We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
288 COMMUNISM IN MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY
Mr. Kenny. I think we have additional information based on the conduct of the
The Chaikman. Well, do you have it ?
Mr. Kenxy. Oh, yes.
Mr. Crum. We have it here.
The Chairman. I am listening to Mr. Kenny.
Mr. Kenny. We do, based on the conduct of this committee last week. We think two additional evidences of the illegality of this committee came out :
1. In attempts by members of the committee to dictate to various producers the content of films that are to be produced; and
2. An effort indicated by questioning to induce the motion-picture producers to create a blacklist, to hire men not on the basis of ability, but on the basis of political beliefs.
Now, both of these, we say, indicate an unconstitutional purpose, a purpose to invade the domain protected by the first amendment, which is the provision that Congress shall pass no law invading the freedom of speech or of conscience. And as to
The Chairman. Those two points, then, constitutes your additional information?
Mr. Kenny. Those two, plus, of course — we have a statement on that which we could file.
Mr. Stripling. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Just a minute.
Mr. Kenny, aside from any statement that you may have, your additional points are the two that you mentioned, that is, dictation and the creation of a blacklist ; that is correct, is it?
Mr. Kenny. Those are the points.
We said at the outset that this committee was illegal and u nconstitutional
The Chairman. I know. All right, Mr. Stripling, you may be heard.
Mr. Stripling. Mr. Chairman, the point which Mr. Kenny has set forth — if he has a remedy it is in the courts of the land and not before a committee of Congress. A committee of Congress can no more set aside a law than it can do any other thing. Therefore, Mr. Kenny should go into court, if he seeks any remedy on the points which he has submitted to the committee. I see no point for the committee to interrupt its proceedings to permit Mr. Kenny to stand up and make a lot of points which he knows are out of order before this tribunal.
Mr. Kenny. Just one brief response to that, and that is : The committee is the servant of the Constitution, just as much as the citizen is, and certainly Congress should be given the opportunity, or any committee of Congress, to consider whether or not it is proceeding constitutionally.
It is quite true, as Mr. Stripling says, that the courts are open, but I believe that the first opportunity should be given the person who first is accused of proceeding illegally.
Now, the committee has this opportunity at this time to consider the basic constitutional principles under which it is proceeding, and I think it would be the first time that this committee ever has done that. I think, if we are given that opportunity, the committee might well