There have been many cases in newspapers I am sure that if you went through the correspondence of newspaper publishers you would see many cases where department stores and others have written or come to them with gestures that might be possibly misconstrued. But this is a case I would relegate to a similar position, and I certainly would not think it should be exaggerated and taken out of the class of anything but a minor local misunderstanding.

Senator TOBEY. Now, Mr. Dietz, in view of what you have said, I ask you if when this matter came to your attention, about the Los Angeles theater owner and what he tried to do, and the Nashville theater manager and what he tried to do-and it may have excited the ire of Mr. Stahlman and the righteous indignation of the man. at Los Angeles-if you did anything about it. What did you do about this theater head down there, as a man in charge of a theater of M-G-M or Loew's Inc.?

Mr. DIETZ. You must bear in mind, to put this thing again into. perspective, that it happened a few years ago; that since I had never at any point taken any action to withdraw advertising from the Nashville Banner, that such a situation would be perhaps incidental in the mind after long years and very intense activity in the meantime. Also, that it is hard to remember what you didn't do. At the time I must have telephoned the theater department of Loew's, Inc.

Senator TOBEY. In Los Angeles?

Mr. DIETZ. No. The theater department is located in New York. And I probably said, "For God's sake don't let your managers do this sort of thing. This is ridiculous and they have no such authority." And likely that was the extent of my activity.

Senator TOBEY. What did they say; O. K.?

Mr. DIETZ. Sure. Well, even if they had said anything else, they had no authority over the subject.

Senator TOBEY. And did you take the matter of this alleged instance in Nashville up with Mr. Schenck?

Mr. DIETZ. No; I did not. I understood what prompted the man, and it led to no action whatsoever.

Senator TOBEY. It was too small a matter to bother Mr. Schenck about, was that it?

Mr. DIETZ. Yes; I would say so. The disposition of it was definite.. Senator CLARK of Idaho. In other words, you felt the same way he did about Fidler, and you were willing to let him take the rap. Mr. DIETZ. Let who take what rap?

Senator CLARK of Idaho. The theater manager. We had the same thing this morning, where a manager, Mr. Shafer, made a threat and Mr. Schenck said it was too bad. I had the same idea myself, but he said it was overzealousness. Now you say your manager in Nashville did that, and that he had no authority to do it, and he was just overzealous; is that it?

Mr. DIETZ. Now, Senator, in all fairness, if this were a court of law and you wanted to get the complete facts and every detail, you would call in every single witness who knew anything about the subject.

Senator CLARK of Idaho. We are doing the best we can and as fast as we can along that line.

Mr. DIETZ. I am not quarreling with you on that. But you have to be tolerant when you are dealing with many employees on all the

63855-41-pt. 1——20

different policies and ways of doing business, and many people who might be called subordinates or associates or assistants, if you will, have to be dealt with, and you cannot expect any one executive who acts through any number of people to be in any position except to give testimony as frankly as I am giving it to you.

Senator CLARK of Idaho. But you took no action against this theater manager, did you?

Mr. DIETZ. No; frankly, I did not.

Senator MCFARLAND. I would like to ask a question if I may: That incident that you spoke of occurred over 2 years ago, you say?

Mr. DIETZ. Yes, sir; I think about 3 years ago.

Senator MCFARLAND. And that was before any of these alleged warpropaganda pictures were run.

Mr. DIETZ. Yes.

Senator MCFARLAND. And it has no bearing upon war-propaganda pictures; could not have any bearing in any possible way?

Mr. DIETZ. Yes, sir.

Senator MCFARLAND. As a matter of fact, Mr. Dietz, the troubles of Jimmie Fidler arose out of his criticism of certain moving-picture stars?

Mr. DIETZ. Yes. And people react to Jimmie Fidler in different ways, and I react in my own way, which is to ignore him.

Senator MCFARLAND. Is it not true generally that it was what he said about an individual?

Mr. DIETZ. Yes; about a person who was more than just a star, someone who was valuable personally, and certainly to us.

Senator MCFARLAND. And it had nothing to do with propaganda? Mr. DIETZ. No, sir.

Senator MCFARLAND. And this whole thing does not have anything to do with this investigation.

Senator TOBEY. Oh, yes, it does.

Mr. DIETZ. I agree with you, Senator McFarland.

Senator MCFARLAND. I thank you, Mr. Dietz.

Senator TOBEY. Mr. Chairman, I always wait and hold my peace when these bon mots are passed out. I mean on the question of the duty of this subcommittee. You have seen the usual wave of applause that has followed the statement of anyone criticizing this subcommittee. This is said in all kindness, and we want freedom of speech here. But I do want to point out what my colleague said this morning in our executive session: He said to me that he was not questioning at all the germaneness of what I was asking this morning.

Senator MCFARLAND. No; Senator, I think you misunderstood me. I was not questioning your right to propound the questions, but I do not think it has anything in the world to do with this subcommittee. I think to make it germane you would have to amend the resolution. You have amended it once, but it would have to be amended again in order to have any bearing on this investigation at all. Understand me, I do not question at all your right, or the right of any Senator, to ask any question he may be pleased to ask at this hearing. Senator TOBEY. I wish to say to my colleague on my far right, the gentleman from Arizona [Senator McFarland], and I say this with the best of good feeling and without any application to senatorial courtesy, the amended resolution under which we are acting raises the

question of monopoly in the moving-picture industry, and we had a witness to come before us and he was sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and so far as this subcommittee is concerned we accepted that testimony and do accept it until it is proven false. In his testimony he stated the fact that representatives of the leading five moving-picture producers called upon Mr. Norman Chandler, of the Los Angeles Times, and demanded that he delete from his paper the column of Jimmie Fidler under penalty of losing advertising, which advertising he testified they did lose. Now it seems to me that under the powers given by the resolution to examine into. monopoly, that if this kind of thing did take place, and if representatives of these five companies did wait upon Norman Chandler with that demand and threat; and if Stahlman at Nashville also did it, that it is absolutely germane to bring out the facts because that is connecting up monopoly strong enough to interfere with freedom of the press. It shows the punishment to be inflicted if those newspapers did not concede to the demand.

Senator MCFARLAND. May I say-

Mr. DIETZ (interposing). I do not think that is true. There are 1,800 newspapers in the United States or thereabout. You attempt to make the case that the motion-picture industry is a monopoly and is attempting as a part of one of its practices to corrupt the press.

Senator TOBEY. No; I do not say that. I am merely taking the sworn testimony of a witness who appeared before us and am asking you about that.

Mr. DIETZ. Well, we are trying to get at the basis of this investigation.

Senator CLARK of Idaho. Mr. Schenck said he paid his money to bring you here because you knew about this.

Mr. DIETZ. And I am telling you all I know about it.

Senator CLARK of Idaho. Why infer, then, that it is a roundabout way to get at it. We are taking you at face value on Mr. Schenck's say-so.

Mr. DIETZ. I am not trying to equivocate at all.

Senator TOBEY. The members of this subcommittee, like Caesar's wife, have to be above suspicion, and I will say that someone has slipped on my table under my elbow 15 cents. Certainly that is no emolument to this subcommittee, but nevertheless it goes into my pocket. [Laughter.]

Senator CLARK of Idaho. You may proceed with your questioning, Senator Tobey.

Senator TOBEY. Mr. Dietz, in the testimony of Mr. Fidler he stated that the following gentlemen were those who waited upon Mr. Chandler and made the demand and threat: Mr. Mayer, and that means Mr. Louis Mayer, I take it; Harry Warner, Frank Y. Freeman. Who is he?

Mr. DIETZ. He is the production head of Paramount pictures. Senator TOBEY. And Mr. Harry Brand, of Twentieth Century, is he not?

Mr. DIETZ. Yes, sir. He has charge of publicity.
Senator TOBEY. Is he with Twentieth Century?
Mr. DIETZ. He is publicity director of M-G-M.
Senator TOBEY. What is Mr. Mayer's capacity?

Mr. DIETZ. He is vice president in charge of production of MetroGoldwyn-Mayer.

Mr. SCHENCK. He is not a vice president.

Mr. DIETZ. I beg pardon. He is not a vice president, but is in charge of production.

Senator TOBEY. The testimony of Mr. Fidler down that Mr. Mayer of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Harry Warner of Warner Bros., and Frank Freeman of Paramount, and Harry Brand of Twentieth Century, and Howard Stricking of M-G-M, representing a preponderance of the moving-picture producing industry, waited upon Mr. Norman Chandler and made this demand and threat, and the subcommittee knows about it, about his sworn testimony. Mr. Dietz, if you were a member of this subcommittee I take it you yourself would feel you would have to inquire into these things beyond peradventure. Now, what other newspapers is Mr. Fidler's column published in? We have heard about the Nashville Banner and the Los Angeles Times and what others, if any are there?

Mr. DIETZ. The Daily Mirror in New York I know of because I see it quite regularly. As a matter of fact I would be hard put to give you the papers Mr. Fidler's column runs in.

Senator TOBEY. Is it a fair statement to say a goodly number of newspapers?

Mr. DIETZ. I believe 140.

Senator TOBEY. And those newspapers you would call respectable newspapers, would you not?

Mr. DIETZ. Yes. They are not always the first paper in the town but good papers.

Senator TOBEY. Representative newspapers you would say?

Mr. DIETZ. I would say yes, sir. You could not get 140 newspapers in a block without describing them that way.

Senator TOBEY. And they are still publishing Jimmie Fidler's column despite the fact that you believe him to be a congenital liar!

Mr. DIETZ. I believe the most of the papers are publishing his column. I do not know the progress of his syndicate, whether it is growing or becoming less, but I believe they are still publishing it. Senator TOBEY. Have you talked to Mr. Stahlman more than once about this matter?

Mr. DIETZ. No; I never have.

Senator TOBEY. Only the matter you referred to over the telephone, is that it?

Mr. DIETZ. Only recently, when I wanted to be absolutely sure of a matter of 3 years ago.

Senator TOBEY. You have had no correspondence with him by letter?

Mr. DIETZ, No.

Senator TOBEY. The only thing was the conversation over the telephone?

Mr. DIETZ. Only this one conversation since this particular thing came up.

Senator TOBEY. That is all so far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman. No; one other question: Mr. Fidler testified under oath that he was broadcasting over N. B. C., giving his appraisal of various motion pictures, and that when he reviewed pictures adversely the

motion-picture industry went to the broadcasting company and it was arranged that Mr. Fidler would be prohibited from reveiwing high-cost pictures unless he gave them to a high rating over the radio, regardless of whether the high-cost picture was good or bad, and that both N. B. C. and C. B. S. made this requirement of Mr. Fidler. Do you know anything about that?

Mr. DIETZ. Well, I know there was always dissatisfaction with Mr. Fidler's technique. One of the rumblings was about a way he was advertising shampoo, I believe, and he was using indiscriminately the names of players, stars, as incidents to this particular radio advertising. You know, there is a very interesting question to go into. I am not passing judgment on it

Senator TOBEY (interposing). Do not go too far on that because there is a little bit of analogy that might be mentioned. There was a member of the United States Senate who received a thousanddollar check for endorsing a certain brand of cigarette, but he never used that brand himself.

Mr. DIETZ. At least in that particular case the Senator in question knew what was going on. Mr. Fidler just uses the names of his people without consulting them.

Senator TOBEY. Do you know anything about N. B. C. and C. B. S. being approached?

Mr. DIETZ. I hate not to be enlightening. I know that there were some conversations. I do not know the parties concerned. I know that there was general dissatisfaction with the so-called bell system of Mr. Fidler's, and that there was added dissatisfaction with reviews prior to the general release of a film. You see, it is our theory that the public is a very good judge of films. We feel that many critics are very good judges of films also. We feel that simultaneously the critics and the public have the right to view and judge and decide whether they should continue to attend. Also, we feel that the local reviewer has a certain status to maintain.

Mr. Fidler runs quite across this conception of ours, which is to review films as early as possible and sometimes even before the film itself is finished, and he qualifies, although in a majority of cases he has not himself seen it perhaps, to tell the whole country the facts about the film. Now, sometimes it reacts in our favor when it is very good, and quite often it reacts the other way. We would be willing to sacrifice the good for the bad to do away with that system. Senator TOBEY. Well, let us get back to my question, whether or not you know anything about a representative or representatives of the motion-picture industry going to the broadcasting companies and seeking to have them prohibit or to change Jimmie Fidler's reviews over the radio.

Mr. DIETZ. I say that I know there was some consultation, some discussion with broadcasting companies, but not on my part. On the part of individuals concerned, but not individuals directly responsible. I would not have disapproved it, however. So I would say that there were or very well might have been discussions along those lines.

Senator TOBEY. I thank you. Now, who were the parties, if you know, who went to the broadcasting companies?