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.
976 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES
period, and he was interrupted and told they were not interested, the committee was not interested in the negotiation meetings.
Now, it appears that the remark about which he was questioned, and which he did not recall, was not in a meeting that was called solely for purposes other than negotiations. It was in a negotiation meeting. And not only that, that the remark was an incidental remark that came up in the midst of the discussions and not as an isolated thing at the beginning of the meeting.
Mr. McCann. I would like to ask you, sir, whether or not you regard this statement as incidental at the time in question. This is August 22, 1946 :
Walsh advises that any company that makes one single change in the administration of the AFL directive, in compliance with the new interpretation, will have all work stopped in the studios, exchanges, and theaters.
Mr. Price. Yes, sir. I regard it as incidental, because of this fact : We had already received, and there is in the record a letter from Mr. Walsh, telling us that he expected us to abide by our contract, that if we failed to do so, if we tried to change the directive in any way, he would use all the economic forces at his command. We already knew his position. We knew exactly what he meant.
That is already in the record, that letter. Now, we have a negotiation meeting. In the course of the negotiation meeting, apparently the subject comes up again and he repeats what he has already stated in his letter. The meeting wasn't called for that purpose. This was a negotiation meeting and this came up pui'ely as incidental.
Mr. McCann. Do you recall when we asked what he meant in his letter, he said he didn't know what he meant ?
Mr. Price. He may not have known, but we thought we laiew.
Mr. McCann. You Icnew after you had the minutes of August 22, didn't you, because he said what he meant?
Mr. Price. The minutes certainly show what I would have anticipated he meant.
Mr. Kearns. You don't refer to them as minutes now, do you ?
Mr. Price. I don't care
Mr. McCann. Isn't it rather interesting that you say you already had this letter and the letter wasn't written until August 31, 1946?
Mr. Price. That would be very interesting if it were correct. I don't believe it is. I think, Mr. McCann, there are two letters. There is a letter in which he told us, that is this very short letter, half a page, in which he says that he expects us to abide by the award, and what-not.
Then on August 31 I believe he wrote this long letter in which he argues the point at length. That is my recollection. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong.
Mr. McCann. In which he stated that if you try to abide by the clarification you will do so at your peril, isn't that true ?
Mr. Price. I am not sure of the words.
Mr, McCann. That is in the letter, or the substance of the letter of August 31, is it not?
Mr. Price. I didn't remember the words "at your peril." My recollection was
Mr. McCann. In substance it was that?
Mr. Price. My recollection was, "shall use such economic forces at my command."