Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1959-10-12
QUIZ
Jurisdiction Not Clear,
Chairman Tells Quiz
Continued From First PAGE

Continued From First Pag
has exercised no Jurisdiction
regarding the fixing Of qui
programs and he said the com
mission has no authority undo
existing law to exercise sucl
jurisdiction.
Ads Not Involved
The rigging OF quiz shows
Mr.. Kintner testified, did no
involve deceptive advertising
but what he said might b
called deceptive entertain
ment."
For the commission to at
tempt to exercise any censor
ship over entertainment, tn,
FTC commissioner added, would
take his agency "far afield from
its proper functions"
Mr.. Kintner said the com.
mission only has the authority
to act if the commercials in
volve deception or misrepre.
sentation.
Mr.. Kintner said he learned
only last Friday that there hac
been on ETC staff investigation
involving a quiz show. This, hi
said, began with a complaint
received by the commission ir
December, 1856, that the show
was not a true test of skill.
He said an investigation was
made by the FTC's New York
Office, which found that the
allegations were unsupported
and the particular show had
gone off the air.
Mr.. Kintner did not name the
show in his first references to
the matter, but under question
ing by Chairman Harris he
identified it as The Big Sur
prise program on NBC. He
said the commissions files on
the case would be made avail
able if the subcommittee de-
sired.
Mr.. Kintner told the subcom-
mittee the complaint was SUBJ
mitted by a woman contestant.
He said she told the commission
q warmup session was used to
determine the areas in which
she was vulnerable and this
was taken advantage of ito
choke her off at an appropriate
time"
Mr.. Harris inquired as to
what authority the commissions
staff thought it had to go into
the matter.
Mr.. Kintner said that 1t was
only a preliminary investiga-
ton and since the practice was
abandoned the matter never
got to whether we had juris-
diction."
PrecedentS Cited
The ETC chairman said that
If the matter had ever reached
the commission for a ruling
on jurisdiction there probably
would have been differing opin-
ions. He added that the staff
member who directed the in
vestigation Of the complaint
cited some legal precedents al
authority and Mr.. Kintner, ir
his statement, cited the prece-
dents as indicating the com.
mission was without jurisdic.
ton in these matters.
Mr.. Kintner said that at the
time the complaint was invest.
gated by the ETC the con.
testant had a suit pending
against the producer. He sale
he did not know the outcome
of the litigation.
Mr.. Rogers told the FTC
chairman there had been "tot
much stress" on what Mr.
Kintner described as the "gra!
area" in this field. The sub.
committee member sharpl!
challenged the reasons giver
by Mr.. Kintner for not takins
any action.
Under questioning Mr.. Kint
ner said the ETC had power t,
move in isolated cases wher,
fraud and deception were Sus
pected. Mr.. Kintner said ther,
was no question about that, bu
started to say that manpowe
and funds limited the commits
Sion's work.
Rogers Interrupts
Mr.. Rogers broke in to say
"If as much attention was pait
by bureaus and boards protect
ting the public as they do tt
budget and funds we would b
q lot better off,"
Mr.. Kintner said that if thu
FTC had all the information
brought out in the subcommit.
tees investigation it might hay,
been able to act.
Mr.. Rogers took note of Mr.
Kintner's references of tn
constitutional barriers agains