gathered together, and then his guilt or innocence of the particular offense or act can be determined. I would not want to see a demagogic attitude by the FCC or by Congress as to a particular broadcaster. There must be some examination of the facts.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you another question. If you are going to give to the FCC authority to pass upon the quality of the programs of a broadcaster, should not the Commission also have the right to determine whether the station itself is putting on a quality of program which justifies its continuance of service, and should not the Commission have the right to monitor the programs and deny either the license or a renewal of license to an applicant whose program content had not measured up to what the FCC thinks are proper standards? Mr. FAULKNER. I think the FCC should be in a position to do that if, after hearing

The CHAIRMAN. I am assuming a hearing.

Mr. FAULKNER. If after hearing valid protests on the operation of a particular station to the effect that it has violated its license, that it has not carried out the functions of the station, where it has received a license to operate in the public interest, and for the public convenience and necessity, to do that.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, what you are proposing is to make the FCC pretty much a master of programs.

Mr. FAULKNER. Well, it is a servant of the people.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is not always easy to know what people think. I suppose, within the last few days, I have had two or three hundred postcards from New York. They are identical. Groups of them are in the handwriting of a single person. All of them employ practically the same language. Now, they do not represent a knowledge and a purpose and a wish on the part of those who sent them to me. They are just responding to the suggestion of some organization. Now, how much weight am I going to give to telegrams or letters or postcards of that sort?

And to go a little further with this. You say that the representative should follow the wishes of his constituents. But, for illustration, let us say that I get 8,000 letters, all one way on a particular piece of legislation. Well, there are about 800,000 people in my State, and 8,000 is 1 percent of the people. And just assuming that these communications are all one way, I still say that is a pretty narrow base on which to rest a judgment as to what the people of my State want me to do, or do not want me to do. And I expect the same thing applies everywhere.

Mr. FAULKNER. If I may state it. In that particular case, in one instance a Congressman wrote to every constituent and asked them for their opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. I have written a great many letters asking for information, but when you write a letter to a particular person, and you get a reply from that particular person, which represents some thought and some knowledge, and some purpose with respect to legislation, that is worth-while mail.

I am not speaking as a politician right now, because I am making my political bow. But I just do not see how you can place much reliance on the hundreds and thousands of messages which are received, which you know are not spontaneous, which do not arise from an

original interest on the part of anybody, other than an organization which wants to sell something to you.

Mr. FAULKNER. We may reduce that, then, even to political organizations, and take a situation around election time when people go to the polls and vote for a particular political party because their father and grandfather did, or because their neighbor did, or because they live in a community which is predominantly one thing or another. I think it requires education. It is a slow process. But I would hate to say that because you have received hundreds of thousands of postcards in opposition to or in favor of this particular bill, that those persons who did it, did it unknowingly, or unwittingly.

The CHAIRMAN. I know this perfectly well. When I get a bunch of postcards and I find half of them in the same handwriting, I know there is something phony about it somewhere.

Mr. FAULKNER. I have probably signed my name to one of those, or two of those form postcards, but I would hate to say that I did not know what I was signing when I did. It is a matter of convenience, very often, to have the postcard already written.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not a question of knowing what you are signing. It is a question of whether you had an interest in and a knowledge of the legislative proposals pending. I do not mind getting the telegrams and the letters. But this trial by jury, with a whole constituency of a State or nation acting as jurors is a troublesome thing. Mr. FAULKNER. No, they act as a voice of the people, and when the people protest, whether it be by a form telegram or postcard, it is still the people. And I know nothing about these postcards and letters and telegrams that you refer to; I certainly did not send any, and I had nothing to do with any. But I think it is an indication of the expression of the people, whether they do it as a matter of form, or not, and it is something that should be given consideration.

Senator CAPEHART. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Capehart.

Senator CAPEHART. Your organization was formed because four, five, or six commentators were taken off the air?

Mr. FAULKNER. Not necessarily because of that.

Senator CAPEHART. I see. Well, you read a few instances into the record.

Mr. FAULKNER. That is right.

Senator CAPEHART. Would you deny a sponsor or a broadcasting company, or an employer, the right to fire or discharge or cancel a contract with a commentator or news announcer?

Mr. FAULKNER. I would say that a sponsor should not be permitted to breach a contract with a commentator simply because the commentator is telling the truth, although telling it or explaining it from the point of view of a liberal-minded or progressive individual. It is still the truth, nevertheless, and just because his viewpoint on a particular subject matter disagrees with that of the sponsor, I do not think that the sponsor should be permitted to breach the contract.

Senator CAPEHART. Let me ask you this. How can you deny an employer, under our Constitution, the right to discharge any person, with or without cause?

Mr. FAULKNER. Well, if that were to happen, and we went right down the line, eventually we would have a one-sided Government, probably, or a one-sided society, because the people would become set

on following a certain pattern on one side of the fence, and that would maybe become the controlling influence.

Senator CAPEHART. Of course, you are talking about broadcasting now, and possibly we should stick to that. What I am talking about is the principle. How, under our Constitution, and our form of Government, can we deny to any man the right to discharge any employee?

Mr. FAULKNER. We have a very fundamental law, and that is the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees freedom of speech. If there is a violation of that, the violation comes from the one who would discharge an individual for exercising free speech.

Senator CAPEHART. But do you not think that a broadcaster, or a sponsor should have the right to hire and fire whoever they please, with or without cause? How are you going to deny them that right! Mr. FAULKNER. We have to consider basically that the radio stations today are controlled by the large interests. It is money that has to pay for the erection and continuance of these stations. It is money that has to pay for the upkeep of the station, through programs. In that way, we could eventually entirely eliminate, if we left it entirely to the station, or to the sponsor, the liberal or progressive viewpoint of the commentator, and have only one going out to everybody in this country.

Senator CAPEHART. Yes, I see that. But I am wondering how you are going to get around the other principle, the right to fire or not to fire a man. In other words, under the Constitution, a man in the United States can hire a man and discharge him. You do not want to change that, do you?

Mr. FAULKNER. Well, under the Wagner Act, until its recent emasculation, I don't know wherein there is a difference. But there we have a case where a person cannot be discharged because of union activities. Now, why should a commentator be discharged because of his liberal viewpoint?

Senator CAPEHART. Of course, I presume it would be a matter of proving it. Why should he not be discharged, perhaps, on account of his conservative viewpoint? I am talking about a principle. I do not quite get your explanation. I am looking for an explanation. I am not being critical.

Mr. FAULKNER. The practice at the moment is not to discriminate against the more conservative commentators, as we have found over a period of time. It has been to discriminate against the liberal commentator, the names of some of whom I have given you, such as Orson Welles and Johannes Steele.

Senator CAPEHART. What is your definition of "liberal"?

Mr. FAULKNER. A liberal will take a proposition and explain it from the point of view first of its truthfulness, and how it affects the people generally, and not how it affects a particular class of individuals. We will explain it from the point of view of how it affects the masses of the people, and he will give information as to its broad aspects from all standpoints, not limiting it to an expression whereby it might be detrimental to the masses of the people.

Senator CAPEHART. That is your definition?

Mr. FAULKNER. Well, it is hard to define, except as we take a specific instance of a broadcaster in a statement he might make, as to how one would say it and how another might say it.

Senator CAPEHART. You would say that a liberal was one who was 100 percent for sustaining the President's view on the labor bill? Mr. FAULKNER. Do I have to answer that?

Senator CAPEHART. Yes.

Mr. FAULKNER. From my point of view, he would be a liberal. Senator CAPEHART. Now, would it be impossible for the person who was in favor of overriding the President's veto to be likewise a liberal? Could not he be just as conscientious and sincere in believing that overriding the veto was in the best interests of the masses?

Mr. FAULKNER. The best way to determine that, Senator, is this: From our analysis of the particular situation, we feel that the particular bill, the Taft-Hartley bill, is going to do a lot of damage. Senator CAPEHART. That is your personal opinion.

Mr. FAULKNER. That is the point of view of a progressive, let us say. Well, at the moment, right now, it may not be measurable, but certainly time will tell. And time does not take more than a day or two. We see now, already, that the bill has caused certain reper

cussions.

Senator CAPEHART. All right. Let us take the tax bill. Would you call a man a liberal who was in favor of sustaining the President's veto and denying about 30,000,000 of the so-called masses, a tax reduction? Would he be a liberal?

Mr. FAULKNER. I personally have not fully examined the tax bill, except in this respect; that I would say, as a progressive, that on the surface the bill was not in the interest of the masses.

Senator CAPEHART. It would reduce the taxes of about 30,000,000 people, would it not?

Mr. FAULKNER. But the greater benefit was given to those persons in the upper brackets.

Senator CAPEHART. Let us admit for the moment that 12,000,000 got more benefits than 30,000,000 did. But why deny the 30,000,000 who are the masses, the benefit of it?

Mr. FAULKNER. Because the bill was not a progressive tax bill, in this respect, that for the small-income group there should be greater tax benefits.

Senator CAPEHART. I just wanted your viewpoint.

Mr. FAULKNER. We say that the tax bill was bad, because if it was in the interest of the masses of the people rather than the select, it would give benefits, greater benefits to the lower structure of the tax-paying population than to the upper structure.

Senator CAPEHART. But because a few rich people would derive benefit from it, the so-called liberal would deny to the others a chance to get any benefits.

Mr. FAULKNER. We say that a bad tax bill is bad. And we would like to see one, if the Senator would like to introduce it, which would give greater benefit to the smaller income group.

Senator CAPEHART. What you would like to do is to have the masses pay no taxes, and take it all away from those who "have"?

Mr. FAULKNER. We say that everybody has an obligation to support the Government, but in proportion to his income.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have anything further?

Senator CAPEHART. May I say to the witness that I believe our committee is sincere and conscientious in trying to work out some of these

problems. You bring one before us this morning, of course, because you represent a committee that has been organized for the purpose, as I understand it, partially at least, of getting "X" number of commentators back on the air.

Mr. FAULKNER. No, we do not stand just getting these particular commentators back. We say that the airwaves should be open to all points of view.

Senator CAPEHART. I agree with that 100 percent.

Mr. FAULKNER. And we believe that to eliminate the point of view of a progressive commentator is very damaging to our democracy. Because then the people could only get the viewpoint of those who express that point of view which influences their way of life.

Senator CAPEHART. I agree with you, but I would like to have someone tell me who is going to be the final judge.

Mr. FAULKNER. Well, as I said before, I think that the people who elect our Congressmen and Senators to office should be the ones, by their power of expression, who should have something to say about it. And it should be brought before the proper authority to get at that.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we will have to arrange for a trial of all these correspondents, to determine whether they are in the public interest or not. Does that conclude your statement?

Mr. FAULKNER. Well, there are one or two other items that are contained in our brief.

If you will bear with me just one moment, I would like to refer to that portion of the bill concerning racial, religious, and political discrimination. Recently, the Federal Communications Commission announced an opinion involving the News Syndicate Co. in their application for an FM license. They held that they could not consider I would like to read from the memorandum, so that we will have the correct wording. This has to do with the evidence submitted by the American Jewish Congress concerning the Daily News' news reports concerning Negroes and Jews:

The evidence referred to does not have probative value for the purpose of determining the issues of the case.

Now, in that connection, we would like to refer there to that portion of your bill, referring to section 418.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the last paragraph.

Mr. FAULKNER. The last paragraph; yes.

Discrimination prohibited.

We say that that does not have teeth in it, so to speak.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you redraft that and send it to me?

Mr. FAULKNER. I would be happy to.

The CHAIRMAN. Send me a draft, a redraft, that you think has teeth.

Mr. FAULKNER. We feel that on the application for renewal of a license, it should be possible to examine the qualifications of the applicant to see whether the station has properly served the people, or whether they might continue to carry on their anti-Semitic or antiNegro or anti-social points of view.

The CHAIRMAN. You know that there is a provision in the bill which gives the Commission the power to refuse the renewal of a license,