law, and we have in individual cases cooperated with them and furnished help to them in certain matters, particularly testimony; we have given them testimony in records on the matters involved.

THE SIEGEL AND SMITH CASES

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I wish you would say something about the Siegel and Smith cases. Am I correct that the Commission found in hat instance that there had been false representations under oath to the Commission; also the use of the mails to deceive in connection with the setting up of dummy corporations, and also tampering with official records by the substitution of one statement for another?

Mr. CRAVEN. That is generally correct. Siegel and Smith were ound guilty of various charges, and if you want the decision of the Commission, it can be attached to the record.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. What was the penalty, or the action taken y the Commission?

Mr. CRAVEN. Siegel was given a 2 months' suspension, and Smith was given a reprimand. He was only guilty of tampering with the les.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Is that a minor offense?

Mr. CRAVEN. No; it is a major offense in my opinion, but I feel hat the penalty given him under the circumstances was an honest nd just penalty.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. You used the phrase "only tampering with e files."

Mr. CRAVEN. That is all that Smith was found guilty of, and he ad been previously punished for it. He was charged with other atters also but found not guilty.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. What happened to the employee or employees at cooperated with him?

Mr. CRAVEN. So far as Smith is concerned in that particular case, am not familiar with all of the details of what happened. I was ot a Commissioner at that time.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I am referring to the employees in your ommission who must have cooperated with him in the substitution. Mr. CRAVEN. There was one girl who was believed to have coerated. She was transferred, and is now not with the Commission. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Where is she now?

Mr. CRAVEN. I do not know.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Is she in the Government service?

Mr. CRAVEN. I do not know. I am told that she is in private vice.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. When she was transferred, where was she nsferred to?

Mr. CRAVEN. She was transferred within the Commission; that is understanding of it.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Is it also a fact that the defense offered, in ge measure, was based on the allegation that there were many ilar cases, and also on the character testimony that was offered? Mr. CRAVEN. I do not recall that the defense offered there were ny similar cases. They offered in the evidence certain cases which y claimed to be similar.

Ir. WIGGLESWORTH. I do not mean to say that they proved similar es, but I understood that they had made the general assertion

that the practice that they had been guilty of was what you might say current or common.

Mr. CRAVEN. They did not make that assertion in the testimony of the record at all.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. What did they say?

Mr. CRAVEN. I cannot remember in detail, but I can give you the general inference of what I understood their testimony to be, that the question of dummy corporations had in fact been passed upon by the Commission in certain instances, and that all that they were doingMr. WIGGLESWORTH. With approval?

Mr. CRAVEN. That is what their assertion was.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Is that a fact?

Mr. CRAVEN. No.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I interrupted you, I think.

Mr. CRAVEN. I think it is all there, all the answer that I have to give.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. Commander, do you maintain a roster of practitioners before the Commission, and do you have a formula by which they are made eligible or ineligible?

Mr. CRAVEN. We have a roster, to which they must belong in order to practice before the Commission's bar.

Mr. DIRKSEN. And their application must be approved before they can begin to practice?

Mr. CRAVEN. That is correct.

Mr. DIRKSEN. What is the basis for approval of admission to practice there?

Mr. CRAVEN. I have not that information at the present time. I am informed that it is admission to the highest court of the State, and of good character.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Resuming the matter I was inquiring about, has the Commission made any investigation as the result of the suggestion, to see if the practice is or has been widespread?

Mr. CRAVEN. I know that the Commission has made no further investigation of the subject.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. In your opinion, is this an isolated incident? Mr. CRAVEN. I am not familiar with the practice of lawyers before the Commission myself and, so far as I am concerned, I will say that this is the only incident that I know of or have heard of.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Did not this come pretty nearly to a violation of the oath which the people practicing before your bar are required to take?

Mr. CRAVEN. I personally voted for the guilt of Mr. Siegel, and participated in the decision. I felt that the man has been punished very severely.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. By being given 60 days?

Mr. CRAVEN. Yes; I do, particularly in view of the circumstances involved in the whole matter. I am informed, too, that any suspension from practicing is a very terrible punishment to any lawyer. Mr. DIRKSEN. Are the penalty provisions under your practice requirements discretionary with the Commission?

Mr. CRAVEN. Yes.

Mr. DIRKSEN. In other words, you can suspend for 2 years, or permanently?

Mr. CRAVEN. Yes; but, nevertheless, I think that we are somewhat guided by the general practice.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Would you or would you not say that what was done is tantamount to a violation of the oath required in order to practice before the Communications Commission?

Mr. CRAVEN. The only hesitancy I have in answering your question is that the man has been found guilty and sentenced, and I think that the record should speak for itself. You may be a lawyer

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Will you furnish me with a copy of the record? Mr. CRAVEN. Yes.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. The Commission took no steps to bring the matter to the attention of the District bar, for instance?

Mr. CRAVEN. No. I would like to be very candid with you and say that, not being a lawyer myself, I hesitate very much in making any attack on any member of the bar. I think that that is primarily a matter for lawyers. This man was found guilty on the basis of the evidence placed before the Commission at a proper hearing conducted In accordance with the proper procedure.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Was any consideration given to the finding of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in the Great Western Broadcasting Association case?

Mr. CRAVEN. My understanding is that that decision of the Disrict Court of Appeals has just been handed down. It was pending It the time of the trial.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. That decision indicated that the same party ad been guilty of misleading statements in giving the Commis

ion

Mr. CRAVEN (interposing). In other words

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH (continuing). An improper picture?

Mr. CRAVEN. It found the same thing that the Commission found the result of the hearing.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Did all the members of the Commission sit this case?

Mr. CRAVEN. They started, but they did not all sit through it. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Why not?

Mr. CRAVEN. Because of a petition on the part of the defendants › have one of them not continue to sit.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I did not understand that.

Mr. CRAVEN. Because of the petition and the motion on the part the defendants to have one of them disqualified.

Mr. DIRKSEN. What was the reason given?

Mr. CRAVEN. The record will have to speak for itself, and it is blished in part of the Commission's decision, and it will be apnded to this record.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Was that a voluntary retirement, or a retireent by vote of the other members of the Commission?

Mr. CRAVEN. That was by vote of the other members of the Comssion, when the motion was addressed to the Commission, after ving been addressed to the member concerned.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Was it based on business associations, or ancial relationships, or

Mr. CRAVEN. Inasmuch as I am talking about a fellow-member of e Commission, and this is a public record, I hesitate very much go too deeply into it. I think, if you don't mind, that the decision the Commission, which is going to be made a part of this record, 1 give you all of the information you want.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Was there also the basis for the disqualification of any other member of the Commission?

Mr. CRAVEN. There was no motion made in connection with any other member.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Had any other member of the Commission had business or financial associations with either Mr. Siegel or Mr. Smith in the past?

Mr. CRAVEN. No; no such allegation made, or motion made. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I say, is it or is it not a fact that any other member of the Commission had had any such relationship?

Mr. CRAVEN. I presume that you may be referring to the rumors that I have had some relations with them. That is not a fact. I have, only in one instance, testified on engineering matters before the Commission in a case in which Siegel was a lawyer, some years ago we both happened to have the same client.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Their suspensions have ended by this time?
Mr. CRAVEN. I think it is in February some time, is it not?

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Was that reprimand of Smith a matter of public record?

Mr. CRAVEN. Yes.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. And it was announced at the time?
Mr. CRAVEN. Yes.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Do you feel that that was an adequate penalty?

Mr. CRAVEN. Smith was found guilty of just one thing, and I think that it was a very adequate reprimand for it, if you read the evidence.

SALE AND INCREASE OF POWER OF RADIO STATIONS WPEN AND WRAX AND RELATION OF COMMISSIONER CRAVEN TO THEM

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. When was the power of stations WPEN and WRAX jacked up from 250 to 1,000 watts?

Mr. CRAVEN. I do not know. I did not know that they had been. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Is it not a fact that it was in 1935, or thereabouts?

Mr. CRAVEN. I do not know. It is a matter of public record.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Will you insert that in the record?
(Mr. Craven later inserted the following:)

Application filed September 16, 1936; hearing before examiner May 3 and 4, 1937; decision by Broadcast Division September 21, 1937; effective November 9, 1937. I was in Mexico at time of hearing and not a member of the Broadcast Division at time of decision and was in Habana at time of publication of this division's opinion.

Mr. WOODRUM. Where are these stations?

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. WPEN is in Philadelphia and WRAX in Trenton, I think.

Mr. CRAVEN. Philadelphia, too.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. When were they sold to the present holder, with the approval of the Commission?

Mr. CRAVEN. That I do not know. I paid no attention to those two stations in any detail at all.

I understand from Mr. Porter here that the Broadcasting Division approved the sale to Mr. John Iraci, effective November 9, 1937. The decision was published while I was in Habana.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Didn't the Commission pass on that transaction?

Mr. CRAVEN. They must have, if that is the case.

Mr. Porter states it was approved by the Broadcast Division in September of this year, after a hearing.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Is that the same gentleman who was accused at one time of broadcasting improper programs?

Mr. CRAVEN. I do not know whether he was or not. I understand that he is dead now. I got word today that he is dead.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Is he the same man

com

Mr. PORTER. He used to be with WOV, and there was a plaint about two programs over that station during the time that he vas manager of it.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Who is the lawyer by the name of McCormick? Mr. CRAVEN. McCormick is a lawyer in the office of Mr. Lohnes; lso, for your information, he was one of my lawyers in a private

matter.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Is he, or has he been at any time, counsel for ither of those stations?

Mr. CRAVEN. I know that Mr. Lohnes has. I do not know hether Mr. McCormick has or not. He may have.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Would you have a record of that in your files? Mr. CRAVEN. If he has been counsel for them in appearances before he Commission, we would have a record.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Would you look at those files and indicate hether or not that is the fact, if you have the information?

Mr. CRAVEN. Would you mind telling me what case you have in hind? It would simplify matters.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I want to know if he now is or has been at ny time counsel or general counsel or attorney for either or both of hose stations.

Mr. CRAVEN. In cases before the Commission?

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Yes. That would be in the record that you ave?

Mr. CRAVEN. That would be in the record that we have; yes.' (Mr. Craven later inserted the following:)

Mr. McCormick appeared with Mr. Johnes of the Treasury before Examiner erry on May 3 and 4, 1937, involving the increase power and transfer of contract Mr. Iraci.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Who is Mr. Ouray, who is mentioned in the egel-Smith proceedings?

Mr. CRAVEN. Mr. Ouray is a man from Providence, R. I., who, as used to know him in private business, used to be the manager of a dio station WPRO, owned by Cherry and Webb, of Providence, R. I. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. He was a business associate of yours? Mr. CRAVEN. No; not a business associate of mine. At one time, ich is a matter of record in the Senate, I had an agreement with him specting a station in Portland, Maine, which I dissociated myself th prior to coming on the Commission.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Let me ask you this, Commander: You may may not want to answer it. The assertion was made in the summerne that you at one time had been yourself a stockholder in these o stations.

33819-37- -80