Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-08-12
SUMMER SALES HIT
BY LOUD SPEAKERS
Industry Realizes Blatant Noises
Create Prejudice Against
'l;t Radio.
BY MARTIN CODEL.

What can be done about the louo
speaker nuisance? This season Of oper
windows and Irritating noises from
neighboring homes has again evoked g
question that has become perennial since
the advent Of radio.
Can any relief be sought in the Law
by exasperated seekers after peace and
quiet in their own homes? Answer
has been sought not only by many dis
traught persons but by the radio indus
try itself. The industry is beginning to
realize that the operation Of loud speak
ers which harass the neighbors has
aroused real prejudice against radio
with consequent effect upon Summer
sales.
Such operation of loud speakers has
been declared a nuisance and enjoined
by a Massachusetts, court. The decision
was upheld by the State Supreme Court
But such q law" says Paul M. Segal
assistant general counsel Of the Federal
its character and effect. States have
the authority under the police power to
regulate local nuisanceS and to prohibit
or restrict the use Of radio apparatus If
Its operation becomes a nuisance"
Relief, therefore. must be sought In
local ordinances. While many cities have
passed ordinances covering radio trans
mission and sources of interference with
radio reception, practically none has
1egislated against the loud speaker ntis-
ance. Mr.. Segal and Paul D. p. Spear
man, members Of the commissions legal
staff, are authors Of proposed model
ordinance which has been recommended
Tor adoption by municipalities.
The ordinance declares that 1t shall
be unlawful for any person, copartner-
ship, association, firm or corporation
knowingly or wantonly to use or operate
or cause to be used or operated any
mechanical device, machine or apparatus
or instrument for tntensiication of the
human voice or any sound or noise in
4 any public or private place in such
manner that the peace and good order
OF the neighborhood is disturbed or that
persons owning, using or occupvinc
property in the neighborhood are dis
turbed or annoyed"
Another clause fixes a penalty of fine
imprisonment in the city Jail, or both
to be fixed at the discretion of the city
fathers. Ford II. MacGregor, Univer.
sity OF Wisconsin authority In municipal
government, In recent treatise on mu.
ntcipal radio interference ordinance!
says that cities have the right to abatt
nuisanceS and to suppress unnecessary
noises under their police power.
He thinks this includes radio noises
although there has been no legal tes
Of a city's authority in his State. Re
ferring mainly to sources of radio in
reference, such as electrical regenerat
ing equipment, Mr.. MacGregor makes
the following statement:
Certainly the irritating disturbanc,
in the loud speaker caused by local in
reference constitutes a more annoyinl
noise nuisance than the barking O.
dogs, locomotive whistles and othel
noises against which cities have enacted
and enforced ordinances. With the in
creased popularity Of the radio and 1t.
use for the dissemination Of important
information, it is becoming more ant
more to be closely connected with the
public welfare, and it is possible tina
the exercise Of the police power to pro-
tect this new method Of communication
would be sustained In the orders wher
invoked to prevent willful, unnecessary
and reasonably preventable disturb.
ances."
Certainly, If radio interference seem,
to touch owners of receiving sets in 6
very sensitive spot" as Mr.. MacGregol
observes, annoyance from radio ha.
touched many more owners and non
owners Of radio sets in very sensitiv.
spot. Public sentiment, it is general!
felt. will uphold any municipal enact
Acnts against thel loud speaker NUS