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 975 Mr. McCann. There is a conclusion in the last two words that I would like to have you clarify. Mr. Price. Defective Mr. Kearns. Is this another clarification ? Mr. Price. Tlie last two words, I think, were "defective and inaccurate," or something of the sort. Mr. McCann. I want you to point out any inaccuracy that appears in these minutes. Mr. Price. I just did. The only thing I noticed. I have had no opportunity at all, as counsel knows. I had had no opportunity to review this, to read, even to examine to see what they were, the notes that were handed me yesterday morning. I received within 20 minutes of adjournment, I should say, tliis full set of 150 pages. That is the first I had seen of them. I did manage to read most of those or skim through them in that 20 minutes while a witness was on the stand. I have had no opportunity to compare them in detail. The only thing I have notes of is the one to which I call attention that tlie notes handed counsel in the morning, of the meeting of August 22, consisted of 8 or 10 lines, and the notes that were prepared under my direction, which were received and handed to counsel last night at adjournment, consisted of, as I recall it, a couple of pages ; it may have been three pages. Mr. McCann. The 8 or 10 lines Mr. Price. Were accurate. Mr. McCann. Were in the first and were also in the second one. They were not inaccurate? Mr. Price. They were inaccurate and they gave the impression, and counsel's examination definitely gave the impression, that was the primary purpose of the meeting, the only noteworthy thing discussed at that meeting. Mr. McCann. You recall we asked only that those portions of the minutes relating to this controversy should be furnished to us. We didn't expect, for example, to have every bargaining memo that was made during all of those days submitted to us as being pertinent to our inquiry. You understood that, didn't you? Mr. Price. That is correct, Mr. ISIcCann. May I explain that a moment ? And then j^ou put me very definitely on the spot by saying that you relied fully on me to see nothing was omitted. I have been fairly busy in the last few days, the last week, and I had no opportunity to go out and read them. I was not going to entrust it to a stenographer in the producers' office or even Mr. Clarke, to make that determination, as to what was material. I told them to copy the whole thing and send it down. Mr. McCann. The point I am making is, is the only thing upon which you base your clause that they proved to be "inaccurate and defective" the fact that in the first minutes furnished to me, they only gave us what we asked for, and in the second minutes furnished to me they gave a record of everything else that transpired that day. Mr. Price. If you want to put it that way. Mr. McCann. That is true, is it not ? Mr. Price. The inspiration for the words was due to the examination of Mr. Brewer yesterday, in which Mr. Brewer tried to say to counsel that he had been in many negotiation meetings during this