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 1411 wants to be heard again in order to give a full and complete answer, I know the committee wants to be fair and would give all sides a chance to answer their questions in full. The second complaint I have heard is that they say they have stayed away from the Connnunist angle. If the Communists have causued this jurisdictional dispute, that is, if any Communist leaders have, we have always had that brought out. Mr. HuTCiiESoN. Congressman, could I ask a question there? Mr. Landis. Yes. Mr. HuTCHESON. You mentioned communism. JSlr. Landis. Yes. Mr. HuTCHESON. Is communism recognized by the Government as being a political philosophy? Mr. Landis. Well, not as far as I am concerned it is not, or any individual Mr. HuTCHESON. I want to know whether our Government recog- nizes it as a political philosophy. Mr. Landis. Any organization, or any individual, that believes in the overthrow of the United States Government by force has no busi- ness here. Mr. HuTCHESON. You are getting quite adept. Congressman, at evading a question. Mr. Owens. I can answer that question for you, and the answer is "No." Mr. HuTCHESON. The answer is "No"? Mr. Owens. Yes. Mr, HuTCHESON. They do not? Mr. O^VENS. Yes. Mr. HuTCHESON. Excuse me for going off the record, but I want to get a little information. Congressman. Why do they permit them to have candidates on the ballot ? Mr. OwENS. They do not. That is the Communist Party of the United States. Mr. HuTCHESON. Ain't they Communists ? Mr. Oa\T2Ns. I don't know. Do j^ou, Mr. Hutcheson? Mr. HuTCHESON. I don't know. Not being a politician or member of that party, I do not know. I thought perhaps, Congressman, I might get some information from you gentlemen who the people of the United States have elected to send down here to Congress and enact laws for we Americans to follow. I thought perhaps I could get a bit of information. Now, do not misunderstand me. I am not trying to be sarcastic, or anything of the kind, but I have lived quite a number of years. I hope to be able to still learn something for every day I live, so I Avould like to have some information on that. M)-. Owens. Tlie reason I said that is that I made an objection on the floor at the time they used the words "Communist Party" in one part of the labor law. I stated there was no necessity for using the words "Communist Party," because by the use of the term any group that has for its purpose the overthrow of the American Government by force or violence, that description alone would be sufficient, because it happens to include the Communist Party of the United States, and we had no proof tliat that party was included.