Evening star., 1937-12-10

Whlch the press $%##1
has always felt p,r,a ,.w
that it had to
withhold sources of its information
and to refuse to give such testimony
in courts or before governmental
tribunals.
One case involves the editor OF
newspaper in st. MaryS, Pa, who was
sharply cross-eXamined by an attor-
ney representing the labor board, and
the other the effort of a regional trial
examiner to require by subpoena the
presence of an editor of a magazine.
What unfortunately is not generally
known but happens nevertheless to be
true is that the National Labor Rela-
tions Board itself-the agency of those
members who act in quasi-judicial
capacity in constituting the Wagner
Act-did not have anything to do with
either case, neither ordering the cross
examination of the editor nor the
subpoena of the other.
This comes about through the fact
that the board has many trial ex-
aminers who act as masters or trial
Judges. These "examinerS'-and
other governmental commissions have
them, too-are merely agents of the
board charged with the duty of taking
testimony and making report on it
to the board.
Board Informed Later.
;. lSolo Eref
Information which the members of
the National Labor Relations Board
had of the transcript of the testimony
of the editor of the st. Marys paper
was when they read a record of it in
the newspapers this week. Members
of the board are said to feel that
the lawyer who cross-e s-eXamined the
editor went far beyond the proprieties
and far beyond the necessities of evi-
dence gathering.
AS for the subpoena of the writer of
an article in a trade magazine last
week, here, too, the board did not
know of the event till the newspapers
reported it. This is because it is the
custom of governmental commissions
to permit their regional representa-
tives to take with them to various
parts of the United States some blank
subpoenas and when the attorneys
designated to try cases want witness
summoned they merely fill out the
blanks and thus save the delays
incident to writing back to Washington
and waiting for approval of every
subpoena before its issuance
Senatorial committees have for a
long time been in the habit of issuing
blank subpoenas to their agents to be
filled out as the agents discover in
the course of investigation the names
of persons from whom evidence might
be obtained.
Reports Inform Board.
The board has many attorneys oper-
ating in the field. There are literally
thousands of pages of testimony being
taken nearly every day and it would be
almost a physical impossibility for the
board here to be acquainted with what
Is being done in the trials before eX-
aminers. Usually the board learns
what has happened when the ex-
aminers forward to Washington a
report with their recommendations
and attach thereto complete steno-
graphic record of testimony.
The important fact from the point
OF view of the press is to know that
the National Labor Relations Board
realizes full well what the freedom of
the press means and has no intention
of interfering with it. 1t can, of
course, and will be argued that the
board is responsible for everything
said or done by its attorneys in the
field and by its trial examiners. In a
technical sense this is true. But in
fairness to the board, the fact remains
also that there is not the slightest
ground for stating that the board knew
In advance or in any way motivated
the attack which was made by attor-
neys in the field on the rights of the
press.
In the case of the individual sub
poenaed to tell about the circulation of
his article among employees of plant
where labor dispute was going on,
the issue to be determined is whether
the circulation was natural process
done wholly by the magazine or
whether it was an artificial affair In
which the reprints of the article were
distributed among the employees at
the direction of the employer.
Should Guide It's Agents.
There will no doubt be all sorts
Of controversies as to the wisdom of
what the attorneys and trial ex-
aminers do in the field and criticism of
their acts probably will be found justi-
hed in some cases and unjustified in
others. What really is wrong today
Is that the board is such a new agancy
and so obviously trying to develop by
experience what its practice should
be for trying the many cases brought
before it that the board ought to
send out a set of cautionary rules
governing the work of its ATTORNEYS
and trial examiners. Then the pro-
ceedings before the trial examiners
would become more like the courts
of law, though here, too, the parallel
cannot be carried too far because
examiners hearings are informal
affairs in which the customary rules
of evidence are not binding. This is
because the purpose of the examiner
sometimes is merely to find out
whether an employer really has or has
not interfered with the rights of his
employees to self-organization. To get at
the facts it is often necessary to go
seemingly far afield, but so far as
the press is concerned it can object
to such excursions and this should help
ultimately to correct mistakes, and
abuses.
tCopyriEht. 1879
Japan Restricts Taxis.