We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
1846 COMMUNISM IN MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY Mr. Tunberg. Not to my memor}-. This was a new one. I thought I knew them all, but this was a new one. Mr. Tavexxer. To break the quorum by leaving the meeting and then immediately come back? Mr. Tunberg. Then come back and speak some more; yes. Mr. Tavenner. All right. Mr. Tunberg. Now, then, subsequently there was a resolution brought before the board. There was a debate about this. It was thought that the board should take a voluntary non-Communist— sign a voluntary non-Communist affidavit, and the board did this unanimously, even though not required by the Taft-Hartley law to do so. The board has signed such a non-Communist affidavit, every member of the board. Mr. Tavexxer. Now, was there any particular difficulty or dispute over the voluntary signing of the affidavit by members of the board? Mr. Tuxberg. Yes, Mr. Tavenner, there was. There was a very heated debate about this. Some people objected on principle to a. loyalty oath as a contingency, as a qualification for membership in the guild on purely—the grounds was that this was a professional writers' organization, and, as such, should never be a qualification for member- ship. Others objected on the ground that it wouldn't do any good, that a dyed-in-the-wool Communist would sign it very happily and go on about his way, and that it would not have the desired effect of flushing out the Communists. So there was, I think, an honest dif- ference of opinion about this among several of our members. Mr. Tavexxer. Do you know the circumstances surrounding the execution of it by Carl Foreman ? Mr. Tuxberg. Yes, sir. We debated this thing for some time. As I say, there were some people who felt that the signing of such a volun- tary oath would be useless. He was one of them. Mr. Tavenner. Did he sign it when the others signed it? Mr. Tuxberg. No. No, he finally—he finally said that he would sign it. We then lined up to sign it, and when it came his turn he said he wanted to study it further and would take it home with him. He did, and, subsequently, sent it in by mail with his signature on it. Mr. Walter. It couldn't have been sworn to. Mr. Tavexxer. Well, was there a separate affidavit—I mean, sep- arate oath given to him, if this were an affidavit and signed before a notary public? Mr. Tuxberg. Perhaps I have given the wrong impression there. These were voluntary statements and were not signed. They were not notarized. Mr. Tavexxer. I'm sorry. Mr. Tuxberg. In the case of the Taft-Hartley affidavits they were. Mr. Tavexxer. Yes. Go on. Mr. Tavexxer. These were just simply voluntary statements. Mr. Tavenner. You stated in the earlier part of your testimony that to your knowledge there had been only two persons, within the period of time, and I do not recall what period of time— Mr. Tuxberg. A period of Mr. Tavexxer. Who were officials of the organization and had been members of the Communist Party? Mr. Tuxberg. No, that isn't the impression I meant to give. I don't believe that is what I said. I said only two people, from among those