This bill would grant to the Star and Citizen in Tucson and to at least 44 other papers throughout the country, a Government license to monopolize. The Red Lion case is at least some consolation to the public and is a forewarning to the newspaper industry that all monopolists ultimately find themselves regulated; monopolistic newspaper combinations can fully expect regulation to go hand-in-hand with license. If this Congress feels that it is important to preserve a second editorial voice, so important that we are going to permit what would otherwise be a violation of law and grant to two newspapers the right to foreclose the market, if this monopoly is going to be granted, what happens when Mayor Corbett writes a letter to Mr. Small or to the other owner of the Star, whoever he may become, and says you have been attacking me, I want equal time. I want an application of the fairness doctrine. I want seven pages on Thursday. Not a letter to the editor. I want seven pages. I want equal time.

Well, probably they will laugh first. Then maybe the courts will laugh when a lawsuit is filed, and then maybe somebody, whether it be a court of appeals or the Supreme Court, will look at Red Lion v. FCC and say, you know, when Congress grants a monopoly, the right of the public to free speech is paramount to the right of the publisher to free speech. And so if the FCC can regulate, then by God, somebody is going to regulate the newspaper industry. Not just rates. Not just predatory practices. But content.

And is that what the newspaper industry wants? If they are going to monopolize, maybe not this subcommittee, maybe not this Congress or this decade but your successors are going to be listening to hearings-some other subcommittee in some other year is going to be listening to hearings with regard to the regulation of content of the newspaper in the same way that the FCC regulates content and does not violate the first amendment.

I have not come here to argue the constitutionality of the bill. If it becomes an act of this Congress, I will undoubtedly be arguing it in the courts. Rather, I have come here to ask the members of this subcommittee whether section 5 does not offend your sensibilities the way it offends mine.

Due process of law is as much a matter of feeling as it is one of intellect. Our individual constitutions have been nourished on a diet of fair play and substantial justice. A deprivation of due process is very difficult to swallow even when we blindfold ourselves. Perhaps you gentlemen do not appreciate the impact of section 5 on Tucson, Ariz.

William A. Small has elected to violate the law and has grown wealthy at the expense of the people of Tucson. Now, for the ostensible purpose of promoting freedom of the press, this bill would exonerate Mr. Small, the man who calls himself a pig, from the consequences of his intentional conduct and allow him to continue stealing from the people of Tucson, unchecked and forever.

I cannot believe that this was the intention of the sponsors of this bill, and I ask you gentlemen to realize that although maybe I am getting a little bit heated, I am not accusing you gentlemen of evil intent but I am accusing you gentlemen of not looking carefully enough into the impact that this bill has, the unchecked nature of this bill and the nature of this bill in perpetuity.

I cannot believe that it is the intention of the members of this sub

committee who, better than anyone in this Nation, are in a position to know what they are swallowing. This restaurant may be dimly lit and your host may have ordered your meal, but you are in a position to know that what you are eating is foreign to your diet, and it is foreign to mine. It is the province of Governors and Presidents to pardon the convicted criminal. It is unlikely that Congress has that power. Yet, S. 1520 goes far beyond pardon for a crime against society; it attempts to pardon an injury to individuals. Only those individuals have the power to forefeit their right to recover damages. Congress cannot forfeit those rights for them.

Will this subcommittee tell the American public that one who violates the law can expect to be exonerated by the Congress even after he has been found guilty and sentenced, and even after he admits what he is. Will you set a precedent for legislative pardon? Will legislative pardon be available to all, or just to the rich and the powerful? And I may add, in reading the transcript of this testimony, which is very long, and Senator Dirksen has pointed out, 21 days of hearings in the last Congress, many days of hearings on this bill, no one has spoken for the advertiser. No one has gotten up and said subsidy, not a question of subsidizing the failing newspaper. We do want to subsidize it, we do not, should the money come out of the Treasury. No, the money should not come out of the Treasury. The Congress should not subsidize.

What this bill is saying is that Mr. Cohn should subsidize. Mr. Cohn should pay $5,000 a year more than he should have to keep the Citizen alive, a paper he does not even want, and the people of Tucson, my clients, the advertisers should foot the bill for a paper they have voted to get rid of and I mean voted literally.

The economy is like a giant election and when people spend their money they make their vote and when they vote for a man he makes a profit and when they vote against he goes right down the drain, and if the people of Tucson have voted against Mayor Corbett's roofing company, then his roofing company is going to fail and maybe it should because that is what our economy is based on.

If it were not bad enough that we were talking about a business enterprise, that the public has voted to kill, why should we preserve editorial opinion, news coverage, that the public wants to kill? They are not only saying we do not care for you as a business economically. The public is saying we do not need you and we do not want you.

Why do we want to preserve, and especially at the price, and to make the people of Tucson pay the price? It is very easy to say well, preserve it, and we here in Washington will decide that the people of Tucson, the advertisers, they can pay for it even though they voted that they do not want it.

The Newspaper Preservation Act may be a turning point in the life of this subcommittee. If the monopolistic elements within the newspaper industry can wield sufficient economic power against the Senate subcommitee which must protect the public from the abuse of economic power, then an essential element of our free institutions is dead. The people of Tucson who have been victimized and who most surely will be victimized in the future will be the first to mourn, but many will join in the dirge.

If in the name of the independence of the press, the sube » feels it must preserve in perpetuity the editorial voices whi

tee

lic is not willing to support, then I am not here to make that judgment and try to cram that judgment down anybody's throat. I am here only to say if you feel this is essential, that a second voice must be preserved, then this is the way it must be, but I plead with this committee at the very least delete the unnecessary and odious pardon of those people who violated the law with impunity.

Senator FONG. Mr. Leonard, you have made one point, that this seetion 5 will pardon the company from all the lawsuits that will be pending or that you have filed and all other damage suits which may be filed. And, Mr. Cohn, you have the statement that these two newspapers have upped the rates so much that by joining together, they have really killed competition and that the advertising rates have really gone up very, very high.

In the first instance, Mr. Cohn, if you had only one newspaper you could not do anything with the rates anyway, could you?

Mr. COHN. Sorry. I cannot hear very well. Could you

Senator FONG. I said if you only had one newspaper in Tucson as you have in Flint, Mich., you could not do anything about the rates.

Mr. COIN. In the towns where I do advertise, there is only one paper but let me say this. You see, in Tucson, if we had that condition, if one paper did go, which is highly theoretical because it is not so any more, but let us say assuming there was only one paper left—

Senator FONG. Let us say you only had the Star.

Mr. Coun. He would still have to keep his rates competitive. He could go up, there is no question about that, but he would still have to keep his rates in line with other advertising media. I might go direct mail or television or radio or some other medium. The fact is that the "joint arrangement" paper costs the advertiser more than a monopoly as indicated by the towns that I am in. I know it from firsthand experience. I am living it right now, I still own these stores in Michigan and I still have these contracts, so I know that the joint agreement costs me more.

In Flint, they make a very good profit but it is still competitive with other media, but in Tucson you have a different situation.

Let me ask this, Senator Fong. I understand you are a businessman, too, and I understand you had said things about the situation in your papers. Have you asked your newspapers about duplication-they have dual circulation, I take it? Do your papers? Have you ever asked them about duplication of circulation? Do you get both papers at your home! Senator FONG. That is right.

Mr. COHN. Do they count you once or twice?

Senator FONG. Twice.

Mr. COHN. In other words, they count you as two people.

Senator FONG. Yes.

Mr. COHN. Yes. You are only one people and here is what happens and I asked that question. Do you get an answer from the circulation manager? Does he tell you their ABC certification? Does he give you breakdown on duplication?

Senator FONG. I do not know what he does.

Mr. COHN. I made a point of that. I went to the paper and I said to them, two people get the paper. Regardless, there is still only one customer. To me there is only one potential. What is this percentage of your duplication? According to your ABC certification they show almost equal circulation, I think 42,000 and 43,000. I said how much