The screen writer (June 1946-May 1947)

THE SCREEN WRITER of shares owned, everybody gets only one vote, no matter how large his invest¬ ment. Voting stock can be owned only by professional writers, artists and pho¬ tographers, and cannot be transferred or inherited. Thus, though in the possible future a portion of the control may be in artistically non-productive hands, voting shares will always be available tor upand-coming contemporary talent. Writers and artists have always main ★ C □ H H E S F WRITERS IN POLITICS Frank Scully, Democratic nominee for the California Assembly from the 57th (Hollywood) District, addresses The Screen Writer as follows: Tucked away in the News Notes (which I always read first) of the May issue was a quote from Emmet Lavery reprinted from a piece by Thornton Delehanty in the N.Y. Herald Trib. In it Lavery wrote: “I happen to be president of the Screen VVriters’ Guild, but there is not going to be any support from that organ¬ ization. I wouldn’t permit it.” This referred to his candidacy for con¬ gress from the Beverly Hills district. I suppose if he wouldn’t permit it for him¬ self, he certainly wouldn’t permit it for me. He needs to have Anna talk to him the way she talked to the King of Siam. But if that’s going too far afield let him take up the matter with Jack Shel¬ ley, president of the San Francisco Cen¬ tral Labor Council and currently nominee for lieutenant governor on the Demo¬ cratic ticket. He also happens to head an organization in which every shade of po¬ litical opinion is represented, but it did not stop him from going after the sup¬ port of his own people. In fact he went after it so well he got nominated. Mr. Lavery didn’t, more’s the pity. Personally I should like to see screen writers running for office, every shade tained, usually with good cause, that their efforts are improperly rewarded. They have organized to win themselves a better shake. In the publishing field. Associated Magazine Contributors, Inc., carries this campaign to a showdown. If it is profitable, there is no place for the profits to go but to those who made it a creative success. It will be a yard-stick by which the rewards of authorship can be judged, and a pilot engine for coop¬ erative creative enterprise. of political opinion, and all of them en¬ dorsed automatically by their guild. Ei¬ ther that or kicked out of their guild as unworthy of even membership. It might be argued that Lavery didn’t get guild endorsement and didn’t get nominated, whereas I didn’t get guild endorsement and did get nominated. It might even be argued that I even sur¬ vived a C I O endorsement, being the only candidate in Hollywood to succeed. But I believe it would have been easier if I could have explained that as much as the voters believe in me, my own fellowwriters do not dislike me either. There’s an amour propre involved and I certainly would like screen writers to say offi¬ cially: "We approve of a fellow-screen writer trying to fortify good government at any level, but of course since the ballot is secret that binds no member to vote for him.” You might ask the full membership some day how many of them voted at all on June 4 and if they didn’t vote they betrayed millions who suffered or died that they might exercise this blessed privilege. But in any event let them compare Lavery’s vote to Shelley’s as a practical proof of the support or non-support of fellow-craftsmen. I assure you that if elected and there is a conflict in the leg¬ islature between screen writers and car¬ penters, I would have to support the 0 IV D E IV C E 46