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)

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 413 it seemed to me that if justice lay on the side of the people who were out of the studios, I said I thought they had a moral obligation on that hypothesis to support those people and refuse to cross the picket lines. Those were the people, after all, who are the leaders of the industry. Their careers, highly successful careers,^ and financially remunerative careers, would not have been possible without them, without these people, and if these people had justice on their side they ought to refuse to cross the picket line. So Mr. Reagan, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Dales, and Jane Wyman came out to Loyola University and we had quite a long discussion until 1 o'clock in the morning. They told me everything they have said here on the witness stand. I heard the whole story, heard the full details. Another who participated in this discussion was Mr. Daniel Marshall, whom I have mentioned before, and who was at one time counsel of the lATSE, I understand. Mr. Marshall is a member of the board of trustees of Loyola University, and he happened to be crossing the campus and I asked him in to meet these people who were there and asked him to sit in on the discussion. What the actors said to me was what they have said on the stand here, and later, a day or so later after I talked with them, I got from them the transcript of the court recorder, not the court recorder, but the stenographic transcript of their discussion or report to their group in Hollywood after the Chicago meeting, and which they again related in great detail. I got hold also of the telephone conversation transcript, and I studied those, read them several times. It seemed to me then and it seems to me now still, and it seemed to Mr. Marshall then, that what they were doing is exactly what Mr. Sorrell said on the stand here the other day they were doing. I didn't question their honesty and I do not question their honesty now. I don't doubt that they went to Chicago and had this discussion with these three men. I don't question but that the three men made many or possibly all the statements they attributed to them, but I am inclined to think as is evident in the testimony given here, like ]\Ir. Murphy who testified he does not profess 2 years after the event to quote verbatim everything they said, and, of course, that can't be recalled verbatim, so thej'^ got the impression from what they said, that is what they meant, but it seemed to me then what they were doing was they were taking remarks these men had made out of context and attributing to them a significance that they did not have in the minds of those men and interpreting them against a background of opinion they had before that, and I am completely convinced of that because I myself had a conference with Mr. Birthright in Indianapolis a few weeks ago and he made some of the same remarks to me that the actors said he made to them in Chicago, and I did not understand them at all the way they interpreted them. Let me give you a few examples, like this bundle, bushel or basket of words Hutcheson wanted. When I talked to Mr. Birthright in Indianapolis he didn't use that particular expression, but he used very many similar expressions to me, but he was not saying, as the actors concluded that "We were forced to write this bushel of words because Hutcheson brow-beat us into it." What he was saying was simply then and I am sure that is what he was saying in Chicago "We are sick and tired of this whole thing. Wlien we wrote the directive of December we thought that there would