Harrison's Reports (1948)

28 HARRISON'S REPORTS February 14, 1948 A POSITIVE AND COMMENDABLE ACTION BY ERIC JOHNSTON For the past several weeks, Rev. William Howard Melish, national chairman of an organization known as the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, has been conducting a campaign to have the 20th Century-Fox picture, "The Iron Curtain," which is still in production, withdrawn from distribution on the grounds that it would impair relations between Russia and the United States. Having received no satisfaction from the company, Rev. Melish sent a letter to Eric Johnston, president of the Motion Picture Association, asking him to exert his influence to halt public exhibition of the film. Mr. Johnston has rejected the protest in no uncertain icrms, maintaining that, in the United States, the screen is free, and that under no circumstances will he take any action that would impair that freedom. "The producer, the writer, the editor, the commentator on the air — each one of these," said Mr. Johnston in his reply to Rev. Melish, "must have freedom of utterance without prior restraint." In a democracy, continued Mr. Johnson, one is judged on his finished product — whether that product is a speech, an article, a book, a broadcast or a film. "The justice of his work is determined in the court of the public. To tamper in any way with the hard-won, precious right of free speech would clip away at the foundations of our democracy." "We all want American-Soviet friendship and peace," added Mr. Johnston, "but friendship is not one-sided ... It must be reciprocal." The ten-strike in Mr. Johnston's letter, however, is the following: "Let me ask you this: What is your organization doing in Russia to promote Soviet-American friendship? I'll be specific: You are aware that a play, 'The Russian Question,' is enjoying a great popularity in Russia. One performance was honored by the presence of Marshal Stalin himself. This play, with its sneerin;.,', lying attack on the United States, is an open bid to stir contempt and hatred for America on the part of Russian audiences. "Have you written to anyone in Russia protesting this deliberate effort to create bad feeling against our country? Consistency would dictate that you should have. The Russian government controls all forms of expression. For it to prohibit a play or a film would not be inconsistent with the Soviet policy which denies free speech. "You must know that the Russian radio, press and films are constantly used by the Soviet government to villify and malign American democracy. No American and nothing American is immune from their abuse. "Have you protested to anyone in Russia? . . . The record doesn't show it. "It can only be concluded that the purpose of your organization is to create in this country an atmosphere of appeasement and acceptance of Russia's policy of aggression and expansion. . . . "Just as I reject your protest, I must question the motives of the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship." Harrison's Reports is indeed glad that Mr. Johnston has brought out the fact that every one of the philo-Soviet Americans is concerned with the actions and attitude of the United States towards Russia, and wants us to act in a way that will appease that country, but not one of these persons is doing anything about advising Soviet Russia to appease the United States? Why? Mr. Johnston, as well as every other American citizen, has a right to question the motives of Rev. Melish 's organization. THE SUPREME COURT TAKES OVER The Government's 10-year-old anti-trust 6uit against the eight major companies entered its final phase this week when the U. S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the different appeals that had been filed by all the parties involved in the suit. The Statutory Court's banning of joint ownership of theatres with independents, further theatre expansion, block-booking, admission price-fixing, and pooling and franchise agreements, its setting up of a competitive bidding system, and its elimination of the industry arbitration system came under the fire of the top legal talent representing the defendants. In opposition to the "million-dollar" battery of defense lawyers, the Government trotted out a few prize legal minds of its own, including Attorney General Tom Clark, Assistant Attorney General John F. Sonnett, and special assistant to the Attorney General Robert L. Wright, who had had charge of the case for many years. Briefly, the gist of the Government's arguments was th.it the Statutory Court's final decree, in view of the findings against the defendants, is inadequate in that it sets up a system of regulation that will not effectively terminate either the conspiracy of the defendants or their incentive to discriminate against competition. The Government lawyers maintained that, in order for the defendants to have some incentive to compete with each other and to end their discriminations against both independent exhibitors and distributors, the minimum relief required is a ban on crosslicensing, with "complete ultimate divorcement of the major defendants from their affiliated theatres" the only appropriate means by which their habitual violations of the Sherman Act may be brought to an end. In addressing the Court, Mr. Clark stated that the Government's entire anti-trust program will be vitally affected by the decision, because the appeal "poses a basic question of Sherman Act enforcement which has a wider significance than the problems of the movie industry alone." He cited several prior decisions handed down by the Court in motion picture cases, claiming that they provided precedents upholding the Government's contention that complete divorcement of exhibition from production-distribution is the only remedy appropriate in the suit. With Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson disqualifying himself because of participation in the suit as Attorney General, the case was heard by the remaining eight justices, thus leaving the possibility of a split decision, in which case the decree handed down by the lower court will be upheld. There is a possibility that the decision in this case may come through before the Court adjourns for the summer in June, but because of the complexities of the suit the decision may not be handed down until the next court term in October. But whichever way the decision goes, you may be sure that the motion picture industry faces a complete change in the existing structure of distribution and exhibition.