Viewing page 2 of 16

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

U.S. CHIDES AIRLINE OVER A LAW OF 1799

Acheson Differs With Colonial on Logan Act—Talks Open Today in Air Dispute

Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 — The State Department took issue with Colonial Airlines today for using a 150-year-old law to justify its failure to take part in an aviation hearing before Canadian Air Transport Board.
The Canadian agency held hearings Monday and yesterday on a dispute airing from its order to Colonial Airlines to show cause [[cut off]]y Colonial's permit to operate [[cut off]]to Canada should not be suspended. The United States earlier had asked the Canadian Government to withhold any suspension until the two Governments had consulted.
Secretary of State Dean Acheson told a news conference today that Canada had agreed to these consultations, which will begin tomorrow in Ottawa. At the same time, he chided the United States airline for refusing to take part in the hearings of the last two days and for basing this refusal on the Logan Act of 1799.
Mr. Acheson explained that the Logan Act was intended to prevent private individuals "from interfering with the foreign relations of the United States."

No Interpretation Asked

He added:
"This matter has been pending for the past ten days, and the representatives of Colonial Airlines have been in constant touch with officers of the State Department. They have never requested any interpretation of the Logan Act, and, as a result, it is a little hard for me to take their position seriously. * * *
"If Colonial Airlines had really felt that the Logan Act was involved, they could have asked for permission to appear, and we certainly would have told them that we have no objection to their appearing to take all necessary steps to protect their rights. In fact, we have already told them that in a letter. * * *"
The dispute between Colonial and the Canadian Air Transport Board arose when the United States airline sought to determine before the Civil Aeronautics Board the validity of the bilateral air agreement between the two countries. Colonial objects to the granting of a Montreal-to-New York permit for Trans-Canada Airlines. The air agreement gave Canada the right to set up a Montreal-New York line, and Colonial has obtained an injunction against such operation.

Suspension Threatened

The Canadian Air agency held that Colonial was blocking efforts of the Canadian line to operate [[cut off]] to New York, and threatened to suspend the license for Montreal operating rights held by Colonial. The United States, defending [[cut off]]olonial, contended in a note to the Minister of External Affairs that no provision of the bilateral agreement, signed this spring, contemplates suspension of a [[license]] for the reasons given in the [[cut off]] Transport Board's order."
Representing the United States the consultations beginning tomorrow will be Adrian S. Fisher, [[cut off]] Department legal adviser; [[cut off]]ry T. Nunneley Jr., general [[cut off]]sel of the Civil Aeronautics [[cut off]]d, and Livingston Satter[[cut off]]ite, Laurence C. Vass and [[cut off]] H. Alberta Colclaser of the [[cut off]]e Department.

Attack on U. S. Courts Seen

Sigmund Janas, president of Colonial Airlines, charged yesterday that the hearing in Ottawa last Monday and Tuesday was 'highlighted principally by an attack on the United States courts a dtheir procedures."
"The question in dispute," Mr. Janas stated, "is not whether Colonial Airlines should operate into Montreal and Ottawa,  but whether a citizen of the United States has the right to exercise his privileges as an American citizen in the courts of his own country without intimiation or coercion from the officials of foreign countries in which he may be doing business."
A three-judge Federal Court in Washington, D. C., decided last Nov. 30 b ya 2-to-1 decision to order the Civil Aeronautics Board to hold up action on permission for the Canadian Montreal-New York route until the Supreme Court had ruled on another phase of the case involving constitutional questions.
It was this action, Mr. Janas contended, that the Air Transport Board of Canada interpreted as a delaying action on the part of Colonial and led to the license suspension hearing. The three-man Air Transport Board reserved decision at the end of the hearing Tuesday.