Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1913-06-10
WILL PRINT OWNERSHIP
AND CIRCULATION
SUPREME COURT UPA0LDS LAW WHICH
REQUIRES SEMI ANNUAL STATE
MENTS FROM NEWSPAPERS MANY
PAPERS FOUGHT THE CASE.

Washington, ID. G., June 1O.--AS in
terpreted by it, the supreme court to-
day upheld the constitutonality of
the newspaper publicity law enacted
as a part Of the postal appropriation
act of 1912.
The particular section attacked
was to bar ever: new spaper and peri
odical from the mails unless the edi
tors or owners filed with the postal
authorities semi-annually, sworn state
ments giving the names of the editors,
owners, stockholders and bondhold-
ers, and the average daily circulation
and thereafter Immediately published
the statements. 1t also forbade, un-
der penalty OF a fine, the publication
of paid-for articles without marking
them advertisement"
A bitter fight was made against the
law. The Journal of Commerce and
Commercial Bulletin of New York.
fought to have the United States
district court for southern New York
snis.< the ostnaster general from
enforcing the act on the ground that
it was unconstitutional. The objection
then raised was that the law abridg-
ed the freedom of the press by seek
ing to regulate the newspaper busi-
ness. The government defended the
law as regulation Of the use of sec
ond class mail privileges.
The New York court sustained the
of the law in this case, as it
did that brought by the Lewis Pub
llshing company of New York. 1t said
that the law effects more than 250.O0O
publications in the United States.
The court declared further that the
requirement that newspapers should
disclose their true owners was in
line with the great public purpose
which induced congress to continue
in favor of the publishers of news
papers, at vast public expense, the
ow postal rate as well as other priv
leges accorded by the second class
nail classification.
To emphasize this, the court quot
I'd from the report of the committee
stating that the intent of the legisla
ion was to secure to the public in
he dissemination of knowledge of
current events" by means of newspa-
)ers, the names not only of the ap-
but of what might prove to
le the real and substantial owners OF
he publications, and to enable the
public to know whether matter which |
vas published was what it purported |
o be or was in substance a paid ad-
Chief Justice White interpreted the |
regulation as being not
of the freedom of the press,
,ut merely as aftixing additional con-
litions for admission of newspapers
O the special privilege of the second /
lass mails. In the course of his /
opinion, he said
Was the provision intended simply
o supplement- the existing legislation I
eative TO second class mail matter, |
II was it enacted as an eXertion OF /
legislative power to regulate the press, |
0 curtail its freedom, and under the !
sumption that there was right to
ompel obedience to command of legis-
alton having that object in view to de-
rive one who refused to obey of all |
light to use the mail service.
when thequestion is thus denied,
IS solution is tree from difficulty.
ince by its terms, The provision only
egulates second class mail and the
Xclusion from the mails for which it
rovides is not an exclusion from the
1ails generally but only from the right
D participate in and enjoy the privi-
9ges accorded by the second class
Speaking particularly of the clause
the marking of paid for
DIS as advertisements, Chief Justice
White said from the bench that this
equirement was cognate with the
olicy of the government from its /
to make the expenditure
f vast sums which afford low mail
ates to newspapers, bring some ade
uate returns to the public.
THE reasons which cause us to
link this to be the case are these:
"A. Because the provision is part
Continued on page eight. L