Variety (July 1919)

w 28 VARIBTY ■A. ,\ m § ? r. '*■'-. ' ■ A. No, I was in Boston. Q. And all the moneys were sent to New York T a. They were sent to New York to be deposited In the Greenwich Bank. Q. Thoeo moneys would first come into Mr. Mountford's hands would they? A. No, the bookkeeper's. I think the bookkeeper deposited it 1 don't know whether Mr. Mountford handled' it or not Q. You don't know bow much ot the levy money was re- ceived by Mr. Mountford In cash? A. No, I do not Not very much. . Q. Well, you don't know, do youT A. Yes, I know. I can aafely swear to that. Q. Did you and Mountford publish in The Players a Hit of the names and initials ot those who compiled with the levy, so as to indicate to those who had sent moneys that they were received T . A. Yes, I did. I sent in my list in to The Player. Q. Is it not a fact that fake names Were used in your printed list of contributors to the levy to (encourage other members to donateT A. I don't know. I presume there was. Q. If Mr. Mountford testify in the P ember ton case that that was true, would you say that it wasT A. That it was true, yes. Q. "In other words, those were simply camouflage or evi- dence of humor? A. Deceptive coloration." Q. "Were these lists of donations inserted for the purpose of encouraging other persons to donate? A. Yes, sir, abso- lutely." You say that the list of contributors, then, that was published was not an accurate list? A. No. q. Well, it contained such names? A. Yes, some. Q. Was not that levy list padded to a very great extent for the purpose of inducing members of the Association to make contributions to this levy? | A. It was padded to get them to do their duty which they had sworn to do. Q. You mean by that that it was their duty to make this levy? A. They had passed the resolution themselves, and that Is what its purpose was. a. Do you know whether prior to your coming into office that The Player, the official organ of the White Rats Actors' Union, carried false and misleading advertisements that were published from time to time to Induce members of the or- ganization and of the vaudeville profession to purchase 1 White Rats Realty bonds? . A. I do not know. .'. Q. Your attention waa never called to any such adver- tisement? A. No. M Q. If Mr. Mountford so testified, you would say that that was true? ... A. Yes. Q. "Q. And those officials many of them were also In office at the time you returned to the organisation? A. No. I think the misrepresentations were made by three men. Q. Who were they?" and he mentions three men. He says, "I think one of them (mentioning him) drew the advertisement up." Are you able to testify from what I have read of Mr. Mount- ford's testimony, believing as you do In Mr. Mountfourd'a verity, that those misleading advertisements were printed? A. I am quite willing to accept anything Mr. Mountford says about the situation. Q. Do you recall the proceedings that were begun by the White Rats Actors' Union before the License Commissioner of the City ot New York against the United Booking offices in or about the year 1010? A. I do not, no, sir. Q. In your investigations as President, when you were com- piling your open letter of occurrences beginning in 1900 down to the time you wrote it, didn't you come across the record of that proceeding? LLac. . A. I don't recall that I did. v ^l.. D, £Z 0U c 5 me acroaB U»e record of a proceeding brought by the White Rata Actors' Union or somebody In its behalf before the Mayor of the City ot New York, to remove the Commislsoner of Licenses, because of his failure to sustain the proceedings that the White Rats Actors' Union had be- gun against the United Booking Offices? ..A I ,I eca,, .J 10a / , 55, 8ometnta 8 00fore Mr - McClelland, but I don't know the details. ^%i B J&L l 5£. a 1 n V al .'IP 0 .* °' * ne International Board toi? e «y wl ." . Rat8 Actora Union made on or about June 26, I B "' t nls atatement occurs, that the-organization "was only halted in its successful career by the abuse of the processes of the law and not so much of the law itself, but by those charged with administering it" And In the same report I call your attention to the statement: "Marcus Loew's busl- ■2?i!?.. WM 8U ? th , at sU DerBo nB in his theatre would con- stitute a good audience, and then the abusive law known as the injunction, was brought into force;" and I ask you if ta^SS&SS,? BUC h statements about the courts and persons Mr Mountford? T0UP organlzatwn as guided by A. No j it was a statement of facts. An injunction was j secured on perjured affidavits, affidavits containing"perjury^ —♦ i. .2" , you . r . ef ?r L° an abUBe °' Processes of law, and L° {7 gf. rg *»■$ °«t by, those charged with admlnister- i n f i? tl L 0 . 8e cb ar8«d with administering it meant the Judges, uiu it not? ■ ' « A. I think the Judge who isssed the Injunction did not know the facts. Certainly he did not know the affidavit was perjured, or he would not have issued the injunction. P$^ —.9' And those injunctions were issued in New York and Chicago? A. The one In New York I am referring to. Q. But there also was an injunction Issued In Chicago was there not? A. Yes. Q. And in St. Louis? A. Against the White Rats Actors' Union only. . Q :t. NoW mL cal l y . our . attention to Article I of the By-Laws of the White Rats Actors' Union, entitled "Policy," which provides the policy of the organization shall be the union shop and then some other things? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then Article II, Jurisdiction, "It is hereby declared and set forth that the White Rats 'Actors' Union of America, and its branch organizations, claim the right of Jurisdiction ShS-^LfiS? Rn< !, actresses, whether legitimate, lyceum, circus, cabaret, vaudeville, burlesque, motion picture stage managers, directors, assistant directors or stage managers or any other entertainers of the public." Then I will skin i«f?n« SiA We ' h In «v aU of «l he,r Pro'osalonal business re- lations with each other with managers, agents, railroad fcompanles and others, song writers, trainers, bureaus, etc." Further down in this same Article II. "It is further declared and set forth that no other organization, order or asso- ciation has any right or Jurisdiction over actors and act- 258 »!">ther legitimate, lyceum," etc., etc I ask you whether tne printed advertisements or propaganda, as I have ■SPSUL&tt ,D k Va ' to ^taglnnlng In October 191™ and carried on through your administration, was not pur- suant to that policy and that Jurisdiction as defined la yon by-laws? . .^ > _' A. I could not answer that, Mr. Goodman, without ex- plaining what the word "Jurisdiction" means there. When a charter is issued by the American Federation of Labor to any organization of labor— > ' _^ ' q. Just a moment. I am afraid we will get away off. What I want to know is whether that propaganda was carried on to effectuate the business purposes and policies and juris- diction of your association. A. No, I am trying to answer that question. I won't get very far away from the question. Q. I wish you would keep to it A. The field In which your organisation Is allowed to operate Is defined. That Is what is known as Jurisdiction. and that is what is referred to in that Article I. It refers to the area in the craft over which the White Rats Acton' Union has control, and those specific details are 'made so that it in the future there should be any encroachment upon any branch of the craft contained in onr Jurisdiction right Issued by the American Federation ot Labor with oar charter, that we are In a position to say, "This Is an en- craebment on our Jurisdiction and these people have no right to our craft and do so so." It has no relation to the pro- paganda ot the White Rats at all. Q. But your propaganda for the Union ahop, such as It was, was perfectly consistent with your policy set forth In your by-laws, was it not? A. Oh, yes. ■ ■ * Q. While you were president and Big Chief, did you know that the funds of the White Rats Actors' Union were being paid to persons who were employes of the United Booking Offices for the purpose of having those employes of the United Booking Office give information to the White Rats Actors' Union concerning their employers' business. A. No. Q. Didn't you know that Mountford used the money ot the organization to make payments to employes of the United Booking Offices for the purpose of bribing them to secure information? A. No. Q. Don't you know that the payments which were so made were noted In your books or memorandum—by your books I mean the White Rats Actors' Union's books—under the title S. 8., meaning Secret Service?. . A. I know there was a certain sum paid for the Secret Service, but that It went to the United Booking Offices or any employe of the United Booking Offices that was paid by . Mr. Mountford, I have no knowledge at all. Q. Weren't you asked this question in the Pemberton ease at page 060, and did yon not make this answer: "Q. Now, If your memory has been refreshed by seeing these check vouchers, Mr. Fltzpatriok, you say that yon made at that time, you knew that there waa such an expenditure as S. S.? A. Yes, sir." A. Yes. - Q. Then you did know that there was such an expenditure? A. I have Just testified there was such an expenditure, but I further testified tbat I knew nothing at all about its going to the United Booking Offices, or nothing at all about its being paid by Mr. Mountford. I simply testified I knew. Q. Did you know that the payment was to be made to the employes of another person or Ann? A. No, I didn't know anything about it Q. You now know, do you not or have learned since the payment was made, that Mr. Mountford did pay employes of the United Booking Offices to procure Information from them? A. No. Q. Didn't Mr. Mountford so testify in the Pemberton suit? A. I don't know tbat he did. He never told me that he paid any money to any employes of the United Booking Offices. I don't believe he ever did. Q. If he did make any such payments, do you consider such a payment proper, either from the standpoint of president of the White Rats Actors' Union, or from the stand- point ot an outsider? A. Well, personally, I don't think Is was proper to bribe anybody, although it is done, even members of the White Rats Actors' Union. • Q. I will read Mr. Mountford's testimony In the Pember-- ton case, page 603: "Q. What does 8. 8. mean under the heading of General Expense? A. Secret Bervioe. Q. And by Sat you mean expenditures that could not be made gen- erally known to the members? A. Yes. payment to persons in the employment of the United Booking Office* Q. By payment to persons In the employm«nt of the United Booking Offices, what do you mean? A. Payment Q. And for what purposes? A. For the purpose of procuring information. Q. That is to eay In the nature of bribes? A. Salaries. Q. Brlbea or salaries? A. Yes. sir. Q. *» PW]" to .£• employ of the United Booking Offices to obtain information from them? A. Correct Q. And did you obtain vouchers from those persons? A. I did not Q. Who handed these persons the money, do you know? A. Yes, sir, I dld._ You will find it marked on aU these salary receipts here, K 8. "By the Referee: Q.Was there an authorisation from the Board of Directors of the respondents Union permitting money to be spent that way without record? A. Yes, sir. Now I ask you If there was any authorisation from the Board of Directors ot the White Rats Actors' Union, per- mitting money to be spent that way without a record? A. I could not eay without referring to the minutes. I presume there was. Q. You presume there was because Mr. Mountford so testi- fied? • A. Yes. Q. Do you recall whether as a member of the International Board you participated in the passage of such a resolution? A. I don't recall. Q. Do you recall whether you presided as Big Chief or In- ternational President at any such meeting? A. I don't recall. The statement was simply made Secret Service. That is all we knew or were Interested in. Q. Do you recall Mr. Mountford's testimony to the effect that the Board specifically authorised these payments to be made? . A. To the United Booking Offices? Q. To the United Booking Offices. A. No, I do not think there was any such specific resolution made at all. I don't think he testified to such. Q. The question waa. asked.by the Referee In that ease, "Was there an authorization from the Board of Directors of the Respondent's Union"—meaning the White Rats Actors' Union—permitting money to be spent that way without record," and the answer waa, "Yes, sir." Do I understand you to say tbat that authorization, whatever it was, was a general authorization? A. It was not specific at all. Q. Did you know that In making payments to the em- ployes of the United Booking Offices, such conduct was in vlloatlon of the penal law of the State of New York, pro- hibiting corrupting and Influencing of employes of another person? A. I never knew it was paid to employes ot the United Booking Offices or any other employes of any organisation. Simply 8. 8. Q. Did you hear or read the testimony ot John J. Qnlgley In this proceeding? / A. NO, I glanced through it . /•. q. Did you notice that portion of it which re tarred to. his method of doing business in Massachusetts?' , A. No. q. And his arrest of actors? ■•...< A. No. I think I heard him testify that he had them 1 arrested for breaking their contractu. q. Did you also hear him testify that ho attached the salaries of some actors ? A. For breach of contract, yes. *"' Q. For breach ot contract and commissions? A. Yes. Q. Was Quigley siding and assisting the White Rite in its strike in or about Boston in 1017? « A. No, sir, he was not. q. Were you here the Saturday, I think It was, that he testified? A. I was in the room, yes, for part of his testimony, not all of It q. Did you hear his testimony about his corporation, and Its capital of «80? A. i did, yes. Q. And the manner in which he made contracts with acts? A, I did. Q. Do you believe It Is to. the Interest of the vaudeville profession tbat this Commission should make an order against the respondents In this case, so that independent so-called managers and booking agents of the type of Quigley should be permitted to continue doing business In the manner In which Quigley nas testified be does It? A. I think they all ought to be put out of business, Quigley and the whole lot of them? Q. You don't approve ot Quigley's (methods and business policy? r. A. Ito, I do not, any more than I do ot the respondents. Q. When you say they all ought to be put out of busi- ness, you also refer to all the respondents? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you conversant with Mr. Mountford's movements from 1911 to 1915, the period during which he was not con- nected with the White Rats Actors' Union? A. I never met him until he' came back to the White Rata. Q. Do you know what he was doing then between 1911 and a. i do not Q, Do you know that during that period-he was known as one of the insurgents, known in the White Rats organization as one ot the insurgents? A. No. ' ■ . Q. Do yon know that between 1911 and 1915 that he In collusion with Harry De Veaux, Val Tralnor. Nathan Bunln, Robert Nome, Major Doyle and 8. D. Rlcardo were to harass and annoy the White Rats Actors' Union? A. No, I do not Q. I show you this leaflet dated December, 1915, and ask you if you saw that at or about that time? A. No; this was sent to me by Major Doyle Just before I waa eletced office. Q. And that sort ot leaflet was sent around to many other actors, was it not? A. Mr. De Veaux writes letters to everybody. Q. I mean there was an active distribution of that stuff? A. I don't know anything about the distribution of it . Hi. 1 * * m J! ot now dahalng, Mr. FlUpatrick, that what Is in that Is true. > -A 1 . k 5 0W nothing at all about the distribution of It That Is the second copy I ever saw. While I was la the business I never received a copy ot It :. %W | rou la January, 1916, or thereafter receive a copy ot that paper (handing paper to witness) ? r A. I dont recall that I did.* I know I never read It If 3 n 2* w * !t ' ! ***>*nlsed bis capitals and that stopped it Mr. Goodman: I offer in evidence, Mr. Examiner, these iff 0 P" D6 I! , »..S 0t fo . r the purpose of proving any statement In the papers themselves, but merely as showing that they were persons who were antagonistic to the White Rats and who were endeavoring to affect it or attack it and not aa proof of the contents at all. Examiner Moore: What Is the purpose of all this evidence? J£ T :2?°2S*$} The i"P*j*iL!i P'ove that the respond- HfiJfV'fi,** ""H 80 , ?' & Wn,te RBta downfall. It Is m$?£* tll *J JomD !? , ? t th * t tt * wapondent smashed the White Rats Actors' Union. mJJSSiS f bow tn,t Def0 ? anT ■"*■ on.the part of the gS J TO S fe the 7 w «" smashed and were just trying to pick their beads up again, and there were other Inrirumentat- i«.rt PP i , l2i^ < S e ,. wi i t6 , Ra V Actowr Union that helped the EFftri-L? 111 ? 2 HL&W& competent and very germane as the tnth. ""^ X d0n ' ottw tt t0 proye tte contents anrihb5*about St*"* te ttafc ! ^ taow ** lt to ' w BxanMner Moore: We will M them In, subject to what >W wort n, under those conditions. By Mr. Goodman: S: i*dw™taow? ,er a wwte H * t Mr> FlteDatr,okT Q. Or was he at any'time? A. I could not tell you. ^6HVSMRb*» su* A. Yes, that was voted on. A. It did. storied? Jr ° U hBPPen to nntmbtlT tt « *«• when that strike A. No, I don't „»-i <g «gMW on direct examination that the strike, was 3&£5F*« it 'rwrrsi A, Yes. &uSS&*S5£& m * * ™' P^i» 8 V P anT«7n.l% ntt&vBrurt?* *-> "*•■*•? * *™" £V*A%S£J&£lZ i & St . W tr,k t e he .f,er a S , ausirian. and stag. hand, and *&%&?£££& Itws. attor; ta0W Whetter tt WM a,t " " * «>• ««»• time. ltU^ne?«d^^ n th'. rt ^h"lte l M?' ,, *• "»"' tawl ~* was >.$