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.
1406 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES Mr. HiTTCHESON. In other words, my testimony is going to be ques- tioned as to veracity? Mr. Kjearns. No, no. Inasmuch as we have this directive showing that there was a written statement made and the contract was agreed to by the parties involved, then a clarification was issued. If we had another written document to compare to that which would be com- parable to that it would show clearly the situation. Mr. Owens. May I chime in on that, Mr. Chairman? Keally I think what counsel has in mind—remembering that I mentioned what Mr. Landis had in mind before—is that it goes under what might be classed as the best evidence rule. In other words, if this other original document is in existence, it is the best evidence, and because you are the one who is contending for a custom which permits what took place in August 1946, rather than have the court interpret it, which is the general arrangement under the law, if they do not have the arrangement in the contract, therefore inasmuch as you are pleading this custom, the minutes would be the best evidence. If that is not available then your own statement as to what you remem- ber would naturally be the best evidence. Mr. HuTCHESON. Mr. Chairman, I am going to say again, if anyone doubts my veracity they have my consent to investigate and find out whether I have told the truth or whetlier I have not. I did not come here with the thought of reciting what took place with the thought in mind tliat I was going to burden myself with further obligations to look into some record that to me is irrelevant insofar as the Hollywood record is concerned. Mr. Kearns. Well, you may use your own judgment about that, whatever you want to do. Tliis precedent you are referring to did not pertain to the Hollywood settlement. Mr. HuTCHESON. It did not, it only pertained to the matter of precedent followed by the Executive Council of the American Federa- tion of Labor, as well as the executive council of the building trades department, which is a part of the American Federation of Labor. Mr. Kearns. We will leave it to you, Mr, Hutcheson, as to whether you want to furnish it for the record or not. I cannot do anything more about it. Mr. Hutcheson. Well. I will wait until somebody accuses me of perjury or something of that sort. Mr. Owens. Nobody is going to accuse you of that. Mr. Hutcheson. I don't know. In my lifetime I have been accused of a lot of things. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to say something with respect to what has been referred to, as I understand, the 1925 agreement. I men- tioned this morning I would endeavor to pick that up. In 1925, our then local in Hollywood, local 1692, entered into an understanding and agreement as between that local and local 37, lATSE. That was in 1925. I understand that is already in your record. It is referred to, anyway, in the three-man committee's report. Mr. Owens. That was February 5, 1925 ? Mr. Hutcheson. It does not say here. It says, "Agreement entered into between local union 1692 and local union No. 37 of the lATSE in '25."