United States v. Zenith Radio Corporation
Decision Date | 16 April 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 14257.,14257. |
Citation | 12 F.2d 614 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
John Elliott Byrne, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Chicago, Ill.
Louis E. Hart and Irving Herriott, both of Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
The information charges violations of section 1 of the Act of August 13, 1912, c. 287 (37 Stat. 302 Comp. St. § 10100).
The first count alleges that on December 19, 1925, defendant Zenith Radio Corporation used and operated certain apparatus for radio communication, as a means of commercial intercourse among several states of the United States, to wit, from Mt. Prospect, Ill., to Seattle, Wash.; which apparatus was so used and operated not under and in accordance with a license such as described in the act; and that defendant McDonald aided, abetted, and procured the commission of the offense. The second, third, and fourth counts charge offenses on other dates in the same language as count 1.
The fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth counts are the same as the first four counts, except that it is charged that the corporation "used and operated certain apparatus for radio communication for the transmission of radiograms and signals, the effect of which then and there extended beyond the jurisdiction of the state in which the same were then and there made."
Section 1 of the act in question prohibits the use of apparatus for radio communication as a means of commercial intercourse among the several states, or with foreign nations, or upon any vessel of the United States engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, or for the transmission of radiograms or signals the effect of which extends beyond the jurisdiction of the state or territory in which the same are made, or where interference would be caused thereby with the receipt of messages or signals from beyond the jurisdiction of said state or territory, except under and in accordance with a license, revocable for cause, granted by the Secretary of Commerce upon application therefor. It is provided:
"Any person, company, or corporation that shall use or operate any apparatus for radio communication in violation of this section, or knowingly aid or abet another person, company, or corporation in so doing, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. * * *"
Section 2 of the act (Comp. St. § 10101) provides:
Section 4 of the act (Comp. St. § 10103) provides:
Among the regulations prescribed in section 4 are the following:
The Secretary of Commerce granted a license on September 21, 1925, to defendant corporation, and that license was in effect at the times of the alleged offenses charged in the information. A copy of the license is hereto appended.1
Among the provisions of the license, the following are to be noted particularly:
The material facts are not in dispute. It is agreed that defendant corporation,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Red Lion Broadcasting Co v. Federal Communications Commission United States v. Radio Television News Directors Association
...Corporation for operating on an unauthorized frequency, the 1912 Act was 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......
-
Brandywine-Main Line Radio, Inc. v. FCC
...Corporation for operating on an unauthorized frequency, the 1912 Act was 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 license......
-
National Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Com., 7933.
...Congress had in mind in enacting this section. 6 Prior to the Radio Act of 1927 and following the decision in United States v. Zenith Radio Corp., D.C.N.D.Ill.1926, 12 F.2d 614, and the Attorney General's opinion, Ops. Att'y Gen. (1926) 126. See Monograph of the Attorney General's Committee......
-
National Broadcasting Co v. United States Columbia Broadcasting System v. Same
...operation, and that a station's use of a frequency not assigned to it was not a violation of the Radio Act of 1912. United States v. Zenith Radio Corp., D.C., 12 F.2d 614. This was followed on July 8, 1926, by an opinion of Acting Attorney General Donovan that the Secretary of Commerce had ......
-
The Fairness Doctrine: the Bcs of American Politics - Josh Martin
...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. Id. at 617. 46. U.S. Const. amend. XVIII, repealed by U.S. Const. amend. XXI. 47. Red Lion, 395 U.S. at 376. 48. N......
-
Internet governance and democratic legitimacy.
...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. Circuit Ct., Cook County, Nov. 17, 1926, reprinted in 68 CONG. REC. 215......
-
Deliberative democracy on the air: reinvigorate localism - resuscitate radio's subversive past.
...no time-sharing. This most powerful class of radio stations was called 'clear channels.'"). (47.) United States v. Zenith Radio Corp., 12 F.2d 614 (N.D. Ill. (48.) DOUGLAS, supra note 1, at 63. (49.) Rothenbuhler & McCourt, supra note 39, at 367, 369. These large radio broadcast station......
-
The 2005 communications act of unintended consequences.
...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 "about as little as any phrase that the drafters of the Act could have ......