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.
382 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES
Mr. McCann. I haven't heard any such suggestions, and I haven't it in my mind.
Mr. Knight. I wasn't referring to you.
Mr. McCaxn. I want you to know, so far as we are concerned, we are simply looking for the facts. We are not judging you men as being dishonest, because you got out a directive ; that isn't my opinion. And I am sure the chairman has the same point of view. We were asking why you made the change. You have explained that.
There is one other question I would like to ask you.
Mr. Knight. One calls for two.
Mr. McCann. If the council directed you to clarify it in August 1946, and you had the authority to do it, why shouldn't the council call on you in August 1947 to do the same thing ?
Mr. Knight. They might have called on us. They had that right. I think the council has a right to call on the membership of that council for almost anything, but calling for it doesn't always get it.
Mr. McCann. Suppose the council should, next month, say to you, "Now, gentlemen, you have been out there now, before this congressional committee, and you know the turmoil that exists in Hollywood and it still goes on. We would like for you to take another shot at clarifj'ing this 1945 decision."
Do you think that you, under the authority granted to you in 1945, could bind the parties with a new clarification in 1947 or 1948 ?
Mr. Knight. Mr. Doherty can speak for himself. My opinion is, Mr. Chairman — and if I were in the same frame of mind tlien as I am. now, I would say, "No." And I said in the first place, when it was asked, "I am not in accord with an interpretation because, in my experience in arbitrations and interpretations, in writing an interpretation or clarification — but I am trying to be helpful. I am willing to do this. But, gentlemen, it is just going to be more language for more misunderstanding and misinterpretations. That language can't be i:>ut on paper that different men won't get a different meaning out of it.
I think what you are suggesting, if I might change my mind, and the other committee will, and we did that, it will just be something else for them to quarrel about and fight about and get different meanings out of it.
Mr. McCann. I appreciate this frank answer of yours, but it doesn't quite meet the question, sir, and I want to return to the question.
Do you think if you should now, in 1947, in the month of August, make a new clarification of the directive of December 1945, at the request of the council, would it be binding upon the parties?
Mr. Knight. If the council asks us, it would be just as binding as any others. There is no police power in it.
Mr. McCann. Was it binding when you made your clarification in '46, do you think?
Mr. Knight. It was the intention of everybody it was, but it wasn't.
Mr. Doherty. I think that question, Mr. Chairman, by counsel is a little bit on the hypothetical side. He is asking now on a supposition.
I have no hesitancy, however, in answering through you, Mr. Chairman. I think for the record my viewpoint should be included on this subject.
Mr. McCann. I will be glad to hear it.