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)

360 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES called them the three wise men, we didn't mean to insinuate they are not wise. We think they did a pretty fair job. We didn't have special meetings with these men. We met them at the American Federation of Labor convention in the hotel where the convention was being held, and we talked to them — at the Morrison Hotel, I think it was — and they told us the story exactly as they told you when they first got on this stand. And we were convinced that they meant what they said, and I am still convinced that they meant what they said. I was surprised when I came back and found that the actors had interpreted the things and that they had said differently than what they had said to us. There are several things that have come up here which would almost 'make it appear that some of these people are perjuring themselves. I know that some of the same words were used to me, but I interpreted it entirely different from what the actors interpreted it, Mr. Doherty told me that the directive meant exactly what it said, and the clarification did not change the directive. Now, I am not sure wdiether it was Mr. Doherty or Mr. Birthright, or which of them, went into it distinctly, but I think if you look in the dictionary you will find that the word "erection" meant to erect, to stand up or to assemble, and the word "construction" means to build. We asked him if there was not some way in which they could use words to put in there that will be more definite, so that the producers would recognize their thoughts that they tried to put on paper, and one of the gentlemen said to me, and I don't know which one it was, "You get a bundle of words and you get in trouble, Herb. Let it go as it is. Every time we open our mouth we get in more trouble. We thought we made it very clear." Mr. McCann. When was it that they said that to you — was it at the Chicago convention? Mr. SoRRELL. This was in Chicago during the convention. Mr. McCann. And after the directive or clarification of August? Mr. SoRRELL. After the clarification had been ordered, yes. I know we discussed the fact that the grips had always brought in the sets, the sets were built in the mills, and if they were not built in the mills, they were built on the stages because they were too cumbersome to be built in the mills, and that was millwork. There was no doubt about that. The lATSE had always brought the sets in and set them up — erected them, so to speak — nailed tliem together, and took them down, and if there was any construction work to be done — • if a stair had to be built — the carpenter came in and built the stairs. That would be considered millwork. There was, in my estimation, a conspiracy to cause the carpenters to lose the work that was intentionally theirs, both by the directive and by the nature of them having always done the work. Mr. McCann. Just a minute, now, Mr. Sorrell — the last clause, "There was a conspiracy" — I want you to leave that out, because we are not dealing with this issue now. You will have an opportunity to testify in regard to that. I am just asking you now to tell us what took place in Chicago: if you saw Green, if you saw Meany, if you saw Hutcheson, if you saw these three men who were on the committee. Just confine your testimony at this time to that. You will be given an opportunity to state your conclusions later.