MOVING-PICTURE SCREEN AND RADIO PROPAGANDA

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1941

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a. m., in the caucus room, Senate Office Building, Senator D. Worth Clark presiding.

Present: Senators Clark of Idaho (chairman of the subcommittee), McFarland, Tobey, and Brooks. Senator Bone as a member was not present.

Present also: Senators Smith, Clark of Missouri, and Nye.

Senator CLARK of Idaho (chairman of the subcommittee). The subcommittee will please come to order, and also the members of the audience.

These hearings, which are about to begin, before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, come on by virtue of Senate Resolution 152.

In view of the fact that there has been considerable comment in the press concerning this committee; and further, in view of the fact that there seems to be some misapprehension as to what these hearings are all about, both as to their legality and other characteristics, I think it proper that the chairman of the subcommittee make a brief preliminary statement.

On the 1st day of August 1941 Senator Nye and Senator Clark of Missouri introduced in the Senate of the United States, Senate Resolution 152. I will ask that that resolution be placed in the record of our hearings, but, first, it is short and I desire to read it:

RESOLUTION

Whereas the motion-picture screen and the radio are the most potent instruments of communication of ideas; and

Whereas numerous charges have been made that the motion picture and the radio have been extensively used for propaganda purposes designed to influence the public mind in the direction of participation in the European war; and Whereas all of this propaganda has been directed to one side of the important debate now being held, not only in Congress, but throughout the country; and Whereas this propaganda reaches weekly the eyes and ears of one hundred million people and is in the hands of groups interested in involving the United States in war: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the Committee on Interstate Commerce, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized and directed to make, and to report to the Senate the results of, a thorough and complete investigation of any propaganda disseminated by motion pictures and radio or any other activity of the motion-picture industry to influence public sentiment in the direction of participation by the United States in the present European war.

1

The Committee on Interstate Commerce, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized and directed to obtain such facts as other Government agencies may have, and to secure the assistance of other Government agencies in the investigation hereby authorized.

For the purposes of this resolution the committee, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized to hold such hearings, to sit and act at such times and places, either in the District of Columbia or elsewhere, during the sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the Senate in the Seventyseventh and subsequent Congresses, to employ such experts, and clerical, stenographic, and other assistants, to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses and the production and impounding of such books, papers, and documents, to administer such oaths, and to take such testimony and to make such expenditures as it deems advisable. The cost of stenographic services to report such hearings shall not be in excess of 25 cents per hundred words.

[S. Res. 152]

AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Nye (for himself and Mr. Clark of Missouri) to the resolution (S. Res. 152) authorizing an investigation of propaganda disseminated by the motion-picture and radio industries tending to influence participation of the United States in the present European war, viz:

At the end of the resolution add the following:

"Be it further resolved, That the Committee on Interstate Commerce, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized and directed to make, and to report to the Senate the results of, a thorough and complete investigation of any monopoly, real or potential, partial or whole, in the production, distribution, and exhibition of motion pictures; any powers exercised by reason of any such monopoly upon or by any individual in any field--economic, political, or social; and any trade practices, organizations of motion-picture producers, distributors, or exhibitors; and all matters relevant, pertinent, or incidental to the production, distribution, or exhibition of motion pictures."

That is the end of the resolution. Immediately after the introduction of the resolution one of its sponsors asked the Senate to refer it to the Committee on Interstate Commerce. The presiding officer of the Senate, without objection on the part of any Senator, so referred it. It was, therefore, referred to the Committee on Interstate Commerce by the Senate itself by unanimous consent for consideration.

Now, it is perfectly obvious that an intelligent consideration of this, or any other resolution or bill coming before the Congress, could not be achieved without hearings; indeed, it has been the invariable practice, not only of the Senate but also of the House, to hold hearings on all important resolutions and measures coming before it. So this very consideration of this and other resolutions was contemplated, because at the beginning of the Seventy-seventh Congress another resolution was introduced, which was passed by the Senate. That resolution is Senate Resolution 9, which I will read, as follows:

RESOLUTION

Resolved, That the Committee on Interstate Commerce, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized, during the Seventy-seventh Congress, to send for persons, books, and papers, to administer oaths, and to employ a stenographer at a cost not exceeding 25 cents per hundred words, to report such hearings as may be had on any subject before said committee, the expense thereof to be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate; and that the committee, or any subcommittee thereof, may sit during any session or recess of the Senate.

Let me emphasize that that resolution, Senate Resolution 9, was voted and approved by the Senate. That resolution was to enable the Interstate Commerce Committee to have sufficient power, and indeed it

placed the duty upon that committee to inquire, if you please, into any matter that might legally come before it. And Senate Resolution 152, which I read at the outset, was referred to the Interstate Commerce Committee by the full Senate for its consideration and its inquiry into the merits of that resolution.

So, we are here by virtue of the inherent power of the Senate to conduct hearings on any resolution before the committee, and also by almost implied direction of the Senate to hold such hearings by virtue of the powers given the committee in Senate Resolution 9.

So, I think there can be no question, either as a matter of law or as a matter of Senate practice, that it is not only the right but the duty of this committee under express reference by the Senate, to proceed to hold all necessary hearings in order intelligently to determine in what manner, if at all, Senate Resolution 152 will be reported back to the Senate for proper action.

Now, as regards the procedure of these hearings: Let me say at the outset that they will follow the established procedure of the Senate and House committee procedure for the last 100 years. Nothing is going to be deviated from in a way that would break the established method of holding these hearings and hearings of this character throughout the year.

In the first place let me state now on behalf of the subcommittee that any witness either the motion-picture industry or its counsel, or the radio industry or its counsel, desire to be heard before this committee to testify on matters pertinent to the inquiry, will be given full opportunity to be heard. No witness whose presence and testimony is desired here by any of the interested parties, or any party affected by this resolution, will be denied the opportunity to fully and freely present to this committee anything that he or she may have to say.

But let me remind us all that a committee of the Senate is not a court of law. The membership of Senate and House may or may not be composed of men learned in the law. It may be that a committee, and frequently it is so that a committee, is composed entirely of laymen. Moreover this subcommittee sits in a banc of five. It is impossible for five men to undertake to weigh the niceties of evidence and to rule upon objections in the same manner that a single judge in a courtroom can do it. A committee of Congress in the very nature of things is a body of inquiry and not a court. If an analogy is to be made in the law, an analogy that I think would be most pertinent would be that of a grand jury. And I admit that the grandjury analogy is far from perfect, but a grand jury conducts its hearings in secret; counsel are not even permitted to be in the grandjury room, while in the case of a committee of the Congress, normally following the democratic processes, in order that the public may be informed, conducts its hearings in public, and counsel for the affected parties are permitted in the committee room.

Let me say, however, that following the long-established practice of the Senate it is impossible for this committee, as it has been impossible for every committee of the Senate on important hearings in times past, to permit counsel for interested parties to either examine or cross-examine witnesses.

The reasons for this are perfectly clear. In the first place, this committee is without counsel itself. It must conduct its inquiry as

its own abilities or lack of abilities may direct. Let me say further that the majority of the witnesses who testify will be without counsel and cannot in the nature of things afford to employ counsel. So that it is manifestly impossible to permit skilled counsel for some of the interested parties to undertake either an examination of their own witnesses or a cross-examination of witnesses whom they may deem hostile.

Let me further say that it is impossible to permit the cross-examination of witnesses, or their examination, because in fact this body is not a judicial body. In a court of law the right of examination and cross-examination of witnesses is bound about by many legal technicalities. For instance, in the right of examination leading questions cannot be propounded; and in the right of cross-examination impeaching questions are carefully safeguarded by numerous legal restrictions. This subcommittee, sitting with a membership of five, could not begin to pass upon technicalities involved in the matter of directing a fair examination or a fair cross-examination on the part of skilled counsel for any interested party. It has never been done. It would turn an inquiry of this kind into an arguing match with no control, such as a court has, over the pertinency of questions or the propriety of questions propounded.

So this subcommittee will have to determine for itself as it proceeds with the examination of the witnesses which questions are pertinent and material and competent. If the subcommittee exceeds its authority any witness may refuse to answer and take his chances as to the results.

And so it is, with great reluctance, that I must, speaking on behalf of at least a majority of the subcommittee, deny the request that counsel for certain interested parties here, Mr. Willkie, has made for permission to examine and cross-examine witnesses. I am sure that Mr. Willkie will understand that in the nature of things we cannot sit as a court; we cannot hope to pass upon the propriety of his various questions, or to attempt to do so we might have to take a vote every time a question was propounded.

Any interested party has a right to employ counsel; and I see that many of them have employed as eminent counsel as are procurable in this or any other country. The subcommittee welcomes counsel. The subcommittee will endeavor to be courteous and decent to counsel within the limits of the procedure as laid down. As far as the chairman is concerned counsel are welcome to be with us. Mr. Willkie is entitled to advise his clients at such times as they are not testifying, and he is entitled generally to keep in touch with them. Beyond that the subcommittee does not feel it would be proper to go.

If counsel for the various parties have witnesses they desire called they may submit a list of witnesses to the committee, and I pledge you my solemn word that this subcommittee will not cease these hearings in the regular order until those witnesses have been given full, free, and complete opportunity to testify. Counsel for the interested parties, following again the long-established practice, will not be permitted to participate in the proceedings. The reason for this is perfectly obvious. It would destroy any order in the proceedings. Lengthy objections made from counsel table could not be in the nature of things passed upon by this subcommittee. Even

a single judge in a court of law, surrounded by thousands of volumes and with the benefit of counsel on both sides, is frequently unable to pass accurately upon the relevancy and competency of questions or objections; so in the very nature of things such questions or obJections from the floor cannot be passed upon.

We will try as time goes on to cooperate with all parties. We will try to bring witnesses here at such times as may be reasonably convenient to all concerned. We have no desire to pile up expense. We have no desire to unduly embarrass anyone.

Witnesses will be sworn; every witness will be sworn. Witnesses will be sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I suppose it is unnecessary to advise any witness in America of the result of not so doing.

Later witnesses will be advised of their rights under the law. The law protects a witness appearing before Senate subcommittees or full committees. Nothing that a witness says on the stand here can be used in any future trial against him in any criminal prosecution; except, of course, perjury committed at the hearing.

The subcommittee has determined that inasmuch as the resolution before us was sponsored and introduced by two distinguished members of the Senate, the first witness to be heard should be a sponsor of the resolution. Therefore, unless any other member of the subcommittee has something to say at this minute, I will ask that Senator Gerald P. Nye be sworn.

Senator MCFARLAND. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing particularly to say except that you referred to the view of the majority. I presume you meant me, that I was in the minority.

Senator CLARK of Idaho. Oh; I did not mean to intimate that. Senator MCFARLAND. I presume I am at least in that category in the matter of the expression of some views of the chairman, because I would respectfully ask that inasmuch as Mr. Willkie has come here to represent some of the interested parties that he be permitted to cross-examine witnesses if he so desires. You state that this is an investigation, and an investigation could only be for the purpose of obtaining the truth about every matter, and anyone who could be of any assistance to the subcommittee I believe should be permitted to participate.

Now, Mr. Willkie has asked permission to cross-examine witnesses, and I for one respectfully ask that he be granted that privilege. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Well, of course, Senator McFarland, there is no member of this subcommittee for whom the other members of the subcommittee have a higher regard, both as an able statesman and as a very able jurist than yourself

Senator MCFARLAND. Thank you, but

Senator CLARK of Idaho (continuing). Senator McFarland distinguished himself not only in the Attorney General's office but as a judge of one of Arizona's outstanding courts. I know that his reputation for fairness and fair play permits his observation. I have no desire to be capricious about it. I am sure he realizes that when he was carrying out his judicial duties on the bench that some of the things I have mentioned as regards even the difficulty of a judge controlling the cross-examination of witnesses are true. And so I accept his request, but I must, most respectfully and with all due