To pass H.R. 19123, it seems to us, would give congressional blessing to other newspapers to establish monopolistic newspaper operating practices such as have been the status quo at Tucson. RETROACTIVITY FEATURE DANGEROUS More, the bill's retroactive feature would provide relief for newspapers which in the past have had joint newspaper operating agreements which have been held unlawful under antitrust laws. The cases could be reopened within 90 days after enactment of this bill and the final judgment or decree could be vacated by the court. Such a provision on its face seems fraught with danger as a perversion of justice and a precedent which would seriously hamstring Federal courts. Since a voluminous record for and against S. 1312 has been compiled and printed for the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, I believe it appropriate at this point to quote some of the excerpts from the record: THE CASE AGAINST S. 1312 (AND H.R. 19123) Elmer Brown, late president of the International Typographical Union: Even a casual study of Senate Bill S. 1312 will reveal that it is a brazen attempt to enthrone a monopoly newspaper industry in America, to stifle new and independent newspapers, with overtones toward an eventual state press. Legislation as contemplated in S. 1312 would legalize conspiracies to freeze out small businesses, destroy competing publications and close the door to new newspapers. Louis M. Loeb, general counsel, New York Times: First, let me say that I do not see any necessity for antitrust legislation that singles out and applies only to newspapers. Indeed, I think it may well be against the public interest and in the long run against the interest of the press for it to be involved in such special legislation. Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Pilch, may I respectfully interrupt you at this point and ask you if all of this testimony is not incorporated in the hearings held before the Senate? Mr. PILCH. Yes. Mr. DONOHUE. I was wondering in view of that fact if we could not incorporate your entire statement in our record in the interest of saving time as we have several other witnesses? Mr. PILCH. Well, I have no objection if you will permit me to complete my statement which is not a part of the record. Mr. DONOHUE. Any portion of your statement that is not already in the record I think we should hear from you on it. (The portion of the document referred to follows:) Eugene Cervi, Editor and Publisher of Cervi's Rocky Mountain Journal"What is this, a welfare agency? Is this a war against gilt-edged poverty? If Congress can pass bills to keep newspapers from failing, can it also pass laws. to make them succeed? It would be more appropriate to name this bill the millionaire crybaby publishers' bill." Ben Bagdikian, Nationally-Known Newspaper Critic and Writer-"To sum up, I believe S. 1312 is bad for a number of reasons. It is temporary relief, at best, for business problems which, where genuine, arise from technological and logistical backwardness. In that sense, it may delay solving this basic problem.. After all, when we have 100 percent local monopoly instead of the present 96 percent, these problems will still have to be faced. "Second, it does nothing for the far more serious problems of the monopoly city and the city without any paper. Because it will permit coalitions of papers with joint advertising rates and circulation systems, it will be harder than ever for truly independent operators to start a new paper and keep it alive. "Third, its loose language will permit consolidations among papers that are not really dying but merely looking for corporate convenience and attractive personal rewards for operators who agree to consolidate. "Fourth, there is no reason to believe that maximum use of this measure would produce any significant editorial independence. There is too much evidence that to opposite will happen. If there were true and deeply felt editorial differences before, does anyone really expect that after two papers' fates are tied together in joint business operations that there will not be powerful pressures for them to adjust to each other editorially? "Fifth, where there is real danger of a paper dying, why not offer it for sale to independent purchase?" Mr. PILCH. Then I will go on to the paragraph that begins: I trust that the record on the S. 1312 hearings is available to the members of this House Antitrust Subcommittee, because it sets forth in great detail the International Typographical Union's case against this unnecessary class legislation. We have not attempted at the present hearings to present a complete case against H.R. 19123 as we did on S. 1312 because we have relied on what we hope is the desire of the legislators and the news media to explore the past history of the legislation and to follow closely the testimony as it unfolds before this subcommittee. Only in this way can the subcommittee members render a fair and just decision on the bill, and the news media present an accurate report on the legislation, I sincerely believe. As we told the Senate subcommittee during the S. 1312 hearings, the International Typographical Union, which has been associated with the newspaper industry for 116 years, is strongly opposed to this legislation for these fundamental reasons and those hopes are incorporated in the record before Senator Hart's subcommittee. (The remainder of the document referred to follows:) William J. Farson, Executive Vice-President, American Newspaper Guild"We feel that under the guise of preserving the 'historic independence' of the newspaper press, S. 1312 would actually encourage and accelerate the trend toward monopoly and chain-owner dominance of the nation's newspaper industry by legitimatizing certain business practices that are used to discourage or squelch competition, and which are now forbidden by the antitrust laws." Statement by William Loeb. New England Publisher- ".. The main point I would like to make to you today is that monopoly is the main objective of newspaper owners in the United States today. In my estimation, their associations, their organizations, almost all of their thoughts are concentrated on the creation and the maintenance of monopolies in their given market. Under the circumstances, therefore, it would seem extremely dangerous to give the newspaper industry an additional tool which would make legal its monopolization and assist further in the unhealthy concentration of opinion-making forces." The above quoted matter is only condensed testimony and statements of a small cross-section of the witnesses who appeared before the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust against S. 1312. Their testimony is equally applicable to H.R. 19123. STUDY OF S. 1312 HEARINGS IMPORTANT While a new record is being compiled of the hearings before this Subcommittee on H.R. 19123. I believe the record of the hearings on S. 1312 will be of inestimable value to all who seek a full understanding of this legislation. I especially recommend to the members of the Subcommittee and the news media the printed record titled "The Failing Newspaper Act-Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Anti trust and Monopoly of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate . On S. 1312." The record in four parts can be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office. I trust that the record on the S. 1312 hearings is available to the members of this House Antitrust Subcommittee, because it sets forth in great detail the International Typographical Union's case against this unnecessary class legislation. We have not attempted at the present hearings to present a complete case against H.R. 19123 as we did on S. 1312 because we have relied on what we hope is the desire of the legislators and the news media to explore the past history of the legislation and to follow closely the testimony as it unfolds before this Subcommittee. Only in this way can the Subcommittee members render a fair and just decision on the bill, and the news media present an accurate report on the legislation, I sincerely believe. As we told the Senate Subcommittee during the S. 1312 hearings, the International Typographical Union, which has been associated with the newspaper industry for 116 years, is strongly opposed to this legislation for these fundamental reasons: 1. It is "class legislation" of the rankest kind in that it provides a governmental crutch to a single industry for implausible reasons. 2. It would result in an accelerated growth of newspaper monopolies in the United States, thereby causing an increase in the steady deterioration of the general quality of the American press. 3. It would place a premium on bad newspaper management which inevitably leads to "economic distress," because such management would be aware that such "distress" can be turned into profit by the simple expedient of coming under the umbrella of a joint operating arrangement, with no hinderance in controlling publishing fields. 4. It would set a bad precedent by encouraging other businesses and industries to demand relief by Federal legislation from antitrust statutes. 5. In a number of cities, as in Tucson, such a law would give complete freedom to newspaper monopolies to impose archaic labor relations upon their union employees contrary to the rights accorded to them by national labor laws. 6. The principle embodied in S. 1312 conceivably could be applied to other industries, including radio and television, to the detriment of the public. 7. It would be in violation of the principles underlying the American system of "free enterprise" for business and industry. Thank you. Mr. PILCH. Thank you very much. Mr. DONOHUE. Thank you, Mr. Pilch. Are there any questions? Mr. McCLORY. I think that is a very fine statement and I am sure the chairman does too, and you have given a number of public- and citizen-type recommendations and observations with regard to this legislation which I think are very appropriate. Is there a little self-interest involved in this insofar as the International Typographical Union is concerned? Are these arrangements that would be authorized under this legislation going to cut out jobs and are they going to hurt the union membership, do you think? Mr. PILCH. Well, it is natural that we have a self-interest in the protection of members of the International Typographical Union. The arrangements that are now in effect other than the one at Tucson have cost us jobs and naturally this is our interest because it is our responsibility as officers of our union to protect the interests of our members, but we also have a selfish interest in preservation of a free press, free from monopoly and free from control, we feel, the kind of control that newspapers have. Mr. McCLORY. Don't you feel in the Tucson strike and in other strikes that have been conducted by the ITU you have thwarted opportuni ties for modernization, for economic savings that the newspapers require in order to survive? Mr. PILCH. Well, if you are asking the question out of some information that you received, the information is erroneous. We have not thwarted automation. We have not thwarted the efforts of newspapers to modernize their facilities, and as proof of that we have a training center in Colorado Springs with an investment of over $4 million provided for by our members, not by subsidies from the Government or employers, financed completely and solely by our members, to train and retrain our members in the new-fangled processes that are cropping up each day to use for the purpose of producing newspapers or even in the commercial printing end of the business. Mr. McCLORY. In other words, you and the representatives of your union take the very enlightened view that modernization, the adoption of new techniques and automation, actually contributes to the benefit of the overall economy and actually makes jobs? They don't deprive people of jobs? agree with you more. Mr. PILCH. We couldn't Now, in the Tucson situation our members for almost 2 years were in negotiations with the publisher there and the question of the introduction of new processes was not involved at all because for 2 years before that our members cooperated fully with management in training on the new equipment that the publisher purchased for the purpose expediting and increasing production. of Mr. MCCLORY. Would you agree or would you disagree with this statement though: That we have had earlier testimony in the hearings here that the financial dilemma of a number of the newspapers that are seeking this legislation would have occurred if they had had better management practices and if more enlightened practices had been followed? Would you disagree with that? Mr. PILCH. Well, I didn't hear this testimony. Mr. McCLORY. Would that involve some other union, do you think, than the ITU? Mr. PILCH. I am only speaking in behalf of the International Typographical Union. The other unions have good leadership and can speak for themselves. So far as we are concerned, the practices that we have reflected in contract provisions are for the benefit of our people in relation to working conditions and for the benefit of management. Mr. McCLORY. Do you think that some locals might be subject to such criticism? Mr. PILCH. Well, anybody is subject to criticism. It is a question of relativity. Perhaps some publishers might be critical of some of our people because they don't learn fast enough and they are not getting enough production. Mr. McCLORY. The whole fault isn't with management. There may be some blame as far as labor is concerned, too? Mr. PILCH. Well, whether it is as far as these joint operating arrangements is concerned I don't know, because we have suffered loss of jobs in each one of these operating arrangements and those that we did not oppose. We attempted to negotiate provisions in the contract to meet so the conditions caused by the joint operating arrangements, and the one was in San Francisco and I was personally involved in those ne tiations and that was one of the problems, to negotiate conditions to meet the impact of loss of jobs which numbered around 175. No other union suffered the loss of that many jobs, but we did in negotiations try to meet the problem and we felt that we met the problem to the satisfaction of the union and the management. Mr. MCCLORY. I am glad to have your statement that as far as the International Union is concerned, the policy is not one to make jobs or to retain jobs or to retain practices where modern methods and techniques and scientific development indicate overall savings or economic benefits could be effected through change. Mr. PILCH. No, we are not opposed to progress. The only thing is we have to protect our members. We just want to be a part of that progress, that's all. We just don't want to be shunted from it with loss of jobs and loss of job security and loss of job opportunity. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you very much. Mr. DONOHUE. Do you have any questions? Mr. MCGREGOR. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DONOHUE. I was wondering, Mr. Pilch, if you would indentify the gentleman at the desk that is associated with you for the record. Mr. PILCH. The gentleman at my right is Mr. Ralph "Scoop" White, member of my staff and historian of the International Typographical Union. Mr. DONOHUE. Thank you very much for your presentation. Mr. PILCH. Thank you. Mr. DONOHUE. Our next witness will be William J. Farson, executive vice president, and Charles A. Perlik, secretary-treasurer, of the American Newspaper Guild. TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. FARSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, Mr. FARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Perlik. Mr. FARSON. Mr. Perlik is not here today. He has suffered a slight coronary but I do have with me Mr. James Česnik, who is the associate director of our research and information department. My name is William J. Farson. I am executive vice president of the American Newspaper Guild. The guild is the collective bargaining representative for some 32,000 of the working newsmen and commercial department employees of newspapers, news magazines and wire services in the continental United States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Canada. U.S. newspapers which employ our members account for almost half the daily newspaper circulation in the Nation. About 14 months ago on July 14, 1967-we testified at some length before the Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee in opposi |