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 425 the key officials in Hollywood, to see Mr. Nick Schenck. Those meetings are then followed by enunciations of policy. I think this fact is significant, if it is a fact. Mr. Pat Casey has been described here repeatedly as labor relations man for the major producers in Hollywood. I think he has performed the functions of that role during the years. I think it should be interesting to know who employed Mr. Pat Casey. I think it is a fact — I don't think there is any secret about this — Mr. Casey was employed by Mr. Nick Schenck. That has been my impression. If that is so, if Mr. Casey was an employee of Mr. Nick Schenck's, if Mr. Schenck paid Mr. Casey's salary and the producers did not, and yet Mr. Casey represented all the producers in the labor policy I think it is indicating something important and significant about who determines labor policy in Hollywood. Mr. McCanx. We will be glad to have Mr. Casey clarify that. Father Dunne. Thank j^ou. I think that is all I have to contribute. Are there any questions ? Mr. LuDDY, Yes, I have some. Does Mr. Cobb have any ? Mr. Cobb. No. Mr. LuDDY. I have questions. Mr. Price. I have none. Mr. Kearns. We will recess for 5 minutes at the request of the witness. Mr. McCann. Just before you recess, may I say a word ? I desire, when we get through with these questions, to introduce in.tlie record the documents given me by Mr. Flanagan this morning. Mr. Kearns. The recess is at the request of the witness. (Short recess taken.) Mr. Kearns. The hearing will come to order. Mr. McCann. Father Dunne, I submit to you the following questions by Mr. Luddy. If there are any questions, Mr. Chairman, which you think inappropriate, I hope that you will rule them inadmissible. I am going to follow the rule of submitting questions that are presented to me, to avoid any charge of unfairness. Mr. Kearns. You will not allow me ; I will. Mr. McCann. Most of these questions, I think, can be answered very briefly and won't take an undue length of time. Mr. LuDDY. Farther Dunne, you were the author, were you not, of an article appearing in the June 20, 1947, edition of the Commonweal, entitled "Peace in Jail"? Father Dunne. That is correct. Mr. McCann. At the time you prepared that article, you knew, did you not, that Mr. Herbert Sorrell had served a jail sentence and paid a fine for his activities in connection with the 1945 strike ? Father Dunne. I knew that Mr. Sorrell had been in jail on several occasions. I didn't know — I don't know that I knew^ he paid a fine ; no. I don't question it. Possibly he paid a fine. I have paid fines, too. Mr. McCann. At the time you prepared that article, you knew, did you not, that Mr. Sorrell was under indictment for conspiracy as a result of his activities in the 1946 strike ? Father Dunne. That is correct.