Motion Picture Herald (Nov-Dec 1948)

MYERS CHARGES PRESSURE BY COURT IN TRUST SUIT Tells House Group U. S. Is Asked to Concede; Urges Special Anti-Trust Courts Washington Bureau Abram F. Myers, general counsel for Allied States, has charged that Robert Wright, Justice Department attorney prosecuting the Paramount anti-trust case, is "being subjected to very great pressure" by the threejudge court hearing the suit "to make concessions in the interest of saving time." This charge was made Friday while Mr. Myers, "strictly on my own" and not "in behalf of any client," was testifying before the House Small Business Committee. Purpose of his testimony was to urge the creation of special anti-trust courts. All his examples for the need of such courts were drawn from the film industry. Cites Remark of Judge At New York Hearing To the only member of the committee present, William H. Stevenson of Wisconsin, Mr. Myers quoted a portion of the November 8 New York District Court record which showed that Judge Augustus N. Hand told Mr. Wright that "a lot of things they (the defendants) are talking about ought to be entirely capable of adjustment from day to day by you and them." When Mr. Wright agreed, Judge Hand continued: "By way of concessions, you are making a very broad claim that no producer and distributor should own a theatre." Then, said Mr. Myers, the hearing recessed to enable the lawyers to work out an agreement on the partnership theatres. (Hearings are expected to resume December 13.) Mr. Myers said he was fully in sympathy with Judge Hand's desire to complete the Paramount case, but: "I know that if any concessions are made they will have to be made by the Government and that, I submit, is against the public interest." Says Pressure Resulted in "Improvident 1940 Decree" It was Mr. Myers' assertion that a similar type of pressure from the court on the Attorney General had led to the "improvident" consent decree of 1940. In that instance, he stated, the desire of the District Court to be "relieved of the burden of hearing and deciding" a case so complicated "stopped the wheels of justice for five long years." Mr. Myers believes there is a "need for tribunals which can perform their full duty in such extraordinary proceedings without neglecting any other duties." A second reason for such courts is the ALLIED >S AGENDA TO COVER ANTI-TRUST TO TELEVISION The establishment of special anti-trust courts, the disciplining of errant film players, and an appraisal of the extent of television competition will be high on the agenda of Allied States Association's national board meeting Saturday and Sunday at the Roosevelt Hotel in New Orleans. Concurrent with the board meetings Allied's twentieth annual convention will also open and will continue through Wednesday, December 1. According to a bulletin from Abram F. Myers, Allied general counsel, the board will discuss the possible inclusion of film rentals into the Robinson-Patman Act; the feasibility of an all-out drive against forced percentage playing; and the possible representation to film companies against making pictures available to television in competition to established theatres. Other subjects to be covered at the board meeting include discussions on the repeal of the Federal admission tax, film rentals and trade topics. The board meeting will also hear reports on the Paramount, Schine and Griffith cases, the RKO consent decree, the activities of the Caravan Committee, the A. W. Smith-Benjamin Berger conciliation plan, and the encouragement of regional meetings The board will also vote on the application of Mid-Central Allied for membership. With more than 600 delegates expected to attend, a highlight of the convention will be the December 1 banquet honoring Allied's past presidents and its honorary life coun cillor, Herman A. Blum. All will be presented with testimonials at the banquet which will conclude the convention. c^Sl> c^Sl» c5Sl» r I 1HE long, intricate and sometimes exJ, citing story of the origins and rise of the Allied States Association is presented in a handsome, large format brochure, for circulation concurrently with the New Orleans conclave. It is from the pen of Abram F. Myers, as modestly attested by his initials on the narrator's foreword. It becomes at once a document of reference and an archive for the industry. It is notable for its lucidity, and it is entertaining by reason of the skillful inclusion of characterizations and episodes. The irrepressible Al Steffes lives again in its pages in an incisive, swift profile of his whims and seal and works. You see him as mule skinner, logger, cozvpuncher, bartender— and exhibitor. There are bits about Colonel Cole and how he found, how small Texas is. The Colonel was a collaborator on this telling. And you'll read about such figures as Gletm Cross, James C. Ritter, Herman Blum and H. M. Richey. There is considerable industry history, too, from the facts leading up to that historic 5-5-5 conference and its sequels, which include the coming of age of the Allied. States Association. It is a book to keep. T. R. need, he stated, for uniformity of decisions in anti-trust suit. As an illustration, he pointed out that the Paramount, Schine and Griffith anti-trust suits were filed in three different district courts, which handed down very different results. Not until the Supreme Court acted on all three suits, Mr. Myers said, was there any uniformity of opinion. Then all the suits were decided in favor of the Government. "The Supreme Court," he asserted, "recognized the obvious similarity between the three cases. In returning them to the respective District Courts for final judgments, it indicated that there should be equality of treatment as between the three circuits involved." Mr. Myers suggested: "How much better from every point of view if these cases could all have been filed in the same court, heard and decided by the same trial judges and been carried to the Supreme Court at the same time." He declared that judges experienced in anti-trust laws, with an elastic court procedure, "would eliminate or greatly reduce the evil of the consent decree in Government cases. "I believe," he told the committee, "that in many big cases, like the Paramount case, the Government has accepted consent decrees— which always represent a compromise— because Government counsel was appalled by the prospect of trying the cases under the pressure put on them by the judges and under the rules and procedure which prevail in the courts of general jurisdiction." Later, Mr. Myers told reporters that he had referred to the 1940 Paramount decree and not the recent RKO decree, which lie characterized as "not perfect, but certainly the best the Government could expect — possibly even better than they would have gotten from the court." MOTION PICTURE HERALD, NOVEMBER 27, 1948 13