I base my belief in that choice in the conviction of democratic men that, given a fair field, truth can hold its own against any number of lies. And I believe we still have that fair field. Colonel Lindbergh, certain distinguished Senators, and other public figures, for example, are granted the freest publicity in their attacks upon the administration's foreign policy, in the newspapers, the radio and I might add-the news reels.

We are, in any event, apt to overestimate the power of any one' medium of expression, forgetting that the others often act as checks and balances upon it, and forgetting, too, the fundamental power of the facts to get themselves heard, exchanged, and digested, regardless of press, radio, or screen.

You will recall that President Roosevelt in his campaign in 1936 was opposed by probably 80 percent of the organs of national publicity. The case against him was ably and strenuously presented. A vast volume of propaganda swept the land for his opponent. But the American people, weighing, considering, analyzing, denied the validity of overwhelming propaganda and elected Franklin Roosevelt for his second term. I myself have confidence in the information and intelligence of the American people (and you gentlemen should, too, I think). I am content to let our people sift the false from the true. I am not disturbed if inaccuracies and distortions may sweep the land in this critical period. The verdict will safely be rendered by our Nation and our voters.

It may be charged that the domination of film production by a few companies has resulted in a monopolistic situation, and that this cannot offer the same possibilities of diversity of opinion as a more competitive condition. Let me ask, If 500 men control an industry are they to have the right of free speech, but if the operation of a business is by 50 men are they to be denied protection of the Bill of Rights?

Is there any lawgiver who could aptly frame a statute stripping from a monopolist his fundamental human rights, any judge who could administer such a measure?

Would anyone claim that if the number of movie producers were doubled or trebled and competition increased, that there would be any substantial change in the films now being produced? I understand that in some small theaters in the United States pictures preaching Nazi philosophy are being shown. But with 90 percent of our people energetically opposed to German conquests, can we expect the number of the theaters exulting in a triumphant Nazi tyranny to be of large number?

Almost every large American industry is now involved in the complications of the antitrust law. The movie producers are no exception. Their cases are now being reviewed by the Department of Justice. I think it will be difficult for this subcommittee, however plausible its argument, to convince the American people that it can justly develop this investigation into a monopoly inquiry. For this committee to raise the monopoly question as an apparent inducement to the movie industry to submit to its censorship can lead only to national misunderstanding. I hope I may be permitted respectfully to urge upon its members to avoid placing itself in this ambiguous position.

And I am likewise convinced that any attempt to secure data în the foreign markets of movie companies, on the birthplaces of movie leaders, cannot be justified before the bar of American public opinion. Such collateral inquiries can be relevant only if we intend to forbid to the foreign-born citizen his freedom of expression; to deny to the American business leader whose genius has developed a market abroad the right to express himself on international issues.

Have we the right to take from any of our citizens because they were born abroad the fundamental human rights enjoyed by the rest of us, while we are the recipients of their scientific learning and energy and their genius? One of such citizens, Mr. Knudsen, is now Director of the Office of Production Management. Would the condition of his birth and entry into the United States deny him the right to freely exercise his freedom of expression in this international crisis while he is performing great deeds of managerial skill for the preservation and defense of the rest of us?

Surely, gentlemen, if we cannot have faith in an untrammeled freedom of expression for all our citizens, wherever born, however farflung their enterprises; if we yield to the fear that our democratic heritage can be wiped out of our minds and hearts by a flickering propaganda, then the foundations of the Republic are weak indeed. On the contrary, if in this time of national decision we affirm our confidence in the soundness of our people's judgment, by refusing to limit the free flow of expression from whomsoever it may come, then we are making clear and real and shining the precious human rights we shall, pray God, ever defend.

Senator CLARK of Idaho. The subcommittee thanks you, Senator Downey, for your appearance here and your statement. Any questions by the members of the subcommittee?

Senator TOBEY. No questions.

Senator CLARK of Idaho. I might just state, briefly, Senator Downey, that I think in some ways you possibly have built up a man of straw and then proceeded to demolish him. This subcommittee has never suggested any censorship; and, so far as I can recall, no witness who has appeared before the subcommittee has ever suggested censorship; in fact, one of the principal witnesses before the subcommittee, Mr. John T. Flynn, specifically stated he was unalterably opposed to censorship, and I have not made any suggestion myself, nor heard any. by any member of this subcommittee, or anything along that line.

Also, your general statement as regards freedom of the screen is certainly a worthy one. No one attempts to destroy freedom of the screen. But it has been suggested here that the screen is not free, but the subcommittee has not passed upon that yet.

There are two kinds of censorship; one is Government censorship, and the other a censorship if a sufficiently small number of men controls the medium of expression, which charge has been made here in some of the evidence presented, but so far the proof is not all in. It has been suggested that the screen has been made unfree by virtue of monopolistic control; and one type of censorship might be just as vicious as another.

Moreover, some years ago the screen imposed censorship upon itself. It was forced to do it by reason of public opinion. In those days also those controlling the screen stated as a defense that they were portray

ing reality, but the pictures got so bad, so filled with vulgarity and so indecent, that it was necessary in response to the demand of public opinion for the screen to actually impose a censorship upon itself; and I think since then the screen has realized that the mere fact that one portrays facts accurately may not be enough.

I think you will agree with me, Senator Downey, that we must inquire into the effect upon the minds of people who see pictures. You have made an elegant presentation, and no one desires to throw cold water upon California; in fact, it would evaporate in the glorious sunshine out there.

Unless you have something further to say we will proceed with our witnesses.

Senator DowNEY. I have nothing further to say.

Senator MCFARLAND. I might say that this general investigation is a straw investigation. [Laughter.)

Senator DowNEY. I thank you gentlemen.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Well, we will see.

the wind. [Applause.]

It may be a straw in

The subcommittee will now call Mr. Nicholas Schenck. Mr. Schenck, if you can find a way to get around to the witness chair I will thank you to do so.

Mr. SCHENCK. Oh, I can do that all right.

TESTIMONY OF NICHOLAS M. SCHENCK, PRESIDENT, LOEW'S, INC., LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Senator CLARK of Idaho. Will you stand and be sworn, Mr. Schenck? You do solemnly swear that your testimony in this proceeding shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. SCHENCK. I do.

Senator MCFARLAND. Mr. Chairman, before you proceed: I have a couple of telegrams that I would like to read. One of them is from Mr. Russell Birdwell. It reads as follows:

The star-chamber session now being conducted in Washington, D. C., into the film industry has thus far succeeded in unveiling one Jimmie Fidler, public gossip, as Hollywood's No. 1 liar.

Fidler is a liar when he says I discussed offering him $2,500, or any other sum, for a favorable review on The Prisoner of Zenda, one of the best motion pictures ever produced.

It is beside the point that Fidler's opinions aren't worth 25 cents, more or less $2,500. If the Senate hearing is interested in fair play, then the Senators will give me the right to appear as a witness to defend myself against this malicious slander. As a citizen I have every right to defend this American way of answering this liar.

I have another telegram here [reading]:

Have just wired Senator D. Worth Clark as follows:

RUSSELL BIRDWELL,

"Jimmie Fidler's statement that he received $3,000 to make a trailer for Twentieth Century-Fox is true, but his interpretation that the payment was an attempt to 'buy his soul' is his own deliberate attempt to distort the facts as he so consistently does in reporting the Hollywood scenes.

"At the time he was engaged to make this trailer we were following an advertising policy of using commentators to make trailers for our pictures. Among those who were similarly engaged were Robert Ripley, Edwin C. Hill, and Lowell Thomas. Certainly, no one would imply that we were trying to 'buy the souls' of

these men. Perhaps Fidler considers himself overpaid, in which event we would be glad to accept a refund. For Fidler to isolate himself from among these noted commentators looks like a far-fetched attempt to join the isolationists.

"The trouble started long after Fidler made this trailer for us. He approached me to use my influence with our stars to buy dresses from the gown shop in which he was allegedly interested and which had just opened for business. At Fidler's request, I persuaded Alice Faye to buy a dress for which she was charged several hundred dollars. The first time she wore the dress it fell apart, causing her much embarrassment and humiliation.

"The result was that when Miss Faye went east for a personal appearance Fidler falsely attacked her in the newspapers which carried his column.

"Fidler has been in Hollywood too long not to be known for his mercenary methods.

"He also threatened to sue the Twentieth Century-Fox Studio for $5,000 for a picture title which he claimed to own. Fidler also tried to sell us a scenario. There was some difference of opinion between Mr. Fidler and our scenario department as to the merits of the story.

"It would be regrettable, indeed, if Hollywood considered Fidler a menace, but his numerous activities as part owner of a night club, known as the Pirate's Den, a gown salesman, actor, writer, columnist, radio commentator, all have added a much-needed comic touch to the Hollywood scene."

HARRY BRAND.

I have read these telegrams because I have been requested to read them and because they show a fair example of how far afield we can get in this kind of a hearing. Jimmie Fidler's difficulties with the movingpicture industry and the radio companies have absolutely nothing in the world to do with this kind of a hearing, and pretty soon we will find ourselves investigating the gown industry, and I, for one, am surely not a gown expert and I do not want us to get into that kind of a proposition.

I have had numerous requests to place letters in the record and requests from people who wanted to be heard. I want to state for the benefit of those people that might have written and who might be present this morning that, as far as I am concerned, I have thus far taken this position: I have taken the position that the pictures themselves are the best evidence and that we should see the pictures. I take that position now. I think this committee should make up its own mind about the pictures, and not be asking everyone in the United States what they think about them. I feel right now that that is what we ought to be doing here today. We should be viewing pictures, if we do anything at all. If we are going to do anything at all, we ought to be doing that now.

Of course, when the proper time comes, I will probably, in fairness to these people who want to speak their views on the other side, give them the opportunity, but I do not feel like putting all of their letters in evidence at this time.

Senator BROOKS. May I make an observation?

Senator CLARK of Idaho. Certainly, Senator.

Senator BROOKS. I did not hear Jimmie Fidler's testimony; I was absent from the city. But if anybody makes a request of any member of the committee to appear and defend themselves with reference to anything that has been said against them or of them, I want to go on record as being in favor of their having an opportunity to appear.

Senator MCFARLAND. I appreciate that, Senator, but the trouble is that it involves matters that have nothing to do with this hearing. The gown industry does not have anything to do with this hearing. That is one of the matters mentioned in this telegram and in the hearing.

Senator BROOKS. Of course, if we read all the telegrams and all the letters we get into the record of any hearing, and then start disseminating those matters into the various industries that might be involved, that would be true; but so far as anyone's reputation as an individual, charged with wrongdoing is concerned, certainly this committee ought to be willing and anxious to have them appear, having heard any testimony against them, and give them the same sounding board to clear their record here. I am in favor of that.

Senator MCFARLAND. I am in favor of that also; but I am just simply stating that we are going far afield on the issues here when we get off into the gown industry.

Senator CLARK of Idaho. Let me say this. Mr. Birdwell did wire me, as Senator McFarland has read, and I have telephoned at least three or four persons whom I know in Washington and have sent word by those people to Mr. Birdwell that he would be welcome to testify before this committee at any time that that can be conveniently arranged.

I also gave out a press statement to that effect, which I saw in at least one paper, that Mr. Birdwell would be given an opportunity to refute anything that Mr. Fidler said.

It must be remembered that Mr. Fidler's testimony was under oath. He is guilty of perjury if it was wrong. Mr. Birdwell can come here and be sworn under oath in the same manner, and he has been so advised.

I am glad that the Senators have made their positions so clear, and I am sure that such position is shared by Senator Tobey.

As far as going afield, to a certain extent, by Mr. Fidler's testimony is concerned, that is true; but it was certainly to the point when he testified that high-ranking members of the moving-picture industry tried to force the Los Angeles Times to withdraw Fidler's column from the paper, among other things, when he began to criticize war propaganda in pictures. I think that was very vital as showing the attitude of the industry toward such propaganda. Anyone who wants to refute Fidler's testimony is welcome to do so at any time, under oath, on this same stand.

Senator MCFARLAND. I might state, in answer to what you have just said, that if we are going to investigate everyone in the United States that goes to a newspaper and protests because it has some items in it that they do not like, we will be here forever. As indicated by Jimmie Fidler here on the witness stand, he in his column and, I believe, over the radio, makes statements in regard to divorces of stars. Well, it is not for me to say whether that is proper or improper; and as far as his column is concerned, if the advertisers do not like it it is not for me to say. That is the kind of thing that goes on from time to time. Newspaper articles appear in papers that people do not like. They are doing business with them and they try to get them to change their policy. If we are going into that kind of thing we will be here forever. We are trying to find out whether an investigation should be conducted; and certainly we are going far afield when we go into that kind of thing. We ought to see the pictures. That is what we should be doing right now. That is my position.

Senator CLARK of Idaho. We will see the pictures, all right.