Evening star., 1953-03-12
Attack on Unit Ads
lsCalIed Threat 10
Freedom Of Press
BY Robert K. WoIsh

The Supreme Court today
studied a contention that the
Government threatens freedom
of the press by urging judicial
regulation of a long-established
policy of newspaper advertising
rates.
The tribunal between now and
June may rule on that point in a
case involving a Justice Depart
ment attack on a combination
rate requirement of the New
Orleans Times-Picayune Pub
fishing Co. The court was in
formed in oral arguments yes
terday that about 180 newspa-
pers follow the same practice.
The New Orleans company
publishes the Times-Picayune in
the morning and the States in
the afternoon. Classified and ma
tional advertisements are not
accepted unless inserted in both
papers at a so-called unit COM
bination rate.
The Justice Department con-
tended this was a forced" rate
method unfair to the Item, an
other afternoon paper in New
Orleans. It declared the system
also prevents advertisers from
making an ''untrammeled choice"
among papers in the community.
implications Stressed.
The Nationwide implications
of the case we're emphasized by
John J. Cahill, a New York at
torney representing a group of
other companies which publish
morning and evening papers.
That situation, it was explained,
does not apply directly in Wash
ington where one newspaper has
morning and afternoon editions
with the same general features.
The papers put out by the
Times-Picayune Publishing Co.
differ greatly in appearance and
content.
Mr.. Cahill. replying to argu-
ments by Assistant Solicitor
General Robert L. Stern, said
the Governments theory" goes
far beyond the New Orleans case
1t proposes a novel definition of
monopoly so that any newspaper
holding supposed dominant
position in a community can be
subjected to continuous court
regulation of its rates, he main
tanned.
That would put the courts into
the newspaper business, Mr.. Ca
hill said. And this would
threaten freedom of the press
because mo organization is 60
ing to remain free to criticize if
it must be subject to such ap-
proval," he added.
Mr.. Stern insisted that the
combination rate requirement
was the sort of ''tie-in" contract
which violates the antitrust
laws. He contended that a pub
Usher having a monopoly OF
dominant position in a commun-
ity cannot legally enforce that
position with rates which deny
freedom of choice to advertisers
and put a squeeze on compet-
ing newspaper.
Cites Movie Decision.
"Those tie-in contracts" he
said, have the same vice in
herent in the practice of block
booking condemned in the Su-
preme Courts decision against
Paramount Pictures
Mr.. Stern protested that the
two papers put out by the
Times-Picayune we're not merely
round -the-clock editions of the
same paper, as was contended
by Mr.. Cahill and Ashton Phelps.
attorneys for the Times-Picayune
company.
The Government, he said,
would not object if the company
charged somewhat lower rates
for advertising in both papers
if it could justify the rates on
the basis of clearly proved econ
omy and efficiency. But any
take-it -or-leave-it system that
bars advertisers unless they buy
space in both papers, to the dis
advantage of a competing paper,
should be banned, he declared.
Mr.. Stern was supported by
Edward T. Proctor, Boston at