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.

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 329 diction that he thought rightfully his, to any other organization in the American Federation of Labor. Mr. McCann. That wasn't the question, though, Mr. Doherty. It is asked what you answered Mr. Hutcheson's protest. What did the committee say to Mr. Hutcheson when he protested ? Mr. Doherty. We held fast to our decision of December 26, 1945. And even in the clarification we held fast to that decision. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Knight wanted to answer that. Mr. McCann. Mr. Knight, will you please answer it? I didn't mean to deprive you of that. Mr. Knight. Mr. Chairman, in Mr. Hutcheson's protests, we didn't do the talking on that. We had our decision there we rendered, and we sat pretty tight on that. It was the other members of the council that argued with Mr. Hutcheson in the main. Mr. Birthright. I may say, Mr. Counsel, our committee had no conversation with Mr. Hutcheson as a committee. We heard his protests while the council was in session there. We were not sitting as a committee. Mr. McCaxn. I understand; but, gentlemen, all I think Mr. Benjamin desired to know — and we have been diligently trying to get at the facts from every source possible, and you could help us if you recall — when Mr. Hutcheson protested before the council about the decision of December 26, 1945, that you wrote, did you defend your decision before the committee? Mr. Doherty. Emphatically yes. Mr. Knight. Yes. Mr. Birthright. Yes. Mr. McCann. That is what Mr. Benjamin wanted to find out. Mr. Doherty. That is right; true. Mr. McCann. You emphatically defended that before the committee ? Mr. Knight. Yes. Mr. McCann. You were able to resist his effort to have that set aside until some time in August, when you were ordered to prepare this clarification; is that correct? Mr. Knight. It was never set aside. After the argument at the council meeting in Chicago, in August, it was thought it would be helpful — we were asked by the council to see if we couldn't write a clarification. Mr. McCann. Did you gentlemen know that after you issued your clarification the fellows went back to work? I mean, after you issued your original order in December, the men went back to work? Mr. Doherty. We know they were already back to work before they handed down a decision. Mr. McCann. Did 3^011 know they were working up to the time you handed down your clarification? Mr. Knight. To the best of my knowledge, they were. Mr. McCann. Did you know the clarification was the occasion of the strike of 1946 ? Mr. Doherty. I think that is a fair question. That seems to be a true statement of fact. Mr. McCann. That is why this clarification, Mr. Doherty, is of such vital importance. I join with the chairman in saying that I think yon men might be very helpful to us. I think we are getting down now