Evening star., 1923-11-30
May Test Radio Rule.
Writer Would Have Broadcasters
Put Legal Talent on Question.

10 the Editor OF The Star:
The bulletin issued by the superin-
tendent of police under date of No
vember 20, stating that 1t is "a vio-
lation of law for any person to In
stall radio sets where an outside an
tenna is used without first obtaining
permit therefor" raises the very
pertinent question as to what law
reference is made. violation Of law"
is an ambiguous term. There is only
one lava federal enactment--that
concerns radio. It's enforcement is
given to the Department of Commerce
and 1t contemplates no regulation of
the sort the police have been in
structed to enforce by Maj. Daniel
Sullivan.
District building regulations scarce
~ apply to an operation that essen
tlalIy is as simple as hanging a
clothes line. 1t Is unfair CONSEQUENT
ly to Impose a requirement upon
radio receiving set owners that. ao-
cording to the report in Tuesdays
issue Of The Star, was inspired by the
carelessneSS of q member of the mark
police force who paid for the act with
MS life. With all respect to the de-
ceased 1t should not be assumed that
wires are dangerous, and therefore
keep away from them and the anten-
ma Well clear of all overhead wiring
1t Is conceded and stringing wires
across public space should not he
permitted. 1t is in this area thar the
power and light wires are strung
not over private property in which
the owner or tenant may wish to
hang an antenna. 1t is well known. of
course, that there is no dangerous
oil lnp fr%fn
required by radio receiving set
Crystal sets need no more electrical
Impulse than that received from the
atmosphere. The vacuum tube receIv-
ing set needs only low voltage cur
rent supplied by dry cells. Then why
should a permit be required to install
an instrument which has no poten-
tiality for the injury of life and prop
erty, when the owner keeps
within the limits of private prop
erty? This question should be answer
ed by Maj. Sullivan, especially in view
OF the fact that the Insurance COM
panies do not require municipal in
spection or property on which radio
receiving apparatus is installed.
IL was stated in the report publish
ed In The Star that the permit re-
qulrement is not designed as a rev.
embarrassing measure but a means to
give the Districts electrical depart
ment means of checking up on the
manner in which antenna are erected.
This statement cannot be accepted in
good faith by the radio set owner,
when, in the same breath, he is called
upon arbitrarily to pay a charge of
81. charge for an automobile Ii
cense is justifiable, as the expense of
road maintenance devolves upon the
District and the automobile owner re-
ceives a direct benefit or It NAV be
more properly described as service.
The District is not required to per-
form any service in connection with
the reception of radio programs
broadcast, and the expense Of main
tenance is borne jointly by the broad
casting stations and the receiving set
owner. Furthermore, mere payment
for and receiving a permit to install
radio receiving set, and such hap
hazard inspection as District en-
ployes might be able to make, does
not insure the safety of the person
who actually strings the antenna- 1t
would become merely petty matter
Of form
The regulation states further that
it rs in violation of law for any per-
son to install radio sets where an out
side aerial Is used without first OBJ
tanning the permit therefor" Then
why should a permit be required at
this time from radio set owners who
installed their sets in the past? How
could the radio set owner who in
stalled his set month or a year ago
comply with the requirement of first
obtaining a permit therefor" when 1t
had not yet been established?
It is earnestly requested of the
Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone
Company and the Radio Corporation
Of America. operating, respectively,
radio broadcasting stations WCAP
and WRC. that they direct their at
torneys to test the legality OF the
police regulation. To the best of my
knowledge there Is no other manner
In which a Just decision on the mat
ter can be arrived at. It would cost
the largely unorganized receiving set
owners more to secure Justice in
court than to pay for what they be-
lieve to be an unjust requirement.
IRWIN D. F00S.