Harrison's Reports (1930)

iCntered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post ofSce at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison’S Reports Yearly Subscription Rates; ^tnited States $15.00 iJ. S. Insular Possessions. . 16.00 ..Canada, Alaska 16.00 Mexico, Spain, Cuba 16.00 Great Britain. New Zealand 16.00 Other Foreign Countries.. 17.50 35c a Copy 1440 BROADWAY New York, N. Y. A Motion Picture Reviewing Service by a Former Exhibitor Devoted Exclusively to the Interests of Exhibitors Its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. Published Weekly by P. S. HARRISON Editor and Publisher Established July 1, 19 19 Tel. : Pennsylvania 7649 Cable Address : Harreport (Bentley Code) A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XII SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 15. 1930 No. 46 AGAIN ABOUT THE HARTFORD CASE Judge Burrows, in handing down a decision in the case of Majestic Theatre Company, of Hartford, Connecticut, against United Artists, Fox, Vitagraph, and the New Haven Film Board of Trade, as you were informed by this paper, said the following in regard to the unlawfulness of the acts of the producers in setting up the boards of arbitration and in forcing the contract upon the exhibitors : “The existence of a combination, its object, and the means selected to achieve that object being clearly set forth, the essential question as to the complaint is whether the combination is in violation of the Sherman Law. The object of the combination, so far as Connecticut is concerned, is to compel all exhibitors to submit to arbitration, and obey awards. The agreement to submit is effected through an unwillingness to contract on any other basis, and as an exhibitor must accept this contract or secure no films, it is in reality a condition imposed upon his access to the market. It is a substantial impairment of his rights to freely engage in interstate commerce and is unreasonable. The object of the combination is therefore unlawful. . . . “I am further of the opinion that the means selected to accomplish this object are unlawful. If there had been a concerted refusal to deal altogether for the purpose of forcing plaintiff or said Morrison to settle his dispute with Tiffany Company, the answer would be certain. ... It appears that this flid happen in the summer of 1927. Does the requirement of a deposit as a condition of doing business. instead of complete refusal, where the plaintiff's credit is not in doubt, produce a different legal result ? Clearly the question is one of degree. But I think the exacting of an extra payment of this size as a condition of doing interstate business for the purpose of imposing the will of a combination on a citizen is prohibted by law. . . Thus a judge of the United States brands unlawful the producer combination, in existence before Judge Thacher handed down his famous decree, to force the e.xhibitors to live up to the terms of the contract by forced arbitration and by deposits. There seems to be a doubt in the minds of some exhibitors, who have read the entire decision, whether Judge Burrows declared the contract illegal or not. Judge Burrows did not declare the contract itself illegal, that is, the language of the contract, but he did declare illegal the methods by which the producer-distributors obtained it and by which they attempted to enforce it. And as every contract was obtained by unlawful means, it follows that every contract obtained by the distributors up to the time Judge Thacher forced the producers to change it is illegal. This interpretation is supported by a first class lawyer, whom I have consulted. If you are sued by a producer-distributor for films you have refused to accept, have your lawyer communicate with this office, so that I may make some suggestions to him for a line of defense that should prove most effective. BE CAUTIOUS AS TO THE PRICES YOU PAY FOR FILM Love B. Harrell, Secretary of The Southeastern Theatre Owners Association, at Atlanta, Georgia, in his “Fall” issue of “The Southeastern,” warns the members of his organization against paying big prices for this year’s product by pointing out to them that business conditions have not improved and a decided improvement is not looked for at least for some time. “The last people in the world to spread pessimi.sm.” he .says, “should be t’nose who comprise this industry, for this is America’s world of fun and entertainment . . . But . . . “i. . . .September has shown no upward trend in the show business. . . . “2. . . .The United States Government does not think that conditions are better. . . . Washington is busy trying to provide means of employment for the millions who face a winter starvation. “3. . . .There can be no hope of betterment in the agricultural sections now until a crop can be marketed that will bring the farmer enough money to pay his fertilizer bills. . . . “4. . . .Theatre stocks are dropping . . . This can result in orders from bankers to the producers to cut production budgets, and consequently in poorer product. . . . “There is nothing in the business conditions that warrants you paying the prices you paid last year. . . . You had better close your theatre for a few weeks, or months, or close down one or two dull nights a week, than find yourself with high rentals and undated product. . . . “Don't buy until you have to have product. . . . You can always buy more, but you can’t always .shake off old and impossible product. Be safe!” In another part of the paper, Mr. Harrell advises the exhibitors, in agreeing on percentage terms, to demand that the distributors agree to accept a checker appointed by his bank. The motive that prompts him to make such a suggestion is the possibility that a checker from the opposition bank may be so impressed by the receipts taken in while a big subject is .shown that he may promote a theatre in his town. A sensible suggestion !