Evening star., 1944-12-07
Arguments Concluded
In AP Suit; Ruling
Expected Early in Year
By the Associated Press.

Conclusion of arguments in the
Associated Press case has left up tc
the Supreme Court decision
whether the news cooperative
membership rules violate antitrust
laws as the Government contends.
The arguments before the high
tribunal wound up yesterday on the
theme by AP Counsel John T. Cahill
that the issue underlying the suit is
freedom of the press-Whether the
AP is to become an 'instrumentality
of the Government" subject to con-
trolls as public utility.
Government attorneys, on the
other hand, argued that freedom OF
the press is not threatened and that
there is no danger that AP will be
made into a public utility and regu-
lated as such.
Roberts Shows Concern.
Justice Roberts displayed concern
in comment and questioning over
the possibility that, if the antitrust
action is sustained, Government reg
ulation would result.
The Government and the AP ap-
pealed from a 2-to-1 decision by a
special New York Federal District
Court restraining the AP from OBJ
serving bylaws taking into consld-
Grafton the ability Of an applicant Tor
membership to compete with an Az
member in the same field mornlng
or evening" and locality. The court
said, however, the AP could restrlct
membership on other grounds.
The Government wants a more
explicit" decree defining the extent
to which the news cooperative may
exclude applicants.
Justice Roberts observed at one
point that the lower court, under the
decree, would have to pass on rea-
sons for exclusion of an applicant
in the future. Charles B. Rugg,
special assistant to the Attorney
General, replied that he didn't think
that would be the case.
Fears Repeated Challenges.
But Justice Roberts, persisted
along this line during later argu-
ments by Assistant Attorney General
Wendell Berge. Justice Roberts
said that every time there is an elec-
ton of an AP member. some "srls-
picion" would arise and the Justice
Department would be going to the
courts every time to say there Is
exclusion"
Mr.. Berge asserted. however, that
the difficulties of judicial super
vision" would not be unusual pro-
viding the AP displayed good faith
in fulfilling the decree.
The court took the case under ad-
visement at the conclusion OF the
arguments, with a decision unlikely
for several weeks. AS the case went
to the court, these were the major
arguments for both sides:
The AP: The lower courts de-
cree would force AP to open its
membership to everybody. This
would tend to create a monopoly
and public utility under Govern
ment control There is no issue over
monopoly, dominance OF the news,
inadequacy of competition or lndls-
pensability. Instead, the Govern
ment has introduced novel
theory that it is an antitrust vio-
lation if members of cooperative
refuse to share the advantages OF
its association with its competitors.
Governments Contentious.
The Government: AP member
ship bylaws "on their face, are In
restraint of commerce" because OF
a combined refusal to deal for COM
petitive reasons; combined denial
to a competitor of the fruits" OF an
association; and because the impact
on nonmembers and the ultimate
readers "detrl-
mental" to the public interest. The
lower courts decree will not make
the AP a public utility; it will not
force AP to admit everybody; and
it will not require it to supply news
to nonmembers.
Mr.. Cahill closed the APPS argu-
ments with a declaration that the
outcome of this case is awaited with
great interest-not only here at
home, but throughout the world. >
1--WE will approach the peace table
with a firm resolve to show and, we
hope, convince the world that a free
press is greatly to be preferred to
press subject to governmental con-
trolls"
Justices Ask Many Questions.
Mr.. Cahill came in for frequent
by the justices during
his earlier principal argument, but
Mr.. Rugg, leading the Governments
presentation, found himself engaged
in almost a straight out question
and-answer session.
Mr. Rugg said the AP did not
deny that it was engaged in inter
state commerce and did not deny
that its bylaws read as the Gov
ernment contends they do.
Shaking his head. Justice Douglas
remarked that it was possible to as
semble facts to show that something
might be done-but that it was
matter of truth whether powers
arising from these facts were 'vici-
ously used.
ZAP bylaws on their face are
a restraint of commerce" Mr.. Rugg
asserted. He said the Government
contended there was violation Of the
Sherman Antitrust Act by:
l. Combined refusal to deal for
competitive reasons.
2. Combined denial to a competi-
tor of the fruits" of an associa-
ton
8. Under the rule of reason" the
irnnact on non -memher competi-