Evening star., 1952-03-02
Final Arguments
To Be Heard on
Streefcar Radios.
Court Gives Eeeh Side
One Hour Tomorrow
On Return to Bench

row on WheLher radio hr0adcasts
on Capitol Transit streetcars and
buses violate the constitutional
rights Of riders.
Returning to the bench after
month Of studying cases already
argued and petitions recently filed,
the tribunal will first hand down
opinions. These may decide such
major issues as validity of Bible
reading IN public schools and the
released time" arrangement for
religious instruction Of pupils.
Also awaiting decision, perhaps
tomorrow, are several appeals
testing deportation or fixing
procedures against aliens described
as members Of subversive organi-
cations.
Broadcasts Bring $4,000.
The broadcast-on-wheels issue
has attracted Nationwide notice
because a score of other large
cities allow such programs on
public transportation vehicles.
Capital Transit has stated it gets
$4,000 a year by permitting
Washington Transit Radio, Inc,
to install and operate radio de-
vices or buses and Streetcars.
The dispute reached the SUI
preme Court on appeal from q
United States Court of Appeals
decision last June that commercial
broadcasts of that kind are un-
constitutional because they de-
prive "objecting passengers of
liberty without due process of
law"
Although the appeals court did
not rule on the musical aspects
of bus and streetcar radio broad
casts, supplementary petition by
opponents Of the broadcastS has
urged the high court to silence all
radio sounds on the vehicles.
Two Citizens Lead Opposition.
The District Public Utilities
Commission in December, 1949,
dismissed a petition to halt the
broadcasts. That was the first
round in a long fight waged by
Franklin S. Pollak and Guy Mar
tin as private citizens, against the
broadcaSts. District Court Judge
Edward A. Tamm upheld the PUG.
Meanwhile, Mr.. Pollak and Mr..
Martin gained strong support
from a group organized as the
Transit Riders Association.
At the oral arguments tomor-
row, the two petitioners will be
represented by Attorneys Paul M.
Segal, John w. Willis and Charles
L. Black. jr.
Attorneys forsthe PUG. Capital
Transit and Washington Transit
Radio, Inc, are to open the argu-
ment. Each side will have an hour
to outline arguments in connec-
ton with previously submitted
written briefs and to answer ques-
tions by the Justices.
Call BrOadcaSts Lawful.
Main contentious Of the advo-
Gates of broadcasts are:
That the appeals court decision
"intruded upon the legislative
function Of the PUG by erecting
without precedent or authority a
supposed constitutional bar to the
exercise Of that function; that
transit broadcasts are no in
consistent with public convenience,
comfort and safety.
That freedom to communicate"
is guaranteed by the Constitu-
ton; that objectors to the broad
casts have no rights, constitu-
tional or otherwise, to use the
private property OF Capital
Transit except as such rights have
been defined by the public utility
regulatory statutes applicable
within the District;
That the acts of the transit
company. insofaras they relate to
broadcasting, are lawful acts Of
a private person and nothing
more; that Government-regu-
lated private utilities are
not Government instrumentalities
whose acts constitute govern
mental action: and that the free
dom of passengers to listen is at
least as great as the freedom Of
passengers not to listen.
Foes Asks Three Questions.
Opponents of the broadcasts
have indicated they will ask, in
general, that the Supreme Court
say yes" to these three main
questions:
Does the loudSpeaker rendition
of radio programs in the buses
and streetcars of a monopoly
transit company deprive object
ing riders Of their liberty in vio-
1ation of the Fifth Amendment
to the Constitution by depriving
them of the free use of their fac
ulGleS!
Does the loudspeaker rendi-
ton deprive objecting riders of
property in violation of the Fifth
Amendment by depriving them
of the use of their time and at
tention, for the benefit of others
and without compensation?
Does This loudspeaker rendi-
ton deprive objecting riders OF
their rights under the First
Amendment to the Constitution
by forcing on them speech which
they do not wish to hear by
making it difficult or impossible
for them to hear speech of others
which they do wish to hear, by
making it difficult or impossible
for them to speak to others q:
they choose, by generally inter.
fering with their freedom to listen
or not to listen, and to read OF
not to read, and by the exercise OF
censorship. through previous re-
Straint, over what they must