Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1959-10-12

any dcbiOIlS luOcTlcrlIiB WIFI
free speech and noted that the
ETC had used the same argu-
ments before the subcommittee
Saturday. The Constitution,
Mr.. Rogers added. was never
intended to underwrite fraud
and deception in any form"
Mr.. Kintner said the COM
mission based its views on court
presidents rather than the con-
stitutional question. When Mr..
Rogers said you had the power
if you wanted to use it." the
ETC chairman acknowledged
that "our power is very broad. "
But he adde dthat you have
to use it with an eye on con-
gressional intent"
Past Cases Referred to
"You don't think it was con-
gressional intent to permit a
fraud?" asked Mr.. Rogers.
Mr.. Kintner said there was
also the added question of pri-
mary responsibility. which he
said rested with the Federal
Communications Commission.
In some similar cases that the
ETC had looked into, the chair
man said, the courts had re-
fused to permit the commits
sion to take action.
you're taking the position,
the the FEC took, said MFR.
Rogers, that this was not your
baby and you were not going
to have anything to do with it."
"It's not quite that" Mr..
Kintner replied, adding that the
commission would have acted
and determined its Jurisdiction
if a complaint or fraud had
been brought formally before
it.
"If this clearly had been a
matter of fraudulent advertis-
ing, we would have stepped into
it," he said.
Rogers Disagrees
Mr.. Kintner also testified
that the FEC had never sub
mitted any information on the
quiz programs to the ETC.
Mr.. Rogers suggested that
the two Government agencies
we're looming the robes of the
Supreme Court" and making
their own determinations for
reasons Of mot having done
anything"
He said the agency should
have acted and let the courts
decide whether they had iuris-
diction. He acknowledged that
he never asked Congress for
any legislation and said this
was an area where suggested
legislation should come from
the communications commits
sion.
Mr.. Rogers said he could not
accept that any more than he
could accept the statement
from FEC Chairman John C.
Doerfer that the quiz show
matter was still under study by
the FEC and had been for is
months.
pretended Contest"
Committee Counsel Robert
w. Lishman commended that
the ETC in a 1858 report to
Congress claimed Jurisdiction
over "a pretended contest of
skill" in connection with I'M
fair advertising practices.
But Mr.. Kintner said this
referred to a pretended con-
test designed merely to get the
name and address of a prospec-
tive buyer of a product.
In the sort of contest de-
scribed by Mr.. Kintner the con-
testant himself is induced by
unfair practices" to enter a
contest and buy a product. In
the TV quiz shows a prospec-
tive customer merely watched
a pretended contest. Mr.. Lish-
man said he could see no diff
ference between the two prac-
tees.
Mr.. Van Doren, who has said
repeatedly he received no as
sistance, sent the subcommittee
a telegram last week again
denying that he was coached.
He asked that his denial be
entered in the hearing record
and said he was available for
testimony.
Mr.. Harris refused to accept
the telegram for the record,
and in turn invited Mr.. Van
Doren to appear and tell Tnat
he knows about the quiz pro-
grams.
Mr.. Van Doren has been I'M
available for comment since he
was suspended by the National
Broadcasting Co. as a $4,000
Ia-year commentator pending