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 2351 Many times up to this difliculty, individuals, organizations, and the press had occasion to surmise that the old I>ro\vne-Bioft' arm was still swinging in the lA. The tight of Walsh, his handling of the matter, its conclusion by the executive council committee, will probably put an end to all such conjectures. Browne and Bioff have no part in the lA and certainly the lA wants no part of those gentlemen, which is another important burden lifted from the shoulders of the picture business. Walsh, through his conduct of the negotiations and his eventual show-down is now recognized as our most important labor leader, both by the organi* zations his unions serve within the industry, and by the men he leads. Now, what happened when Mr. Sorrell and Mr. Bodle were on the stand? Mr. Sorrell's comisel i-ead an article from the Los Angeles Daily News of November 14, 1947, in which it was gossiped that^ William Bioff was in Hollywood. I don't know whether he was there or not. I never saw tlie gentleman. I wouldn't recognize him if I saw him. ^But the significant part about it, which shows the malice behind the entire presentaticm, is that in reading this article of the Los Angeles Daily News of November 14, 1947, Mr. Bodle and Mr. Sorrell left out this paragraph, and I quote it to you : Obviously, Bioff was in town for a reason. Certainly he wasn't welcome in the councils of the union he once used to blackjack millions out of the movie industry. When yoii mention the name of Bioff in an lATSE meeting today, it is best to smile when you do it, and duck, too. Willie is as popular among his old pals as a boil on the neck. I point that out to you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, because of the fact that Mr. Sorrell, when he took the stand, if he did not say so in so many words intimated and inferred — 1 thought he said so in so many words, but when T examined the record, I found out that those words were not there — that he accused Mr. Walsh and ]\Ir. Brewer of taking money from the producers. That is a serious charge. When I opened up this question of communism and I indicated that I wanted to bring in })roof on the question of connnunism. I was told by the learned counsel of this committee that I was presenting a serious charge and that I would have to back it up — which 1 think I did. But Mr. Sorrell did not know,, no one pointed oitt to him the seriousness of the charge he was making about racketeering in the lATSE from the 9th of November 1941, until now. Then when he took the stand and the seriousness of the cliarges which he was making enveloped him to such an extent, as I would put it, and he could not meet the issue as we sought to present it, and M'hen he closed his testimony I urged — as the chairman did, too — now. you were on the stand for so many days in Los Angeles ; you have been on the stand for so many days in Washington. Do you have anything more to say? We want you to tell everything you have to say. He had nothing more to say. But he did bring out an old chestnut, as if it were new. Mr. Wal.sh had denied — and he is present here to be examined, as is Mr. Brewer, on that question, with respect to any money from the producers — so he brought in an old chestnut without mentioning that it was old. about certain moneys which Mr. Walsh received from the L\TSE 2-percent fund in years prior to 1941.