Mr. HARRIS. I am not taking the newspaper side of it, but the newspapers might say, mechanically, you could cut your radio off,

too.

Mr. VAN VOLKENBURG. That would take us off the air entirely. Mr. HARRIS. That is right.

Mr. VAN VOLKENBURG. That would be no way to harness a portion of it. The newspaper would not have to stop.

Mr. HARRIS. I realize the problem, but just as a matter of policy and principle, I was wondering if you viewed the situation any differently. I realize the very technical and difficult problems which arise in connection with this whole question. The question is what kind of programs we should have, and who shall prepare them, and the question involves the controlling of the thinking, censorship, and what is best for the American home. It all dovetails together, and to me it is a very serious and close question. That is the reason why I am very greatly impressed with the fact that the industry is giving so much attention to this, and I would feel a whole lot better about it if some other people in the country would give the same serious attention to it.

Mr. O'HARA. I have one more question. Mr. Van Volkenburg, stressing the problem which has been raised here in the selling of a certain product which is forbidden in some States, and now let us just say this, that in some States I know, for example, they have local option when it comes to the matter of beer and liquor, and you have one county which is so-called a wet county and adjoining it is another county which is a dry county. Just how in the world from the viewpoint of your industry are you going to be able to control the advertising so that it pleases the majority of the people in both counties, in that sort of a situation? I don't see how you can do it. Maybe that answers the question.

Mr. VAN VOLKENBURG. It is impossible.

Mr. HARRIS. For example, the sale of cigarettes in all States is regulated as to the age of minors who may buy them, and yet it is a legal product which may be sold to the people. There are people who do not think cigarettes ought to be smoked and there are people who do not think people ought to have a drink of beer. But from the viewpoint of newspaper advertising, and magazine advertising, and the viewpoint of your industry, all of you are confronted with a problem that has got to be approached with a sense of propriety and a sense of decency in the matter of your advertising, and of course your local station has got the right not to take any program which is distasteful to that community. That is true, is it not? Mr. VAN VOLKENBURG. Yes, it is.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Van Volkenburg, I thought you had stated you were a graduate of the University of Minnesota, which is an excellent school.

Mr. VAN VOLKENBURG. Yes, sir; it certainly is.

Mr. HARRIS. Are there any further questions?

Mr. Van Volkenburg, we do thank you and your associates for coming before this committee as it undertakes to carry out the direction given to it in connection with House Resolution 278. You have been a very fine and frank witness, and we want to thank you for it. Mr. VAN VOLKENBURG. It has been a great pleasure to cooperate with you in this hearing.

Mr. HARRIS. I believe we gave the Mutual Broadcasting System down in Washington last week the privilege, if they so desired, to file certain information with us here in New York. Is a representative of Mutual here? Perhaps it will prefer to place it in the record. This concludes the hearing today. On behalf of the committee we want to thank the custodian and those in charge of this building for permitting us to use it in the course of these hearings.

We have had a very informative and interesting tour yesterday afternoon of the facilities of the National Broadcasting Co. We are going to have the privilege today, as I understand, of viewing the facilities of the Columbia Broadcasting company. We do this solely so that we can become better acquainted with the manner and the procedure with reference to programing and how this responsibility is discharged by the company which has the responsibility. In that way we shall be in the best position to carry out the responsibilities placed upon us under this resolution.

The committee will adjourn, and we will resume hearings in Washington tomorrow at 10 o'clock.

(Thereupon at 12:05 p. m. a recess was taken, the hearing to reconvene at 10 a. m., Thursday, September 25, 1952, in Washington, D. C.)

INVESTIGATION OF RADIO AND TELEVISION PROGRAMS

THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 25, 1952

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,
Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:10 a. m., in room 1334, New House Office Building, Hon. Oren Harris (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. HARRIS. The subcommittee will be in order.

Is Mr. Albert J. McAloon here? Mr. McAloon requested an appearance before this subcommittee representing the office of the prevention coordinator of the Rhode Island Juvenile Court. Have we had any report, Mr. Layton?

Mr. LAYTON (the clerk). No, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. Perhaps he will come in later.

Mr. Levy, you have made a request to come before the subcommittee in connection with House Resolution No. 278, as a representative of the American Civil Liberties Union, and we will be pleased to hear you at this time.

STATEMENT OF HERBERT MONTE LEVY, STAFF COUNSEL OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, NEW YORK CITY

Mr. LEVY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am staff counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, with offices in New York City, on whose behalf I appear today.

Mr. HARRIS. Would you pardon an interruption and advise the committee just what the American Civil Liberties Union is, and give us something about its background?

Mr. LEVY. The American Civil Liberties Union is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization with over 25,000 members scattered throughout the country, whose sole purpose is the protection of civil liberties for everyone. Civil liberties include primarily freedom of speech, due process of law, the right to equality of treatment before the law. Those are the three broad categories of our work.

Mr. HARRIS. You are the counsel, Washington counsel?

Mr. LEVY. No; I am the staff counsel in the national headquarters in New York City.

Mr. HARRIS. Is it your address at 170 Fifth Avenue, or is it the Civil Liberties Union's address?

Mr. LEVY. That is both of our addresses.

Mr. HARRIS. Who is the president of the Civil Liberties Union, or do you have a president?

24943-52-21

Mr. LEVY. We have an executive director whose name is Patrick Murphy Malin, and we have a chairman of the board of directors whose name is Ernest Angell. Mr. Angell was formerly chairman of the second regional loyalty review board. Our general counsel are Arthur Garfield Hayes and Morris Ernst, and I am staff counsel. Mr. HARRIS. How many members of your board do you have? Mr. LEVY. We have 32 members of the board.

Mr. HARRIS. Very well. You may proceed.
Mr. LEVY. Thank you, sir.

I had hoped to testify at this committee's scheduled hearing of June 25 or 26, but at that time the committee was unable to hear me, and my prepared testimony for that day was submitted to the committee.

I might add, Mr. Harris, if you should like me to send you a list of the members of the board of directors for your record, I would be very pleased to do so.

Mr. HARRIS. Very well; we will be glad to have it.

(The information follows:)

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

Ernest Angell, chairman, board of directors; Roger N. Baldwin, chairman, national committee; Arthur Garfield Hays, general counsel; Morris L. Ernst, general counsel; B. W. Huebsch, treasurer.

Patrick Murphy Malin, executive director: Alan Reitman, assistant director; Louis Joughin, research director; Herbert Monte Levy, staff counsel; Clifford Forster, special counsel; George E. Rundquist, field director; Jeffrey E. Fuller, membership director.

Mr. LEVY. To summarize my statement of last June briefly, I pointed out that there already existed adequate laws to criminally punish any programs which may be obscene, that the Federal Communications Commission can always deny a license to a station guilty of such practices, that each station has its own censorship department, and that moreover it is impossible to see what legislation might be proposed by the subcommittee that would be constitutional.

I submitted that fairly lengthy legal analysis to the committee, but if you should ask me to discuss that with you today more at length, I would of course be very willing to do so.

I pointed out also in that statement that the code laid down by the National Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters will actually lessen the quality of radio programing, rather than improve it, adding that the code would violate the freedom of the people of this country and of the broadcasting industry itself.

But as I listened to the testimony of the witnesses who appeared before you on June 26, several problems arose that my prepared testimony did not deal with. These are the problems I should like to enlarge upon today, since you already have my statement of June 26 in your records.

Some members of the subcommitee are concerned with the problem of the manifestation of bad taste in radio and TV programs. It was brought out that one difficulty was that the tastes of the different communities in our Nation varied so much from community to community.

It is indeed true that what might not be offensive to an audience in a big city might well be offensive to an audience in a rural community. We submit that there is an answer to this problem with which the committee is greatly concerned. The answer lies in the local responsibility of the local licensee. It is up to the individual station under existing law to not only prepare its own programs, but to be free to refuse or to approve programs sent out by the networks or prepared by the advertising agencies. This need for local responsibility was very clearly brought out in the 1946 report on chain broadcasting issued by the Federal Communications Commission. We commend that report to this committee.