Harrison's Reports (1949)

28 HARRISON'S REPORTS February 12, 1949 manship that caused the independent exhibitors to lose all faith in the consent decree and resulted in its final repudiation by the Department of Justice. "The injunction against offering pictures other than theatre-by-theatre and picture-by-picture would, of course, make meaningless Section VI (6) providing for the arbitration of disputes over the forcing of pictures. Thus we encounter another inconsistency in this patch-work draft which, if approved, would require endless interpretation and would greatly increase and not abate the uncertainty which now surrounds the distribution of motion pictures. The same observations can be made with respect to Section VI (7) regarding the cancellation of pictures 'generally offensive in the locality served by (a) theatre on moral, religious or racial grounds.' "The major vice of the proposal, taken as a whole, is that it embodies substantive provisions which have no place in an arbitration plan. The fact that these provisions are plainly contrary to the Supreme Court's decision precludes any possibility that the plan will be approved by the Department of Justice or by the District Court. Congress can, in effect, reverse the Supreme Court by the enactment or repeal of legislation, but we know of no other tribunal or agency that has such power." From Mr. Myers' scathing denunciation of the proposed arbitration plan it becomes apparent that the major defendants, instead of presenting to the Department of Justice and the Court a workable and desirable plan for the settlement of disputes, are still seeking ways and means to circumvent the relief ordered by the Supreme Court for the violations of the anti-trust laws. As Mr. Myers points out, the plan, as presented, should be rejected by both the Department of Justice and the District Court. But even if the defendants succeed in obtaining approval of this or any other arbitration plan which, in the opinion of Mr. Myers and other competent legal minds, would not offer sufficient protection to the independent exhibitors, the defendant-distributors will have gained very little, for this reason: The Supreme Court, in its opinion, has specifically stated that any arbitration plan would not be mandatory — "that the District Court has no power to force or require parties to submit to arbitration in lieu of the remedies afforded by Congress for enforcing the antitrust laws." Any arbitration system devised, stated the Supreme Court, would be "merely an auxiliary enforcement procedure, barring no one from the use of other remedies the law affords for violations either of the Sherman Act or of the decree of the court." Consequently, if an approved arbitration system will not protect the exhibitors adequately, few of them, acting on the advice of their leaders, will want to avail themselves of the system and will, instead, assert their rights through litigation in the courts under the anti-trust laws. And since the Supreme Court has stamped the brand of illegality on many of the defendants' practices, and since recent decisions handed down by the Court have opened new ways for the exhibitors to prove damages, many of them may not hesitate to take their chances in the courts. But a desirable arbitration system may deter many of them from taking such action. In the series of articles entitled, "A Legal Analysis of the Statutory Court's Decision," which were written by Mr. George S. Ryan, the eminent Boston attorney, and which were published in this paper in 1946, Mr. Ryan, after a detailed discussion of just what an effective arbitration system should contain, had this to say, in part: "Many . . . disputes may be eliminated and considerable litigation avoided if the distributors, abandoning the policies which they have formerly pursued, will present to the Court a fair and comprehensive plan for arbitration. ... It should have safeguards to insure, so far as human limitations permit, that it will mete out exact and equal justice and provide speedy and effective relief. "To be attractive to independent operators, the arbitration system should create suitable substitutes for the other remedies available to them under existing law. . . . "Right now the intelligence, fairness and business statesmanship of the defendants are facing a crucial test. If they present to the Government and the Court an adequate plan for the peaceful settlement of disputes, it is not unlikely to prove the high road to industrial harmony. But if, pursuing their time-worn and unhallowed practices, they seek, not only to retain the fruits of their illegal activities, but also to perpetuate those practices and continue their policy of discriminating against independent operators, then they alone will be responsible for the result. . . ." Mr. Ryan's advice to the distributor-defendants is as sound now as it was in 1946. If they should follow it, they will save themselves considerable time and money that would otherwise be spent in court litigation, and they will, to a great extent, reduce the danger of substantial judgments for damages being levied against them. "Alaska Patrol" with Richard Travis, Helen Westcott and Emory Parnell (Film Classics, March 10; time, 61 min.) This is a good program espionage melodrama, with a novel twist. The novelty lies in the hero's employment of a small radio sending and receiving gadget to trap the spies. The hero, a naval intelligence officer, is placed in dangerous situations several times, and there is considerable suspense as a result of the many risks he takes to catch the criminals. These risks include the hero's assuming the identity of a dead spy, whose death had been kept from the spy ring. A great deal of the action takes place aboard a ship. The direction and acting are good, and the photography clear: — After shooting dead an espionage agent (played by Richard Travis) who had broken into the National Allied Laboratories to steal secret documents, naval intelligence officers, to throw the spy ring off their guard, announce that the spy had escaped. They then persuade Operative Richard Travis, who looked exactly like the dead spy, to impersonate him. From details obtained from the FBI, Scotland Yard, and the French Surete, Selmer Jackson and Jim Griffith, Travis' superior officers, instruct him on how best to impersonate the dead man. Like the dead spy, Travis learns how to play an harmonica, but in his case the harmonica was to be used to transmit messages in special code by a short-wave radio instrument concealed in a supposed music album. Travis' first destination is Sitka, Alaska, where the dead spy, according to papers found on his person, had been ordered to report to Emory Parnell, a tough foreign agent, on board the steamer Vulcan. Parnell, suspicious, puts Travis through a "third degree," but he passes the test. William Tannen, Parnell's assistant, likewise accepts him. The ship sets sail for Ketchikan and, during the night, keeps a rendezvous with a submarine, from which it picks up another spy, Ralf Harolde. Travis rifles Harolde's luggage and obtains highly incriminating documents. Engine trouble compels Parnell to return to Sitka, where still another spy, George Roth, discovers that Travis is an imposter. Parnell, informed, orders the ship out of Sitka. A battle ensues, and Travis, greatly outnumbered, is overjoyed when Tannen reveals himself as a Canadian secret agent. The two fight like demons and win out, their task being made easier by an explosion below decks that kills Harolde and Roth. In the hospital at Sitka, Travis is greeted by Helen Westcott, his sweetheart, who takes great pride in his accomplishment. It was produced by James S. Burkett and directed by Jack Bernhard, from an original screen play by Arthur Hoerl. Suitable for the family.