broadcasting band every three months, and the clerical work in connection with that is an almost impossible job. So much detail is required and so many problems arise that not sufficient time is left for investigation or hearings. that should be held on some of the applications.

Senator DILL. Do you think that three years is a proper time for the length of the license period eventually?

Mr. CALDWELL. I think it is. I would not want to urge a period longer than that.

Senator DILL. The question I had in mind was whether it was too long.

Mr. CALDWELL. The periods that I hear most frequently suggests are one year and three years. Either one will remedy the commission's administrative problem. A year's duration would be a great improvement over the present period.

.Senator DILL. I am inclined to think so.

Mr. CALDWELL. I do not see much choice between the two.

All other the station licenses have to be renewed every year, and that, of course, presents somewhat of a problem, but nothing compared with this administrative difficulty of handling nearly 700 applications for broadcasting every three months that constantly jams up the work of the commission's offices.

The passing of ordinances by cities and of laws by States on radio create a lot of legal problems in a class by themselves. The legal division of the commission is handling the matter very well at present by advising with cities and States on ordinances and laws. There are a lot of them that are clearly unconstitutional and a lot of others that may cause unnecessary clash of authority later.

There are constant international conferences on communications. There was a conference in Prague last month in which we were represented; and the commission ought to be represented in every international conference. There is to be a conference on safety of life at sea, in London, next month; one in the fall at The Hague, and so on. Every three or four months there is an important international radio conference.

I come now to a list of suggested amendments to the bill that is before you as well as to the Radio Act of 1927, that is at present in force.

In presenting this list, I want to make it clear that while I am chairman of the American Bar Association Committee on Radio, I can speak for that committee only in so far as it has agreed on certain points, and none of the committee can yet speak in behalf of the whole association. Nothing has been authorized and can not be until a report from us is presented to its annual meeting next October. We have not yet made a final report. We had a meeting in December at which we were fortunate in having Senator Dill present, and we reached tentative agreement on certain propositions which have been elaborated by correspondence, but still we are not in definite agreement on many points.

Therefore, unless I mention to the contrary, what you will hear is my personal opinion.

Senator DILL. And not the opinion of the bar association?

Mr. CALDWELL. Not the opinion of the bar association; although I should say that there are very few points on which the members of the committee differ seriously.

At present we have only four members: Mr. Fred Fernald, of Boston; Mr. Cassius Gates, of Seattle, Wash.; and Mr. Edward A. Zimmerman, of Chicago. The fifth member was Mr. Robert Swain, of New York, who resigned about a month ago.

Senator PITTMAN. Have these others given special study to this question?

Mr. CALDWELL. I have never met Mr. Gates and have had to conduct my negotiations with him by correspondence. I am under the impression, from correspondence and from the fact that I know he has represented some broadcast stations, that he has given study to it and is familiar with radio. I am not in position to make any very broad statements as to his experience.

The other two gentlemen, I think, have learned about radio largely for the first time when they were put on the committee; so that I may be in the embarrassing position of having to accept responsibility for some of their views as well as the ones that I am about to express to you. Yet they are showing independence of judgment, and I am trying to inform them first before asking them to take any definite propositions.

Referring to Senate bill No. 6, in the opening paragraph, the last sentence, you provide that the act shall not apply to the transmission of intelligence by wire or wireless wholly within one State.

The transmission of wireless wholly within one State will always, I think, be a matter of interstate commerce because of the necessary results of interference. This provision clashes, I believe, with the provisions of a later section. In other words, a communication from Chicago to Springfield, Ill., by radio, will cause interference at Indianapolis, and will be received there whether they want to receive it

or not.

Senator KEAN. Is there not a constitutional question involved there?

Mr. CALDWELL. I believe not. I think under the authorities you have plenary power to regulate such radio as interferes with interstate

commerce.

Senator BROOKHART. This says, wholly within the State. If it is wholly within the State

Senator GLENN. Your idea is that there is no such thing as that? Mr. CALDWELL. There is no such thing physically. That communication from Chicago will go to Jackson, Mich., to Indianapolis, to Milwaukee, besides going to Springfield.

Senator BROOKHART. I can not see that this wording would have any bearing on that sort of a proposition.

Mr. CALDWELL. It would seem to me that you ought not to limit your authority, or suggest that you do so by that language. The communication from Chicago to Springfield, Ill., will travel beyond that and have an interference range perhaps as far as New Orleans. Senator BROOKHART. That is not wholly within the State, then. Your idea is that it is practically physically impossible to have anything of this kind wholly within a State?

Mr. CALDWELL. Yes. Further than that, as far as Springfield is concerned it may be intelligence. Down in New Orleans it may be interference in the form of a whistle. It will not be the transmission of intelligence; it will be a disagreeable whistle that will interfere. in the operation of some other station. Also the operation of a send

ing station in Chicago will keep people in Chicago and its vicinity from receiving stations in other States on adjacent channels.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we might limit that to wires within the State and exclude wireless.

Mr. CALDWELL. You have covered the wireless part of it very well in clause B as it stands.

On line 26 of page 2 I think it would be well if you add aircraft to the word "vessel, so that it will read "any vessel or aircraft of the United States," and not limit the licensing power, as you do in the next subclause, to aircraft within the United States. In other words, an aircraft presents the same problem as a vessel, and you ought to have power over an aircraft wherever it goes, whether within our jurisdictional bounds or not, if it is an American aircraft. I have already discussed, it seems to me sufficiently, my views on the inclusion of broadcasting stations within the term "common carrier." I do, however, want to call your attention to the decision in Frost against Railroad Commission, 271 U. S. 583, in which the Supreme Court held that a California statute was invalid that attached as a condition to a license to use a public highway that the concern involved must become a common carrier when it was previously a private carrier.

A broadcasting station, under the present situation, is actually a private carrier; and there is therefore a constitutional doubt that 1 think should be taken into consideration.

Senator DILL. However, there is a difference between a broadcast station and a highway traffic machine.

Mr. CALDWELL. Yes; although there is some analogy in principle, As I have observed the tendency of the Supreme Court's decisions recently, it has been rather against statutes attempting to affect a business for the first time with a public interest. I mention that without meaning to pass on the correctness of such decisions one way or the other; I have simply observed that tendency in the decisions.

Senator PITTMAN. Does the Supreme Court state that any of these broadcasters were private institutions if they receive any character of compensation for their work?

Mr. CALDWELL. That was not a broadcasting case, Senator; that was a case in which a trucking company had been doing a private concern's work.

Senator PITTMAN. Yes; I understand.

Mr. CALDWELL. I am not sure that I get your question. Up to the present no broadcasting station has been put under any such obligation either by any express provision of the law or by any decision of the commission.

Senator PITTMAN. That is what I had in mind.

Do you think it would be unconstitutional to place any private broadcasting concern under the regulations of a common carrier if was charging any form of compensation for its services?

Mr. CALDWELL. I do not think that ought to be held unconstitutional. I would be against it as a matter of policy. On the other hand, I still think that that Supreme Court case indicates a tendency and even furnishes somewhat of an analogy. As a matter of policy I do not think broadcasting stations should be put under that obligation, because I am afraid of the effect on this service to the public, as regards quack advertisers and other things the public does not want to receive as against what they do want.

Senator DILL. Is it not within the power of the broadcasting station to regulate the kind of service, even though it is a public utility? Mr. CALDWELL. It is theoretically, Senator.

Senator DILL. A railroad may refuse to carry a man when he is drunk.

Mr. CALDWELL. Yes; but rather than take the chance on a lawsuit, they will probably overlook things.

Senator GLENN. Very often.

Mr. CALDWELL. I think that it would be hard on a broadcasting station to be put up against that alternative.

I have already mentioned what views I have on the zone system in section 2.

As to section 3, I have a feeling that particularly if these extensive powers and duties are going to be given to the commission the terms of the commissioners should eventually be somewhat longer. You may not want to start out with that. Senator DILL. Longer than six years?

Mr. CALDWELL. The terms of the Interstate Commerce Commissioners are longer than that, are they not? I am not sure. I am not urging that very strongly; but this is a matter that really would need experienced men, and the value of an experienced man is so great that it is a shame to lose him at the end of a short time.

Senator PITTMAN. Do you think there would be any question about a reappointment if they had been satisfactory? On the other hand, suppose you should unfortunately get hold of three or four incompetent, honest men?

Mr. CALDWELL. I am thinking of another thing besides that. The chance of getting good men in the first place is a question to be considered, and is influenced somewhat by the permanency of the appointment. That is recognized in the appointment of United States judges.

Senator DILL. Six years is a pretty substantial period.

Mr. CALDWELL. Of course there are four of the first appointment that do not get that long.

Senator PITTMAN. The appointment of a United States judge is hardly comparable, because you know, as a matter of fact, that is very largely a system of promotion to various judgships. It very frequently happens that way, or it is the appointment of lawyers whose experience over many, many years has demonstrated very clearly their fitness.

Mr. CALDWELL. That is true, Senator.

Senator DILL. The terms of State judges usually run for four years. Senator KEAN. It is six in our State.

Senator DILL. When they run for Congress they have a term of two years, and in the Senate it is six years.

Senator KEAN. Our judges are appointed for life.

Senator DILL. Yours is one of the few States, however, in which that is true.

Senator WAGNER. You have a fixed term?

Senator KEAN. Yes; but they are always reappointed.

Senator WAGNER. We have a fixed term of 14 years, but they are always renominated by both parties except in very rare cases. Senator PITMAN. The experience with the Interstate Commerce Commission has shown that they are generally reappointed if they have made good.

Mr. CALDWELL. There is power, is there not, in the President to remove for certain causes? I am not sure that you have stated that as broadly as the Supreme Court really found it was.

Senator WAGNER. Do you happen to know of any State commissions in which the time exceeds six years?

Mr. CALDWELL. I do not.

Senator WAGNER. I think that is about the time that has been hit upon by State commissions all through the country.

Mr. CALDWELL. I am impressed with the judicial character of so much of the commission's work and with the necessity for all the judicial safeguards that go with that. There are questions that require just about as expert knowledge and as much judicial discretion as I think any tribunal faces in this country.

Senator WAGNER. Is there not a public safeguard in having a term not too long?

Mr. CALDWELL. There may be, but I am not sure that it might not operate the other way, too. We are frequently concerned in radio, or ought to be, with the distant future rather than the pressing demand of the present. This is particularly true in radio.

I do not, however, put the emphasis on that that I do on what I take to be an oversight in not providing for the legal division on the same basis as you did in the amendment passed last March, and I urge that the same provision be made for the engineering division of the commission.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have you state what you think of the appointment of the commission. We briefly dealt with that before, but this is a provision of the bill which I do not personally favor.

Mr. CALDWELL. As I said before, Senator, if it were a totally new proposition, I should be against it as unnecessary; as one of the Senators said yesterday, there is a sufficient safeguard in the likelihood that the President will voluntarily seek to accomplish a reasonable. geographical representation. If he does not the Senate may refuse to confirm. It is somewhat of a limitation, theoretically-I do not know that it has been, practically-on the choice of men. It may be keep out a good man in order that one particular zone may be represented, and it has worked badly in the first year of the commission because of overemphasis on the zones by the individual commissioners. But I do not think that is anyone's fault or was to be foreseen.

On the whole, I think if it were a totally new proposition I should oppose it. I am not sure that it is important enough now to make any radical change.

On page 8, lines 20 to 22, it seems to me that examiners appointed by the commission should have the same power to administer oaths and sign subpoenas as commissioners, so that the commission may be encouraged in holding hearings around the country. That can not be done continuously by individual commissioners and will have to be done by examiners eventually.

Senator DILL. In other words, similar to what the Interstate Commerce Commission does?

Mr. CALDWELL. Yes, sir.

Section 4, page 10. In that section you have carried over a provision of the present radio act which has never been certain in its interpretation. Apparently the commission is given power to change