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 385 Mr. McCann. I think you agreed that was stated there by someone. Mr. DoHERTY. I did. Mr. McCann. Secondly, he says that your decision — now, eai the other hand, you liave repeatedly testified that it is not your intention to take away any jurisdiction from the carpenters. Now, if it was not your intention to take away any jurisdiction from the carpenters, 350 would not lose their jobs; would they? Mr. DoHERTY. Most certainly not. I don't see any inconsistency there at all. Mr. McCanjV. Then he wants to know how 3^ou can explain the apparent inconsistency of having 350 men lose their jobs and not having anybody lose their jobs. Mr. DoHERTY. I said very definitely, as I understood it, in reply to the question as to whether Mr. Tobin had made such a statement, that to the best of my knowledge he had made such a statement. Now, that is my memory and my answer to that type of question yesterday or the day before, whenever it was. There have been so many questions I can't recall them all. Mr. McCann. Here is another part of that that I did not read, and Mr. Benjamin calls my attention to it. I just want you to get all the facts. You don't recall any member of your committee making a protest at that meeting that the December decision did not contemplate or intend any such loss of work to the carpenters? Mr. DoHERTY. If I said that I don't recall, I still don't recall. Mr. McCann. All right. I think that takes care of it. This is from Mr. Price. Mr. DoHERTY. Are these all producers' questions? Mr. McCaxn. Yes, sir; they represent the producers, except Mr. Luddy, Avho represents the lATSE. Mr. DoHERTY. Are these the only producers' questions thus far this afternoon ? Mr. McCanx. I think so, sir; all the producers' questions that have come up. Mr. DoHERTY. I see. Mr. McCann. The questions previously asked were not prepared for me by the producers, but were from persons who have some technical knowledge of the industry. Mr. Price asks this question : You testified yesterday, Mr. Doherty, that Mr. Green met with Mr. Walsh and Mr. Hutcheson in Miami in January 194:6 and discussed the decision. Will you please give the details of that meeting so far as you can, with particular i-eference to the objections Mr. Hutcheson voiced to 3^our award ? INIr. Doherty. In the absence of the executive-council minutes, Mr. Chairman, I don't think it is quite fair to expect me to go into a complete narration on that kind of a question. I don't remember. Mr. Kearns. Objection sustained, Mr. McCaxx. Another question from Mr. Price, Mr. Doherty: Can you summarize the arguments that were made in favor of getting out a clarification? Mr. Doherty. Again I say, Mr. Chairman, in the absence of the minutes of the executive council meeting, I don't think that would 67383— 48— vol. 1 26