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 2207 enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act, after the Labor Board has labored or failed to labor, we have our right of redress from the Labor Board to the courts. And speaking very calmly, if the good God gives me life, no decision of any administrative officer adverse to these locked-out carpenters shall stand until I have taken it to the court of last resort under the Constitution of our country. I do not sa}' that as a threat, but those whom I have the pleasure of knowing, those who know me in the law practice will take that statement at face value and that statement will be observed and lived up to hy me at face value. I expected to make this simple statement in less time. Mr. Landis. Would you yield for a question, sir ? Mr. Cobb. Mr. Landis, a c{uestion at any time is appreciated. Mr. Lakdis. Would the carpenters be satisfied if the producers would follow the clarification? ]\Ir. Cobb. The carpenters have always been willing to abide by the clarification, Mr. Landis. Mr, Kearns. Mr. Cobb, at that point, what about the interpretation of the clarification? Mr. Cobb. The clarification is not confusing. There isn't any problem in its interpretation ; if the parties will agree to the decision of December as clarified in August, 1 think that as reasonable men in good will we can sit across the table from one another and interpret it without any difficulty. Mr. Kearns. Who asked for the interpretation of the clarification ? Mr. Cobb. We asked for the interpretation of it in this suit in the court. Mr. Kearns. Didn't that originate from Mr. Hutcheson, the interpretation of the clarification? Mr. Cobb. Well, that originated in the executive council. On that I would not assume to speak where Mr. Hutcheson speaks himself. You understand, Mr. Chairman, that I can speak with all my heart and soul for my carpenters in Hollywood. I say, "my carpenters" because I have stood before them repeatedly. I have seen their suffering ; I have seen their fine spirit. You stand before an audience in your district. The audience appreciates you, you appreciate the audience. An affection exists between a good Congressman and his constituents. There is an affection between me and the locked-out carpenters of Hollywood. I am proud to be their lawyer. I know how fair and reasonable they are. I know there would be no problem in the meaning of the decision and the clarification if we sat across the table in good will. But, if any problem arose, my carpenters have already asked the court to interpret it and the court interpretation could be had in short order. We could go to the Federal court in Los Angeles and have it interpreted in short order. Xow, I thank Mr. Landis for asking his question, and I invite any other questions because in the written brief to be filed I would like particularly to address tliat brief to any questions and all questions which the committee may have in mind. Now, coming to the question of the lock-out. We have to go back to the agreement between Mr. Walsh and Mr. Nicholas Schenk, made in New York for the lA to take over all work in the studios. That