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)

2206 MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES I think it is very important, but I do want to come to it in an orderly way. Mr. Landis. All right. Mr. Cobb. Now, the question is asked, Why we didn't go to court. Volume 5 of the hearings before the Committee on Education and Labor during last March, commencing at page 2807, contains a copy of the complaint filed by Oscar Schatte and others, as plaintiffs, against the lATSE, each of the major motion picture companies, against their own union, their own brotherhood and their related officers, so as to have all parties in court. In that complaint they did not ask one dollar of damages. Their complaint, as shown by the prayer on page 2816 of the committee record, sought declaratory relief and nothing but declaratory relief. Now, how could law-abiding citizens, having a controversy with the lATSE and with the major motion picture companies, over the construction to be given contracts, decisions, and clarifications ; how could those law-abiding citizens do any better in patriotic observance of law than to ask the court to construe the contracts, the decision, and the clarification ? The companies and the lATSE challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal court. We had a fair hearing before the court, before a good judge. The judge took the view that the Federal court had no jurisdiction because there was no diversity of citizenship. We think the court erred because where cases arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States, diversity of citizenship is not an essential element. That case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco and was heard by three eminent judges on that court.' I argued the case before them and for the half -hour of my argument I was never treated with greater consideration or attention, in a long law practice, than by those good judges. So I have no criticism of the circuit court of appeals. They concurred with the district court and affirmed the district court judgment that the Federal court had no jurisdiction because there was no diversity of citizenship. I think that the circuit court — as able as those good judges are, and as highly as I respect them — I think they erred also. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am now preparing a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, because in my conception of law no question affecting the rights and the privileges of people is ever settled until it is settled by the court of last resort. Again I repeat to counsel for the lATSE, to counsel for the companies, and their respective clients — and without any challenge to them, in the spirit of good will — I invite them to join in asking the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari in order that the contracts, the Cincinnati directive, the three-man committee decision of December 26, 1945, the clarification of August 16, 1946, and any and all other pertinent documents may be interpreted and determined by the courts of our country. I think that that is the attitude of law-abiding citizens. I think it is a tribute to these carpenters that they are willing to submit their rights to the courts and abide by the court decision. In connection with that, Mr. Chairman, as each of the committee knows, the decision of the Labor Board is not final. Under the wise