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 1481 Mr. DoHERTY. He means did the committee of the then three vice presidents hold u meeting in Chicago following our Hollywood in- vestigation ( The answer is "No." Mr. IVEARNS. Second: Did you notify iNIr. Hutcheson of this meeting or that he might be heard then? Mr. DoiiERTY. In Chicago ? Mr. Kearns. Yes. jNIr. DoiiERTY. There was no meeting in Chicago other than the one in August 1946. Mr. Kearxs, What percentage of your decision was written before you left Hollywood ? I think you testified to that already. Mr. Dohertt. That is a most difficult question to answer. I am not very good at percentages. Put it this way, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, a goodly portion of it was written before we left Hollywood. We had an absolute agreement on the thing. The bulk of the work was actually done by me because I happen to be a telegraph operator by trade and I have knowledge of the use of a typewriter. Most of it was done in the Roosevelt Hotel at Hollywood. Mr. Kearns. Referring to the testimony shown in volume 9 record, and to page 7, et cetera, thereof Mr. Doherty. This is starting to sound like Washington. Mr. KiARNs. We will let you refer to that. Mr. Doherty. You want me to verify Mr. Birthright's statement, is that it? INIr. Kearns. He wants the testimony of Mr. Walsh before the com- mittee read to verify that. iNIr. Oavens. Oh, Mr. Chairman, this is not Mr. Birthright testify- ing ; this is Mr. Doherty. Mr. Doherty. Mr. Birthright asked the question, he says: They entered into this thing in 1925? Then Brother Walsh goes into a long narration. Do you want me to read that? Mr. Kearns. No. I do not think you should read Mr. Walsh's testi- mony. The next question: Did Mr. Walsh represent to you and the committee that the so-called 1925 agreement had been executed and had been in use from 1925 to 1933? Mr. Doherty. I have heard that alleged here in Washington. I do not recall Mr. Walsh making any presentation. He may have, but 1 am quoting from memor}^; I do not recall. Mr. Kearns. Did vou inform ]Mr. Hutcheson, or any representative of the carpenters? Well, you have answered tliat. The next question: Was Mr. Hutcheson or any representative of the carpenters ever given an opportunity to refute said representation by Mr. Walsh? That has been answered also. Where were you when the Doceniber 26,1945, directive was released ? Mr. DoHER'n'. Wasliington, D. C., as I recall, in the A. F. of L. headquarters. Our headquarters are also in the A. F. of L. building here in AVashinerton.