we have 17 independent directors and 4 affiliated theater owners. These directors were elected one from each congressional district, and it is through these directors that this campaign that has been referred to has been made in Texas.

Since I arrived in Washington I find that Colonel Cole has written a letter to every member of the Texas delegation in Congress, which letter I will read:

ALLIED STATES ASSOCIATION OF MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITORS,
Dallas, Tex., May 7, 1940.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: As the time approaches for a vote on the Neely anti-block-booking bill, S. 280, I am writing to remind you that this association for many years has fostered this or similar legislation. We are still in favor of it. Recently there has been a tremendous campaign carried on throughout this State by the Big Eight film companies and by their affiliated groups of theaters here in Texas looking toward the defeat of this bill. I cannot say that this campaign has been entirely unsuccessful but right today in spite of thousands of dollars spent and the work of over 500 employees of the Motion Picture Trust throughout Texas, a good majority of our members are in favor of this bill according to a recently mailed poll out of this office. Quite a number who state they have signed a petition against this bill now advise me that they did so through coercion, undue pressure, and misinformation. Naturally we have not had either the finances or the personnel to do a job such as was done by our opposition. But in spite of that fact a large majority of our members are still in favor of it and this is to let you know that the independent exhibitor as a whole has a great deal to gain by its passage, not to mention the public benefit which will result. With best regards and hoping that you will favorably consider the measure, I am,

Very truly yours,

Col. H. A. COLE, President.

Mr. WALKER. Now, gentlemen, I deny that a majority of the theater owners in Texas, whether they be allied members or members of no association or members of the association that I am president of, are for this bill.

I deny that any coercion, undue pressure, and misinformation has been given them, and I say that advisedly, because I personally attended every meeting that was held in the various congressional districts and practically heard everything that was said for and against the bill, and I am going to say here to you, before I get through, just what I said to the independent theater owners.

Under a Dallas headline, in Boxoffice, this appeared in a recent issue:

Stating that he will be in a "rather embarrassing position" when he appears before the Interstate Commerce Commission of the House in Washington on May 12 to testify for the measure, if Judge R. L. Walker's contention that 92 percent of the exhibitors in Texas have signed petitions against the Neely bill is correct, Col. H. A. Cole is canvassing the trade to determine the authenticity of the claim put out by the president of the Theater Owners of Texas.

The letter sent out by the national Allied head included an enclosed form which asked the recipient two questions, one, whether he signed a petition against the Neely bill, and if so, his reason or reasons for doing so.

A stamped envelope was also enclosed to "facilitate the matter" of a reply. Colonel Cole in one or two articles, and in his argument here before you a day or two ago, while he did not call my name, he filed in connection with those articles, two statements that I had put in the trade papers, questioning my honesty, my sincerity, and my integrity. Gentlemen, I do not care to enter into any personal argument over questions of that kind. You have a member of your committee who lives in Texas and happens to be the Congressman from my district.

He knows my reputation and my record in my little home town, and the things that I stand for. Not only that: You have in your Congress Hon. Sam Rayburn, of Bonham, Tex., who has been a lifelong personal friend of mine. You have in your Congress Hon. Fritz Lanham, formerly of Weatherford, Tex.; I believe now of Fort Worth, who has been a lifelong personal friend of mine, and my first connection with politics of any kind was a position as a boy I held when his father was Governor of Texas, in the State capital of Texas.

So, I do not care to argue any personalities in this question; why I am here before you; but gentlemen, I believe that what I bring you. from the theater owners of Texas, will give me a greater endorsement in what I have to say-a greater endorsement, than anything else that can be placed before you.

Appearing before you today, I not only represent the members of my association, but I represent exhibitors who are not members of any organization and I represent members of the Allied Association of Texas.

I further, gentlemen-and Colonel Cole admitted this-represent the brother and partner of Colonel Cole in presenting my argument against this bill, and I have his name signed to a petition protesting the passage of this bill.

There are 473 towns in Texas in which theaters are being operated, and 401 of these towns have signed petitions against the bill. Only 8 have been reported for the bill, and 64 towns unreported.

There are 899 theaters in operation in Texas; 793 of these have signed against the bill; 17 reported for the bill, and 89 unreported.

Eighty-six percent of the towns in Texas have been contacted, and 98 percent of said towns have registered their protests against the bill. Eighty-eight percent of the shows in operation have been contacted, and 98 percent of these have signed up against the bill.

The record shows, gentlemen, to give you an idea of what the independents in these cities think, that in the city of Houston 29 theaters signed against this bill and 3 for it; in the city of Dallas 38 theaters signed against this bill and 3 for it; in the city of San Antonio 14 signed against it and none for it; in the city of Fort Worth there are 20 theaters against the bill, 2 for it, and 2 unreported.

These include, gentlemen, not only affiliated but chain and small independents.

There are 268 affiliated theaters in Texas and they are 100 percent against the bill.

There are about 84 theaters in chains of more than 10 theaters, and they are 100 percent against the bill.

There are 547 theaters in chains of less than 10, or single units, and of this number 435 have signed against the bill and 17 for it; 93 unreported.

In the State of Texas there are 115 towns of less than 1,000 that are operating a theater.

I further represent, gentlemen, today, 267 newspapers which have written editorials against this bill. These newspapers have a circulation of 1,430,000, approximately 5,700,000 readers, and I have the statement of the circulation manager of a Dallas paper that says that this, if anything, is an underestimate.

We have no record of any editorial in Texas for the bill.

The American Labor locals in the State of Texas, over 800 in number, have taken official executive action against the bill, and they represent 280,000 men.

The Federated Women's Clubs of Texas have committed themselves 100 percent against the bill, despite the fact that the national P.-T. A. has committed itself in favor of this bill, and we have local chapters from all over Texas, who have adopted resolutions, signed letters, telegrams or petitions against the bill, and in addition to this a number of their membership have written letters to the Members of Congress from Texas asking them not to pass this bill.

We have petitions from various organizations that I have a list of, but I will not take up your time to read in this proceeding, against the passage of this bill.

So I say to you that I not only represent a great majority of theater owners of Texas, but I represent a great majority of the various organizations in Texas.

Now, in November, 1939, the Allied Association of Texas had a meeting and the Boxoffice of November 11, page 23, listed 31 theater owners present.

I have in my possession petitions signed by 16 of these Allied members protesting the passage of this bill.

I

Now, gentlemen, I have the proof with me of these petitions. have them all for each congressional district, proving that what I have said in reference to this is absolutely correct.

It is my purpose to deliver to each Texas Congressman a petition from his particular district. If you desire, I will leave copies, photostatic copies, of these petitions and names with you.

Colonel Cole was right in one thing when he said that I had issued propaganda in Texas. I called meetings all over Texas and with the assistance of our directors in each congressional district held meetings. and secured these signatures. He also told you that his brother was against this bill. I also tell you that his brother not only is against. this bill, but he carried petitions, and went with the directors, in his congressional district, and the adjoining one, to help in getting signatures. Not only that, but he made a speech at Clarksville, Tex., at one of the meetings against this bill.

He stated to you-I think made a statement to you-that took every bit of the argument he made away from the support of this bill and places it against the bill. He said that his brother was an independent operator and in a closed town; had no opposition; but was his own boss and could buy as he pleased, and therefore, from selfish motives, was against the bill.

Gentlemen, that is why I am here today. The theater owners of Texas, from selfish motives, to promote their own business, are opposed to this bill.

Now, I want to give you as briefly as I can just what I think of the bill. There are four separate and distinct classes, all of whom you represent in Congress, who are directly interested in this measure. First, the general public.

Second, the exhibitors. I put the exhibitors second because I am an exhibitor.

Third, the producers, and
Fourth, the distributors.

As a Member of Congress, your first duty is to the public and in my opinion you should at all times do what you believe to be for the best interests of that public. I agree that if it can be shown this measure will be of any benefit to the public, you should give it your approval; but I do not believe that the mere whim of a few of the public or some organization should be considered, when it will work to the direct and material damage to our industry.

My own personal interest is naturally for the exhibitor, as I desire at all times to protect my own business. I further realize and appreciate that any law having for its purpose the increase of the cost of production and distribution will increase the cost to the exhibitor, and, if for no other reason, I enter my protest against this bill, and in presenting to you my opposition to this bill I direct my remarks only to two propositions: first of all, will the law be of any benefit to the general public? Second, will the law, if enacted, be of any benefit to the exhibitors?

My position is that it will be harmful and expensive to both. The public can only have two interests in requesting the passage of this bill:

First, will it give them better and cleaner pictures?

Second, will it affect the price of admission to theaters?

The proposition that the bill will help in getting better and cleaner pictures is absurd, to my mind.

The Allied States Association, through its general counsel, published what is known as the Allied White Book. This book said:

The primary purpose of the bill is to establish community freedom in the selection of motion pictures—

and

a secondary purpose is to relieve independent interests in the motion picture industry-producers, distributors, and exhibitors-of monopolistic and burdensome trade practices.

If the bill, gentlemen, would do either of these purposes, I would lend it my support.

Colonel Cole, as president of the Allied, at Montclair, N. J., stated that block-booking did not force immoral pictures, and as quoted in Boxoffice, dated February 17, 1940, page 18, said:

I did make the statement that block-booking did not force immoral or obscene pictures on the exhibitor as the word "immoral" is customarily used, but it does force many objectionable pictures.

Thus we have the national president of Allied repudiating the primary purpose of the bill. It is so easy, gentlemen, for one who has never made a success at anything to try to tell the successful businessman or politician how his business or his country may be improved upon. It takes years of study to make an engineer and months of labor for that engineer to build a great building, bridge, or dam, and vet an anarchist with a stick of dynamite can destroy it in a moment. It takes years of study and work for a great painter to paint a masterpiece, and yet a child with a knife can destroy it in a second. And thus it is with the reformers. Without thought or study they can advance an idea that will destroy a great industry that master minds of our country have built up. Their cry of "community freedom” in the selection of pictures to stop immoral and obscene pictures is but to catch the fancy of moral reformers who care little for the

destruction they may bring about if they can but force their idea of right or wrong, upon the general public.

What do you understand is meant by "community freedom in the selection of pictures"?

I have read every statement by the proponents of this bill that I could find, and I have yet to read where any of them have explained where local communities could select their pictures.

I believe that you can see that no local exhibitor can ever comply with a law that requires him to consult the various individuals in his community as to what shall go on the screen. Most times, gentlemen, we never hear a comment on a picture until after the picture has been run. They very seldom, except on rare occasions, come to us and ask us to run special pictures.

Section 4 of this bill says the distributor shall furnish the exhibitor a synopsis of the film before a lease is made. You are familiar with the provisions of this bill, and applying this to community freedom--I do not want to go into details, as this has been discussed before you from various standpoints, but I want to say that that cannot be done in the community.

There are 473 towns in Texas and each one of them has a different idea as to what should be put on the screen and what should not; but I submit to you gentlemen that this bill in no sense requires a local exhibitor to go to these community heads and ask what kind of a picture they want to see.

It will be the same under this bill as it is now. It will be left in the hands of the exhibitor, and that exhibitor will, as you know, place on his screen those pictures he thinks will best please his public.

They are all alike. We all, in this life, are selfish, and we want to do what we can to further our own interests, and it is a right that is given us, so long as it is honestly done.

I say to you gentlemen we now have community selection of pictures in our theaters in the only way that it can be done in a democratic form of government.

In my town we run from four to six pictures per week-Sunday and Monday one class; Tuesday and Wednesday another class; Thursday and Friday another, and Saturday a different class. Every citizen in our community can select the day and the class of picture he desires to see. You have the same right of selection you have in the newspapers, magazines, or books. You cannot read all of the books that are published, and you do not see all of the pictures that are made.

Trade papers and daily papers give you a synopsis of the kind and class of pictures that we are showing. There are over 400 pictures made each year, and you have the right of selection of the picture you want to see or that you want your child to see.

These people claim they are not for censorship, but I say that the arguments they advance are for plain, unadulterated censorship. You cannot play a box-office attraction every day any more than you can eat pie only at every meal.

What is considered a good picture by one, another person will not

care to see.

I want to say to you gentlemen that a short time ago I had occasion to test that out very thoroughly. I bought a theater in a little town, in my home town, and in buying it in the middle of the season I had