Jurisdictional disputes in the motion-picture Industry : hearings before a special subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Eightieth Congress, first-session, pursuant to H. Res. 111 (1948)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

308 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES made that they would hand down a decision as to what could be done in regard to settlement. Now, lots of times I am sure their terminology of phases of the work here might be misconstrued, because of their not being associated with this type of work. I feel that they, Mr. Counsel, are doing great service to this committee in being here, because their finding, obviously, and the interviews had with the actors guild and management of the other groups is going to be a great factor in assisting us here in getting the proper testimony into the record whereby we may be able to lay our fingers on the possible cause of this jurisdictional strike. Air. McCann". I think, i\lr. Chairman, you are correct in that. Mr. Kp:iARXS. And I think that we can proceed under this principle this afternoon, and we will reconvene at 2 p. m. We stand adjourned. (At 11 : 55 a. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the same day.) AFTERNOOlSr SESSION" Mr. Kearns. The hearing will come to order. As we start the afternoon session I hope everybody will be as quiet as possible. We are trying to accommodate the group that wants to hear the hearings. As long as your conduct is such that we can leave as many in the courtroom as possible, I am glad to accommodate. Counsel. Mr. McCann. Yes, sir. TESTIMONY OF FELIX H. KNIGHT, WILLIAM C. BIRTHRIGHT, AND WILLIAM P. DOHERTY— Continued Mr. McCann. Mr. Birthright, I believe you testified this morning at the time of the telephone conversation with the representatives of the guild in Los Angeles that you did not have the directive, or any of the interpretations of the directive, or clarification of the directive, before you ; is that correct ? Mr. Birthright. That is correct. Mr. McCann. I call your attention to the telephone conversation, Mr. Birthright, in which the following is said : Mr. TiNSDALB. Mr. Birthright, I am sorry to keep interrupting, but apparently there is a difference in the language of the memorandum which you have before you and the memoranda which we have. Did you have anything before you ? Mr. Birthright. I had notes — memorandum notes. Mr. McCann. You had a memorandum note before you? Mr. Birthright. I didn't have the official document at all. Mr. McCann, You had no official document at all? Mr. Birthright. No. Mr. McCann (reading) : Mr. Birthright answered, "I have no memoranda. I have the full actual report." Is that false ? Mr. Birthright. I had the statement we had written, but it wasn't official. It wasn't part of the minutes ; just a copy of it is all I had. I had the wrong copy, as I said here yesterday. I went back to my office the next day and found the original.