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 2223 which had been in operation between the lATSE and the carpenters, and that it was not until a long time afterward that they found out the 1925 agreement had never been in effect; and that it was their intention in making the original decision of December 26, 1945, to give the work to the unions on a historic basis. Mr. Cobb. That is correct. Mr. Kearxs. Unfortunately there, Mr. Landis, what Mr. Knight especially said through his mouth in Los Angeles is not the language of the directive. Mr. Cobb. It is in the first part of the directive, Mr. Kearns. In the first part there is a definite statement that they agreed unanimously to follow the historic policy. Mr. Laxdis. Now, let me get this clear once more. I understand there is argument over the directive, and there is argument over the clarification. I want to go back to the contract. Here they go along under the directive, then they have a 2-day strike. They get together and sign a contract and work up until September 11 under this contract. Mr. Cobb. That is right. Mr. Landis. Now, show me where they break the contract. Mr. Cobb. All right, sir ; that is a fair question. Mr. Keaknts. Before you give that, I have a telegram that is necessary to be read into the record at this time, then you may go on. This is addressed to me : California Senate Committee on Un-American Activities believes evidence overwhelming concerning Herbert K. Sorrell's Communist affiliation. Clark Sellers and John Harris, outstanding experts on questioned documents, independently and unequivocally identified Sorrell's handwriting on Communist Party documents. Witnesses available who can testify having seen Sorrell's Communist book in Sorrell's possession and who attended Communist Party Los Angeles convention with Sorrell. Sorrell affiliated with scores of Communist-front organizations and has openly supported Communist candidate for public office. His testimony before your committee should be cited to Federal grand jury for action and California committee respectfully urges you and your committee to thoroughly probe every allegation and denial made by Sorrell. California Legislature now in budgetary session for several weeks. Will welcome opportunity to appear before your committee as soon as California Legislature adjourns. Suggest you subpena Frank Spector, admitted Communist functionary now facing deportation to his native Soviet Russia, and believed to be a Soviet secret agent, member of Sorrell's union, and strike strategist in Hollywood. Sorrell case of great importance to California. Please wire me immediately if arrangements can be made for my appearance before your committee following adjournment of California Legislature, Senator Jack B. Tenney. Mr. Landis. There is nothing said in the contract pending the clarification, was there ? Mr. Cobb. No, sir. Mr. Landis. There is nothing in the contract that says anything about set erectors, is there ? Mr. Cobb. No, nothing in the contract one way or the other about set erectors. Mr. Landis. It is funny they didn't straighten that out. That is the place where it should have been straightened out, in the July contract. Mr. Cobb. Well, Mr. Landis, if you give the December 1945 decision the correct interpretation, based upon the statement on the face of it that they were carrying out the historic division