interest in television if we could televise programs showing musicians playing in back of or as a part of programs for television. We took the matter up with the musicians' union, and about 8 or 9 years ago they advised us of a scale which, as I recall, approximated or would amount to $56 per half-hour for an appearance of a musician on a television program. We didn't employ any at those rates because the small number of people who could see and hear the musician play by television would not warrant that. Subsequently, on orders from Mr. Petrillo, instructions were issued that no member of the American Federation of Musicians was permitted, under any circumstances or at any cost, to participate in a television program. I understand the motion-picture studios, who made sound film and had such film they were willing to lease to us, or rent to us, or sell to us, were deprived by some condition in their contract with the musicians' union which prohibited the sale to or the use by television stations of any film on which any music was had. Mr. MCCANN. Do you have a copy of the letter of notification that was given to you with respect to the withdrawal of the right of musicians to play for a television program? Mr. WEISS. I have that somewhere in the files. If you will permit me to submit it later as a part of the record, I will be glad to furnish it. Mr. MCCANN. I wish you would, so we may have the date on which this order from Mr. Petrillo terminated the right of any television station to use live music. Will you please note in the record that, when received, that letter will be marked "Exhibit No. 15," and reproduced in the record. (The letter referred to is as follows:) MUSICIANS MUTUAL PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, DON LEE BROADCASTING SYSTEM, LOCAL 47, A. F. OF M., Los Angeles 28, Calif. GENTLEMEN: We are just in receipt of the following notice from the American Federation of Musicians: "By order of the international executive board members of the American Federation of Musicians are not permitted to play for television in any form until further notice." Very truly yours, PHIL FISCHER, Radio Representative. Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Weiss, in connection with this television band, has your counsel ever ruled on the legal phase of that, whether or not it is the edict of Mr. Petrillo's labeling, giving the orders to restrain trade? Mr. WEISS. We have discussed the matter with our counsel, both here and in New York, on a number of occasions. And with all due deference I should like to make this point clear: That our relationship with Mr. Petrillo, and through Mr. Petrillo with the American Federation of Musicians, has been outside of the law. We realized the helplessness of the broadcasting industry under the despotic control of one man, which, in fairness to the men that comprise the American Federation of Musicians, I should emphasize, does not reflect their feelings, of those that I have been privileged to talk to, because in these instances where orchestras have been yanked ruthlessly and without advance notice, sometimes immediately preceding a program, those men have no idea of the issue, no vote was ever taken among the membership, did they desire to go on strike. As a matter of fact, I say in justice to Mr. Fischer, who is here, he too has been required to blindly follow the orders of Mr. Petrillo. We have little or no quarrel with the locals of the musicians' union, because all they do is carry out the orders from on high. Most of the time or in many instances, at least-they don't even know the whys or the wherefores that those orders are being issued, but getting back to your question, Mr. Kearns, we don't have a normal relationship, because the entire relationship since the time that Mr. Petrillo became president has been under duress, so we have never had the freedom. I will say this: We do at least go through the gestures of negotiating with the local on wage scales, but the determination of the number of men that had to be employed for staff orchestras, that was fixed. There was no discussion about that. Mr. KEARNS. You had no objection to that, though? Mr. WEISS. But we definitely did. Mr. KEARNS. I understood that you didn't. Mr. WEISS. To having the musicians' union dictate the number of men we employed? Mr. KEARNS. Yes. Mr. WEISS. I will have to be very emphatic about stating our objection to that. Once you admit the principle that some union boss can dictate to an owner or management of a business the number of employees of a certain craft he must employ, regardless of his need for them, then it is only a question of the man's complete disregard of the equities of the situation, until he bankrupts them. Mr. KEARNS. I was informed personally by one of the broadcasting companies they had no gripe about that whatsoever, they think they were asked to have 33 or 34 men and they said, "We employed 50, anyway, so we don't care about how many they demand. We will always need more than they demand." Mr. WEISS. That may be true in a specific instance you are referring to. It is not generally true, nor does it hide the danger Mr. KEARNS. And the policy. Mr. WEISS. And the impropriety of the policy, because that is not true of any other craft we employ. No other union that we employ dictates to us the number of men of their particular craft that we must employ. Mr. KEARNS. You have your movie industry here. Mr. WEISS. I understand they are subject to the same conditions. Mr. KEARNS. They have quotas there. Mr. WEISS. Yes. Mr. KEARNS. The big fellows don't care-they use more men than that, anyway. Mr. WEISS. That again, to me, does not remove the threat inherent in that kind of a relationship where a union boss dictates to you how many men of a given craft you must employ. Mr. KEARNS. In other words, you, as an employer, should have the right as an American citizen and American business company here to hire and fire whom you please? Mr. WEISS. Definitely, and without that there is a very definite threat to our entire economy. Mr. MCCANN. There is one question that interests me, in view of your previous testimony. When Mr. Petrillo was before the committee in Washington, as I recall his testimony, he said that when they were negotiating with the broadcasting companies in New York last year, there were representatives of the unions present from three cities, as I remember-Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York. And as I recall his testimony, he affirmed that at that meeting he said to the broadcasters, "You can make any contract you want to with the locals in your area on AM stations. But when it comes to FM, that power is taken away from the locals by the international board. And was taken away from the international board by me, and I have that power alone." Now, subsequently, after he had affirmed that twice, he revamped his answer to say the board gave it to him. And then upon being urged, he admitted he had the power to take it, anyway, under the constitution. What I am driving at is this: Were you in that conference in New York? Mr. WEISS. No. Mr. McCANN. Last year? Mr. WEISS. NO; I had a complete report on it, but I was not present. Mr. MCCANN. Mr. Swezey was there, and others. Mr. WEISS. I met in a similar conference the year before with the four networks. The one last year was attended for us by Mr. Swezey, who gave us a detailed report of what took place. Mr. MCCANN. I would like to get this. In spite of that statement, was it or was it not a fact that the locals were able to make a conract with the broadcasters in Los Angeles, in Chicago, and in New York! Mr. WEISS. They were able to make a contract-just of the type they have always made, without reference to the quota that I object to basically. We did here, on behalf of the four networks, go into very long protracted discussions with the locals of the musicians' union as to the scale increases they demanded for both sustaining and commercial service. Mr. MCCANN. In other words, the scope of the inquiry was restricted to the scale? Mr. WEISS. Completely. Not even working conditions were to be brought into the discussions. Mr. MCCANN. That is right? Mr. WEISS. That is correct. Mr. MCCANN. In other words, when it came to certain phases of that contract, the local had no power-it vested still in Mr. Petrillo? Mr. WEISS. That is correct, sir. Mr. MCCANN. Is it or is it not a fact that every contract which you have entered into with a local concerning wages, hours, working conditions, and the number of your personnel, has had to go to New York for approval before it became final? Mr. WEISS. It had to go to New York for approval, unless they had their instructions in advance, but the provision was always made and if they overlooked writing it into the letter of agreement, I would subsequently get a letter, as I did on several occasions, stipulating that condition, always that these men owed their first allegiance, or whatever it is, to the international, and all the terms of the contract were subject to the decision and action of the international. Mr. MCCANN. I want to see if you agree with this deduction, which seems to me inevitable, from the conduct of the affairs of this international union. It has developed in our investigation that in the recording business originally Mr. Petrillo licensed the recorders outright. Mr. WEISS. That is right. Mr. MCCANN. Without his license they couldn't do business. Then subsequently he made a contract in which he said, "The same as a license." So, in effect, industry became the servant of the licensee of the union, the licensor. Now, when it came to the radio field, it seems there is still that same clause in there. This contract reads that it is subject to the constitution and bylaws of the federation, so that, in effect, is it not true. that every radio station in the United States that uses live music is a licensee of Mr. Petrillo? Mr. WEISS. That is correct, sir. Mr. MCCANN. Now, we have developed in the last few days the fact that in television, Mr. Petrillo, according to some of the witnesses who have been here, stated that the contract would not be entered into unless the television clause was accepted-that that was a "must," in other words. Again we have the situation that the union has taken over the direction of when, where, and under what circumstances television may ever use live music. Mr. WEISS. That, I think, is a very modest statement of the attitude of Mr. Petrillo toward that branch of the art, as it is of his attitude toward frequency modulation. Mr. MCCANN. Let me go a little bit further with that. We have found that a broker or booker can't do business unless he has a license from Mr. Petrillo. Mr. WEISS. You mean a booker of bands? Mr. MCCANN. A booker of bands, musicians, or any member of the organization. Mr. WEISS. That is right. Mr. MCCANN. And we have found that on occasion bookers have had their licenses taken away from them, at least at first without knowing why the license was taken. Again, we have the businessman a servant of the licensee of the union. Now, tell me if you can, Mr. Weiss, whether the American Federation of Musicians is an industry or a labor union? Mr. WEISS. Well, it is a labor union, if one wants to stop at that. It is a labor union that conducts itself different than any other union with which we have any dealings, because of the domination and complete despotism of one man in complete control of it. All of the other unions that I deal with pursue more or less democratic processes. Propositions and counterpropositions are debated back and forth, the membership is consulted, representatives of those unions meet in the greater body and have their voice in it, but the musicians' union is a thing apart from any other democratic processes that I know anything about. Mr. MCCANN. Well, I am trying to get a correct philosophy, and I am just giving you these little bits of evidence which we have picked up from various sections of the country, to see if you can help us as a businessman in the interpretation of the evidence that we have obtained, and I wanted to ask, just to use another illustration, what is the difference between the American Federation of Musicians and a cartel, which says you may sell a product in this town but you can't sell it in some other town, that goes to such-and-such a firm? Mr. WEISS. That is correct. Mr. MCCANN. I notice that our antitrust division is very much against cartels or agreements by which one organization covenants that it will give certain territory exclusively to corporation A when corporation A agrees that it will give exclusively to corporation B another territory. I am trying to see the distinction in my own mind here. Mr. WEISS. I have always felt, Mr. McCann, and I am thinking with you, that there should have been some relief prior to the passage of the Taft-Hartley bill and the Lea bill-there should have been some relief under the antitrust laws against the abuses exercised by the American Federation of Musicians through the person of Mr. Petrillo because his practices have been so ruthless, as you know, including a defiance of the President of the United States during war, in complete disregard for the exigencies of the war and needs. For example, I have read the testimony, I think, of Mr. Bagley, who took a very holier-than-thou position on the subject of the payment for stand-bys, which again is a great racket and graft, and I happened to be the vice president of the chamber of commerce and during the war we had a patriotic rally, I think, in connection with a bond issue. Mr. Rudy Vallee, who was then the conductor of a Coast Guard band, had offered to come and play for this luncheon in the Biltmore Bowl, and the chamber of commerce, which represents the leading business and professional citizenry of this community, engaged in that purely patriotic effort, had to pay the local-I am talking about the Los Angeles local, the one that was supposed to be immune-a substantial check for a stand-by orchestra comparable in size to the one brought by the Coast Guard band to come and play for that patriotic rally. Mr. MCCANN. I think I have a recollection that Mr. Bagley said that never happened in Los Angeles. Mr. WEISS. Well, we can get the canceled check from the chamber, and I have quite a handful of canceled checks that we have paid—this is just the last year's-and we have been paying for 10 years to the San Francisco, local because we have an amateur program that we called the Marindell Hour in which occasionally a child plays a mandolin or guitar or something, and every time that happens we have to send a check for a mandolin or guitar player to the San Francisco local, and here are the canceled checks with their endorsements on them. Mr. MCCANN. Have you had any experience with Mr. Bagley as to his veracity and integrity, sir? Mr. WEISS. No; I have not. I have heard the gentleman speak, at which time, perhaps because of the different areas in which we work, |