Harrison's Reports (1945)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1878, Harrison's Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 SIXTH AVENUE Published Weekly by United States $15.00 R/w>m1K19 Harrison's Reports, Inc., U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 i\oora ioi£ Publisher Canada 16.50 New York 20, N. Y. p. s. Harrison, Editor Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 . ,. . n • • • r atRritan 1f;7<i A Motlon Picture Reviewing Service Australia New" Zealand' Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Established July 1, 1919 India, Europe, Asia .... 17.50 Jtg Editorial Policy. No problem Too Big for Its Editorial Circle 7-4622 s°° a copy Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXVII SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1945 No. 35 THEY TALK OF SETTLEMENT Attorneys for the major companies met last week (Friday) in Washington with U. S. Attorney Gen' eral Tom C. Clark and with Assistant Attorney General Wendell Berge, head of the Department of Justice's anti-trust division, to discuss problems incident to the trying of the New York anti-trust case on October 8. Reporting on this meeting, Film Daily's Washington correspondent states that the industry representatives inquired of Clark about the possibilities for writing a new decree. Clark is reported to have replied that he had not given a new decree any thought, and that he was too busy preparing to try the case. When the distributors' attorneys asked him what his main objective was, Clark is said to have replied, "Divestiture." Film Daily reports further that the possibility of a new decree has not been ruled out since the defense attorneys have been invited by Berge to. discuss their ideas for a new decree with one of the anti-trust division's representatives. This invitation has not yet been accepted. "Clark and Berge," adds the report, "were told by industry counsel that failing agreement on a new decree, litigation on the case against the majors will take 'from one to five years." Berge replied that he thinks the chances are excellent that the whole case can be settled ^n a relatively short time — far sooner than five years." It is apparent that, as the date for the New York anti-trust trial draws near, the major companies are becoming cognisant of their perilous position. It comes, therefore, as no surprise to informed industryites that they should make a final desperate attempt to call off the case in its entirety. In all probability, they will try once again to get together with the Department of Justice to work out a new decree, and it can be expected that they may offer even more concessions than they have offered heretofore. But you may be sure that they will make no concessions as regards divorcement from their theatre holdings, or that they will agree to any measures that may seriously endanger the power and privileges they now enjoy under their monopoly. No doubt great pressure will be brought to bear against the Attorney General to make a settlement, but thus far there has been no indication that Clark intends to yield any ground, particularly in the matter of divorcement. As a matter of record, the Department of Justice, ever since it instituted the antitrust action against the majors in 1939, has repeatedly contended that complete separation of the defendants' theatre operating business from their production and distribution activities was the only remedy needed to drive out monopolistic practices from the motion picture industry. Tom Clark, in his former capacity as assistant attorney general in charge of the anti-trust division, and in his present capacity as U. S. Attorney General, has frequently subscribed to this view. It would, therefore, be an unwarranted reflection on Clark for anyone to suppose that, at this late date, he would "back-track" on his utterances and agree to a compromise that would leave the producerdistributors in possession and control of their theatre interests. Now, more than ever, is the time for the independent exhibitors to make known their feelings against monopolistic practices. Don't sit back and wait for the outcome of the forthcoming trial, feeling assured that all will be well. The Department of Justice has carried on and is still carrying on a valiant fight for your right to equal freedom of economic opportunity, and if it is to succeed it must have plentiful information as to the abuses the producer-distributors have practiced on you over a period of years. Such information can be furnished only by you, the independent theatre owners. And unless every one of you cooperates with the Department and gives it courage to continue the fight, no matter how great a pressure the producerdistributor interests bring to bear on it, your chance to shatter the chains that have bound you for so many years may be lost. Every thoughtful exhibitor realizes that so long as the producer-distributors have a penny invested in theatres they will always have the incentive to grant special favors to these theatres and to discriminate against the independent theatres. The only way to restore free competition in our industry is to deprive the producer-distributors of their ready-made market, so that they will have to resort to honest competition among themselves for playing time. Only then will every independent exhibitor be regarded and treated as a prospective customer instead of as a rival. Moreover, a free competitive market will make for better pictures, and it will also serve to induce additional producers to enter the field.