mind saying that is radio station WWDC-has been willing to sell time for religious broadcasts on weekdays. Two other stations have commercial religious accounts on Sunday mornings. The remaining four stations have no commercial religious accounts at all, nor will they take any.

Thus, hundreds of licensees are throttling the progress of the churches and other religious organizations. They have crowded God into a corner. They have violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the Communications Act. They have violated the principle of free speech, and of fair play. The institution of religion, basic to the very existence of our Nation, deserves a place on the air waves comparable to-if not beyond-every other American interest.

We therefore earnestly entreat this honorable committee that you provide a specific clause in section 25 of this proposed amendment to the Communications Act to the effect that the licensee of every radio frequency be obliged to provide time for religious broadcasts without discrimination as to time of day or night, or the day of the week or their broadcasting schedule.

Now, gentlemen, there are many, many instances that I could cite to back up some of the things that I have stated here. If there are any questions, I will be glad to answer them.

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Johnson.

Senator JOHNSON. We have heard a great many comparisons during this hearing of the freedom of the press and the freedom of radio. Is it not true that many religious organizations have papers of their own, publish their own newspapers and their own periodicals, and reach their people in that way?

Mr. CROWLEY. Yes, of course.

Senator JOHNSON. So that they do have freedom of expression, so far as the press is concerned.

Mr. CROWLEY. Yes, so far as their own publications are concerned. Senator JOHNSON. Now, do they own any radio stations?

Mr. CROWLEY. There are a few radio stations that are owned by religious organizations.

Senator JOHNSON. A few?

Mr. CROWLEY. Very few.

Senator JOHNSON. We have one in Denver that is part time.

Mr. CROWLEY. Yes.

Senator JOHNSON. But you are not able to reach very many people through that method.

Mr. CROWLEY. It is impossible for us to reach the masses under the present set-up.

Senator JOHNSON. But in the press you can reach your people? Mr. CROWLEY. Yes; we can reach them, as far as our financial ability permits.

Senator JOHNSON. So far as your particular phase of this problem is concerned, then, there is not equality between the press and the radio.

Mr. CROWLEY. Definitely not.

The CHAIRMAN. You may recall that in the 1927 act we put in a provision authorizing the Commission to classify radio stations. Somewhere along the line since that original language was put in the law, an amendment was proposed, which I have not seen for a long

time, the purpose of which was to provide that stations be classified according to the character of the service to be rendered.

Now, in this question I will confine myself to Sunday morning, because you were speaking of Sunday morning. I have always had a question in my mind whether there was not authority in existing law to prescribe that on Sunday morning musical and commercial programs should not be permitted. I have thought that that was a time which should be reserved for religious and educational programs. I do not make any assertion as to that, because I have not thought of it for a long time.

But I did at one time have a question as to whether there was not authority to do substantially what I have suggested.

Mr. CROWLEY. I agree with you heartily, Senator, that it certainly should be that way. But at the same time, churches and religious organizations should not be barred from the use of the radio waves at other hours.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood your position. Is there anything further? We thank you, Mr. Crowley.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Crowley is as follows:)

TESTIMONY OF DALE CROWLEY, OF WASHINGTON, D. C., RADIO MINISTER AND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF NATIONAL RELIGIOUS BROADCASTERS, INC.

My name is Dale Crowley, of Washington, D. C. I am an ordained Baptist minister, devoting my time entirely to a radio ministry of seven broadcasts a week, having delivered over 2,500 religious programs over the air in the Nation's Capital, besides more than 1,000 broadcasts elsewhere.

I represent the National Religious Broadcasters, Inc., an association of broadcasters of all faiths, representing all sections of the country, and representing several hundred weekly periods of radio time. The National Religious Broadcasters is also an affiliate of the National Association of Evangelicals, representing hundreds of churches of many denominations across the Nation. I am attaching hereto a copy of our constitution and bylaws, and code of ethics.

In order to acquaint you with the purpose of our organization, and the reason for our existence, I beg leave to quote a clause from article II of our by-laws on the subject of "Objects of the association," as follows:

"The objects of this association shall be to foster and encourage the broadcasting of religious programs, to establish and maintain high standards with respect to content, method of presentation, speakers' qualifications, and ethical practices, to the end that such programs may be constantly developed and improved and that their public interest and usefulness may be enhanced; to secure for its members, and for other persons and organizations engaged in broadcasting such programs, adequate, fair, and regular access to the radio listening public through the use of existing and future broadcast stations and networks, both aural and visual to protect its members and such other persons and organizations from being barred from such access, and from being unjustly or unreasonably subjected to injury, obstacle, restriction, or discrimination in obtaining and continuing to have such access

* **

One of the primary reasons why this organization came into being was to meet the crisis which has developed in recent years in being denied access to the radio frequencies because of the unfortunate practice of discrimination against religious broadcasting on the part of large numbers of radio stations. Our interest in this legislation is that the rights of religious broadcasting be specifically pronounced and safeguarded, and we recommend that this should be done by a specific amendment of section 25 of this bill, S. 1333.

It is needless to submit to this committee an argument to show that the broadcasting of religion is in the fundamental public interest. I deem it only neces sary to remind the committee that our Nation was brought into existence in order that the propagation of religious beliefs might be free and untrammeled. We need only to examine the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights to see that our Nation was founded on strong religious convictions, based on the

teachings of the Bible. It is a fact well known that most of our American Presidents and most of the great leaders of our Nation have been men of firm religious convictions. Moreover, the Supreme Court of the United States is on record with the declaration, "This is a Christian Nation" (Holy Trinity Church case, 1893).

Many of the outstanding thinkers and leaders of our day are freely declaring that the primary need of our Nation is a return to the principles and the teachings of the Bible.

We submit that within the entire realm of our national affairs, there is nothing of more importance of public interest than the subject and practice of religion. We submit that nothing could be more incongruous with the principle of American freedom of speech, and nothing could be more out of harmony with the true purpose of the Communications Act than for a licensee to assume that he has the right or authority to discriminate against the broadcasting of religion.

It is a well-known fact that three of the major national radio networks have for a number of years followed an established policy of refusing to sell time for the broadcasting of religion; while the fourth major national network refuses to sell time for a religious broadcast at any time other than Sunday mornings. Hundreds of individual radio stations, both network-controlled and independents, have fallen in line with this unfair policy and practice.

This unfortunate trend has gathered momentum. Many licensees who previously sold time to churches and religious organizations have recently arbitrarily eliminated all commercial religious programs from their schedules, substituting therefor sustaining programs of limited periods of time each week, and at hours, usually, when the listening audience is smallest. Such sustaining programs usually are placed under the direction of some central religious organization whose program personnel is frequently incapable, in our opinion, of airing a broadcast worthy of the listeners' time. Thus the individual church, missionary society, or gospel organization which has a worth-while inspirational, evangelistic, character-building message to proclaim are denied all access to the public through the radio frequencies. This, gentlemen, we believe you will agree, is a practice entirely unfair, wholly un-American, and diametrically opposed to the spirit and intent of the Radio Act.

Today in most sections of the country there are relatively few stations which will sell time for the broadcasting of religious subjects; and there are still fewer stations which will provide time for commercial religious broadcasts at any time other than on Sunday mornings, which is well known to be one of the poorest periods on radio, so far as reaching the masses is concerned. Within our knowledge there are, in fact, less than 50 radio stations out of more than 1,500 in the Nation which will provide choice periods of time at regular commercial rates for a religious program.

An excellent example of this lamentable trend may be seen from the practice of Washington, D. C., stations. For several years only one radio station operating in the District of Columbia has been willing to sell time for religious broadcasts on weekdays. Two other stations have commercial religious accounts on Sunday mornings. The remaining four stations have no commercial religious accounts at all.

Thus, hundreds of licensees are throttling the progress of the churches and other religious organizations. They have crowded God into a corner. They have violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the Radio Act. They have violated the principle of free speech and of fair play.

The institution of religion, basic to the very existence of our Nation, deserves a place on the air waves comparable to (if not beyond) every other American interest.

We therefore earnestly entreat this honorable committee that you provide specific legislative language to meet this problem and respectfully suggest that the following amendment to section 25 of the pending bill should receive the committee's earnest consideration:

On page 41, line 5, strike out the period and quotation marks, insert a comma, and add the following: "and in the sale of broadcast time by radio stations and networks there shall be no discrimination against religious programs, and no restrictions shall be applied to such programs that are not applied equally with respect to all other types or classes of programs."

The CHAIRMAN. The next and concluding witness for this morning is Miss Smart.

STATEMENT OF MISS ELIZABETH A. SMART, REPRESENTING NATIONAL WOMAN'S CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE UNION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Miss SMART. I am Miss Elizabeth A. Smart. My address is 100 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D. C. I am representing the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union.

The National Woman's Christian Temperance Union as an educational organization is profoundly interested in preserving for the American public the right to the use of the air waves for freedom of discussion on public questions, and that the air shall not fall into the hands of private monopolies who will use it arbitrarily and selfishly for commercial purposes to the exclusion and detriment of the public interest.

First, may I ask the indulgence of the committee to state that, while I do not always agree with some of the provisions of the bill, I feel that it shows a great deal of careful and conscientious study on the part of the chairman, who is its author, and an eminent desire to be fair to all parties.

I have been rather shocked at some of the comments on it, and, as I feel the committee has shown great patience and forebearance already, I shall not tax your patience further by any extended discussion on my part.

It seems to me that very definitely the position of the broadcasters is that they have vested rights in the air which they demand that Congress recognize and protect, and that the Congress of the United States shall divest itself of its own power and limit them to those of its agent, the Federal Communications Commission, to "its proper role of confining itself to technical matters.”

This would be a most extraordinary procedure, and one entirely contrary to public policy, especially in an age fraught with all the dangers and difficulties with which we now find ourselves confronted. The ownership of the air is in the American people and broadcasters are mere licensees. It is a proper exercise of the licensing power of Congress to require the observance of any proper regulations laid down by it or formulated by the Federal Communications Commission as a condition precedent to the issuing or renewal of such license. The regulatory powers of Congress in this matter are not open to question. They have been asserted and upheld repeatedly by the courts (General Electric v. Federal Radio Commission, 31 F. (2d) 630; Trinity Methodist Church, South, v. Federal Radio Commission, 62 F. (2d) 850; Nelson Brothers Bond & Mortgage Company v. Federal Radio Commission, 62 F. (2d) 854; National Broadcasting Company, Inc., v. United States, 319 U. S. 190).

Nor are they limited to technical matters. These cases hold the business of broadcasting to be a species of interstate commerce.

Judge Groner, in the Trinity Methodist Church, South, case, very clearly defines the position of a licensee under the Radio Act. After citing a large number of cases, he says:

All of these cases indutiably show adherence to the principle that one who applies for and obtains a grant or permit from a State, or the United States, to make use of a medium of interstate commerce, under the control and subject to the dominant power of the Government, takes such grant or right subject to

the exercise of the power of Government, in the public interest, to withdraw it without compensation.

The argument is made for the broadcasting companies that any exercise of control over program content, even the very mild provision that in its consideration of applications for renewal of licenses, the Federal Communications Commission shall have power to determine whether or not the licensee has operated in the public interest, is a violation of the freedom-of-speech clause of the first amendment.

We do not agree with them. In the Trinity Methodist Church, South, case, supra, the court says:

"Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this is to destroy the freedom of the press, but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity" (4 Blackstone's Commentaries, 151, 152). But this does not mean that the Government, through agencies established by Congress, may not refuse a renewal of license to one who has abused it to broadcast defamatory and untrue matter. In that case there is not a denial of the freedom of speech, but merely the application of the regulatory power of Congress in a field within the scope of its legislative authority. (See KFKB Broadcasting Association v. Federal Radio Commission, 60 App. D. C. 79, 47 F. (2d) 670.)

Further, the court says:

In the case under consideration, the evidence abundantly sustains the conclusions of the Commission that the continuance of the broadcasting programs of appellant is not in the public interest. * * * However inspired Dr. Shuler may have been by what he regarded as patriotic zeal, however sincere in denouncing conditions he did not approve, it is manifest, we think, that it is not narrowing the ordinary concept of "public interest" in declaring his broadcasts without facts to sustain or justify them-not within that term, and, since that is the test the Commission is required to apply, we think it was its duty in considering the application for renewal to take notice of appellant's conduct in his previous use of the permit, and, in the circumstances, the refusal, we think, was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Again, the court says:

This is neither censorship nor previous restraint, nor is it a whittling away of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment, or an impairment of this free exercise. Appellant may continue to indulge his strictures upon the characters of men in public office. He may just as freely as ever critize religious practices of which he does not approve. He may even indulge private malice of personal slander-subject, of course, to be required to answer for the abuse thereof-but he may not, as we think, demand, of right, the continued use of an instrumentality of commerce for such purposes, or any other, except in subordination to all reasonable rules and regulations Congress, acting through the Commission, may prescribe.

The attempt to compare radio to the press, it seems to me, also resus upon an unsound foundation. The practices of the two are, for the most part, opposite to one another.

The press buys articles and hires persons to write articles, news, and editorials which thus become its property and its expression. Radio, on the contrary, for the most part, leases time on the air to other persons to express their views, which remain their own, and do not become the expression of the station.

Thus it is not their freedom of speech which they are attempting to defend against the exercise of any control by Congress, but they are attempting to assert a right to determine the character and source of the material to be broadcast without any corresponding responsibility to use such right in the public interest.

65141-47-31