tract, regardless of how long that might be; and that without music or the services of the musicians belonging to the federation the studios would have to shut down completely.

The facts also are that the producers made every possible effort to avoid the inclusion of these television provisions in the contract and that the producers finally signed these agreements because they were faced either with the choice of signing the agreements or having their studios shut down by a strike of all studio musicians.

Now, as you have already been advised by the testimony of prior witnesses here today, the main negotiations with respect to the federation's 91 written demands for inclusion in the labor contract, which was to be for a period from April 1, 1946, to August 31, 1948, were conducted in New York City during the month of April 1946. The committee already has a list of the persons who represented the producers at these negotiations.

As I was informed, and I believe as the prior witnesses have testified also, the federation was represented at these main negotiations by Mr. Petrillo, its president, by substantially its entire executive board, and also by Mr. Riccardi, who is assistant to the president of the federation.

I was advised, when I came into the negotiations later, that the parties had agreed to exclude counsel-that, in other words, no attorneys would be present during the course of the general negotiation meetings, but that the drafting of the contract and the working out of any open suggestions would be left to subcommittees of the federation and the producers and their respective counsel.

The producers' subcommittee, if it is proper to call it a subcommittee—probably a technical committee is a good name for it-consisted of Messrs. Boren, Schwartzwald, and Meyer, who have already testified here, and, as they have testified, the federation's side of the committee consisted of Mr. Riccardi, Mr. Padway, and Mr. Friedman, who was associate counsel to Mr. Padway.

I was called into the situation late in April to work with the subcommittee and was advised to make every effort in my power to eliminate the provisions relating to television. I was told that the television clauses had been passed on to the lawyers after objections to them had been made by producers, both as to their form and substance, and after an effort by the producers to work out terms and conditions under which motion picture sound track could be used for television broadcasts had been flatly rejected by Mr. Petrillo.

I was advised of the federation's position with respect to its insistence upon the inclusion of these restrictions, and this position was later told me first-hand and directly by Mr. Padway, by Mr. Riccardi, and finally by Mr. Petrillo in a meeting held with him and his executive committee on May 9 in Chicago just prior to the conclusion of the negotiations.

Without at this time going into all of the details of our discussions, I think the federation's position as stated to me on these various occasions can be summarized as follows: First, ever since 1938 the federation had imposed certain "sound track regulations" upon the motionpicture producers. These sound track regulations appear on the last page of the 1944 contract, which I will be glad to submit to the committee. In that contract, under article VIII, entitled "Sound Track

Regulations," are the following provisions. Beginning with No. 40 in the 1944 contract, they read as follows:

40. Complete elimination of the use of "sound track” except to accompany the picture for which the music was prepared, performed, and/or recorded, identification of picture to be registered with representative of the A. F. of M.

41. It is agreed that members of the A. F. of M. shall not be required or permitted to record music "sound track" for general usage or for any purpose whatsoever except as provided in paragraph 40.

42. It is further agreed that all music "sound track" already recorded, commonly referred to as "library sound track," will not be disposed of, sold, leased, or used for any picture or purpose except to accompany a revival of the picture for which recordings were originally made.

43. It is agreed that members of the A. F. of M. will not be required or permitted to use music "sound track" for any purpose in violation of the terms herein provided.

Restrictions substantially identical to the ones which I have just read from the 1944 contract were contained in the various printed regulations of the Federation governing the motion-picture industry, effective from May 23, 1938. Prior to 1944 there were no formal written agreements between the producers and the federation, but contracts were in effect in the form of the printed regulations of the federation relating to wages, hours, working conditions, et cetera, promulgated by the federation after discussions and negotiations with the producers.

I have copies of those prior regulations here, and I will be glad to submit them to your committee, and you will find on examination that those sound-track regulations which appear in the printed regulations of the federation are substantially identical-there may be some minor changes in phraseology-ever since 1938, with those which appear in the 1944 contract.

You will also note that the sound-track regulations are also included in the 1946 contract, with certain changes or exceptions, but the point I am trying to make is that those particular restrictions were in the relations between the parties imposed by the federation ever since

1938.

You will also note that the sound-track regulations are also included there are provisions making all "laws, rules, and regulations" of the federation a part of the agreement. This has always been insisted upon by the federation.

Among the other reasons stated by Mr. Petrillo, as well as by Mr. Padway and Mr. Riccardi, were the following:

The federation had discovered instances where, according to them, motion pictures with sound track had been "bootlegged" for television use. In order to protect their interests they had concluded that the old sound-track regulations were not sufficiently protective against such bootlegging, and therefore they insisted that the contract contain specific provisions directly restricting the producers from selling, leasing, or licensing any motion pictures containing sound track for television use. They also insisted on the incorporation of these restrictions in all of the producers' agreements for the sale, lease, or licensing of their pictures. In other words, Mr. Padway, as well as Mr. Petrillo, made it very clear to me that the labor agreement must contain absolute restrictions not only to bind the producers, but also to permit the federation to proceed directly against anyone who attempted to use such film in television.

Mr. Petrillo pointed out that there were certain companies among those I was representing which had substantial television interests. He specifically mentioned RKO and Paramount. He said that these companies, as well as others which might then or later become interested in television, would naturally have a substantial financial interest in using their pictures in television. He said he was suspicious of what such companies or other producers might do, and therefore insisted on provisions in the labor contract under which he could promptly and effectively stop any attempt of these companies to profit through television from the services of his members.

Repeatedly in our discussions in Chicago on May 9 and in other discussions with his representatives, Mr. Petrillo expressed great fear as to what would happen to the employment of his members with the growth and development of television. He and his representatives referred many times to the federation's experience when sound came into the industry and 18.000 members of the federation lost their jobs. After that experience Mr. Petrillo said he certainly was not going to be burned again. He referred to resolutions which had been adopted at the federation's membership conventions and by its executive board, directing him to obtain these television restrictions in the motion-picture contracts. He referred to similar resolutions and action of the federation in depriving television of the use of live musicians, all on the same grounds-that until he knew more about where television was headed, he was going to protect the jobs of his members.

Mr. Petrillo made it absolutely clear that there could be no compromise on this provision and that unless it was included in the contract there would be no contract, and without a contract no musicians would work in the motion-picture industry.

Efforts were made both in the general negotiations in New York, and again in the final meeting in Chicago, to persuade Mr. Petrillo to agree to some formula or arrangement setting up the terms and conditions by which motion pictures with sound track could be used in television. He refused again and again, stating that he did not know enough about television-that nobody knew enough about television or where it was going to know what might happen, and that until he knew more about it he absolutely refused to attempt even to work out any terms. He did say, however, that when he felt he knew enough about the development of television to determine how to protect the interests of his members, he would then be willing to sit down and negotiate some arrangement. You may note that the clause in the contract contemplates such separate negotiations, even though it does not bind Mr. Petrillo to negotiate at any particular time. But that was the most we were able to get under the circumstances.

To sum up for this committee, Mr. Chairman, I can say that, in view of the unrelenting attitude of the federation on the television clauses, the producers had a gun pointed at their heads. They tried to fight off the restrictions demanded by the federation but they were backed against a wall and bluntly told: "Sign or else!" The "else" meant shutting down the studios, because pictures can't be made without music. That is precisely what happened to the motion-picture companies with respect to the television provisions in the 1946 contract. I will be very happy to undertake to answer any questions which you may have in mind.

TESTIMONY OF LEWIS ALLEN WEISS, EXECUTIVE, MUTUAL BROADCASTING SYSTEM AND DON LEE BROADCASTING SYSTEM, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Mr. MCCANN. Will you please state your name and your residence address?

Mr. WEISS. Lewis Allen Weiss. I am the chairman of the board of directors of the Mutual Broadcasting System and vice president and general manager of the Don Lee Broadcasting System. I make my headquarters in Hollywood, Calif.

Mr. MCCANN. Where do you reside, sir?

Mr. WEISS. At 10800 Ambazac Way in Los Angeles.

Mr. MCCANN. Give us your business telephone.

Mr. WEISS. Hollywood 8111.

Mr. MCCANN. How long have you been in the radio business? Mr. WEISS. I have been a radio network executive for 17 years. Mr. MCCANN. Have you been identified with Mutual during that whole period?

Mr. WEISS. No, sir; originally we were affiliated-the Don Lee Broadcasting System was affiliated with the Columbia Broadcasting System. And we have been affiliated with Mutual a little over 10 years.

Mr. MCCANN. Have you during that period had any experiences with the American Federation of Musicians?

Mr. WEISS. Yes; during that time I have had rather an extended experience with the American Federation of Musicians at the national level, regional level, and the local level.

Mr. MCCANN. Have you, within the past 2 or 3 days, had any experience with the American Federation of Musicians-any special instance you would like to tell us about?

Mr. WEISS. Yes, sir. One of the issues we have been debating with Mr. Petrillo for a matter of 5 or 6 years springs from a physical arrangement of the network that I should like to illustrate with a map, which will clarify and make unnecessary an expanded explanation. This is a map of the lines as they lay for the Mutual Broadcasting System-the colors have no significance for terms of my discussion— so we just assume they are all just lines. The color merely indicates the different types of telephony used. The line from Mutual connects with Don Lee Broadcasting System at Los Angeles right at this point [indicating].

Mr. MCCANN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WEISS. That is the focal point of the issue. We have on the Pacific coast here, under our management and under our traffic control, the 43 stations that comprise the Don Lee Broadcasting System.

We have a master control which controls the programs that are released to these stations. There is no way of any of these stations participating in a program on the Mutual lines, except that it be fed through the master control of the Don Lee network at Los Angeles. The issue with Mr. Petrillo and the American Federation of Musicians, which, as I say, has been raging for some time, and as the result of which we feel we have been victimized unfairly, inequitably, and continuously by the American Federation of Musicians, is predicated on this very technical position that they took when the national agreement was made about 10 years ago.

ing. We want to give you an opportunity, sir, to have those men state their case as fully as possible.

You have heard the industry side today. I don't know your witnesses. If you gentlemen don't produce your best witnesses to present your position in the morning, that will be your fault.

I think, Mr. Chairman, we can't do more than give them that opportunity.

Mr. KEARNS. I announced that already.

Mr. MCCANN. Yes; I wish you would be ready in the morning, sir. Is there any other witness, Mr. Chairman, we should hear this afternoon? I think it is your plan to stop at this time.

Mr. KEARNS. Do you have any further questions to ask of this witness?

Mr. MCCANN. No further questions to ask Mr. Zorn at this time. We want him to be back in the morning.

Mr. ZORN. I will be glad to be back.

Mr. KEARNS. We will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 3: 40 p. m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was adjourned to 10 a. m. on August 7, 1947.)