Harrison's Reports (1937)

EntereG as second-class mailer January 4. 1921, at the post office at New York. .New York, unaer the act or aiarcn 3, IS7S Harrison's Reports Yearly Subscription Bates: i a a n DDnAHWAV Published Wcftl^T by „ .„ „ ~ BKUAUWAI Harrison's Reports, Inc., United States $15.00 V L. M V Publisher U. S. tasuter Possession* . 16.50 (HCVf IOTK, IN. I. p s. HARBISON, Editor Canada 16.50 -, Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.59 A Mefcioiv Pivture Reviewing Service Established July 1, 1919 Great Britain 15.75 Devoted Cteefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Australia, New Zealand, ^"m^J?1 *~<i™ India, Europe, Asia .... 17.50 Its Editorial Policy: No Probtem Too Big for Its Editorial HarrePortT ' 35c a Copy • Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. (Bentley Code) A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XIX SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1937 No. 6 PETTIJOHN'S FRIENDLY COMPLAINT ON A SUPPOSED INACCURACY Mr. Charles C. Petti john, of the Hays office, has sent me the following letter : "'Dear Pete : "Your January 23rd issue was called to my attention this morning. In the fourth from the last paragraph on the last page, p. 16, there is a statement which is inaccurate. "I am sending you with this letter a complete copy of the record of the Hearings before the Subcommittee of the House Interstate and Foreign Affairs Committee, held March 9th to 26th last year. I have marked pages 366, 367, and 370, so that you may see exactly what was said by me on the subject referred to in that paragraph of your Reports. "Inasmuch as an offical record was made, let's quote from the record" Mr. Pettijohn is right : let us quote from the record. On pages 366 and 367, which Charlie marked for my convenience, he makes no statement of any kind ; the statements there are made by Ed Kuykendall. What he said on page 370 is not so important, and is a continuation of what he said on the previous page, 369. It is what he said on page 369 that has a direct bearing on the statement I made in the January 23 issue of Harrison's Reports. Here is the editorial paragraph complained of : "When the hearings were held before the House and Senate Committees over the Neely-Pettengill Bill last winter, Charles Pettijohn and Ed Kuykendall stated to the committees that, if whatever abuses exist in the motion picture industry were brought out in the open, they would certainly be corrected, proposing conferences between Kuykendall and producer executives. As a matter of fact, the members of the committees were assured that, if action on the Bill were suspended, all abuses would be corrected in no time." The following is what Pettijohn said to the members of the House Subcommittee, taken word for word from the record : "Mr. Pettijohn: Mr. Kuykendall stated that he had been assured by the producers and distributors of pictures that they could sit down and iron out their troubles in a roundtable discussion, and I do not want this committee to have the idea that I have made any assurances to Mr. Kuykendall or that when it comes to the 20-per cent cancellation clause, that matter can be disposed of. "Mr. Kuykendall says, at the same time, that the 10-per cent cancellation clause was intended so that the exhibitor could cancel a bad picture or pictures that were not thought fit, from a moral or social standpoint for the community. That 10-per cent clause has now become a matter of trading ; so pictures can be shifted around. "Now, those are things that can be settled within the industry and I will make this assurance to this committee that I do not think there will be any trouble, as there has never been, in ironing out 90 per cent of the difficulties within the industry. We have done it before, and that is a pretty fair batting average for any industry, and these conferences within the industry will continue to take place without the necessity of any legislation, and I can assure you gentlemen that is what will be done through conferences. ..." Because of the fact that the hearings before the Senate Subcommittee have not been printed, I cannot give you extracts from his testimony before that body, but by this statement of his before the House Subcommittee he said, in accordance with my understanding, (hat : (1) Kuykendall had told the Committee that the producers would sit down with exhibitors in round-table discussions and iron out their troubles. (2) He made the members of the Subcommittee understand that he himself had not given Kuykendall any assurances to that effect, and that when it came to the question of allowing the exhibitor to cancel twenty per cent of the pictures instead of ten per cent the matter cannot be disposed of so easily. (3) He, Pettijohn, stated to the Subcommittee that the troubles between the exhibitors and producers could be settled within the industry, and gave them the assurance that, in his opinion, (a) there would be no trouble, as there had never been, in ironing out ninety per cent of the difficulties within the industry — it was done before; (b) conferences to iron out the troubles would continue to take place, and for this reason there was no need for legislation, assuring the Subcommittee members that this, that is, the settling of ninety per cent of the industry disputes, would be done through conferences, and not through any law. In the face of these statements and assurances of his to the House Subcommittee, how can he object to what I said in Harrison's Reports? The only justification for a complaint he may have is my statement that "all" the troubles could be settled, whereas he said only ninety per cent of them. For this, I am willing to express my regrets. I only hope that, when he appears before the same Subcommittee again, on the hearing of the re-introduced Pettengill Bill, he will be fair and penitent enough to confess that he was wrong one hundred per cent. Charles C. Pettijohn went to Washington to bring about the defeat of the Neely-Pettengill Bill. Helping him in this was, of course, Ed Kuykendall ; and since his name, too, was mentioned in that editorial, let me copy from the record so as to save him the trouble of writing a protest, if he has such an intention. "My name is E. L. Kuykendall. I am president of the Motion Picture Theatre Owners of America and for many years have owned and operated motion picture theatres in and around Columbus, Miss "I am not a lawyer. I appear before this committee not only as a theatre owner of long experience but also as president of Motion Picture Theatre Owners of America. This organization is the largest and oldest trade association of theatre owners in the United States and includes in its active membership over 4,500 of the leading theatres in the country, located in every State in the Union. It is a voluntary association, the membership is open to bona-fide theatre owners of responsibility and good repute, it is financed solely by dues from motion-picture exhibitors, and its policies are regulated strictly by bona-fide motion-picture exhibitors, and not promoters and lawyers." Before copying more of Kuykendall's statement to the House Subcommittee, let me say that, in what he said in this paragraph, he failed to make clear to the committee: (a) that the "4,500 leading theatres," which are members of his organization, do not represent 4,500 independent theatre owners, but mostly theatre managers of circuits controlled or owned by producers and distributors: (b) that approximately eighty per cent of the dues by which his organization is financed comes from producer-controlled theatres ; and (c) that he, consequently, in appearing before the Subcommittee to oppose the Bill, appeared as the representative, not of the small and struggling independent exhibitors, but of producer-exhibitors. Had he made these facts known to the members of the subcommittee, his statement would have l>een fair and unbiased. Wouldn't his remarks to the House Subcommittee lead one to believe that (Continued on last f><ific)