◆ SpookStack

(Continued from pave one) Court of Appeals affirmed! F. C. C, Sangamon then sought Court review. which the government opposed. The Government's brief called attention to testimony before }the legislative oversight sub- committee of the House Com- mittee on Interstate. and For- eign Commerce, given in May and June, 1958, subsequent to the Court of Appeals decision. The Government said this: testimony ingicates that while’ the matter was under consider-| ation by F. C. C., representatives of someone interested in having a new channel assigned to St. Louls, and representatives Of Sangamon and another appll-: nen — we itt cant, who were interested in keeping Channel 3 in Spring- field, made ex parte (outside) presentations to various F .c. C. members concerning the merits, Sangamon’s reply brief denied that the testimony indicates Sangamon, or any representa- tive authorized by Sangamon, ever made any ex parte repre- sentations to any F. C. C. mem- Judgment Vacated The Supreme Court's order jdirects that in view of the gov- ernment’s representations con- cerning the Congressional hear- ings, the judgment be vacated! and the'case remanded for such action as the Court of Appeals may deem appropriate, Identi- ‘eal disposition was made of IWIRL Television Corp. v. United |States, involving an attack on F. C. C's transfer of Channel 8 from Peoria, Tl., to the Daven-| port-Rock Island-Moline ares. Justices Clark and Harlan dissented on a purely procedural ground. They agreed that impropriety in the F. C. C. proceeding, if it existed, is a proper subject for court inquiry, But they saw no need to vacate the Judgments, feellng that denials of certiorart would not foreclose the Court lof Appeals from considering the impropriety question, ‘ | The majority of seven, how- ever, apparently took the view that such reconsideration ought ties’ wishes might be. It is now for the Court of Appeals to find t whether in fact there oc- curred improper pressures or behind-the-scenes representa- Pomeoi type which would in- Ivalidate the nroceecigy, | Tati ame | to tamper with -Jand judicial proceedings against serious ‘abuse, . 1] One of “Proudest Boasts* the court has sald else- where, in requiring that pro- tainted by the use of Derjured or false ony be reopened, “the untainted ad- ministration of justice’ is “one of the most cherished aspects of our institutions” and “one of our proudest boasts” . Federal regulatory agencies exercise vast powera delegated by Congress. Some of the pow- are conferred in such broad jterms that, ordinarily, the agency’s determination will be conclusive: the scope of judi- clal review {s narrow indeed. Gften the atekes aré largt. |! eguards are essential tb! 1 Sen ure that the great discret! trusted to the agencies w be exercised only in an above- board manner which fully pro- tects the public interest and the rights of all parties as well, Much Js being said about for- Toulating new codes of ethics for administratiye agencies. Certainly the administrative agencies themselves ought to make it clear that any effort their processes jwill be vigorousiy rebuffed. ere Were no reason to expat eh en improper approa ght eucceed, perhaps fe ; Ople would be tempted to Sa r