Evening star., 1936-01-30
RIGHT OF PETITION
HELDENDANGERED
Curbing of Constitutional
Privileges Seen in New
S. E. c. Rules.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.


~ S. E. c. Rules.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.
President Roosevelt once asked the
radio audience, In view Of the charges
about vanishing constitutional rights,
to point out what liberties they hao
lost.
Today It is possible to give the an
swer on one of the most fundamental
rights guaranteed by the Constitu-
tion-namely. the right Of petition.
long held sacred as a prerequisite to q
democracy as contrasted with die
tatorship.
For the Securities and Exchange
Commission has at last, after several
weeks delay. promulgated, as required
by act of Congress, the rules and reg
ulations whereby persons employed In
q given industry. may approach their
members of Congress and converse
with them on ANY matter" affecting
their business.
=. Scope May Be Extended.
It is true the limitation applies for
the moment only to one industry, but
If this law is valid and is not
knocked rut some Gay by the Supreme
Court Of the United States, then the
limitations may be extended to any
business or industry or group OF any
kind or its representatives that the
Congress in an arbitrary whim may
decide to exclude from the right OF Pc
tition.
The act in question is the public
utility holding company law, which re-
ouires the S. E. c. to issue rules gov
erning tie right Of representatives OF
registered" holding companies or any
operating companies they own to talk
with merrbers of Congress or with the
S. 9 itself. BY a curious irony OF
circumstances. the registered" hold
ing companies which have complied
with the utility law since December
last are caught in the dragnet OF red
tape which makes them submit to a
limitation on their right OF petition,
whereas the employees or lobbyists OF
other utility holding companies. which
have refused to register" because
their attorneys told them the law In
entirety is unconstitutional, are free
to come arc go on Capitol Hill and
arE mot subject to the laws provl-
sions.
Regarded Inequitable.
A more inequitable application OF
the Federal statutes or more un-
equal situation could hardly be de-
vised. But the problem involved IN
the removal of the right of petition
is deeper than the controversy over
the, utility lobbyists. As q matter OF
fact. the law and the regulations con-
stitute q reflection on members OF
Congress themselves, for the implica-
ton is that Senators and Representa-
tives do not know how to protect
themselves from improper lobbying OF
persuasion. It indicates rather that
the administration would like to keep
tabs on Congress by means OF record
of lust who talks with members OF
Congress and on what subjects.
For the new regulations, though at
the present requiring only a brief
statement of the nature OF the puSl-
ness that private individual may
have with his Senator or Representa-
tive, can easily be enlarged by the
issuance of another regulation asking
for every single item in the conver-
sation, including the exact number
of cigars smoked or cigarettes passed
from one to the other. Once the
power to invade the privacy of con-
versation is granted. the precedent
Is set for unlimited espionage.
The effort to regulate the activities
of lobbyists is in itself commendable
but it would be more effectively ac-
complished if the penal code with
reference to bribing congressman OF
of the rules about congressional &C.
tivities in private companies etc.
were to be made more stringent. In
stead Of restricting Congress itself. the
law has curtailed the rights OF the
citizen. The precedent is very impor-
tant, because what Is done in one
industry or group can be done in
another and thus the rights of the
citizen, which are guaranteed by the
Constitution, to petition for redress ol
grievences could be gradually elm
inssed.
Provisions Of Constitution.
The Constitution specifically de-
c1aSSs that the right Of petition can
not.pe abridged" The S. E. c. states
thats its rules impose no limitations
nshe extent to which holding COM
paiifes and their subsidiaries may be
represented before Congress or either
commission" but the new rules dc
reqaire them, nevertheless, to make
CERTAIN statements about the nature
Of their activities Just how a person
who opposes piece Of legislation Of
VINO wishes to discuss pending legisla-
tion can do so freely when he know.
that the name Of the Congressman
and the mature" Of the conversation
must be reported is difficult to i'm.
aHine
With the modern system of political
reprisals against Congressman who de
not obey the mandates Of the executive
branch Of the Government, 1t cannot
= b said that, after the issuance Of thu
8. E. c. rules, the citizen has the same
unlimited right of private conversation
with his Representative in Congress a.
he had last week.
Public in Dark,
Any limitation amounts to an abridge.
nient. especially when it diminishes the
area Of effectiveness of the personI
who wish to present their petitions
But what is unfair about the Who'll,
business is that the New Deal does no
permit the public to know the nature
Of the activities Of spokesmen for ant
emissaries sent by the executive branch