« PreviousContinue »
particular subject on cylinders in all departments of its paper; that could cause a great deal of disturbance. There was in addition a disturbance on the part of the Chandlers to the effect that they were not getting the first news service from our studio; motion-picture news is of some importance there; that perhaps a rival paper was getting a lead story as a scoop, as you might say. The Chandlers wanted more direct, quicker service on news matters. In other words, there was some point of mutuality about the relationships.
Furthermore, Mr. Mayer-I'd say Mr. Warner, Mr. Chandler, and others are all engaged in this small community in many civic functions. They are thrown together quite often. They have a natural relationship. They are as friends, and conversations about their relationships would be most natural, although this was specifically about the harmony between the paper and the movies.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Did Mr. Mayer tell you that he discussed Mr. Fidler's column with the Chandlers?
Mr. DIETZ. No, sir.
Mr. DIETZ. No, sir,
Mr. DIETZ. Well, I don't believe he did.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. You say he did not discuss the matter with you?
Mr. DIETZ. No; I don't think he discussed Fidler at all.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Well, then why do you say that you do not believe he did ?
Mr. Dietz. Well, he didn't you say-you didn't ask me that. You said did he affirm it or did he deny it.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Yes. We will have the testimony read back. And then you said, “But I don't believe he did."
Mr. Dietz. I am quite certain that Mr. Fidler's name did not come up in the conversation, except very, very incidentally.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. You said that Mr. Mayer did not discuss it one way or the other with you. Why are you quite certain about that?
Mr. DIETZ. Because he told me that he discussed general policies of the movies.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. General policies?
Mr. DIETZ. Yes; with particular application to reviewing films before they opened.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. We will have to get Mr. Mayer, now. Did Mr. Stricking tell you that they had discussed Fidler's column?
Mr. DIETZ. No, sir.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Did he discuss the matter with you as to Fidler's column
Mr. DIETZ. He did not tell me that.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Then, so far as you know, and so far as your information goes, everything that Mr. Fidler testified to under oath as regards the Los Angeles Times conversation was true, so far as you are able to tell now?
Mr. Dietz. I am not clear on that.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. You said you talked to two people, Mr. Mayer and Mr. Stricking.
Mr. DIETZ. Yes.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. You stated that neither of them discussed with you whether in this conversation with the Times they had discussed Mr. Fidler's column?
Mr. DIETZ. That is right.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. So that Mr. Fidler's testimony to the effect that they did discuss his column and threaten to withdraw advertising if they did not cancel it, so far as you know, is true?
Mr. DIETZ. So far as I know, that testimony is untrue. Senator CLARK of Idaho. It stands, unless you know something different.
Mr. Dietz. I will tell you why I make that statement there under oath, Senator CLARK of Idaho. I wish you would.
. Mr. DIETZ. Fidler's column was not a focal point of the discussion, although Mr. Fidler believed it was.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. How do you know that?
Senator CLARK of Idaho. But you do not know it was not the subject of the discussion
Mr. DIETZ. I think I can reasonably state that it was not-yes; you are right. Pinned down to it, I do not. That is correct.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. That is all.
Senator TOBEY. One question about the Hays letter, the letter that you said you saw. You saw this letter sent to Hays?
Mr. DIETZ. Yes.
Mr. DIETZ. I told him that of course it was ridiculous and that it was not the M-G-M policy, and if he thought that, he was perfectly right in writing the letter, but he evidently did not understand it. Senator Tobey. Did you talk to Will Hays about it?
Senator McFARLAND. I want to ask you one or two questions, Mr. Dietz. As I understand your position that you have just explained here, you said that you knew nothing of any conversation between Mr. Mayer and Mr. Chandler, and you take the position, which I think is a proper one, that a statement must first be proven or some legal evidence brought as to the statement before you could deny it?
Mr. DIETz. Correct.
Senator MCFARLAND. If it is proven, then you can deny it. You were asked the question in the negative before there was any direct evidence introduced ?
Mr. Dietz. That is correct.
Senator McFARLAND. And that was the point that you were trying to make ?
Mr. DIETZ. Exactly.
Senator McFARLAND. I understand that. I think that is proper procedure and would be in any court. For that matter, those statements in regard to conversations that you have been asked about could only be used after proper foundation for impeachment had been laid in court, and would not stand up in any court under those questions?
Mr. Dietz. Yes, sir.
Senator McFARLAND. Did you state how much advertising should be run in the different papers for different pictures ?
Mr. Dietz. That is right.
Senator McFARLAND. If you knew what picture was being advertised, then you would be able to state how much advertising was being run!
Mr. DIETZ. That is correct. Senator MCFARLAND. And that is what you go by as to how much advertising is put into the paper—the amount that you think that particular picture justifies ?
Mr. DIETZ. Correct.
Senator McFARLAND. Now, there is one other statement that I would like to know about. First, I want to state to you that I understand that Miss Norma Shearer is a very fine person, a very fine individual and, keeping that in mind, I want you to answer this question. First, do you know Mr. Crull ?
Mr. Dietz. No, sir.
Senator McFARLAND. And you do not know whether he is one of those men with a fiery disposition when some attack is made upon a woman's character ?
Mr. DIETZ. I would not malign the South. Sometimes that is a beautiful quality.
Senator MCFARLAND. You understand some of the Southern people as to that?
Mr. DIETZ. Yes; I do.
Senator McFARLAND. All right. Now, coming down to this point, if we knew the statement that was made in regard to Norma Shearer we would know whether there was any justification for this Mr. Crull's having made the statement?
Mr. DIETZ. Yes; I think so.
Senator MCFARLAND. Would my introduction of that statement injure Norma Shearer?
Mr. DIETZ. I think it might not be advisable. In my opinion, there is no justification for any attempt to coerce the press, and the only justification that I made was the justification of a local man who has not been trained in the traditions of journalism and does not quite understand it as we do—the important separation between news matter and advertising columns.
Senator MCFARLAND. Was the statement made over the radio or in his column?
Mr. Dietz. It was on the radio, and then subsequently an echo of it was in his column.
Senator MCFARLAND. In your opinion, it would be such a statement, if it were placed in evidence, as would injure Norma Shearer?
Mr. DIETZ. I would say it would not be desirable for her publicity.
Senator McFARLAND. I certainly will not offer it, then, because I think it is an irrelevant point anyway; but I wanted to get from you your opinion as to that.
Mr. DIETZ. The reason I made that distinction was that I wanted to clarify the fact that it had nothing to do with Mr. Fidler's statement about the admission prices. Mr. Crull's overzealousness had nothing to do with Mr. Fidler's statement about admission prices. That was my point.
Senator MCFARLAND. There is another point I wanted to bring out. You said that certain persons had made protests to the radio people. Let me see if I understand that properly. Were those certain persons stars?
Mr. Dietz. No. They would probably be Howard Strickland, some person located in Los Angeles who saw, very likely, Mr. Don Gilman, whom we all know, and discussed this matter. Mr. Gilman's office is always open to more or less discussions of that kind.
Senator McFARLAND. That is all.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. You stated categorically that Mr. Crull's action—I think I have it verbatim—had nothing to do with advanced admission prices?
Mr. DIETZ. Yes.
? time there was a flurry of letters about Fidler's column that had to do with his attack on Norma Shearer.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Yes; but you said Mr. Crull's action had nothing to do with admission prices, and actually you do not know whether his action had or not?
Mr. DIETZ. Let us qualify it that much. I believe it did not have anything to do with it.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. All right.
Senator TOBEY. You testified about a conversation you had over the telephone with Mr. Stahlman concerning the Fidler testimony. What was your purpose in calling him?
Mr. Dietz. My purpose in calling Stahlman was to be sure that Mr. Stahlman knew that he did not receive a letter from me. Mr. Stahlman might have been under a misapprehension of having received a letter from me, and I did not wish to make a statement that might appear, through any misunderstanding, to be subject to any contradiction whatsoever.
Senator TOBEY. Of course, you came on the stand and testified under oath and you told the truth?
Mr. DIETZ. Yes, sir.
Senator TOBEY. And when Mr. Stahlman comes he will tell the truth?
Mr. DIETZ. I suppose Mr. Stahlman thought he received a letter from me. Mr. Stahlman is an honorable man, and he might legitimately think that he had received a letter from me.
Senator TOBEY. Why would he think so if he had not?
Mr. DIETZ. I don't know but he would think so if he had not. Senator TOBEY. Who was the man that he conversed with about it? Mr. DIETZ. Evidently Mr. Crull.
Senator TOBEY. You do not have confidence enough in Stahlman's memory of this important matter to feel that he would know whether or not he received a letter?
Mr. DIETZ. I had very definite confidence in him.
Senator TOBEY. But you wanted to set him right, so that when he should come before us he would know the facts?
Mr. Dietz. I wanted to get clear about whether it was an advertising representative or who it was that had seen me. There were a couple of points there.
Senator TOBEY. Did he clarify it in your mind ? Mr. DIETZ. He said it was an advertising representative from New York.
Senator TOBEY. Did he mention his name?
Mr. DIETZ. I think the name was the Barnhardt Co. or the Barnard Co.-some name that I think is not important to this point.
Senator TOBEY. That is all.
ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY OF NICHOLAS M. SCHENCK Senator CLARK of Idaho. Mr. Schenck, generally what are your duties as head of Loew's, Inc. ?
Mr. SCHENCK. My duties, sir, are, in general, to know everything that is going on.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. And you act upon anything that comes before you in your capacity as president?
Mr. SCHENCK. That is correct.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Mr. Louis Mayer is head of your production department and has been so for a great many years?
Mr. SCHENCK. That is right, sir.
Senator Clark of Idaho. How close contact do you keep with your studio; that is, with Mr. Mayer and his studio organization?
Mr. SCHENCK. I visit the studio anywhere from three to five times a year and spend between 5 and 10 days at a time.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. You spend approximately, then, an average of 49 or 50 days a year in the studio? Mr. SCHENCK. Yes; without going into the particulars of it.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. We will say 6 weeks or 2 months out of every year?
Mr. SCHENCK. That is about right; 5 or 6 weeks.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. And when you are there do you keep in close contact with production?
Mr. SCHENCK. No, sir; not quite that. I am usually between the numerous problems, mostly contract problems, financial troubles meaning by that, the budgets, and so forth, and numerous things that are troublesome to them. That is the main reason for my being there.