Court Opinion

ID: 9652674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:30:01.49618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:53.464299
License: Public Domain

EDGERTON, Associate Justice
(concurring) .
I concur in the opinion of the court, except its implication that there is only one reason for dismissing the appeal.
The Sanders case determines that one likely to be financially injured by the issue of a license has standing to appeal and “to raise * * * any relevant question of law in respect of the order of the Commission,” i. e., “to bring to the attention of the appellate court errors of *28law in the action of the Commission in granting the license.”1 I think that the present appeal raises no relevant question of law.
The Sanders case permits an appellant to come here, but not to succeed here, on the basis 'of financial injury to himself. In order to succeed, one who appeals against the granting of a license must present reasons why the license should not have been granted. The Supreme Court held in the Sanders case that injury to the appellant, another licensee, is not such a reason. The fact of injury to him entitles him to present relevant matters, but is not itself a relevant matter; it entitles him to be heard, but it is not among the things concerning which he is entitled to be heard. He appears only as a kind of King’s proctor, to vindicate the public interest. The Sanders case decides that competition between an existing and a proposed station is to be considered by the Commission only when it bears “upon the ability of the applicant adequately to serve his public”; i. e., when it shows that the applicant, and not merely the existing station, will either “go under” or “be compelled to render inadequate service.”2 Appellant alleges nothing of this sort here. It does not even remotely suggest that Meyer, for any reason whatever, lacks the ability adequately to serve his public.
If it did so suggest,, the most generous interpretation that could even then be placed upon appellant’s allegations, apart from the immaterial allegation of injury to appellant, would be this: after the hearing on Meyer’s application, but before the license was granted to him, the Commission granted additional full-time licenses in the same city, and it did not thereafter hold a rehearing and reconsider Meyer’s ability to serve his public. But we have no reason to assume that the Commission denied appellant’s petition for rehearing without giving proper consideration to this matter. The statute expressly leaves the granting of rehearings to the1 discretion of the Commission.3 It cannot be required to put aside its other duties- and hold a rehearing whenever a new fact arises which might conceivably lead to a new conclusion.
In the Sanders case the Court said further: “The broadcasting field is open to anyone, provided there be an available frequency over which he can broadcast without interference to others, if he shows his competency, the adequacy of his equipment, and financial ability to make good use of the assigned channel.”4 This is as much as to say that licenses should be denied only because of interference, incompetence, inadequate equipment, or financial inability. Appellant charges none of these things against Meyer. It follows that the appeal raises no “relevant question of law,” i. e., no question which, if it were answered in appellant’s favor, would require revocation or reconsideration of Meyer’s license. Appellant alleges that the Commission made findings_ on various subjects which are not supported by the record, but these allegations are irrelevant, since they do not touch the questions on which the validity of Meyer’s license depends. Even if they did touch those questions they could not withstand a motion to dismiss, since appellant has not set forth the supposed errors specifically. 5
As the appeal cannot succeed, it should be dismissed.6 “It would merely serve the purpose of delay to allow the case to remain on our docket until it shall be reached * * * and then affirmed.”7

 Federal Communications Commission v. Sanders Brothers Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 477, 60 S.Ct. 693, 698, 84 L.Ed. 869.

 Federal Communications Commission v. Sanders Brothers Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 476, 60 S.Ct. 693, 698, 84 L.Ed. 869.

 U.S.C. tit. 47, § 405, 47 U.S.C.A. § 405.

 Federal Communications Commission v. Sanders Brothers Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 475, 60 S.Ct. 693, 697, 84 L.Ed. 869.

 Stuart v. Federal Communications Commission, 70 App.D.C. 265, 105 F.2d 788.

 Steele v. Culver, 211 U.S. 26, 29 S. Ct. 9, 53 L.Ed. 74; Pennsylvania Company v. Donat, 239 U.S. 50, 36 S.Ct. 4, 60 L.Ed. 139; Sancho, Treasurer, v. Acevedo, 1 Cir., 93 F.2d 331.

 Robertson v. Wilkinson, 5 Cir., 10 F.2d 311, 312.