—this question of control, for political purposes, of the radio. It is such a powerful influence whereby political parties, by the exclusive use of the radio, can control elections; because there are millions of people in the United States, when they are in a restful state of mind, who listen in to these various talks and are influenced greatly in their determinations as regards political parties or candidates. In my judgment, it is more powerful than the press.
Mr. Willford. How long has this censorship of radio been in evidence?
Mr. McFADDEN. Well, it has been gradually growing, I will say to the gentleman.
Mr. WILLFORD. And what brought it to the top?
Mr. McFADDEN. Why, the efficiency of the method.
Mr. Sirovich. I want to say I was very much interested in your statement before, in which you contended that certain aspersions were cast against you by various speakers and you tried to get the information and the theme upon which they spoke, but could not get it. Would the gentleman be in favor of an amendment to the radio law which would make it necessary for every one who speaks over the radio to give an advance copy of his speech to be kept for the public record, or that it be necessary to have a record taken, like an electrical transcription, that will take down word for word all that the individual states, so that these radio companies may be subject to libel suits, the same as newspapers, magazines, or periodical publications, if they publish statements that libel anybody?
Mr. McFadden. I will say to the gentleman, in that respect, that everyone who speaks over the radio has to submit his manuscript on whatever he proposes to say to the broadcasting company, which is a form of censorship and often has proven to be just that thing censorship.
Mr. Sirovich. How can you prove a libel contention?
Mr. McFadden. I think each radio company, if I may say so, should have an accurate record of everything that is said over the radio, so that anyone who wants information regarding a certain statement that has been uttered over a broadcast line should be able to get that statement complete.
Mr. Sirovich. As a record for a suit for libel?
Mr. McFADDEN. Well, for whatever purpose he may want it whether to correct a misstatement, or whatever it might be.
Mr. CULKIN. It is a fact that in the present state of the law any broadcast station is liable in damages for anything said over their station.
Mr. Sirovich. You cannot prove it.
Mr. CULKIN. Just a minute, Doctor—is that so?
Mr. McFADDEN. I understand that is the case.
Mr. CULKIN. That is the law in the United States now?
Mr. McFADDEN. Yes.
Mr. CULKIN. In other words, they have not got to sue the broadcaster; they may sue the station?
Mr. McFADDEN. I understand that is the case; yes.
Mr. Brown. Is there any national law to that effect?
Mr. Sirovich. Yes; but you cannot get proof that the statement was made.
Mr. McFADDEN. That is the point.
Mr. Brown. I thought that was up to the various States to include the radio under the libel laws.
The Chairman. I think it has been left to the libel laws of the States. There is something in the Radio Act about that, but it does not exempt the station, and up in Lancaster County, Nebr., the person giving utterance to libelous or slanderous expressions was held liable. I have forgotten the name of the case.
Mr. BROWN. But they are held liable under the law of the State in which it is uttered, and not under any national law.
The CHAIRMAN. I think that is true. The law as it now exists, as I recall, simply permits that liability to be enforced.
Mr. McFadden. I am told that it is the position of WGY at Schenectady, as stated by Mr. Winslow Leighton, the commercial manager of WGY, that that station was under the control of the National Broadcasting Co. and that no religious matter of any kind could be broadcast over WGY, or any NBC station, without first being approved by the Federation of Churches censorship committee. I think it would be well for this committee to ascertain in minute detail just how this censorship board is set up and why. I think it has a bearing on this whole question that is now before you, and it is a broad question—it is broader than the bill I have introduced here.
It is a matter of great interest to the people of the United States. As all of you know, the introduction of any resolution pertaining to broadcasting or the freedom of the air brings forth a great volume of interest from the American public. The same class of people who recognize that the press of the country is more or less muzzled are interested to know, in this new development, that the control of the air is not abused, but that it is kept open and free for the benefit of all of the people of the United States, and is not used to the detriment of any particular class of people in the United States.
I might say, in connection with this subject of centralizing all radio communications, and the telegraph and telephone at this time, it presents a most interesting situation, when you consider that the British are at the same time undertaking to centralize more directly their control over these same agencies and that one of the leading representatives of Great Britain is in Canada now, or has been for the past few weeks, on this very question of a centralization of control of all means of communications. At the same time, this same gentleman, who happens to be a director of the Bank of England, is putting the finishing touches on the centralized banking plan for Canada, wherein a central bank will be established. It may be that these things are entirely disassociated from each other; but it looks to me as if a general movement is on foot to further centralize and control all communications internationally. And in that connection, it is interesting to note that the International Telegraph & Telephone Co., and the various agencies that are dealing in international communications are also the controlling features in broadcasting throughout the United States.
Mr. Sirovich. Is there any interlocking of members of the boards of directors there?
Mr. McFADDEN. In many cases, yes; and it would, I think, be very interesting for the committee to look into that particular subject of the control of those agencies at this time.
Mr. Gifford. Mr. McFadden, this committee has spent many weeks going into that, and the older ones on the committee will remember how the American Telephone & Telegraph Co. and others parceled it out, some to manufacturers and some to broadcasters, who would not interfere with each other. The matter has been before the Federal Trade Commission and they have made a very voluminous report, as you know. But this bill that you have here seems to be a politicians and religious bill, to protect people running for public office and to protect religious propaganda sent over the air; is not that practically it?
Mr. McFadden. Yes. It is directed at that, particularly; but there are many other phases of it. I have just said that should be dealt with, if possible, in the form of legislation.
Mr. Gifford. This committee recalls how some of us complained and have complained constantly that the whole thing is wrong; that this should be more of a communication affair so that if you are out in the wilderness or out on the water anywhere, at a specified hour you should be able to receive a communication from home, right in your automobile, without interference; but, instead of that, you are obliged not to use it, because of interference with the telephone and telegraph.
And you must recognize, with a great invention like this that we have claiming our attention before this committee, it is far from being what it ought to be. It ought to be more useful; we ought not to be supposed to have to listen, whether we like it or not, to Amos and Andy—which I do like [laughter], and whole lot of other things, which we do not like, when the lines ought to be cleared for communications, or education, perhaps.
Mr. McFADDEN. Yes.
Mr. Gifford. Or to communication, as you say; but the thing is parceled out and this committee has been knowing that, and I insist again on asking the question because the Radio Commission feel that they have not the right of censorship, are you going to produce any witnesses that will tell this committee they have received hints not too vague that certain broadcasting stations had better not do this or better not do that?
Mr. McFADDEN. I think the gentleman will be quite satisfied before the witnesses who will follow me have finished.
Mr. Gifford. I think many of us here know that broadcasting stations do not even dare come forward and tell us about those hints, and I am wondering if you have witnesses here who will do that.
Mr. McFADDEN. May I suggest this, that I recognize the cost of the up-keep of these broadcasting systems, but I cannot understand why, on a noncontroversial matter, those who want to broadcast their views are barred, when they will pay for the service.
Mr. Gifford. Well do you think if it was under Government supervision, like in England, where the radio owner himself pays perhaps $10 a year to own a radio and all matters are put out by the Government, or by a governmental agency—do you think that there would be a freer right that anybody might be able to broadcast?
Mr. McFadden. I should hope that would prevail; but, oftentimes, such nations as that are controlled at the top, where the liberties are taken from them in that respect.
Mr. Sirovich. The gentleman spoke of an international conspiracy that was designed to control the telegraph and telephone and radio. Would you be specific for the record and name the individuals, groups, or corporations that you think are responsible for trying to bring about this international conspiracy?
Mr. McFadden. Well I did not use the word "conspiracy." I pointed it out as an interesting incident that the British now have a representative in Canada, or have had during the past two weeks, dealing with that subject.
Mr. SIROVICA. Who is that representative?
Mr. McFADDEN. Lord Kindersly, a director of the Bank of England.
Mr. Sirovich. And who are some of the American people who are cooperating with him?
Mr. McFADDEN. I did not suggest they were cooperating, I suggested it was an incident that was interesting of note, that while——
Mr. Sirovich. I think you left the inference with the committee that such a thing is going on. That is why I asked.
Mr. McFADDEN. I just suggested it as an interesting observation that the British and the Canadians are carrying on simultaneously with the agitation here the further centralizing of the control of com-
munication—that the British should be interested to that extent.
The CHAIRMAN. For the information of the committee, the case to which I referred just a few moments ago, in line with the question propounded by Mr. Brown, is the case of Sorenson, plaintiff on appeal, v. KFAB Broadcast Co., which originated in the district court of Lancaster County, in the State of Nebraska, and finally went to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court denying the writ of certiorari.
That was a case which involved an alleged slanderous statement made by a candidate for office, and originated under, or there was invoked, as I recall, section 18 of the Radio Act, which provides that if any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcast station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office in the use of such broadcast station, and the licensing authority shall make rules and regulations to carry this provision into effect; provided, that such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material
broadcast under the provisions of this paragraph, and that no obligation is imposed upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate.
And the claim was made by the defendant's statement that, in view of the fact that it was denied the right of censorship, consequently it should not be held liable in damages. It was so held liable in damages. I do not know what the ultimate result has been; but, if the members desire to look it up, that is the principal case on that point.
I might say, also, the suggestion is made that the Radio Commission assumed that it had no right of censorship. As a matter of fact, under the provisions of section 29 of the Radio Act, it is expressly provided.
Nothing in this act shall be understood or construed to give the licensing authority the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the licensing authority which shall interfere with the right of
gated or fixed by the licensing authority which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communications. No person within the jurisdiction of the United States shall utter any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication.
That is section 29. It is my recollection that when that bill was under consideration in the House the question of slanderous expressions came up, and it was the general concensus of opinion it would be, as Mr. Brown stated, determined by the laws of the States.
Mr. Gifford. Mr. Chairman, under section 18, it says no obligations are hereby imposed upon any licensee to allow any candidate to speak; but, if he does-
The CHAIRMAN. They must allow the opposite party.
Mr. Gifford. They must allow the opposite candidate the equal right. Now, a small radio station that is only allowed 2 or 3 hours a day, when there are many candidates for office, of course, when they have their regular programs with which they are tied up, we find that although one candidate may be on, who may be your opponent, that they do not have sufficient time, because of the radio being tied up by candidates for other offices at that same election; and it is absolutely impossible for those small radio stations to parcel that out and give the candidates equal opportunity.
The CHAIRMAN. My purpose was simply to bring the matter to the attention of the committee.
Mr. GIFFORD. Yes; but I want to show how impossible it is to
frame any particular law here that would apply in all cases. It simply cannot be done.
Mr. McFADDEN. I think I have completed all I have to say, unless there are further questions, with this possible exception:
In regard to this censorship I have suggested, which is in operation through N.B.C. I understand the position of N.B.C. is that that is their contribution over the air, the religious discussions, and that they have set up this arbitrary group to censor all matters pertaining to religion which are broadcast over the air. So far as the two major broadcasting companies are concerned, I think that covers the situation.
…