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.

1070 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. Kearns. Right at the moment ? Mr. Johnston. Yes; right at the moment it is down now. Mr. Kearns. Mr. Counsel, do you have questions? Mr. McCann. Yes; I have some questions from counsel present. The first question is proposed by Mr. Burt Zorn, counsel for the producers. This is the question, Mr. Johnston: Did not Mr. Hutcheson, as reported to you in his meeting in New York in March 1945 with Mr. Walsh and Mr. Schenclv, insist that lie wanted .inrisdiction over all woodwork, wood siil)stitutes, and wood-working machinery, that is, the work of the lATSE prop-makers? I want to call your attention to the fact that this is a hearsay question, but I will give you a chance to answer it. Mr. Johnston. I was not there, of course, Mr. McCann, as you stated. I was not in the industry at that time, but that was in sub- stance the statement I have heard made repeatedly by all parties involved in the dispute. I do not think Mr. Hutcheson has even denied that to me in my conversations with him. Mr. McCann. There are four or five questions I have not had a chance to read as yet, by Mr. George E. Bodle, who represents the painters at Hollywood: If producers played a neutral role, how do you explain the fact that Producers* Labor Committee, in concert with lAT.SE officials, planned every step leading up to mass discharge of September 2S, 194G? Mr. Johnston. Well, I do not agree that they did plan every step. As a matter of fact, in the conversation which I had with Mr. Walsh prior to September 12, 1946. Mr. Walsh told me as far as he was concerned, close the studies. He would prefer to see them closed rather than attempt to provide any men. That was at the time I was trying to get Mr. Hutcheson and Mr. Walsh to sit down together. There was at no time, so far as I know, any planning. Mr. McCann. That was the first time we have heard that state- ment. I am glad to get that in the record. When did that conversation with Mr. Walsh take place? Mr. Johnston. Sometime in the early part of September 1946, when I asked that Mr. Walsh sit down with Mr. Hutcheson. Mr. Walsh said he would be glad to do so; that if there was trouble out there, so far as he was concerned he did not care if we closed the studios. Mr. McCann. He told you that? Mr. Johnston. That is right. Mr. Walsh is here and I presume he can corroborate that testimony. Mr. McCann. Did you attend a meeting of April 5,1947? Mr. Johnston. That was the meeting in New York, was it not? Mr. McCann. I am not sure. Mr. Johnston. Yes; I attended that meeting. Mr. McCann. Who was present? Mr. Johnston. Oh, gee, almost everybody was there. A great many people were there. I think the presidents of the company were there, and most of the producers flew in from Hollywood. Mr. Kearns. You may furnish the list. Mr. Johnston. Yes; we would be glad to furnish the list, if you wish.