The citizen. (Honesdale, Pa.) 1908-1914, 1912-09-27
A FOOL NEWSPAPER LAW
Continued From Page One.)

published without the word "adver-
tisement" in case the reporter was
admitted without paying.
So far as is known the Govern
ment has never before imposed a pen
atty of complete exclusion from the
mails, except for poisons and for 9TH
er articles obviously unmailable, un-
! til it decided to find a punishment to
! fit the crime of a newspaper editor
or publisher for refusing to make
! public the details of his business.
Mr.. Beck's Opinion.
Following is Mr.. Becli's opinion in
part;
My opinion has been asked as to
| the constitutionality of that portion
of IAN Act making appropriations
! for the service of the Postoffice De-
partment,' approved August "a,
! 1912, which under the guise of regu-
! lating the carriage OF the mails
seeks to regulate journalism.
The section referred to is novel,
far reaching and whether intentional
or unintentional, will be, if sustained
as a valid law, the entering wedge
! for a Federal censorship of the press.
! Without quoting the section in full,
it is enough to say that the act, un-
der the pretence of making appro-
priations for the Postoffice Depart
ment, makes it the duty of the edi-
tor, publisher, business manager or
owner of every newspaper, magazine,
periodical or other publication to file
with the Postmaster General twice
a year
"a sworn statement setting forth
the names and postoffice addresses of
the editor and managing editor, pub
Usher, business managers, and own
ers, and. in addition, the stockhold-
ers; if the publication be owned by a
corporation; and also the names of
known bondholders, mortgages or
other security holders, and also in
the case of daily newspapers there
shall be included in such statement
the average of the numbers of copies
of each issue of such publication sold
or distributed to paid subscribers
during the preceding six months.
1t is further provided:
That all editorial or other read
ing matter published in any such
newspaper, magazine, or periodical
for the publication of which money
or other valuable consideration is
paid, accepted or promised shall be
plainly marked advertisement Any
editor or publisher printing editorial
or other reading matter for which
compensation is paid accepted or
promised without so marking the
same shall upon conviction in any
court having jurisdiction be fined
not less than $50 or more than
$500"
Plainly Unconstitutional.
To the first question, therefore, the
answer can be unhesitatingly given
that the attempt to dictate to news
paper editors and publishers what
shall go in their columns, without
reference to the carriage of such
publications in the mails or in inter-
state commerce, is unconstitutional
While the Federal courts have al
ways been indisposed to declare un-
constitutional any act of Congress,
yet | am confident that any United
States court would with little hesita-
tion declare this section of the law
null and void.
2. The second question, however,
does not admit of so easy an answer.
1t is true that the law literally re-
quires the newspaper editor or pub
Usher twice a year to file statements
with the Postmaster General as to
the ownership of the publication and
its circulation. 1t does not, how
ever, attempt to punish the failure
to do so but simply provides that any
! publication which fails to conform
to these provisions shall be denied
the privileges of the mails"
Reading these two sections tOgeth-
er and having in mind the fact that
: a court will whenever possible place
such construction upon a statute as
will reasonably save it's constitution
ality, | am of opinion that a court
would construe this portion of the
law as simply providing that no
publication shall be carried in the
mails unless it's editor or publisher
shall first conform to the provisions
above cited. Is this provision of
, the law constitutional?
. Purpose to Regulate Journalism.
The present question pointedly
raises this question: Looking beyond
the form and to the substance, it is
obvious that Congress by this rider
to the postoffice appropriation bill
, sought to regulate journalism The
carriage in the mails is a mere pre-
tence. 1t cannot and does not mat
ter to the Federal Government
whether the newspapers which it
carries contain sworn statements of
circulation and the names of the pub
Usher. In either event they weigh
neither more nor less and if in the
collection of postal dues it is neces-
sary for the Postoffice Department to
know the responsible owner of pub
lication or what its circulation is,
there are other and more proper
methods for making such inquiry.
So far as the Federal Government
is concerned, there is no reason why
a newspaper should be Obliged to
make public the details of its busi-
ness office. 1t is therefore obvious
that this act is intended to regulate
journalism and not the mails. It's
obvious purpose is to acquaint the
public with the ownership of every
publication and the extent of its cir
culation, and while these may be de-