The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1912-09-12
Furnishing THE NEWSPAPERS.

This is the way it seemed to the Ed
iter of The New York Journal Of Com
merce:
The action or congress in passing a
drastic provision requiring publication
of h circulation, ownership, stock
holders names, and many other details
concerning the business affairs Of the
newspapers and other publications of
the country is worthy of careful con-
s~ideration. There is strong evidence
that the scheme is the outcome of the
long standing desire keenly felt by a
certain class of statesmen to penal
ize the metropolitan press Of the our
try for its exposure of their doings.
For several sessions there has been
an attempt to raise the rates Of post
age to such a point as would cripple
many periodicals. Other schemes have
been tried, but none has succeeded.
Political fear or the influence of con-
stituents has been able to block every
such effort. At last q plan, believed
to strike directly at the publications
which have most excited hostility, has
been slipped through, at the end Of
a session when all was in confusion,
and when the revision of offensive bills
was nearly out of the question.
What this provision requires is the
publication of the inner details con-
corning a highly competitive kind of
business in which no monopoly is pos
sible or has ever been attempted. Why
should it be adopted? Only on the
ground that all business concerns
should be subjected to public scrutiny.
If the latter principle be accepted, the
newspaper publishers of the country
should be treated as are other man
ayers of business enterprises. But this
would be carrying government inter-
Vention much further than has ever
been proposed. No one has suggested
such publicity of accounts and bust
ness secrets, except in those cases
where monopoly conditions existed or
where some reason of public safety i'm
~peratively demanded exceptional treat
ment. There must be a line beyond
which the interference Of government
with private business shall not go. 1t
should at least be drawn at the point
where nc general public good purpose
is served by publicity for the details
of private affairs. There is no ground
for the adoption of legislation intended
solely to crafty unwarranted curiosity,
OF to satisfy some grudge, or to injure
those who have incurred the enmity of
public men not too scrupulous in the
means they employ to gain their own
ends.
In the present case the is
even stronger. Congress has applied
this provision for publicity only to
certain classes of newspapers. 1t has
omitted others. Ii has selected the
most highly competitive business for
its attack. 1t has never seriously con
sidered the adoption of such legislation
directed against monopolistic corpora
tions where economists and students of
public questions have agreed that 1T
was needed. 1t has refused to deal
with the trusts by this means. 1t
has fatty declined ever to adopt a bill
permitting corporations to file pre-
cisely this sort of data with the com
missioner of corporations, and in re-
turn to be granted the use of the
phrase IT,. S. Government registered
That proposal was promptly denounc-
ed on the floor as far too great an in
fringement of privacy. But congress,
or q certain type of legislators in con-
gress, has no hesitation in applying
this chastisement to publications
which 1t dislikes, 1t even admits that
the blew is aimed at a certain group
OF newspapers, since it exernpts many
periodicals in set terms, and as the
debate shows would have exempted
many more had it dared. For a long
time past there has been frank admis-
sion on the part of many statesmen
that they hated the newspapers and
an appreciable part Of the time during
the past session has been taken uo
with vitrolic abuse, directed against
them on the floor. Now congress seeks
mails unless they reveal what no con-
aress the right to ask for and for
II. &NH'