Hoover v. Intercity Radio Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 February 1923 |
| Docket Number | 3766. |
| Citation | 286 F. 1003 |
| Parties | HOOVER, Secretary of Commerce, v. INTERCITY RADIO CO., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
Peyton Gordon, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Wade H Ellis and Abner H. Ferguson, both of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice, and MARTIN and SMITH, Judges of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
This appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, directing the issuance of a writ of mandamus requiring appellant, Secretary of Commerce, to issue to plaintiff company, a license to operate a radio station in the city of New York.
The plaintiff alleged that it has been engaged in the business of wireless telegraphy between New York and other cities of the United States since January 16, 1920, under licenses issued from time to time by defendant, pursuant to the Act of Congress approved August 13, 1912, 37 Stat. 302 (Comp. St Sec. 10100-10109). It was further alleged that the last license expired on November 12, 1921; that defendant refused to grant plaintiff a new license for the operation of its station; that appellee, in all respects, complied with the requirements of the act of Congress and of the regulations contained therein; and that the duty imposed upon defendant of granting licenses is purely a ministerial one.
Defendant answered, admitting the refusal of the license, but defending on the ground that he had been unable to ascertain a wave length for use by plaintiff, which would not interfere with government and private stations, and that under the provisions of the act of Congress the issuance or refusal of a license is a matter wholly within his discretion.
Section 1 of the act (Comp. St. Sec. 10100) forbids the operation of radio apparatus, where interferences would be caused with receipt of messages or signals from beyond the jurisdiction of the state or territory in which it is situated 'except under and in accordance with a license, revocable for cause, in that behalf granted by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor upon application therefor. ' The license shall be in form prescribed by the Secretary, containing the restrictions pursuant to the act 'on and subject to which the license is granted. ' Section 2 (Comp. St. Sec. 10101). The license also 'shall state the wave length or the wave lengths authorized for use by the station for the prevention of interference and the hours for which the station is licensed for work. ' The license is further made subject to the regulations of the act and such regulations as may be made by the authority of the act.
The Secretary of Commerce is given authority, for the purpose of preventing or minimizing interference with communication between stations, to enforce the regulations established by the act through the collectors of customs and other officers of the government, with power, however, in his discretion, to waive the provisions of the regulations when no interference obtains.
The act further provides as follows:
'All stations are required to give absolute priority to signals and radiograms relating to ships in distress; to cease all sending on hearing a distress signal; and, except when engaged in answering or aiding the ship in distress, to refrain from sending until all signals and radiograms relating thereto are completed. ' Section 4 (Comp. St. Sec. 10103).
Private or commercial shore stations, so situated that their operation interferes with naval and military stations, are forbidden to 'use their transmitters during the first fifteen minutes of each hour, local standard time,' during which time the military and naval stations shall transmit signals or radiograms, 'except in case of signals or radiograms relating to vessels in distress. ' The Secretary is forbidden to license private or commercial stations to adopt a waive length between 600 meters and 1,600 meters, the wave lengths between these figures being reserved for governmental agencies. Penalties are prescribed for violations of the act.
Congress seems to have legislated on the subject of radio telegraphy with reference to the undeveloped state of the art. Interference in operation is conceded; hence the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Red Lion Broadcasting Co v. Federal Communications Commission United States v. Radio Television News Directors Association
...held not to permit enforcement. United States v. Zenith Radio Corporation, 12 F.2d 614 (D.C.N.D.Ill.1926). Cf. Hoover v. Intercity Radio Co., 52 App.D.C. 339, 286 F. 1003 (1923) (Secretary had no power to deny licenses, but was empowered to assign frequencies). An opinion issued by the Atto......
-
Jordan v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
...Co. v. FPC, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 235, 127 F.2d 153, Cert. denied, 316 U.S. 700, 62 S.Ct. 1298, 86 L.Ed. 1769 (1942); Hoover v. Intercity Radio Co., 52 App.D.C. 339, 286 F. 1003 (1923).56 E. g., FTC v. Manager, Retail Credit Co., 169 U.S.App.D.C. 271, 515 F.2d 988, 995 (1975) ("The proper functio......
-
United States v. American Bond & Mortgage Co.
...in the act limitations upon the authority of the government to deal adequately with questions of interference. Hoover v. Intercity Radio Co., 286 F. 1003, 52 App. D. C. 339; United States v. Zenith Radio Corporation (D. C.) 12 F.(2d) When the Attorney General ruled (35 Op. Attys. Gen. 126) ......
-
Brandywine-Main Line Radio, Inc. v. FCC
...held not to permit enforcement. United States v. Zenith Radio Corporation, 12 F.2d 614 (D.C. N.D.Ill.1926). Cf. Hoover v. Intercity Radio Co., 52 App.D.C. 339, 286 F. 1003 (1923) (Secretary had no power to deny licenses, but was empowered to assign frequencies). An opinion issued by the Att......
-
Satellite digital radio searching for novel theories of action.
...United States v. Zenith Radio Corp., 12 F.2d 616 (N.D. Ill. 1926); 35 Op. Att. Gen. 126-132 (1926). Cf. Hoover v. Intercity Radio Co., 286 F. 1003 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (holding Secretary of Commerce had authority to place constraints on (41.) See Radio Act of 1927, ch. 169, [sections][sections]......
-
The Fairness Doctrine: the Bcs of American Politics - Josh Martin
...Monographs No. 2 (1998-1999), available at http://www.scripps.ohiou.edu /mediahistory/mhmjour2-2.htm. 41. Hoover v. Intercity Radio Co., 286 F. 1003, 1004 (D.C. Cir. 1923). 42. Id. at 1007. 43. Id. at 1006. 44. United States v. Zenith Radio Corp., 12 F.2d 614, 616-17 (N.D. Ill. 1926). 45. I......
-
Internet governance and democratic legitimacy.
...clear that the Department of Commerce was not essential to defining property rights in the spectrum. See Hoover v. Intercity Radio Co., 286 F. 1003 (D.C. Cir. 1923); United States v. Zenith Radio Corp., 12 F.2d 614 (N.D. Ill. 1926); Chicago Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broad. Station, Ill. Cir......
-
The 2005 communications act of unintended consequences.
...should not try to cabin the forces of technology that will inevitably find a way free anyway. (1.) See Hoover v. Intercity Radio Co., 286 F. 1003 (D.C.Cir. 1923); United States v. Zenith Radio Corp., 12 F.2d 614 (N.D. Ill. (2.) A commentator at the time described the expression as meaning "......