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)

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 2203 fill men, whether they be hiwyers or hiborers — thoughtful men of good will who don't want cancer spots in our country, thoughtful men who want solutions to conflicts, solutions that will be fair alike to all parties concerned — will agree with me in the statement that I make : From the beginning of the Supreme Court of our country, considering the most masterful opinions ever written by John Marshall, considering the high form of literature that is found in the opinions of our highest court, I do not believe that there is an opinion from the beginning of the Court to this day that is any clearer, that is any more concise, that is any more complete ou' a subject of vast importance to government and people, than this paragraph written by Justice Cardozo. I wish that it might have been my privilege to have paid him this tribute in his lifetime. I am happy to pay the tribute now and to bring to the attention of Congress and the country a statement of law by a master in learning and in the use of the English language. That quotation comes at the conclusion of the letter which I wrote to Hon. Robert Robert N. Denham, general counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C, in re the cases mentioned. I wrote two letters, one for each group of cases, the two letters being identical in form. I ask that this letter be inserted in the record at this point, following the letters from the regional director to me already read : Dear Sir : Receipt is acknowledged of notice from Mr. Howard F. LeBaron, regional director at Los Angeles, that the above cases were dismissed on the 2d instant upon the ground of insvifficient evidence. Mr. LeBaron's letter states that we "may obtain a review of this act by tiling a request for such review with the general counsel." That request is now resi)ectfully presented upon each of the issues made by the regional director, and upon the records and files of the Board in Wasliington and Los Angeles, and upon all evidence before the Board, in the above and each and all related cases, including : 1. The transcript of the Los Angeles hearings before the congressional special subcommittee of the House Connnittee on Education and Labor, showing the threats of the lATSE, and the conspiracy of the lATSE and the major motionpicture companies, to deprive all carpenter members of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and .Joiners of America, Hollywood Studio Local, No. 946, of all their work tasks, and right to work, under their existing contracts. 2. The application of the lATSE to be certified as bargaining agent for carpenters, while the lATSE traspasses upon the work tasks belonging to the carpenters under long-standing contracts, and while the bona fide carpenters are locked out of the, studios, unless they waive their existing collectively bargained agreement and employment contract. 3. The so-called Komaroff charges, in case No. 21-CD-ll, including our answer and prayer thereto. Upon the review we respectfully request a fair and open hearing, before a fair and impartial hearing officer, with tlie right to subpena, examine, and crossexamine witnesses. This request is based upon the law governing administration agencies, as determined by the Supreme Court in an opinion written by that unsurpassed jurist, the late Justice Cardoza (Ohio Bell Teleph. Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 301 U. S. 202, 304 ; 81 L. ed. 1093, 1101) : "Regulatory commissions have been invested witli broad powers within the sphere of duty assigned to them by law. Even in quasi-judicial proceedings their informed and expert judgment exacts and receives a proper deference from courts when it has been reached with due submission to constitutional restrainings (citing cases). Indeed, much that they do within the realm of administrative discretion is exempt from .supervision if those restraints have been obeyed. All the more insistent is the need, when power has been bestowed so fx'eely, that the 'inexorable safeguard' (citing cases) of a fair and open hearing be maintained in its integrity (citing cases). The right to such a hearing is one of the