Mr. BRUEN. That is very true, and probably in my layman's way, I did not give proper consideration to it and I will cheerfully withdraw that from the record.

Mr. MCGRANERY. Thank you.

Mr. BRUEN. Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Do you have any questions, Mr. Ryan?
Mr. RYAN. No questions.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Thank you.

Mr. Crockett.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. CROCKETT, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA.

Mr. CROCKETT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: My name is William F. Crockett. My home is at Virginia Beach, Va. I am serving my third term as president of the Motion Picture Theater Owners of Virginia. I am an independent exhibitor and operate two theaters in Virginia Beach, Va., which has a winter population of 2,500 and summer population of 15 to 20 thousand people.

I have a resolution I would like to read into the record as follows:

The following resolution was unanimously adopted at a meeting of the board of directors of the Motion Picture Theater Owners of Virginia, Inc., at its meeting in Richmond, Va., on May 9, 1940:

Whereas the board of directors of the Motion Picture Theater Owners of Virginia, Inc., representing approximately 250 motion-picture theaters located in the State of Virginia, have read the Neely bill, which is now pending before the House of Representatives Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, feel that the provisions of this bill will not accomplish any good, either for the general public, producers, or exhibitors, but, on the contrary, will work a great hardship to the public and to the motion-picture theaters, which will result in a more expensive and a far less satisfactory operation of the theaters, and will simply add to the exhibitors' present difficulties and will in no wise improve the character or quality of motion pictures: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the board of directors of the Motion Picture Theater Owners of Virginia, Inc., is opposed to the passage of the Neely bill, and have requested that their president, Mr. William F. Crockett, appear before the special committee of Congress investigating this bill and emphatically register the objections of this association to the bill; and

That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Members of the House of Representatives from Virginia, with the request from this association that they oppose this legislation. HAROLD WOOD, Secretary.

The Motion Picture Theater Owners of Virginia is an organization operating within the State of Virginia and is the only exhibitors' organization operating within the State. In the State of Virginia there are approximately 250 theaters, 170,000 seats, and from fifteen to sixteen million dollars invested in theater properties and equipment. The M. P. T. O. of Virginia is an independent theater operators' organization in principle, and is not affiliated in any way with any National or State organization and is controlled entirely by independent theater owners.

Gentlemen, let me explain that we do levy dues upon the basis of the available seating capacity of the theaters to pay the organization's expenses. But the control is entirely in the hands of the independent owners, and we do feel, and I think you will agree, that those affiliated with the organization should pay their pro rata part of the expenses of the organization.

If the Neely bill, S. 280, is enacted and becomes a law it will, we believe, restrict the independent theater owner's privilege and right to purchase pictures on a wholesale market to his essential need, which is a supply of pictures of sufficient volume to assure him of product for a diversified program of three or four changes weekly, and would place him in a position of often having to buy film one at a time on very short delivery demand, at greatly advanced prices over those now paid as his immediate need of film would certainly raise the price asked by producer when producer knew he had to buy the then-offered film or close his house and await further opportunity to purchase at a fair price.

Mrs. Mary T. Bannerman in her statement submitted for the record of this hearing, states that I am connected with Motion Picture Theater Owners of America and subsidized by the Hays organization. My statement before the Senate hearing clearly sets out I am an independent theater operator and have no organized connection outside the State of Virginia. I am appearing before you solely on the request of my Virginia organization and in my own behalf and have never received, nor been offered, any money, favors, or remuneration of any sort from anyone for my appearance here.

I wish to submit for the record the Virginia Bulletin of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers, May 1940, then to quote you the paragraph under the heading.

But, I am not competent to say to you that the Parents and Teachers Association of Virginia has stated it has approved this bill or has not approved it, but I am going to simply submit for your files this bulletin entitled "The Virginia Bulletin of the Cooperative Education Association," Virginia branch of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers, and read an excerpt from the item which appears on page 6, entitled "The Neely Bill. What do you think of it?"

If our democracy is to survive, the citizen must learn to do his own thinking. If there are two sides to a question, we ought to in a democracy be willing to consider both sides. In our work for the welfare of children and youth we should proceed by informing ourselves concerning the pros and cons of proposed legislation. Frankly, the bulletin is here applying this principle to the much debated Neely bill, aimed at prohibiting the sale of moving pictures by the "blind-booking" method. Do you know what the bill does, in fact, provide? Do you know what is being said for, and what against the bill? Will you take the time to read the portions of the bill that set forth its policy, and then to read both the statement prepared by Mrs. Mary T. Bannerman, chairman of the Legislative Committee of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers, and the statement prepared by the Motion Picture Theater Owners organization?

Then is printed the Neely bill.

Then "What the legislative committee of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers say in support of the bill." Statement by Mrs. Mary T. Bannerman.

Then "What the Motion Picture Owners Association says in opposition to the bill."

Statement by the Motion Picture Theater Owners of Virginia-at the conclusion of which appears the question, "What do you think?" That would appear to be, from my observation, to be asking each individual to exercise their own judgment on this legislation. However, I have never asked anyone to oppose the bill, but I just submit that as an indication of the way the situation stands in Virginia.

The stop picture has been paraded before you with all its faults and none of its possibilities for good explained, the stop picture has been

shown you as something which is used to force the exhibitor to play pictures he does not wish to play. The stop picture is used to force the exhibitor to in some way dispose of the pictures made available ahead of the then set stop picture, be this by elimination, cancelation, playing, paying, or partial payment known as Pay not Play.

Example: The first- or second-run theater holds a certain number of days' protection over the next designated run; the second run probably changes twice as often as the first run, and the third run four times as often as the first, making it essential that the third run have four times as many pictures as the first run. When the stop picture clears six or eight pictures from a theater owner's desk it also makes these pictures available for the next theaters in the line of running schedule and also makes available to the producer the revenue he can procure from these runs.

I offer this statement to show that under existing clearance conditions the stop picture often is a help to subsequent-run exhibitors.

There is a synopsis of each picture in the press book of that picture which is available to any exhibitor as soon as and often before the picture is released. This synopsis may be submitted to his prospective audience and if objectionable he may reject the picture without its counting against his regular cancelation or whatever selective clause he may have in his contract.

This of course would not protect him if the pictures were merely low in star and entertainment value.

I feel certain that had Rebecca not been sold ahead of its production the picture would have been sold along the lines of Gone With the Wind and Mr. and Mrs. Average Theater Patron would have had to pay a premium or wait until next year to have enjoyed the picture.

I hear the reaction of my theater audience almost daily and I know how seldom you can offer a picture which pleased everyone and have on various occasions had people come to my office and be very much put out because we didn't repeat a picture they happened to like and felt because they wanted to see it a second time everyone else felt the

same way.

The average theater patron knows what he wants to see and generally knows pretty much about a picture from magazine and radio reviews before it comes to the theater, and I feel sure Mr. and Mrs. General Public still desire to select their own entertainment as they now do.

We, in Virginia, contend all first-run theaters should have their pictures booked to them current or nearly current with key-city situations which often are larger affiliated theaters. The population of a small town should not be penalized on the time they must wait to see a picture or wait until the larger cities have completed these runs. This bill we believe while not holding back the release, and showing in affiliated theaters, would seriously reduce the revenue of the independent owner by making it impossible to purchase, book, and show the picture until the age after release had materially affected the value of the picture.

We have a State of Virginia Censorship Board and this board has the power to cut parts, alter or refuse permission to show any motion picture in the State. It is our contention and interpretation that all pictures would have to be completed, submitted to the censorship board, and passed by this board before they could be purchased by

the independent exhibitors, while the affiliated theater owner could very quickly sell the picture to himself and proceed with the showing with very little delay after its passage by the censors.

I would next like to bring to your attention for careful consideration the responsibilities of the independent theater owner and the work he has to do. The motion-picture theater has become the medium of pleasure and recreation for the greater percentage of the American public because it offers pleasing diversion to the bulk or masses of the people who cannot afford the other higher-priced recreations. We entertain in cool, clean, comfortable, well-seated theaters the adult at a cost to them of from 10 to 20 cents per hour and the child at a cost to them of from 5 to 10 cents per hour. Your movie attendance is definitely divided into three or four classes and you must provide suitable programs during a week to please each individual class, and we hold that the ladies who live in the north end of town and have bridge, golf, and horseback riding added to their schedule of entertainment, cannot judge the picture that will please the farm hand who plows all day and depends entirely on the theater at night for his diversion. Neither can you book your theater with only children in view any more than you can overlook the need of children's programs. If these masses do not find the entertainment and action pictures they crave at the theater, they will look elsewhere and, often due to lack of finances, in much more harmful fields for their entertainment. We feel that when pictures are clean morally, and leave good examples, and are satisfying entertainment to a large mass of colored and white entertainment seekers, they should have some place in theater programs if the theater is to continue its work of entertaining the large bulk of the country's population. I submit this paragraph only so far as it may pertain to the often-spoken-of community censorship and the impractical application of such a self-appointed censorship's ability to select entertainment for all classes of theatergoers, and with the belief that nothing in the Neely bill, S. 280, will in any way affect the showing of salacious or immoral pictures if the theater owner desires to purchase and show such pictures where the State does not have a censor board to control this.

As an independent theater owner I here state that in 14 years of operating theaters I have never been forced to run a picture I did not want to run, and I buy pictures in various size groups to fit the needs of my operation, ranging from 25 percent to 100 percent of a group offered, and practically all my purchases are on selective contracts, which means I select a certain number of pictures from the product of any given producer.

I am thoroughly conversant with sales and distribution methods and was accorded the honor of serving as chairman of a group of gentlemen representing the seven unaffiliated State exhibitor organizations in the United States at all fair trade practice code conferences held in New York last year, and had an opportunity to thoroughly review the sales methods in seven widely scattered States throughout the Union.

Gentlemen, if I may be permitted another comment, I want to say that I have found that many of the exhibitors have conditions which we do not have in the State of Virginia, because in our State we have very few double features; and we have very few "give aways" or "bank nights."

Mr. MCGRANERY. What do you mean by "give aways"?

235749-40-pt. 2-25

Mr. CROCKETT. Where any particular thing is given away as a prize, to the winner at the theater. As an example, sets of dishes and things of that kind are given away on such nights; and in some places they have "bank nights." The "bank night" has been ruled as a lottery in the State of Virginia, so we do not have to contend with "bank nights."

In fact, any kind of an inducement to get people to go to the picture show or any other reason than to see the picture would fall under the head of "give away." So far in the State of Virginia we are free from these "give away" and "bank nights" and other inducements.

On behalf of myself and my organization I state that we feel the passage of the proposed bill would be a great injustice to Mr. Average Citizen and his family who depend on the motion-picture theater for the greater part of their recreation, and would be a great hardship on theater owners and personnel who depend on the orderly continuous operation of the theater for their livelihood.

I have read quite a few editorials in Virginia newspapers in the past months, all discussing the proposed bill and all pointing out the undesirability of such a law. I wish to submit some of these for your consideration.

(The editorials above referred to were filed with the committee.) Mr. CROCKETT. Gentlemen, there is one other comment that I would like to make, and that is this: From a practical standpoint we do not know what the situation would be if the Neely bill should pass and if the thing which we fear might arise were to take place. Frankly, I do not know what the situation would be. It is possible that instead of my buying pictures from the producers I would be selling my play time to them on a certain percentage basis. In other words, they would buy the use of the theater and pay me a certain percentage and I frankly do not know just how the situation would work out.

Mr. MCGRANERY. What percentage of the members of your organization are independent, or related to affiliates?

Mr. CROCKETT. We have in the State-you mean the number of theathers or the number of exhibitors or the seating capacity? Mr. McGRANERY. Number of theaters.

Mr. CROCKETT. The number of theaters, I would say, 95 percent are independents. We have very few affiliated exhibitors, except in the two large cities of Richmond and Norfolk.

Mr. MCGRANERY. Have the members of your organization voted on this question?

Mr. CROCKETT. Yes, sir; this particular question has been up before my group, and the members have voted the directors to use their discretion to the extent they thought possible to oppose the Neely bill, and that action was taken unanimously to vote against it. Mr. McGRANERY. That is all.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Any other questions?

If not, we thank you.

Mr. CROCKETT. We thank you.

STATEMENT OF NAT. M. WILLIAMS, THOMASVILLE, GA.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Mr. Williams.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am Nat. Williams, of Thomasville, Ga. I operate theaters in 4