The Moving picture world (January 1922)

30 MOVING PICTURE WORLD January 7, 1922 War Over Film Import Duty Is Renewed In An Attempt to Get Low Rates; ANOrHER film battle was fought in Washington, D. C, on Tuesday, December 27, when representatives of the large producing companies, advo- cating low rates of duty on imported film stock, negatives and positive motion pic- ture films, faced representatives of the manufacturers of film stock and of the Actors' Equity Association, the former desiring protection from imports of raw film at prices they cannot meet, the latter desiring protection for the home industry to produce employment for American actors and workers, charging that the producers want low tariffs that they may transfer their activities to European conutries and avail themselves of cheap labor. Saul E. Rogers, of the Fox Film Cor- poration, representing the National Asso- ciation of the Motion Picture Industry, presented the argument against a tariff on films. He declared that any high rate of duty would only lead to retaliation on the part of those countries of Europe that also produce pictures, and he said that New Zealand, in order to favor the British producers, has already doubled its rate of duty on foreign productions. Would Have to Go Abroad He stated that the industry did not fear the introduction of German films for the reason that they are not for the most part suited to American projection, as many of them are salacious and would not he tolerated in this country, while the dramas depict customs and manners and have an atmosphere different from that which prevails in the United States. He added that he could*not give any reason for the popularity of American films abroad, other than that they are produced more in a universal language which makes them acceptable. The witness pointed out that the climate of some of the European countries is not suited to ])roduction. The imposition of the proposed 30 per cent, duty, he said, would jeopardize the foreign market which is controlled practically to the ex- tent of 80 per cent, by domestic manu- facturers, and the American manufactur- ers will be compelled to go abroad and produce on a large scale in order to be afforded entry into the European market on a basis equal to that of European manufacturers and competitors. Little Gain in Revenue The American consumer will ultimately be compelled to pay a higher price if the present standard of production is to be maintained, if the foreign markets are closed to us, he said, and the latter con- dition will also throw out of employment a large number of American actors, di- rectors, workmen, artisans and hhorers. The senators were somewhat surprised at the attitude of the film manufacturers, previous witnesses appearing on behalf of manufacturing interests having almost in- variably asked for tariffs that would be prohibitive and would almost completely bar out foreign goods of like nature. Mr. Rogers said that the tariff is unnecessary either from the standpoint of necessity for protection of the American industry, or from the standpoint of yielding any appreciable revenue; that the industry re- quires no protection because it dominates the home market and controls practically 80 per cent, of the foreign market, and foreign productions have not made any material inroads in the American market and have not yet become a real competitor in the home market. During the war the foreign producers were hampered, first by an inability to get raw film and then by the transfer of men from industry to the military. In the war years the American industry was enabled to go ahead until now it leads the world. Text of Argument The text of the argument presented by Mr. Rogers is as follows, in part: "Under the Act of 1913, Paragraph 380, which fixes the present duty, the tariff is a specific duty levied in the fol- lowing manner: Photographic film nega- tives, exposed but not developed, 2 cents per linear or running foot; if exposed and developed, 3 cents per linear or running foot; photographic film positives, 1 cent per linear or running foot. The relief re- quested is that the present aforesaid specific duty remain undisturbed. "The reasons for the recommendation for the maintenance of the present specific duty are briefly the following: "That in the event of the imposition of the contemplated 30 per cent, ad valorem duty, retaliatory duties will be imposed by foreign countries which will jeopardize the foreign market, which is practically 80 per cent, controlled by American manu- facturers. "That if the said proposed tariff is passed the American manufacturer will be compelled to go abroad and produce on a large scale in order to be afforded entry into the European market on a basis equal to that of European manu- facturers and competitors. "That if the proposed tariff be imposed the American consumer will ultimately be compelled to pay a higher price if the present standard of productions is to be maintained. "That by reason of the foregoing, if such tariff be imposed, a large number of American actors, directors, workmen, artisans and laborers will be thrown out of employment. "That the tariff is unnecessary either from the standpoint of necessity for pro- tection of the American industry, or from the standpoint of yielding any appreciable revenue. "That the industry requires no protec- tion because it dominates the home market and controls practically 80 per cent, of the foreign market. "Foreign productions have not made any material inroads in the American market and have not as yet become a real competitor in the home market, and the comparatively small number of pro- ductions that have been imported and will be imported in the near future, yield an insignificantly small revenue. Duty Not Requested "The 30 per cent, ad valorem duty con- tained in Schedule 14, Paragraph 1451, of the House Bill, was not requested by the National Association nor by anybody acting in its behalf or with its sanction. In fact, the industry was not afforded an opportunity to appear before the House Ways and Means Committee to protest against that measure because it was not until the committee was practically ready to report, that it was understood that such a provision had been written into the bill and would shortly thereafter be reported out of the committee. "It is the opinion of this industry, after very careful consideration of this ques- tion, that if this tariff measure is passed it will be disastrous to the industry and the labor employed therein. It will mean either driving American producers abroad in order to enter the foreign market or a material reduction in the wage scale of labor employed in our industry in order to meet a material diminution in business and profits. Fears Retdiation "If the 30 per cent, tariff becomes a law, there is no doubt that the foreign nations will retaliate by imposing equally high or higher ad valorem duties against the American product, and they will be careful to base their tariff on American valuation in order to make the tariff yield as high as possible. Bearing in mind the fact that the American film producers have practically a monopoly in the motion pictures exhibited in foreign countries, a tariff barrier raised against the Ameri- can product would mean the loss of mil- lions of dollars to this industry. "The American control of the foreign market with respect to motion picture films is approximately the following: "Great Britain—approximately 85 per cent, of the films exhibited. "Australia—90 per cent. "South America—95 per cent. "Continental Europe—-85 per cent. "Far East—8 per cent.