The Moving picture world (July 1925-August 1925)

July 18, 1925 MOVING PICTURE WORLD 251 Seider Hurls Defy at Hays Lawyer's Claim of Film Boards' Efficiency Milwaukee Demonstrated True Sentiment of U. S. Exhibitors Declares M. P. T* O. A. Executive— Calls 80 Letters "Nullity" — Bares Burkan*Hess Contract Talk By TOM WALLER DECLARING that Film Boards of Trade and Boards of Arbitration cannot function satisfactorily and successfully until an equitable contract, . approved by exhibitors as well as producers and distributors, is established, Joseph M. Seider, chairman of the Motion Picture Theatre Owners of America's committee on contract and arbitration, puts himself on record as stamping the eighty letters received by the Hays' organization as a nullity in true significance. Seider's opinion was sought by the writer after Attorney Pettijohn had made the statement to the trade press early this week, the story of which appears elsewhere in this issue, that he had told a Department of Justice agent that fully 95 per cent of exhibitors throughout the country favor Film Boards of Trade. In a lengthy interview with Moving Picture World the chairman of the National committee on contract and arbitration laid bare an alleged conference between Attorney Gabriel Hess, of the Hays organization and Lawyer Nathan Burkan on the hatter's contract. Hess is credited with having objected strenuously to its clause, providing for the designation of playdates and contending that the exhibitor, to use the words of Seider, "has no right to dictate or request particular clauses in a contract." In the course of the interview Seider quoted at length the clause referred to. Incidentally, this is the first time any verbatim account of the widely discussed Burkan project has been obtained for publication. So that there may be no possible misconstruence of Seider's viewpoint on this subject we submit his answer to us directly to you as follows : Elliott Pledge At the meeting this week of the Independent Motion Picture Association of America Managing Director Frederick Elliott announced the appointment of a committee to confer with the M. P. T. O. A.'» committee on an equitable contract. This is Elliott's first move to fulfill his pledge made last week at the New Jersey convention. The committee appointed, composed of three members, will be made known next week. "The present contract speaks for itself. Time and again we have pointed out what was wrong with it and we have admitted what was good in it. The same goes for arbitration. "The demonstration against the present contract and system of arbitration at the Milwaukee convention during the discussion of these matters shows clearly the inaccuracy of the statement by Mr Pettijohn to the Department of Justice agent that 95 per cent, of the theatre owners of the country are satisfied with the present Film Boards of Trade and their method of arbitration. "Why does not the Hays organization show wherein we are wrong, instead of submitting eighty letters? "We can obtain and submit hundreds of letters showing the opposite view. We do not say that those who speak in the affirmative for the present arbitration system are entirely wrong. Recause, based on the old method of arbitration and the '57 varieties of contract' as expressed by Charles O'Reilly, the improvement is tremendous. Naturally, instead of only exchangemen sitting and judging the theatre owner and deciding what they want to do with him, it is very helpful to have an equal number of exhibitors with an equal number of exchangemen do this. Rut yet the present system is very bad for the theatre owner. "First — The Film Hoards of Trade control the arbitration system and the Film Boards of Trade are controlled by the Hays organization. The Hays organization denies this — yet Mr. Pettijohn is general counsel and Mr. Hess is general attorney. It cannot be disputed that both of these gentlemen are connected with the Hays organization. "Second — To this not only theatre owners have objection but many independent producers, as is manifested by the withdrawal of Mr. Rromberg in Atlanta. "Third — The exhibitor has not the right to select his own arbitrators. They are appointed for him. "Fourth — When a judgment is rendered against the theatre owner the judgment is not carried out through the due process of law. The theatre owner is practically deprived of his property through all the exchanges, members of the Film Boards of Trade refusing to sell or deliver him pictures until the award is carried out. "Fifth — The producer, it is contended, punished when he fails to carry out the award of the arbitration board through further arbitration being denied him. This tends to prove emphatically that the Film Boards of Trade and arbitration boards as now constituted are purely collection agencies for the distributors. "Sixth— The contract itself is inequitable. It has been characterized by a New Jersey judge as a 'one way street' favoring the distributors. "Seventh — Arbitration as constituted today is litigation — not arbitration. It defeats the very purpose of arbitration. Instead of the arbitrators attempting to mediate or adjust or decide the dispute for the disputing parties, they constitute themselves a court and rule on questions of law and give judicial verdicts. "Eighth — An inheritance from the old system of motion picture arbitration is the so-called Part One of the present arbitration method. Here a judgment is rendered against an exhibitor who does not appear or refuses to arbitrate, and film is refused him in accordance with the terms of this biased contract. "The law is very clear on this last subject. When a man agrees in his contract to arbitrate an order can be obtained compelling arbitration. Of course the contract containing this arbitration agreement must be fair and equitable or the court should not uphold any clause in such a contract. "Perhaps this is what the distributor is afraid of and this is the reason for this Part One proceeding which amounts, in the opinion of many theatre owners, to their being coerced into paying for peace and the pursuit of their business endeavors. "These are not all our objections. They will serve, I think, to indicate some of our major contentions. "Just recently I had an interesting talk with Mr. Burkan. He told me that he had submitted his contract to the Hays organization and that Mr. Hess claimed that the exhibitors and the Hays organization at their recent conferences on the re-drafting of the uniform contract had agreed upon the major points in the dispute. "This is not so. We did not agree and our negotiations were not concluded. At the very outset of my report rendered at the Milwaukee convention I emphatically stated this fact. "Mr. Burkan tells me that Mr. Hess' main objection was to the clause that covers the designation of playdates. I also went fully into this subject in my national convention report. "It cannot be disputed that this is a very vexatious problem — one which must be solved. What better solution can there be for this particular and very important phase than this clause in the Burkan contract which is as follows: