Evening star., 1949-03-10
Proposed Postal Bill
Seen as Interference
With Press Freedom
Louisiunu Case Recalled
In Opposition to Rates
Bosed on Advertising
By David Laurence

Congress is enjoined by the Bill
of Rights of the Constitution
against the passage of any law
"abridging the freedom of the
press"
Yet the present Congress has
under consideration a proposal
to use the postal rate-making
power to tell the press how to
make up its newspapers or peri
odicals and what proportions it
shall give to reading matter. In
deed, the pending bill endeavors
to tell publishers that they will
be penalized if they write articles
mentioning the name OF certain
types of business or the price OF
articles, sold.
Most people think that freedom
of the press under the Constitu-
ton means merely that Congress
cannot make a law interfering
with what is written. But the
Supreme Court of the United
States, in unanimous opinion in
February. 1886. ruled that any law
which discriminates against the
press as such is unconstitutional.
No Qualification Made.
The Constitution does not make
any qualification or reservation
about the kind of law that may be
passed abridging the freedom OF
the press. It prohibits the adop-
ton of any special provision OF
law in the field of taxes or appro-
priations that is designed for or
has the effect of curtailing the
dissemination of information. i
The Supreme Court, in the case
that arose 13 years ago over an
attempt of the State OF Louisiana
to put a tax on newspapers OF a
certain size, said:
The tax imposed is designated
q license tax for the privilege OF
engaging in such business'-that
is to say, the business OF selling,
or making any charge for, adver-
tising. AS applied to appellees, 1t
is a tax of per cent on the gross
receipts derived from advertise
ments carried in their newspapers
when. and only when, the news
papers of each enjoy a circulation
of more than 10000 copies per
week. 1t thus operates as a re-
straint in a double sense. First, Its
effect is to curtail the amount OF
revenue realized from advertising,
and, second, it's direct tendency is
to restrict circulation. This IS
plain enough when we consider
that. if it were increased to high
degree, as it could be if valid, 1t
might we'll result in destroying
both advertising and circulation.
History of Moves Traced.
The fact that Congress. upon
the recommendation OF Postmas-
ter General Donaldson, is asked
to put a penalty on the varying
amounts of advertising carried in
a publication and to fix rates on
the basis of what proportion OF
reading matter Is presented, I'M
posing a gradually increasing
scale of charges according to an
arbitrary system of measurement. !
is no less an interference with
the freedom of the press because
1t is governmental service or
facility that is involved.
If Congress can use its postal
licensing power to put periodicals
out of business. it can do indirect
ly but no less effectively what
the First Amendment to the Con-
stitution specifically prohibits.
The Supreme Court in its 1886
opinion traced the long history OF
"taxes on knowledge" showing
how in England and in the colo
nies taxes on circulation and ad-
vertising we're tried at various
times as a means of making the
press subservient to government.
The court said:
1T is not intended by anything
we have said to suggest that the
owners of newspapers are immune
from any of the ordinary forms OF
taxation for support of the gov
ernment. But this is not an or
binary form of tax, but one single
in kind, with a long history OF
hostile misuse against the freedom
of the press.
Potential Harm Seen.
1.-THE predominant purpose OF
the grant of immunity here in
voked was to preserve an untram-
meled press as a vital source OF
public information. The news
papers, magazines and other
journals of the country, 1t is safe
to say, have shed and continue
to shed, more light on the public
and business affairs of the Nation
than any other instrumentality OF
publicity; and since informed
public opinion is the most potent
of all restraints upon misgovern-
ment, the suppression or abridge-
ment of the publicity afforded by
q free press cannot be regarded
otherwise than with grave con-
Germ. The tax here involved is
bad not because it takes money
from the pockets of the appellees.
If that were all. wholly different
question would be presented"
1t is true that for several years
the Post Office Department has
been permitted by Congress to
set up arbitrary classifications as
between users of second-class
mail, but the passive acceptance
by the press itself of such unrea-
sonable rules and classifications
that discriminate between users.
tolerated no doubt because the
rates were relatively low, does not
mitigate the evils of unconstitu-
tionality which are now revealed
In all their capacity for potential
harm to the distribution of knoWl-
edge in free America.
(Production Rights Ressrved)