NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1943)

them available to any parties who might be named in the demands. Mr. Padway pointed out that these de¬ mands would be addressed to specific users of music, including members of the NAB, and that the union would not deal with the NAB as an association. 2. He conceded that there were many small stations which could not be expected to employ musicians. 3. He admitted that his present order excluding all amateurs from the air required modification so that amateur organizations could be heard on the air, albeit on a basis satisfactory to the A. F. of M. 4. He stated that he might have been mistaken in the tactics he pursued and agreed that there was some justice in the position of employers. 5. He agreed that certain practices of the union in connection with standbys had gone too far and conceded that such practices as demanding the employment of union musicians as “pancake turners” were basically un¬ sound. 6. He admitted that in issuing his order against re¬ cordings he had not given full consideration to the ef¬ fects of this order on private, educational and com¬ mercial use. Despite these admissions, Mr. Petrillo maintained his basic position without substantial change. He reiterated his refusal to permit records to be made and refused a request of the Committee that he withdraw the ban even for a short time. He charged that the public feeling against him was due to an “expensive publicity campaign composed of nothing but false issues and per¬ sonal abuse” initiated by the National .Association of Broadcasters, overlooking the fact that the widespread editorial condemnation and news comment which followed Mr. Petrillo’s actions, and which were reflected in thou¬ sands of newspaper items, preceded the earliest date upon which the NAB took any action whatsoever with respect to this matter. Readers of the excerpts from the testimony will note how Mr. Petrillo shifted his position on what he wanted during the course of questioning. It may be of interest to broadcasters to note that Judge Barnes has set January 25th as the date for hear¬ ing arguments on Mr. Petrillo’s motion to dismiss the government’s new complaint against him, and that a date in February will be set for hearing the Government’s argument for a preliminary injunction against Mr. Petrillo and his union. Senator Clark’s Opening Statement When this order was first published on the 25th of July, 1942, it excited the alarm of the War Department, the Navy Department, the Marine Corps, the Office of Civilian Defense, the Treasury Department, and the Office of War Information. Consequently a staff meet¬ ing was held, or at least a meeting was held, at which representatives of each of these departments were present. Among others attending that meeting there was present Mr. Elmer Davis, who was the director then and is now of the Office of War Information, one of the functions of which office is to disseminate throughout the United States and throughout the personnel of troops abroad, all information pertinent to the war and therefore vitally interested in maintaining a free, open and efficient com¬ munications system in the United States. Consequently, three days after this meeting, namely, on July 28, 1942, Mr. Davis, speaking for himself and for the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Treasury Department, and the Office of Civilian Defense, addressed a letter to Mr. James C. Petrillo, President of the Ameri¬ can Federation of Musicians, in which letter he, first, set out a letter which Mr. Petrillo had previously written to the President of the United States. That letter was written shortly after Pearl Harbor, namely, on Decem¬ ber 27, 1941. Mr. Davis called Mr. Petrillo’s attention to the fact that in that letter he had stated that each and every member of the American Federation of Musicians and its officers: “pledge themselves on this occasion to do everything possible to aid in the fight for freedom.” There are other quotes, but the letter of Mr. Petrillo to the President ended up with this new slogan, and I quote him again: “To this new slogan, this new theme for the New Year, then, the Federation dedicates itself: Music For Morale.” After Mr. Davis had quoted the letter of Mr. Petrillo to the President which I have adverted to, he then stated in his letter to Mr. Petrillo: “Despite this public and published pledge you sent a communication on June 25, 1942, to all companies engaged in the making of phonograph records, elec¬ trical transcriptions, and other forms of mechanical recording of music, advising them as follows:” And then he set out the order of June 25, 1942. He further called Mr. Petrillo’s attention to the fact that if this order remained in force and effect three serious con¬ sequences would ensue, all as he viewed it detrimental to the morale of the people at home and to the morale of the armed forces on the far-flung battle-fronts of the world. Mr. Davis ended up his letter to Mr. Petrillo with this paragraph : “Therefore, on behalf of the people of the United States and on behalf of the War Department, the Navy Department, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, the Treasury Department, the Office of Civilian Defense, and the Office of War Information, I sincerely urge that you consider it your patriotic duty to stand by your pledge of December 27, 1941, and withdraw your ultimatum of June 25, 1942.” On July 31, 1942, three days after the dispatch of the letter I have just referred to, Mr. Petrillo replied to Mr. Davis at some length. He set out that the American Federation of Musicians would make recordings directly for the armed services; that is, if the Army put on a show or wanted a recording of its own band or something of the sort, the American Federation of Musicians would permit the making of recordings of such music. He further stated that they would make recordings, and I quote from his letter: “at the request of the President of the United States.” [2]