Evening star., 1942-02-21
Big Radio Companies
Lose Suit 10 Halt Ban
On Chain Contracts
Three-Judee Court
Divided on Jurisdiction
To Rule on Action
By the Associated Press.

By the Associated Press.
NEW YORK, Feb. 2l.-A three
judge Federal Statutory Court, in
an opinion filed in Federal Court
today, dismissed actions brought by
the National Broadcasting Co., Inc,
and the Columbia Broadcasting Sys-
ten, Inc, to enjoin the Federal Com
munications Commission from en-
forcing its regulations restricting
chain broadcasting.
The complaints were dismissed "for
lack of jurisdiction"
Relief sought under section 402 of
the Communications Act of 1884,
the court suggested. is by appeal to
the Court of Appeals of the District
of Columbia, and Is to be heard
upon the record made at the hear
ing Of the application by the COM
mission.
The opinion was written by United
States Circuit Court of Appeals
Judge Learned Hand, with Federal
Judge Henry w. Goddard concur
ring, and Federal Judge John Bright
dissenting.
Regulations Opposed.
The actions were brought by the
networks to enjoin and set aside
regulations originally made by the
commission on May 2, 1941, amended
October II, and further added to on
october 81, 1941.
The dismissals were on motions of
the Government and the Communi-
cations Commission.
The F. c. c. orders would bar ex-
clusively in network affiliate station
contracts and would prohibit N. B.
c. from owning two networks. N. B.
G. recently sold its Blue Network,
retaining the Red Network.
Joined as plaintiffs in the NJ B. C.
action were the Woodmen of the
World Life Insurance Society of Ne
braska, and the Stromberg- Carlson
Telephone Manufacturing Co. The
Mutual Broadcasting System, Inc,
intervened in the suit, as it did in
the C. B. S. action.
The opinion declared that the
commissions orders were mo more
than thes declarations of the condi-
tions upon which the commission
will in the future issue licenses to
stations"
Announcement of Policy.
The Government and the commits |
sion asked for the dismissal on the |
ground that the regulations were not |
"orders" within statute meaning,
and that therefore the court was
without jurisdiction.
The commission further pointed |
out, according to the opinion, that
it had not issued orders" but merely
announcements of the course 1t
would take on application by aff1l-
late stations for new licenses or for
renewals
The networks, however, held that |
the regulations had an immediate
effect upon them; that the COM |
mission had "adjudicated the in
validity" of the contracts between
the networks and their af1liates, and
that the networks already had sus-
tanned serious losses because a num-
Der of afhliates had said they would
be obliged to break their contracts.
A further contention was that the
networks would find it impossible to
accept large and valuable advertis-
ing contracts.
The prevailing opinion pointed
out that the court was not making
any findings of facts" on the in
junction applications of the net
works, emphasizing that the court |
was not refusing" any injunction.
Once the complaints are dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction, the opinion |
stated, the motions become moot
land we shall not pass upon them
at ALL"